Big explosion at a dairy in Texas Monday, with estimates of the number of cows killed at 18,000!
Don't know the cause of the explosion--possibly methana from manure would be a guess.
Can only feel sorry for the cows which died, which have to be killed because of injuries, and which survived but won't be milked on schedule, not to mention their likely PTSD.
Virginia Postrel has a post discussing our current aversion to "artificial" by reexamining the story of 19th century resistance to "artificial" ice, which wasn't true.
She observes nature in the 19th century was something to be mastered. As in the movie African Queen, nature is something humans must rise above.
In the 20th century the interests behind the "natural" products: butter, milk, use that fact to fight against the innovations which threaten their markets: margarine, oat milk, etc.
Counter-factual--while fighting nature, conquering the continent has been a meme in American history, valuing nature over the artificial also has a long history. Look at Thoreau and his reaction to the railroad and telegraph.
It turns out the Morrill Land Grant Act, enacted in 1862 during the Civil War, included some vague language about military training. It's language on the purpose of colleges with the money athorized reads:
the endowment, support, and maintenance of at least one college where the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies, and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts, in such manner as the legislatures of the States may respectively prescribe, in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life. [emphasis added]
The language is awkward, but the reasonable interpretation is the colleges is to focus on agriculture and mechanic arts but also including classics and science, including military. Apparently the phrase was added late, as earlier versions of the act preceded the Civil War.
The meaning of "industrial classes" is "working people", a little more expansive than "working class".
Kevin Drum questions whether a national 15 week ban on abortion with exception for the woman's health would be acceptable to his audience. Many of the comments don't reply, instead insisting it will never happen.
I wonder what happens if and when liberals gain a majority on SCOTUS. I assume that will happen at some point in our history, and before anything medically has changed the landscape. So SCOTUS changes, and liberals bring a test case asking the court to reverse Dobbs. Seems as if they'd have some choices--push for the landscape after Casey using Casey's arguments, come up with different arguments (as RBG had thought), go for different rules (maybe a national position). But I wouldn't see any new arguments or positions as changing the logic of the pro-life camp.
So if Dobbs is reversed then the pro-lifers revert to their simple position and we're fated to continue the argument and possible SCOTUS flip-flopping into the future?
Reading "The Wife of Bath". Stumbled on the first sentence of Chapter 3, where the author Marion Turner claims that "women have also always been economically active.." She's focused on European women and the Middle Ages, but somehow the phrase caused me to think. "Economically active" isn't defined here, but I'd expect it to mean earning and spending money, which would make it more limited than working, although there might be a Venn diagram there.
I think we can assume that almost all women everywhere have worked for much of their lives, if competent, just as almost all men have worked, if competent. I don't know that we'd usually consider spending money as working, at least in common parlance, but we would, I think, consider it as economic activity.
The formal definition of "work" seems to be the expending of effort or thought to accomplish something.
Somehow the subject is fascinating, even if I'm not going anywhere with it today.
IIRC in my young the American Medical Association and the American Bar Association were generally quite conservative, perhaps with an exception for the ABA on civil rights (though ChatGpt says it was criticized for being too conservative).
At my college the most liberal professor was Douglas Dowd, an economist.
My question: the right today claims that colleges are dominated by liberals/the left. The right says that today liberals essentially veto the hiring of almost all conservatives in almost all fields, perhaps less so in engineering. Assuming that's right, how did we get to this point? Certainly liberals didn't dominate the academy in in the 1950s and 60s, so what happened?
My guess is that it's the result of the civil rights movement in the 1960s.Some protests split the professors, certainly they did at my alma mater--my advisor moved to Yale, But I think after the protests died down the academy found itself pretty much united in supporting civil rights for blacks, rights for women, and open to the other cultural movments--notably Hispanics and gays.
Justice Thomas had a recent decision on the 2nd Amendment, focusing on the need to have a documented historical basis for any regulations of gun ownership. This seems to be the latest version of "originalism" as a tool to interpret the Constitution.
I can understnad the perceived need for a standard of interpretation that seems to be objective, in the sense that it exists outside of the preferences of the justices. But as a failed historian I've reservations. My perception of American society in the late 1700's is it was still structured with family, religion, and hierarchy, not individuals pursuing their own destinies.
I'm reminded of my grandfather's memoir of his father, a Presbyterian minister in Illinois durin the 1840's-70's. One thing he did was visit each family associated with his church and examine the children to be sure they were being properly brought up, knew their bible, and were on the way to being good citizens of the US. I'm also reminded of another grandfather, a great great one, who was part of the founding of a Presbyterian church in upstate New York, outside Geneva at the beginning of the 19th century. He was the recording clerk for the session. The church was for many years the body which enforced the community's mores.
So I tend to believe that community norms and community pressure would have applied to gun ownership; those were impaired with mental problems, those who were irresponsible, those who weren't trusted with lethal weapons would have faced community sanctions.
Discussing with my cousin the pros and cons of a decision on what to write caused me to reflect on ChatGpt, and how it might change historiography.
Some thoughts:
Kevin Drum had a post the other day showing the percentage of the nation's GDP devoted to the federal government. It's roughly 21 percent from 1980 to now. Kevin argues that shows the various tax cuts delivered by Republican presidents (Reagan, GWB, TFG) are responsible for our deficits: because spending has remained level(ish) the deficit must be on the tax side.
I don't find that argument conclusive. I think a more realistic picture is that spending and taxing both wiggle over the years: sometimes up and sometimes down, but consistently the public and its political leaders are comfortable with a regular deficit.
Saw a tweet by FIRE arguing against a call at my alma mater for mandatory trigger warnings. Here's a piece in the college newspaper arguing against it.
I can sympathize with someone whose emotions are so easily triggered as the result of some trauma in the past, but as an old fart, my knee-jerk reaction is: tough it out, snow flake.
I seems to me there's a reasonable compromise: FIRE agrees a professor is perfectly free to give trigger warnings. I'd suggest requiring every professor to have a policy on trigger warnings that's announced in the first class of the semester. That way students have fair warning of what the rules are. If the professor is my age, and with my views, they can drop out of the class (though after it becomes a requirement, it will be easy enough to include the professor's policy in the write-up of the course). If the professor is a "woke" member of a younger generation and wants to commit to giving trigger warnings, fine.
