One has been asked the name of the beautiful Jack Schaefer story. It is Miley Bennett.

"Yes. I gave Miley the gun. But then I knew what he would do with it. I guess you'll have to let me tell this in my own way. There's no one else can tell it, not so it comes out right. I guess I'll just have to hope you understand what I mean. And how I felt."

Miley said "I'll find it. (the sheep ranch). "You see, I've got to. The sheep are depending on me. I told them I'll be back."

"Sheep didn't worry me any. They did worry the old style ranchers. Worried them and made them mad. They had been running cattle in their own way a long time and didn't see any reason why they should keep right on as they always had. These men and their kind controlled the (state dept of interior). It didn't mean a thing to them that the fed laws made no distinction between cattle and sheep. They did, and they tended to enforce it. And they had been finding ways. Sheep had been killed and flocks stampeded. I knew of two herders found dead back in the hills and several more beaten badly. Miley Bennett's was the only flock I had heard about anywehre around that year."





Speak your mind

1 Comment so far

  1. douglas roberts dimick on June 15, 2010 7:46 pm

    [Revised 9:59am 6/16/2010]

    Whose Range is it?

    As I presume is being implied here by V’s cited excerpt, the “Range Wars” do present interesting parallels to today’s markets, both in terms of access and resources relative to regulation.

    Note: see the movie, “Open Range.” The cinematography and sound stage effects were powerful in the telling of this tale.

    Our war today remains undeclared too. The “haves” (or barbed wire men) prefer to operate within the governmental shadows of contemporary law and politics (as they always have with few exceptions); places where their money can procure favorable outcomes to market access and transactional edges via regulations. The “have-nots” (or free rangers) perhaps idealistically rely on the SEC and other forms of civil recourse to protect their access to fair and orderly markets. Finally, we have the hired guns; given the fact that this war remains largely an undeclared conflict, we can only surmise their identities.

    Having performed in a community theatre rendition of the 1943 “Oklahoma” musical as a university freshman, I had not any inkling then of the underlying tones to this human conflict and as to how it complicates when not determines – to this day – our daily lives. Compared to many of our seasoned daspec’ers, I remain comparatively unappreciative of the complexity of that matrix – right, see the movie.

    I do, though, offer one observation, something that living in China provokes at the periphery when not the center of such a conversation… How to separate the bad from the good?

    In Chinese culture, the horse means success. I western literature, the horse equates to being the most passionate animal on earth – merely a breeze arouses the loins of a horse.

    I grew up with the Lone Ranger. As a kid, I would ride around on horses and pretend to be him – at times, I fear that I still do… To me, he was and remains “The Man.”

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lone_Ranger.

    Distinguishing bad from good may prove more so a process than a result. Could we not say the same for participants in the market, regardless of whether one is a speculator, trader, investor, or participant (e.g., broker, market maker, algo-quant)?

    Consider the theme music of the Lone Ranger is the William Tell Overture and its four parts, from prelude to storm, then the “Ranz de Vaches” to a cavalry charge for the Finale. Where is the movement… at the end, where justice prevails, or in the struggle itself in toto of plot?

    Here, who is to say what is good and bad? In Shanghai, I like Pinnacle Peak for a good steak —http://www.pinnaclepeaksteakhouse.com/. Then there is a super Mongolia joint – can’t pronounce the name – on the sixth floor of the Daning Shopping Center next to SHU – for grilled mutton.
    Analogous to our open range related concerns, is the substance of our inquiry process-centered or results-oriented? Is the answer to this question rules-based determinative?

    I was taught that life may be defined often by one’s struggle rather than a particular outcome. Or is this truism a construct of some literary archetype or urban mythology?

    At the end, perhaps we each focus on rationalization more so than reason for the truth of it. To me, it is the horse (not the cattle or sheep) that provides an instructive example, specifically wild mustangs: “^ For example, from the MSNBC site, telling of Bureau of Land Management policy changes and impacts: “The mustangs’ current troubles come thanks in part to another Western icon: cattle ranchers. There are currently 37,000 mustangs sharing public rangelands with several million head of cattle. The result has been overgrazing, exacerbated by six years of drought. To restore the land, the BLM has cut the number of cattle allowed, and ranchers say the horses and burros have to be pared substantially. “If we don’t receive relief, and soon, we’ll be out of business,” Lemoille, Nev., rancher Kenneth Jones”” – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_war.

    When the Madoff drama unfolded, we were provided a mirror when addressing the question: “Who was that masked man?”



Resources & Links