Showing posts with label Mid-Week at Work. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mid-Week at Work. Show all posts

Thursday, March 14, 2024

The Agrarian's Lament: A sort of Agrarian Manifesto. What's wrong with the world (and how to fix it). Part 5. What would that look like, and why would it fix anything, other than limiting my choices and lightening my wallet? The Distributist Impact.

The Agrarian's Lament: A sort of Agrarian Manifesto. What's wrong with th...:


So, having published this screed over a period of days, and then dropping the topic, we resume with the question.

Why, exactly, do you think this would do a darn thing?

Well, here's why.

A daily example.

When I started this entry on Monday, March 4, I got up, fixed coffee and took the medication I'm now required to as I'm 60 years old, and the decades have caught up with me. The pills are from a locally owned pharmacy, I'd note, not from a national chain, so I did a distributist thing there.  It's only one block away, and I like them. Distributism.

I toasted a bagel, as in my old age the genetic "No" for adults consuming milk has caught up with me.  I got that at Albertson's and I don't know where the bagels are made.  Albertson's is a national chain that's in the process of trying to merge with another national chain. Corporate Capitalism.

The coffee was Boyers, a Colorado outfit. Quasi distributist there.

I put cream cheese on the bagel.  It was the Philadelphia brand. Definitely corporate capitalist there.

I'd already shaved (corporate capitalist, but subsidiarity makes that make sense).

I got dressed and headed to work.  My car was one I bought used, but its make is one that used to be sold by a locally owned car dealer.  No more. The manufacturers really prefer regional dealers, and that's what we have.  All the cars we have come from the dealer when it was locally owned.

I don't have that option anymore.  Corporate Capitalism.

In hitting the highway, I looked up the highway towards property owned by a major real estate developer/landlord.  A type of corporate capitalism.

I drove past some churches and the community college on the way in. Subsidiarity.

I drove past one of the surviving fraternal clubs.  Solidarity.

I drove past the major downtown churches.  Solidarity.

I drove past a collection of small stores, and locally owned restaurants adn bars, and went in the buildings.  Distributism.

I worked the day, occasionally dealing with the invading Colorado or other out of state firms.  Corporate Capitalism.

I reversed my route, and came home.

So, in this fairly average day, in a Western midsized city, I actually encountered a fair number of things that would be absolutely the same in a Distributist society.  But I encountered some that definitely ran very much counter to it.

Broadening this out.

A significant thing was just in how I ate.  And I eat a lot more agrarian than most people do.

The meat in our freezer was either taken by me in the field, or a cow of our own that was culled.  Most people cannot say that. But all the other food was store bought, and it was all bought from a gigantic national chain.  In 1924 Casper had 72 grocers, and it was less than a quarter of its present size.  In 1925, just one year later, it had 99 grocery stores.  The number fell back down to 70 in 1928.

August 1923 list of grocers in Casper that sold Butternut Coffee, which was probably every grocer.

When I was a kid, the greater Casper area had Safeway, Albertson's, Buttreys and an IGA by my recollection, in the national chains.  Locally, however, it had six local grocery stores, including one in the neighboring town of Mills.  One located right downtown, Brattis' was quite large, as was another one located in North Casper.

Now the entire area has one local grocery store and it's a specialty store.

Examples like this abound.  We have a statewide sporting goods store and a local one, but we also have a national one.  The locals are holding their own.  When I was young there was a locally owned store that had actually been bought out from a regional chain, and a national hardware store that sold sporting goods.  So this hasn't changed a lot.

And if we go to sporting goods stores that sell athletic equipment, it hasn't either. We have one locally owned one and used to have two. We have one national chain, and used to have none.

In gas stations, we have a locally owned set of gas stations and the regional chains.  At one time, we only had local stores, which were franchises. The local storefronts might be storefronts, in the case of the national chains, as well.

When I was a kid, the only restaurants that were national were the fast food franchises, which had competition from local outfits that had the same sort of fare and setting.  The locals burger joints are largely gone, save for one I've never been to and which is a "sit down" restaurant, and we have national and regional restaurant chains.  We retain local ones as well.  

We don't have any chain bars, which I understand are a thing, and local brewing, killed off by Prohibition, has come roaring back.

We used to have a local meat processing plant that was in fact a regional one, taking in cattle from the area, and packing it and distributing it back out, including locally.  There are no commercial packing plants in Wyoming now.  The closest one, I think, is in Greeley Colorado, and the packing industry is highly concentrated now.

We don't have a local creamery, either.  We had one of those at least into the 1940s, and probably well beyond that.  The milk for that establishment was supplied by a dairy that was on the south side of town.  It's no longer that and hasn't been for my entire life.

We've been invaded by the super huge law firms that are not local.

Our hospital is part of a private chain now, and there's massive discontent. That discontent took one of the county commissioners that was involved in the transfer of that entity out of county hands down in the last election.  But that hasn't arrested the trend.  My doctor, who I really like is part of a regional practice, not his own local one, anymore.  This trend is really strong.

And then there's Walmart, the destroyer of locally owned stores of every variety.

So would distribution make anything different?

The question is asked by a variant of Wendell Berry's "what are people for", but in the form of "what is an economy for?".

It's to serve people, and to serve them in their daily lives, as people.

It's not to make things as cheap as possible.

On all of the retail things I've mentioned, every single one could be served by local retail stores.  If we didn't have Albertson's, Riddleys and Smith's, we'd have a lot of John Albertson & Son's, Bill Riddley & Family, and Emiliano Smith's stores, owned by their families.  If Walmart didn't exist, and moreover couldn't exist, it would be replaced locally, probably by a half dozen family owned retailers. . . or more.

Prices would in fact be higher, although there would be competition, but the higher prices would serve families who operated them, and by extension the entire community.  And this is just one example.  

Much of the old infrastructure in fact remains.  As discussed above, numerous small businesses remain, and according to economic statistics, small business remains the number one employer in the US.  But the fact is that giant chain corporations have made a devastating impact on the country, making all local business imperiled and some practically impossible to conduct.

Reversing that would totally reorient the local economy.  Almost everyone would work for themselves, or for a locally owned business, owned by somebody they knew personally, and who knew them personally.

And with that reorientation, would come a reorientation of society.

We'll look at that a bit later.  Let's turn towards the agrarian element next.

Last Prior:

What's wrong with the world (and how to fix it). Part 4. A Well Educated Society.

Wednesday, February 21, 2024

The Transitions Issue.


The February 2024 issue of Wyoming Lawyer was exceptionally good.  Its focus was on "transitions", by which it mostly meant career transitions (but also had some articles on the scary advances of AI).

The magazine usually good, frankly.  Indeed, a magazine that has such a limited circulation can't be expected to be great, but it actually is very, very good as a rule.

This issue was on transitions, as noted, mostly, and it had some truly excellent articles.  One was about retiring Wyoming Supreme Court Justice Keith Kautz, who was a great judge.  I liked the question he was asked about his favorite quotes, with the answer being:

I have two: 

1. Encouragement is the oxygen of the soul. 

2. The greatest day in your life or mine, the day we truly grow up, is the day when we take responsibility for our own attitudes.

Those are both pretty profound.  Nothing will burn a person out quicker than to work with people who only criticize them. And taking responsibility for your own attitudes is existentially a magnus opus.  I don't know that many people fully ever manage to do that, myself included.

Kautz is retiring as he's hit the statutory maximum for a judge of age 70.  He didn't seem bitter about it.  Justice Fox, who does seem bitter about the age limit being 70, mentioned it and Justice Kautz retiring in her State of the Judiciary speech.  She did reference it with her dry wit, referring to the age of 70 as "constitutional senility" and Kautz was in the audience.

An attempt at dry wit, I think, was made by the Bar President in her opening article of the issue, which was about a long time assistant retiring.  She had the line:

I always thought that money, fame, and power brought the greatest happiness, but according to the 80-year-old Harvard Study of Adult Development, close relationships with others is what really keeps us happy.

I'm pretty sure the first part of that was intended as a joke.

Her advice seems pretty standard, however, that being:

First, people have an innate desire to have a sense of purpose and meaning. When retirement comes, sometimes that sense of purpose can be lost. So, after taking some time off, it is good to start thinking about something meaningful that will fill the days. This could be volunteering, substitute teaching, or mentoring. It could also include learning a new skill (such as a new language), picking up a new hobby or seeing new places. 

Second, try to maintain and/or enhance social connections with others. I always thought that money, fame, and power brought the greatest happiness, but according to the 80-year-old Harvard Study of Adult Development, close relationships with others is what really keeps us happy. In fact, these ties help delay mental and physical decline, and are better predictors of long and happy lives than social class, IQ, or even genes.

Third, stay physically active as much as possible. Studies show that when someone retires, sedentary activities, such as watching television, increase dramatically. While watching extra television is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, much has been written about the link between longevity and good physical health. So, please try and enjoy our state as much as possible by spending time outside running, hiking or skiing.

Probably all solid advice. 

Indeed, it causes me to recall that I recently was speaking to a cousin of mine who is retired from Federal service and who is keeping pretty busy.  We were speaking on a grim topic, which caused me to joke that in old age I was going to take up grizzly bear wrestling.  He stated he was going to take up heavy drinking (he doesn't drink) as that's what so many of his retired colleagues seem to be doing, to the point of death.

Grim.

Another article was about retirement planning itself, which didn't mention grizzly bear wrestling or heavy drinking.  It was frankly really good, which is very much the exception to the rule in lawyers magazines. Usually in lawyer magazines and articles, the "planning" is about how you can go on practicing law for an additional ten years after you are dead.  The articles are about how in "retirement" you can go from litigation to some other field of law, or perhaps switch from defense to plaintiff's work, or something equally moronic.  This article wasn't that way at all.  Indeed, it acknowledged:

Arthur C. Brooks, former president of the American Enterprise Institute and now a Harvard Business School professor, concluded in a July 2019 Atlantic article that professional decline is inevitable sooner or later, simply as the result of aging.

About time somebody said that.  I've practiced against one lawyer who was a physical wreck and in clear mental decline, but was "never going to retire".  He did, but I think it was because his (family owned) firm basically gave him a back room and things to pretend to do.  Not very dignified. He probably doesn't actually know that he is retired.  I used to ask his son how he was doing and to say hello, but it was clear it was an embarrassing topic, and he didn't want to have it come up.

I know another lawyer here in town, who is very physically fit I'll note, who is practicing law actively, not part-time, in his early 70s and declares that he'll never retire.  How boring can you be?

I get that with certain occupations that are real vocations. But let's face it, most of the professions aren't.  People may declare that they love being an accountant, or they love being a lawyer, or they love being an actuary, but they are lying.  Shoot, they probably are lying if they say that about engineering.  Farming, teaching, maybe medicine, the ministry, those are intrinsically different.  

Indeed, because, in my arriving old age, my health has taken a beating the last few years one of my newer doctors, whose son was a high-powered lawyer in California and is now a Federal District Court judge in that state, asks me every time about my work.  "You are a lawyer?".  And he always asks, in the form of a statement, "And you love it".  I'm not sure why that question is necessary to my medical treatment, but as its asked every time, maybe it is.  Maybe it's because lawyers are so famously associated with depression, alcoholism and drug abuse that the medical profession regards it as necessary.  Who knows. Anyhow, after doing it for over 30 years it'd be surprising if I broke down and started sobbing about it or something, but there are a lot of other things I'm interested in too.  Having said that, I don't want to chat to somebody I barely know about those topics either.

Going back for a second, on vocations that make sense that people keep on keeping on in them, at least some of those actually have mandatory retirement ages, where the law allows it.  I don't know about physicians, I think not, but there aren't that many that practice into old age, and I've been told that's because there's a general feeling that mental acuity decline in the late 40s and the practice advances so fast that you start to become dangerous to your patients.  That's particularly true of surgeons, not all physicians, so you will see some practice into relatively old age.

In our diocese, Catholic Priests must retire at 70.  We hear a lot about there being a shortage of Priests, although the reasons for that are debatable (Wyoming has never produced sufficient numbers of Priests for its own needs) but the Diocese nonetheless feels that 70, they need to retire, which usually means being quasi part-time.  They can't be the pastors at a parish, for example.  

Under Canon 401 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law all Catholid bishops must submit their resignation to the Pope at the age of 75.

It's a good policy.

Changing gears, even the back page interview, which is always of a practicing lawyer, was good for a change.  It is occasionally, I'll admit, but more often than not it's an interview of somebody who just graduated from law school and is touring Patagonia or something. . . i.e., they haven't practiced law yet.  This one was of a lawyer who has over 30 years under his belt and noted:

I was the only kid in my elementary school (and perhaps the only attorney in Wyoming) whose  dad has been a matador de toros.

I'll bet that's right. 

Wednesday, February 7, 2024

A Mid Week At Work Blog Mirror: Catholic Stuff You Should Know. Sunday Best.

Bar scene from The Best Years Of Our Lives.  Yes, they are supposed to be at a bar, and at sort of a blue collar bar at that.

This is an interesting podcast, by two priests, on dress at Mass on Sunday:

SUNDAY BEST

We've covered this topic before, and in other context, we note.  Consider:

Declined Sartorial Standards. Have we gone too informal?


A Nation of Slobs


Let alone the plethora of related posts below:

So what of this?

Let me start off by noting that this is't the first time I've heard Catholic clerics address this (I've never heard Protestant ones address this, but as we've noted many times before, Protestants tend to dress up for Church, at least by way of my limited observation.  Catholics, well, it's mixed.

And let me say that I"m one who is pretty bad about not doing so.

For years and years, I tend not to shave on the weekends.  I probably ought to just grow a beard, as I don't like shaving, but at this point, it'd be too much of a shock and I'd look like a short, not too fat, Santa Claus.  When I was young, my beard was a bunch of different colors, brown, blond, red, etc., reflecting no doubt my wild Hibernian heritage.  People don't think of humans having hair coloration like a Calico cat, but I used to.


I've had a heavy mustache since my 20s.  It was brown with red and blond streaks, but not enough to notice unless you looked really close up.  

Now it's gray.

That is no doubt what my beard would also be.  The hair on my head isn't yet.

Anyhow, when I was a college student, I'd rarely shave every day.  In retrospect, I probably should have as looking like Yassir Arafat, in the pre stubble as fashionable days, isn't a cool look.  I had to start shaving at age 13, and I've just never cared for it much.

I've started to shave on most Sundays, however, recently. And before listening to this podcast.

The one time I've heard a priest orally reference this before was at Mass, during the summer.  A visiting Priest made a pointed comment about people showing up in shorts, and indeed, people did, and do.  One extremely devout young man down at the downtown parish seems to only own shorts, and a large collection of religiously themed t-shirts.  I'm sure that his dress should not be of concern.

And in a slight way, I think this topic may have a jump the shark aspect to it.  It was really in the 80s when dress went too far, and you'd see t-shirts with rude comments and the like.  There was a popular "Big Johnson" line of t-shirts that I can distinctly recall somebody showing up to Mass at.

I don't see that anymore.  Indeed, the younger people at Mass are almost never dressed t-shirt fashion.  They are often dressed informally, but pretty nicely.

In fact, they dress nicer than I do.

I started really noticing that the Sunday before last, which was also before I heard this podcast.  I wasn't feeling great, quite frankly, and didn't shave.  I don't recall what shirt I was wearing, but I've been getting a bit self-conscious about my dress at Mass in general and so took note, at some point, of what I was wearing.  I'm not sure why I took note, but in part it's because the men I see sitting at the back of the Church are all dressed better than me, save for one guy who is retired and who shared my profession, whose always super casually dressed, and a few genuine quite old men who are probably well past the point where they care much about dress in general.  One of those guys wears a BDU M65 Field Jacket to every Mass in the winter, which now really stands out.

I've worn M64s to Mass lots of time, when I was younger, as that was the coat I had.  When I was a National Guardsman and living in Laramie, it was often my go-to coat.  I'm sure it wasn't supposed to be, but it was.

Anyhow, soon after Mass started I noticed that my Carhartt coat, which I was wearing, is really a mess.  The sleeves are fraying, and it has a blood stain on the front I hadn't previously noticed.  It's so bad, in general, that I really need to replace it or retire it exclusively to working cows or hunting. For that matter, even if I do restrict its use, I need a new one.

The clerical podcasters in this podcast urge people to basically up their game at Mass on the basis that clothing matters.  And indeed, as I've noted before, it does.  They urge people to dress one step up from what they do at work.

They're centered in Denver, which has retained a higher dress standard than Central Wyoming.  It always had one.  Even now, when I go into Denver for work, I'll walk up 16th Street and notice men headed to their offices in suits and ties, or sports coats and ties, with overcoats and occasionally the odd Fedora.  In Houston, recently, I noticed that male lawyers really turn out.

Oddly, however, I've also noticed that on Teams/Zoom, even at official functions, this is less so.  I was in an administrative hearing the other day where I was the only one in jacket and tie.  And I've been in court proceedings, on Teams, where I'm the only one with a tie. 

Frankly, if I were the judge, which I will never be, I'd make a point of that to a lawyer without a tie.  As in "Mr. X, before you address the court, it appears that you failed to finish dressing. Do you want me to pause for a couple of minutes while you put on your tie?".  If the answer came back that he didn't have one with him, the next line would be; "Well, rules of courtroom decorum apply even here.  We'll note your failure and decline to accept any statement to the Court. Please pay the Court $50.00 for being in contempt and make sure you are properly dressed next time."

Anyhow, advice of the clerical gentlemen notwithstanding, I'm not going to up my game from work.  I am going to up my game at work, however, as recently I've been really lazy about it unless I know I have an official function to go to.  I've been back in my office with Levi 501s.

Slacking pretty heavily there.

And I do need to up my game a bit on Sunday, while remembering where I live.

The podcast mentions that a bit, but only a bit.  You do have to remember where you are.

As I've noted quite a few times, in my region of the Rocky Mountain West, really dressing up for Mass was always a Protestant thing.  It's probably because there were so many Irish Catholic Sheep Ranchers, Mexican Sheep Herders, and oilfield workers that this was the reason.  People came clean, but as they were, consistent with their status, and that's continued.

And that's why in part I disagree a bit with the pod's advice.  We are the publicans and the sinners, and we're there.  I don't think a person should dress in appropriately, but they can come as they are, in my view.

In terms of coming as they are, there have been some interesting trends.  One is the rise of the Trads and the Rad Trads, which I've mentioned quite a few times before.  The Mantila Girls have a certain look to them, and its very conservative.  It's charming also, and I'm not criticizing them.  I'm glad their doing that.

Some jacket and ties, or at least ties, are appearing, and in some cases I don't know what to make of that, in part because I've long known some of the so clad, and their dress has really evolved.  Most of them are Trads,and that explains it, but they were pretty Trady 20 years ago.  Their dress has evolved to more conservative as the young Church itself has become more conservative.  They're not young, however, and taking up that sort of dress, if you didn't naturally affect it earlier, looks a bit odd.  They don't really look like they know where they are, or what their station is.

So I guess there's a middle ground.

At any rate, the pod is correct for certain that clothes do matter. They do send a message.  I've been dressing outside of my vocation for months and need to address it.  Why a person would do that is a topic for some other time.

Related Threads:






































Blog Mirror: 1924 Telephone Workers: Risking Life and Limb

 

1924 Telephone Workers: Risking Life and Limb

Wednesday, January 31, 2024

Mid Week At Work: Endings.


I posted this the other day:

Sigh . . .

And depicted with a horse too. . . 

Kroger retires after 35 years of service 

Bart KrogerCODY - Worland Wildlife Biologist Bart Kroger retired last month, bringing his 35-year career with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to a close. 

“Bart has been referred to as the ‘core of the agency’, meaning through his dedication and continuous hard work, he has significantly and meaningfully impacted wildlife management within his district and throughout the state,” said Corey Class, Cody region wildlife management coordinator. “Throughout his career, he has been a solid, steady and dependable wildlife biologist, providing a foundation for wildlife conservation and management in the Bighorn Basin.”

Through his quiet and thoughtful approach, Bart has gained the respect of both his peers and the public. Bart is best known for his commitment to spending time in the field gaining first-hand knowledge of the wildlife and the habitat that supports them, as well as the people he serves in his district. 

 Found this old draft the other day

RETIREMENT ELIGIBILITY

Vesting Requirements

After obtaining 72 months of service, you are eligible to elect a monthly benefit at

retirement age. The 72 months of service do not have to be consecutive months.

Retirement Eligibility

You are eligible for retirement when you reach age 50 and are vested. There is no

early retirement under this plan. You must begin drawing your benefit no later than

age 65.

Which means, as a practical matter, if you are to draw retirement as a Wyoming Game Warden, you need to take the job no later than the beginning of your 59th year.

Of course, if you started at age 59, you wouldn't be drawing much, if anything.

That doesn't mean, of course, that you couldn't be hired after age 59.  You'd just draw no retirement.

The actual statute on this matter states the following, as we noted in a prior thread, from 2023, quoted below:

2. Wyoming Game Wardens were once required to retire at age 55, but a lawsuit some decades ago overturned that. It, in turn, was later overruled, but by that time the state had changed the system. Since that time, it's set it again statutorily, with the age now being 65 by law.  There aren't, therefore, any 67-year-old game wardens.

Statutorily, the current law provides:

9-3-607. Age of retirement.

(a) Any employee with six (6) or more years of service to his credit is eligible to receive a retirement allowance under this article when he attains age fifty (50).

(b) Effective July 1, 1998, any employee retiring after July 1, 1998, with twenty-five (25) or more years of service may elect to retire and receive a benefit upon attaining age fifty (50) as described in W.S. 9-3-610.

(c) Repealed by Laws 1993, ch. 120, §§ 1, 2.

(d) Any employee in service who has attained age sixty-five (65), shall be retired not later than the last day of the calendar month in which his 65th birthday occurs. 

Age limitations of this type are tied to physical fitness.  But what about mental fitness?  As mentioned here before, Gen. Marshall forcibly retired most serving U.S. Army generals, or at least sidelined them, who were over 50 years of age during World War Two, and that had to do with their thinking.  We now allow judges to remain on the bench until they are 70.  Would 60 make more sense?  And can the same argument be made for lawyers, who are officers of the court?

This differs, I'd note, significantly from the Federal Government.  The cutoff there is age 37.  That's it.

Have a wildlife management degree?  Spend the last few years in some other state agency?  Win the Congressional Medal of Honor for single handled defeating the Boko Haram?  38 years old now? Well, too bloody bad for you.

Anyhow, I guess this says something about the American concept that age is just a number and the hands of the clock don't really move.

They do.


On a somewhat contrary note, I was in something this week when a 70-year-old man indicated he might retire in order to take a job as a commercial airline pilot.

He's never been employed in that capacity, but he's had the license for 50 years.  It wouldn't be carrying people for United or something, but in some other commercial capacity.  

He's always wanted to do it, and has an offer.

Well, more power to him.

I did a lot of what this lawyer is doing here, when first practicing, in front of barrister cases just like this.  No young lawyer does that now.

I spoke to a lawyer I've known the entire time I've been practicing law, almost. He's four years younger than me, which would make him 56 or so.  He's worked his entire career in general civil, in a small and often distressed town, in a firm founded by his parents.  When I was first practicing, it was pretty vibrant.

Now he's the only one left.

He's retiring this spring.  This was motivated by his single employee's decision to retire.

I was really surprised, in part due to his age.  I'm glad that he can retire, but it was a bit depressing.  We're witnessing, in Wyoming, the death of the small town civil firm.  Everything is gravitating to the larger cities, and frankly in the larger cities, they're in competition with the big cities in Colorado and Utah.  That's insured a bill in the legislature to try to recruit lawyers to rural areas.*

It's not going to work.

The problem has been, for some time, that it's impossible to recruit young lawyers to small rural areas.  The economics don't allow for it.  The economics don't allow for it, in part, as the Wyoming Supreme Court forced the Uniform Bar Exam down on the Board of Law Examiners, and that resulted in opening the doors to Denver and Salt Lake lawyers.  It's been something the small firms have been competing against ever since.

And not only that, but some sort of demographic change has operated to just keep younger lawyers out of smaller places, and frankly to cause them to opt for easier paths than civil law in general.  I know older lawyers that came from the larger cities in the state, and set up small town practices when they were young, as that's where the jobs were and having a job was what they needed to have.  I've even known lawyers who went to UW who moved here from somewhere else who took that path, relocating from big Eastern or Midwestern cities to do so.

No longer.  Younger lawyers don't do that.

Quite a few don't stick with civil practice at all.  They leave for government work, where the work hours are regular, and the paycheck isn't dependent on billable hours.   And recently, though we are not supposed to note it, young women attorneys reflect a new outlook in which a lot of them bail out of practice or greatly reduce their work hours after just a few years in, a desire to have a more regular domestic life being part of that.

I guess people can't be blamed for that, but we can, as a state, be blamed for being shortsighted.  Adopting the UBE was shortsighted.  Sticking with it has been inexcusable.  I'm not the only one who has said so, and frankly not the only one who probably paid a price for doing so.  The reaction to voices crying in the wilderness is often to close the windows so you don't have to hear them.  Rumor had it, which I've never seen verified and have heard expressly denied by a person within the law school administration, that it was done in order to aid the law school, under the theory that it would make UW law degrees transportable, which had pretty much the practical effect on the local law as Commodore Matthew Perry opening up trade with Japan.

Wyoming Board of Law Examiners bringing in the UBE.

The lawyer in this case is worried, as he has no hobbies and doesn't know what he'll do with himself.  I'm surprised how often this concern is expressed.  To only have the law, or any work, is sad.  But a court reporter, about my age, expressed the same concern to me the other day.

Court reporting has really taken a beating in this state, more so than lawyers.  When I was first practicing, every community had court reporters.  Now there are hardly any left at all.  Huge firms are down to just a handful of people, and people just aren't coming into the occupation.  It's a real concern to lawyers.

It's always looked like an interesting job to me, having all the diversity of being a lawyer, with seemingly a lot less stress.  But having never done it, perhaps I'm wildly in error.  We really don't know what other people's jobs are like unless we've done them.

A lawyer I know just died by his own hand.

I met him when he took over for a very long time Wyoming trial attorney upon that attorney's death.

The attorney he took over for had died when he went in his backyard and put a rifle bullet through his brain.  He was a well known attorney, and we could tell something wasn't quite right with him.  Just the day prior, he called me and asked for an extension on something.  I'd already given two.  I paused, and then, against my better judgment, said, "well. . . okay".  

I'd known him too long to say no.

He was clearing his schedule.  If I had said no, I feel, he wouldn't have done it, and he'd be alive today.

The new attorney came in and was sort of like a goofy force of nature.  Hard to describe.  A huge man, probably in his 40s at the time, but very childlike.  He talked and talked. Depositions would be extended due to long meandering conversational interjections, as I learned in that case and then a very serious subsequent one.

He was hugely proud of having been a member of a legendary local plaintiff's firm.  That didn't really matter much to me then, and it still doesn't.  My family has always had an odd reaction to the supposedly honorific.  My father never bothered to collect his National Defense Service Medal for serving during the Korean War, I didn't bother to get my Reserve Overseas Training Ribbon, or my South Korean award for Operation Team Spirit, I don't have my law school diploma's anymore. . . It's not that they aren't honors, it's just, well, oh well.  We tend to value other things, which in some ways sets standards that are highers than others, and very difficult to personally meet.

Anyhow, the guy was very friendly and told me details of his life, not all of which were true.  He was raised by his grandmother, his grandmother had somehow encouraged him to go to law school,  Both true.

He was from Utah and grown up there, but consistently denied being a Mormon.  His wife was Mormon, he said.  He was an Episcopalian.  As I'm very reserved, I'm not really going to talk religion with somebody I only casually and professionally know, as opposed to one of my very extroverted and devout partners who will bring it up at the drop of a hat, and his religious confession didn't particularly matter to me, given the light nature of our relationship.  As it turns out, and as I suspected, that wasn't even remotely true.  He was and always had been a Mormon.  Why did he lie about that?  No idea.

I suppose this is some sort of warning here, maybe.

The first lawyer noted in this part of this entry had suffered something hugely traumatic early in his life and never really got over it. Some people roll with the punches on traumas and some do not.  We hear about combat veterans all the time who live with the horrors they experienced, and which break them down, all the time, but I've known a couple who didn't have that sort of reaction at all, and who could coolly relate their combat experiences.  Others can't get over something that happened to them, ever.

With the second lawyers, there were some oddities, one being that he jumped from firm to firm, and to solo, and back and forth, all the time. That's unusual.  Another was that he seemed to have pinned his whole identify on being a lawyer.  It's one thing, like the retiring fellow above, to have worked it your whole life and have nothing else to do, it's quite another to have that make up everything you are.  He'd drunk deeply of the plaintiff's lawyer propaganda about helping the little guy and all that crap, and didn't really realize that litigators often hurt people as often as they help them, or do both at the same time.  Maybe the veil had come off.  Maybe he should never have been a lawyer in the first place.  Maybe it was organic and had nothing to do with any of this.

Well, the moral of this story, or morals, if there are any, would be this.  You don't have endless time to do anything, 70-year-old commercial airline pilots aside. You probably don't know what it's like to do something unless you've actually done it, but you can investigate it and learn as much as possible.  The UBE, which the Wyoming Supreme Court was complicit in adopting, is killing the small  town civil lawyer and only abrogating it, or its successor, and restoring the prior system can address that.   The entire whaling for justice plaintiff's lawyer ethos is pretty much crap.  And, finally, you had some sort of identify before you took up your occupation.  Unless that identity was what you became, before you became it, don't let the occupation become it.  It may be shallower than you think.

Footnotes:

The bill:

SENATE FILE NO. SF0033

Wyoming rural attorney recruitment program.

Sponsored by: Joint Judiciary Interim Committee

A BILL

for

AN ACT relating to attorneys-at-law; establishing the rural attorney recruitment pilot program; specifying eligibility requirements for counties and attorneys to participate in the program; specifying administration, oversight and payment obligations for the program; requiring reports; providing a sunset date for the program; authorizing the adoption of rules, policies and procedures; providing an appropriation; and providing for an effective date.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:

Section 1.  W.S. 33‑5‑201 through 33‑5‑203 are created to read:

ARTICLE 2

RURAL ATTORNEY RECRUITMENT PROGRAM

33‑5‑201.  Rural attorney recruitment program established; findings; program requirements; county qualifications; annual reports.

(a)  In light of the shortage of attorneys practicing law in rural Wyoming counties, the legislature finds that the establishment of a rural attorney recruitment program constitutes a valid public purpose, of primary benefit to the citizens of the state of Wyoming.

(b)  The Wyoming state bar may establish a rural attorney recruitment program to assist rural Wyoming counties in recruiting attorneys to practice law in those counties.

(c)  Each county eligible under this subsection may apply to the Wyoming state bar to participate in the program. A county is eligible to participate in the program if the county:

(i)  Has a population of not greater than twenty‑five thousand (25,000);

(ii)  Has an average of not greater than one and one‑half (1.5) qualified attorneys in the county for every one thousand (1,000) residents. As used in this paragraph, "qualified attorney" means an attorney who provides legal services to private citizens on a fee basis for an average of not less than twenty (20) hours per week. "Qualified attorney" shall not include an attorney who is a full‑time judge, prosecutor, public defender, judicial clerk, in‑house counsel, trust officer and any licensed attorney who is in retired status or who is not engaged in the practice of law;

(iii)  Agrees to provide the county share of the incentive payment required under this article;

(iv)  Is determined to be eligible to participate in the program by the Wyoming state bar.

(d)  Before determining a county's eligibility, the Wyoming state bar shall conduct an assessment to evaluate the county's need for an attorney and the county's ability to sustain and support an attorney. The Wyoming state bar shall maintain a list of counties that have been assessed and are eligible to participate in the program under this article. The Wyoming state bar may revise any county assessment or conduct a new assessment as the Wyoming State bar deems necessary to reflect any change in a county's eligibility.

(e)  In selecting eligible counties to participate in the program, the Wyoming state bar shall consider:

(i)  The county's demographics;

(ii)  The number of attorneys in the county and the number of attorneys projected to be practicing in the county over the next five (5) years;

(iii)  Any recommendations from the district judges and circuit judges of the county;

(iv)  The county's economic development programs;

(v)  The county's geographical location relative to other counties participating in the program;

(vi)  An evaluation of any attorney or applicant for admission to the state bar seeking to practice in the county as a program participant, including the attorney's or applicant's previous or existing ties to the county;

(vii)  Any prior participation of the county in the program;

(viii)  Any other factor that the Wyoming state bar deems necessary.

(f)  A participating eligible county may enter into agreements to assist the county in meeting the county's obligations for participating in the program.

(g)  Not later than October 1, 2024 and each October 1 thereafter that the program is in effect, the Wyoming state bar shall submit an annual report to the joint judiciary interim committee on the activities of the program. Each report shall include information on the number of attorneys and counties participating in the program, the amount of incentive payments made to attorneys under the program, the general status of the program and any recommendations for continuing, modifying or ending the program.

33‑5‑202.  Rural attorney recruitment program; attorney requirements; incentive payments; termination of program.

(a)  Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, any attorney licensed to practice law in Wyoming or an applicant for admission to the Wyoming state bar may apply to the Wyoming state bar to participate in the rural attorney recruitment program established under this article. No attorney or applicant shall participate in the program if the attorney or applicant has previously participated in the program or has previously participated in any other state or federal scholarship, loan repayment or tuition reimbursement program that obligated the attorney to provide legal services in an underserved area.

(b)  Not more than five (5) attorneys shall participate in the program established under this article at any one (1) time.

(c)  Subject to available funding and as consideration for providing legal services in an eligible county, each attorney approved by the Wyoming state bar to participate in the program shall be entitled to receive an incentive payment in five (5) equal annual installments. Each annual incentive payment shall be paid on or after July 1 of each year. Each annual incentive payment shall be in an amount equal to ninety percent (90%) of the University of Wyoming college of law resident tuition for thirty (30) credit hours and annual fees as of July 1, 2024.

(d)  Subject to available funding, the supreme court shall make each incentive payment to the participating attorney. The Wyoming state bar and each participating county shall remit its share of the incentive payment to the supreme court in a manner and by a date specified by the supreme court. The Wyoming state bar shall certify to the supreme court that a participating attorney has completed all annual program requirements and that the participating attorney is entitled to the incentive payment for the applicable year. The responsibility for incentive payments under this section shall be as follows:

(i)  Fifty percent (50%) of the incentive payments shall be from funds appropriated to the supreme court;

(ii)  Thirty‑five percent (35%) of the incentive payments shall be provided by each county paying for attorneys participating in the program in the county;

(iii)  Fifteen percent (15%) of the incentive payments shall be provided by the Wyoming state bar from nonstate funds.

(e)  Subject to available funding for the program, each attorney participating in the program shall enter into an agreement with the supreme court, the participating county and the Wyoming state bar that obligates the attorney to practice law full‑time in the participating county for not less than five (5) years. As part of the agreement required under this subsection, each participating attorney shall agree to reside in the participating county for the period in which the attorney practices law in the participating county under the program. No agreement shall be effective until it is filed with and approved by the Wyoming state bar.

(f)  Any attorney who receives an incentive payment under this article and subsequently breaches the agreement entered into under subsection (e) of this section shall repay all funds received under this article pursuant to terms and conditions established by the supreme court. Failure to repay funds as required by this subsection shall subject the attorney to license suspension.

(g)  The Wyoming state bar may promulgate any policies or procedures necessary to implement this article.  The supreme court may promulgate any rules necessary to implement this article.

(h)  The program established under this article shall cease on June 30, 2029, provided that attorneys participating in the program as of June 30, 2029 shall complete their obligation and receive payments as authorized by this article.

33‑5‑203.  Sunset.

(a)  W.S. 33‑5‑201 and 33‑5‑202 are repealed effective July 1, 2029.

(b)  Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, attorneys participating in the rural attorney pilot program authorized in W.S. 33‑5‑201 and 33‑5‑202 shall complete the requirements of the program and shall be entitled to the authorized payments in accordance with W.S. 33‑5‑201 and 33‑5‑202 as provided on June 30, 2029.

Section 2.  There is appropriated one hundred ninety‑seven thousand three hundred seventy‑five dollars ($197,375.00) from the general fund to the supreme court for the period beginning with the effective date of this act and ending June 30, 2029 to be expended only for purposes of providing incentive payments for the rural attorney recruitment program established under this act. This appropriation shall not be transferred or expended for any other purpose. Notwithstanding W.S. 9‑2‑1008, 9‑2‑1012(e) and 9‑4‑207, this appropriation shall not revert until June 30, 2029.

Section 3.  This act is effective July 1, 2024.

Wednesday, January 17, 2024

What's the matter with Wyoming (and Iowa)?


The other day Robert Reich, whose writing I have a love/hate relationship with, wrote this article:

What’s the matter with Iowa?

I'll admit that I was prepared to dismiss it when I started reading it, but I can't. It's a well reasoned article.

I don't think it sums up everything that's "wrong" with Iowa, but it gets some things right.  This could just as easily be said, about Wyoming, however:

I saw it happen. When I was helping Fritz Mondale in 1984, I noticed Iowa beginning to shift from family farms to corporate agriculture, and from industrialized manufacturing to knowledge-intensive jobs.

The challenge was to create a new economy for Iowa and for much of the Midwest.

I didn’t have any good ideas for creating that new economy, though — and neither did Mondale, who won Iowa’s Democratic caucuses that year but lost the general election to Ronald Reagan in Iowa and every other state, except his own Minnesota.

Yet not until George W. Bush’s reelection campaign in 2004 did a Republican presidential candidate win Iowa again.

When Tom Vilsack was governor of Iowa in the early 2000s and flirting with the idea of a presidential run, he told me he worried that Iowa’s high school valedictorians used to want to attend the University of Iowa or Iowa State, but now wanted the Ivy League or Stanford or NYU. Even Iowa’s own college graduates were leaving for Chicago, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and New York.

Vilsack wanted to know how to keep Iowa’s talent in Iowa — a variant of the question I couldn’t answer for Mondale. By this time I had a few ideas — setting up high-tech hubs around major universities, blanketing parts of the state with free wi-fi, having community colleges supply the talent local industries needed — but they all cost money that Iowa didn’t have.

As The New York Times’s Jonathan Weisman noted recently, Iowa continues to lose more than 34 percent of its college graduates each year. Illinois, by contrast, gains 20 percent more college graduates than it produces. Minnesota has about 8 percent more college grads than it produces.

This talent migration has hastened America’s split into two cultures, not just in Iowa and the Midwest but across the nation.

But not entirely.

The thing people like Reich don't get is that much of the country doesn't want to become an upper middle class urban cesspool.  Places that people like Reich worship are largely abhorrent in living terms.  There's a reason that people look to rural areas and an idealized past.

But people also lash themselves to a dead economy as if it'll come back, even if it means losing track of reality at some point, or even if it means becoming something they claim to detest, welfare recipients. This has happened all over the US.

Something needs to be done to revitalize the main street economy, and people like Reich don't have the answers because at the end of the day, all American economists see things the same way.  Everything is corporate, the only question is how much, if any, restraint you put on corporations.

Distributism would cure a lot of this.

If we had a more Distributist economy, we'd have a more local one.  For rural areas, that'd mean much more local processing of locally produced goods.  There's no reason for the concentration of the meat packing industry, for example. Beef could be packed locally.  At one time, my family did just that. And that's only one example.

If the economy was reoriented in that fashion, local industry would expand a great deal.  The thing is, of course, not all of those jobs would be the glass and steel mind-numbing cubicle jobs that all economists love.

But here's the other thing.  As long as the economy is oriented the way it is, rural states are going to be colonies of urban areas, just as much as, let's say, French Indochina was a colony of France, or Kenya a colony of the United Kingdom.  Exploitative, in another word.  It's not intentionally so, it is an economic reality.

The problem there is that in those sorts of economies everything is produced for export alone, and everything is precarious.  That gets back to my Distributist argument above.

But it also gets to a certain cultural thing in which those deeply aligned with the economy, which includes most people, can't see anything thing else. As long as the economy keeps working, that's okay. But when changes come, that can be a disaster.

Wyoming's very first economy was the fur trade, if we discount the native economy (which is a real economy, and accordingly should not be discounted).  Contrary to the popular belief, the fur trade was not displaced, it just was never really very large, and therefore it diminished in importance when other things came in.

The other things were 1) agriculture, which came first, followed by the 2) extractive industries.  Both are still with us.  Agriculture has suffered to a degree as the naturally distributist industries that support it have been sacrificed on the altar of corporate economics and consolidation.  The state, for its part, did nothing to arrest that trend and simply let it happen.  In part, that's because the state has always deeply worshiped the thought that the extractive industries will make us all rich and nothing is to be interfered with, including losing local production of the raw resources that are first produced here.  I.e., we don't refine the oil as much as we used to, we don't pack the meat, we don't process the wool. . . . 

And the extractive industries certainly have made a lot of people and entire communities rich, there's no question of it.

But the handwriting is on the wall.  Coal is declining and will continue to do so.  And a massive shift in petroleum use is occurring, which Wyoming cannot stop.  Petroleum will still be produced far into the future, but its use as a fuel is disappearing.  Petrochemicals, on the other hand, are not.

We seemingly like to think we can stop those things from changing in any form.  We've tried to through lawsuits and legislation.  And yet it turns out that people buying EV's don't listen to our litigation or legislation, any more than they do to Nebraska's Senator Deb Fischer's whining about recharging station funding.  Like some who can't face death due to illness, we'll grasp at what we can, rather than adjust.

Part of that is listening to people who tell us what we want to hear.  A lot of politicians have tried to gently tell us the truth of what we're facing.  Governor Gordon did just recently. When they do that, they're castigated for it.

In 1962's The Days of Wine and Roses the plot follows a man who is a social drinker and introduces alcohol to his girlfriend. They marry, and over time they become heavy drinkers.  He finally stops drinking, his wife having left him, and finds her in an apartment, where she is now a hardcore alcoholic.  He resumes drinking then and there, in order to be with her.

In the end, however, he reforms and quits. She doesn't. We know how that will end.

That's a lot like Wyomingites in general.  We've received the hard knocks and blows.  Some of us are going to put the bottle down and face the day, some are not going to under any circumstances.

For some, it's easier to believe that a "dictator for a day" can order the old economy restored and reverse fifty years of demographic change, while reversing supply, demand, and technology to sort of 1970s status.  In other words, go ahead and have another drink, it won't hurt you.

But in reality, it might, and probably will.