Wednesday, February 4, 2026
Cellmate of Boethius: Every man of base character, and therefore the more greedy for others' goods, thinks himself the only one really worthy to possess all the gold and jewels there are.
Every man of base character, and therefore the more greedy for others' goods, thinks himself the only one really worthy to possess all the gold and jewels there are.
Every man of base character, and therefore the more greedy for others' goods, thinks himself the only one really worthy to possess all the gold and jewels there are.
Boethius
Of course it was a honeytrap. Was, "Was it a honeytrap?"
Lex Anteinternet: Was it a honeytrap?: Never get into an elevator with a Polish blonde” David M. Evans, Consular/Economic Officer, Warsaw, 1964-1967 Cold War era Greek poster warn...
After that, it really occurred to us the question wasn't, was it a honeytrap? The Epstein teenage girl platter was of course a honeytrap.
The question is, who benefited from it?
We've made the classic suggestion, it was espionage. But there are other types of espionage other than the clandestine statecraft type.
Industrial espionage is one.
Now, frankly it looks unlikely to be that, but it's possible. And engaging in spycraft for nations doesn't preclude engaging in it for industry. There are indeed examples of men and women who have done both.
Which takes us to our next item. What if all the effort to stock a Caribbean island with desperate nymphs was simply to advance Epstein himself, much like bootlegging was to advance the bootleggers.
That could have worked in several ways. One was simply a chance to offer teenage girls to men who wanted to screw teenage girls in exchange for something. . . money, connections, or whatever.
But it goes without saying that if a person set that up, blackmailing them would become very easy to do.
Indeed, why wouldn't a person who had reached such a state of moral depravity take the next step and do so? Only for a couple of reasons, really. One is that it might endanger the entire enterprise. The second is that it might backfire and cause you to end up dead.
And while it's unlikely, it's possible just that occured.
Blackmail, whether as a goal, or accidental byproduct, is indeed part and parcel of an operation such as this. Epstein had desperate teenage girls available for sex and rich associates who wanted to screw them. Once they did, he knew that had occured. They had to depend upon his confidence and he upon theirs. The latter was easily acquired as nobody wants to end up like Prince Andrew. The former, however, could very easily have come at a price at any point.
And the need for confidentiality on the part of the guilty is so strong, that the forces that purchased it are still at work. By this point, we know why the entire files aren't being released. When half released, lives are being destroyed. Andrew lost his theoretical crown. Peter Mandelson is now out of the House of Lords. Bill Gates is fighting allegations he deems absurd but which his ex wife Melinda is at least somewhat crediting.
In the end, whatever it is, didn't work out for Epstein twice. The first time it certainly did, he practically got a get out of jail free card. The second time he lost his life, most likely by his own hands. Whatever else is in there people are fighting to keep secret.
Which brings us back to something distressing but frankly necessary.
We're never going to know what happened on Epstein Island and in his homes until all the names are released, accused as well as victim. I know that the victims don't want that, but it's necessary. Their anonymity keeps them subject to blackmail. Once their names are out, and those of the accusers are out, if ever, they're free of the threat that chains them and can tell who violated them.
And as a final note, when the "Me Too" movement broke out it emphasized believing the women who were telling their stories. Now women do lie about crimes, just like men, and women have lied in the past about rape. But here there seems to be a widespread acceptance that the worst stories just aren't true.
Why is that?
I'm not saying they are, but if you'd told me fifteen years ago that there was a man who ran a white slavery ring for the wealthy and had his own island where the rich and powerful frequented and sampled the offerings, I wouldn't have believed that either.
Related posts:
Was it a honeytrap?
The Agrarian's Lament: Where have all the local businesses gone? Addressing politicians in desperate times, part 6.
Where have all the local businesses gone? Addressing politicians in desperate times, part 6.
Donald Trump reportedly just can't grasp why average Americans don't think the economy is doing great. It's doing great for everyone he knows. It's doing great for the the Trump family. It's doing swell for Jeff Bezos. It's doing great for Elon Musk. It's only not doing great for his pal Jeff Epstein, as he checked out before he could be spring from jail in one fashion or another and go back to being a teenage girl procurer.
So what, he must be thinking, is the freaking problem?
Well, people like Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and the entire Trump family are the problem (and people like Jeff Epstein are as well).
In other quarters people like to debate whether or not the United States is a "Christian nation". Whatever the answer to that might be (I think the answer is yes, but that it's a Puritan country) it was definitely a small freeholder country. That is, the country was mostly made up of small yeomanry and small tradesmen early on.
Indeed, the widespread use of corporations was illegal in the 1770s and for many years thereafter. Part of the rebellion against the crown was based on what effectively were export duties, a species of tariff, on chartered businesses, i.e., team importers, that the colonist had no control over and they reacted by destroying the property. Ironically the very people who emblazon themselves with 1776 themed tattoos in 2026 would have supported King George III doing what he did, just as they support King Donny doing them through executive order. Shoot, Parliament had actually voted on the tea duties.
Nonetheless, teh country has always had some very large business interests that, when allowed to, operate against the economic interest of everyone else. They don't want to "share the wealth". They think their getting wealthy is sharing enough, and good for everyone. Up until 1865, or instance, we had the Southern planter class, a market set of agriculturalist who destroyed land and people in their endeavors, but believed in it so strongly that they'd argue for the perversion of the Christian faith to support slavery.
It wasn't just Planters, however. Coal magnates, industrialists, foreign ranch owners, the list is pretty long.
It wasn't until later that absentee merchants dominated "main street", both the actual one or the metaphorical one. The first chain store is claimed by some to be The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (A&P), which was founded in 1859. Woolworth's started twenty years later in 1879. Piggly Wiggly, the grocery store, showed up in 1916, and proved to be the model for "grocery stores" that would wipe out locally held grocery stores, for the most party, in the next couple of decades.
Since the mid 20th Century this trend has continued unabated and unaddressed. Every Walmart represents the destruction, probably, of a half dozen or more locally owned family supported stores. The appliance section represents the closure of local appliance stores. The entertainment section of record and video stores. You name it.
None of this had to be.
There's been a lot of ink spilled on the rise of Donald Trump and what caused it. We've done that ourselves. Others have noted the presence of small businessmen in the MAGA ranks, but it's been underreported in contrast to the blue collar Rust Belt members of the MAGA rank and file.
It shouldn't be.
When I was young, which is now a very long time ago, the Democratic Party was still regarded as the part of the working class. Unions, which have never been strong here, were still strong enough to host the annual Jefferson Jackson Day that backed the Democratic Party. But by 1973 the Democrats started to board the vessel of blood that would end up causing thousands to get off the boat. By the mid 1990s the party that had been the one hardhats joined became one in you had to be comfortable with a focus on disordered sex and infanticide. The Democrats, for the most part, forgot the working class.
At the same time, the Republican Party was widely accused of being the Country Club Party, with good reason. If you were a member of a country club or chamber of commerce, you were probably a Republican or you were weird. The thing is, however that the economic outlook of the hardhat class and the country club class was closer to each other than they thought and the same neglect hurt both of them severely.
As early as the 1960s, successive Democratic and Republican administrations were really comfortable with exporting business overseas. Nobody ever outright admitted that, but they were. And both Democratic and Republican administrations simply stopped enforcing anti trust legislation. Aggressively applied, entities like Walmart would be busted up, but it just doesn't happen. Aware of what was going on at first, and trying to struggle against it nearly everywhere, local business failed to arrest the destructive march of the giants. In part, their efforts were so local that they were like those of Russian peasantry trying to arrest the Red Army. They tried, but doing it locally just won't going to work. You can't wait until the Red Army is in sight of the village. Nobodoy lifted a finger at the national or state level to help.
The march of progress (which it wasn't) and free enterprise (which it also wasn't) and all that.
So the small business class became desperate, and in desperation they turned to the guy who offered no answers but who seemed like he might help, Trump.
What an irony, really. Trump doesn't "shop local" and he doesn't have the faintest grasp of what small business is like. He's spent his eight decades around the wealthy and is more comfortable with bullying smaller economic interest than helping them.
Even now, the bones a small business economy remain. In order to advance that interest, however, small businessmen have to do something they really aren't comfortable with.
They have to be militant about it.
Part of that involves being militant at the polls.*
And that involves asking some questions, but first it involves waking up to economic and structural realities.
The first of those realities is that the United States does not have a free market economic system, and hasn't for a long time. It has a Corporate Capitalist economic system that favors state created economic creatures given fictional personhood which favors economies of scale. The goal is to make prices cheaper, and part of that is to make wagers cheaper. The consumers are expected to adjust to this by getting new jobs at higher wages, sort of like the protagonist in Kansas City Star.
So, in essence, if you have an appliance store and are taking home, let's say, $150,000 a year, and with that you are trying to provide for all of your family's living expenses, and Walmart comes in, well, you should have become something else, and now this is your chance to go and do that.
Except you probably won't. You'll probably close the store and retire, if you are over 50, or go on to another lower paying job if you aren't.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
Okay, not facing that grim reality, what you need to do is find out if politicians are more interested in their super sized huge television having a low, low price, or helping you. And helping you means leveling the playing field with legislation, not "buy local" campaigns.
And I'll note here, the Wyoming Freedom Caucus, which is trying to defend the Wyoming Business Council, is a prime example of people who are there to hurt you.
And so we begin.
1. Where is his bread buttered?
In other words, how does he make his money.
That may or not may not be a reason to vote for or against somebody. In Wyoming, fore xample, there are small businessmen in, and opposed to, the Freedom Caucus at the legislature, and voting for the WFC is a complete no go. So the question is informative, not determinative.
Having said that, there are certain answers that, in my mind, are nearly disqualifying.
One is a near complete lack of private business experience, even as an employee. Wyoming in particular seems to get a lot of candidates who cite "I was in the military" as a reason to vote for them, based on a lifelong military career. Well, that isn't like working for a private business at all. There's never been a time in the history of the U.S. military in which a soldier wasn't going to get paid, save for the government briefly shutting down. And almost all member of the military don't worry about overhead and payroll expenses. They also don't have to worry about the country coming to them and saying, "Gee, U.S. Army, we've really liked you here, but the British Army made us a better offer so we're doing to close you down. . . "
It's not just a lifetime of sucking on the government tit that should be concerning. People who have a lot of family money are in the same category.
I"m not necessary saying don't vote for somebody who is rich. I am saying you need to weight it carefully. It's hard to get politicians right now, at least at the national level, who aren't fairly well off, due to the Citizens United case. But if a person is rich because they inherited it, a pause should be made on the voting lever.
2. Do you support the American System?
Of course, when you ask this, you're probably going to get the answer of "yes", because it includes the word "American" and nobody wants to be against the American canything if they're a politician.
So you're going to have to ask them some questions or question which shows what they know what the American System is.
They probably won't know.
Henry Clay's "American System," devised in the burst of nationalism that followed the War of 1812, remains one of the most historically significant examples of a government-sponsored program to harmonize and balance the nation's agriculture, commerce, and industry. This "System" consisted of three mutually reinforcing parts: a tariff to protect and promote American industry; a national bank to foster commerce; and federal subsidies for roads, canals, and other "internal improvements" to develop profitable markets for agriculture. Funds for these subsidies would be obtained from tariffs and sales of public lands. Clay argued that a vigorously maintained system of sectional economic interdependence would eliminate the chance of renewed subservience to the free-trade, laissez-faire "British System."
Okay, right now I'll note that this included tariffs to protect American industry, and I've been hard on those. I also don't live in the first half of the 19th Century when industry had barely achieved a foothold in the U.S. And, it might be worth noting, that Clay didn't propose tariffs as people hurt his feelings. At any rate, post 1890s tariffs have proven to be a disaster.
What I"m noting, however, is the second and third parts of the American System, that being a national bank to foster commerce; and federal subsidies for roads, canals, and other "internal improvements" to develop profitable markets for agriculture.
What I'm really getting at is the use of public funds to assist local businesses.
A good example of the American System in Wyoming has been the Wyoming Business Council.. The carpetbagging Wyoming Freedom Caucus is attacking it basically because it uses public money. If you are in Wyoming, a good question is whether or not the pol supports the Wyoming Business Council being defunded. If the answer is yes, this pol doesn't care if you evaporate and is instead mindlessly adopting twattle that the WBC is "Socialist". First of all, I don't care if it is socialist, I only care, and so should you, about whether its effective in generating local businesses.
3. What actual legislation would they support to help local business.
By this, I mean concrete examples.
Chances are, you won't get any, so you'll have to press them.
4. What is their position on taxation?
By this, I mean the whole smash. Local, state and Federal.
The local press always asks this position of our pols, and they rarely give any kind of a detailed answer. Right now, most of them note that they aren't fond of taxes, but they don't support the WFC's effort to gut state property taxes either.
That's not specific enough.
5. What do they think of the out of staters buying up all the ___________and what would they do about it?
Here, and in much ag country, this would pertain to ranch land. But I'm sure it pertains to other things as well. Shoot ,around here it also would seem to pertain to tire stores, it's just ridiculous.
Expressing "concern" doesn't mean anything at all, even if you are Lisa Murkowski.
Doing nothing, I'd note, is an answer. It's not an answer too many would be willing to give, but at least its an honest answer.
6. What do their employees, if they have any, think of them?
For some reason, this is never asked, but it should be. If the answer is that the candidates employees hate the candidate with the intensity of a thousand burning suns, that probably needs to be considered. If, on the other hand, the employees widely admire the employer/candidate, that says something else.
I'll note here that personally I had people come to me as late as the 2010s who had worked for my grandfather and wanted me to know how he had helped them out in tough times. He never ran for anything, but that says a lot about his character.
I don't think we've heard anything like that from any of Jeffrey Epstein's employees.
I'll also note that as a businessman myself, it seems some businessmen are willing to fire people the second they might have to take a little less home. That's a character defect that's disturbing, at the least.
7. Why are they in the party they're in?
Again, an honest answer.
Right now you can't be a Republican or Democrat and be 100% comfortable with either party. That would suggest that you are letting others do your thinking for you. Businessmen have a right to know what drew a candidate to the party, what ever it is.
They also have a right to know what a candidate disagrees with about the positions of their own party. If he doesn't disagree with any party position, he's an unthinking stooge.
8. What business related or policy related organizations are they in, or endorsed by?
This is often overlooked unless those organizations step out themselves, which they sometimes do.
Make Liberty Win is, in my view, a big no/go for a candidate. The Club for Growth is as well. The latter favors an economy that will screw you.
Footnotes
*They really need to be militant about it everywhere, however.
Last edition:
What have you done for me lately? Addressing politicians in desperate times, part 5.
Claiming the mantle of Christ in politics. Don't support liars and don't lie. Addressing politicians in desperate times, part 4.
Claiming the mantle of Christ in politics. Addressing politicians in desperate times, part 3.
Questions hunters, fishermen, and public lands users need to ask political candidates. Addressing politicians in desperate times, part 2.
Addressing politicians in desperate times. A series.
Wednesday, February 4, 1976. The 1976 Winter Olympics opened in Innsbruck.
The 1976 Winter Olympics opened in Innsbruck.
Last edition:
Monday,. February 2, 1976. Moynihan resigns.
Monday, February 4, 1946. Weather and War Brides.
Friday, February 4, 1916. Buildings.
In reality, the accident was probably caused by an improperly extinguished cigar or faulty electrical wiring.
Last edition
Wednesday, February 2, 1916. Questionable, or outright bad, decision making.
Saturday, February 4, 1911. Deadlocks.
The Brussels sprouts of Wyoming politics
Tuesday, February 3, 2026
Was it a honeytrap?
Never get into an elevator with a Polish blonde”
David M. Evans, Consular/Economic Officer, Warsaw, 1964-1967
The British newspaper The Guardian seems to think so, but The Guardian tends towards the salacious.
It would explain, however, a lot.
We speak, of course, of Epstein Island and the ongoing cover-up of what occurred there.
Yes, cover-up. The U.S. government is covering it up.
A honey trap is an age old espionage technique. A country sends somebody, make or female, to have compromising sex with the target. Once he's compromised, he, and it's almost always a he, is really compromised. Sexual sins can be amongst the very worse, even in this libertine age.
The Soviet Union was a master at the honey trap. Max Hastings, in his book on World War Two espionage, details this quite a bit and well known examples abound. While not often put this way, Soviet recruiting in pre World War Two and early Cold War Britain was based on honey traps, with the added element that they wer\e homosexual honey traps. Homosexuality was illegal in the UK at the time as well as devastating to a person's reputation, but surprisingly common in the "public school" system. The Soviets learned who would be well placed at some point to be a spy, and provided the sexual target to bring the person in.
The more common female honey trap is of course well known, and was also well deployed by the Soviets, as well as other nations.
Maria Butina is a recently example who buddied up to the Trump administration and the National Rifle Association to gather intelligence from Conservative power brokers, although there's no accusation that she employed sex in her efforts.
Fang Fang, as Christine Fang had sex with two US mayors and targeted Democratic politicians in what US officials believe was a political intelligence operation run by China.
Why wouldn't the Russians use it?
What we know about Epstein Island at least gives us every reason to question whether or not it was a honey trap. The number of very wealthy and connected men that went through it, from all over the globe, made it somewhat unique, although the wealthy and powerful travel in certain circles and there are likely other places that meet this criteria. What those other places probably didn't have, however, was mid to late teenage girls who were on the dinner menu.
There's utterly no way that the Russians did not know this.
We are told that just because men traveled to the island doesn't mean that they had sex with underage teenage girls. Quite a few men whose names have been exposed denied every doing that, or denied every knowing that this was going on. No doubt, that's true min many instances. Mere wealth is enough to cause some of the wealthy to go to a place. The appearance of wealth attracts the wealthy like shit attracts flies, and I use that analogy intentionally. But that doesn't mean ever single man who went there ended up in bed with a 15 year old.
Having said that, however, it's clear that girls about that age were there for the offering, and that's the next point. A honeytrap isn't a rape of the target, it's an offering that tempts the target. Some men might very well go through a place, particularly perhaps like Bill Clinton did with his wife, and never be tempted, maybe, or even know what's going on. But to not have some clue strains credibility. One thing that's showing up, and thank to the Guardian you can see them, is photos of the young girls. Their faces are blacked out, and in some cases their boobs, but what's interesting is they are of a type. They're thin girls and look like teens, not the heavy chested women of the Playboy magazine type. They look, even in the redacted photographs, just like what they were, thing flat chested girls who should have been in high school.
They look like the girl that Donald Trump drew on Epstein's birth card.
And all the more appropriate for a honeytrap.
If you are attracting the flies in this fashion, you have to have something to attract them to, and something that compromises them. Back in the 1970s illicit sex alone would have done that, but in the 2000s? Maybe not. And on top of it the guests on Epstein Island were flying in and out, although some did that quite a bit. Offer a super model up on the plate might not work for a variety of reasons, one being that the supermodel would probably say no. You aren't going to get any Kate Uptons on Epstein Island.
But you might very well get the desperate and confused. Pretty girls on the economic and domestic edge, whose parents are desperate as well. They'd make ideal entries on the sexual menu. They are like the prostitute who is murdered to set up the Senator in The Godfather, Part II. Girls with nothing who "never existed".
You only have to offer them up to the willing, have a camera around, and voila, the target is compromised.
The Agrarian's Lament: What have you done for me lately? Addressing politicians in desperate times, part 5.
What have you done for me lately? Addressing politicians in desperate times, part 5.
An agricultural country which consumes its own food is a finer thing than an industrial country, which at best can only consume its own smoke.
Chesterton.
A long time ago I started a post on one of our companion blogs about agriculturalist and the Republican Party. I can't find it now, maybe I published it, or maybe I didn't.
As I"m in both worlds, the urban and the agricultural, I get exposed to the political views of both camps. The Trump administration has made this a really interesting, and horrifying, experience. By and large professionals detest Donald Trump and regard him as a charleton Farmers and ranchers are, however, amongst his most loyal base, even though there's no real reason for them to be such. Indeed, with the damage that Trump is doing to agriculture this will be a real test of whether farmers and ranchers simply reflexively vote Republican or stop doing son and wake up.
The Democratic Party, not the GOP, saved family farmers and ranchers in this country when the forces of the unabated Homestead ACt and the Great Depression were going to destroy them. They've seemingly resented being saved from those forces, however, as an impingement on their freedoms, and they've bristled at every government act since that time. Farmers and ranchers would rather sink in a cesspool of their own making than be told how to properly build one, basically.
We here, of course, aren't a pure agricultural blog. This is an Agrarian blog, and that's different. We are, quite frankly, much more radical.
"The land belongs to those who work it."
Zapata.
Agrarianism is an ethical perspective that privileges an agriculturally oriented political economy. At its most concise, agrarianism is “the idea that agriculture and those whose occupation involves agriculture are especially important and valuable elements of society
Bradley M. Jones, American Agrarianism.
Still, we can't help but notice that American agriculturalist, more than any other class of businessmen, have voted to screw themselves by voting for Donald Trump. They voted for tariff wars that leave their products marooned here in the US while foreign competitors take advantage of that fact. They've voted for a guy who thinks global warming is a fib (which many of them do as well) in spite of the plain evidence before their eyes, and the fact that this will destroy the livelihoods of the younger ones. They've voted to force economic conditions that will force them off the lands and their lands into the hands of the wealthy.
Indeed, on that last item, they've voted for people who share nothing in common with them whatsoever and would just as soon see them out of business, or simply don't care what happens to them.
They've voted, frankly, stupidly.
Well, nothing cures stupidly more than a giant dope slap from life, and they're getting one right now. The question is whether they'll vote in 2026 and 2028 to be bent over, or start to ask some questions.
We're going to post those questions here.
1. What connection does the candidate have with agriculture?
They might not have any and still be a good candidate, but if they're running around in a plaid shirt pretending to be a 19th Century man of the soil, they should be dropped.
They should also be dropped if they're like Scott Bessent, who pretends to be a soybean farmer when he's actually a major league investor. Indeed, big money is the enemy of agriculture and always has been.
I'd also note that refugees from agriculture should be suspect. The law is full of them, people who were sent off to law school by their farmer and rancher parents who believed, and in their heart of hearts still believe, that lawyers, doctors and dentist, indeed everyone in town, don't really work. All of these refugees live sad lives, but some of them spend time in their sad lives on political crusades that are sort of a cry out to their parents "please love me".
I know that sounds radical, but it's true.
2. What will they do to keep agricultural lands in family hands, and out of absentee landlord hands?
And the answer better not be a "well I'm concerned about that". The answer needs to be real.
From an agrarian prospective, no solution that isn't a massive trend reversing one makes for a satisfactory answer to this question. Ranches being bought up by the extremely wealthy are destroying the ability of regular people to even dare to hope to be in agriculture. This can be reversed, and it should be, but simply being "concerned" won't do it.
3. What is your view on public lands?
If the answer involves transferring them out of public hand, it indicates a love of money that's ultimately always destructive to agriculture in the end.
Indeed, in agricultural camps there remains an unabated lust for the public lands even though transferring them into private hands, whether directly or as a brief stop over in state hands, would utterly destroy nearly ever farm and ranch in local and family ownership . The change in value of the operations would be unsustainable, and things would be sold rapidly.
Public lands need to stay in public hands.
4. How do you make your money?
People think nothing of asking farmers "how many acres do you have" or ranchers "how many cattle do you have", both of which is the same as asking "how much money do you have".
Knowing how politicians make their money is a critical thing to know. No farmer or rancher, for example, has anything in common with how the Trump family makes money, and there's no reason to suppose that they view land as anything other than to be forced into developers hands and sold.
5. What is your position on global warming?
If its any variety of "global warming is a fib", they don't deserve a vote.
6. What is your position on a land ethnic?
If they don't know what that means, they don't deserve a vote.
7. What's on your dinner table, and who prepares it?
That may sound really odd, and we don't mean for it to be a judgment on what people eat. . . sort of. But all agriculturalist are producing food for the table. . . for the most part, if we ignore crops like cotton, or other agricultural derived textiles, of which there are a bunch, and if we ignore products like ethanol.
Anyhow, I'll be frank. If a guy is touring cattle country and gives an uneasy chuckle and says, "well, I don't eat much meat anymore" do you suppose he really cares about ranching? If you do, you need your head checked.
You probably really need it checked if the candidate doesn't every grill their own steak but has some sort of professional prepare their dinner every night. That would mean that they really have very little chance of grasping
8. What's your understanding of local agriculture?
That's a pretty broad question, but I'm defining agriculture very broadly here. Indeed, what I mean is the candidates understanding of the local use of nature, to include farming and ranching, but to also include hunting, fishing and commercial fishing.
Indeed, on the latter, only the commercial fishing industry seems to have politicians that really truly care what happens to them. How that happened isn't clear, but it does seem to be the case.
Otherwise, what most politicians seem to think is that farmers wear plaid flannel shirts. I see lots of them wondering around in photographs looking at corrals, or oil platforms, but I never see one actually do any work. . . of pretty much any kind. That is, I don't expect to see Chuck Gray flaking a calf, for example.
Last and prior editions: