The Agrarian's Lament: Now, more than ever, it's time for an Agrarian/Distributist remake of this country.

The Agrarian's Lament: Now, more than ever, it's time for an Agrarian/Dis...: 

Now, more than ever, it's time for an Agrarian/Distributist remake of this country.

I was going to use the work "revolution", but didn't as I don't want it suggested that I mean an armed revolution.  I'm not.  Indeed, I'm not keen on violence in general, and as I intend to refer to the American Revolution in this essay, I'll note that had I lived in the 1770s, I'd have been genuinely horrified by events.  I highly doubt that I would have joined the "Patriots" and likewise I wouldn't have joined the Loyalist either.  I'd have been in the 1/3d that sat the war out with out choosing sides, but distressed by the overall nature of it.

The other day I posted this:

The Agrarian's Lament: Lex Anteinternet: CliffsNotes of the Zeitgeist, 10...: Lex Anteinternet: CliffsNotes of the Zeitgeist, 108th Edition. “The... :  CliffsNotes of the Zeitgeist, 108th Edition. “The brave men and w...

In that item, I noted this:

Interestingly, just yesterday I heard a Catholic Answers interview of Dr. Andrew Willard Jones on his book The Church Against the State.  The interview had a fascinating discussion on sovereignty and subsidiarity, and included a discussion on systems of organizing society, including oligarchy.

Oligarchy is now where we are at.

I've been thinking about it, and Dr. Jones has really hit on something.  The nature of Americanism, if you will, is in fact not its documentary artifacts and (damaged) institutions, it is, rather, in what it was.  At the time of the American Revolution the country had an agrarian/distributist culture and that explained, and explains, everything about it.

The Revolution itself was fought against a society that had concentrated oligarchical wealth.  To more than a little degree, colonist to British North America had emigrated to escape that.

We've been losing that for some time.  Well over a century, in fact, and indeed dating back into the 19th Century.  It started accelerating in the mid 20th Century and now, even though most do not realize it, we are a full blown oligarchy.

Speaking generally, we may say that whatever legal enactments are held to be for the interest of various constitutions, all these preserve them. And the great preserving principle is the one which has been repeatedly mentioned- to have a care that the loyal citizen should be stronger than the disloyal. Neither should we forget the mean, which at the present day is lost sight of in perverted forms of government; for many practices which appear to be democratical are the ruin of democracies, and many which appear to be oligarchical are the ruin of oligarchies. Those who think that all virtue is to be found in their own party principles push matters to extremes; they do not consider that disproportion destroys a state. A nose which varies from the ideal of straightness to a hook or snub may still be of good shape and agreeable to the eye; but if the excess be very great, all symmetry is lost, and the nose at last ceases to be a nose at all on account of some excess in one direction or defect in the other; and this is true of every other part of the human body. The same law of proportion equally holds in states. Oligarchy or democracy, although a departure from the most perfect form, may yet be a good enough government, but if any one attempts to push the principles of either to an extreme, he will begin by spoiling the government and end by having none at all. Wherefore the legislator and the statesman ought to know what democratical measures save and what destroy a democracy, and what oligarchical measures save or destroy an oligarchy. For neither the one nor the other can exist or continue to exist unless both rich and poor are included in it. If equality of property is introduced, the state must of necessity take another form; for when by laws carried to excess one or other element in the state is ruined, the constitution is ruined.

Aristotle, Politics.

Corporations were largely illegal in early American history.  They existed, but were highly restricted.  The opposite is the case now, with corporations' "personhood" being so protected by the law that the United States Supreme Court has ruled that corporate political spending is a form of free speech and corporations can spend unlimited money on independent political broadcasts in candidate elections.  This has created a situation in which corporations have gobbled up local retail in the US and converted middle class shopkeeping families into serfs.  It's also made individual heads of corporations obscenely, and I used that word decidedly, wealthy.

Wealth on the level demonstrated by Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Donald Trump simply should not exist.  It's bad for average people and its corrupting of their souls. That corruption can be seen in their unhinged desire for self aggrandizement and acquisition.  Elon Must acquires young white women of a certain type for concubinage  Donald Trump, whose money is rooted in the occupation of land, has collected bedmates over the years, "marrying" some of them and in his declining mental state, seeks to demonstrated his value through grotesque molestation of public property.

Those are individual examples of course, but the government we currently have, while supported by the Puritan class, disturbingly features men of vast wealth, getting wealthier, with a government that operates to fork over more money to those who already have it.  The MAGA masses, which stand to grow poorer, and in the case of the agricultural sector are very much already suffering that fate, deservedly after supporting Trump, continue to believe that the demented fool knows what he's doing.

I don't know the source of this, but this illustration perfectly depicts how MAGA populists treat Donald Trump.

This system is rotten to the core and it needs to be broken.  Broken down, broken up, and ended.

The hopes of either the Democrats or the Republicans waking up and addressing it seem slim. The GOP is so besotted with it's wealthy leaders that the Speaker of the House, who claims to be a devout Christian, is attempting to keep the release of the names of wealthy hebephiles secret.  Only wealth and power can explain that.  The Democrats, which since 1912 have claimed to be the part of the working man, flounder when trying to handle the economic plight of the middle class.  Both parties agree on only one thing, that being you must never consider a third party.  

It is really time for a third part in this country.

In reality, of course, there are some, but only one is worth considering in any fashion, that being the American Solidarity Party.  Perhaps it could pick up the gauntlet here and smack it across the face of the oligarchy.  Or perhaps local parties might do it.  In my state, I think that if enough conservative Republicans (real conservatives, not the Cassie Cravens, John Bear, Dave Simpson, Bob Ide, Chuck Gray servants of the Orange Golden Calf Republicans) it could be done locally.  The U.S. has a history, although its barely acknowledged, of local parties, including ones whose members often successfully run on the tick of two parties.  New York's Zohran Mamdani and David Dinkins, for example were both Democrats and members of the Democratic Socialist Party.  Democrats from Minnesota are actually members of the Democratic Farm Labor Party, which is an amalgamation of two parties.  There's no reason a Wyoming Party couldn't form and field its own candidates, some of whom could also run as Republicans.

Such a party, nationally or locally, needs to be bold and take on the oligarchy. There's no time to waste on this, as the oligarchy gets stronger every day.  And such candidates will meet howls of derision.  Locally Californian Chuck Gray, who ironically has looked like the Green Peace Secretary of State on some issues, will howl about how they're all Communist Monarchist Islamic Stamp Collectors.  And some will reason to howl, such as the wealthy landlord in the state's legislature.

The reason for that is simple.  Such a party would need to apply, and apply intelligently, the principals of subsidiarity, solidarity and the land ethic. It would further need to be scientific, agrarianistic, and distributist. 

The first thing, nationally or locally, that such a party should do is bad the corporate ownership of retail outlets.  Ban it.  That would immediately shift retail back to the middle class, but also to the family unit.  A family might be able to own two grocery or appliance stores, for example, but probably not more than that.

The remote and corporate ownership of rural land needs to come to an immediate end as well.  No absentee landlords.  People owning agricultural land should be only those people making a living from it.

That model, in fact, should apply overall to the ownership of land.  Renting land out, for any reason, ought to be severely restricted.  The maintenance of a land renting system, including residential rent, creates landlords, who too often turn into Lords.

On land, the land ethic ought to be applied on a legal and regulatory basis. The American concept of absolute ownership of land is a fraud on human dignity.  Ownership of land is just, but not the absolute ownership.  You can't do anything you want on your property, nor should you be able to, including the entry by those engaged in natural activities, such as hunting, fishing, or simply hiking, simply because you are an agriculturalist.

While it might be counterintuitive in regard to subsidiarity, it's really the case, in this context, that the mineral resources underneath the surface of the Earth should belong to the public at large, either at the state, or national, level.  People make no contribution whatsoever to the mineral wealth being there. They plant nothing and they do not stock the land, like farmers do with livestock.  It's presence or absence is simply by happenstance and allowing some to become wealthy and some in the same category not simply by luck is not fair.  It 

Manufacturing and distribution, which has been address, is trickier, but at the end of the day, a certain amount of employee ownership of corporations in this category largely solves the problem.  People working for Big Industry ought to own a slice of it.

And at some level, a system which allows for the accumulation of obscene destructive levels of wealth is wrong.  Much of what we've addressed would solve this.  You won't be getting rich in retail if you can only have a few stores, for example.  And you won't be a rich landlord from rent if most things just can't be rented.  But the presence of the massively wealthy, particularly in an electronic age, continues to be vexing.  Some of this can be addressed by taxation. The USCCB has stated  that "the tax system should be continually evaluated in terms of its impact on the poor.” and it should be.  The wealthy should pay a much more progressive tax rate.

These are, of course, all economic, or rather politico-economic matters. None of this addresses the great or stalking horse social issues of the day.  We'll address those, as we often have, elsewhere.  But the fact of the matter is, right now, the rich and powerful use these issues to distract.  Smirky Mike Johnson may claim to be a devout Christian, but he's prevented the release of names of men who raped teenage girls.  Donald Trump may publicly state that he's worried about going to Hell, but he remains a rich serial polygamist.  J.D. Vance may claim to be a devout Catholic, but he spends a lot of time lying through his teeth.

And, frankly, fix the economic issues, and a lot of these issues fix themselves.

A little noted trend. The Bride of Christ.

While the news likes to report on the decline in membership in "organized faith", or whatever, the Catholic Church in the United States will grow this year, and not through births, but through conversions.

More people are entering it, than leaving it.

The Catholic Church also now has more adherent faithful in the United Kingdom than the Church of England.

Secular France, but the First Daughter of the Church yet, is seeing a Catholic revival.

Scandinavia, a bastion of Protestantism, and then of secularism, is seeing a Catholic revival.  Small in overall numbers, it isn't in terms of what it represents.

Something, clearly, is going on.

Mid Week at Work. Three Mirrors.

 This blog, as we occasionally note has the intent . . . to try to explore and learn a few things about the practice of law prior to the current era. That is, prior to the internet, prior to easy roads, and the like. How did it work, how regional was it, how did lawyers perceive their roles, and how were they perceived?

Well, okay, clearly its strayed way beyond that, but it's retained that purpose and is focused on the period from around 1900 until around 1920, which makes a lot other things, indeed most things, off topic.

But this past week there were a collection of things we ran across that really do sort of focus in on that a bit, and given us an example of how things have changed.

Taking them in no particular order, we have the story of baseball player Tommy Brown, about whom we noted:

Seventeen year old Tommy Brown became the youngest player in Major League Baseball to hit a home run.  Brown had joined the Dodgers at age 16.

Brown provides a good glimpse into mid 20th Century America.  Nobody would think it a good thing for a 16 year old to become a professional baseball player now.  Moreover, the next year, when Brown was 18, he was conscripted into the Army, something that likely wouldn't happen now even if conscription existed.  He returned to professional baseball after his service, and played until 1953 and thereafter worked in a Ford plant until he retired, dying this year at age 97.  Clearly baseball, which was America's biggest sport at the time, didn't pay the sort of huge sums it does now.

Tommy "Buckshot" Brown as born on December 6, 1927 and January 15, 2025, and gives us a really good glimpse of the world of the late 1930s and 1940s.  He'd dropped out of school at age 12 in 1939 and went to work with his uncle as a dockworker.  Being a longshoreman is a notoriously dangerous job and frankly the occupation was heavily influenced by the mob at the time.  There's no earthly way that you could be hired as a longshoreman at age 12 now, nor should there be.  But life was like that then.  My father's father, who was born in 1907, I think, went to work at age 13.  

People did that.

If you are a longshoreman at age 12, you are a 12 year old adult.

He must have been a good baseball player to be hired on in the Majors at age 16.  If that happened now, you'd have to be one of the greatest players alive in the game. But this was during World War Two, and baseball was scraping.

It was scraping as the military was.  The service had taken pretty much all the able bodied men who weren't in a critical war industry.  We don't like to think this about "the Greatest Generation" now, but by 1944 and 1945, the Army was inducting me who were only marginally capable of being soldiers in normal times.  Men who were legally blind in one eye and who were psychotic were being taken in, and I'm not exaggerating.  The recent incident we reported here of a soldier going mad and killing Japanese POWs makes sense in this context.  It's relatively hard to get into the Army now.  After World War Two men inducted were in good physical and mental shape.  By the last days of the Second World War not all were and we knew it.

Brown's story also tells us a lot about what economic life was like mid century.  Obviously, baseball didn't make Brown rich, and there was no post baseball career associated with sports.  He went to work in a factory.

Going to work in a factory, in the 50s, was a pretty solid American job, and another story we touched on relates to this.

The US War Production Board removed most of its controls over manufacturing activity, setting the stage for a post war economic boom.

The US standard of living had actually increased during the war, which is not entirely surprising given that the US economy had effectively stagnated in 1929, and the US was the only major industrial power other than Canada whose industrial base hadn't been severely damaged during the war.  Ever since the war, Americans have been proud of the economics of the post war era, failing to appreciate that if every major city on two continents is bombed or otherwise destroyed, and yours aren't, your going to succeed.

Having said that, the Truman Administration's rapid normalization of the economy was very smart.  The British failed to do that to their detriment.

Americans of our age, and indeed since the 1950s, have really convinced themselves that American Ingenuity and native smartness caused us to have the best economy in the world in the third quarter of the 20th Century, and that if only we returned to the conditions of the 50s, we would again.

Well, the conditions of the 1950s were a lot like the conditions of the post war 1940s.  Every major city in the world, save for American and Canadian ones, had been damaged, and many had been bombed flat.   It's not as if Stuttgart, Stalingrad, or Osaka were in good shape.  We would have had to nearly intentionally mess up not to be the world's dominant economy and that went on all the way into the 1970s.  The UK did not really recover from World War Two, in part due to bad economic decisions, until the 1960s.  West Germany, ironically, recovered much quicker, but in no small part due to the return of refugee German economists who intentionally ignored American economic advice.  Japan emerged from the devastation in the 70s.  Italy really started to in the 60s.  

Many of these countries, when they did, emerged with brand new economies as things were brand new.  Japan is a good example, but then so is Italy, which had been a shockingly backwater dump until the mid 50s.

Russia, arguably, has never recovered, helping to explain its national paranoia.

The thing is, however, that the myth as been hugely damaging to Americans, who imagine that if we were only whiter and had "less regulation", etc., we'd be back in 1955.  It's not going to happen, and we can't tariff our way back to the Eisenhower Era.

Of course, a lot of that post war era wasn't all that nifty. We had the Cold War, for example, and we often dealt with significant inflation, in no small part to inflate our way out of enormous Cold War defense budgets. . .which is probably a warning of what's to come when we realize we have to do something about the national debt.

Finally, we had posted on women and careers.  Well, sort of.  Anyhow, right after that we saw a Twitter post in which a young woman who posted on TikTok was being discussed for say:

I'm just so tired of living and working and doing this every single day, and having nothing — I don't know how I'm gonna get childcare when I have to work 40 hours a week because I can't even afford to feed my family as is.  I'm having medical problems. I can't even get into the doctor because X rays and MRIs are 500, let alone a colonoscopy and endoscopy that I need. Like, I can't afford anything. My doctors cancel my appointments.

This world is just not meant to be like this, we need to make change for us, for each other. Please.

She's right.

This was under the heading, on her post, of "This world is a scam".

The world?  Well, that's a little too broad.  But the modernized industrialized Protestant work ethic world of the West?  You bet.

Interestingly, one of the things she took flak for was buying some sort of baby bottle washer.  It's been a long time since there were infants here, but when there were, I recall we tended to use sort of a disposable system, not real bottles.  Having said that, I looked bottles up, and I can recall that we had some of the ones that are still offered, so I'm likely wrong.  Anyhow, washing bottles is no doubt a pain.

The irate people, who are probably generally irate simply because she had children, and therefore is not fully lashed to the deck of the economic fraud everyone is participating in, seemed to think that this therefore meant she was rich.  Not hardly.

FWIW, I looked up baby bottle washers too, and they really aren't that expensive.  They no doubt probably save time.  Time is money and of course we need to get those wimmen's out in the workplace where they can serve the machine.

Women only entered the workplace at this level in the first place after domestic machinery freed, or seperated, their labor from the house, where it had previously been necessary.  You don't see women being criticized because their house contains a vacuum cleaner, or a dishwasher, even though this is not intrinsically different.  

Indeed, this tends to be the one area where the right and the left are in agreement, and will yell about how society needs more baby warehouses, um daycares.  The left, of course, goes further and discourages having children at all, and would indeed expand infanticide if it could, one of the issues that gave rise to the culture was and the populist revolve that we're still in.  

At any rate, she's right.  The world is not meant to be like this. We made this horror, and others.  We can fix it.

Wednesday, July 29, 1925. Traffic stop.

New York, July 29, 1925.

L'Osservatore Romano printed a long list of Fascist offenses against Catholics.

Italy announced a new law providing that any newspaper publishing attacks on the government that were "too strong and too frequent" would receive two warnings, after which the paper would no longer be recognized.

Mikis Theodorakis (Μιχαήλ "Μίκης" Θεοδωράκης), Greek composer known for Zorba the Greek's score, was born.

Last edition:

Tuesday, July 28, 1925. Léon Augustin Lhermitte

Labels: 1880s, 1887, 1920s, 1925, Agrarianism, Art, France, Women

St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori on the practice of law.

My friend, our profession is too full of difficulties and dangers; we lead an unhappy life and run risk of dying an unhappy death.

St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori.

Wyoming Catholic Cowboys - raw and real: As Yourself

Wyoming Catholic Cowboys - raw and real: As Yourself: See yourself in someone else.            https://youtu.be/dtVwIdNdC5Q         

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 95th edition. Making us a more barbaric society.

A headline in the CST relates:

US completes deportation of 8 men to South Sudan

We've read this story before.

William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!"

Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”

Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”

Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons: A Play in Two Acts.

The men were illegal immigrants from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Vietnam and South Sudan. They have criminal records.  South Sudan makes sense for somebody whose from South Sudan, but Vietnam?

This is barbaric, and once barbarism comes to a country, it doesn't just leave until everyone has been brutalized.

Last edition:

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 94th edition. Portents? The problem of Evil.

Labels: 1060s, 1066, 2020s, 2025, Catholic, Christianity, Disaster, Halley's Comet, Predictions, religion, Texas, The Big Ugly, The Second Trump Administration, Weather, Zeitgeist

Catholic Opposition to the Big Ugly.

Public Lands demand Action This Day.

 

It appears the Big Ugly Bill with Mike Lee's scheme to sell public lands that fall within the former putative state of Deseret, which he acts as if he represents, will occur today or tomorrow.

Call your people in Congress today and inform them you are opposed.

If you live in Wyoming, inform them that they better start putting in their resumes for post Congressional punditry right now, as you'll not vote for them for anything ever again.  They aren't representing you if they vote for this.

Cellmate of Boethius: IVF and a Half-Cath | June 11, 2025

Cellmate of Boethius: IVF and a Half-Cath | June 11, 2025

IVF and a Half-Cath | June 11, 2025

The Best Post of the Week of May 18, 2025.

It was quite a week.

We started the week off with a look at the Vietnamese Diaspora

A Sunday Morning look at the Vietnamese Diaspora.

And we delved into local politicians betraying local values.

Looking for Nate Champion.

The occupant of the Oval Office was on display again.

The Madness of King Donald. The 25th Amendment Watch List, Second Edition.

I posed a query to our readers, but received no response.

A query for the retired readers.

We noted a momentous anniversary for Christianity.

Thursday, May 20, 325. The opening of the Council of Nicea.

Republicans were all atwitter about alleged coverups of Joe Biden's decline, while they're covering up Donald Trump's.

The elephant in the room.

Some depressing news in the age of science denialism. 

Pandemic Part 10. A new paradigm?

Monday, May 21, 1945. British government falls apart, French mandates want out, Himmler arrested.

Women were on the blog a lot.

Mid Week At Work

Appearance. Shape and being in shape and women (men will come next).

We considered authenticity.

Occupational Identity and authenticity, a rambling thread.

Tuesday, May 22, 1945. Operation Unthinkable.

The amazing ability of the Palestinians to self sabotage.

The 2026 Wyoming Legislature, Part 1. The way too early edition.

The U.S. took a giant step towards economic disaster.

Subsidiarity Economics 2025. The Times more or less locally, Part 6. “Rarely has an economic policy been repudiated as soundly, and as quickly, as President Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs.”

Froma Harrop: The tax cut fantasy needs to end

Here's Six Ways Trump’s Budget Will Hurt Rural Americans

Saturday, May 23, 1925. Memorial Day Weekend.

Governor Gordon called  Chuck Gray out on the carpet.

Governor Gordon has enough of Chuck Gray.

Occupational Identity and authenticity, a rambling thread.

Occupational identity refers to the conscious awareness of oneself as a worker. The process of occupational identity formation in modern societies can be difficult and stressful. However, establishing a strong, self-chosen, positive, and flexible occupational identity appears to be an important contributor to occupational success, social adaptation, and psychological well-being. Whereas previous research has demonstrated that the strength and clarity of occupational identity are major determinants of career decision-making and psychosocial adjustment, more attention needs to be paid to its structure and contents. We describe the structure of occupational identity using an extended identity status model, which includes the traditional constructs of moratorium and foreclosure, but also differentiates between identity diffusion and identity confusion as well as between static and dynamic identity achievement. Dynamic identity achievement appears to be the most adaptive occupational identity status, whereas confusion may be particularly problematic. We represent the contents of occupational identity via a theoretical taxonomy of general orientations toward work (Job, Social Ladder, Calling, and Career) determined by the prevailing work motivation (extrinsic vs. intrinsic) and preferred career dynamics (stability vs. growth). There is evidence that perception of work as a calling is associated with positive mental health, whereas perception of work as a career can be highly beneficial in terms of occupational success and satisfaction. We conclude that further research is needed on the structure and contents of occupational identity and we note that there is also an urgent need to address the issues of cross-cultural differences and intervention that have not received sufficient attention in previous research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)

Skorikov, V. B., & Vondracek, F. W. (2011). Occupational identity. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research.

How some lawyers apparently want the public to imagine them.

A number of relatively recent experiences has lead me to post this thread.

Posted around town are some billboards by a lawyer who is apparently specializing in plaintiffs' cases and criminal defense.  I don't know him well, but I do know  him.

When I first met him, he came across, quite frankly, as a metrosexual.  I was quite surprised later on when I learned that he'd grown up on a ranch, and that he had a brother who now ran it.  Now, however, he appears on billboards with a huge mustache in Western attire and saddle and portrays himself as a cowboy.

And I guess, by cowboy, I mean both real cowboys and the movie image of a cowboy.

Cowboys, and that is of course a real occupation, have been a popular cultural image since the late 19th Century.  It's really interesting to me, as somebody who is a stockman and who has, accordingly, done a fair amount of cowboying, how cowboys continue to have a sort of wild image that they acquired in that time period.  I love working stock, but most of it isn't anything like what movies portray.  Maybe none of is, which is why  the popular Yellowstone television show tends to anger me.

Of course, being a lawyer isn't anything like portrayed on television either.

Anyhow, I never tell people that "I'm a cowboy", but I find that I"m referred to that way, in the working sense of the word, from time to time.  Or, people will refer to me as a rancher the same way from time to time.  I'm always a bit flattered when they do, as if I'd had my ruthers in the world, which I haven't, that's what I would have done full time.  I can't say its my occupational identity, however, as I'm well aware that I don't do it full time.

Affecting the image, however, miffs me.  It's fake.  If you simply come across that way, as you are naturally that way, that's one thing.  Using it to promote your legal career, however, is bullshit.

Indeed, on real cowboys, not all of which are men, today:

Come As You Are

I guess this gets back in a way to this thread:

A Nation of Slobs. But then. . .

If you are going to be a lawyer, look like one, it's what you actually are.

And, by the way, there's at least one politician in the state that does the same thing, and I'd have the same criticism about.  He's not a lawyer, but a commercial landlord.  

Anyhow, it also gets to the weird association that the law picked up at some point with cowboys around here.  I don't know when this occurred, but it might have been about the time that Gerry Spence's book Gunning for Justice came out.  Spence didn't try to portray himself as a cowboy, but he did take on a Western influenced style, wearing a fringed jacket and a cowboy hat as a matter of course.  Spence being sui generis has been able to consistently pull that off whereas those copying him tend to look absurd.

Anyhow, "Gunning for Justice" is actually a phrase that's been around for awhile and he didn't introduce it, as t his movie poster from 1948 demonstrates:

Spence's use of it, however, seem to have pushed into another sort of use, at least locally.

On this, it's interesting that the cowboy image can be coopted this way, whereas other "manly" professions genuinely cannot.  Fighters (boxers) have been a little bit, and I suppose that was an obviously one, but nobody, for example, talks about "whaling for justice".

Anyhow, dressing up like a cowboy for affect if you are not punching makes you a Rexall Ranger, not a cowboy.

While I'm at it, a Wyoming lawyer has affected the cowboy appearance for her columns on one of the local electronic journals.  In this case, she's gone for the a way too big hat big pushed way up on the forehead so you can see the face look, which to a working stockman looks absolutely absurd.  The same journal actually as a working rancher who wears his hat correctly as a columnist, and up until recently had another who did the same.

As a total side, if you notice in old cowboy portraits they often have their hats pushed to the back of their head, something moderns have wondered about, and for which they've even assumed that must be how they wore them.

No, the cameras were bad.

Isom Dart at Brown’s Hole Wyoming.

If they hadn't pushed them up some, their faces would have been in shadow

On identifies, I had a couple of odd encounters recently, one of which involves mental decline, and the other which involves gender attraction.

I'll start with the latter one first.  There's an older profession that I don't know well, but who've I've been familiar with for a very long time.  Somebody much more familiar with him than me dropped that he's a homosexual.  I was shocked.  Not because homosexuality in general shocks me, but because it was very well closeted for decades.  Indeed, he's married with children.

I suppose that might be the rule for people north of 70, the closteting, that is.

In retrospect, it pretty quickly made sense for some reason.  It just explained some personality quirks that I'd long noticed.  The point of posting it here, however, is that if it's true, he's lived a lifetime with sort of an interesting strained identity.

He's not the only one I know of who is alleged to be in this category.  Frankly a fairly well known person in the region is claimed by some insiders to fit this as well.  In that case, it's more notable for his public opinions on things, which would be generally contrary to this inclination, assuming its true.

Now, I'll note that I have the typically misunderstood Catholic views on homosexuality.  I'll also note that one of these individuals is a co-religious, and the other was.  My only real point in noting all of this is to note that it must be a strain to live an entire life with a sort of false identity, assuming that its true in either case, which I can't really say for sure.

I'll also note that homosexuals of that vintage who did not present themselves as "gay", which is different, may have had a better understanding of marriage than many.  Catholic Answers Hugh Barbour defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman to produce children for the worship of God, which while it may be more than that, that captures a lot of it.  People like to say that before Obergefell homosexuals couldn't marry, but that's simply false, if we consider that marriage is a unique institution between two people capable of reproducing and bound to care for those they create.

Going on to occupations, I've also run across recently a situation in which I've been dealing with somebody whom, once again, I don't know that well but who is still working fulltime and whose clearly suffering from some compression loss in the psychological cylinders.  I'm not their pal or anything but it's sad to watch.  It's also sad to watch, however, somebody whose psychological identify is so closely identified with the practice of law, they can't leave it.

I've known more than one lawyer who practiced into advanced old age with no mental detriment.  But it's also the case quite frankly that a person's physical clockworks, and often their mental ones, start to slip a bit after the hands hit 60 or so.  I'm frankly not convinced at all that allowing people to practice a profession after some point in their 60s is a good thing, and I don't think people should carry on into their 70s.  For one thing, it's just sad.  Surely there was something else that interested them once.

Back to occupational identities.

One of the really minor features of this blog is the M65 Field Jackets in the wild. page.  Minor.

I like M65 field jackets.  When I was in the Guard I had at least six of them due to having bought two and having been issued four more.  The reason I was issued four is that at Ft. Sill the switch from OG-107 to BDU was going on and we were issued OD field jackets. As soon as I got back, we were issued BDU field jackets, and told to keep the old ones.

I gave one of the OD ones to a girlfriend who had need of a jacket while I was in university, and then eventually I just got to big, i.e,. gained weight, or filled out, whatever, and couldn't wear the size I'd been issued.  But I still had the next larger size, Large Regular.

Well, time, etc.

A surplus store here had a whole bunch of uniform items here before they went out of business and I bought several BDU ones.  I just really like them.  I picked up a OD one for my son, as they're a nice coat, but naively didn't for myself.  The OD ones you can wear for daily wear really.

Well, here recently I found a Greek Lizard pattern one for sale and I bought it for hunting.  Which meant that I had three woodland pattern ones, one desert pattern one (a gift of an old soldier) and a Lizard pattern one.  Then I saw the current multicam pattern one for sale on Ebay, which I ordered.  Finally, I decided I needed an OD one and bought one of those off of ebay.

Some of these have the US Army tape on them.  One, the multicam one, came with paratrooper wings from the former and his name tape.  I took the name tape off and the paratrooper wings.  I'm not a paratrooper.  The OD one came with a name tape, the U.S. Army tape, and two unit patches.  I took everything off but the US Army tape.

For reasons that are silly, and I can't explain, I ended up ordering name tapes.  I can now sew those on.

Why?  I'm not sure.  I don't need name tapes on old uniform items for any rational reason.  Rather, I was required to do it back in the day, and I still feel like am now.  Indeed, it would make a lot more sense to take the US Army patch off the OD one so I can use it for its intended purpose of regular daily wear.

Odd

Well, I found a M1943 replica on sale and ordered it.  It won't have any patches.

I need to stop buying them.

As a further aside, a Carhartt coat is much warmer.  My old one is pretty much blown out now.  It was a gift from my wife and I've been resisting getting a new one, even though I need to.  Guess I'm hoping for another one as a gift so that I don't have to buy it.

Back to occupational identities for a moment.  It occured to me how, when I was young, men had much less of one. They genuinely seemed more well rounded than men do today

People always like to claim things were different, if not outright perfect, when they were young.  But it does seem to me that genuinely men were quite family oriented. That meant that their professions and occupations were focused on providing for their families, but it also meant that their professions tended not to be all that they were, including to themselves.  I can vaguely recall some men who were very career oriented being criticized for it.

Every man that I knew when I was young tended to almost be identified by a collection of interests.  Medical professionals were often hunters and fishermen.  Indeed, I don't know one who wasn't.  Some were dramatically so.  Men who had come into professions from farms and ranches tended to still be identified with their origin and retain some contacts with that life.  I knew a fireman who was a pretty good amature geologist, another who was a car restorer, and another who was the first long distance runner I ever knew.  More recently professionals, or at least lawyers, have almost become cartoons of themselves in some instances, only engaging in the law or perhaps one activity that's sort of socially approved for lawyers.

It isn't good.

Last Sunday I ran this item:

Pack Animals - the 🇩🇪 German Mountain Infantry Brigade

I knew that the Bundesheer has a mountain infantry brigade.

I've sometimes thought that if I had been born in Germany, which I'm very much glad I was not, I'd have opted for a career with this unit.  Outdoors. . . animals, etc.  By the same token, if I had been born French, there's the Chasseurs Alpins.

Hmmm. . . 

Well, I didn't opt for a career with the Wyoming Game & Fish, so I'm probably just fooling myself.

Have a nice day at work.  

Mehr Mensch sein,

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist 83d Edition. The law and refusal to depart, departing in the worst way, echoes of service.

The old lawyers.

I was on a phone hearing recently and one of the lawyers, whom I used to run into a fair amount but have not for years, sounded really rough.  In a subsequent phone call he sounded the same way, and I looked up his firm photo and realized he is now 76 years old.

76.

What the crap?

In his photo, he looked haggard and ancient.

I was at something else not too long ago and saw another lawyer I used to run into a fair amount, who always had a youthful appearance even though I knew he was at least  decade.  I was shocked by his appearance.  

He's now 83.  He might just be practicing part time, I'd note.

I spoke to a lawyer friend of mine who is now up over 70, I think.  He doesn't appear worn or drawn down, but he told me that he's afraid of retiring as he enjoys the social interaction of the lawyers.  We discussed another lawyer who is a friend of his whom I figure is now in his mid 70s.

 There's something deeply wrong with all of this.

This reflects, I'll note, in our society at large, of course.  Our last qualified President, Joe Biden was in his 80s, and clearly suffering from mental decline, when he left office in defeat.  A recent book regarding the 2024 election reports, in hte opinion of hte authors, that Biden believes he's smarkter than everyone else which formed the basis of his disaterous decision.  Our current chief executive is also, in my view, suffering from dementia at an increasing rate that can't be ignored, but which is largely being ignored, even as he destroys the economy, foreign relations, and American democracy.  He also seems to suffer from "only I can do it" delusion, and on at least one occasion in the 2024 campaign said as much.

Biden was a lawyer, eons ago.  Trump is a real estate developer, so that's a bit off point. But there's something really pathetic about lawyers who practice past their 60s.  I'm in my early 60s, I'd note.  They've lost something of their soul, if not their souls in general, and have nothing left but their work.*

There's also something societally wrong with a society that allows this to occur.  I'll avoid the political discussion, but mental decline is inevitable in almost everyone who lives past their 50s.  People don't want to believe it, but it's absolutely true.

And beyond that, society should not encourage the elderly to occupy positions such as this past their mid 60s.  It takes up space that should be filled by younger people.  By that point a peson should be ready to retire, and if they're not, they're never going to be ready, economically.  Talent wise, they should apply their talents and time to something else.

Read a book, train a dog, go fishing.  Discovery the person you were when you started out, and the one you apparently lost.

Mehr Mensch sein.

Service.

Vietnam service ribbon.

This will be an odd one, and it'll sound difficult not to make it should like I'm being unduly critical.

We've been running a lot of posts recently about the collapse of South Vietnam in 1975.  Nearly daily, as we're in the cycle in which things were becoming a disaster for the Republic of Vietnam, and a war which we entered in the early 1960s, and left in 1973, was about to be lost by the country we supported.

I note this as it's struck me for a long time how many professionals I know, including lawyers, who are of the Vietnam War generation and have no military service.

Not all, I'll note.  One former Federal District Court judge here was an artillery observer in Vietnam, and a lawyer in our capital city was an artilleryman.  Two state district court judges I know served in Vietnam.  And a few other lawyers I know did.

But by and large, most didn't.

It's interesting in a number of ways, one being that it's likely their father's all had served in World War Two.

Now, the Second World War was a huge war, to be sure.  But as a member of Generation Jones, when I was growing up, it was the case that if our fathers hadn't served in World War Two, they had in the Korean War, or on either side of it.  Growing up, this was so routine you simply assumed it.  I recall always being surprised if a kid I knew had a father who had never served in the Armed Forces, and this included professionals.  All the doctors and dentists that my father was friends with had served in World War Two or in the Armed Forces after that.  I didn't know but one lawyer then, but he'd served in the Post War Army and later on the older lawyers I knew who were of World War Two vintage had served, often quite heroically, in the war.

Baby Boom generation male lawyers?  Not so much.

I don't think that's a good thing, frankly.  War is awful but most American servicemen who served in the 60s nad early 70s didn't see a day of fighting.  The Service is full of men who aren't like you, who didn't grow up like you, and don't have any of your per service shared experiences.  That's valuable.

Lots of those guys would have been better men had they served.**  Donald Trump would have been.

And American society would be.  We really started dividing the country back into the haves, and have nots, but allowing so many who could afford an education to avoid serving.  It helped split hte country into the mess it is now.***

"Biased, Misguided WY Judges and Lawyers."

So claimed Wyoming's Congressional delegation about a letter signed by over 100 Wyoming lawyers.

I'm not a signatory to it as, frankly, I was too busy to notice its circulation when it was going around.  The letter is 100% correct, however.  I know a lot of the lawyers who did sign it, and more of a few of them are actual conservatives, and a few of them were once very significant figures in the Wyoming Republican Party, including those who were elected to office.  

Moreover, at least two of the three of the Congressional delegation itself are not anywhere near as populist as they now assert they are.  All three of these figures would have supported this letter under different circumstances, and two out of the three undoubtedly still hold the view that the lawyers are right, but are taking their positions as they do not wish to anger Trump supporters.  If the wind turns, they'll turn with it so rapidly that it will toss MAGA right off the decks.

All of which is profoundly sad.  That people hold one view and then express another one publicly is no doubt common, but it's not admirable, and is far from admirable in a situation like this.   It’s one of the things that’s really wrong with American politics today.

It is interesting t have even with the taking of extreme positions like this, at least one refused to publicly adopt the extreme Executive Power doctrine that’s being exercised now, while at the same time, not disavowing it.  John Barrasso, when asked if the President really had the power to levy tariffs the way he is (he doesn’t) just twice said that Congress had delegated a lot of power to the President.  It has.  It’s not a good thing, and he wouldn’t say that it is.

It does make sitting back and letting things happen easier.  The entire country is going to suffer massively due to Trump, and Wyoming is going to take a bruising.  It’d be far better to stand up and say so now, and take the lumps if they come, then to excuse your conduct later.

Footnotes

*Coincidentally, I saw this in our local newspaper in an advice column.

Dear Eric: I was an attorney when I started having memory problems at age 65. I retired and subsequently learned that I had a devastating rare dementia with a very short lifespan. Instead of providing me support, my friends disappeared from my life, at the time I needed them most. Friends may rally around you when you have cancer, driving you to chemo treatments, dropping off food and other things to support you; when you have dementia, everyone just disappears.

I’ve always been a sociable person and I’m missing that so much, but I have no idea how or where to start. Any ideas?

Students navigate campus atmosphere, social changes to find connection

– Left By Friends

Dear Friends: People sometimes don’t know what to do or say when confronted with illness, but that’s no excuse for your friends’ behavior and I’m sorry. The Alzheimer’s Association (alz.org) has a wealth of resources for people with dementia, including support groups, both online and in-person. Being able to talk with others about what you’re experiencing and feeling will help with isolation.

This also might be a time for you to explore new volunteer opportunities or social groups that have nothing to do with dementia, depending on your care plan and abilities. You are a person who is worthy of connection, with a wealth of experiences and knowledge from which others can benefit. Your company would be welcomed at a senior center, a local outing group or an organization that aligns with your interests and values. If you have anxiety about navigating these spaces with dementia, or need accommodation in order to feel safe, please don’t hesitate to reach out in advance and talk to a group leader about how you can participate most comfortably.

Eric is surprised that his fellow lawyers quit associating with him.

He likely ought not to be.

I don't think it's that people don't know what to say or do.  I think that people fail to appreciate that workplace social contacts are, to a very high degree, extremely casual or even business contacts, and that once the professional is not employed, at least in teh law, the value of that person to others in the law is gone.

In other words, this doesn't surprise me a bit. 

**I'd note that I feel the same way about men who weren't in the service, but who worked a blue collar or agricultural job.  Those employments are levelling in a way, and I've noticed that men of the same generation who were never in the Armed Forces, but worked as roughnecks or came from ranches and farms, are much more accepting generally of other people.

***And, ironically, it also started the country off on the hyper glorification of those who have been in the service.

Last edition:

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist 82nd Edition. The This Is Your Economy On Dementia Edition.

Labels: 2024 Election, Donald Trump, Education, Greenland, J. D. Vance, Mental Health, Military, Sanewashing, The roles of men and women, The Second Trump Administration, U.S. Space Force, Weird, Wyoming, Zeitgeist