The Secretary of Agriculture reports that if you don't like beef prices, you can switch to chicken or pork.
That's frankly quite true, and it's a thing that producers need to worry about. Pork was the primary meat for most Americans up until the post Civil War era. Once people make a major shift in diet, they tend to stick with it.
September 21, 1946 advertisement from the American Meat Institute featuring a leg of lamb.
On this topic, the news relates that a top Texas BBQ joint will no longer offer beef brisket. Too expensive. That isn't a good sign.
Also regarding meat, the USDA is recalling 167,000 lbs of uninspected beef, pork and goat meat.
On all of this, the meat prices would be easy to blame on Trump, as the Wharton School of Business seems to be economically incompetent. This, however, is largely due to other factors, although I don't know how to explain the inspection glitch.
One thing that will impact the price of meat. . .and everything else, is the price of fuel. Indeed, after a year that featured record cattle prices, for those who had cattle to sell, profits are now being lost to diesel fuel.
A common cry out there in the hinterlands right now is to impose an export ban on diesel fuel. Such a ban was in place from 1975 to 2015. It's really debated what lifting the ban would do. Midwest GOP candidates started crying for it recently, but Wyoming's Congressional representation opposes it. That doesn't tell us much, however, as Wyoming's delegation probably wouldn't oppose a proposal to nuke the state.
Anyhow, Trump indicated support for a temporary ban, and then energy secretary Chris Wright walked it back, which is extremely interesting, particularly as farmers in the Midwest are now having real second thoughts about King Donald now that they realize he's fucking them with his policies, and not other people they didn't car about.
A popular Trump line right now is that you don't mind paying more for fuel as you don't want Iran to have a nuke.
M'eh.
Secretary Rollins took a similar tone on the price of beef.
Instead of eating less beef as the price continued to rise, Americans began to eat more beef. And even though the price of a pound of ground beef was $6.50, most Americans say, 'I'm good with that. I want this protein for my family.' So they continue to buy.
Um, sure.
When, by the way, did everyone start calling meat "protein". Knock it off.
I don't know if it will, but that's the prediction being made by those working on it.
And within ten years.
Frankly, I think AI is wholly negative and that we'd be better off it it was impossible to develop. But it isn't, and we've never been able to restrain anything we've developed. What I think the likely consequences are, however, is that it proves so destructive it may end up undoing much of the computer development that's come to date, as a defense to it.
Trump assures us that whatever comes out of it will be "mostly good".
Nothing good will come out of it whatsoever.
Boo
Ted Cruz was so loudly booed that he could hardly be heard in an ESPN interview from Austin.
Cruz deserves to be booed. He's one of worst examples of Republican toadyism in Congress today.
Big statute
Donald Trump, who was in Ireland when I last checked, has proposed that a 30-foot “Washington Colossus” be built to replace a modernist sculpture outside the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History. He's ordering the institution to put on a Washington exhibition in advance of the late President's 300th birthday.
It's interesting that Trump is interested in Washington. Washington would not have been keen on Trump.
Trump doesn't like the piece of modernist art that's in front of the Smithsonian. It doesn't do much for me either, but I don't hate it.
The odd interesting thing here is that Trump spends so much time messing with the architecture of Washington D. C. A big statute of George Washington wouldn't necessarily be bad, as long as it wasn't gilded, but Trump's taste in things is generally complete crap.
Trump golfs in Ireland. M'eh
Classic example of street level Irish speech, which is often really foul. Posted under fair use exception.
Tá Trump ag imirt gailf in Éirinn. B’fhéidir go mbeidh an t-ádh linn agus go bhfanfaidh sé ann.
An opinion that nobody cares about.
Trump ventured an opinion that Ireland should be united, by which he meant that Northern Ireland should be incorporated into the Irish republic.
That immediately brought rebuke from Na hUltaigh, who didn't appreciate the US President making the comment. Southern Irish, who have protested his presence in their country, most likely just ignored it.
At any rate, this isn't something that a US President has any business commenting on in the first place.
And, speaking of comments. . .
Open the North Sea
A reporter asked Trump when petroleum prices were going to go down, which was a veiled way to basically saying when is your stupid war going to end, Donald.
Trump replied that oil prices in Ireland would go down as soon as the Irish opened the North Sea.
Wha?
The North Sea is between Great Britain and Scandinavia.
In terms of water depth, while the North Sea is deep, it is shallow enough to be exploited and the seabed is associated with the continental landmass, which is why there are petroleum deposits there.
And the plan is. . .?
FWIW, the North Sea is reaching its terminal production date pretty quick. Most of the petroleum has already been extracted, at least from the British areas. BP is pulling out.
On this, it was North Sea petroleum that made Norway rich. Norway is expanding its production, but the time is coming.
It's coming for Wyoming too.
The plan?
Well, there isn't one. Screaming at the news seems to be the plan.
Shutting down the supply
It's not only the case that King Donald has not managed to restore pre war shipping conditions to the Persian Gulf, over the past week new hazardous conditions were created in Red Sea by the Houthis, Iranian allies and clients, who further caused Saudi Arabia to shut down a transarabian pipeline. All petroleum is back up over $100/bbl.
And in spite of what the Trump administration would have people believe, Venezuelan oil will take at least four years to hit the market in significant quantities to matter, if not ten.
Inflation
Inflation is clearly decelerating even with this slight uptick.
Keven Hassett.
Um. . .okay.
Chickens.
Chuck Gray and Harriet Hageman are refusing to debate their opponents.
That fact alone should mean that they forfeit any votes in the upcoming election.
Their refusal is arrogant at best.
It's noteworthy that neither one of them is any good at debating under stress, and debates this time would be stressful. Both of them tend to just go hostile when pressed.
Voters shouldn't let either of them get away with this.
We're making a fortune. So if the Republicans win, you win with us and you get $5,000. It will be called the Trump Dividend. Congratulations.
Donald Trump at the GOP Midterm Convention.
A person would have to be stupid on stilts to believe that promise, and a similar one has been extended before.
Seriously, what kind of a dumbass believes anything Trump promises at this point?
The fact that the GOP is having a "Midterm" convention is itself an example of outright desperation and hubris on the part of Trump. Trump loves Trump and you must love Trump, so he's reminding you of Trump Love so that you love him and vote for the GOP candidates to show your mindless cult like love.
The fact of the matter is that everything associated with Trump is going badly and his approval ranking is sinking like a rock. In Wyoming it's down to 54% and the impact of the tariffs on Canada haven't even hit yet, much. The war hasn't ended, inflation is about to ramp back up, and Trump's own weirdness is now too weird for anyone to ignore. The result is that Democrats, who were slated to take back the House, now appear likely to take back the Senate as well. Even in Wyoming there's some hint that the Senate may be in play and it's clear that a large number of people really aren't keen on Chuck Gray, who has been pretty quiet since the primary.
Indeed, I've seen a little lashing out at John Barrasso, who isn't running for anything. Now days we mostly see Dr. John looking at Donald Trump as if he, Barrasso, is suffering from a severe case of constipation. He may be, as he's kept his true views on everything, none of which we know, bottled up inside of himself for so long. Anyhow, if people are mad at Barrasso, who seems to have forgotten which state he's from, it doesn't bode well for Hageman and Gray, although they are both clearly the favorites.
This does bring us to some questions that should be asked in the next two months, however. Those being:
1. Do you support the undeclared war against Iran, and if yes, how do you justify no declaration of war existing?
2. On data centers, a big deal here in Wyoming, are you against them like seemingly the majority of Wyomingites are, or for them, like Donald Trump is?
3. What is your position on public lands?
4. For people who go outside, there are clearly environmental matters to be concerned about. Do you have any concerns, and if no, just don't tell us "it's a big fib", as that's just telling us that you'll lie for votes. What is your justification?
5. Epstein files. Why aren't they being released.
6. What is your real plan for balancing the budget and addressing the debt and show us that it works.
7. Do you support ending the trade war with Canada?
A note, prior endorsements on running candidates are below. I'm doing that in this edition so as to not clog up the first part of it too much.
September 11, 2026
Two events occured yesterday which should; 1) cause a sane nation to invoke the 25th Amendment and 2) cause every Republican running for office to have to answer where they stand or never be voted on again.
The first.
Trump sworn his acolytes in so that they will be able to be called up as Long Knives to attack the upcoming Republican defeat in November.
It's not the pledge to go out and vote. Frankly, most MAGA isn't paying any attention this anyway.
It's the pledge to cheat.
Things Trump says cannot any longer be dismissed. People who think that one liner means nothing are ignoring recent history. He intends to steal the election. If he pulls that off, if he's still living and semi coherent, he intends to serve a third term.
The second was a truly bizarre video based on the Paul Harvey "God made farmers" video of years ago with a "God gave us Trump" theme.
This latches on to the extreme Evangelical leg of the MAGA stool. It would make most Christians of any branch absolutely cringe, and to claim a Divine mission like this may be very well blasphemous.
The questions that should be asked, and of any Republican candidate?
1. Will you support the results of the November election no matter what they are. If there's any hedging at all, tell the person they don't have your support for anything whatsoever.
2. Do you believe that Trump has a Divine mission? Any answer than an unqualified no should disqualify the candidate.
I can guarantee you that almost any GOP candidate, particularly if they don't know your view going into the question, will waffle and not give a straight answer.
Prior endorsements and race list:
And so we're off and running for the General Election, which in Wyoming's case means the election is pretty much over for the statewide races. Sure, the contest officially carries on, but chances are that the Republican nominees will take everything.
Still, this year, there's a chance, here and there. . .
So, our early predictions.*
Governor:
Republican. Eric Barlow
Barlow is a rancher, veterinarian, and long time legislature.
He's won this race and the General Election in this case is a mere formality.
Democrat. Kenneth Casner
75 year old making his third pointless bid for the Governor's office. He won't win, everyone knows he won't win, and he shouldn't be running.
Casner's appearance says something, however, about the state of the Democratic Party in Wyoming, and it's the opposite of what's happening in much of the rest of the country. In much of the country Democratic voters are rising up and tossing out geezer candidates, but in Wyoming the Democratic ranks are so depleted the Democrats are falling back on them, which is not a good sign.
Casner would have done his party a favor if he hadn't run.
Constitution Party: Rebecca Bextel.
The Constitution Party is a gadfly far right political party which was once the home of people who now populate the Wyoming Freedom Caucus. Indeed, it's their proper home, which shows in the one candidate of theirs which we know to exist, Rebecca Bextel.
The central figure in CheckGate, Bextel is flat out delusional and is running as she feared that Brent Bien would lose and there would not be any candidates running for the true interpretation of the Double Secret Constitution known only to the Wyoming Freedom Caucus. Bextel appears to seriously believe that Barlow could only win if vast hoards of Democrats, which don't exist in Wyoming crossed over to vote for Barlow and that in the general election the great mass of MAGA/WFC true believers will carry the day.
With the WFC having received a titanic dope slap in the primary, a rational person in her position would drop out. But then, running as a Constitution Party candidate shows demonstrated irrationality.
Endorsement: Barlow by far.
Secretary of State
Republican: Robert Short.
Short is an excellent choice and will take the office.
Democrat: Bryan McCarthy.
McCarty actually has an impressive business background and has worked as an auditor. He should be given credit for running, although he probably should have run for State Auditor.
He's going to lose and it's not even going to be close.
Endorsement: Robert Short.
State Auditor
Republican Kristi Racines won an uncontested Republican primary race and no Democrats ran.
State Treasurer
Curt Meier won his bid to run again in the primary for the Republicans and no Democrats ran.
Senator
Republican: Harriet Hageman.
63 (soon to be 64) year old incumbent Congressman with a terrible record on public lands who came up due to the "hate Cheney" wave two years ago. If she wins, she'll be 70 at the end of her first term.
Democrat: James Byrd.
72 year old former legislator, geophysicist, and businessman. Really impressive overall, but he is in his 70s.
This race features two candidates who are pushing what we regard age limits. Hageman is a nightmare of a candidate however.
Byrd actually stands a chance in this race, but it's a real uphill battle.
Endorsement: We won't vote for Hageman, which leaves Byrd the only realistic choice, and by and large he's a good one, but we aren't doing an endorsement yet.
House of Representatives
Republican: Chuck Gray
Gray is a carpetbagger about whom Wyomingites know utterly nothing, other than he's an adoring sycophant of Donald Trump, he sent Wyoming's voter rolls to the Federal Government illegally, he has a nasty public personality, and he's a Californian who went to Wharton. About him personally, we know utterly nothing.
Having received only 25% of the primary vote, his election to the House can't be assured.
Democrat: Lisa Kinney
About the worst candidate the Democrats could have chosen for this position, 75 year old Kinney can't win the office and is a remnant of an earlier era in more ways than one. Her being the nominee is a sign of the absolutely pathetic state of the Wyoming Democratic Party.
Libertarian: Shaun Johnson
Like the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party has become so obscure their state's organization doesn't even list their candidates. This is the only one we know to exist.
Johnson is a lawyer presently in Thermopolis. I don't think he stands a chance, but I'll note that former Wyoming legislator Tim Stubson, who once ran for Congress, has endorsed him, which shows the depth to which a lot of Republicans despise Chuck Gray.
Write In: Kevin Christensen?
A building movement to mount a write in campaign for Christensen, who ran in the GOP primary, exists. He came up late in the primary election and got 21,632 to Chuck's 31,222. While that's about 9,000 more votes, both Balow and Gilat, both seen as early possibilities for defeating Chuck, received over 10,000 votes. Even gadfly Reid Rasner received a little over 10,000 votes.
If we had Alaska's system, Christensen, along with Friess and Balow, would be on the election in the Fall. If we had the system in which the top two vote getters were on the ballot, Gray and Friess would be. Given all of this, there's a really strong indicator that many of those who voted for a candidate other than Gray would vote for Christensen.
Overall, therefore, this race remains in a state of flux while its seen if enough momentum can build up to create a write in campaign for Christensen against a well funded Chuck.
Endorsement: Kevin Christensen. I'm early in doing this, and I note that some disaffected Republicans are saying they'll vote for Kinney. But Kinney is at best a lesser of two evils.
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Republican: Steve Harshman
Harsham is a long time Wyoming educator from Natrona County who was in the legislature for many years. He's an excellent choice for this office.and he will win it.
Democrat: Ana Cordova.
Cordova won the contested Democratic primary. She's a Wyoming native and extremely well educated. She only returned to the state recently, however, and really has no chance in this race.
So, depending upon ranchers and farmers to be absolute saps, Trump published two executive ordres that largely do nothing.
The first one:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Policy. Ranchers play a vital role in our Nation’s food supply chain and cultural heritage. These hardworking Americans ensure that our country has a reliable domestic source of high-quality animal protein products, and a secure, plentiful domestic ranching industry vindicates this country’s food security. But the national herd is at a 75-year low, while consumer demand for beef has grown almost 10 percent over the past decade. My Administration has already acted to support ranchers by, for example: enforcing voluntary “Product of USA” labeling to give American ranchers the recognition they deserve for producing in the United States; mapping over 2 million additional acres of grazing land managed by the Department of the Interior and identifying nearly 1.6 million acres of vacant allotments managed by the United States Forest Service and opening them for Federal grazing permit applications across the West; withdrawing burdensome Biden-era regulations that imposed substantial compliance costs in the name of speculative environmental benefits; and implementing a number of financially beneficial tax law changes for ranchers, such as lowering Death Taxes and promoting more rapid expensing and depreciation policies. More can and should be done to support this critical industry, and my Administration will continue to act to protect our domestic producers.
Sec. 2. Comprehensive Policy and Regulatory Review. Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Interior, the United States Trade Representative, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, and the Administrator of the Small Business Administration shall submit to the President a report that assesses all executive department and agency (agency) regulations, guidance, and other agency policies affecting ranchers and that provides recommendations for action to promote financial viability and enhanced market access for American ranchers consistent with this order.
Sec. 3. Helping Ranchers Combat Predation. Within 90 days of the date of this order:
(a) The Secretary of the Interior shall make a determination as to whether the gray wolf and the Mexican wolf have met the recovery criteria for delisting or downlisting under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and, if he determines that the recovery criteria has been met, shall begin the process of delisting or downlisting them.
This is really horseshit but plays into the old ranching belief that every predator must be killed. M'eh.
(b) The Secretary of the Interior, in coordination with the Assistant to the President and Director of Legislative Affairs, shall prepare and submit to the President a legislative recommendation to fully delist or downlist the gray wolf and the Mexican wolf under the ESA.
(c) Upon a determination by the Secretary of the Interior that the ESA recovery criteria has been met with respect to the gray wolf and the Mexican wolf, the Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, in coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall engage with States to encourage them to delist gray wolves and Mexican wolves from any State-specific lists of protected species and to revise their standards for lethal takings of gray wolves and Mexican wolves to assist ranchers in combating predation.
(d) The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall consider developing or amending their respective Departments’ producer compensation regulations, evidentiary standards, and program handbooks, consistent with applicable law, to ensure that all depredation claims adjudicated by their respective Departments are consistently, accurately, and expeditiously assessed, including by setting adequate standards to investigate depredations by gray wolves and Mexican wolves and by considering additional factors beyond subcutaneous hemorrhaging when appropriate.
(e) The Secretary of the Interior shall consider amending regulations or providing additional guidance, consistent with applicable law, to revise the Department’s criteria for authorizing lethal gray wolf and Mexican wolf removal and to enable greater emergency responsiveness, including precision targeting, for situations involving predator threats to human safety or threats to domestic livestock.
Sec. 4. Country-of-Origin Labeling. Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the United States Trade Representative, shall review all statutory and regulatory authorities that may permit the establishment of mandatory country-of-origin labeling for beef products and shall provide the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy with a summary of such authorities as well as an economic analysis of the impacts of mandatory country-of-origin labeling that reflects current conditions and modernized practices. Based on these assessments, the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the United States Trade Representative and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, may issue or amend regulations, to the extent permitted under applicable law, to require mandatory country-of-origin labeling for beef products, or may, in further coordination with the White House Office of Legislative Affairs, develop legislative recommendations regarding such labeling.
Sec. 5. Supporting American Consumers. To the extent consistent with applicable law, the head of each agency shall take such steps as may be appropriate to ensure that the measures directed in this order, as well as other measures taken by my Administration with respect to food production and supply, benefit American consumers in the form of lower prices to the maximum extent possible.
Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of Agriculture.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 4, 2026.
Well, there you go. Reviewing, considering, and probably shooting gray wolves.
That's not going to do diddly, but some ranchers will be besotted enough to believe that it will.
Saps.
Here's the other one.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose. American ranchers want to be able to butcher, process, package, and sell their meat to consumers across State lines while maintaining the highest standards of food safety and avoid being overcharged by monopolistic practices by meat processors. It is the policy of the United States to support these goals and reduce barriers to ranchers processing their own product for sale to consumers by promoting fair competition in livestock and meat markets; protecting producers and small processors from unfair, deceptive, or monopolistic practices; and expanding legitimate market opportunities for American-raised livestock and meat products consistent with applicable law. This order directs more vigorous enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (Public Law 67-51, 42 Stat. 159,7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) (the “Act”), and the maximum use of existing authorities to facilitate greater interstate market access for eligible meat products while maintaining the highest standards of food safety that help make United States born, raised, harvested, and processed food the best in the world.
Sec. 2. Robust Enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act. (a) The Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) shall, consistent with the Act, and all other applicable law:
(i) prioritize and expand investigations into potential violations of the Act by packers and other covered entities, with particular attention to unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practices; undue or unreasonable preferences or advantages; and practices that restrain commerce or manipulate prices;
(ii) increase resources, staffing, and investigative capacity within the Packers and Stockyards Division of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service, the USDA Office of General Counsel, and the USDA Office of Inspector General;
(iii) coordinate closely with the Department of Justice (DOJ), in keeping with the September 26, 2025, memorandum of understanding between the USDA and the DOJ Antitrust Division, to refer cases for appropriate enforcement and to pursue complementary antitrust actions where appropriate; and
(iv) within 60 days of the date of this order, submit to the President a report detailing current enforcement actions, resource needs, and a plan for heightened enforcement for the coming year.
(b) The Secretary shall review existing regulations, guidance, and enforcement policies under the Act and, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, revise them to strengthen protections for producers and ensure effective deterrence of prohibited conduct.
Sec. 3. Expanding Interstate Market Access for Eligible Meat Products. (a) The Secretary shall take actions consistent with applicable law to expand opportunities for interstate shipment of meat products, including by:
(i) accelerating outreach and streamlining processes to increase State participation in the USDA’s State Meat and Poultry Inspection Program, the Cooperative Interstate Shipment Program, and the Talmadge-Aiken Cooperative Inspection Program;
(ii) creating technical assistance and training programs for small and very small meat processors;
(iii) establishing, or collaborating with partners to establish, an easily accessible web resource with comprehensive information regarding local meat slaughter and processing availability, including federally inspected establishments that facilitate interstate shipment;
(iv) modernizing meat inspection to sharpen focus on core food safety, boost processing efficiency and technology, and lower costs to add value for ranchers and consumers;
(v) removing unnecessary Food Safety Inspection Service inspection reporting requirements and overly prescriptive requirements, consistent with applicable law, that do not advance essential food safety needs; and
(vi) establishing a coordinator position within USDA to implement these actions and serve as a conduit to ranchers and small and medium sized processors.
(b) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary shall submit to the President a report assessing current participation in the State-Federal cooperative inspection programs, identifying remaining statutory or regulatory barriers to greater interstate market access for State-inspected products, and providing recommendations for action to address any such challenges.
(c) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary shall submit to the President a report identifying Federal statutory provisions, as well as trade considerations, that restrict or prohibit State-inspected or custom exempt meat products from entering interstate commerce.
(d) The Secretary shall take actions as appropriate and consistent with applicable law to establish a Strengthening Processing for U.S. Ranchers guaranteed loan program for small and regional beef processors to help these processors continue operation, expand their footprint, and increase diversity of animal proteins being processed.
Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of Agriculture.
Back when the Rocky Mountain News was still a thing, they used to run columns by Charley Reese. I didn't always agree with them by any means, Reese was a dyed in wool Confederate Gray Southerner, but they were often quite interesting. I can recall his final column when he noted he was going to retire. On the timing he said something like "when you know, you know".
I'm at that point.
My wife, however, definitely isn't at that point for me, an ongoing source of conflict.
In Wyoming, and maybe in most places, lawyers are admitted to the bar in August for the most part. A second, smaller crops, is admitted in March or so. I was admitted in August, 36 years ago.
Back in September 2025 I started a thread about having passed the 35 year mark but never published it. I was angry about something at the time, pretty clearly, and it was a very bitter posts. I thought better of it and didn't post it, but I didn't wipe it out until recently. I reread it and then did so, even though much of what I wrote in it is still true.
All careers are individual, of course which is what makes career advice so dangerous. I've known people, for instance, who served in the military and absolutely hated it. The entire film M*A*S*H and the television series is, in no small part, based on a hatred of military service, although the book's author, a conservative, ironically did not hate his. The same is true, for what it's worth, of Catch 22. Heller actually admired the military he lampooned. Both books were hugely successful, however, as they not only tapped into the oddities of military life, but also into a hatred of it in some quarters.
In contrast, I've known people who loved it, and I myself liked it.
I note that as I suppose that the law is the same way, maybe all careers are.
That aside, the law is unique and is well known for being so.
The law has an alcoholism and alcohol abuse rate that's far higher than other professions. That isn't the only abusive trait in it, however. It's estimated that something like 60% of lawyers have had in the office sexual infidelities and while I haven't tried to add up percentages, and that percentage seems high, there are indeed a lot of them. The law also has some really screwball personalities in it, although I'm at the point where I now wonder if those personalities became that way due to the law, or entered the law because of it. In my current Gen. Jones stage of life, I'm amazed by the number of burnt out husks of people who won't retire from the law as that's all they have.
I'm not the only one who's noticed that, and a recent conversation is part of what brought me back to this thread. In speaking to an opposing lawyer I've known a long time by phone, on a holiday, he brought up the very things I've noted, this included. Indeed, he noted that for a lot of people, they'd become lawyers, that's what they now were as part of their personality. That's all that's left.
That should never happen, but the law is an all consuming job.
He was actually a bit angry about it. I'm not angry, but I don't want to become one of those people. My friend noted that what he "is", is a hunter and mountain climber. What he "does" is be a lawyer. That's pretty much true for me as well, although I'd substitute outdoorsmen for climber.
He also had the observation that after working years at the law, late nights, early days, weekends, that he and his wife did things together rarely. The pressure of work brought that about. That's pretty much the same story in my own life. Another lawyer I know just had his wife of about 30 years just up and leave him, leaving him wondering why. It seems a "therapist" suggested that, and frankly I have a dim view of most therapist or counsellors, but what I suspect is that the same thing was at work. That fellow had told me not all that long, before the disaster came, that he was never going to retire, because he enjoyed the fellowship of the lawyers.
Well, nothing that we do at work is something "enjoyed" by our spouses, except for perhaps the money. If the lawyer is really one of those ones who enjoys the courtroom combat, or the intellectual challenge, the spouses don't participate in that at all.
Money can matter, however. Yet another lawyer I know, about my same age, is trying to retire but is upset as his wife just can't grasp that the funding burn rate has to stop. I think a lot of lawyers who keep on keeping on face that with a family member or perhaps themselves. From the outside, you know they'd be fine. But to them, or a loved one, the fear of no further income will just drive them into the grave, working. Fears of that type, and not my own, have kept me working for the past four years.
The law is not only an all consuming occupation, it's one that's soul destroying. Many "plaintiffs' lawyers" have really lost their humanity. Not all by any means, but quite a few. They really don't care about the people they represent in many instances. It's one of the thing that makes practicing law so dispiriting and damaging to your own soul. Most of the propaganda that lawyers and law firms of a certain type being there to help people is pure crap. They don't mean it, and everyone inside the law knows that. Simply practicing law, at some point, or perhaps more accurately being in litigation, is participating on a fraud on the public.
I'm told I'm really good at the law. If that's true it's proof you can be good at something that you really don't love. I'm beyond the point of not loving it anymore.
I entered the profession for the same reasons a lot of people do. My earlier career had not worked out and I didn't seem to have any other place to go. I had started off obtaining a very difficult science degree only to graduate into an economy where I was unemployable. This is, I'd note, more common than a person might suppose. There was no family business to step into. What I really wanted to do, and still do, wasn't open to me. Even at that, I hesitated and I chose not to enter the law school class I was admitted into. I waited a year hoping to find work, and didn't. Soldiering was the work that year. I guess I could have chosen to make that a career, and in some ways I"m surprised I didn't.
The last year of my undergraduate degree I tried switch to a different field:
I'd be offered a summer position with them, but not until years later, at which point I was already practicing law and engaged. I've posted on that before.
If 'd had my druthers, which hardly anyone does, I would have have been a rancher. I have been around agriculture which is to say that I would have ranched full time. I came close it without really realizing it after law school right as my father was looking at retiring. We came close to the two of us starting a place, and then he died. I abandoned that particular effort in order to help my mother, who had no such interest. Laster I found she was baffled why I hadn't let her know.
My wife and I have always had cattle, but it's never been a full time thing. Sometimes it's promised to almost be that, but it never has. Now I'm 63 and time has moved on. It's something I'll never recover from. It was one of the goals that kept me at my desk job, and now the goal can't be met.
Time and effort wasted.
There are some things that are quite scary about time moving on, I'll note. Fear of death is not one of them. I constantly hear that people are supposed to be afraid of death, but I've lived pretty close to death my entire life and I'm not. If death arrives before my plans play out, well, so be it. Nobody knows the day nor the hour. Momento mori.
But what has moved on is the opportunity to complete a bunch of things I used to do and be engaged in before I started practicing law. That must show something about my own character, as other lawyers take long vacations and the like, but I don't really seem capable of devoting time to vocations and avocations. I'll leave it to the reader to decide which is which. The interest in those pursuits remains, however.
Gone is interest in the law itself. I'm not interested nor fascinated in it. I never loved it in the first place, but I have had over the years a reputation as being a legal scholar. I still get calls from various lawyers about legal situations which are rare or difficult. The difference is that I no longer find them interesting at all.
At one time, seeing as I was a lawyer, I really wanted to be a judge, which is a position for legal scholars, and I've applied within our system a bunch of times, and been encouraged to do so by judges. Now I'm too old, as mandatory retirement is at age 70 and the committee isn't going to appoint somebody at age 63 for a single term. Or I suppose not. To my surprise, they recently almost in fact did that in a district in which very few people were applying for the position. The past two Governors and the Judicial Nominating Committee have pretty much wrecked the process for successful lawyers, so applications are way down.
Indeed, one of my frustrations with the practice of law has been watching the decline of the judicial nominating system, which has grown much more political over the last few decades. When I started out you could really see why various judges got appointed to their positions. When Matt Mead became Governor, however, he had an agenda of appointing women and that's what he was going to do. That was a politically motivated bias and it meant if there was a man up for the same position, he wasn't getting it.
Governor Gordon has had a very strong bias towards prosecutors, although there are some exceptions.
The oncoming Governor, Barlow, will be interesting to watch in this regard. He's a professional himself (veterinarian) and perhaps he'll take a more informed and balanced view.
Anyhow, after 36 years of this, it's time to move on, so I'm moving on. I'll complete this year, but I'm not starting another one.
Indeed, on the topic, I'm capable of reading the signs. The American dream is that you live to age 100 and die in your sleep. You probably aren't going to.
Over the last couple of years I've watched some of the lawyers who are older than me decline pretty seriously in some ways. And I'm declining too. I had colon surgery out of the blue, something that probably could have been averted if I'd had regular colon checkups like you are supposed to. Going through that process I ended up having an odd thing on my thyroid discovered. Half my thyroid ended up coming out, although I probably could have avoided that if I was willing to risk it being nothing, which didn't seem to be a solid risk at the time. Now I have to take pills every day for the first time in my life.
A year ago the eye doctor noted something peculiar in my eye. Last week, on my follow up exam, it was clear it was a tiny cataract It's not a problem yet, but it probably will be in "ten years". I'm young for a cataract, but it's due to an injury.
I've endured a lot of injuries over the years.
I'm considerably more tired than I used to be, and my physical stamina, still pretty good, has declined. I could probably address this as people ought to at my age by exercise, but my schedule is incredibly burdened.
I don't handle stress anywhere near as good as I used to, however, and stress is a killer.
So, in four months, I'm done.
The big challenge now is letting everyone know, and getting my wife to accept it. That part isn't going to be easy at all.
It's not going to be easy as at least my long suffering spouse doesn't want to believe I'm at this point. I've been mentioning it, but when retirement comes up, it's always "you can't". Retirement is, she suggests, a year further in the future than I imagine it.
A year isn't much, but it's a year. I hear all the time that somebody retired and then died, as if retirement killed them. Really, they just hang on too long.
And again, that hanging on is a funny thing. I've watched one lawyer who has no family (divorced) and who has no faith keep on going to work. I guess it's his identify . I mentioned retiring to him once and he scoffed, saying "good luck". Of course, I don't have to pay alimony and I don't take expensive trips.
I've also watched a couple of very ill lawyers hang on after their illness set in. It provided a distraction I guess. Indeed, on the very odd occasion I mention this to anyone people always suggest a law job I could take in retirement, which isn't what I have in mind at all.
In contrast, one lawyer who experienced a health care scare recently, one year younger than me told me that next year was definitely the date. When I expressed doubt, the reply was "watch me".
What you are supposed to say, like Edith Piaf, is that you have no regrets about your career as a lawyer.
I can't say that.
I probably should feel that way. Just yesterday, once again, thinking over the past 36 years I came to the conclusion that with the box I was in, I did the only thing I could do. True or not, and it's probably true, hindsight being 20/20, I'd have avoided the law like the plague if I'd known what it was like. As noted above, I'm sure there are people who look back and say they loved every second of it.
I'm not one of them.
To compound things, I've been in litigation the entire time. That was a mistake, as I'm not well suited for it internally. I'm an introvert and I don't like being in extroverted situations. I just couldn't find a way out of it.
Well, anyhow, page one of the concluding chapter.
So now, I have to start informing people. This isn't going to be fun at all, but knowing myself, if I don't, it won't become real.
I've never liked doing trials. Some lawyers claim to love them, and I suppose they do. There's something in their personalities, a defect really, which requires them to test their wits against other people. Most lawyers don't like doing them, and most of the lawyers who say they do, are lying.
Like baseball players before a game, most lawyers have some sort of ritual before they try a case. At one time, as late as the early 90s, that ritual for quite a few involved heavy drinking. I don't think that's the case so much anymore. Frankly, while conservatives are all worked up about it in some quarters, I think that's one of the things that the massive introduction of women into the law changed, and for the better.
When I get close to trials, I usually rewatch The Wild Bunch. I know that's odd, but I love that movie and I find it very engaging. Part of the reason that I watch it in this context is that the protagonists in the move are basically all mercenaries of a sort. Yes, I know that they're criminals, but still. And there's not one redeeming person in their whole contest.
Everyone who likes movies is familiar with the famous concluding gunbattle of the movie. But that's not the last scene. Former gang member turned bounty hunter Deke Thornton is waiting outside the town gate as evening arrives, having sent the dead bodies of the gang back with the other bounty hunters. Elderly gang member Skyes rides up with Mexican Indians and the following exchange occurs.
Sykes: I didn't expect to find you here.
Deke Thornton: Why not? I sent them back. That's all I said I'd do.
Sykes: They didn't get very far.
Deke Thornton: I figured.
Sykes: What are your plans, now?
Deke Thornton: Drift around down here. Try to stay out of jail.
Sykes: Well, me and the boys got some work to do. You want to come with us? It ain't like it used to be, but it'll do.
That's how I feel about things. I intend to hunt, fish, work cattle, write and put in a garden.
But even if I only do a faction of that stuff, it'll be okay.
While this will aid beef producers, it doesn't address the existential problem of the packing industry monopoly. Breaking that, and particularly breaking that on Distributist principals, would have a massive impact. That won't be happening, however.
Instead, this basically would allow producers to sell their own beef across state lines. While some people will buy beef in that fashion, most people won't, and that doesn't do much at all for the cost of beef sold at restaurants and the like.
As noted, applying the Sherman Anti Trust Act to the meat packing industry would have a real impact. A bigger one would be limiting corporate ownership to a single packing facility.
Small herd size is a problem, but it will take years to address. By that time, given the very small herd size, we may very well be seeing a meat production climate that hasn't existed since the introduction of refrigerated rail cars in 1878. The massive increase in the Western herd during the Civil War and the invention of the refrigerated rail car shifted the American diet from pork to beef. Various factors have been making inroads on beef for years, and the price at the counter, which this will certainly not immediately address, is shifting it once again, and has been for many years.
Whether this will serve as a salve on farmers and ranchers so they can justify voting for a party that has screwed them for years is yet to be seen.
By Self-created photograph by Jonathunder - Own work, GFDL, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=64543672
If this is a match of intellects, and it likely is, Canada has already won the trade war.
Carney is undoubtedly a genius and the only international leader currently in office, maybe ever in office, to have run the economies of two different countries. Trump is increasingly obvious of rather low intellect and a real estate developer with a very narrow understanding of the economy, who is in turn heavily influenced by Peter Navarro, a 77 year old economic theorist who uniquely champions tariffs. To make matters worse, Trump is suffering a rapid dementia related mental decline.
The US right now is destroying its own economy.
August 26, 2026
Canada imposed retaliatory tariffs on U.S. steel, aluminum, furniture and clothing (50%), cheese, appliances and some seafood, (25%) and on electronics and tools (15%), effective September 8.
It also pledged aid to Canadian workers.
It was a dollar per dollar match on US tariffs, which it basically offsets.
As a side effect of this, the price of household paper products, toilet paper and paper towels, is climbing.
Thanks Don.
On the contest of intellects, the petulant baby in the Oval Office threatened to rename Lake Ontario the Lake of America or something. Trump actually thinks he renamed the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, even though it remains the Gulf of Mexico in reality. The Lake Ontario thing is incredibly stupid. Nobody reacted positively to it, although I'm sure that administration flunkies will pretend it's a great idea. Curtis Hertel Jr., chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party, stated:
Donald Trump has been America first in name only his entire presidency. He promised lower prices, higher wages, and no foreign wars … all of that is bull shit. Renaming th fourth best Great Lake isn’t going to change that.
Americans aren't impressed with the latest Trump stupidity.
On Trump dumping American cattlemen, John Barrasso, Senator from Trump, oh, um, Senator allegedly from Wyoming, posted this on Twitter:
Americans want US beef on the table – not foreign imports. Wyoming ranchers produce the highest quality beef in the world. Our ranchers don't ask for special treatment. They simply want a fair marketplace. It needs to be easier – not harder – for Wyoming ranchers to feed America. I will continue to fight for policies that strengthen Wyoming beef producers and invest in the American cattle herd.
Barrasso is a Trump suck up and hasn't really done much for Wyoming in years. During election cycles he's for whatever he thinks Wyomingites are for and is otherwise a rank cowards pretending he thinks Trump is brilliant when he knows that he's not. Last time he ran he became worried about gadfly candidate Reid Rasner and accordingly pulled to the hard right.
Barrasso must regard the Wyoming livestock industry as sufficiently powerful enough to actually hurt the GOP, or this an issue near enough to the hearts of Wyomingites, that he needs to speak up. He didn't do that when public lands were on the table. It's interesting in part because the Wyoming range cattle industry in particular, and agriculture in general, have been so pro Trump and pro GOP that it's quite literally actually stupid. We posted on this the other day.
Hageman, of course, has incentive not to. She's a Trump endorsee and is now running against James Byrd tof Lummis' seat. This makes her exposed on this issue. If she speaks up, and she's going to have to, it puts her between somebody that supports here that she probably thinks is a heaping bowl of stupid in reality, but then exposing her to voters who she probably figures are more heaping bowls of stupid. Byrd is perfectly suited to exploit this as Hageman comes from a farm/ranch and can't stay silent before she looks like a traitor.
Lummis, of course, comes from a ranch too, but as she's nto running, she doesn't have to say anything. She seems to be bucking for a Trump cabinet post, anticipating that people will jump the Trump ship post election.
On other economic fronts, the US came out with its "Economic D-Day" against Iran, which are really sanctions against Iranian trading partners, but not really. It delayed the imposition of them to January 1, 2027, which means they won't happen at all.
