Lex Anteinternet: Upon reaching 60

Lex Anteinternet: Upon reaching 60: 

Upon reaching 60

That's how old I am today.

When I was young.  I was about three when this photos was taken, maybe two.  My father was 36 or 37.

Americans like to debate at what age you are "old", with that benchmark, and the one for middle age, moving over the years to some extent.  Some go so far as to claim that the term doesn't mean anything. 

It does, as you really do become older and then old, at some point.

The United Nations categorizes "older" as commencing at age 60, something, given their mission, that would encompass the totality of the human race.  Some polling you'll see suggests that Americans regard it actually starting at 59 or 57.  Pew, the respected polling and data institution, noted the following:

These generation gaps in perception also extend to the most basic question of all about old age: When does it begin? Survey respondents ages 18 to 29 believe that the average person becomes old at age 60. Middle-aged respondents put the threshold closer to 70, and respondents ages 65 and above say that the average person does not become old until turning 74.

Interesting.

It is not like flipping a switch, and it doesn't really happen to all people at the exact same time.  I'm often reminded of this when I observe people I've known for many years.  Men in particular, I used to think, aged at a much different rate than women.  I knew a few of my contemporaries who were getting pretty old by the time they were in their 30s, and I know a few men in their 70s who are in fantastic shape and appear much younger than they really are.  I recall thinking, back when I was in my late 20s, that my father was getting older, but wasn't old, right up until the time he died at age 62.

Having said that, I’m often now shocked, I hate to admit, by the appearance of women my own age, again that I knew when they were young.  It's not like I know every girl I went to high school with, but I know a few of them, and some of them have held up much better than others.  In that category, some of my close relatives have really held up well.

Up until recently, I could say that I've held up well, but this past year has been really rough health wise. First there was colon surgery in October, followed by a prolonged medical addressing of a thyroid nodule which was feared, at first, to be aggressive cancer. Working that out is still ongoing, but that now appears much less likely, meaning that only half the thyroid will need to be removed.  

All of that has reminded me of Jesus' address to Peter:

Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.

John, Chapter 21.

Peter, by the way, was between age 64 and 68 when he was martyred.  St. Paul was over 60, it's worth noting, when he met the same fate.

It's been rough in other ways as well.  One thing is that, in spite of what people like to claim, your fate is really fixed by age 60.  You aren't going to leave your job as an accountant and become an Army paratrooper.¹ If you are a paratrooper, you're going to retire now, as 60 is the military's retirement cutoff age.  If you've spent decades in the Army, and retire at 60 (most servicemen retire before that), you aren't going on, probably, to a career you don't have any strong connection with.

In my case, as I started to type out here the other day and then did not, as it didn't read the way I really wanted it to, I can now look back on a long career, over 30 years, and largely regard it as a failure, even though almost everyone I know would regard it as a success.  I won't get over that.  I'd always hoped to make the judiciary, but I'm not going to, and there's no longer even any point in trying.  I'm reminded of this failure every time I appear in front of one of the new judges and see how incredibly young they now are, and also when I listen to suggestions that the retirement age for judges be raised up to the absurdly high 75.

At age 60, if I were to go to work for the state (which I'm also not going to), I couldn't really ever make the "Rule of 85" for retirement.  As a lifelong private practice attorney, I'm now actually at the age where most lawyers look at their career, and their income, and decide they can't retire, some retreating into their office personality as the last version of themselves and nothing else.  I'm not going to become a member of the legislature, something probably most young lawyers toy with the idea of.  I'm not going to become a game warden, something I pondered when young.²  I'm way past the point where most similar Federal occupations are age restricted, and for good reason.

This is, work wise, pretty much it.

I said to myself, this is the business we've chosen; I didn't ask who gave the order, because it had nothing to do with business!

Hyman Roth, to Michael Corleone, in The Godfather, Part II ,

I'm also never going to own my own ranch, which was a decades long career goal.  I have acquired a fair number of cattle, but my operation is always going to be ancillary to my in laws at this point.  When I was first married my wife and I tried to find our own place, with she being much less optimistic about it than I. There were times, when the land cost less, that we could almost make, almost, a small place. We never quite did, and now, we're not going to.

Indeed, thinking back to St. Peter, I'm now at the age of "you can't", with some of the "can'ts" being medical.  I could when I was younger, but now I can't, or shouldn't.  Others are familial.  "You can't" is something I hear a lot, pertaining to a lot of things, ranging from what we might broadly call home economics, in the true economic sense, to short term and long term plans, to even acquisitions that to most people wouldn't be much, but in my circumstances, in the views of others, are.  Some are professional, as ironically it's really at some point in your 50s or very early 60s where you are by default fully professionally engaged, with that taking precedence over everything else, including time for anything else.

One of the most frustrating things about reaching this age, however, is seeing that you probably will never see how some things turn out, and you don't seem to have the ability to influence them.  I'm not, in this instance, referring to something like the Hyman Roth character again, in which he hopes to see the results of his criminal enterprise flourish but fears he won't live long enough to.  Indeed, I find myself curiously detached from concerns of this type that some people have.  I've noticed, for instance, the deep concern some aging lawyers have about their "legacy" in the law, which often translates to being remembered as a lawyer or their firm's carrying on.  I don't have those concerns, and indeed, taking the long view of things, I think it's really vanity to suppose that either of those wishes might be realized by anyone.

No, what I mean is that by this age there are those you know very closely, and you have reason to fear for their own long term fate, but you really don't have much you can do about it.  People who seem to be stuck in place, for instance, seem beyond the helping hand, and more than that, they don't really want, it seems, to be offered a hand.  People who have walked up to the church door but who won't go in as it means giving up grudges, burdens or hatreds, can't be coaxed in, even it means their soul is imperiled.  It recalls the last final lines of A River Runs Through It. .

I remember the last sermon I ever heard my father give, not long before his own death:

Each one of us here today will, at one time in our lives, look upon a loved one in need and ask the same question: We are willing Lord, but what, if anything, is needed? For it is true that we can seldom help those closest to us. Either we don’t know what part of ourselves to give, or more often than not, that part we have to give… is not wanted. And so it is those we live with and should know who elude us… But we can still love them… We can love—completely—even without complete understanding….

I guess that's about right. 

Footnotes:

1.  Or, I might note, a Ukrainian Legionnaire.  You are too old to join.

Interestingly, I recently saw an article by a well known, I guess, newspaper reporter who attempted to join the U.S. Army in his upper 40s.  He apparently didn't know that you are well past the eligible age of enlistment at that point.  He was arguing that there should be some sort of special unit made for people like himself, or like he imagined himself, well-educated individuals in their upper 40s.  Why should there be if you can recruit people in their 20s?

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

Statutorily, the current law provides:

9-3-607. Age of retirement.

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

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

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

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

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

Lex Anteinternet: Some basic economics, for economists

Lex Anteinternet: Some basic economics, for economists: 

Some basic economics, for economists

The simple reason being, economist grasp almost nothing about the economy and how it actually works, on a more existential level.

Including, even why the economy exists.

And politicians, speaking about the economy, don't look at the whole, but the part, as the whole isn't very satisfactory in a right/left construct.

Indeed, left wing politicians would be horrified by a real deep reform of the economy in ways that would actually work, as would right wing politicians.

Witness the latest by economist Robert Reich:

The economic message that will get Biden reelected and give Dems a majority in both Houses of Congress

Indeed, let's break them down and look at the uncomfortable truth.

The economic goal should be more jobs at higher wages. Right?

Let's start there.  That seems reasonable enough, so I'll basically concede it. But perhaps a better position would be to state that the economic goal would be more worthwhile jobs that allow for individual family independence, at middle class reasonable wages. 

Because, what's an economy for? To serve people.

It isn't really "more decent jobs at higher wages".  Indeed, it would really be all jobs at family supporting wages.  That's not really the same thing.

I don't know that Reich would disagree with that, but it's important to keep it in overall mind.  Economist tend to think that all jobs are super nifty, not matter what they are, as long as 100% of everyone who can work is working, and for good wages.  

Actual people, however, don't think that way. They want decent jobs worth doing to support themselves, and their families if they have one, and most people do.

The irony here is that the left and the right have come around to the same position on this, over the year.  It's a very Soviet, warehouse the children you unfortunately had so that everyone can work, until they are old, of course, as the Boomer run the economy and it's okay if they retire.

We continue.

Yet the Fed, corporate economists, and the GOP have turned the goal upside down — into fewer jobs and lower wages. Otherwise, they say, we’ll face more inflation.

Bob can't quite seem to grasp that unless an overheated economy is slowed down, wages erode.  And the Fed, etc., isn't trying to depress wages.  Inflation itself erodes wages.  They're trying to slow inflation in the only method known to work.

He knows that, but he has a pet thesis that is, as he would put it: 

Rubbish.

And here, several paragraphs later, is the thesis. 

The Fed has raised borrowing costs at 10 consecutive meetings, pushing its benchmark rate to over 5 percent. Yet inflation has barely budged. In April, it dropped to 4.9 percent (year-over-year) from 5 percent in March — according to Wednesday’s Labor Bureau data.

Why are the Fed’s rate hikes having so little effect?

Actually, historically, that's not bad.

An ideal inflation rate would be 0%, or quite frankly slight, perhaps 1% or 2% deflation, to recover some lost ground.  5%, however, is headed in the right direction.  3% for much of my life was regarded as basically no inflation at all, and the extremely low inflationary rates we had until COVID were simply extraordinary.

Oh, COVID, remember that? The thing that closed the ports and kept good from coming in, reminding Americans that we make nothing.

A thing like that could almost have been inflationary.

A think like that may also have served to remind Americans that some of the jobs they had left, pre COVID, were awful.  Note the big decrease in long haul truck drivers, employees in an industry that had already seen a massive departure of Americans in favor of foreign nationals, and which is effectively subsidized, as we've noted elsewhere.

It's an awful job.  It's almost as if we might want to think about doing this more efficiently.

If only private companies could be induced to ship things by rail. . . .oh wait. . . 

Anyhow, raising interest rates hasn't worked as it hasn't been high enough, that's why.  5% is a joke.  It ought to be at least 8%.

And, additionally, because this inflationary cycle is global, that's also why.

Because, left wing economist, global food prices and energy prices have risen dramatically as a former far left wing operative, now politicians, and a person with a strange relationship (listening right wing politicians) with Donald J. Trump, has invaded a neighbor resulting in the first peer to peer, large scale, conventional war since the Korean War.

That's a lot of the reason why.

But, left wing economist states:

Because inflation is not being propelled by an overheated economy. It’s being propelled by overheated profits.

Okay, I'm a distributist, and I'd favor addressing this to the element it's the truth, but it's just frankly not very true.   One basic fact is that those supposedly profiteering business are taking in money that's worth less every day.  No wonder they feel they have to take in more.

But Bob says:

So, what’s causing inflation? Corporations with enough monopoly power to raise their prices and fatten their profits — which the Fed’s rate hikes barely affect.

Okay, well then let's go to a Distributist economy and limit the number of areas business enterprises can operate the corporate business form.  That would be extremely deflationary, make for more good jobs at a wider level, and be much more stable.  It'd do a whole lot more than raising taxes, as Bob suggest, which would be most likely passed on to everyone else.

Any regular economist in favor of that?

Absolute not, as they're all really just corporate capitalist economist and favor slightly tinkering with the mechanics of things. Basically, the difference between a conservative economist and a liberal economist is the difference motor heads of the 70s exhibited on whether they were Holly Carb or Edlebrock fans.

Big whoop.

But here's another uncomfortable truth.  Let's go back to the first item.

The economic goal should be more jobs at higher wages. Right?

Part of the reason that wages rose is that during COVID there was a big decrease in immigration, legal and illegal, into the United States.

For years, economist on the left and right have claimed that immigrants take jobs that Americans won't, never mind that they take what are frankly a lot of middle class jobs in some industries.  As they didn't come in, Americans took those jobs, but demanded living wages.

Supposedly, in the economist world, immigration had no impact on inflation, or jobs, and in fact boosted the economy.  They may have boosted the economy, but its now conclusively demonstrated that they did so by depressing wages.

And this worked an injustice for the native born, including the native born poor.  This was always known at some level as it provided the fuel to the occasional riots and domestic strife at the inner city urban level.

This has also caused liberals like commentator Chuck Todd to directly claim that we're experiencing inflation as we aren't seeing immigrants come in. But what this implicitly admits is that the high American immigration rate operates to keep wages low, and that is what was depressing inflation.  Absent the high immigration levels, wages would rise to their natural level.

And that's what they've been doing.

Setting aside Donald Trump's pal, Vlad "if Czar Nikki owned I still do" Putin, part of what is going on is at attempt at wage stabilization, at American living wage levels, something that was frustrated by decades of wage erosion due to immigration.

Lex Anteinternet:

Lex Anteinternet:  :  

Lex Anteinternet: But, um. . . cereal is grain.

Lex Anteinternet: But, um. . . cereal is grain.: 

But, um. . . cereal is grain.

Grain free cereal?

Is that really possible?

Cereal is a world that literally means grain.

What is this stuff?

Lex Anteinternet: Wyoming Catholic Cowboys - raw and real: Cattle Time

Lex Anteinternet: Wyoming Catholic Cowboys - raw and real: Cattle Time: 

Wyoming Catholic Cowboys - raw and real: Cattle Time

Some sort of cleric in Imperial Russia, although I don't know the details.  I'm under the impression that Russian Orthodox Priests were not allowed to hunt, although Catholic ones certainly are.  Neither faith precludes hunting in any fashion, but I'm with the impression that the Orthodox ones may not due to their vows.  I could well be in error.  It's worth noting that the first Pope, St. Peter, was a Fish Hunter, which most people call a "fisherman".¹

This is a very interesting post:

Wyoming Catholic Cowboys - raw and real: Cattle Time: Every spring I seriously revaluate whether running cows compliments the demands of my priestly vocation or not. As far as I can see, it agai...

I at first linked it in here, and then in pondering on it, I commented on the original post as well.  I'm adapting my comments to this here, and greatly expanding on them.

I've known a few Priests over the years, and been friends with a very small numbers. I found that the one that I related to best, on a personal level, was one from a radically different foreign culture, which was in part due to his intellect, but which was in part also due to the fact that he came from a highly rural background, as do I.

I've said from time to time that "I like men to have the bark on", by which I mean I like men to be men. When I was a kid, I recall my father being good friends with a Catholic Priest who would come to the house fairly often, and who shared a rural Nebraska background with my father. Their topics of conversation tended to be about bird hunting and fishing.²  Likewise, I recall my father stopping to pick up the Bishop and a priest traveling with him on the highway, as their car had died. The Bishop piled in our single cab truck and asked, "was the fishing any good?"

In contrast, at least one Priest I tried to reach out and be friendly with was absolutely unapproachable, as he seemingly couldn't talk about anything other than the Faith in an immediate context, and was hesitant to do even that in a ranging way.

Don't get me wrong, but what I think is that Priests have to be relatable to be effective. Christ went out amongst the tax collectors and the publicans. Peter was a fisherman. Paul was a tentmaker. I don't know for sure, but I'd guess that if I'd run into Paul in context, I probably could have asked him "what's wrong with the seam on my tent" and have gotten an answer.

All of which is a long roundabout way of saying that I suspect your work as a stockman enhances a priest's calling as a priest, where it's genuine.

Fr. Allan Travers, S.J., who like Moonlight Graham, only got to play once in the major leagues.  He's supposedly the only Catholic Priest, which he was not yet at the time, to play in the Major Leagues, although I'd question that.

As do other (dare I say it?) manly things.  Hunting and fishing, going to baseball and football games, having a glass of Old Bushmills at a tavern.

At an upcoming synod, Pope Francis will have women religious vote for the first time.  I'm not going to second guess the Pope on that, but I'd note that one of the significant problems that "main line" Protestant religions, which are dying as the Reformation falls and fails (more on that later), have is that they've become highly feminized.  Setting aside the theological nature of this, it's a practical problem as it emphasizes a feminist view that there's no difference between men and women, when men and women know that there are.  This process attaches to the motherly, or sisterly, role of Christianity and diminishes from the fatherly in a way that frankly weakens it.  While I've seen no data on it, I suspect it also contributes to men dropping out of their parishes.

Catholicism isn't immune from this, although at least in the US it's pulling away from it.  For years, the Faith has struggled in a quiet struggle between the very orthodox and the Boomers, with the Boomers often taking a pretty liberal view.  Parish councils are often packed with Boomer women who look to the 60s and 70s as a golden era.  Younger Catholics do not tend to.  And, even though the rules pertaining to Extraordinary Ministers provide that they're only to be used if there's an absolute need, at almost any Mass an army of middle-aged to elderly women will pop up as soon as it is time to administer Communion.³  Protestant Churches that tend to retain a very strong male presence tend to be "Evangelical" Churches, although this is certainly not universal.

All of this is not to discourage a role for women in churches, but rather to encourage a male one.  Not every guy wants to be in the Knights of Columbus (I don't), but quite a few might enjoy taking a priest fly-fishing, bird hunting or go out for a beer.  Indeed, it's easier to relate to a guy on a guy's level if you know that he has some of the same interests that you do, other than the Faith.

When my father was in the Air Force during the Korean War, he played cards regularly with a group of friends.  My father, like his siblings, was a great card player.  His friends included a group of other Air Force officers, including at least two other dentists, and a Catholic Priest.  They were a mixed group, only my father and the priest were Catholic, but they were all united in their love of card games.

During that same era, the Korean War, Marine Corps general Chesty Puller actually received a complaint from a Protestant Chaplain asking the general to order Catholic chaplains to quit playing cards with enlisted men, as it was causing them to convert to Catholicism.  The general didn't do it.

There's something to think about there.

Footnotes:

1.  I've seen the no hunting for Orthodox priests somewhere in print, but I also have that impression from the fact that two Russian Orthodox priests stayed with my aunt and uncle for a time, while touring the US. This was in the 1970s, long before the fall of the Soviet Union.  They told my aunt and uncle that.

They also left an English language book that I scanned at some point, which was very carefully measured in its tone, particularly regarding the Russian Orthodox views about ending the schism.

2.  A lot of their conversation was fairly intellectual.

One random comment that stuck with me was the priest's comment about the spread of deodorant use by men, which is now universal.  The priest was bothered by it as he recalled how at the end of the work day, men came home smelling of the sweat of their honest labor.

3.  This fits in the "pet peeve" category, although I actually heard a guest Priest mention the same thing on a recent episode of Catholic Stuff You Should Know.

Extraordinary Ministers are just that, extraordinary for extraordinary conditions.  However, since their introduction they've become common place and even at a Mass at which there is only a normal amount of parishioners in attendance, they tend to be used.  Priests in earlier decades managed to conduct a Mass to a full congregation without ever needing to use them, and for the most part, they are unnecessary now.  However, like other such accommodations, once introduced, it is hard to reverse, and the people who are Extraordinary Ministers are sincere Catholics whom the Priest no doubt does not want to turn away, even from a volunteer mission.

Having said that, I actually witnessed at a recent Mass a Priest turning a volunteer Eucharistic Minister back.  I don't know what to make of it, as he usually does use them, but he's highly orthodox and had the services of a deacon on that day.  A middle-aged/older woman stood up at Communion time and with a wave of the hand, he sent her back.

Lex Anteinternet: Blog Mirror: President Biden's Push to Make Thing...

Lex Anteinternet: Blog Mirror: President Biden's Push to Make Thing...: 

Blog Mirror: President Biden's Push to Make Things In America Again

This is really a major political and economic development, but it hasn't received much press:

President Biden's Push to Make Things In America Again

Lex Anteinternet: Today

Lex Anteinternet: Today:   

Today

 Today is Earth Day for 2023.

It's also the first weekend day of Spring Turkey Season, which I should be doing, but I'm in the office working, as the law never sleeps.

Or takes a weekend off.

And today is also Independent Record Store Day.