Cease being intimidated by the argument that a right action is impossible because it does not yield maximum profits, or that a wrong action is to be condoned because it pays.
Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac
We just published this item here on Donald Trump's insatiable lust for the destruction of land, lands even beyond our borders.
In the movie The Patriot, which is okay but not great, commences with these lines:
I have long feared, that my sins would return to visit me, and the cost is more than I can bare.
In a lot of ways, that opening scene is the best one in the movie.
No nation has a singular linear history, even though people tend to hear things that way. "This happened, and then that happened, resulting in this. . . ". In reality, things are mixed quite often, and things are quite fluid with juxtapositions.
Shakespeare claimed:
“There is a tide in the affairs of men
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat;
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.”
Perhaps. But in reality the tide in the affairs of men drags everyone along with it. But it's a rip tide. People's individual goals, desires and aspirations often are quite contrary to the tide on the surface.
That's certainly been the case with the United States.
If you have a Trumpian view of the world, the history of the United States looks like this, sort of:
Lots of people have that view. We came, we saw, we exploited, and everyone got happy working for Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk.
Trouble is, that's not true for a lot of reasons, a core one being it doesn't comport with who we really are. The entire worship of wealth and what it brings, and the wealthy and who they are, is deeply contrary to our natures, and frankly men like Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump, and Elon Musk are deeply perverted. Not because of their relationship with women, or because their names appear in the Epstein files in some context, although in the case of Trump, we really still don't know what context, but because of their shallow avaricious acquisition for and desire for wealth.
Timothy warns us:
Those who want to be rich are falling into temptation and into a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires, which plunge them into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all evils, and some people in their desire for it have strayed from the faith and have pierced themselves with many pains.
And not only have their pierced themselves, but they pierce others, and entire societies with them.
So let's look at a few concrete things that we feel should be done.
Among the rich you will never find a really generous man even by accident. They may give their money away, but they will never give themselves away; they are egotistic, secretive, dry as old bones. To be smart enough to get all that money you must be dull enough to want it.
G.K. Chesterton, A Miscellany of Men
Revisit the Homestead Act.
Right from the onset of English colonization of North America, there was a pull between business exploitation and the simple desire for an agrarian place of one's own.
The truth of the matter is that when the nation started off, most people weren't "Pilgrims" seeking shelter from religious oppression. Nor did they wish to be servants of big mercantile enterprises. Most of the early English colonists were from agriculture or the trades and wanted to just work for themselves. That's about it.
The American Revolution was as much about that as anything else. When American Colonials dumped tea in harbors, they were protesting taxes, but what they were also doing is dumping mercantile controlled property into waste. It was grown somewhere else and it belong to rich remote classes.
The struggle was always there. The American South in particular had the planter class which depended upon enslaved labor to raise a market crop. That was about generating wealth. Most Southerners, in contrast, were Yeoman who had small places of their own. When the Civil War came the wealthy had the South fight the war.
The analogies to the present day are simply to thick to ignore.
The Homestead Act came about during that war, and in real ways, it expressed a Jeffersonian dream. People willing to invest their own labor could acquire a place of their own.
The drafters of the Act never envisioned the wealthy controlling the land. In some very real ways it was wealthy landowners that the North was fighting at the time.
Over the last few days residents of Wyoming have read about Chris Robinson, CEO of Salt Lake City-based Ensign Group, L.C., buying the Pathfinder Ranch. I have nothing about him personally, but the listed price for the ranch was $79.5M due to its giant size.
I can personally recall when it was owned by locals At that price, rather obviously, Robinson isn't planning on making money from cattle. And to make matters a bit worse, residents of Natrona County got to read about another local outfit going up for sale, which is much smaller, for $9M.
Even into my adult years, by which time it was already impossible for somebody not born into ranching or farming to buy a place such that it could be their vocation, most ranches were owned by locally born ranchers. This trend of playground pricing is making the status of the land the same as that which English colonists were seeking to escape from.
This could be fixed by amending the Homestead Act. The homesteading portion of that is fixed, but it would still be possible to go back and amend it such that land deeded to individuals under it, had to remain in agricultural use, and had to be held by families that made their money that way. exclusively.
I know it won't be, anytime soon, but it should be.
Revisit "Ad coelum ad damnum"
One of the absolute absurdities of the original Homestead Act is that it gave away not only the surface of the land, but the mineral rights as well. This made the system sort of like buying lottery tickets. Some people got rich just of because of where they'd chosen to homestead.
I really struggle with the concept of private ownership of minerals, including oil and gas, in the first place. I understand private enterprise exploiting it, but owning it? Why? It's not like private enterprise put the minerals in the ground.
Addressing this creates real constitutional problems, but ideally the mineral wealth of the nation should belong to everyone in it, not private parties. And it should be exploited, or not, in the national interest, not in the primary economic interest of those who claim to own it.
I know that this brings up the cry of "that's Socialism". It probably really is, but an unequal accidental distribution of mineral wealth on lands taken from the native inhabitants isn't just. At a bare minimum, something needs to be looked into. Indeed, as there was no intent to transfer that mineral title in the first place, perhaps it could collectively be restored and held in truth for the descendants of those original inhabitants.
Tax the wealthy
Every since Ronald Reagan there's been a ludicrous idea that taxing the wealthy hurts the economy. We know that this is completely false. We also know that a certain percentage of the wealthy will allow themselves to become obscenely wealthy if allowed to, and that they'll harm everyone else as a result.
There's no reason on earth that anyone ought to be a billionaire. Indeed, if you have more than $50M in assets, you have too much and something is potentially wrong with your character. High upper income tax rates and wealth taxes can and should address this. Elon Musk can be nearly just as annoying if his net worth was $50M as whatever it currently is, but he'd be a lot less destructive.
An alternative to this, if this is simply too radical, is to prevent corporations from owning most things, and to provide that once they get to be a certain size, at least 50% of their ownership goes to employees of those corporations. It'd at least distribute the wealth some, and keep avarice from defining our everyday existence.
Final thoughts
What seems to be clear in any event is that we cannot keep going in this directly. Today's "conservatives" serve the very interests that the American Patriots rebelled against, remote wealth. In spite of their tattoos and car window stickers, they'd form the Loyalist Militia trying to put down an an agrarian revolution in 1776. The thing is, that those conditions always lead to revolution. They did in 1776 in North America, and then again in more extreme form in France a few years later. They lead to the uprisings of 1848, the Anglo Irish War in 1916 and the Russian Revolution in 1917. It's time to address this while we can, as it will be addressed.
Carney is an economist with a doctorate, as opposed to Donald Trump, who is an idiot. His speech not only reflects reality, it marks the day American superpower status came to an end, murdered by Donald Trump.
Today, I'll talk about the rupture in the world order, the end of a nice story and the beginning of a brutal reality where geopolitics among the great powers is not subject to any constraints.
But I also submit to you that other countries, particularly middle powers like Canada, are not powerless. They have the capacity to build a new order that embodies our values, like respect for human rights, sustainable development, solidarity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of states.
The power of the less powerful begins with honesty.
It seems that every day we're reminded that we live in an era of great power rivalry. That the rules-based order is fading. That the strong can do what they can, and the weak must suffer what they must.
This aphorism of Thucydides is presented as inevitable — as the natural logic of international relations reasserting itself. And faced with this logic, there is a strong tendency for countries to go along to get along. To accommodate. To avoid trouble. To hope that compliance will buy safety.
It won't.
So, what are our options?
In 1978, the Czech dissident Václav Havel, later president, wrote an essay called The Power of the Powerless. And in it, he asked a simple question: How did the communist system sustain itself?
And his answer began with a greengrocer. Every morning, this shopkeeper places a sign in his window: "Workers of the world, unite!" He doesn't believe it. No one does. But he places the sign anyway to avoid trouble, to signal compliance, to get along. And because every shopkeeper on every street does the same, the system persists.
Not through violence alone, but through the participation of ordinary people in rituals they privately know to be false.
Havel called this "living within a lie." The system's power comes not from its truth but from everyone's willingness to perform as if it were true. And its fragility comes from the same source: when even one person stops performing — when the greengrocer removes his sign — the illusion begins to crack.
Friends, it is time for companies and countries to take their signs down.
For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, we praised its principles, we benefited from its predictability. And because of that we could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection.
We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false. That the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient. That trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And we knew that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.
This fiction was useful. And American hegemony, in particular, helped provide public goods: open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.
So, we placed the sign in the window. We participated in the rituals. And we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.
This bargain no longer works.
'A rupture, not a transition'
Let me be direct: We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.
Over the past two decades, a series of crises in finance, health, energy and geopolitics have laid bare the risks of extreme global integration.
But more recently, great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons. Tariffs as leverage. Financial infrastructure as coercion. Supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited.
You cannot "live within the lie" of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination.
The multilateral institutions on which middle powers have relied — the WTO, the UN, the COP — the very architecture of collective problem solving, are under threat.
And as a result, many countries are drawing the same conclusions — that they must develop greater strategic autonomy: in energy, food, critical minerals, in finance and supply chains.
And this impulse is understandable. A country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself or defend itself has few options. When the rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourself.
But let's be clear-eyed about where this leads. A world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile and less sustainable.
And there's another truth: if great powers abandon even the pretense of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of their power and interests, the gains from "transactionalism" will become harder to replicate. Hegemons cannot continually monetize their relationships.
Allies will diversify to hedge against uncertainty. They'll buy insurance, increase options in order to rebuild sovereignty — sovereignty that was once grounded in rules, but will be increasingly anchored in the ability to withstand pressure.
This room knows, this is classic risk management — risk management comes at a price. But that cost of strategic autonomy — of sovereignty — can also be shared. Collective investments in resilience are cheaper than everyone building their own fortresses. Shared standards reduce fragmentation. Complementarities are positive sum.
And the question for middle powers, like Canada, is not whether to adapt to the new reality — we must. The question is whether we adapt by simply building higher walls or whether we can do something more ambitious.
Canada was amongst the first to hear the wake-up call, leading us to fundamentally shift our strategic posture.
Canadians know that our old, comfortable assumptions — that our geography and alliance memberships automatically conferred prosperity and security — that assumption is no longer valid.
And our new approach rests on what Alexander Stubb has termed "values-based realism" — or, to put another way, we aim to be principled and pragmatic.
Principled in our commitment to fundamental values: sovereignty and territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force except when consistent with the UN Charter and respect for human rights.
And pragmatic in recognizing that progress is often incremental, that interests diverge, that not every partner will share our values. So we're engaging broadly, strategically, with open eyes. We actively take on the world as it is, not wait around for a world we wish to be.
We are calibrating our relationships so their depth reflects our values. And we're prioritizing broad engagement to maximize our influence, given the fluidity of the world order, the risks that this poses, and the stakes for what comes next.
And we are no longer relying on just the strength of our values, but also on the value of our strength.
We are building that strength at home.
Since my government took office, we have cut taxes on incomes, on capital gains and business investment. We have removed all federal barriers to interprovincial trade. We are fast-tracking a trillion dollars of investment in energy, AI, critical minerals, new trade corridors and beyond.
We are doubling our defence spending by the end of this decade and we're doing so in ways that build our domestic industries.
And we are rapidly diversifying abroad. We've agreed a comprehensive strategic partnership with the EU, including joining SAFE, the European defence procurement arrangements.
We have signed 12 other trade and security deals on four continents in six months.
In the past few days, we have concluded new strategic partnerships with China and Qatar.
We're negotiating free trade pacts with India, ASEAN, Thailand, Philippines and Mercosur.
We're doing something else. To help solve global problems, we are pursuing variable geometry — in other words, different coalitions for different issues based on common values and interests.
So on Ukraine, we're a core member of the coalition of the willing and one of the largest per-capita contributors to its defence and security.
On Arctic sovereignty, we stand firmly with Greenland and Denmark and fully support their unique right to determine Greenland's future.
Our commitment to Article 5 is unwavering.
So we're working with our NATO allies — including the Nordic-Baltic Eight — to further secure the alliance's northern and western flanks, including through Canada's unprecedented investments in over-the-horizon radar, in submarines, in aircraft and boots on the ground.
Canada strongly opposes tariffs over Greenland and calls for focused talks to achieve our shared objectives of security and prosperity in the Arctic.
On plurilateral trade, we're championing efforts to build a bridge between the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the European Union, which would create a new trading block of 1.5 billion people.
On critical minerals we're forming buyer's clubs anchored in the G7 so the world can diversify away from concentrated supply.
And on AI we're co-operating with like-minded democracies to ensure we won't ultimately be forced to choose between hegemons and hyperscalers.
This is not naive multilateralism. Nor is it relying on their institutions. It's building coalitions that work, issue by issue, with partners who share enough common ground to act together. In some cases, this will be the vast majority of nations.
What it's doing is creating a dense web of connections across trade, investment, culture on which we can draw for future challenges and opportunities.
'Middle powers must act together'
Middle powers must act together because if we're not at the table, we're on the menu.
But I'd also say that great powers can afford, for now, to go it alone. They have the market size, the military capacity and the leverage to dictate terms. Middle powers do not. But when we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness. We accept what's offered. We compete with each other to be the most accommodating.
This is not sovereignty. It's the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination.
In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice: compete with each other for favour or to combine to create a third path with impact.
We shouldn't allow the rise of hard power to blind us to the fact that the power of legitimacy, integrity and rules will remain strong — if we choose to wield them together.
Which brings me back to Havel.
What would it mean for middle powers to "live the truth"?
First it means naming reality. Stop invoking "rules-based international order" as though it still functions as advertised. Call it what it is: a system of intensifying great power rivalry where the most powerful pursue their interests using economic integration as a weapon of coercion.
It means acting consistently, applying the same standards to allies and rivals. When middle powers criticize economic intimidation from one direction but stay silent when it comes from another, we are keeping the sign in the window.
It means building what we claim to believe in. Rather than waiting for the old order to be restored, it means creating institutions and agreements that function as described.
And it means reducing the leverage that enables coercion. Building a strong domestic economy should always be every government's immediate priority. And diversification internationally is not just economic prudence — it is the material foundation for honest foreign policy. Because countries earn the right to principled stands by reducing their vulnerability to retaliation.
'Honesty about the world as it is'
So Canada has what the world wants. We are an energy superpower. We hold vast reserves of critical minerals. We have the most educated population in the world. Our pension funds are amongst the world's largest and most sophisticated investors. In other words, we have capital, talent, we also have a government with the immense fiscal capacity to act decisively.
And we have the values to which many others aspire.
Canada is a pluralistic society that works. Our public square is loud, diverse and free. Canadians remain committed to sustainability.
We are a stable and reliable partner in a world that is anything but. A partner that builds and values relationships for the long term.
And we have something else. We have a recognition of what's happening and a determination to act accordingly.
We understand that this rupture calls for more than adaptation. It calls for honesty about the world as it is.
We are taking the sign out of the window.
We know the old order is not coming back. We shouldn't mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy.
But we believe that from the fracture, we can build something better, stronger, more just.
This is the task of the middle powers. The countries that have the most to lose from a world of fortresses and the most to gain from genuine co-operation.
The powerful have their power. But we have something too — the capacity to stop pretending, to name reality, to build our strength at home and to act together.
That is Canada's path. We choose it openly and confidently.
And it is a path wide open to any country willing to take it with us.
What's more, Trump is insane and everyone knows it. World leaders know it. His opponents know it. And, moreover, his supporters, know it.
He's driving us over a cliff, and everyone knows that.
He's the last pathetic gasp of the Baby Boomers, as we endure a nation by the Baby Boomers, Of the Baby Boomers, and for the Baby Boomers, enduring the legacy of a government attacked by Ronald Reagan and brought into fruition by Dixiecrats.
I've predicted that the 25th Amendment would be applied to him, and moreover, his mere presence in the White House was really a smokescreen for National Conservatives. If I was right, the moment now appears too late.
The United States has come to an end as a great nation.
It might be able to rebuild, but it won't be what it was. Nore should it be. A nation stupid enough to elect Donald Trump is no longer great.
The question is, how much damage do we allow him to do?
And I say "we" advisedly. Stuffed suits like Dr. John Barrasso and castrati Mike Johnson aren't going to do anything. His cabinet has people like scared Scott Bessent in it, who sound like they're terrified to be in public, or people who cheerfully shovel his oratorical vomit. Congress could act, but the make up the GOP in Congress is 100% eunuchs who roll over to have their bellies petted by Trump or go into the corner scared and pee.
The nation's leaders have completely failed it.
The question is not, at this point, how can this be salvaged. It cannot. The question is how much can be saved so that there's something to rebuild from when we reemerge in 2028 as a minor power, second rate nation, despised by the world.
The only thing, and it is the only thing, than can really save the nation now is mass protests. An epic strike that shut the nation down completely would be something the Republicans could not ignore.
We don't even seem to have the guts for that, however. We haven't seen anything like that since the 1960s and early 1970s.
We aren't much of a people anymore.
Ironically, however, the wet dream of Donald Trump to be remembered as somebody, darned near anybody, will also fail. He'll be remembered for being a fat, spoiled, mentally ill, child who ruined his nation with the help of ignorance. His ballroom will not get built. His Arc will not either. Greenland, which he will steal, will be set free. Melania will escape back to Europe to hide the disgrace of having associated with the man. The Trump family will bankruptcy itself into oblivion.
Cont:
Okay, something's happened.
Trump at Dovos said the United States “won’t use force” to take Greenland, but repeated his dumbass claims that the US needs it for national and international security. He said he would be “appreciative” if the world acquiesced to his desire to take over the territory. “Or, you can say no and we will remember.”
What does all that mean.
Sometime over the last 24 hours somebody got to Trump with news that if he went any further, they were invoking the 25th Amendment. It's about the only possibility.
The others might be that Congress would really move to impeach, or the military was prepared to tell him to pound sand.
But something happened. He was full batshit crazy over Greenland as of yesterday, and now he's not. He was apparently actually set to over a bridge too far and something held him back, for now.
The man needs to go. This is a chance for national redemption, but it won't last long. Those who were set to invoke the 25th, if they were, need to carry forward and do it.
Cont:
Hmmmm. . . Air Force One returned and landed due to an "electrical issue" prior to his gong to Davos.
That "electrical issue" was probably a direct communication that if he went to Davos and indicated war was coming he better stay in Switzerland.
Cont:
And I know so many people from Switzerland. Incredible place, incredible brilliant place. But I then realized that they're only good because of us.
The dimwitted emperor.
We barely dodged a bullet with this guy, remove the idiot now. Apply the 25th Amendment.
Westward the Course of Empire Takes Its Way, dramatizing Manifest Destiny.
Over the weekend, the real imperialist thinking behind Trump's avarice for Greenland was revealed, and not by Trump, but by Ted Cruz.
Look, the whole history of America has been a history of acquiring new lands and new territories, whether you go back to Thomas Jefferson making the Louisiana purchase — about half of the United States of America today — or you go back to America purchasing Alaska from Russia. You want to talk about — at the time they called it ‘Seward’s Folly’ — It turned out to, to be an extraordinarily consequential purchase, Greenland has massive rare earth minerals and critical minerals. There are enormous economic benefits to America, but like Alaska, it is located on the Arctic which is a major theater for major military conflict with either Russia or China,
In short, it's a naked imperial land grab whose intellectual justification dates back to the 19th Century. The age of alliances and of the United States representing hope and freedom is over. The age of grabbing lands to exploit because we can is back.
It's deeply immoral, but Donald Trump is a profoundly immoral man.
He probably also didn't come u pwith this idea, but it was a natural for him. He's not smart enough, or learned enough, to know of manifest destiny.
We've never covered the concept of Manifest Destiny here before, although we've covered some of the latter stages of the exercise of it. We probably should have, as we've mentioned the Indian Wars fairly frequently, which are tied to it. Having said all of that, it's worth nothing that there was never a time at which the concept had anywhere near universal American approval, and it was often hotly contested.
Manifest Destiny had its origins to some degree in the earliest history of the Republic, but less than is sometimes imagined. The term itself was coined in 1845 in an editorial by later Confederate propagandist John L. O'Sullivan, although an earlier editorial by the adventersome Jane Cazneau entitled Annexation is credited by some with being the first work backing it. That advocated for the annexation of Cuba and was penned about the same time. O'Sullivan had used the term "divine destiny" as early as 1839. O'Sullivan entered the scene advocating for the annexation of Texas, and then in an editorial about the Oregon Boundary Dispute wrote:
And that claim is by the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us.
The entire concept is patently absurd, but it had a strong pull on people as an excuse for aggressive expanding. God, the concept holds, made the United States unique and it the country was charged with a divine mission that included expanding its territorial control. It had opposition right from the beginning. None other than U.S. Grant stated:
I was bitterly opposed to the measure [to annex Texas], and to this day regard the war [with Mexico] which resulted as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory... The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times.
An obvious problem with the concept is that once the United States reached the Pacific, the expansion should have been over. It was used to justify everything about the worst of American expansionism up until that point. Thomas Jefferson had seen the acquisition of Louisiana as a 1,000 year long preservation of agrarianism, but everything the country could do to exploit the West and its resources started nearly immediately. The expansion not only left room for yeoman farmers to expand into, the country forces the native inhabitants into reservations and began destructive extraction of minerals nearly immediately. The mixed legacy of expansion can be seen in contemporary illustrations, such as the often seen painting Manifest Destiny, showing a barely clad angelic woman pointing the way west, while in the shadows a Native American family (with fully topless Indian women) look back as they're pushed off the land. Wyoming's state seal has a cowboy and a miner. Colorado's features mountains and a the phrase, Nil sine Numine, Nothing without Providence.
By the time the Frontier closed in 1890, the entire concept was really losing its appeal. The Battle of Wounded Knee that same year raised questions about the morality of Western Expansion in a new bloody way, although the questions has always been there. A sort of national angst set in with nowhere to expand to. That soon found the concepts old backers urging war with Spain.
Supposedly the Spanish American War was over Cuban freedoms and dissatisfaction over Spain's reaction to the explosion on the USS Maine. In reality, McKinley was forced into it, or at least ended up going along, as it looked like the US could grab Cuba and add it as a new territory. Opposition in Congress, however, . . . which affords us a roadmap now, statutorily kept that from happening.
What was wholly unanticipated, however, is that the US would brilliantly deploy its Navy to position it to take the Philippines.
Painting depicting Dewey in the Battle of Manilla Bay. Why, exactly, did we want the Philippines anyway?
Congress hadn't precluded the US from adding the Philippines, or Gaum, as U.S. territories. The Philippines had a long running independence movement and a well educated class that thought of the American arrival as guaranteeing their immediate independence, which they were quickly disabused of. The U.S. ended up fighting to keep the Philippines as a colony, although the war was deeply unpopular and lead to Theodore Roosevelt simply declaring that the US had won it, when in fact it had not. Some part of the Philippines contested for independence all the way into December 1941, when they then took up the cause against Japan. Indeed, some other elements of the movement to gain independence, which by that time had been promised by the U.S., welcomed the Japanese as liberators and collaborated with them, something that was not held against them by the Philippine people later.
Up until the end of the 19th Century the US had been hostile to Great Britain for historical reasons. The UK, however, immediately saw what was occuring, and was in its high colonial phase. The reality of what the US was doing was portrayed in Kipling's poem, The White Man's Burden.
Most Americans had a strong distaste for colonialism, and had it before the Spanish American War. The population bought off on the concept that we need to "Remember the Maine", but that didn't mean owning Cuba. The war did bring the US into the Caribbean like never before, and for four decades the US fought an endless series of Banana Wars, often to secure the interests of American business, that has made us hated in Central America to this day.
The US intervention in Venezuela was a page right out of that book. The US intervened in a foreign nation that really isn't a problem country for us, and now the Administration is busy trying to figure out how to profit from its oil.
Greenland is the same sort of thing.
The justification routeinly features the same sort of rationalization that was used to shove Native Americans off their land. They'd be "better off" with the kind entrepreneurial American hand guiding them, and they would "get rich" with their country more efficiently exploited, never mind if they didn't' want to get rich and they didn't want to exploit their land. In Greenland's case, it's now bitterly clear that part of real estate developer Donald Trump's desire to steal the country is so that rich American enterprises can exploit its mineral wealth.
What if they don't want it exploited?
That though never enters the minds of a certain branch of American capitalism. Maybe most people don't want endless economic exploitation. Maybe we don't want to mine everything. Maybe we don't want endless business growth.
By World War One the US had moved very much away from colonialism. The country started a series of "good neighbor" policies with countries to our south. At the end of the Great War we favored self determination for nations. World War Two's results emphasized this even more, with the US now favoring collective security against nations that were fundamentally opposed to democracy.
Trump has thrown that all in the trash.
People, myself included, have been struggling to figure out what on Earth Trump is thinking, and if he's being paid to destroy the US position in the world. Nobody really knows, but all this does point back to the lunacy of National Conservatism, which looks back on a world that never was. National Conservative thinkers see the US in much the same way the members of the New Apostolic Reformation do, and both forces are at work here. National Conservatives want the US to crawl into the Western Hemisphere, making it solidly Christian, and shut the door behind us. They figure Europe will do the same, if its not too late, in their view, with many looking at authoritarian regimes like those of Orbán and Putin as Eastern European models. Putin, they imagine, will advance Orthodoxy, although there's no reason to believe that his alliance with the Russian Orthodox Church is anything other than convenience. Orbán is supposed to do the same with old world values in Hungary and Eastern Europe. Immigrants to Europe and foreign influences are to be exterminated and tossed out.
That's what's going on in the minds of the National Conservatives, and that's partially what's going on with Greenland.
At this point, I frankly feel that its nearly inevitable that the US is in fact going to invade Greenland. Europe can't really stop us from doing it, although it'll result in bloodshed. It'll destroy the post war order completely. The Trump Administration will set about trying to exploit the minerals of Greenland immediately.
But that won't be the end of the story. It's taken this along, amazingly, for people to get a concept of how horrible Donald Trump and his backers really are, but it's finally occuring. Americans don't want to invade Greenland. They didn't want to invade the Philippines. If, and I feel its a when, we do this, it'll be followed by several realities.
The first will be that exploiting a nation takes time, and those backing this move do not have it. The House will flip in November, even though Trump will in fact take a run at suspending the election. The Senate might flip in November as well, although that's doubtful, but Senate Republicans, their own careers on the line, will begin to back away from Trump. In 2028 a disgusted populace will elect Democrats into office.
The US will leave Greenland, and in a big hurry. It'll be independent. The Trump legacy will be the pile of shit it deserves to be. The US will begin the process of rebuilding itself, but as a much, much, weaker country than before. That will be Trump's legacy.
May God grant that I'm wrong on all of this, and that somebody intervenes to stop this insanity before it's too late.
This again. It never occurs to many that the mines and cities aren't really everyone's dream. It particularly doesn't occur to a rich real estate developer who isn't smart and whose values are shallow.
H.E. Buechner’s proposed Wyoming state seal. The next two prosed ones featured topless women. One was briefly adopted by a Governor, who liked the topless figure, but a lot of people weren't too keen on it.
This is the main university that educates our kids in Wyoming. They don’t have three other choices like they do somewhere else. This is what we have. This body is sending the message to the people of Wyoming, our own people, ‘Don’t stay here. Don’t come here.’”
Ogden Driskill.
Driskill is exactly correct. This is what he was discussing:
I want to first note that I've really struggled with this entry, as I didn't want to sound condescending. I've probably failed, but I don't mean to be, if I have.
Thing is, I think the WFC, which is responsible for this looming disaster, is a bit condescending.
I was in attendance of a gathering of legislators this past week, most of whom were experienced legislators outside of the Wyoming Freedom Caucus, one new member who was outside of it, from a teaching background, and horrified by what they were doing, and one new member who was clearly way out to sea and three was a demeanor perhaps best characterized by ultra befuddlement. One of the long time members of the salons, in referencing this story, let slip the truth in full, before retreating on it. He noted the members of the Joint Appropriations Committee are largely new, now that the WFC has seized control of the legislature, which is against the norm, and that they aren't from here.1 Some, he noted "haven't even been to university", before he went on to qualify that as being fine, "but".
Not all of these people are members of the Freedom Caucus, but a majority are. Driskill isn't and Sherwood definitely isn't. Bear, Allemand, and Pendergraft are.
What does the Freedom Caucus have against UW?
They favor ignorance.
That no doubt sounds harsh, and it is, but it's very much the case.
Spend any time around Wyoming Freedom Caucus members at all, and you'll find that they are generally poorly educated themselves, or they have very narrow educations. That doesn't mean they are dumb, although at least one of these guys is about as sharp as a spoon. Those who are educated, were not educated here, although quixotically, John Bear, who is a major figure in this movement, was educated at CSU and has a degree in economics.2
You can generally figure out how these by looking up their legislative biographies and doing a slight bit of digging. Take, for example, the well respected conservative, but not Freedom Caucus, Driskill:
Campbell, Crook, Weston Counties Republican
Senate District 01: Senator Ogden Driskill
Leadership:
2023-2024 President of the Senate
2021-2022 Senate Majority Floor Leader
2019-2020 Senate Vice President
Years of Service:
Senate: District 01, 2011-Present
Spouse:
Rosanne
Children:
3
Grandchildren:
3
Education:
Hulett High School-Diploma, 1977
Casper College-AA, 1980
University of Wyoming-,
Occupation:
Rancher and Tourism
Civic Organizations:
Wyoming Stockgrowers Assn
Partnership of Rangeland Trusts
Land Trust Alliance
Bear called Driskill a "doofus" the other day, which is particularly unwarranted. Driskill is pretty far from a "doofus".
Driskill went to Casper College and obtained an associates degree, and apparently attended, but did not graduate from, the University of Wyoming. He didn't list a religion, but a little digging reveals he's an Episcopalian.
Let's look at another 1977 high school graduate, Bill Allemand, who is in the WFC.
Natrona County Republican
House District 58: Representative Bill Allemand
Years of Service:
House: District 58, 2023-Present
Birthplace:
Casper, Wy
Children:
4
Grandchildren:
6
Religion:
Christian
We have a "don't vote for list" coming out, and Allemand is on it. He's anti access to public lands. Based on a recent news story, he has an odd relationship with alcohol, as he was picked up for drunk driving and indicated, according to the news, that he says he drinks while driving to address stress, or so the newspaper stated he stated.
Anyhow, no education is listed at all.
His campaign site notes he graduated from high school in 1977 and moved to Kansas to run a trucking company. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's a pretty narrow weltanschauung that might give you. No spouse is listed, which probably represents a divorce, although he could be widowed. He lists his religion as "Christian".
Allemand was one of the legislators who revealed to have been given a script for a hearing this past week, with that being excused on the basis that he's green in the legislature.
He's on his second term. . .
Let's look at the Democrat.
Albany County Democrat
House District 14: Representative Trey Sherwood
Minority Caucus Chairman
Leadership:
2025-2026 House Minority Caucus Chairman
2023-2024 House Minority Caucus Chairman
Years of Service:
House: District 14, 2021-Present
Religion:
Lutheran
Education:
Leadership Wyoming-, 2009
University of West Georgia-Public History/Museum Studies, 2004
Piedmont College-History/English, 2001
Occupation:
Director, Laramie Main Street
Civic Organizations:
Laramie Public Art Coalition
Trinity Lutheran Church
Hmmm, she has two degrees focusing on history, and she lists her religion as Lutheran.
Okay, what's up?
Well, with the Freedom Caucus people we tend to find that they're not well educated, or that they have very narrow educations, although there are exceptions, such as Bear. And they tend to list their religion as "Christian".
So am I "anti Christian"?
Not at all. I am a Christian. But what I find interesting about these listings is that what they tend to mean by Christian doesn't mean being a member of the Church founded by Christ or one of the original dissenting churches that recognized the Catholic Church as the original Church, as the Lutheran Church, Presbyterian Church, Episcopal Church and Methodist Church all did, but sought a reformation of it, by their claims, but rather being a member of a Church that claims a Christian view and was founded by an identifiable human being, who was probably an American or where the church was highly developed inside the U.S.3
Take John Bear, for instance, one of the exceptions, as he's well educated. A while back I read a story on him, which included a terrible tragedy his family endured (and it was terrible). It noted he's a member of the Evangelical Free Church. The The EFCA was formed in 1950 from the merger of the Swedish Evangelical Free Church and the Norwegian-Danish Evangelical Free Church Association, so it has its roots in Scandinavian Protestantism outside of the Lutheran Church, the latter of which was the official state religion up until after World War Two, and which was imposed upon the Scandinavians by force against their will (they wanted to remain Catholic). Indeed, the Swedish Evangelical Free Church is a Baptist Church and all Evangelical Free Churches adhere to Radical Pietism It's what adherents of its sort of views call a "Bible Believing Church" which means that they reject the first 1500 years of Christianity largely because they are unaware of it and therefore, ironically, they do not believe in all of the Bible.
Let's look at another WFC member:
Campbell County Republican
House District 03: Representative Abby Angelos
Years of Service:
House: District 03, 2023-Present
Birthplace:
Buffalo, WY
Children:
3
Religion:
Christian
Education:
Wright Jr Sr High School -, 1998
Occupation:
Women’s Ministry Director
Again, no education listed save for high school, and religion is listed as "Christian".
The charmingly named Angelos would suggest that somebody in her husband's family was Greek, but apparently lost their faith in the Apostolic faith somewhere along the way, which is a danger in the Orthodox community as it does not seem to share the Catholic canon of mandatory attendance. It's also a marked feature of the agricultural community, quite frankly, as it was difficult for isolated ranchers to attend Mass or Divine Liturgy, and so they lost their original faith or became very loose in adherence to it.4 In its place a sort of loosely organized Christianity sprang up, with many Christian tenants ignored not really grasped.
John Ford gave a really nice portrayal of Western frontier Protestantism in The Searchers, even though Ford was Catholic. Indeed, he gives a nice and very sympathetic portrayal of it in several films, with this one being the best perhaps for the simple reason that the Ethan character in the film is irreligious. Another really good one is given in Sam Peckinpah's Major Dundee, in which the Protestant minister is one of the combatants. Peckinpah was raised in a very strict Presbyterian household. Wayne, who became a very late in life Catholic convert, was in another frontier minister film that does a good job with the topic, The Shepherd of the Hills. In any event, Ford's observations are very keen i the way that only somebody who is religious themselves can be about another religion.
Digging in a little shows Angelos to be a member of Gillette's "Family Life Church", which claims to be "non denominational" even though there's utterly no such thing. So, no doubt, it's a "Bible believing" do it yourself church that likely has a very poor understanding of Christian history, theology, and perhaps even Christianity. Indeed, it's website claims its "Christ centered" which any Christian church would have to be without claiming to be.
Here's another example:
Laramie, Platte Counties Republican
House District 04: Representative Jeremy Haroldson
Speaker Pro Tempore
Leadership:
2025-2026 House Speaker Pro Tempore
Years of Service:
House: District 04, 2021-Present
Birthplace:
Wheatland
Spouse:
Lori Haroldson
Children:
2
Religion:
Christian
Education:
Bismark State College-Power Plant Technology, 2006
Global University -Biblical Theology , 2016
Occupation:
Pastor
Civic Organizations:
Platte County Chamber of Commerce Chairman of Board
Rural Advancement Board Member
Platte County Ministerial Association former President
Haroldson is a WFC member. He has an education, but it's basically a technical school type education, which is definitely an education, but not a liberal arts education. He's an Assemblies of God pastor, which is a Pentecostalist "Bible believing" Protestant Church that's popular, for some reason, with rural communities.
Um, okay, so what?
The first real attacks I heard on the University of Wyoming were by the fellow who caused this event to come about:
I guess that's not entirely true, as the movement that caused Kirk to show up was active before that. Frankly, it was mostly amusing at first, as it was a collection of young (men) people who organized to complain about how liberal the University of Wyoming was while attending it. The prime mover of that organization is somebody I heard holding forth in a casual setting once, addressing a group of people he assumed to be uneducated, and he really held forth on how liberal professors were poisoning the minds of young people, a common theme of people in the Kirk orbit.5
Now, there's a lot to dig into this group of folks and their overall world outlook.6 We'll do that elsewhere, and that doesn't relate to this at all.
So, what's the point?
Just this, while individual members of the Freedom Caucus are educated, or are not members of a do it yourself sort of poorly catechized Christianity, that theme runs through the entire group, and it runs through the entire Charlie Kirk branch of Protestantism. And as they are poorly educated in general, to include religion, they don't trust education, as its adverse to what they want to believe.
Educated people generally have open minds, which does not preclude them from being conservative. William F. Buckley, for example, or George F. Will, are certainly well educated and conservative. Generally, however, educated people are more likely to embrace some ideas that are "progressive" or "liberal", or which are neither but which people very entrenched on the right regard that way, or they are at least likely to have nuances or exhibit tolerance.
A good example of that with well formed Catholics is is that climate change is caused by humans and we need to do something to arrest, and reverse it. You can definitely find well educated people who dispute this, although it's a declining number.
It gets confusing when you get to social issues, which is why I think we've seen Catholic fellow travelers with some of these groups, who are not part of these groups.7Abortion is a good example. Catholics have been opposed to abortion since day one, but how have been joined by right wing protestants. A lot of well formed Catholics are also opposed to the death penalty, and have been for a long time, but you won't find this to the case with right wing Protestants as a rule.
And we could go on and on. Lots of "conservative" Catholics are also pretty concerned about the environment, which puts them on the left in that area. Plenty of Catholics have real formed opinions against starting wars, any war, which also puts them on the left, although that's not universally true. You won't, however, hear Protestants debating on whether a particular action comports with the Just War Theory.
And finally, as a rule, Catholics are huge on education. The Big Bang Theory, after all, is our idea, as is the roots of the theory of evolution. Quite a few people in the far Evangelical right would insist that those are fibs.8
In short, some of the things taught in universities, but certainly not all, run contrary to what the far right of the Evangelical movement holds, particularly, but not exclusively, in regard to science. Indeed, this very topic comes up frequently for Catholics as somebody will ask us if we believe in science or religion, and we look baffled, and say, well, both, which is true. The far right in Evangelicalism however, can't. And because the evidence in science is frequently irrefutable, it does in fact cause a crisis for those who are deep into it when they start to study it.
That's not all of it however.
In the debate on hacking money away from the UW block grant, it was clear that, in spite of what was said, that the feeling was that UW has some liberals lurking in the woodpile that need to be smoked out. Indeed, this is so much the topic of far conservative angst that the very conservative Claremont Institute has published an entire article on it. There are specific courses that they detest, often having to do with things they regard as Woke, and they don't like Wyoming Public Radio, which is housed at UW. One of the legislators, Haroldson, compared it to Pravda, which is absurd, but which reflects a long held conservative distaste for media and general and public media in particular, as they regard it as biased. It's regarded that way as its reporting is straightforward and it'll cover unpopular topics.9]
You won't find too many Freedom Caucus members listening to NPR's Science Friday.
In contrast, you will find some, I'd guess, that listen to an Evangelical radio station in Casper which unironically runs a really long item by a guy who is adamant that the world is only 5,000 or so years old and who likes to go to National Parks and confront the science lectures of Park Rangers with that. He conceives of them being overawed, when in fact it's clear that they think he's an anti scientific nut.
And that gets to the heart of it in general. Folks in the Freedom Caucus are afraid of education, as people learn that the world isn't 5,000 years old, that evolution is real, and that climate change isn't a fib. They can't stand that as it deeply upsets their world view. Evolution, the age of the Earth, and climate science aren't a threat to Catholics, the Orthodox, or mainline Protestants as they accept that faith can be informed by science. It is a a deep threat to "Bible believing" Christians as they can't reconcile any of those things with the literal text of the Bible, even though they're perfectly content to flat out ignore big chunks of the Bible that Apostolic Christians in fact take literally.
The other thing that these groups are flat out ignorant on is history.
This often comes through in economic debates or in campaigns. Listen to them, even though most of them aren't from here, Wyoming came about when hardy pioneers crossed the barren plains and carved out a civilization from the raw wilderness.
Which is bull.
Well, not completely bull, but at least partially bull.
In reality, Wyoming was a major benefactor of the American System in which the Federal Government heavily invested in the economy to give private enterprise a start. The US removed the original inhabitants of the land by armed force, subsidized the building of the railroads, guarded the trails with Federal troops, and gave away land with bare minimum proof of effort. In 2026 the US would never do any of that, but its legacy, including the completely absurd legacy that the owners of land that was given away solely for agricultural purposes now own the minerals, including the oil and gas, below where the grass grows.
Now, I'm a huge fan of history, including Wyoming history, and I'm an agriculturalist as well as a lawyer, and I wish I'd lived back when you could homestead. More than that, if I could have lived when free and company trappers were the only European Americans out here, I would have loved to have done that. But none of that should mean that we take a They Died With Their Boots On view of history let alone our own state. Frankly, the repeal of the Homestead Act after Franklin Roosevelt saved the state and made it was it is, and we ought to be grateful.
Finally, the other thing that's going on is a guerilla campaign in the Culture Wars. College campuses really are more liberal than any other American institution, followed probably only by the Bar.10 Even this, however, isn't very uniform.
As noted here before, I came up in the sciences. By and large, people in the sciences couldn't, at the time, be characterized as left or right. I've heard that certain Charlie Kirk acolyte rail against "liberal professors", but that's because he was a political science major. Who did you think you were going to find there? Other than sociology, that's no doubt the most likely to be left wing major that there is. It's also a major that only leads to teaching or the law, so in a way its a self refining pool of people. People with political science degrees will generally find that the professors are center to left of center. Lawyers as a rule are center to left of center, even if they didn't start out that way, as they have to work with real people. Far right lawyers, of which there are some, aren't going to probably do very well in a profession where your clients are basically in the category of desperately needing help.
Universities, it might be noted, have become more liberal since the Second World War, that being another impact of WWII that I failed to note in my large post on that topic. The reasons were several fold, the first being the massive government investment in universities, which were providing necessary technological knowledge, and manpower, as universities were training needed professions as well as directly training officers. An officer during the Second World War was much more likely to have come out of a university than a military academy. This relationship kept on right after the war and it still exists today.
But beyond that, the GI Bill sent thousands of men to universities who would never have otherwise gone.
All of this created a new condition in which universities started taking in government money, and then became dependent up on it to a degree. It shifted the center of gravity in various academic fields, but not all of them, away from liberal arts degrees that were fairly narrowly focused to much broader ones. This expanded existing degree programs as well. Having said all that entirely new fields were not created anywhere as much as people like to think. CU, for example offered political science classes all the way back to the 1910s, although the department was created in 1957.
So here's the one area that they have a point on. In some fields, not all, some professors, not all are fairly liberal, because that's where they can find a professional homes. Prior to World War Two, and even more, prior to World War One, that's where a certain type of tweedy right wing academic found a home, funded as it were by old money that funded the universities. Now it's sort of flipped.
But how many professors is that really?
My academic experience is quite a while back, but even at that time some of the things the populist right regards as "woke" were around. I don't think I had a single undergraduate professor that I'd regard as left wing, but then again, my major was in a hard science. In law school I can think of a single professor that I'd regard as slightly left of center, but there were quite a few students who were very left of center. Those students were in the political left when they got there.
Indeed, thinking again of my undergraduate years, just after the Siberian land bridge closed, there were a fair number of students in the hard sciences that were left of center. I'd guess that there was probably a single student I knew, a grad student, who was definitely in the political right. Most of the rest of us were not.
And that's some the Freedom Caucus needs to consider.
It wasn't our university education that made us geology students slightly left of center. Were were slightly left of center going in. That doesn't mean we were flaming radicals either, I'd note. But we weren't right wing populists. We were pretty cautious, as budding scientists, about right wing views on many things, and now that I'm approaching four decades out, my views have returned to the same as they were on politics for the most part. Indeed, they've evolved hardly at all there. They have evolved on social and religious views, where I've become more conservative over time, but at the same time, I've become more learned on the same topics, which has driven that.
Which is why the Freedom Caucus needs to get a little education itself. It's grasp of the history of the state and its economics is abysmal. They need more of the opening of Red River and all of Little Big Man and less of the end of They Died With Their Boots On.
The University of Wyoming is the state's only four year college, in part because it fought tooth and nail to keep there from being any others. Hurting UW is an ignorant thing to do.11
You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you odd.
Flannery O'Connor.
Footnotes
1. While I'll note in this that most of the members of the WFC are ignorant in one way or another, they're certainly not stupid, and they're doing what contestants for the English crown used to do in the early Medieval period. They've seized the treasury, and therefore are, they hope, in control.
2. Bear is a CSU graduate and Navy veteran. He's originally from Missouri.
3. They would no doubt not see this, this way, but that's because they tend to be unaware of the highly developed written history of the early Church and the vast number of writings from it.
4. This is very common in the West and I've known some Catholic ranching families that lost their association with the Church in just this fashion. After a time, they don't even know that a generation or two back, they were Catholic.
This sort of thing is described in Patrick McManus' memoir in which he notes that his family lived so far out in the sticks that he was actually relatively advanced in years, age 4 or 5, before he was ware that his family was Catholic. He did remain Catholic.
5. It turns out that he was pursuing a political science degree with the goal of going to law school. It's amusing in part because political science professors tend to be liberal and come by it naturally. If you have Francoist views, as this fellow turned out to have, you aren't going to be a poly sci professor. Lawyers are, moreover, almost uniformly left of center to center, so he's setting himself up for an unhappy life.
6. The real exception to all of this is Rachel Rodriguez-Williams, who is a well educated Californian and a Catholic.
But this in and of itself is interesting. I'd defer to Fr. Joseph Krupp on this, who has discussed how for many years the pro life movement was exclusively Catholic, and then all of a sudden protestant groups started showing up. It had an influence on Catholics in that movement, which ironically helped fuel the Trad movement, although its certainly not the sole reason for it.
Catholics who are fellow travelers with Evangelicals in politics are really naive on what that means as many of these "Bible Believing" Protestants have no clue whatsoever that the Bible is a Catholic book or that Catholics are the original Christians. Rooted in the Black Myths, many of them instinctively really hate Catholics, which will come back to haunt Catholics at some point.
7. See footnote 1.
8. The US is a Protestant country, however, and you can find plenty of Catholics who have adopted heavily Protestantized views on nearly anything, often unthinkingly.
9. The comparison to Pravda is not only absurd, but ironic given that the news organs of the Trump regime might be fairly compared to the Volkische Beobacher.
10. You'll find a lot of conservative lawyers out in the practicing lawyer world, but you won't find very many MAGA ones. There are some, but they're a minority.
Interestingly, when Liz Cheney got into trouble with the electorate here because of her views, the lawyers were really in her corner. I never heard a single lawyer criticize Cheney, and lots of them were very vocal in their support of her. I'd get rare comments from out of state lawyers, who were usually surprised by the stoney silence such comments made, assuming as they did that all Wyomingites hated Cheney.
Lawyers never did, and for that matter, most professionals didn't either. That's still the case, and frankly most of the professional community, including ardent conservatives, are not happy with any of the state's Congressional delegation.
11. For years I thought I saw this coming, I'd note, but not where it actually came. I thought it'd be the law school that would get attacked.
Law schools tend to regarded as liberal by default, and populists tend to hate the law as it restrains them from doing what they want to do, right up until the forces of nature whip around on them and they need protection from the law. Frankly, I fear we're getting there very quickly as Trump's unhinged nature is starting to provoke violent resistance to his programs, and the populist insurrection on January 6, 2020, has given Trump's most radical opponents a blueprint. If the cabinet or Congress doesn't force Trump into the nursing home soon, I suspect very soon that the administration may experience its own January 6 event.
Anyhow, I thought for years that the legislature would turn on the law school, but it hasn't. It might be because, up until very recently, there were quite a few lawyers in the legislature.
That's no longer true, and the lousy quality of some of the legislation that gets passed shows that. Lawyers belong in the legislature. Indeed, there's been a recent effort by some of the legal associations to recruit them back into it, without much success.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
Anyhow, the law school probably averted this by doing a good job of making itself irrelevant. The UBE has really damaged it, and the practice of law in Wyoming in general.
