john's thoughts

reflections on art and life, society etc

  • The Ghosts of Movies Past–The Uninvited

    I originally thought of this title for a series about old films some time ago and I guess the title came to me by way of memories of “A Christmas Carol.” But I waited long enough to begin, that it now fits the season of Halloween. By “ghosts” here, I mean mostly the former, the lingering effect of films, both in the minds of individuals and in the rather ephemeral but I think important national subconscious-at least the subconscious of movie fans. So I begin with two kinds of ghosts to talk about, the effect of a movie and the subject of the movie itself.

    “The Uninvited(1944), is, technically, an American film but it sure seems like a British one. Set in Cornwall in the spring-summer of 1937, it concerns a brother and sister(Ray Milland and Ruth Hussey)who, while on vacation, discover a large, long deserted house and become determined to buy it. He is a London music critic and composer and she is, apparently, independently well to do. They pool their resources and succeed in getting the house, purchasing it from the owner, a crusty old carryover from Victorianism(Donald Crisp), and also come into contact with his overprotected and somewhat intimidated granddaughter, Stella(Gail Russell).

    The film, like most at the time, and fortunately, I think, in this case, is in black and white. It begins with a wide-vision shot of the sea and the audience gets to see white caps as the waters come ashore on the rocks. They also get to hear the sound of this. Meanwhile, they hear Milland doing a voice-over regarding the coasts of lands that border this part of the sea and their propensity for providing a background for ghostly events. This all sets the scene nicely and puts the viewer in an agreeable tingly mood.

    I will not go into the film in great detail here, but you need to know a little of what happens. The granddaughter, much against her Grandfather’s wishes, makes friends, barely, with the two Londoners. She and Milland seem to have a quick, closeness between them, and the stage seems set for romance, particularly when Milland writes her a song. But instead there is uncertainty and fear(“Stella By Starlight” became a jazz/Great American Songbook hit–you still might hear Miles Davis’s and other versions of it on Sirius “Real Jazz”)

    On the first night brother and sister are together in their new home, Milland hears the sound of a woman sobbing. His sister explains that during the weeks he was cleaning up details in London and she was civilizing the house, she heard this several times, and no, it’s not Lizzie, the housekeeper, whose cat behaved oddly and refused to go upstairs. “It comes from everywhere and nowhere,” she says. Yes, indeed.

    Without going into revealing details, I will merely say that this is the beginning of a tense and compelling ghost story that does not terrify you with nut cases running around with chainsaws, but may make your hair re-arrange itself a couple of times and send through you a couple of chills, so you feel as if you had just come inside on a cold winter day. Questions are asked and not, immediately, anyway, answered. The history of the house is studied and eventually, after quite a bit of tension and suspense, there are a number of ghostly manifestations(along with some explanations, too).

    If you check this out on-line you will find many people praising it. But some regard it as weak stuff, nothing like today’s “shock” films with noise, blood and violence. This is, in my opinion, a good thing. This movie is not about physical violence. It is about subtle, spiritual and psychological haunting and the different but still chilling fear it can bring. It is way more sophisticated than the gross chop ’em to bits type. It is by far my favorite supernatural film–“The Haunting” from the 1960’s would be second, but for all its qualities it is not equal to this.

    Part of the reason for this film’s excellence is found in the efforts of the director, Lewis Miller. Every scene seems to fit, to be an integral part of the story. The appearance and atmosphere of the house are allowed to play a significant role, but one you see or sense in the background, just part of the scenery of chills. When the manifestations do appear, they are not clear–they are foggy and indistinct, like something from a dream or a surrealist artist, as if telling us that this is not just a matter of other people, it’s other people from outside our reality, but real and perhaps threatening all the same.

    Given the movie’s age you might expect to creak a little bit–and it does, but only slightly. Some of the romance is a bit contrived and the attempts at humor are clearly several decades behind the curve. But these count little, they are a small part of the overall story, maybe 5% or less of the movie. And there is the brief presence of the elegant and unusual Cornelia Otis Skinner who in a very busy life acted a little bit and maybe should have more. Her teacher/counsellor is a combination of authoritarianism and doubtful sanity that you won’t forget.

    This is not a movie for people who want to be “shocked” by violence and mayhem and screaming. It is about the mystery and spookiness of encountering the supernatural and trying to figure it out, and being both afraid on one hand and anxious to learn on the other. It’s a film for people who like mystery in the most serious and meaningful sense of the term, the kind that sneaks up on you after midnight, and spooks your mind and soul rather than threatening your body. In an era where so many movies have the grossest violence with almost no subtlety at all, it is a reminder of civilized behavior and presumes it can exist among both those of flesh and blood and the wandering spirits. Try it, you might really like it.

    (Other than the common title, this film has nothing to do with the one made in the late 2000’s, maybe 2009 or thereabouts. I watched about 20 or 25 minutes of it once which was enough to determine that 1) The stories are not connected and 2) I was wasting my time)

    , , ,

  • Win one, lose one ? Maybe Not-Big Decisions at the Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court handed down several decisions Jun 30, none of them inconsequential. But I wish to deal for now, anyway, only with the two most observers seem to think the most important. That would be “Trump v Barbara” on the 14th amendment and birth right citizenship and another one with two names which we’ll get to in a few moments, regarding trans people in sports.

    The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, stated explicitly that all born “in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” were citizens. The Trump administration attacked this amendment. Going after it just at the beginning of the 2nd term. Donald Trump ordered(by executive order, I believe) that this right not be applied to people whose parents had come to the US for a short stay and often left shortly after the birth. In other words, he was after people he considered phony citizens, those who were born here only because their parents traveled here so they would be US citizens from birth,.

    Since Trump’s executive order was clearly contradictory of the 14th Amendment it is no surprise that court cases arose, several federal judges got involved, and the US Court System ordered that the Administration must follow the law and Constitution, not the President’s ideas. This led to a lengthy and obviously losing(for the President)series of court fights and the question wound up before the Supreme Court.

    The government(Trump’s side)attempted an argument which, broken down to lay language went something like this–“These people are citizens only because their parents came here to get them citizenship and most had no intent to stay as a family. The original 14th Amendment did not have this intent, it was to guarantee citizenship to former slaves. Therefore the citizenship of these people is basically phony and need not be treated as legitimate.”

    Now I think it is important to note that Trump’s side was not entirely incorrect in everything they said–not quite. It is certainly true that the 14th Amendment was for former slaves and if there had been no such issue there would have been no such amendment. It would not have been necessary. But MAGA oriented people then went on to argue that the intent of the amendment rather than its clearly spelled out legal strictures should rule, which would change the status of US. citizenship.

    I have never gone to law school so I am offering only a layman’s (I hope fairly well educated) opinion here, but it would seem to me that there could be real problems. It would be an awful mess if suddenly the intent of the makers of every law and Amendment had to be considered and could be subject to federal hearings. It would be a legal mess, placing on our already overburdened courts a new, irrelevant and unneeded burden and presenting a unneeded complication in pursuing legal matters in the US.

    Also, the idea that the intention of the authors should rule everything else seems to me legal nonsense. Of course the “‘intent” of the founding fathers is a legitimate subject for debates in Amending the Constitution. But it is only one of several considerations that traditionally go into decisions by Amendment writers, members of Congress and the courts. And in this case we don’t know everything about intent.

    I have no doubt that it was the intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment to guarantee citizenship to former slaves. The other issue was not a consideration. But, hey, note that! Not a consideration! At least I don’t recall ever reading or hearing of any such issue over this amendment. But the precise wording of the Amendment makes it clear it applies to ALL born in the US(very small exception for children of foreign diplomats). They almost certainly had no “intent” to draw a distinction among Americans based upon the way they had attained or inherited their citizenship. There is certainly nothing in writing to suggest this.

    Looking at the Amendment again, it says “All persons born or naturalized,.” with only that one narrow exception. It is surely not a legitimate function of judges or legislators to change such a straight forward statement based upon a supposition, certainly not one that was to my knowledge never written down or even publicly expressed. The Court’s decision is the only possible one that could make any legal sense or serve justice!! They got it right and did so 6-3 with a liberal-conservative mixture in the majority.

    The other one(actually, technically two cases but largely the same issue)deals with transgender people and athletics. The question is whether it is all right to ban biological males from partaking in women’s sports. I personally think this is a tough one and people will divide on it differently than on the citizenship issue. My own feeling(and I am aware a lot of my fellow liberals are going to disagree)is that the court was right. Please note that the court ruling does not forbid transgender participation of this type. What it does is to give the states the right to do it.(Which roughly a half of them do already.)

    Regarding the very difficult transgender issue, I understand the feeling of “left-outness” some people will feel, but here is my thinking–

    I think it is really beyond question that biological males have an unfair advantage if participating in sports as female. I remember in the old Cold War days that at Olympics the USSR and the rest of the world often differed on things such as who had “won.” One thing that I know was alleged was that some of the Soviet “female” athletes weren’t, and that gave them an advantage.

    Since here we have a clear question of fairness on both sides, we have to choose. I am choosing the side that I think provides the most in fairness for as many people as possible. There will likely be further appeals and maybe this will change. But it is where I stand now.

    Because there were two States involved here this case may be know as “Little v Hecox,” which came from ID or “West Virginia vs BPJ.”

    The Court ruled substantially the same on each but there are some differences. The main thing to remember is that in a 6-3 ruing the Supreme Court stated that State laws banning transgender athletic participation do not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

    Title 9, a 1972 Civil Rights Act meant to protect the rights of females was part of “WV v BJP” but not “Little v Hecox.” Without going into more detail than you or I want, I’ll stop the narration there. If you want to pursue this further, just google “Recent Supreme Court Decisions.” There were other recent decisions of importance and I may get to at least some of them soon.

    , , , ,

  • The Ghosts of Movies Past–Two Snakes in the Garden–“A Face in the Crowd” and “The Sweet Smell of Success”_take on the America of the 1950’s

    It would, be of course, a great mistake to assume all was well in the USA in the ’50’s, that everyone was happy, that there were no conflicts, etc. We all know from education, experience, movies, TV reruns and, for a few of us, actual memory that the 50’s were not that simple. It is, however, undoubtedly true that the 50’s constituted a “more innocent time,” if by “innocent” you mean unwilling, and maybe psychologically unable to admit the truth about the US or ourselves, or humanity itself, an unwillingness to acknowledge things that every high school sophomore knew were true but that the greater society, the clergy, teachers, big business, show business and the media were unwilling to acknowledge.

    The most obvious of these things would be extra-marital sex, drugs, and the basic crookedness of so many people. These were “concealed” from people who already knew them and who then grew up to conspire to keep “innocent” their own children a decade or two or three later, thus helping encourage the 1960’s in both their glory and their messiness, and whatever we have had since., But the overall feeling was that we were mostly innocent and hard working and that honesty and hard work paid off for everyone. Crooks usually lost.

    I am perfectly aware that the US entertainment industry did not entirely shrink before this theory all the time. It produced “Waterfront,” the beginnings of what would be called later 60’s rebellion, James Dean as a hero, and a lot of other discordant messages, But by and large, there was an overall tendency not to exactly suppress these disturbingly confounding things as to simply ignore them and try to overwhelm their influence with Arthur Godfrey, the MaGuire Sisters, and “Ozzie and Harriet.”(Actually, I liked Ozzie and Harriet–they were often very funny–but, still–well, never mind). The thing is that in entertainment and the arts there was what one might call a lack of tolerance for too much nastiness, selfishness, and all round human failing, and a tendency to suppress them or to show them as fairly easily handled by good will and good gestures. But not always.

    The two movies I wish to tell you about are part of that movement to show the lacking, what I guess would today be called the dark side of America. But I think it’s more than just that. It has to do with the dark side of the world, or human nature, another thing the official philosophy of the time was not too comfortable with. Both of these films are brilliantly effective in portraying this and showing a side of us that audiences didn’t want to see, at least not at first. But the side was there and would not be repressed entirely, and these two excellent movies bear witness to the faults of human nature.

    To repeat a cliche I tend to refer to too often, these movies are both alike and different. But the alikeness is the thing that makes them a fit subject to study together. “A Face in the Crowd: and “The Sweet Smell of Success” both study the nature of one of the serous lackings of the human beast. Greed- Greed for money, greed for power, sex ,fame, publicity–well, just look at he headlines. But these two films took it on, particularly the power and money part, and showed it in all of its strength and influence, its ability to corrupt the innocent and to make the already corrupt even more so.

    Both “Face” and “Success” concentrate mostly one or two main characters and their corruption and their effect on others. Ultimately, they say, this is self-destructive. But a lot of people will go a long way before the destruction comes clear, before they understand what’s really going on. And some don’t care. They also seem to be saying that this is particularly true among the celebrities and the opinion-makers–politicians and their followers, entertainers, and the people who stand to profit from them by backing them, or, occasionally trashing them. “Face” deals more with the society as a whole, and its being influenced by one charismatic but dangerous character, “Success” concentrates on a few mostly despicable people, two in particular, and invites you to compare them to what you know and have observed. It also gives you a glimpse at their geographic and psychological milieu.

    It is worth pointing out that “Face “deals with this not only with a large amount of attention given to the public, but at least begins with a southern/rural back ground. “Success” is New York City, perhaps the ultimate movie about NYC advantage taking, plotting and scheming. The immediate cultural effect of the two is noticeably different. The impact of the characters on morality and honesty are noticeably similar.

    “Face” begins in a small AR town in a jail. Among the drunks and other losers in the tank at least for the night is a rather bad tempered and secretly arrogant man who is also something of an entertainer. “Lonesome” Rhodes(Andy Griffith) can play the banjo, sing a song, tell a joke and charm whatever he wants off of or out of many. But the charm is often hidden unless he sees opportunity in using it.

    Into this place comes Marcia(Patricia Neal) who holds an important position of managerial power in her family’s local radio station. She coaxses a bit of entertainment out of Rhodes and is very impressed. Later, after talking with some others,, she decides to get him on a show.

    But returning to the jail, she finds he has been released and his whereabouts are unknown. But he hasn’t been gone long and she and a colleague set out to find him. They do, he is tramping and hitchhiking to who-knows where with a buddy and he is not impressed with their offer of employment, But at last he succumbs to their blandishments and agrees to go back to town.

    There follows a remarkable but by no means unbelievable rise to success and power. Lonesome has an inborn instinct for charming people combined with some musical talent. He has a way of ingratiating himself with the public and of understanding them, their desires, instincts and perhaps even subconscious feelings. He is superb at playing on these thoughts, weaknesses if you will, among the public and soon, through his apparent honesty(he won’t peddle bull, even in commercials)and straight forward humor he is the most popular man in town.

    Soon a bigger station, from Memphis, is on the phone trying to lure him there. They offer $500.00 a week. Marcia is all for taking it, but Lonesome whispers to her , “We can do better than that.” So he makes a deal that he will work for free for two weeks. If it doesn’t work out he’ll move along. If they like him they’ll pay $1000.00 a week. He goes and you can guess what happens. He becomes a meteoric star through the south and soon, with TV network connections through the US. He has his own show quickly, with sexy girls, a well hyped program of music and humor, and is taking the nation by storm.

    Now all along the way, it has been clear that Lonesome is a “ladies’ man,” and is busy bedding hotel maids and whoever else is attractive and willing. There is a certain sexual tension between him and Marcia, but she is resistant,(how about that?) though he clearly desires someone with more class(however the word is defined)than his usual girls. It is also apparent that he is utterly without ethics or compunctions when it comes to money and success. He acquires not only a national following, but a professional manager, (Anthony Franciosa) who knows a good thing when he sees it and figures he can play this good thing, Lonesome’s career, for power and money for himself. He’s right, too.

    With a few bumps along the way, but no real troubles, Lonesome has a stable of writers led by Walter Matthau in maybe his first really big role. Like the others he is ambitious but also seems analytical and nagged by his conscience. Along the way Maria succumbs to Lonesome’s charms and they become lovers although she never seems quite happy with this role and she also appears to (wisely)mistrust his honesty and steadfastness.

    Lonesome becomes so powerful and admired that others, including at least one potential Presidential candidate, seek him out for advice. As part of the overall chaos, another women pops into his world announcing that she is his wife and more or less demanding a share of the take. Things are getting complicated.

    Eventually Lonesome and Marcia quarrell but the show goes on and so does the inflow of money. But eventually, she betrays him. Fed up with a number of things including his hypocrisy–he has nothing but contempt for his fans–she commits an act of destruction on him.(SPOILER ALERT-NEXT TWO PARAGRAPHS)

    While his show is going off the camera stays on Lonesome but there is a musical background while they run the credits. His microphone is turned off. He uses this opportunity to smile and wave at the “hicks” who watch him and whom he calls that along with other unflattering terms. Smiling at the camera, he talks and his audience think he’s saying how he loves them; but it’s actually how much he despises them. But Marcia who knows backstage well enough, gets to the correct switch and turns his mic back on. His contempt for the people who love him pours out for millions to hear. And he is finished, at least for awhile. Matthau points out that he will likely come back a little bit, but things will never be the same. The big party is over and now he will just be a one time wonder with a few thousand followers and no expensive sponsors.

    This induces hysteria in Lonesome and we get one of the great scenes of movie history as a result. Going to his hotel room window and utterly broken by Marcia’s betrayal he begins to scream her name-over and over, and well-there you have it–arrogance and power decayed into desperation, loneliness, and despair.

    About a year later”The Sweet Smell of Success” was released. It was directed by Andrew Mackenna, a US born Brit(Scot)who had little reputation in the US at the time. He soon would, at least among close movie watchers. It was written by Ernest Lehman and Clifford Odets. It is a devastating film, as much as “Face,” maybe a little more so.

    Like “Face” it is superbly directed and edited and the writing is so sharp that it is almost unrealistic-fortunately you don’t really have time to question whether two dishonorable , slimy people, even well educated, could sound like that. But, hey, maybe they could. James Wong Howe, long the best cinematographer in Hollywood photographed it and the black and white grimness is both clear and painfully effective. I’m tempted to say it almost becomes a character itself.(OK, I said it) So is the jazz score by Elmer Bernstein, a long time leader in US movie soundtracks. Most of the music in the movie is played by the Chico Hamilton quartet who were just getting going. It was all put together by Hecht-Hill-Lancaster, a company that deserves a blog by itself so I’ll say no more about it for now.

    The plot, which becomes complex in details, is always simple in it s main points. Burt Lancaster plays J J Hunsecker, a powerful and arrogant newspaper columnist whom many fear and admire and no one wants to offend. He writes about many things, but particularly NY and the entertainment industry. He is powerful, cold, ruthless and utterly without compunctions about other people. But there’s one exception. He has a 19-year old Sister, Susan(Susan Harrison), whom he idolizes and with whom his relationship is intense and possessive perhaps to the point of incestuous if (slightly)hidden feelings. (one possible though not very large imperfection to this otherwise flawless movie is that Susan appears to be at least 20 years younger than her brother–huh??)

    But all is not well with Susan and JJ. Susan is dating a rising young jazz guitarist, Steve Dallas (Marty Milner who made a sort of career playing nice young guys) JJ is, for no very apparent reason other than possibly incestuous jealousy, totally opposed to her marriage. He has been unable to talk her out of her feelings or her relationship and the relationship between them, once so close has cooled.

    Being rich, powerful, and used to getting his own way, JJ makes the obvious decision. He will get some help to break up the romance and return things to normal. At this point, enter the other hero/villain, Sidney Falco(Tony Curtis)Sidney is a press agent, in other words a sort of free lance publicity man, whose clients are mostly, if not wholly, show business people. He tries to get them the kind of publicity they need, which includes newspaper columns. So of course it includes JJ, whose column is the cream of NYC showbiz influence. He has a small, not too impressive office and a pleasant but not too glamorous secretary(Jeff Donnell). He is obviously ambitious and also obviously scrambling hard to keep in the game. He is also a snake, though a different kind from JJ.

    We first meet Sidney before we do JJ and he is looking through the paper for JJ’s column and then peruses the column for the promised mention of a client. It isn’t there. Sidney is furious. JJ had promised him he’d mention the person’s name and Sidney had promised the client. Now he has to explain why the client’s fee got him nothing. In a mood of raging betrayal he goes to see JJ.

    Not at all intimidated by Sidney’s rage JJ treats him with contempt. We also learn that Sidney has already been enlisted by JJ to break up Susan’s relationship with her guitar player, and to do it any way he can(well, presumably within most of the law and without violence, but otherwise about anything goes).Sidney is impressed and slightly intimidated by JJ, whom he has obviously known for some time, and maybe just a bit afraid of him. but only a bit. When it comes to scheming, manipulating and looking out for No 1 Sidney’s pretty hard to beat.

    But there is an interesting difference between his character and JJ’s and here it is. JJ comes off as almost machinelike in his coldness and lust for power and control. The only softness he ever shows(and it isn’t very much) is related to Susan. Sidney has a certain openness about his character, or at least his persona, that makes him seem at times more human than the cold, austere, arrogant JJ. JJ likely despises Sidney overall, but he’s not going to let his contempt blind him to Sidney’s true personality. “I’d hate to take a bite out of you,” he tells him, “you’re a cookie full of arsenic.” And that is likely an accurate judgement. Nonetheless, you get the impression that if you had to spend an evening in the company of just one of these men, you’d likely go with Sidney. Vicious, selfish and unscrupulous but at least capable of laughter sometimes, charming people sometimes, etc. He is more human than JJ or at least has learned to act the part.

    Sidney having been engaged by JJ to break up Susan’s relationship is determined and, good, ambitious dog he is he means to do it. There follows a careful examination about how to go about ruining someone’s life without violence and with some subtlety–also without mercy and without inconvenient things like scruples. We watch Sidney as he goes through the list of things he can think of. He tries to ruin Steve’s name by getting another columnist to hint that he(Steve)is a communist and a marijuana user.

    If he doesn’t cooperate Sidney will get word to his wife that he had at least a flirtation, maybe more, with a night club cigarette girl(Barbara Nichols) who is an old friend(at least)of Sidney’s. The columnist get a sudden flash of honesty and in the presence of his wife admits what happened then tells Sidney where to get off. His wife comments that that’s the first decent thing she’s known him to do for a long time.

    After that failure Sidney tries to pimp her to another small time writer with much the same idea. This works to the extent that the story is released, but it results in the whole quintet getting fired. JJ gets them back their job, but Sidney’s job of breaking up the lovers is still not accomplished.

    Finally, getting desperate and after arguing with JJ. the latter hints that if he and Susan go to Europe as planned, Sidney will get to write his column while he’s away.-if he delivers. He also has a plan–he knows a crooked cop who will cooperate because JJ has some dirt on him and they can frame Steve. Sidney will slip some marijuana into his coat and he will be arrested, convicted and whatever else, ruined for Susan.

    The plan works but goes awry and Susan eventually finds out about it. She is understandably horrified by what her brother and her friend Sidney tried to do to her. There follows an ending that would be melodramatic if it were not so genuinely dramatic and believable. I will not do a spoiler with or without alert on this, I’ll just tell you to see this movie(most libraries likely have it) and see what you think. If you appreciate film and the human mind and heart at all I think you’ll be fascinated and exhausted after watching it.

    I have nothing else to say except that these are, as I indicated when I started this, both extremely, almost ruthlessly well-done movies. They both challenged what Americans at least believed they believed in the 1950’s(or, failing that at least pretended that they believed) They both displayed ambition and greed at their worst, but not without including a few decent characters along with the snakes. But the snakes, Lancaster and Curtis, are magnificent.

    These movies got the attention of movie freaks and fanatics fairly early, I think. But at first they received little public attention, were not big money makers and were mostly cold shouldered by the films community for years. Incredibly, it seems now, they both went without ANY Oscar nominations. Elia Kazan won the Directors Guild of America’s award for directing “Face” and Tony Curtis won the BAMBI award, which I had never heard of to my recollection before today, for playing Sidney. (The BA,MBI award is worth looking up on the internet, but not worth further attention now except to say that the name and tre movie are a laughable match.)

    Time has been kinder to these films. Both are now considered among the best of their type ever made. Some American(and other)directors of today would do well to watch them just to see how to do a movie. From the previews every time we go the the movies it looks more and more like a lost art. But see these two if you think they sound at all interesting. I think you’ll be fascinated by both.

    , , , ,

  • Poetry, Mystery and American History

    Flower, Amanda, “Because I Could Not Stop for Death”

    copyright 2022, Published by Berkely Press

    I find that there are just too many writers to keep up with all I want to read, so I have to be choosy. This is particularly true when I enjoy sharing my opinions with others as I do here. I think I’ll be adding Amanda Flower to my read more list, although I didn’t know her until I encountered this book.

    Although I am by no means an expert on poetry, I do like it sometimes, and as you have very likely noted already, this title comes from one of the most famous lines written by one of America’s most famous poets, Emily Dickinson. It caught my attention immediately and I decided I had better as least give the book a chance. I’m glad that I did.

    Amanda Flower, in turns out, is a fellow Northeast Ohioan, though her biographical details don’t include exactly where her residence is. This adds a bit to my desire to read more of her, but wouldn’t do so if I had been indifferent or worse about her book. She is, by the way, a very prolific author and this is not her only series.

    The book takes place in the mid 1850’s in Amherst, MA, Emily’s hometown. It is told in the first person by Willa Noble, a servant in the Dickinson household. We first meet Willa going to the household for an interview with Miss O’Brien, the housekeeper and sort of a chief of servants, and it is she who interviews Willa. She seems ready to refuse to hire her or maybe to put her name on a list of possibilities, when Emily, who has heard some of the interview, intervenes. Gently, bur firmly, she tells Miss O’Brien to stop the series of interviews and to hire Willa who is just the kind of person she wants. She also offers the opinion that her father will like her, mostly, apparently, because she does.

    By her opening briefing of Willa, we know this is going to be a tough job in an exacting household. The head of the household, though not often at home, is Emily’s father, Rep. Edward Dickinson of the House of Representatives. He is a conservative Whig, an adamant foe of slavery but a conservative man for the most part, who believes in justice and equality but also in strict order carried out fully. He may not be easy to work for, although he won’t be around too much of the time.

    Emily’s mother was Emily Norcross Dickinson, the daughter of a prominent family and a New England lady of her time. She likely was dominated heavily by her husband, but not a lot information of their relationshipo is in the book

    The other family member of the household is Lavinia, Emily’s sister, who is depicted as mean spirited, cranky and irritating. I have to give her one thing though, she likes cats, having four of them at home.

    So Willa comes to this odd sounding(to us but likely quite typical of the upper class New England home of its time) home and finds a hard time of her own now and then. Her mother has died and her father is long gone. She has a brother, Henry, whom we meet briefly. She is alone in the world except for Henry and has almost no money. She is a lower middle class person possibly about to sink lower in the society and this is her opportunity to turn this around. She does so, but not without struggles.

    Her first big problem is Henry, who has a job taking care of horses at a local livery, a new job she did not know about. He will be, he says making more money there. Also, he has plans, big plans, which will make them rich and end her days as a servant. She will be a society lady, or at least something much like it, he implies.

    Compared to his sister’s anxieties and depressions, Henry is an exuberant character, full of bravado and enthusiasm. He apparently has had a brush or two with the law for fast and loose business practices, but nothing too serous. Willa does not totally disbelieve he may succeed but has her doubts and, sensibly, knows she must make her own way while Henry plays his games. Maybe he will win–maybe not.

    So Willa turns herself to her new job and does her best. Miss O’Brien is exacting but may have an inner core or kindness about her. Emily is a significant presence to Willa flitting about the house, appearing and disappearing, always available in a way, but often not there, apparently in her room and presumably writing poetry. Willa regards her with a combination of admiration and curiosity. One thing she cannot do, at first anyway, is depend on her.

    Willa begins to get her bearings about the job and to fit in moderately well, She is often nervous and uncertain about her performance but seems to fulfill expectations at least minimally, maybe more. Then disaster strikes. Henry is killed at work where, the police say, a horse fell on him.

    Willa is devastated. She loved Henry beyond anyone else in the world. Now he is gone unjustly, and she is alone, no one but this strict if well ordered household behind her. The police are as comforting as possible, but tell her there is nothing for them to do, for Henry’s death was clearly accidental. The horse must have gone off balance and fallen with unfortunate Henry right beside.

    Willa tries to pick up the pieces and go on but it’s difficult. And in addition to her grief she has doubts. Henry had told her a little about the job and it didn’t sound dangerous. She knew he was good with animals and couldn’t imagine anything like this could happen naturally. Henry was not that sort of victim. It must have been intended by someone, who realized they could get rid of Henry and blame the horses.

    But why? Who? How did it happen? Emily wonders too, and she takes Willa to Henry’s place of employment. There they speak with Jerimiah, a young black man who is an employee who was close to Henry and to the animals. Though cautious with what he is saying, Jerimiah expresses opinions that suggest he is not certain that the police have this all right. He has his doubts and so does Willa. Particularly she knows that the kind-hearted, animal loving Henry would never have mistreated animals in the way the police allege he treated the horse. Emily is convinced and she and Willa form a team to investigate and find out what actually happened.

    The start out as”Emily” and “Willa,” now “friends” to the point of using first names in private and they work together. They try to find out what others know and, perhaps more importantly, what attitudes they express. There are many people possibly involved, perhaps most seriously Mr. Johnson, the owner of the livery, Mr Milner, the postmaster and Mrs Cutter whose bakery shop is in the midst of town.

    Of course, this being he 1850’s, disunion is becoming a distinct American possibility and slavery and its spread in the west the main issue. Mr Dickinson is vehemently anti-slavery and is a strong Union supporter. Perhaps most of Amherst’s residents agree,. But the young ladies figure out that there is not total unity. There are indications that runaway slaves pass through town on their way north and that there is a an Underground Railroad “station” there which helps them.

    Other words they hear or events they investigate suggest that there is also a different group, people who oppose helping the escaping salves. Some may do this because they believe in obeying the law, even if you disagree with it. The Compromise of 1850(the text never mentions it but this is what happened) included a Fugitive Slave Law which allowed slave owners to send agents north to capture run- away salves and take them back to slavery. There are also, perhaps, some on the same side just because they dislike blacks and even approve of slavery. It is ambiguous and messy as life and politics often are.

    There follow difficult investigations an a trip to Washington where Emily’s father serves. On the trip Willa meets a free black horse driver and chauffer named Buford. He is quiet and well behaved, a free man who knows his freedom could be questioned and is careful to carry his proof of freedom with him whenever he goes out. He and Willa seem to develop some feeling for each other, but this of course in beyond thinking. And there is a young police officer, Matthew, back in Amherst who has expressed his affection and passionate feelings for Willa. The ladies do make some discoveries in Washington about their home town and they return home with suspicions but not enough for direct action. definite. But then, after that it all begins to unravel.

    This is a good mystery which follows the usual mystery rules of putting out the clues for the reader but never giving away too much. It also makes the story follow logically from one discovery to another, so while the ladies change their minds sometimes, they do so only from good learning and for good reason. The brilliant and somewhat quixotic Emily is the leader of this effort, but Willa plays her role too.

    One of the the things that impressed me most about this book was its taking on of American culture pre-Civil War, not only race but class. There is a tendency, no doubt basically correct, that class among whites was a much bigger deal in the South than the North. But it mattered in the North too, perhaps more in New England now to its fifth or sixth generation as a society, than it did in, for example. Illinois, But it may still have had some effect in wild places to the “West,” such as Illinois and Ohio.

    In any event, it is ever present in the society of Amherst and certainly in the back of Willa’s mind most of the time. She is very careful about how she addresses people who are clearly her social superiors and cautious not to presume upon Emily’s friendship or her place with such a leading family.

    Emily remains an enigma of sorts throughout the book. She is always kind, usually amiable, sometimes one who hides emotions or hides herself from others. She is an open book in some ways, in others always something of a mystery. Not a great deal is made of her poetry most of the time, though there is a quotation of some of the title poem and a bit of reflection on it. Flower states in an Afterword that while she has always been inspired by Emily Dickinson and written about her before, this is the first time she made her a character in a story.

    Though Amanda has written nearly forty published books, this series is relatively new. This particular book is the first of the series and so far there are three more, all set in pre-Civil War Amherst according to what I have found on line. If you have the slightest interest in good mysteries, American History and Emily’s poetry(perhaps just one of these would suffice)then you should take a look in your local library. I think you may find yourself very well-rewarded.

    Oh, yes-regarding Emily, let me add that there is a one-woman, one-character play about her entitled “The Belle of Amherst.” I saw it on TV years and years ago with the great and lovely Julie Harris playing the New England poet. Merely years ago I saw it again at a local amateur theatre. I was very impressed both times and if you ever get the chance to see it–well, see it, folks.


    , , , ,

  • Time for the President to go? We Might Just About Getting There

    As I hope you know if you’ve read my previous thoughts on political matters I am no radical. I want things done according to Hoyle, as close to the rules as possible. I do not like political histrionics, exaggerations, or one sided obvious distortions. So I rarely take up anything approaching an extreme decision without(I hope)careful thought and some reflections. I have had that now and I have concluded that, if possible–no, no, make that feasible–
    Donald Trump likely should be taken out of office one way or another.

    This almost final decision came only after his behavior this week in first, issuing a threatening, hysterical and altogether ridiculous rant on social media Tuesday night. This is the one which he used to threaten the Iranians with being blown out of the modern world and 4000 years of civilization being destroyed. I was appalled that a President of the US would have such twisted thoughts about an entire civilization and, if he did, that he would be stupid or thoughtless or reality challenged enough or just plain screwy enough to put it on Social media where it could be seen by nearly everyone.

    So I believe its time for the anti-Trump people in Washington to start planning their moves. They may or may not need them, but better to be ready. I am against Impeachment. As we all know this would first require a majority vote by the House of Representatives. The GOP margin there has almost shrunk away and is now very small. It might be possible to pull a few Republican members across the aisle on this issue. But it’s a not a sure thing and likely would be useless in the end anyway. Having impeached him, The Democrats would then need 2/3 of the Senate to vote for conviction to get him out of office.

    The first requirement–impeachment–would be difficult but could be doable, particularly if Trump continues to say and/or do these kinds of ludicrous things. But the second, that 2/3 of the Senate vote for conviction, would be nearly impossible. Even if all of the 49 Democrats(or Democratic leaning independents hello– Bernie and Angus) in the Senate voted for it(and most, maybe all of them, I think, would) they would still need 18 Republicans to get the required 2/3. And who do you think the 18 might be? Without going into names or particular situations, I’ll say that if I made a list and thought hard I could find maybe a half dozen with whom there would be some chance. But they might not all agree, and even if they did you’d still be, uh, well, about a dozen votes short. And I’m by no means sure we could get the half dozen already mentioned. And we might lose a Democrat or two, though I hope that wouldn’t be the case.

    In any event, conviction on an impeachment looks next door to impossible. And if there’s one thing Trump’s opponents do not need it’s to lose on a third attempt at this. It would make the party look foolish and might diminish Democratic enthusiasms enough to affect the election. But don’t give up on this entirely. There’s still the 25th. I think it would likely fail too if tried right now, but it’s not as certain a loser as impeachment would be and it could be tried again without its backers looking like hopeless nutcases, particularly if Trump wanders further off the path of mainstream behavior and most particularly if he shows worse signs of unbalance. I think this is not beyond being a reasonable possibility.

    OK, let’s do a quick review of the 25th Amendment. The first two sections are obvious enough to ignore for the moment. Section Three gets things started. It says that if the President thinks he is incapable of discharging the duties of his office he should communicate this, in writing, to the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate. Having done this, the Vice-President assumes the powers of the Presidency. . The President may at anytime communicate, again by writing, with the Speaker and the President Pro Temp and he will immediately resume his powers. OK, that’s the easy part–when no one disagrees with what’s going on.

    Section Four, though fairly easy to understand, is the hard part of what to do in a really bad situation–when there’s a dispute. It states that if the VP and a majority of the cabinet think the President is incapable of doing the job, they will communicate this information to the same, people, the Speaker and the President Pro Temp. “Immediately” the VP takes over Presidential powers, in other words become Acting President. The President may at any time communicate to the Speaker and the President Pro Temp and inform them that he is now able to do the job and upon so doing he resumes full power-UNLESS(there had to be an “unless”)the same people, the VP and a majority of cabinet members inform the Speaker and Pro Temp that they disagree that the President is now competent.

    In that case Congress gets back into the act. If 2/3 of each House votes to keep the VP in power he remains. If this does NOT happen, the President resumes his power. Obviously, this amendment was drawn up by people who were concerned about mainly two things–1) making sure a capable person sits in the Oval office and makes the big Presidential decisions 2) Preventing an overly ambitious and unscrupulous VP from exploiting a situation so as to obtain power for himself and his cronies when there is no legitimate reason to do so.

    I think this is a good amendment, much needed and very relevant today. Its very existence might curb some kinds of Presidential excesses. There is one great weakness I see, but it would be difficult and perhaps unwise to fix.

    That is that Section Four, though quite specific on time frames for actions, does not comment on people failing with the 25th and wanting to try again. It seems to me there should be some limit on this, though I’m not sure what that limit should be. Obviously you don’t want a tug of war between the President and his opponents renewable to the point is happens much of the time. This, like multiple impeachments, would be disruptive and distracting and might prevent serious action from taking place. So there should be, in my opinion, some kind of limit on how soon this attempt at legal overthrow of a government could be repeated. It seems to me that about a month would be a fairly reasonable idea, but I would be willing to listen to other situations and to compromise with other (hopefully)reasonable people.

    As I write this, the Vance-led talks in Pakistan have ended(not to say they collapsed)and Trump, who said yesterday he didn’t care what the outcome was, is now demanding, among other things, that the US have at least partial control of the Strait of Hormuz.

    With Trump’s changeability this could be different by this evening(Sunday the 12th)and a whole new set of questions raised. It is partly because of that that I am willing to go so far as to consider use of the 25th. But I am glad it is in place. We don’t know how impossible Trump may become, so those who would stop something desperate need a tool such as this at hand, to be used as a threat or, if sadly necessary, to be put into action. I don’t want to see that today. But the time could be coming. I’m willing to be patient for the moment. There may be those who aren’t.

    Tue 4/14–It is now almost a full two days since I finished the above article–In the time since then we have seen a confusing situation in the Gulf of Hormuz and on other matters. It now appears that there will be further negotiations. I hope they succeed. But I am sending out my previous thoughts because of the way things change today, and with this Administration, change can come very quickly and without much explanation. Also, all Americans should understand the 25th Amendment so as to know what is going on should there be serious takl of invoking it.

    , , , ,

  • The Ghosts of Movies Past–Two Classics from a Classy Guy

    “Brief Encounter,” and “The Passionate Friends”–director of both was David Lean

    TCM showed “The Passionate Friends” the other day and my son, my wife and I watched it. He insists and my wife agrees that we saw it a year or two ago and I believe them, though I have no idea how I forgot such a terrific film and one so much like one of my all time favorties.

    I think I have mentioned “Brief Encounter:” before though I have not, I think, reviewed it. It is one of the best films I’ve ever seen and if I were to make up a list of my dozen best ever it would be on it. “Friends” is very similar as I will explain and would maybe make the second dozen list. Anyway, I decided that the only real way to do this was to review them both, though I haven’t seen “Encounter” for a little while, maybe a few months.

    First of all, the films are very similar in more ways than one. They were both directed by David Lean who was quite possibly the greatest British director ever and one of the great directors of all times and who could rank with Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock, Michael Curtiz, John Huston, Jean Renoir and other such greats.

    Both were made in immediate or almost immediate postwar Britain. “Encounter” was made in 1945 and apparently shooting started before the war had ended because they had to put up with some security restrictions that disappeared with peace. “Friends” was made in 1949, with the war a memory but not yet a very faded one, and society getting back to normal, but slowly. We have a friend who remembers rationing as a child in the 1960’s(rationing and the Beatles together?!)and we both think that on our first trip(1970’s)to the UK there were wartime reminders still there though not immediately noticeable in all cases. The war plays no part at all in “Encounter” and is only mentioned occasionally as a shared experience in “Friends.”

    Both of these films are made in a way that seems, curiously, spare and lush at the same time, I guess maybe visually the first and emotionally the second. Both are about doomed romances, ones where you pull for the people with everything you have and get ready to see them disappointed. Both of them could tear out your heart. Both of them leave you sad for the people, but exhilarated at the power, including the pains, of love and the role it sometimes plays in human affairs and also exhilarated at the power of films and other art forms to move us and draw us into understanding the human experience.

    I think that “Encounter” is the better of the two, but “Friends” is close. They were all the things mentioned above and, of course, being David Lean films, share an understated, very British understanding of human existence and its compromises and disappointments. The male carrier of these feelings in both films is Trevor Howard

    The only place where they are not the same is in their source and writing. “Encounter” was based on a play by Noel Coward from 1936,”Still Life,” a one-act effort. Coward expanded it into a full length movie story and did the screenplay with some help from Anthony Havelock-Allen and Lean). He also was active enough in putting it together that he got to claim the title of “Producer.”

    “
    “Friends” is from a novel by, of all people, H G Wells whom I had never thought of before as a writer of love stories. Well, he was a good one, at least once, anyway. Lean himself had a hand in the screen play, as did Eric Ambler, a well known international intrigue writer of the era, and Stanley Haynes whom I don’t know.(If you paid attention when I discussed “Casablanca” you may recall that it was based on an unproduced play by Murray Bonner and Joan Alison earlier entitled “Everybody Goes to Rick’s.”)

    “Brief Encounter” was Lean’s 4th or 5th movie, likely the former. Both it and “Blithe Spirit” are from 1945. He had already shown talent at film making and it came to full fruition with “Encounter.” though some would say(I wouldn’t)he did it better later, at least once, years later, with “Lawrence of Arabia”—admittedly a great film.

    “Encounter” has several characters that grasp your attention from time to time, but only two who command it. They are, of course, Trevor Howard and the lovely but believably suburban Cecilia Johnson. Like “Friends” this movie is told mostly in flashback, but not in a way that clutters or tangles the story. We begin with the two of them together at a RR station and they are joined by an annoying “friend” of Cecilia’s who then gets on the train with her. The woman, a shallow non-stop talker, gives a brief but powerful demonstration of how an aggressive, needy extrovert can torture an introvert, particularly a depressed one who just wants to be left alone.

    But the real story here is the man and the woman, and we learn quickly that they met in the RR depot when he helped her get something out of her eye. They seemed to fit with each other from the beginning and she quickly learned that he was an idealistic doctor who, with his family, was soon going out to South Africa. He also revealed his dreams of curing an ailment which sounds much like what came to be known as “Black Lung” in the US. She is taken with his civilization behavior, basic decency and charm.

    He learns that she is a suburban housewife with a home near London, a suitable middle class husband who is in business and two growing children. It is clear that he finds something attractive about her, not just her appearance, but something deep inside her where he sees a need or longing or something that maybe she doesn’t herself. They both are unhappy at the idea of parting and she reveals that Thursday is her day to come to town and she does it nearly every week. He is there Thursdays too, and they agree, rather causally to meet again the following week.

    It doesn’t require a genius, of course, to predict at least some of what will happen next. Of course they find each other’s company comforting and fun, and of course they lunch and go to the movies and take a short trip to the country. Soon they realize(maybe a reel or two behind the audience)that they are in love.

    They take joy in this temporarily, but trouble looms in many ways. Could they consider breaking up two families with children involved? Could she leave a man who has been at the very least a faithful and warm husband? Could either of them do this to their children? And most pressing of all, it is nearly time for him and his family to leave. What could they possible do?

    The rest of the film is spent answering that question. I am not going to go into too much detail but I will say that Lean gets immensely moving performances out of these two stars as they play two decent, high minded people who find themselves hopelessly in love, an impossible love, with no way out. They twist and turn trying to find an answer but none appears. They consider out and out adultery, but circumstances intervene(perhaps more on this later) and she even briefly considers suicide,

    One of the most gripping realizations in watching both of these films comes when you grasp that, to a much lesser extent, trains and RR stations play a fairly large part in “Friends” too. There is, in fact, one scene near the end where the Ann Todd character stands near a RR track with a train approaching and thinks the unthinkable as does Cecelia Johnson in “Encounter.”

    Without going into more detail than I think appropriate there is nothing more to say about ” Brief Encounter,” until maybe I do a summing up of the two later. But I say this now. This is one of the great films and it manages to break your heart while honoring both your taste and your intelligence. The emotions are strong, but they are real, not phony, and the people civilized and decent, and these make it a great film.

    To be a bit repetitive, “Friends” is very much like “Encounter” in many ways. Comparing the two leading ladies I would say Ann Todd was, if not a classic beauty, quite close to it. Celia Johnson was not, but she WAS an attractive woman, well dressed, trim and warm in her manner. It is difficult to think that any reasonable gentleman would reject either one of them out of hand. A choice between the two would be difficult.

    The “Passionate Friends” is also told in flashback or flashbacks, but Lean’s handling of this is keen enough not to tangle up the plot. The story involves Todd, Trevor Howard again, and Claude Rains, so we have more of a classic lovers’ triangle here, though not quite the usual kind. When she realizes on what must be New Years, 1948 that she is in the same hotel with Steven(Trevor Howard), she flashes back nine years to what I guess would have to be New Years 1939. She and Steven were in love then and the thoughts and memories come flooding back.

    Since this time also included the Second World War, it would have been reasonable enough to deal with that and what each experienced in the war. Most directors would be tempted, I think, to do that, though obviously they would need additional writing since the Wells novel was published before WWI. Lean wisely avoided the temptation to do this and dealt mostly with the three principal characters and therefore could concentrate on their personalities, characters and actions, without worrying about things like the fate of the world or Western Civilization.

    Mary was in love with Steven then and their affair nearly led to marriage but didn’t quite get there. She wanted to “belong to herself,” and couldn’t think that would happen if she married him. The trouble was, and she seems to have noted this with unusual clarity given the situation, that Steven was wildly in love with here. He would not intentionally stifle her, but his love might do so and she couldn’t take the step. A decade and a half or so later and this would have meant marriage counsellors, psychologists and so on, likely along with a lot of 1960’s yammering about truth and honesty and other values easily degraded by too much palaver, particularly on screen. This is, of course, is not to say such people mayn’t be necessary, but there is something relieving in the fact that she makes up her own mind and bears the consequences as severe as they were.

    Instead she accepts a a proposal from Howard(Claude Rains). Steven is a teacher, later a University professor. Howard is a big time financial guy, high up enough in a large bank that he is tasked with the somewhat thankless job of dealing with foreign bankers in Europe and trying to work out agreements. He is smart, patient, and dedicated. He offers Mary stability and the wealth she wants, but also something more. He wants a marriage of affection and respect, but not real closeness. They will offer each other some emotional support but not get too close. Meanwhile they will share the good life his profession may bring them and be comfortable together if not deeply in love.

    The rest of the story is mostly a working out of these conflicting emotions on Mary’s part and her dealing with the fact she chose comfortable affection and support over passionate and deep love. Was she right? Do you think she found out? Well, watch the movie the next time it’s on TV.

    I will add this–Mary, not surprisingly, is on a sort of up and down escalator with her feelings and we get to see this on two or three occasions where she is reminded of (or actually sees) Steven again. The film ends with them enjoying each other’s company in Switzerland while her husband, who knows the past, broods.

    But I want to say this about Howard. Claude Rains was a rather versatile actor who could do good guys or bad or mixtures of the two. Maybe his greatest role was his mixture, the cynical, manipulative, but ultimately heroic French Officer in “Casablanca.” In “Friends” Howard seems unlikeably cold at the first, a smooth rich guy who will use his wealth and also his ability at emotional distancing to get the woman he wants, even though not being deeply in love with her. But towards the end Lean allows us a deeper look into his emotions. He knows-or has come to know– the “romantic” side of love too. Now, experiencing some pain, he has come to feel it for Mary. He is quietly but movingly human.

    These two films are really ghosts of old time films, I assure you. I doubt if they would sell today, though one never knows. But they are frequently on TV(“Encounter” particularly)and I urge you to see them if you get the opportunity. If you want to see the world the way it was(or was perceived by filmmakers to be)decades ago, you likely could not beat these.

    , , , ,

  • Uncertain Dissenters and Iranian Options

    For a columnist or blogger who writes about politics and international affairs, Donald Trump is the gift that keeps on giving. He does/says something almost daily that irritates someone and that outrages many with its lack of wisdom, its lack of understanding or, sometimes, its lack of humanity. He makes one statement after another that is contradictory of what we know or what he has said or both. He gives few explanations that sound credible, even vaguely so. A lot of us dissent from his policies and would not mind being known publicly as dissenters–but a question is this-dissenting from what, or rather which thing? There are many possibilities.

    He has gotten us deeply involved in what amounts to a shooting war in the Middle East, though not yet what I’d call a full scale one. And he was elected NOT to do this. His raid last June was supposed to have eliminated Iran as a nuclear threat. He said so, never mind the fact that many observers including this one suggested proof was in order. None was forthcoming. So now we do it over again? What about those claims we had already done it?

    Now we are fighting for what objective? Well, that seems to change almost daily, but certainly one that that has remained almost steady if not believable is that they are trying to eliminate Iran’s ability to become a nuclear power and/or to change the regime to a non-nuclear pursuing one. It is not entirely clear just how they plan to do this.

    As was learned last year much of Iran’s nuclear materials, tools, etc are underground and extremely hard to access for the US or anyone else trying to get to them. But Iran seemingly does have enough actual nuclear material, that it is feasible they could reach the level of being a nuclear power soon, just when I don’t know. It would not be right now, perhaps not for some time, but eventually this would come.

    Any attempt to capture their nuclear materials and get them out of the country, which the Administration has suggested it might do, would be extremely difficult and would involved great danger to those assigned to do the job.. It might have great danger for others around the world, too.

    We can all agree this would be a bad thing, a very bad thing indeed. This regime has been borderline for more than four decades and is now run, we think, by a 56 year old fanatic made even more so by the fact that he has personal as well as political/religious/policy reasons to hate us.

    Of course, it’s not really clear to some of us who is running Iran. I have heard it suggested, in the media, that the military and political parts of the government may be run by different people with possibly somewhat different desires, though none of them view the US well. It is not clear where the new leader is or if he is well enough to actually make decisions. If he’s not then it’s not clear who is. It is clear that while Iran has been badly battered and clearly cannot hold out indefinitely, is could still make trouble and has one large weapon, maybe two. The obvious one is the Strait of Hormuz, discussed almost constantly on TV, so I won’t go into it much. They seem to have effective power there to determine whether anyone gets ships through and if so, who they are. The other is that they apparently could deprive many of their neighbors of their water supply.

    This latter matter has been mentioned every now and then by the media but is rarely explained in any detail. I will not do detail here as my scientific knowledge is next to zero, but there’s what I’ve found on the internet–(ask for something like “Iran and desalination” if you wish to pursue)

    Desalination has been around for about a century but was not much used until recent decades. After the oil shortages of about a half century ago, it came into its own in the 1980’s and ’90’s and is now an important part of the area’s life. Desalination facilities are an important part of the economies of these nations and would be difficult if not impossible to do without. The ones in Kuwait and the UAE(United Arab Emerates) have already taken indirect damage from missiles or drones that may have gone astray. What if attacks on them were intentional and accurate?

    There is a group known as the Gulf Cooperation Council(GCC) which includes Oman, Yemen, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE.. Whatever their disagreements over some matters, they are united in trying to get as much usable water for their countries as is possible. And all of them have tried to add to their natural supplies of fresh water via desalination. These six states combined have more than 3000 of these plants

    Making a direct attack on these would be a “significant escalation of hostilities” Whether they would work is a question, one to which our people would like to attach a definite answer of “no.” But there are complications, because while it would be difficult it might not be impossible.

    Since these Gulf States have so many such facilities, getting all of them might require a great many missiles and drones and a lot of time. Accuracy would need to be high. So the prospects of the Iranians actually succeeding at this are not very high. BUT if it worked it could create real trouble. The article I read on this was not too clear on some parts, but it did suggest that this system is not simple. In addition to the desalination plants there are “mega complexes” which appear to be a sort of organizing system that brings all of this together, perhaps literally and figuratively, and seem to play a large role in dispensing the usable water to different areas. There are a lot fewer of these, apparently, and “attacks on these hubs could be far more disruptive.” Whether the Iranians are up to it technologically is not clear, but they do have a history of being surprisingly “up to it” in the latest technology beyond what the West expected..

    It is possible, though perhaps not likely that they could be restrained by International Law, not a matter that seems to have restrained them much in the past. The Geneva Conventions regulations prohibit harming “objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population,” and drinking water is specified. Such sanctions would give the Iran’s opponents a reasonable –and legitimate–cause for complaint, but whether they would prevent anything is another question

    There are apparently more ways than one Iran could employ to go after these plants. They could try to bomb them, that is send missiles after them, and blow them up directly. This would, I should think, be fairly easily traceable, though maybe that’s not a big concern in Iran. Less traceable, and also perhaps more easily done, they could encourage sabotage… They could pay people to do it or encourage them to join the Iranian side in their struggle or both.

    If these desalinization plants were actually seriously damaged in large number, it is hard to say exactly what would happen, but it could be dire. In some places people would shortly be without much, possibly sometimes any, drinking water, Water would have to be rationed in many places and this would lead to bad feelings and maybe civil strife. Also, since desalinized water is used in their running of their economies, these economies might grind to a halt or something near to it.

    So there we have ambiguities in the Trump policy which leave us sometimes wondering which part we dissent from today. And in addition, and perhaps more seriously, we have the serious damage an already badly damaged Iran could do on its way down. It might pull any others with it,

    , , , ,

  • Enough Silence

    I mean myself here. I have said little–not nothing, but not very much–about Trump’s war against Iran. I realize it is a complex issue and that if it comes to simply two sides(“we should have” and “we shouldn’t have”)a reasonable person might find some arguments to agree with on each side. But it is NOT that simple and I won’t say it is. It is complicated and I have thought about it a lot. I have no solution for the terrible foreign policy mess for our country but I do have a few brief thoughts that I wish to share–

    –The Iranian regime, in power for more than 40 years now, is one of the worst governments in the world and has been responsible for untold amounts of tragedy, repression, and dictatorship. It is a threat to its neighbors and to many far away(USA for example)–therefore it is not an unreasonable desire to see it gone

    –It is not gone–it is physically wounded and its military power is way less than it was before the fighting started–but it is stubborn and still not without power–it is not clear if its leadership is united or who the most important person there now is–it would be helpful to have this information–meanwhile, the US and Israel are clearly winning the strictly military part of the struggle–Iran will lose outright or make a deal BUT

    –we don’t know how long that will take or if we, as a country or an alliance will have the patience and determination to stick it out–in the meantime, Iran is holding its own in the PR war, despite making what I see as some mistakes–they would have been better off NOT attacking their neighbors who might have favored staying neutral but won’t if they keep getting bombed by them-but the Iranians have shown no inclination to surrender, although there is the occasional rumor someone there wants to talk to someone from our country(If that’s true I think we should listen to what they have to say–likely wouldn’t work but , he, who can tell that?)

    -meanwhile, Iran has one great victory–they have substantially closed, certainly restricted traffic in the Strait of Hormuz–they still control it to the extent that they sometimes let a ship of someone they like through(this happened recently with, I think, two Indian ships)–meanwhile, it is mostly unused and the world’s oil prices are rising–since these prices are determined at the international level(don’t ask me how now)the fact that the US has almost enough oil without imports doesn’t help much–

    –our Administration is deeply divided or deeply confused or maybe both about what is going on–come to think of it, the President himself may be like that–we get one story after another about our purpose in this conflict, about what we would consider victory, about how it will become clear when victory occurs–the conflicting reports and contradictions are red meat for anti-Trump types, including me, but we should note that they may make us look ridiculous and maybe not someone to fear and/or respect if they go on and on

    –along the same lines many members of the Administration, particularly cabinet members and others involved in national security are liars and/or sycophants–note Tulsi Gabbard and Sen Mullin Wednesday and their refusal to provide information which was asked for by members of Congress–The latter was worked over badly by a furious Sen Rand Paul whom I sometimes agree with–this is one of the times

    –the rest of the world is watching all this with, I think, a combination of fear(that the US is withdrawing from being a leader for peace and stability),amusement(at seeing the Americans so flustered)and contempt for apparent incompetence

    –there is no clear end in sight despite the heroic behavior of our military–this thing may drag on and on and if so, economies will be badly affected and the whole international scene made less stable

    –the role of Israel in this is troubling–I hate anti-semitism and am alarmed by those who even unintentionally give it support by suggesting Israel dragged a reluctant US into this-these people are wrong but that does not mean Israel is right in everything

    –there appears to be a troubling change in the values of the Israeli government. they have always been first, last and whatever for doing what was necessary to protect their country and I support them in that–but lately there has appeared a subtle but I think clear contempt for life in other countries–wars almost always lead to something like this but it is deeply shocking to see it in our good ally–furthermore, it may be that our desired ends and Israel’s are not, (in this case, at least)close to each other-

    –The President should learn to spell “strait”– (and brush up on his prose all around–he also might use an editor)–this sort of thing makes us look ignorant to the world and careless of our choice of leaders–maybe we should a send him a thesaurus or a dictionary, or direction of how find them on line-when I’m not sure how to spell something in a blog I look it up–not that difficult, Mr President–you should maybe try it

    , , , ,

  • Trump and the Separation of Powers, Part II–The Military Power

    I was planning to do a blog like this even before the US and Israel struck Iran about week and a half ago. Now it is imperative to me that I must do it and do it as soon as possible.

    First, some basics–1) The power to declare war belongs to Congress–this is not an ambiguity, it is clearly stated–see Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution–2) The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forced(these two may be but are not necessarily contradictory) 3)The Power of the Purse–i.e. to provide money–belongs to Congress, who therefore could presumably stop any war eventually simply by refusing to vote funds to pay for it–this resulted in some discussion, but next to no action, during the Viet Nam War

    In addition to these, there is one other big fact–since the Declaration of War Power was last used during World War II, American troops have gone to war–or at least been placed in positions where they will be or might be attacked by other forces, at least 14 times(you could say a lot more than that depending on how you count these matters and how you define issues). No one has ever been impeached because of this or seriously threatened with impeachment, though it has often been mentioned in this connection and is being so mentioned now. I do have some thoughts on this and here are the main ones–

    There are some good reasons for why some of these things have happened. Not evrery President who has so committed troops was a bad guy who did it in bad faith or just for his own glory and/or reputation. Nonetheless this is always a possibility and needs to be taken seriously and so discussed by poitical leaders and commentators

    The first instance was in Korea . The country had been overtaken by Japan who ruled it until they lost the war. Then it was divided into 2 more or less mutually agreed upon zones. The North would be dominated by the USSR, the South by the US(similar arrangements also appeared in Viet Nam). Not surprisingly the USSR worked to set up a Leninist-Stalinist military dictatorship in the north. The US tired to set up a more or less constitutional and at least partly democratic government in the south. It was, of course, oriented toward the US and the West in the Cold War.

    In June, 1950, with the support, but not direct military assistance of the USSR, North Korea invaded South Korea. It was dominated then by its borderline-psychotic leader Kim Il Sung, grandfather of the current (borderline??)leader, Kim Jung Un. The attack took the South and the US, largely and incomprehensibly, by surprise and the North Koreans advanced quickly. President Harry Truman took the issue to the UN which passed a resolution calling for resistance to this out and out aggression. The resolution escaped a Soviet veto because the Soviets, in a fit of pique, were boycotting the UN, a mistake they never made again, as far as I know!

    HST referred to this as a “police action” rather than as a war and felt this way he could get support from other UN members(he did get a lot)and avoid the constitutional demand of a Congressional Declaration of War. This never got to the Supreme Court and in the court of public opinion Truman clearly won at least at the beginning. The US resisted and although it supplied around 80%-90% of the personnel and equipment, it did so with a lot of at least nominal allies, some of whom were actually there in person if not in large number.

    This action likely saved South Korea from being absorbed by Communism and preserved individual freedom for the South Korean people(It did not prevent lousy government and corruption at times, but this was less of a price than the North Koreans were paying).

    HST felt that he did not have time to go to Congress. The North Korean advance was very fast and it would take days, maybe more to get any Congressional action. He also felt that the League of Nations had proved irrelevant in the end because it failed to provide serious resistance to the Japanese militarists, the Italian Fascists and the German Nazis later. He did not want to make the same mistake.

    I do not condemn what Harry Truman did. But I regret the precedent it set. I shall now delve into two of the more important of the later interventions and attempt to describe each one and its effect on the US and history, though the first one involved very little intervention. The other led to the biggest lat 20th century US war.

    It is tempting to skip the Bay of Pigs, but I will touch upon it. No American troops were directly involved but the US itself surely was. Fidel Castro had been in power for a little more than a year when John F Kennedy became President. Despite his denials of being a communist it was clear that he leaned in that direction and that he was getting help from the USSR and Nikita Khruschev, the most significant of the Stalin clones to replace the wartime dictator. He showed a slight(but only slight)tendency to be a bit more rational in dealing with the West. And it should be said that the US broke diplomatic relations with Cuba before the Soviet-Cuban alliance became full.

    A lot of Cubans fled Cuba and for good reason. (Many settled in FL and largely guaranteed its becoming a Republican State later as the Dems lost their hold on the South). Some went to other countries. There quickly arose a wide spread anti-Castro movement in the US and elsewhere who felt they could put together enough anti-Castro fighters to topple the new dictator.

    The international group assembled was a rather motley mix of people who despised Castro, ranging from near Nazis through non-Fascist right wingers and more or less normal conservatives, to democratic socialists to genuine liberals who detested the totalitarian, thought controlling Castro dictatorship. This group was encouraged by the Eisenhower Administration, though Ike was careful not to get too close it. A lot of people, both Americans and coalition members believed that with US air support this would work.

    JFK knew next to nothing of this until he was in ofice and had it dropped in his lap. Perhaps after some thought and consideration, he decided to go along with it. At first this included the aforementioned air support. But when the attempt was actually made in April, 1961 there were two big deficits. First, the promised uprising against Castro of the Cuban people, expected and predicted by a number of observers, including the CIA, did not happen. Second, the US air support did not materialize in any significant way. JFK provided some but withdrew it early. The whole thing was over in a couple of days and many of the would-be rebels died in the attempt or wound up in Castro’s jails. Congress was hardly involved at all in this at all and the Executive branch dominated though it did not succeed in its objective. I draw no conclusion at this point but I leave it to be pondered.

    I certainly will not take time to analyze many more of these, but one, now no longer remembered by almost anyone short of 60, should be mentioned in that it has affected the American conscience and consciousness for 2 to 3 generations. That, of course, is Viet Nam.

    Like Korea, Vietnam ended up with a north-south split after WWII. Almost immediately American leaders began making mistakes and kept it up for 3 or 4 Administrations and about an equal number of decades. Harry Truman made one of his very few White House blunders when he chose to make an enemy, not an ally out of Ho Chi Min. Ho was the leader the radical anti-colonialists and anti-Westerners. But while he was unquestionably a communist he was also a Vietnamese nationalist. When he was a 20ish busboy in 1919 he managed to get to the Paris Peace conference to plead, unsuccessfully, for freedom for his country. (Imagine what might have happened if he had succeeded)

    But Truman, not an easy man to intimidate, was apparently taken with the idea that the right wing Republicans, not just conservative but hysterically anti Communist would ruin his Presidency if he allied the US with HO. So an opportunity was missed. There were good reasons for being anti-USSR and anti-communist. The former was a brutal, expansionist totalitarian dictatorship and communism gave it a “logical” and “moral” reason that made some some radicals to support the Soviets. Comparisons of USSR to Nazi Germany were not entirely wrong. But there grew an insane right wing Anti- communism during the war which emerged ,full blown when the war ended. It would poison American political discourse(see “McCarthyism”) for years and ironically served as an unintending boost to the Soviets and their goals by often making their opponents look ridiculous.

    The Eisenhower Administration kept up the fairly low level military and financial support to the pro-US South Vietnamese government. But in 1956 Eisenhower refused to allow participation in an election in which all of Vietnam would vote. He later said he did it because everyone he talked to about this said the communists would win. That was likely true and would appear to have been better than what did happen, and furthermore must have somewhat tarnished the US reputation for supporting democracy. Of course this was not as obvious to President Ike as it is now. Nonetheless, i think her made a serious mistake here.

    This was based upon an historical assumption known as the Domino Theory about which more shortly. Like the Bay of Pigs, JFK inherited the Vietnam issue, but in some ways it was the more difficult. It needed not a quick decision but a long term commitment to a shaky government, not very popular with its own people and not apparently able to defend itself against its more more powerful neighbor(North Vietnam) and its dangerous domestic insurgents, allies of the North Vietnamese, the Communist dominated Viet Cong.

    JFK had plenty of other things to worry about in foreign affairs, mainly Cuba and Khrushchev. After the anxiety-inducing Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, this was even more or a concern. JFK’s only meeting with Mr K had been in Vienna in 1961 and rumor had it that the older and(maybe)tougher Khrushchev intimidated the young American leader. If so, JFK bounced back fairly quickly. He seems to have made a vow, to himself at least, that he would be pushed around no more and Mr K would not intimidate him again. So in 1963 he was very Cuban/Khrushchev oriented.

    Still, all this may well have affected his attitude toward Vietnam. He had increased slightly the amount of military/economic/advice aid given to the South Vietnamese. He decided to continue with the increases.

    After JFK’s assassination ,LBJ found the mess of Vietnam in his lap. He was quite liberal for a southerner in domestic policy and his Great Society Legislation revived the spirt of the New Deal and gave Americans Medicare and the Civil Rights Act among other things. In foreign affairs he was by no means a Neanderthal as he was sometimes portrayed, but likely a little more conservative and perhaps less subtle than JFK.

    He decided to continue to back the South Vietnamese which most possible Presidents at that time I think would have done. But in 1964 the crunch came when the US Navy reported that one of its ships had been attacked by members of the North Vietnamese Navy, near North Vietnam, but in clearly international waters and therefore in a place where they had a legal right to be.

    There appeared to have been two strikes in two days and this is the way it was reported to LBJ. It now appears that the first strike was real, the second one not–possibly it was a the result of a misreading of the ships computer info. Possibly it was intentional. It could have been both. The infuriated Johnson told the Navy to extract revenge. He addressed the nation and asked Congress to back him with a resolution which became know as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. It granted to the President the right to strike back at the North Vietnamese for any attack upon American ships in neutral waters. It did not define or even mention any kind of time limit.

    No one paid much attention to this issue at the time, but a year later, after a commitment of over 100,000 American troops many Congress Members felt betrayed(Practically all of them voted for it–the entire House of Representatives and all but 2 Senators). This became a strong matter of contention for more or less the rest of the war. Note that the matter of a War Declaration hardly was mentioned, but Congressional cooperation with the Executive was, to some degree, assumed.

    A lot of its initial support was likely because a lot of people still believed in the Domino Theory, the idea that if one Southeastern Asia nation “went Communist” the others would follow like a row of dominoes. Although it seems very unlikely now(and we know it turned out to be be untrue)it was not an entirely ridiculous thing to think at the time. After World War II, which to some extent could be blamed on Western Appeasement(particularly at the Munich Conference), there appeared in the consciousness and the subconsciousness of Western Diplomats and other leaders a sort of motto for the future– “No More Munichs.”

    Veteran TV newsman Dan Schorr pointed out in his one of his autobiographical books that this made sense–at the time. But the world had gone round many times since Munich and by the mid-1960’s some important things, Schorr noted, had changed. Some of them called into question LBJ’s nearly all out commitment to South Vietnam. (Dan also stated that this mistake led to a new motto for diplomats-“No More Vietnams” and opined that that one, justifiable enough at its beginning, might also not be true for a limitless amount of time.)

    I have gone into this is some detail because Vietnam is an example of a foreign policy issue which the President dominated and which he tried, to some degree, to share with Congress. And Congress responded, but the response was ineffective because of its lack of specificity about time and the fact that few were ready to defend it’s ideas for sometime after its passage. This shows us the complexities of this, particularly the delicacies of Presidential-Congressional cooperation or even communication.

    I start with these three instances because they are important in the beginning of this idea of combat without “war” declaration and because of the importance of the issues with which they dealt–naked aggression in Korea, an attempt to get rid of a likely serious threat in Cuba, and the beginning of the biggest US troop commitment since Japan surrendered to the allies, the US Vietnam commitment.

    There are many other times US combat personnel have been put in positions of danger and some in which there were casualties. You may find a recitation of these easily on the internet so I will say little specific about them in the rest of this article. But I have some thoughts to share with you.

    The first thing I want to note is that not all of these commitments were more than a very temporary invasion(the elder Bush’s intervention in Nicaragua is an example) and could not be reasonably defined as “wars.” Others were of greater length and/or violence. The current one against Iran is more like the traditional idea of a “war” than most, maybe all of the others.

    The point here is simply this. On a lot of these occasions Congressional action was likely to be late(HST and Korea)or to seem too inconsequential to get a war declaration from Congress. Now I am perfectly aware that the Constitution makes no such distinctions.. Read literally it could be logically argued that it requires Congressional approval for ANY commitment of American forces. I do not think that is a really reasonable interpretation, but I can see the possibilities here.

    The thing is that after Korea and especially after Vietnam, the idea of fighting a war without a Declaration of War was getting to be a part of American political assumptions. It happened so many times that it got to be accepted as something close to a fact by many, though by no means all, historians, politicians and media.

    The commitment of US troops went on. If you want to know how many times, check out US troop commitments in the 1980’s and since on line. I think you’ll be surprised by how many there are. If your memory goes back far enough you will surely remember some of them. They included

    –trying to bring stability to civil war-torn Lebanon

    –rescuing American students in Grenada(in the Caribbean in case you don’t know it–most Americans don’t)

    –getting rid of “Strongman” Noreiga in Panama–

    –air power supporting the UN effort to stop Serbian atrocities in the civil wars in the Balkans in the 1990’s-

    And there many more. None of these , of course, included a Declaration of War and the role of Congress was often small if not miniscule. So this became almost a way of being for US foreign policy and little was said about it(not nothing, little). This means that by the time of Trump is was more or less accepted de facto by a lot of people in America including many of our leaders, The Administration could argue this was so much a part of our foreign policy stance that it is unreasonable to talk about it now.

    We shall see shortly that I do not think this a very good argument, but it is one that has a certain amount of history and logic(if not much common sense)to it. The Administration, as far as I’m able to tell, has not made it. Well, they don’t like complexities.

    But I need to mention at this point that while this happened many, many times there is a difference this time and an important one. Of course all of these commitments were made

    BUT–these were mostly small time in that they lasted but a short time and cost little in number of casualties or money. This is clearly NOT true of our Bush-Obama-Trump era conflicts in the Middle East, but it is true of a lot of others before then and some during that time and they cannot, I think, have been of no influence in the way people, particularly American leaders, thought. Of course I am talking about an overall trend here and there clearly are exceptions, but the trend is important.

    This time, however, we have a couple of differences. The biggest is that this looks like a long contest against an implacable and well dug-in(literally and psychologically)foe. We also are not very well supported by our allies. Some are with us(and some stupidity by the Iranians may give us more) but some are lukewarm or less. The Brits, The French and the Germans seem to all have their doubts, though not opposing us so far.

    So this could be a long one and it could cost a lot of lives and pain and a huge amount of money. It could mess up our economy and other economies. It could be a serious event in world history, perhaps the most serious one of the time.

    In the puerile and tiresome argument about whether it’s a “war” I would say that it surely is. This is way more than a “Police Action” or “Military Action.” I would say this more and more suggests Congressional involvement is necessary and needed. Possibly this would include a Declaration against Iran.

    But the Administration’s own policy is making this harder. They have bombarded their public and the world with unconnected or contradictory explanations of why we are doing this thing

    –because they were getting ready to use nukes on us–no evidence has been provided to this effect

    –because Israel was going to hit them and when they hit back they would include the US–this one is possibly true, but I think the US is still strong enough to lean on Israel sufficiently to cause a delay–and our striking first does not to seem to have stopped their ability to respond militarily–just asked someone from Beirut

    –that we wanted “regime change”–if this is true it was surely one of their sillier ideas–it appears that we got the same regime with a new younger and possibly even more bitter and angry leader

    –concurrent with “regime change” there was an idea that a lot of people who hated the regime would rise up and kick it out(remember the Bay of Pigs?)–then the US could move in and take over or at least have influence. Trump even went from talking about democracy to demanding the right to choose the next Iranian leader, a possibility that Iran took away from him when they chose one

    So we have a chaotic situation which my be becoming slightly less chaotic because a tough enemy of the US is taking over as Supreme Leader. And we have ongoing US and Israeli attacks on Lebanon (to get Hezbollah)and all over Iran. And we have bombed buildings falling down, and large numbers of killed or injured, mostly in Iran, but many elsewhere too. And we have no idea of when or how this is going to end.

    There’s also this–I think that, as my wife pointed out to me recently, peoples, civilizations, etc have a sort of collective memory. This is sort of like Jung’s collective subconscious, only I’m talking about it as it relates to nations or other groups of people. We are dealing here with a people who have been around for centuries longer that the US, indeed longer than most European peoples. We know that we are ahead of them(though not by as much as we thought, perhaps)in some things, mostly technological. We also know that they have the inheritance of the wisdom of the ages when it comes to conflict, believing and not believing, fighting, enduring and the uses of and defenses against evil. I hope we–the US, the rest of the West, and all who believe in individual freedom willl learn enough and intuit enough to be a match for them. I do not expect the current administration to be up to that, but maybe somebody will be.

    I wish I had some other finish to this blog, but I guess I’ll stop here. I wish our forces well and I salute their courage and skill. But military power alone will not settle this. I despise the Iranian regime which is dictatorial and fanatic, but which still has large amounts of support which the Administration either ignored or didn’t understand. And there is no easy way out of any of this.

    But to return–I hope–to my original questions, yes, I do think the US Congress needs to get involved. We need as much collective wisdom as we can get out of our leaders. And we need some new leaders, too. But the election is not until late this year, and we need intelligence, understanding and a willingness to listen to others first. Let’s hope it’s there somewhere. Let’s hope the Congress and the Administration will reach wisdom, share it and act upon it. Let’s hope.


    , , , ,

  • Trump and Separation of Powers

    The President’s recent actions in two main areas have started him(or advanced him)on a road toward conflict with the US Congress. They have also brought to national attention questions concerning what our constitution says and what it means, what assumptions have been made about it, and what our leaders should do about those assumptions, about the actions that have resulted (and continue to result) from them.

    I mean, of course, the questions of balance between the Executive and Legislative branches, and how these should and may affect our national well-being. Frequently these matters affect other nations and people as well as should be obvious (but apparently is not always) since foreign trade, diplomatic relations and the possible use of military power may be involved.

    The main principles should not be difficult to grasp. They are stated clearly, though without a lot of specificity in Article 1. In Section 8 it says, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.” Shortly after that it says that “To regulate commerce with foreign nations” is a matter that “:The Congress shall have power” to do.

    I wish to reflect(briefly, I hope, for both of us)on these issues, the (mis)interpetations they may inspire, and what they may portend. Then, perhaps, we’ll take a look at military power, and growing concern for many of us.

    The dictionary definition of a tariff is a tax imposed on imported goods to “protect domestic industries from foreign competition or exert political leverage.” Of course, a tariff may do both of these and more

    The first significant tariff in US History was the tariff of 1828 which was intended to assist new industries in the Northeast by keeping out cheap (mainly British) imports. It was denounced by the South as the “Tariff of Abominations” though this melodramatic name was excessive. It appears to have been a traditional tariff done for traditional reasons. But Southern planters felt it would harm them. It did nothing for protection of US Agriculture and they thought it would reduce foreign trader to the point that their wealth from agricultural, (particularly cotton) products would be diminished.

    It has been pointed out that this was, in a sense, a precursor to the Civil War as it was to some degree really about Slavery, which by now was looming large in the national debate and the South feared northern intervention on the issue. No doubt this is true, but I think some of the outrage over southern financial affairs was real. Southern planters had mistrusted banks in places like Boston and New York for a long time

    The debate on this became furious and many angry words were spoken. To my knowledge this was the first occasion when the word “secession” appeared in the national conversation. President Andrew Jackson, a southerner and slave holder, may have in some sense sided with the south inwardly, but he felt a strong loyalty to the Union and to the necessity of defending it. Largely through his efforts and threats a compromise was worked out that allowed each side to get something but tipped the scales in favor of national unity rather than disunity.

    Tariffs were slightly less important over the net 2-3 decades, though still sometimes the cause of contention. After the Civil War the Republicans were by far the dominant party until FDR and the New Deal era, and to a very large extent they used the tariffs to protect US industry. They were usually in charge and got their way and on the 2 occasions Democrats managed to change this situation, the next Congress promptly switched it back to being protectionist (that is, protective of US companies)

    After the stock market crash of 1929 and what appeareed to be the beginnings of a depression, the Smoot-Hawley tariff was proposed. It was to raise tariffs and therefore, it was believed by some, protect the US from the worst effects of what might be a worldwide issue. After the Congress passed it more than a thousand US economists wrote to President Herbert Hoover advising him to veto Smoot-Hawley as the now industrialized world economy would not yield to one tariff bill. Hoover signed the bill into law in 1930 and the Depression, already looming, became real. We know the rest

    In the years of the Depression and the war, trade understandings were still sometimes necessary. They were, however, usually negotiated between two countries or among a slightly larger number. Real tariff bills played little part in this era of Congressional History. This situation changed a bit not not much in the following decades, trade always an issue but tariffs usually being replaced with international trade agreements

    There was a significant 1970’s era law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act(IEEPA) which Trump has found useful, as it allows the President to “regulate …importation” during emergencies. This immediately raises two questions–does the act include tariffs as “importation,?” And “what constitutes a national emergency that might yield to this sort of solution?” The Trump Administration has argued that act clearly means tariff imposition and they have, I think, a fairly logical case here. But opponents, businesses particularly, have pointed out “tariff: and “duty” are two words not in the law. So there is room for doubt

    During the Biden Administration the conservative leaning court ruled in many cases that an administration may not take certain types of action without explicit Congressional authorization., particularly when significant politial or economic questions are invlved. Though these decisions rarely if ever actually addressed tariffs, the implication is there and inferences likely could be made.

    This has now become a leading controversy of the 2nd Trump Administration, and the federal courts and finally the Supreme Court are proving the Constitution a stumbling block to Trump. His use of the emergency clause of IEEPA has led to every lower federal court which was asked for a decision to finding the actions violated the law, thought their reasoning varied. Then came the 6-3 decision a few days ago, which was followed by Trump’s bitter and adolescent sounding response.

    Trump and his followers argued that tariffs affect foreign affairs which traditionally are an Executive more than a Legislative matter. The Chief Justice disagreed, writing “Taxes, to be sure, may accomplish regulatory ends. But it does not follow that the power to regulate something includes the power to tax it as a means of regulation.” A lawyerly sounding statement?–Yes, and that’s why a civilized society needs lawyers.

    There is also an IEEPA provision that the President may raise taxes up to 15% for a maximum 150 days. You may remember the President used this to declare an extension, first 10%, then the maximum of 15%. Then with truly Trumpish regularity he went back to the original amount.

    And, apparently, there the issue stands for now. The above is a brief summation of the issue and if you want more detail check the internet article on Wikipedia, which I used for this article. But be assured this is an important matter and it is likely the country will hear more of it.

    That is enough to hear for now. I also wish to discuss Trump’s relationship with the constitution as regards war powers and the use of military action. I hope to do soon and that the President has not initiated military action in the meantime.

    , , ,

  • Some Noir in the North

    There was once an American suspense writer named James Thompson who attracted some attention back around mid-20th century times. At least one of his books was made into a film by that master of what Pauline Kael once described as “A Fascist Work of Art,” Sam Pekinpaw.

    When I ran across a book in the library entitled “Snow Angel,” I was attracted by the title and more so when I read the name of the author–James Thompson. It turned out that this one was from another generation and I was shocked to check him on the internet and find that he died about a decade ago,

    But he wrote a number of books, and I may well read more. “Snow Angel” is a treat for mystery fans, especially if they like police procedurals or noir type tough guy detectives and noirish reflections upon the shortcomings of one society and of mankind as a whole. Since I’m more or less interested in all three, this was of interest to me. And this interest was enhanced by the fact that he was a superb writer.

    He used short, declarative sentences very frequently. He was the Hemingway of his time and genre, telling his story in sparse, spare language. At the same time he allowed his hero an occasional piece of warmth, and having regrets and sheding of tears–all in all, a considerable accomplishment.

    Perhaps it is a sign of aging again(maybe not, though)that I feel compelled to give a couple of warnings. This is, as I have suggested, a tough book and a tough story. There is warmth but also there is violence and hatred and the author made no attempt to hide these or sweeten them. They are there and they are effective.

    He also had the gift of describing with brief brilliance violence and the effects of violence, particularly the latter. If you are hesitant to read something too grossly frank, too compellingly revolting about damaged bodies, wounds, and decadent hatred, beware. But I do have a suggestion. A few years ago I read a book that was a fairly good mystery but was replete with autopsy descriptions, some of which were described in a detail which got to my more sensitive tastes.I believe I got around that(I wanted to finish the book)by noticing when one of these was starting, and skipping quickly through it until it was over. I don’t think I missed anything very relevant to the plot. Anyway, if you like this kind of mystery novel, I suggest you try it–the book is well worth it.

    Thompson was an American who spent a great deal of time in Finland and knew the language and the culture well. His main character, Inspector Kari Vaarki, is largely the opposite. He is a native Finn who went to graduate school in the US and understands America and its culture. He’s also married to an American lady who works as a hotel-bar manager and was brought there by an employer who felt he needed her talents for his place.

    The Inspector is admirably ungenerous with unnecessary language and wordage, but he is generous in his descriptions, and if you know nothing about Finland to begin with you will know more when you finish(that’s not an intentional pun, incidentally)the book. Yes, it’s cold there. Much of the country is north of the Arctic Circle. it’s dark a lot, including about a week or so in December when there’s no sunlight at all. Partially because of this, he opines, Finns have a considerable tendency to depression. This results in heavy drinking sometimes leading to alcoholism and occasionally to violence. Still, there is something mysterious about the place, I thought, and this unspoken mystery sucks you in along with the more formal mystery of the book.

    Finland has also, in recent years become a refuge home for people fleeing Somalia. There are several thousand of them now and they are an important part of the culture. The Finns were happy to play the role of care-givers and benevolent hosts to the Somalis at first. But in time, well, time itself changed this a bit; Eventually they became resented and racial hatred appeared, some of it sounding like the US variety. The good inspector regrets this but can’t help it. His job takes him wherever there is a certain kind of criminal trouble, and acting like a bigoted, foul mouthed jerk is not a criminal act–it really can’t be without violence involved although sometimes–well, never mind US politics for now.

    The trigger for the greater part of the book is the murder of a Somali movie star who had been working there. She was Sufia Elmi and she was stunningly beautiful. She was also somewhat wanton in her private life and her choices. Apparently someone hated her enough to kill her.

    When Vaari goes to the scene of the crime we get the first taste of how much violent depiction there may be. Some of it is necessary for depicting the true violence and brutality of the perpetrator and few details are spared. So the Inspector starts out in a tough situation, worried about his now pregnant wife, oppressed like so many others by the darkness, and now having to deal with the darkness of this terrible case and the darkness inside him and perhaps most of his fellow Finns.

    The trail is not an easy one. The plot is, in a way, very complicated. It includes Vaari’s subordinates and their issues, the National Police Commissioner who is on his back much of the time, and a variety of people who may have had both opportunity and means. Sorting them out is difficult, and as in many good mystery novels the suspicion tends to shift from time to time and for good reason. New information makes for new suspicions.

    The suspects range from the Inspector’s ex-wife and her husband to several townspeople who for one reason or another are plausible perpetrators. So, the inspector must put all this together while dealing with the darkness in and around him and not allowing it to eclipse himself and his job.

    While the plot is indeed complex (I won’t try to describe it further here and now) it is not really all that hard to follow. That is largely due to Thompson’s immense talents as a writer, and I think there are two parts to this. He understood storytelling, how to make scenes flow one into the other without goofing around with the narrative, so it all seems to make sense. (Attn US film directors).

    Then there is the already mentioned writing style. However complicated the situation may be Thompson’s writing is always clear and direct. The words spill off the page like a course on how to read(or write like) Hemingway or Raymond Chandler. So once you’re in for the ride, I’d say your are stuck;. You’re going to want to finish this one and if you’re like me when you have stop for something you’ll want to get back to the book as soon as you can do so. At least that was my take. I’ll leave you to your own take, but if you like mysteries, particularly the hard-boiled, hard writing type that might have delighted James M Cain, then give this one a try. I think you’ll like it.

    , , , ,