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)

    , , ,

  • One out of three ain’t great–but the one is rather big(Keeping score on the President)

    Donald Trump has a lot on his plate these days. To be more precise there’s the government shutdown, getting worse all the time–then there’s the trouble in the cities and his authoritarian response of using US Troops or federalized national Guard to “solve” it–and finally, there’s the Gaza War and his plan to end it. At this point he seems to be winning on the last one and losing on the other too. But I am going to write, mainly, this time about Gaza.

    What is going on with solving this mess is amazing, perhaps unbelievable. Of course, it must be remembered that it’s not quite a done deal yet. Trump has appeared to be on the verge of Something Great a number of time in the past, mainly on foreign affairs, then lost anyway. It could happen again. But this one has an early feeling of success about it, though perhaps success that will require more time and effort than we would want.

    Trump’s plan has 20 points to it. I’m not going to go through them one-by-one–hey, I don’t even know them one-by-one. Some of them may stick the deal, slow it down, perhaps scuttle it. But the hopeful thing is that this is to be a step-by-step process. It is also hopeful that they appear–everyone involved–to be willing to take the first step–well, maybe now.

    The first step means an end of the fighting within a day or two and the return of hostages on both sides. This is a powerful combination of things which seemed impossible a few months ago or maybe more recently than that. If it works, and it’s looking good so far, then it may serve as a pathway for the negotiators to follow as they move on to more complex and difficult items.

    A top Israeli official has warned that there won’t be peace unless the hostages are actually returned by Hamnas. That wou;d be to be expected, but Hamas has expressed that they definitely would cooprate on that part. I think they will, although I overall dislike Hamas and would not trust them. But I think they are genuinely tired of the war and just as (or more) importantly, they know the citizens of Gaza are tired of it Gazans have come to be very anti-Hamas because of the war and now maybe this is a way out.

    David Sanger, the top NYT writer also says this looks good, but that there are numerous possibililites of trouble along the way. Granted David, Let’s hope for the best.

    On the the other two issues I can’t say much for the Administration. They are trying to play the shutdown for everything they can get out of it and they are sounding is if they will actually reduce the amount of health carer coverage to millions of Americans.

    The troops in cities issue is obviously story number one in Portland and Chicago and could become no 1 nationwide if handled badly enough. I cannot give the Administration good marks on these two and I am setting aside(with no disrepect to the beleagured people of Ukraine)the Russia-Ukranian issue for the moment,

    For now, I merely want to say, as a longtime Trmup opponet, I wish him well on this. If it comes off as planned it could be a great boon to world peace, or at least Mideastern Peace. As for the other two, we have to keep watch on the cities and the shut-down. We want to see some statesmanlike and intelligent action on both sides. That’s you, me, the Administration and everyone else in the US.

    , , , ,

  • Time for the 25th? No, but let’s look at it

    The recent announcement of The White House ordering troops into Portland OR is not the last straw. We’re not there yet. But Trump is getting closer. As I have mentioned before he has, by luck or by careful legal advice, managed to stay clear of anything out and out illegal or impeachable. Likely that will continue. But what if it doesn’t?

    Obviously, impeachment is the route for a President who has clearly breached the Constitution and/or committed “High crime or misdemeanors.” But there is another route in a case of presidential inability to do the job. That is the 25th amendment and I have been thinking about it lately since the President’s bizarre behavior, always there, but I think increasing now, makes me question his stability.

    Now I have been adamant in the past that questioning something is, well, questioning. Usually there are two possible answers, “yes” or “no.” Sometimes it’s more complicated but it always involves a decision of some kind. That certainly pertains to this issue. I am not asserting the President is incapable of his job. But he has(since he took office the first time)displayed patterns of behavior that have been avoided by former Presidents–all of them. This includes wild charges, vulgar and other excessive language, and, perhaps most disturbing of all, verbally violent attacks on his opponents, characterizing them as crazy, evil, etc.

    I am perfectly aware that people have hated Presidents before. But they rarely said so in public. I am also aware that former Presidents have hated some of their opposition sometimes. But none of them has said so with the vehemence or nastiness of Trump. Is it all an act? I hope so and I think it likely that it mostly is. But his temper sometimes seems to boil over inappropriately and anyway. what if I’m wrong and the whole thing is, well, not an act? I doubt and hope and pray this isn’t the case, but we should be aware of what could happen.

    The alternative to impeachment for an incapable President is the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution. Passed by Congress in 1967, it was ratified by the requisite number of states the following year. It deals with the issue of Presidential incapability, without offering an easy opportunity for an overly ambitious Vice-President to take over the job.

    There are four sections to it. The first three are simple to understand and the 4th isn’t too bad with a little bit of effort.

    1-In case of the resignation, death or removal from office of a President, the Vice-President “shall become President.”

    2)-Whenever there is a vacancy in the Vice-Presidency, the President nominates a Vice-Presidential selection who becomes Vice-President if confirmed by a majority of both Houses of Congress

    3-If a President notifies the President Pro Tem of the Senate and the Speaker of the House that he is unable to carry out his Presidential duties, the duties and powers of his office will be handled by the Vice President “until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary.”

    4) If the Vice-President AND a majority of the “principle officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may … provide” notify the President Pro Temp and the Speaker that the President is incapable of exercising his duties, “the Vice-President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.”

    Now–here is where it gets a little bit complicated, but read it carefully and I think it’s clear. When the President notifies, in writing, the President Pro Tempore and the Speaker that he is capable “he shall resume the powers and duties of his office.” So he takes back power right away

    UNLESS–the VP and the majority of those principal leaders of executive offices or other group designated by Congress, notify Congress within four days that the President is not capable. Then it all falls in the lap of the full Congress. If they are not in session at the time they are to assemble within 48 hours. Within 21 days of receiving the letter or within 21 days of reassembling if that is necessary, the Congress must vote on this. If 2/3 of each House votes that the President is incapable of governing the VP continues as Acting President. If they do not do so the President resumes his authority.

    I think this is a necessary and carefully written Amendment. If allows for quick action in the case of a crisis situation(say the President is, for some reason, unconscious) and the country would not be without leadership for very long. But it also, I think, tips the scales a little bit in favor of the President resuming power. This should make it difficult for a scheming Vice-President or an alliance between the VP and a fairly large number of members of Congress to seize power and keep it.

    What the future of the US holds here I do not, of course, know(no one does). But it does occur to me that if Trump’s present behavior continues to get more threatening, with(perhaps among other things) wilder tariff threats and threats or more of troops going into cities where they are not wanted(and very likely not needed), impeachment will again become a serious issue.–or, if they think he’s “incapable,” the 25th. A few, including Whoopie, I see, are saying the time is now.

    I have to dissent on that. We cannot govern by impeachment or constitutional maneuvers just because we don’t like our leader or strongly disapprove of the President’s actions. And we who oppose Trump must always be careful not to take any action which would give him the opportunity to make a plausible claim that he’s being persecuted. There are some who would continue to believe that to be true if he tried to close down Congress and was criticized for it. But we need to make a reasonable decision as to what is enough and what the Constitutional system can take

    I personally doubt another impeachment will be wise and/or necessary. More to the point, I doubt Trump is quite far enough off the line of reality himself to make the invocation of the 25th Amendment necessary. But if it is, the leaders must move with caution and skill. Furthermore, those who support them need to understand what is going on and what the opportunities and risks are. All Americans should know the 25th, wherever they stand.


    , , , ,

  • J D Vance, the Truth, and Political Violence

    We all know the Vice-President has frequently had a slight(or more)issue with the truth. To use only recent memory, we can see it ranges from the ludicrous(immigrants eating animals in Ohio)to the seriously disturbing and dangerous(an out & out claim, in the wake of the Kirk tragedy, that the left is far more involved in political violence than the right). President Trump has been pushing the same idea.

    This is simply not true as I think the President and the Vice-President both know perfectly well. I felt I had to say something about this, and I am starting here but may go further later. I am going to tell you about two or three articles by other people, offer my assessment and suggest you might want to read them. I acknowledge that it likely is impossible for everyone who’s interested to detach their emotions and opinions from entirely balanced study, but I’ll do the best I can and a suggest everyone do the same.

    On Sep 16(Tue this week) Steve Benen published an article on msnbc.com. Admittedly this is not what you would call a neutral site, but, hey, check out the article and judge it on its own. He gave it, by the way, the title “J D Vance’s ‘statistical fact’ on political violence is neither statistical nor a fact.” I’d say this is true. Here’s a summation of his argument.

    About year ago, during the campaign, Vance said he was willing to “create stories so that the American media actually pays attention.” He’s still at it now. After the tragedy in Utah he said “People on the left are much likely to defend and celebrate political violence.” He also said this is not a “both sides problem” because the left is worse than the right, a fact which would fairly obviously true if the first statement were true which is isn’t.

    Benen said Republicans need this to be true to justify “a broader crackdown on the left.” This was a day, maybe a day and a half before the ABC-Kimmel controversy became public. Benen obviously read the political tea leaves with considerable accuracy.

    Then he trots out a few interesting facts: 1) “research from recent years makes clear that right wing violence has been more dangerous in the US than left-wing violence.” 2) A few years ago(2022) the NYT writer David Leonhardt said the right “has a violence problem that has no equivalent on the left.” 3) The New Republic pointed out that the Cato Institute(a libertarian-oriented think tank) said since 2020 the right was responsible “for over half of terror related deaths in the United States, with left wingers at 22%”

    Another NYT man, Thomas Edsall this week stated that the (non-partisan) Center for Strategic and International Studies announced that most US terrorist attacks in recent years were by “violent far-right perpetrators.”

    From outside our country, a Polish lady, Professor Katarzyna Jasko, who teaches psychology at the Jagiellonian University, Krakow, contributed to the 2022 study, “A Comparison of Political Violence by Left-wing, Right-wing, and Islamist Extremists in the United States and the World.” She told Edsall that the White House claims “are not justifiable.” She added that “far-right extremists have been responsible for more …political violence than far-left …their attacks are more violent than those by left-wing extremists.”

    Edsall also spoke with the Carnegie Endowment’s Rachel Kleinfeld who said that since the early 1990’s, actual violence has risen, largely from the right.

    Benen concludes with “To the extent that research and statistical evidence have any bearing on the public conversation, there can be no doubt that Trump’s and Vance’s ideological campaign is based on demonstrable nonsense.”

    OK, Benen is a producer of the Rachel Maddow Show,” so not a non-partisan or non-involved person. But look at the research cited above and, if you like, check it out on the net. He makes a strong case.

    On the same date a reporter named Rebecca Schneid published an article in Time Magazine which I think is also important and leads us towards a similar conclusion. Time is not, of course, a source of great depth, but it has been getting the basics of the news out to America for the better part of a century and rarely been accused of intentional distorting. Of course, everyone interested knows its founder, Henry Luce, was a conservative, a fact he did not try to hide.

    This article also points out something I’ve recently run across in other writings. Some students of this grim issue do not confine themselves to right- and left-wing violence. They include a third type, Islamic violence, which I think is a rational and useful thing today, since it does not fit neatly–or maybe fit at all–with the other two. It is a separate kind of action and to be accurate and complete it needs to be included.

    The CATO Institute study is cited here too and with more detail than in the Benen article. CATO went back to 1975 and found the following interesting facts–Looking at politically motivated murders, since 1975 but excluding 9/11, their breakout is that 391 came from the Right, 143 from the Islamists, and 65 from the Left.(There were about 20 others from varying sources, but I’m going to stick with these three).

    Schneid also points out that Colin Clarke, a researcher at the Soufan Center “focusing on domestic and transnational terrorism, “says the data shows a clear disparity in lethality between left and right.

    Clarke himself pointed out that Trump’s anti-left statement dodged rightist terrorist actions. He asked, “So do we only care about one type of extremism? And if so, why wouldn’t we care about the more lethal threat?” I think this question has troubled, not to say obsessed, a lot of us in recent days, particularly the second part of it.

    The “Time” article also gives us a little more informtion about the CATO study. It divides the attacks as to motivation which I think is important to understand. The study regards left-wing attacks as motivated by animal rights, environmentalism, and “anti-police sentiment,” plus some other leftist targets. Right wing attacks they regard as motivated by such things as “white supremacy and anti-abortion beliefs”

    But, Ms Schneid says, experts do note political violence has been increasing in recent years. Jan 6, then over 9000 threats against members of Congress, and the assault on Paul Pelosi, husband of the former Speaker of the House are examples, as are the two assassination attempts on President Trump. Earlier this year there were the attempt to burn down the Pennsylvania Governor’s residence, now home to Gov Josh Shapiro and his family, the attacks on two MN state legislators, which killed one state legislator and her husband, and the two Israeli Embassy Employees murdered outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington
    One of Ms Schneid’s interviews was with Benjamin Rad, a political scientist and a law professor at UCLA. He indicated that Trump’s allegation of a big rise in leftist violence is not supported by data available. It has risen but it started with a very low base number and more information is needed.(that is, if you start with a year of 2 crimes of a certain sort and the next year there are 3, this crime rate has risen by 50%–if you start with 20 cases it’s only risen by a single percent)

    After all the talk of the CATO Institute’s study, I did take a quick look at it. The CATO Institute, you may know, is often described (as above) as a Libertarian think tank. It is dedicated to free speech, free markets, and overall opposition to government interference in the economy and other “private matters.” This means it has usually sided more with Republicans than Democrats, although I don’t think it’s particularly tried to be partisan. And it also opposed getting into wars and having the government messing around with individual matters such as sexuality issues. This means that occasionally it has taken what many would describe as leftist positions

    I have always been a bit suspicious of it since it usually opposed my party’s(and my personal)views, but I know of no instance of chicanery on its part, no playing fast and loose with the facts. I trust its integrity.

    I have already mentioned that both Benen and Schneid cited the Institute’s recent study of political violence. Here are a few extra matters I got from looking more directly at the report

    –Since the beginning of this decade terrorists have murdered 79 people in attacks on US soil. The right-wing terrorists account for over half of these(didn’t see a specific number)left wingers for 22% and Islamists for 21%

    Significantly, I found the following: “The big fear from politically motivated terrorism is that the pursuit of justice will overreach …and end up killing far more people while diminishing our freedom.” This was, of course, written before the recent Administration shenanigans on freedom of the airways–so ask ABC how they feel.)

    “The government can and should vigorously pursue justice …and should do so without new political witch hunts(and) … expanded government powers.”

    The author of this article I have been quoting is Alex Nowrasteh, an analyst of, mainly, immigration matters, and an employee of the CATO Institute.

    I won’t say this is all there is up to date, not considering the current brouhaha over television and late night freedom. There’s a lot more to be said there and elsewhere. But do keep track of this and check out some sources(including the ones I cite if you wish), as this is one of the more important items to affect the US Constitution and individual Americans’ freedom in quite some time.

    , , , ,

  • What’s in a (Trumpish) Name?

    Any even casual observer of the American scene should know by now that the President made one of his curious, seemingly weird actions recently. He changed the name of the Dept of Defense to the the Department of War. Or he said he did. Now it turns out he didn’t–not exactly, at least, and not legally? Confused? Well, that’s what retired history instructors are for(well one of them anyway)

    I figured early on in this story that it would be a mess and would be misreported on TV by some and dealt with in so little detail by others, that a lot of people would not get the full story. Is it important that they do? Yes, I think so, and particularly in what it says about the President and the peculiarities of his way of thinking–but also because people should understand just how their government has worked and does work. So I decided to think about what I already knew about the subject and to do a little bit of research on line and then to give you what I hope will be the straight truth. Don’t worry, it won’t take long, and once you get the idea it’s clear enough. But we need a little background.

    First of all, let’s look at the President’s cabinet, about which we hear a lot and may hear more, regarding the current name issue. The cabinet is established, some say, by the Constitution. But immediately we have our first anomaly. The Constitution never mentions the word “cabinet.” It does(Article II, Section II) assign to the President the right to solicit the opinions of “the principal leaders of each of the executive Departments.” But the “executive departments” are never named. So we have to assume the founders wanted(and therefore assumed) executive departments but didn’t want to organize this matter entirely, or differed on it enough to skip the details. Anyhow, that’s the basis, however vague, for the cabinet. If you delve more deeply into history, particularly legal and constitutional history, I think you might just find a bit more of this vagueness on various issues.

    In any event, the Congress of the US created four original departments, State, Treasury, Attorney General and, yes, War. Washington appointed Henry Knox, a much admired Revolutionary War hero as the first Secretary of War. Originally, this Department was responsible for all events of a military nature(let’s not go into “military” and “naval” here). This situation changed in a few years as Britain and France were at war with each other again and both seemed willing to hassle(or worse)American shipping in the Mediterranean, the Caribbean and perhaps elsewhere. The naval aspect of things was looking more and more important.

    At the behest of President John Adams a new Department, the Department of the Navy, appeared in 1798. So there were now two military cabinet level Departments, the Department of War to run the Army and the Department of the Navy to run–surprise, surprise-the Navy.. This situation of these two Departments lasted for about a century and a half. It ended because of, among other things, the rise of air power.

    First important in World War I, air power was immensely important in WW II. A lot of the planes and pilots were part of the Navy then and many still are. But a lot of the aviation necessary was not necessarily Navy related, and so the US Army acquired a new part, the US Army Air Force or USAAF. It was technically part of the Army and subject to Army commands, but nearly constituted a separate service because of its size and importance.

    At the end of the war, then, the main US flying corps was part of the army. But it must have seemed to be separate in function and feeling. Possibly there were potential Administrative issues which loomed also. This was likely obvious by the time the war ended in 1945, and two years later Congress passed and President Harry Truman signed, the National Security Act creating the Department of Defense, with its own Secretary who would be a cabinet member.

    This meant the Departments of War and the Navy would now be parts of Defense and would be joined by the new Department of the Air Force. The Department of War now became the department of the Army which made sense given the names of the other two departments. All three, again, were now part of the very large Department of Defense. Their secretaries no longer were members of the cabinet, but now held sub-cabinet positions, just one step down from the Secretary of Defense.

    So, to review, the Department of Defense encompasses the whole Defense establishment, Army, Navy(which includes the US Marines), and Air Force. It has now been this way for nearly 80 years. What Trump did recently is, very likely legally, inconsequential. Legally, Congress has the right(Article II, Section II) to establish and, presumably, change Department names, so Trump’s action is an overreach. They may change some stationery or some names on doors, but it remains the Department of Defense for official purposes.

    I doubt if this will have serious results, but I can see that it might result in embarrassment, irritation, and most of all confusion, for Americans and especially for others trying to figure out just what’s going on here. One thing, for sure, is that Trump’s ever boastful, ever needy personality traits are working overtime. He perhaps thinks this name change is going to be a big deal in impressing potential adversaries with how tough we are. I doubt if it will have the desired effect in many, perhaps any, cases. But it will show us off as being led by a President who likes to sound bellicose and tough, even while dithering over Ukraine and other such issues.

    I suspect this may be so because, as already mentioned above, this is relatively meaningless except for getting some new door signs etc. Oh , yes, and Pete Hegseth is now the Secretary of War which may be what he’s wanted al along. I think it is more likely to make us look silly and ineffective abroad, messing with name changes, while our potential enemies (Modi, Putin, XI Jinping, Lukashenko, Kim, etc)plot who knows what? I also question whether, if it ever comes to a court test, Pete’s “new title” will get past the test of the Constitution. It seems doubtful.

    It appears to me that Trump has done nothing in recent weeks in foreign policy but blather and bluster and, predictably, be ineffective. We now appear, politically, at least, to be in a much weaker position against our adversaries than we were before the much ballyhooed Alaskan meeting. Nothing good came out of that as far as I see, and nothing good seems likely in the near future. The effect of this whole thing is like much of this Administration–bluster and bragging win out over serious and substantial action.

    , , , ,

  • Trumpological Studies

    I was planning to go back to reviewing books and movies, but the various troubles of our world and our country have seized my immediate attention., I have decided to devote one more(at least)blog to studying our President’s behavior and its likely effects. I will be brief but intend to make points on several issues

    –Putin, Zelensky and Personal Diplomacy–I have tried hard to be fair to Trump–I never liked or trusted him beginning with his entry into poltics(or slightly earlier)but I wanted to be fair. He has made it more and more difficult. During his first term he created a lot of attention for himself by his personal approach and particularly his much awaited meeting with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. There was a lot of ballyhoo about it and I even felt myself that these were two odd guys who maybe wanted more or less the same thing and that therefore they might accomplish something. I was wrong. They accomplished very little beyond publicity for themselves and North Korea now is thought to have nuclear capable missles aimed at us.

    He also met with Putin in his first term and they never looked really comfortable together. Trump strutted and tried to pretend he was an equal-in- talent world leader, but the sly, power-minded Russian dicatator let him have the floor and, eventually, look foolish. Nothing much came of it.

    Despite this and other such failures, I still allowed myself to have hopes for the Alaska thing a couple of weeks ago. Trump announced loudly that he expected success in at least starting the beginning of the end of the Ukranian-Russian war. He also, at one point, at least hinted Russia would face serious consequences if they didn’t come through with a reasonable agreement.

    Well, it apperas that they didn’t and he didn’t. The Russians made no commitment except to have another meeting, maybe including Zelensky, in the future. So far they have faced no consequences, not even a new tariff threat from the Admihistration. They are now attacking Ukraine with more than usual power and are killing and injuring many of its citizens and doing significant property damage. They appear to be refusing to consider any compromise the Ukranians would agree to.

    –The mess in Greenland–This is one of the smaller ones for the moment. But Greenland is not insignficiant. It appears to have a vast amount of resources each side would like to have access to. Also, in a time when global warming plus technological change has made across-the-polar-region war not impossible, it is to be noted Greenland is located pretty much betwween the Northeast USA and Northern Russia.

    A few days ago it was announced by the Danish Foregin Ministry that they had reason to believe that three Americans connected to the Administration had gotten into Greenland and were thought to be in touch with the Greenland oppostion(Greenland domestic politics appears extremly complicated and unfamilar and I’m not going to deal with it now). They are not there officially but are talking nonetheless–or such is suspected at least. If this is true it is reckless and presumptious and does us no credit

    Denmark no longer has much power over Greenland but does supply it with considerable economic assistance and has what is usually defined as “suzerainty” over it which means it has some kind of authority no one wants carefully defined. Anyway, as the technical soverign power there, the Danes have some interest and some reason to be irritated as they certainly appear to be. This is not likely to be the start of a significant crisis, but keep your eye on it. At the very least it may be highly unfortunate publicity for the US.

    __Chaos at the CDC-When Trump appointed Dr Susan Monarez to lead the CDC many people hoped she would serve as something of a check on some of the Administration’s stranger science ideas, particularly those of HHS Secretary RFK, Jr. She was confirmed by the Senate recently, earlier this month! Now she’s out, apparently because of a difference over(guess what)vaccines with Kennedy. Her exit led several other leaders of the CDC to resign in protest, including at least three doctors who felt betrayed and at least one of whom said publicly how important it is to keep the CDC oreiented toward American health, not politics.

    RFK has appointed one Jim O’Neill, apprantly a longtime supporter and employee as temporary leader of the agency. As nearly as I can tell O’Neill is strictly a political guy with no scientific background. There is also an interesting constitutional question here. Dr Monarez argued that although appointed by the President he could not dismiss her. Now this is, if not exactly the same, just about the same issue that got Andrew Johnson impeached in 1868. I haven’t heard anything about that today so perhaps O’Nell will just take over her desk and things will proceed–or not. Certainly the old saw about chaos following Trump appears to be enhanced

    Trump has a potentially serious issue confronting him here. People are concerned about the CDC and its functioning. I believe the great majoirty of our population suports nearly all vaccines. It will be extemely difficult to find a trustworthy, believeably competent person who will meet the obvious high standards needed at the CDC but shares the Trumpish-RFKish doubts about vaccines. Even if they find such a person, it seems likely there would still be a Senate battle over confirmation because of the vaccine issue.

    -The Guard in the Cities–Is the President within the law and the Constitution in sending the natinal guard to enforce the law in DC and threatening to do it elsewhere? It’s complicated, but you could likely make a good case that he hasn’t crossed the line–yet. But he’s on touchy territory here because the Posse Comitatus Act, passed shortly after the Civil War and Reconstruction, forbids most of the US military forces, including the Army, to participate in law enforcement There are a few eceptions, too complicated to go into here. I strongly suggest you visit the Posse Comitatus Act online and get the details.

    Regardless of whether he is within the law now, I do not like what I see or the direction the US seems to be going. I thought before Trump’s goofier ideas were too ludicrous to take seriously. I am now less certain

    As for the Fed-well, let’s save that for a little later.

    , , , ,

  • The Reign of “Delayed Information–Trump, Iran, Alaska, etc–Well, You Get It

    Now to be fair at the very beginning, I have to concede that nearly all–perhaps all–Presidents delay information on something, sometimes. There is no doubt here, Trump is not the first. But he seems to have raised the delay of information and the ability to act as if everything is OK to a higher art than most.

    Take Iran–after a long time of discussing and thinking by the administration, the Congress and others during the Israeli-Iranian war, everyone with the slightest bit of interest in the matter knew the US was considering striking Iran to take out their budding–but fortunately not yet complete–nuclear program. We did not know when, of course and did not know for sure it would happen, but it was obviously a possibility.

    This was not necessarily a rash or foolish thing to do. Iran’s nuclear program was coming along well, thanks in large part to the First Trump Administration pulling out of the original international Iranian treaty. Nobody sane in the free world(or elsewhere, maybe)wants to see nuclear weapons in the hands of the people who run Iran. But there were obvious risks. There was doubt.

    The doubts were resolved for anyone with a TV set late in June. On June 22 a number of B-2’s(apparently now our most capable bombers) took off from Whiteman AFB in MO and started west across the US and then on across the Pacific. This was a clever and apparently successful attempt to confuse the Iranians who thought the US was gong to threaten someone in Asia, perhaps China regarding Taiwan. Several other B-2’s left from the the same AFB and flew east across the US then across the Atlantic and eventually to the Middle East where, after about 18 hours in the air, they attacked Iran’s nuclear weapons development center. Since a lot of this is deep underground it was obvious to military, diplomatic and other observers that they would need MOPS(Massive Ordnance Penetrators)bombs to do the job fully. A lot of the work would be unreachable by old fashioned, regular bombing.

    Several of these huge bombs were used, successfully at least to the extent that some of them appear to have gotten underground. The US Air Force(along with some Army and Navy help, apparently)behaved magnificently and all came off as planned. Except that nobody would be certain right away how well it had worked. As nearly as I am able to tell, nobody outside of the higher levels of the government know now. Or maybe they just don’t know a lot more than the rest of us.

    The raid was hardly over before President Trump was bragging about its success. The military were a bit less effusive, claiming great destruction of Iranian work on the surface, but hesitant to claim too much about what had been destroyed underground.

    Over the month plus since then news sources have differed, mostly along ideological lines, over whether this thing “worked” or not.(“Worked” meaning, Is Iran still capable of having functional nukes with a few years or will it take longer?) Gen Wesley Clark and Gen David Petraeus, two officers of long and difficult command in Mideastern matters, both seemed to be saying it looked good but you’d have to wait for more evidence. A number of other prestigious and knowledgeable people said largely the same thing. Then something odd occurred in that pretty much nothing occurred or has been heard of since. Maybe it’s not odd in that other times in US History such things have happened. But look at how fast this was.

    Have you hear anything of this story recently? Did the media follow up on it for more than about two weeks? Did the Administration make any serious attempt to keep the public informed, at least to the extent that their investigators were still trying to figure out what happened to the underground Iranian material? And the answer of course is NO to all of the above, at least to any serious attempt to do explaining of what happened. This story simply fell off cable TV and into oblivion. And we must wonder why. Perhaps we should ask the media and the Administration. I doubt there would be a satisfactory answer but it would be worth a try.

    It is now late in the morning of Aug 18. President Zelensky and his European allies/partners should be assembling now for what promises to be an interesting meeting with Trump. Last Friday with Putin appears to have been almost a non-event I could hardly believe they would have a joint-statement reading, but no press conference and then get out of sight, but that’s what happened. So obfuscation seems to be the word of the day.

    It will be harder to hides things about today’s conference. There will be, in addition to Trump and Zelensky, at least seven other European leaders, Presidents, Prime Ministers, leaders of important organizations(NATO and the EU). These leaders are going to be keeping an eye on the direction things are going, as well they should. To the extent we know anything about what passed between Trump and Putin, it sounds as if the former was slipping toward a subtle attempt and maybe more, to back Putin’s view, which is, essentially, “Give me everything I want and I’ll leave.” This is not likely to please the Europeans and I imagine some of them will talk fairly soon. At least I hope so.

    But there will be backstories and interpretations and maybe several competing understandings about what has happened and what is likely to happen. How long will it be before at least some of this is public knowledge and the citizenry have at least a chance to assess where things are going? I don’t know, but I trust it won’t be too long. Keep your eye on the ball. I agree that not everything about negotiations should be released. But at least a basic understanding should be available and the various publics involved should be able to make reasonable assumptions about what to expect.

  • Shock and confusion

    I had been planning on writing on something else soon. Perhaps I still will. But I was grabbed by the story out of TN which has been presumably been widely read over the last few days. You may be familiar with it. I mean, of course, the TN execution of Byron Black and the ironies, contradictions and peculiarities surrounding it. Black was put to death yesterday(Aug 5)by lethal injection., He had committed a horrible crime more than 30 years ago when he killed his ex-girlfriend and her two young daughters, 6 and 9 years old.

    Convicted of murder then, his case was put off again and again by a series of circumstances. By the time his execution was at hand he was clearly disabled, confined to a wheelchair(I wonder who helped him out of the wheelchair to his place of execution and how they felt about it) and suffering from heart disease. He had been treated for the latter in the past and had had a device inserted in him which was to serve as both a pacemaker and a defibrillat

    It was also clear from the evidence that he was and possibly always had been of limited mental capacity. It appeared that he had never scored higher than 70 on an IQ test and that he was functionally retarded, though that is my term, not an official one.

    The ironies abound. It could be argued, with some logic but little mercy, that it was a waste of money to insert such an object in a sick man who was a life prisoner anyway. It could also be argued, just as logically, that this was the only reasonable step to take.

    But the biggest irony is that this device, meant to preserve and extend life, might possibly be an issue in carrying out the execution. The device would be doing its job, trying to keep him alive, while the lethal injection was busily going about killing him. The device works by issuing shocks to the system to control the heart and to keep it going. Sometimes it does this when it should not and causes the patient pain.

    It was assumed by many that this contradiction could turn the execution into a routine of torture. Black would be in severe pain from the misfiring device trying to save his life, by fighting the lethal injection while it took it. This, of course became an issue for the courts and other parts of the system. A trial judge ruled in July against the execution taking place without the device being removed because of this potential pain. But the TN Supreme Court overruled the lower court and allowed the state to proceed to proceed without deactivating the device which could have been done and does not sound as if it would have been difficult or time consuming

    Gov Bill Lee could have stepped in and demanded the device be deactivated. Or he could have commuted the sentence and stopped the whole thing. But he chose not to. The execution took place at or around 10:00 AM Aug 5 and a 10.43 Black was officially pronounced deceased. During the time this happened witnesses reported that he struggled and cried out “It’s hurting so much.” His spiritual advisor(not otherwise identified)said “I’m so sorry.” In addition to the advisor the other six witnesses agreed that Black appeared to be in pain/discomfort during the process.

    The whole thing fills s me with disgust and confusion. Why did this drag on for over thirty years? Why was the devise implanted in the first place? Having done so, presumably out of some kind of compassion, why did they refuse to deactivate it to save possible pain? Why did the TN judiciary disagree with each other to such a large extent? Perhaps most of all, why did Gov Lee refuse a simple act by which he could have(but didn’t)demand the defibrillator be disconnected, or even spared Black?

    I can only say that I am disgusted and confused by the whole thing. I did a blog sometime ago(Jan 30, 2024)which I urge you to read for further information on my feelings about capital punishment. They are still mainly what they were then with an added degree of questioning and disgust. I understand the pain of the survivors of murder victims who seek justice–but how do we discriminate between justice and pure revenge> And should we? And why is this sort of thing going on in our country but nowhere else in the industrial, advanced part of the world? What is going on here? Are we right and much of the rest of the world wrong? Please think about it. This is a national disgrace. I am at a loss to go further.

    , ,

  • Trump Balance Sheet

    President Trump has succeeded, as usual, in staying in the headlines, and as usual some of his methods of doing it are of questionable honesty or usefulness to the country. As usual, he is indulging his taste for bragging and , also as usual, some of the things he brags about appear not to have happened, at least not in the way or with the effect he ascribes to them. So, I wish to take a look at where things stand right now.

    First of all, on the whole, he appears to be in trouble with the public. His ratings have slipped badly over the last month or so. This has to do with both foreign and domestic affairs. This week the prominence of the Epstein matter is making his position considerably worse.

    On foreign affairs he has continued to use his tariff threats as weapons. Though he hasn’t done a tariff change in 2 or 3 days now, they have been steady and are quite possibly going to return. This has had some effect upon the economy, but not a big one, apparently, so far.

    The economy itself continues to percolate along without extremely serious issues right now. That may change at any time and there are certainly things to fear in the national and world economies, but right at this moment the USA economy looks OK. Trump inherited a pretty good economy from the Biden Administration(despite inflation) and has so far largely kept it that way. Unemployment is holding steadily at a low level and inflation is down compared to, say, last fall when it was an ( somewhat mistakenly and misunderstood)issue in the Presidential campaign.

    The latest figures show that it has now picked up a little bit. This is likely at least partly due to the newly imposed and frequently discussed and/or changed tariff plans the president has presented. He has a tendency to make several changes in a few days, leave a few days quiet, then go back after it again. This is not likely to inspire much confidence among other nations, nor here at home. Some think that the tariffs have had only a small effect so far but will prove in the near future to have more. Although recent polls show the public does not like his handling of the economy, my sense is that they would, on direct questioning, , give him a give a pass rather than a fail on it –but just barely and maybe just for now. So he’s neither obviously winner or loser yet on one of his two leading campaign issues, though he and his people aren’t, I think, very happy about it.

    The other issue was immigration and here he looks definitely a loser. He drew a lot of votes from frightened people who thought, correctly or not, that their way of life was threatened, and who believed, wrongly in nearly all cases, I think, that restricting immigration would help. They also responded to his demand that we get rid of people in the country illegally and, in a connected matter, responded to his outrage about our southern border. They were likely more or less right about the border, although it’s not a simple issue.

    But Trump went ahead and began an aggressive campaign(and sometimes a legally questionable one)to get rid of the illegals. Yes, a lot of Americans wanted them out. But most of them did not imagine sending ICE to workplaces where immigrants were obviously contributing to our economy by working. They didn’;t want people torn away from their jobs and expelled from the country. They did not sign up for stories of children and parents being torn apart. They did not like what they’ve heard about the conditions at “Alligator Alcatraz.” Although I haven’t heard or read anything about it, I doubt if many of them like seeing the illegals bent over, forced to move with their faces almost touching the ground, and overall treated like prisoners in a fascist type camp.

    So Trump’s first big issue is working slightly if at all and his second one is turning out to be, so far anyway, a loser. His poll numbers are way down in practically everything, even among many Republicans and certainly among the all important, and now quite large group, regarded as independents. If the party can’t keep nearly all of its own people on their path and add to that a large number of independents, they are going to lose.

    Trump might still turn out a winner on the bombing of Iran. But please note that in a very short time the story, a headline issue for awhile, has faded away. How much have you read or heard of it lately? Trump loudly proclaimed it had worked, but what does “worked” mean? As far as I can see people who really know something about military matters are very cautious for now. Yes, severe damager was done to what was visible on the bases. But was Iran’s nuclear drive serously set back or threatened? I don’t think this is clear yet. As long as it is unclear and fading from the public consciousness Trump will win few it any points for it.

    But more recently, like late this week, the Epstein matter has, at least temporarily, tended to eclipse everything else. This is a serious matter which I think may be the first thing in the second Trump Administration that might not just cause trouble, but actually threaten his Presidency. It is impossible to tell yet, but Epstein was obviously a highly undesirable person and one with whom Trump was in a close friendship for a long time.

    I think the most damaging thing-and the thought is not original with me–is that the Pam Bondi-birthday list thing my be the last straw, in some respects, depending on how it goes. It appears just about beyond doubt that the Attorney General did tell the President, a couple of months ago, that he was frequently mentioned in the notorious letter. The mere mentioning may not be damaging because it may not indicate misdeeds on the President’s part. But the close relationship implied by the apparently large number of times his name is mentioned is likely to create a poor(or worse)impression. This could mean, that if there is real dynamite in there somewhere, the explosion from it could be louder that anticipated. I doubt if there will be an impeachment vote on this issue, but it’s not impossible.

    All of this has now, in the last day or two, been complicated by several other people, all but one of them servants of Mr Trump, the other one a European, who have chosen for whatever reason to stir the pot themselves. DNI(Director of National Intelligence)Tulsi Gabbard issued a statement charging President Obama with committing treason during Hillary’s campaign for President by plotting for Russian interference in the election. The charge is ludicrous and has been put down before, but Ms Gabbard was on the outs with Trump and this seemed a way to get back into his good graces. So far it may be working.

    But it likely didn’t make her any better liked by Attorney General Bondi who apparently didn’t know it was coming and was stuck with dealing with an accusation she wouldn’t have made herself. This is particularly true in that even if there were some suspicion–of which there is not–that the former President is guilty of this, what could they do about it? The Trump Administration and the Supreme Court recently established and endorsed the principle that the President cannot be prosecuted for any “official” acts while President. This was intended to get Trump off the hook for any unpleasant revelation about his behavior during his first term. But it obviously could not be applied to one President and not another. The AG issued a vague statement about pursuing the matter but not strongly endorsing all Gabbard’s accusations.

    At the same time Trump and Fed Chairman Jerome Powell put on white hard hats and strolled together around a building site for some new office space for the Fed. They looked like two old guys wearing hard hits because they wandered into a dangerous space without knowing what they were doing. In the President’s case this may be just about true.

    Trump made some incorrect and somewhat incoherent comments about building and spending at the Fed. Powell, looking both older and way more informed than the President, pointed out that the President was including figures for a building finished two or three years ago which had no relevance to what they were supposedly considering. Trump was left looking like a poleaxed sheep wearing weird orange make-up. By the way, Jeffrey Toobin has a very interesting and clarifying article on this in Friday’s(Jul 25)NYT.

    Possibly the most serious outside interruption to Trump’s Epstein troubles came from French President Emmanuel Macron who announced France was ready to recognize a Palestinian state. I have already written about this recognizing of a state that technically doesn’t exist and I have nothing to add to that. But Macron, however, much I might question the legal relevance of his move, has distracted the attention of about half the world from the USA to the Middle East with this-at least for now. And the terrible stories coming out of Gaza are likely to keep some of it there.

    And indeed, recent further revelations about the brutality with which the people, particularly the children of Gaza are being treated make this a more fruitful issue for Macron than would otherwise be the case. The US and Israel are objecting fairly loudly, but The British government of struggling PM Sir Keir Starmer is being fairly supportive of old friend France. This may not be something the President will have to deal with right away, but it does point out that the Middle East, particularly Gaza, is still a serious humanitarian and therefore also diplomatic problem and has to be dealt with eventually.

    So on the whole, Trump’s temporarily triumphant march to popularity has gotten a spoke in its wheel for a number of reasons. We now must wait for the next move–which will like come from the Deputy Atty General and his visit to Ms Maxwell. Stay tuned

    The AG issued a bvague statement

    , , , ,

  • The Depressing Story of an American President and a More Depressing Election

    Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson, “Original Sin–President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again”–copyright Penguin Press 2025 314 pgs

    When the nation was gearing up, one way or another, for the most recent Presidential Election, it was common though not extremely so, to hear comments regarding Joe Biden’s capability of being President for another term. This did not reach a crescent until things began actually to happen in the spring of 2024, but it was to some extent lurking in the background before that.

    I remember hearing as far back as the 2020 campaign at least one speculation on it. I don’t remember who was being quoted, but he said something like, “We all slow down as we get older and maybe Joe’s lost a step or two.” That may not be a literal quote but it’s close and that was the essence of it. He went on to say that despite this Joe was up to being President–or words to that effect.

    Whoever that man was, he was quite possibly telling the truth. And indeed, I could make a fairly solid case that Biden was capable of being President then and was a good President for 2 or 3 years. After all, he saw us through and to some extent out of covid, prevented covid from causing a serious long term recession, and built an alliance of (mostly European) countries to defend Ukraine.

    I did several blogs in which I praised Joe one way or another and I stand by them. But I think that clearly something went wrong around early 2023. Or more accurately, I’d say that something had been going wrong for a long time and it began to manifest itself in ways many of us saw(but frequently did not admit, even to ourselves)about then.

    That is more or less–though not exactly–the thesis of this book. Jake and Alex tell us that Joe Biden had been in decline for a long time, A lot of people close to him–family and close, loyal old time employees, for example–also noticed but refused to accept it. The result of this, they say, was an increasingly confused Presidency which was hobbled by a declining President, and a fractured Democratic party in which leading politicians debated and struggled with questions of honesty, national security, and honor. In the end it all went wrong and the results are there to see now. As I type these words the Big Beautiful Bill has had its final vote of passage in the House and been signed into law. What eventual effects result is impossible to predict. Much of it looks bad, particularly for the less fortunate.

    My own reaction to this book is , first of all, that it is well researched and well-written, and that if you are interested in American politics you need to read it. Actually, if you’re just a citizen, current or would-be, you need to read it. I think it is a fair book and it certainly gives you the inside views, although not always who had these views, since obviously a lot of the interviewees refused to talk without a guarantee of anonymity.

    As a Biden supporter I feel it is sometimes a little bit lacking in understanding of the president and a little heavy on the condemnation side. But only a little, for there is much here to be disturbed about and of course mine is a reaction that both emotional and logic driven. They do note Biden’s past in Ch 2, “Get Up.” They review his life and its disasters, the pain, loss, disappointments–the times dreams have been dashed and the times he has struggled and not succeeded in getting his message out. They cover this and note his father’s advice, which was “It’s not how many times you get knocked down…It’s how quickly you get back up.”

    And Joe took this advice. And through illness, sorrows and failures he got up and went on. And on Jan 20, 2021, just 14 days after Jan 6, he took the oath of office. But within less than a year his Presidency was in trouble and all around him knew it. At some level likely he knew it too.

    Other than the family, led by the First Lady, those closest to him came to be known as “The Politburo.” This consisted of three men, Mike Donovan, Steve Ricchetti, and Bruce Reed who had worked with Biden in one capacity or another for a long time. Not well know to the public, they were known to the media and to all familiar with the Presidency.

    There were also Bob Bauer and Anita Dunn, a married couple who knew him from the Obama Administration days and unlike most of their Obama team comrades joined Joe in 2015 and backed him rather than Hillary the following year.

    These were the insiders though there were many others who worked for him in his Administration and then watched with some alarm as he geared up for running for re-election, an effort that drew mixed reactions from the people closest to him but seems to have alarmed or at least sobered many of them.

    This all was debated and considered and gone over by the President’s advisors and family and sometimes the President himself, a process clearly delineated by the authors. One of the biggest issues came to be, should he or should he not take on Donald Trump in a televised debate? The decision, and a very difficult one for many, was that he should. The majority of influential people around him reached this conclusion with various degrees of enthusiasm and/or nervousness, but the overall idea was that there simply wasn’t much of a choice. Many around Biden thought Harris an inadequate replacement for him and while there appears to have been little hostility between the Harris people and the Biden people, there also wasn’t much warmth.

    By the time this decision came about, it was clear to many of his intimates and assistants that the President was no longer the leader he had been when he was Vice-President or indeed, even when he was first President. One aide said they were “grading him on a curve every day” and that things which would have been considered disastrous the year before were now passed over with comments such as “Okay, we got through that.” Except that they didn’t–not with many of the media, not with a larger and larger number of the public and not with each other. The house was about to fall down and no one knew what to do.

    That was particularly true after the debate(We all know what happened in the debate). The immediate reaction to consider is that of the Dem professional politicians, those around Biden and those running for re-election(All the House and about 1/3 of the Senate). They were appalled at what they were going to have to defend, on the stump and elsewhere ,and declare they were satisfied with to a more and more skeptical public. The quotations the authors give indicate frequent remarks such as “This is a fucking disaster” and “We are fucked.” In fact, it all sounds as if they had been listening to Donald Trump speeches and incorporated one of his favorite words.

    Among the family and the important supporters the debate went on. Should he drop out or keep going? How could he sell himself after the disaster of a debate performance against Trump? One supporter stated that there was about a 3-year difference in the ages of the two Presidential candidates but with that debate it appeared more like 30 years. And I have to conclude, having watched the debate, I had something of the same thought.

    Now his support within the party was crumbling. People who denied the issues of his age, or who had tried to keep a discrete silence before, were beginning to go public, usually saying he shouldn’t run or at least that dropping out should be an option. The ever-Democratic loyal NYT took its stand. The President should step down .”The clearest path for Democrats to defeat a candidate defined by his lies is to deal truthfully with the American public.”

    But the President was determined not to give in and the First Lady stood loyally if not very sensibly behind her husband. Sen Debbie Stabenow of MI told Jill that she had known Joe for more than twenty years, worked as his colleague and admired him, but now she was worried. The First Lady apparently listened to her words but was not moved to agree.

    Over the next few weeks it got worse. The President looked for support and found it eroding within his party. The DSCC had met and decided he had to go. Nancy Pelosi had written a warm and friendly letter expressing her admiration of him, but also stating this was the time to leave. Hold a good new conference, then announce he was dropping out of the race and go out strong, rather than waiting for ignominious defeat. Her letter went unanswered. Finally it fell to Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer to talk to him and finish the job.

    In what must have been a painful conversation for both, the Senator alternately called him “Joe” and “Mr. President.” Then he asked if the President had looked at the polls recently. Biden admitted he had not and Schumer told his old friend and leader that if he had a fifty percent chance of winning it would be a risk worth taking. But a reasonable interpretation of the polls indicated his real chance of a victory was about 5%. And Schumer told him to drop out now, not to try again, that he would leave an honorable and admirable legacy that way. The other choice would be a legacy of being remembered mainly for making Trump a 2 term President.

    Biden wanted to know if Kamala had a chance and Schumer said, honestly, I would think, that he didn’t know if she could win, but he did know Biden would lose. The President said he would think and have an answer soon. In his car, being driven back to Brooklyn, Sen Schumer, Minority Leader of the US Senate, phoned his staff to explain– and he began to cry.

    The following Sunday the President phoned the Vice-President to tell her his decision to drop out. She loyally urged him to think about it. “Don’t let them push you out, Joe.” But Biden had made up his mind and asked her if she would run. “Are you up for it, kid?” “Yes I’d be honored to,” the VP replied. One career was ending and another taking a big step, though where that step would lead was not clear. It all would become at least temporarily clear. The answer arrived election night.

    (The above story, the decision to get Biden to drop out and Kamala to replace him is told on approximately pgs 274-288 and is one of the most dramatic and poignant parts of the book)

    The authors add a quick summation, ch 18, “Out the Door,” and ch 19,”Conclusions.” The former is mostly a description of things that close followers of Presidential politics mostly already knew. Overall, Biden did not leave office, or discharge his duties from election to Inauguration with a lot of distinction. A trip to Brazil looked bad when he spoke strictly from a script, took no questions, and went “shuffling down a path that made it look as if he were disappearing into the jungle.” Many fellow Democrats wondered how his people had thought he could manage another term. Others began finger pointing, often as the First lady who must have had access to all of the information regarding his day-to-day functioning but insisted on supporting a second term.

    Then there were the pardons which went beyond what he had indicated he would do. He included unexpected family members and this infuriated some of his supporters.

    The last chapter, “Conclusions” does not offer very many but is still important to read. The authors review the original Constitution and the issue of Presidential succession. The give a short but enlightening explanation of the 25th Amendment which provides for actions Congress and the Cabinet are able to take if the President is incapacitated

    They point out that legally there is no requirement that the Presidential doctors disclose everything they know or that they administer cognitive tests to see how his mind is working. They do suggest Congress should pass an act requiring that President’s physician certify to Congress that he is physically and cognitively able to function. It could also be put into law that full reports on the President’s health be offered to the public. Given all the country has had to think about recently I consider these both worthy suggestions.

    Although the authors do make an effort, already noted regarding the “Get Up” chapter, about Biden’s many strong points, I found the ending of it a bit of a “downer,” perhaps not a necessary thing.

    This was a man who gave of himself for years and years and wound up being humiliated on his way out of office. It seems to me a bit more compassion could have been used.

    But I stand by Tapper’s and Thompson’s right to say what they think and to report what they did and learned. I just wish they had been a bit more generous with the end of their book. I have no serious issue with it before that final–and brief–chapter. You can learn a lot about our politics and how they work from this book and I think all citizens should read it. Particularly if you believe in the importance of politics and political awareness and participation I think you should.

    I just wish–perhaps sentimentally, one old Democrat re: another–that someone had said the 21st century equivalent of “Well done, thou good and faithful servant.” Apparently no one did and that is not Tapper’s and Thompson’s fault. Perhaps eventually, someone will say it. I think it is largely true of the 46th President of the US.

    My own guess is there will be a slew of books on this Presidency, some fairly soon. If you’re interested you should have plenty to consider. I hope that you will.

    t

    , , , ,

  • He Did It–What Was It?–And What Now?

    Well, President Trump had his time with the Israeli-Iranian crisis. Whether it was good or bad for him I don’t know. I rather have the feeling that he largely enjoyed it, but not entirely. He may really not have wanted to go to war at first, then drifted, rather quickly toward a decision to commit at least one action which might be considered an “act of war.”

    I am going to reflect on this process, that is how he made up his mind and what the results may be; then I want to speculate what this means for the Middle East and particularly our country and its relationship with that chronically unstable area of the world. I may even comment on politics-a little bit. My sources studied quickly for this article are mainly CNN and its reporting of yesterday and today, the NYT and a few other things pulled from the media. I wish to point out there is a remarkable and thorough article in today’s “Times” by five different reporters, one of whom is Maggie Haberman, my favorite NYT writers and one of the best people to appear on CNN for commentary. They should use her more.

    When Israel began its air war on Iran over a week ago, many of us blanched and thought, “can’t we stop him here?” Some of those who did this appear to have been within the Administration and the party; even the MAGA part of it appears to have been split for awhile. This was addressed but not to the doubters’ satisfaction when Steve Bannon visited the White House.

    What we have here is an indication of both some continuity and some change in the Republican Party and how it relates to or wishes to relate to the rest of the world. Going back nearly a century earlier, note that there were Republicans who in the 1930’s supported, no doubt with varying degrees of enthusiasm, FDR’s belief that we had to help the democratic/individual freedom countries of Europe(UK and France) against Germany, Italy and other would-be world conquerors.

    But the majority of Republicans, again with some variance in conviction or willingness to talk about it, leaned toward isolationism and believed or at least wanted to believe that Hitler was no great threat to the US and we should stay out of it. These people came out as isolationist in the “American First” movement which started after war broke out in Europe. So there was, as I have noted earlier, a strong tendency toward isolationism which was likely, if somewhat vaguely, the opinion of most Republicans and some of this is still alive in the GOP in people such as Bannon, though they tend a little more now than then towards the “nut case right” position. It was largely, but not entirely, the more moderate Republicans who felt the US had to deal with Hitler.

    Donald Trump’s leadership is in an odd Republican position here. On most things, particularly cultural issues, he tends(sometime more than just “tends”)to the right and the more conservative wing of the party, commonly know today as the MAGAS. But on some things, he tends to be “moderate,” at least in comparison. And you never know–even if you’re one of his advisors–‘which Trump is going to show up for which occasion(although studying his actions carefully might yield a clue).

    Though he can be outlandishly hostile and combative on many issues, he does not appear to be fond of getting into wars, for the most part. He clearly does not want history to associate his name with anything like the drawn out American commitments to Iraq and Afghanistan. But does this line him up with the MAGA;s or what’s left of the non-MAGA Republicans? This is not easy to determine since the conservative Republicans have varied over the decades from isolationist to voracious interventionist(Vietnam, for instance)and back.

    In the current case it appears that whatever he said, Trump had pretty much decided he would intervene in Iran a week or so ago. He was careful about saying this which was likely a good idea. He also may have seriously considered staying out for a while. When the whole thing began the US official position was that Israel had every right to defend itself and that the US would always support that right. But nothing was said to indicate the US would be an active ally in fighting with Israel. This pleased the MAGA/isolationist group of Republicans and Bannon was, I imagine, the one closest to the President who pushed this idea.

    But the evidence seems to indicate that he actually decided that he would likely jump into the conflict about a week before he actually did so. This was a complicated effort including no doubt hundreds of people and a great deal of equipment. It required planning and the planning started then, even before the final “go” was a sure thing,. And it does appear that the military part of this, what our troops, sailors and flyers actually did, was very well carried out. The US military machine is working well.

    While keeping a public position that could be interpreted as interventionist or not and not easily defined, Trump slipped more and more to the interventionist camp and finally was certain this was what he wanted to do, So he did, with what final results it is difficult to say and may remain difficult for some time to dome.. Obviously our B-2’s got through and dropped a number of the huge “bunker buster” bombs on Iranian nuclear works areas. We do not know yet if this “worked” or to what extent it did.

    Trump was characteristically bombastic in his first statement to the world(mainly TV audience)when he announced the strikes. Never one to go for moderation, he claimed the utter destruction of Iran’s ability to become a nuclear power now, or(perhaps)ever. He offered nothing like real proof but he alleged the big bombs had taken out all of Iran’s ability to enrich nuclear material and create nuclear weapons.

    The next one to speak on TV about this was Defense Secretary Pete Hegsith who incredibly looked good for once, at least compared to Trump. He backed Trump in declaring Iran was finished as a nuclear threat, but he was less bombastic about it and seemed, if not uncertain, a least a little doubtful. He appeared to be exercising something I’ve never credited him with having much of before, a modicum of good sense and restraint

    After the Secretary came Gen Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As the Joint Chiefs have done quite often in recent years, he provided an agreeable amount of cool analysis and humility about what he knew for sure. The Joint Chiefs have come to serve as ballast to the bluster of politicians. Anyway, he supported the President in declaring that the targets they had hit on the ground had been obliterated. He did not, however, claim that Iran was finished as a nuclear power and indicated that some of this may take a while to study and analyze before it is possible to say how effective overall the strikes were.

    All of the above seemed to be the case until this morning, when it became apparent that Iran and Israel failed to follow completely the cease fire demands Trump had laid down for them. The President, leaving early for a NATO conference, held an angry new conference in which he denounced both countries with what sounded like sincerity or at lest effective acting. He then went off, apparently in a foul mood, to talk to our (mostly)European allies in NATO. It’s not hard to guess what the number one subject is likely to be, although there are others(Ukraine and China at least) which will get, I would think, some attention.

    Checking the internet again about a minute ago for further developments, it now(about mid-afternoon Tue the 24th) appears that Trump’s fury has had little immediate effect and that things are not much changed from a few hours ago. A fragile and tenuous ceasefire between Israel and Iran seems to be holding -so far.

    Pursuant to all of this I wish to direct our attention to two immensely interesting and important articles in today’s NYT. The first is by Antony Blinken, Secretary of Sate(and good one, I think)during the Biden Administration. His headline is that he thinks Trump’s bombing of Iran was a mistake but he hopes that it worked. This sounds contradictory, but it’s not too hard to guess what he means. He gives a thorough but not overlong resume of US Iran-relations and various issues in dealing with their nuclear threat. He concludes, I think correctly, that Trump is responsible for a lot of this mess himself by pulling the US out of(and thereby ruining)the Obama-era multi-nation treaty that had boxed in Iran’s nuclear development and slowed it to a snail’s pace.

    He also has his doubts about how effective the strikes will turn out to be, plus a few other issues. But he ends by saying, that whatever the faults of the action, now that it has been taken, he hopes it works. The rest of the world, certainly the Middle East, Europe and the US, cannot have a nuclear armed and aggressive Iran run by people with ideas similar to those of its current ruler and most of his predecessors since Iran became a republic.

    The other article I want to mention is by historian Michael Kimmage, and no, I wasn’t familiar with the name before. Today is the first time I’ve heard of him. But it is well worth making his acquaintance. He has an article on Putin’s leadership of Russia which he sees as a disastrous failure. Putin simply pursued incorrect policies and wound up getting a united front in Europe against him and other undesirable things. If you have the slightest interest in the end of the cold war and the Russia Putin has brought forth and apparently badly damaged, read this article. I liked it very much. We must all hope he’s right.

    Now, to close I have a few thoughts of my own(based of course on other peoples’ reporting and interpreting)on Trump’s actions against Iran.

    ++He will likely get away with it in that he is not gong to be impeached or prosecuted for any of this. Another impeachment may happen to him, but this is not the one and not the time. This is true in part because–

    ++Whether this was unconstitutional and/or illegal is a very complex question. If anyone tries to sort it all out it will take a long time and lead to a great deal of argument and posturing regardless of the point of view of the enthusiast, pro- or anti-Trump who might do that. On the illegal issue, it would be hard to prove because the War Powers Act perhaps is not clear enough about certain things including what constitutes an “Act of War”. On the constitutional issue, there is also a lack of clarity. Does this amount to a High Crime or Misdemeanor? What does the Constitution actually say about the military? Only Congress can declare war. But the President is commander-in-chief. I shall not pursue this further now, not wishing to try your patience or mine.

    +++It may be quite sometime before even the most fair-minded and non-fanantical observers are able to figure out if this raid really “worked.” No doubt it did significant damage and greatly disturbed the Iranian leadership, but are they really seriously impeded in their desire to get or at least seriously threate to get a nuclear weapon?

    +++Will this turn out to be a diplomatic victory or setback? Or maybe a mixture of those two things? There are indications some other nations were happy enough to see someone take a strong swipe at Iran. But how many will say this in public, particularly if it is not an obvious success? The line of people waitng to do that might be short.

    +++Finally, how is it possible to tell if this should be considered right or wrong, a success or a disaster, or a whatever? I have no direct answer but I do have a couple suggestions and thoughts

    –To be success there must never be a retaliation that causes American casualties

    –To be a success there must be no long term damage to the US economy and/or US wealth

    –to be a success there must not be widespread international condemnation of the US–

    –to be a success this must not cause long term interruption of any of our alliances or international trade arrangements

    –to be a success it must have obviously done long term serious damage to Iran’s capacity to develop nuclear weapons–this one is the most important and more indispensable than any other one

    This matter is still developing–it is now shortly after midnight and therefore Jun 26th–The last few hours have seen reports of early estimates from our own intelligence that indicate not enough damage was done to set back –Iran’s nuclear program for more than a few months, not the years we were hoping for and the President seemed to be claiming

    It is only fair to point out that at least some of this information was “leaked” to the media and therefore automatically suspect in its reliability–but the more we hear the more the reports agree and there is a ring of truth about them–I am going no further with this for now–it should be interesting to see what the first official reports say and what the media think of them–

    During his campaign against Kamala Harris, I decided that “hypocrite” and “liar” were the two words that most described Donald Trump. I am willing, almost anxious to change my mind but it takes evidence. I see no reason at present the re-arrange my thinking. Good night one and all. I have no idea what the news will be when the new day begins, but check it out.


    , , , ,