-
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)
-
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.
-
Sin No More–(But Keep Your Balance Too, Folks)
“Sinners”–Directed by Ryan Coogler–starring Michael B Jordan and a lot of people I don’t know–just released
“The Hunt” by Faye Kellerman–copyright 2022–Harper Collins
I hardly know how to start this article. Maybe I’ll be better at ending it–maybe not. Maybe I’ll just make a fool of myself and display some of the issues that go with getting older. Maybe not–I guess we’ll see, or at least get to guess.
I heard about “Sinners” from several sources and I decided I wanted to see it. I’d never seen a Coogler or a Michael B Jordan movie before as far as I know, but it sounded interesting– a tale about black and white vampires in depression era Mississippi with a lot of good music(though I can’t remember for sure how much I heard about the music before I went and saw it). As a sometime fan of vampire movies and a frequent admirer of over-the-top stuff, it sounded at least interesting. Although I likely would have gone to see it anyway, the final decision was made by what I heard from Alyssa Farah Griffin.
For the uninitiated, Farah Griffin is the striking, long haired brunette who once worked(briefly)for Mike Pence and now is a frequent interviewee and political commentator on some of CNN’s many talk shows. Brought up with a
Republican and apparently very nearly extremist far right background, she seems to have had her eyes opened by her work experience. She now sounds like a skeptical, careful, moderate liberal, though this is my own interpretation only. Anyway, I have come to appreciate her intelligence and her calm, sophisticated and good natured articulation. Therefore, when on the (supposedly)half-minute per person comments at the end of one show, she said she had loved “Sinners” and she strongly recommended it, I took note.She has plenty of company. I checked Rotten Tomatoes and found it had an astounding positive 97% from the critics and 96% from the public. So the “liberal” movie site was strongly for it. “Worth It or Woke” was more divided and had at least one definite negative review but still it was split, and it is a conservative, though witty and aesthetically astute, site.
Manohla Dargis of the NYT(with whom I have agreed and disagreed on the same movie before)was close to ecstatic about it. –“A passionate, effusive praise song about life and love,” she said; she added “when a Black musician plays the blues at a juke joint, he isn’t performing for jubilant men and women. He is also singing to the history that flows through them from generations of ancestors to others not yet born.”
Now the trouble here is that just about everything she praises the movie for is correct. It does have good things in it and in a way(if you overlook a couple of thing’s I’ll try to get to)it’s well done. The music is very good. Coogler knows what he’s doing. What he may not know is what he is or is not valuing and herein lies the problem. It may be interesting to learn who agrees with me and why. By the way, it could also be mainly that he and I simply have extremely different values and they just don’t fit together.
I noticed when I was young that there seemed to be a tendency for older people to shy away from anything aesthetic–music, movies, etc–that had any aspect of the bizarre or unpleasant about it. I assumed when I was 22 that this was just because the were older. It hadn’t yet occurred to me that they were not only calendar-wise older, but that they had passed through different economic, political and social times than people of my age and that this might be an important factor too. I was fairly contemptuous of their attitude and to the extent that real contempt is ever an acceptable attitude towards others, I must say I still think I had a pretty good case.
But time passes and stuff changes and there are nuances. And now I find myself in the embarrassing position of having to justify myself to myself–and to you, given all those good reviews and opinions of “Sinners.” So here goes.
In the “yes” or “no” game on this movie you may put me down as a “no” and a pretty strong one. But wait and hear my reasoning, my comparisons and my exceptions. So far as I know, none of the critics have pointed this out, but “Poor Things,”(2 years ago), “The Substance,”(last year) and this film are in a sense three of a kind. You could put them together in a category I would describe as “having contempt for the human body.” And I would argue that this ultimately means contempt for human beings altogether if you follow it far enough. And I think that is a spiritual, intellectual and artistic dead end.
“Poor Things” was a very successful film, making money and winning a slew of awards. Emma Stone parlayed her role into a best acting Oscar. For a fuller description of my feelings about this movie, see my article on the 2023 Oscars done early last year. (It’s the last entry in the movie part of my book –see below). I admired much of the technical aspect of the movie and even credited it with what appeared to be a bit of raising of imaginative questions on maybe two occasions, neither one taken advantage of.
But I largely despised it for what seemed to be its casual acceptance of sexual excess and, even more, for its contempt for the human body and its celebration of violence toward it. This latter is shown in many scenes in which a mad doctor is apparently(never explained)doing experiments. There is blood all over the place and no point to it. I felt sickened by seeing this over and over, something apparently I was supposed to be well impressed with it. Well, I was impressed, but …not in that direction. I wondered what kind of morality, what kind of world view or aesthetic sense would make a person go for this, think it was admirable and expect people to be attracted by it.
What the answer to that question is I still don’t know, but clearly much of the audience disagreed with me. It was, as noted, a winner of many awards including the one for Emma. It just left me wondering what’s going on out there that I don’t understand, something that disgusts me with its contempt for the bodies we live in and its willingness to exploit gross attacks on them; and also apparently accepting destruction of them for the sake of ,well, I guess the term “cheap thrills” applies here.
About a year later along came “The Substance,” starring Demi Moore who failed to win an Oscar for it but did get nominated for best actress. The plot involves an aging actress offered the opportunity to have her body reborn in the form of her younger self. Her own body(original one)then goes to sleep and her consciousness is transferred to the new one. The transformation and changing of body parts are portrayed in gross and extreme detail. If such a thing actually were possible, maybe this is what it would look like. Maybe not, too-who would know?
As you may have already guessed this gets spectacularly screwed up and at one point she seems to, mentally occupy two bodies at one time. But as ridiculous as this may sound, by far the worst part is the body changing stuff and the director’s willingness to let the camera and the mic hover over it while it goes on. The audience gets to be a different kind of voyeur watching a different kind of pornography, a pornography of the body and soul or body and consciousness combined. And there is a lot of noise and screaming and grossness involved and I couldn’t help thinking at some point or other of “Poor Thngs.”
I remember, that, ironically, this seemed like PT as described above, but at first appeared, in its concentration of the Demi Moore character to have at least some internal integrity and to be granting some to its characters. Big mistake. As the changing and the noise and the grossness piled up it got worse and worse and I wound up thinking that this film had accomplished the oddly considerable feat of being more offensive than “Things.” And the offensiveness comes mainly from the ghastly and repeated scenes of body changing which manage to be horrible and boring at the same time.
Then we have “Sinners,” already largely described. Like PT it is a movie made by someone who knows about movies and there are technically some things to admire in it. The story-telling is a bit haphazard, but not over-the-top ludicrous or incompetent. And of course, as I have already said, the music is wonderful(at least if you like blues-gospel-folk)to hear.
But after the serious violence begins(there’s a bit from early on in the film)it descends into a nightmare of physical cruelty. Knifing, shootings and just plain beatings take place. As with the two above movies this is the constant theme of the last half hour or so and it hardly matters who is doing what to whom or why they’re doing it. It’s just a trip into violence for violence’s sake and the film’s possibly redeeming qualities are pulled down into a black hole of disgust with the violence.
I assure you that I am not suggesting any kind of censorship–freedom is freedom. But I am asking why this kind of thing is apparently now acceptable(and apparently desirable to some) on the screen and drawing enthusiasm from both critics and the public. I understand this is in a sense more a sociological than an aesthetic question, but I think it’s one to be asked. If anyone has an answer–well, I’m willing to wait patiently.
Now, I get to turn from complaining about the seemingly depressing way our society, or at least its expression through aesthetic means is going, to complaining about people who apparently won’t deal with change at all. I don’t know how many mystery novels I’ve read by The Kellermans(Johnathon and Faye)but I suppose about 15–maybe more, maybe less, and over a long stretch of time. All but one have been by Faye. I did try Johnathon once and I found him an acceptably entertaining and clever mystery writer, but his wife is–well, much better, to be frank.
Most of Faye’s novels, over 20 of them I believe, are about Rina and Stephen Decker. They meet in the first book, or at least an early one, and quickly fall in love when Peter is not busy solving crimes. He’s a cop and having a romance with an observant Jew when he is a fallen away Mississippi Baptist trying to catch a killer is a tough business. But they both know they’ve found the right person and go from there, and they get a great deal of help when the truth of Peter’s birth finally emerges. His mother was Jewish, a fact he did not have before, which makes him a birth right Jew and–well, I’ll bet you can take it from there.
Peter and Rina are one of the most attractive, inspiring, and lovable couples in mystery writing. While he is usually busy investigating horrible crimes(sometimes with help from Rina), they build a life and a family together and (aside from the husband and father’s occupation) they are an ordinary or better than ordinary upper middle class family, the kind you’d like to have your kids play with and have over for dinner and bridge. But they do have some unusual connections and one of these leads to their being the foster parents of Gabe, a leading character in this book.
Gabe is the biological son of a gangster named Donatti and Teresa McLaughlin. Dr. McLaughlin–she was once apparently good practitioner of medicine–is a friend of Peter and Rina and they took Gabe as their foster child during a rough time for his mother. He has formed close relationships with Rina’s and Peter’s children as if they were true siblings and he loves Rina and Peter. But he also loves his mother and wishes to help her when she’s in trouble.
Meanwhile, Peter is nearing retirement and working for a small police department in upstate NY. Three people, a man and two women who seem to have had a complicated relationship, are missing and it’s up to Peter and his partner, Tyler McAdams, a rising young cop, to sort. out the mess. The story of these three is in some ways a routine mystery plot, but interesting for all that as are several of the other characters the readers(and Peter and Tyler)meet along the way. It is, however, only about one third of the book. The rest is the story of Teresa, her own children, and her two husbands, current and ex.
One thing that is really different about this novel is that Teresa tells most of her part of the story(as opposed to Peter’s hunt)in the first person and it is very self revealing. A smart girl with big ambitions, she was nonetheless less victimized as a teenager by a boy named Donatti who was on the way to the top–in crime. He seduced her into sex and pregnancy and their son is Gabe. He also paid for her education until she became a doctor, able to earn her own living. He is also a killer and a psychopath, though one who can play the game in society and manages to pass himself off with many as a very wealthy NV businessman and investor.
Their relationship is described by Teresa in great detail, both physically and emotionally. It is both loving and abusive. He is sex addicted and insists on it almost constantly and is not above raping her on occasion. She hates this, but finds him exciting and attractive at times. And he has a small sliver of humanity in him–he can be kind and understanding sometimes and they have known their moments of happiness.
But at one of the not good times in the marriage Teresa got a divorce and wound up marrying an Indian doctor, Revel. He is talented and quite rich(though not to match Donatti’s wealth)and also a bit of a jerk and a man with troubles. He is a compulsive gambler who has gotten himself deeply in debt to people of Donatti’s type. He and Teresa have two children and she has taken the kids and fled India for NV and is in the process of divorcing Dev. Then one of her children is kidnapped, the other threatened and she herself is badly beaten, presumably by people connected to Dev.
This is about where we meet Teresa and she tells her story, the past and the part she is going through in the story. Donatti is back in her life again and as usual immensely generous with money–but still psychopathic and violent–and, confoundingly, still generous and loving at times–and as big a puzzle as ever. And where is this all going?
Well, I can’t reveal much about the rest of the story without betraying my honor as a reviewer of mystery writing. But I can tell you that this is the point where we begin to get very heavy doses of the private life of the recovering Teresa and the psychotic/violent/obsessive/jealous,/charming and occasionally loving ex-husband she divorced earlier and who now wants to marry her again.
Teresa’s feelings for him are, I think, as well delineated as they could be. I doubt if any truly sane person can really get all the way into the mind of a psychopath, but Kellerman does a pretty good job here of making him believable– believable and very, very seldom, sympathetic. But there does appear to be a very screwed up and reprehensible person hidden down there somewhere in his psyche.
We get some idea of something many of us have wondered. Why will a wife stay with an abusive husband?(Or, occasionally the other way around). There is no up front, “ah, here’s the answer” in this narrative, but there is this–Kellerman digs so deeply into Teresa’s mind and spirit, digs up her most intimate feelings, sexual, religious, whatever, that we can feel the process of loving and hating at the same time, of feeling desire and attraction for one who has beaten you and worse. Please note I am not admiring this kind of relationship, merely saying that it exists and that Faye Kellerman has done a very believable job of describing the whole thing. Whether it is accurate in real life I don’t know but she makes it plausible.
This relationship, particularly the sometimes violently sexual part of it, is what put off a lot of readers. If you look this up on the internet you will find that although quite a few people liked the book, there were many, many who criticized it and some who hated it. And of course, if you compare it to the relative comfort of the warm and loving family of the Deckers from the previous novels, the contrast is striking. It is indeed a relief to leave Teresa’s story behind and get back to Peter and Rina as Peter and his partner track down the answers in another odd case, but one that is more puzzling than degrading.
And this is where I part ways with the people who strongly criticized the book and who more or less attacked Faye Kellerman for writing it. I don’t know where she got here information–if she read abnormal psychology or talked to experts in the field or relied on her own observation–maybe she did all of them. But she created a strangely fascinating work and with her gift for telling a story in an irresistible way, she wrote a book that pulled me in and wouldn’t let go.
So I guess I am going to end this thing going the opposite direction that I did on “Sinners” and its predecessors. I fully grant the people who didn’t like this book their right to be put off by it. I even understand, I think, even though I don’t agree. It is a departure from her earlier books and those of us who love her writing hope her “retirement” will not be permanent and that that she will return with other stories about other people(or maybe even the Deckers?)
But in the meantime, let me say again, I suggest you try to separate your love for her earlier books or your love for the way of life portrayed in them from your feelings about “The Hunt; give the author room to wander into some new territory here. Many of the people in it are despicable, some to the extent that they seem hardly human. But in most of the characters, and behind the whole thing there IS a feeling of humanity, though not always the normal brand. But it is there, hiding somewhere, but affecting the world overall. To that extent this book and its people, therefore, are way beyond the insane and often over pessimistic drivel of “Poor Things,” “The Substance” and “Sinners.”
PS_Regarding my mention of “my book”–I have(self)published a collection of most(more than 90%)of my blogs from March, 2022 to about early May, 2024. If you’ve read my stuff from the beginning they should all be familiar to you, but somewhat enhanced by fancy(and expensive)publishing techniques. It is not yet available in stores or on-line but I hope it will be soon. If you just can’t wait email me a jnjcfloh@webtv.net to get a copy quickly.
-
An Open Letter to Michael Smerconish
Dear Michael,
First of all, I am a fan who rarely misses one of your telecasts and who thinks the people who denounce you as being a toady of one side or the other are full of crap.
That established, I need to dissent from some–not all-you had to say about college education recently. For the moment I will mostly ignore AI which is obviously going to be a very big thing in the future–beginning about now–but which is not directly related to my complaint.
My dissents are mainly two, one small and one large. The small or at least smaller one is that the number of jobs where you don’t need college to earn a lot of money will never take up all the people who are not college educated. There will always be those who because of ability, intelligence or refusal/inability to learn will not qualify for those jobs. They have mostly gone into “laboring” jobs in the past, mostly industrial manufacturing over the last century or so. But despite Trump or anyone else those jobs are not coming back in large numbers. There may be a bounce back but not a big one So what about those people who aren’t college or technical material? By the way, I have no real answer on this, but I think it’s worth noting.
The bigger complaint and one I know a bit more about is this. One could listen to your pronouncements on college education and not realize that there are OTHER REASONS for going to college than learning to do a job that will earn you more money. No, you haven’t said that specifically, but it seems a reasonable assumption based upon your often correct, but wholly economic arguments.
And these can have a great influence on a society and indeed, may have some economic and/or social impact of their own, indirectly and later. Now what I mainly am trying to say is this. Suppose a young person enrolls in a good university and does a major in literature and a minor in philosophy. He(no, I won’t play the he, she, they game– you know I mean anyone of whatever sex)will not be able to step into a high paying job as easily as someone with a degree in engineering or computer science, etc. Of course he might get some good bucks in communications and/or publishing, but those jobs are admittedly fewer in number than the tech stuff.
Nonetheless, he will be a different person because of his education. He will be more civilized and “smoother.” He will have better manners. He will speak his native language much better and understand its meaning and nuances more easily than the less educated. He will, in short, be more “sophisticated.” and will even be able to pass for upper middle or upper class,(even if he is not) for a time in some circumstances. In other words his education based style will open doors for him.
I hope I am not a snob based on class or anything else, but I am also a realist, and hey, it’s easier to get into desirable places and social circles when you’re more civilized. This may be heresy today in our “everybody’s equal no matter how big a jerk he acts like” society, but I prefer the realistic view. The one that looks good coming through the door and treats the hostess with respect and dignity is going to come off a lot better. This is simply how it is.
To be sure some of our cultures, particularly some of our TV commercials, have been working hard to make slobbery behavior amusing and acceptable. This may be amusing to some people but I am not among them nor am I impressed by the implied suggestion that this makes and will make things better.
As the expense of sounding like a conservative–I’m not in the ordinarily accepted sense–ask me about my voting record–I still prefer to be in a restaurant where the customers dress, look, and act like Myrna Loy and Melvin Douglas–yeah, OK, I’m stuck on old movies, but so what? I do believe that in the long run their type of more civilized behavior is likely to win out. The tendency of recent decades to simplify and de-formalize everything did a lot of good at the beginning, when our society was too stiff and over-organized,. But it has gone way too far and as usual has thrown out the baby with the bath water. I would like to bring back the former, but not the latter.
I think that by teaching people to read, write and think–and not incidentally, also speak–in more civilized ways is an important kind of education. It’s lack has led our public manners to decline seriously in recent decades and has made the US a less pleasant place to be. Yes, to some extent it’s a world wide tendency, but I think we started it and maybe we can end it too.
Now I am perfectly aware that many who emphasize only the monetary advantages of education are well bred themselves and would likely agree with some of what I have said. This is by no means a simple or obvious issue. But I guess I’m calling on people to think–think seriously about this. I suggest that one thing they think about, could be this–after all my above rant about civilization and good behavior making a society more pleasant, I will add this. It may have economic advantages too. That guy at the cocktail party(uh, they still have them, don’t they?) may have liked Plato when he was at Harvard and be inclined to hire someone else who liked him assuming the other qualifications are correct. And, by the way, studying Plato just might teach a person to think and reason carefully and logically–and that might be a ticket to, well a job in a brokerage firm? A law degree? Hey, who knows?
But this is a complicated issue, and it deserves consideration. College IS to a large extent a matter of learning to ear a good salary. But it may be also a place to learn something to go with that–how to spend and save it, and how to spend it wisely. You never know.
-
Osman Is Back–Sort of
If you google “Richard Osman novels–some reviews” you will get as the first entry the following, described as “AI overview”–“Richard Osman’s novels, particularly “The Thursday Murder Club” series and “We Solve Murders” are known for their charming characters, lighthearted humor, and cozy crime-solving elements,, often receiving praise for their heartwarming tone and engaging mysteries.”
This statement is a triumph of irony, presumably unintentional, as it is so very right, 100% right in many ways, but also so lacking in being a complete description of his work. I have read all four of the “Thursday” books so far published (a fifth is due later this year)and reviewed two of them. Check earlier in my blog for the reviews. I struggled with this issue of how his books come off in their effect, particularly with regard to the first one where I explained why I thought his books neither “cozy” nor “comedy mystery” though admittedly containing elements of both.
Many of the reviews and readers’ e-mails on “Solve” at times raise (and/or confuse)the same issues. So first I would like to say again, in slightly different words, that I think this is a very serious man with a great comedy talent. He has noticed the contradictions and sorrows, large and small, of the world around him and has chosen to write about them in a way that is often realistic but also slyly humorous. This is true of all the Thursday books I read and it is also true of “Solve,”
Osman often deals with matters of serious crime and even murder and sometimes with a touch of humor. But it is not the hard-nosed “black comedy” of past and present, nor is it frivolous. He can leave you laughing and weeping at the same time. He is a superb story-teller and a man of great insights into human character. I think it is the latter two traits that make him a good, perhaps great, writer, and that attract many of his fans(myself included), perhaps sometimes subconsciously.
If you read around the entries from professional critics and just plain readers on this book, you will likely get the impression that this is a fairly good book but not a match for the Thursday books. Well, there is further irony here, in that like the above quoted statement this is right and wrong at the same time. I have to agree–somewhat reluctantly–that this is not quite up to the Thursdays, but I did like it overall because of its strengths which I think clearly outweigh its weaknesses.
First of all, it is much like the Thursdays in that you have a fairly small group of main characters whom you know, or get to know well. This would be Joyce, Elizabeth, Ibrahim and Ron in the Thursdays and Steve, Amy and Rosie in “Solve.” There there is another circle of characters whom you know fairly closely but not so much as the main ones. Outside them you will find a slew of other characters, often well described even if only on 2 or 3 pages.
All of the above fit into an overall plot which some are fomenting and some(our heroes)are trying to figure out and thwart. The plot starts out sounding as if it might be fairly simple once you get all the important facts. But it increases in complexity and breaks into different parts. The leading characters’ job then is to try to fit it all together, make sense of it and bring about some kind of justice.
This is true of all the Thursdays and of “Solve.” In the latter we have Steve, Amy and Rosie in the lead, playing the role Elizabeth and her friends do in the other books. Steve, presumably in his 60’s or 70’s is a retired detective. He is in mourning for his wife, Debbie, who was killed along with two others in a bizarre accident, and that loss never leaves him entirely. But he is determined to get on with life and he takes an occasional bit of private work to keep active. He has a cat and a favorite pub(he likes their trivia game) and a few friends and he is trying to put his life together.
The main element of Steve’s life is his daughter-in-law, Amy. Married to Steve’s son, Adam, she is tough, adventurous and contemptuous of ordinariness. She wants no family or house or garden or neighborhood, or whatever. She wants to be adventurous and effective and to enjoy herself,. She knows her job as a private company’s investigator is dangerous and is willing to take on the danger if she can have the adventure and the feelings of accomplishment.
Amy also wants Adam, and she agreed to marry him with the understanding that she is a free agent to come and go as necessary to do her job. Steve loves her back and is willing to agree. So she comes and goes and Adam waits and waits, though not impatiently. He loves her enough to put up with the separations and delays in their relationship, while he makes money.
Steve and Adam have one of those difficult parent-child relationships where they love each other but are uncomfortable in the presence of each other most of the time. Neither one knows what to say or how to act. But they now have Amy in common and this helps to bind them together. At one point Steve is asked if he has a daughter and says he does–then corrects himself, saying something like “Well, a daughter-in-law, actually, but it’s about the same.”
So take these three people(like all the main Thursday characters, all very likeable)and stick them into a mystery. Amy has been assigned by her company to protect Rosie D’Antonio, a bestselling author who writes mysteries, historical novels, etc. She is in her 70’s, still attractive, sexy and vibrant and thinking about a new book(and maybe a new man). She thinks a lot about men, having been married several times but also gone through divorces each time. She is charming and charismatic and it is impossible not to like her.
But Rosie now has a serious trouble of her own. Her most recent book satirized a Russian oligarch who didn’t think it funny. He has threatened to kill her and evidence suggests he has put people on her trail. The people posed as international money smugglers, but were after Rosie. And they were all murdered in various ways
Now things get even more interesting but more confusing and I will not, for reasons of spoilers and clarity, try to explain it all. I read a couple of reviews to see that I was getting it myself. I more or less was, but explanations were helpful. Anyhow, we meet Jeff, who is Amy’s boss, and Henk, Jeff’s former partner, now a rival and maybe an enemy; and, maybe, at the top(of something) and maybe a real person, someone who claims to be named Francois Loubet whose gender, nationality and reality are all in doubt. Loubet uses ChatGPT to communicate and commands it to take the persona of a “friendly English gentleman.” His messages, often dealing with hostile action up to and including death threats are delivered, therefore, in a manner that calls to mind a debate at Cambirdge or Oxford.
We follow most of the people I have mentioned and a few others as they dash around the world from London to the US to Ireland and Dubai. While traveling they are trying to protect the irrepressible and charming Rosie, and also to figure out what in the world is going on. As with the Thursday book style, the plot’s loose ends are (at least nearly)tied up before the book ends(Don’t you love the English language?)
I thought of one maybe inappropriate and certainly contradictory comparison to make. Many of Osman’s characters who are involved with serious crime such as money smuggling and murder often come off as almost moral and fairly good companion material when they’re not working. This reminded me in a way of Dennis Lehane’s “Small Mercies.” a great novel I reviewed in an old blog and which you might want to check out(It’s entitled “The Poet of the Mean Streets”) The two authors have very little in common other than writing about violence and showing(but not excusing)their cruelty, but also the almost hidden human that, at least in some cases, hides inside.
Much of the compulsive fun of Osman’s writing is following the characters through the story and watching them develop and interact. There is nearly always repartee of some kind, clever dialogue, irony, threats and a weird feeling that you’re getting an insight into a part of the world you don’t know but which seems plausible in some way. You also might feel you wanted to be in it more–at a distance.(As for me, I’ll just avoid it–except in good books and movies and so forth).
Once again, this book does just about everything the Thursday books do, but not quite as well. Osman invented characters in Joyce, Elizabeth, Ibrahim and Ron that likely no one will ever quite equal–himself included. They are the main–perhaps the only– difference and this means that the Thursday books are likely a little better than “Solve” is–but only a little,
-
Ohio Blows One
It is officially Senate Bill 1 but it may become Ohio’s mistake no 1. Passed recently by the State Legislature and signed by Gov Mike Dewine, the bill would do a number of things, some reasonable but most not, particularly the more important ones.
It grew out of(mostly, anyway)a dislike of DEI policies. Now I want to be clear on this. I have often criticized DEI myself. I came to dislike it because it had seemed to me to have done that thing well intentioned “liberal” groups often do(“Me Too,” for example). It had gone past just getting a fair break for all and getting rid of old prejudices in gender and sexual issues, immigration, ethnicity, etc. I agree with most of their early moves, but eventually DEI advocates came to be a pushy sounding minority which gave the impression, rightly or wrongly, of trying to take over or at least direct the Democratic agenda
DEI came to dominate at least the news coverage of liberal/Democratic thinking and intentions; it gave the impression that regular Democrats were in retreat and yielding to radical outsiders While no one seems quite certain what the Dems did wrong in the Presidential election last year, there is widespread agreement that it could have been run better. One thing was that an overemphasis on DEI distracted from the contrast in Dem and GOP economic ways and obscured what Trump had in mind(as I sit here in the library with the DJIA down a thousand points 2 days in a row, it is obvious what a chance we missed)
So I became disillusioned with DEI as both fanatic and suicidal. It would (and did, I would say)distract attention from Democratic advantages.. It is not that they were entirely wrong, but their wishes became too much at the forefront of the campaign and were often couched in terms which seemed to me almost calculated to drive away or keep away moderates who might have voted for Kamala or at least stayed neutral. Of course now, watching the markets collapse and friends abroad turn away, there’s not much to be done–for now. But I digress.
There were things wrong with DEI but there were(still are)good and bad ways of countering its excesses. OH chose mostly a bad one. Gov Dewine has been, I think, a fairly good governor in many ways. He led the state through the covid crisis with determination and effort and ranked almost equal with Andrew Cuomo of NY in his leadership among governors. He’s not quite as effective as a communicator, but obviously more honest.
He did have a tendency to toady up to Trump from time to time, but , hey, he’s a Republican governor–and his toadying always seemed forced and unenthusiastic. Late in his first term I was learning toward voting for him for a second term when the legislature passed a bill which made widespread availability of guns legal in OH. I decided that if he vetoed the bill (which I knew to be unlikely)I would send him $5.00 and become a Dewine supporter. He signed it and I stuck with the Dems.
I had very little hope he would veto Senate Bill 1, but I was in there hoping, And of course he signed it. So what does it do? Without, I hope, boring you with too much detail, here is a brief summation of it main points as summarized by USA Today–
“No training offices or scholarships based on (DEI)” Some of these programs are decades old, not the result of some recent radicalism. They were started to give access to college education to underrepresented groups. This seems to me to have been a proper use of government–to make things fair. Perhaps it was misused, but I think that was its intent. Perhaps now its issues cannot be used at all and many different groups will be disadvantaged, just as their grandparents were.
Faculty strikes will be banned. This one could be argued both ways, but I don’t think OH has been rife with unreasonable faculty strikes and I don’t see the need to deny teachers the right to try to improve their own lot. That will likely be the effect and may drive thousands of OH teachers to look elsewhere for work.
The power of tenure for college professors will be reduced. It will still be theoretically there but subject to being overridden by student surveys and colleagues’ opinions. No doubt tenure has been misused when professors could be let go only for “cause” and very little was “cause” enough. This will go the other way and make professors’ jobs subject to quick, possibly immature and ill-informed opinions of students and fellow teachers. Will they always be wrong? No, of course not–but there will be enough of a threat to drive OH college teachers to look elsewhere.
Higher education institutions will be forbidden the right to take positions on “controversial beliefs or policies,” that is such things as climate change, foreign policy, DEI, immigration, marriage and abortion.” While these issues may have been discussed on campus inadequately and unfairly in the past, that was perhaps better than not getting discussed at all. At least that seems the case to me and that is where this bill seems to point. This has not stopped some Republicans from trying to sell this as a freedom of expression bill.
–Eliminate undergraduate degrees if fewer than five students obtain degrees over three years. Now this sounds sensible in a way–it might eliminate spending money on a policy that benefits few. But would you place a bet on more traditional programs getting the axe as much as more recent and less popular ones?
–A ban on donations from and partnerships with the Chinese government–well, OK, I guess, but is it likely you would otherwise have a Chinese professor teaching a Political Science course at Bowling Green?
–Faculty syllabi would be required to be posted on line. It seems to me that we were already moving that direction at Kent State when the covid got rid of many people, me included. It may be a good idea, but what is it doing in this bill?–
A reduction in the tenure of of university trustees, political appointees who oversee universities, from nine to six years. Well, OK– sounds a good idea. Possibly they tossed it in here to give the whole thing a feeling of normality and sense. But it is of course, as is the syllabi posting thing, a very small matter when compared to the huge negative results of Senate Bill 1 and maybe calculated to give a misleading sense of balance to the bill.
Many liberal groups are maintaining that they will challenge this law in the courts and I believe many of them should. No doubt some of them will go too far for my taste and opinions. but I think it needs to be done anyway. Freda Levenson of the ACLU has already been quoted as saying very directly “This legislation is unconstitutional and cannot stand.”
For that piece of defiance, and really for this whole blog, we have USA Today to thank. The article reached me at the insistence of my wife, Joyce, who had read it in the pages of the local USA Today outlet, the once -proud Akron “Beacon Journal” which appears to have lost its independence and maybe more.
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
john's thoughts 