john's thoughts

reflections on art and life, society etc

  • The Ghosts of Movies Past–The Uninvited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    , , ,

  • Trump & the World

    This is hardly a new topic. It has consumed US news commentators for about two months now and likely will continue to do so. I have, indeed, written about it a little bit. But today I find myself in the situation of needing to write (I dislike getting out of practice by going too long without writing), and also being presented with a wealth, if that term is not too ironic, of material.

    I have often spoken of my admiration for “The Economist,” a British publication that was first published in 1843 and has, I believe, been in constant publication since. It identified itself as “liberal” during most of the 19th century and still tends to think of itself that way. Without going into great detail, I will merely point out that in the 19th century liberalism often meant something like 20th century conservatism, at least in economic affairs–it did not want much restriction on business and investment.

    But the term was, I think, slightly different in the UK where there was a more concentrated understanding that liberalism did not necessarily mean high level intervention OR unrestricted capitalism(laissez faire in other words). And in the 20th and 21at centuruies it has become clear that while still “liberal” in many philosophical and political matters, it does not encompass “wokeness” or hysterical attacks on the right. What the “Economist” has usually sought is good sense and the public welfare with an understanding of the realities of class, wealth, and their complexities, along with an acceptance of different cultures and their ways. The Econ(I will call it now) tends to favor imagination and inventiveness in business and financial policy, but they insist(without saying it too often)that this does not mean license to leave people behind and/or living in miserable economic conditions.

    The newest edition of this weekly is something everyone who wants to get a sane view of the world today should read, This is particularly true of the first few articles which always emphasize the biggest stories at the time, often as much or more political than strictly economic. You may explore these yourself on line, of course, but for those who don’t I wish to include a little of this publiation’s wit, insight and studious understanding of our world. I may have room for only one article or for two or three, but I wish to share with you to some degree, anyway, what they have to say.

    The lead article, “America’s New Foreign Policy,” tells you about just that. And a new policy is what it seems to be. They begin with Ukraine and point out that the Trump Administration stopped sharing of intelligence with Ukraine, then abruptly restored it after Zelenskyy agreed to a 30-day truce. But at about the same time, the President increased tariffs on Canada to a sufficient degree that new Prime Minister, Mark Carney told his people the US wanted “our water, our land, our country.” On the other side of the world anxieties were raised when Trump questioned the usefulness of the US-Japanese defense treaty signed more than 60 years ago.

    The Econ writers concede that Trump clearly is able to make a difference. But what difference at what cost? Financial markets, though up for the second straight day today(Wed the 19th) thanks to the Fed, are still uncertain. In both financial matters and other security issues, it appears that the leaders of more than 40 nations which have more or less accepted American leadership since WWII now are questioning it. Since the President is in many ways more independent and powerful in foreign affairs than domestic, they wonder what would happen in a real crisis. Would the Trump Administration actually stand with them in the long run?

    In some ways the “administration’s economic nationalism and the repudiation of … global security” may do more and worse. Elon Musk hints(or says) the US should leave NATO. Trump remains(now) silent on the issue. Wall Street ponders obscure and peculiar actions on the dollar which of course might affect other nations’ currencies. What are our allies to think? Even more, perhaps, what about our non-allies?

    The Econ writers see a threat I had not specifically considered for the Far East. If Trump is so willing to cooperate as Russia chews off parts of Ukraine, what might Asia think? Would he make similar deals with Russia, China, or North Koreas? Would Taiwan(and all of its chips)be more vulnerable? And what about nations that feel abandoned? Might they turn to Russia or China for assistance and alliances?

    The writers point out that our current allies are in a difficult spot. And, it occurs to me, it could get worse fairly quickly. The allies, combined, may have a GDP larger than ours. But this is not what Econ calls “hard power.” And the temptation to turn to authoritarian regimes would still be there. And should the US actually back out of a leadership role and go for dominance on its own or with Russia as an ally(acknowledged or not) things could get diplomatically and economically very difficult.

    The Econ suggests that America’s allies(they do not say just Europe) do need to build up their own military and economic “infrastructure”–which I gather means to build their own power and to find a way to do it with(perhaps considerably) reduced America assistance. The end of the article suggests that the way for our allies may end up being that old world diplomatic method, more alliances.–that they “should ‘seek strength in numbers.’ “

    This would, they say, include a plan for a European take-over of NATO leadership. To an American of my generation this sounds nearly unbelievable, but there it is. They also suggest a joint European-East Asian alliance or at least understanding which would lead to more cooperation with Japan and South Korea. This would, they say, “preserve an alternative liberal order, albeit vastly inferior to the original.”

    They also maintain that our former allies should be ready to welcome the US back into their plans when someone else is President. But they also note that by then this will have to be done when the “world will not be the same.” No, it won’t, not by a long distance. All of us should think of what that distance might be and of the difficulties inherent in overcoming it.

    , , , ,

  • Trump and Other Nations–What’s Next and Where Are We Going Now?

    There is so much to say about the Trump Administration that I don’t know where to start. I guess I’ll begin with foreign policy or whatever we should call Trump’s actions to and words about other countries. Not that there’s not a lot to say about domestic issues, but let’s put that off–a little while.

    I believe I have said before that my two favorite TV commentators on public matters are Michael Smerconish and Fareed Zakaria, both of CNN. In case I haven’t said it, please take a look at their names now. Smerconish is on Sat AM and Fareed a day later, repeated in the afternoon. I’m sure you can find them on podcasts or wherever if you want to check out older ones. If you have any interest in all this(and everyone should in my opinion)then you’ll find them interesting and honorable, two guys who may have their own opinions but try to stick to facts and reasonable interpretations and to avoid fanaticism and extremists. Michael is perhaps slightly the more opinionated of the two and Fareed the more accomplished scholar and careful historian. Both of them are well worth your time and attention.

    Most of what I write this time will be inspired by and based on (but not entirely limited to) information gleaned from Fareed’s program earlier today, Sun, Mar 9.

    American foreign affairs are messy and chaotic. Those who paid attention during the first Trump Administration–including political leaders around the world–are unlikely to be surprised. But many of them I think must be dismayed with the speed with which the new President changed so many things and particularly the depth of trouble possible from what he changed to.

    First there are the tariffs. I will not even make an effort to run through the many different stances Trump has taken on our trade relations with Canada, Mexico and China in this space of about a week–if you’ve paid any attention to the news you already have a good idea. He has threatened to put hefty tariffs on all of them, then backed off a bit, then declared a one month break for Canada and Mexico on some important items. The sheer confusion of the challenging and contradictory information coming from the Administration is astounding and must be infuriating to deal with for leaders and policy makers in other countries. And not just the countries I’ve referred to–people in other countries must be wondering and waiting.

    Now if the worst that comes out of this is confusion, that may be not too bad. Given some quiet, maybe this could be calmed down and straightened out, reasonable tariffs(or none)established and everything brought back to as near normal as possible after this dislocation. But the odds on that are poor. Like it won’t happen or at least not for a long time and after a fair amount of economic damage has been done. And that could spill over into–well, wait a minute for that.

    If actual action is taken on the more important of the tariffs suggested–autos, steel, many agricultural produces, for example-then there is likely to be economic dislocation of some kind and it might come fairly quickly. The US puts tariffs on someone’s goods exported here and they put one on some of ours. This has already happened regarding at least one case. This means that their goods will cost more in the US and, wow, guess what, Americans will buy a lot fewer of them. In return the citizens of the other country, for the same reason, will buy fewer of ours. Very possibly there will be reductions in hours worked, perhaps layoffs in both cases if this goes on for long.

    Meanwhile, some American companies may get a break for a little while. With limited competition(or none)on the goods in question, they might increase their prices. But many American companies are unhappy about this too. Whatever, their business, there is at least some chance with most that they import some of the parts of whatever they make from, let’s say, county “X,”, our example here. Those goods, will be more expensive or unavailable here. American companies will have trouble getting parts they need and/or will have to pay exorbitant prices for them. Their prices will, in many if not most cases, soon rise. Their profits will be squeezed and their employees will be worse off, facing higher prices and no or little pay increase. Layoffs could be a possibility.

    This obviously could have that famous snowball effect. It will gather strength like a snowball rolling downhill and get strong and stronger until it reaches the bottom. How much actual trouble this will cause for the economy and people at large I don’t know. Likely not as much as the Great Recession(2008-2009), would be my guess, but I still think it could be substantial.

    Now along with this buy/sell issue of prices and economic retaliation, there comes a mostly(at first, anyway)non-economic result. This would be resentments and mistrust. And these do not bode well for our relations with other countries, regardless of their involvement in the tariff mess. Once a person or a country gets a reputation for dishonesty or untrustworthiness, such a reputation might be hard to shake off. And it is my impression that Donald Trump is particularly accomplished at proving his untrustworthiness quickly and forcefully. And this spills over, now, into overall foreign relations and national security.

    On Fareed’s program today there were interviews with a number of foreign leaders. I won’t bother mentioning most of them by name as many of the names are both hard to spell and unknown to the larger number of Americans. But there was a common theme. Our allies do not like the way things are going. It was pointed out by Fareed and by at least one of the leaders that something approaching peace and order has been USUALLY kept in Europe for about 80 years. This is true, to a somewhat lesser extent elsewhere, though obviously not in the Middle East.

    It happened like this–At the end of World War II the army of the USSR swept over Eastern Europe like a Red Wave. The correctly despised Nazi legions of Hitler and his allies were driven back and by the spring of 1945 were close to being non-existent. Most of we now call “Eastern Europe” fell under the control, direct or indirect of this army and there was no reasonable alternative authority.

    Over the next few years nearly all of Eastern Europe became staunchly allied to the Soviet Union. By political coup, military force or whatever, the Communists, using (rarely)honest elections, crooked elections, political maneuvering and always backed by the presence of Soviet arms took over. By 1948 Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania and Czechoslovakia were all in the Soviet bag. Germany was still divided as the US. Britain, France and the USSR tried to agree on how it should be put together and ruled.

    The Soviets, with their huge army and now with six “satellite” nations as allies faced the rest of the continent (or the world)together and there was a genuine fear in the west that they might try to take Western Europe by force. Had they done so, they had so many troops, many of them battle veterans, that they could likely have taken western Europe to the English Channel in a matter of weeks.

    I don’t know if anyone knows or will ever be able to say for certain what went through Stalin’s mind during this time, but there was at least one good reason that they didn’t strike. From 1945 to 1949 the US was the only nuclear power in the world and this meant Stalin would have risked bringing down the power of the US nuclear arsenal upon his country and they had no real defense against it nor any retaliatory threat to use.

    Nonetheless, the US and its European allies were worried. The had watched for several years and one after another the states of Eastern Europe had gone Communist and become little USSR’s. Where would it stop? Also, France and Italy, two large European industrial countries had large communist parties who contested the legal and fair elections both countries had. They had not done so well as they had hoped yet, but they had done well enough and generated enough followers that there was real fear one or both of these countries might legitimately vote themselves communist. And if they did, what would their relation to the Soviet Union and it’s foreign policy ambitions be?

    It is also likely that the West knew the USSR was working on an A Bomb and might soon have it. Perhaps they did not know when. In any event, a collective defense pact seemed the only way out and NATO was formed as an anti-Soviet alliance in the spring of 1949. It’s sole purpose was to deter the Soviets from attacking Western Europe and it stated–in its famous Article 5–that an attack on any one of the members of NATO would be considered an attack upon them all and all would respond.

    The nuclear power the US had was assumed to be part of this and therefore served as a protection to our European allies. This came to be know as the “nuclear umbrella” which has been there for more than 70 years and is still no doubt a serious deterrent to the Russians. (As to the future, well…) But later in 1949 the USSR exploded its first nuclear device and since then each side has had the power to seriously damage or even destroy the other one. Doing so, of course, might imperil world civilization now.

    I have explained this in some detail because it is relevant to the current situation. Trump’s foreign policy appears to be a mess;. He and Rubio are going to try to make some kind of deal with Putin by meeting in Saudi Arabia. What kind of deal my be offered or agreed upon is hard to predict.

    Trump’s almost daily back and forth on tariffs has given an impression of disorder and confusion in the US and has done nothing to earn us respect anywhere. We have offended both Canada and Mexico, our two leading trading partners, to a very severe degree and neither one is sympathetic to us now. The Europeans too are mistrustful and held their own(without US participation)meeting on security a few days ago. Some European leaders, including the incoming German Chancellor, have said openly that the US seems to be changing sides; at least it appears that way from the way we are treating Ukraine. Consequently there are suggestions that the US “umbrella” will be withdrawn or has been already and that the Europeans must now go it alone against Russia with France and Britain using their own power to replace the American “umbrella.”

    This is noble of them, our oldest ally and our mother country, but while I cannot quote you the exact figures, I can tell you that the combined French-British nuclear power comes nowhere near ours and this might be seen more a token rather than a real anti-Russian restraint.

    I hope that Trump has not been foolish enough to decide to turn away from Western Europe. I hope he has not done anything already that might look like a permanent change. But if he has, then the world, and especially Europe, will have to live with it, perhaps for a long time. We can, of course, hope that the better angels of the Republican Party (and maybe the few Republicans with the political nerve to contradict Trump)will speak out and maybe prevent this. We hope the Democrats will find their energy and their purpose and join them. But we don’t know.

    What we do know is that our foreign policy appears on the surface to be in a state of chaos, both inconsistent and sometimes incoherent. Our economy(watch the market), our influence in the world, our alliance system, our entire national security are all at risk. They could be made far safer by acts of common sense and restraint on the part of the Administration. It’s by no means too late. But they need to get on the right track and they need someone of common sense and with a sense of history and international politics to get on board with advice. I hope they don’t use Elon Musk for this. John Bolton would be a good choice. But somehow I doubt he will be asked.

    Most likely they also won’t ask former NATO commander Gen Wesley Clark who was on CNN this afternoon(Mon Mar 10) talking to interviewer Brianna Keilar. He said that the Trump Administration had created a foreign policy which had alarmed Europe. He had talked to people from Ukraine and elswhere on the continent and “They’re afraid . . .They’re asking ‘How can the United States be neutral between an aggressor that stomps on human rights and all the principles of Western democracy and a country that’s been attacked?” Later he added “The American system of alliance basically kept the world away from. . . war for 80 years…This is a really scary departure for America to cast off our allies.” Thank you, General. I hope to hear from you on TV again. But don’t sit by the phone waiting for the Administration to get in touch.

    , ,
    , , , ,

  • How About Mystery Other Than Political???

    There’s enough mystery floating around out there about political things–international relations, international trade, Elon Musk’s grasp on reality etc. I think I’ll take a brief vacation from that and write about something I usually find more absorbing–mystery novels.

    Now you will, maybe, remember that I’ve already remarked on two novels by Richard Osman, “The Thursday Murder Club” and “The Bullet That Missed.” These are his first and third and he is now up to five and rising. He looks like becoming a landmark British mystery writer, like Sayers or Christie. And he just may do it. His work is so obsessively entertaining(in the sense of seizing your interest, not just amusing you)that his book are, I think often truly hard to put down.

    A brief rehash–“The Thursday Murder Club” is the title of his first book and also the name of a sort of club of residents at an expensive retirement home near London, Cooper Chase. There are 4 people in the club, Elizabeth, a retired MI-6 spy; Joyce, a retired nurse and inveterate and insightful diary keeper who gives us the only first person narrative in the books; Ibrahim, a compassionate and always curious retired psychiatrist, and Ron who has a history of labor politics and leftist rabble rousing, but seems to have no trouble fitting in–with the other three or with the larger community.

    These four have agreed to get together and, using old files to which Elizabeth(if the group has a “leader” she’s it)has access, and try to solve old cases. It will surprise no one, I’m sure, to hear that they frequently wind up getting involved in a current day mystery, and we follow them and their friends(and sometimes rivals)Donna DeFreitas, a 20ish police woman and her professional partner and supervisor, Chris Hudson, a 40ish bachelor. But the emphasis is on our four residents at the Chase with Chris and Donna popping in sometimes, something which is likely to be of assistance or sometimes an annoyance.

    These are the main characters, though some others appear on more than one book. One of the more interesting, if not admirable, is Connie Johnson who is making at least her second appearance in “The Last …. .” She is a drug dealer who couldn’t get out of serving some jail time, but, because she is attractive, intelligent and succesful manages to pretty much keep running her business from her cell while looking forward to getting out. She is sometimes helpful when it suits her own purposes.

    These things are much the same in all of the books I’ve read so far, though there are differences too. But what does not change is the cooperation of these four retirees in doing justice and doing it with style when possible. Their friendship and their dedication are both remarkable.

    When I reviewed the first of this series, simply entitled “The Thursday Murder Club,” I mentioned that I dissented from the views of some of the people who have reviewed it professionally or(more often)simply sent in internet comments. And I said that while I agreed with nearly all of them that it was a terrific book, I dissented with some people’s descriptions of it. There was a tendency to refer to it as a “cozy” or as a “comedy-mystery.” I objected to both of these terms, though admitting at it had elements of each, particularly the latter.

    Without going into the details of these two types of mysteries(see the internet for explanations) I’ll just re-assert that Osman’s books have elements of the above two, but exist above them in that group of mystery novels which mainly please, well, mystery fans, but also take note of the human condition, usually as seen in some of the characters.

    What only a few commented on was that there was an element of wistfulness or even sadness in Osman’s writing too and I strongly agreed. Although there are parts that are very funny, Osman often slips into a different mood and we get to explore-if we don’t already know–the other side of aging, the sense of loss as years go by, the awareness of mortality and time and the loss of things and people that we love. Even if we do know, the sharing of thoughts is somehow comforting and agreeable, particularly from such a talented, intelligent and youthful(54–barely out of adolescence)writer.

    I think this may have increased a little in each book, but I’m really not sure of that one. What is clear to me is that in this, his 4th book, he goes further into it than before. Don’t worry–the mystery is still there. But the characters, particularly the two gentlemen, seem willing to share a bit more about themselves than before. And Joyce, that expert chronicler of other people’s behavior gives us more about her own feelings and what gladdens and saddens her heart as she ages.

    But it is Elizabeth, always the dominant character of the four, who commands the most of our attention. I do not wish to go into her problem in great detail, for I feel I should let you search it out for yourselves. But I will say it has to do with her husband, Stephen, and with aging, particularly one aspect of it. How the leader, acknowledged or not, of the group handles this and what she goes through in her own heart but shares very little of with the others is close to devastating.

    It is rare to see a hero of this stature in a mystery/suspense novel attain such altitudes of reflection and of revelation of pain. It makes this the most searching and the most emotionally bruising of these novels and, I would have to say, the best so far. But it would not be successful if it didn’t have a substantial and puzzling mystery to solve, one with both questions and emotions behind it. It serves doubly as the main plot of the book and therefore a sometimes needed escape from Elizabeth’s sadness, and as a diverting and often fascinating look at how a search for the apparently unknowable goes on and where it goes.

    The plot itself has to do with a local shopkeeper, an immigrant know to the club, who runs an antique business. Early in the book he agrees to keep a box for a short time which someone else will later pick up. He will be paid well for this sleight of hand storage but will be killed if he doesn’t produce the box when asked. Shortly after that he is dead, shot while sitting in an automobile. It looks like a professional job and the authorities know nothing of it–at the beginning.

    This leads both our friends in the club and their police buddies into an extensive chase of a missing box. It almost certainly, they believe, contained heroin or some other kind of drug and is worth millions But where is it and why did the shopkeeper get killed?

    As you might guess this leads to a fascinating attempt to track down the truth. There are talks and interviews with various people on both sides of the law. One of them is Connie, who sees possible profit here and who is, predictably, charming, sexy and dangerous. There are others who belong on the periphery of the case but may have something important to add. And most interestingly, there is a search for how the box got to the UK and insights into the international illegal trade business, particularly in drug trafficking.

    In the end the truth is finally untangled and justice of a sort, is done. I think you’ll enjoy finding out how it gets done and what transpires, with the case and also just with the people involved, along the way. Each of them has his own story to tell and they do that with style, insight, and the graceful, sophisticated confidence of people who know the score but keep on going. In a sense they’re similar to Anne Lamott who knows the facts , but says “Hallelujah Anyway.”

    , , , ,

  • Don’t Ask What’s Next–Please

    Frankly I don’t want to know –yet. It will become clear to all Americans, to all the developed world soon enough. What I will do is to(briefly)comment on what’s going on in the Administration and on what the effects may be.

    Previously, I commented some on Trump and domestic affairs. I was going to to do foreign policy next but I need to make a brief stop off here. Domestic matters have gotten worse and more and more they affect the issues of foreign policy and national security.

    The biggest news of late is the further behavior of Elon Musk and the attempt by him and the President to more or less dismantle the federal government. As you no doubt know, a couple of days ago Musk ordered an e-mail message to ALL federal employees,. That is what reports are saying–ALL. That would mean Marco Rubio got one–well, maybe not but this “all”would include not just “probationary” employees who had already been taken on, but everyone who works in a federal office.

    Musk’s message was that every employee should, no later than 11:59 PM EST tonight, send an answer to the government. They were supposed to delineate exactly what they had done at work in the week just ending and the powers-that-interfere would decide if they were necessary and should be kept. Also it was added that failure to send this message of self-justification to the top would be considered a resignation and mean automatic termination from their government job.

    Remember that Musk and his unofficial DOGE had already “laid off” several million “probationary” employees, some of whom had to be hired back immediately because their jobs(looking after nuclear materials, for example)involved national security in the most immediate way.

    Now I have a little knowledge of this myself. I am a retired federal employee. For 28 years I was a Claims Representative with the Social Security Administration. I worked in two Social Security Offices, mostly in Ravenna OH, about 20 miles from where I was born and raised, and a dozen miles or less from Kent State where I went to school. In other words I was not an “entrenched bureaucrat” in Washington. Like about 80% of federal employees I worked miles away from the DC area.

    Now if I had gotten that e-mail asking me to report on what I’d just done I would have had several reactions to it. The first, I think, would have been that the President and whoever was helping with this had no idea what a Claim Rep did and what my job tasks were, and an effort to explain it to them would likely have been unsuccessful. I am sure that that is the case with Musk and Trump. They have no idea of what these people do, nothing in their background to help them relate to it and therefore no business pretending to be in a position to decide (or even supervise those deciding) who stays and who goes.

    I would easily have put together an answer that would have been truthful as far as it went, and would also convey some of my feeling. I could have said something like,”I have several different tasks–every Claims Rep does–and we don’t keep a personal list of all of them. But with reasonable certainty I can tell you this–in the past work week I interviewed thirty, forty or more people. Some of these interviews were very short. Some took well over an hour, occasionally two hours. I took applications for Social Security benefits and I tried to explain to those approaching 65 what their Medicare would and wouldn’t cover;.

    I would have explained to many dissatisfied and sometimes hostile people why their disability claims were denied and what we could do(file a Reconsideration Request)to purse the situation further. I answered the phone about an hour a day and during that time was responsible for answering all sorts of questions about all of the above matters and doing other things–particularly, I spent time explaining how to get or replace a Social Security card and doing changes of address or direct deposit for social security payments.

    These would all have been legitimate answers and would have all been beyond the comprehension of most of our top officials, who dealt with POLICY rather than the practical implementation of policy. There is usually no reason why the people at the top need to know the details of such things as inputting a change of address. There is also no reason to think that my explanation would have given them an accurate idea of what it was like to work in a Social Security Office. One brief statement I could have made is that it seemed to be almost always a matter of being understaffed and short of time.

    The main reason for opposing these threatening, unprecedented and I’m sure mostly illegal attempts to drive people out of their jobs is that they, without good reason and with apparently little if any forethought, would be stripping government employees of their rights and their livelihood. Another rather serious one is that they would be doing so, well illegally, as previously stated. Since these went to virtually every federal employee, there was no question of “probationary” or not involved here as far as I can tell. It’s just a naked attempt to get rid of employees without regard to the hardships it would impose on the employees and their families and even worse, no regard to the damage it would do to the US government, particularly in the matter of protecting our national security interests.

    This is apparently dawning on some, even in the stiff-necked and usually leader adoring Trump administration. It was at least encouraging to hear earlier today that several Trump appointees to the cabinet were advising their employees not to reply. (One of them, interestingly, was Mr Patel at the FBI–Pete Hegseth was not among this group, however). It seems to be occurring to these people that we are on the verge of a national crisis, maybe several of them, including both domestic and foreign matters, both military and financial security, and perhaps the security of democracy itself.

    The US could shortly find itself without a functioning government run by people who know what they’re doing. It could also wind up with fewer and fewer reliable allies in what looks very much like a crazier and more dangerous world. OK, I think that’s enough for now. I will, I hope, shortly have a few additions to make to this. Maybe I can work in a book or movie or two in between. It would be nice to be closer to a world where things made sense.

    , , , ,

  • The Way to the End

    OK, you want to know. The end of what? Well, I’,m not sure. But the way of life, political life anyway, which affects many other aspects of living is already changed by the Trump Administration. There may be a pulling back from the recent harebrained extremes but I doubt if it will be full. Even if it is it may takde a long time.

    One hardly knows where to begin. OK, I’ll begin with domestic policy and I won’t weigh this down with a lot of statistics. Maybe a few to make my points, The Administration has, using Elon Musk as its instrument, began a whole sale assult on the federal goernment and the assumptions we have had about its role in our country for near on a hundred years now, that is going back to about the New Deal. Some of them go back further than that. Then there’s foreign policy, but wait a minute. What’s Musk doing here at home?

    The trouble is that much of what Musk has done, at the behest of Trump or at least beacuse Trump told him to tackle the feds and then gave him his head, is likely illegal/unconstitutional, at least about to be. The biggest single thing, which has to be broken down into smaller parts to grasp fully, is the fantastic reduction in the number of employees of the federal government.

    Now like a lot of mistakes and excessive actions, this began with a slight modicum of truth. Likely the government is somewhat bloated and needs in ways to be reformed. I was a federal worker for 28 years before I retired(sometime ago now)and I remember that. But I remember other things as well. Like that most federal employees I knew gave a dollar’s worth(or more)of effort for a dollar’s pay. Like the dead-end nature of many of these jobs–relatively secure, to be sure, but easy to get stuck in. And I remember that at least where I worked, with the Social Security Administration, a bloated workforce was not part of the trouble.

    The trouble was that we did not have, in my opinion ENOUGH people to do the job correctly and quickly. So nearly everyone felt behind in their work and was constantly hassled by this fact, regardless of whether the management pointed it out(which they frequently did, actually) So this is not a simple matter. If they were going to put people out of jobs, why didn’t they at least take a few weeks to have someone study the issue? Maybe have some people go to the offices or laboratories, or banks or wherever and learn something of the jobs, the work flow, the issues–the troubles and possible fixes for them. But they didn’t– they simply took an axe and started chopping.

    This was done at first by offering functionally every federal employee a “buyout” opportunity. The deal was to stop work but get paid another 8 months without working and presumably still being on the payroll. Not enough people–not very close to enough–took this offer to come close to the Muskite requirements. So they proceeded with firings, just getting rid of people. Now there are two or three things to say about that.

    First of all, it appears that for the most part, they went after people still in their probationary period, the year or two that a federal employee man be dismissed without cause, though presumably because they didn’t fit the job. But they MAY have wandered into the ranks of long employed people in some cases and as far as I’m concerned most of these firings WOULD BE simply illegal. Some such dismissals may have already occurred.

    This is immensley irresponsible, particularly when you look at what happened with the NNSA(National Nuclear Security Administration)late last week. First of all, the NNSA is a smaller government entity and a lesser known one. But it is extremely important. It is part of the Dept of Energy and it is tasked with the job of overseeing and maintaining US nuclear power. I guess you could say that they have two overall responsibilities. One is to guarantee that US nuclear weapons and other working nuclear power are kept in order and are able to do their job–that is, to defend the country from potential adversaries, hopefully by intimidating them into never doing anything so stupid as launching an all out attack on the US.

    It ‘s second duty is protect us from ourselvs in a sense. That is, they are to make certain nuclear materials are correctly stored and handled. They are to protect us from our defensive weapons becoming a danger to the homeland or to US personnel or materials anywhere.

    The story I read on this was from the BBC which is not known for getting things wrong. Based on US media and perhaps other stories, the BBC concluded that approximately 300 probationary employees had been fired. The Energy Department claimed it was in the vicinity of 50. Eventually, the actual number may come clear.

    But, whatever, the Trump Administration reversed itself within a day or two. It became apparent(or maybe was pointed out to them by someone)that they were imperiling national security. Without these employees the agency wouldn’t be able to keep track of and control its nuclear power. So the agerncy began, frantically, I imagine, to get back in touch with these people and tell them, “Hey, wait a minute–you’re not fired–come back to work!” But, the agency said, they were having trouble finding them.

    Now I wish to raise three fairly simple but fascinating and likely important questions, after which I’ll be quiet for awhile. First, why does this most important agency have so few employees? And how many were there, really. who were dismissed? Secondly, who’s watching the nukes today? And finally, why can’t they find them? How about starting with the address, email, snail mail or whatever, to which they sent the termination notices? Oh, yes, and didn’t the personnel files have phone numbers in them? How about giving them a call.? Hey, maybe they all went to Greenland or Panama–still, it’s worth a try?

    That’s all for now–think I’ll go stew awhile. I may have some foreign relations questions later.

  • Brazil Takes on the World-At Least on Screen

    Until some ads popped up on the website of our local art theatre, I had been only vaguely(if that)aware of “I’m Still Here.” But I thought it looked interesting from the ads and I pursued it a bit further and found it was not only an oscar nominee for Best Foreign Language Film but also Best Film of the Year. Having a foreign language film nominated for best picture is not unprecedented, but it is unusual, so I figured something worth learning about might be going on here. I was right.

    In a year of apparent medicocrity and maybe one or two real losers, there are some movies to be proud of and happy about. “Sing Sing”–which should have been nominated for best picture in my opinion–but wasn’t, is one of them. “I’m Still Here,’ is another.

    In a year where nominations have gone to films of much less ambition and/or talent and/or character, “Still Here” stands out, at least among the ones I’ve seen. Likely it stands out over the whole lot. It is a film of immense talent and wisdom, made which stunning care and attention to detail, particularly the details of love and attention within a family. It is beautifully done without a touch of hurriedness or carelessness, without any lacking of taking the time and making the effort to show you the faces, the reactions and the situations of the Paiva family. It is this that makes its portrayals of the family so heartbreaking and moving and make them grasp and hold us.

    I did a very short review of Brazilian history on Wikipedia to get some back ground. I will not tire you with detials which I hardly know myself, but it is worth mentioning that this story, taking place mostly in the early-mid 1970’s but eventually covering nearly half a century, is a true one, based on the memoirs of the Paiva son.

    One of the first things I thought of it was how American-like it was. That is, technically and socially, middle class(well Upper Middle Class in this case)Brazilians lived, worked and acted much like their North American counterparts. This is similar to my feelings about Pedro Aldomovar’s “Parallel Mothers” from 2021 or thereabouts. However, there are nuances which show differences too. Most of the small ones I’d say favor the Brazilians. But the biggest one, politics, shows not only their likeableness and dignity, but their misfortune in the rather important area of individual rights and human freedom.

    Begainning with the early 1970’s Brazil seems to have been moving from a sort of democracy toward authoritarian if not out and out dictatorial rule. Ruben Paiva is an engineer by trade and a former congressman. He has chosen to return after a six year self-exile he took because he saw and disapproved of the way Brazilian politics seemed to be headed. Now he and his family live in a beautiful home in a desireable part of Rio. He does his daily work and he and his wife Eunice run their househokld and raise their 5 children, ranging from about 8 or 9 to nearly college age teenagers. Ruben and his family are happy with each other and outwardly thier lives are full, but he remains a supporter of expatriates who tend towards his political views.

    Brazil seems to be in transition and a bit of confusion. Drifting toward dictatorship but publically still holding to at the very least the outward appearances of consitutional government, the country nonetheless is more and more affected by the military. And the civilian government is apparently unable to do much to stop this.

    And as time passes the military influence grows and they began to arrest people on suspicion only and to imprison them and hold them at their will. Usually these people are released eventually, but sometimes not, and the feeling of a free society is disappearing.

    Ruben disappears into the maw of the military in 1971 and this is a shock. The frantic Eunice demands to know where her husband is. As a result she and her oldest daughter, Eliana, are arrested. and held for days or weeks. They are questioned with a style that borders on violence, even subtle tortures. They are finally released . But now nothing is the same. Ruben is still missing, theirs is a house without a husband or a father, and their hearts are broken and their feelings now shattered. Eunice tries to keep on with the fight. She appeals to government friends and acquaintances and a friendly lawyer all of whom seem to be people of power. But none of them can help and the family and the country slip deeper and deeper into despair and tyranny,

    Director Walter Salles has a way of making things move along without hurrying the pacing and without allowing the film to lapse into the tiresome, too long variety. The camera lingers over the house and the gardens, the children and the mother, the neighborhood and the neighbors. And a world is created here for us, a physically beautiful one of natural views and fine houses and contentment–but a short distance off is a world of anxiousness, and nerves as they all worry about Ruben. They have their little spats and outbursts, but mostly they love each other and get along, and their functioning as a loving family dealing with a long term crisis is one of the most moving things in the film, one of the things that keeps us hoping for Reuben, hoping for his return, and hoping the whiole family will be reunited,

    And we experience this over several years as Eunice waits and struggles and tries, and finally does not give up, but begins to re-order her life She is a remarkable woman, one of intelligence, courage and love, but also of self respect. She decides eventually she will get on with it by herself and she will return to college. And as a matter of fact she did earn a law degree–at 48

    We see in her 60’s, functioning as a successful, admirable professional, but one who still remembers what was and knows what won’t be. Then we see her once more, in her 80’s and surrounded by chldren and grandchildren. And there is a touching moment when this old lady, now losing the battle with age and decline, sees a picture of her husband, now gone more than 50 years–and she smiles.

    And if you are inclined to cry at movies this might be one of the times. And hats off to director Walter Salles and his editors who made this long, elegant and remarkable film. Fernanda Torres as Eunice is nothing short of great. She is not beautiful but somehow immensely attractive anyway, a combination of looks, character and style and conveyed flawslessly by Ms Torres. And again a salute to Mr Salles, who I found referred to as one of Brazil’s greatest moive directors–I should think so. (He pulled off a real coup in another way–he got Ms Torres mother, Fernanada Montenegro, now 95 and renowned as the best Braziian actress of all time, to play Eunice in that last scene–no wonder she looked just right in the role).

    With this movie Brazil might be said to be warning a world which in more and more places seems to be leaning toward authoritarianism, saying careful folks–see where this can lead. And Salles is also saying to the world, look, guys, this is what people, families, socieites can be at their best. And finally, Brazil is saying, great art is great for all of us. It makes us dream and maybe strive and maybe, succeed.


    , , , ,

  • The Ghosts of Movies Past–Manhattan Melodrama

    I first saw “Manhattan Melodrama” years ago, how many years I’m uncertain, but it’s been a long time. I remembered it as a good film. I was right about that, to the extent that I was right about the movie but it is more than just good. It strives for being a great film and nearly succeeds. Made in 1934, it got in just before the Hays Code cracked down. That might have had some effect–likely not a good one on this movie–but it’s not really a big deal. The code’s “No crime goes unpunished” rule is observed here even without the code.

    The cast is interesting–I have always loved William Powell, an ideal of urbane sophistication, not only in the “Thin Man” series but in nearly everything he did. Myrna Loy, who played his wife in that series, was always one of my favorites too. And you couldn’t be a fan of old American movies without admiring Clark Gable. But Loy and Powell at least, I usually associated with lighter though not necessarily simple roles. Here they each get their opportunity to do what they could do with real drama. And Gable too, in fact matches their performances.

    The story starts out with a true story. In 1904 the “General Slocum.” a steamboat, sank in the east River, NY. Two boys, Blackie Gallagher and Jim Wade are saved by a Roman Catholic Priest. Though offered more or less equal oportunites, the boys go their separate ways and when we meet them 30 years later, Blackie(Clark Gable) is a genial but when necessary ruthless gangster, who is still good company and likeable to his friends. Jim(William Powell)is a rising lawyer and would be politician.

    Blackie has a lovely and witty girl friend in Eleanor(Myrna Loy) but she is not always in sympathy with his lifestyle. As time passes Jim is elected District Attorney and Blackie and Eleanor break up over his refusal to get married or to change his ways. You will not be surprised. I’m sure, to find that Eleanor and Jim fall in love and are married. But in the meantime, Blackie has committed murder in killing a welcher who owed him money and wouldn’t and/or couldn’t pay. Blackie knows that Jim is suspicious of him in the murder but there is no evidence so the case is allowed to drop.

    >Shortly after this Jim runs for governor and a corrupt ex-employee threatens to go public with a lie that Jim intentionally let his friend off in the murder case. When Blackie learns of this he kills the ex-employee. This time there is an eye witness and Jim has no choice but to prosuecute. Blackie ends up with a death sentence.

    Shortly after this Jim is elected governor, and here the movie, already fraught with romance, murder and violations of public morality, turns desperately personal and gripping. Jim feels that as a governor elected on a promise of reform and no favors, he cannot grant a commutation of the sentence to Blackie. And it is here that each of the three stars get to show us the real sleves of their characters and their real talents as actors.

    Gable is a charming and heroic criminal, convicted of murder but still in good spirits, still considers the governor his friend and and expects no favors. He is willing to die to allow his old friend to continue his work as a public servant. He also does not to care to spend the rest of his life locked in prison. Gable expresses all this with a winning attitude that leaves you admiring him despite what he’s done and for what he’s trying to do. He is one of the most charming and likeable characters you’ll ever find on his way to execution in an old movie.(I don’t know if they ever come that way in real life, but it’s a great and magnificent performance.)

    Powell, whom we usually think of as the heavy drinking. wise cracking, jovial and loveable rascal in the Thin Man series and other films, is quite different here too. He is a man obsessed with the idea that he cannot set aside the death sentence, obsessed with guilt that in obeying his oath he will be bringing about the death of his old friend. Caught in this cruel dilemma, he twists and turns mentally, trying, trying to find a way out or a way of making himself feel less painfully guilty. But there is no way out. He is stuck and he knows it. He will do his duty, he thinks, but he will also murder something within himself as he does it.

    Eleanor as portrayed by Loy, comes to mind as Loy’s dominant persona in our memory, the beautiful, sophisticated, and usually carefree rich girl(again, the Thin Man series but other movies too)who takes on life with zest and spreads some of the zest around to her friends too. But this is another Loy, a deep, serious, and grieving woman. She is torn by the fact that her one time lover is to be executed and that her husband could but won’t save him, his old friend. Her heart is breaking and her marriage is at risk. Her whole persona(like her whole life) is collapsing Like her husband, she has no place to turn and is pulled down in despair by the whole situation, a woman trapped and cringing inside, trying to go on outwardly, but dreading the way her life has become.

    Each of these three, supported by a very good cast, incidentally, make this not only suspenseful but heart rending as you hope for a different outcome than what you think is coming. You share the characters’ desire for a way out, something that will satisfy morality and honor on both sides, something that will allow Blackie to live and Jim to succeed.

    This film, so far as I know, shows up on TV seldom, but it does from time to time. So I hope you get a chance to see it and therefore, I will not reveal exactly what happens. Please see it if possible–this is 1930’s era Amercan movie-making at its best, taut, tight, gripping–and merciless in its depiction of the situation to which the human condition can lead.

    I will, however, give you some interesting pieces of information I ran across on Wikipedia–

    This was the movie showing at the Biograph theatre in Chicago which John Dillinger and the lady in the red dress saw on the evening of July 22, 1934. Dillinger was killed as they left the theatre by a volley of fire from FBI agents who apparently were neither movie critics nor Trumpish civil servants

    Myrna Loy was one of several people who expressed disgust that the studio used the above fact to promote the film

    Scenes from this movie are included in the 2009 film, “Public Enemies” in which Johnny Depp played Dillinger.

    George Cukor was an uncredited and likely part time behind the scenes director. In a career that would last into the 1980’s he would develop a reputation as one of the greatest of Hollywood directors in directing women

    The “real” director(and likely he really did dominate the making of the film)was W S Van Dyke. He seems to have begun his carrer working for D W Griffith on “The Birth of a Nation.” He became know as “one-take-Woodie” because he usually would do only one take and settle for what he got in it. I imagine this made him popular with actors, who I would guess dislike many re-takes, and studio owners who like films that don’t go over-budget

    There is a scene in the Cotton Club, a Harlem night club that catered to white customers and a few influential blacks in the 1920’s-’30’s. The performers were dominantly if not exclusively black. In this scene a female singer does a nice version of a jazz ballad, “The Bad In Every Man.” I commented to my wife that the melody sounded a whole lot like “Blue Moon.” It turns out that the singer was a white lady, Shirley Ross, in blackface, something I would never have guessed. The song was written by Lorenz Hart(first writing partner of Richard Rodgers-Hammerstein came later), who after the film was released re-wrote the lyrics–as “Blue Moon.”

    The film received one academy award nomination, for best original story, which it won. It received no others which is ridiculous.–check out the 1934 Oscars on-line for more.

    , , ,

  • He’s leading us–but where?

    My immediate response to the new administration was to be critical and I was in the one blog I’ve done on the subject so far. But I thought it might be a good idea to wait a bit longer before going forward with such blogs. After all people do change(but seldom), and I am always against people. others anyway, jumping to conclusions. So I waited to see what Trump would present to us in his first couple of weeks. Now we part of the answer–too much.

    The great thing about Donald Trump as a subject for a blogger, or any kind of analyst, is that he’s really the gift that keeps on giving. He does and says so much that you’ve just about always got a topic. Right now he’s provided us with several. Unfortunately I find it difficult to celebrate this fact. Nearly everything he does is either neutral in my opinion or worse than neutral, frequently a good bit worse.

    There is so much out there right now that I am going to limit myself to (mostly, at least)his bizarre statement yesterday about Gaza and his overall attempt to destroy most of the federal establishment and take over what’s left. I may put off some of the specifics.

    The most jaw dropping thing he’s done so far–though it’s hard to tell from such a large number of choices–is to announce the US will take over Gaza. He also seems to think ALL of the people, Arab and mostly with Palestinian roots, will leave. He’s not clear about of lot of things, mainly about exactly what it means, how he thinks it could be done, and what will be the diplomatic/trade/security results.

    Most likely I shouldn’t even approach this first issue, but I have that kind of mind and I wonder sometimes. In this case I wonder what Trump meant when he said the US will “own” Gaza. Likely he meant we will establish international ownership rights(however you could do that), leave no doubt we’re running the place and dictate everything that happens there. That would seem to most reasonable people to constitute “ownership.”

    But there is another meaning to the word one occasionally hears. “If you break it you own it” is the sort of thing I have in mind. Every now and then this is heard in politics, usually in a statement like “his party started this and now they own it.” I doubt that Trump meant this, but you know what? If he pursues this outlandish plan, the US will “own” the situation in this sense–and be looking for a buyer or anyone to take it off its hands.

    I did do a brief exploration,. on line, to see if I could find an international law position on “ownership.” Most of what I first found was about an individual or company owning property in other countries. Eventually I found this. “A country’s ‘ownership’ of another country or part of one … is typically established through an act of annexation, which means forcefully acquiring and asserting legal title over a territory through military occupation, effectively incorporating it into the owning country’s sovereign domain; this is generally considered illegal …unless widely recognized by other states and international bodies.” This comes from Wikipedia and is designated “AI overview,” whatever that means.

    (For an interesting–I hope— reflection on annexation see my blog of 03/24/23).

    OK. this is likely what Trump meant(to the extent he knew more or less what he meant)and it is, more importantly, what most ordinary readers and most world leaders, diplomats and so forth will take it to mean. So this would require annexation, with military force if necessary. It would be interesting to know what Gen Milley or any past or current member of the Joint Chiefs would think of this,

    There was outrage, predictably and in this case I think understandably. Saudi Arabia who has been inching toward the US in recent years, was bitter in its denunciation. So were others. The residents of Gaza, as described by journalists on the scene, were also bitter and many of them indicated refusal to leave the only home they had ever know.

    Even if more of them were willing to go, where would be their destination.? Trump mentioned Egypt and Jordan, which makes sense geographically, but not politically, not for military security or anything else good that I’m able to see.
    Egypt and Jordan have both announced their unwillingness to cooperate. Without their cooperation, how would you get the Palestinians there, even if they were willing? Use military force to get them in? Get involved in another war situation where we would be stuck, not able to win or to get out without disaster? Can anyone say “quagmire?”

    On domestic affairs so much is happening that I will not even try to identify it all right now. Basically, it’s the “buy out” for federal employees, the firing (apparently without legal legitimacy)of a number of non-civil service employees(particularly at DOJ), and the incredible offer of pushing the “buy out” idea with the CIA.. And all this from the man who now dominates, seriously, the party which used to accuse the opposition(that would be the Democrats)of being “soft” on communism–or immigration, or whatever the immediate perceived threat, real or imnaginary happened to be. And now they want to reduce or practically end the CIA which is tasked with protecting our national security.

    Although Trump, as the man at the top and clearly the person who ordered this approach,, is primarily responsible for all this and more, it would be well to remember Elon Musk. He is the apparently power-hungry gazillionaire who now is dominating the federal government through his clearly unauthorized and possibly illegal DOGE(Department of Government Efficiency–ironical title to the maximum)

    This way lies madness, at home and also abroad. What if nearly everyone with the CIA and those in the domestic federal workforce said “yes” right now? Who would deal with a non-received Social Security payment.? A threatening message to a reporter or commentator? A report of military activity by China which might threaten us? In other words, who would protect many of us from poverty, personal threats and unforeseeable trouble, abroad or at home? The answer appears to be that no one knows.

    This is enough for now. I need to find what has happened since I’ve been researching(a little bit) and typing(a lot) here at the library. Please consider what I’ve said and pay attention to the news. It nearly always seems we are in times of serous change but this time I think we really are, including a possible threat of a constitutional crisis. I hope to be back soon to comment further on this–or, perhaps on mysteries and music–some of each might be welcome.

    , , , ,

  • Should We Pardon These Pardons?

    I was disappointed when I heard on inauguration day that President Biden had issued a number of pardons just a few minutes before leaving office. This seemed to me to be bad timing and likely a bad idea.. When he pardoned Hunter I stated that I thought it was a mistake and that he shouldn’t have done it. But I also said that speaking from a human and humane point of view I understood his motivation–or words to that effect. I just thought that another bunch of pardons did not seem quite right and I disliked the idea of the political boost it might give to the new Administration.

    I was right to an extent, but look what we have to compare it to. Trump pardoned somewhere between 1250(CNN) and 1500(Trump)people later in the day. A comparison of the two actions, both in numbers and legal factors, may be enlightening.

    First, it was not immediately clear to me that Biden’s pardons came in two groups, one early in the day, the other within the last 20 minutes or thereabouts of Trump’s taking over. I thought they all came in the later group. Maybe the media were at fault here or maybe I just didn’t pay close enough attention, because that is not how it happened.

    The first group of Biden pardons was a small one-actually both were small compared to what I had expected from some of the reporting. In the first group he protected Dr Anthony Fauci, Gen Mark Milley and the House of Representatives committee which investigated the Jan 6 issue. This included, of course Liz Cheney who was vice-chair of the committee and Mississippi Rep Benny Thompson who was the chair. Obviously, Liz did the greater part of the work, or at least did more to publicize the committee and the evens of Jan 6.

    In addition to that he pardoned black leader Marcus Garvey, who died more than 80 years ago, as an historical correction of an old injustice. And he pardoned four other people, all found guilty of NON-VIOLENT crimes. To some people, most significantly he commuted the sentence of Native American activist Leonard Peletier, who was serving a life sentence for killing two FBI agents about a half a century ago. He is now 80 and in poor health in prison.

    The most significant of these in current impact are of course Fauci and Milley. Dr Fauci was the voice of science and rationality during the covid crisis. He had been a doctor and a public servant for years, and already around 80 when this began, he played his largest role advising Americans about the covid and trying to help find a protection against it.

    Dr Fauci also challenged Trump in ways that won him the (former)President’s hostility. Now I think first, to be fair, I should concede that Trump had one real victory with the covid. He began and pushed for the effort to develop a vaccine. This was Operation Warp Speed, a combined government-private company effort, and it produced a useful vaccine in less than year. Many lives were saved and many people prevented from illness by this. It worked much faster than most anticipated.

    This was, however, about the end of the Administration’s successes. Trump will always be the guy who suggested shooting disinfectant into one’s body to fight the virus, an incredibly stupid idea opposed by Dr Fauci and many others. He also offered the opinon that covid would disappear with warmer weather. It didn’t.

    Through all of this Dr Fauci was a rock, dispensing knowledge, explanations and encouragement to one and all. But his refusal to let political circumstances affect his science irritated Trump who turned hostile and made vague threats toward him.

    Gen Milley, a distinguished commander, was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He seemed traditionally non-political, for the most part, but did express an opinion now and then including some supporting Biden policies. He particularly drew attention during the campaign when he told an interviewer he thought Trump was a fascist–likely the highest ranking American to say it that openly. He also attracted threats from Trump–a sort of reverse retirement present about the time he left the service. After his retirement he was on the National Infrastructure Advisory Committee and he was removed by Trump from that position about as soon as Trump took office.

    Trump also threatened Liz Cheney whom he accused of treason. In his book, I guess so–she disagreed with him. In any event, such a threat indicates a high degree of hostility and, as Trump has foolishly decided to prove early in his second Administration, he is determined to make good on many–perhaps most–of his threats.

    This being the case I think that it is entirely reasonable that Biden issued early pardons to these three remarkable and patriotic people who have served the US and its citizens so long and so well. It would have been chancy and irresponsible not to have protected them, not only leaving them in danger, but risking further national division if serious measures were taken by the Trump Administration against any of them.

    As for the last minute pardons, Biden was protecting his family. Protective pardons went to his brother, Francis, his brother James and wife Sara, and his sister Valerie and husband, John Owens. The timing on this was pretty bad and one wonders why he didn’t do it earlier. Still, given the nature of Trump’s personality and taste for revenge, it was not a foolish idea to take these people out of his reach. While I think this will have at least a temporary effect on Biden’s reputation, I don’t think it will be a big one.

    Trump has issued around 1200 pardons, maybe as many as 1500(including commutations, which means your legal record is not completely cleared as it is with pardons, but that you get out of jail immediately). These have not, mostly anyway, gone to people whom most would find deserving. They have gone to, among others, thousands of the maniacal mob that stormed the Capitol Building on Jan 6. People(on both sides)died as a result. Many were injured. The US appeared to be teetering on the edge of political instability.

    Many Republicans were forced to say they disagreed with Trump because the national outcry against the mob was so lound. Later on a lot of the leaders of the Party backed down on that and became Trump lap dogs again. The political atmosphere, already soured by the election, was made worse.

    Now most of the people who were imprisoned for Jan 6–nearly all of them, I believe–are free. They will be free to make whatever trouble they like, at least for awhile, One of them has already stated he intends to buy guns. What do you suppose he thinks he might use them for?

    Although I am all for human freedom, including freedom of speech, these people, Proud Boys, Oath Keepers or whoever, are not just ordinary citizens. They are dangerous criminals and a lot of them are willing to perform illegal acts again, possibly violent ones. How they act may even give second thoughts to Trump and his people. But by the time they decide to act(whatever that action might be)the boys may be back in the streets, or even worse, hiding in the woods, polishing their guns and their egos and waiting.

    That this is the case is clearly Trump’s fault. I have nothing further to say on this, except that I hope you consider the two sets of pardons and make your choice.

    , , , ,

  • Ambiguity, Passion, Excellence and Secrets

    “The Martyred” by Richard Kim, published by George Braziller, 1964

    “The Amen Corner” by James Baldwin, 1954

    I am not sure why I chose to begin reading Richard Kim’s “The Martyred” a few weeks ago. I guess it was partly because my wife has a paperback of his later book, “The Innocent” which I see from time to time. I recalled trying it once and quitting, I think because I had read “The Martyred” and this seemed different in some ways, But I’ll have to find out I guess, I can’t say now about that.

    It is ironic, maybe, that about the same time I stared reading this book, South Korea slipped into a series of tragedies and crises which we hope have now ended. We also hope this ambitious and noble people will recover their determination and their belief in individual freedom and get on with their society

    This would be the best way I could think of both to irritate and successfully frustrate Kim Jong Un, whose latest accomplishment has been to send thousands of his troops to Russia where the Russians will use them as more or less cannon fodder against Ukraine In fact, Putin is already doing it.

    I first read “Martyred” years ago, in my twenties or early thirties. I remembered it as a good, well written book about serious issues. But I suspected that I would pick up more on a second reading and I did. It is very nearly a great novel and Kim clearly was a great writer. I believe it attracted some attention from the literary/intellectual community in the 1960’s but it seems to have largely faded from view and is now reportedly out of print.(I’ll bet -a little, anyway–that it’d be worth trying a couple of rare book dealers if you’re interested).

    Broadly speaking, there are two things to discuss here, the meaning or subject of the story and the style, because the style so affects the overall feeling you get from the book. I’ll try the style first.

    This is a book which could be read–particularly if you’re a student of literature in college, or anyway a devoted reader–just for it’s style. Kim was influenced by Albert Camus among others and his style is reminiscent of what little I remember of Camus, who I read a bit many years back. Now I think I’ll take another look at him.

    The style is what many would call “spare.” There are short, declarative sentences. Although there is a great deal of philosophical questioning and wondering, it never devolves into wordiness. Kim was interested in both telling a story and asking questions–perhaps also giving answers but that is another issue–see below. I sometimes like but also am often frustrated by Faulkner’s wandering and wordy approach. It does yield beautiful things sometimes, but not always. If you are sometimes without patience for this type of writing, you may rejoice at Kim. He is deep and searching in ideas, but his sentences get right to the point, more to the point than you may realize at times-the Hemingway of philosophical literature.

    It is a cliche to say something like “Nothing is wasted” in reviewing such a work; I believe it applies here. Another effect it has and which I applaud is that it keeps the story moving, because there is a story being told here, not just a bunch of questions presented. And Kim was, in his way, a superb story teller.

    The story revolves around Captain Lee, a young army intelligence officer and his friend Park, a officer in the South Korean Marines. Both of them were college history teachers when the Korean War broke out with North Korea’s invasion of South in 1950. Lee and Park were apparently both reservist officers because they are immediately assigned to duty in the war.

    Kim moves quickly through the early part of the war. The initial north(Communist)advance is halted deep in South Korea(which almost fell)and after the US/UN invasion at Pusan the South Koreans and their allies counter-attacked. They took over the southern part of North Korea and held it for several months. And Capt Lee is ordered to Pyongyang, the North Korean capital now ruled by the South.

    It is here that he encounters the issue that will dog him for months-puzzle him, challenge him, affect his relationships and cause him(and the reader)to delve deeply into their belief system about the world, its pain and the existence and character of God.

    He is informed that there were 14 ministers who, before the UN rescued the city from the Communists, were captured by the North Koreans and executed for their refusal to cooperate with them. But there are doubts about the story and Capt Lee is assigned by Col Chang, his bitter and sarcastic superior, to find out exactly what happened.

    If the 14 men really were heroes and there can be no doubt of it, then their story would make excellent propaganda to use for rallying the people. But if the truth is less than that, if any of them behaved dishonorably, then the authorities need to know and the truth will be suppressed or at least used sparingly. It is the Captain’s duty to figure this out.

    This leads Capt Lee into a valley of doubt, despair, lies, hope and faith and leaves him questioning just about everything. He is not a particularly religious man as the story begins. He changes some, but not necessarily in the way you expect.

    He learns early in his investigaion that actually only 12 of the ministers were shot by the North. Two of them surviveed. One of them is still in town.

    So Lee goes to the home of Mr Shin, one of the surviving ministers and begins to question him. This is a long, and sometimes difficult trail for Mr Shin to recount or for Capt Lee to accept. Without going into detail, let me just say that not all of the ministers were heroes. Meanwhile, Mr Shin and the Capt become almost friends and the latter watches the older friend slip deeper and deeper into tuberculosis and possible death. And the Capt slips into more and more philosophical confusion.

    The book does not have a satisfactory ending if you want everything tied up in a package of “answers.” It has few answers at all except, perhaps, that the lot of man is to search for some meaning to his life and to the world and that everyone should pursue this. But this is never explicit and I doubt Kim would have thought it likely everyone would make this choice.

    Now here comes the mystery and the doubting. I read several reviews or comments on line from fans(and a couple of non-fans)of the book and I gained some valuable insights from them that have made my own hits and misses here better. But none of them pursued what I thought the most important question.

    For the most part, the ministers and their congregations are portrayed in a way that will be at least partly familiar to most American Protestants, particularly those inclined towards what is usually defined as Evangelical They are Bible conscious and devoted to their faith. Their faith in God is unshakeable, even after the experience of war and oppression most of them have felt They are pious in their relationship with God in a way which which will repel many intellectuals, and unquestioning in a way that many(me included, at some times)will find naive.

    You may believe the above mentioned qualities to be good or bad or a mixture. But one largely indisputable thing is that they are dedicated to their church and to each other and that their faith will hold them–most of them, at least–to the end. And some take comfort in that. And Capt Lee is attracted to it. He does not believe, apparently, but he is attracted by their spirit, if not their belief system

    One of the reviews commented that passion is always there in this book, sometime suppressed(though I’m not sure he said that-the “suppressed” part),but there, and it is passions–the people’s passion for their faith, Capt Lee’s for his duty and for the truth included–that dominate the feeling of the book. I am not going to tell you exactly how it ends, but I will offer this. Capt Lee attends a church service and is moved. It is not clear how far he is moved in the direction of faith, but how far is left undefined. There is no easy answer here and I think that there shouldn’t be, so that’s OK. But the search of Capt Lee, which we follow from one interview and encounter to another, is never totally finished. At the end we don’t know where he is. But then maybe that’s as it should be.

    Despite its heavy themes and its determined seriousness. Kim’s book is what I would call a “fast read,” at least for its type. If you try it you may well finish earlier than you thought-and I hope you’ll try it.

    I thought it was ironic that just about the time I finished “The Martyred” my wife and I and some friends went to a local production of James Baldwin’s “The Amen Corner,” at a local theater, The Weathervane. You have likely heard of Baldwin, at least in passing. He was one of the earlier black American writers to be taken seriously by the larger US intellectual society, and in the 1960’s and after he was often taken quite seriously by this community. And for good reason–though I did not always agree with him and his obsession with race(he had, of course, better reason than I for that obsession)he was a superb writer.. I only realized how good a writer he was, how accomplished at his trade he was, when I re-read something by him in a book club a few years ago.

    “The Amen Corner” is, so far as I am able to tell, his only play and it is beautifully done. It is grinding, depressing and discouraging in many ways as it takes place among poor, black fundamentalist Christians In NYC in the 1950’s. It is also exciting, charismatic, inspiring and gripping to the extent that, as one of the on-line commentators put it, the first act runs about 50 minutes and you get there almost before you know it.

    This is a three act play with two intermissions which runs altogether nearly three hours. That’s OK–you won’t get bored. It is, first of all, a human drama. It is about a small church and its longtime female pastor, Margaret Anderson, a determined lady of about 50 who knows what she believes and spreads the word with vigor, not to say emotional violence. Such a person will naturally have a few non-followers in her group, perhaps some that even might be described in a way as enemies–and she does. But she rules with an iron hand and her knowledge of the Bible and its ways, or at least how she sees its ways.

    She is an effective and strong leader, but not one everyone rallies behind–not every time anyway. And she has had a sad life, in many ways. Married when she was young, she had one son. But she and her husband, Luke, quarreled, and he drank and then he left. And she has been long at least semi- estranged from her son, now a 20 year old piano player who still can do religious music but has been drifting into blues and jazz and away from the church.

    There are many conflicts boiling here and some of them are ready to surface given half a chance. They get it. Luke returns after an absence of about a decade. He is ill with TB, how badly not immediately apparent. But it’s bad enough that Margaret, with doubts, offers him a spare room for at least awhile. But there is no warmth between them, just duty.

    She also has some more intimate conversations with her son. He is honest with her about starting to drink himself, and about his music. He does not hide from her his doubts and disappointments with the church. And she is now unhappy with her two men, both apparently drifting away from her religion which has been the main driving force in her life..

    There are also conflicts within the congregation. Margaret is a strong leader as I said, and as we all know, strong leaders sometimes beget dissatisfied and rebellious followers. This happens to some extent among her parishioners and there are some nasty verbal clashes there, too. So the second and third acts are mainly about conflict, particularly the old conflict with husband Luke.

    The actors the Weathervane recruited for these roles(just about all of them, actually)are truly ideal. The passion, the anger, and a strange kind of eloquence come from them. Margaret and Luke quarrel with a passion which made me feel I was watching a black version of ‘”Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolf?” The parent-child anger-mixed-with love was heartbreaking. The anger that dwelt within Margaret, that pious women, was frightening.

    This is a tragic and abrasive story about the things people do to each other, particularly to those they love or once did; but it’s also about the uses(and misuses) of spirituality and religious impulses and the ways they inhibit a family or a person or an institution, and sometimes take over the whole person or thing.

    Baldwin thought there was a lot wrong with the black inner city church of his youth and I think he was right. He makes this clear with his dialogue and the facts of the lives of his characters. The church often brought oppressive thought, dictatorship and bullying to the fore. And yet, And yet…

    There is something else which is palpable there. There is, mixed in with all these bad things, a strange kind of joy and belonging. Some of it is from the shared experiences and pain of being black in 1950’s America. But a lot of it is–the music.

    Some of the music is depressing, but most is not. It is mostly what we would call gospel music, and I have never been a fan of this kind of music as something to worship to. I’ll take Beethoven and Frans Joseph Hayden for that.(OK, I’m a snob) But I still respond sometimes to gospel music because it has a beat and a sound to it that gets under my skin and makes me want to tap my toe.

    Part of this is because gospel music , as one commentator puts it, is “the roots” of the tree of American Black music and the blues constitute the trunk. Blues and gospel are not exactly the same, one being religious and the other secular, mostly(though I think it is not always easy to say a thing is all one of these). But blues skips along in the same beat as gospel does and it uses the same basis for its sound. The great singers, our commentator said, came out of gospel, the great instrumentation out of blues.

    I have always had a liking for the blues, though as a middle class white I tended toward the softer side of the blues just as I tend toward the softer side of jazz, my favorite. But I am keenly aware of the role blues plays in American religious history, white and black, thought more the latter.

    Along with this I am also taken with the fact that because of music, sometimes, along with other things, such as experiences and deep longings, people often reach what seem to be contradictory decisions in these matters. This is what seems to me to happen to Capt Lee at the end of “The Martyred.” It also is what seems to happen among the characters of “:The Amen Corner” and certainly among the audience we were a part of. About evenly split between black and white theatre goers, I would bet that a large majority of each was put off by a lot of the more fundamentalist-oriented and oppressive teachings of Ms Anderson as they were by a lot of her personality.

    But at the end she breaks down and shows her real humanity and pain. And as she snuggles with her dying husband and retrieves her humanity, her parishioners seem to find an odd joy. As for the audience, disapproving as they might have been of her theology and her religious style, and regardless of the fact that this play is basically a tragedy, it seemed to me that a majority of them left wanting to tap their toes and do the high fives with others. There was a curious enthusiasm for it all, almost an exhilaration, and it was mainly the music that did it, the music and some of those strange contradictory feelings I mentioned above.

    If all of this makes sense to you, well, good. If it doesn’t, well maybe that’s good too–I plan to reflect on it and I may comment on it again. In the meantime, if you reside in the Akron-Cleveland area and if you like the theatre or music or stories about human doubts and conflicts, then go see “The Amen Corner.” I don’t know if you all would like it, but I pretty much guarantee you won’t be bored.

    , , , ,