Foreign Film Favorites 2019

Lists of top films will often appear in newspapers and online at this time of the year. Rarely do these lists include foreign films. I'm sure that most foreign films can be as bad as most American films but the cream of the crop are well worth watching even with subtitles. These films open a window into other cultures while at the same time proving that we are all basically the same. Here are eight films that my wife and I enjoyed this year.*

The Lunch Box: This 2014 film is a charming tale of love and loneliness set in contemporary India. In the bustling metropolis of Mumbai, housewives still prepare hot lunches for their office- working husbands. A dedicated courier service delivers the lunch box right to the desk each day. This is the story of two people whose lives were changed when one lunch box was delivered to the wrong desk.


Hobson’s Choice: David Lean directed this 1954 black and white comedy about an overbearing widower whose three daughters work in his shoe shop but who are determined to get put from under his tyrannical rule. Charles Laughton and Brenda De Banzie star along with a young John Mills.


Bread and Tulips: By chance an Italian housewife gets separated from her husband and two sons on a bus tour. She winds up in Venice and discovers a new life.This heartwarming 2000 comedy from Italy won 9 “David di Donatello” awards (the Italian equivalent of the Oscars), including best picture, best actor, best actress, and best director.

Floating Weeds: An aging actor takes his theatrical troupe to a small seaside town where he reunites with his former lover and their illegitimate son to the chagrin of his current mistress. This 1959 color film by famed Japanese director Yasujiro Ozu is often found on all time top film lists.

Breaker Morant: Based on a true story, Edward Woodward stars as the controversial Australian folk hero Lt. Harry “Breaker” Morant in this 1980 film. As South Africa’s Boer War draws to a close, Morant and two fellow Australian soldiers are court-martialed for the murder of a civilian. Their only hope lies in a small town lawyer who fights passionately for their lives. Directed by Bruce Beresford, this 1980 film won 10 Australian Film Institute awards.

Too Bad She’s Bad: This 1955 Italian comedy stars a young Sophia Loren, an unknown Marcello Mastroianni, and famed movie star and director Vittorio De Sica. Loren plays a beautiful petty thief working with DeSica, her con-man father, while Mastroianni plays a naïve cabbie caught in their clutches. Artfully directed by Alessandro Blasetti, the film is a delightful romp, the first pairing of Loren and Mastroianni, not to mention the historic first appearance together of these three legends of Italian cinema.

Ballad of a Soldier. In this 1958 film, Russian soldier Alyosha Skvortsov is granted a visit with his mother after an act of heroism during WWII. As he journeys home, Alyosha encounters the devastation of his war-torn country, witnesses glimmers of hope among the people, and falls in love. With its poetic visual imagery, Ballad of a Soldier is a meditation on the effects of war, and a milestone in Russian cinema.

Always: Sunset on Third Street. This heart- warming Japanese comedy is a nostalgic look back at Tokyo in the late 50’s, poised on the brink of an economic explosion after defeat in WW II. Released in 2006, the film won Japan’s equivalent of the Oscars in 13 of the 14 categories in which it was nominated.

*My wife and I are avid film fans but rarely go to the movies anymore. We prefer to stay home and watch DVDs from Netflix or my own collection. I prefer to use a DVD rather than streaming because the DVD often comes with commentary and special features that can be interesting and informative.

###

Christmas Message 2019

First Lady lights the Nation's Christmas Tree

By now practically everyone is familiar with the Grinch, the popular figure in the famous story by Dr. Seuss who tried to steal Christmas by stealing all the trappings of Christmas from the children of Whoville. He crept into their homes on the eve of Christmas and took all the presents, the lights, the trees, and even the holiday meal. Next morning, he discovered that he had not stolen Christmas at all. The people were still celebrating the wonderful holiday.

There are many grinches in our society today. For years there has been an annual attack on Christmas from those who object to the holiday.  Attempts are made to ban Christmas displays from public places. In schools, Christmas pageants have been replaced by Winter celebrations. For some, the greeting, Merry Christmas, is objectionable and replaced by Happy Holidays. Occasionally, a few fanatics even resort to outright vandalism.

In response, Christian apologist often react in an un-christian like manner. Their first instinct is to fight back as if statues and trees and lights were more than merely symbolic. People who believe in the true message of Christmas, like the residents of Whoville, don't need all the trimmings to celebrate. It is such a great story that no matter how hard the grinches of the world try, they will never be able to overcome it.

This year President Trump and his wife Melania presided over the lighting to the Christmas tree in the Nation's capital. After the First lady did the ceremonial lighting, the President gave a brief message that it worth reporting. Here is an excerpt:

In 1923, President Calvin Coolidge lit the first National Christmas Tree.
Later that night, African American community centers held an outdoor worship service on these grounds. And during that service, the Washington Monument was illuminated with a beautiful cross, a powerful reminder of the meaning of Christmas.

More than 2,000 years ago, a brilliant star shone in the East. Wise men traveled far, far afield. I mean, they were a long distance away. And they came and they stood with us under the star, where they found the Holy Family in Bethlehem. As the Bible tells us, when the Wise Men “had come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary, his mother, and fell down and worshipped him.”

Christians give thanks that the Son of God came into the world to save humanity. Jesus Christ inspires us to love one another with hearts full of generosity and grace....

And at Christmas, we remember this eternal truth: Every person is a beloved child of God. As one grateful nation, we praise the joy of family, the blessings of freedom, and the miracle of Christmas.

On behalf of Melania and our entire family, Merry Christmas and God bless you all. Thank you very much. Merry Christmas, everybody. Thank you.

Merry Christmas and a Happy 2020 to all.

###

More Film Noir Favorites

In the past few years I have become a big fan of a certain kind of American film from the 1940s and 50s. They are primarily black and white, dark crime dramas that French film makers and critics called film-noir when they discovered American films after the liberation of France in 1945. The term film-noir refers not only to the dark themes of these movies but also to the nighttime settings and the often startling contrasts between light and dark, black and white.

Originally, these films were low budget productions usually designed to be seen as the second feature on traditional Hollywood double bills. Nevertheless, today many are regarded as ground-breaking classics. They featured great directors, actors, writers, and film craftsmen and craftswomen. To fill the insatiable demand for movies in America, Hollywood even imported great talents from abroad. In my opinion, film-noir represents a short-lived American film renaissance that came to an end with the advent of television and technicolor.

 Not only are these films gripping, extremely well-told stories with masterful directing and acting, but also they bring me back to the days of my childhood. In the background I can see a world that is no more: the dark dingy streets, the small apartments, the cars, the old telephones, and the incessant cigarette smoking and drinking.

Below find brief descriptions of eight of these films viewed in 2019. For others click on the film noir label to the right or use the search box.

Dick Powell and Claire Trevor

Murder, My Sweet. Dick Powell stars as private eye Philip Marlowe in this 1945 film adaptation of a classic LA crime novel by famed writer Raymond Chandler. Powell departs from his boy next door type to play one of film’s classic detectives. Claire Trevor plays the femme fatale.

Crime Wave. Sterling Hayden plays a hard-boiled cop who is sure that a parolee in not going straight after a series of hold-ups. Gene Nelson and Phyllis Kirk also star as the parolee and his wife in this 1953 drama set in the mean streets of LA. A young Charles Bronson, then acting under the name Charles Buchinsky, appears as one of the gang members.

Tension. Richard Basehart and Audrey Totter, one of film noir’s classic femme fatales, star in this 1949 film about a mild-mannered druggist whose wife is two-timing him. With his dreams for a home and family shattered, he plots revenge. The beautiful Cyd Charisse appears in a rare non-dancing role.

The Postman Always Rings Twice. John Garfield and Lana Turner co-star in this 1946 film adaptation of James M. Cain’s classic crime novel. Garfield plays a drifter who stops at a roadside diner with a “Man Wanted” sign. He discovers that the sign has a double meaning. Lana Turner makes one of the great entrances in film history.

Lana Turner

The Lady in the Lake. Robert Montgomery stars as private eye Philip Marlowe in this 1945 film adaptation of another classic LA crime novel by writer Raymond Chandler. Montgomery also directs in an innovative style that puts the viewer into the action. Famed femme-fatale Audrey Totter co-stars.

Side Street. Farley Granger and Kathy O’ Donnell, who clicked in the film noir classic, They Live by Night, once again appear as two young lovers in this 1950 film directed by Anthony Mann. As usual, after one mistake their lives go from bad to worse. The film ends with one of the first urban car chases in film history.

The Brothers Rico. Richard Conte stars in this 1957 film as a businessman who has managed to escape his past as an accountant with the mob. However, his former boss calls him back to find his two younger brothers who are on the lam from both the police and the mob. Based on a story by famed Belgian crime novelist George Simenon. Diane Foster co-stars.

Atlantic City. Burt Lancaster stars in this 1980 film as an aging gangster who ekes out a meager living as a numbers runner in an Atlantic City that has seen better days. Famed French director Louis Malle directed this award winning film that co-stars a young Susan Sarandon.

Susan Sarandon and Burt Lancaster

###

Note; Most of these films can be viewed on Netflix or Youtube. I prefer to use DVDs because they often include excellent commentaries, background information, and subtitles for people like myself who are hearing impaired.

President Trump and Fairness

A recent article in the Connecticut Mirror, an online newspaper, announced a Navy award of over $22 Billion to Groton’s Electric Boat company to build nine or possibly ten Virginia class attack submarines. The article quoted Connecticut’s Democratic leaders including Second District Congressman Joe Courtney, the State’s two Senators, and even Governor Lamont in praise of the huge boost to the State’s economy.

The article failed to give President Trump or the Trump Administration any credit for the Navy’s award. It quoted Connecticut Democratic politicians but did not even mention the President’s name. After all, the President is Commander-in-Chief of the Navy. 

President Trump referred to this reluctance to give credit or even just report significant news in his recent joint press conference with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. In the course of that press conference, the questioning turned to Korea and the President took the opportunity to point out that in the past year his administration had succeeded in getting South Korea to contribute $500 Million more to the cost of stationing American troops in South Korea.

He asked the reporters if they were even aware of this news, and urged them to tell the story, especially since he was the first President in decades to ask the very prosperous South Koreans to pay their fair share.

No matter what you think of President Trump, you will have to admit that fairness is an important word or concept for him. One of the reasons the NATO meeting turned contentious was that the President repeated his claim that other NATO members were not paying their agreed upon, fair share of the cost of their own defense. For too many years they had been content to leave the lion’s share of the burden to the USA.

The President also uses fairness to describe his position on trade and tariffs.  To the dismay of the Wall Street Journal and other conservatives, he claims to be a “fair” trader and not a “free” trader. If the Chinese insist on putting high tariffs on American cars and motorcycles, he will retaliate by raising tariffs on their manufactured products. 

The economic arguments for or against tariffs don’t seem to concern him. He just argues that he will not play the chump, as his predecessors have done, and give away the store to China or any other country.

Fairness is also at the heart of his treatment of the press. Who can blame him for lashing out at the media or taking to Twitter to make his case. After almost three years in office, few have bothered to discuss or assess what he and his administration have actually done in office so far. There has been a steady flow of vitriolic venom directed against his person, his words and even gestures, but no real discussion or evaluation of his public policies or actions. 

Speaking of the press, I thought the President’s comportment in the press conference with Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO Secretary General, was remarkable in many ways. He did not think it necessary to dominate the conference but listened attentively to his ally’s comments and allowed him plenty of time to participate.

He then took questions that he answered with dignity, calm, and intelligence even when they inevitably swerved off the subject of NATO and on to impeachment. It was a remarkable performance. He spoke off the cuff in striking contrast to his predecessor in the Oval office, who rarely spoke without a teleprompter. 

In the press conference the President came off as a very magnanimous person, in striking contrast to those who are calling for his impeachment. He is not an ordinary politician. How else can one explain the $22 Billion award to a Connecticut company, one of the bluest states in the Country? 

The Senators from Connecticut have been two of his harshest critics over the past three years. My own representative from prosperous Fairfield County is one of the leaders in Congress in the impeachment process. I can’t think of any other President who would have allowed the Navy to award such a contract to a State from which he had nothing to gain politically. 

It’s just not fair to constantly blame and deride the President, and not give him credit for anything, especially when the Navy contract will provide much needed aid to the Nation’s defense, and the Connecticut economy.

### 

No Thanksgiving

                                       

I have not watched more than a few minutes of the debates between the candidates for the Democratic Presidential nomination,but I will guess that none of the many candidates ever took the opportunity to say how fortunate they were to live in the USA. 

Senator Elizabeth Warren is a good example of someone who admittedly rose from the fringes of poverty to become a multi-millionaire, law professor, US Senator, and now among the leaders for her party’s nomination for the Presidency. Where is the gratitude? Does she realize that her story could probably happen only in America?

The other candidates seem to be cut from the same cloth. It is true that former Vice President Joe Biden is a white male but his family fell on hard times when he was a child. Nevertheless, after virtually a lifetime in government, he became Vice-President and now at age 77 hopes to be elected President. In the course of his public service, he also managed to become a multi-millionaire. 

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an avowed Socialist, has been complaining about America for most of his 78 years. According to him, everything is wrong in America. Yet, despite the fact that he represents one of the smallest states in the country, he is a leading candidate for the Presidency.

The other candidates back in the pack also find it hard to find anything good in America. According to them, Sexism, Racism, and Homophobia are rampant.  Nevertheless, does Senator Kamela Harris of California, a woman of color, ever publicly give thanks that her parents migrated to this country? Does Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey ever show gratitude that a black man could make it into the Senate from the state of New Jersey with its majority white population, and now even aspire to the Presidency? Where is the gratitude from Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana? How did this openly gay politician manage to overcome pervasive homophobia and now have the opportunity to run for President? 

These candidates don’t seem to realize that there are not that many countries in the world where women, minorities, and homosexuals can even aspire to leadership and success. China is rounding up minorities and putting them into re-education camps. What is the status of women in Saudi Arabia and other Moslem countries? In Russia, homosexuals must stay in the closet.

Why doesn’t anyone of these politicians realize that they could set themselves apart from the pack if they would only show some gratitude for what America has done for them and for most of its people? 

They don’t have to mimic President Trump and claim they want to make America great. They need only say that it is a good country most of whose people, laws, and institutions are basically good. Of course, they could point out that there are things that need to be fixed and that they could work to fix them. 

Last Sunday a men’s organization at my church took up a collection to provide coats for children in the Bridgeport area. I suppose that only a small percentage of children would have been without coats this winter.  Let’s say it’s 5 percent. Progressives will likely be shocked that there are poor children without coats and blame Capitalism and income inequality even though the population of Bridgeport is overwhelmingly Democratic. It will never occur to them to be thankful for the fact that 95 percent of children do have coats. Moreover, I also doubt they will utter thanks for those private citizens who take up collections to provide for the needy.

Also last weekend, a large group of protestors held up the completion of the Yale Harvard football classic to urge the universities to divest themselves of any holdings in fossil fuel companies. I wonder if these climate-change protestors realized that most couldn’t have even driven to the Yale Bowl without cars powered by fossil fuel. I also doubt they would ever offer thanks to those companies that provide the oil and gas that will keep them and most of the poor children in Bridgeport warm this winter.

My wife and I have had much to be thankful for over our 80 years. Our grandparents came to this country from Italy with nothing but their own traditions, customs, and religion. Like most children of immigrants our parents came to love America and worked hard to provide for their children and give them a standard of living that is still the envy of the world. 

Even today, in a country that seems hopelessly divided politically, there is more reason to hope than fear. The very ardor of our disagreements is a source of strength especially when we consider that in many parts of the world, there is no room for deviation from the party line. 

Happy Thanksgiving.

###

Tax the Warrens

                                             

Senator Warren and Spouse

Even before the first Democratic debate last Spring, I believed that Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts would be the strongest candidate in the large field of Democratic contenders. She shows maturity and at age 70 does not appear over the hill like former Vice President Joe Biden or Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the other two candidates leading in the polls.  

Of course, the fact that Warren is a woman is a big plus in modern politics but her maturity inspires more confidence than other female candidates like Kamela Harris or Tulsi Gabbard who are both fading in the polls. Nevertheless, currently only 20% of potential Democratic voters support her. Could it be that even Democratic voters are skeptical of her proposals to tax the rich to pay for free everything for everyone else? 

The assets of Senator Warren and her husband, a long time Harvard Law professor, would appear to total more than $10 million. They own a home in Cambridge valued at around $3 Million, and a condo in D.C. worth about $800000. However, most of their assets seem to be in retirement accounts. They both have accounts with the Teachers Insurance and Annuity company with a combined value of about $4 Million.  

Ironically, these accounts are in 403b or defined contribution tax-deferred plans that left-wing Democratic leaders and public employee unions decry as inherently risky and dangerous since they are usually invested in a broad cross section of the American economy and are subject to market fluctuations. Nevertheless, most college professors and administrators have most of their retirement assets in such accounts that have performed well over the years.

 Perhaps this is why Senator Warren calls herself a Capitalist. Moreover, in true Capitalist fashion the she and her husband have chosen to shield their assets from taxation. Not only are their retirement contributions not considered taxable income each year, but the build-up in value is not taxed until they choose to make withdrawals in retirement.  In addition, the capital appreciation on their Cambridge home and Washington D.C. condo is not taxed until they choose to sell them. 

Why did they choose to defer the taxes on their earned income? Can they be blamed for not paying their fair share? I suspect that their reasons were the same as anyone’s. They were willing to save a portion of their income each year to provide for their retirement. They chose to do without the income to make sure that they would be comfortable in retirement. The government even encouraged them to do so by providing tax incentives to these plans. Who can blame them for taking advantage of the opportunity?

It is true that Warren and her husband are not billionaires, and Senator Warren is only planning to place a sur-tax on billionaires. Perhaps she and other Progressives think that billionaires have more than they need but does she and her husband really need $4 million in the stock market or a $3 Million home for a comfortable retirement? 

It will not be long before Progressives start coming after millionaires like Senator Warren. Socialist Bernie Sanders hopes to tax billionaires out of existence in fifteen years. Who will then to left to pay taxes? The wealth re-distribution proposals put forward by Senator Warren and Senator Sanders are real examples of killing the goose that laid the golden egg. 

According to government statistics, in 2016 the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent paid roughly $538 billion, or 37.3 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 90 percent paid about $440 billion or 30.6 percent of all income taxes. 

It is hard to say how long the economic boom caused by the income tax reform sponsored by President Trump and the Republican party will last. But for now the country is enjoying record levels of income, productivity and unemployment. Of course, Democrats like Senator Warren cannot acknowledge such achievements despite the fact that her retirement accounts have probably grown dramatically in the past three years. 

In the words of the immortal Shakespeare, “Methinks the lady doth protest too much.”

###

Effects of the Industrial Revolution

My high school granddaughter asked me to help her with a recent assignment about the Industrial Revolution. It brought to mind my college teaching experience of over fifty years ago when I taught a unit on the Industrial Revolution as part of a basic course in Western Civilization. I thought then and still believe today that the Industrial Revolution was one of the most significant developments in the history of the world.

Try to imagine a world today without the following:

Electricity

Clean water delivered by pipeline to your home

Modern sewers and waste removal systems

Automobiles

Home heating without firewood

Computers

Televisions

Air Conditioning in homes and cars

Trains, Planes, and Buses

Indoor Plumbing—before the IR there was no such thing.

Elevators

Washing Machines for clothes and dishes

Hospitals with their incredible technology

Cell Phones—most important of all!

It is hard to believe but our ancestors before the Industrial Revolution had none of these essential elements of modern life. Actually, many parts of the world today still live in the pre-industrial age without many of the items listed above. 

Industrial Revolution is the term given to the transformation of manufacturing from homes and shops to factories employing hundreds or even thousands. The transformation began in Great Britain in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries and eventually spread all over the world. However, before there could be an industrial revolution, there had to be three other revolutionary developments. 

First, there was a Demographic Revolution involving a substantial increase in population. This increase happened not so much because of a rise in the birth rate but because of a decline in the death or mortality rate due to a dramatic drop in infant mortality, a drop caused by advances in diet and sanitation. For example, in Italy in 1860, 232 of every 1000 infants died in the first two years of life but 60 years later only 127 of 1000 infants died during the same period. 

An Agricultural Revolution accompanied the Demographic Revolution. Human ingenuity devised new methods of farming, land management, and animal husbandry to feed the growing population. While doomsayers like the British clergyman Thomas Malthus were predicting mass starvation, they could not predict that the profit motive and human resourcefulness would provide for the needs of an ever increasing population. 

A Transportation Revolution also accompanied the Industrial Revolution. The nineteenth century was the great age of canal and railroad building. At the same time, steam power replaced wind power as a safer and more reliable source of energy. The revolution in means of transportation allowed mass migrations of people from rural areas to the urban centers of manufacturing and commerce. It also allowed goods and services to be delivered faster and at less cost. 

From the beginning the tremendous social, economic, and political changes caused by these revolutions had both good and bad consequences. Rural areas lost population and industrial cities became overcrowded. Writers and social commentators were quick to point out the terrible working conditions in the factories, and the deplorable living conditions in the slums surrounding the factories. 

Moreover, critics objected, as they do today, to the incredible disparities in wealth and income between the factory owners and financiers (capitalists) who profited and the workers who toiled. The misery of the urban poor could not be overlooked. Nevertheless, in countries that did not industrialize, like Ireland or southern Italy, the poor were even worse off and literally starved to death either from actual food shortages or malnutrition. Why else would millions from Ireland and Italy leave their beautiful countries to live in the overcrowded cities of the New World?

I suspect that the Industrial Revolution still has a bad name today. Capitalist is a term of opprobrium and even capitalists shun to describe themselves as such. Even union members whose pensions are invested throughout the American industrial sector do not realize that they are capitalists. Of course, Progressives are outspoken in decrying the terrible effects of corporate greed and inequality.

It’s true that few of us will have the income or assets of CEOs, politicians, Rock stars, TV personalities, or professional athletes. But more than anywhere else in the world, we do have the opportunity to acquire and keep property. We can even buy and sell shares in the companies we work for. You may call it Capitalism but I prefer to call it a free-enterprise system. Whatever you call it, it has worked to raise the standard of living in this country to the highest level that has ever been seen in the world. 

My granddaughter’s class was asked to evaluate the relative merits of Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism. All three systems were responses to the Industrial Revolution. You can judge for yourself which of the three systems did the best job of providing the necessities of life listed at the beginning of this essay. Before the Industrial Revolution, as one seventeenth century commentator noted, life was “nasty, brutish, and short.”

###

Marijuana in Massachusetts

Line outside marijuana dispensary

The widespread use of marijuana and its growing social acceptability has now led to a political movement to legalize its use all over the country. Recently neighboring Massachusetts has legalized the sale and use of recreational marijuana or cannabis. Politicians have been quick to see the possibilities of tax revenues from legalized pot sales, and neighboring states like New York and Connecticut are thinking of getting in the game. 

My wife and I have always loved the Berkshires, that hilly, heavily wooded section of western Massachusetts and still like to go up for an occasional overnight in Great Barrington. The motel we stay at is near a cannabis dispensary and it is somehow sad to see the long line of people waiting outside from morning to evening to make their buy. Most of them look like middle-aged men with time on their hands.

On our most recent trip we had an even sadder experience. We often visit a men’s clothing store in a nearby town that is the epitome of the kind of old-time men’s clothing store that has disappeared practically everywhere else. I’m not a clothes horse but my wife loves it and she picks out most of my clothes there. We are regulars and have come to be friends with the charming and nattily dressed owner who always regales us with stories about his wife and children.

On this visit we sensed that something was wrong. He responded to our how are you with a modest ok but his face looked sad. My wife is good at engaging in conversation and while picking out some pants for me to try on, she got the story. Since we last saw our friend, his daughter had been in a horrible automobile accident that had practically taken her life. She was the apple of his eye and he always told us about how well she was doing in college. 

We didn’t get all the details but she apparently had pulled over to the side of the road to check out something with her car. She was then hit by a speeding car driven by two seventeen year-old boys. The boys had been using marijuana. The girl suffered an incredible amount of brain damage, and is still in a special hospital. Her brain plates have had to be removed because of swelling and she goes in and out of consciousness. She has difficulty recognizing her father and mother.

Incredibly, the driver of the car that hit her was released. To the surprise of the state police who came to the scene of the accident, the District Attorney has dropped charges. She is a young politician and marijuana advocate who apparently has political ambitions. The family had to hire a lawyer to arraign the driver. Her father does not want the boys put in prison but believes there should be some punishment. 

On an earlier visit to Great Barrington we actually talked with some people from New York who had come to Massachusetts to purchase marijuana. They admitted that they could have easily obtained it illegally at home, but preferred a variety that was available in the Great Barrington dispensary. We met in a restaurant parking lot after dinner and they were in a talkative mood. One older woman said that she used it because it was the only thing they gave her relief from chronic aches and pains. A somewhat younger social worker admitted that she used it just to get high once in a while. She explained that she was not a drinker and that she used marijuana for the same reason that someone might have a few drinks at a party or bar. A young man was with them who had apparently come along as the designated driver. These people were pleasant, ordinary people who did not look like drug fiends. 

I think it inevitable that marijuana sales will be legalized in Connecticut and New York. People will say that marijuana use causes no more auto accidents than drinking or texting. Advocates will discount the cancer risks of smoking marijuana even though studies show that more carcinogens can be present than in cigarettes. Moreover, it will be pointed out that millions will continue to use marijuana whether it is legal or not. Finally, politicians will be attracted by the possibility of not only increased tax revenue, but also private profit opportunities. 

The drive to legalize marijuana reminds me of the way cigarettes became popular during my childhood days. Although cigarettes were not illegal, we were warned they could stunt our growth. Nevertheless, they were glamorized in the 1940s and 1950s by the film and advertising industries. Of course, we had no idea that they could cause cancer.

Our favorite celebrities and athletes were not only smokers but they were also featured in innumerable ads in print or on the radio. In these days before TV, incessant and glamorous smoking was evident in the movies we attended every Saturday afternoon. Stars like Humphrey Bogart a chain smoker who would eventually die of lung cancer, smoked constantly in his films. Baseball stars smoked in the dugout during the actual games, and endorsed their favorite brands in advertisements. I don’t know why I never took up smoking. Maybe, I could never see myself as the rugged, outdoor Marlboro Man.

Over the past 50 years, cigarette smoking has become viewed as a disgusting and dangerous habit. It’s not just the cancer connection, but it has also fallen out of favor in the media. At the same time, pot smoking has grown in popularity among the celebrities of a new generation. They have spearheaded a cultural revolution that has made opposition to marijuana seem pig-headed and obsolete. 

Even though marijuana may be legalized, its use could still have the same terrible consequences that resulted from cigarette smoking. We require cancer warning labels on cigarettes, ban their use in public places, and even try to tax them out of existence. They can no longer be advertised, and have virtually disappeared in movies. How long will it take the film and entertainment industry to turn on marijuana? One just has to look at that line in Great Barrington to see that it isn’t that glamorous.

###

Trump, Biden, and Ukraine

Ukraine is Weak

After two and a half years of relentlessly calling for the impeachment of President Trump, the Democrats have finally found an offense that might come under the heading of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” In a July 25 phone conversation with recently elected Ukrainian President Zelensky, President Trump asked his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. In addition, he asked him to look into the activities of former Vice-President Joe Biden and his son involving corruption in the Ukraine itself.

As everyone must know by now, President Trump’s conversation was leaked to a House committee chaired by Democrat Adam Schiff. The outcry prompted the White House to release a transcript of the conversation. Here is what President Trump said in paragraph 7 of the transcript. 

I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’ve surrounded yourself with some of the same people.

President Trump’s request “to do us a favor” came only after effusive personal and political compliments from the Ukrainian President who repeatedly expressed his willingness to cooperate with the United States in many matters.

I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.

Apparently, President Trump took these remarks about cooperation as an invitation to bring up the question of Ukrainian influence in the 2016 election that, of course, had occurred before Zelensky was elected.

The Ukrainian President responded that he was more than willing to look into the matter. 

Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United States and Ukraine. … I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly. That I can assure you.

Apparently pleased with these remarks, President Trump then raised a related issue about past Ukrainian corruption. 

Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. …The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.

These are the two statements that have led House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to open the doors into a formal impeachment inquiry. The first charge can be dismissed out of hand. For two and a half years the Democrats have been clamoring for an investigation of foreign influence in the 2016 election. How can President Trump be blamed for now asking the recently elected Ukrainian President to investigate his country’s involvement? 

The second statement is more serious. Can the President of the United States ask a foreign government to investigate charges of political corruption in its country that might involve an American political opponent? Does that constitute a “high crime and misdemeanor?”

It is hard to doubt that President Trump had a political motive for seeking information on the activities of Vice-President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, in the Ukraine during the administration of President Obama. Nevertheless, why shouldn’t a President be able to seek information on what happened to more than a billion dollars of aid that the United States gave to Ukraine during the previous administration? 

Commentators have been complaining that President Trump has sat on almost a half billion dollars of aid to Ukraine for months but it is undeniable that during the Obama administration, Vice-President Joe Biden bragged about withholding a billion dollars of aid to Ukraine until that country dismissed a prosecutor investigating a company that employed Biden’s son as a director with a $600000 annual salary.

President Zelensky openly admitted that Ukraine’s prior government had been full of corruption. Why would it be wrong for President Trump to ask for an investigation to see if prior aid to Ukraine had been misused before releasing any more funds?

Although the Democrats in the House of Representatives will proceed with impeachment of President Trump, it would appear that the political damage to Joe Biden will be much greater. He was already losing ground in the polls and this latest revelation will be hard to deal with in upcoming debates. How will he explain that while he was in charge of investigating corruption in Ukraine, his own son received an annual salary of $600000 from the very company that was under investigation?

Ukrainian Scorecard

###

Trump Impeachment Joke

Presidents Zelensky and Trump

At the end of my last post I engaged in a little conspiracy theorizing of my own. I admitted that I had been naive in hoping, after President Trump's inauguration over two and a half years ago, that people would look at the deeds of his administration and "not his words, or past behavior." Although opposition politicians and liberal commentators were claiming that the Trump Presidency would not last more than a few weeks, or that the country would go down the drain, I thought it best to wait and see. But now, 

  I have come to believe that the whole Russia collusion issue was just a smoke screen designed by the President’s opponents to drive any Trump achievements off the headlines. Now that the Mueller investigation has turned up nothing, the opposition has come up with other headline grabbing issues like Insanity, White Supremacy, and even Impeachment.

Sure enough, Impeachment has reared its head as a result of the leaking of a document from a whistleblower in the intelligence community about President Trump's conversation with the President of the Ukraine, himself a former popular comedian. Even though Progressives in the Democratic party have been clamoring for President Trump's impeachment from day one, Nancy Pelosi, their leader in the House of Representatives, had held out against impeachment. 

Apparently, she finally had to bow to the pressure. Immediately, the media had to jump on board. My local newspaper threw all caution to the winds with a long lead editorial supporting impeachment. I read the editorial and could not find among the verbiage any real grounds for impeachment. I wrote the following to the newspaper.

In a lengthy editorial the CT Post strongly supported the impeachment of President Trump. It claimed that since his inauguration the President has engaged in self-enrichment and obstruction of justice. I am a longtime subscriber but do not recall reading anything in the past two and a half years in the paper that details these charges.

Please provide the evidence for self-aggrandizement and obstruction of justice that amount to “high crimes and misdemeanors” especially since the exhaustive Mueller report found none. 

The paper printed the letter today under another lengthy editorial that included some of the President’s misdeeds. Although the paper did not mention “high crimes and misdemeanors,” it did claim “there is already a mountain of evidence implicating President Donald Trump with conduct far outside the accepted norms of a democratic leader.”

Here is the mountain of evidence. 

For instance, the U.S. Constitution forbids federal officeholders from receiving any gifts or payments from foreign entities, but in the same phone call with the Ukrainian President we see evidence that Trump is in violation. “I stayed in the Trump Tower,” President Volodyrmyr Zelensky says of his last trip to the U.S. Since Trump never divested himself from his business and continues to profit from it, he is in violation of the Constitution’s emoluments clause, according to many legal scholars, and it’s just one of countless examples on that score.”

Of course, not one of the countless examples is listed. Next, the editorial states that the Mueller report found “multiple occasions when the President apparently obstructed justice” but also fails to point out any of the occasions.

The mountain of evidence seems more like the proverbial molehill. A visiting dignitary checks into the Trump Tower and that represents a violation of the Constitution. I wonder if any foreign dignitaries put Heinz Ketchup on their hamburgers when visiting the country when John Kerry was Secretary of State. Would it have been a violation of the Constitution if President Trump had accepted an invitation from President Zelensky to watch him perform at a comedy club in Kiev?  

If the Democrats want to find self-aggrandizement in office holders, they just have to look in the mirror.  How did ex-President Obama, a former community organizer, manage to buy a $14 Million vacation home in trendy Martha’s Vineyard? How did former Vice-President Biden’s son manage to get a $50000 monthly salary from a Ukrainian gas company with no qualifications whatsoever? If President Zelensky ever returns to comedy, he probably has found plenty of material in American politics.

###

President Trump's Brand of War

President Trump has just parted ways with John Bolton, his National Security Advisor. It is difficult to determine what particular bit of advice led to the rupture. Was it the recent last minute cancellation of the President’s planned Camp David meeting with representatives of the government of Afghanistan, and the Taliban? Perhaps, it was a difference of opinion on the importance of the recent exchange of prisoners (hostages) between Russia and the Ukraine, a development that President Trump praised.

It would seem more likely that the resignation of Bolton was the result of a series of differences that stemmed from a fundamental difference of approach. Bolton was a well-known “hawk” who had even publicly discussed the merits of preventive military strikes against North Korea and Iran before taking his post in the Trump Administration.

President Trump, despite his talk of American greatness and fervent praise of the military, has consistently expressed his willingness to deal and negotiate with America’s perceived enemies. Political commentators on both the left and the right like to characterize him as a madman, a psychotic, or at least mentally unstable. But maybe, he is just crazy like a fox.

The President has consistently advocated economic rather than military confrontation. He has imposed economic sanctions on Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and even Venezuela. Moreover, he has used tariffs as a form of threat to bring enemies, as well as friends to the bargaining table without firing a shot.

Politicians and political commentators can debate the pros and cons of tariffs ad nauseum but there seems to be no doubt that they can be used as a weapon. It certainly seems clear that the autocrats in Russia and China understand. For years the government of China has imposed high tariffs on imported goods to support its own manufacturing capabilities as well as an enormous military build-up. More than a Communist country, China resembles an old-fashioned mercantilist state that seeks power through trade and currency manipulation.

In a letter to the Wall Street Journal, Peter Navarro, President Trump’s chief trade advisor, recently stated that 75000 factories had been closed in the USA under the previous two administrations and relocated abroad. Coincidentally, the paper also featured an op-ed by the President of the company that manufactures Penn tennis balls. He complained that President Trump’s tariffs on imports from China were making a serious impact on his American owned company.

At the recently completed U.S. Tennis Open, Penn’s rival manufacturer, Wilson, was the ball of choice. Although a US company, Penn’s balls are made in China. As a result, they are having difficulty competing with Wilson whose balls are made in Thailand which is so far exempt from the Trump tariffs. Moreover, Wilson, a famous American brand, has just been acquired by a Chinese company, an obvious move to circumvent the tariffs.

The Penn executive complained of unfair competition but he did not bother to explain why his company had built its manufacturing facility in China in the first place. Why, for that matter, did Wilson move its factory to Thailand? Is it so hard to make tennis balls? Obviously, both companies found it profitable to shift their plants overseas due to a combination of high corporate tax rates in America and foreign subsidies during prior administrations.

It seems to me that engaging in economic warfare is far preferable than engaging in outright military action. It would be even better if economic negotiations could be used to lessen tensions throughout the world. We should, for example, have some real collusion with Russia and help it to become a prosperous country after a century of Communist failure.

The Trump administration has forged a new trade-deal with Japan, one of the world’s largest economies. It has re-designed the trade pact with Canada and Mexico, a deal that just awaits approval by the Democrats in the House of Representatives. It has been trying to forge a workable deal with the Chinese. What is so crazy about these efforts?

After President Trump’s inaugural, I believed that time would tell. Remember that some thought he would not last more than a few weeks, and that some even plotted his overthrow. Others felt that the country would go down the drain. Did any of his critics envision a booming economy?

I hoped that people would look at the deeds of the President’s administration and not his words, or past behavior. Now, I realize that I was naïve. I have come to believe that the whole Russia collusion issue was just a smoke screen designed by the President’s opponents to drive any Trump achievements off the headlines. Now that the Mueller investigation has turned up nothing, the opposition has come up with other headline grabbing issues like Insanity, White Supremacy, and even Impeachment.

It has become increasingly clear that the Democrats do not want the President to score any points in office. They will find it hard to ratify the NAFTA replacement. They do not want a trade deal with China even if it might be beneficial to the United States. I suspect that the Democrats would even welcome a recession and stock market collapse as the 2020 election approaches.

###

The Problem of Pain

Camille Paglia

The Wall Street Journal weekend edition regularly features an interview with a prominent personality on its op-ed pages. Last weekend the interview was with Camille Paglia, the well-known feminist author, lecturer, and professor. At the age of 72 Paglia has come under fire from students at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia who are demanding that she be fired. Despite her feminist credentials, some of Paglia’s positions, like her praise of Capitalism, are no longer in favor. 

I do not wish to get involved in feminist debates but would just like to discuss a seemingly unrelated incident in Paglia’s life that she remembered quite vividly. In fact, she regarded it as a turning point. At the age of fifteen she was in religious education class when she had the nerve to ask the teacher, an Irish Catholic nun, a very challenging and provocative question. In those days we would have called it a smart-ass question. Naturally, the nun reacted and condemned Paglia roundly in front of the class for even asking such a question. That was it for Paglia. From that day on she would have nothing to do with Catholicism. 

Coincidentally, over the weekend a friend told me of an acquaintance who left the Church because of another seemingly trivial incident. The woman had invited a soloist to sing at her wedding but after the Mass was over, the priest chided her for taking business away from the church’s own soloist. Boom! That was it. She has never gone to church again. Reactions like these are not unusual. In my lifetime I have heard of many such incidents or personal confrontations that led people to stop attending church. It is usually not a question of belief or doctrine, nor does it mean that they become bad people.  

There are more serious reasons for losing one’s faith in God or ceasing to practice the faith of your fathers. Perhaps the greatest is the problem of pain and suffering. In an email exchange, also over this weekend, an old friend told me that he had trouble believing in God and that he no longer attended church. He wrote, “If God is so good, how do you explain little children suffering from cancer?” He also asked me to explain all the pain and suffering that will result from natural disasters like hurricane Dorian.

The problem of pain and suffering, some call it the problem of evil, has been around since the dawn of recorded history. My wife and I sat down over the weekend to watch a National Geographic documentary on great animal migrations. After ten minutes we had to shut it off. The carnage and killing were horrific.  The crocodiles, leopards, and other animals did not seem concerned with the problem of pain. Human beings are obviously just as capable of inflicting pain and suffering but I believe that we are the only animals who think or worry about it.

Philosophers, theologians, and scientists have grappled with it and no one has yet come up with a completely satisfactory answer. Certainly, I haven’t. In ancient times personal suffering and natural disasters were attributed to the gods. The gods were either punishing people for their misdeeds, or were merely malevolent, playing with humans like a cat with a mouse.

In thinking about my friend’s question, I wondered if the answer could be found by considering the example of Jesus, the founder of Christianity.  No matter what you think of Jesus, his approach to the problem of pain and suffering was revolutionary. Even a cursory reading of the gospels indicates that Jesus was a healer. When confronted with pain and suffering, he healed the pain and did not blame God or anyone else. 

He gave sight to a man who had been blind from birth. Ordinary people claimed that the blindness was the result of the sins of the man’s parents. Jesus would have none of it, and just restored his sight. When a man suffering from paralysis was brought before him, rather than blaming him for his sins, he forgave them and then cured his illness.

When he heard that people had been killed when a tower collapsed in a nearby city, he told his hearers that the people who died were no more sinful than anyone else. I’m sure he would have said the same about the victims of hurricanes and earthquakes. His response to the problem of pain and suffering was to heal and minister to the suffering. He instructed his followers to do the same.

In the teaching of Jesus, God is not the cause of suffering but the cure. Those who believe in Nature believe in a cruel god who never forgives. We speak of Mother Nature but she is not the kind of mother any of us would like to have. Scientists may tell us that many must be sacrificed to cleanse the herd in the interests of survival and progress but something inside of us tells us to deplore pain and suffering and do our best to prevent and heal. That something inside of us is as much a sign of the existence of a loving God as anything else the philosophers and theologians have ever thought of. 

Camille Paglia’s wise-ass question to the poor nun, who was giving her life to educate children like her, was: “If God is infinitely forgiving, is it possible that at some point in the future He will forgive Satan?” It is true that the nun should not have blown up, especially since she only had to turn to her catechism for the simple answer. In the catechism Catholics are told that God must forgive those who repent and ask for forgiveness, and so He certainly would forgive if Satan repents and asks for forgiveness. Unfortunately, Satan, like many wise fifteen-year-olds, will have none of it.

###

Boycotts

                                             

A columnist in my home town newspaper recently wrote a tongue in cheek essay on the strategy of boycotting companies whose owners have objectionable political positions or who have contributed to objectionable causes. The columnist is unabashedly liberal and even though he objected to conservative causes, he admitted that it was not always possible to toe the boycott line.

For example, he claimed that he had boycotted Hobby Lobby for years although his original motive had faded from memory.  Moreover, he admitted that he was not a hobbyist and had no idea of Hobby Lobby’s product line. Obviously, this boycott represented no sacrifice on his part, nor did it have an effect on Hobby Lobby whose large ads appear regularly in his newspaper.

It was somewhat different with New Balance, the sneaker company. Despite the objectionable politics or political donations of one of the company’s owners, he liked the sneakers and had recently bought two pair. Moreover, he even admitted to patronizing notorious Chick-Fil-A on occasion to satisfy the needs of a hungry daughter.

I do not object to boycotts in principle and do admit that I have been tempted to participate in my own personal boycotts. For example, I have often thought of cancelling my subscription to his newspaper, the CT Post, not because its political views are objectionable, but because it increasingly obscures the difference between reporting and opinion. However, I persist, largely because the obituaries are very important to someone of my age.

I would like to suggest, however, some potential boycott targets for liberals and progressives.  First, I suggest they boycott or at least protest real estate companies and agents that deal in fourteen-million dollar estates especially on secluded hideaway islands like Martha’s Vineyard. Why should a family of four need a home with seven bedrooms and 29 acres?

Second, I suggest that they follow the lead of NYC Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and boycott the airlines. Since she lives in NYC it would be easy for her to take the train to Washington D. C., but fellow members of the “Squad” might have more difficulty. Actually, it would make it very difficult for the “Squads” Ilhan Abdullah Omar to visit her grandmother in Israel (Palestine). Since steamships still must use fossil fuel, she would have to sail.

Senators from northern states like Vermont could lead a boycott against companies that supply and deliver oil and gas to heat their homes. That would involve real sacrifice on their part since they also might be averse to cutting down trees to heat their homes. 

They may also want to boycott the meat and dairy industries. After all, methane from cow flatulence is a greenhouse gas and can impact global warming. I know many have already given up on beef burgers and substituted veggie or turkey burgers but what about the milk and cream in their “lattes” from Starbucks and other coffee chains?

Personally, here are some of my own boycott targets. I boycott cable news stations like CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News which spew millions of words into the atmosphere each and every day. It is truly sound and fury signifying nothing. I would like to boycott my cable company since I use only a couple of the hundreds of channels provided even in my basic package. However, it includes my Internet access and I’ll stick it out for now.

Actually, I can’t think of any products or companies I boycott because of the political, religious, or cultural views of their producers or owners. I am a film buff and like to watch films from all over the world. I don’t care to even know about the personal lives or political views of the directors, actors, and actresses who make these films come to life. In my retirement I have become an amateur art historian specializing in the art of the Venetian Renaissance. I know many of the artists led scandalous lives but they were great craftsmen and their works are still things of beauty.

###