The Problem of Pain

  

Camille Paglia

This post about an interview with author Camille Paglia that appeared in the Wall Street Journal back in 2019 was reprised here in 2023 after a personal family tragedy.  I still think it is relevant today. 

****************************

The Wall Street Journal weekend edition regularly features interviews with  prominent personalities 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 predators 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.

###

* Note: Students failed to convince the University of the Arts to fire Professor Paglia back in 2019, but the school closed its doors in 2024. She now functions as an independent scholar.

###

Quote of the Day: "I would not want to be a member of any club that would have me as a member." Groucho Marx

Easter Hope

 

Easter Bombing in Pakistan

Today, I reproduce a post written ten years ago about attacks on Christians at Easter time. Ten years later I still find it difficult to understand why so many hate Christians and Easter.

*************************

 Reputed members of the Islamic State murdered four nuns of the Missionaries of Charity working in an elder care facility in Aden, Yemen on March 4, 2016. The only crime of these nuns, like some many thousands of others brutally persecuted in recent years, was that they were Christians. What is so bad about Christianity? 

Personally, I like practically everything about it, especially the belief in, and hope in the resurrection from the dead. 

It is clear from Scripture that, even after the Resurrection of Jesus on Easter Sunday, his subsequent Ascension forty days later, and the incredible events of Pentecost, St. Peter did not fully understand the implications of the Resurrection. Only after a personal vision convinced him that Jesus died and rose for all, did Peter see the light. He said,

“Now I really understand that God is not a respecter of persons, but in every nation he who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. He sent his word to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (who is Lord of all). You know what took place throughout Judea: for he began in Galilee after the baptism preached by John: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, and he went about doing good and healing all who were in the power of the devil; for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all that he did in the country of the Jews and Jerusalem; and yet they killed him, hanging him on a tree. But God raised him on the third day and caused him to be plainly seen, not by all the people, but by witnesses designated beforehand by God, that is, by us, who ate and drank with him after he had risen from the dead. And he charged us to preach to the people and to testify that he it is who has been appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. To him all the prophets bear witness, that through his name all who believe in him may receive forgiveness of sins.” *

I have come to believe with Peter that “God is not a respecter of persons, but in every nation he who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” Nevertheless, I like being a Christian, especially a Catholic.  As I said, I like a religion that believes in and holds out hope for resurrection, for a life after death. 

I like to think that the four nuns murdered in Yemen by Moslem fanatics earlier this month are living a new life, and that they are not just rotting bodies being picked apart by vultures. It also strikes me that those four nuns, like tens of thousands of other Christians who have also been brutally persecuted in our own time, had already given up their lives in the service of others when they took their initial vows. Like Jesus, they went about doing good and healing.

Even today, the day after Easter, there is the terrible news that Taliban suicide bombers murdered at least 65 people and wounded over 300 in Pakistan just because they were Christians celebrating Easter.

###

*Acts of the Apostles 10: 25-37.

Silver Mania

 

For years I’ve held 500 shares of ishares Silver trust (SLV) in my investment portfolio. During that time it usually hovered around $20 a share and did little else. I’m not sure why I held on to it. It never paid a dividend or provided any income. Perhaps I thought it would be a haven if all else went to hell.

But in the last 12 months things changed. I checked one day and found that last October, the share price had jumped to around $50, a gain of about 150%. I have always believed that when any asset goes up that far and that fast, it is time to sell and take profits. I don’t like to be greedy. So, I sold 400 shares and netted about $20,000. But for some reason I held on to 100 shares.

Incredibly, the price of metals like gold and silver continued to soar, and by January of 2026, my SLV shares had jumped to $105 per share. I sold my remaining shares at what now looks like a top and netted over $10,000. 

I don’t know who bought my shares that day. Millions of SLV shares were being traded every day in January. The volume indicates that major investment firms were involved. Many of these entities use sophisticated computer programs in decision making.

Then, weeks before the USA attacked Iranian military sites on February 28, gold and silver prices started to drop causing speculative buyers to take big losses. On March 24, SLV closed around $64 a share, down about 40% from the January high. That’s big money. Of course, the shares are still considerably higher than they were last March, but if you bought in January, you took a big loss.

I’m trying to understand what this precious metal mania meant for ordinary people. As the price of gold and silver soared, it obviously took more dollars to buy an ounce of each metal. That means that as gold and silver prices rose, the dollar weakened and had an inflationary effect. It just took more pieces of paper to buy an ounce of gold and silver, or anything else. Now that metal prices have dropped, does that mean the dollar is stronger, and will that impact inflation figures?

Unfortunately, I could find little information or interest in the movement of gold and silver prices in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, or various media outlets over the past year. So, I can only guess about what happened. I certainly don’t want to try to predict what will happen going forward.

Was it just a speculative mania or “bubble” that finally burst in January? Or perhaps the meteoric rise was caused by investors who feared that President Trump was not bluffing about Venezuela and Iran and who were seeking what is normally a safe haven for their money. 

Despite the rise in precious metal prices, inflation moderated and oil prices stayed relatively stable. Only after the attack on the Iranian military sites on February 28 did oil prices spike.  Even though energy prices are not included in official inflation figures, ordinary people are feeling the effect at the pump.

During the past year major stock indices continued to rise to record levels, and people would have seen substantial increases in their 401k and other investment accounts.  The Dow Jones Average and other market averages hit all-time highs in early February but began to drop a few weeks before the attack on Iran.

Everyone knows that real estate prices have risen over the past year. A quick check on Zillow indicates that my modest home has reached an all-time high value. But like most people, if my wife and I wanted to cash in, where would we go?

Most people don’t consider that their homes fluctuate in value like stocks and precious metals but maybe it doesn’t matter. At least we can live in our homes no matter what the value.

### 

Bogart and Bacall

  

 

Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall are among the most celebrated couples in movie history both on-screen and off. They first met on the set of To Have and Have Not in 1944. Bogart, age 44, was a star and Bacall a 19-year-old newcomer recruited by film director Howard Hawks after a brief New York modeling career. They immediately clicked. The four films in which they appeared are among my favorites. Here are brief notices.

 

To Have and Have Not.  Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall co-star in this 1944 wartime drama loosely based on an Ernest Hemingway story. It seems obvious that the filmmakers attempted to cash in on the success of Casablanca, the very popular 1942 war time drama that established Bogart as a huge star.

Both films are set after the fall of France in colonies under the control of the French Vichy government, a puppet of the German conquerors. Casablanca is in Morocco, and To Have and Have Not takes place in the French Caribbean colony of Martinique. 

As in Casablanca Bogart plays a tough, jaded American who just wants to go about his business without any involvement in the war or politics. In Casablanca he ran a popular night club but in To Have and Have Not Bogart is a charter fishing boat captain barely eking out a living. Still, much of the action takes place in a saloon/night club which even has its own likeable piano player, this time played by Hoagy Carmichael.

I suppose the greatest difference in the two films is the female lead. In To Have and Have Not the nineteen-year-old Bacall made a spectacular film debut. Instead of the sophisticated Ingrid Bergman of Casablanca fame, Bacall is a sexy and sassy young woman just passing through. The on-screen chemistry between her and Bogart makes this film a joy to watch.

The dialogue between them, written by Jules Furthman and William Faulkner, the renowned novelist, pushes the envelope of Hollywood’s Production Code. Although condemned by modern critics, the Code forced writers to be really creative in expressing sexuality without becoming offensive to their 1940s audiences. The scene in which Bacall teaches Bogart how to whistle is the highlight of the film. 100 minutes. CC.

The Big Sleep.  The successful pairing of Bogart and Bacall led to three other films in very short order. They next starred in a 1946 adaptation of famed crime novelist Raymond Chandler’s novel, The Big Sleep.  Bogart plays Chandler’s legendary private eye, Philip Marlowe, on the trail of killers, pornographers, gamblers, and a bevy of beautiful young women. In this film and in the earlier Maltese Falcon Bogart created the private eye. No one else ever came close. 

Despite a convoluted plot, once again director Howard Hawks brought out the chemistry between the now famous couple who had actually fallen in love on the set of To Have and Have Not, and married soon after. This time Bacall plays a wealthy sophisticated woman but the dialogue, especially between the two stars is discreetly sexually charged. 

Interestingly, there is an added feature on my DVD that sheds light on the creative process in Hollywood in those days. Before the film’s release Bacall’s agent saw a preview and thought it would destroy his client’s budding career. He wrote a long letter to the studio head asking that some scenes be re-shot to improve Bacall’s role. The studio agreed and the result is a classic film noir. 114 minutes. CC.

Dark Passage. Bogart and Bacall star in this 1947 film about a man who breaks out of prison after being falsely convicted of murdering his wife. Based on a novel by crime writer David Goodis, Bogart plays the escaped con, and Bacall plays another sophisticated woman who, for reasons of her own, provides a hideout for him in her lavish apartment.  

Nevertheless, to escape the law, he takes the advice of a friendly cabbie who in the middle of the night arranges an appointment for him with an outlaw plastic surgeon who claims he can make him look like anything, even a monkey, in 90 minutes, no more no less. Sure enough, the doctor, played hilariously by character actor Houseley Stevenson, turns him into Humphrey Bogart once the bandages are removed.

Next to the scene with the plastic surgeon, my favorite part of this film is the ending with the couple meeting to the tune of “You’re Just Too Marvelous.” 106 minutes. CC. 

Key Largo. John Huston directed this 1948 drama that would be the last film in which the famous couple appear together, but their roles are strangely subdued. Bacall plays a war widow who runs a small hotel in the Florida Keys with her wheelchair bound father, played by Lionel Barrymore. Bogart's character had served with her husband during the war, and though he survived, the war has had its effect on him.  He is not the tough self-assured guy of the earlier films.  

Bogart’s character wants to meet his deceased friend’s family, but arrives at the hotel in the midst of a hurricane warning only to find that there is danger within. Edward G. Robinson practically steals the show playing an over the hill gangster on the lam from police. His gang has taken over the hotel until they can find passage to Cuba.  Claire Trevor won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress playing the gangster’s mistress, an ex-nightclub singer turned alcoholic. 101 minutes. CC.

I prefer to watch on DVD with no annoying commercials. In addition, the DVDs sometimes include informative features.

###

Finish the Job, Sir

 

                                           

 

Although the attack on Iran has been an unqualified military success, commentators wonder about the so-called endgame.  What will happen in future weeks and months? Does anyone know? 

Actually, the overwhelming destruction of Iran’s military capabilities means that we are now in the endgame. Let’s consider the condition of the 90 million people in Iran, a country twice the size of Texas. Although USA and Israeli bombing has so far been pin-pointing military targets with remarkable accuracy, the impact on the civilian population could be catastrophic.

Food supplies must be scarce. There must be widespread hunger, even starvation in some areas.

Their water supply system must have been severely impacted. Drinking water availability and quality must have been compromised. Waste removal and sewage systems may not be functioning.

Electricity must be out in many parts of the country with not only loss of light but also heat. Communications networks must be impaired if working at all. 

Needed medical services for the sick, injured, and elderly must be almost non-existent.

Just imagine your own neighborhood without food, water, light, heat and phone communication during a winter storm. Inevitably, we can expect crime and looting as people struggle to survive.

We have won the war, but we will find ourselves responsible for avoiding a human tragedy of enormous dimensions. Look what Israel had to do after the war in Gaza. Iran will require a much greater humanitarian response. What can we do?

This Monday, March 9, President Trump provided a relatively short report on the status of the war, and on its potential aftermath. Anyone who dislikes the President for the things he says should take the time to view the 30-minute report as well as the questions he handled afterwards.

He claimed that the attack on Iran had been an unqualified success, and that our military had achieved in three days what planners had thought would take weeks, even months to achieve. 

He did spend much time on what might come next. He did not sound like a belligerent conqueror out to impose his will on the Iranian people, or even the remnants of the current regime.

The President indicated that he does not intend to repeat the mistakes of the war in Iraq. He intends that Iran’s oil be used to finance the rebuilding of the country and not fall into the hands of terrorists. He also believes that when the supporters of the regime in Iraq lost their jobs, they joined ISIS. He hopes that the policy of accommodation working in Venezuela can work in Iran.

He also stated that shipping lanes in the area will be protected so that the flow of oil will continue to the rest of the world. He pointed out that using our naval resources to keep the Straits of Hormuz open is not for our benefit since we are now energy independent. In particular, this policy will especially benefit China, a country largely dependent on oil imports. Wisely, he does not intend to use success in Iran to drive the Chinese back to the wall. 

He then took questions from the assembled reporters. It is amazing that Trump haters cannot credit Trump’s willingness to take questions. He seems to be out there every day taking questions. Have his opponents forgotten that President Biden rarely held a press conference, and that former President Obama always used a teleprompter?

Anyway, he took about 18 questions from the assembled reporters, and I don’t believe there was one that asked about the astonishing military success we achieved. Today’s media seems no longer interested in reporting what has actually happened, but they focus on what they fear will happen in the future especially with President Trump in command.

Despite the success of the mission, most of the questions were designed to find fault. The extraordinary precision of our bombing in striking only military targets in contrast to most modern war, or the terrorist tactics of the Iranian regime and its proxies went unmentioned. 

Questioners tried to drive a wedge between the President and Vice-President Vance and even suggested that Secretary of State Marco Rubio was unfit to conduct negotiations with Cuba. 

The last question was especially telling. The reporter asked how many casualties President Trump was willing to accept in this war.  In three days, we had destroyed Iran’s Russia and China supplied air defense system, neutralized its 1000 plus ballistic missile arsenal, sunk its entire navy, and decapitated its leadership, and we had taken only eight casualties. 

The question was insulting but the President, as usual, handled it well. He mentioned that he had already met with the families of the eight soldiers, and that despite their grief, they urged him to “Finish the job, Sir, finish the job.”

### 

War in Iran

  

                                           

 

Since first hearing the news of the joint US and Israeli bombing of military targets in Iran, I have been seeking out news of what is actually happening. It has not been easy. News sites that I watch or read provide very little information of what is going on.

Talking heads on cable stations usually focus on what they think or fear will happen and not what has actually happened. Often their opinions are accompanied by continually repeated videos of sites being blown to bits but with no indication of what sites are being destroyed. 

 

Here are some bits and pieces of what I have discovered so far. 

 

President Trump has declared that the attack on Iran has four objectives. He claims that the success of the initial attacks, especially the destruction of the Iranian high command, have put us far ahead of achieving these goals.

Ensure that Iran will never have a nuclear bomb. Iran’s refusal to accept this demand led to the breakdown of the most recent diplomatic efforts.*

Destroy Iran’s ballistic missile capability. The response to our attack showed how extensive the Iranian missile and drone system was. Even though most were intercepted, some did get through and cause death and destruction. Many seemed to have been aimed at non-military targets in nearby Arab states. 

Destroy the Iranian navy and its threat to shipping lanes in the Gulf of Hormuz. So far, it appears that we have sunk 17 Iranian naval vessels in the Gulf of Oman.

Ensure that the Iranian regime will no longer be able to arm terrorist proxies in the area. 

 

Rather than shooting from the hip, the President seems to have been very careful in making his decision. One former aide described the President’s decision-making process in some detail. He claimed that Trump listens to and encourage different opinions before coming to a significant decision. Contrary to popular opinion, he does not shoot from the hip in matters of such importance.

Nevertheless, the President took an incredible risk in this venture. Anything can go wrong in war, and one misstep could wreck his Presidency. So far, even military commentators on left-leaning cable shows have had to admit that the military operation has been extraordinarily well planned and executed. 

He also took a great political risk. Democrats who want the President to fail on anything he does were quick to distance themselves from the Iranian operation. Very striking were the remarks of Hakeem Jeffries, the House Minority leader, who opined that the military attack would fail. How could he know that at this point? What he really meant was that he hoped it would fail. 

My own representatives here in Connecticut are apparently of the same mind. Both Senators Murphy and Blumenthal, as well as Representative Himes, have decried the Iran attack, and argued that Congress should have been consulted. Commentators have pointed out that when President Obama bombed Libya for 7 months, Congressional Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi did not insist on Congressional approval. 

It does appear that the President has acted within his authority, and early this week high ranking members of the Administration appeared before Congress in closed session, and answered questions for two hours. Even so, the Democrats could not offer any support. 

It used to be the custom of the party in Opposition to support the President when it came to foreign policy, especially when it came to war. But no more. When American service men and women are in harm’s way, no politician should dare to hope that they might fail.

###

*Note: Steve Witcoff, the President's chief Iran negotiator claimed that the  Iranian negotiators were intransigent, and bragged that they would soon have enough processed uranium to make 11 nuclear bombs. Is it too much to speculate that they might have been more reasonable if they felt that the USA was united behind President Trump in these negotiations? 

State of the Union 2026

I stayed up late last night to watch President Trump's State of the Union Speech. In curiosity, I even stayed tuned for the rebuttal by Democratic Governor Abigail Spanberger of Virginia. I would have to say that rather than giving a speech, Trump put on a performance, a performance that unlike most State of the Union addresses was hard not to watch despite its length. 

Thinking about it this morning, I looked back on old Weekly Bystander posts and found that I had forgotten that Trump had given a spectacular performance in his first State of the Union address back in 2017. Then, even liberal opponents had to give him credit. I wrote,

Donald Trump and his political advisors put together a brilliant speech Tuesday night in his address to the Congress. David Brooks on PBS gave him an “A”, and even liberal commentator Mark Shields had to grudgingly give him a  “C+”. Trump touched all the high points of his familiar message but did it in such a fashion as to make even liberal commentators say that he appeared “Presidential.” 

He also used with great effect the touching stories of some ordinary Americans who had been invited to attend, a practice used by many previous Presidents in State of the Union messages. Their stories were heart-warming and even heart wrenching.

 If anything, the stories in 2026 were even more heart wrenching. Who will ever forget the Marine standing at attention despite his wounded legs, and receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor for his role in leading the Maduro raid.

Today, I do worry, just as I did in 2017, that Trump’s promises may have set the bar too high. If he can deliver on his promises and fulfill his lofty vision for America, he will be one of the greatest Presidents in history. I know it is good to set goals and aim high but now President Trump will have to deliver. I do not think it will be an easy task given the state of the Union today.

There will be vicious battles in many of our states as the mid-term elections approach. Governor Spanberger's speech was practically a declaration of war. We have a fleet prepared to attack Iran if negotiations fail, but it seems that the Democratic opposition rather than supporting the President's foreign policies  would like them to fail. 

I think my conclusion in 2017 is still appropriate today. I wrote,

I have to admit that when I hear a brilliant speech delivered by a real pro like Trump, I have mixed feelings. It was hard not to be inspired by his message but at the same time, I had to wonder. Could Trump just be, as some suspect, a con man? I don’t think so. It is more likely that he could be a con man who has been converted by his own message or cause in the manner of film characters such as  Professor Harold Hill in “The Music Man," or Gary Cooper in Frank Capra’s masterpiece, “Meet John Doe." However, both these fictional characters were down and out drifters before they rose to prominence. Trump was a billionaire businessman as well as a celebrity already.

I like to think that Trump is more in the line of a wealthy Renaissance merchant who realizes that he must attain political power not only to preserve and protect what he and his family have gained over a lifetime, but also to preserve and protect the city or country that have done so much for him and his family.

The true test of the Trump administration will be on how much it can deliver. If President Trump can just deliver on a third of his promises, it will be a successful Presidency. Batting .333 is good in any league. I hope commentators will begin to focus on what the Trump administration is actually doing, and not on what they fear he will do.*

###

*Note: I do think the President could have done a better job last night in his discussion of fraud in Minnesota. Instead of blaming the whole Somali community in Minneapolis, he could have explained that the fraudsters did not just defraud taxpayers, but they kept aid from reaching people in need. Money intended for hungry children, for education, and for those suffering from autism was diverted and often sent abroad. Their Governor, their Attorney General, their representatives in Congress all failed to protect the needy in Minnesota. 

Epstein Files

Epstein Files

I have not been willing or able to go through even one page of the 3 million pages of the Epstein files recently released by the Justice Department. Nor have I been interested enough or informed enough to write about the story on The Weekly Bystander. However, in last week’s Wall Street Journal Barton Swaim, a regular columnist on the op-ed pages, gave an excellent summary of the evidence. Here are some highlights. 

In the first place, he noted that the latest release included an earlier assessment of the case by the FBI that “found no evidence in Epstein’s residence and bank accounts of a trafficking ring or of “sex videos” supposedly used for blackmail.” In short, to the dismay of conspiracy seekers on both sides, 

There was in the end, no sex-slave ring, no blackmail operation, no cameras recording dalliances for later use, no client list, just a deeply sick and rich predator with a few enablers.

Secondly, the new documents seem to contain no evidence that Donald Trump “cavorted with Epstein and his harem.” Indeed, Swaim noted the presence of a document from 2006 detailing a phone call from Trump to the Palm Beach Chief of Police where Trump indicated he knew about Epstein’s behavior and “thought it vile.”  Trump told the Chief that on one occasion he was with Epstein, but when some teenage girls appeared, “he got the hell out of there.” Swaim also believes that there is nothing in the files that really can harm ex-President Bill Clinton.  

However, there seems to be a whole group of lesser fry that are exposed by the Epstein files. Swaim notes that there was “a circle of well-connected, wealthy and politically liberal men who looked past Epstein’s taste in girls and remained on friendly terms with this charming, lavishly generous and intellectually conversant epicure.” These men, “liberal VIPs in media, tech, and politics… all held conventional liberal opinions and gave lavishly to liberal causes and Democratic candidates.” Practically every day since the release of the files, headlines tell of resignations from prominent positions by member of this liberal elite. 

I have wondered why the Epstein files were never released during the Biden administration. Could it be because Democrats in the Justice Department knew there was nothing in them to implicate Domald Trump, but that there was plenty to implicate liberal Democrats. Only Trump hatred could have led them to demand the release of the files once the President was back in office. They hoped to find something that would disgrace the President, but so far, no luck.

###

Note: It is amazing that our government somehow amassed 3 million pages of documents on this one individual. Even more amazing is the fact that people in and out of the government have spent, and continue to spend countless hours going through these files. This looks like a job for AI.

Success Sequence

 

Wendy Wang

The obvious success of Asian immigrants to this country is hard to square with a systemic racism narrative. If there is systemic racism in America, why do the children of Asian immigrants do so well that American universities have to take measures to prevent too many Asian students from being admitted?  Below is a post written a few years ago that tried to answer the question. **************************

It’s college admissions time in the USA again, and letters of acceptance and rejection are being mailed out. Inevitably, elite colleges and universities will find themselves overwhelmed with extremely qualified applicants with Asian backgrounds. It has long been suspected that admissions offices impose quotas to keep the number of Asian students down. On the other hand, affirmative action administrators  will bend over backwards to find qualified black applicants. 

Why do Asian students do so well in school while black students do so badly? It is easy to blame prejudice and racism but my own experience has led me to believe that the reason is cultural. A Wall Street Journal op-ed by Wendy Wang, the Director of Research at the Institute for Family Studies, bore out my suspicions. 

Ms. Wang argued that there is a “sequence” that must be followed to achieve success in rising out of poverty. The sequence begins with education, at least a high school diploma, followed by a job, and only then marriage and children. There will be exceptions but her research shows that failure to follow this sequence results in a high probability of a life of poverty or worse. In other words, if children come before marriage, work, and education the results are disastrous.

Wang cited statistics concerning so-called millennials from a study that tracked young adults from their teenage years to early adulthood. Of those who failed to follow the “sequence”, 53% were in poverty. The rate dropped to 31% for those who had at least a high school diploma, and 16% for those with a full-time job. Finally, the poverty rate dropped to 3% for those who held off having children until married.

Interestingly, the success sequence worked extremely well for young adults from low income backgrounds. “Eighty percent of those with lower income backgrounds made it into middle or upper income brackets when they followed all three steps.” Missing one of the steps or putting them out of sequence, like having children before marriage, led to a very high probability of failure.

Ms. Wang cited her own Asian background. In the small Chinese city in which she grew up there were practically no childbirths before marriage. It was unthinkable. Today in China, Japan, and South Korea the out of wedlock birthrate is only 4%. Compare that rate to America’s urban centers where the out of wedlock births often exceed children born to married couples.

I know a young woman with a degree in elementary education from a fine college who started her teaching career as a first grade teacher in a Bridgeport school made up largely of black and hispanic children. Her college degree could not have prepared her for the chaos she encountered on her first day. Every day presented new pathological personal and social behaviors, and these were only first graders. In many ways, first grade is pivotal for it is then that the mind is ready to learn how to read. If the opportunity is missed, students will inevitably fall behind and never catch up.

Sadly and significantly, the teacher told me that on Parent’s Night, only four parents showed up to hear about their child’s progress. Maybe parent is the wrong word because most of these Bridgeport first graders didn’t have parents. They were being raised by grandparents some of whom were not even in their forties. Sometimes even great-grandparents were the caregivers for these children. Moreover, in most cases there were no men involved in the raising of these children. 

No amount of money will rectify the tremendous social disaster that has taken place in American cities in the past few generations. Unwed teenage pregnancies create an almost impossible educational problem. To get an education certificate today, teachers have to take courses that would almost qualify them as master psychologists. 

Even the best teachers will not be able to overcome this cultural disaster.  There is a high probability that the parentless first grader will come to regard school as a prison and even before he or she gets to eight grade they will likely be attacking classmates and teachers, and destroying school property. Next, the probability is also very high that they will join a street gang, become a drug addict or dealer, and eventually wind up in jail or dead on the street.

Some will argue that Ms. Wang’s “sequence” success formula of education, work, marriage, and children is old fashioned. Actually, the success formula she finds in Asia was once the norm in the USA, especially among that generation that we now fondly recall as the “greatest generation.” Some may also argue that just getting an education and a job is sufficient for success, and that marriage and children are no longer necessary. However, another recent news article indicated that there is an epidemic of loneliness and depression sweeping over the country today that seems to indicate that love and marriage are still part of the success sequence.

### 

Political Hatred

In a recent column in the Wall Street Journal, Holman Jenkins cautioned MAGA supporters against falling in love with a politician. Good advice, but he failed to mention that it is perhaps even more unwise to hate a politician. Coincidentally, about the same time a letter to the Journal cited the words of Michael Corleone in the Godfather, "Don't hate your enemies, it clouds your judgment." These words brought to mind a post I had written about political hatred back in 2022 during the Trump interregnum. ***************************

In my quiet suburban neighborhood, I sometimes come across lawn signs that read, "HATE HAS NO HOME HERE." Nevertheless, in the past few years I have never witnessed so much hatred in my town and in my country as has been directed at former President Donald Trump. Like all hatred it seems visceral rather than reasonable. It is as if a large part of the population has received a political vaccination that enables the political immune system to form an immediate and violent reaction to even the mention of his name. 

During the election when I questioned my neighbors about their Trump animosity, they invariably replied that they just could not stand the man, no matter what he might have accomplished in office. They could not even bring themselves to acknowledge that he might have accomplished even one good thing as President. He has been our of power for more than a year but still my Internet home page features almost daily anti-Trump headlines.

I have been thinking about this Trump hatred phenomenon for awhile, and recently I found as good an explanation as I have ever read in a biography of Sir Robert Walpole, an English politician of almost 300 years ago. It would appear that Walpole was as larger than life as Donald Trump, and just as hated despite his accomplishments. Below is J.H. Plumb's concluding appraisal of Walpole that brought Trump and his haters to mind. 

All that he does and says in the early thirties argues a growing inflexibility of temperament, a greediness to grasp and exercise power; the anxiety lessens, and the future is contemplated less than the present. As a young man his contemporaries spoke of his gaiety, of his ebullient life, of the warmth and spontaneity of his nature. Some of this he never lost. Although he could be the most affable of men, quick to respond to his defeated enemies, this should not blind us to the essential ruthless nature of his political actions. Where he differed from many great men who have wielded political power as great as his, is this: he did not require the death or even exile of men who had vainly crossed his path. Their complete political impotence was all he desired. Nor did great power make him secretive or remote or grossly suspicious of his close friends. … He was available to all from field marshals to ensigns, admirals to midshipmen, archbishops to curates, princes to merchants, so long as they were prepared to wait patiently in the throng that daily besieged his doors. And to his colleagues, and to the Court, he remained open-hearted, generous almost to a fault, retaining his delight in ostentatious display, in gargantuan meals and vast potations; his coarseness, his love of lecherous sally, grew rather than diminished with the years… His frankness, his lack of pretentiousness, were nevertheless tinged with vulgarity, with a gross enjoyment, with almost a delight in stimulating the envy of men. 

Certainly that envy was stirred, more profoundly, more publicly than is the common lot of great men of state. He was hated more for being himself than for his conduct of affairs. Not only was his power resented… his whole manner of life bred detestation wherever he went. He paraded his wealth with ever greater ostentation. He bought pictures at reckless prices, wallowed in the extravagance of Houghton, deluged his myriad guests with rare food and costly wine; his huge ungainly figure sparkled with diamonds and flashed with satin. And he gloried in his power, spoke roughly if not ungenerously of others, and let the whole world know that he was master. Such a way of life invited criticism on a personal level. All the opposition press reveled in portraying the grossness of Walpole’s life; ballads were sung of his ill-gotten wealth; obscene caricatures illustrated his relations with the Queen; bitter pamphlets laid bare the graft, the corruption, the favourtism of his regime…. Year in, year out the gutter Press squirted its filth over his reputation. His friends did little better, the institutions by which he governed worse…. His sole aim in life was to amass gold and aggrandize his family. Day after day, week after week, month after month, this twisted and malicious criticism never ceased: and embedded in the heart of the sludge was a grain of truth, enough indeed for this uncontrolled  propaganda to carry with it a certain conviction. The good that he did—the stability, the peace, the prosperity, were taken for granted—the evil magnified to phantom proportions.

Public life and the institutions of government were thereby brought into disrepute: by 1734 Parliament had lost much of the respect it had enjoyed in the early years of the century; an ever franker acceptance of the greedier side of human nature strengthened self-seeking, weakened altruism and vulgarized politics, until critical issues of state became a matter of personal vendetta…. Each year that Walpole remained in power lowered the standards of public life, for the vituperation and criticism were as responsible as the long years of power for hardening his nature and coarsening his response to life.

###

J. H. Plumb. Sir Robert Walpole, the King’s Minister. 1961. Pp. 330-332. 

A Winter's Walk

Now that we are in the midst of winter, it seems appropriate to post another poem by my younger brother Robert DeStefano, a retired high school science teacher and a lifelong naturalist who has published a number of his poems and other writings on Amazon. I append his explanation.

A Winter’s Walk

 

up

 before sunrise

like 

a child on Christmas Eve

anxiously

waiting to see

what awaits

me

owls are still

 hooting

hoping to scare a mouse

out of hiding

light rays appear

and

reveal most trees 

have shed their

 leaves

except for

beech trees leaves 

that will

hang on until

spring

I

begin my walk

light illuminates

the green feather-like fronds

of

the Christmas Fern

winter is the time for

this evergreen

to show off its beauty

as all around

 it is

brown

hoar frost glistens

on 

delicate evergreen pine tree needles

they 

defy the

 cold

sway in the

 wind

and

 perfume

 the frigid air

a giant sycamore tree beckons

me

a ghostly sight

eerily white

has shed its outer bark

to remove harmful boring beetles

an icy pond

radiantly reflects sunlight

ducks bob up and down

in a small 

ice-free patch

startled by me

they quack

they fly

 circle the pond

provide

a dazzling display

of color

and as

 light reflects off their feathers

they

wave

 goodbye

A Winter’s Walk

Whenever I go to my little log cabin in New Marlborough, Massachusetts, in late fall or winter, I know I have to be prepared to expect the unexpected.  I have encountered porcupines sleeping just outside the back door to the cabin.  I use a shovel to place the porcupine in a wheelbarrow and move it to the forest, only to have it reappear the next day.     I have had to deal with red squirrels packing Norway Spruce cones between the rafters of the dirt floor cellar for winter food.  They know not to place the cones on the floor because once the thaw arrives, there will be about 12 inches of water in the cellar that will ruin the remaining cones.  In short, I never know what to expect as the cabin is in a remote area with my closest year-round neighbor about three miles away.   I start the wood-burning stove and try to get the cabin to about 65 degrees before nightfall.   I get up early, at least two hours before dawn, add wood to the fire, get dressed, and patiently wait for sunrise.

I once found a book being discarded by a library titled “One Day on Beetle Rock” by Sally Carrighar when I had just returned from the Army in 1972.  The book caught my eye because there was an image of a squirrel on the cover.  When I saw the title on the inside of the book, I almost put it back until I read the first two lines of the book.  They read, “The water of the brook reflected the sunlight up to an alder branch, where it flickered along the gray bark. On the fool’s gold under the ripples lay a web of sunlight, gently shaken.”   I could not stop reading the book.  I realized that Sally Carrighar possessed a gift for observation as well as being able to describe with impeccable detail the events that occur in nature.  One seems as though they are actually in Sequoia National Park, where nine animals are interacting with nature and each other during one day on Beetle Rock.  I have always loved nature, but her book made me realize that I had to use all my senses when walking in nature because there is so much to be seen, heard, smelled, touched, and even occasionally tasted when one gets into “the woods.”

My poem depicts a typical winter’s day for me at the log cabin and the surrounding woods.  I am very fortunate to be in an area scarcely touched by humans.  To me, as a former science teacher and Botanist, the property is like my personal outdoor laboratory.  There is so much happening during every season of the year; however, it requires childlike eyes and a childlike mind to appreciate it all.  

Yes, the Christmas Fern has a story to tell.  How does it survive the freezing temperatures?  Yes, the Sycamore trees have a story to tell.  How did they evolve to shed their bark to avoid insect damage? Yes, the pond has a story to tell. How was it formed, and why is it so important for so many species that live in or near it? I will attempt to answer these questions with future poems and stories. 

###

Trump: Egomania or What?

 

A long-time friend just sent me an email in which he argued that President Trump’s actions and words were the product of his massive ego. My friend has never liked Trump and cannot believe that Trump is motivated by anything other than self -conceit. I think my friend’s views are shared by millions of Trump haters.


For example, in a recent interview conducted by Bret Baier with Virginia Democratic Senator Mark Warner, a high-ranking member of the Senate Intelligence committee, the Senator attributed all of Trump’s foreign policy initiatives to personal ego, and not to any legitimate policy or strategic concerns. The Senator, given his status, should know better.

In foreign affairs the Trump administration has had one success after another. After the bombing of the Iranian nuclear facilities, the President brokered a cease fire in the 12-day war between Israel and Iran. Later, he brokered a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. About the same time, he brokered a cease-fire between Rwanda and Congo, two warring African nations. Leaders of both countries signed the deal in the Oval office. Earlier, President Trump intervened to prevent a war between India and Pakistan, two nuclear powers. Were these initiatives all motivated by personal ego?

I don't agree. Why would a 79-year-old man who has everything even want to be President? He is rich, has a beautiful wife, luxurious homes, and everything else? He came within an inch of being shot to death, was impeached, and charged with many crimes. Half the country hates him with passion, and will not give him credit for anything.

Could it be possible that back in 2016 he actually believed that politicians were flushing the country down the toilet in both domestic and foreign affairs?

Look at the mess after the invasion of Iraq. If President Bush had known in 2001 that American troops would be fighting in Iraq for over a decade, would he have invaded in the first place? Remember that Vice-President Dick Cheney was detested by Democrats and charged with provoking the war just to benefit oil-driller Schlumberger. Now Cheney is a Democratic saint because Trump opposed the Iraq incursion.

Look at the mess that is Obamacare. Does anyway remember the tricks and deals used by the Obama administration to jam the ACA through Congress. Remember that Federal employees, including Senators, were supposed to be enrolled in Obamacare. What happened to that? Speaking about President Obama, what about Benghazi, his “red line” in Syria, and the rise of ISIS? Just imagine the furor if Trump and Hegseth experienced such disasters.

Look at the Biden administration. Why didn’t anyone call Biden an egomaniac for thinking he could manage a second term? Look at the immigration disaster. What motivated him to open the borders? Can you believe that in 2024 the Democratic candidates were Kamela Harris, and Tim Walz, especially when you look at the massive welfare fraud in Minnesota and other blue states? What qualifications did they have other than massive egos.

Was Trump wrong about the failures of politicians in both parties to put country ahead of their own egos and personal ambitions?

It is interesting to note that practically everything the Democrats blame Trump for doing, they have done themselves. They call him a dictator when he issues executive orders, but Obama said all he needed to govern was a pen and a phone. They say he wants to abolish the Senate filibuster, but progressives urged Biden to pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices. Democrats say he seeks revenge on his detractors, but they are proven masters of that tactic.

Nothing will stop “no Trumpers” from hating the President. They have seemingly been inoculated from giving the President one iota of credit for anything. The other day someone said that if Trump were to fight Cancer, Democrats would be in favor of Cancer.


It is not egomania to want credit where credit is due, and to want recognition for a job well done. Let's stop talking about ego and concentrate on the issues.


###