Trump's Mid-Term Convention Speech

I watched most of President Trump’s speech at the unprecedented Republican Mid-term Convention last week. I must admit that it is hard to give a description of what he said as he characteristically meandered all over the place throughout the two hours. I did not attempt to take notes but would like to offer a few thoughts on things that stuck out.

In the first place, I was struck by the manner, and not the matter of what he said. In all my years I have never seen a politician having such a good time while giving a speech. At age 80 he was so full of life that the speech could be called joyful despite the seriousness of some of the topics. He seemed to be really enjoying himself. In this respect, he was in stark contrast to any other politician in either party.

We just have to compare him with his Democratic predecessors in the Presidency. Whether you like Trump or not, you must admit that Barack Obama, or Joe Biden never exhibited the slightest sense of humor in their public utterances. Obama usually appeared as a scolding schoolmaster, who always used a teleprompter in delivering his carefully prepared speeches.  Biden hardly spoke at all. In his four years in office he rarely gave a press conference. He even seemed reluctant to hold Cabinet meetings, apparently having little use for the motley crew that he had assembled. 

Trump’s sense of humor, often self-deprecating, was obvious throughout. I cannot forget the way he described his encounter with French President Macron. His reproduction of the dialogue between two heads of state was almost comical. 

Trump: Sir, you will have to raise your drug prices so that we can lower ours.

Macron: Mr. President, I won’t do that.

Trump: Oh yes you will, or I will impose tariffs of 50 to 100 percent on imports of French wines.

Macron: Please Mr. President, don’t do that.

In the end, Macron complied. 

As far as the substance of Trump’s speech is concerned, it is clear that he was deliberately speaking to his Republican base. By now, he and his advisors know that there is no way that he can appeal to those who dislike him, some to the point of hatred. They will not listen, even if the hostile media would report his words. As far as I could see, only Fox News carried his speech. The President of the United States was giving a major address, and other networks declined to let their viewers hear it.

Trump and his advisors also know that Democratic Socialist primary victories have come with only 10 to 20 percent of eligible voters. These victories have been based on voter apathy. They have obviously decided to concentrate on getting out the Republican vote in the normally quiet off year elections. That is why he insists that he is on the ballot, and why he will campaign so vigorously this year.

He promised in the next two months to continue to list the many accomplishments of his administration that most Democrats, and even Republicans have never heard of because of the largely hostile media.  I am a daily reader of the Wall Street Journal but have never seen it mentioned that drug prices in the USA have gone from the highest in the world to the lowest during his administration. Opponents will say he is lying, but the claim should be easy to fact check.

Despite fears of inflation and affordability he believes that the economy is booming and will continue to do so if Republicans can hold the House and Senate in November.  If that happens, he promised that the government could afford to pay $5000 to each American adult in the same way a successful business will pay a dividend to its shareholders. Democrats, who usually delight in giving money away, will call it a bribe, and naturally oppose. 

With this speech, the President came out fighting.  It will be interesting to see if his strategy works in November. 

###

9/11/01: Anniversary

 

I have never written about the destruction of the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, and the loss of almost 3000 innocent lives on that tragic day. It was just too hard to contemplate or write about. Like millions of others, I know exactly where I was when I first heard the news of first one and then another plane crashing into the Towers. 

At first it seemed like an accident but soon it became clear that it was a deliberate attack not only on the people inside the buildings, but also on the Nation itself by Moslem terrorists. Almost as shocking as the event itself was the reaction of Moslems around the world who publicly applauded the death and destruction.

Twenty five years later it is still sad to hear some still refuse to condemn the 9/11 attack. Many downplay, soft-pedal, or otherwise refuse to blame Islamic terrorists for the attack. Instead, they fear Islamophobia despite the fact that Moslem communities have flourished in New York and other major American cities over the past 25 years. Last year, Zohran Mamdani, the current Mayor of New York City, spoke of his first reaction to the news of 9/11 as a schoolboy. “My experience of 9/11 is one I share with many New Yorkers. My teacher let me know that something had happened that morning and I might be bullied because of it.”

You would think he would get over his fear of Islamophobia now that he is mayor of a city with a thriving Islamic community that was integral to his election. Other Democratic Socialists are even worse. Prominent spokesman Hasan Piker believes that “America deserved 9/11.”

As the mid-term elections approach, here is a suggestion for politicians on all sides. You know how they end their commercials with the following disclaimer.  "I’m so and so, and I approve this message.” It would be good if they could preface their remarks with the following.

 

I pledge allegiance

To the flag

Of the United States of America

And to the Republic

For which it stands

One Nation,

Under God,

Indivisible,

With liberty and justice

For all.

###

Affordability

Democrats, Progressives, and Democratic Socialists will make affordability one of the big issues in the upcoming mid-term elections. None of them seemed to care much about rising prices and inflation during the Biden administration. In 2022, a year after the inauguration of President Biden, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose 8.6%. During the same period energy prices increased 34.6%, and groceries jumped 11.9%. In particular, eggs were up 32.2%, chicken 16.6%, milk 15.9%, and even soup was up by 13.9%. 

I remember my shock in 2022 when my heating oil company told me that my oil price would be $6.50 per gallon. Thankfully, this year I have been able to lock in my price at about $4.00 per gallon for the coming season despite the war in Iran. Nevertheless, since the election of President Trump, the news has been full of dire stories about affordability and price inflation.

I started thinking about affordability last year during the baseball World Series. I noticed that, whether in Los Angeles or Toronto, the stands were packed with fans most of whom seemed to be young men. I wondered where they got the money to pay more than $1000 for not even a box seat. I wondered where they also got the money to pay the exorbitant stadium prices for hot dogs, beer and soda.

It was the same thing at the Super Bowl, March Madness, and the NBA finals. I have grandchildren, recent college graduates, who were actually able to attend such events. One even flew from California to San Antonio to watch the Knicks beat the Spurs in the season’s finale.

These events paled in significance to the recent World Cup held at packed venues in the USA, Canada, and Mexico. Millions of people from all over the world paid ridiculous sums to attend. It was not just the tickets, but the travel, hotel, and food that hardly seemed to faze them. One day in my dentist’s office, I could overhear the hygienist, who happened to be from Cape Verde, tell the dentist that she had flown down to Miami for the weekend to watch her team play.

Sporting events are just one way people spend money. Entertainers like Taylor Swift have become some of the richest people in the world giving concerts packed mainly with cheering young women. Another of my grandchildren even flew to Europe for one of Swift’s concerts.

From my own limited viewpoint I can say that many of these people have jobs and choose to spend their earnings on their own entertainment. That’s ok, it's their money. But they don’t seem to have an affordability issue.

Others, I suspect, can ‘t really afford to attend these events, but just use their credit cards. Recent studies indicate that credit card debt is at an all-time high, as is the number of people who are more than three months behind in their card payments.

I knew a young man with a good job who had amassed credit card debt of over $100,000. The interest alone on that debt would have been over $18000 a year or $1500 per month with no way in sight to ever pay off the principal. How could he afford to buy a home, or rent a decent apartment? No wonder he might be concerned about the price of food or gas. His out-of-control spending created his own affordability problem.

Yes, I know that most people do not attend these high-priced events, and that many are having to deal with higher prices for their daily living expenses. There are many ways to deal with higher prices, but I will leave that discussion to another day. Here I would just like to point out that government waste and fraud is a major culprit.

Another of my grandchildren is disabled. He is able to live independently and participates in the SNAP program. One month his SNAP payment was stolen from his bank account by a fraudster. This is just one example of how the massive amounts of government aid that have been meant for the truly poor and needy have been hijacked by fraudsters in recent years.

It is not only taxpayers that have been victimized by fraud but also the needy who never received the funds appropriated to help with their living expenses. They can blame the fraudsters and the politicians who enabled them for their affordability crisis.

###

Random Harvest

  

 

Greer Garson and Ronald Colman co-starred in Random Harvest, a 1942 Hollywood film that is one of the great sentimental romance films of all time. Early critics scoffed at the film, but it was an immediate box office success and is now an enduring favorite. Introducing the film on Turner Classic Movies a few years ago, the late Robert Osborne said he loved the film, and guest host Gene Wilder claimed that while it was not the best film he had ever seen, it was still his favorite.

My own experience confirms their opinion. On a couple of occasions, I have presented Random Harvest at my local senior center and the audience, mainly women, loved it. I can watch good films over and over and my wife often balks at watching Random Harvest for the umpteenth time, but once the credits roll, she is all in. Why?

What is there about Randon Harvest that made it MGM’s biggest hit back in 1942, and that still makes it enjoyable today? Based on a 1941 novel by James Hilton, best known for Lost Horizons, and Goodbye Mr. Chips, the screen adaptation seems somewhat implausible. Colman plays a British soldier who has lost his memory due to shell shock during World War I. He was captured by the Germans who included him in a prisoner exchange before the end of the war. He winds up in a mental asylum in an English manufacturing town still with total loss of memory, and hardly able to utter a sentence. He is given the name John Smith.

Implausibly, one night he is able to walk off the asylum in the hubbub arising from the news that the war is over. He gets into town, unaware of what is going on, and is surrounded by a host of cheering revelers. He stumbles into a tobacco shop whose proprietor senses that something is wrong with him and calls the police. Even more implausibly, an attractive young woman, played by Garson, takes pity on him and spirits him away. She is an entertainer in a travelling vaudeville show and takes him under her wing. Her name is Paula and eventually, she nurses him back to health, they fall in love and marry although he still has no memory of his past life. She calls him Smithy.

They proceed to live a normal life. She has a baby and he becomes a writer to the point where a Liverpool newspaper offers him a job. He travels to Liverpool to take the job but suffers a head injury after being hit by a car.  His memory comes back and he remembers that he is the scion of an aristocratic English family. Incredibly, he has no recollection of the last three years with Paula. 

What happens next, I will not describe but just say that the remainder of the film deals with Colman’s return to his family home and business, but still haunted by the gap in his recent memory, and Garson’s determined search for Smithy who has disappeared without a trace.

Implausible yes, but the acting puts the film over. I think it safe to say that no one ever spoke like Ronald Colman. Although his good looks made him a silent film star, his voice was a revelation when talkies arrived. In Random Harvest he plays two roles superbly. He plays the mentally handicapped veteran, as well as the aristocratic polished gentleman businessman. 

Colman’s performance was more than matched by Greer Garson, an extremely beautiful, mature actress of great talent. She also plays two roles. First, she is the vivacious, music hall performer who can put over an unforgettable song and dance routine in front of a packed house celebrating the end of the war. Later, she seems perfectly at home playing a sophisticated woman who can eventually travel in the highest rungs of English society. 

Ronald Colman’s performance earned him a well-deserved Best Actor nomination. Greer Garson was not nominated for this role probably because the studio nominated her for her performance in Mrs. Miniver, the story of a courageous British housewife during the dark days of WWII, a role for which she did win the Best Actress award. It is interesting to note that British Prime Minister Winston Churchill credited Mrs. Miniver for building British morale as well as American support for the success of the war effort.  Nevertheless, Mrs. Miniver seems dated today while Randon Harvest endures. Colman and Garson were an incomparable pair.

125 minutes. CC.

###

Who Profits?

 

    

 

Years ago when I was in college I disliked business, businessmen, and profit making as much as any modern Democratic Socialist. 

Deep down I must have been jealous since I thought I had so little and they seemed to have so much. Somehow, it never occurred to me that my college education was being completely paid for by a scholarship from my father’s employer, the Bulova Watch Company.

It would take years of life experience for me to understand the value of profits and profit making. Here are some personal anecdotes.

I met my future wife Linda in my senior year at Fordham college. We dated throughout the next year while I took courses for a master’s degree in history at Columbia University, and she completed her last year for a BS degree in Nursing at Cornell’s nursing center in New York city.

By the time she graduated, we began to discuss marriage. I had been offered a job at Cardinal Hayes high school in the Bronx, and a nurse could seemingly get a job almost anywhere. To be Bonafide, I knew that I could not propose without a ring.

So, one day I cashed in the little savings account I had opened in grade school at St. Mary’s in Queens.  Over the years my regular nickel and dime deposits had grown to about $200. I took a subway to Manhattan’s diamond district on East 47^th Street, a street lined with jewelry shops manned by Jewish merchants. 

These guys were notorious and I expected to be overcharged or even cheated. They knew their business and I was totally ignorant.  But what could I do? So I put down my entire life savings to buy a decent looking ring with a small, flawed diamond. 

I suspect that the dealer made at least a 100% profit on the deal, but now I know that I was the one who profited most. Linda loved the ring, and accepted my proposal, and still wears it today, more than 60 years later. She knew instinctively that it was much more than metal or stone, but a sign of my love and commitment, just as I knew that her acceptance was a sign of hers.

We were engaged, but even though I had a job, I was broke. It never occurred to me that in order to leave our parents’ homes, we would need to furnish an apartment. Fortunately, presents from family members helped. In particular, my father offered to pay for a bedroom set.

One day Linda and I went to Mazur Brothers Furniture store, a long-established institution in White Plains not far from her home. A salesman, probably a Mazur, showed us a number of sets, and we settled on a sturdy cherry wood set that included a dresser with a large mirror, a bureau, and a bed with two end tables. I think the total cost was around $800, a large sum back in 1962. 

Once again, I suspected we were being overcharged but Linda liked the set, and that was that. Afterwards, she praised the salesman’s manner and presentation, but I grumbled that he was just out for a commission. Now I realize that while he and Mazur Brothers had profited from the sale, we profited infinitely more.

More than sixty years later, we still use it. The bed may show some wear, but the dresser, bureau, mirror, and end tables look new and still work perfectly. What a deal! Buyer and seller both profited. Even my father profited. He got rid of me and got six grandchildren in the bargain, all of whom loved him.

During our years of married life I can think of countless examples of how transactions turned out to be profitable for all parties concerned. The purchase of four homes profited not only sellers, but banks, insurance companies, real estate brokers, and movers, but we profited the most. That’s the American way, and I love it.

###

Note: The image above is the Mazur Brothers storefront back in the 1960s. In searching for it, I came across a short obituary of Joseph G. Mazur, President of the company, who seems to have been quite a man. 

Where I'm From

Here's a guest post, a poem written by my granddaughter Maeve when she was still in Middle School. Now she is about to enter college where I think her observant eyes and writing skill should serve her well.

                  Where I‘m From

                            MHD

 

I’m from the scribbled drawings on the fridge

From the books in piles on the coffee table.

The feeling of their creased spines on my fingertips.

I’m from my grandmother’s kitchen

(Small, homey, it smelled like focaccia)

I am from the constellations,

The Moon,

Like a pearl in a black sea,

Lighting up the night,

I’m from ivory paper and fountain pens,

Their jet black ink dancing across the pages of my notebooks.

I’m from Elvera and Antoinette,

From the “I love you's".

From “Mangia” and “Salute”

I am from playing cards at the kitchen table,

Marking points on a stray notepad.

I’m from Ucci and Gardella,

From ripe cherry tomatoes and steaming chamomile tea

From the ship my great-great grandmother took from Serracapriola to New York

 I’m from the child she lost on the journey,

From the money she saved to get to America.

I am from the letters saved in a box beneath my bed.

Covered in nearly illegible handwriting I had to ask my mother to decipher.

I’m from the words of my relatives,

Whose stories helped me connect with my late family members.

I am from the spirits of my ancestors,

Who suffered for their children to live a better life.

I am from the good and the bad,

The ups and downs of living.

###

Profit Motive

 

                                             

Despite the fact that business ranks as one of the top college majors, it is true that many college graduates today would prefer to work for a non-profit organization than a profit making one.  There would appear to be a stigma attached to working for personal gain.  To many working for profit is ignoble, even crass. 

This attitude is not just found in the young but in all levels of our society.  It helps to explain the contempt we see directed today at words like Capitalism and Capitalist, both of which are terms of opprobrium in progressive and Democratic Socialist circles. Indeed, popular fiction and movies have ingrained in us a cardboard stereotype of the money-grubbing, overweight, usually lecherous business tycoon.

Nevertheless, because of the bad connotation of the word Capitalist, I prefer to think of myself as an advocate of a free-market economy based on private property rights. By law and tradition in America, we all have the right to profit from our education, our knowledge, our experience, and our labor. It is the key to our success.

Countless examples could be provided to demonstrate the success of a free market economy versus a government controlled socialist model. Here is one example that shows that modern China’s economic success is due more to the profit motive than Socialist ideology. 

A few years ago, I read an op-ed in the Wall Street journal by Michael Meyer in which he noted a truly revolutionary development in a Chinese village over 40 years ago.  After taking power in China in 1949 Chairman Mao and the Communist party had effectively abolished private land ownership. Villages were organized into communes “crippled by production quotas that seized most of what they grew for redistribution.” 

The result was a disaster just as it had been in Communist Russia decades earlier. Meyer tells the story of the village of Xiaogang where by 1978 the villagers could no longer meet their quota because they were starving. They were eating roots, leaves, and tree bark. Driven to desperation the farmers decided to defy the authorities.

They signed a pledge to divide the village land into family plots whose produce could be kept by each family once it had paid the required quota or tax. The results were revolutionary. Next year saw a record harvest that led the local political boss to complain that the farmers “had dug up the cornerstone of socialism.” 

Inevitably, the news and the practice spread until the popular land reform that defied communist orthodoxy became officially adopted after Mao’s death. Deng Xiaoping, his successor, urged the Chinese to ignore political dogma and instead “seek truth from facts.”

Interestingly, this same revolution had an antecedent in early American history. After two years of near starvation, the Pilgrim fathers at Plymouth colony abandoned their experiment with communal farming and divided the land into family plots worked by all members of the family. The colony never starved again. 

Why should it be so hard for people today to understand the value of the profit motive? Not only do the companies in my investment portfolio turn a decent profit, but also they provide invaluable goods and services for millions of people. They light and heat our homes as well as enable us to communicate easily with one another. 

The little revolution in Xiaogang not only fed the people of that village but it also has enabled China’s population to eat and prosper as never before. Democratic Socialists may think that Communism succeeded in China but it was really private property and free enterprise that made China an industrial giant. 

###

Medicare for All

 

 

One of the planks in the Democratic Socialist platform is Medicare for All. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and other leading Democratic Socialists never fail to include it in their demands.The influence of the DSA is growing within the Progressive wing of the Democratic party, and it looks like Medicare for All will be a big issue in the upcoming mid-term elections.

 

However, we already have Medicare for all. Most of us are enrolled in Medicare in the same way we are enrolled in Social Security. Anyone with taxable income must contribute to Medicare in the same way they contribute to Social Security. All employees must contribute 1.45% of each paycheck to their Medicare account. Employers are required to match that contribution so that the total amount comes to 2.9% of pay. For most workers the Medicare tax goes largely unnoticed since it is a payroll deduction.

 

The tax is more visible to self-employed individuals since they must pay the whole 2.9% themselves and actually cut a check for the amount on a quarterly basis.

 

Unlike the Social Security tax which only applies to the first $185,000 of income, there is no limit on the amount of income subject to the Medicare tax. Let’s take a look at some examples.

 

Someone working at the minimum wage of $15.00 per hour for 2000 hours a year would have an annual income of $30,000. To make it easy let’s round off the Medicare tax rate of 2.9% to 3%. The worker’s Medicare tax would be $900 a year. We can call it the annual premium for Medicare insurance which will begin to pay off at age 65.

 

In our next example, the worker’s annual income is $200,000. That number is significant because over that amount, the employer is no longer required to match, and the employee must pay the whole 2.9%. In fact, on income over $200,000, there is a surcharge of 1% bringing the total to 3.9%. To keep it simple for now, this worker’s Medicare tax would be 3% of $200,000 or about $6,000 per year. In other words, his Medicare insurance premium is $6000 per year for the same plan that costs the minimum wage employee $900 per year. 

 

Finally, let’s look at really high earners like movie and rock stars, professional athletes, and even CEOs who have incomes of $20 Million per year. Since there is no limit on the amount of income subject to the Medicare tax, and since there is a 1% surcharge, their effective tax rate of 4% means that their Medicare tax would be 4% of $20,000,000 or $800,000 per year. That's right, $800,000! Remember, even though their Medicare insurance premium is huge, they still get the same coverage as anyone else. Actually, these wealthy people don't even need Medicare. It’s really amazing that Democratic Socialists want to eliminate the billionaires who fund Medicare.

 

Of course, people with little or no taxable income would currently be eligible for Medicaid but Progressives and Democratic Socialists really want free Medicare for all at any age. But do they?

 

Does Medicare for All mean that Senator Sanders and other politicians would give up their current gold-plated government plans for Medicare or Medicaid? I don’t think so. When Obamacare was passed, members of Congress were supposed to join that plan and give up their Federal medical insurance but that never happened. I doubt that any federal, state, or municipal employee would want to give up their current medical insurance for Medicare.

 

###

Quote of the day: All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. George Orwell, Animal Farm.

 

### 

Scientific Consensus 2026

I was born on July 19, 1939 in New York City. Google AI indicates that my mother was lucky that day since the temperature in pre-air conditioned New York City only reached an unseasonable 81 degrees. Three years earlier, on July 9, 1936 the temp reached 106 degrees, what would turn out to be the  high for the whole twentieth century. 

As I wondered about temperature in July,  some recent news items came to mind. Last week smoke from forest fires in Canada drifted down into the Northeast area and created uncomfortable, even dangerous air quality. No one can blame President Trump since just three years ago in 2023, during the Biden administration, Canadian fires had caused similar air quality concerns in the area. Fortunately, the latest episode only lasted a few days, and the World Cup final was held in New Jersey's Meadowlands on one of the most beautiful days of the year.

More important was the news a few weeks ago that scientists in Europe had rejected their worst case scenario for Climate Change, and said that recent developments had made it implausible. The recent developments included human efforts to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy. It is hard to credit their explanation since China and India, by far the two most populous nations in the world are not leaders in renewable energy. 

Anyway, the fact that they would discard a worst case scenario that most scientists had accepted just a few years ago led me to revisit a post that I had written in 2017 on scientific consensus, The post was in response to a video of Senator Bernie Sanders berating a Trump appointee back in 2017.

I recently saw a video of Senator Bernie Sanders grilling Scott Pruitt, President Donald Trump’s nominee for the post of director of the Environmental Protection Agency. Throughout his seven minutes Sanders repeatedly demanded that Pruitt affirm that 97% of scientists believe that global warming is a grave threat to the planet; that it is caused by human activity; and that the government must take steps to shut down the use of fossil fuels. Of course, Sanders jumped in and interrupted every attempt by Pruitt to answer his questions. He ended by saying that he could not vote to confirm him, as if there was ever any doubt.

To be fair I must say that Sanders qualified his question by adding that the 97% figure referred to the percentage of peer-reviewed papers that had appeared in climate change journals and other similar publications. I think that this qualifier is overlooked when most people consider the question of scholarly or scientific consensus. I can certainly believe that 97% of these peer-reviewed papers support the human responsibility for global warming. What is hard to believe is that 3% of the papers were able to sneak their way through the peer-review process and cast doubt on the hypothesis. 

My own experience makes me skeptical about the whole peer-review process. For years I have subscribed to a couple of scholarly journals on the Renaissance. Inevitably, they feature articles or book reviews on Shakespeare. Never have I seen one that would even hint that the great plays and poems might have been written by a man of much greater education and life experience than the man from Stratford on Avon. 

Great writers like Mark Twain, Walt Whitman, and Henry James raised the question in the nineteenth century. Sigmund Freud shared the view that someone else was the author as did Shakespearean actors like Orson Welles and Derek Jacobi. Dozens of books on the authorship question have appeared in the past few years but most go unmentioned in the peer-reviewed journals.

My own experience in the field of Renaissance art history has also made me question the peer-review process. In the past twenty years, I have been able to arrive at plausible interpretations of some of the most well-known but most mysterious paintings of the Renaissance. I have done the research, written up my findings but found that the peer-review process is a closed shop, only open to peers. Necessity made me turn to the web and in 2010 I put my interpretations online and also created a blog, Giorgione et al..., to explore the subject further. 

Scholars often urge their students to “think outside the box” but rarely follow their own advice. Although their politics may be liberal and even radical, they tend to be conservative when it comes to their own subject. Graduate students have to be aware of the danger of criticizing their mentors. Professors must still publish to keep their jobs, advance their careers, or gain grant monies. It is very difficult to challenge the traditional wisdom or orthodoxy.  As one art historian wrote,

“To do so would be to question the competence of most of those who have written on the subject, and this is something that no one…wants to do…the longer those views have gone unchallenged the greater the authority that they have acquired.”

Galileo is a hero to so-called “freethinkers” but in his time, he stood virtually alone against all the professional scientists and mathematicians of his time who dominated the institutions of higher learning. He used a primitive telescope to destroy the elaborate system accepted by more that 97% of the leading experts. Oddly enough, a few Jesuit astronomers were among his early supporters.

Climate change has become like a new religion and its priests can be found in the scientific establishment. Their devoted followers march in street processions to proclaim their beliefs and attack heretics. For them the issue is settled and no further debate is necessary. What are they and Bernie Sanders afraid of? Why did he find it necessary to interrupt and ignore any attempt on the part of Scott Pruitt to reply? 

### 

Democratic Socialist Primaries

People like Senator Bernie Sanders are old enough to understand that it was necessary to add the word Democratic to Socialism in order to separate it from its sordid and murderous past. After all, only the most diehard Socialist would want to be linked with the National Socialists (NAZIs) in Germany under Adolph Hitler, or the Communists in the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin, or the Communists in China under Chairman Mao. These regimes imprisoned and killed millions of their own people.

Today’s Democratic Socialists believe that they can avoid the errors and excesses of the past and build a new society based on truly democratic principles. They believe that America has been undemocratic for years, and that few have shared in its prosperity, even more so during the current Trump administration. 

Although the recent victories of Democratic Socialists in New York City and elsewhere have garnered National attention, they are far from democratic. In none of these primaries did the winner get even 20 percent of the district’s total vote. Low voter turnout has long been common in blue cities. Why is this so? 

Low voter turnout in political primaries is traditional especially in major cities where candidates for general elections are usually chosen by party leaders, or by a minority of eligible voters. Either the great majority of voters don’t care or think that their votes don’t matter. Even on election day, most eligible voters don’t turn out to vote. Why?

I don’t think voter suppression explains why most Democrats didn’t vote in the recent NYC primaries. I think that rather than rising up to fight for equality and prosperity for all, most Democrats realize that they have it made. 

If we look under the so-called Big Tent of the Democratic party, what do we find. Unions, especially public service unions, are the solid core of votes and financing for the Party. They are the Party’s backbone. They are the party of government from the Federal government down to local municipalities.

Unlike the people they serve, public service union members at every level cannot lose their jobs, or experience pay cuts. Even in retirement, they have it made. They have pensions far better than ordinary people’s Social Security benefits, as well as superior medical insurance plans. None of them have to be enrolled in Obamacare. They and their families have been beneficiaries of government largess most of their lives. Why should they rock the boat and vote against Democratic Socialists who want to increase the role of government.?

My home state of Connecticut is always listed as a blue state. Bridgeport is Connecticut’s most populous city with about 150,000 residents, but the city has been controlled by Democrats for years. In the last Mayoral election the Democratic Mayor won over a Democratic challenger with about 6,000 out of 10,000 votes cast. Some Democracy!

Rather than people who have not shared in American prosperity, the core of the Democratic party are the public service union members who have prospered over the past 50 years from the tremendous growth of government at all levels.

Perhaps this explains why many hate President Trump so much. He is rocking their boat more than AOC. 

###

Stan and Ollie

 

Here's a post with some recommended summer viewing. 

Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were without doubt the best comedy team in film history. Originally paired during the silent era, they easily made the transition to talkies. During the 1930s they reached the height of their popularity appearing in almost countless features and shorts. 

Their feature films included a number of operettas like The Devil’s Brother, The Bohemian Girl, and the ever-popular Thanksgiving favorite, The March of the Wooden Soldiers, where they provided the comic relief. But the features in which they starred are their best. Below find brief reviews of my favorites features and shorts. 

 

Sons of the Desert.  

Stan and Ollie play next door neighbors who trick their wives so they can secretly attend the Chicago convention of their fraternal order, the Sons of the Desert. Many believe this 1933 film is Laurel and Hardy’s best feature, both a critical success and one of the year’s top ten box office draws. 

The film has one hilarious skit after another and also exults in bone-crushing slapstick. Ollie winds up the target of endless pots and pans and kitchen crockery all hurled with unerring accuracy by his carving knife wielding wife, played by Mae Busch, one of Hollywood’s best comediennes. The film also features Charley Chase as an obnoxious lodge member, and Dorothy Christie as Mr. Laurel’s beautiful shotgun-toting wife. A popular tune, Honolulu Baby, danced by a night club chorus line, has become a cult classic.  64 minutes.

 

Way Out West. 

In this 1937 film Stan and Ollie play two men on a mission to deliver the deed to a deceased prospector’s gold mine to the daughter whom he had left behind with a sleazy saloon keeper and his gold-digging wife. This film is marked by one hilarious gag after another, often repeated.

It also showcases Stan and Ollie’s song and dance skills in three numbers. Stan’s career started as a song and dance man in English vaudeville, and Ollie had a fine voice. Adding to the fun is James Finlayson, a Laurel and Hardy regular, who plays the saloon keeper, and Dinah the mule who plays a key role in some of the skits. 63 minutes.

 

Blockheads.

In this 1938 film Stan and Ollie play wartime buddies who had been separated in the last days of WWI. Twenty years later Stan is discovered still guarding his post in the trenches. Ollie, now happily married, sees Stan’s picture in the newspaper and goes off to visit him in a nearby home for veterans. They meet and Ollie invites him home for dinner.

When they meet, Stan asks if Ollie remembers how dumb he used to be and then claims that he is better now. From that point on he causes a series of hilarious mishaps that wreck Ollie’s car, apartment, and marriage. Ollie’s next-door neighbor is played by the irascible Billy Gilbert, another Laurel and Hardy regular.

 

The Flying Deuces. 

On vacation in Paris, Ollie falls in love with the innkeeper’s daughter only to be heart broken when she reveals there is another man. In a hilarious scene, he attempts to commit suicide by drowning himself in the Seine and insists Stan do likewise. A passerby talks them out of it, and suggests they join the French Foreign Legion in order to forget the girl. 

I suppose the makers of this film tried to capitalize on the success of Beau Geste, a Foreign Legion drama released earlier in 1939. In any event, Ollie never acted better playing the love-sick suitor. The film also includes another of their fine song and dance numbers, as well as Stan’s rendition of the “World is Waiting for the Sunrise,” played on a makeshift harp fashioned out of a bedspring while they wait in prison to be shot at sunrise. 69 minutes. 

 

Big Business.

Stan and Ollie play door to door Christmas tree salesmen in this 1929 silent short. When an irascible homeowner turns them down, one thing leads to another, and a little altercation becomes an all-out battle. This short film is a comedy classic listed by the Library of Congress on the National Film Registry. 19 minutes.

 

The Music Box.

In this short Stan and Ollie play movers charged with the delivery of a player piano to a home atop many flights of steps. They park their horse drawn cart at the base of the steps and proceed to attempt to carry the crate enclosed piano up the steps. They meet one obstacle after another but finally get to the top only to encounter even greater obstacles. This comedy classic is also included in the National Film Registry. 29 minutes.

 

Them Thar Hills.

This 1934 short is not on the National Film Registry but it is still my favorite. Ollie has a large cast on his gout ridden leg, and his doctor, played by Billy Gilbert, claims that the gout is caused by too much high living. He suggests that the boys go camping in the mountains, lead the simple life, and drink plenty of mountain water. 

They attach a camper to their car and drive to the mountains where they park near a deserted house with a nearby well. Unbeknownst to them, moonshiners have just dumped a load of liquor in the well. The boys find the “mountain water” delightfully refreshing, and as they freely imbibe, they get increasingly high. This film also features Mae Busch. 20 minutes.

Most of these films can be viewed on Youtube for free but a few years ago a Laurel and Hardy DVD box set appeared that included an almost complete collection on 10 discs. The tenth disc includes a tribute where comedians like Jerry Lewis and Dick Van Dyke expressed their appreciation and debt to Stan and Ollie.

###

Independence Day 2026

 I concentrated on eighteenth century British politics in my brief academic career more than 50 years ago. In the process I came to realize the importance of British politics for a true understanding of the American Revolution. The American colonists regarded themselves as Englishmen defending their traditional rights as Englishmen. Basically, they believed that government should be as close to the people as possible, and not in some faraway capitol. Below find a brief analysis of the Declaration of Independence.

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

Every July 4 we celebrate Independence Day, the anniversary of the promulgation of our famed Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. Most of us have heard the famous opening lines of the document, 

“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

However, few have ever read the entire Declaration and even fewer have any understanding of the nature of the actual grievances that led the colonists to sever their ties with England and seek independence. Most readers don’t get past the following words.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

King George III of England was one of the nicest, most benevolent rulers that England ever had, but the Declaration portrayed him as a tyrannical despot. However, the real conflict between England and her American colonies was not between Monarchy and Democracy but between the rights of the British people represented as they were by their own Parliament, and the rights of the American colonists represented as they were by their own colonial assemblies. In this conflict no one was a greater supporter of the rights and authority of the British Parliament than the King.

For the most part the Declaration of Independence does not complain about violations of individual human rights but concentrates on what it claims has been a systematic attempt on the part of the government in England to violate the rights and privileges of colonial representative assemblies. 

The founding fathers believed these assemblies that represented the leading citizens and property owners in the various colonies were the sole bulwark against monarchical tyranny on the one hand, and democratic anarchy on the other. They claimed that the King and his colonial governors had repeatedly refused to put into operation laws passed by these assemblies.

•He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

•He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operations till his assent should be obtained…

•He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature…

•He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

In some cases the English government has even gone so far as to dissolve some of these representative assemblies and leave particular colonies without any form of self-government. The legal system, military defense, and tax collection have been taken out of the hands of the colonial representatives. Here are some examples:

•He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

•He has made the judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

•He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

•He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures.

• He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power.

In the end the Declaration claimed that it came down to a contest between their own local representative assemblies and a faraway legislature that did not represent them. Because they had come to deny the authority of the British Parliament, they never used the word Parliament in the document. 

There are elements in the Declaration that might seem offensive to modern ears. Jefferson and others in America opposed the efforts of a reforming British government to permit religious toleration of the large Catholic population in newly conquered Canada. For them Catholicism went hand in hand with despotism. The Declaration also complained about attempts on the part of the British government to prevent colonization of Indian territory. Indeed, it claimed that England was encouraging the native tribes.

Nevertheless, the leaders assembled in Congress insisted on their rights as Englishmen to govern themselves. They wanted government to be as close to home as possible. They would make their own laws, vote their own taxes when necessary, and be responsible for their own legal and military systems. They did not want to be governed by a faraway government that had little concern for their interests or welfare.

It was true that the founders were men of property and status. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and Franklin were not common men. Democracy would come later. For the present they wanted to protect their right to self-government. The British government had declared itself “invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.” To resist, they were prepared to risk all that they held dear.

•“And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.” 

 ###

 

Democratic Socialists and American Prosperity

Back in 2019, Alexandra Ocasio Cortez (AOC), the now famous Democratic Representative from New York City, claimed that an entire generation "came of age and never saw American prosperity." I suppose that she and other Democratic Socialists still believe that they have not prospered in America. 

She only has to look in a mirror to disprove such a preposterous claim. The image at the left shows her in a designer gown that she wore to a fancy dress gala at New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art that was packed with other successful people like herself. Her clothes, jewelry and make up probably cost more than most ordinary people pay for food. Didn't she grow up in Westchester county, one of the most prosperous areas in the country? Before she entered politics weren't the drinks she served as a barista signs of prosperity?

She also should look at the end of her arm and behold the ever-present mobile phone in her hand. How can the generation that has never seen American prosperity own these expensive phones with their equally pricy monthly plans? What about the laptops and other devices that are owned by practically everyone? They have the world's best libraries in the palm of their hands.

Moreover, every day these mobile phones and laptops have to be plugged into the electric grid so that their batteries can be recharged. Electricity is one of our basic human needs in the modern world but it is remarkably cheap compared to other things we buy. People hate their electric bills but most probably spend less on this vital resource than they pay on beer and coffee. Speaking of coffee, the ubiquitous Starbucks, where so many young people like to meet and hang out and pay exorbitant prices for a latte are certainly a sign of prosperity. 

AOC's words made me think of my own generation and compare it with the prosperity of her generation. Let's look at housing first.

I was 21 in 1960, and about to enter my Senior year at Fordham University. I had lived at home with my grandparents in the borough of Queens ever since my mother had died 10 years before. They owned a three family house on busy 69th Street, and we lived on the first floor. There were only two bedrooms and one bathroom. I did not have my own room but slept in the rarely used dining room adjoining the small kitchen. The bathroom had a tub with a makeshift shower attached.There were no countertops, granite or otherwise, in the bathroom or in the kitchen, Food was prepared on the kitchen table or on the stove. We never ate out. It was unthinkable for my grandparents to eat at a restaurant.

My father, stepmother and two brothers lived next door above a deli. Their apartment also only had two bedrooms and an even more primitive bathroom. At the same time, my future wife lived on the first floor of a two story home in White Plains, NY. with her parents and four siblings. Their apartment had only two bedrooms and one bathroom, as well as a tiny kitchen with no countertops. She and her two younger sisters shared the same bedroom.

 

What about communications? Cell phones had not yet been invented and I don't remember that my grandparents even had a landline by 1960. They communicated with neighbors and family on the front steps or in the back yard under the grapevine. To call a girl for a date I had to walk a couple of blocks to a payphone.

Like most families we only had one car. My grandparents never learned to drive, and my father, who dreamed of owning a Cadillac, had to settle for used Chevys. I only got my driver's license after graduating from college. Transportation by bus oe subway was the norm, although we did walk a lot. I never even rode a bike. Motor bikes and scooters were unheard of. Unlike my grandchildren, I never thought of traveling abroad, although by 1960 attending high school in Manhattan had opened my eyes to the wonders of NYC.

Although I never thought of it, I guess even with our modest lifestyles we were sharing in American prosperity. By 1960 my father and grandparents had converted their homes from coal to oil heat. No more backbreaking shoveling coal every morning. By then there was only one TV in the living room but with no remote. There was no gigantic flat screen color TV in every room. I had one pair of shoes and one pair of sneakers for sports. Everyone wore Keds back in 1960. There were no designer sneakers.

In 1960 I was about to enter my Senior year at Fordham University.  My father certainly could not afford the tuition but I had won a scholarship from his employer, the Bulova Watch Company. As the first in my family to ever attend college, It never occurred to me to live on campus, and so I had to take a bus and subway ride of over an hour each day just to get to campus.  It turned out to be a blessing in disguise as NY City with its libraries, museums, theaters, and movies became my campus.

In 1960 I had $250 in a small savings account, and no prospects for the future. If I had ever thought of it, I might have complained that I had not shared in American prosperity. But in the next year I graduated from Fordham with a fine education and no debt, won a NY State Teaching scholarship to attend Columbia University, and met the young nurse who would still be my wife today. 

I don't think my story is unusual for any generation. 

###

###