Author Archives: jsh54

The First Indochina War, 1946-1954. Part 1C

Posted on by
Reply

            Introduction. 

            The First Indochina War (1946-1954) sprang from the collision between Indochinese desires and French whim.  On the one hand, there existed a long-standing and deeply-rooted desire among the people of Indochina (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia) for independence from French rule.[1]  Many elements divided the people of Indochina about what to put in place of French rule.  They disagreed about whether to seek complete independence or membership in a “French Union”; whether to fight or to negotiate; whether to create a Communist or a non-Communist state.  These questions had not been resolved in 1945 and would not be resolved for many years. 

On the other hand, the French emerged from the Second World War humiliated and confused about what the future held for their country.  They clung to empire as a way to not be shoved further downhill, while also fumbling toward a new and different France.[2] 

The war began in a haphazard and improvised kind of way.  As the Second World War drew to a sudden end in Summer 1945, the British, Americans, and Soviets had agreed that France was to be restored to power in Indochina.  It would be hard to do.  Japanese troops occupied Indochina.  The Japanese had replaced the French colonial system with several puppet-states.  The most important of these was the “Empire of Vietnam” led by the compliant Emperor Bao Dai.  The French military had been disarmed.  Indochinese nationalist groups of various stripes had been tolerated.  It would take time for the French to get even modest forces to Indochina.  In the meantime, foreigners—China and Britain–had to assume responsibility for the immediate occupation of French Indochina.  Neither country wanted to be embroiled there for long.  Each had their own attitudes toward European empires.  The realities opened a window of opportunity for the nationalists.  Blood soon flowed.  

Potsdam. 

In July-August 1945, the British, American, and Soviet leaders met in Potsdam, Germany to confer on important post-war matters.[3]  The fate of French Indochina did not rise to the level of an “important” matter.  However, the Anglo-American Combined Chiefs of Staff did devote some attention to the question.  The French had offered to send two army Divisions to the Far East.  The Chiefs agreed to accept this offer.  It would take some time to move the troops to Asia.  If the war were to end before their arrival, the Combined Chiefs agreed that troops from the Army of Kuomintang China would move in to accept the Japanese surrender north of the 16th Parallel, while troops from the British-led Southeast Asia command would do the same south of the 16th parallel.[4] 

            From Plans to Action, August 1945. 

On 6 August 1945, the Americans atom-bombed Hiroshima; on 8 August, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan and immediately invaded Manchuria; and on 9 August the Americans atom-bombed Nagasaki.  On 15 August 1945, Japan’s resistance ended with the Emperor Hirohito’s announcement of Japan’s surrender.  American troops began arriving in Japan on 28 August.  The formal surrender took place on 2 September 1945. 

Japan’s “surprise surrender” ended the war, but it caught the Allies before they had all of their preparations for Indochina completed.[5]  While they hastened to launch their occupation of the two zones, local actors took matters into their own hands.  Among them was Ho Chi Minh, leader of the Communist-dominated Viet Minh.[6] 

In early August 1945, only a tiny handful of people in the United States and Britain knew the technology of the “atom bomb” and hundreds of thousands of Japanese knew the reality of it.  Most people remained in the dark.  They did know that something terrible had been done to the Japanese.  That, combined with the Soviet entry into the war, was driving Japan toward surrender.  In southeast Asia, the end of the war would come within a few days or a few weeks. 

Ho Chi Minh meant to make the most of the ending of Japanese command in Indochina before the French could return to power.  Even before Japan had announced its surrender (and probably before he knew anything of the decisions taken at the Potsdam Conference, Ho had begun preparations to seize power in as much of Indochina as possible.  Here he built upon the steps taken in response to the Japanese occupation of March to August 1945. 

As a first step, Ho sought to rally all the Indochinese nationalist groups under a single banner.  On 13 August 1945, representatives of several groups joined the Viet Minh at Ho’s headquarters in Tan Trao, in the mountains north of Hanoi.  They had a busy few days: on 14 August 1945, they created a “National Insurrection Committee” dominated by the Viet Minh; over the next few days they called for a national uprising, convened a “National People’s Congress,” and created a “National Liberation Committee” with Ho as its chairman.  Realizing (or at least suspecting) that foreign power might assist the French in re-establishing their power. Ho argued for rapid action.  He wanted to both seize urban centers of power and to mobilize the peasantry. 

Ho and the others had to maneuver around certain realities.  First, there remained a large French population in the major cities.  The French in Indochina had been abandoned by Vichy France.  Their army had been soundly defeated by the Japanese, who had taken over the administration of the country.  The Japanese had created an Indochinese puppet regime under Bao Dai, but had tolerated some activity by other nationalist groups.  Humiliated and enraged by their wartime experiences, the local French would welcome the return of French troops and French power with open arms.  They were spoiling for a fight to watch. 

Second, the Japanese Army remained a potent military force if they cared to use it and for some limited time to come.  The Japanese forces were, like the French, defeated, humiliated, demoralized, and eager to go home.  They were not necessarily anti-Viet Minh, so they might be a help to the Viet Minh.  They were to be disarmed.  Could the Viet Minh get possession of some of their weapons in order to arm themselves?  At the same time, the Japanese were a powerful irritant of Indochinese nationalism.  At least limited conflict with the Japanese could bolster the Viet Minh’s nationalist credentials. 

Third, the Viet Minh was much stronger in Tonkin in the north than in Cochinchina in the south.  In the south, a complex mix of royalists and religion-based groups rivaled the Viet Minh for leadership of the nationalist cause.[7]  They had, so far, resisted all the Viet Minh’s blandishments.  They were far away from the Viet Minh’s base of power.  Ho didn’t want a civil war if it could be avoided.  The Viet Minh might lose. 

Ho opted to roll the dice.  The Viet Minh went into action all across Tonkin and wherever they could manage in Annam and Cochinchina.  What followed came to be called the “August Revolution.”  On 19 August 1945, Viet Minh troops marched into Hanoi, seizing key sites.  Other Viet Minh troops seized other places around Tonkin.  On 20 August, at Thai Nguyen, north of Hanoi, they got into a fight with Japanese troops.  Thai Nguyen had a fort built by the French and now garrisoned by the Japanese.  The Viet Minh were too lightly armed to make headway against the fortifications or its well-armed defenders.  At the same time, no one on the Japanese side wanted to be the last man killed in a lost war.  After five days of desultory skirmishing, the two sides reached an agreement.  The Japanese would confine themselves to the fort and the Viet Minh would take control of the rest of the town.  The Viet Minh publicized this as a Japanese “surrender” and a Viet Minh “victory.” 

Elsewhere, the Viet Minh appeared to have the wind at their back.  On 22 August, in Saigon, the Japanese commander told two representatives of the Viet Minh that Japanese forces would not interfere with their actions.  On 23 August, in the old imperial capital of Hue, the Viet Minh seized power.  On 25 August, Bao Dai abdicated, transferring power to the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.  He became a “counselor” to Ho.  That is, he was a captive and a puppet. 

Viet Minh leadership had the least sure grip in Cochinchina.  There, multiple anti-communist nationalist groups had deeper roots and more support.  These included two religious movements with political objectives, the Hoa Hao and the Cao Dai.[8]  Although the Viet Minh had claimed power in Hanoi, it wasn’t clear that they could hold onto it. 

On 2 September 1945, Ho Chi Minh proclaimed a new “Democratic Republic of Vietnam” and declared independence from France.  This first-draft of the DRV would soon be scribbled-out by more powerful forces.  However, it showed Ho’s speed of action when he saw an opportunity.  The future would give evidence for his tenacity. 

[1] David Marr, Vietnamese Anticolonialism, 1885–1925. (University of California Press, 1971); William Duiker, The Rise of Nationalism in Vietnam, 1900-1941 (Cornell University Press, 1976). 

[2] Jean-Pierre Rioux, The Fourth Republic, 1944-1958 (Cambridge University Press, 1989). 

[3] Herbert Feis, Between War and Peace: The Potsdam Conference (Princeton University Press, 1960); Wilson D. Miscamble, From Roosevelt to Truman: Potsdam, Hiroshima, and the Cold War (Cambridge University Press, 2007).  On Feis, see: Herbert Feis – Wikipedia 

[4] See: Historical Documents – Office of the Historian; Historical Documents – Office of the Historian; Historical Documents – Office of the Historian; Historical Documents – Office of the Historian.     

[5] Ronald H. Spector, In the Ruins of Empire: The Japanese Surrender and the Battle for Postwar Asia (Random House, 2007), pp. 73-137, provides a first-rate scholarly analysis of events in Southeast Asia and particularly of French Indochina.   

[6] Biographies of Ho include Jean Lacouture, Ho Chi Minh: A Political Biography (Random House, 1968); William J. Duiker, Ho Chi Minh: A Life (Hyperion, 2001); and Pierre Brocheux, Ho Chi Minh: A Biography (Cambridge University Press, 2007). 

[7] A small group of Trotskyists also existed chiefly in the south.  There could be no serious bargaining with these people.  They would have to be killed. 

[8] On these groups, see: Bernard Fall, “The Political-Religious Sects of Viet-Nam,” Pacific Affairs, v. 28, #3 (September 1955), pp. 235-253; David W. P. Elliott, The Vietnamese War: revolution and social change in the Mekong Delta, 1930-1975 (M.E. Sharpe, 2003). 

How the US Lost Manufacturing 1.

Posted on by
Reply

            How did the United States rise to economic and industrial predominance in the world?  First, the North American continent held a vast trove of natural resources of many kinds.  All that was needed was finding ways to extract and transform those resources.  Second, the country suffered from a perennial labor-scarcity.  Even massive immigration in the “long 19th Century” could not fill the breach, so Americans turned to technological and organizational innovations to increase productivity.  Third, all this took a great deal of capital.  The “Founders” created a pro-business environment that both helped generate American capital and attracted foreign (especially British) capital.  By the dawn of the 20th Century, the United States had the greatest industrial economy in the world.  The two World Wars laid low every other industrial country, while they strengthened that of the United States.  By mid-century, American industry (and agriculture, and finance, and science and technology) bestrode the world.  In one symbol of both the industrial power and the diversity of the American economy, about a third (35 percent) of all private-sector jobs were in manufacturing.[1]  This situation lasted through the end of the 1950s. 

            What were some results of that rise to predominance? 

            In the wake of the Second World War, the United States held a uniquely favorable position.  All of the other major industrial nations were either bankrupt or war-ravaged and bankrupt.  The Stalinist command-economy could compel Russians and conquered Eastern Europeans to make painful sacrifices to rebuild their economies without American aid.  Elsewhere (Western Europe, Japan) relied upon American assistance.  Later, the Americans added military protection against Soviet aggression. 

            The Americans used their leverage to remake the international economic system.  The “Bretton Woods System” (International Monetary Fund, World Bank); the first steps that would lead to the European Union; and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and its successor the World Trade Organization (WTO) all came from American designs.  A progressively more “open” world economy came about between 1945 and 2025. 

            The Western European and Japanese economies revived with a speed that astonished people who had seen the wrecked economies and societies at war’s end.  They not only recovered, but generated an unprecedented and widespread prosperity.  It should be obvious, but may not be to most Americans, that the vast majority of this recovery and progress sprang from the hard work of the people who received American aid.  Especially in Germany and Japan, hard work, ready adaptation to new circumstances, and self-restraint became cultural values and not merely the harsh necessities of the moment.  These countries also built government systems of “social provision” that shocked many Americans. 

            How did the United States fall from that predominant position? 

            The economies that the United States had helped to revive began to become competitors.  This had always been expected, if only in some misty future.  First, they began to supply many of their own needs, then they began to compete in “third markets” (neither Western Europe, not America).  In Asia and Latin America, countries began to emulate the earlier industrializing countries.  Their initial advantage lay in very cheap labor.  They began by producing simple, non-durable goods at a very low cost for export to foreign markets, especially the American market. 

At the same time, from the mid-1960s onward, the American economy began to shift its center of gravity.  The service sector[2] began to grow rapidly.  Manufacturing held steady in numbers of employees until about 1980.  At the same time, manufacturers began the long trend toward shifting new production to the “Sun Belt,” especially the Southern states.[3] 

With an expanding service sector, Americans seem to have been ready to surrender the lowest level of manufacturing to foreigners in return for more stuff bought cheaper.  Those countries didn’t stay at the lowest level.  Having earned and learned from low-level industrialization, many of them sought to move up the food-chain.  South Korea, for example, developed a steel industry and a ship-building industry. 

            Then, beginning in 2001, China was admitted to the World Trade Organization.  China has an immense population.  Through the end of the Mao Zedong period, they were mostly trapped in low-productivity farming.  Post-Mao governments set out to change China in a more revolutionary and constructive way than Mao had ever imagined.  China would open its markets to foreign business, draw in foreign investment, shift its population from “the idiocy of rural life” to the “dark, Satanic mills” of new industrial cities, and conquer foreign markets for manufactured goods.  It took China less that a decade to surpass the United States as the world’s leading exporter of manufactured goods.  What the United States has retained and developed is its role as the leading exporter of services, including intellectual property.[4] 

In this account, the American economy shifted its chief function from extracting primary products (so, primary sector) to transforming them into finished goods (secondary sector) to providing diverse services (tertiary sector).  It’s easy to see this as a normative evolution of all capitalist economies.  American aid to Western Europe and Japan after the Second World War helped those places get back on track.  Similarly, American development aid assisted developing economies begin the path on which others were well-advanced.  Over the years, America shedding low-value industrial jobs and shifting people up the hierarchy into high value service jobs facilitated the global rise in development and living standards. 

Only in the case of post-Mao China did the institutions and policies created by the United States after the Second World War succeed all too well.  The “China Shock” wreaked havoc on American industry (and not only American industry).  That had painful social and economic consequences.  From one point of view, it had been impossible to foresee the scale and rapidity of China’s growth in manufacturing power.  So, is the problem how to return China to the old post-war model through practicing self-restraint and focusing on domestic consumers?  To become a “normal” nation in American terms? 

[1] Justin Lahart, “How the U.S. Slipped From Top Manufacturing Perch,” WSJ, 14 April 2025. 

[2] Doctors, lawyers, bankers, teachers, and so on, rather than just people “flipping hamburgers” as Mike Dukakis seemed to imagine. 

[3] In a sense, the Southern states were “developing economies” within America’s own borders.  Wages were lower, labor unions weren’t well-established, and state governments were pro-development.  For more, see: American Union, stay away from me uh. | waroftheworldblog 

[4] Justin Lahart, “How the U.S. Slipped From Top Manufacturing Perch,” WSJ, 14 April 2025.   

Staircase or Slide?

Posted on by
Reply

            Mandy Rice-Davies, a secondary figure in the “Profumo scandal,” later described her life as “one slow descent into respectability.”[1]  That’s pretty much the conventional view of aging.  More than a decade ago, one student of epigenetics[2] argued that aging became linear after puberty.[3]  Or, as a friend once remarked, “Once an adult and twice a child.” 

            Modern Science is beginning to have doubts.  In place of a slow descent along a glide path leading to your children abandoning you in your wheel-chair at the dog track, it has been suggested that aging happens in more-or-less predictable “bursts.”[4]  One study[5] analyzed molecular changes from blood samples.  What the researchers discovered was that at around age 44 bodies experienced molecular changes in muscle function and the metabolization of fat and alcohol.  At around age 60, more changes occurred in muscle function and in immune dysfunction.[6]  It is posited that the changes may explain why people have more trouble processing alcohol after age 40 and why they become more vulnerable to illnesses after age 60.

            Of course, poor life-style choices around diet and exercise appear to play a large role in progressive ill-health.[7]  Do the poor choices produce the metabolic changes?  Well, studies of mice found “sudden chemical modifications to DNA” happened in early-to-mid life and again in mid-to-late life.  Probably not a huge share of obese, alcoholic mice.[8]  Similarly, a study of blood plasma from 4,000 participants showed spikes of proteins linked to aging in the fourth, seventh, and eighth decades of life. 

            So far, researchers haven’t discovered any major ways to countering or controlling aging.  That would be to ask too much of Science at this early stage.  Are there significant differences between individual humans?  Are there significant differences between men and women?  Can anything significant be done to slow aging?  More work needs to be done. 

            Then there’s the $64 question: can anything be done to understand and control cognitive decline?  Who wants to be some “fine figure of a man” with his feeding instructions tattooed on his forehead for the convenience of the para-professionals? 

[1] On Rice-Davies, see: Mandy Rice-Davies – Wikipedia; on the “Profumo affair,” see: Profumo affair – Wikipedia 

[2] Epigenetics – Wikipedia  You’re probably going to want to skip right down to the “Functions and Consequences” section. 

[3] Mohana Rabindrath, “Aging in Adulthood May Occur in a Series of Bursts,” NYT, 18 March 2025.

[4] Mohana Rabindrath, “Aging in Adulthood May Occur in a Series of Bursts,” NYT, 18 March 2025. 

[5] Of 108 subjects spanning ages 25 to 75 years old.  If they were testing in 5-year groups (25-30-35 etc.), then that’s 11 groups.  Basically 10 subjects per group.  Really thin to my mind.  If they’re testing in 10-year groups (25-35-45 etc.), then that’s 20 guys per group.  Still really thin.  So, you’re entitled to go “In a pig’s eye; come back when you’ve got a real study.”

[6] Spoiler Alert: I’m 71 according to the government.  I don’t feel like whatever I imagined being 71 felt like.  Also, there’s a guy in my workout group who has the nickname “Spoiler.”  Naturally, all his online posts are labeled “Spoiler Alerts.” 

[7] More of Same on Longevity. | waroftheworldblog 

[8] Although there is probably some grad student betting his career on such studies. 

More of Same on Longevity.

Posted on by
1

            “Old age is a ship-wreck.”—Charles de Gaulle.  It sure is for a large percentage of Americans.  As adults, better than half have some chronic illness (cancer, heart disease, diabetes).  By the time they hit the traditional retirement age (65), four-fifths of them have at least two chronic conditions.  Only a handful reach age 80 without some sort of health problem. 

            How does this handful dodge so many of the bullets that hit the vast majority of people?  Dr. Eric Topol, a cardiologist interested in aging and longevity sought answers.  He hypothesized a genetic explanation.  That didn’t pan out, so he turned his attention to common features of what he calls “Super Agers.”[1]  He and his team of researchers found the “super agers” to be “thinner, exercised more frequently and seemed “remarkably upbeat,” often with rich social lives.”[2] 

            In Topol’s view, “nothing surpasses regular exercise for promotion of healthy aging.”  Then, “healthy eating and a good night’s sleep are also crucial.”  He’s less prescriptive about what to eat than are some, but he’s hard and fast on what not to eat: highly processed junk.  These “foods” promote inflammation, which can contribute to all sorts of other maladies. 

Then there’s loneliness (“social isolation” in academese).  No one to talk to about your triumphs or disasters.  No one to share your enthusiasms.  There’s probably an up-side here to sports fans.  (Bound to be one.  Well, that’s a snotty thing to say.)  It’s been a problem for a long time.  Popular culture commonly associated lonely with individual experience, rather than as a social problem.[3]  Back in 2018, British Prime Minister Theresa May appointed a “Minister for Loneliness.”  I don’t know what became of that initiative, but at least people recognized the seriousness of the problem.  Similarly, Vivek Murthy, the Surgeon General of the United States, warned of loneliness as a health issue.[4]    

            Topol is pretty much dismissive of many pseudo-scientific approaches to extending lifespan and health span, or improving cognitive function.[5]  OTOH, he sees drugs like Ozempic as having an “extraordinary potential to promote health span.”  The drugs both promote weight loss and reduced inflammation. 

            Many authors are now touting the opportunities for longer life and better health available to individuals making the right choices.  That would seem to imply that shorter life and ill-health are the product of individuals making bad choices.  Why does such a large share of Americans make such poor choices and then stick to them?  The machinations of “Big Food”?  A cultural shift from personal responsibility and self-reliance to feelings of impotence and dependence in “mass society”?  Or, conversely, a shift from a coercive, normative society to a laissez-faire and diversity-celebrating society?  The internet may not be the cause of loneliness, but it seems to be an accelerant.

            Be that as it may, there’s a cardinal sitting on the planter in my yard.  Dark red head, then a dustier sort of red below it.  Beautiful. 

[1] Eric Topol, Super Agers: An Evidence-Based Approach to Longevity (2025). 

[2] David Shaywitz, review of Topol, Super Agers, WSJ, 7 May 2025. 

[3] Couple of my favorites: Sea of Heartbreak and I Still Miss Someone 

[4] U.K. Appoints a Minister for Loneliness – The New York Times; and A Rao, “US surgeon general warns of next public health priority: loneliness”, The Guardian, 2 May 2023. 

[5] Still, they’re all over the commercials during the network news at dinner time.  As best I recall. 

Making Your Life Longer and Better.

Posted on by
Reply

            There’s life span and then there’s health span.[1]  How to prolong both?  There are some simple and cheap things to do. 

            First, work out.  Stan Pocock[2] once told a bunch of young men that “It’s not about the rigging, it’s about the rowing.”  He meant that the exercise equipment doesn’t matter, but how and how hard you do the exercise does matter.  So, what works?  Both cardio and strength training cut the risk of cardiovascular disease.  You know, heart attacks and strokes.  Walking and running around the neighborhood provides cardio.  Body weight calisthenics provide good, basic strength training.  Later, you can scale up with some weights if you’ve a mind to.  OTOH, 28-pound cinder blocks are $2.18 a piece at Loew’s. 

            How much exercise?  Well, anything is better than just sitting in the Barcalounger with a beer in your fist.  More formally, 150 minutes a week of “moderate” intensity aerobic exercise provides a baseline.  Walking 30 minutes a day, five days a week, gets you to 150 minutes.  After that base, 75 minutes of “vigorous” aerobic activity from running or swimming is a desirable further goal. 

            If you don’t like working out alone and don’t find a gym much of an improvement, then try a free exercise group available in much of the country.[3] 

            Second, eat some version of the Mediterranean diet.  That means eating unprocessed whole foods like whole grains, fruit and vegetables, and lean proteins (chicken and fish for example).  These kinds of diets can cut the risk of cardiovascular disease.  When shopping, work around the outside edge of the grocery store. 

            Third, try to get seven hours of sleep a night.  During sleep, the body regulates hormone and blood sugar levels.  Also, your brain can clean out toxins. 

            The best approach is to build a regular sleep schedule.  If you have to be up by 5:00 AM, then you have to be asleep by 10:00 PM.  Some people and early-birds, some are night-owls.  It’s probably shoveling sand against the tide to fight these traits.  So recognize their power when figuring out when to go to sleep and when to wake.  Then, you have accommodate your work schedule, your family responsibilities, and your exercise schedule to your sleep schedule.  In the case of work and family, they can easily take precedence.  Who knew that such standard aspects of life could threaten your health?  It’s a conundrum. 

            Fourth, “train your brain to be optimistic.”  Depression and loneliness are mental states that increase the risk of early death.  Perhaps people can train their brains to be more optimistic.  The current scientific research is only suggestive, rather than definitive.  It is suggested that talk therapy and journaling can help re-direct the mind.  Equally or more important, at least intuitively, is positive connectedness to other people.  Such connections reduce stress and improve mood.  OTOH, “negative” connectedness—spending time with people who run you down—has a bad effect.  Track the changes in how you feel that come from changes in how you live.  Feeling more fit, better fed, more rested, and more connected can shape attitude. 

[1] Mohana Ravindranath, “Inexpensive Longevity ‘Hacks’,” NYT, 15 April 2025. 

[2] Rowing legend Stan Pocock dies at 91 | The Seattle Times 

[3] F3 Nation: Fitness, Fellowship, Faith 

Just Asking.

Posted on by
Reply

            Was Joe Biden being treated for cancer during his term in office?  One possible effect of chemotherapy for cancer is commonly called “chemo brain.”  The Mayo Clinic lists cognitive effects, physical complications, and risk factures for “chemo brain.” [1] 

“Symptoms of chemo brain linked to memory may include:

  • Trouble recalling what you’ve said to others.
  • Trouble recalling what you’ve seen, such as images or lists of words.
  • Trouble recalling what’s happened recently, called short-term memory issues.

Symptoms of chemo brain linked to thinking may include:

  • Trouble finding the right words.
  • Trouble learning new skills.
  • Trouble doing more than one thing at a time.
  • Mental fog.
  • Short attention span.
  • Taking longer than usual to do routine tasks.

“Physical complications of chemotherapy include: 

  • Low levels of healthy red blood cells or hemoglobin needed to carry oxygen to the body’s tissues, called anemia.
  • Weakness and tiredness.”

“Factors that may increase the risk of chemo brain and memory changes in people with cancer include:

  • Older age.”

There appears to be a degree of overlap in the symptoms of “chemo brain” and the “cognitive decline” attributed to President Biden from early in his term.[2]  It has been remarked that Joe Biden had not received the PSA test since 2014.  This struck some observers as odd.  On the one hand, doctors don’t recommend the PSA for men over 70.  On the other hand, Biden was a candidate for the presidency and then the President of the United States.[3]  Spokesmen for Biden have denied that he had been diagnosed with cancer before May 2025.[4]  That would be powerfully persuasive had not other spokespeople previously declared that Biden was mentally and physically fit to be President when he obviously was not.[5] 

Whatever the cause of Joe Biden’s cognitive problems, Americans are entitled to ask: who was running the show, and for how long, and in which areas of government?    

[1] Chemo brain – Symptoms and causes – Mayo Clinic 

[2] For a catalogue of Biden’s public mis-steps, see: Age and health concerns about Joe Biden – Wikipedia For a recording of the full interview of Biden by Special Counsel Robert Hur, see: Marc Caputo, “Exclusive: Listen to the full Biden-Hur special counsel interview” Axios (May 17, 2025).  For a bunch of “now it can be told” stuff, see: Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson, Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again (2025). 

[3] “C’mon man.”    

[4] See the very helpful article by Tyler Pager “Biden Did Not Get Prostate Diagnosis Before Last Week,” NYT, 20 May 2025. 

[5] Andrew Restuccia, Annie Linskey, Emily Glazer, Rebecca Ballhaus, Erich Schwartzel, “How Biden’s Inner Circle Worked to Keep Signs of Aging Under Wraps”, WSJ, 8 July 2024, elicited a lot of push-back from Democrats high and low.    

Puzzled.

Posted on by
Reply

Are we doing too much to support our ally Israel? First, by launching and tenaciously continuing a war that Hamas cannot win, Hamas is at least as responsible as Israel for the massive death toll in Gaza. Still, have we erred by supplying Israel with so much ordnance? That’s without me knowing just how much ordnance we have supplied to Israel. Second, by attacking Iran’s key nuclear-weapons development facilities, we are entering a war whose long-term course is unknowable. (The same is true of any war, as Desmond Morton observed.) Israel is right to fear Iran’s development of nuclear weapons, given Iran’s professed desire to destroy Israel. Are we right to be concerned about the destruction of Israel to the point where we take military action?

Are we doing too little to support our friend, if not ally, Ukraine? Vladimir Putin has repeatedly professed his desire to destroy Ukraine as an independent state. So far, the United States and the Europeans have supplied a great deal of military hardware and training to support Ukraine’s self-defense effort, along with financial aid to keep the Ukrainian civil economy afloat. There is such a demographic imbalance between the opposing forces, that I wonder if armaments alone will enable Ukraine to survive. Should we be concerned about the destruction of Ukraine to the point where we take military action with our own forces?

Then there’s Taiwan.

What is the “right” amount of support to supply to an ally or friend at war? How do we tell what is the “right” level? Are Israel and Ukraine the same or are they apples and oranges?

Q and A.

Posted on by
Reply

            Question: How does a democratic society operate in a modern world characterized by highly complex systems.  Examples of such systems include the Economy, Science, Medicine, Transportation, International Relations and National Defense. 

            Answer: It functions through delegation.  Initially, such delegation took the form of elected representatives and through federalism.  Bit by bit over the last century, the important problems raised by increasing complexity, the “Seventy-Five Years War,” and the desire for truly national policies have expanded the delegation to subject-area Experts.  Some of this “Expertise” is housed within the federal departments and agencies, some of it in semi-independent organizations, some in colleges and universities, and some of it in private bodies.  Experts act as Stewards of these complex systems for the common good. 

            Question: What do the Experts get in exchange for operating their Stewardship? 

            Answer: “Honor, Power, Riches, Fame, and the Love of Women.”[1]  All in moderation or, at least, the appearance of moderation.  This is a version of the “Social Contract.” 

            Question: What happens if one party violates the “contract”?   

            Answer: The contract ceases to be enforceable on the other party.[2] 

            Question: Have the “Experts” violated the contract?  It seems to me that they have and repeatedly and egregiously.  There is a partial list of examples.[3] 

            Question: Has the mass of ordinary people violated the contract? 

            Answer: Maybe or Arguably, they have.  I’ve thought about the “Experts.”  They make an inviting target.  I haven’t thought as much about ordinary people.  I should.  Off the top of my head—or my grievance pile—there are the following observations:

            No one—regardless of social class or gender or sexual orientation, or ethnicity–wants to pay taxes, or serve in the military,[4] or serve on a jury. 

            Nobody seems to care about massive national debt that will lead to default. 

            We have an economy driven by the consumption of immense quantities of cheap garbage from Walmart, Amazon, and Apple. 

            The swelling numbers of people afflicted by obesity and Type II diabetes.  These are afflictions of choice, even if that choice is manipulated by Big Food. 

            The educational decline manifested in falling standardized test scores. 

            The fascination with celebrities, athletes, musicians, and other louts. 

            Today’s “common man” as a far cry from the “common man” of Aaron Copland’s day.[5]    

            Yes, I know: Curmudgeon yelling at the rain.  Doesn’t make me wrong. 

[1] Sigmund Freud, quoted by Ward Just in the story of the same title in Ward Just, Twenty-One Selected Stories (1990).   

[2] See: The Declaration of Independence. 

[3] What Should You Read? | waroftheworldblog 

[4] Well, since the creation of the “All Volunteer Force” at the end of the Vietnam War, about one percent of Americans have been willing to serve in the military.  These were not the dregs of society the common imagination.  Most often, they have been people from the South and West and often with some kind of family link to military service. 

[5] Fanfare for the Common Man – Aaron Copland 

Tell-Some.

Posted on by
Reply

            Reports of a new book on the presidency of Joe Biden have begun to appear.  It focuses on the troubled man revealed for all the world to see in his catastrophic debate with Donald Trump.[1]  Biden had been 77 years old when he finally was inaugurated in January 2021.  He would have been 82 at his second inauguration.  The job of President of the United States would be daunting to almost anyone at any age.  To be president in old age would be a much greater challenge.  The authors have called upon a host of—mostly anonymous—sources to document the failing powers of an ambitious man of modest abilities.[2] 

            Even during the original 2020 campaign, Biden had begun to forget the names of people he had known for a long time.  His condition worsened as his term progressed.  He confused one person with another.  In one case with nasty implications, he confused Xavier Becerra, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, with Alejandro Mayorkas, the Secretary of Homeland Security.[3]  Cabinet meetings had to work from a written script.  Concern went as far as speculation about the president’s possible need for a wheelchair during a second term. 

            Apparently, those around Biden recognized his advancing physical and mental fragility.  Still, no one took it up with the president himself or, in any forceful way, with those closest to him.  The silence was widespread.  “No Democrats in the White House or on Capitol Hill raised any doubts, either privately with the president or publicly, about Biden’s second run” say the authors of the book. 

            Washington is a gossipy town filled with predatory people.  If the President makes the usual appearances and meets with donors, Congress people, Senators, the people from the CIA doing the daily Presidential brief, then these people would spot his problems the way a leopard spots a limp.  If the President disappears from all the usual appearances and communicates only through his closest staff, then that would be noticed as well.  Questions would arise. 

            The heightened attention and more frequent appearances running with the re-election campaign brought Biden’s limitations to the attention of many more people.  Democratic congressmen and donors (like George Clooney) were alarmed by the wreck of a man they now encountered.  People from the Obama presidency (William Daley, David Plouffe) tried to line up alternatives to Biden, to no avail.  Were Washington insiders just fooled?  Did they hope for the best in the election with the expectation that Biden would die or be removed in a second term? 

Most likely, many people hope to not be held to account for their parts in foisting off a dotard on the American people.[4]  Instead, “Dr. Jill and the Inner Circle” are being made into the goats.  The book provides a good deal of material for people to use against Jill Biden.  She is described as a “fierce advocate for her husband.”    She “grew more involved in his decision-making as he grew older.”  OK, which decisions?  “Just” re-election?  Foreign policy? 

[1] The book is Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson, Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again (due out on 20 May 2025).  The book is discussed in Reid J. Epstein, “Book Promises New Data on Biden’s Mental Decline,” NYT, 15 May 2025. 

[2] Unless you think that keeping Robert Bork off the Supreme Court and getting Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court is a positive record. 

[3] On the upside, he didn’t confuse either one of them with Janet Yellen, the Secretary of the Treasury. 

[4] It’s impossible to know, at present, if this operation ran only once (before the 2024 election) or if it ran twice (before the 2020 election as well). 

Further Thoughts on the Alien Enemies Act.

Posted on by
Reply

            The Alien Enemies Act is constitutional.  The Supreme Court found it so in a 1948 case when it endorsed the order of a lower court that a German-American Nazi had to leave the country.  Trump’s use of the law to justify deportations seems illegitimate.  Still, the commentary on it seems equally revealing. 

            “It’s an 18th century law…”[1]  “We cannot allow antiquated laws to continue enabling discriminatory practices.”[2]  Well, both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are creations of the 18th Century.  Marbury v. Madison and the Emancipation Proclamation are products of the 19th Century.  So, age is no issue if you like the results, but it is an issue if you don’t like them?    This argument is a flight from honest thought. 

            “No one has tried to argue that that invasion or predatory incursion language could be used in any context other than a conventional war.”[3]  Except that is just what Trump has argued, backed by his Department of Justice.  The Supreme Court has neither rejected nor affirmed Trump’s argument.[4]  Does the author mean to say that the argument is illegitimate because it is not hallowed by time?  This is the opposite of the previous argument.  Furthermore, Plessy v. Ferguson stood as “settled law” for almost a century.  So, hallowed by time. 

            “Historian Joseph Ellis called support for the Alien Enemies Act “unquestionably the biggest blunder” of Adams’ presidency.”[5]  So, an expert attacks the law as wrong right from the beginning.  We defer (or should defer) to expert opinion on the efficacy of vaccines.  Therefore, we should defer to expert opinion on the foolishness of a law passed in the many days ago?  JMO, but Adams’ “biggest blunder” was his support for the Sedition Act, which led to the prosecution of a number of Democratic-Republican journalists.  The Sedition Act was hard to pass because it raised so many doubts even among Federalists.  The application of the Act against political rivals aroused opposition to the Federalists.  John Adams became the first one-term president as a result.  It was repealed after the election of Thomas Jefferson in 1800.  In contrast, Presidents running declared wars against foreign powers have found it a useful tool.  During the Biden administration, bills to repeal the act were introduced in Congress in 2021 and 2023.  Neither bill made it out of committee.[6]  In both cases, the Democrats held the majority in the relevant chamber.  Some Democrats saw utility in keeping the Act.  Is this a case of a respected expert bending his analysis to oppose Trump? 

            That leaves the question of whether Trump’s use of the law in these circumstances is constitutional.  Currently, “the Supreme Court has limited the deportations without ruling on whether Trump may invoke the act.”[7]  So Trump’s actions may yet turn out to be constitutional.    

In the 1948 case, four Justices dissented, arguing that “Due process does not perish when war comes.”[8]  This is a complicated issue, but the one to fight on.  The rest is anti-Trump fluff. 

[1] “The Alien Enemies Act,” The Week, 9 May 2025, p. 11. 

[2] Representative Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota), quoted in “A push for repeal,” The Week, 9 May 2025, p. 11. 

[3] Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck, quoted in “The Alien Enemies Act,” The Week, 9 May 2025, p. 11. 

[4] “Supreme Court allows deportations to El Salvador,” The Week, 18 April 2025, p. 5.

[5] Ellis quoted in “The Alien Enemies Act,” The Week, 9 May 2025, p. 11. 

[6] “A push for repeal,” The Week, 9 May 2025, p. 11. 

[7] “The Alien Enemies Act,” The Week, 9 May 2025, p. 11. 

[8] Quoted in “The Alien Enemies Act,” The Week, 9 May 2025, p. 11.