Netanyahu.

Posted on October 4, 2025 by jsh54

Benjamin Netanyahu was born with the State of Israel. He was born in Tel Aviv in 1949, the son of the brilliant Revisionist Zionist fanatic Benzion Netanyahu. He spent much of his youth in the United States,[1] then returned to Israel for military service. No shirker he: Netanyahu spent five years in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), much of it in combat with the special forces.[2] Then back to the United States to pursue a degree in Architecture at M.I.T.[3] He eventually received the BA, plus an MA in Management.[4]

Netanyahu made a rapid ascent in politics. One way and another, he had a lot of connections in Israel. In 1984, those connections, brains, a familiarity with the United States, and a really good war record led to his appointment as Israel’s representative to the United Nations. Back in the US, he gave good interview to television reporters. In 1988 he entered parliament (the Knesset); in 1993 he won the leadership of the Likud party; in 1996 he became prime minister. In 1999, voters gave Likud, and Netanyahu with it, the heave.

Since then, Netanyahu’s career has been linked to Gaza and the West Bank. He got a cabinet position when Likud regained a majority, then, in 2005, resigned when Ariel Sharon ordered an end to the occupation of Gaza. Hamas soon evicted the Palestinian Authority from Gaza, creating a radical anti-Israel and pro-Iran bastion on the border. In 2009, as Israeli voters confronted these harsh new conditions, Netanyahu returned as Prime Minister. Since then, he has campaigned for a regional alliance with Sunni Arab states to contain (at the least) Iran. At the same time, however, he has had to juggle the rivalry between the Palestinian Authority (governing the West Bank) and Hamas. In the case of Hamas, he has allowed Qatar to send millions of dollars in aid to Gaza. He’s also had to bargain with the tiny, far-right parties who make his parliamentary majority possible. This has forced (or allowed) him to permit expanding settlements in Arab territory on the West Bank. He had a lot of irons in the fire.

Perhaps his skill at managing those irons made him complacent. Iran had armed and advised clients all around Israel’s borders. Hamas in Gaza, but also Hezbollah in Lebanon,[5] and the Assad regime in Syria, and the Houthis in Yemen. In any event, on 7 October 2023 Hamas launched a devastating surprise attack that killed 1,200 Israelis and captured a couple hundred others before the Hamas troops scuttled back into Gaza. There they hid among the Palestinian civilians in anticipation of an Israeli counter-attack. They may also have expected Netanyahu to have been tossed out of power after this disaster. They may have expected Hezbollah and even Iran to have joined in the war. But Netanyahu refused to resign. He was inventive, ruthless, and brave as a special forces soldier. Now he’s that again. He held onto power, while launching a “savage war of peace” against Hamas, then Hezbollah, and then Iran.

Now Gaza lies in ruins with scores of thousands dead. The architect, the special forces soldier, and—for the moment—the dominant force in the Middle East.

[1] He didn’t much like the American culture of the 1960s. It was fun at the time, but he may have a point. He doesn’t think much of recent American presidents. Who would: three adolescents, a dotard, and a feral child.

[2] So, no bone spurs, no asthma, no “politically viable,” no Air National Guard. More like JFK and Bob Kerry.

[3] Look at the realities, develop a vision, work to make it real.

[4] His studies were interrupted by a return to the IDF during the 1973 war. Must have been interesting sharing a dorm room with him.

[5] To the point that the country might better be called Hezbollanon.

Epstein first and last time.

Posted on September 26, 2025 by jsh54

Born into a “working-class” family in Brooklyn, Jeffrey Epstein (1953-2019) escaped from that social identity.[1] He went to college, but never finished; he got a job teaching at an elite prep school in New York, but got the boot for “poor performance” after two years; one of the parents saw something in the young math teacher and hired him at an investment bank, but in 1980, he was “asked to leave;” and in 1981 he started his own business managing rich peoples’ money. So far, this looks like failing upward on a grand scale.

Epstein both enjoyed and was very skilled at networking. Patrons and customers included Alan “Ace” Greenberg, Leon Black, and Leslie Wexner. Social contacts included Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump (long before he became president), among other luminaries. Money and power (and invulnerability) often run together in modern America.

Along the way, Epstein encountered Ghislaine Maxwell.[2] She became his long-time companion. She also facilitated his pursuit of psychologically-vulnerable girls. Many were in the 14-17 years-old range. He had a home in Manhattan, another in Palm Beach, an island in the U.S. Virgin Islands, a private jet, and a glittering life-style. Those assets helped dazzle the girls. Epstein allegedly shared the girls with some of his friends.

Certainly by the early 1990s, Epstein was exploiting young women. He seems to have exercised a measure of discretion. Then, in 2005, the Palm Beach police received a report that Epstein had assaulted a 14-year-old girl. The police investigated and found many more cases, the FBI became involved (crossing state lines), but prosecutors settled for a plea bargain in 2008. Epstein pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution in return for an 18-month sentence served under conditions that would have made a Mafia don envious. In addition, the FBI halted its investigation and granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators.”

No sooner was Epstein out of the slammer than he was back to his old tricks. Angry victims then started filing civil law-suits.[3] The Miami Herald got wind of the story and ran an expose in 2018; in July 2019, federal officers arrested Epstein. Prosecutors charged him with sex-trafficking, which is a lot more serious than soliciting prostitution. Confined to the federal Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan, Epstein committed suicide on the night of 9-10 August 2019. All this barely scratches the surface of the story.

It’s a lurid story, but why is there so much continuing interest in it? First of all, Epstein had claimed that he had dirt on important people.[4] Speculation on the nature of that “dirt” centers on sex with minors and the use of illegal drugs. Speculation on the collection of that “dirt” centers on reports of hidden cameras and sound systems.

Second, the circumstances of his suicide stink. The night of Epstein’s death, his cell-mate was transferred; the two guards failed to make prescribed welfare checks every 30 minutes and later tried to doctor the records; and both cameras outside his cell malfunctioned.[5]

Putting One and Two together, some people believe that Epstein was “suicided” to keep him from talking to investigators or from the witness stand. The FBI searched his homes and offices, carting away masses of material. Much of that material has not been released.

First, what’s in the “Epstein files”? All told, the evidence gathered by the FBI totals “300 gigabytes of data, plus other media.” At a minimum, they contain the flight logs for his plane (listing passengers, departure point and destinations, and dates of travel); his “black books” (apparently containing names of contacts for a guy who made it his business to know a lot of people); and his court records. It seems to have been supposed that they would also include secret recordings of people in compromising situations. However, on 27 July 2025, the Department of Justice announced that “no credible evidence [has been] found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions. We did not uncover evidence that could predicate [i.e. serve as a justification for] an investigation against uncharged third parties.”

Second, who’s named in the “Epstein list”? All sorts of people. He had little black books that listed the names of people with whom he had a connection, or sometimes not.[6] In short, no log of who did what with whom.

Conspiracy theories sprang up almost immediately after Epstein’s death.[7] The flash reaction to the news of Epstein’s death showed that 42 percent of Americans believed that he had been killed to shut him up and another 29 percent didn’t want to rush to judgement. The belief that Epstein had been murdered soon reached a majority.[8] The conspiracy theories probably piggy-backed on the earlier “PizzaGate” conspiracy theory.[9]

Then attention focused on the seized materials. When running for president in 2024, Donald Trump promised to release the “Epstein files” and the “Epstein list” if elected.[10] Then he didn’t. This provoked a very strong reaction among some of those who had supported him.

Was there a conspiracy? Well, apparently both the guards are still alive. No unsolved hit-and-run, no “I never knew he was using drugs” fentanyl in the tuna salad, no heart attack during a routine colonoscopy, no botched stick-up in a Mom-and-Pop that ended in gunfire. No tying-off loose ends.[11]

The take-aways here are two-fold. On the one hand, many people believe that at least some rich or politically powerful people indulge in depraved behavior. On the other hand, many people believe that “they all stick together to protect each other.” Again, the belief that money, power, and invulnerability run together has a strong hold on many Americans. This can’t be good for American democracy. But how to fix it? How to retore trust?

[1] “Jeffrey Epstein’s secrets,” The Week, 5 September 2025, p. 11.

[2] See: Ghislaine Maxwell – Wikipedia. On her father, Robert Maxwell, see: Robert Maxwell – Wikipedia.

[3] Virginia Roberts Giuffre (2015); Sarah Ransome (2017).

[4] James B. Stewart, “The Day Jeffrey Epstein Told Me He Had Dirt on Powerful People,” NYT, August 12, 2019.

[5] Ali Watkins, Danielle Ivory, Christina Goldbaum, “Inmate 76318-054: The Last Days of Jeffrey Epstein, NYT, 17 August 2019.

[6] An annotated-by-journalists version of one such book can be read here. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/jeffrey-epstein-high-society-contacts.html

[7] Michael Gold, Jonah Engel Bromwich, “Epstein Conspiracies: De Blasio, and Others Join Speculation,” NYT, August 12, 2019; “New poll suggests 45% of Americans believe Jeffrey Epstein conspiracy theories,” Yahoo News, 26 November 2019.

[8] “Americans Say Murder More Likely Than Suicide in Epstein Case,” Rasmussen Reports, 14 August 2019; “Most Now Think Epstein Was Murdered,” Rasmussen Reports, 9 January 2020.

[9] Cecilia Kang and Sheera Frenkel, “’PizzaGate’ Conspiracy Theory Thrives Anew in the TikTok Era,” NYT, 27 June 2020.

[10] Alexandra Hutzler, “What Trump has said about Jeffrey Epstein over the years, including on 2024 campaign trail, ABC News, July 17, 2025.

[11] The conspiratorial mindset spread by Hollywood films: Shooter (4/8) Movie CLIP – Mister Rate’s Advice (2007) HD

American Opinion on the Deportations in Summer 2025.

Posted on September 23, 2025 by jsh54

The country is deeply divided over the Trump administration’s treatment of illegal immigrants. There doesn’t seem to be much resistance this time to closing down the Southern border. The gap opens over what to do about the illegal immigrants who entered the country before the border got shut down. Do all or most of them get to stay? Do they all get deported without regard to how long they’ve been here or what role they now play in the economy?

In June 2025, 52 percent of Americans supported deporting illegal immigrants. The partisan divide was stark, but also revealing on minority positions within each party. Those approving deportations included 90 percent of Republicans, but also 20 percent of Democrats.[1]

Almost as many Americans (49 percent) said that President Trump had crossed some boundary of reasonableness in his sweeps and arrests. Thus, 50 percent of Americans disapproved of President Trump dispatching National Guard and even Marine units to Los Angeles to cow disorderly demonstrators protesting Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers conducting sweeps for illegal immigrants. Only a third (35 percent) of Americans approved of the deployment of military forces to deal with a civil policing matter.[2]

If you desire the end, then you must desire also the means. Either essentially half of Americans desire the end, but don’t want the reality of it shoved in their faces OR their desire for the end is purely rhetorical. Hard to tell which is true. Some of each? Apparently, President Trump desires the end and accepts—even relishes–the means.

The Republican opponents of deportation may largely represent businesses that depend upon illegal immigrants because many Americans have never known what hard work for low pay is really like. The Democratic supporters of deportations provide a warning shot—if any more were needed after the election—of the fragility of the party’s coalition.

The 80 percent of Democrats who oppose deporting illegal immigrants doubtless have a variety of motives. The illegals toil in vital sectors of the economy where the Native-born don’t want to work. The illegals are in flight from Hell-hole countries (of which there are a great many). They are just trying to make better lives. Immigration is what made America great! Ideally, there shouldn’t be any immigration restrictions at all, except for identifiable terrorists and criminals. Broadly, on many issues, Democrats are cosmopolitans (citizens of the world and concerned for their fellow citizens) and Republicans are parochial (American citizens and concerned for their fellow citizens). It will be difficult to reconcile those two positions.

In September 2025, the Supreme Court lifted a stay by a federal judge in California that had stopped Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from using ethnicity and language as partial grounds for stopping and detaining suspected illegal immigrants. Some ethnicity and language communities in California “braced” for impact. One apologist for the government argued that “[M]ost undocumented migrants in Los Angeles are Latino…”[3] Fine, but most Latinos in Los Angeles are not “undocumented migrants.” They still are subject to stops and detentions and “show us your papers.”

[1] Reuters/Ipsos poll reported in “Poll Watch,” The Week, 27 June 2025, p. 17.

[2] Reuters/Ipsos poll reported in “Poll Watch,” The Week, 27 June 2025, p. 17.

[3] The Week’s summary of Andrew McCarthy’s statement in National Review, in “Trump sends ICE into Chicago and Boston,” The Week, 19 September 2025, p. 4.

Default Looms.

Posted on September 22, 2025 by jsh54

Government deficits are covered by borrowing. The government issues I.O.U.s in the form of Treasury bonds and other paper. The borrowing gets added to the existing government debt. The interest paid on that debt then becomes a current government expenditure. It’s the same as paying for the Department of Defense or Social Security or air-traffic control. For may decades, the “Big Three” of US government outlays has been Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and Defense. (Together they accounted for about two-thirds of all federal spending.)

Then came Covid and shut-downs that threatened the economy. Government, under both the Trump and Biden administrations, stepped up to the plate (or trough, if you’re a Paleo-Finance person). Vast sums were paid out to “stimulate” the economy. The total national debt now stands at more than $36 trillion.

Inflation followed during the Biden administration. Administration spokespeople down-played the price rises as long as they could. Eventually, an election loomed. The enraging effect on consumers and borrowers became too great to ignore. The Federal Reserve Bank raised interest rates to choke off the inflation before it became really serious.

One effect (but not the only one) came in the borrowing costs paid by the government to entice lenders. In 2024, interest payments by the federal government reached $881 billion. Interest on the debt rudely shouldered its way past Defense as the third largest government expenditure.[1] “But Wait! There’s More!” President Trump’s “Bigly Beautiful [Budget] Bill” has been projected to add $3 trillion to the debt by 2035. Then the effect of tariffs on the economy is uncertain. Economists expect the levies on imports to push up prices and slow the economy. That would generate less revenue, perhaps less than the income from the tariffs.

Panicky warnings appeared in the media. At some point, there could be a flight from US Treasuries by investors (including foreign governments that hold dollars) who doubt the value of promises to pay at least the interest. The Federal Reserve Bank would have to raise interest rates much higher to rent the money to cover the interest on the debt or to finance current deficits. Furthermore, government borrowing could crowd-out private sector borrowers who want the money to invest in productive activities. That would drag on the economy, to put it mildly.

Is there a way out of this dilemma? Yes. It will require acting on both sides of the problem. On the one hand, it means tax increases. On the other hand, it means spending cuts.

Tax who and by how much? The net worth (assets, not income) of the five richest Americans comes to about $1 trillion.[2] The net worth of the next ten comes to about $1.1 trillion. But income is what the government mostly taxes. That’s much less than net worth.

Cut what and by how much? To go where the money is, it means cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Defense, and Interest on the debt.

Both taxation and spending cuts will have to reach pretty far down into the ranks of the American middle class. It will be hard to find politicians to vote for that. The alternative is for ordinary American to suddenly abandon their “put it on the credit card” approach to citizenship. Won’t happen. Default looms. After that, the International Monetary Fund will impose reforms.

[1] “National debt: Why Congress no longer cares,” The Week, 6 June 2025, p. 17.

[2] List of wealthiest Americans by net worth – Wikipedia

Some American Opinion in Summer 2025.

Posted on September 19, 2025 by jsh54

In late June 2025, 80 percent of Americans supported using vaccines to prevent diseases. “Only” 20 percent opposed vaccines.[1] Twenty percent still seems like a lot. In September 2025, the figures remained essentially the same: 78 percent versus 22 percent. In the September 2025 poll, the spectrum ranged from 93 percent of Democrats to 72 percent of Independents to 67 percent of Republicans.[2] That’s a 26-point difference between Democrats and Republicans, so a yawning crevasse between the two major parties.

On the one hand, the great majority of Americans approve of vaccines, regardless of party. Arguably, RFK, Jr.’s crusade against vaccines is going to get him canned after the November 2026 mid-terms, if not before. On the other hand, there’s a 21-point differences between Democrats and Independents as well as a 5-point difference between Independents and Republicans. In short, Democrats ae near-unanimous on vaccines. Independents and Republics have a lot more unbelievers. So, there’s the Democrats and there’s everyone else.

Since 2001 we’ve had the dot.com bubble, the housing bubble, the Perdue Pharma Oxycontin scandal, and the “China Shock.” In 2021, 60 percent of Americans still had a favorable view of Capitalism. Since then we’ve had the economic upheavals caused by Covid, AI, and a nasty bout of inflation. Today only 54 percent view Capitalism favorably.[3] That means that 46 percent disapprove of Capitalism or Don’t Know what they think.

As with vaccines, there is a marked partisan divide. Almost three-quarters (74 percent) of Republican have a favorable view of Capitalism, while only 42 percent of Democrats have a favorable view. What’s the theoretical alternative to Capitalism? Socialism! Well, 57 percent of Americans disapprove of Socialism,[4] compared with 39 percent who take a favorable view.

Playing with the numbers a bit. A little over half (54 percent) take a favorable view of Capitalism and almost the same share (57 percent) disapprove of Socialism. So, that’s one block. It is largely Republican. At the same time, 26 percent of Republicans either don’t approve of Capitalism (at least in its present form) or Don’t Know what they think. How can you be a Republican and NOT approve of Capitalism? Well, you could be a Republican for cultural issues that are more important to you than the economic system. Say, on abortion or illegal immigration.

In contrast, 42 percent of Democrats have a favorable view of Capitalism, while 58 percent have an unfavorable view or Don’t Know what they think. It may be reasonable to conjecture that there is a big overlap between that 58 percent of Democrats who don’t have a favorable view of Capitalism and the 39 percent of Americans who have a favorable view of Socialism. That leaves 19 percent who don’t approve of either Capitalism or Socialism.

It may mean that many Democrats and some Republicans favor a “reformed” Capitalism, rather than its present form. That doesn’t mean that they support Socialism.

In any event, vaccines are more credible than is Capitalism. You don’t see that much in the news. Bound to be younger people who believe in Socialism. The Future belongs to Them.

[1] NBC News poll, reported in “Poll Watch,” The Week, 4-11 July 2025, p. 17.

[2] NBC News poll reported in “Poll Watch,” The Week, 19 September 2025.

[3] Gallup poll reported in “Poll Watch,” The Week, 19 September 2025, p. 17.

[4] NO, that doesn’t mean that people who live in New York City aren’t Americans.

How the US Lost Manufacturing 1.

Posted on July 10, 2025 by jsh54

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 19^th 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 20^th 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.

Puzzled.

Posted on June 24, 2025 by jsh54

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 June 13, 2025 by jsh54

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 May 16, 2025 by jsh54

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 May 15, 2025 by jsh54

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 18^th 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 18^th Century. Marbury v. Madison and the Emancipation Proclamation are products of the 19^th 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.

waroftheworldblog

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

Tag Archives: politics