Posted on by rjonakait

Define It

This country’s stark divisions are exacerbated when we don’t share the meanings of words. Conversation is useless when you and I use the same terms, but they mean different things to each of us. For example, what does “merit” and “meritocracy” mean? I have looked up definitions, and they seem understandable, but those meanings have become vague and carry unshared connotations when applied. Conservatives want institutions peopled by those with merit. So do I. However, their current measure of merit for appointments in the current administration is suspect. So, e.g., you can be appointed to office only if you believe, or at least don’t question, that Trump won the 2020 election. For me a sign of merit for a government employee is the ability to recognize and expose falsehoods. For others, merit requires mouthing and spreading them. Trump often seems unique in his insistence on loyalty, but, unfortunately, this is not the case. We have had something like this before: If “inexperienced” or “lack of expertise” replaces or perhaps is added onto “stupidity,” what Michael Dobbs wrote about Nixon’s presidency in King Richard: Nixon and Watergate: An American Tragedy (2021) applies: “Stupidity was not necessarily a disqualification for high office if combined with unthinking fealty to the commander in chief.” And how did that turn out?

We can’t agree on “merit” in our jobs and institutions unless we agree on what it means to perform well. At a track meet, it is those who run the fastest. For a corporate executive, it means higher profits. But what, for example, makes a good police officer? The one who best knows the law? The one who can shoot most accurately? The one who can best talk to a mentally ill person who is potentially violent? One characteristic I believe a good officer should have is a lack of racism. How do you measure that in a hiring or promotion process?

There is yet another factor in espousing diversity, equity, and inclusion, the DEI that is such anathema to the Right. It is not just that police performance matters. There should also be public confidence in the police. However, when the police force does not look like the community it serves, the community can become suspicious of police goodwill, and respect for the rule of law can suffer. Thus, racial, ethnic, and gender diversity and inclusion in law enforcement furthers the public good. There can be merit in diversity.

Something similar can be said of the military. Just assume for a moment that all the officers were white, and all the enlisted personnel were Black. Morale among the troops would probably be lower than if the officer corps were more racially mixed. In other words, diversity among the ranks leads to greater camaraderie in the military and is a desirable national security goal.

Let’s stick with the military for a moment. Our new Secretary of Defense finds merit in and plans to stress lethality and a “warrior culture” in our armed services. (Hegseth seems to subscribe to what Bertolt Brecht wrote in The Caucasian Chalk Circle: “A good soldier has his heart and soul in it. When he receives an order, he gets a hard-on, and when he sends his lance into the enemy’s guts, he comes.” Is this also an explanation for why Hegseth does not want women in combat?) I am unaware that an improper regard for lethality and warrioring characterizes our current soldiers. Nevertheless, those slogans are misleading, and such merit has its limits. Even when there is a war, only a minority of soldiers are in combat. Moreover, today’s armed services do many things that require qualities different from those identified by the Defense Secretary. For example, Trump has sent soldiers to the border to assist in immigration control. It is my hope that lethality and a warrior culture are not the salient qualities for this assignment.

It is easy to agree that we want a meritocracy. It is another thing to define what that is or to recognize whether it exists. While it is clear that a band of conservatives feel that DEI is its enemy, they have not told us how they define meritocracy. It seems too often to require fealty to a person and to imply exclusion of those groups who have often been excluded in the past.

But perhaps more on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion another day.

Posted on by rjonakait

Meritocracy and Hypocrisy

It is not a new word, but the frequency of “meritocracy” coming from the mouths and pens of conservatives has made it a trendy one. The richest of them has made it a catchphrase. Elon Musk: “It’s not like America’s been purely a meritocracy, but it has been more of a meritocracy than any other place. Which I regard as good.” Musk again: “America rose to a greatness over the past 150 years because it was a meritocracy more than anywhere else on Earth. I will fight to my last drop of blood to ensure that it remains that land of freedom and opportunity.”

Musk, who is not averse to hyperbole (Isn’t your ability to fight gone long before your last drop of blood oozes onto the Tesla leather?), surprisingly qualified his meritocratic statement about America. He concedes that this country has not been a pure meritocracy, only that it has rewarded merit more than any other place.

The United States has always had limits on meritocracy. In the first place, let us not confuse merit with opportunity and advantage. The rich have always had more opportunities than others. (If you got it, you get it.) Those born into rich families have always had more opportunities. (It is easier to score if you are born on third base.)  And, of course, opportunities have always been limited in this country by race, ethnicity, religion, locality, gender, and other factors. Perhaps there has been a meritocracy in a certain pool of Americans, but that pool has been restricted. At times, it has not included Irish, Swedes, Italians, Hispanics, Asians, Catholics, Jews, women, and, of course, Blacks. Put another way, meritocracy has often been confined in this country to white male Protestants.

Even when attempts at expanding that pool have been made, they have often been circumscribed. In the 1940s, for example, some department stores started for the first time hiring Black women for sales, but there were quotas. An executive of Lord & Taylor, which was a pioneer in hiring Blacks, told The Afro-American: “It seems to me that it is only fair that the person with the best qualifications should be hired, regardless of color . . . with limitations of course. [Emphasis added] It is only natural that we don’t want to flood our place with colored people, even if they all had the best qualifications.” (Quoted from Julie Satow, When Women Ran Fifth Avenue: Glamour and Power at the Dawn of American Fashion, 2024.)

A foundational American myth has been about meritocracy and the ability to get ahead through one’s own ability. As Dara Horn says in People Love Dead Jews: Reports from a Haunted Present (2021), the legend “is that it doesn’t matter who your parents are, or who their parents were, or where you came from—that what matters is what you do now with the opportunities this country presents to you, and this is what we call the American dream. The fact that this legend is largely untrue does not detract from its power; legends are not reports on reality but expressions of a culture’s value and aspirations.” How many qualified women for how many years were rejected by medical schools and law schools because, well, they were women?

In spite of our history of the limitations on opportunities, many conservatives are furthering the legend by pretending that our meritocracy has been undermined. And what has undermined it? DEI. Yep, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. As though seeking the meritorious from a diverse pool, or equalizing advantages and opportunities, or seeking to include an overlooked source of qualified people is the most egregious thing that a democratic country could do even though it would seem obvious that the larger the pool from which we seek to draw talent, the more likely we are to get the best.

Another enemy, they say, is “wokeness.” I guess it’s also egregious in a “meritocracy” to want to make sure that all types of people feel as though they are equal and welcome participants in the pool.

Let Elon Musk speak again, “DEI is just another word for racism. Shame on anyone who uses it.” To say that DEI is racist implies two things: 1) You don’t believe that the previously excluded races, ethnic groups, women, or religious groups require special attention in order to join the meritocracy pool, or 2) You think that anything that undermines the hegemony of white males is threatening.  Although the opposition to DEI may have many roots, most charitably it is based on the belief that diversity is the enemy of meritocracy. It assumes that the only way diversity is achieved is by allowing less qualified people of color or women (or other groups) to leapfrog over what are assumed to be more qualified white males. Even if that is sincerely believed, those with that belief should still want to expand the pool from which the meritorious are drawn. Doubt the sincerity of those who cry out for meritocracy unless they also seek broadly for the meritorious.

At another time, Musk maintained, “The point was not to replace DEI,…but rather to be a meritocratic society.” How are you to have a meritocracy if you do not actively encourage participation by all?

Pete Hegseth, Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, says Trump has told him to “clean house of the woke crap. All that stuff. Climate stuff, the (Critical Race Theory), the DEI and genderism. Get rid of it.” Not clear how “Climate stuff” got in there, but it’s clear that Trump and his cohort are fed up with trying to break down the barriers that have prevented a true meritocracy to emerge.

A familiar pattern: If something goes wrong, and if anyone other than a white male is in charge, the pejorative cry of “diversity” is uttered again and again. The mayor of Los Angeles is a Black woman, and something definitely went wrong in Los Angeles recently. However, she did not attain her position as part of a DEI movement. She was not appointed by some person who thought it would be politically correct to have a black person (and woman as mayor. No. She was picked by the electorate, just as Trump was. But still conservatives talk about her as if she were part of a DEI or woke movement.

 If a white male had been in charge, his competence might be questioned, but we don’t point to the “old boys” network that might have put him there in the first place. And we only blame DEI if a non-conservative has done the appointment or hiring of a non-white male. If Pam Bondi turns out to be a less than a stellar attorney general, diversity will not be blamed. After all, a conservative president nominated her. (Fox News presents a lot of women as hosts and commentators. Aren’t they a product of diversity?)

The anti-diversity group, however, may proclaim that the country has been successful in the expansion of the meritocratic pool and that, sadly, the pool has been exhausted. Is that why they are advocating for the expansion of H-1b visas? It is certainly the case that having more of those visas is good for businesses of rich conservatives. Among other things, they can pay those workers less. However, if the barriers to success were truly overcome in the U.S., would we need to import workers from out of the country? Shouldn’t Making America Great Again mean making sure that all Americans in fact have the opportunity to attain merit? (Not all conservatives agree that we should expand the availability of H-1b. Laura Loomer, an ardent supporter of Trump, has said, “Our country was built by white Europeans, actually. Not third world invaders from India.”*)

There are things wrong with DEI and wokeness. It is fair to criticize these movements and policies, but a meritocratic society needs more than such criticisms. It requires plans and action to expand the pool from which we seek the meritorious. I have not seen that from conservatives, and without such expansion, it sure looks as if they want to see again a future dominated by white males.

Posted on by rjonakait

Snippets–Inaugural Edition

The inauguration was moved indoors because of extremely cold weather. What is your joke on hell freezing over?

Does this have any relevance today? “One left an encounter with Winston certain that Winston was the most interesting person alive; when one left a meeting with [Lloyd George] one convinced oneself of being the most interesting person alive.”David Reynolds, Mirrors of Greatness: Churchill and the Leaders Who Shaped Him.

I wonder if RFK, Jr., has been like me and thought that bacteria is the rear entrance to a cafeteria.

At least as defined by Mark Twain, the new president does not have good breeding, which Twain said “consists in concealing how much we think of ourselves and how little we think of the other person.”

I am frequently struck by Trump railing about a problem that he considers caused by Biden when the problem also existed during Trump’s first term. But as a wise man said, “Among the things that enable a person to be self-satisfied is a poor memory.”

Now that Elon is on the scene, I wonder if what Abraham Riesman wrote in RingMaster: Vince McMahon and the Unmaking of America continues to be true. Reisman said that Vince McMahon may be Trump’s closest friend. McMahon “is said to be one of the only people whose call Trump takes in private, forcing his retinue to leave the room so the two old chums can chat in confidence.” Trump is a member of McMahon’s wrestling Hall of Fame. Will Elon enjoy the same access?

This is not just inauguration day; it is also the day to honor Martin Luther King, Jr. There must be a site somewhere where I can bet how many times, if any, Trump mentions MLK today. We tend to think that King gave his great “I Have a Dream” speech at the March on Washington on August 28, 1963, but the complete name of the rally was the March on Washinton for Jobs and Freedom. Six decades later, the demands of that day are still incompletely met. For example, the March was asking that the Fair Labor Standards Act cover agricultural workers. That act still only partly encompasses those who till and pick our food. The rally also sought to increase the minimum wage to $2 an hour. We fall woefully short of that today. Two dollars in 1963 is the equivalent of about $20 today, and the federal minimum wage is currently $7.25 an hour. The minimum wage was $1.25 in 1963, which would be about $13 today. We would honor King if we at least thought about how we treat the working poor. (And we should remember that when King was murdered, he was in Memphis to lend support to a sanitation workers’ strike that aimed to change some of their horrendous working conditions.)

I am anything but a Trump supporter. I think many of his policies will do harm to this country, but I hope that I am wrong. Although not expecting it, I wish him success. There is much in this country that could use improvement. I could make my list. You, no doubt, could make yours. But instead, I give you what David Leonhardt said in Ours Was the Shining Future: The Story of the American Dream (2023):

“We live in the only high-income country that does not provide parents with paid leave. We live in one of the stingiest countries for daycare, preschool, and the resources devoted to children. A typical thirty-year-old man is not much more educated than his parents were. The United States remains the only rich country without universal health care insurance. American women are more likely to die in childbirth than women in many other countries. American babies are more likely to die, too. Income inequality is higher than in Western Europe, Canada, Japan, South Kores, or Australia. Almost two million Americans wake up each day in a prison or jail. Our children consider it normal to spend time at school preparing for a mass shooting. Our opioid death rate leads the world. Our roads are more dangerous than in other affluent countries, which was not true only a few decades ago. In 1980, life expectancy in the United States was similar to that in other high-income countries. We have become a grim outlier.”

Posted on by rjonakait

Bridges and Roads, Ports and Canals.

Trump says that America is being treated unfairly at the Panama Canal and that China is running the canal. These are, of course, two separate issues. China could be running the canal, and the U.S. might still be treated fairly. And the U.S. could be treated unfairly even if China is not running the canal. But whether Trump meant one or the other or both, he has not presented information to back up what he says.

His unfairness claim might mean that Panama is discriminating against the U.S. vessels in charges and service. Or Trump might mean that even though there is no discrimination, the fees are too high for all ships. We, of course, can’t know what solutions are possible until we know what the problem, if any, is. Not surprisingly, other than his assertions, Trump has not explained how we are being screwed. I guess the implication is that if we ran the canal, our ships would pay less, but of course, so far that is only a conjecture. And thus we enter our new foreign policy.

Similarly, the assertion that China is running the canal could mean several things. Trump could be saying that Chinese nationals are manning the locks and piloting the vessels. There appears to be no evidence of that. Perhaps Trump means that the Chinese are telling the Panamanians how to operate the canal. Again, no proof of that. However, non-Trump sources indicate that the Chinese have a significant presence in the ports on both ends of the canal. If that presents issues for the United States, it is much broader than just Panama. The Panamanian ports are part of a widespread, worldwide Chinese foreign policy that has existed for more than a decade.

China has invested in or built many, many infrastructure projects around the world. At first they concentrated on the old Silk Road, but they are now involved in building roads, ports, energy plants, rails, and the like in almost every African country, some European countries (Italy, e.g.), and many Latin American nations, including Panama. Case in point: in the last several months, a new $1.3 billion mega-port, built buy China, was dedicated in Peru.

In China’s global Belt and Road Initiative, state-run Chinese Banks have made huge loans to countries, and Chinese construction companies have won many, perhaps most, of the contracts to do the building. China lends money, and then gets much of it back almost immediately because Chinese companies are hired. And they get more money back in the longer term through loan repayments.

America has no comparable initiative. If the Chinese BRI is a national security concern for us, we have had no response other than larger and larger defense spending. (Our defense budget is larger than the next nine countries [including China’s] combined.) Perhaps our security, and the world’s economy, would be better served if some of the money spent on defense contracting went to constructing bridges and tunnels, dredging harbors and building piers, and laying rails, gravel, and asphalt. We are, however, not likely to have any fundamental reconsideration of our defense spending. There are many more areas of “wokeness” in this country than the ones conservatives use as a punching bag, and defense priorities fall in that category. Neither right nor left are willing to question the defense budget. What a wise person said about one branch of the military in essence applies to all the armed services: “The navy recognizes no criticism as constructive except that which calls for the building of additional ships.”

Trump’s jejune rants about Panama are troubling. The suggestion of using military force to take back the canal is worrisome. Bluster can sometimes lead to unwanted, unplanned action. For example, in the 1960s and 1970s the U.S. anticipated that without the Panama Canal Treaties, guerilla attacks on the canal would multiply. If we seize the canal, won’t such warfare emerge? And seizing the canal does not address the Chinese presence in the port cities. Is Trump suggesting armed force to remove the Chinese from their investments and what they have built? That potential aggression, that act of war should scare everyone.

If, however, Trump would broaden his perspective from the Panama Canal to a coherent American response to the BRI, he would be truly advancing American interests. This is unlikely. The BRI was well underway in his first term, and he ignored it. Nothing indicates that he has thought much about it since. Furthermore, grappling with the Chinese actions could cast doubt on Trump tariff policies. The U.S. has been the chief trading partner of Latin America. That is about to change, if it has not already. Trade between China and Central and South America has multiplied dramatically, and America is destined for second place in trade with our southern neighbors for the long term. The change in trading patterns partly stems from the new Latin American ties China has built with the BRI, which have led to China signing free trade agreements with South American counties. The absence of tariffs has led to more trade for both China and Latin America and has given a greater Chinese presence in the Americas. Meanwhile, our proposed foreign policy will apparently rely on increased worldwide tariffs without the equivalent of the Belt and Road Initiative. Why is Trump or anyone surprised that China’s influence in Latin America is increasing while ours wanes?

Posted on by rjonakait

Minerals and Sea Lanes and NATO, Too

Dear Trump supporters:

Six months ago you knew you were going to vote for the former president. You had concerns about the border and inflation. However, I am curious where Greenland was on your list of issues. My hunch is, if you are being honest, nowhere. The largest island was not on the political radar then. We knew little about Greenland. Of course, I had heard of the almost mythological Greenlanders, Erik the Red and Lief Erikson, but that was about it until a Borgen season heavily featured Greenland. (I probably should do some explaining about that Danish TV series to my conservative friends because I assume you are not aware of it. Perhaps as Trump tries to bully Denmark, the show will be an item of interest again.) Borgen got me to read Stephen R. Brown’s White Eskimo: Knud Rasmussen’s Fearless Journey into the Heart of the Arctic about that amazing explorer. But I was not aware this campaign season that my presidential vote should consider the future of Greenland. In his seemingly endless election rallies, I did not hear Trump mention Greenland. Yes, he did talk about Greenland in 2019, which provoked much mockery, but then his mind wandered, and he did not refer to the island again. Although nothing has happened since November to change the importance of it, Trump, quiet about Greenland while seeking votes, seems now obsessed with it.

One could ask why, but I have different question for you, Trump follower. Where is Greenland now on your list of concerns? Why is it there at all? The obvious answer is because Trump has said Greenland is crucial to the security and wellbeing of America. You, however, are not woke. No one tells you what to think. You make up your own mind. Other than Trump has spoken, what information has he or anyone else given to make Greenland important to you?

You might answer that your understanding now is that melting ice in Greenland will soon make mining possible for rare and valuable minerals and perhaps there are fossil fuels. In addition, melting ice in Greenland’s environs will open new sea lanes that will be important to the United States.

My questions increase. I assume that you, dear Trump acolyte, do not believe in climate change. After all, Trump has called it a hoax. Why then do you believe that the ice will continue to melt on and around Greenland? By what Trump has said, the melting could stop in an instant because there is no such thing as global warming. Apparently, Trump and you simultaneously believe that there is no climate change but that the climate will inevitably warm. Perhaps you feel that these dual thoughts mean Trump and you have top notch intellects, relying on what F. Scott Fitzgerald said in a 1936 short story: “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” Of course, what is ignored about this oft-quoted platitude is that F. Scott said the mind must continue to function, which implies that it was working before. And, of course, what is even more ignored is that Fitzgerald, not a philosopher or psychologist, wrote this unlikely “truism” in a piece of fiction. But I digress.

Another question: Although you don’t believe in climate change but believe it will continue, how do you feel about free enterprise, free markets, capitalism, and small government? I’m guessing you’re in favor of those things. But I ask you, is there anything stopping American companies from contracting for mining rights in Greenland without America’s having to possess the island? Companies get these rights all the time and all around the world. It is part of free enterprise. Why are Greenland’s precious minerals different? When you voted for Trump were you voting for a regime where American taxpayers pay billions, maybe trillions — which is what it would cost for America to buy and maintain Greenland — for the benefit of a few corporations?

Of course, six months ago, Trump minions pronounced concerns about the national debt. Where has this worry gone? Is there a source of money to buy and maintain Greenland other than through more debt? But, of course, just as it was with Trump last time around, deficits and the debt only matter when conservatives don’t control the government, not when they do.

If new sea lanes open as more non-climate-change warming continues, shipping could be easier and, therefore, cheaper. America should have free and fair access to these routes. What information does Trump have that we won’t have that access without owning Greenland? How does purchasing or seizing Greenland assure that? China may wish to be an arctic power, but Russia is the country that has the most at stake in the new sea lanes. Is Trump worried about what Putin is about to do up north? Wait. I thought the two were buddies. When Trump ends the Ukraine war, surely he and Putin can continue to amicably settle the question of arctic access for all. On the other hand, if those sea lanes need to be protected, do we really need all of Greenland? Why not rely on our military base there (which I have not heard Trump mention)? Gosh, I hope Greenland isn’t so mad at us that we can’t negotiate for a new base there. Finally, isn’t it cheaper to rent a room than buy the whole hotel? Trump might actually have some expertise on that topic.

Trump acolytes, I have a related question. Trump has railed against NATO. He has hinted that he would withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization if other NATO countries don’t pony up more money. Will he pull out? This is crucially important. You can correct me if I don’t understand this, but I thought that NATO countries are not obligated to respond if one NATO country, say Turkey, attacks another, say Greece. On the other hand, NATO must act if a country outside NATO attacks a NATO country. If, for example, Russia invades Lithuania, NATO must defend the Baltic nation. Greenland is covered by NATO, I believe. If the United States is part of NATO and takes military action against Greenland, the rest of NATO can sit it out. But if Trump successfully withdraws America from the organization, NATO, comprising more than thirty countries, several with nuclear capabilities, would be obligated to respond to hostile U.S. military forces in Greenland.

Finally, Trump has indicated that if Denmark does not allow the Trump brand to be put on Greenland, he will impose heavy tariffs on that country. You might think, Fine. But there must be somewhere some Trump supporters who no longer want to be overweight. How do you feel about the tariffs when you learn that Denmark is the sole supplier to the U.S. of Ozempic?

Oh, Greenland. Your sea lanes and minerals. U.S. taxpayer money spent to aid corporations with an interest in those sea lanes and minerals. Increased deficits and debt for America. Possibly World War III. And even more expensive Ozempic. Oh, this could be interesting.

Posted on by rjonakait · 1 Comment

We Stand on Guard for Thee

John F. Kennedy speaking to the Canadian Parliament in 1961:

Geography has made us neighbors. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners. And necessity has made us allies. Those whom nature hath so joined together, let no man put asunder.

Born and raised in Wisconsin, I grew up closer to Canada than most Americans. As a result, I may have given Canada more thought than most U.S. citizens. And that means almost none. (Brief, simple quiz: How many Canadian provinces are there? Name them. How about the territories? Advanced placement: Name three of the governors, if that is the right term, of the provinces.) But our minority-vote-getting president-elect has elevated Canada in the national consciousness. Making Canada a U.S. state at first seemed a harmless bit of whimsy, but he keeps harping on it. Prominent Canadians have rejected the idea in colorful ways. But now that my attention has been directed to our northern neighbor, I am hoping that they will consider becoming part of the U.S. It is intriguing how they might change this country.

Canada’s population would entitle it to more than fifty seats in the House of Representatives. The size of the House has been capped at 435 since 1929. That number was temporarily increased to 437 in 1959 after Hawaii and Alaska became states, but it returned to 435 after the 1960 census. If that pattern were followed, the House size would temporarily increase and settle back to 435 after the next census.

Now. If Canada were to become a state and the House size remains the same, that would mean that fifty existing House seats would have to be eliminated. Perhaps Trump thinks Canada can become a state solely through presidential fiat, but in the past, it was clear that the Constitution required both houses of Congress and a presidential signature to create a new state. It is hard to picture the House voting for anything that would eliminate fifty existing House districts. That probably dooms Canadian statehood. But I assure you that if I could oversee which fifty would disappear, I would be an enthusiastic supporter of Canadian statehood.

The effect on the Senate would be less dramatic, but I say to Canada, Why not bargain, eh? Instead of joining the U.S. as one state, insist that each province come in as a separate state. (We can figure out what to do with the territories later.) That would be not two, but twenty additional members of the upper House. (Yes, there are ten Canadian provinces.)

And then there is the electoral college. Even if Canada joined the U.S. as a single state, it would still be the largest bloc of electoral votes, about a tenth of the total.

Canadians, if they used their power wisely, could control the House. If they could come in as ten states, they could probably control the Senate. And their influence in the electoral college would be immense. In other words, Canadians could control the North American continent from Key West to Hudson Bay (and perhaps Greenland, too.)

I see some benefits to that. Canada has stricter gun laws than the U.S. With Canadians as the power brokers, we could have them here. The government pays directly for much of Canadian healthcare. We could have that here. Canada has no criminal restrictions on abortion, and abortion is widely available throughout the country. We could have that here. And perhaps those snappy Royal Canadian Mountie uniforms could become standard in the U.S. The world, in my opinion, would be better with more Dudley Do-Rights.

There are a couple of things, however, that might be dealbreakers for Canadian statehood and a couple of other things I am not sure about. We would have to do something about Canada’s connections with British royalty. I know that there are many Americans who are inexplicably besotted with that royalty, but real Americans don’t want anything to do with a monarchy (even if some misguided Americans want Trump to be a monarch). While there might be some division on British royalty, there should be no debate on jettisoning the Canadian national anthem; it’s even worse than ours.

There is more to consider. Canadian statehood would probably increase the already large Canadian cultural influences on the rest of America. Do we really want more Canadian singers, comedians, and wrestlers than we have now? Can we have Canadian statehood without more Justin Biebers? On the other hand, I loved the Red Green show. Our economy as well as our culture will be affected. Certainly, Canadian companies will have a freer rein in the lower forty-eight than now. Would the wider availability of Tim Horton maple donuts and controversial Montreal bagels be a good thing, or would RFK ban those sugary treats and empty carbohydrates?

But even though there may be some undesirable consequences, better gun control, a different healthcare system, and abortion availability make Canada statehood worth it, and that is so even if I must hear “eh” more often. Please, Canada, don’t close the door to U.S. statehood. You have the potential to remake the United States into a better place. Please stand on guard for me.

Posted on by rjonakait

Snippets

After the New Orleans New Year attack, Trump wrote that this confirmed that our country was unsafe because criminals were crossing the border. A Fox News host said that the country would soon be safer after Trump closed the border. Marjorie Taylor Greene suggested the same. This was said even though the terrorist, an Army veteran, was an American citizen born and raised and living in Texas. Perhaps what Trump and the others were really suggesting is that we close the border between Texas and the rest of the country. This might not make the United States safer, but it would make me feel better.

I was surprised that the New Orleans terrorist was flying an ISIS flag. Trump destroyed that organization in 2019. Or at least that is what he said.

The Washington, D.C., homicide rate, which increased while Trump was president, has been decreasing.

His death brings to mind some Jimmy Carter trivia as well as a story about his mother. This is drawn from Jonathan Alter, His Very Best: Jimmy Carter, A Life (2020). Because he was a veteran, Carter qualified for and lived in a new government housing complex shortly after leaving the Navy. He thus became the only president to have lived in public housing.

Carter is the last president not to have golfed while in office.

It was loudly proclaimed that the Carters did not lie. A reporter asked Jimmy’s mother about this, and Lillian Carter conceded that the family told white lies. When the reporter asked for an example, Miss Lillian replied, “Remember how when you walked in here, I told you how sweet and pretty you were?”

“Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.” Walter Lippman.

I had a dream I was in hell; I was trapped in a corner at an endless cocktail party by a birder.

Given our divided country, I like to recall the words of some political and historical observers: “Conservatives are but people who learned to love the new order forced upon them by radicals.” And: “Radicals: Those who advance and consolidate a position for the conservatives to advance a little later.”

Posted on by rjonakait

Books 2024

Two years ago, I wrote about my reading habits, which include listing all the books I have read in a year. (See “My Book List” of January 2 and 4, 2023.) I continue to keep such a list; it’s a good thing I keep it because I remember few of the books I finish. What I wrote previously still applies: “I do wonder why I read. I read few books closely. I remember well only a few of the books I finish. I do get some fodder for this blog from my reading. It produces the ‘First Sentences’ I occasionally post. Sometimes the reading gives me an idea for a post or a quotation to use. But I don’t read as if I am researching for the blog or anything else. I read because I read.” Henry Grabar’s Paved Paradise: How Parking Explains the World typifies much about my reading. I remember that the book has a lot of fascinating information and insights, but I can’t now tell you what they are. As I read over this year’s list, however, I realize that a few still stick in my mind. These include:

Bob Dylan’s The Philosophy of Modern Song. Dylan’s musings about popular songs are often surprising and set me in search of many he wrote about. Thank you, YouTube.

Patrick Bringley’s All the Beauty in the World: The Metropolitan Museum of Art and Me. Bringley left his job with the New Yorker after the untimely death of his brother and became a guard for ten years at the Met. He writes movingly about grief and art.

Rupert Holmes’s Murder Your Employer: McMasters Guide to Homicide. A clever book. I would say it was Harry Potter-ish, but since I have not read any of the Harry Potter books, I’m guessing.

Vanessa Walters’s The Nigerwife, a striking mystery with a setting that opened a new world to me.

Rashid Khalidi, The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine: A History of Settler Colonialism and Resistance, 1917-2017. This is essential reading for making any sense out of the Mideast. It was the selection of two different book groups I attended.

Chris Van Tulleken’s Ultra-Processed People: The Science Behind Food that Isn’t Food. This convinced me that I should not eat ultra-processed foods. And someday perhaps I won’t.

Abraham Riesman, RingMaster: Vince McMahon and the Unmaking of America. Is Trump’s best friend really Vince McMahon?

A.J. Jacobs, The Year of Living Constitutionally: One Man’s Humble Quest to Follow the Constitution’s Original Meaning. Amusing and insightful about our founding document and how we now often mistakenly regard it.

Walter R. Brooks, Freddy and the Perilous Adventure (illustrated by Kurt Wiese). I still enjoy the sly wit of Freddy the Pig books.

Christopher Morley, Parnassus on Wheels. An old-fashioned delight from the beginning of the twentieth century.

Ta-Nehisi Coates, The Message. Coates always makes me think and makes me check my assumptions.

Percival Everett’s James. At times this retelling of Huckleberry Finn took my breath away.

Posted on by rjonakait

Snippets

A student at the Abundant Life Christian School shot and killed another student and a teacher and wounded others. And I thought, If only we had prayer and Bible study in the classroom, this would not happen. Oh, wait a minute; this was a Christian school.

Where is Elon Musk? Trump suggests that the government will study any connection between vaccines and autism. Such research has been done many, many times with the same result (i.e., there is no connection). This is a clear waste of taxpayer money. However, I don’t expect Elon or Vivek to speak out against this reckless spending.

I used to play a lot of tennis, but those days are over.  Friends urge me to play pickleball, but I have not. The name pickleball is silly. The game is sillier. And you can tell the game was invented by some old-fashioned men. You can’t set foot in one part of the court. They named it the kitchen.

There are movements again to get rid of daylight savings time, although proposals differ. Some want to return to God’s time when at noon the sun is overhead. Others want to have permanent daylight savings time without the twice-yearly shift. (No more Spring forward, Fall back.)  But what we should really remember is what a wise person said: “The best way to save daylight is to use it.”

Especially during the holiday season, we should remember what Jerry Seinfeld has said: Nothing in life is “fun for the whole family.”

Over the last few decades Republicans have been responsible for most of the drama surrounding government shutdowns. I learned from C.W. Goodyear’s President Garfield: From Radical to Unifier (2023) that the first government shutdown was caused by Democrats. It was under President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1879. The Congressional term expired without passing sufficient funding for the government. Democrats attached riders, that is, unrelated provisions, to appropriations legislation to curb federal poll watching in the South. Hayes vetoed these bills. Goodyear writes, “Never before had a House majority deprived the government of funding in an attempt to extort a policy change.” Eventually the Democrats backed down and the government resumed. There was no mention of a debt ceiling.

Perhaps showing my age, I had no idea who Andrew McCarthy was, but I plucked his book Walking with Sam: A Father, a Son, and Five Hundred Miles Across Spain off the Barrett Friendly Library shelves. The book about hiking the Camino de Santiago touched me. It is a reflection on love, a father and son, fame, faded fame, ham, eggs, lots of pizza, blisters, physical and other pains, and…well, love. It made me reflect on much in my life.

After the House ethics report on Matt Gaetz, I wonder if Woody Allen’s line is still true: “The most expensive sex is free sex.”

Posted on by rjonakait

Greenland Redux

The last time around, Trump showed a fascination with Greenland. He wanted to buy it. Well, not personally. Once again forgetting pledges on deficits, he wanted our tax dollars to pay for it. To me at least, it was never clear why. Now, as the countdown to his next term continues, he again indicates, without giving reasons, that we should own Greenland. Whether he is serious may depend on what Elon has to say, but Trump’s comments sent me back to a post of mine in 2019 about Greenland. I have reposted it below.

President Trump wants to buy Greenland. My first reaction: I was surprised that he would want to buy white people. But then I did some reading, and I learned that Greenland’s population is 88% Greenlandic Inuit, with 12% Danes and other Europeans. Maybe that eight-to-one ratio explains the acquisition mania.

On the other hand, I never thought that Trump would think desirable a place that does not have forests to decimate and is not dependent on coal or other fossil fuels. In what seems ironic, Greenland is one of the greenest places on the planet. According to one source, seventy percent of its power comes from renewable sources, mostly from hydropower. But perhaps this is an attraction for Trump. He can fulfill his promise to bring back jobs to the West Virginia coal fields by “ordering” the Greenlanders under some national security rationale to use coal. I can see the slogan as Trump supporters wear tee shirts proclaiming, “Make Greenland Sooty (Again).”

I wondered how Greenlanders have reacted to the proposed purchase by a world leader who does not believe in climate change. Greenland is ground zero for global warming. An ice sheet covers four-fifths of the island; it weighs so much that it has depressed the central part of the island making it almost a thousand feet below sea level. The glaciers have been experiencing increased run-offs contributing to the rise of sea levels. Does a lessened ice mass also mean that the land will rise?

Perhaps, however, the Greenlanders favor global warming. It would not be surprising. Greenland’s capital and largest city, with a population of more than 17,000 (Quick! What is it?), Nuuk, averages high temperatures below freezing for more than half the year. I assume, however, that the tourist agencies point out that the temperatures in July regularly reach a relatively balmy fifty degrees Fahrenheit. A few degrees warmer and perhaps the residents will be able to break out bikinis and speedos. During the summer, the sun rises at 3:00 A.M. and sets at midnight, so there is a lot of daylight for any unrestrained outdoor frivolity. Of course, during the winters, the sun is above the horizon for only four hours, but those long nights perhaps call out for other appropriate activities.  

If Trump does buy Greenland, you would think he ought to make at least one visit, even though that is unlikely since he does not own a hotel there and won’t be able to bill the American taxpayers for his stay. But perhaps those long nights appeal to him for all the dark hour tweets he can unleash. I may not have anticipated that Trump would float the purchase idea, but surely no one should have been startled that he showed the usual pique when those nasty Danish threw ice water on the idea. Canceling a scheduled trip to Denmark seems par for his course, but, of course, he does not own a golf course in Denmark and does not apparently have a way to bill us taxpayers and increase his revenues by a Copenhagen visit.

It was expected that conservative pundits would weigh in and maintain that Trump was again showing his genius. Too often the difference between these commentators and a rubber stamp is that the latter leaves an impression, but I was surprised that Trump-is-always-right sycophants have cited climate change—yes, climate change!–as a reason why the U.S. should purchase Greenland. An article on the Fox News website states, “But what makes Greenland particularly valuable to the United States is global warming. The unavoidable receding of Arctic sea ice will open a new sea route in the Arctic that can be used for both commercial and military vessels.” What especially struck me about this contention was the use of the term unavoidable. Global warming is happening, the writer to my surprise wrote, but his position is that it is inevitable. Increasing temperatures can’t be helped, apparently. I guess the writer believes that it is God’s will, so we should just go with it and seize opportunities. If we can keep the warming going and the ice diminishing and the seas rising, new sea routes will open allowing ships to go where they have not gone before. So, stop being so negative about climate change (which Trump says is not happening) and revel in new sea lanes.

What the writer did not make clear, however, is why the new ship routes, if they occur, mean that it is essential that we own Greenland. Aren’t there many sea lanes around the world important to us where we do not own the adjacent land? Why is this different?

This writer also said, as did others who find a way to support Trump after he makes a pronouncement no matter what it is, that Greenland has valuable minerals that should not fall into China’s hands. Why, then, don’t we try to buy the mineral rights? Indeed, those of us who believe in free enterprise and fair trade should expect American corporations to see the opportunity and seek to get all this valuable stuff. These Trump-is-amazing writers don’t explain this apparent failure of American capitalism. Where is their faith in free enterprise without government intervention? Isn’t that the point of cutting governmental regulations, which they support?

One of those in the Trump-is-brilliant camp is Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton. He recently published an op-ed piece in the New York Times. (Why is that when conservatives want to be taken as deep thinkers they so often publish in the “failing” Times? Mitch McConnell also placed an op-ed article with the “enemy of the people” the previous week. His piece was one about the importance of filibusters for our constitutional government glossing over that he had removed those all-important filibusters for Supreme Court nominees.) Cotton contended that the Greenlanders should welcome coming under American sovereignty. Denmark now subsidizes Greenland to the tune of at least $650 million dollars annually. America has more money than does the Danish government, so we can do even better for the Greenlanders, Cotton maintained. The Senator surprised me. He wants to commit to a new and expensive welfare program. He opposes entitlement programs for American citizens, but he wants to open the floodgates for those who are now foreigners. Is this the new conservatism? What do Cotton and the others feel about increased federal support for Puerto Rico? Or have I underestimated Trump? Were his remarks merely an opening salvo, and his real goal is to swap Puerto Rico for Greenland? The Art of the Deal may be more subtle than I ever thought.

I wonder, if in stating that America can increase governmental moneys in Greenland, whether Cotton has examined where the Danish subsidies go. Health care in Greenland is paid for by the government, and Danish subsidies support that. Cotton, who adamantly opposes the Affordable Care Act, expects America to expand single-payer medical services in the new possession. And here I thought that Trump supporters believed in America first!

Does Cotton realize that part of the healthcare in Greenland is for abortion on demand? Greenland now has one of the highest abortion rates in the world. In fact, abortions have exceeded live births in recent years. (Remember those long nights.) He supports the laws that prevent the federal government from paying anything for abortions in the United States no matter how poor the woman or how the pregnancy—think rape and incest–occurred, but Cotton wants to increase funding for this medical procedure in Greenland. (I am told that when residents of Greenland’s capital Nuuk do want a baby, they say, “Let’s have a little Nuukie.”) And perhaps Cotton should also examine how education is funded in Greenland.

Cotton is a hardliner about our immigration system, concerned that Mexicans and Central Americans are lured here by all the goodies they can get out of our government. Shouldn’t he and other conservatives then be concerned that when we increase the freebies to Greenlanders, illegal immigration will uncontrollably increase there as refugees see Greenland as a new land of welfare opportunity? Perhaps Cotton, who supports Trump’s border wall, is already planning to build a wall around Greenland to stop illegal immigration that he must think will inevitably occur. Perhaps Cotton ought to give at least an estimate as to how much federal money he thinks we will spend over there.

I also wonder if Cotton and the other Trump-is-marvelous crowd have thought about the status of those who would fall under American sovereignty. If we own Greenland, will we provide a path to American citizenship for those who live there, or will they automatically be citizens? Will they have an unfettered right to permanent residence in the United States? If so, how long does one have to be a Greenlander for that right? Puerto Ricans are American citizens and can come and go to the United States whenever they wish. Guam, which we own, is similar. Those born on Guam are American citizens who can move to the rest of America. (For reasons I don’t understand while Guamanians have birthright citizenship, those born in American Samoa do not.) If Greenland is to be treated like Guam, aren’t conservatives concerned that refugees will flock to Greenland and have ice-floe babies who will be American citizens who can freely emigrate to America? I am guessing that before conservatives grapple with such questions, they will have to ascertain whether Greenlanders lean Democratic or Republican. And perhaps even more important: Will there be a path to statehood for Greenland? Just because they have fewer than 60,000 people doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have two Senators and three electoral votes, just as long as they vote Republican.

We have acquired much territory through purchase in our history. As far as I know, we never sought to find out whether the people who already lived on those lands desired a new sovereign. In essence, they were treated like Russian serfs. You buy the land, you buy the people on the land. Should we who proclaim democracy and government of “we the people” continue such a feudal practice? Will there be some sort of plebiscite; will the leaders of Greenland be consulted? (I have no idea who the chief griot of Greenland is, but I am confident neither does our president.)

The Fox News writer points out, however, that we have bought lands before—including the Louisiana purchase, the Gadsden Purchase, Florida, and Alaska, and he concludes that Trump could simply buy Greenland. Hold on–it has never been that simple. We do have a Constitution, and the consent of Congress or the Senate has been necessary for those purchases. We may say that President Jefferson and Secretary of State Monroe made the Louisiana Purchase, but in fact Congress ratified and authorized the funds for it. The Gadsden Purchase and the acquisitions of Florida, Alaska, and other lands came via treaties together with the authorization of the funds from Congress. A treaty, of course, requires not just the consent of the Senate, but consent by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. Do you really think that is going to happen? Or does Trump have another trick up his sleeve that he will maintain justifies him in his mind to take unilateral action and do another end run around our Constitution—that document that conservatives proclaim to love so dearly?