Posted on by rjonakait · 1 Comment

Cup or Cone

The spouse and I have been together for so long because we are in sync on many of life’s important issues. For example, we agree that in an ice cream shop you should always buy ice cream in a cone and not a cup. (We also agree that you should not even go into a place called a “shoppe.”)

When I ruminate on an ice cream cone, my thoughts naturally turn to the St. Louis World’s Fair of 1904. Don’t yours? Some may know of this event from the movie Meet Me in St. Louis. That classical musical gave us some standards including “Meet Me in St. Louis, Louis,” “The Boy Next Door,” and the melancholy, somewhat disturbing holiday song, “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas.” The movie is set – don’t be surprised if you haven’t seen it – in St. Louis mostly during the 1903 Christmas season. The planning for next summer’s World’s Fair is underway.

Of course, all musicals are fantasies on some level but Meet Me even more so. The family at the core of the movie learns that the father may have to relocate them all to New York City. I can grasp that the family is upset that it might miss the fair, especially as everyone is abuzz with excitement about it. However, it is hard for me — a dyed-in-the-wool New Yorker — to suspend my disbelief so much as to accept that the family would rather stay in St. Louis than move to New York, but, nevertheless, that is the plot. Of course, they stay along the Mississippi. The movie’s last scene is in the summer of 1904 with the cheerful family at the brightly lit World’s Fair. However, that scene is incomplete since no one, as far as I can remember, is holding an ice cream cone.

(Meet Me in St. Louis not only gave us some treasured musical standards, it also in essence gave us Liza. During the filming, its director, Vincente Minnelli, met the movie’s star, Judy Garland. The two would later produce Liza Minnelli. I won’t digress to the time I saw — along with Jackie Kennedy Onassis — Liza Minelli in concert.)

Perhaps when you think of the St. Louis World’s Fair, in addition to ice cream cones you think of Thomas Jefferson and early American history. That Fair was officially the Louisiana Purchase Exposition. It commemorated the centennial of President Jefferson’s purchase from France of what is now the heartland of the United States. Of course, since the Louisiana Purchase occurred in 1803, the centennial celebration should have been before 1904. However, while St. Louis, the Gateway to the West, may have had many go-getters, apparently not all participating in the fair could get going in time for the one-hundred-year mark, and the Exposition was held a year late. St. Louis might not often acknowledge taking inspiration from its rival city, but it did seem to be following Chicago’s calendar. The World’s Columbian Exposition also known as the Chicago World’s Fair commemorated the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus’s arrival in the new world. However, it was held in 1893, also a year late, as all of us who remember our grade school poetry know.

With the Louisiana Purchase, the size of the United States instantly doubled. That territory encompasses all of present-day Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kansas, and North Dakota and portions of nine other states. Many of these places form our conservative heartland, and I wonder, as I am sure you do, too, if the people there reflect on the Louisiana Purchase, to which they are indebted.

France inhabited or held by occupation very little of the land it sold. Governing control of the area was not turned over to the U.S. because France did not in fact govern it. Instead, as a matter of international law — which really meant European law — the Purchase gave America the right to inhabit and control the land and to exclude foreign — meaning European — countries from it. Of course, indigenous Americans were there, but they did not participate in the deal, and their rights were disregarded. Perhaps the Purchase should be seen as a green light (ok, that is anachronistic, so give me something better) for American imperialism.

The Louisiana Purchase provoked one of the country’s first constitutional conflicts. Indeed, Jefferson himself doubted its constitutionality. Nothing in the Constitution authorized the kind of transaction Jefferson made. Those who truly believe that our Constitution sets out a government limited to enumerated powers, as Jefferson supposedly did, have to doubt the Purchase’s legality. As with many Constitutional disputes in our history, however, hypocrisy abounded. Those around Jefferson who believed in a limited government supported the deal while the Federalists, who were the big government folk, opposed it. Apparently, Jefferson was convinced that since nothing in the Constitution prohibited the purchase, it could go forward. That’s a long way, Tom, from maintaining that the government only could exercise powers enumerated in the document.

Something else should be noted. The Purchase occurred only fifteen years after the Constitution was ratified, and the meaning of the document was already unclear even to many who had been active in drafting and adopting it. When they went looking for the original meaning of the Constitution, they could not agree on what it was. Yet today, more than eleven score years later, some with wondrous certitude and amazing hubris will tell us what was originally meant by the fundamental charter.

The Supreme Court these days will resolve constitutional issues much as Jefferson did in 1803. Jefferson accepted the interpretation that allowed him to do what he wanted to do anyway. Similarly, the current conservative members of the Supreme Court will “reason” to a result that fits their philosophy and politics. The desired result drove Jefferson’s reasoning, as it does for a majority of the Supreme Court today.

There is also an irony in the fact that America did not have the money to pay France for the Louisiana Purchase. The United States borrowed the funds from Great Britain, which exacted a hefty 6% interest fee. In other words, the Louisiana Purchase, of suspect constitutionality, depended on deficit financing. Even so, many in today’s Congress from the states whose lands were obtained in the Purchase have supported a balanced budget amendment. I wonder if they ever pause to reflect on the fact that if such a provision had originally been in the Constitution, they might have had to do their grandstanding in French (or some other language), assuming that it were even allowed in whatever country Iowa and Nebraska would now be part of.

So. While some might think of the movie Meet Me in St. Louis when they think of the 1904 St. Louis World’s Fair. Others might reflect on the Louisiana Purchase, which the Fair commemorated. Nevertheless, the St. Louis World’s Fair of 1904 really should be honored for it its role in ice cream history, which is what I’ve been wanting to get to all along.

There may have been something like ice cream cones before 1904, but the Fair made them an American icon. There are competing versions about which vendor started using cones for ice cream at the Fair. (Origin stories are often disputed except by conservative Supreme Court judges who know with precision the original meanings of constitutional provisions.) But thousands upon thousands of ice cream cones were sold in St. Louis that summer. Soon they were appearing everywhere in the United States and new, ingenious machines were made and perfected in the United States for the fabrication of cones. We may say something is “as American as apple pie,” but saying something is “as American as an ice cream cone” would be even more accurate. And that stems from that St. Louis World’s Fair.

In spite of what Heywood Broun said (“I doubt whether the world holds for any one a more soul-stirring surprise than the first adventure with ice-cream.”), I don’t remember my first taste of ice cream. I do know that I have enjoyed it in many ways. It has given me pleasure on top of a brownie or a slice of cherry pie or chocolate cake or peach cobbler. (The spouse makes a great peach cobbler.) I have loved ice cream in the eponymous ice cream sandwich. I have enjoyed it covered with chocolate or salty caramel sauce or Kahlua. It has been great with strawberries in season and in a banana split. Even though it is stupid, I have had admiration for it in a Baked Alaska. I have enjoyed it straight out of the carton with the light from an open freezer door. (A sage person has said, Never ask a woman who is eating ice cream from a carton how her day was.) I have enjoyed it in many flavors and in soft-serve and hard versions.

And, yes, I have enjoyed ice cream simply spooned out of a bowl. But if you want that, use a real bowl and a real spoon. Ice cream from a disposable cup with a little plastic spoon or worse, one of those wooden paddles, is not the same thing. (Yes, I have had many Dixie Cup ice creams, but they came from convenience stores where an ice cream cone was not an option.) And at home, the bowl and spoon can be washed and used again unlike disposable cups from an ice cream shop. A cone does not contribute to landfill problems. If you want to spoon ice cream into your mouth, buy some, go home, and enjoy it out of a real bowl.

You should buy an ice cream cone when you can, not only because it is the American way (Do Russians stand around the Kremlin with a cone?), but also for the sensory experience. Licking ice cream from a cone is a different sensual pleasure from the other ways to enjoy it, and when a cone is available, take the opportunity. The ice cream cone, not that prissy cardboard cup and plastic spoon, is not only the American way, it affords pleasure in a way other servings of ice cream do not.

I can already imagine the rejoinder. I don’t buy an ice cream cone for my kid because I don’t want my dear little Mackenzie or Madison to experience that feeling when a scoop falls off and splats on the pavement. A kid who has not experienced a skinned knee has not truly experienced childhood. A child who has not suffered the tragedy of melting ice cream on the sidewalk is not ready for adulthood. Your snowflake will suffer worse than an ice cream cone mishap in life. Train them now.

So. Buy yourself an ice cream cone. Buy your kids ice cream cones. Be an American. We all scream for ice cream! Enjoy all that life offers.

Posted on by rjonakait · 1 Comment

Presidential Rock

No president has performed heavy metal or even any good rock. Or rap. We have had some insipid piano playing, some mediocre saxophone, and a good version of Amazing Grace. But no real rock ‘n’ roll. Or rap. And I believe the country would be better if the president rocked. Or rapped. However, after extensive, made-up research, I have found that many presidents did make music. Some examples:

Of course, the hits began with George Washington and his surprising novelty, Does the Chewing Gum Lose Its Flavor in the Dentures Overnight?

This was followed by Thomas Jefferson’s unclassifiable, but revealing, song that was huge in the South, Love in Chains. The third president had a follow-up success in the North, Set My Love Free?  

It was Dolley Madison who had a hit that referred to her husband’s constitutional amendment career with a refrain still resonating today: “Oh, Jimmy, Jimmy Mad, Are those rights just a fad?”

Andrew Jackson sang now forgotten plaintive Appalachian songs accompanying himself on the acoustic dulcimer.

Then there was Millard Fillmore.  No one knew who he was, so no one knew if he sang anything.

Abraham Lincoln accompanied Mary Todd Lincoln on the concertina as she sang, Re-United. Lincoln himself on the late-night tavern circuit tried to set With Malice Toward None to music, but, of course, he never finished it.

Rutherford B. Hayes performed with disastrous consequences still felt today, Reconstruction is for Suckas.

The insomniac William McKinley sang with some success his Mr. Tariffing Man. It was only after the full effects of Smoot-Hawley were seen in the Depression that the lyrics were expanded to include: “that evenings empire has returned into sand/Vanished from my hand/Left me blindly here to stand. . . .”

William Taft, who could not lie, was too obvious when he sang,”I like big butts.” The country back then, however, apparently did not.

Woodrow Wilson seemed convincing when in 1916 he sang “War! What is it good for?” And then he led us into war.

Warren Harding sang old family “darky” songs that would be considered offensive by many today but would be banned by others as DEI.

Calvin Coolidge did not sing but he was a trained mime. He did not get enough recognition for his Man Walking Backwards Against Heavy Wind although he was overpraised for miming handcuffing the Boston Police strikers.

Not surprisingly, FDR could not rock. His only memorable song was The Wheels on the Chair Go ‘Round and ‘Round.

Eisenhower avoided music. He thought that the public would demand from him martial tunes, which he hated.

Kennedy largely spared us those Irish jigs where four or eight bars are endlessly repeated until the fiddler gets tired and stops.

Not many people know that W wrote many lyrics, but they were so filled with malapropisms that no one could understand them.

And now under Trump we have endlessly repeated I Am Just a Fool (in Love) ((with Myself.))

Posted on by rjonakait

The Texas Tragedy

Does Trump bear responsibility for deaths in the Texas floods? Do Elon and Doge? They recklessly slashed government, including the National Weather Service. (Funny how Musk was a genius when upending departments, but now, according to Trump, he is off the rails. Mature people don’t change that radically in only a few months.) We do know that the NWS was understaffed in Texas, but we can’t know how results would have been different if positions had not been vacant.

The harm from Trump policies will often be unknowable. How much will farmers and others be hurt by cuts to weather forecasting? We can’t really know.

Trump, Musk, and Kennedy, Jr., have decimated the National Institutes of Health. We can assume discoveries will not be made that would have been made without the chainsaw, but we don’t know what those discoveries would have been.

Trump is transforming FEMA. Will recoveries from natural disasters be…well, more disastrous? That may be almost impossible to measure.

Sometimes we might be able to assess damage. How have telephone wait times increased after cuts to the IRS? But often the measurable harm will not be known for a while. IRS revenue collection may drop but that will take time to learn. Sometimes the harm will happen only after the Trump presidency ends (and IT WILL END). We won’t know about deaths or illnesses from the vaccine and other health policies of the HHS. Already consequential, the full effects of the decimation of USAID will not be known for a long time.

Sometimes the consequences will be hidden from us. Tariffs are akin to a sales tax, but unlike the sales tax, the consumer will not see the explicit cost of tariffs at checkout. We will only see the new list price of the product. And we won’t see some business practices that tariffs encourage. For example: A friend runs an upscale sportswear company. During Trump’s first term, he made shirts in China for the American market. Trump instituted a fifteen percent duty on such goods. The retailer for the friend’s product had been charging $145 for each shirt. A fifteen percent increase would have been $167. The retailer, however, decided to use the tariff to raise the price to $185. That extra $18 is also a consequence of the tariffs, but its cause is invisible to the consumer.

Sometimes trickery is used for dampening negative consequences. So, for example, Trump’s recent legislation is expected to remove many people from Medicaid. Rural hospitals that depend on Medicaid are expected to close, bringing suffering to many small communities. If the cuts to Medicaid are a good idea, they are a good idea now. Nevertheless, that Big (Beautiful? Bullshit?) Bill delays their implementation. The delay is not for any sensible policy reason. Instead, Trump and the Republicans anticipate a backlash, but they hope it won’t peak until after the midterm elections and will have waned by 2028.

This might make you (even more) cynical about Trump and Republicans, but my cynicism extends deeper. We don’t know whether more staffing at the National Weather Service or a different warning system might possibly have lessened the Texas tragedy, but we should find out. This is a job for Congress. Hearings should be held seeking information about what happened and about possible changes going forward. The goal should be to see whether new legislation is warranted. But Republicans who control Congress will not hold such hearings for fear they may suggest that Trump made mistakes. Moreover, if such hearings were held, the Democrats would not seek information but use them to score partisan points. They would be like Jim Jordan in a clip I recently saw. He was questioning New York Governor Kathy Hochul. He asked if she knew how a local sheriff had responded to an immigration issue. She predictably ducked the question, and he predictably insisted that she answer. It was all a charade. Jordan knew the answer to his question. In a real hearing, our congresspeople would be seeking information by asking questions where they did not already know the answer. When was the last time you saw that?

We should be trying to learn from the Texas tragedy, but that won’t come from Congress, for, unfortunately, this Congress is not there to solve problems.

Posted on by rjonakait

The Strange Land

Just finished reading the arduous history of Chinese Americans in Strangers in the Land: Exclusion, Belonging, and the Epic Story of the Chinese in America (2025) by Micheal Luo. Chinese, we learn, started arriving on the West Coast in the1850s during the California gold rush. They continued to come for the construction of the intercontinental and other railroads after the Civil War. Chinese merchants and service workers followed. They did not all come at the same time or for the same reason, but there was a constant influx of Chinese, and a virulent hostility to them accompanied their arrival.

Today many oppose immigrants who are here illegally. They maintain that the “rule of law” requires that the “illegals” be removed from the country. That was not the reason for opposition to Chinese immigration. The Chinese were not in the United States illegally. Although some Eastern seaboard states tried to restrict Irish immigration, the federal government had placed no restrictions on immigration when the first Chinese influx began. Instead, at the time of our founding and beyond, the country welcomed immigrants. Michael Luo writes: “In the beginning the door was open. The Founding Fathers celebrated the multiplicity of difference in their young republic and recognized that filling the country’s vast, open spaces with newcomers was necessary for securing its future.”

Even so, by the 1840s, many did not want Chinese to be those newcomers. Jobs were a major concern. Today some voice a similar concern that the undocumented take work away from lawful residents. However, few leading the present deportation mania are lining up outside Home Depot for the day labor jobs or clamoring for stooped employment in the lettuce fields. In contrast, in the nineteenth century the hostility to the Chinese was led by whites, often immigrants themselves, who did want jobs in the mines or on the railroads or in the fields, and many of these jobs were held by the Chinese. Whites were not only willing to fight to do difficult and dangerous work, they were also willing to commit atrocities. Luo reports not only about unpunished murders of Chinese but unpunished massacres of them. Not only were Chinese homes and establishments burned without punishment, but time and again whole communities were torched. Luo reports so many atrocities that their recitation, a history that seldom gets reported, becomes mind-numbing.

In addition, the Chinese provoked hostility because they were the “other,” just as many immigrants are viewed today. Some Americans from the beginning had conflicting thoughts about immigration. New residents were necessary for a prosperous country, but immigrants with different customs could warp the country. Even Ben Franklin was concerned about the influx of non-English-speaking Germans into Pennsylvania. Less than a century later, it was easy to see the Chinese as “other” who could never become truly American.

The legal landscape changed for the Asian immigrants after the Civil War. The 1790 Naturalization Act restricted naturalization to “free white persons of good moral character,” a provision which was in effect until well into the twentieth century. Although he does not fully explain how, Luo reports that a few Chinese were naturalized despite this provision, but the law prevented almost every Chinese immigrant from becoming a citizen. However, the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to all those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. In 1898 the Supreme Court held that a child born in the United States to a non-naturalized Chinese immigrant couple was, nevertheless, a citizen. There was now citizenship for few of the Chinese Americans.

But the group of Chinese Americans, citizen or not, remained small because of the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. It prohibited the immigration into the United States of Chinese laborers. For the first time a Chinese immigrant was deemed illegal. Only laborers were excluded, and many seeking entry claimed to be merchants or some other profession that did not require manual labor. Someone had to decide whether the person was excludable under the Exclusion Act, and a new immigration bureaucracy was born. After the Chinese Exclusion Act paved the way, it became easier for the United States to restrict immigration by nationality, restrictions that materialized in the 1920s.

The concern over illegal Chinese immigration widened. The 1790 Naturalization Act stated that children who were born abroad of U.S. citizens were natural-born citizens unless the father had never been an American resident. After the Fourteenth Amendment, the number of Chinese American citizens increased, many of whom returned to China. Chinese, mostly male, started appearing at ports of entry claiming to be citizens as the children of citizens. Government officials often thought that the birth documents showing lineages were fraudulent. The problem of “paper sons” increased after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake destroyed birth records. Lengthy, often humiliating detentions, investigations, and interrogations were routine.

The Chinese Exclusion Act remained in effect until World War II when it became an embarrassment since China was an ally in the fight against Japan. Indeed, China had started its war of resistance against Japan in 1937, and Luo reports that 14 to 20 million Chinese were killed in the fighting by World War II’s end.

American immigration laws changed in the 1950s and 1960s, and concern over Chinese immigration morphed into something more modern. With mainland China controlled by Mao, the concern was not about laborers taking jobs away from Americans. Instead, the fear was over communist spies and the stealing of American technology by Chinese students and professionals. A similar rationale fuels many of today’s fears about Chinese immigrants.

On the other hand, many now view Chinese and other Asians as strivers in a traditional American sense, who show that “outsiders” can be successful in the United States. They are a “model minority.” If so, as Strangers in the Land illustrates, that status has been achieved in spite of a tortuous and tortured American history.

Posted on by rjonakait

The Inclusive Declaration of Independence and the Founding of America

The Fourth of July celebrates the United States of America and its birth, but with our current mood many only want to point out the country’s current and historical shortcomings. Every Fourth, I urge all to read the Declaration of Independence, and in doing so, it is natural to focus on the multiple ironies of its most famous phrase: “all Men are created equal.” However, as we know, in eighteenth century America, women, Native Americans, and indentured servants were not seen as equal. And, of course, slaves were not equal. Any fair assessment of our history acknowledges, as Thomas E. Ricks states in First Principles: What America’s Founders Learned from the Greeks and Romans and How That Shaped our Country (2020), that slavery was not a “stain” on the country; it was woven into the original fabric. And that weft and warp made the celebration of liberty painful to many Americans throughout our history, which was perhaps most powerfully stated by Frederic Douglass on July 5, 1852. Just as the Declaration should be regularly read, so too should this speech. (Africans in America/Part 4/Frederick Douglass speech (pbs.org.)

The Fourth of July is our birthday, however. Some might temper a child’s birthday celebration with a discussion of the child’s shortcomings, but I would hope that the major thrust of the party is, in fact, to celebrate the kid. We should be realistic in assessing our country, but there has always been much to celebrate, and the Fourth is a time of celebration. Because it is so easy to mock the Declaration’s equality statement, it is too easy to overlook the many ways that in its founding the country also furthered egalitarianism and inclusiveness.

We know many of the Declaration’s phrases—“When in the Course of human Events”; “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”; and others. But we often miss something about the tenor of the Declaration as a whole. There are no classical allusions or references. By eighteenth century standards, the language is simple. The document was not written for the elite peers of those who signed the document but for a wide swath of what were to become Americans.

Its logic demanded an inclusive appeal. The Declaration asserts that a government derives “their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed” not from the Divine Right of Kings. It declared “the Right of the People” to change government. The Declaration with these contentions could not just be addressed to an elite, aristocratic audience. It +was not directed to the enslaved, but it was seeking the approval of almost everyone else—the farmer, the joiner, the tavern owner, the schoolteacher, the sailors, the ship captain, the log splitter, and yes, the slave owner and trader. For an eighteenth-century document, its intended audience was remarkably inclusive.

The notion of the consent of the governed was a radical, egalitarian break from America’s English roots, and the emerging country’s conception of “the people” was much broader than almost anywhere else in the world. This is reflected in who could vote. Today we note the shortcomings of a franchise limited to propertied white males, but we seldom consider, as Jill Lepore does in These Truths: A History of the United States (2018), that a higher percentage of people could vote in the colonies than in England. The franchise was narrow by modern standards, but it was broad for its time.

Part of the reason for the inclusiveness of the Founding Era’s America was the high rate of literacy among its people, perhaps the highest of any country of its times. The seventeenth-century Pilgrims, Puritans, and others who settled here held beliefs that rejected an authoritarian church. They believed that the eternal truths came from the Bible, not from an authoritarian church, and, therefore, it was important that people could read the Holy Book. Literacy was stressed as well as the ability of each person to reason. Jefferson and the others may have expected that the Declaration would be read out to those assembled in taverns and inns, but they also knew that many people would read it for themselves, and all were expected to think and reason about the document, which led to its inclusive appeal to the people.

The Declaration did mention “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” and the signers said that they had acted with “a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence,” but it did not beseech God, a god, or Jesus Christ for independence. Just as some only criticize the Declaration for its hypocrisies without recognizing its advances, some focus on the listing of God and divine providence and conclude erroneously that the Declaration was an act of religious faith, or, more particularly, the signers’ Christianity. But these references, which include the almost pagan formulation of “Nature’s God,” were not invocations of any particular divinity to grant them a new country. Government depended on the consent of the governed, not on divine will, and the appeal was to the people, not to some version of God. The Declaration’s wording was inclusive; it did not exclude any particular believer or any nonbeliever from its ambit. It rejected the too-often divisiveness of religion and relied on the reason of the people.

This lack of a religious appeal is not surprising. Thomas Ricks shows in First Principles that neither Christianity nor any other religious influence was prominent in the Revolutionary period. This only began to change in 1815. He reports that there was one minister for every 1500 people in 1775 America while there was one for every 500 by 1845. Scott L. Malcomson writes in One Drop of Blood: The American Misadventures of Race that in 1790 only one in ten white Americans was a member of a formal church. Jill Lepore in These Truths agrees that the country was founded in one of its most secular eras.

Of course, slavery existed throughout the country when the Declaration of Independence was signed, and we should not forget how that institution shaped our country. Nevertheless, for their time, the Founders also created an egalitarian and inclusive government in ways we now seldom appreciate. For example, unlike many of the state and foreign governments of the time, the United States had no property qualifications to hold office. In an era when they were common, no religious tests were required for holding office. And we seldom notice that the new country paid its officials. Many governments did not, so only the rich who could afford to be uncompensated could hold office. Unlike in other countries, all whites, or at least all white males, could hold office.

The new country also broke from history and the practices of most countries by having no hereditary offices. A formal aristocracy died in the United States. Revolutionary America also moved to a more equal society by repealing primogeniture laws, which dictated that the firstborn male child would inherit his parent’s entire estate. This extraordinarily egalitarian reform, whose importance is seldom noticed today, was led by Thomas Jefferson in Virginia.

A related change in property law was also happening during this time. Under English law, aliens could buy property, but they could not inherit it. Aliens could sell the land they owned, but they could not grant it in a will. Instead, on death, an alien’s property went to the state. Revolutionary America began to repeal such inegalitarian laws, helping to make the country more inclusive and prosperous.

The country’s first naturalization law had some of the same characteristics as the Declaration of Independence. It showed simultaneously both racial restriction and social inclusiveness. The law limited naturalization to free, white citizens who had lived in the country for two years. We, of course, notice that nonwhites were excluded. (“Free” meant indentured servants could not be naturalized until they completed their periods of indenture.) Blacks could not be naturalized until 1870, and other nonwhites could not be naturalized until well into the twentieth century. There was no legal definition of whiteness. When areas of Mexico became part of the United States in the early1850s, the former Mexicans of those lands were made citizens, and there was an implicit recognition that they were white. The Supreme Court dealt with whiteness and naturalization several times and concluded that Asians and South Asians were not white but that Syrians and Armenians were. In 1922 the Supreme Court held that a high caste Sikh was neither white nor black and could not be naturalized. He had fought for this country in World War I.

However, in addition to noting the racial restriction, we should also consider the inclusiveness of this law. It did not impose a property requirement for citizenship. The rich and the not rich could become citizens. Aristocratic origins did not matter. There was the racial limitation, but no national origin requirement. There was no religious test. At a time when Catholics could not hold office in England and Jews could not become citizens in many places, they could in the United States.

We should keep both racial restrictions as well as these inclusions in mind when we consider this country’s origins. The founding era accepted an institution whose ramifications have troubled us throughout our history, but it also gave us foundations for much of what is good in this country.

I am sure that some will mostly criticize America on the Fourth, which is their right. And I am sure that some will call such critics unpatriotic, which is their right.

Patriotism has often been a contentious concept. Vicksburg, Mississippi, offers an example of its fragility. Exactly four score and seven years ago to the day after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, confederate General John C. Pemberton surrendered Vicksburg to American General Ulysses S. Grant after a forty-seven–day siege. This was certainly one of the most important actions of the war because it gave control of the Mississippi River to the Americans and severed the confederacy.

Thus, July 4, 1863, was another Fourth of July for patriotic Americans to celebrate, but Vicksburg didn’t see it that way. The town did not honor the Fourth of July for the next eight decades. They continued to identify as confederates, not as Americans. Vicksburg simply ignored Independence Day until after World War II when General Dwight Eisenhower visited the town on the Fourth. Even so, Vicksburg did not want to celebrate the United States. It called the celebrations during Eisenhower’s visit a “Carnival of the Confederacy,” a title I am told that was dropped only when the country and Vicksburg celebrated the Bicentennial in 1976. I’m not sure what to make of their tenacious grasp of a different brand of “patriotism.” I guess I’m just glad that they finally celebrate along with the rest of us.

And I hope all Americans can find something to celebrate this Fourth of July.

Posted on by rjonakait

Snippets

Reports say that fourteen bunker buster bombs were dropped on Iran. Another report says that we have only six more such bombs, not enough for another raid. They need replacing. Other reports say that they cost $500 million apiece. Does the $7 billion cost come into the consideration of whether the operation was a good idea?

A young Muslim who identifies as a Democratic Socialist won the New York City Democratic mayoralty primary. If Zohran Mamdani does take office, how long will it be before Trump proclaims an “emergency” that requires, according to him, that federal troops be sent into the city?

The ad I heard was like others from funeral homes. It stressed “pre-planning.” And I wondered, Isn’t all planning, by definition, “pre?”

A new experience: On a brutally hot and humid afternoon, I parked near a hydrant. As is common in New York on such a day, the hydrant, equipped with a sprayer cap, was spewing water into the intersection. Skirting this, I walked a few blocks to Yankee Stadium. The game was interrupted several times by rain. The last was in the bottom of the eighth inning. Concerned about how long this delay would be and whether I would see the game’s conclusion, my friend said that the weather report predicted that the rain would end in seven minutes, but more was due in a half-hour. As the rain was ending, we watched a marvelous performance by the grounds crew as they hurriedly rolled up the tarp and prepared the field for the resumption of play. They, too, were aware of the weather report. The Yankees quickly secured their victory, breaking a losing streak. As we wended our way out of the Stadium, I said to my friend that I certainly needed a shower after the ninety-degree heat. When we got to the exit, my friend said that I might eschew the shower. He pointed outside where it was pouring. Neither he nor I had rain gear. We were going to get soaked. When I got near my car, after unsuccessfully trying to skip from awning to awning, I saw that the hydrant was still spraying. I thought this was redundant with the heavy downpour, but not all thought so. A middle-aged man was twirling about soaking up the rain. He then pulled out of his pocket a sliver of bar soap. Decorously reaching under his clothes, he lathered all the essential parts of his body and then went into the hydrant’s spray to rinse off. He repeated the process several times. Some passersby smiled, but he made this simultaneous washing of body and clothes seem like the natural thing to do with the rain and hydrant. As I drove off, he was still there. Although I lived in New York City for over fifty years, this was the first time I had witnessed such al fresco bathing.

The history book group’s discussion of Strangers in the Land: Exclusion, Belonging, and the Epic Story of the Chinese in America (2025) by Michael Luo included many comments about the inherent evil in humanity. Afterwards, as emails were exchanged about our next book selection, one member, after voting, added that earlier that day, he had dropped his wallet on a crosstown bus. Later the bus driver rang his apartment bell, saying that he had noticed the friend’s address was near the bus route. The driver would not take any money as a reward. The friend noted that “both decided against a hug.” The friend said that was trying to get a commendation noted in the driver’s file and concluded: “Maybe there’s hope for humankind after all.”

The friend’s experience reminded me of how often we (I) can forget random acts of kindness, but it had me remembering a call I got soon after Covid vaccines were available. The caller told me that he had found my vaccine card on the subway steps and thought that I might need it since proof of vaccination then was necessary to get into some public places. That card did not have identifying information besides my name, but the caller told me that he did internet searches to find my phone number. We arranged to meet, and I got my card back. He did take a modest reward, and I was more than happy to give it to him.

Posted on by rjonakait · 1 Comment

Wunnerful, Wunnerful

The PBS station broadcasts a new incarnation of “The Lawrence Welk Show.” It contains clips, usually centered on a theme, from the program that first went on national television seventy years ago. I never watch the whole hour, but I often stop my channel-scanning for ten minutes to watch a bit. I consider it an homage to the father.

We had one television while I was growing up. There were few disputes within the family about what to watch. We generally agreed, but on Saturday nights, I most decidedly did not. If memory serves that is when The Lawrence Welk show aired. I don’t know how my older brother and sister felt about it or my mother, who did not seem to have much say about what to watch (times and families were different). The father’s vote for Welk outweighed all other considerations. He loved it. My alternative choices seemed limited. At age ten or twelve, I did not go out on Saturday nights during the long Wisconsin winters. I wasn’t about to do homework on a Saturday evening. It seemed as if I had no choice but to hear Welk’s bubbly music. I would look over at my father during the show. He would be smiling, and I would silently shake my head.

Numerous variety shows with many musicians were on television during that period. Throughout the Welk era, I might also see and hear Rosemary Clooney, Dinah Washington, Tony Bennett, Louis Prima, Jack Jones, Nat King Cole, Sarah Vaughn, Ella Fitzgerald. Even to my tender, musically untrained tin ear, I could tell the difference between the music on the Lawrence Welk show and that of those other performers, and that made the champagne music even more painful. But the father insisted on the Welk show and thoroughly enjoyed it. Sometimes he would move his hands as if he, and not Lawrence, were conducting. And I would silently shake my head.

Although the songs on the Lawrence Welk show may have come from different genres—from a Jewish lament to a Broadway show tune, from Stephen Foster to Cole Porter–they all sounded the same. The same was true for the dancing. It all seemed the same — what might be described as perky but sexless with any ethnicity wiped out. Even polkas were homogenized. For those who were clinging to the notion that the country was truly homogenous, Welk was perfect.

Of course, not every act fit precisely into the same mold. Al Hirt and Pete Fountain appeared, and they sounded different, but I had only a mild appreciation for Dixieland. And the Irish tenor stood out from the rest. His maudlin singing came close to making me laugh]. But I would look over at the father and I could swear that I could catch the beginning of a tear. And I would silently shake my head.

There was more than the music on the Welk show, however. Anyone who has seen a few minutes of the show knows that Lawrence himself was strangely awkward though strangely compelling with an easily mockable, indefinable, seemingly middle European accent. Only recently did I learn that my assumption of his foreign birth was wrong. He was a native-born American. His German parents had been living in the Russian empire city of Odessa in the Ukraine before immigrating to the United States in 1892. Lawrence was born in Strasburg, North Dakota, in 1903. Strasburg was a German-speaking town, and Welk, who was as American as American can be, did not speak English until he left the family farm at twenty-one to seek musical fortune as an accordionist and bandleader. Thus, the accent.

Although Welk became a force, he was not a musical influencer. He was most associated with the accordion, both his own and those in his orchestra, but I doubt that he affected the sales of that instrument, which I guess remained tiny outside of polka territory. (This could be contrasted with the sale of electric guitars, spurred by the onset of rock, which was in its formative years when Welk first started appearing on my TV.) I don’t think that many today would claim him as an important influence. Nevertheless, he had an incredible career.

When they could no longer keep him down on the farm, he started touring as the leader of a band. That orchestra had a ten-year residence at a Chicago hotel. He settled in Los Angeles, and he with his musicians were on local television for several years before he was picked up by ABC in 1955. He stayed on that network until 1971. His show was then syndicated for another eleven years. He was on TV for over three decades, and surely nearly all Americans knew who he was.

Surprisingly, he endures. Evidence of his staying power is a new book coming out from the North Dakota State University Press: Champagne Times: Lawrence Welk and His American Century by Lance Byron Richey. It comes in three volumes comprising more than 1200 pages. A limited first edition signed by the author will soon be available for $225. (I doubt the spouse will give it to me for Christmas.)

 An orchestra bearing his name appears in Branson, Missouri, and a version of his shows appears (as noted) on PBS. (This is not a reason to slash the budgets of public broadcasting.) I doubt I saw any of the original shows that the present clips are now drawn from. They are in color, quite a collection of colors, in fact, but Welk only started color broadcasts in 1965. By then I was in college and I assuredly did not watch the show there. When I was home on a Saturday night, I went out. But the die-hard father still watched.

These days when I land on the Lawrence Welk show for a few minutes, I see our modest living room with the family around the television. I look over and see the ghost of the father, smiling, nodding, waving his conducting arm. And I silently shake my head, but now I have my own smile for the one who is long gone.

Posted on by rjonakait

Thoughts on the Recent Bombings of Iran

The Vice President appropriately praised the personnel who carried out the Iranian bombings. That seems odd. For months this administration has proclaimed that previous administrations have decimated the military. The personnel, however, were trained before Trump 2.0. The planes and the bombs were conceived, developed, and constructed well before he took office. Trump may have made the decision to bomb, but the capability to do the mission belongs to previous administrations. Nevertheless, I don’t expect to hear apologies.

We are unlikely to hear anything as self-effacing from Trump as John F. Kennedy said: “Those of you who regard my profession of political life with some disdain should remember that it made it possible for me to move from being an obscure lieutenant in the United States Navy to Commander-in-Chief in fourteen years with very little technical competence.” And yet, Trump assuredly shares Kennedy’s professed lack of technical competence.

While the military has been praised, no such praise has been extended to our intelligence services. In fact, they have been disparaged. Nevertheless, Iran has steadfastly maintained that it was not developing nuclear weapons, and we have no reports from U.S. Intelligence that an Iranian nuclear bomb was imminent. However, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said that Iran was only weeks away from an operational bomb. Of course, we do not know what intelligence supports the assertion, but we do know that Bibi has uttered that “weeks away” mantra many times over the last decade. It would seem that Trump accepts Israeli intelligence, or at least Netanyahu’s assertions, over our own intelligence. I find it troubling that we seem to have outsourced our intelligence to a foreign country.

It is also troubling that no intelligence — U.S. or Israeli — was presented to Congress prior to the attack. Moreover, the War Powers Act of 1973 might suggest that letting Congress know about a planned bombing of another country is, at the very least, a courtesy. Gosh, even Bush Jr. brought the invasion of Iraq to a vote in Congress. The intelligence was wrong, but…

We will soon start to get reports about how much the bombing has impeded Iran’s ability to build a nuclear bomb. Will the assertions be based on U.S. or Israeli intelligence? Why should we trust either of them?

We bombed Iran even though that country presented no imminent threat to our territorial safety. The decision fits in with an “Israel First” policy, and the operation should increase Israeli safety, but it also seems to signal that we will give an even freer rein to Israel in Gaza and the West Bank. If we so blithely accept Israel’s assertions about existential threats that we bomb Iran, must we also unquestioningly accept what they say about the importance to them of Gaza and the West Bank?

The bombings are expected to disrupt oil flows and distributions. It certainly will if Iran retaliates by successfully closing off the Strait of Hormuz. World oil prices will increase. Russia routinely benefits whenever oil costs more. Was strengthening Russia part of the goal?

Iran can retaliate by attacking our military assets in the Middle East, but it does not have the power to attack the territorial United States except, perhaps, in isolated acts of physical sabotage. It may have the ability for cyberattacks on our infrastructure, such as our antiquated power grid that the present administration ignores. However, the source of a cyberattack is often unclear. If there are such actions in the coming weeks, Iran will undoubtedly be blamed. This is an opportunity for other countries who want a weaker America to launch cyberattacks against us with Iran as their cover. And yes, I am thinking about Russia again.

Our officials say that they are only trying to end the Iranian nuclear bomb program and are not seeking regime change. I understand why they say that. During the campaign Trump and his acolytes were adamant that we were going to be out of the nation-building business, and yet, regime change inevitably leads to nation-building. In short, the proclamation that we do not seek a change is likely a lie. Some reports suggest that the Iranian people are fed up with the Ayatollah and want regime change. Is this true? And what would regime change in Iran look like? An autocrat often replaces an autocrat. Moreover, change often comes only after an ugly civil war in which other countries intervene directly or covertly. Change often spawns terrorist groups such as ISIS. What are the odds that a new Iran would be peaceful and cooperative?

We say that we seek to negotiate with either the new or the old Iran. If you were Iran, would you trust negotiations with the United States? You might conclude that nuclear weapons are the most sensible protection for yourself.

Other consequences of the bombing:

Language precision has suffered another blow. (It has already been almost fatally undermined by Trump himself.) Now comes Vance who says that we are not at war with Iran, but with Iran’s nuclear program. Huh? Trump says that we “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capacity. The next day the administration says that Iran’s nuclear ability has been “severely damaged.” Making me wonder again about the quality of a Yale education, Vance says he does not understand the difference.

Did DOGE have a role in the planning for the bombing to prevent the ever-present threat of waste, fraud, and abuse?

When all is said and done, isn’t it a good thing if the bombing operation actually has prevented Iran from getting nuclear weapons?

Posted on by rjonakait · 1 Comment

Snippets–No Kings Edition

The military parade was a benign surprise. It was not nearly as much about Trump as it might have been. And I liked it that a lot of the soldiers had big smiles as if they were enjoying themselves.

Even so, there did not appear to be much point to it. Our major national holiday is the Fourth of July. We all have absorbed some of the history about Independence Day, and it is a natural time for patriotism. Military parades at the conclusion of wars make some sense, as they tend to bring out our appreciation as we realize that too many soldiers are missing, and many whom we do see marching have been through harrowing times. On the other hand, I doubt few of us could have stated when the U.S. Army came into existence and why we were commemorating a date that has gone unremarked for 250 years. Quick. When was our navy created? The marines? The air force?

Perhaps wondering about the point to the parade makes me an outlier. The commentators on Fox News were convinced that it gave all of us a huge boost in patriotism. Seeing files of tanks made them more excited than Al Roker spotting the Snoopy balloon approaching Macy’s.

Wondering about the cost of parade, on the other hand, does not make me an outlier. With a projected price tag of $45 million (not including clean-up and extra police presence), the money spent on the parade could have funded 14 million school lunches, Medicaid coverage for 6,000 people for a year, housing assistance for 4,500 families, annual disability coverage for 7,200 venterans, etc. etc. (See https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hopewatch/5-things-washington-military-parade/). I wonder how many jobs cut by DOGE could have been saved.

Well, back to the parade. Time and again I heard the Fox commentators report that freedom is not free. I think it is fair to say soldiers have helped give us freedom both here and abroad, but I wish we would routinely acknowledge that others who have helped establish our freedoms include non-military patriots who fought for first amendment and due process rights for themselves and others.

A difficult truth is that the sacrifices of many soldiers have not always furthered freedom, for not all our military actions have expanded freedom, neither ours nor others’. Sometimes they have made us (or others) more unsafe or just furthered the interests of a small part of our country.  We have never mastered a way of honoring the warrior while questioning the war.

I will have to admit that the parade concluded with one terrific fireworks display — impressive even on TV. (I wonder how much it cost?) The explosions were well synced with the music. I heard the “1812 Overture,” which I often also hear on Independence Day. Why is a piece that commemorates a Russian victory over the French part of our patriotic days?

Of course, there was also “God Bless America.” Whenever it is played, it should be stressed that it was written by an immigrant from a group that was largely banned from entering the country a few years after the classic song was composed.

It seemed however that no one knew how to end the evening. It went on and on skipping past what seemed to be several natural ending points. It became like gold bathrooms at Mar-a-Lago—simply too, too much.

________

Last week several governors were brought before a Congressional hearing apparently so members of Congress could demean gubernatorial patriotism. The governors’ states have sanctuary policies. A sanctuary jurisdiction does not mean that an undocumented person is safe from deportation. It just means that while state officials will continue to enforce state laws (as they were appointed or elected to do), they will not aid federal officers in enforcing federal immigration law. Federal officials imply that local officials are required to assist them. They must report to them whenever they know of an undocumented person. In other words, they must be an informer. That, however, is not the law. There have been societies where informing has been mandatory. They have included Nazi Germany, communist Russia, East Germany, and North Korea.

________

Trump says he knows how to handle Putin, but Putin ignores him and creates more brutal chaos in Ukraine. Trump responds by tut-tutting. The U.S. had been negotiating with Iran to get us back to an agreement that Trump abrogated seven years ago. While Trump asked him not to, Netanyahu blew up the negotiations by blowing up Iranian facilities. It would seem that Putin and Netanyahu see Trump as just someone to play. It must be hard for the other players to keep smiles off their faces when Trump comes to the poker table.

________

Almost every time I turn on Fox News, they are reporting about the mental decline of Biden during his presidency, a legitimate story. But I am surprised by how much they dwell on it. They also often try to say the electorate gave Trump a “huge mandate” in the last election, even though his margin of victory was the smallest in a generation and was much smaller than the mandate given Biden and Obama (and Clinton if we count only the popular vote). What Fox doesn’t seem to realize is that the more they stress Biden’s decline, the more they imply that voters were not so much selecting Trump as rejecting Biden.

_________

Sean Hannity, after bashing California and its governor, told his audience that if they wanted a safe life they should live in a red state. Hannity said that is why he lives in Florida. I pulled up homicide rates as a handy marker of safety. They varied slightly from year to year and by some methodological differences, but this result was typical: The five highest homicide rates were in Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, New Mexico, and Missouri. These, of course, are not what you would call solidly blue states. The lowest rates were New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Utah, Massachusetts, and Maine. Florida was in the middle of the pack, higher than the rate for New York State (decidedly blue) and — get this — higher than the rate for New York City.

_________

The press secretary wears a large cross. When I see it, I remember the passage from the Gospel of Matthew that says, “Whoever prostrates and plastic ties the least of these in the field of lettuce and deports them shall find the Kingdom of Heaven.” But when I look for this teaching in my Bible, I only find something quite different about the least of these.

Posted on by rjonakait

Do They Really Want Viewpoint Diversity?

The Trump administration is pressuring Harvard University to have greater “viewpoint diversity.” The Trumpistas have not defined the term nor is it self-evident. This is an administration that has sought to stop the consideration of certain topics in schools and elsewhere. We do know that they consider discussions of institutional racism and certain gender issues to be verboten in classrooms. Some people cannot enter the country if they have criticized Israel. Lawful residents may get deported if they speak out on behalf of Palestinians. The administration, apart from Harvard, is trying to prevent viewpoints from being heard, not expanding the diversity of them.

Many reports indicate that Harvard has few faculty members who identify as conservative. The inference from the right is that Harvard students are being indoctrinated with liberal thinking and that such indoctrination must change. If there is indoctrination, however, it is in a narrow curricular space. In many courses the political affiliation of the instructor does not matter. The content of math, physics, astrophysics, chemistry, molecular biology, and many other subjects will not be affected by whether the professor is conservative or liberal.

Of course, the political perspective of professors might intrude on certain subjects (political science, economics, etc.), but that does not mean that students are affected by those professorial views. I have not seen, but would like to, a good study of how student political thinking changes during one’s years at Harvard. This study would require the collection of similar data from other colleges to see if any shifts might be the result of Harvard’s education or is simply the normal maturation process that students go through everywhere. Of course, we already know that the supposed liberal indoctrination — if it is, indeed, there — does not always work. Many famous, adamant conservatives have gone to Harvard, including Ted Cruz, Steve Bannon, and Ron DeSantis. If they have escaped the liberal indoctrination and have learned to “think for themselves,” surely other Harvard students can do and have done the same.

A thought experiment: How effective is the so-called “indoctrination” by Harvard? If you personally know any Harvard graduates, how many are in positions that seek to radicalize the country? How many are commie-pinkos? As far as I can tell, Harvard has not been very successful in turning out cadres of radicals. The predominant choice for a starting job for Harvard undergrads is finance. They want to make money, not destroy the country. Something similar is the choice of business, medical, and law school graduates. This, perhaps, is not necessarily good for the country, but not in the way that the Trump administration fears.

And anyway, why should the Trump administration be able to dictate viewpoint diversity at Harvard or any other university? The Trump acolytes have not made that clear, but apparently it is because the federal government gives money to Harvard for research and programs, and they think that Harvard should toe the conservative line if they are to get those funds. That is not a sufficient reason. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which many conservatives opposed), specifically forbids discrimination by programs and activities that receive federal funds on the basis of race, color, or national origin. (It does not prohibit religious discrimination, but antisemitism has been seen as a form of discrimination on the basis of national origin. That is a story for another day.) However, that Civil Rights provision does not insist on “viewpoint diversity.”

If viewpoint diversity is required of an organization that gets money from the federal taxpayers. shouldn’t that mean that an activity or program that gets all of its money from us taxpayers should have to have viewpoint diversity, too? What entities get all  their funds from the taxpayers? Answer: any division of the federal government. If Harvard is required to have viewpoint diversity, surely the same should be required of the federal government Trump has tried to appoint right wing judges. That should end if his position on viewpoint diversity at Harvard is right. State Department appointments should be viewpoint diverse as should those in the Justice Department. And so on throughout the federal government. Perhaps the Trumpistas should be concerned about winning the day at Harvard. On the other hand, they have never been famous for philosophical consistency.