Marriner Eccles who was chairman of the Fed from 1934 to 1948 was reputed to say that the main problem with banking was that there were 13,000 banks in the US and not that many bankers in the world.

Eccles was probably right then and right now. Too many bankers lack risk management skills and make decisions that heighten risk rather than reduce it. Banking is inherently a risky business. Its liabilities are mostly short term deposits while its assets are mostly longer term loans. Any finance professor will tell you when there is a mismatch between asset and liability maturity structures there will be risk. Moreover, bank risk is enhanced because the short term liabilities are mostly payable on demand. This mismatch caused the implosion of the savings and loan industry and led to the bankruptcy of its insurer the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) which In 1989 was dissolved and absorbed by the FDIC. Incidentally, I was appointed by the FDIC to be one of the four public interest members of the board that oversaw the transition of the FSLIC into the FDIC. 

Instead of addressing the risks inherent in the structure of banking, the Congress actually made it worse by increasing deposit insurance at the FDIC from $100,000 to $250,000. Bankers could now take even more risks since more losses would be covered by the government insurer. Therefore, the incentives of bankers to chase return increased rather than decreased.

With the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and First Republic Bank bad ideas are again in play. First, the regulators ended up insuring all deposits at SVB sending a signal to both bankers and the market. The market was told that “too big to fail” was still the norm. The result was a movement of deposits from smaller banks to larger ones. Bankers were implicitly told they could take more risk because the government would bail them out. There has actually been talk about raising deposit insurance limits again. Bad idea if one wishes to lessen risk. Ironically, there would be less risk taking if deposit insurance were lowered rather than raised. Another idea that is being floated by the regulators is to raise capital requirements at the largest banks which are now the beneficiaries of the deposit inflow. Since capital is a line of defense against losses, any loss incurred by the FDiC would be less than if capital were higher. However, the total assets of the FDIC are insufficient to pay out all the deposits of the largest US banks even with the increase in capital. 

Yet there are two ways to address the risk inherent in banking that likely will never be considered. The first is the idea proposed by Milton Friedman in the 1950s – that of the “narrow bank”. Here banks would only be allowed to take deposits and not make any loans. The deposits would be held as required reserves. The Fed would pay interest on the reserves and in turn the banks would pay interest on deposits. Loans would be made by nondepositories, such as mortgage banking companies and finance companies which would borrow the money in the market in order to lend them to consumers. The nondepositories could be part of the bank’s holding company but their operations would not imperil the deposit holding bank. Hence there would be no more bank runs. The narrow bank model was actually proposed to the Fed in 2019 which denied approval claiming that narrow banks would threaten the implementation of monetary policy. The Fed was wrong and probably just wanted to preserve the number of bank executives extant.

The second idea would be to mandate private deposit insurance for amounts greater than $250,000. The insurance premium paid by the bank would give a clear signal as to the riskiness of the bank and would force less risk taking. There is already an entity called the Deposit Insurance Fund (https://www.difxs.com/DIF/Home.aspx) that offers private deposit insurance. The concept could be expanded to cover all banks so that premia are set much like automobile insurance where the riskier drivers pay higher premiums than safer drivers. Thus, if Congress or the Fed really wanted to lessen risk taking, it could mandate private deposit insurance for deposits over $250,000 and/or eliminate the motivation of bankers to chase yield by replacing traditional banks with narrow banks. 

Do you pay attention to lists? Obviously some people do or else no one would be compiling them. I occasionally will look for best mystery novels of the year or best science fiction novels of the year or best historical fiction of the year. One list that that caught my eye was the list of the happiest countries. I could envision folks dancing in the streets, strewing flowers while singing kumbaya. BTW, did you know that kumbaya is of African origin? Isn’t that counter intuitive that slaves would be singing kumbaya? Well the country that is deemed the happiest in the whole world is Finland (the US is number 15). Personally, I can’t see how anyone would be happy living near the Artic Circle with over 100 days of winter in the south, 200 days of winter in the north and 51 days where the sun does not get above the horizon.

That Finland is the happiest only applies to native white Finns for Finland is one of the most racist countries in the world. Indeed, polls have shown that most Finns themselves consider Finland to be a racist country. So how the researchers determine that racism somehow equates to happiness is beyond me. Read James Thompson’s novels featuring detective Kari Vaara: Snow Angels, Lucifer’s Tears and Helsinki White. They feature a Finnish detective and are perhaps the most racist novels I have ever read. The Finns are not exactly a welcoming people if you are a non-white Finn. Those who are gypsies, Arab speaking, Jews, of Russian descent and from Somalia suffer discrimination. These Finns I guess are happily suffering from discrimination in employment, religion, abuse in schools, in housing and police harassment. Many are also denied access to banking services. Also the Finns have not greeted transgenders with open arms. Finland requires mandatory sterilization as a condition for sex change identity. Transgenders often are targeted for violence. Even the original Finns, the Sami (the Lapps) have been forced to move to the northernmost part of the country to herd their reindeer and fish. I guess this is the Finnish equivalent of our Indian reservations. Are the Sami happy?

How is happiness consistent with racism? One reference stated that there was growing violence and abuse against immigrants and non-Finnish Finns. There was even a George Floyd type of incident involving a black youth and the Finnish police. However, the reaction in Finland was to basically ignore the incident while in erstwhile racist America, the reaction was just the opposite with police being put in jail and George Floyd accorded sainthood. What makes the Finns happy? They are happy because of the country’s welfare system. However, the same Finns resent those who are different from availing themselves to the same welfare system with its generous unemployment benefits and “free” healthcare. Just think how much happier the Finns would be if they just could eliminate all of those pesky blacks, Arabs, Jews, Russians and gypsies!

What about the unhappiest countries in the world? The top five are Afghanistan, Lebanon, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, Congo and Botswana. Actually, for reasons that I have listed before, I would have thought Congo would be number one given its history of brutality by the Belgians and exploitation of its natural resources by the Europeans and the Chinese. I was surprised that Botswana was on the unhappiest list. Perhaps I have been overly influenced by Alexander McCall Smith’s novels on the No. 1 Ladies’ Detective Agency. But Botswana is Africa’s most stable country, is democratic and is relatively free of corruption. It is the world’s largest producer of diamonds and has a healthy safari-based tourist trade. It is a middle-income nation – a rarity on the African subcontinent. It even has given gay rights legal recognition. Botswana’s unhappiness is attributed to familial trauma and abuse from both men and women. One source even suggested that “The government of Botswana must integrate happiness as one of the pillars of good governance.” Well good luck with that. I guess the ultimate question is “would you rather be happy in Finland or unhappy in Botswana?”

How can law enforcement find the Long Island serial killer but can’t find who leaked the Supreme Court’s opinion on abortion or who left the cocaine at the White House?

Remember when Sen Blackburn asked (now Justice) Kentanji Brown Jackson to define “woman” and the answer was “I am not a biologist”? Well a biology professor at a small school in Texas was fired for defining sex as determined by X, Y chromosomes.  So apparently biologists don’t know the answer either.

Those pundits predicting that the Supreme Court’s decision on affirmative action would severely limit black enrollment at “elite” universities obviously must think that the administrators in the admissions offices are stupid. Harold Black’s First Law says “Any law worth circumventing will be.” If admissions’ officers can’t figure out a way around the Court’s ruling, then they should be fired.

One statistic cited by those favoring the Court’s decision on affirmative action is that when affirmative action was curtailed in California, that a higher percentage of minorities graduated from the “elite” California schools. Well if less qualified minorities are denied admission then obviously the percent of the total enrolled that graduate must increase.

What is remarkable about affirmative action is that every group polled favored its demise. Blacks, Asians, whites, Democrats and Republicans thought it unfair. Seems like the only supporters were the universities and their affirmative action officers.

I am an empiricist. I want to know what evidence exists to demonstrate the effectiveness of affirmative action. Much like the War on Poverty, the only beneficiaries appear to be those hired to administer the programs.

How can those crying racism explain the success of Asian Americans? Isn’t it interesting that rather than looking at the Asians as the model to follow to address inequities of racial minorities, white liberals instead are seeking to limit Asian success? Perhaps this is because the Asians show that the blacks and whites who profit from bemoaning inequities are purveyors of policies whose effects are to entrench minorities as a class dependent upon the state while enriching themselves.

Socialist ice cream mavens Ben and Jerry want the US to return “stolen” land to the Indians yet they have yet to give back their factory’s land which was apparently “stolen” from the Abenaki tribe.

Biden’s touching women and nibbling on young girls is starting to freak me out.

I was disappointed in Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissents in several Supreme Court decisions. They indicated either a fundamental error in her thinking regarding the Constitution and/or data from “experts.” 

The dissents of the court’s liberals (Brown Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor) were social rather than legal arguments. Thus, even if they were true, the three still should have found the doctrine unconstitutional.

Isn’t it interesting how the media treated Brown Jackson? She was not the atypical rookie justice. In the past, new justices have been silent. Remember when Clarence Thomas was mocked for not speaking during his early years? Also Jackson wrote three solo dissents. It took Chief Justice Roberts 16 years before he wrote a solo dissent. The left media is trumpeting Brown Jackson’s dissents and outspokenness. Yet her dissents were so off target that even the other two liberals on the court would not join her.

The court’s other affirmative action justice – Sonia Sotomayor – continues to be an embarrassment. It now seems that Gorsuch has replaced Alito in ridiculing her statements and opinions. Justice Thomas is doing the same with Brown Jackson.

The Babylon Bee has taken to lampooning Sotomayor by saying that she “shows the world illiteracy doesn’t have to stop you from achieving your dreams.”

ESPN hates the Braves. Is it the name? Although they are the best team in baseball with the most exciting player, Sports Center buries their highlights behind even the WNBA, the woeful New York teams and other sports. So I watch the MLB Network instead.

If it weren’t for college football I would not watch ESPN. 

I am the commencement speaker at my youngest granddaughter’s graduation from the University of Georgia. Any ideas as to what I should say other than “Go Dawgs”?

I found it interesting that the immediate reaction to the Supreme Court striking down affirmative action in university admissions was to render dire predictions regarding student body diversity. It is as though all the pundits have forgotten that the group being discriminated against was an historically oppressed minority – Asian Americans. As I wrote on these pages in November 2022, the first admissions offices at “elite” universities were established in the early 1900s to curtail Jewish enrollment.  It worked with the percentage of Jews at Harvard falling by 50 percent as a result. Like today’s Asian Americans, Jews historically invested in what economists call “human capital” – the investment in education. Given their history of persecution, the Jews knew that when the next pogrom occurred it was a whole lot easier to grab the kids and family and run rather than try to grab the apartment building and run. So the Jews invested in human capital rather than physical capital. Much the same is true today, resulting in a disproportionate number of Nobel Prizes being awarded to Jews. One person has written “Jewish cultural values based on family upbringing, dedication to education, self-motivation, persistence, resilience in face of adversity, and just plain hard work” undoubtedly contributes to their success.  It is likely that the same can be said about the Asians. Ironically, the same is true for the segregated society from which I came in Atlanta during the Civil Rights era. I grew up in a totally segregated middle class neighborhood made up of highly educated two parent households. All of us went to college and to my knowledge all of us graduated. Among my high school classmates are doctors, lawyers, a hedge fund manager, teachers, businesspeople and other professionals. Of the kids growing up with me only three went to predominately white institutions. The rest went to HBCUs. I believe that most of the kids in my neighborhood would have been admitted under affirmative action to many of the elite universities and most would fare well once admitted. 

However, I am not so certain if most would be admitted if the process were colorblind. Why? Many of the “elite” universities reject over 95% of all applicants. One highly ranked public university said that it could fill its freshman class with only students with GPAs of 4.0 and higher and still would have to reject thousands more who had the same grade point average. There are those who say that standardized tests should be excluded from admissions criteria because such tests – outside of math – are culture bound. However, all GPAs are not created equal because all high schools do not provide the exact same education. Surely a 4.0 in a Chicago public school does not equal that of a 4.0 from an elite private school. Recall that in Chicago precious few minority students can read, write or do arithmetic at grade level. 

Admissions offices at universities exist for the sole purpose of discriminating among applicants for admission. If that were not true then there would be no reason to have such offices. Looking at the admissions requirements at Harvard, the average admitted student has a GPA of 4.18, an SAT score of 1520 (1600 is “perfect”. There are other requirements as well such as submitting a written essay, listing extra curriculum activities such as sports, clubs and civic involvement. Moreover, Harvard rejected Asians because they consistently scored lower on “personal quality” ratings – a purely subjective evaluation. I presume that the people making that judgment were not Asians. However, any admission requirement is discriminatory, with race seemingly being the only one considered unconstitutional. 

What can be done? When I was in graduate school, one state obligated its universities to accept all in-state applicants with a certain minimum GPA. The flagship university in that state had a huge freshman class and did not have the resources to maintain that class size through all four years. It therefore had a stringent first year curriculum that required calculus and science designed to whittle down the class. It worked, with the sophomore class being almost half the size of the freshman class. I suggest establishing criteria for admissions that is race-neutral for a certain percent of the class – say 70 percent and then admitting the remainder of the class via a lottery. But of course, the sports programs would be exempt.

Random Thoughts

Will AI make us dumber?

Why anyone would want to know my pronouns is beyond me.

The government’s $400 billion green energy slush fund will throw money at losers (Solyndra and Lordstown anyone?).

I bet that the government’s picking of winners/losers will result in less innovation in green energy.

ESPN is starting to tick me off letting go Neal Everett, Jeff Van Gundy, Todd McShay and Suzy Kolber. I won’t miss Jalen Rose.

Its only a matter of time before ESPN fire Sage Steele and Sam Ponder for supporting women over trans athletes.

ESPN hates the Braves – is it the name? Their highlights are usually buried in Sports Center behind golf, tennis, WNBA and the woeful New York teams.

If it weren’t for college football I wouldn’t watch ESPN at all.

I subscribe to YouTubeTV. They have steadily increased their prices. I can deal with that but can close to terminating when they dropped regional baseball and the MLB network. I watched their morning recap show when working out rather than the awful coverage on Sports Center. I kept YouTubeTV because the only other alternative – other than cable – didn’t offer TNT and TBS.

I’ve been invited to be the commencement speaker at my granddaughter’s graduation from the University of Georgia. Any suggestions other than Go Dawgs?

Why is it that all the networks – even Fox – have stopped covering the illegal invasion?

Have you noticed that Fox now uses preferred pronouns?

I don’t watch the news. I read.

Why isn’t Hunter Biden in jail?

Can Donald Trump run for president if he is in jail?

Is it possible for Donald Trump to get a “fair” trial?

Kamala Harris is the only thing preventing Joe Biden from being impeached.

I was disappointed in Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissents in several Supreme Court decisions. They indicated either a fundamental error in her thinking regarding the Constitution and/or data from “experts.” I would have preferred Michelle Childs.

The court’s other affirmative action justice – Sonia Sotomayor – continues to beclown herself. It now seems that Gorsuch has replaced Alito in ridiculing her bizarre statements and opinions.

The Babylon Bee has taken to lampooning Sotomayor by saying that she “shows the world illiteracy doesn’t have to stop you from achieving your dreams.”

Do you think the late night comics and SNL would ignore Biden and Harris if they were Republicans?

Izzy   May 11, 2009 – June 29, 2023  RIP

July 3, 2023

July 3 marks my 78th birthday. Once I had an animated discussion with my mother. I was exasperated and said, “why did you have me?” She replied, “we didn’t know it was going to be you.”

Bobby Womack sang “Who’s fooling who?” Abraham Lincoln said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time”. Obviously, Lincoln was not talking about today’s democrat voters who appear to be fooled all the time. For example, almost 80 percent of Jews vote democrat despite virtually every openly anti-Semitic politician being a democrat. One of the anti-Semites in congress, Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) attempted to host an event condemning the founding of Israel at the Capitol Visitors’ Center. A group of 2,000 rabbis sent a letter urging the condemnation of the meeting. House majority leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) not only condemned the meeting, he blocked the group from meeting in the visitors’ center. However, Bernie Sanders (I-VT) invited Tlaib to have the event in his senate committee hearing room. Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) who is Jewish did nothing to stop the event. Of the 37 Jews in congress only Jacky Rosen (D-NV) spoke up against the event. All the other members of congress that condemned the event were republicans. Why are the Jews in congress silent in the face of the virulent hatred of Israel by democrats like Tlaib? Why do Jews stay loyal to the democrat party when so many “progressives” are anti-Semitic? I guess the analogy is when southern blacks were overwhelmingly democrats even though virtually every elected official was a white segregationist democrat. Apparently, you can fool most of the Jewish democrats most of the time.

Why do blacks remain the most loyal democrats when the democrats actively work against black empowerment? Almost 90 percent of blacks vote democrat even though blacks are mostly conservative. Blacks are mainly Christians while the democrat party openly distains Christianity and the percentage of white democrats who are Christians has dropped precipitously over the years. Fewer blacks support affirmative action than do white democrats. Fewer blacks support LBGTQ than white democrats. More blacks are against defunding the police. Blacks are less tolerant to the influx of immigrants and most importantly more blacks favor school choice than white democrats (who only favor choice for their own kids). The democrats want to raise the minimum wage even though it is most responsible for the depression-era size of black teenage unemployment. The democrats distain right-to-work laws which increase black employment. Apparently, black democrats can be fooled all the time.

Then there are the unions who donate most of their money to the democrats who are zealously pushing a green agenda shouting that climate change is the greatest existential threat (other than white supremacy) in the history of the planet. Democrats are trying to ban internal combustion engines wanting automobiles and trucks to go electric. They are trying to ban gas powered lawn mowers, weed eaters and gas stoves. They want buildings to be all electric. They wail that liquified natural gas harms the environment and are conducting a war on fossil energy. The democrats are handing out trillion dollars to their buddies to subsidize electric powered stuff. Well there are around 500,000 workers building automobile engines and working in auto assembly plants. If the auto industry goes all-electric then between 30-50% of those workers will lose their jobs because EVs are simpler and require fewer parts than do traditional engines. Yet the unions keep sending their money to democrats and are financing their own demise. Obviously, you can fool all the unions all the time.

Lastly, the women are mostly democrats. One reason is abortion. However, all women in the democrat establishment have apparently thrown the women’s movement under the proverbial bus. How else can one explain why every woman in congress voted against a republican sponsored bill to ban biological males from competing against females in sports and using women’s locker rooms and bathrooms? Every democrat woman in congress apparently favors trans people over biological females. Surely this can’t be true of most of the women who loyally vote democrat. Is support for abortion so important that women’s rights is of secondary importance to democrat women? Apparently so. I guess you can also fool all of the women democrats all of the time.

 

I was going to entitle this article “Do you want these clowns teaching your children?” but I decided not to insult clowns. The Colorado teachers’ union which has 39,000 members passed a resolution condemning capitalism. The resolution asserts that capitalism exploits children, public schools, land, labor, and/or resources and called for “a new, equitable economic system.” 

First, please tell me what “a new, equitable economic system” looks like and if there are examples. Surely they can’t possibly mean China with its draconian policing, belligerent postering and its racism exemplified by the enslavement and genocide of its Muslim population, the Uyghurs. China does not tolerate dissention and those who oppose the regime simply disappear. If Colorado’s teachers were in China and issued a resolution against that government, they would now be in prison, or worse. China also is an embarrassment economically. Yes I know the left heaps praise on it but consider that with a population twice that of the United States, its GDP is half that of ours. China has extreme rural poverty and forced millions to relocate to work in its factories. Is this the teachers’ “new, equitable economic system?” Certainly not. Again, Colorado teachers, where is an example of the system of your dreams? It simply does not exist. Every socialist country is a basket case with the “elites” exploiting the masses. Please Colorado teachers, enlighten me.

I guess that the teachers have forgotten that their own existence is due to capitalism which pays their salaries and funds their delusions. I feel for the residents of Colorado who must send their children to public schools. Those that are poor and those who cannot afford private schools or cannot home school are forced to put their kids in classrooms to be taught by ignorant teachers who themselves are uneducated.

While capitalism when juxtaposed with socialism always wins, the left conveniently ignores this fact. Compare East Germany with West Germany, North Korea with South Korea, Soviet socialism in Eastern Europe with Eastern Europe now and see what is the more equitable system. Capitalism has lifted countless millions from extreme poverty all over the world. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal by Phil Gramm (my economics tutor at the University of Georgia) and Amity Shlaes present data showing that despite the myth of the robber barons, capitalism rather than exploiting the poor, enriched them and moved them to the middle class. They write “Between 1870 and 1900, America’s inflation-adjusted gross national product expanded by an unprecedented 233%. Though the population nearly doubled, real per capita GNP surged by 90%. Real wages of nonfarm employees grew by 53%, and life’s staples, such as food, clothing and shelter, became more plentiful and much cheaper. Food prices plummeted by 174% and the cost of textiles, fuel and home furnishings fell by 70%, 65% and 70%, respectively. The illiteracy rate fell by 46% and life expectancy rose 12.5%. Infant mortality declined by 17%.” Further, they write “Today’s progressive rant that income inequality is an existential threat is unpersuasive and untrue. If we counted all transfer payments such as food stamps and refundable tax credits as income to their recipients and taxes paid as income lost to taxpayers—something the U.S. Census Bureau doesn’t do—we’d find that income inequality is lower today than it was in 1947.” It should also be noted that although the left constantly lobbies for a higher minimum wage, the current minimum would put its recipients solidly middle class in most of the world. As Michael Munger writes If our system is so unfair and “exploitative,” then why are tens of thousands of people every year willing to risk their health, even their lives, to try to get here? It’s because even poor people are rich, by comparative standards.” The whining about capitalism exploiting people reminds me of the Bill Withers’ song that says “If it feels this good getting used, you just keep on using me until you use me up.”

I have never quite figured out why capitalism gets such a bad rap. Perhaps it is envy but more likely it is because of freedom. The left hates freedom for anyone but themselves. Milton Friedman once said that the reason so many intellectuals tend to the left is the desire to impose their ideas on others. It is obvious that those of us who love freedom and free markets need to make the moral case for capitalism. But as long as the left controls our education system and with the youth today not being intellectually aggressive, I fear for the future of our country.

I do not understand the continuing effort of the “progressive” left in to pit blacks against whites. California’s committee on reparations has recommended paying the descendants of slaves up to $1.2 million. Never mind that California was not a slave state and fought for the North. Japanese Americans are excluded as are Chinese Americans even though both suffered years of discrimination. Black immigrants are also excluded. Those groups and whites should be rightly resentful of having to pay for actions of long dead white southern slavers. Apparently the California left wants to ignite race hatred in their state.

When I was growing up in Atlanta, white segregationists enacted laws that openly discriminated against blacks. We could not eat in their restaurants, join their unions, attend their schools, live in their neighborhoods, go to their parks, swim in their pools, be partners in their firms. We had to be content to remain in our own silos. My parents told my brother and me that we were every bit as smart as whites and every bit as qualified. If we weren’t then there would be no need for such laws. My brother was not allowed admission to Georgia Tech and instead went to Purdue, a much better school. Not qualified? Perhaps he was overqualified. Two years later when the courts ordered the University of Georgia integrated and I was admitted as one of four black freshmen, white students contended that the only reason we were there was because of court order, otherwise we would have been rejected. The university had argued that it wasn’t segregated, only that no qualified blacks had applied. Never mind that the first two blacks admitted were respectively a Phi Beta Kappa graduate in chemistry and a Pulitzer prize winning journalist and the first black awarded a PhD was in mathematics. As to the freshmen, one dropped out but of the other three, one has a PhD in French, the other a PhD in Economics and the other majored in math. Not qualified, eh? When I was admitted, my father who despite all his grace and Christian love said “Go show those Crackers who’s not qualified.” So every class I walked into, my objective was to be the smartest person in the room. The result was not that whites thought they were wrong about blacks not being qualified, it was that all the blacks going to Georgia were “exceptions.” 

We southern blacks fought to desegregate society and to eradicate all barriers between the races. When I first went to the bookstore at Georgia they wouldn’t sell me textbooks unless I could prove I was a student and the first time I went swimming in the student pool, they kicked everyone out and drained the pool. Now times are completely different. My granddaughter is a senior at Georgia and her life is blissfully boring. But there is a movement afoot at many universities to resegregate and erase what my generation worked so hard to accomplish. Some universities have separate graduation exercises for their black students. Georgia has the “Rite of Sankofa” which is a ceremony celebrating its black graduating class. I can imagine the furor if the university had a similar ceremony for its white students.

Other universities have segregated dormitories, black student unions, recreational facilities and programs exclusively for black students. Most of the DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) impact on campuses is part of the movement away from integration. Acting in the name of diversity is resulting in anti-diverse outcomes. Yet isn’t it interesting that athletic teams seem to be exempt from DEI? Just as troubling has been the movement to lessen qualifications in the name of diversity. Dropping programs for the talented and gifted and lessening admission requirements are re-labelling black students as being otherwise unqualified. One prestigious medical school is now admitting black students based strictly on GPAs. Some are now lobbying for proficiency exams to be eliminated as well for medical students and for new attorneys. This is not only labels black graduates as unqualified but because also builds resentment amongst other racial groups toward blacks. I do not understand why the progressives are doing this. Segregation sought to undermine the economic wellbeing of blacks. Its very existence was repugnant. Today’s resegregation is equally repugnant.

I’ve always been an optimist with regards to the country. Even though we sometimes make mistakes with whom we elect president, those mistakes seldom took us down a path that threatens the basic foundations of the country. The electorate is suffering from presidential whiplash. From Bill Clinton to George Bush to Barrack Obama to Donald Trump to Joe Biden the country keeps careening back and forth. It is though we keep saying “whoops” and go from one extreme to the other. Presumably core democrats always vote for democrats and the core republicans always vote for republicans. That’s about two-thirds of the electorate with the other third being independents fliting back and forth. The core of each party has become more dug in as time passes and have scared away the moderates. Today, Senators Joe Manchin, Jon Tesler and Kristin Sinema are “moderate” democrats and in the few times they go against the rest of the democrats, they are badgered, yelled at and vilified by those on the left. Yet all three have voting records significantly to the left of the most “moderate” republican now in the Senate.  The “moderate” senate republicans, Romney, Collins and Murkowski, have ideology scores well to the right of every democrat. There is no ideological overlap. Thus when rabid core republicans refuse to support a “moderate” republican, they apparently rather have in office a democrat who will be much farther left than the “RINO” republican. That makes no sense to me.

The two parties are moving farther apart. I don’t understand the math when I read that Biden’s approval rating is 37 percent and yet 87 percent of the democrats approve of the job he is doing. Shockingly, that is a higher rating than democrats gave either Clinton or Obama. Independents’ approval is 35 percent and 3 percent for republicans. I know several democrats who approve of Biden. They support his actions on the climate, COVID vaccines, the growth of the administrative state, gun control, diversity, inclusion and equity. But it is abortion that drives their support. But they also approve of Biden’s policy on transgenders, immigration and critical race theory but those issues are less important to them. I don’t know a single republican who approves of Biden or any of his actions. So where is that 3 percent?

My optimism about the country’s future is lessened by this polarization of the electorate and that of our politicians.  Consider the House bill on transgender athletes. The bill would ban males from women’s and girl’s sports at schools that take federal money. Every republican voted for the bill and every democrat voted against it. Of course, it has no chance of passage in the senate and even if it did, Biden would veto it. The House vote depressed me. It would appear that at least one democrat would have found the bill reasonable and would have voted for it. If the bill were as awful as the democrat leadership said, then reason would have it that at least one republican would have voted against it. So 100 percent of the democrats thought that transgenders should compete against females despite transgenders being physically stronger and having an advantage over women in most sports. The republicans argued that they are defending of women’s rights because in many cases women and girls are denied the recognition that they would otherwise achieve. Surely at least one democrat woman in the House supports that view, but apparently not. Recall that a soccer team of high school boys once defeated the national women’s team. I am surprised that universities like Penn which had a male swimmer winning women’s races don’t enlist males to compete against women in all their sports. Then I wonder if 100 percent of the democrats would still have voted the same way. 

Democrats in the main support eliminating some of the basic foundations of the country such as the electoral college. Most democrats think that the Constitution should be a living document and is outdated written by slave holding old white men with little relevance today. Democrats also in large part dislike capitalism and favor socialism. Democrats are less patriotic. Republicans feel otherwise. If these positions remain intractable, I fear for the future of the country. Before the Civil War the country was referred to as “The United States are.” Afterwards, it was “the United States is.” Don’t be surprised that in the future it reverts back to “the United States are.”

For several years I served on the board of the East Tennessee Historical Society. I enjoyed my being on the board despite being the only one not from Tennessee or East Tennessee in particular. I love the rich history of the region learning about the contributions of blacks to country music, the mystery of the origins of the Melungeons and in particular the strong alliance to the Union during the Civil War. However, I still felt like an outsider especially when the Society launched its first families of Tennessee initiative which records the descendants of the first white families that came across the mountains from North Carolina to settle in the region. Still it is a fascinating history of strength and perseverance. I recommend highly Drury and Clavin’s Blood and Treasure, a wonderful book about Daniel Boone. The Society also has the Civil War Families of Tennessee which includes the descendants of Civil War soldiers, both North and South. Obviously, being from Georgia, I am excluded from this group but I am, in fact, a direct descendant of a Civil War soldier – no not one of the 100,000 blacks who wore blue, but a confederate sergeant who served in the 6^th Georgia.

My maternal great grandfather Seth Towles was a sergeant in the 6th Georgia. Ironically, he never owned slaves but his sister was married to a Jarrell and lived on the Jarrell Plantation in Jones County, GA where Seth met and had a son Milous Towles with one of the cooks. My mother told me that Seth never disowned his black son and visited every other Sunday for dinner at (Pop) Milous’ home. Mom said that once a month or so, he would load Pop Milous’ children in a wagon and take them to town in Macon to buy them things. All this while having a white family (he married after Milous was born). Certainly Seth’s behavior showed a brave and defiant soul. Thus, I don’t harbor any ill will toward this white forebearer and do not despise his blood running through my veins. I guess I qualify to be a Sons of the Confederate Veterans – but I’ll pass. Seth’s actions after the war elevated him in my mind and knowledge of his existence was actually of benefit. Because it is virtually impossible for blacks to trace one’s roots (with apologies to Alex Haley) because of Seth I was able to trace back to my immigrant ancestor Henry Towles born in Liverpool, England in 1651 who died in Accomack County VA in 1721.