Blog

Justice Jackson and the Knuckleheads 

Justice Jackson and the Knuckleheads. Sounds like a rock and roll band. Well the newest justice made a knucklehead remark worthy of Sotomayor.

Justice Jackson said what? I had great hopes for Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. She had some decisions that strayed from those of Justice Sotomayor, who may be the least capable justice in memory. But not so in her decision in the case of the Maine legislator whose voting privileges were taken away due to her stance on males competing against females. Jackson and Sotomayor – but not Kagan – voted against the legislator. Since the legislator was barred from voting, her constituents were denied representation in the state legislature. Jackson said in her dissent that the legislator had “not asserted that there are any significant votes scheduled in the coming weeks or that there are any upcoming votes in which Libby’s participation would impact the outcome.” What! Huh? You mean that if you know your vote won’t win then it is ok to be barred from voting at all? If that were the case, then why did Jackson even vote on this case – and any other in which she were in the minority – no pun intended? Would Jackson also contend that any representatives representing say blacks could be denied voting on issues where there would be outvoted? This reasoning is bizarre to say the least and certainly does not bode well for future decisions made by this justice.

Do all the knuckleheads protesting the Israeli invasion of Palestine who are shouting “globalize the intifada” realize that they have just endorsed the murder of Jews, including the couple killed in from of the Jewish museum in Washington? 

Speaking of knuckleheads, the Senate just struck down California’s EV mandate, following the lead of the House. President Trump will sign it. I was amused by the news reports that the Senate vote was “bipartisan” in that a sole democrat – the new senator from Michigan – voted for it while all the rest voted against it. Bipartisan indeed. California was trying to ban gas powered vehicles by 2035. A foolish and impractical goal to be sure. But even more foolish were the eleven states that had adopted the California mandate. Every democrat representative and senator from those states should be defeated in their next election – although some of them have seats so safe that an AOC would be reelected. Mostly overlooked in the media coverage were two other votes, one revoking the waiver on heavy duty trucks and the one waiving the emissions standards for diesel trucks. 

In the beginning, Ford and General Motors were all for making the California mandate nationwide. Electric vehicles require fewer moving parts and less labor. Although the companies are losing billions on trying to produce both electric and internal combustion vehicles, if they only produced electric ones, the automobile manufactures could see increased profitability in the future. But the market reared its head and after the initial sales to the greenies and rejected the electric vehicles in volumes necessary for profitability. Sales even dipped in California. Now Ford and GM all of a sudden have religion. GM seemed to forget its earlier support of the mandate now saying “GM believes in customer choice, and we continue to focus on offering the best and broadest portfolio of vehicles on the market. GM has long supported one national standard and consistency in emissions regulations that are aligned with market realities.” Bull. The market reality is that GM projected that it would sell 400,000 EVs in 2024 and ended up selling only 111,432. Now the company is saying that “Emissions standards that are not aligned with market realities pose a serious threat to our business by undermining consumer choice and vehicle affordability.”

Ford which had been a leading cheerleader for the mandate also changed its tune. The company’s lobbyists sent Congress a letter partly stating “Allowing these gas vehicle bans (something never attempted before in the United States) to proceed will increase automobile prices and reduce vehicle choices for consumers across the country at precisely the same time they are adjusting to the marketplace shock of 25% tariffs on imported vehicles and auto parts.” Yet Ford was once all in. During Trump’s first term it denounced his relaxed EPA regulations. It partnered with the California Air Resources Board to come up with a plan to reduce greenhouse emissions. Ford was also the only automaker to commit to the requirements of the framework for the mandate on light-duty vehicles. So give me a break. I had posted earlier about a Ford not being in my future to their backing of the mandates and the Ford Foundation’s funding of causes that are totally completely woke.

Antisemitism is racism by another name

Don’t ask me why but the murder of the two young Israelis outside the Jewish Museum in DC has left me as shaken as the killing of George Floyd. The killings are the latest manifestation of the antisemitism so prevalent in today’s leftwing radicalism. Why I never thought I would see this killing in this country speaks to my naivete. The irony of course is that the radical left are attacking Jews who are among the most loyal democrat voters. The far left which is fond of labelling virtually anything that moves as being racist are themselves practicing racism toward the Jews. 

Yet I have heard no high ranking Jewish politician express support for what the Trump administration is doing to confront antisemitism on our college campuses. Chuck Schumer’s silence is deafening as is that of every Jew in the Congress. Despite Harvard’s long history of antisemitism, over 100 Jewish students at Harvard signed a letter opposing the cutting of over $9 billion in Federal funding at Harvard. The letter said in part “We are compelled to speak out because these actions are being taken in the name of protecting us — Harvard Jewish students — from antisemitism. But this crackdown will not protect us. On the contrary, we know that funding cuts will harm the campus community we are part of and care about deeply.” The students acknowledge that antisemitism is real and a serious problem at Havard but that the cutting of funding hurts those Jews actively engaged in research and internships on campus. Some of the students said that the Trump administration’s charge of antisemitism is just a cover for its war on DEI and the corresponding “litany of absurd demands.”

Harvard’s president, who is Jewish has said that fighting antisemitism on campus “will not be achieved by assertions of power, unmoored from the law, to control teaching and learning at Harvard and to dictate how we operate. The work of addressing our shortcomings, fulfilling our commitments, and embodying our values is ours to define and undertake as a community.”

A coalition of Jewish groups has also chimed in by stating “In recent weeks, escalating federal actions have used the guise of fighting antisemitism to justify stripping students of due process rights when they face arrest and/or deportation, as well as to threaten billions in academic research and education funding.” They state further “Universities have an obligation to protect Jewish students, and the federal government has an important role to play in that effort; however, sweeping draconian funding cuts will weaken the free academic inquiry that strengthens democracy and society, rather than productively counter antisemitism on campus. These actions do not make Jews — or any community — safer. Rather, they only make us less safe.”

Harvard’s president and its students have a valid point. However, what was Harvard doing to confront antisemitism prior to Trump? What were the Jewish students doing? Harvard is an example of academic freedom run amuck. There are parts of the curricula and members of the faculty that are openly antisemitic. There is an intolerance on campus toward conservative speakers and anything that questions the orthodoxy of the left. Harvard as well as other universities have tacitly endorsed all this under the guise of academic freedom. Yet it has failed to fulfill the basic academic mission of demanding excellence and encouraging exchange of diverse ideas and viewpoints.

It may well be that the Trump people are using federal funding as the sword of Damocles to advance its own agenda of eradicating DEI and CRT at our universities. I, though troubled by the antisemitism on campus am equally troubled by the federal government dictating what is taught and who teaches it. If that is the price of federal funding, then perhaps we should emulate Hillsdale College and reject all federal funding. I have read nothing that would contend that Hillsdale is antisemitic. Quite to the contrary, in its student paper it condemned the campus protests, college administrators and faculty who supported it and coddled unruly students. Consider the following statement:

“The only proper response to this month’s attack on Israel was a condemnation of terrorism and antisemitism. But that was too much to ask of students and faculty at what used to be our finest academic institutions. That the West’s elite colleges and universities have become morally and intellectually corrupt is old news to Hillsdale folk. A lack of trust in our country’s esteemed universities is what drove many of us to this college. But some Americans have tried to carry on as if these institutions were not rotting but were instead still solid, still trustworthy. For years, they brushed off the rising focus on equity over merit, the sometimes violent student opposition to conservative speakers, and the administrative attempts to shut down non-progressive speech on campus.”

The fact that this statement did not come from the students at Harvard bespeaks of their tacitly acceptance of the antisemitism on campus and their not aggressively fighting it. I can’t imagine any other minority group putting up with such nonsense. Again, where were the Jewish voices opposing Harvard’s antisemitism before Trump and where are they now?

Joe Biden’s Prostate Cancer

My doctors are obviously better than Joe Biden’s. The former president’s diagnosis of stage 4 prostate cancer that has metastasized to the bone strikes to the very souls of most of us men. Black men are advised to start screening for prostate cancer at age 45 while it is age 50 for whites, unless there is a family history of the cancer. The traditional test was a digital rectal inspection of the prostate which was the reason many men were reluctant to be tested. Those exams were replaced by PSA tests around 2019 and recommended every two or three years. However, the PSA tests become optional after the age of 70 due to increased false positives. The last publicized PSA test for Biden was in 2014 when he was 72 years old. But surely being president, his doctors must have tested him again and again for prostate cancer. Didn’t they? The irony is that in 2023, Biden asked the congress to fund $2.8 billion for cancer initiatives called “Cancer Moonshot” which included cancer screenings. Recall that Biden’s son Beau died from brain cancer – although Biden kept saying he died in Iraq – and that Biden and his wife Jill both had lesions removed that were basil cell carcinoma. So why didn’t his doctors detect it? Prostate cancer is slow growing so it is likely that Biden had the cancer throughout his term. Had he been reelected he would have had to resign leaving Kamala Harris as president. But the question remains, how did his cancer go undetected? In my case,

During my annual physical in January 2012, my PSA levels had ticked up. My doctor said that it was still within the normal range and probably not a concern but he wanted me to come back for a retest in a month. A month later, it had increased a bit more but still not in the danger range. Yet my doctor said that I should go to a urologist just to be certain. I went in March 2012. My urologist was a renowned former president of his national association. He performed a biopsy which revealed cancer in one region of the prostate. He told me that it was slow growing and that we would monitor it with periodic PSA tests and another biopsy when the prostate healed. I had that biopsy scheduled one year later in March 2013. Meanwhile, my PSA levels had decreased prompting me to wonder if the additional biopsy was necessary. My urologist said that PSA results were not always reliable. The new biopsy revealed that the cancer had spread but was still within the prostate. The doctor said that we had to now become more aggressive in my treatment. He offered me the alternatives: regular surgery, seed therapy, proton treatment or robotic surgery. After considerable research I opted for the robotic surgery performed by another surgeon. 

When I was introduced to the new doctor I said “You cannot be my surgeon.” He said “Why not? I have the most experience, the highest certification and training!” I said, “How old are you?” “When I came to UT as a tenured full professor, you were in middle school. I don’t have anyone operate on me who can’t name the Supremes.” He said “Diana Ross?” and I said “Okay, you can be my surgeon.” The operation was in May 2013, more that one year from the original diagnosis. Afterwards, when he went to tell my other half that the surgery was a success and no other cancer was detected, she said “Do you know the other Supremes?” and he said “Florence Ballard and Mary Wilson.” I then had follow up exams and tests until 2017 and finally declared cancer free.

Surely if I had this level of care, then something is amiss with the treatment of Joe Biden. The president of the United States has first rate doctors – so we are told – and we are given reports of his physical condition on a regular basis. Biden’s cancer reveal throws into question the veracity of the doctor’s reports of the president’s condition. To my knowledge every presidential doctor’s report has been almost effusive in their statements of the president’s health. Was this a cover up? Are they lying to us? Apparently so.

.

It’s about time!

In the past I have posted a comment that said that on one issue I agreed with Maxine Waters. It was wondering why there were no “black” hurricane names. There were Hispanic names, Asian names, Hebrew names but no uniquely black names. I suggested that all the Hurricane Center had to do was to put “La” in front of the existing names to transition them. Well someone must be reading my blog. First here are the 2025 names. Note that one of the names is “Wendy”. Someone must have a sense of humor. But “Chantal” qualifies as “black”.

There is actually a supplemental list. On it are Makayla, Deshawn and Tayshaun! No LaShon but these will do.

BTW, Let’s hope that we don’t get to the supplemental list.

What’s with, Part I.

What’s with all the women arrested in the storming of the library at Columbia? Of the 80 arrests, 61 are women. Fifty are students at Columbia. Many of them rich and entitled. The masked keffiyeh-wearing protestors disrupted students who were studying for finals and injured two university security guards. The university’s reaction was in contrast to its earlier nonresponse. This time the university handed down at least 65 interim suspensions and another 33 were barred from campus. My hopes are that the university will expel all the students and bar them from ever graduating from Columbia. 

These are supposedly intelligent women. Isn’t it a bit strange that they support Hamas which enforces strict sharia law which regards women as second class citizens and treats LGTQs even worse? Have they ever been to Palestine? Have they ever lived under sharia law? Do they hate Jews so much that they endorse the killings and rapes of October 7? Don’t misunderstand, I believe that the Israeli response was in many instances an over the top act of revenge against anything and anyone Palestinian. Yet this does not excuse the shameful behavior or the radicals on our campuses. Did they see the appalling video of the five female Israeli soldiers taken captive on October 7? “Fearful and bloody, the women begged for their lives while Hamas fighters milled around and alternately threatened to rape and kill them. The State Department is reviewing the cases to see if any of the protestors were noncitizens. It so, they will be deported hopefully to Palestine into Hamas’ loving arms.

In my last lecture, I talked about Fintech. One of the innovations is crowdfunding. I told the difference between crowdfunding a protest on a northern campus versus one on a southern campus was that in the north the students would be chanting “Free Palestine!” while in the south the students would be chanting “Free beer!”

What’s with, Part II.

What’s with all these black politicians supporting illegals? Ras Baraka, the mayor of Newark and three minority congressmen stormed the ICE detention center in Newark. Baraka was arrested for trying to force his way into the center. Charges against Baraka were dropped but congresswoman LaMonica McIver will face charges in her involvement at the detention center. She was charged with “assaulting, impeding and interfering with law enforcement.” ICE had said that the center contained illegals who were criminals and rapists. Baraka said that they were there to conduct “oversight” to ensure the facility was not violating any building safety ordinances. Sure they were. The US attorney for New Jersey who charged Baraka is Alina Habba who said that Baraka “committed trespass and ignored multiple warnings from Homeland Security Investigations to remove himself from the ICE detention center”. The Department of Homeland security said that the group of protesters, which included the Democrats, “stormed the gate and broke into the detention facility” as a bus containing illegal migrants was being brought inside the fenced perimeter. Why isn’t this an impeachable offense? Surely at a minimum, the three from congress should be censured.

Mayors such as New York City’s Eric Adams, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson served as cheerleaders for President Biden’s border crisis, even as resources are diverted from their black constituents. All members of the Congressional Black Caucus voted against the Secure the Border Act. What’s with this? The government pie is limited and black Americans have competed with illegal aliens for resources ranging from housing to medical care. But nowhere has the competition been more intense than in the jobs market. Recent research shows that illegal immigration accounted for a significant relative decline in black wage and employment rates. Employment rates for black males in low-skill job categories dropped by as much as 7 percent while wages dropped by up to 9 percent. Also illegal immigration has aggravated the competition between blacks and illegal aliens for government and social services. So why do their politicians act against their interests?

Vocal supporters of illegal immigrants include Maxine Waters, Lauren Underwood, Jasmine Crockett and Rep. Adriano Espaillat of New York who said “New York City is welcoming and compassionate. As a right to shelter city, we have a moral and legal obligation to provide asylum seekers the right to seek refuge—and we will never turn anyone away, whether they are fleeing authoritarian regimes like that of Maduro or violence in Ukraine, our city and this nation will and must welcome refugee families,” Espaillat along with Rep. Deborah Ramirez co-authored legislation to try to shelter illegals at locations like schools, churches, and hospitals “amid the rise of vicious targeting and attacks by ICE”.

Rep. Jasmine Crockett defended the illegals by claiming the United States needs them to pick cotton. Seriously. “So I had to go around the country and educate people about what immigrants do for this country, or the fact that we are a country of immigrants. The fact is ain’t none of y’all trying to go and farm right now. OK, so I’m lying? We’re done picking cotton. We are. You can’t pay us enough to find a plantation.”

Crockett also said this about the deportation of illegals “As far as I’m concerned, you randomly kidnapping folk and you throwing them out of the country against their civil rights, against their constitutional rights. And, frankly, how would they feel if some other country decided that they were gonna just start throwing people randomly in our country? Like that is absolutely insane.”

Her fellow black representative Lauren Underwood of Illinois also chimed in that “Since America’s founding, immigrants have been vital to our cultural vibrancy and economic success. Our immigration system must honor and recognize the value and dignity of all of our immigrant communities.” Underwood then said that the deaths of five immigrant children in a detention facility was “intentional”. She refused to apologize.

It was only when their cities became overrun with illegals that some politicians like Eric Adams changed their tune. Adams called for changes to the city’s sanctuary policies by endorsing that illegals who are accused of a crime in New York should be released Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. In Chicago, black residents expressed frustration with the mayor’s policies especially his allocating $51 million for migrant care. However, their mayor is steadfastly unrepentant. What we now have is the pro-immigration views of the black elite clashing with those of the black dissenters who have to deal with the illegals deposited in their neighborhoods and competing for resources.

But a century ago, overwhelming majorities blacks supported voting for the Immigration Act of 1924, which dramatically cut immigration. The editors of black newspapers and magazines across the country backed these reductions. Some even advocated for deeper cuts.  W.E.B. DuBois said that the “stopping of the importing of cheap white labor on any terms has been the economic salvation of American black labor.” Times have changed.

Speaking of changing times this is from the 1996 Democrat party platform: 

“Today’s Democratic Party also believes we must remain a nation of laws.  We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it. In 1992, our borders might as well not have existed. The border was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned the very next day to commit crimes again.”

These democrats supported border security. Today’s democrats not so much. It is obvious that black politicians are democrats first and blacks second. It remains to be seen if black voters will keep returning these politicians to office despite their views on illegal immigration.

Who? Frank Glassner is a corporate board consultant of considerable note. He is also a friend. I met Frank while on the board of New Century Financial Corporation. Prior to Frank I thought board consultants were a waste of time and money. My previous experience on other boards was that consultants offered little of value and were only hired to parrot whatever the CEO wanted to hear. Boy was I wrong. Frank was bold and brash and seemingly didn’t care whose toes he trod on.

His blog speaks of his boldness and opinions. His views on DEI must have come as a shock to many boards. I recommend his blog to all and encourage all to subscribe to it. When I told him of my experiences in today’s classroom he said that he had a forthcoming blog that seemed like I wrote it. I told him that every student printed and had abandoned script. I said that when I announced that my exams were essay, short answer and problems that 6 students immediately dropped. One student told me that she had never had an exam other than multiple choice/true false in her four years at the university. I told him that of the 53 students than only at most 30 showed up for the lectures. The others looked at the recorded lecture online. It was the virtual generation. Twenty seven never picked up an exam. Eleven never took a quiz. I put five words on the syllabus that students could not misspell or else I would take off points (capital, principal, receive, yield and guarantee). Students continued to misspell them throughout the course and complained that “this is not a spelling bee.” When I received the evaluations, only 24 of the 53 deigned to fill out the form – and the forms were sent online. When I was on the faculty, we had to hand out the forms during class, get a student to volunteer to take them to the office and then leave the room. Now it is done online but yet less than half bothered to respond. Of the 24, six hated my guts. That was to be expected. What was not expected was that only 10 said that I responded in a timely manner to emails while six said that my response was nonexistent. Yet going back through my files, I noted that I responsed to each email almost immediately and during the term only 8 students had even emailed me once. So WTF? There were some very smart students in the class but I was apalled by the lack of intellectual curiousity. What hath we wrought?

But here are some of Frank’s musings. His are a lot more wordy than mine and may be a bit more worthy as well.

https://compensation-in-context.ghost.io/?ref=compensation-in-context-newsletter

https://compensation-in-context.ghost.io/dumb-and-dumber-how-america-graduated-with-honors-in-the-death-of-excellence-and-became-a-nation-of-participation-trophies-scantrons-and-unparallel-parking/

https://compensation-in-context.ghost.io/dei-unraveled-the-rise-fall-and-reinvention-of-inclusion-the-veritas-view/

https://compensation-in-context.ghost.io/the-flying-homeless-how-prestige-disappeared-from-the-skies-and-so-did-everything-else/

A Big, Beautiful Bill?

I must be easily confused. If Trump unleashed Elon Musk and DOGE to ferret out waste and fraud, didn’t the ferreting also supposed to save us money? Reports are that their efforts have resulting in a savings of a paltry $160 million. All that upheaval for a few million less than what Michael Jordan paid for his yacht? I thought Trump was about decreasing spending and reducing the deficit? But his  so-called “Big, Beautiful Bill” increases the deficit by $3.8 trillion over the next 10 years (that’s how they do things in Washington). Aren’t you disappointed that in a year when the media says that Trump is slashing and burning, that we end up with a bill that increases the deficit? 

That bill is over 1,000 pages long. It is plagued like all budget bills with an enormous amount of minutiae. Yes there are the tax cuts which are not really tax cuts but the extension of Trump’s earlier tax cuts. But there is an increase in the SALT deduction to $40,000 as a bone to the one or two remaining republican congressmen from high tax democrat run fiefdoms in the northeast. But the teeny weeny little bits and pieces that populate the bill are mind numbing from clean energy tax credits, to changes in standard deduction, to child care credits, to estate tax exemptions. The list goes on and on – for 1,000 pages. How many folks actually have read this thing that they are voting on – Nancy Pilosi anyone? They really did include the no tax on tips and overtime but continue to ignore my suggestion about no tax on active duty military. Hey guys, that would add less than one paragraph to your 1,000 page big beautiful bill.

The bill squeaked by 215-214 after having been derailed temporarily in committee. Of course every democrat voted against the bill. I guess it did not spend enough for them while two republicans also voted against it because it spent too much. Thomas Massie was no surprise but he was joined by Warren Davidson who said that he could not vote for a bill that increased the deficit. So pardon me if I am disappointed. If this bunch cannot produce anything but the rounding error in cuts from DOGE and clawbacks, then the words of G.K. Chesterton ring true: “The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.” Who was it that said that the republicans were just like democrats but “a little bit less?? And yet we are told of all this hatred between the parties but in the end, they are both drunken sailors – and we are worse off for it.

A big, beautiful bill? Yes, one that we will be burdened with for decades.

A big beautiful bill? Only in the eye of the beholder.

What happened to US manufacturing?

The president says that he wants to bring manufacturing back into the country. Of course he will fail. He is a short timer and highly erratic. Companies must have a longer term perspective. Building plants takes time and lots of money. Restructuring supply chains also take time and money. Why go through the expense of moving to the US when in three years Trump will be gone – as will many of his policies. 

Anyway even if companies wanted to move manufacturing back to the country they will face the gauntlet of regulations that delay construction, are expensive and make building a plant in the US more expensive and taking more time than one built elsewhere. There is also the issue of labor. The avocado industry moved from California to Mexico because it could not get enough labor in the US to grow and harvest the crop. So if manufacturing were to come back into the US, could they bring labor with them? Currently the Department of Labor reports there are 7.2 million job openings. Over 500,000 of those are in manufacturing and most are openings at small businesses. Why would companies want to come into that environment? 

When Trump talked about bringing manufacturing back to the US, the Chinese mocked him with pictures of overweight Americans trying to work in factories.

In reality, factory work is passe in today’s service dominated American labor market. Yes there will always be manufacturing but it will occupy less and less of the labor force. Such was not always the case. Recall Rosie the Riveter? During World War 2, one Ford plant turned out one B-24 bomber an hour. In 1939, the US has less than 2,000 military aircraft. By war’s end US factories had produced 300,000 planes. What about ships? The US built more than 3,600 cargo ships, 700 tankers, 1,300 naval vessels including 8 battleships, 128 aircraft carriers and 352 destroyers. It also produced over 100,000 tanks and armored vehicles, 2,382,311 other vehicles, and 2,679,849 machine guns. by 1945, more steel was produced in Pennsylvania alone than in Germany and Japan combined.

We still have the personnel to build stuff. I read Michael Fabey’s, Heavy Metal, the story of the people who build aircraft carriers at the Newport News Shipbuilding yard in Virginia with its 30,000 employees and shipyard workers. They are riggers, fitters, welders, electricians, machinists and steelworkers who come from shipbuilding families. Putting together all the miles of wiring, thousands of rivets, computers and the rest makes for a great story.

There is still a demand for these skills. I read a story about one high school’s welding class, where one graduate has been offered a job starting at $70,000. Also the demographics show that fewer and fewer young men are going to college and that certain professions with only a high school degree pay more than those for a college graduate. So perhaps those jobs coupled with AI will usher in a new era in manufacturing to make manufacturing great again – albeit with fewer workers.

However, the question remains as to whether American manufacturing will ever be on a par with that of the Chinese. That I doubt. The loss of manufacturing jobs in the US was mainly on the low end with low skill jobs being eliminated. Those jobs are abundant in low wage countries. China is now building a megaport in Santos, Brazil to ship agricultural produce to China. Brazilian soybeans and grains will not replace American ones. Such is the reality in the world of Trump and his high tariffs. Look at what the Chinese are building and wonder if America will ever get back to that place. The answer is no. Low wage, hard physical labor goes to where that factor of production is most plentiful and cheap. It is no longer America. 

Hitch up that moving van!

What’s with all these libs moving out of the country because of Donald Trump?  Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi “fled” to England – or was it Ireland? A slew of other LBGTQs have been mewing about leaving. Someone named Laverne Cox said that she and her partner were looking at places in Europe and the Caribbean. One headline said “Panic in Hollywood’s LBGTQ Community: Some Weigh Emigration Ahead of 2^nd Trump Term.” Huh? Panic? Hollywood? One guy gay said “I’m physically afraid of being here now.” And he lives in California! The media are running stories like “Top 20 best countries to move for LBGTQ expats in 2025.”

One publication says that the number of LGBTQ couples looking to leave the country has soared 300 percent since Trump’s election – of course that’s not many if the base is 1. One person put it “We love this country, but we don’t love what it has become. “It saddens me to move. But it’s also a situation, politically and socially, that is unacceptable.” Gee, poor baby. That of course is BS and they know it. If Trump is so hostile to LGBTQs then why is Scott Bessent his Treasury secretary? Do all these aspiring expats think that Trump is going to be president for the rest of their lives – if it is indeed Trump the reason for fleeing? I think that they just crave being in the news and having their one second of fame.

Well let them go and good riddance. I have no sympathy for cowards. Black folk have endured at lot worse for a lot longer. I know what I went through at the University of Georgia with broken dorm windows, lighter fluid squirted under the door and firecrackers dropped down the slats in the door. And I stayed. My parents lived through much worse – what I call the Reign of Southern Terror where a black person could be shot by a white who would either not spend a day in jail or know that he would be acquired by a white judge and an all white jury. And they stayed. My grandparents experienced even worse and their parents were slaves. They all stayed . I remember asking my Dad why didn’t he move north out of Georgia. He said “This is my state. This is my home. I am not going anywhere.” So if black folk have the strength and fortitude to fight racism, discrimination, racial violence and hatred in a system that legally deemed them to be inferior and second class citizens, then I am supposed to feel sympathy for a bunch of whining whippy bunch of spineless crybabies? I would say grow a pair but that’s probably inappropriate.

We just spent four days at the farm in Gray. It is still a place where drivers will occasionally wave when you drive past. It is also a place where cars pull over and stop for a funeral procession. My father used to remark that funerals were the only time that white folk gave blacks any respect. I am glad to see that at least those pieces of the good old days remain. But most of them are best kept in the past.

During the war, many of Mom’s relatives left Gray and moved to Detroit to work in the factories. They sent back glowing reports of huge increases in income, new cars, fur coats and great schools. My cousins clamored for my grandfather to quit scratching the Georgia red clay and come to Detroit. Mom said that he left and was back within a month. He came back to Gray because he could not find a place to hunt rabbits. The cousins thought he was a bit “country” because he would not leave the segregated south (and Georgia like Mississippi was notorious for its violence toward black people who “stepped out of line.”). Instead, he lived out his days in Gray. My mother met my father. My grandfather lived to see me graduate from the University of Georgia and to his dying day could not completely fathom that white people allowed blacks to go to their schools.

So we stayed and in so doing we helped save the souls of fellow southerners. We have no respect for cowards who tuck tail and run.

Is the president’s agenda too ambitious?

I think it is highly likely that the president has bitten off more than he can chew. Look at all the happenings domestically and around the world. At home, he is fighting 40 nationwide injunctions imposed by federal district courts. The Supreme Court docket now seems full of Trump- related stuff. He or his people are trying to negotiate stopping wars in Ukraine, Gaza and Rwanda. Then there are his tariffs. He has purged us of all out friends. His 10% tariff is nonnegtiable and is 5 times higher than our previous ones. That tariff is across the board and applies to countries with which we run a surplus as well as a deficit. Supposedly 150 countries were looking for deals within the latest 90 day window. That was too many to negotiate so the president now says that his secretaries of Treasury and Commerce will announce what tariffs will apply to what countries. I guess they really didn’t have time to negotiate with the delegation from Lesotho. 

Things look ad hoc. I know the Trump defenders will try to justify each and every one of his actions, deeds and misdeeds but I try my best to be an objective observer. My reaction is “Does he really know what he is doing?” I wished that he would be more disciplined and focused. But, hey, this is Donald Trump.

Consider the latest on the tariff front. There are going to be unilateral setting of tariffs – no negotiations for you. Apparently this is on “lesser” trading countries while major ones like South Korea and Japan will still be negotiated. The president said that countries could expect individual letters in which they would be told “what they will be paying to do business in the United States.” Sorry Mr President but the countries will not be “paying to do business in the United States” Surely he knows that businesses in those countries are the exporters and not the country themselves. He knows that his tariffs will be paid by the American consumer not the exporting country. Is he in denial? 

The impact of the tariffs will be a fall in imports as producers in other countries will shift sales elsewhere or even go out of business if the increased cost of their product is greater than price at which they can be sold. There are numerous incidents of this happening as the importer cannot raise prices high enough to recover the cost of the tariffs. Trump is betting on the price increases due to a 10 percent universal tariff will not be enough to dampen consumption. But then again, he learned his economics at an “elite” university so his ignorance on this matter should be excused.

Here is a time table on the chaotic nature of his tariff decisions. Such chaos leads to uncertainty amongst producers, importers and consumers. Is this any way to run a country? Some may call this being flexible but rather it looks like its being made up daily as the president changes his mind or as the last person in his office has his ear.

This is from Reuters

February 1 – Trump imposes 25% tariffs on Mexican and most Canadian imports and 10% on goods from China, demanding they curb the flow of fentanyl and illegal immigrants into the United States.

February 3 – Trump suspends his threat of tariffs on Mexico and Canada, agreeing to a 30-day pause in return for concessions on border and crime enforcement. The U.S. does not reach such a deal with China.

February 7 – Trump delays tariffs on de minimis, or low-cost, packages from China until the Commerce Department can confirm that procedures and systems are in place to process them and collect tariff revenue.

February 10 – Trump raises tariffs on steel and aluminum to a flat 25% “without exceptions or exemptions”.

March 3 – Trump says 25% tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada will take effect from March 4 and doubles fentanyl-related tariffs on all Chinese imports to 20%

March 5 – The president agrees to delay tariffs for one month on some vehicles built in Canada and Mexico after a call with the CEOs of General Motors (GM.N) and Ford (F.N) and the chair of Stellantis (STLAM.MI).

March 6 – Trump exempts goods from Canada and Mexico under a North American trade pact for a month from the 25% tariffs.

March 26 – Trump unveils a 25% tariff on imported cars and light trucks.

April 2 – Trump announces global tariffs with a baseline of 10% across all imports and significantly higher duties on some of the U.S.’ biggest trading partners.

April 9 – Trump pauses for 90 days most of his country-specific tariffs that kicked in less than 24 hours earlier following an upheaval in financial markets that erased trillions of dollars from bourses around the world.

The 10% blanket duty on almost all U.S. imports stays in place.

Trump says he will raise the tariff on Chinese imports to 125% from the 104% level that took effect a day earlier. This pushes the extra duties on Chinese goods to 145%, including the fentanyl-related tariffs imposed earlier.

April 13 – The U.S. administration grants exclusions from steep tariffs on smartphones, computers and some other electronics imported largely from China.

April 22 – The Trump administration launches national security probes under Section 232 of the Trade Act of 1962 into imports of both pharmaceuticals and semiconductors as part of a bid to impose tariffs on both sectors.

May 4 – Trump imposes a 100% tariff on all movies produced outside the U.S.

May 9 – Trump and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announce a limited bilateral trade agreement that leaves in place 10% tariffs on British exports, modestly expands agricultural access for both countries and lowers prohibitive U.S. duties on British car exports.

May 12 – The U.S. and China agree to temporarily slash reciprocal tariffs. Under the 90-day truce, the U.S. will cut the extra tariffs it imposed on Chinese imports to 30% from 145%, while China’s duties on U.S. imports will be slashed to 10% from 125%.

And last (so far)

May 16 – Trump says that US will unilaterally set new tariff rates for trade partners. No bogus negotiations for you!

Finally, we are beginning our camping seaon (fifth wheel not a tent) and many of the campgrounds do not have wifi and two have lousy cell service. Therefore, these postings will be somewhat irregular going forward. I know you understand and you probably need a break from the diluge of words from me. Hope you enjoy your summer. HB