Widespread faith in democracy is on the decline. The autocrat, after all, can make needed changes quickly and without interference. Unfortunately, the autocrat can be wrong.
A democracy is slower to act and less prone to catastrophic mistakes.
Sadly, autocracy is sometimes the result of a terrible democratic failure.
After major American upheavals, the country has perceived a need for new laws. New, sometimes transformational, laws were enacted after the Civil War, the 1929 stock market crash, World War II, Watergate, 9/11, and the 2008 financial crisis.
Assuming that Donald Trump’s presidency ends in a conventional election in which Republicans are decisively defeated—admittedly, not a sure thing—what new laws (and repeal of existing laws) will be necessary?
I find it distressing that some people who feel that the government is not working for them believe that scrapping our democratic institutions and being ruled by a dictator is a rational alternative. It is not; it is a pact with the devil. Unfortunately, many of our so-called democratic institutions are not all that democratic. Read my suggestions for enhancing our democracy in my essay We Need More Democracy.
I made a list of my favorite movies the other day, and it struck me that it would be interesting to compare my list with movie lists of friends. I am calling friends with similar lists cinema companions. Actually, I don’t expect to find people with a very similar list, but comparing lists is a good way to identify serious movie lovers. You can find my own list and some thoughts about lists and comparing lists here.
What follows below is excerpted from Sergei Prokofiev: A Biography by Harlow Robinson. It describes the arrest of Lina Prokofiev, who was married to composer Sergei Prokofiev. Lina was not a spy, but she had been consulting with foreign diplomats in her attempt to escape Stalin’s Soviet Union.
This awful story is distressingly similar to what is happening in Trump’s America. (I learned only tonight that the administration has deported children who are American citizens.) ICE agents, sometimes masked and showing no identification or warrant, are grabbing people off the street and deporting or trying to deport them.
WAKE UP AMERICA! THE FATE OF THE REPUBLIC IS IN YOUR HANDS!
Lina’s arrest—“on suspicion of spying”—was tragically typical of thousands (perhaps even millions) of others that occurred during 1948.
On February 20, as she was lying in bed with a cold, Lina received a telephone call from a friend in Leningrad. The friend told Lina she had sent her a package via another friend who was arriving that day in Moscow by train. She asked if Lina could meet this person at the railroad station not far from Lina’s apartment. When Lina explained that she was sick, and asked if the person couldn’t come to the apartment with the package, her friend insisted that Lina needed to go herself. Reluctantly, Lina agreed. Since she thought she would return in a few minutes, she didn’t even bother to dress very warmly.
As she was waiting in front of the station, a dark-colored car suddenly drove up right in front of her. Someone got out and asked Lina whom she was waiting for.
“What business is that of yours?” she replied indignantly.
“Do you know that you’re waiting for a criminal?” the man asked her.
“You must have made a mistake,” Lina replied, beginning to feel uneasy. “You have the wrong person.”
The men in the car were very insistent that she was the person they wanted, however. Finally they instructed her to get into the car.
“Come with us and we’ll explain everything,” they said. “If we’ve made a mistake, you can go—we’ll even bring you back home.”
They forced Lina into the car and drove off. As they passed the apartment building on Chkalov Street, Lina was hoping desperately that Oleg or Sviatoslav [her two children] would appear. She asked where they were taking her.
“We’ll explain everything in a minute,” they said.
But there was no need to explain when the car passed through the gates of the Lubyanka, Moscow’s most infamous prison, on Dzherzhinsky Square across the street from the Children’s World Department Store. When they were inside, Lina immediately recognized a man sitting there as someone she had seen in the subway and on the streets. He had been following her. There had been a few other subtle signs that she was being watched, but Lina had failed—or refused—to take serious notice.
Lina was to spend years in the Gulag, only being released after the death of Stalin.
Two hundred and fifty years ago, on April 19, 1775, Massachusetts colonists fired upon British soldiers at Lexington and Concord. We are now entering a period of commemorations of the American Revolution, of events 250 years ago. Last night, at Open Mic Night at Sulfur Books, I read Longfellow’s “Paul Revere’s Ride.” That poem concludes with these lines:
For, borne on the night-wind of the Past,Through all our history, to the last,In the hour of darkness and peril and need,The people will waken and listen to hearThe hurrying hoof-beats of that steed,And the midnight message of Paul Revere.
Are you awake and listening?
Increasingly, I hear advertisements for financial services targeted at “high worth” individuals or families. “High worth” is the latest euphemism for “rich” or “wealthy,” each of which suggests a class difference that Americans are reluctant or embarrassed to acknowledge. Significantly, “rich” is often preceded by “filthy,” creating a phrase that clearly is a term of opprobrium. “Wealthy” is somewhat less objectionable—no one speaks of the “filthy wealthy”—but the class distinction is still uncomfortably present.
Our lives are increasingly influenced by the super wealthy whose net worth has been greatly expanded through government policies. Perhaps we should speak more often of the filthy wealthy.
Last month, I wrote a brief post about the meaning of “DEI,” and I asked how anyone could be against it. Below, I intend to offer something of an answer to that question. I don’t actually know why Donald Trump holds the detestable views that he does, but I can at least suggest what those views are.
When I first heard Donald Trump rail against DEI, I assumed he was opposing offices, whether in the government or the private sector, intended to promote a more diverse and fair workplace.
One can quibble about the utility of such offices. There surely is a danger that diversity, equality, and inclusion lead to fixed quotas for minority hires. One can make a case even for quotas, but it is clear that Americans are generally opposed to them.
My conception of DEI has little to do with Trump’s view of it. Trump apparently considers the very idea of diversity, of equality, and of inclusion as anathema. He tasked federal workers with removing even those words from government documents and Web sites. Trump wanted every program aimed in any way at promoting diversity, equality, or inclusion to be dismantled. Programs were indeed killed—or are in the process of being killed—and information involving race or extraordinary women or minority men have disappeared from public view.
To Trump, there is only one race of consequence, and it is White. People of other races cannot be real Americans and certainly deserve no special consideration, irrespective of their past treatment at the hands of the government.
Generously, Trump acknowledges that women exist—one of only two government-recognized sexes now—but they should not be serving in roles traditionally held by men. (Exceptions are made for women in the Trump cabinet.) Transgender, intersex, and gay people are beneath Trump’s notice. The undocumented of whatever race or sex are merely trash to be disposed of. Their children born in this country are freeloaders who should follow their parents wherever they came from.
Who is an American to this president? The real Americans are citizens who are married White, heterosexual, able-bodied Christian, Republican men doing manly jobs. American women of consequence have similar characteristics but are homemakers and mothers.
Why do we have a president who holds substantial numbers of citizens in contempt?
There are lots of good economic arguments for the insanity of Trump’s recent tariff increases. Trump believes that his tariffs will transfer economic activity from our trading partners to the United States. I won’t bother to repeat the usual arguments here. Instead, I propose a thought experiment.
Assume that the Trump tariffs do indeed lead to production moving to the U.S. We will resume making shoes, building ships, assembling cell phones and televisions, making textiles and apparel. Where are the workers needed to pursue these activities going to come from? The unemployment rate—in the non-governmental sector anyway—is already low. Moreover, Trump is limiting immigration and deporting immigrants already in the workforce. Many of the workers that will be needed require special skills. Where are those workers now? And, of course, there are some activities that just cannot be pursued at scale in the U.S. We cannot grow bananas, coffee, tea, or tropical spices. Tariffs will never allow our country to grow the nutmeg it needs. Perhaps some of the needed workers will come from those thrown out of work because the products they have been making have become too expensive for Americans to buy. For example, auto workers may be in this category. (The U.A.W. has mistakenly applauded the Trump tariffs. It will regret that.)
Alas, if the Trump tariffs are allowed to stand, America will be poorer. And the world will be poorer. A worldwide depression is not unthinkable.
Because it’s March 31, I began thinking about changing the month on the calendar hanging on my wall. Last year, I didn’t find a calendar that excited me, so I settled for a free AARP calendar with pleasant nature pictures and large, easily read dates. It was not a calendar that excited me, but it seemed adequate. Unfortunately, the paper on which it is printed is thin, and the top edges tend to curl.
For many years. I purchased railroad-themed calendars. Occasionally, I bought a calendar with another theme, such as my 2019 “Dance: The Art of Movement” calendar. I had kept more than a dozen such calendars with particularly attractive pictures. I decided to remove my calendar collection from its bookshelf and search for a calendar that would work for 2025.
I discovered two calendars with days numbered as my AARP calendar: a 1986 “Those Magnificent Trains” calendar and a 2003 “Ted Rose: Images of Railroading” calendar. I chose the Ted Rose calendar as my AARP replacement. (Ted Rose, 1940–2002, painted beautiful watercolor railroad-related scenes.) The year “2003” appears each month in relatively small type. Unlike my 1986 calendar, this one does not indicate moon phases, which I assume are different in 2025 from 1986. Many significant dates, such as St. Patrick’s Day, are properly marked in the 2003 calendar. I was surprised to see that the date of Easter is the same in 2003 and 2025. The date of the transition to Daylight Saving Time, which is noted on the Ted Rose calendar) occurred much later in 2003. The calendar, like all my purchased calendars, is printed on heavy paper.
I look forward to the month of April, in which a beautiful watercolor of an N&W Y6—probably a Y6b—will be staring down at my desk.
I was distressed, but not surprised, when I read the AP headline “Trump says he’s considering ways to serve a third term as president.” Donald Trump is quoted by the AP as saying, “There are methods which you could do it [sic].”
Actually, Trump will be lucky to complete his second term. He could be impeached, assassinated, or die from eating too many Big Macs. Moreover, it is increasingly unlikely that he could be elected again in a free and fair election. (Barring a free and fair election, who knows what could happen!) We should, in any case, take his declaration seriously.
The Twenty-second Amendment, enacted in 1951, clearly intends to prevent anyone from holding the office of president for three terms. Arguably, however, the wording of the amendment is less than air-tight. It prohibits anyone from being elected president more than twice. Section 1 of the amendment begins:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
The amendment does not explicitly prevent someone who has served two terms as president from becoming president by means other than election, thereby becoming a three-term president. For example, Trump could run as a vice-presidential candidate, say with JD Vance running for the top spot. After the inauguration, Vance could resign, and the vice president, Trump, would become president for virtually an entire third term.
This may or may not be Trump’s plan. My suggestion, while contrary to the intent of the Twenty-second Amendment, is not clearly unconstitutional. Of course, Trump has shown little concern for acting within the restrictions of the Constitution, so he may have a different plan.
The state of Maryland has announced plans to build a bridge to replace the Francis Scott Key Bridge destroyed by a cargo ship a year ago. It is gratifying that plans to replace that vital span are moving along. Any new bridge will take years to put in place.
The proposed replacement bridge is to be a cable-stayed affair with a main span of at least 1600 feet. The main span of the former bridge was only about 1200 feet. Clearly, having a ship channel 400 feet wider would be a significant improvement. Whatever bridge is built, I assume its piers will be protected by substantial dolphins (no, not the marine mammals) and fenders.
After the Key Bridge fell, I suggested that a replacement bridge should be a suspension bridge. As fond as I am of cable-stayed bridges, both from an engineering and aesthetic point of view, a suspension bridge would allow an even wider channel for the ships of the next century. (Maryland wants a bridge with a 100-year lifespan.) A suspension bridge with a main span of 1600 feet would be considered short. In fact, a suspension bridge with towers on dry land would not be unreasonable. (Recall that the Golden Gate Bridge has a 4200-foot span, and newer bridges are being built with towers even farther apart.)
I suspect that cost was a major factor in the Maryland decision. I sincerely hope that the chosen alternative will prove to be an adequate one.
A common question on public-opinion surveys is something like: Is the country moving in the right direction or not? For example, for more than 40 years, Gallup has been asking:
In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time?
Fewer that 50% of respondents have given a positive answer most of the time. The last time half the respondents answered yes was in January 2004. The fewest people answered yes in October 2008. Both these extremes were during the George W. Bush presidency. Apparently, Americans have not been sanguine about their country for more than two decades.
I have always found this question difficult to answer. In recent years, I was mostly satisfied with the Biden administration but was alarmed about the right-wing MAGA crowd. Today, I would assuredly answer no to the right-direction question. The Trump/Musk administration is rapidly destroying both democracy and prosperity. I suspect that my answer is not going to change anytime soon. The Gallup poll my soon hit a historic low.
Elon Musk’s DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) is misnamed, misconceived, or purposely deceptive. Rather than rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse, it is creating chaos and gratuitously ruining lives.
DOGE (and, presumably, the president) confuses “efficient” with “cheap.” Efficiency is a measure of resources required to accomplish a task; it is not a measure of resources expended. For example, boiling a saucepan of water on top of the range is more efficient than boiling that water in the oven. The range-top technique is faster (uses less time) and uses less gas or electricity than the oven method, which heats the water less directly and wastes energy by needlessly heating air. Not heating the water at all would use fewer resources, but it would fail to accomplish anything. The resulting efficiency would be zero. Excising government functionality does not intrinsically increase efficiency and likely eliminates operations mandated by Congress.
Of course, if Musk and his twerp minions believe that a particular governmental function, whether required by Congress or not, has no value yet still uses resources, especially human ones, then firing people reduces spending without diminishing government utility. In this demented calculus, DOGE can be seen as increasing government efficiency. I suspect that Musk is reluctant to make this argument in the general case. Apparently, however, this logic led to the carnage DOGE visited upon USAID, a government agency that provided humanitarian aid to other nations and both humanitarian and diplomatic benefits to the United States, benefits seemingly imperceptible to Elon Musk.
Elon Musk wants you to believe that firing government workers is making the government more efficient in the conventional sense. This would be true if the remaining workers could do the same amount of work in the same amount of time as before the firings. There is no reason to believe that this is true. Since DOGE has cut the government workforce with—as he has reminded us—a chainsaw, he has done so without any analysis of what the consequences of the cuts would be other than, at least in the short run, reducing labor costs. The cuts surely eliminate excellent workers as easily as poor ones. However, if you believe that all government workers are useless drones, then firing one has the same benign effect as eliminating another. In fact, the DOGE firings are terrifying all government employees, which will certainly not increase their efficiency.
As it happens, labor costs are a relatively small part of the government budget anyway, so firings, even of substantial numbers of federal workers, will not greatly affect the budget. Apparent savings in the government’s labor costs lead to higher costs elsewhere—in unemployment benefits, in former employees being forced into jobs in which their contribution to the economy is reduced, and to damages to families and family budgets. If your wealth is billions and billions of dollars, as Musk’s is, your concern for the little guy or the needs of citizens generally may be less than compelling.
If DOGE has actually identified and eliminated waste, fraud, and abuse, it has failed to communicate and justify its findings to the public (or to anyone else, for that matter).
DOGE’s actions do not represent scientific management but a kind of right-wing religious fervor. In her March 12 “Letter from America,” Heather Cox Richardson suggests the nature of the Musk philosophy regarding the government:
In place of the system that has created relative stability for almost a century, Republicans under President Donald Trump and his sidekick, billionaire Elon Musk, are imposing a government that is based on the idea that a government that works to make people safe, prosperous, and healthy is simply ripping off wealthy people.
To which I say, “Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!
Dictionary.com provides the following definition for DEI:
Abbreviation for
diversity, equity, and inclusion: a conceptual framework that promotes the fair treatment and full participation of all people, especially in the workplace, including populations who have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination because of their background, identity, disability, etc.
How can anyone not be for that?
The 100th anniversary issue of The New Yorker is now out. The cover date is “Feb. 17 & 24, 2025.” Excepted for the cover price (15¢ instead of $9.99) and date (“February 21, 1925¨) the cover seen on the newsstands duplicates that of the first issue. The anniversary issue also carries a stylized and centered “100” below the masthead. The current issue, we are informed is “VOLUME CI, NO. 1.”
I must confess that, upon receiving the magazine, whether electronically or physically, I first search out the cartoons. In doing so, however, I sometimes pause to read an article I cannot pass up before completing my cartoon-reading first pass through the issue.
Appropriately, current editor David Remnick has written “Comment” at the top of “The Talk of the Town” titled “Onward and Upward.” I recommend reading Remnick’s brief history of the magazine. It is both informative and occasionally quite humorous. Samples:
I have been raising oxalis for 50 years. I have often taken photos of complete plants. Such pictures usually look like an explosion of leaves (green or purple) and flowers (white or lavender). Only today did I think of taking a close-up of oxalis flowers. The result can be seen below. I’m pleased with the result.
Multiple flowers branch off from a single stalk. The flowers are about an inch wide.
Increasingly, I am encountering advertisements describing a particular computer program (or, more commonly, a phone program) as a software. One might hear of “a powerful software” or “a convenient software.” This is not the traditional use of the word “software,” and it is an unfortunate neologism. I have been dealing with software for six decades, and I find this new way of using the word jarring.
What is software? Software is the stuff used with hardware to make computing devices work. Software is the collection of instructions that tell computers and computer-like devices what to do. Hardware, on the other hand, is the physical machinery that carries out software instructions. To be useful, those instructions are collected into programs for a particular purpose.
Traditionally, programs for computers are either applications or operating systems. Applications (“apps” on phones and, increasingly on computers) do useful work for users. Examples are Chrome, Word, Acrobat Reader, etc. Operating systems control the hardware, making it easy to control applications. Examples are Windows, iOS, Android, etc. (The earliest computers lacked operating systems and were exceedingly difficult to use.)
Applications are the entities sometimes being called softwares. But applications are made from software. Calling an application a software is like calling a short bridge a “concrete.” Perhaps a more useful analogy is to be found in underwear. People put on their underwear; they don’t don their underwears. If I buy T-shirts or briefs, I am buying underwear, not underwears.
Please don’t try to expand the meaning of “software.” Doing so is not useful.
I signed up for the Clifton Springs Library book club the other day. We meet Thursday to discuss this month’s book, The Booklover’s Library by Madeline Martin. The early chapters of the book are set in Nottingham, England, in 1939, where residents are preparing their houses and persons for a war they hope will not come. In Chapter 5, however, England declares war on Germany, and the prospect of wartime catastrophe is suddenly no longer theoretical.
I had never thought about England’s domestic actions before entering World War II, a disaster that was both anticipated and prepared for. On this day when President Donald Trump imposed tariffs on our nearest neighbors and biggest trading partners to extort actions from them he deems desirable, it was difficult not to feel the sort of dread felt by Ms. Martin’s characters. Like them, I was fearing a second Trump administration before January 20, but that catastrophe is now upon us and will be for some time to come. Without reading the rest of the book, of course, I know that England survives. I am less certain about the the United States.
