The United States and Canada have been trading back and forth since before they were even countries. That came to a screeching stop just last week. So, let’s recap the last few decades.

The first major movement towards free trade between the US and Canada also included Mexico in the 1992 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). This was renegotiated at the end of Donald Trump’s first term as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (2020).

When he returned to office in 2025, he declared “Liberation Day” on April 2, imposing tariffs on countries all over the world, including Canada. That’s why trade negotiations had been going on for months between the US and Canada and the US and Mexico. But everything fell apart with Canada on August 21. The US imposed 50% tariffs on almost all Canadian goods. Canada did the same in retaliation. That means the each government charges 50% duty on anything coming into the country from the other, grinding to a halt a lot of the cross-border trade. That’s where we are now.

Trade Dispute

There are some areas where the US imports a lot from Canada. Around 60% of US oil imports come from Canada, as well as an astounding 100% of its natural gas imports. But that sounds like a lot more than it is. The US imports very little oil and gas. Overall, it exports more than it imports, so we are really talking about only 20%. And one reason for even that is to keep the refineries at peak efficiency.

The auto industry is very integrated between the two countries, especially in SW Ontario. This has been a longstanding and productive partnership. Recently, however, Canadian environmental regulations have begun to differ so much from American ones that there is strain on the partnership.

In all of this it is important to remember that Canada is a very small country, by population, sitting next to the largest economy in the world. And 70-80% of all Canadians live within 100 miles of that giant. That is the context for all of this.

What Is at Issue for Canada?

With such a huge part of its economy dependent on US trade, a dispute like this is almost existential for Canada. The country can’t suddenly start sending its goods elsewhere around the world, so collapsing trade with the US means a stop to most of the economy.

Canada’s biggest economic problem is also its biggest economic asset: it is close to the US. Take a major export item, lumber. 60% of the lumber Canada exports goes to the US. The other 40% largely goes to Japan and China, so from the West Coast across the Pacific.

Canada has a highly sophisticated and developed lumber industry. And people in that industry get reasonably well paid. That makes Canadian lumber economically viable to purchase in the US. The US has a lot of trees, but not the same logging industry. It would cost too much to start it up or expand it.

But that’s not true everywhere else. Europe has forests. Sending wood from Canada to Europe would make the wood too expensive. And they can’t sell it to Africa or South America. Both continents have their own lumber industries and very much lower standards of living, making Canadian lumber way too expensive to sell anywhere other than the States.

This is true for just about every Canadian product. A quick trip across the border (remember that 80% of Canadians live near the US) does not add much to the cost of anything, certainly not as much as shipping to another continent. So Canadian products are a decent price in the US. That the Canadian dollar is less than the American only adds to this cost advantage.

So, Canada needs access to the American market. But it also needs to protect its own market. Everything it produces has to be somehow less expensive than making it in the US.

Again, think of lumber. The US could supply its own lumber needs indefinitely if it were to expand out its logging industry, much as it has done with oil and gas. It doesn’t only because buying lumber from Canada is more efficient. But if tariffs or an extended trade war drive up the price of Canadian lumber, it would make sense to expand American logging and permanently displace the Canadian suppliers. This would kill the Canadian logging industry. It only really has one market.

What’s the US position?

There are about 150,000 automotive jobs in Ontario. Any American president would like to say he moved 150,000 high paying, union jobs to some part of the US. That alone is an attractive prospect, especially with a tough midterm election coming up that seems set to be decided by what voters think of Trump’s handling of the economy. Don’t think that hasn’t occurred to anyone in Washington.

The other issue is, as always, China. The US is concerned about two things China has been doing: passthrough manufacturing and dumping.

Passthrough manufacturing describes the process by which a Chinese company makes a product and then sends it to Canada for final assembly. Think of an Ikea flat pack where the Canadian factory just assembles the pieces with the little key. But the Canadian company can say it was “made in Canada” and it can enter the US market under the USMCA terms.

Dumping is a policy of sending materials to another country at less than they cost to make, with the intention of displacing that other country’s ability to make that stuff. China did this with solar panels. Chinese solar panels flooded the market in the early 2000s, dropping the price by 80% and putting most American solar panel companies out of business.

Let’s go back to lumber. Canada provides a lot of lumber to the US, as we’ve discussed. But the US produces 5-6 times more plywood than Canada does. If China wanted to undermine the US plywood industry, it would ship plywood to Canada below the cost of American plywood. Guess what? They did just that. Three days after negotiations broke down between the US and Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency accused China of dumping plywood onto the Canadian market.

There are other issues with China. For instance, in 2021 a Chinese organization bussed Chinese students to a party nomination convention to sway the votes to a preferred candidate. CSIS, the Canadian spy agency, confirmed that the Canadian Member of Parliament, Michael Chong, was being threatened by Chinese agents, as were his family members in Hong Kong.

There are also their cars. China has been accused of dumping electric vehicles onto foreign markets to both displace local manufacturers and to take advantage of what these cars can do. Modern cars, but especially electric ones, can record everything around them all the time and send that information back to the manufacturer. And people plug their phones into them! It is quite literally a foreign enemy’s dream product.

The US has strict regulations against Chinese cars, with a law banning all vehicles with “connected software” from China or Russia. Canada is now letting them in, dropping the 100% tariff they had on these vehicles to 6.5% this fall. Will the US stop every Chinese made car at the border? How would that work for a family that wants to visit relatives?

A Tale of Two T’s

While both countries have legitimate issues at stake, too much of the recent contretemps revolve around the personalities involved, especially Donald Trump and Justin Trudeau.

Everyone knows Trump. He is preternaturally disposed toward saying things that will put half the country in a fetal position. And considering that the median voter in Canada is to the left of Americans with Trump Derangement Syndrome, it is no surprise that he sets them off.

For Trump’s first term and briefly upon his return to the White House, Canada was governed by Justin Trudeau who seemed to have been cooked up in a lab to annoy Trump. From his bubbly liberalism to his, shall we say, “mysterious” Cuban flair, Trudeau seriously got under Trump’s skin.

But when Trump suggested that Canada would be better off as the 51^st state, he got the kind of rise he loves. Canadians took the bait and Trump tugged on that line. He even referred to the Prime Minister as “Governor” Trudeau. Canada went nuts.

There was a Canadian election in March of 2025 where the Conservative party seemed ready to make significant gains, if not win. Economically, Canada has not been doing well for the past ten years. For the first decade and a half of the 21^st century, the Canadian economy was keeping up with the American. After 2015 (the year Trudeau was elected and replaced Stephen Harper’s Conservative government), the divergence became undeniable.

But Trump’s comments about Canada did a lot to swing the election to Trudeau’s replacement, Mark Carney, another lab-grown irritant to Trump. Before renouncing his Irish and British citizenships when he became prime minister, Carney was the perfect example of a Globalist elite: having made his money in finance in several countries, he became the head of the national banks of two countries (Canada and England), headed up a global financial board, and, in his last job before becoming PM, was UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance. You can’t make this up.

Carney’s slogan during his campaign was “elbows up!”, a reference to a practice in hockey that usually draws a penalty. But it worked. He won the election. But he entered office in a most adversarial relationship to the country his economy depends upon.

Canadians are talking again about “elbows up!” Some are suggesting they stop the flow of oil from Alberta. The problem with this plan is that Canada ships very little oil or gas through its own country. To keep itself “green” it puts them in pipelines to the US for most of the journey, then sneaks these vital products back into the country at the last minute. Ontario and Quebec, the two provinces with all the power in the country (also home of the “Laurentian Elite”), would freeze if the oil stopped.

Others have suggested shutting down the Saint Lawrence Seaway. That will show the Americans! Alas, the same problem. Not only does Canada rely on shipping through the St. Lawrence river more than the US does, some of the locks necessary for transportation are on the American side.

Lessons?

The first is that not everything is economics. Economic rationality would have Canada submit to any and all indignities to preserve its market share. It won’t. It is a sovereign country, even though I could go on at length detailing the ways it has undermined that sovereignty. (Don’t get me started on the sorry state of the military.)

Canada still has the political and cultural resources to be a unique and sovereign country, even living beside the United States. One excellent example can be found among the writers at Without Diminishment:

Without Diminishment

Splendor sine occasu. A bestseller in Culture and World Politics.

By Without Diminishment Editor

But the other lesson is that people matter. Too many think that impersonal forces move the world. They don’t. The way individuals respond to them does. There’s no way the current disagreements would be happening with a Kamala Harris presidency (shudder).

Moreover, we are currently in a meme war, or a one-sided meme war. Mark Carney has said he won’t negotiate until the US stops making nasty memes about him. That, of course, is the worst possible thing he could have said, and only he could have said it.

This is all very personal for me. I will be naturalized as an American citizen today, September 2, perhaps before you read this post. Of course my two countries would get into a trade war the very week this happens!

I loved growing up in Canada and I have a great respect for its distinct culture, especially its political culture. My father spent his adult life thinking and writing about that culture. He was often critical of it, and the country would be in a better place if it had heeded his warnings. But he also had a deep respect and admiration for the American Constitution, which he always held up as one of the greatest achievements of human history.

Maybe this trade war will get Canada back on track, get it to see its predicament with clear eyes, and understand not what makes it weak, but what makes it strong. Canada could be better because of all of this. And so, in homage to my father, I hope that someday someone will write a book that will describe Donald J. Trump as the wicked stepfather of Canadian nationalism.

Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI) faced off against Abdul El-Sayed, who has a medical degree from Columbia and D.Phil. from Oxford. El-Sayed lost a primary against the sitting governor in the last election and has been hosting a public health podcast.

On the surface, this contest would seem terribly boring. One candidate is a traditional politician; the other is a technocrat. These have been the two sides of the Democratic Party: the machine politician vs. the Progressive elite. But this isn’t quite right. Stevens was an official in the Obama Whitehouse, so she’s pretty technocratic.

What this primary elections represents is the struggle within the Democratic Party between the establishment and the insurgent Democratic Socialists of America.

The Establishment Democrats

The Republican party held the Whitehouse for three straight terms between 1980 and 1992. The Democratic response was the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), a body organized to develop positions that would appeal to voters and recruit candidates that could win elections. Its most famous product was Bill Clinton, the first Democrat to be elected to a second term since FDR.

The DLC pushed for center-of-the-road policies and candidates that were not clearly ethnic. It was no accident that the Arkansas governor and his Tennessee running mate (Sen. Al Gore) won two terms. But what about the policies?

DLC policies were so electorally successful that they became the establishment position until very recently. These included being very positive about the free market, a strong dollar, booming stock market, and support for Israel. The DLC was also proudly American. One famous moment was Bill Clinton’s “Sister Souljah Moment.”

Sister Souljah was a rap singer who claimed, among other things, that blacks can’t be racist against whites. Clinton denounced this position and lauded the racial progress made in the country during his first campaign. The effect was to stop the Democrats from taking up radical positions like Souljah’s and establish Clinton firmly near the center of American politics.

The Democratic Socialists of America

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) was founded by Michael Harrington in 1982 out of two previous groups that started in the early seventies. It pushed economic policies that were well to the left of mainstream Democrats and very much to the left of the DLC. Harrington, it should be noted, was adamant about keeping out anyone associated with Communism. (This was during Reagan’s confrontation with Russia during the Cold War, don’t forget.)

The DSA was not much of anything during the ascendancy of the DLC. It wasn’t much during the Obama administration, either. But all this changed in the last two years, starting in New York City.

I’ve written before about Mamdani, the mayor of NYC. He is the most prominent member of the DSA and also represents a Red-Green alliance that has been much more powerful in Europe than here. Red stands for far left, even Communist politics while Green is the color of Islam. Mamdani rode this wave to victory in NYC, and El-Sayed has done the same in the primary in Michigan.

The Red-Green alliance is very much a part of the DSA and is also a direct rebuke to the DLC. It promotes ethnic politics and ethnically identifiable candidates. It rejects free markets and moderate taxation. And most especially it is very much opposed to Israel and holds the Jewish state responsible for the attacks of October 7, 2023.

DSA candidates also exhibit all the racial politics and anti-Americanism that the DLC tried to suppress. The leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for governor of Wisconsin, Francesca Hong, has said repeatedly that she would like to cancel Thanksgiving, of all things. The DSA promotes the idea that America and all “white culture” is inherently racist.

Now, El-Sayed is not officially a member of the DSA, but he promotes policies indistinguishable from them. For instance, one of El-Sayed’s most used words in his campaign was “AIPAC,” which is short for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. It is very clear that these references are aimed at the idea of “Jewish influence.” One of El-Sayed’s most prominent supporters is a man who said America deserved what happened on 9-11. He has done nothing so far to distance himself from these comments.

El-Sayed has taken the fight right to the Democratic establishment, complaining more about them than the Republicans or Trump. He even suggested putting Sen. Fetterman’s (D-PA) head on a pike for his position on Israel. There is a fight within the party, and El-Sayed’s primary victory is a significant win for one side.

The Stakes

The stakes here are significant because the US Senate is in the balance. The Democrats are throwing everything they have in the attempt to win the Senate, but this nomination might get in the way. The retiring senator from Michigan is a Democrat. If El-Sayed loses the election, not impossible in a state that Trump won in the last election, the possibility of winning a majority is almost impossible. Almost immediately, therefore, the establishment Democrats have registered their support for El-Sayed.

The Red-Green alliance is not only a rebuke to the Democratic establishment and the DLC, it is not compatible with major parts of the Democratic coalition. Obviously, Jewish Americans would have a hard time supporting these candidates. 75% voted against Mamdani in the mayoral election. What will they do in other elections when the party seems to be happy with El-Sayed?

Mamdani is instructive for the black vote, too. He didn’t get much support from them in New York. El-Sayed might have the same problem. Black voters are not fans of the Red-Green alliance. And so with the Jewish vote, might they hold back from supporting Democrats in other races? Black citizens register very high levels of patriotism. Are they going to vote for a party in which major candidates think 9-11 was deserved and that Thanksgiving should be cancelled?

El-Sayed’s Republican opponent is Mike Rogers, who served in Congress from 2000 to 2014 after a career in the military and the FBI. A more striking alternative to El-Sayed would be hard to imagine, and Rogers is already making that clear. He wrote on Facebook, “I spent years hunting terrorists and bringing Osama bin Laden to justice. Never in a million years did I think that I would be running against someone who believes America deserved 9/11.”

This will be a race to watch.

Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem

Kenneth Arrow won a Nobel Prize in 1972 for demonstrating the impossibility of any voting system perfectly representing the preferences of a group of people who do not already agree. For example, say you have three people who want to order pizza. One loves sausage, the second loves olives, and the third anchovies. Imagine, as hard as it is to believe, that the first one won’t eat anchovies, the second is a vegetarian, and the third is allergic to olives. There is no way to get an order that will not exclude one of the people from eating the pizza. Hence the word “impossible.”

Arrow’s theorem goes into a lot more detail (and no pizza examples) about the impossibility of coming up with a ranked order of preferences and explores all types of voting options, including proportional representation and single transferable votes. (These are rather complicated voting systems used in some localities to improve upon our “first past the post” system. As Arrow predicted, they simply produce a different result, not an objectively better one.) He has a lot of math to demonstrate all of this if you are interested.

I wanted to lay down the mathematical impossibility of a perfect voting system before comparing the two systems so you can just accept that these are “as good as we can get” attempts to run a representative system of government.

UK Parties

In the United Kingdom and other parliamentary systems, the parties are private organizations that run their own memberships and nominating processes. When they need to nominate a candidate for any position, the members of the party meet in person at a convention and vote to put that person forward for the election. Simple enough.

Andy Burnham was an MP for several years before stepping down and becoming mayor of Manchester, England’s second city. By most accounts he did a pretty good job. He was given the popular title of “King of the North” for his efforts to get money from Parliament for his region.

The most recent PM, Kier Starmer, won a resounding majority in Parliament in 2024 with 411 Labour seats to the Conservative’s 121 and 72 for the Liberal Democrats. But his popularity plummeted. He resigned as of Monday.

In anticipation of this resignation, Burnham ran in a safe seat by-election. This means a sitting member of parliament stepped down so he could run in a riding (what Americans call a district) that would certainly vote Labour. Back in Parliament for only about a month, Starmer stepped down and Burnham ran for the premiership. But in this case only the Labour MPs voted for him, not members of the party and not the general public. This is not controversial in the UK or any other parliamentary democracy.

US Parties

American parties, despite what some might think, are far more integrated into the governments and political systems of the states and the nation. For instance, most states require that when you register to vote you must choose a party. There are several reasons for this, but the most important one for this post is that state governments organize the party nominating process.

Take the example of Maine (please!). Maine will elect a US Senator in November. The sitting US Senator, Susan Collins, was a shoe-in for the Republican ticket, so let’s just look at the Democrats. Several people ran for the nomination in the Democratic party. But this means little more than getting a sufficient number of signatures from voters. The party has little to no control over who runs for the nomination of the party.

And so Graham Platner, he of the Nazi tattoo, ran and won the Democratic primary on July 9 with 72% of the vote. That is a landslide. A lot of the party grandees were wary of him and really didn’t want him to run, but since 2024 Maine has had a semi-open primary system. This means that, not only can anyone run for any party if they get enough signatures, almost anyone in the state can vote in the primary. A “closed” primary restricts the voting to those who have registered to vote as a member of that party. A “semi-open” system also allows those who registered as Independent. So all Democrat party members and anyone who wasn’t a Republican could vote in the primary.

Well, Platner resigned after a series of (even more) scandals were reported. But this was after he won the primary election. What to do? The state of Maine could not organize and pay for another state-wide election. The money isn’t in the budget. So the Maine Democratic party is holding a convention as I type this to choose their candidate for senator. Troy Jackson is almost guaranteed to be nominated at the convention today.

Having a convention choose a candidate is now so unusual in the US that this process is highly controversial and (mainly Republicans) are suggesting that the results are illegitimate or undemocratic. (This is where I refer you back to the top and Arrow’s Theorem.)

US National Primaries

Last night the national Democratic Party decided on the schedule for its presidential primary elections for 2028. The whole country does not vote in primaries on the same day. There is a rolling schedule determined by the party. This is very important because winning one or more states right at the beginning gives a candidate momentum, which is very important for raising funds and proceeding on to the next state or states.

New Hampshire has been the first state primary for decades. (Iowa has caucuses, but I won’t go into that now.) The idea was that the population was small enough that candidates really had to engage with the people, which has largely been true. Recently, however, Democratic constituencies have complained that New Hampshire is demographically very unlike the party. Specifically, New Hampshire is more white that the party at large.

South Carolina has often been the second state primary for the Democrats and last night was moved ahead to the first slot. South Carolina is far more black than New Hampshire, which pleased the African American part of the Democratic coalition. But the other contender was Nevada, which is highly Hispanic. The Hispanic coalition, reportedly, is not happy with this.

Beyond racial coalition issues, the order of states is important for the type of candidate the party will choose. Far left candidates have surged in Democratic primaries, capturing the nomination for mayor of New York (and winning) and leading in the Michigan US Senate primary. Notably, black voters do not like these candidates, by and large. So putting a heavily black state up front is an effort by the party elite to get some control over who will run under their name. At this point it’s all they have.

But wait! New Hampshire law says it must be the first state to vote in both primaries, so this decision by the party could be illegal. Again, this is only an issue because of the deep involvement of state governments in the selection process of candidates. It might turn out that New Hampshire law has more influence on when the primaries take place than do members of the parties, themselves.

The move to primaries over conventions was in part a result of the disastrous Chicago Democratic convention in 1968 that resulted in riots. The idea of making the process more “democratic” by allowing people to vote throughout the country has worked. People the party officials would never have allowed to run have run and won. Donald Trump was opposed by almost the entire Republican establishment. Zohran Mamdani did this in NYC. And Abdul El-Sayed is driving the Democratic establishment crazy in Michigan’s US Senate primary.

Arrow won that Nobel Prize in 1972, just as these parties thought they figured out a better way of organizing elections. The irony of history.

Science, of course, must be continually on guard against charlatanism and credulousness. But it is also the duty of science not to reject things simply because they appear extraordinary or because science is powerless to explain them.

In addition to being an engaging book with a profound message, this volume has the added advantage of having little volume. It is a slim book, easily read in a single sitting or two. (Teaching guru, James Lang, recently posted about the joy of a short book over at his substack, and I agree: Sometimes it is worth getting the morale boost of knocking out a “whole book” quickly). The Voyage to Lourdes (Harper and Brothers, 1950) appears to be out of print. I stumbled across it at a used book store, so I assume there are more copies out there. Grab it if you find it.

I’ll give short account of some of the major cases decided recently.

Trump v. Barbara (Birthright Citizenship)

This case was brought in response to an Executive Order by Pres. Trump. The President ordered that children born to non-resident visitors, legal or illegal, would not be recognized as American citizens.

When this case was first brought to the Court, everyone assumed the EO would be struck down 9-0. Birthright citizenship had been a fact of American politics for almost 150 years. Amazingly, the case was decided only 5-4 against the President. Four justices think that the Constitution (specifically, the 14th Amendment) does not mandate birthright citizenship.

You might see some reports that the decision was reached in a 6-3 vote. That is partly true. Justice Kavanaugh voted that the executive order under consideration violated a statute passed by Congress. He dissented, however, about the constitutionality of birthright citizenship. So the vote is 6-3 against the executive order and 5-4 in favor of birthright citizenship.

West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox

In what shouldn’t even have been necessary, the Court ruled 6-3 that men pretending to be women cannot play in women’s sports. The three liberal justices (Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson) dissented.

I don’t have much more to say about this except that sanity prevailed. That three justices could vote otherwise, however, is very discouraging. But it means that states can make laws that separate males and females in sports, although it does not mandate it. Some states will still allow boys in makeup to crush girls on the field.

Watson v. Republican National Committee (Campaign Finance Law)

The financing of political campaigns is very complicated because of a series of rules imposed soon after the Watergate scandal. In brief, individuals can donate to political campaigns, but only up to a specific amount. And there are a number of different parts of the campaigns that can receive donations.

Individual candidates can receive $3,500 per election (primary and general elections are counted as two different elections). National parties can receive just over $44,000 per year, while state and local parties can receive only $10,000. Political Action Committees can receive $5,000 per year. (These are organizations promoting a specific cause that can help a candidate.)

So where does all the money in campaigns come from? Super PACs. The advantage is that there is no limit to the amount of money someone can donate. But they are legally forbidden from coordinating with candidates or their campaigns.

If you hear an add that ends with the candidate saying “I’m So-And-So, and I approve this message,” the ad was paid by that first group of donations (sort of, we’ll get to this). If you hear one that says “Tell your representative to get off his…” it was a Super PAC. They have come to specialize in negative ads that give their preferred candidate some distance from nasty comments.

The case in this instance is about that $44,000 you could donate to a national political party (or to Dad News Network). There are legal limits to the amount parties can spend in coordination with their candidates, and it was this limitation that was challenged.

The court ruled 5-4 that these limitations violated free speech. The argument is that the 1st Amendment was designed to prevent laws forbidding people from promoting some political effort. The great British statesman, Edmund Burke, defined a political party as “a body of men united, for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed.” That they would need to pool their money to do so is irrelevant.

The possible practical results from this ruling are interesting. One of the results of the previous laws limiting party expenditures has been the weakening of the major political parties. For instance, no one in the Republican establishment wanted Donald Trump to win the primary in 2015, but there was nothing they could do about it. Likewise, this primary cycle is seeing radical leftists getting nominated for the Democrats in places like New York City. These are people with such crazy paper trails (and video evidence) that the Republicans are jumping with joy. But the establishment Democrats can’t do anything because outside Super PAC money overwhelms their meager limits, which are already functionally limited by law.

No more. The political parties will have real control for the first time in fifty years. No one knows what kind of difference it will make.

Trump v. Slaughter (Executive Power)

In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that the Executive branch has the right to remove officials in federal agencies, in this case the Federal Trade Commission. This overturned Humphrey’s Executor (1935), which held that presidents cannot remove officials without cause. The argument is that without this power in the Executive, these agencies become something like the 3.5th branch of government. They make regulations like the Legislative branch but they part of the Executive, even though the president can’t exercise control over their personnel.

The problem is that this same court issued on the same day its decision in Trump v Cooke. In that case they ruled 5-4 that the president cannot fire a member of the Federal Reserve without much more of a procedure. The majority held that the statutes establishing the Fed require more of a procedure for removal than the Trump Administration followed.

These two decisions are in some tension, which the votes reveal. Dissenting in Slaughter were Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson, the three liberals. But in Cooke, they formed the majority with Chief Justice Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh. The three liberals were consistent across both cases. Roberts and Kavanaugh have some explaining to do (which I won’t get into here.)

Republican National Committee v. Mississippi State Conference of the NAACP (another election case)

This case had to do with mail-in ballots. The Trump administration argued that ballots received after election day should not be counted because the election was over. The court ruled 5-4 that Mississippi’s five-day grace period was reasonable, so long as the ballots were postmarked by election day. In this case, Amy Coney Barrett joined the three liberals and Chief Justice Roberts.

Mail-in ballots are used in many places. The state of Oregon only uses them. It has no polling stations on election day. With a highly mobile population and work hours that often make getting to your station difficult, they make a lot of sense. The problem is that they are very easy to manipulate.

If you were going to steal an election through paying people to vote for your preferred candidate, the old way involved paying someone at a polling station to bring out a blank ballot. You pay the guy $20. Then you fill out that ballot and pay the next guy $20 to drop in the box and bring out another blank. This is better than just giving a guy $20 and hoping he votes the way you want him to. (Don’t ask how I know all this.)

The potential with mail-in ballots is that you could gather a whole lot of them from a whole lot of people, pay for them to sign a blank ballot, and fill it in however you want. This is obviously a much more efficient method of stealing an election.

What about the grace period? What difference does that make? Any part of a good, old-fashioned, stolen election is to steal it by just a few votes. You don’t want to raise suspicions by winning 1000-1. Everyone would suspect fraud if that happened.

The grace period allows the person or persons involved to see how many votes they need to put their candidate over the top. You want to have the opportunity to add just a few more to your total at the last minute. It can be very exciting, if you’re that kind of a person. (My uncle Jim is not available for comment.)

People have been trying to rig elections from the very earliest times, so don’t be scandalized. Cicero uncovered an effort to keep him out of office in 54 BC by spending lavishly on bribes. In the early 20th century, archaeologists discovered in Athens a collection of clay ballots from 472 BC. Analysis showed that the 190 ballots voting all for the same man were written by only 14 people. Hmm.

That said, this is a movie in which a man drives around listening to great music on audio cassettes, cleans toilets, and interacts with a few (very few) people. There is not much to it and very little “happens.” That said, it is profound and beautiful and worth watching (probably multiple times). It is like few other movies I’ve seen (maybe only one*). Watching this film, I could not help but think of the Fifth Joyful Mystery of the Rosary, the Finding of Jesus in the Temple. For that decade we typically pray for the grace of “Seeking God in All Things.” There is nothing explicitly Christian in this film but it certainly is a kind of prayer for that—seeking God in all things.

After the end credits the film introduces the term “Komorebi,” “Komorebi: The shimmering of light and shadows that is created by leaves swaying in the wind. It only exists once.”

The film features many images of shadow and light at play among leaves. Occasionally these images appear superimposed over other images as well but they are so obscured as to be a mystery. The main character, Hirayama (played by Koji Yakusho), pauses each morning to smile at the light filtering down to his simple apartment as he heads out to work for “The Tokyo Toilet” where spends his days cleaning public bathrooms around the City. As he drives from bathroom to bathroom, he selects specific cassette tapes to listen to along the way, creating a soundtrack for the film and for his life. He takes his lunch break in a park where he takes photographs of the light filtering through the trees each day. Hirayama’s appreciation for these small moments of beauty point us toward a way of understanding the film. How can we find beauty in the interplay of light and shadow–and music, particularly the particular moments that are happening . . . now.

“Next time is next time. Now is Now” Hirayama sings at one point as he rides his bike alongside his niece in a rare moment of human connection. This is not a superficial call to “Carpe your Diem” but a sincere appeal to see the beauty in all things.

The light and darkness in the trees is eventually put in perspective of the light and darkness in the lives of the characters, but never in jarring or grotesque ways so common in modern cinema. The light and dark of human life is left off screen, and more as question than depictions. We see the confused relationship between Hirayama’s coworker Takashi and his love interest Niko. We learn of Hirayama’s distance from his sister and his mysterious unwillingness to visit his father. We do not learn what is behind these strained relationships or how they resolve, but we know there is darkness lurking there. We also know there are hints hiding in the music we hear, from “House of the Rising Sun”by The Animals to “Redondo Beach” by Patti Smith to “Perfect Day” by Lou Reed to the concluding scene that unfolds to Nina Simone’s “Feeling Good.” The music is a character—and a compelling one—and provides a fun energy and additional mystery to the film throughout.

For all his appreciation of the beauty in his life, there is no doubt that Hirayama is profoundly alone. He is genuinely shocked (as we are) by the few moments of human connection he experiences in the form of appreciation for his actions from Niko and his niece, or when he realizes there may be something more to his unstated attachment to his favorite bartender. We see him surprised by the joy of playing tic tac toe with an unseen bathroom correspondent. He delights in these connections even as he refuses to acknowledge anything is missing in his life. The conclusion of the film shows him connecting with a stranger/new “friend”, a similarly aged man who is also alone. They share a touching moment of fun, playing “shadow tag” while trying to learn if shadows multiply, do they get darker together?

The final moments of the film consist of more than two minutes with the camera trained on Hirayama’s face while he drives and listens to Nina Simone’s song, “Feeling Good.” Light and shadow filter over his face revealing a range of emotions. We see his characteristic smile, one we have seen several times each morning, but as the light and shadows flit across his face, he also experiences sadness, distress, his eyes well with tears. All these emotions are interrupted by smiles too, as if he is both experiencing the emotions and able to observe them as more moments of light among the leaves. The shadows that fall on his face are so dark at times we think the film will fade out to credits but the scene continues much longer than seems possible. The scene works and is the culmination of an amazing performance by Yakusho throughout the film.

If this all sounds heavy, the film is not. It feels light and is full of energy despite its pace. Part of that energy comes from the interpolations of great music. Perfect Days has a perfect soundtrack, one that is hand picked by Hirayama himself.

Here is a link to the playlist of those songs. They are better when heard in the context of the film however, which is currently available free via Kanopy if you have a library card.

Content warnings: None. Not for kids, but not because of anything inappropriate, just not a kids movie.

*The only other film I can name that is at all “like” this one is Jim Jarmusch’s Paterson, a similarly paced and similarly themed film about a poetry writing bus driver (played by Adam Driver) named Paterson in Paterson New Jersey which is also worth watching multiple times.

“Half and Half” from the 2024 Album The Figs Present: The Figs

This is the best song by The Figs to date, a rocking track with horns, hits, and interesting rhythmic stops in service of a story. This one belongs in a the “best of” rotation.

“Ride All Day” from the 2024 Album The Figs Present: The Figs

Every band needs a road trip song with a guitar solo. The Figs have one.

“Colorado” from the 2024 Album The Figs Present: The Figs

A little folk song about writing a song and dreaming of playing the big gig. Watch for the simple little harmony moments like the verse at 1:44, “So I sang in parks and in the dark to anyone who’d listen . . .” and the melancholy reference to a lost love one (probably a dad).

“Out of The Blue” from the 2026 Album How Did We Get Here

After a first few listens to their new record, this is emerging as a top track. The guest appearance of the unknown-to-me Pocket Berries gives this a distinctive sound with a female vocal. The details on the guitar lines like those beginning at 2:22 and the subtly off-beat chords coming out of the last verse are all nice touches that show care and craft layered on into a “simple” folk song.

“Hollywood” from the 2024 Album The Figs Present: The Figs

This a pretty song with a beautiful sentiment about a love bigger than the big screen and yet hidden from view, a bond that Hollywood can’t “fit into frame” not because it’s too big but because it doesn’t need the limelight. It’s celebrating the small, simple, and hidden life of an enduring marriage. Listen for the harmony guitar parts, unexpected keyboard tones lurking in the background (starting a 2:26), and even little string sections that add musical interest to a tune that unapologetically tugs on the heart strings.

Here’s a playlist of these Five Songs from The Figs:

At this point there have been more days of ceasefire than of military action since the Feb. 28 start of Operation Epic Fury. And today we hear that a Memorandum of Understanding (an MOU) is almost complete between Iran and the United States.

Details are still coming out and are probably not even agreed to by the signatories yet, but what we do know is that there will be a 60-day extension of the ceasefire. This will include an opening of the Strait of Hormuz and a lifting of the blockade on Iranian ports.

This will bring relief to Iran’s economy and probably the economy of so much of the world that relies upon shipments coming through the Strait. But it is hard to say. The economy hasn’t acted the way most economists predicted.

When the “military action” began in February, the most common and historically precedented expectation was that four things would happen:

1. Oil would at least double in price;

2. The stock market would crash;

3. Government bonds would rise in value;

4. Gold would soar in price.

These expectations followed what happened in other wars, especially in the areas of oil production. But that’s not what happened this time.

Oil was $67-$72 per barrel before the attack on Iran in February. Today it is $87-$92 per barrel. It was over $100 for much of that time, but even that was not near the $150-$200 prices some people were expecting. For those of us who have to fill our cars, we notice the rise in prices. That’s real. But this is nothing like what people legitimately expected.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average was 48,977.92 on Feb. 27 and could reach over 51,000 at the close of trading today. The market has gone up over this period!

Bonds are up about half a percent (48-50 basis points) from 3.95%–3.97% to 4.44%–4.45%. Not huge.

But gold is the real surprise. Usually in times of economic uncertainty and especially times of war, gold rises in price because it is a secure investment, as are bonds. Gold dropped in price from $5,184 per ounce to $4,520–$4,550. What?

There has certainly been a lot of economic havoc wrought by the war, and especially more in other countries, but it hasn’t been what was expected. I point this out because this MOU seems to be intended to have an impact on the economy. Who knows if it will?

As I said, the ceasefire has lasted longer than the fire, so there isn’t much “war” going on at the moment. Yes, there have been some missiles and drones out of Iran. And some of the Gulf states have attacked sites in Iran as a response. But the US has not reengaged in anything like the fashion it did at the beginning. The real “fight” now is economic, and most of that is about which side can hold out longer.

Almost everyone was wrong about the economic effects of the bombing of Iran. How do we know what the extended ceasefire and opening of the Strait will do? Of course, it seems logical to assume that allowing all those tankers to move freely through the Strait will be good for the economy. But it was also logical to think a major war in the Middle East would be really bad.

If the intention of the MOU is to jump start the economy and it doesn’t work, what happens then? We just assume it will work, but what if we’re wrong? Given how poorly economists predicted the results of war, I’m not sure we can be confident about the results of peace. If it doesn’t have the desired effect, that raises a whole lot of questions about what to do next.

As I went Down in the river to pray

Studyin’ about that good ol’ way and who shall wear

The starry crown God Lord, show me the way

O Fathers let’s go down

Let’s go down come on down

O Fathers Let’s go down, down to the river to pray

One by one they head into the river where they are greeted by a pastor who baptizes them, leaning them back and dunking them underwater. They emerge, process back to shore and continue to sing. As the dozens of figures pass around our trio in song, Delmar, Pete, and Everett look on with varied reactions. Pete is stunned. Everett is confused. Delmar is taken. He can’t look away.

Everett has the group figured out, he thinks, “I guess hard times flush the chumps. Everybody’s lookin’ for answers.” This is the second time Everett has brought up this idea of “looking for answers.” It was also his explanation for why Mrs. Hogwollop up and “R-U-N-N-O-F-T.” The need to find “answers” in the world (or outside of it) will come back again later as well.

Delmar has no such skepticism. Before Everett has finished reducing the event to athiestic snark, Delmar darts into the water lurching with wild arms (in a clear homage to Buster Keaton), stepping to the front of the line and receives his baptism. The moment is the most decisive act by Delmar in the film. Earlier, when confronted with a conflict between Everett and Pete, he astutely avoids picking sides and indicates, “I’m with you fellas.” Now, he breaks away from the trio as if drawn by a power beyond himself. We hear the pastor utter the proper form of the baptism as he approaches, “ . . . Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”

In this critical moment, just after the preacher says “Holy Ghost,” the camera breaks free from the stability it has had so far in the film. Cinematographer Roger Deakins allows the camera to take a God’s eye view, far above the action. The lens flies down from directly over Delmar as he sinks under the water, providing a first person view of the Holy Ghost’s descent to join Delmar through the sacrament.

Pete (the Rock) immediately recognizes what has happened, “Well I’ll be . . . Delmar’s been saved.” Delmar is converted by the experience. He tells us so, “it’s the straight and narrow for me from now on” and he implores his friends to join him, “Come on in boys, the water is fine.” He has become an evangelist. Pete takes him up on the invitation and scrambles in to be baptised too. Later we will see additional evidence that Delmar has taken this conversion seriously and is attempting to live up to his Christian promises (see the upcoming post on “I’ll Fly Away”).

The song continues to tell part of the story we are watching, a story sinners called to prayer and repentance. This moment sets up an important conflict in the film, the conflict between Everett and God. He calls the congregation “chumps,” and calls Delmar and Pete “dumber than a bag of hammers” for thinking baptism has any kind of merit.

The song reminds us again of the title with a verse that begins “O Brother”

O Brother let’s go down

Come on down, don’t you want to go down

O Brothers let’s go down

Down to the river to pray

After cycling through fathers, mothers, sisters, and brothers, the song concludes with an appeal to all, “O Sinners lets go down . . . “ an appeal to conversion, calling all sinners—all people—down to the river to pray. This includes Everett, but he does not respond to the call. In fact, he leans into his skepticism. This critical conflict is established here, Everett vs. God, or Everett vs. Faith in God. Everett is a thoroughly materialistic man with no need for the backward “ignorant” “superstition” of Delmar and Pete. It also provides the background for the second great conflict in the film, man vs the law. The use of this song and the characters reaction to this moment creates a kind of dramatic triangle between God, man, and the law. Shortly after their baptism, Delmar and Pete need correction on this point. They believe that their redemption through baptism should also absolve him of their worldly crimes. Pete says, “The preacher said it absolved us” and Delmar says, “There was witnesses that seen us redeemed!” Everett corrects them, “Even if it did put you square with the Lord, The state of Mississippi is a little more hard-nosed.” Everett is right about the state of Mississippi, and—unknowingly—about the wages of sin. There are temporal punishments ahead.

As the scene concludes, we get a final paradoxical summation of the situation from Everett: “Baptism! You two are just dumber than a bag of hammers” but his rejection of their faith is punctuated with an invocation of Christianity again, “I guess you’re just my cross to bear.” Everett accidentally invokes the most Christian of images in his attempt to reject God and the importance of faith in the world. The call to prayer and call to conversion has brought Everett to consider taking up his cross and following Christ—even if he doesn’t realize it.

This encounter with a preacher, baptism, and a literal discussion of the merits of baptism brings them to a crossroads, a literal crossroads where they will pick up a man who has sold his soul to the devil to learn to play the guitar “real good.” The echoes of the call to conversion, the call to go “down to the river to pray” will hang heavy in the air as their adventure proceeds.

Next up, “Man of Constant Sorrow.”

China presents extra complications. All people traveling with the President will have to leave all their electronic devices at home. China hacks all phones the moment they are turned on in their country and take all information into their spy services.

There are several big issues on their agenda.

Economy and Trade

China and the US are the two most important economies in the world and both are under pressure from the war military engagement in Iran. China is officially a Communist country, but it has had a somewhat free market since Deng Xiaoping opened its market economy in 1978.

This has accelerated remarkably under Xi Jinping, the current leader. His legitimacy is bound up with the amazing rise in the Chinese economy. The problem is that the economy is slowing down. Part of this is a feature of current events, but much more has to do with intrinsic issues within the Chinese economy.

China’s economy jumped to world prominence because it could provide American and European corporations very cheap production facilities. China was willing to build any factory under any conditions, ignoring environmental regulations we impose on ourselves. They have a highly educated and disciplined workforce that has been developed over thousands of years of Chinese culture. The Communist regime is also indifferent (as all Communist regimes have been) to the working conditions of their people. China became the sweatshop of the world.

But Xi has been trying to transition the economy to higher profits and higher-end products. The most important of these at the moment are its electric vehicles. They are being produced well below the price of any others in the world and are flooding markets in Europe. The US is trying to keep them out of the country, not only to protect its own car manufacturers.

Electric vehicles are among the most sophisticated machines ever made. Part of their sophistication is the array of sensory abilities and video recording, both used in self-driving capabilities. But to make self-driving work, they have to send this information back to the home company. That means every Chinese car is recording full time every road, every light, every person walking down a street, every business, police car and every piece of infrastructure in the country. You don’t have to be paranoid to get suspicious.

Much of China’s rise has come at the expense of the US economy and the economies of other western countries. Almost everything that was once made in the USA is now made in China. Trump wants to reverse that, so there is an inherent tension between the two countries. His promise to his voters has been that he would undo the offshoring of industries that have hollowed out the industrial center of the country. There has been a little progress in that regard, but not a lot.

Strait of Hormuz and Iran

President Trump is under pressure to get the war over with and get gas prices down because he is facing a midterm election in November. The bombing of Iran has not been popular with the American people and the polls show that. How much longer can he hold on to this policy? That’s the question for Trump.

Premier Xi isn’t under any electoral pressure, but most of his country’s oil and gas comes from the Middle East. To keep the economic miracle of China going, which is his only claim to legitimate rule, requires that he gets the spice gas flowing. As a key ally, perhaps the key ally, Xi will have a lot of influence with Iran. If China abandons the mullahs, they have no one to turn to.

Diplomacy between China and the USA could end the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. That would be a great economic relief to both parties, but probably a bigger diplomatic win for Trump than Xi. Opening the Strait would mean abandoning another Chinese ally. After the uncontested arrest of Maduro from Venezuela, China would not look like much of a friend.

But does Xi care? In an era of power politics when nations are sorting themselves out into regions, what does friendship mean? Survival is the question.

Russia and Ukraine

The US and China are allies to the opposite sides in this war, but each in a tepid way.

The US abandoned Ukraine to its own devices when Russia was preparing to attack in 2022. Pres. Biden removed all Americans from the country, more or less giving his go ahead to Putin to invade. (He should have sent Harris over there and dared Putin to attack a country with a sitting vice president visiting.)

China hasn’t done much to help Russia except buy its oil at a discount. Not really huge support. More like taking advantage of the situation.

So in a way the two major powers on earth are spectators of this conflict, and it is easy to see why. Would China want to go to war with Ukraine and, theoretically, Europe to fulfill Putin’s historiographic argument about where the people of the Rus began? Unlikely.

And the American position has traditionally been to allow Russia to wear itself out. Both China and the US are also gaining invaluable information about new ways of war, especially drone warfare.

Europe has the real interest in all of this, but it is hard to see what outcome would be best for it. A Russian victory would not be good and would scare them. But a Ukrainian victory (whatever that might look like) is hardly better. When Europeans can barely field a few tanks on a weekday, do they really want over 100 battalions of battle-hardened Slavs taking a victory lap?

Taiwan

The elephant in the room—or the dragon—is Taiwan. In 1949, the losing side in the Chinese Civil War fled to the island of Formosa. The leader of the Nationalists, Chiang Kai-shek, set up his government on the island and changed its name to Taiwan. It was officially recognized as “China” at the United Nations until 1971, even sitting as the permanent member of he Security Council. Martial law was in effect on the island until 1987 and it did not have its first presidential election until 1996. In the meantime, it became the most important semiconductor manufacturing center in the world. (Don’t ask me how.)

It has always been an ambition of the Communist Chinese to take back the island and reunite the Chinese people. As with all Communist revolutions, China quickly changed its way of motivating its people from visions of worldwide revolutions to blood and soil patriotism. Taiwan stands as affront to these ideas.

The US has held an ambiguous position towards Taiwan. The US won’t call it “China” and it won’t declare that we will go to war to protect the island, but we have troops stationed there and a whole lot of naval assets hanging around. Will we or won’t we? That’s the question.

The Taiwanese are in an awkward place. China and the US get their most sophisticated chips from them. That’s another reason why China wants it and one of the main reasons America protects it. But as the US returns industry to the country (and there is a big Taiwanese chip manufacturer setting up here), Taiwan become less important to Americans.

Xi could be thinking about letting more factories return to the US to make Trump happy but also weaken American ties to the island. Would he abandon Iran for this? Could his economy sustain the hit? This is what statesmanship is about.

The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that the referendum on redistricting violated the Virginia Constitution. The “lobster district” is no more.

Republicans took the referendum to court earlier this year and the state (under the instruction of the newly elected Democratic governor) argued that there was no point to hearing the case because if the referendum failed, there would be nothing to consider. They argued that the Court is only supposed to rule on actions of the state, not on proposed actions that might not even happen.

That argument prevailed, but they lost the case after the referendum passed. And so the referendum was overturned and VA will not have any changes to the Congressional districts.

The left has not taken this well. One proposal is to lower the mandatory retirement age of Supreme Court justices to 53. (The youngest of the justices who ruled that the referendum was unconstitutional is 53 years old.) Everyone would be forced into retirement and the governor could appoint new justices.

Redistricting and the Midterms

The reaction is all because of two features of the modern House of Representatives. First, the House race in November is so close. Second, so few seats are competitive.

The Republicans are currently in control of the House, but with only the slimmest of majorities. There are 435 seats in the House, so a majority should be 218. But the Republicans have only 217 seats. How are they the majority? There are currently 5 vacancies, so the effective majority is 216. That’s close! A couple missed flights or a bad casserole and the Republicans could lose a vote.

What about competitiveness? Well, most House seats aren’t at all competitive. Only 10-15 are currently listed as “tossups,” meaning that either party has a similar chance of winning. If you really stretch the definition you might get as many as 40 that are competitive. But there’s really only a small number of the 435 that could go to either party.

That’s why redistricting is so important. It is easier for Virginia Democrats, for instance, to gerrymander their way to a House majority than win elections. Or so they thought.

The irony is that the high profile efforts of Virginia’s redistricting referendum (Obama campaigned for it, which is a highly unusual thing for a former president to do) led to counter-efforts in Republican states, which actually worked. Virginia made it a lot easier, although far from guaranteed, for the Republicans to retain control of the House in November.

As we have mentioned before, the Supreme Court ruled that gerrymandering for racial outcomes is illegal. There are several districts that were established for this very purpose, and Tennessee, Florida, Louisiana, and a few other Southern states have immediately redistricted with the purpose of undoing these districts.

Again, we are talking about a very small number of seats. A few changes here and there could change the election. Of course, there are some limits to gerrymandering. For instance, the smallest states have only one member of the House, so the state is the district and those boundaries can’t be changed. Others, such as Massachusetts present a different problem.

Although 40% of Massachusetts citizens voted for Donald Trump in the last election, there is not a single Republican member of the House from the Commonwealth. Has it been gerrymandered? Hard to say. Republicans are scattered throughout the population, with no single area coming up with enough people to form a congressional district. Getting a Republican district in Massachusetts would require efforts that old Elbridge Gerry couldn’t imagine.

Redistricting is demanded by the Constitution because the population is counted every ten years in the census, so it can’t be avoided. And there is no non-partisan way to carve out districts. You can’t drop a grid on a state and expect to get each square to contain an equal number of citizens. Someone has to move the lines.

Get used to it.

The history of science sections include a few vignettes that highlight the lengths to which some of the most renowned scientists have gone to avoid the conclusions that most obviously result from their work, that there is a mind behind creation. Einstein’s use of a manufactured “cosmic constant” that he would later declare his biggest blunder (after being shown his error by a Catholic priest). Stephen Hawking’s “workaround” to avoid the most obvious conclusion to draw from his own work, that the universe had a beginning. As Meyer shows the mind-boggling complexity of even the simplest cells, he reminds us of Darwin’s statement that his theory would fall apart if evolution requires large complex changes, and not small simple ones.

More than challenging many popular views about the origin of the universe and of life, the film does a great job of rejecting the idea that science and religion are opposing concepts or pursuits. Meyer poignantly quotes Romans 1:20:

For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made . . .

Looking at the world and finding God is part of God’s plan for how we may know Him. This includes looking at the world through high powered telescopes and with electron microscopes. We shouldn’t be surprised if our study of the world provides compelling evidence that He exists and created that world for us.

There were many new insights in this film, but my favorite may have been in the section about the miraculous “fine tuning” of the universe to exist and support life. The fine tuning concept is that if any small conditions were changed—even a tiny amount, things just wouldn’t work. If gravity were operated differently by a tiny fraction, life could not exist. The existence of the large gas planets in our solar system—Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune—are a part of that fine tuning as well. They provide a shield for the earth, catching comets that could otherwise demolish the Earth. Without those planets, who knows how many times the earth would have been pummeled with space debris large enough to end the possibility of life. It’s like the earth is the quarterback and these giant planets are the offensive line.

There is a lot in this film, much more than I could absorb in one sitting. Using a series of different experts, examples, and visual depictions, this two hour lecture is an enjoyable watch. The film is distributed through Fathom Events and has been extended for an additional week. It is worth the trip.

Content Warning: None. Younger kids would probably struggle with the level of intellectual discussions.

Strait of Hormuz

Deja vu all over again. Some ships are getting through. Some aren’t. There are conflicting words and actions coming out of Iran, so it’s unclear who might be running things there. Iran even suggested they have trained dolphins ready to engage in suicide bombing raids. OK.

Oil and natural gas stockpiles continue to decline in Europe and Asia. Without their own sources, self-inflicted on the part of Europe, things are only going to get worse there. Some countries in Asia are cancelling internal flights, closing schools and universities early, and imposing curfews because they cannot light their streets at night. Australia is said to have only 30 days of jet fuel left in the country. Without it, they will be cut off from the rest of the world

Midterm Elections

Because the US is energy independent, the effects of blockages in the Strait of Hormuz are largely muted. We might be seeing gas well above $4/gallon, but we won’t have to impose any of the measures being contemplated in other countries. So the real point of pressure is the election in November. Will Pres. Trump try to find a way to get out of the Hormuz problem before people start voting in just a few months?

To recall, all seats in the House of Representatives will be up for election and about one third of Senate seats. The House is significant because if Democrats gain control they will almost certainly spend the remaining two years of Trump’s presidency impeaching him and every member of his administration. The Senate is the place where an impeachment trial would take place, but the swings there are less dramatic.

Economic problems continue to pull down Pres. Trump’s approval ratings and the chances of the Republicans retaining the House. They might even lose the Senate. But never underestimate the ability of political parties to sabotage themselves. The Democrats as a party are polling below even Pres. Trump. And they are not hitting the high notes with some of their nominees.

In Maine, the longstanding Republican senator is Susan Collins. She is generally on the furthest left end of the Republican spectrum. She has been a thorn in Pres. Trump’s side for years. But as a Republican in a rather liberal state, she is vulnerable. The Democrats, however, have seen fit to push forward on their side an avowed Communist with a Nazi tattoo, Graham Platner. He has the very same image that is at the center of the Mitchell and Webb skit, “Are we the baddies?”

The popular and un-tattooed current governor of Maine challenged Platner but could not get traction. So this is the man Collins gets to run against.

Meanwhile, in Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed is tied in the Democratic nomination race for senate. He is a very open supporter of Palestinian causes and anti Israel. At a time of war in the Middle East and active antisemitism in the Democratic party, this could be a real risky move.

Redistricting

Both parties are trying to squeeze out as many seats for themselves as they can in continued redistricting in a number of states. California, Texas, and Florida have all made changes to their maps to benefit the party currently in power.

Virginia passed a new map that added heavily Democratic parts of the DC suburbs to rural districts in an attempt to flip them. The most notorious is the “Lobster District.” Elbridge Gerry would be proud.

The new map is being challenged in court, so it might not go through. But if it does, it would take a state that currently has 6 Democrats and 5 Republicans in the US House to one with 10 Democrats and 1 Republican (assuming voting patterns remain constant).

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court ruled that district lines drawn with the intention of producing a particular racial makeup are unconstitutional. While the Voting Rights Act dates from 1965, the provisions about majority-minority districts (districts drawn so that the majority of the population is black, for the most part) was added in 1982.

Would eliminating these districts make much of a difference? That is disputed. Take, for instance, Tennessee’s 9th district. TN-9 is a heavily black district in Memphis, but it has elected a white man, Steve Cohen, every election since 2007. He is being challenged by a black man running on the Republican ticket. So is this about race or party? That’s important, because the Court says gerrymandering with racial intent is unconstitutional, but gerrymandering for political or partisan intent is not.

Rudy Giuliani

Rudy Giuliani, I hope, will go down in history as one of the greatest mayors of the greatest city in the country. He was mayor of New York City from 1994 to 2001, during a period of remarkable transformation. He is currently in hospital in Florida and looks likely to pass soon.

New York, along with many American cities, became ravaged by crime from the 1970s through the 1990s. Giuliani, who was a US Attorney and prosecutor before becoming mayor, took a tough on crime position. In effect, this meant arresting and prosecuting criminals rather than looking for “root causes” of crime. The transformation of New York was amazing.

He was also the mayor of the city during the World Trade Center terrorist attacks of 9/11. His strong leadership during this time earned him the title of “America’s Mayor,” and added to his reputation. He was talked about as a presidential candidate for a while. The current mayor of NYC could not be more different.

His subsequent history was not so kind to his reputation. He worked for and with Pres. Trump, then turned against him, then back again, and again. As with many who have tried to publicly spat with Trump, Giuliani suffered far more than his target, regardless of his personal merits. Sic transit gloria mundi. We can pray for him and thank him for what he did for New York.

Part of this year’s history curriculum included the American Civil War era. I return frequently to Shelby Foote’s three volume Civil War: A Narrative, but assigning 3,000+ pages seems excessive. The audio version read by Grover Gardner is terrific too, but 150 hours is also, um, excessive. The Gettysburg chapter from Volume Two, “Stars in Their Courses,” is a terrific stand alone read, but we usually rely on Michael Shaara’s novel, Killer Angels for a single volume account of Gettysburg. This year I discovered an excellent audio version of the Lincoln-Douglas Debates featuring actors Richard Dreyfuss (Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind) voicing Stephen Douglas, and David Strathairn (he played Seward in Speilberg’s Lincoln) as Lincoln. It makes for an engaging way to dive into the debates, although each of the debates has some content now that feels like inside baseball arguments about who said what at which meeting etc. That said, Debate Five at Galensburg gets my nod for the one debate to use if I have to pick just one.

The new discovery and the subject of today’s Dad News Review of Books book review is Fletcher Pratt’s Civil War in Pictures (1955, Garden City Books). In this case the DNRB acronym fits as I did not read this book, but have perused it thoroughly enough to see that it is terrific.

Pratt’s book has the subtitle: “From the drawing boards of the newspaper artists who recorded the conflict.” It is full of amazing line drawings, woodcuts based on drawings made by artists there on the ground. Men with sketch books and pencils traveled with the armies and documented the action. Their drawings would be sent back to the home office, where woodcuts would be made from the drawings and then printed. Weekly publications dispatched dozens of “special artists” at different times to document the action, and the renowned American painter Winslow Homer was among them (famous for paintings like “Snap the Whip” and “Veteran in a New Field.”)

Most of the pictures and a lot of the text is pulled from Harper’s Weekly and Frank Leslies’ Illustrated Newspaper. Pratt offers commentary and reflections along the way, putting the reports in context and addressing errors. The pictures each have a descriptive caption, so the book is informative and a joy to flip through while only looking at the pictures. They capture a remarkable level of detail in a simple, elegant, black and white format including even early moments from the war:

As the war proceeds, it is clear the artists are not far from the action.

The book includes hundreds of images like this. At times the artists break the third wall and show how they became a part of the very conflict they were covering. Here’s one with the caption, “The Vigilance Committee at Memphis Tennessee robbing our special artist of his sketches.”

There are also a number of illustrations of nautical battles as well, including the Merrimack and the Monitor.

In addition, Pratt includes additional details from the publications of the day, including advertisements for employment, watches, and the zoo—which features a hippo, or as you might know it, a “river horse.”

Eventually, and more ominously, the pages include many ads for prosthetic limbs.

There are also ads for medical solutions for various ailments, including dyspepsia tablets, beard growth formulas, and most impressively the “aesthetico-neuralgicon” which Pratt describes as a “homeopathic … cure for everything.” I need to learn more about this one.

In Pratt’s introduction, he acknowledges that the book is decidedly a story told from the Union perspective. He says “the story is necessarily one-sided, [because] there were no illustrated weeklies published in Richmond.” A 1955 New York Times review calls out and contradicts Pratt on this claim, pointing out “that The Southern Illustrated News, a weekly issued [from] 1862-65, was published in Richmond.” It seems the Times—in 1955—was worried about getting a better presentation of the Confederate point of view (NYT is known to lean Democratic in its politics). That said, It would be interesting to see what was published in those journals at the time.

There is no doubt that the book is a period piece, drawing most of its content directly from original sources during the war years with commentary from 1955. It is a thorough history of the war with amazing pictures and accounts provided from the field. Definitely worth requesting from your local library or acquiring your own copy.

For context, the WHCD is an annual event that started in 1921. The journalists host a dinner with the sitting president where the atmosphere is meant to be light and humorous. Presidents usually make funny speeches, often written by professional comedians.

Pres. Trump refused to attend during his first term because of his tense relationship with the press. It should also be remembered that in 2011, Pres. Obama used much of his speech to make fun of Donald Trump. Many have suggested that this was the moment The Donald decided to run for president. So he has a history with the event.

It is hard to get a sense of the size of the event. There were over 2,500 people gathered for a sit-down dinner with many of the most famous and powerful people in the country. Security was tight, but clearly not tight enough.

It takes place in the Washington Hilton, which is an active hotel and has a massive ballroom in the basement. It is also the hotel Pres. Reagan was leaving when he was shot and almost killed in 1981. The assassin was able to book a room in the hotel soon after the President announced that he would be attending the dinner. This gave him access to most spaces in the hotel. He traveled by train from California, apparently doing so to avoid TSA because he was carrying several guns with him.

Do you remember the problem with funding for the Department of Homeland Security? Still going on. TSA and the Secret Service are both funded through DHS, so the agents that subdued the assassin are getting paid (we hope!) on an emergency basis only. This ongoing funding problem will no doubt become a point of contention when talking about this security lapse.

What we know of the shooter so far is that he was a 31 year old SAT tutor and teacher, highly educated, and of mixed race. In something of a manifesto, he cited the usual charges against the President that one might find in the New York Times, on CNN, or anywhere on social media. It is important to note that his ideas are not particularly out of the mainstream of even the moderate left. His actions were, but…

Look at the survey result below:

The younger and more liberal the respondents, the more accepting they are of supporting violence. 1/4 of young liberals is not yet a majority of the population, but as we’ve seen with this and the other two assassination attempts, it does not take more than a small number of radicalized (and radicalized by “mainstream” ideas, if that makes sense) to try to kill a president.

As the saying goes: they don’t kill you because they call you a Nazi, they call you a Nazi so they can kill you.

From I.C.E to N.I.C.E

There is a meme on the internet in which a science fiction author writes a novel about some world-destroying machine as a warning to everyone, only to be followed by an announcement by engineers who are proud of having made this same world-destroying machine. It’s funny because it keeps happening. And it’s not funny.

Now, for fans of C.S. Lewis, he is getting caught up in this. That Hideous Strength is one of my favorite novels, but as a warning not a how-to document.

In steps Pres. Trump.

In an effort to change the image of immigration officers, he has suggested adding “National” to the name of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. He said he wants to force journalists to use the word “nice” when they refer to it.

There is another meme on the internet, inspired by a photo of an exhausted and discouraged Ben Affleck standing outside smoking a cigarette. That’s as background to the image below. If you’ve read the Lewis novel, you get the joke.

This is a compelling story and despite its Christian title and tag line (“Believe in the Hail Mary”), it does not bring a heavy handed “message” even while it lionizes the act of laying down one’s life for one’s friends. The movie is part swashbuckling adventure, part slapstick comedy, part buddy movie, and it is all good fun. There are many references to other iconic sci fi films, including 2001: A Space Odyssey, Arrival, and a moment where Grace sings the tune from Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Beyond all that, the film is fun to look at with artful cinematography and production design interesting enough to merit multiple viewings just to catch the details. I brought five children from 9 to 17 years old and we all enjoyed it. I would certainly watch it again sometime.

Content Warnings: High anxiety with lives at risk. A couple jump scare moments. Confrontation of death (including dead bodies), and some discussion of suicide. I left my six year old at home and am glad that I did. Also, it is over two and half hours long.

Spoilers below here: Some comments and critiques

I enjoyed and recommend this movie, but it has a few shortcomings. One is that it is nearly three hours long, a bit much for a playful space adventure, so it feels, well . . . long. The resolution of the film is unsatisfying in a few ways. When on earth, Ryland Grace has almost no meaningful human connections. We see him connecting with his students as a science teacher and making one profound connection, it seems, with Eva Stratt, the director of the international project to save the earth—that is until she forces him to join the mission against his will. He feels betrayed by Stratt but leans into the mission once the decision has been made for him. He does not return to earth and reconcile with Stratt, however, and instead opts to live on an alien planet among the rock creatures, a resolution that falls flat. The other element of the film that rings hollow is the lack of real sacrifice in a movie that is importantly about sacrifice. Grace is on a mission that he “knows” will end in his demise, and yet he has the opportunity (two actually) to return to earth after all. The most dramatic sacrifice in the film, however, comes from Rocky when he exposes himself to deadly human air in order to save an unconscious Grace. The act reads as a moment of profound sacrifice—and it is—but he survives, a development that feels like a cop out. It is hard to imagine, however, how a film as committed to a light tone as this one would handle such a dark moment.

Lastly, the final beat of the film shows Grace settling in to his life among the rock creatures on a faraway planet, leading class full of enthusiastic rock students, all raising their “hands” and jumping up and down, eager to answer his question about the speed of light (the same question we saw him ask his human students on earth). The moment is campy and worse, it suggests Grace is in the same place he was at the beginning of the film, a successful teacher, but profoundly alone. He is even more alone than he was on earth given the more profound gap between him and his companions who cannot even breathe the air he breathes. On the movie’s own terms, this ending is presented as a genuine celebratory moment, but when observed as part of Grace’s character arc, it suggests he hasn’t traveled that far after all. Lastly, as a committed homeschooling dad, I object to the presentation of school-life as a viable substitute to real human connections, even if it is school life in a galaxy far far away.

This invention—along with the bass drum pedal (circa 1909)—completed the modern drum-set and created the conditions for drummers to thrive as the creative center of jazz and rock and roll music.

At all times humans have known that the world is a drum. Bang something, it makes a noise and other humans react: they move, they march, they dance and Voila! You are a musician! But these simple machines, pedal operated percussion tools, created a new world of possibilities for drummers. They allowed the modern drummer to operate all four limbs potentially playing different elements of the drum set, creating much more than time-keeping, but a sonic palette that allows for the contribution of color to the music, elevating the craft to new heights. Complex drum kits were assembled and popularized in large part to support the film industry that needed in-house soundtracks (and sound effects) for silent films. “Talkies” would drive drummers out of the movies and train their focus on jazz and, eventually, rock and roll.

Sitting here, nearly 100 years after the invention of the bass drum pedal and the hi-hat, who are the best drummers of all time? As a long time hack rock and roll drummer, I have been asked this question many times. My answer is long and varied and changing all the time, so I will limit my selections here to five favorite drum parts from the history of rock and roll, not virtuoso drum solos or blistering, ground breaking drum parts (necessarily), but some of my favorite moments from musicians behind this thoroughly modern instrument, the drum kit.

Levon Helm (The Band)

“The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down” from 1978 album The Last Waltz

Not a technical master and largely self-taught, Levon Helm sits atop my list for bringing sheer joy to the instrument and playing just what is needed, nothing more. He’s a master of feel, creating a groove that serves the music. “The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down” provides a clinic on how a drum part can serve a song. From the buzz roll to cymbal crash at the beginning of each chorus to the rollicking ride cymbal work, to the deep tom hits at the beginning of each verse, Helm is carrying and coloring the song. Add to that the fact that he sings the heartfelt lead vocal while playing this part, and it is certainly an all time great.

John Bonham (Led Zeppelin)

“When the Levee Breaks” from the 1971 Album Led Zeppelin IV

Bonham is on many “best rock and roll drummer” lists for many reasons (not that this is one of those), his mastery of the hi hat and the bass drum pedal among them. On “When the Levee Breaks,” he creates and irresistible pulse featuring alternating double bass drum beats followed by syncopated 16th notes creating an irresistible groove funky enough that any young drummer might spend countless hours attempting to recreate it—a worthy exercise. This track highlights the degree to which a hi-hat, bass, and snare drum groove can define a song.

Stevie Wonder

“Don’t You Worry ‘Bout a Thing” from the 1973 Album Innervisions

Wait! Stevie Wonder is a piano player, you may be thinking. This is true but despite that (and his blindness) he played most of the instruments on the album Innervisions, including the drums. Like Levon Helm, he is not on lists of “greatest drummers of all time,” but here he puts on a display of hi-hat artistry and drum set mastery nonetheless. This is a funky, fun, and celebratory tune and this is a song and an album that can’t help but generate awe for the seemingly effortless level of greatness on display. It is also somehow topical as it begins with a bit of bizarre conversation about “speaking fluent Spanish” and worrying about “Iraq” and “Iran.” Our worries haven’t changed much since 1973 and this track remains a worthy antidote to those anxieties.

Neil Peart (Rush)

“Tom Sawyer” from the 1981 Album Moving Pictures

This selection could be dismissed as too obvious. Every aspiring rock drummer is supposed to go through a phase of inordinate attachment to Neil Peart’s playing as part of the iconic Canadian progressive rock (Prog-rock) band, Rush—and “Tom Sawyer” is their greatest hit. But this song cannot be dismissed. From the opening space invaders sound to the hyper 16th note hi-hat groove and evolving bass drum patterns, this song draws listeners into its grasp. Layer in the mysterious lyrics—written by Peart—that reference classic Americana, “today’s Tom Sawyer” whose “mind is not for rent” and you have a rock masterpiece.

It took forty years to go from the Wright brothers first flight at Kittyhawk in 1903 to a B-29 Superfortress carrying an atomic bomb in 1945. It took more than that to go from the initial popularization of the drumset to its apotheosis in 1974 when Neil Peart Joined Rush, and six more until he played his most famous fills in “Tom Sawyer.” From a drumming perspective the hi-hat and the bass drum both achieve near critical mass in this performance. At one minute thirty seconds, Peart drops into a groove in seven, accentuating the hi hat as the figure turns around each time culminating in the iconic “Grand Fills” at the 2 minute 30 second mark—probably the most air-drummed moment in rock and roll history. An obvious Selection? Yes—but also necessary.

Sean Kinney (Alice in Chains)

“No Excuses” from the 1994 Album Jar of Flies

You can take the Gen X Dad out of the 90’s but you can’t take the 90’s out of the Gen X Dad. Sean Kinney kicks off this track with a stand alone drum part so infectious you will hear it as an intro and outro of various radio and television programs today. It highlights bass drum and hi-hat accents as well a complex inter play with toms, chimes and cymbals, culminating in an accented flam crack on the snare drum signaling the beginning of something significant. This virtuoso drum intro leads into dark verses and chorus from Layne Staley and Jerry Cantrell lamenting something for which they have “No Excuses.” The drums bring levity to this track and pull it out of typical 90’s grunge fare into all time great territory.

Here is the playlist of Five Songs with Great Drum Parts. Feel free to suggest others in the comments.

Source notes:

For further reading, check out Vinnie Sperraza’s “History of Drumming,” a book he is publishing as he writes it on Substack.

Other sources:

Bass drum pedal inventions: https://paularchibalddrums.wordpress.com/2015/10/28/early-bass-drum-pedal-patens/

History of drumming from Vic Firth: https://ae.vicfirth.com/education/history-of-the-drumset/history-of-the-drumset-part-07/

Negotiations between the US and Iran are on again and then off again. I haven’t revisited this issue because every time something seems to have happened (either starting talks or ending them) someone plays the Uno reverse card and the opposite happens.

Even as I was writing this, the President texted a reporter suggesting that the talks may be on again. Who knows? The problem is that, having killed most of the Iranian political leadership, we and probably they have no idea who is actually in charge of the country.

Another update while writing: Trump asked the Iranians to halt the scheduled execution of eight women protestors. It seems they have complied. Four will be released and the other four held in prison for a month. Does this mean the Iranians are responsive? Or is this one part of the remaining pseudo-leadership that will be reversed by the other part? I hope we hear soon that the woman are OK.

Meanwhile, the blockade continues and very little oil and gas is getting out of the region. Europe is reporting that it has only 7 weeks of jet fuel remaining and is already cancelling short flights for commercial airlines. I have a personal interest in flights to and from Austria, as many of you know, so I’m watching this very closely.

At this point the whole thing hangs on who can hold out longest.

The US has a lot of domestic oil, so Trump might be worried about the midterm elections but gas probably won’t go up too much. Oil is currently trading between $90-$96 per barrel. And the stock market is a little up and down, but certainly not in a bad way at the moment. Dow Jones Industrial Average is around 49,000, S&P 500 is around 7,000, and the Nasdaq is about 24,000. Historically, these are huge numbers.

Iran is missing out on something like $500 million a day. That’s got to hurt. But do they care? They would probably be happy to let the entire population starve to death if they could only fulfill their Islamic ideology. But they will run up against the fact that oil wells, once stopped or paused, are very hard to start up again. The inability to export their oil will, very soon, impose a huge cost on their ability to have an oil export industry at all. Unless they really do plan on blowing themselves up, this has to be a constraint on their actions.

The rest of the world is caught in between. China gets a lot of oil from Iran, as does most of Asia. Australia is almost dry. Europe also relies on oil and gas from the Middle East and Russia, which makes things awkward. Pres. Trump and Premier Xi of China are supposed to meet in person sometime soon. (It keeps getting rescheduled.) Will they want this all settled before their meeting?

The Europeans don’t have many cards to play. They need American support for the war in Ukraine and they don’t have the military resources to play any role in the Middle East. They gave up their oil and nuclear (except France) resources within the last few years and can’t turn that around quickly. And yet they are insisting on policies meant to frustrate the American war efforts, such as denying access to their airspace and even American bases in their countries.

DHS Still Unfunded

Remember the whole partial government shutdown thing? It’s still a thing. DHS has been limping along after the President moved money from one budget line to another as an emergency stopgap so employees could get paid. That’s coming to an end, but no one seems to be talking about it. Are both sided bluffing? I don’t know what happens under these circumstances.

Religion and Politics

For years there has been an effort to separate religion and politics, as if they have nothing to do with one another. There were times when this might have worked, but those times were characterized by a broad consensus on both religion and politics. That consensus, if it ever really existed, no longer holds.

We have considered the contretemps between the Pope and the President already. It seems to be receding into the background. There is still a great deal of distance between the two men, but they seem to have each come to the realization that open hostility is in neither one’s interests.

Recently, however, an Israeli soldier was photographed (by another IDF soldier who posted the image in apparent approval) destroying a crucifix in Lebanon. The image received swift condemnation from the American Ambassador to Israel and was condemned by the Israeli president and prime minister. The soldiers involved have been arrested. But it is a stark reminder that hostility across and between religious groups is real and can become very ugly.

Those soldiers were in Lebanon because Israel is currently attacking Hezbollah. Lebanon was a Christian country for the first half of the 20th Century, but Muslim immigration (including Palestinians) led to a civil war from 1975-1990 that saw the emigration of many Christians. Hezbollah formed in 1982 after Israel invaded the country in order to remove the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) from its position in Lebanon. The very next year they used suicide bombers to kill 307 American Marines and French soldiers.

After the civil war, Hezbollah increased its political influence, even having a role in parliament and the cabinet. But its purpose was always to use Lebanon as a staging ground for attacks on Israel. Most of its funding and support came from Iran and it was seen as a proxy of the Islamic Republic. Their ties were very close because both are part of the Shia branch of Islam. Until Oct. 7, Hezbollah was considered far more dangerous than Hamas.

Back home, Israel and Islam are the centerpiece of politics in the Democratic party. As primary races continue in advance of the midterm elections this November, the party is making a hard shift. Several nominees for Senate races are embracing hard anti-Israel positions, and one is a Muslim. Polls also show that young Democrats have a worse opinion of Israel than they do of China or Iran. This is a big shift for a party that was supported by the vast majority of Jews in the US.

You can throw nature out with a pitchfork, but it always comes back (Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret - Horace). When religion comes back into politics, it wields the pitchfork.

Christian Persecution in Nigeria

The most tragic and horrifying persecution is continuing in Nigeria. Thousands of Christians are being killed in this one country, where the vast majority of all crowns of martyrdom are being won on the earth today. Pray for them.

What to watch with the family? Ideally, we can find a film that is entertaining for everyone, adults, older kids, and the littles. This doesn’t always happen, of course. But I am compiling a list of films that can pull this off, and here are three for consideration.

The General (1926)

Directed by Buster Keaton and Clyde Bruckman

We just watched this for the first time and it will be a recurring favorite, I am sure. Buster Keaton plays an engineer attempting to rescue a locomotive stolen by Union forces during the Civil War. The story is outlandish and yet based on a real event known as the “Great Locomotive Chase” from 1862. A silent film with a jaunty piano soundtrack, the film has the look and feel of its period, including awkward frame rates and title cards for the (limited) dialogue. Plan to assign a designated dialogue reader for the family viewing. It will only take a few minutes for everyone to be fully invested in the world of Johnny Gray and his quest to recover his true loves, Annabelle Lee and his train, The General. Delightful physical comedy including dramatic stunts (performed by Keaton on actual moving trains) and impressive set pieces. Two standouts include an amazing sequence with a train water tower and a train bridge explosion worthy of Bridge on The River Kwai which involved the destruction of an actual train (that remained demolished in the river until it was salvaged for scrap metal during World War II). It all makes this a terrific whole family selection. Be warned, however, as the family may demand more and more Buster Keaton films after this one.

Content Warnings: None

My Neighbor Totoro (1988)

Directed by Hayao Miyazaki

This is classic, mysterious, beautiful, and delightful Miyazaki. If you aren’t familiar with his films, this is a great place to start. Do not file this film under whatever you may think of “Anime”. This is not that. This is a story of a family facing situations that would be potentially terrifying, the critical illness of a parent and the appearance of a larger than life otherworldly creature. In Miyazaki’s hands, these are both handled with gentleness, care, and wonder. This film is a marvel to look at as well as a fun story for all ages.

Content Warnings: None

The Adventures of Tin Tin (2011)

Directed by Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson

Ripped not from the headlines but from old time comic books (1920’s era) and an animated series (1990’s era), Steven Spielberg (and Peter Jackson!) have created a world of adventure that is thrilling from the start to finish. A young reporter is pulled into an international adventure that traverses oceans, deserts, cities, and mansions. It’s got amazing action movie set pieces, swashbuckling sea antics, genuinely comic moment and a heart. It is intense at times—it has its exciting moments—so the younger viewers need to be on the tougher side for this one. Everyone will delight in the recurring bumbling—yet surprisingly competent—twin brother detectives, however.

Content Warnings: Lots of cartoon violence and peril: fist-fights, gunfights, and even ship-to-shore crane fights. There is also a depiction of alcoholism and drunkenness that is presented with care and comedy.

Feel free to add your suggestions for this list of films worthy of viewing for the whole family in the comments. More to come . . .

As you will recall, the term “Avignon Papacy” refers to the period of 1309-77 during which seven popes established their court in France rather than Rome. It was the result in part of French influence over the papacy, legitimate fear of the German emperors invading Rome, and the very involved politics of the period. (Just to give a taste, the Crusades were still going on, the Hundred Years War between France and England was beginning, and Dante was writing his Divine Comedy.) St. Catherine of Sienna was influential in personally convincing the pope to return to Rome.

Probably unfairly to the seven popes, the period was also characterized as the “Babylonian Captivity” and it was assumed that the popes were the puppets of the French kings. That didn’t really happen until after the popes returned to Rome and “pretender popes” were elected in Avignon. And this doesn’t even give you a hint of how complicated it all was.

Anyway, the reference was certainly intended to suggest that the Church could be controlled by the most powerful government on the planet. Wow! And given that the Renaissance started during this period, it could be a good time for artists. (Pres. Trump’s heavy-on-the-gold renovations of the Oval Office are now looking really on point.)

Well, it didn’t happen. The Avignon Papacy did happen, but the Vatican confirmed that there was no such heated conversation and certainly no threat about moving the Pope to Florida. (Although his brother does live there and is a big supporter of the President. So don’t count it out.)

Everything smoothed over and cooler heads prevailed.

BUT NO!

You guessed it, Pres. Trump took to Truth Social.

Rather than go through it all on my own, I’ll leave it to two of my friends who are much more qualified to deal with the details.

Phil Lawler's Substack

Who started the Trump 'feud' with the Pope?

Responding to my analysis of confrontation between Pentagon officials and Cardinal Pierre, @MarkSimonHK wrote on X that “Lawler is more open than I am about the role of @Pontifex…” (This was before Trump’s personal assault on the Pope on Truth Social.) Actually I…

Read more

5 months ago · 24 likes · Phil Lawler

and

The Sayable

Behind The Headlines

Pope Leo’s comment on the plane today, “I have no fear of the Trump administration,” stuck out at me because it is unusual for a Pope to call out a politician by name…

Read more

5 months ago · 2 likes · Delia Buckley Gallagher

In short, Pope Leo expressed his (not surprising) position that the war in Iran is wrong and that diplomacy and discussion should have continued. Responding with the presence of mind and self-control of a honey badger that had been dropped into a nest of fire ants, Donald Trump took to Truth Social and has doubled-down in subsequent statements to the press. (The Pope’s side has also been out with an interview on 60 Minutes with three, shall we say, controversial Cardinals. And Pres. Clinton’s political advisor met with the Pope just before all this began.)

Trump’s lack of equanimity surprised everyone, everyone, that is, who has been living under a rock for the past ten years. At this point had he responded in a statesmanlike manner the world would have stopped on its axis.

Statesmanship

From the moment he descended the golden escalator to declare his intention to run for office, The Donald’s seeming indifference to the words he uses has caused nothing but confusion. Is he really that crazy? Half the country says he is, and the other half says he isn’t. (The rest of the world, by the way, is certain that he is.) He seems intent on driving people mad.

To make the contrast more clear between his words and his deeds, let’s sum up a number of events that, in hindsight, start to make sense:

1. In April 2025, the Trump administration formed a security agreement with Panama after threatening to take it over by force. This effectively removed Chinese influence from this important waterway, an influence that was growing quickly.

2. On January 3, 2026 American forces captured the Venezuelan (not recognized by most countries) president and his wife to face trial in New York. The surviving government is now working very closely with the US. This after China was getting oil from Venezuela at below market prices because the country was sanctioned and could not sell on the open market. Venezuela is estimated to have the largest oil reserves in the entire world. China was able to buy this oil in its own currency and not US dollars.

3. Subsequent pressure and blockade of Cuba has led to negotiations and the release of several thousand political prisoners by the Communists.

4. The February 28 attack on Iran and now blockade of its ports has shut down oil exports from the Gulf, which China relies on. China was also able to buy this oil at below market rates and in its own currency rather than in US dollars.

5. Both the operations in Venezuela and Iran have shown the hollowness of Chinese defense systems, resulting in the demotion, disappearance, and death of many top military officials and defense engineers in China. This significantly reduces the potential of an attack on Taiwan.

6. An agreement between the US and Indonesia was announced this week (although signed in February, interestingly) that strengthens trade and military ties between the two countries.

Here’s a map that might start to make sense of the moves above:

The Trump administration has secured for itself or rendered impassible almost all the major trading chokepoints in the world (Panama, Hormuz, Malacca, Mindoro, Makassar, and Lombok), and certainly the most important ones for China. It has undone the efforts at “de-dolarization” of the oil markets, securing the US dollar as the sole means for trading the most important commodity in the world. (There are some significant economic advantages to this that I won’t get into.)

I could just be reading into these events, but they do seem intentional. They do seem coordinated. But I’ll agree that they don’t seem compatible with posting AI generated memes of oneself as Jesus and then saying, no, I just thought it was a picture of me as a doctor working for the Red Cross. (No, really. This happened.)

Trump at Canossa?

In 1077, the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV knelt in the snow at the castle of Canossa in northern Italy, begging for pardon from Pope Gregory VII. Their dispute was over who was allowed to appoint bishops. (A secret agreement with China—yes, them again—was made under Pope Francis regarding this very issue.) Gregory had excommunicated Henry, which brought him to repent.

Again, only those living under a rock could imagine Donald Trump asking forgiveness from anyone. By all measures he should, however. His words were intemperate and unbefitting a man of his position. But it won’t happen.

Perhaps this is another job for Marco Rubio.