Hard Times At Harvard

Harvard University is the oldest university in the United States having been founded in 1636.

It also has long been considered to be the most prestigious center of learning in the United States.

However, Harvard's brand and reputation is being threatened by a number of self-inflicted wounds that raise questions about its leadership's blind devotion to progressivism rather than education.

Recall that it was early last year that Harvard's President, Claudine Gay, was forced to resign over charges of plagiarism in her academic work including on her doctoral dissertation.

Gay had caused a stir to begin with a month earlier in Congressional testimony when she refused to agree that calls for the genocide of Jews on campus violated Harvard's harassment policy. She stated it depended on the context. 

Gay was the first Black President of the university and the second woman. She served only six months.

Was Gay chosen as Harvard's President based on merit or the fact that she was a Black woman?

In 2023, Harvard lost a major discrimination suit at the U.S. Supreme Court where it ruled that the university was using race as a factor in admission decisions to discriminate in particular against Asian American applicants.

In that case it was found that Asians needed an SAT score of around 1550 (out of 1600) to compete with a White applicant scoring 1410 and a Black applicant scoring 1100 to be admitted as an undergraduate.

Harvard has still not released final data for the Class of 2028 which would be the first year in which new race blind admission standards were supposed to be in place so it is difficult to determine the extent in which the university is complying with the law.

However, the Trump administration has made a series of demands to Harvard to see to it that it is complying with civil rights laws and is also combating antisemitism on campus.

These demands include eliminating  all DEI  programs, implementing merit-based hiring and admission processes, monitoring and reporting conduct violations of international students, banning masks at campus protests, ensuring diversity of views on campus and implementing plagiarism reviews for all faculty members.

Harvard has been resisting making any reforms arguing that it infringes on its academic freedom and institutional autonomy.

In response, the Trump administration has stated it will withdraw $2.2 billion in government grants to Harvard, it is cancelling $60 million in government contracts with the university, it is threatening to revoke the school's tax-exempt status and it is also stating it will not provide visas to its international students to attend classes there next year. International students make up 27% of Harvard's enrollment.

The federal government has a surprising amount of leverage over Harvard.

Almost all of which comes down to dollars and cents.

I guess we will see whether money in more important to Harvard than ideology.

A New York Times reporter stated that the Trump administration holds all the cards in the showdown and Harvard privately admits that they have few, if any good off-ramps, to deal with the government pressure.

The fact is that Harvard does have a very obvious off-ramp.

It just needs to obey the law. 

Do not discriminate on race. 

Get rid of the antisemitism and DEI on campus. 

And make sure their students do the same. 

It is really pretty simple.

It is only difficult if you are intent on pursuing an ideological mission rather than an academic one.

If Harvard does not have enough problems, I couldn't help but chuckle at this story that I came across today.

 

Source: https://nypost.com/2025/05/27/us-news/harvard-professor-of-honesty-stripped-of-tenure-fired-for-manipulating-data-in-studies/?utm_campaign=iphone_nyp&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

The kicker in this story is that the professor, Francesca Gino, who was a celebrated behavioral scientist at Harvard Business School, specializing in the subjects of dishonesty, ethics and integrity.

A professor who was an expert on dishonesty manipulated data in studies on dishonesty?

You literally cannot make this stuff up!

Gino is the first faculty member with tenure to have been terminated by Harvard since the 1940's.

Perhaps this is a sign that Harvard is embarking on a new path.

We can only hope.

However, the leadership of the university has a long way to go to repair the damage they have done to the Harvard brand.

Freedom Is Not Free

It has been a Memorial Day tradition at BeeLine to showcase the beautiful photography of Angela Pan.

Angela lives in Washington, D.C. and many of her best photographs are of the memorials and monuments in that city.

Her work honors those who have sacrificed their lives for our freedom

May we never forget those who made the ultimate sacrifice and also to those who have served our nation beginning with the American Revolutionary War.

The 25,000 who perished in that initial war for freedom could not have known all that was to come as a result of their sacrifice.

They literally reshaped the arc of human history.

Those that followed have allowed the flame of freedom to continue burning bright.

Source: 

Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1009819/total-us-military-fatalities-in-american-wars-1775-present/

All photographs from Angela B Pan Photography.

World War II Memorial

Vietnam War Memorial

World War I Memorial

Iwo Jima Memorial

Manassas Battlefield

Washington Monument

Lincoln Memorial

Arlington National Cemetery

Air Force Memorial

As an added bonus, two of my children were in Washington, D.C. in the last several weeks and took a few photos on their visit I thought were worthy of inclusion on this day of remembrance.

Credit: BeeLine Son

Korean War Memorial
Credit: BeeLine Daughter and Son-in-Law

Credit: BeeLine Daughter and Son-in-Law

Indeed.

Freedom is not free.

In remembrance of all of those who sacrificed for our freedom.

Principled or Practical?

There is a lot to be said about upholding your principles.

However, we live in the real world.

When do your principles have to give way to practical reality?

This was a question that every Republican in the House of Representatives had to answer this week when the "Big, Beautiful Bill" budget reconciliation came up for a vote on the House floor.

The bill (H.R. 1) passed the House yesterday morning by one vote---215 yea, 214 nay.

Two Republicans voted no. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Warren Davidson (R-OH).

Source: https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2025145

They stated they could not vote for a budget bill that did so little to solve the budget problem.

All Democrats voted no.

The Democrats presumably had to face the same question but for them the answer was easy.

In principle, they are against anything that Donald Trump is supporting.

And if they are practical, even if there is some issue that they are in agreement with Trump on, they will never vote for it because it would be the end of their career as a Democrat.

There is no bigger deficit hawk than I am.

I have written over and over again in these pages over the years that the United States is on an unsustainable fiscal path that will end in disaster if it is not corrected.

In fact, the second blog post that I ever authored in BeeLine on January 2, 2011 was on this subject.

I predicted that a train wreck was in our future.

I cited Congressional Budget Office projections that forecast the United States would be paying $800 billion in interest on the federal debt in 2020 and consume 3.4% of GDP. 

In 2011, net interest of the debt was only $200 billion and took up 1.4% of GDP.

We are actually now spending over $1 trillion in net interest on the federal debt or about 3.0% of GDP.

The only saving grace to the federal debt situation is the low interest rates we had over much of the last decade that were much lower than forecast when I wrote that blog post in 2011.

However, we have now entered another world in which interest rates may not be as accommodating in financing over $37 trillion of federal debt.

Net interest on the federal debt over the years is shown in this chart.

Interest on the federal debt as a % of GDP.

The average interest rate on the federal debt was 1.5% in 2021-2022

It was 3.4% at the end of 2024.

Credit: https://x.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1867985707437842933

The trend is not our friend on any of these measures.

Congressmen Massie and Davidson are correct about the principles here.

As I wrote almost 15 years ago, the Federal Debt Train is unstoppable and it needs to be stopped.

The train is just picking up more speed each year.

However, principles only go so far in Washington, D.C. 

There is no political will or urgency to do anything about it right now. 

This year has proven that the Democrats are even opposed to cutting waste, fraud and abuse.

There even was not enough Republican support in Congress to codify even a fraction of the DOGE findings of waste, fraud and abuse at USAID and other agencies.

Source: https://www.startribune.com/gop-balks-at-approving-even-a-fraction-of-musks-doge-cuts/601343865

Is it any wonder that Elon Musk has stepped away from his visible role with DOGE.

He has much better things to do with his time and money.

All he got from the experience is abuse from Democrats and the media.

At some point you have to be practical. 

Elon was smart enough to realize that when this is the environment you are living in.

Thomas Massie and Warren Davidson are both in conservative congressional districts.

President Trump carried Massie's 4th Congressional District in Kentucky by 67%-31% margin.

Trump won Davidson's 8th Congressional District by 61%-38%.

Do the voters they represent care more about principles regarding the federal deficit and debt right now or the practical steps necessary to advance President's Trump's agenda?

Let's be clear, the budget bill was far from perfect.

However, the reality is that the Democrats voted against it because they want higher taxes and much higher spending.

A Democrat budget would result in an even higher deficit.

More importantly, failure to advance this important piece of legislation would risk damaging the entire Trump agenda.

A defeat of this bill would also disillusion Republican voters looking forward to 2026.

If the GOP cannot get their act together and support Trump why should they even bother to vote in 2026?

No one is pure nor is any legislation perfect in Washington, D.C.

Thomas Massie and Warren Davidson are trying to defend their vote on principles.

However, principles also only go so far in Washington, D.C.

Massie and Davidson have failed their constituents by choosing to tilt at windmills rather than providing support for the more important long term agenda of Trump and the Republican party.

Both of these guys will not lose to a Democrat in their congressional district.

However, they might not be safe in a Republican primary if a well-funded, practical-minded conservative, Trump-endorsed candidate decides to take them on.

A primary challenge of these members of Congress should be unnecessary and a wasteful use of resources.

However, so was their inability to put principles aside, understand the practical reality and move on to fight another day.

They might soon find out that their principles are not worth much when you are on the outside looking in and you are not even in the next battle in the long war to make American great again.

The Greatest Political Scandal?

Watergate is generally considered the benchmark when the question is asked as what is the greatest political scandal in American history.

This is the answer that Grok provides when that question was asked.

I have to wonder whether that answer will change as we review what has transpired in politics in the United States over the last few years?

Let's consider a few of the political scandals over the last few years.

1. The Russian Collusion hoax which was initiated and funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign against Donald Trump in the 2016 election and then legitimized by the FBI, the mainstream media and others to hamper Trump during his first term in office.

2. The Covid pandemic. The virus was real but I have to believe that the public health and media response would have been far different if Barack Obama or another Democrat has been in office when it first appeared. Would recommendations have been made to shut down the country? Would the media be publishing the case and death counts daily? A big part of the Covid response was clearly initiated as a way to hurt Trump's presidency.

3. The coverup of the origins of Covid and the NIH funding of gain of function research at the Wuhan lab, the government censorship of those who did not agree with the Covid response and the mandates that were forced on so many without any scientific basis (masking, denial of natural immunity, vaccine mandates etc.) This all seemed to flow from the D.C. establishment and mainstream media circling the wagons to protect the credibility of Dr. Fauci at all costs and attempt to demonize Trump who had referred to Covid as "the China virus". The objective seemed to be to show Fauci/Biden as responsible and "in control" and Trump as irresponsible and "out of control". To this day many Democrats will tell you that Trump told people to ingest bleach to kill the virus even though he never said anything of the sort.

4. The censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story in the lead up to the 2020 election by the mainstream media and the silence of the FBI on the subject even though they knew the laptop to be authentic for almost a year before the story broke in The New York Post a month before the election.

5. The massive number of irregularities in looking at the results of the 2020 election including the refusal of almost every judicial authority to look at the allegations of voting fraud on the merits.

6. The concerted effort to imprison or bankrupt Donald Trump so that he could not run for President in 2024 that appears to have been orchestrated in part by the Biden administration.

7. The coverup of the health and mental condition of Joe Biden starting during the 2016 election campaign where he rarely left his basement and continuing throughout his four years in office. Recent revelations in the newly released book, Original Sin, by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson and the disclosure this week that Biden has advanced stage prostate cancer has underlined the dimensions of the coverup and the scandal. 

As I reflected on all of these scandals I realized what a tangled web they were but I found it interesting that they all had one common theme weaving throughout all of them.

Each of these scandals was motivated by a singular desire to prevent Donald J. Trump from being President or by hampering his effectiveness in office.

Each scandal seems to have as its basis some form of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

The hatred and fear of Trump that caused so many to resort to such irrational, irresponsible, and possibly, criminal actions, should cause us to rethink whether Watergate was the most high profile political scandal in American history.

In fact, an argument could be made that any of the seven scandals listed above could alone supplant Watergate as the benchmark for all other political scandals to be measured.

However, when you consider the fact that each of these scandals had at its core the motivation to harm, limit or damage Trump in order to keep him away from the power of the Presidency, there is little question we have been living through the greatest political scandal of all time during the last eight years.

Watergate is nothing compared to what we have seen with the collusion, coverups and criminality associated with these scandals.

The combination of these scandals represents the greatest assault the United States has ever seen on its democratic processes as all of these scandalous efforts were an attempt to undermine and overrule the will of the American people.

Of course, the irony is that is exactly what those who perpetrated these scandals state that Donald Trump is doing.

Will we ever see any accountability?

The answer to that question may ultimately determine the extent to which our most important government institutions and the mainstream media are able to retain any credibility and respect with the American people.

The final irony is that our government institutions and mainstream media may need Donald Trump to be successful in his agenda and in reestablishing accountability and the rule of law to regain that credibility.

It will not be easy.

Times Change, Truth Is Constant

There is nothing in my lifetime that has surprised me more than the movement to ignore the gender differences that we are born with.

We see it with those who believe that biological men should be able to participate with women in athletic events.

It is even worse seeing those who want to allow life altering sex change surgeries on minors based on how they identify.

Transgenderism is difficult enough to understand as anything other than a mental illness in adults.

It is beyond the pale to believe that any minor has the mental capacity to make a decision to irrevocably change their biological gender.

It was once widely accepted by the psychiatric profession that those who identified as transgender had a mental illness until progressive politics made it unacceptable to have this view.

Let's consider a few examples in my lifetime to understand how far off the rails we are compared to where we once were.

The most popular tv series in the late 1970's and early 80's was MASH which was baed on a medical unit in the Korean War.

One of its main characters was Corporal Klinger who was played by Jamie Farr.

The storyline line involving Klinger was that he was posing as a cross dresser in attempt to be discharged under Section 8 which was used for those unfit for duty due to mental incapacity.

Jamie Farr as Corporal Klinger in MASH
Credit: https://vocal.media/geeks/maxwell-q-klinger-his-evolution-during-m-as-h

In the 1970's biological men were not competing against women in sports. The idea defied all common sense and ideas of fairness.

In fact, in order to maintain the integrity of women's sports the International Olympic Committee used to test athletes for the amount of testosterone in women as the Russians and East Germans were known to use drugs to enhance their performance.

PBS did a documentary series on the doping of East German athletes and the after-effects in 2008.

Source: https://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/doping-for-gold-about-the-episode/7196/

I am also old enough to remember when Democrats and liberals were working hard in the 1970's to get the Equal Rights Amendment ratified as an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

The stated purpose was to insure that equal rights for women in matters of divorce, property, employment and other issues would be guaranteed by the Constitution.

Those opposed to the amendment argued that there was nothing in the Constitution that did not already insure equal rights for women on these issues.

However, opponents of the measure argued that if the amendment was enacted a number of unintended complications might follow. 

Same sex marriages could occur, single sex bathrooms might be eliminated, women could be drafted into military service and women's sports would be threatened.

No one at the time suggested that we could see men posing as women populating prisons. It was too ludicrous to contemplate.

Those supporting the amendment scoffed that any of these outcomes would result because of passage of the ERA.

The irony is that all of this has taken place without the ERA ever being ratified.

What I find most interesting is that human civilization has existed for centuries upon centuries without anyone ever suggesting that men could be women and women could be men.

Is all of what we are experiencing today just another example of human evolution?

Those that believe that gender is not biologically determined may believe that to be true in their mind.

However, what they believe is true is not the same as real TRUTH.

The biology of the body is immutable. The human mind can be altered and change. The human mind is also very powerful. It can make us believe many things that are not true. 

We don't allow a person to amputate their own arm or leg merely because in their mind they do not believe the reality of their own biology.

The same is true of those who suffer with anorexia. These individuals starve themselves as they believe in their mind that they are overweight. We don't ignore the biology, agree with them and take their nourishment away to cater to their delusion. 

In each case, we treat their mental illness with concern and compassion for their long-term wellbeing.

We do not affirm their delusion and let them do long-term harm to themselves. We certainly should  not allow that if they are minor children with a brain that is not fully developed with a lifetime ahead of them.

Centuries upon centuries it was well understood that men are men and women are women.

It was not controversial and it was accepted as TRUTH.

What has changed in the last 40 years?

The biology and science has not changed.

However, look at this data on LBGTQ+ identity by generation.

22% of Generation Z states that they consider themselves to be some part of LBGTQ+.

Only 2% of Baby Boomers do.

2.8% of Gen Z state they are transgender. 

Only .2% of Boomers consider they are.

Even more interesting is this graph of trans identification by year of birth.

Those numbers were very steady for births from 1939 to the early 1980's at around 0.4-.05%.

Beginning with births in the mid-1980's there has been explosive growth in transgender identification  with each successive birth year.

This X posts notes that the rise began when the birth year cohorts reached adolescence after the introduction of the Smart Phone.

Is all of this due to Smart Phones and social media?

Is it something else in the environment?

It most definitely has nothing to do with a change in biology over the last 40 years.

Times do change.

However, truth is constant.

That holds true whether you believe it or not.

Voting Machine or Weighing Machine?

Benjamin Graham was a Wall Street legend who wrote two of the most revered books on investing in stocks---Security Analysis (1934) and The Intelligent Investor (1949).

Warren Buffett credits Graham with much of his early education in security analysis even going so far to refer to him as a "second father".

What did Graham mean with the quote above?

On a short run basis the stock market is driven by sentiment. Prices are determined by human beings with emotions who are attempting to project a company's future worth. It results in a very subjective valuation.

In the long run, stock prices will correlate with the actual financial performance and earnings of the company. An objective valuation for the stock will be reached based on data.

If we ever needed a real-life example of what Graham was referring to when he said the stock market was a voting machine, when he have seen it in 2025.

It has been a wild ride driven by sentiment and emotion as investors react to the Trump presidency.

It started before Trump took office.

Consider this chart of the performance of the S&P 500 between July 1, 2024 and December 31, 2024.

The sentiment of the market after the Trump-Biden debate seemed to be that Trump would win and it would be good for business in the United States.

Biden dropping out and being replaced by Kamala Harris and the unrelenting positive media exposure promoting her created uncertainty that pushed market sentiment negative for several weeks.

However, as that narrative died down and polling started to show Trump was holding his own against Harris throughout the remainder of the summer and early fall, sentiment turned positive again.

Last minute jitters caused a pullback in the last week before the election but Trump's election pushed sentiment higher immediately and led to all time market highs in the month after he was elected.

The following chart shows the performance of the S&P 500 from the beginning of 2025 until the market close yesterday (5/13/25).

A few takeaways.

The S&P 500 is up just under 1% since January 1.

It is down about 2% since Trump was inaugurated.

The S&P 500 is 4% higher now than when Trump first announced his tariff plan on April 2.

It is 20% higher than it was when the market reached its low on April 8 in the wake of the tariff announcements.

What does all of this tell us?

It confirms the truth of Benjamin Graham's quote.

In the short run the market is nothing but a voting machine reflecting current sentiments and emotions of human beings.

The underlying value of companies like Amazon, Tesla and Nvidia do not gyrate wildly from day to day or month to month. However, the stock price can vary dramatically based on sentiment as we have seen recently.

It should be remembered that the value of a company's stock does not necessarily equate to the true value of the company.

The stock price on any given day is based solely on the sentiments of buyers and sellers in the market as to what the value of Apple or Tesla is today.

However, its real value will only be revealed based on the future revenues to be generated, cash flow created and profits derived to the benefit of the shareholders over time.

Those objective measures over the long run will ultimately provide an objective value of the business enterprise the same as a weighing machine can provide the actual weight of an object.

Graham earned his reputation by understanding the difference between the stock price of a company and  its real value and taking advantage of situations where companies were undervalued by the stock market.

For that reason he is considered "the father of value investing". 

Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger carried that thinking even further which at one time made Buffett the richest man in the world without inventing, manufacturing or producing any tangible product or service.

I don't know where Trump's tariff, trade and economic policies will lead longer term any better than CNBC's market maven Jim Cramer knows where the stock market is headed in the short term.

Link: https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1922342327508783506

Are stock prices today overvalued or undervalued compared to what we will find out in the future?

I do know that the United States cannot continue to run $2 trillion annual deficits forever.

I do know that being able to continue financing a $37 trillion national debt will be very challenging.

I know that the United States cannot continue to outsource manufacturing, mining, pharmaceutical and other critical functions to countries like China. That may be a sustainable national strategy with t-shirts and toys but it is not with those things necessary for long term national survival.

I also know that no other country in the world has the constitutional, political and economic system to be able to provide the necessary platform that provides anyone with the smarts, savvy and passion to succeed as easily as it can be done in the United States.

There is a reason why half the world wants to immigrate to the United States.

However, the success of the United States and its businesses is not assured nor automatic.

And we cannot even allow a fraction of those who want to enter the United States to just show up and walk across the border or have the Democrats fly them in so they can retain their political power.

It takes making the right decisions going forward.

And making some very tough decisions that will not be popular with everyone.

It requires a recognition that the United States did a lot more things right than wrong to make it the wealthiest and most powerful nation the world has even seen. We are not going to continue to advance by turning our backs on what made us great.

It means prioritizing merit rather than race or class in decisions about people.

It is necessary to understand that we are best when we are united to make America better rather than creating divisions to tear us apart.

Donald Trump understands all of this.

These principles are at the core of his Make American Great Again policies.

He may not succeed.

However, the voters have stated that he be given the opportunity to try.

Most of the establishment and elites didn't want to give him the chance the first time. They also did everything they could to make sure he did not have a second chance.

This was not because they feared he would fail. It was because they live in fear that he will  succeed.

The votes have been counted but Donald Trump still must face the weighing machine with actual results that can be shown to the American people. 

There are a lot of weighty issues to solve in the United States.

The United States also carries the weight for a good part of the rest of the world.

What Donald Trump does or does not do may not only determine the future course of the United States but of the entire world.

May God Bless the United States of America, President Trump and all our other elected leaders in making the right decisions that will be weighed for our benefit over the long term.

How Much Longer Will Europe Be Europe?

How much longer will Europe be Europe?

I saw this recent factoid about the population of Brussels, Belgium.

Only 1 in 4 of the population of Brussels, Belgium has a Belgian background. 

This leads to a more startling fact.

Brussels is home to the headquarters of both the European Union and NATO so a portion of those numbers are attributable to foreign diplomats and military officers.

However, I don't think most of those expats are rioting about racism.

Brussels has been inundated with Muslim immigrants.

Link: https://x.com/realMaalouf/status/1919741692074168742

The streets of Brussels look more like Kabul or Tehran than the headquarters city of the EU.

How can Belgium be Belgium without Belgians?

Or Germany be Germany without Germans?

Or Italy be Italy without Italians?

How much longer will Europe be Europe?

Demography is destiny.

There is no country in Europe that has a total fertility rate equal to 2.1 which is required for a stable population.

These numbers also understate the TFR of the native born population as immigrants typically have higher birth rates.

For example, Belgium's TFR of 1.53 is comprised of 1.39 for the native born population and 2.23 for those not born in the EU.

Credit: https://x.com/BirthGauge/status/1765720327043129820/photo/1

In France, the comparable numbers are 1.35 and 2.35.

In Germany it is 1.35 and 2.05.

These numbers lead us to an obvious conclusion.

Europe will be a majority Islamist continent at some point in the foreseeable future.

The United States has many problems but they are nothing compared to Europe.

An aging population.

Low birth rates.

Unsupportable pension promises.

Massive social welfare costs that have to be supported.

Increasing social and religious tensions due to the large migrant populations.

High energy costs and religious-like commitment to Net Zero.

A burdensome array of regulations and government bureaucracy that stifles innovation.

For example. look at this graphic that compares the number of public companies in the United States and Europe founded over the last 50 years that have a $10+ billion market cap today.

This is one example of why Europe has fallen substantially behind the United States economy in GDP per capital over the last 25 years.

25 years ago GDP per capita was similar in the U.S., the EU and UK.

The United States has substantially outperformed those on the other side of the Atlantic since 2000 as this graphic indicates.

Source: https://www.northerntrust.com/europe/insights-research/2024/weekly-economic-commentary/europe-struggling-to-keep-pace

Overregulation and lack of innovation is largely responsible for a large gap in productivity improvement between the United States and the EU.

Europe would be facing a lot of problems in the future even without the Muslim invasion that has overtaken many countries on the continent.

However, I believe allowing so many immigrants in from Muslim countries will not allow Europe to address their other problems and recover its prior prominence.

Europe will no longer be Europe.

It will be something far different than it has in the past.

I have told my children and others that if they have an interest in experiencing Europe, its churches, and its history as the foundation of Western culture, I would advise going sooner rather than later. 

The trend is clear and it favors Islam. 

Europe is going to look like nothing we would recognize in another 20-30 years if the trend is not reversed.

And it does not appear that it will be easily reversed when the EU elites are openly targeting those who support nationalism from assuming power such as the AfD party in Germany, Marine LePen in France and the conservative candidates in Romania.

This is the case even though the people in many countries are voting to preserve their culture, heritage and identity.

These people understand that Europe (or substitute another country) will not be Europe if they don't change course they are on.

Why are others intent on destroying the last vestiges of what their forebears built?

Reflecting On V-E Day

Tomorrow is the 80th anniversary of V-E Day---the date that Germany surrendered to the Allies in World War II.

Almost six years of war on the European continent resulted in untold levels of death and destruction.

I recently came across this graphic on the casualty totals in Europe from World War II.

24 million in the Soviet Union.

7.7 million in Germany.

5.6 million in Poland.

1 million in what was Yugoslavia and 825,000 in Greece.

On the other hand, a mere 100 in neutral Switzerland and in Turkey.

In addition, an estimated 250,000 Americans also died in the European theater in World War II.

160,000 Americans perished in the Pacific theater.

It is hard to wrap our minds around these numbers 80 years later.

War really is hell.

When all of the death and destruction was over the United States enacted the Marshall Plan which was designed to assist Europe in rebuilding their economies after the war.

The United States contributed $13.3 billion between 1948 and 1951 to assist in rebuilding the economies of 16 European countries ( Germany and the UK were excluded).

That would amount to $150 billion in today's dollars.

It allowed Europe to rebuild and recover.

At BeeLine we like to put things in context.

Let's put that amount of money in context on what is going on in the world today. 

At the time of the Marshall Plan, the populations of the European countries that received the aid was approximately 143.5 million.

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, aid to Palestinians totaled over $40 billion between 1994 and 2020. Taking account of subsequent aid and inflating the total amount to current dollars would equal about $50 billion. 

This aid flowed in from European and Arab countries in addition to Japan and the United States. One source puts the amount of aid from the United States to Palestine at over $7.6 billion since 1993. 

That would total about $10 billion in today's dollars.

This aid was provided for a population of about 2 million that lived in Gaza.

On a per capita basis, adjusted for inflation, Palestine has received 20 times more aid than the Europeans did to rebuild war-torn Western Europe under the Marshall Plan after World War II.

If you consider just the U.S. aid, Palestine received over four times as much aid per capita as was provided to Europe in the Marshall Plan.

If you look at the money that was given the Palestinians since the mid-1990's, and compare it to the Marshall Plan, you really have to wonder where all the money went? 

The Marshall Plan dollars allowed Europe to rebuild and create robust economies and lives for its people.

Did we get anything to advance the lives of Palestinians from all that aid money?

It seems that most of the money went for the tools of terrorism and to enrich the leadership of Hamas and the PLO

What did this aid get us?

A continuing cycle of terror that culminated in the horrific attack on Israel in October, 2023.

More war from Hamas and more misery for the Palestinian people.

Where are the protests about all of this wasted money and lost opportunity?

There is a reason that the Palestinian people are living an oppressed life.

The numbers above say it all.

War is hell.

Failing to embrace peace and attempting to build prosperity for the populace in its aftermath is worse.

On the 80th anniversary of V-E Day take a moment to reflect on the death and destruction that took place in Europe during World War II.

Much of it was caused by the ambitions and actions of one man.

That reflection might also serve to show how ridiculous the attempts that are made by some to compare Trump to Hitler.

Trump is the one man right now who is working the hardest to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine to put an end to the senseless carnage in that war.

Trump is also the man who was first to make a proposal to rebuild Gaza and establish a path for a viable economy there.

Perhaps it was just a negotiating ploy to get other Arab nations to step up to the task of rebuilding but the fact remains that Trump knows the value of building a sustainable economy in Gaza for stability and peace in the region.

There is much to reflect on this May 8.

Beware Conventional Wisdom and Consensus

I attended a junior high school track meet last week to watch my grandson compete.

He ran the 1600 meters, 400 meters and 4 x 200 meter relay but in between his events I caught some of the high jump competitors.

They all approached the bar and thrust their head and shoulders over the bar going backwards and then pulled their legs over the bar at the end.

 

Credit: https://www.teachpe.com/sports-coaching/athletics/high-jump/high-jump

It is a vastly different technique than what was used in the high jump when I was in middle school.

When Dick Fosbury was a sophomore in high school he could not clear 5 feet which was the minimum qualifying jump height for many high school meets.

Fosbury high jumped like everyone else did in his sophomore year using the so-called ''straddle method" where he approached the bar and thrust one leg up and over the bar and ended up with his body straddling over the bar as he attempted to get his trailing leg over as well.

The Straddle Method
Credit: http://www.knowqout.com/sports/the-man-who-took-jumping-to-new-heights/

However, by the end of his junior year in high school Fosbury jumped 6'3" to break the school record at his high school. A year later he was runner-up in the Oregon state track and field meet.

How did he improve so rapidly?  He ignored the conventional wisdom and found a better way to clear the bar. His new high jump method became known as the "Fosbury Flop."

This is how Fosbury describes it.

I take off on my right, or outside, foot rather than my left foot. Then I turn my back to the bar, arch my back over the bar and then kick my legs out to clear the bar.” 

The Fosbury Flop
Credit: http://www.knowqout.com/sports/the-man-who-took-jumping-to-new-heights/

Five years after Fosbury started experimenting with his new method he won the Gold Medal at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City.

By the next Olympics, 28 of the 40 competitors were using the Fosbury Flop. Today you don't find anyone doing anything else.

Fosbury's idea and his independence about ignoring conventional wisdom changed the world of high jumping.

I doubt that any of those middle schoolers at the track meet even knew that there was a time when everybody did not high jump the way they were doing it.

Pete Gogolak was another individual thinker who came up with a better way to placekick a football.

Gogolak was the first college football kicker to kick the football soccer style rather than the straight ahead style that had been in use for decades. Rather than use the toe to kick the ball, Gogolak kicked the ball with the instep of his foot similar to the way he had learned to kick a soccer ball in his native Hungary.

Pete Gogolak kicking at Cornell University

Credit: Cornell University Athletic Communications

The rest is history. Gogolak (as well as his younger brother Charlie) went on to the NFL and changed the way the ball was kicked forever. There are no longer any kickers who toe the ball like Lou "The Toe" Groza did.

Fosbury and Gogolak proved that conventional wisdom and consensus are not always correct.

We hear a lot about the the consensus of scientists and others these days.

However, conventional wisdom or consensus is not scientific fact.

A scientific fact is the law of gravity, the boiling point of water or the distance to the moon. 

Prior to the 15th century, the consensus of scientists was that the earth was the center of the universe.

In the 18th century, the consensus of medical scientists was that blood letting was the best method to cure illness.

As recently as 35 years ago the consensus was that peptic ulcers were caused by stress. We now know it is caused by bacteria.

I could go on and on. In fact, in most cases like these, the consensus of scientists was proven wrong by one person who did not believe the consensus and proved it wrong.

Much of the success of Elon Musk with Tesla and SpaceX is due to the fact that he is not willing to accept the the constraints of consensus, conventional wisdom or "that is the way it has always been done".

Time and again as challenges were met at SpaceX or Tesla, Elon would be unwilling to accept that something could not be done to solve the problem or improve the process.

Elon Musk believes that anything that is not prohibited by the laws of physics is capable of being accomplished given sufficient knowledge and effort.

Simply stated, if the law of physics does not prevent it, man can attain it. Physics is the only constraint when looking to solve a problem. If physics does not dictate it can't be done, there is a solution.

This philosophy imbues Musk with a unique optimism that allows him and those he leads to overcome incredible obstacles.

For example, consider this image I saw recently about how SpaceX's Raptor engine has evolved under Musk's guidance.

Source: https://x.com/GaurabC/status/1915012865075106199

The Raptor 3 engine delivers 51% more thrust with 36% less weight than the Raptor 1 engine.

All because Elon would not accept conventional wisdom or traditional thinking.

Our experiences of the last few years should have reinforced the basic truth to beware conventional wisdom and consensus.

Do you remember when the consensus was the best way to treat serious Covid was with a ventilator?

Source: https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/03/18/905222/we-need-more-ventilators-heres-what-it-will-take-to-get-them/

Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent manufacturing ventilators in early 2020.

Source: https://x.com/toobaffled/status/1918079681255096627

How often do we hear about the consensus of scientists when it comes to climate change?

Those scientists are telling us that rising CO2 levels are going to warm the planet.

However, in the late 1970's and early 1980's the concerns were just the opposite.

Time magazine's cover story of December 24, 1979 was about the cooling of America.

Source: https://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19791224,00.html

Here is a headline from 1982 about fears that rising carbon dioxide levels could cause another ice age.

Credit: https://x.com/JunkScience/status/1918153976932954416

What is the next item of consensus or conventional wisdom that could be turned on its head?

I am interested in seeing what HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy finds in his study of the possible causes of autism.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj0z9nmzvdlo

The data would seem to suggest that something is not right somewhere.

The consensus is that this is due to genetics or increased awareness in that more cases of autism are being identified and diagnosed than was the case in the past.

It would surprise me if RFK, Jr. can arrive at a satisfactory answer in that short period of time considering the complexity and the wide spectrum of autism cases as well as the entrenched attitudes about the issue today.

For example, consider this headline of last week on the reaction of health experts that HHS is now going to order placebo testing on all new vaccines.

Why would this be alarming?

I think most people assume this is already the standard protocol.

However, this has not typically been done with childhood vaccines.

The argument is that if a new childhood vaccine is developed it is unethical to withhold the vaccine to the placebo test group.

This was also why the Covid vaccine control groups in the clinical test period were cut short which did not allow for a full assessment of possible longer term side effects from these vaccines.

An initial assessment was made that the vaccines were "effective" and it was then determined that all participants in the clinical trial control group should get the vaccine on ethical grounds. This then foreclosed any determination if the vaccines were safe and without side effects for the longer term.

A consensus seems to have also developed during Covid that the Pfizer vaccine was the "better" vaccine.

About 60% more Pfizer Covid vaccines doses were administered in the United States than were Moderna doses.

However, a recent study done involving all Florida adult residents who took the Covid vaccines between December 18, 2020 and August 31, 2021, involving almost 1.5 million matched institutionalized adults who received at least two doses six weeks apart, found the following in a 12 month follow up period.

(All numbers deaths per 100,000)

Covid Mortality                           Pfizer     55.5                   Moderna   29.5               

Non-Covid Mortality                  Pfizer    791.6                  Moderna  588.4

Cardiovascular Mortality           Pfizer    248.7                  Moderna  162.4

All Cause Mortality                     Pfizer    847.2                  Moderna  617.9

Wouldn't it have been nice to have this information earlier?

What was missing from the study was an analysis comparing vaccinated vs. unvaccinated adults. What would that data show?

Of course, we found during Covid that it wasn't just enough to have consensus.

The United States government and many in the mainstream media, and other governments around the world, determined that there was no room for any differences in opinion or dissent on dealing with Covid. Differing views and opinions were censored or labeled as misinformation.

We can only hope that our experience doing Covid is a cautionary tale for the future.

Conventional wisdom and consensus is not always right.

In fact, at times it is 100% wrong.

Dick Fosbury proved that.

So did Pete Gogolak.

Beware conventional wisdom and consensus.

It is only by doing so that societies improve and advance.