Rx Revolution

Prescription drugs were not covered under the original design of Medicare.

Among the reasons were that there were limited prescription drugs in the mid-1960's, most private plans did not include a drug benefit and there were concerns about the trajectory of future costs.

Those concerns were well founded.

Spending on retail prescription drugs has increased from $3.7 billion in 1965 to almost $500 billion today.

Source: Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker

Prescription drugs were added to Medicare under Part D during the George W. Bush administration effective in 2006.

In the last 50 years prescription drugs have been developed and marketed for just about any human condition.

I remember back in the mid-1980's going through a one or two days when I lost my appetite.

I went to lunch with co-workers who were eagerly scanning the menu to bulk up as much as they could. 

I was perfectly content with a small cup of soup and saltines

I felt perfectly fine otherwise. No fever, No aches, No pain or anything else.

My thought at the time was that if I could develop a pill that curbed food cravings in the same way that I felt it would be worth billions of dollars.

Little did I know that 40 years later that day would arrive with the development of GLP-1 drugs.

A medication that curbs food cravings and helps you lose weight without all the mental requirements that usually accompany staying on a diet is worth a king's ransom.

Consider the market possibilities in the United States alone.

The CDC reports that 40.3% of the U.S. population of those age 20 or more is obese (BMI >30).

It is 46.9% for those between the ages of 40-59.

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db508.htm

This translates to more than 100 million adults in the United States with obesity.

74% of American adults are overweight according to the CDC (BMI 25.0-29.9).

There is a lot of money to be made by Pharma with GLP-1 drugs.

There is also tremendous potential for the United States to save on health care costs if fewer people are overweight.

One study calculated that obesity doubled the medical expenditures of adults relative to those of normal weight and raised expenditures on inpatient care, outpatient care, and prescription drugs.

GLP-1 drugs are revolutionary on many dimensions---improving self image, improving health and reducing health costs in addition to the money that Pharma can make by selling them.

Despite high initial costs for the medications of over $1,000 per month when they were first introduced, prices have become more affordable principally due to pressure from the Trump administration.

Understanding the potential cost benefits to Medicare, the Trump administration has negotiated lower costs for eligible enrollees in a pilot program beginning July 1 that will provide the drug for a $50 monthly co-pay.

The Pharma companies have also extended attractive self-pay discount prices.

This is a Google AI overview of typical pricing and a cost comparison overview for various GLP-1 drugs.

What results are patients seeing who are using GLP-1 drugs?

Clinical trials for the first generation of GLP-1 drugs showed typical weight loss of 15% for drugs such as Wegovy and Ozempic after one year.

The second generation GLP-1 drugs such as Mounjaro and Zepbound were more powerful and participants averaged a 20% weight loss.

In addition, many patients see improvements in blood sugar control and cardiovascular protection among other health benefits.

The third generation GLP-1, Retatrutide, is still in clinical trials and does not yet have FDA approval.

However, many believe this drug could eventually end up being the blockbuster medication in this sector.

Weight loss of as much as 25% in 48 weeks has been shown in the clinical trials.

Source: https://revolutionhealth.org/blogs/news/glp-1-weight-loss-medications?srsltid=AfmBOoqrz_Faf3iOtqasO50vSe_YM3uaRz0W8y1BXwneZIXxezjQqdiE

What are the downsides of these drugs?

Any new pharmaceutical comes with questions about possible longer term effects that might not have been discovered in the clinical trials.

Sometimes there are unexpected benefits.

For example, early studies suggest that GLP-1 usage may actually reduce the longer term risk of breast cancer in women.

The two concerns that I see the most involving these drugs are that the weight loss effects are not limited just to fat loss. 25%-40% of the weight loss can be in lean body mass due to the rapid weight loss.

The other concern is that these drugs may not just curb your appetite for food but also work on the portion of the brain that surrounds motivation, drive and pleasure.

Some employers have expressed concerns that some on the drug are not putting in the same effort at work they did before.

The flip side is that it has also been reported that the drug lowers general compulsiveness and cravings.

Some report less drinking, scrolling on their phone or shopping while on the drug.

I was surprised to learn that almost 1 in 5 American households already have had someone take a GLP-1 drug. That is 10 million people. However, that is still only about 10% of Americans who are obese.

The market potential is huge and it has been barely tapped to this point.

There will undoubtedly be further innovations and refinements beyond what Retatrutide will bring.

The costs of the drugs will become more affordable and accessible to more people over time.

Of course, nothing occurs in a vacuum.

What are the possible secondary and tertiary effects of an Rx Revolution of this magnitude?

This is an interesting question in that regard.

There is a basis for that question.

The reported changes in consumption of various food categories of those on GLP-1 medication is profound.

Fruits and vegetables up almost 75%.

Consumption of burgers and pizzas down by a similar percentage.

It appears that the financial impacts of GLP-1 drugs on the food industry are already being felt.

This is especially true in the snack foods sector.

However, this might also be the result of some states no longer allowing snack food to be food stamp eligible.

Frito-Lay has recently closed two plants. 

Smuckers has written down almost $3 billion in total of the $5.6 billion it paid in 2023 for Hostess which makes Twinkies and Ding Dongs.

We are in the midst of an Rx Revolution.

However, that revolution may eventually encompass much, much more beyond the pharmaceutical sector.

The HInge of History

It has been said that history is written by the winners and victors.

Losers do not often get the chance to write history books.

Napoleon said it as did Churchill.

Donald J. Trump sits on the hinge of history right now.

What happens in Iran over the coming months will either place Trump among the most consequential Presidents in the modern era 

OR

His legacy will be defined by a failed attempt to confront Iran and remake the geopolitical future of the Middle East.

Trump literally sits astride a hinge of history that could go either way.

Whether he likes it or not, the final verdict on Trump's legacy will be defined by Iran.

If Trump is successful in neutering Iran, its terrorist meddling in the Middle East, providing more freedom to the Iranian people and denying them a nuclear weapon, he will be the winner and history will treat him exceedingly well.

If the Iranian regime survives relatively intact, the Middle East continues to be a hot mess, the Iranian people continue to suffer and the nuclear threat is not definitively quashed, Trump will be end up being compared to Jimmy Carter rather than Abraham Lincoln or FDR.

The hinge of history can swing either way as I write this.

And it could swing widely either way.

Trump took a huge gamble in confronting Iran.

Doing so took enormous courage that no one else in the world was willing to do over the last 47 years.

At this juncture, it bears repeating what I wrote at the beginning of the Iran conflict when the first bombs starting dropping.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not Afraid To Be Great

(published March 2, 2026)

Eight years ago, one year into Donald Trump's first term as President, I wrote this.

I don't know if Donald Trump will be a great President, average, or terrible when history is written.

What I do know is that you cannot be great unless you are not afraid to be great.

I also know that Donald Trump is not afraid to be great.

That has been proven to be even truer in Trump's second term.

Consider just a few examples over the last year.

Proceeding with his tariff strategy despite claims by almost all economists that it would lead to higher inflation and wreck the U.S. economy.

It hasn't.

Launching an audacious bombing mission last year to take out Iran's nuclear facilities.

Using U.S. Special Forces to snatch Venezuelan President Maduro and bring him to the United States for trial while also stopping the flow of oil from that country to Cuba and China.

Of course, the biggest of all bets was Trump partnering with Israel in the last few days to target Iran's military capabilities and its terror-supporting regime.

You could not put down a much bigger bet than that one.

If Trump is successful, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism will be neutralized.

A potential nuclear and strategic threat will be eliminated.

The Middle East might actually find peace.

Israel might find itself secure.

The United States might be able to pull back its significant military presence in the region.

China, which has relied on cheap oil from Iran and Venezuela, may have to turn to the United States for oil to power its economy.

The Iranian people will be freed from the brutal theocracy they have had to endure for almost 50 years.

The benefits of Trump's move, as he would say, are HUUUUUGGE!

Of course, huge potential benefits invariably involve significant risks.

What happens if Iran's missiles do significant damage to the US Naval fleet?

Or to American allies such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or the UAE?

What if the world economy starts to teeter with an extended war?

What about the price of oil?

Or a crash in the stock market.

What if Iran retaliates with sleeper cells in the United States?

Any time you undergo military action there are second, third and fourth order effects that can occur.

Of course, great Presidents usually come about by facing great challenges. In many respects, the times make the man. It was certainly true with Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt.

Greatness does not follow when taking the easy road. It only graces those who are not afraid of the challenge on the hard road.

Success is never assured. Trump may fail bigly. However, he is not afraid to be great. 

That in itself is a rare commodity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The resolution of the Iran conflict has not gone as quickly as Trump forecasted at the outset.

The Iranian regime has also proven more resilient and sinister than expected.

After the initial bombing campaign, Trump figured he could negotiate a deal to get what he wants rather than bomb Iran back to the stone age.

It proved hard to negotiate when you were not sure who had the power in Iran to negotiate with and also have confidence the deal would be honored.

Iran clearly believes that they could delay, stall and wait out Trump in a test of wills.

Trump finally lost patience and resumed the bombing on Wednesday.

Someone blinked in the aftermath of the recent strikes and Trump called off another night of bombing on Thursday afternoon  claiming there is a deal.

Of course, we have heard that before.

Can we believe it?

Can we believe anything the Iranians say?

Will the nuclear material be removed from Iran?

Is it really going to change the behavior of the Iranian regime long term and bring stability to the region?

Can it be said that Donald Trump won when all is said and done?

Donald Trump is abreast the hinge of history.

The answers to those questions will likely determine Trump's place in history.

However, if I were Trump, I would not trust my legacy to any "deal" with Iran.

I would want an undisputed, inarguable, irrefutable victory.

Deals rarely are wins. 

The best ones are win-wins.

History thereby is written by two rather than by one.

Two Worlds, One Nation

Those of us who live in the United States live in one nation but it is comprised of two worlds.

I don't think that the United States has ever been more widely divided.

That includes the Civil War period.

During the Civil War there was an enormous fracture in the country.

However, it was centered mostly around the issues of slavery and states' rights.

Today the ideological divide encompasses almost everything.

Abortion.

Climate Change.

Crime.

DEI.

Immigration.

The Economy.

Race Relations.

Transgender Policy.

Energy Policy.

Foreign Policy.

Iran.

The differences are not shades of gray either.

In many cases there are policy differences that are polar opposites.

It even extends to whether we want to fix the leaks and change the color of the Reflecting Pool on the National Mall.

Contrast what was happening on the White House lawn during the Biden years to what is going to occur in the same space when a Ultimate Fighting Championship event is to be held there on June 14.

 

Source: https://x.com/WhiteHouse46/status/1667701935284137985

Could there be a larger divide?

Consider this recent Elon University poll that asked the question of of whether there was any other country on earth that respondents would rather live than in the United States.

55% of Democrats stated they would rather live in another country.

Only 10% of Republicans would.

Source: https://eloncdn.blob.core.windows.net/eu3/sites/819/2026/05/Elon-University-Poll-America250-topline-6-2-26.pdf

On the question "Are you proud to be an American?".

83% of Republicans stated that statement was very true.

Only 26% of Democrats did.

Source: https://eloncdn.blob.core.windows.net/eu3/sites/819/2026/05/Elon-University-Poll-America250-topline-6-2-26.pdf

Those poll results tell you everything you need to know.

Two separate worlds exist in one nation.

Can the division be resolved?

We have actually been living through a fairly unique period in American history with the amount of political division that has existed over the last 30 years.

Neither the Republicans or Democrats have been able to gain significant majorities in Congress.

This is the exception rather than the rule in American history.

Consider this chart showing the control of Congress between 1855 and 2027.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses#/media/File:Combined--Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_-_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.png

It has been generally true that one party has held a dominant position in Congress in which majority support for its agenda is backed by voters.

This was the case for the Republicans for most of the period between the Civil War and the Depression.

The Democrats then took majority power beginning with FDR and the New Deal until the mid-1990's when we entered the current division in both the country and in Congress.

As you can see from the chart above. neither party has been able to capture a solid majority of support during the lst 30 years further underscoring that we are two worlds living in one nation right now.

Can we expect this to change?

History tells us that it will.

How will it come about?

Conflicts and wars do not end until one side accepts their fate.

Peace is not achieved until one side realizes the balance of power is such that it is futile to continue the conflict.

The costs of continuing the conflict are finally determined to be greater than the hope that any benefit is going to be gained.

There are times that both sides come to that conclusion, each accepts their fate, and an uneasy truce is the result.

However, true peace is generally only achieved when one side effectively admits that their cause is lost and ceases putting up a fight.

Will we get to that point with Iran?

This was the case with Germany and Japan in World War II and it was the case with the Confederacy in the Civil War. 

In politics, it manifests itself in a little different way. 

One side becomes effectively marginalized and has limited power when they are on the losing side of a big issue. 

This was the case with Democrats who opposed the abolition of slavery in the name of states' rights in the 1860's. As a result, Republicans took control of the levers of power in the U.S. Congress and the Democrats lost their central issue based on the will of the American people.

The same was true for Republicans in the 1930's as they argued against the expanded use of federal powers beginning with The New Deal. They lost the argument to the American people and were in a period of irrelevancy in Congress for over 60 years.

It should not go unnoticed that both of these crisis periods in American history acted as a catalyst for one party to become dominant with the American voters. One party was judged to be with the mainstream of American voters. The other essentially became marginalized.

It remains to be seen how the two worlds we live in right now in the United States will come together with one worldview.

The American people will make that determination.

That determination will probably be made by those who identify as Independents who now make up a record 45% of the electorate after surging during the last 15 years.

Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/700499/new-high-identify-political-independents.aspx

Independents are the group that have literally found themselves caught in the middle as Republicans got more conservative and Democrats got much more liberal in the last 30 years.

Republicans who identify as conservatives has risen by 18 points since 1995.

Democrats who identify as liberal rose by an astounding 36 points over the same time period,

However, the political views of Independents continued to be fairly stable.

Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/700499/new-high-identify-political-independents.aspx

The current two worlds, one nation divide we are in will continue until such time as Independents make.a decisive ideological or political shift one way or the other.

I am uncertain of the catalyst that will lead to this shift but I would be surprised if we are still as divided as we are now by the time the 2032 elections have been decided.

Will it be the Republicans or the Democrats who become marginalized by that time?

Challenging Times Ahead For Colleges

There is a lot going on lately in the world of colleges and universities.

Harvard received a lot of attention lately with news that its faculty had approved a cap on the number of A grades that could be provided in each class.

Source: https://www.harvardmagazine.com/university-news/harvard-faculty-approve-a-cap-on-a-grades

In 2025, a Harvard analysis found that solid A’s comprised 60 percent of all undergraduate letter grades  up from just 24 percent in 2005.

Here is a sampling of the percentage of A's in some Harvard programs last year.

Seeing all those A's in Chemical and Physical Biology makes me believe that those Harvard professors are propping up the academic record of the Pre-Med majors.

However, it is in the Arts and Humanities that the greatest grade inflation has occurred.

80% of all grades given out in those divisions at Harvard were A's.

Harvard's average GPA was in the 2.5-2.7 range in the 1950's.

It had risen to 3.8 in 2022.

Credit: https://grimoiremanor.substack.com/p/will-grade-caps-improve-student-learning

At the same time, more and more universities have realized that their elimination of standardized tests (such as the SAT and ACT) in the admission process was a big mistake.

Source: https://thecollegeinvestor.com/77443/colleges-are-requiring-sat-and-act-scores-again-heres-the-full-list-for-2027/?srsltid=AfmBOop_gB9aVWvx3IyYKYwQKTK22Xtj6IT5M-ID4Xv-kI5hnadLF582

The University of California system has not yet followed suit but hundreds of UC faculty in the STEM fields in particular have urged a return of the SAT and ACT in admission decisions.

Source: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-05-27/uc-math-professors-demand-return-of-sat-for-stem-admissions

Without standardized testing in admissions, professors said they don’t know whether incoming students can handle college-level math. The open letter, addressed to top UC leaders, asks for SAT or ACT exams to be required beginning in fall 2027 and for STEM faculty to be given formal oversight of readiness standards in their majors.

“We now observe preparation gaps so severe that instructors must reteach middle-school mathematics while simultaneously teaching the material students need for sciences, engineering, economics, and other quantitatively demanding fields,” they warned.

At the beginning of the trend to do away with the SAT and ACT tests I predicted it would not end well.

The argument was that the tests were racist and not representative of how a student would perform in college.

This was despite reams of data over the years that proved the exact opposite.

As I pointed out in my blog post "The SAT Meets PC" in 2018, it also ignored the fact that the SAT was originally developed in order to level the playing field and provide a means for elite colleges to identify ability and aptitude in students that reached beyond the family connections and East Coast boarding schools that dominated Ivy League admissions before its introduction.

Using a standardized test that measured one's aptitude for college work leveled the playing field. It allowed schools to find overlooked talent who may not have had all the advantages of the prepsters on the East Coast.

It did not matter if you hailed from Michigan, Montana or Mississippi and did not have the same access to a quality high school education that the affluent had. The SAT showed whether you had the ability to do the work. The SAT also allowed admissions officers to objectively compare a student from the Choate School with students from Chillicothe, Ohio and South Central LA.

You can therefore argue that standardized testing has been one of the biggest factors allowing deserving, overlooked people to be recognized and receive opportunities to get ahead in the military, business and education  sectors over the years. This led to millions being elevated in their class status in the United States.

In fact, it would be difficult to point to anything else that has had a bigger impact on improving class mobility and opportunity for deserving people over the last 75 years.

What was the real reason that the SAT, ACT and other standardized tests came under attack?

They were an obstacle for colleges and universities to admit who they wanted to admit.

The problem was that too many of those students were ill-prepared to do the work.

Connected to all of this we are now looking at increasing enrollment pressures for colleges in the coming years.

The number of 17 year olds, which is the primary pool for future college enrollees, will plummet over the next 15 years.

There will be 700,000 fewer 17 year olds in 2035 than there were in 2025.

At the same time, we are also seeing a massive shift in views regarding the importance of a college education.

Those views have largely been shaped by increases in college costs that have vastly outstripped household income and home purchase costs along with almost everything else.

This has resulted in more and more people to question the return on investment of a college education and that trend is likely to accelerate in concert with concerns about what effects AI will have on many college majors.

All of these facts will undoubtedly exert considerable financial pressures on mamy colleges over the next decade. 

Colleges in the Northeast and Midwest will face the toughest environment due to a combination of a greater number of educational institutions and poorer demographics than in the South and West---excess supply and decreased demand---twin financial stressors.

Forbes magazine recently did a financial report card on small private colleges that were in the worst shape.

Schools like Hiram College, Baldwin Wallace University and Wittenberg University in my home state of Ohio were listed as those that were at high risk financially as were Rider University and Drew University in New Jersey.

Can schools like these survive the next 10 years?

Finally, take into account the fact that most colleges could not survive at all if it were not for the federal student loan program.

Federal student loans provide about $100 billion to colleges and universities annually.

The simple truth is that college costs could have never gone up at the rate they have without a supply of money to pay for it. 

It is not a coincidence that college costs have gone up in lock step with the availability of student loan debt.

Student loan debt outstanding is $1.7 trillion compared to $400 billion 20 years ago.

Just as is the case with health care providers, colleges have become heavily dependent on the flow of federal money into the system.

As more student loan funds became available, the easier it became for colleges to raise tuition costs.  Ironically, a program that was designed to assist students to afford college seems to be making it more unaffordable with each passing year.

The obvious conclusion is that increases in college costs and the debt supporting it are unsustainable longer term.

Over the next decade more and more colleges will have to deal with this reality.

The Big Beautiful Bill that passed last year in Congress had several provisions in it to encourage the highest cost colleges to reduce their prices.

This was done through the use of limits on student loans.

These limits were targeted most specifically at graduate/professional programs which have disproportionate levels of debt compared to their size.

Graduate school borrowers make up over 50% of all outstanding federal student loan debt but only represent 20% of the borrowers.

These are the limits of the amounts of federal student loans that can be borrowed compared to previous law.

Source: https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/an-analysis-of-the-one-big-beautiful-bill-acts-effect-on-student-loans/

There is no limit on students that secure private loans.

The new law also institutes a “do no harm” test for higher education. The law revokes a degree program’s eligibility for federal student loans if the earnings of its graduates are too low relative to the cost required to obtain a degree.

The provisions of the law take effect for new loans taken after July 1, 2026.

It appears the new rules are already having some effect on high college costs.

The University of California Irvine just announced it is reducing costs for its MBA programs to make them more accessible and affordable in reaction to the new loan limits.

Source: https://thecollegeinvestor.com/80372/uc-irvine-cuts-mba-tuition-to-99000-to-slip-under-new-federal-loan-cap/

The program cost reductions were $30,000 to $48,000.

Source: https://thecollegeinvestor.com/80372/uc-irvine-cuts-mba-tuition-to-99000-to-slip-under-new-federal-loan-cap/

All of this raises question as to how it is that UC Irvine decided they could charge so much with federal student loans picking up the tab but not so much when that money was no longer an option?

We can only hope that this is the beginning of a trend.

However, the overriding trend is that colleges are going to be in for a challenging decade ahead.

It is likely that in ten years the higher education landscape will look a lot different than it does today.

Pride Before A Fall?

June is Pride Month.

The Pride we are supposed to celebrate is not American Pride or Pride In Work or Pride In Accomplishment.

You know the Pride I am talking about it.

It has become so ingrained in our society that every major league baseball team except for one (the Texas Rangers) is going to have a Pride Night this season.

My hometown team, the Cincinnati Reds, gave away an exclusive Reds Pride cross body bag (I kid you not) on Pride Night a few nights ago.

You will see numerous other professional franchises and other businesses also lining up with other "Pride" promotions this month.

It has become impossible to get away from the political posturing on the LGBTQ+ issue whether it is sports or anything else in our popular culture today.

I am not so sure that this attempt by KLM Airlines to show inclusivity worked out so well in making the point they wanted to.

Pride Month is only a small part of this as I pointed out in a blog post from two years ago.

There are plenty of other opportunities to recognize the LGBTQ+ community throughout the year.

The calendar has gotten awfully crowded with LGBTQ+ visibility, awareness and pride days, weeks and months.

One person did a calculation on X that determined that there are 145 calendar days in the year devoted to celebrating LGBTQ+ in some way.

Has all of this gotten a little out of hand?

A few examples.

February 19-25---Aromantic Spectrum Awareness Week

Month of March---Bisexual Health Awareness Month

March 1---Zero Discrimination Day

April 12---Day of Silence

April 13---International Day of Pink (Opposing Homophobia)

April 26---Lesbian Visibility Day

May 16---Honor Our LGBT Elders Day

May 19--International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia

May 19---Agender Pride Day

May 22---Harvey Milk Day

Maty 24---Pansexual and Panromantic Awareness and Visibility Day

Month of June---Pride Month

June 28---Stonewall Riots Day

June 28---Gay Pride Day

July 6---Omnisexual Visibility Day

July 11-17---Bisexual Awareness Week

July 14---International Non-Binary Day

July 16---International Drag Day

August 14---Gay Uncles Day

September 15-21---Bisexual Awareness Week

September 23---Bisexual Visibility Day

Month of October---LBGT History Month

October 11---National Coming Out Day

October 17-24---Genderfluid Visibility Week

October 19---Spirit Day ((Support for LGBTQ+ Youth)

October 20---International Pronoun Day

October 20-26---Asexual Awareness Week

October 26---Asexual Awareness Day

Month of November---Trans Awareness Month

November 6---Trans Parent Day

November 8---Intersex Solidarity Day

November 13-19---Trans Awareness Week

November 20---Trans Day of Awareness 

December 1---International AIDS Day

December 8---Pansexual Pride Day

A Gay Uncles Day? I am an uncle. Is there no day for heterosexual uncles like me?

A Trans Parent Day? Why isn't Mother's Day or Father's Day sufficient?

Honor Our LGBT Elders Day? What happened to just honoring all elders?

How have we gotten to this point?

A recent Gallup survey indicated that 9% of the U.S. adult population identifies as LGBTQ+.

However, almost 60% of that total is bisexual.

Lesbian and gays make up only 3% of the population. Transgender another 1%.

Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/332522/percentage-americans-lgbt.aspx

It is also important to understand that these numbers are overwhelmingly skewed by responses from those between the ages of 18-29.

23% of those in the 18-29 age cohort identified as LGBTQ+ in the survey.

Of that number, females outnumber men by almost a 3:1 margin (31.4% of 18-29 age females identify as LGBTQ vs. 11.4% of men.).

It should be noted that the overwhelming majority of women in that number also identify as Bisexual rather than lesbian, queer or trans.

By contrast, only 2.3% of those age 65+ identify as LGBTQ+ in any form.

Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/332522/percentage-americans-lgbt.aspx

Did something in basic biology change over the years or is this an indication that media, entertainment. cultural and peer influences have been primarily responsible for this change?

However, there are hints that the trends that have driven LGBTQ identification among young people are fading.

CDC data from its Behavioral Risk Surveillance System shows a sharp decline in those identifying as lesbian, gay or bisexual over the last couple of years after surging in the previous decade.

Note that there has been almost no change at all for those in the age 45+ age group over the entire period.

It has consistently hovered in the 2%-3% range.

Credit: https://www.generationtechblog.com/p/non-heterosexual-identity-is-in-free

Support for LGBTQ+ issues from the voting public has also started to fade in the last couple of years according to another Gallup survey that was just released this week.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/media/gallup-poll-finds-americans-support-lgbtq-issues-sliding-backward-amid-cultural-shift

Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/710810/support-lgbtq-issues-remains-down-peak.aspx

This has been driven principally by a shift in views about the morality of gay and lesbian relationships and transgenderism among Republicans in particular but is also seen with Independents as well.

56% of Republicans said that homosexuality was morally acceptable in 2022.

That numbers has fallen to 35% today.

Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/710810/support-lgbtq-issues-remains-down-peak.aspx

22% of Republicans said it was morally acceptable to change one's gender in 2021.

It is now just 5%.

However, even among Democrats, support for changing one's gender as being morally acceptable has dropped from 67% in 2021 to 60% today.

What do I see as behind these changing attitudes, particularly with Republicans and Independents?

The LGBTQ+  activists have overplayed the Pride mantra.

We were told that "love is love" and that gays deserved respect and the opportunity to marry like everyone else.

If they had that, everything would be fine.

However, all that did was embolden the LBGTQ activists to do more to indoctrinate children and attempt to normalize more of these behaviors.

In addition, transgenderism was pushed on us to the extent that no one could even define what a woman is, we needed to surgically change the gender of children and biological men had to be allowed to play women's sports.

All of it was then put under the PRIDE umbrella and pushed at everyone and in everything including attending a simple baseball game.

All of it reminds me of this simple Bible verse.

Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

Proverbs 16:18 KJV

Has the fall begun?

This and That---June 1, 2026

A few random observations, charts and factoids to provide some context on what is going on in the world.

BeeLine Record For Most Views 

I recently reported that BeeLine had become one of the top 1% of blogs with an average of more than 100,000 monthly views.

Source: Google AI 

Source: Google Analytics

In May, 2026, BeeLine content had almost 160,000 views in the 30 days ending May 30. 

Bloggers can make decent monthly incomes if they generate consistent content and a high volume of monthly views.

However, it has never been my intent to monetize BeeLine's content. 

I have never done it and will never do it in the future.

For context, this chart shows the earning potential of bloggers based on a Blogging Income Survey from 2024.

Source: https://www.productiveblogging.com/how-much-do-bloggers-earn-2024/

My reward will continue to be the VALUE you receive from BeeLine and nothing more.

Thank you for your support and referrals.

Is It Self Control?

In my last blog post I wrote about the Dunedin Study and its conclusion that self control was the most important factor in determining how an individual would succeed in life.

I could not help but think about that study when I saw this FBI data on murderers sorted by race, gender and age.

A few observations.

• Black males between the ages of 5-14  (4.9/100,000) are more likely to be murderers than White males between the ages of 35-64 (3.6/100,000).
• Black females between the ages of 15-24 (16.9/100,000) are 12 times more likely to murderers than White females of the same age (1.4/100,000) and 3.4 times more than Hispanic females (4.8/100,000) of the same age.
• Overall, Black males commit murder at a rate of 18 times that of White males over their lifetimes.

Credit: https://x.com/IsabellaMDeLuca/status/2056475983067156882

Is this due to poverty, culture, missing fathers in the home or the lack of basic self control?

It is probably a combination of all four but more emphasis on the importance of teaching self control at early ages could have real benefits for society.

Political Divide In Georgia

Interesting data from the recent primary election in the state of Georgia.

89% of those who cast Republican ballots were White.

On the other hand, 59% of those who voted Democrat were Black.

Males voted Republican by a margin of 9.4 points.

Females voted Democrat by 17.7 points.

42% of all Democrat votes were cast by Black women.

White males made up only 9% of all Democrat votes.

Source: https://x.com/TonerousHyus/status/2059292931786207468

Should Have Kept Betting on Elon

Daimler AG, the parent company of Mercedes Benz, acquired a 9.1% equity interest in Tesla for $50 million in 2009.

It eventually sold the entire stake by 2014 for $740 million---a very handsome profit.

If held, that position today would be worth $140 billion.

The current market cap of Mercedes-Benz Group AG (the new name for the company since 2022) is $58.5 billion.

Mercedes makes great vehicles.

However, it could have done much better just betting on Elon Musk.

It is also worth noting that a $2,600 investment in Tesla at its IPO in 2010 would be worth $1 million today.

Musk is scheduled to take SpaceX public on June 12 with a target valuation for the company at $1,8 trillion.

If the IPO is successful at that target price SpaceX would have a higher market cap than Tesla which is currently around $1.6 trillion.

Can We Expect A Conservative Pope in 40 Years?

The recent leaders of The Vatican might be considered a little on the liberal side.

Some suggest that Pope Leo and Francis before him would be considered progressive socialists if they were politicians.

I thought data below provided interesting context.

Priests ordained in the 1960's and 1970's describe their theology overwhelmingly as progressive.

However, in the last 20 years. the theological trend of newly ordained priests has moved dramatically towards more conservative views.

This might mean that the odds are high that we will get a conservative Pope in about 40 years.

Self Control and Success

A number of years ago I came across an experiment in which preschoolers were placed in a room with a delectable snack right in front of them---a marshmallow or cookie.

The child was told that the treat was for them.

However, at that point the person running the experiment told the child they had to leave the room for 15 minutes.

The youngster is told they can eat the treat now but if they wait until the adult gets back they can have two treats rather than just one.

The original experiment was done by Stanford psychologist Walter Mischell in 1970 to attempt to measure the extent that self gratification early in life predicts later life success.

It can be quite humorous watching what children go through in order to maintain self control.

The researchers generally found that the children that were the most successful at overcoming immediate self gratification did things to distract themselves from the prize in front of them.

Here is a YouTube video of a couple of kids that did the experiment in the U.K.

If the video does not play in your browser here is the link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8M7Xzjy_m8

I have done the experiment with all of my nine grandchildren.

Here is a photo from the first one I did with two of my older grandsons from almost a decade ago.

They both ended up with two marshmallows.

In follow up studies, Mischell found correlations between the results of the marshmallow experiment and success later in life.

Some have questioned the study and argued that a significant factor in whether a child in these experiments is willing to delay gratification is the level of trust they have in who made the promise.

Trust in believing there will really be a larger reward is undoubtedly a significant factor in delaying gratification that is right before you.

I recently came across another study (credit to https://x.com/sukh_saroy/status/2058099716790043074 who wrote a great summary of the research) that reinforced the importance of delayed gratification and self-control as a foundational element in a successful life.

It is referred to as The Dunedin Study that involved husband and wife researchers Avshalom Caspi and Terrie Moffitt.

It started in 1972 at a single hospital in Dunedin, New Zealand. Every baby born there in a 12-month window was enrolled. 1,037 of them in all. The study is still running 45 years later.

Incredibly, over 90 percent of the original participants are still being tracked. Most longitudinal studies like this fail to retain 50 percent of participants within 10 years.

The researchers measured everything. Blood. DNA. Brain scans. Income. Criminal records. Romantic relationships. Drug use. Dental health. Sleep. Mental health. Lung function. 

They flew participants who had moved abroad back to Dunedin every few years for a full day of assessments. Some of those people now live in seven different countries. They still show up.

Perhaps motivated by Mischell's research a few years before, the researchers also measured each child's self control.

They watched 3-year-olds in a research lab and rated their ability to wait, regulate frustration, follow instructions, and resist impulsive reactions. 

They added teacher ratings and parent ratings. They added the children's own self-reports as they grew older. They combined all of it into a single highly reliable score of self control

When those in the study reached age 32 they assessed adult outcomes for the group on their physical and mental conditions, substance dependence, financial difficulty, criminal convictions and single parenting.

Everything pointed to one critical element that separated those with successful vs. unsuccessful outcomes.

Self Control.

If you think about it, self control is central to so many of life's decision.

Do we choose yogurt or a doughnut for breakfast?

Do you choose to stay home and study the night before an exam or go to a party?

Do you go to bed with someone on the first date or kiss them on the cheek and go home?

Do you react with anger at the smallest offense or take it in stride?

Do you save for retirement or do you spend everything and more to live for today?

The study revealed that children with the highest self control traits had the best adult outcomes.

When they controlled for IQ, family income, social class, even the same parental upbringing (siblings), the result held.

In fact, it was also clear that the higher the self control scores were as children the better the outcomes as adults. Lower self control ended up with worse outcomes. There was a consistent correlation.

The finished paper they published in 2011 was plainly titled.

Source: https://dunedinstudy.otago.ac.nz/files/1651629222231.pdf

Those that want to diminish the study's findings argue that the conclusion sounds like a life sentence handed down to a child before they even start living due to one single inborn trait.

However, the authors pointed out in the study that while some children had naturally higher abilities at self control, they saw improvements in self control between childhood and adolescence. Those individuals  then ended up with adult outcomes far better than their early scores predicted.

Therefore, self control is not a fixed trait. It is a muscle than can be developed even through adulthood.

The reason adults struggle with money, weight, addiction, and relationships is rarely intelligence. It is the gap between what you want right now and what you want in ten years, and which side of that gap your nervous system is built to listen to.

However, self-control is the one childhood trait that nobody seem to focus on very much. Schools focus on test scores. Parents focus on activities for their kids or are too busy and do not have the patience to teach self control. Coaches focus on performance. The part of the brain that decides between five seconds from now and five years from now is left to develop on its own. 

The data shows it usually does not develop very well by itself.

This leads to the question as to what improving a child's self control at a young age would ultimately mean to society overall?

Better health outcomes. Less crime. More financial stability. Better personal relationships and fewer one-parent families. 

It would undoubtedly lead to a better society.

For example. consider the differences that were found in the study between low and high self control in childhood and the chances that an adult will end up being a single parent.

60% in the low self control quintile ended up in a single parent child rearing situation vs. less than 30% in the high self control cohort.

Source: https://dunedinstudy.otago.ac.nz/files/1651629222231.pdf

In the case of criminal convictions, the low self control group as children ended up with three times the criminal convictions as adults in the high self control group.

Source: https://dunedinstudy.otago.ac.nz/files/1651629222231.pdf

What I also found interesting in all of the research findings of the Dunedin Study is that the results and conclusions are clearly delineated in the Bible.

The Bible continually warns us about the need for self control, to avoid temptations of the flesh and to put our faith and trust in God.

A man without self-control

is like a city broken into and left without walls

Proverbs 25;28

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

Galatians 5:22–24

For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins.

2 Peter 1:5–9

For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

Romans 8:13

Proving once again there is nothing new under the sun.

Most everything that leads to success requires that you start with self control.

The Bible teaches it.

The Dunedin Study documented it.

As for you, after reading this put aside your own self control.

Forward this to someone who might benefit from this information.