An Inconvenient Truth + 20

Al Gore first put together his slide show about what he claimed would be the devastating effects of global warming over 20 years ago.

With the help of Producer Laurie David, the Gore material was made into a documentary in 2006 entitled, "An Inconvenient Truth" for which the film won the 2007 Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature.

In the film Gore claimed that our weather would get increasingly warmer due to man-made effects caused by the use of fossil fuels. 

Our climate would become more severe with more hurricanes, tornadoes, drought and wildfires. 

The Arctic would be ice-free in summers by 2016 and polar bears would become extinct.

Gore stated that the snows of Mount Kilimanjaro would be gone within a decade.

Humanity itself would be threatened by climate change.

In his previous book, Earth in the Balance,  published in 1992, Gore predicted that in the next few decades "up to 60 percent of the population of Florida may have to be relocated" due to rising sea levels.

That claim was consistent with this New York Times article from 1995 claiming that by 2020 most of the beaches on the East Coast of the United States would be gone.

Let's not forget this prediction that Greta Thunberg amplified on social media in 2018 that she subsequently deleted five years later.

I wonder why?

Now that 20 years have passed, how have the predictions of Al Gore and all the other climate alarmists turned out?

There has been a slight increase in global temperatures amounting to about 0.53 deg C since 2006.

Credit: https://x.com/JunkScience/status/2062312556564189292

Global satellite data is only available since 1979.

However, temperatures are still much lower than they were in the 1930's despite massive increases in the amounts of global carbon emissions over the last 100 years.

That is evident in looking at the number of extreme heat days in the United States since 1895.

The extreme heat in the 1930's caused massive drought conditions in the Midwest and resulted in 

2.5 million people leaving their homes in a desperate migration in search of work and better living conditions. 

They moved from an area that became known as The Dust Bowl which suffered severe dust conditions during a drought that lasted a decade.

20% of the population of Oklahoma alone was forced to leave the state in the 1930's. 

Can you imagine what would happen today if we had this heat and drought?

It would all be blamed on man-made climate change and billions and billions of dollars would be spent with no effect.

Oklahoma has also been known for its tornado activity.

The number of strong tornadoes (EF2 and higher) has decreased over the years even with increasing carbon emission levels.

The number of hurricanes has also not increased in the last 20 years despite rising CO2 levels.

The same is true with wildfires.

Far less acreage around the world today is being consumed by wildfires than in the past.

Climate-related deaths continue to fall.

Source: https://x.com/RoyPentland/status/2066256166733152701/photo/1

Florida, which Gore predicted would see up to 60% of its population have to relocate due to rising sea levels, has seen its population explode.

Florida's population has increased by over 30% (18 million to an estimated 24 million) in the last 20 years.

That is 4 times the population that Al Gore suggested Florida was heading for due to climate change in his 1992 book.

In 2013, DNC Chairwoman and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was claiming that her South Florida Congressional District would be under water in a few short years.

Over a decade later aren't we beyond a "few short years"?

Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D., Fla.), who represents the Miami area, warned that unless climate change is addressed “in a few short years,” rising sea levels will force her to represent areas more than two hundred miles away.

“I will eventually represent Orlando if we don’t do something about making sure we can reduce global warming,” she said on Fox News this morning. Wasserman Schultz’s current residence, Weston, Fla., is 224 miles away from Orlando.

Her district is still high and dry and there is still no beachfront property in Orlando.

However, Wasserman Schultz has now seen her south Florida district redistricted and earned the contempt of Black Democrats as she has decided to run for the Democrat nomination for Congress in a majority Black district in the Miami area.

It also makes you wonder why she would want to run for a seat in Congress from a district that will be underwater in a "few short years"?

Source: https://www.wlrn.org/government-politics/2026-05-26/wasserman-schultz-dnc-election-black-district

And that ice-free Arctic?

At the end of last summer, Arctic sea ice extent was actually larger than it was in 2012---34% more expansive than 13 years ago.

Credit: https://x.com/TonyClimate/status/2008211253328773506

This is the Arctic sea ice extent as of June 20, 2026.

Source: https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_hires.png

It also should be noted that Arctic temperatures since May have been running at record lows.

That ice-free Arctic that Al Gore predicted looks further and further away.

The polar bears are also not going extinct.

Their population is rising.

Credit: https://x.com/BjornLomborg/status/1596907585084719104

Mount Kilimanjaro still has plenty of snow despite the fact that it is on the equator in Africa.

Source: Google AI

Those "Inconvenient Truths" that Al Gore talked about 20 years ago have mostly been shown to be Untruths.

Projections and predictions do not override real world data.

It should also be noted that even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently recognized that the apocalyptic climate scenarios it has been promoting for the last 15 years are implausible.

Source: https://modernity.news/2026/05/05/ipcc-admits-apocalyptic-climate-scenarios-are-implausible/

Those IPCC scenarios were the ones that fueled the insane climate change agenda and resulted in trillions of dollars in green agenda items promoted by politicians in the United States, Europe and Australia.

At the same time, China, India, Indonesia and others barely paid it any mind.

They carried on because they know that economies and humanity really suffer without affordable and accessible energy..

Source: https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-coal-five-year-plan

Source: https://www.carbonbrief.org/new-coal-plants-hit-10-year-global-high-in-2025-but-power-output-still-fell/

We now find all of the hysteria was implausible as if the last 10-20 years has not already confirmed it 

not to mention thousands of years of climate history before there were any carbon emissions to speak of?

To wit, we know there was an ice age.  We also know the ice melted.  How did it ice up? How did the ice melt?

All of this occurred without the slightest intervention of humans.

Even if the data shows the earth is warming, how do we know it is caused by man when you look at past history? 

Of course, the IPCC  retraction has received almost no mentions in the mainstream media.

I doubt few of you have have even heard about it.

A Google search turned up no mentions of this story in the corporate media other than this headline in The New York Times.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/26/climate/emissions-worst-case-scenario-rcp.html

Some risks may have been overstated?

You think?

I guess it is also an inconvenient truth to remind everyone that in 2000 Al Gore came within 537 votes in Florida of becoming President of the United States.

I am guessing that Al Gore would not feel too bad if two-thirds of Florida was underwater

Those 537 votes in Florida in 2000 is just another reminder that no matter how bad you think things have been, they could have been much, much worse.

May God continue to bless the United States of America.

And our climate

After all, it is important to remember it is ultimately under HIS control... not ours.

What---Me Worry?

We seem to live in a world filled with anxiety.

A lot of people find a lot to worry about.

In the United States, the National Institute of Mental Health reports that 19% of Americans have some type of anxiety disorder annually.

A third of Americans will deal with an anxiety disorder some time in their lives.

Young people are much more likely to experience some form of anxiety disorder than older people according to CDC data from 2019.

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db378.htm

Anxiety is also more prevalent in females (19.0%) compared to males (11.9%).

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db378.htm

Anxiety has also increased in recent years driven by increases in rates in younger adults.

Rates among those Age 50+ have remained stable.

Source: https://slowrevealgraphs.com/2024/05/28/prevalence-of-anxiety-by-age-generation-in-the-us/

Consider all of this anxiety and then compare it to this factoid that I recently came across from Brandon Luu, MD.

91.4% of those things that people worry about that causes anxiety never materialize.

If fact, the most common occurrence in those who worry is that none of it actually happens.

Is this the reason that older people have less anxiety?

Have they learned over the years that many worries are not worth worrying about?

What is worrying is the increase in anxiety among young adults.

Notice that it began to spike in conjunction with the introduction of the iPhone.

Jonathan Haidt wrote a book that argues that the rewiring of childhood from "play-based" to "phone-based" has been responsible for a collapse in the mental health of young people.

Source: https://www.anxiousgeneration.com/book

In The Anxious Generation, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt lays out the facts about the epidemic of teen mental illness that hit many countries at the same time. He then investigates the nature of childhood, including why children need play and independent exploration to mature into competent, thriving adults. Haidt shows how the “play-based childhood” began to decline in the 1980s, and how it was finally wiped out by the arrival of the “phone-based childhood” in the early 2010s. He presents more than a dozen mechanisms by which this “great rewiring of childhood” has interfered with children’s social and neurological development, covering everything from sleep deprivation to attention fragmentation, addiction, loneliness, social contagion, social comparison, and perfectionism. He explains why social media damages girls more than boys and why boys have been withdrawing from the real world into the virtual world, with disastrous consequences for themselves, their families, and their societies. 

Perhaps it is time to return to a simpler time when young people of my era in the 1960's were reading the satirical humour publication, Mad magazine, and taking to heart the advice of its fictional mascot and cover boy Alfred E. Neuman.

Trust and Understanding

Last week I wrote that Donald J. Trump was sitting abreast "The Hinge of History" as we are waiting to see what will happen in Iran over the next several months.

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

It is important to remember that history is only written by the winners.

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.

We now have a supposed "deal" with Iran that is referred to as a "Memorandum of Understanding".

However, from what we know right now, the "understanding" seems to be in the eye of the beholder.

The Trump administration has an understanding of the deal that seems quite different than the understanding of those in the Iranian regime.

It is difficult at this point to understand what the understanding really is when viewed objectively.

We will really not know if this is good or bad for the United States (and Trump) until the "understanding" turns into a real agreement that includes the final resolution of the nuclear issue.

However, as I stated in that last post, if I were Trump I would not trust my legacy to any "deal" with Iran.

I am going to wait to see how this evolves before making any other judgments.

There is too much I don't know that Trump does know.

I do know that Trump knows that his legacy is on the line with Iran.

I do know that Trump does not ever want to look bad or lose.

I do know that Trump is indefatigable and tireless and will not rest until he wins at anything he does.

In that regard, I refer you to the post below that was published on X by someone who goes by the name Cynical Publius that aligns closely with my views..

The views of Cynical Publius on Iran right now can be summarized this way.

Trump has earned our trust. 

Trust the plan that he is pursuing.

He knows more about what he is doing than I do.

However, right now I have to rely more on blind trust than clear understanding of where this leads.

I cannot find much fault in the thoughts below.

I have largely been quiet on this matter lately, mostly because I don’t think anyone in the general public has the first clue as to what is actually going on in terms of negotiations (me included), but let me please offer some thoughts on things I am certain are true at the time I write this:

1. The Iranian mullahs are/were implacable enemies of Western Civilization, and have a goal of global jihad by any means necessary.

2. Neither the Iranian nor American media can be trusted to report accurately on the purported agreement.

3. “MOU” means “memorandum of understanding.”  In corporate law, another term for this is a “term sheet.”  Basically it is an outline of basic terms and serves as a basis for negotiations between the parties towards a more fulsome, definitive agreement.  Nothing at the MOU stage is definitive.

4. The Trump Administration could do a better job of keeping the American public informed on this matter.

5. Iran’s military and nuclear capabilities have been decimated.

6. Iran’s ability to export terrorism has been greatly impaired.

7. Multiple layers of the mullahs' leadership are now dead, and those currently in power are acutely and uncomfortably aware of this fact.

8. The only viable means of ultimate regime change in Iran is the Persian people rising up and overthrowing the mullahs.

9.  An Iran with nuclear arms would be the worst threat to human civilization since the medieval era Bubonic Plague epidemic.  The JCPOA was enabling them to build such weapons.

10.  President Trump had no choice but to take the military actions he has taken thus far, because of the nuclear and terror threats.

11. America and Israel assumed that the Persian people would take this opportunity to violently overthrow their theocratic dictators.

12. Because the Persian people are thus far collectively unwilling to walk through the door of regime change that has been made possible (admittedly with great cost to them), President Trump is now faced with a dilemma: either commit ground forces to Iran (with half of the USA wildly opposing such action) or negotiate with whomever is actually in power at the moment (with the other half of the USA wildly opposing such action).

13.  President Trump has earned our trust—in all matters (not just Iran) he has consistently prioritized American interests properly more so than any other President since Ronald Reagan.  There is no one I trust more to navigate such a complex, potentially “no win” situation than President Trump.

14.  America and the world are currently in a far, far better and safer situation today than if no military action had been taken.

15. All military options remain open to the USA.  Virtually no military options (other than internal repression) remain open to the Iranian leadership.

***********

I have always despised all that "Q" nonsense, but at the moment I believe the following words are actually the best course of action for Americans with respect to the Iran conflict: “Trust the plan.”

In the coming days consider the differences of opinion you might see in the comments of Republicans and Trump loyalists who might raise questions and doubts about where the Iran policy is going.

Then contrast that with the total silence about anything from the Democrats yhat was ever said on anything Joe Biden did.

There was no pushback or questions about his failed immigration policy, the vaccine mandates, men in women's bathrooms or his obvious physical and mental lapses.

Everyone was 100% in lockstep until they weren't.

What does that say in itself?

There should be the freedom and strength of character for anyone to question the merits of what is going on.

However, if those with TDS want to disparage and demean Trump's commitment to this nation I recommend that you consider what the now 80 year old President did in the last few days it its service.

Saturday--Negotiated final terms in the Memorandum of Understanding with Iran

Sunday--80th Birthday and attended UFC fight on White House grounds on Sunday night

1217am Monday--Boarded flight to Europe for G-7 Meeting

 830am Monday (US Time)---Participated in working meeting with French President

1000am Monday---Reception with G7 leaders

1030am Monday---Dinner with G7 Leaders

1200am Tuesday---Working Session with G7 Leaders

130am Tuesday---Meeting with the Emir of Qatar

215am Tuesday--Meeting with the President of the UAE

300am Tuesday---Working Lunch with G7 Leaders

How could anyone argue that Joe Biden was a better President?

We have come a long way in the last two years.

Trump presided over this a couple of nights ago.

Joe Biden sent his wife to preside over this two years ago.

Credit: Getty Images
Source: https://beelineblogger.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-indefatigable-donald-trump.html

I trust most of you know where I am coming from.

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.