WHY WE NEED THE “DEEP STATE”

 

The rehabilitation of the misunderstood and often maligned “deep state” is long overdue. For years, right wing commentators and MAGA have used the term to describe the conspiracy theory that a hidden, organized network of career bureaucrats secretly manipulate and control national policy.  

Lawfare and others have explained the true nature of the deep state. Rather than a malicious shadow government, it is comprised of dedicated, necessary federal civil servants best described as “a constitutional feature designed to provide stability and continuity across different administrations.”

The phrase, deep state, gained widespread prominence during the first presidential term of Donald Trump. Trump had little idea of the tasks performed by the federal workforce under his purview. He either ignored these federal agencies or attacked the employees for not being loyal to his worldview. Bestselling author Michael Lewis previously documented that Trump’s ignorance of the civil service in his first administration adversely affected important functions like food safety, climate change preparedness, and even nuclear energy safeguards.

Early in Trump’s second term, he was better prepared to shrink the federal government into a “Trump centric” bureaucracy that would accomplish his illiberal goals.  Under the pretense of “national security,” “cost savings,” and in order to delegitimize the critics of the Trump presidency, Elon Musk was given control of a new agency called the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Musk literally and figuratively picked up a chain saw and began indiscriminately gutting the federal bureaucracy. It is now clear that the second Trump administration has demolished a generation of nonpartisan civil servants. These diligent workers were providing essential services across all aspects of American life and were simply doing their jobs to benefit the American people.

This commentary will review what happened, the damage caused by DOGE, and examine the thoughts of the bestselling author, Michael Lewis, who has written a new book on the subject.

According to the conservative Cato Institute “DOGE achieved a 9% to 12% reduction in the federal civil service rolls—translating to a net loss of over 260,000 to 270,000 employees. This marked the fastest peacetime workforce contraction in the federal government since the end of World War II.”  Regarding cost savings, DOGE first set a goal to balance the budget by cutting $2 trillion in waste, fraud, and abuse. This goal was later reduced to $1 trillion and then again to just $150 billion. Elon Musk recently said that DOGE was only “a little bit successful.”

The Cato Institute concluded that federal spending increased after the cuts. Specifically, the New York Times reported that “Despite the cost-cutting measures implemented by DOGE, overall government spending rose 6% to $7.4 trillion, significantly outpacing a 3% growth in tax revenues ($5.4 trillion).”  

If no budget savings were realized, what did the gutting of the federal bureaucracy accomplish? According to the National Federation of Federal Employees, nearly 100,000 veterans lost their jobs with the highest number of forced departures at the Department of Veterans Affairs. The rapid departure of federal personnel resulted in an unprecedented loss of institutional knowledge. Recruitment and retention across federal agencies have been permanently damaged.

The Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) created an interactive tracking tool called the “DOGE Tracker” to document the damage caused by DOGE’s activities. Among the many findings were: 1) Overall, in the Center for Disease Control’s workforce, 2,400 federal layoffs or roughly 18 % were let go 2) In the Department of Health and Human Services, there were 50% cuts to the Office of Child Care and 50% cuts to Head Start offices 3) The National Institute of Health experienced 1,200 layoffs 4) The Social Security Administration lost 7,000 employees 5) There were 3,500 terminations in the Food and Drug Administration 6) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which includes the Weather Service, lost 1,300 employees.

These statistics go on and on and are mind numbing. Thankfully, an author like Michael Lewis can add six human stories to this tragedy and make it personal.  The title of his new book, Blockers: Rebels in the Deep State comes from a derogatory label Elon Musk and DOGE used for career civil servants who resisted their attempts to dismantle or radically overhaul federal agencies.

Each of the highlighted “deep state rebels” believed they had a calling. They were sure they were doing something our nation couldn’t do without. Then they were told they were no longer wanted.

One worker, an IRS privacy officer, protected Americans’ most sensitive tax data.  Another, at the Office of Personnel Management, upheld democratic accountability. One figured out how to stop wildfires from destroying suburban neighborhoods. Another, at the National Institute of Health, helped uncover the mysteries of cystic fibrosis.

Each “rebel” explained to Lewis that they found purpose in improving public infrastructure or trying to “dramatically affect the quality of life for millions of people.”  

The book contains a revealing anecdote about Elon Musk. While screaming to fight “waste, fraud, and abuse” he added to the “swamp” by installing his old friend and business partner, Jared Isaacman, on top of NASA. This is the agency where his company SpaceX regularly competes for multibillion dollar contracts.

Hopefully, Trump will be prevented from further eliminating the important functions filled by the federal civil service. Instead, efforts to control waste and corruption should be directed against Trump’s oligarchy of billionaires seeking to stack the deck for the wealthy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE WEAPONIZATION OF TRANSPARENCY

 

There is a relatively new political tactic being utilized by local Republican office holders called “the weaponization of ethics.” This scheme is used by elected officials and their supporters to take positive precepts like “transparency” and weaponize them against political opponents. The sad part is that the attackers ignore the same standards in their own decision- making.

There is even an acronym to describe this hypocritical behavior. DARVO stands for “Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.” It describes the act of evading responsibility for an elected official’s own behavior while criticizing another.

According to Merriam-Webster, within the political context, transparency is “Being honest, open, and clear without hiding information.” It is the obligation of governments to share information, without delay. Transparency forms the bedrock of democratic accountability. Elected officials are expected to proactively make their internal decisions visible and understandable.

As reported in last week’s Observer Reporter, the ongoing conflict between Washington County’s Republican Commissioners Nick Sherman and Electra Janis, and the head of the Washington County Tourism Promotion Agency (Tourism), Jeff Kotula has resurfaced. There is no better example to illustrate my views on the misuse of transparency. In Washington County Republican politics, the weaponization of the word “transparency” is a common practice.

By way of background, as detailed in this newspaper, in May of 2025, despite stellar performance by Tourism, the Republican Commissioners voted 2-1 to freeze monthly distributions of the hotel tax (roughly $150,000 per month). There was a last-minute reprieve after minority Commissioner Larry Maggi argued that the vote violated the state's Sunshine Law. The freeze was delayed.

In December of 2025, the Observer Reporter disclosed that Sherman and Janis proposed changing the tourism distribution structure entirely. They planned to divert 75% of the hotel tax money into a joint fund to build a sports recreation and convention center—a move Maggi opposed and Kotula warned could violate state law. No immediate action was taken.

Tourism has consistently rejected the Commissioners' demand for internal documents, stating that they are an independent non-profit and have already provided over two decades' worth of required audits to county officials. In August, Sherman and Janis voted to hire outside legal counsel at $200 an hour to challenge Tourism’s position. Washington County Common Pleas Court Judge Michael Lucas rejected the County's request. He affirmed the state Office of Open Records' decision that Tourism is not a government body subject to open-records laws. This decision is apparently on appeal at taxpayers’ expense.

On Oct. 1, we learned that tempers flared dramatically during a heated public board meeting. Sherman moved to place $2.5 million in annual hotel tax revenue into a "special fund" rather than distributing it to Tourism, citing a continued “lack of financial transparency.” Janis agreed and Maggi objected.

While transparency had been cited before, it was now the focus in the Republican effort to have additional documents provided by Tourism, beyond the state required audits. Sherman was quoted as stating to Maggi “We have always worked together on transparency.” (If only this were true.)

Finally, on October 7, the Observer Reporter updated its readers on the action taken by the Republican County Treasurer, Tom Flickinger. He sided with the Republican Commissioners. In a written statement he proclaimed, “Full transparency in this age of fraud and mismanagement is required to instill trust and accountability of taxpayers’ funds.”

Republican attempts to make transparency the issue in this dispute are an affront to Kotula’s impeccable reputation and nonsensical. Tourism has complied with all disclosure requirements under the law and offered to meet with the Commissioners to work out any differences. The Republican majority has refused.

This controversy is simply an attempt by Sherman and Janis to bring a large pool of hotel tax money under their political control.  These funds should remain independent, free from political maneuvering to ensure public accountability.

Pennsylvania officials recently released statistics that showed last year Tourism’s efforts resulted in a Washington County record of $804.5 million in visitor spending. While weaponizing transparency for their own purposes, the Republican Commissioners have consistently conducted county business with minimal transparency. On the Tourism issue, they have failed to inform taxpayers how they would internally duplicate these extraordinary results.

Another example occurred at the most recent Commissioners’ meeting. When Maggi attempted to question legal expenditures related to the county payment of $346,687 in the Jan. 2024 ransomware attack, he was ignored. Moreover, taxpayers remain in the dark concerning the total cost to the county and the agencies and individuals who were compromised

Also, early in the Republican administration, the majority commissioners voted to select the Motorola Solutions radio contract proposal after canceling the previous significantly less expensive contract. The county had already spent $8.5 million on equipment that could not be repurposed. How much did this ill-advised switch cost taxpayers and what is the final outlay? What is the status of this project?

At the March over-hyped and under-attended Real Estate Expo sponsored by Sherman and Janis, there was a brief Q&A session. I asked Sherman his position on data centers. His non-transparent answer was, “I will stay in my lane.” Sherman refused to share his views on one of the most important issues facing county residents.

There are other examples where Janis and Sherman have spent public funds while avoiding transparency. Their hypocritical weaponization of the term has unfortunately become the norm in Washington County.

 

 

 

 

CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE BRADSTOCK ANSWERS QUESTIONS

 

Alan Bradstock is the Democratic candidate for Congress in the 14^th District that includes all of Washington, Greene, and Fayette counties. His opponent is Republican Guy Reschenthaler, who is currently serving his fourth term in the House of Representatives. The 14^th District is overwhelmingly Republican, carrying a partisan voter index rating of R+17.

I learned as much as I could about Bradstock from his campaign literature and stump speech. While his demeanor is open and full of positive energy, I wanted to know more. What motivates a Desert Storm combat veteran, retired FBI agent, and successful businessman to run as a Democrat for Congress in a District that elects Republicans by double digits?

I submitted a list of questions to Bradstock that sought to probe behind his credentials. His answers further solidified for me what many admirers have been saying for months, “Bradstock is the real deal.”

Stout: How can the Bradstock campaign succeed in a District that voted by large margins for Donald Trump and for your opponent, Reschenthaler?

Bradstock: Our analysis shows that when Donald Trump is not on the ballot, Republican turnout drops by about 22 percent. Combine that with the President's current unpopularity, and we have a real opportunity this November. Voters are tired of the way things are going. They're responding to my message and to my background. We can win if enough people at the grassroots level spread the word about me and this campaign. The 14^th District deserves a representative who is willing and able to talk with people across the political spectrum to deliver real results.

Stout: Why should voters choose you on November 3?

Bradstock: I have deep roots in the district. I grew up in Donora and attended Washington & Jefferson College. I'm good at getting people who historically don't get along to work together. We have to break the partisan divide that makes our government ineffective and inefficient. That divide is bad for business, and it's bad for our personal relationships. And we need to restore an economy that is centered on working people.

Stout: If you were to debate your opponent, what would you ask him to explain about his time in office? Which of his policy positions concern you most?

Bradstock: I would ask him one simple question: Where do you disagree with Donald Trump? The positions that concern me most are his six votes in support of the Iran war, his votes against allowing the government to negotiate lower prescription drug prices, and his failure to call out an administration that governs for only one party.

Stout: What values, interests, and concerns have you noticed that both Democrats and Republicans share in this part of Western Pennsylvania?

Bradstock: There is still a lot of common ground. People share the values of hard work and grit that come from growing up in our mining towns, mill towns, and farming communities. Because our economy has struggled for decades, there is near-universal concern about good jobs, revitalizing downtowns that have suffered, and the cost of living. Healthcare is a shared worry too: access to care, the coming Medicaid cuts, rising premiums, and the Affordable Care Act subsidies that were not renewed.

Stout: What are the district's greatest needs?

Bradstock: The greatest needs are good-paying jobs, affordability, healthcare, and revitalized downtowns.

Stout: If elected, which committees are you most qualified to serve on, and what legislation matters most to you?

Bradstock: I'm most qualified to serve on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, given my extensive experience on interagency intelligence and national security matters, and on the House Judiciary Committee, which oversees the FBI, where I spent 20 years. The legislation most important to me is anything that improves affordability for families in this district: ending the war, fixing our tariff policy, lowering health care costs, and revitalizing our downtowns.

Stout: Where do you stand on the Iran war, gun rights, abortion, diversity and taxing the wealthy?

Bradstock: Iran war: We should end it immediately.

Gun rights: We should keep firearms out of the hands of people who haven't passed a background check and people suffering from serious mental health issues, and we need to improve our mental health system. But I will not support legislation that restricts law-abiding citizens' access to guns.

Abortion: I am pro-choice

Diversity: Diversity matters because the best solutions come from hearing a range of perspectives and listening to one another with respect. Everyone has blind spots and their own lived experiences. A process that brings in diverse views produces stronger, better, and more enduring solutions.

Taxing the wealthy: Corporations and wealthy individuals should pay higher tax rates. We should revisit the tax code and look back to the Clinton administration, when we last had a budget surplus.

Stout: Any advice for a young person who wants to run for local, state, or national office in this time of sharp political division?

Bradstock: Be authentic, and listen first. I believe in the Stephen Covey precept, “seek first to understand, then to be understood.” Understanding what someone else believes is the first step to working together, and working together and finding compromise is essential if our country is going to get back on track.  Doing good work is a real source of fulfillment, and doing it alongside others is a double dose of it. You'll feel good by doing good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AFFORDABILITY IS ABOUT MORE THAN RISING PRICES

In the 2024 Presidential election, Donald Trump disputed the Democrats’ claim that the economy was in good shape. He made the election about the lack of affordability, due to inflation, allegedly caused by the Biden administration.

Now, two years later, it is Trump’s turn to claim that the economy is sound. Official government data shows the opposite, largely because of the Trump tariffs and the war in Iran. It is beyond dispute that inflation is increasing and prices are rising.

Predictably, Democrats have turned the table and made affordability a central issue in this year’s midterm elections. Nevertheless, at every opportunity, the President calls the affordability crisis “a hoax,” perpetrated by Democrats.

Elected officials from both parties, political candidates, and most people are incorrectly focused only on “price” when they discuss affordability. They are missing an important point because affordability is actually the outcome of the race between incomes and prices. The race is being fought between those Americans who live month-to-month based on inadequate wages and those Americans who own assets that continue to appreciate in value, along with their much higher earnings.

According to a recent study performed by the Economic Policy Institute, “Wages, Inequality, and the Roots of America’s Affordability Crisis,” income inequality has done more to reduce the purchasing power of working Americans than inflation. A major conclusion of the study is that “The growing gap between what shows up in typical workers’ paychecks and benefits versus the overall income being generated by the economy is the root of American inequality and of today’s affordability crisis.”

This study has gone deep into economic data since the 1970s to explain why “Far too many families are unable to afford a decent economic life.” Its research has determined that “the rise in inequality was caused by increasingly unequal ‘market’ incomes (wages and salaries, returns on investment).”

If typical workers’ pay had kept pace with overall economic productivity since the late 1970s, today’s hourly pay would be much higher. Instead, those productivity gains have flowed directly into corporate profits and executive salaries. At large U.S. corporations, the average CEO-to-worker pay ratio is approximately 325-to-1.

The report furnishes the following background. “Historically, shared prosperity has only been achieved when policies that intentionally support workers (like strong unions, adequate minimum wages, and full employment mandates) have provided a countervailing force against employers’ power in labor markets. Much of the post-1979 period of the United States saw an assault on worker-friendly policies, and this led directly to the rise in inequality and to weak income growth for working families.”

Among the proposed solutions to create a fairer economy are: 1) Avoid recessions at all costs 2) Protect the right for workers to organize and to bargain collectively 3) Raise minimum wages 4) Enact rules that support healthy wage growth, not just healthy corporate profits 5) Raise taxes on the wealthy and on corporations.

Two narratives involving income inequality recently left me in a pessimistic and irritated frame of mind. On a weekend in late September, I read a featured essay in the New York Times. It was written by the daughter of a construction worker who fell 35 feet on a job, survived, endured 18 years of chronic pain, financial hardship, and fighting for help before committing suicide. (“The $15,000 Settlement That Destroyed My Father’s Life”).

What is unique about this story was that the father had privately recorded 694 videos detailing years of navigating workers’ compensation, disability benefits, and the health care system. The videos documented an ongoing battle with government programs that were supposed to be there to help him.

The following Monday, a construction crew arrived at our residence to install windows. One of the workers was a middle-aged individual from Washington County. During a break, he told me his story involving a work-related injury. Years ago, he was injured on the job. He lived in Pennsylvania, his employer was from another state, and he was working in a third state. He was instructed not to file a claim because of the complexity and that everything would be fine. Several months later, he was terminated, and it was too late to file for compensation. He was left with a chronic injury that has limited his ability to earn a living.

I could not stop thinking about the tens of thousands of laborers who have worked in construction, in landscaping, in processing plants, and other dangerous environments. How many others have similar stories?

The second narrative also helps explain increasing income inequality. Our taxation system supports a “20 percent deduction for pass-through income” available to businesses and tax filers at the highest income levels. Pass-through deductions reduce federal tax revenues by roughly $50 billion annually. Over half of this tax reduction flows to the top 1.5% of taxpayers.

The deduction lowers the top marginal rate on qualified business income from 37% down to 29.6%. For years, critics have argued that this deduction yields minimum gains in employment or wages. Moreover, it encourages business owners (and others) along with their accountants to game the system by reclassifying income to pay less taxes.

Yes, affordability is a problem. However, there is something more sinister than the price of gas or eggs in play. Until our elected officials admit that widening income inequality is the root of the affordability problem, matters will only get worse.

 

 

 

 

 

 

DEMOCRACY DEPENDS ON EDUCATED VOTERS

As we near the midterm elections, campaign talking points seem connected to yesterday’s headlines. They are dominated by the prices of food/gas and the building of data centers in voters’ backyards.  The Democrat’s political ads attack the draconian policies and executive orders of President Trump. Republicans, in an attempt to remain the majority party, falsely label progressive democrats as “communists.”

While this negative rhetoric may motivate voters, we deserve better. Voting should not only be an emotional, knee-jerk reaction based on the latest grocery store receipt, Trump pronouncement, or inaccurate label.

The midterm elections offer a critical choice between two contradictory views of America’s future. To understand these differences will require the informed voter to pull back the curtain and to study the established public policy goals of Republicans and Democrats.

This commentary will offer no opinion on individual candidates. Instead, it will outline some fundamental party differences for voters to consider, on the economy, our democracy, and on cultural issues.

The Economy. The often-repeated Republican goal of “shrinking the size of government” is only the tip of its economic policy. The real Republican story in recent decades has been one of increasing hardship for those who depend on wages and on public services while sponsoring generous government benefits for those who own assets.

Under Republican leadership, “assets” receive preferential tax treatment while wages have not kept pace with inflation. In addition, social services to help the disadvantaged have been cut or terminated.

Republicans are united in their desire to reduce public spending that does not promote the accumulation of private wealth. The party counts on more affluent Americans who own real estate, businesses, stocks/bonds, and robust retirement accounts to support them.

Democrats are focusing their midterm economic message on lowering the cost of living and criticizing the Trump administration's tariffs and handling of inflation. At least three proposals are being discussed by Democratic candidates. First, increasing the federal minimum wage. Second, expanding paid family leave, sick leave, and equal pay measures. Third, supporting targeted student loan relief.

The two economic elephants in the room that no candidate is talking about are funding social security and lowering the national debt. Voters should demand that candidates take a position on each before it is too late.

Democratic Institutions. There are fundamental differences in the way Republicans and Democrats view the presidency. Republicans have adopted a “Unitary Executive Theory.” This principle asserts that the president has absolute authority over the entire executive branch, including independent agencies. Republicans view presidential power as a tool to dismantle the "deep state" (federal bureaucracy) arguing that unelected agency officials hold too much unchecked power.

Democrats contend that President Trump has abused the increased authority granted to him by the Supreme Court. They point out that he has refused to follow long established guidelines regarding diplomacy, treatment of immigrants, destruction of federal buildings, and while president, self-enrichment/acceptance of gifts. They argue that Trump is attempting to turn America into an illiberal, more authoritarian nation.

Democrats generally view the presidency as an instrument for positive social and economic change. They believe a strong executive is necessary to check corporate power, protect the environment, and manage public safety.

To be fair, Democrats are not above bypassing Congress to achieve goals. They will not hesitate to pressure their presidents to utilize executive actions to advance positions on student loan forgiveness, immigration protections, and green energy initiatives.  Democrats believe that independent federal agencies require robust, enforcement authority to regulate corporations, public health, and finance.

In connection with voting, Republicans focus heavily on unproven election fraud. They prioritize measures such as strict photo identification requirements, regular maintenance of voter rolls, and limitations on mail-in ballots. Democrats prioritize expanding access to the ballot box by advocating for federal protections to expand voting rights, automatic voter registration, and mail-in voting.

There are fundamental disagreements regarding the role of the free press and media. Republicans often label mainstream media outlets as partisan actors hostile to conservative voters and candidates. Democrats view the free press as an essential pillar for holding leaders accountable and countering disinformation.

Cultural Issues. The two parties vehemently disagree on many social and cultural issues, including LGBTQ+/gender concerns, and abortion/ reproductive rights.

On education and race, Democrats favor diversity, equality and diversion (DEI) programs and support affirmative action. Republicans seek to eliminate these programs, and favor giving parents taxpayer funded education choices for their children, often to the detriment of public education.

Regarding immigration, Republicans favor strict border security, deportation of undocumented immigrants, and a focus on preserving a Christian national culture. Democrats lobby for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, seek humanitarian processing at the border, and view immigration as a core strength of our nation.

Lastly, on religion and public life, Republicans want Judeo-Christian religious beliefs to be “spotlighted” in the public square. In contrast, Democrats aim to follow the Constitution and to maintain a firm separation of church and state to protect a diverse, pluralistic society.

There are of course many other lenses through which to examine the two political parties and their candidates. Views on Artificial Intelligence, foreign policy, and constitutional law come to mind.

My point is that before voting in this year’s critical midterm elections, we should take the time to study and understand the policy positions each candidate will support if elected. Democracy depends on educated voters.

HOW BANANAS CONQUERED AMERICA

 

My spouse never fails to ask me what items to add to her shopping list. I always respond with “bananas.” While other produce languishes in the refrigerator fruit bin, bananas disappear faster than bagels or cookies. They are always calling my name from the counter space reserved for them, and I never disappoint.

To say that Americans take bananas for granted would be an understatement. No matter the season, we expect to find them piled high in the local supermarket. At convenience stores, fresh bananas are often displayed near the checkout.  

According to the online business platform, Statista, last year, we consumed over 9 billion pounds of bananas. The average American eats roughly 26.8 lbs. of fresh bananas each year.  Bananas remain the most purchased fruit by frequency and volume, making up about 1% of all grocery store sales in the country. It is the most heavily consumed fruit in the American diet.

The story of how bananas captured the American fruit market is fascinating. American innovation played an important role in moving the banana from a rare, exotic curiosity to the cheapest of all produce.

Before the Civil War, bananas were little known to consumers. Traders would throw some green bunches onto their schooner decks and hope to make it to New Orleans before the fruit ripened and spoiled. Northeastern ports were too much of a gamble. Bananas remained an expensive delicacy until the twentieth century.

Three new technologies changed the game. Modern transportation via steamship and railroads, along with the invention of refrigeration, brought bananas to the masses. In 1903, with the launching of the S.S. Venus, the first refrigerated produce boat, a quarter million pounds of bananas were imported from Latin America.

Almost all the bananas marketed in the U.S., Canada, and Western Europe now come from Central America. However, the banana is not native to the Western Hemisphere. The Malay Peninsula in Southeast Asia is the most likely center of origin. The western passage of the fruit was facilitated by the Portuguese in the late 15^th century – from the Guinea Coast to the Canary Islands. From there, the Spanish brought the fruit to the Caribbean and Central America.

The biological nature of the banana is as unique as its history and its shape. The banana is unlike any other fruit. (It is actually a berry.) The plant lacks a wood trunk, making it a tree-size herb. It has a palmlike crown and a fleshy green stalk that grows to a height of between twenty and forty feet.

In place of a root is a rhizome. Each female blossom becomes a single banana, then each cluster becomes a “hand,” and the massive bunch produces a “stem” of bananas. When this end is achieved, the cultivated plant is cut down, and a successor shoot takes over.

Banana picking and shipping are tricky businesses. They become edible only after leaving the mother plant. The sweetness and texture, valued by consumers, only occurs off the vine — and only if the fruit is plucked at the correct stage of maturity. Similar to strawberries, bananas are fragile and subject to rapid deterioration.

Philip Keep Reynolds, who wrote the classic profile, The Banana: Its History, Cultivation and Place Among Stable Foods, explains it best. “The necessity for infinite care in handling a bunch of bananas will be appreciated when it is realized that this fruit, when harvested, is practically a living organism. In the ripening process it generates heat within itself –- a few degrees above or below normal may stimulate too rapid ripening or cause checked vitality.”

Because of this process, the proper environment of cool, moist, and circulating air must be maintained during shipment. Reynolds calculated that a sixty-thousand-pound cargo of bananas generates the heat equivalent to burning a third of a ton of coal.

The discovery of ethylene gas and its relationship to bananas was the next breakthrough in transporting the product. A brief exposure to this gas is now used by suppliers to control the early ripening process. As we banana lovers know, the fruit continues to ripen on the store shelf. Forty per cent of consumers prefer to eat bananas at the “green-tip stage.” Only seven percent prefer the fully ripened banana.

Despite its popularity, the banana remains unloved, or at least ignored. Culinary praise (and expense) is more often reserved for the avocado, the mango, and the pomegranate. Thankfully, physicians and nutritionists take this odd fruit seriously.

The health benefits and nutritional value of the banana are impressive. This fruit supports heart health, digestion, and daily vitality. At 105 calories, a medium banana provides about 422 to 450 mg of potassium. Bananas contain 3 grams of dietary fiber. Their easily digestible carbohydrates provide a rapid, fat-free boost of natural energy before or after physical activity. Bananas offer vitamin B6 and tryptophan, an amino acid that your body converts into serotonin to help regulate mood and brain function. They are used to support weight loss because they’re relatively low in calories, nutrient-dense, and they’re filling.

One commentator has noted that bananas are a food for the whole of life. It is often the first solid food in an infant’s diet and the last solid food that can be managed by the elderly.

Then there are banana lovers like me that eat thousands of them during the long stretch in-between. I cannot imagine a morning without one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUMMERTIME IN THE CITY

 

Our summer was capped off with an end of August trip to the New York City theater district. My nephew’s wedding took place in nearby New Jersey. It was a short drive through the Lincoln Tunnel to our Times Square hotel. Yes, the parking was $50.00 a day, but we avoided flying into La Guardia from Pittsburgh and the two expensive cab rides.

The late summer energy in and around Midtown Manhattan was a marvel to behold. The beautiful weather and influx of foreign tourists made the four blocks in every direction from Times Square a sea of exhilarated humanity. In order to check Google Maps, we needed to duck behind a lamp post to avoid being swept away.

Almost everyone we met was from some other country with an interesting story to tell. The local waiters and retail clerks always greeted us with a smile. They would not hesitate to leave their posts to guide us around a corner to point out our destination. Those who label “the city” cold and dangerous are missing out on the excitement of America’s 24/7 global epicenter of culture, finance, and human diversity.

Our focus on this excursion was Broadway. Some performances on our bucket list had just closed (Cats: The Jellicle Ball and Ragtime) and the new fall offerings had not yet opened (Galileo and Other Desert Cities). However, our five choices did not disappoint. We came to summarize our viewing experience as “three gunshots and two large bangs.”

The initial play, on the evening of our arrival, was Oh Mary! This irreverent 80 minute, one-act drama provided our first gunshot.  The play satirizes the life of Mary Todd Lincoln in the weeks leading up to Abraham Lincoln’s assassination at Ford’s Theater. My guess is that this dark comedy will not be making the rounds in local community theaters anytime soon.

The play portrays Mary as an unhinged and raging alcoholic trapped in an unhappy marriage to a gay, closeted Abraham Lincoln. It mixes 19th-century historical figures with absurdist fiction, musical medleys, and biting camp humor.  

Initially, the show’s creator, Cole Escola, did not envision casting anyone besides himself to play Mary for what he thought would be a limited run. After the play became a runaway hit, nine actors have now played Mary in this very challenging performance.

Our second gunshot was from the famous duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton that ended the title character’s life. Hamilton has been on Broadway for over ten years. I thought our viewing would be a bit stale and anticlimactic. I was wrong. Hamilton was one of the most entertaining theater experiences of my life. Creator Lin-Manuel Miranda’s combination of hip-hop score and his African American take on American history was a joy to behold.

The third gunshot was from a small, off Broadway, production of The Play That Goes Wrong. This offering was a fast-paced physical comedy and a “play within a play.” It tells the story of a college drama society’s disastrous opening night where everything goes wrong, bringing chaos to the stage and laughs from the audience. At the end of the play, the villain is shot and the entire set collapses on the actors. Great fun, with the cast often going off script to interact with the patrons.

Our first large bang (in fact, many big booms) occurred in the over-the-top production of The Lost Boys. This musical is a major theatrical spectacle with incredible special effects, first rate acting, and memorable songs. This year, The Lost Boys won four Tonys including best performance by an actor and actress in a featured role.

The plot involves a mother and her two teenage sons. Looking for a fresh start, they move to the fictional boardwalk town of Santa Carla, California. Instead, they find a “band” of teenage vampires. The script uses some of the scenes from the 1987 cult film starring Kiefer Sutherland, but revises the roles of the female characters, giving them more agency.

For over two hours the action is nonstop. After the final song, “If We Make It Through the Night” there is a dramatic loud boom and a sudden drop to pitch darkness.

Our last selection, Operation Mincemeat, won high praise in London and made its way to Broadway in March of 2025. It has become a major commercial success and gained critical acclaim.

The musical depicts the true story of a 1943 British military deception plan during World War II. British Intelligence used a dead body with fake papers to trick Nazi Germany into expecting an invasion of Greece and Sardinia instead of Sicily. Hitler believed the fake papers and moved his troops to Greece and the Balkans, allowing the Allies to capture Sicily with far less resistance.

While the film by the same name was a drama starring Colin Firth, the musical is straight comedy pulled off by five actors, each playing dozens of roles. Our final theatrical “bang” was the high-energy, theatrical climax—the explosive final number of the show.

In addition to our theater selections, museums were high on our list. New exhibits at the Met were outstanding. We were particularly blown away by the recent renovations to and art installations at the Henry Clay Frick Mansion (now museum) facing Central Park.

Summertime in the city was an experience that will provide us with many pleasant, year-round memories.