THE PROPOSED SAVE ACT WOULD SUPPRESS VOTING

 

For months, President Trump and his administration have been fixated on one issue. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with ending the war in Iran or with the affordability of groceries and gasoline.

Trump’s primary goal this spring and summer has been the passage of the SAVE Act and its expanded version, the SAVE America Act (the Act). Trump is apparently convinced that these voter suppression measures would prevent some citizens likely to cast ballots for Democrats from exercising their right to vote in the November midterms. The proposed voter suppression law is intended to stem the tide of a blue Democratic wave that is poised to regain control of at least one chamber of Congress.

Trump is afraid that a Democratic landslide in the November midterms would mark the end of his unchallenged authoritarian rule. Moreover, if Democrats are in the majority and in control of Congressional committees, they would immediately begin investigations into Trump’s illegalities. This would include the blatant corruption of the Trump family and members of his inner circle.

For decades, mostly at the state level, a central tenet of Republican politics has been to win elections by making it difficult for their opponents to vote. Through enactment of laws that disproportionately burden minority voters (those requiring photo identification, restricting early voting, limiting registration opportunities, and purging voter rolls), Republicans have consistently sought to carve out of the electorate those that don’t support them. 

In 2016, North Carolina Republican lawmakers requested data on various voting practices, broken down by race. They then passed laws that restricted voting and registration in many ways that disproportionately affected African Americans, including cutting back on early voting. According to the ACLU, between 2008 and 2012, 70% of African American voters voted early in North Carolina.  After cuts to early voting, African American turnout in early voting was down by 8.7% (around 66,000 votes). The Fourth Circuit Appeals Court overturned this limitation on early voting.

Several states controlled by Republicans have attempted to suppress voting by requiring voter identification at polling places. It is common for states that have enacted these laws to demand forms of ID that are more often carried by white voters than minority ones, like drivers’ and gun licenses. Moreover, student IDs are often not permitted to lower the Democratic advantage in towns with colleges and universities.

Republicans have learned that they can suppress unwanted voters by intentionally causing long lines at voting places favored by Democrats. This is accomplished by limiting the number of voting machines or by excessively challenging voters to slow down voting in certain wards.

The purging of voter registration lists is a flawed process used to remove unwanted voters. The procedure is notorious for deleting valid voters. Purged eligible voters who recently got married or moved show up to vote on Election Day and find that they can’t cast a regular ballot.

Since Trump lost the presidency in 2016, MAGA election denial groups have been challenging voters’ eligibility on a massive scale. The groups pressure officials to investigate large numbers of voters based on unreliable information and conspiracy theories.

The Trump administration and Republicans in Congress took notice of the above suppression actions introduced by Republican state legislators. The original SAVE legislation was drafted by the ultraconservatives Representative Chip Roy (R-TX) and Senator Mike Lee (R-UT). While the Act has so far failed to gain traction, Trump refuses to give up on its passage.

Finally, on July 21, House Republicans voted to attach the SAVE America Act to the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2027. This is a last-ditch effort before the midterms to pass unpopular and dangerous voter suppression measures by shoehorning it into unrelated legislation.

How will this Act suppress voting? 1) Under the bill, voters wouldn’t be able to register to vote with their driver's license alone because licenses generally do not indicate citizenship. Instead, they would need a harder to obtain form of documentation, like a U.S. passport or birth certificate. 

2) The Act would implement a national voter ID requirement that is more burdensome than current state voter ID laws. 

3) The bill would severely threaten mail registration and require online registration systems to be overhauled to fit the bill’s requirements. During Senate floor debate, the President filed a now included amendment to significantly restrict Americans’ ability to vote by mail.

4) The Act mandates that states conduct frequent voter purges, even those based on faulty data. In addition, every state would be required to submit its voter registration list to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for comparison to the agency’s error ridden data base.

5) There is a provision that election workers could go to prison for up to five years if they help to register somebody without the correct documents, even if the registered voter is a citizen.

In March of this year, Trump told a group of Republican lawmakers that passing the Acts would “guarantee the midterms” for Republicans. The bottom line is that there is no proof of the types of fraud Trump has cited to justify the legislation. The only justification for passing the Act is to prevent eligible Democrats from voting.

The SAVE America Act is currently in the U.S. Senate. Concerned voters should immediately contact our Pennsylvania Senators and voice opposition to this flagrant attempt to impose voter suppression.

 

 

 

 

 

  

THE EVOLUTION OF POLITICAL SATIRE

 

When a president is elected with whom you vehemently disagree, a four-year term can seem like a lifetime of pain and anguish. Thankfully, there is a bright spot when one’s political views are on the wrong side of an election outcome.

There is the constant stream of political satire against the party in power that has always been an important check and balance. The biting criticisms and humor against the elected officials you do not support can be uplifting. They provide a daily smile, and even thoughts of “I told you so.” Political satire provides entertainment while making a point.

Since the last national election, social media and newspaper op-ed pages have ceased satirizing a “demented” Joe Biden or a “crazy” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, both of whom I hold in high regard. Today, the latest occupant of the White House and his minions have given those who specialize in political satire plenty of ammunition with which to ply their trade.

This commentary will explore two topics that seem to have little in common, but which are now forever joined at the hip. First, what does it mean to be political, and how did this side of human nature come to be the focus of unrelenting attack and ridicule? Second, what is the history of political satire and how did it develop into a full-time pursuit for so many journalists, comedians and cartoonists?

From a civics class perspective, the political world is something to admire, not ridicule. “Political” describes anything related to government and how it operates. It broadly refers to how decisions, laws, and policies are made within societies, from democratic nations to authoritarian ones.

In describing the concept of “political”, a distinction is usually made between a “political system” and “political rights.” The former refers to how a country is officially managed and the latter refers to the level of freedoms citizens have to participate in their government.

For those that are interested in understanding the evolution of political institutions, the two books to read are The Origins of Political Order and Political Order and Political Decay, by one of the leading public intellectuals of our time, Frances Fukuyama. By the conclusion of the second book, the reader comes away with an understanding of the chronological development of political order and of our choices now and for the future.

When I attend a family or social gathering and receive instructions to “not discuss anything political” it seems like an odd request. In my mind everything is political. All aspects of daily life are influenced by resource allocation, regulations and societal power dynamics that determine how we live.

Conversations about the weather are cloaked in the politics of climate change. Discussions on cultural matters including art, books, films and television all come with political opinions. Recently, even sports topics have crossed the line and now entail political debate.

The political realm does not receive the decorum and respect afforded to other broad human endeavors such as religion and science. Politics has been hijacked from being an important process of collective human problem solving into a zero-sum battleground.

In modern America politics, there is a tribal, all-out-fight for cultural dominance through the use of social media engagement. The goal is partisan political supremacy. Unlike religion and science, nothing is sacred or above reproach.  It has become more difficult for citizens to separate respect for the institutional authority of government from the actions of individual politicians.

This brings me to the subject of political satire which has a long and fascinating history. The book that helped me understand it all is State of Ridicule: A History of Satire in English Literature, by Dan Sperrin. The author traces the history of political satire through the timeline of English literature. This includes the work of Chaucer, Samuel Johnson, John Dryden, Jonathan Swift, Alexander Pope, and Charles Dickens.

For centuries English satire has dedicated itself to the recurring subjects of the legitimacy of rule, the succession of dynasties, the ambition of prime ministers, and the administration of government. The further back in time that a piece of satire was published, the more likely that the writing “goes about exposing the world’s political imbecility in indirect ways.” After all, the goal of each author was to get a point across while staying out of prison, or worse.

I enjoyed the approach in Sperrin’s book of describing each political period in full before turning to the satirists who entered the fray. What surprised me is that some early satirists pulled no punches. Thomas Nashe, from the Elizabethan period called himself the “evil angel” and hated Puritans.  Nashe articulated his take on satire: “Who feeds revenge hath found an endless Muse.”

The discussion on Gulliver’s Travels by Jonathan Swift is excellent. Swift’s imagination generated a satire on the entire human species. He had an unmatched command of irony and could create fictional personas that reflected his moral outrage against insincerity. He did this without lecturing the reader directly.

In the end, the connection between “the political” and “satire” becomes clearer. Satire hates corruption, ambition, arrogance, stupidity, depravity, futility and above all, hypocrisy. Unfortunately, politicians continuously supply examples of all of the above.

We need satire to continue to point out the ways in which political vices degrade the rest of human life. We can then work to bring respect back to the ‘political.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE PARADOX OF THE AMERICAN DREAM

 

The “American Dream” is a timely topic to consider in this year of national celebration and reflection. On the surface the dream promises upward mobility and contentment for America’s citizens. However, as our history has unfolded, it is fair to ask whether the dream is a national creed worth celebrating or a disappointing mirage for millions of Americans.

The widespread use of the phrase is attributed to the historian and Pulitzer Prize winning author James Truslow Adams. In 1931, he published The Epic of America that solidified the phrase into our culture. He wrote, “There is an American dream of a better, richer, and happier life for all of our citizens of every rank. A dream of a social order in which each man and women shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.”

The notion of an American dream was a novel idea in the development of western political philosophy and economic theory.  The concept emphasizes individualism, self-reliance, and social/economic advancement. Conversely, the European social-democratic model focuses on providing a generous baseline of needed benefits, independent of market forces. European nations seek to improve the collective “quality of life.” While America prioritizes personal success, Europe emphasizes universal security.

Journalist Hua Hsu has an interesting perspective in his recent New Yorker essay, Reflections: “The Curious Case of the American Dream.” Hsu finds that following the Civil War and again after WWII “the promise of a prosperous, socially mobile way of life unavailable elsewhere seemed to make sense. Gains were shared across socioeconomic strata, as people moved from farms to cities to suburbs.”

On the other hand, Hsu also points out that African Americans have long argued that they have been denied participation in the American dream. He also references a 2024 Pew Research Center report that “forty-seven per cent of Americans no longer trusted the American dreams’ promise of success through hard work and determination.” This negative position has provided an open door for MAGA populism to gain a foothold in our nation’s middle class.

The remainder of this commentary will consider two very different criticisms of the American dream as first expressed by minorities and, more recently, by the “left behind” middle class.

The abolitionist and former slave Fredrick Douglass provides an excellent starting point. In his famous 1852 keynote Independence Day speech he remarked, "This Fourth of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice; I must mourn." The message was that America's celebrations of liberty were a cruel mockery to enslaved people.

Following emancipation, the tone softened, but the opportunity to participate in the American dream remained elusive. In his historic 1965 Cambridge University debate against William F. Buckley Jr., James Baldwin argued that the American Dream “was built directly at the expense of Black Americans.” Baldwin asserted that the foundation of the nation's wealth and "dream" relied on the exploitation, enslavement, and continued degradation of Black people.

Martin Luther King Jr. viewed the American dream as a "dream as yet unfulfilled". He described it as a great, universal promise deeply rooted in the Declaration of Independence. King argued America had defaulted on this promise for its Black citizens.

More recently, the late Black Congressman John Lewis weighed in on the American dream. Lewis viewed it not as a guaranteed reality, but as a “potential promise that must be continuously fought for.” The election of Barrack Obama as President was a hopeful sign, not an endpoint.

Lastly, my Cincinnati editor recently discussed this topic with his African American friend. She responded with her heartfelt observations. “I have never experienced America’s love—only its tolerance and even that had to be fought for. The current state of America is requiring me to fight a fight I have already fought. My sense of unity, hope, and shared responsibility is diminished.”

For members of the middle class that feel victimized by their inability to gain economic traction, the issue is a return to, not an initial participation in the American dream. The MAGA slogan and its policies promise a recapturing of lost economic opportunities. MAGA claims that the roadblocks to success are immigrants who take jobs, liberals who ignore the middle class, and our secular culture that removes Christianity from the complex brew that could revive the dream for middle class America.

While I agree that there are entrenched problems blocking middle class advancement, I disagree with both the reasoning and the harsh and vindictive solutions proposed by MAGA.

Is there a path forward that can eradicate racism and sexism, while repairing the declining middle class to make the American dream available to all? Can it be done without one faction attacking the other?

Thankfully, once the excesses of MAGA populism and progressive socialism are disregarded, there are fundamental points of agreement in establishing the American dream. All factions can work together to challenge the entrenched power of corporations, billionaires, and special interests. They can agree on an economic model that guarantees economic security for all Americans when “best efforts” fall on hard times. They can demand the removal of policies that exploit and replace them with ones that reward effort and good deeds.

Finally, with some common sense and compromise, the American dream can become more than a slogan and unite all of us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PA MUNICIPALITIES SHOULD CONSIDER MERGING

 

Pennsylvania is divided into 67 counties and features a remarkably high number of local governments. Each parcel of land within the commonwealth falls into a specific city (57), borough (956), incorporated town (1), or township (1546).

The large number of municipalities resulted from early settlement patterns that were fragmented by challenging mountain terrain and rivers. For centuries, under Pennsylvania law, small groups of residents could petition to split off and form their own localized government.

The time has come for financially distressed municipalities to consider reversing this historical trend. The small size of many Pennsylvania local governments presents major structural and taxpayer challenges. According to the last census, half of our municipalities are home to fewer than 1,893 people, and about 22% have fewer than 800 residents. Neighboring communities duplicate administrative services and public works.

Because municipalities rely heavily on local property and earned income taxes, wealthier suburbs thrive while neighboring “rustbelt” boroughs and cities (Pittsburgh, Washington) experience declining tax bases.  In much of Pennsylvania, small borough and township governments operate with part-time elected officials or a one-person administrative staff to oversee complex audit, legal, environmental, and financial regulations.

As a result of declining tax bases and unforeseen financial setbacks, at least twenty-seven municipalities have sought relief under Act 47, The Municipal Financial Recoveries Act. While the Act has kept distressed municipalities from completely melting down, it has rarely placed them back on solid financial footing.

There is another alternative that is now being considered and adopted across the commonwealth.

On June 23, the Post Gazette announced that “Adams Township and Mars Borough (Butler County) are one step closer to becoming one municipality. Township supervisors unanimously approved an ordinance to adopt a joint merger agreement.” In the November election, voters will decide via referendum whether the proposal will merge the two municipalities.

In early 2026, the City of DuBois and Sandy Township (both in Clearfield County) officially combined to form a single, unified City of DuBois. This was the largest consolidation of its kind in the state.

What is the legal authority for these actions?  Municipal mergers and consolidations in Pennsylvania are governed by the Municipal Consolidation or Merger Act. The process requires municipal boundaries to be contiguous. It must be approved by a majority of voters in each affected municipality. Mergers are more common. Under this model one or more municipalities are absorbed into an existing entity. With consolidations, two or more communities dissolve and create a new municipality.

What are the challenges to merging?  The potential loss of local identity and local government jobs, often dissuades residents and public officials from backing these proposals. The debate reminds me of the similar mindset when a public school district seeks to close underused campuses.

The remainder of this commentary will consider the question of whether Pittsburgh and Allegheny County should merge into one entity. On a smaller scale, much of the discussion would also apply to the City of Washington and Washington County.

Over the years, the Pittsburgh Foundation and the Pennsylvania Economy League (and others) have supported efforts to combine the two entities. Allegheny County is a region with more local governments per capita than any other metropolitan area in America with one million or more people. Allegheny County’s poorer municipalities, including Pittsburgh, are confined to tax bases with limited prospects for growth. They struggle to pay for public safety, road maintenance, and other basic services with little hope of improving their financial standing.

What can be done? A report by the RAND Corporation found that with a city-county merger, “the region would gain unified leadership, more focused policy, and better coordination, which could have ‘a generally positive effect’ on economic development.”

One result of a city-county merger is that the city’s population would balloon overnight, catapulting it up national rankings. Pittsburgh would trade its 67th ranking for a spot among the 10 largest American cities without having to add a single person. Dennis Unkovic, an international corporate attorney was quoted on the topic, “Being four times bigger would be an enormous change in how we are perceived. And perception is the essence of what it is to be seen as a bigger, more powerful city.”

In reviewing all of the literature, my conclusion is that the largest obstacle to a city-county merger are the wealthy suburbs which are disinclined to allow their well-endowed tax bases to absorb all the legacy costs (city pensions, large non-profits who are not taxed) found in Pittsburgh (and Washington). These voters will not support a merger, notwithstanding all of the employment opportunities, cultural events, entertainment and sports venues, health care facilities, and social service organizations they rely on, located within underfunded city limits.

Suburban voters are happy to work and play within the city. They like to complain about the cost of parking, homeless people, and deplorable road conditions and then return to the country club. The Pennsylvania Economy League has noted it does not matter to suburban voters that, “municipal borders in the region often no longer reflect actual economic needs or the residents' ability to pay for services.” The League concluded that, “these boundaries restrict tax bases while concentrating poverty in a cage."

Urban mergers are a difficult sell and are complex to implement. This should not stop smaller, struggling communities from exploring the merger option to achieve cost savings and tax relief.

 

 

 

WHAT IS PATRIOTISM IN 2026?

 

What better way to capture the spirit of 2026 than to attempt to define and to discuss patriotism? In this 250^th year of our nation’s existence, what did the concept mean to our founding fathers? Today, with our antagonistic tribal politics, who can lay claim to being a patriot? How can we shape an inclusive, forward-looking patriotism for future generations?

According to Wikipedia, “Patriotism is the love, support, and defense of one’s country. It represents an emotional attachment and loyalty to a nation, encompassing dedication to its principles, its people, and the betterment of society…It fosters a sense of unity and shared responsibility among fellow citizens.”

Before the Revolution, American patriots were in the minority. Estimates by historians of those colonists who favored independence hover around 40 per cent. About twenty per cent remained loyal to the crown, and the rest were undecided. The founders consistently tried to drum the idea of liberty into the heads of the uncommitted. Ironically, promises that slavery would remain and that indigenous lands would be opened for settlement helped the cause.

Over time, traditions, and institutions began to coalesce into an American patriotism. My personal view is that modern patriotism should ignore the pronouncements of pompous leaders and highlight examples of pluralism, tolerance, and cooperation.

America has a complicated history, including racism, sexism, and the ill-treatment of native Americans. The Trump administration is wrong to stress that patriotism embodies the concept, “Imperfection is for losers, and America is a winner.”  The Constitution was never perfect. American history is full of both spectacular advances and moral backsliding.

In my view, the better approach was advanced by the journalist Arthur Krystal in his excellent New Yorker article, How Problematic is Patriotism? Krystal asserts that “just as obsessive love in a relationship can warp intimacy, so excessive national pride can debase the nation that one is trying to protect… Patriotism cannot trade in ignorance.”

As a baby boomer who grew up in the Vietnam era, I also agree with Krystal on his view of patriotism and war. His opinion is that “The impulse to come to the aid of one’s country ought to match the justice and urgency of the call. While patriotism is essential to the national defense, it should never blind us to the human toll of warfare.”

A recent op-ed article in this newspaper had me scratching my head on the subject of what modern American patriotism looks like. Rich Lowry wrote about “The Democrats’ Patriotism Gap.” He complained that the percentage of Americans who “are extremely or very proud of America” has dropped dramatically, “driven largely by Democrats.”

Equating “proud of America” with “patriotism” is a mistake in itself. Accusing Democrats of not being patriotic is a cheap shot that misrepresents what patriotism means in today’s charged political climate. When Trump and MAGA are considered, Lowry has reversed the script on patriotism.

As I considered Lowry’s assertions, I remembered the famous line in the Russian novel, The Brothers Karamazov, “The more I love humanity in general, the less I like man in particular.” Democrats who love their country in general, despise the individuals who are now in charge. Democrats know that their great nation, with its incompetent, meanspirited leadership, is collapsing into idiocy, or worse.

Democrats admire and honor the abstract concepts found in our original patriotic document, the Declaration of Independence. They are not proud of authoritarian officials who attack the founding concepts of equality and liberty. Democrats who challenge the “out of control” executive branch are the true patriots.

To illustrate my point, consider the memoir of the Russian dissident, Alexi Navalny. Published after his death, likely at the hands of Vladamir Putin, the recent book, Patriot: A Memoir, describes patriotism very well, indeed.

Navalny, Putin’s most outspoken antagonist died at age 47, in a Siberian prison, under mysterious circumstances. He refused to become an émigré and returned to Russia, knowing that Putin would permanently jail and probably kill him. Navalny was the head of a small but dedicated opposition. The group was loyal not to Putin but to the patria, Russia. (Patriotism is a derivative of the Greek, Patris, meaning “fatherland” or “native country.”)

Navalny informed his followers that to not return to his homeland would have been “unpatriotic and a concession to impotence.” Navalny detested Russian leadership and did not support its actions in Ukraine which he termed “criminal and immoral.”  Instead, he was determined to show his countrymen that it was possible to be a politician and a person of moral integrity. His memoir should inspire public-spirited Russians (and Americans) to honor his example of patriotism.

I will end with a thought on Trumpism and the future of patriotism. Trump has chosen to honor our 250 years as a constitutional republic, forged by a nation of patriotic immigrants, with a vision that sends the country back to the white nationalist impulses of the early twentieth century. If he succeeds, our next generation will inherit a vision of patriotism based on exclusion and hate, not on unity and shared responsibility.

Our President has failed to grasp that to be a patriot is not to become an enemy of the rest of humankind. Trump’s imperial, authoritarian state gives those who support it a sense of superiority. It demands surrender to its trappings. In such an environment, there is no dignity, and patriotism is diminished.

 

 

 

 

 

SOME THOUGHTS ON FAMILY GATHERINGS

 

I would much rather pen a travelogue or an essay on an everyday, personal event than research and write a political commentary. Journalism is overburdened with too many of the latter and too few of the former. The truth is, personal essays are more fun to write.

For those familiar with the timeless works of Mark Twain, he appears to agree with me. In addition to his famous novels and political criticisms, Twain was a prolific essayist that covered his travel adventures, philosophy, literature, and humor, all based on observations.

Our recent family sojourn to Chincoteague, Virginia provided some new material for an essay on family gatherings. In anticipation of this task, I made notes during the week (excellent accommodations, weather, and seafood) and sought advice from two of my editors who were part of our assembly, (my spouse and her first cousin) to whom I owe a debt of gratitude.

Family gatherings have always provided a fertile platform on which to write a book, play, or movie script. One of my favorite novels, The Corrections, written by fellow Swarthmore graduate, Jonathan Franzen is a great example. This award-winning novel is a perceptive and darkly humorous look at an aging Midwestern couple. They desperately attempt to gather their dysfunctional adult children for one last holiday meal.

In the live action play and movie categories featuring family gatherings, it is hard to top August Osage County, by Tracey Letts. We saw the original on Broadway and enjoyed the movie version featuring Meryl Streep as the Weston family matriarch. Her brood, scattered across the country, is forced to reunite at the old Oklahoma homestead after a family crisis. What follows is a tragicomedy that showcases three generations of dark family secrets.

There are many other examples. Home for The Holidays, directed by Jodie Foster is a fun, chaotic movie involving the clash of personalities at a family Thanksgiving reunion. Knives Out, starring Daniel Craig as the impeccably dressed detective, solves a murder mystery following a tense family gathering to read the will of a wealthy mystery novelist.

Our coming together on Chincoteague Island did not involve any of the intense tragedy or comedy of the above paradigms. It did provide a week of insight on aging, relationships, and the open trading of information, based on our pre-retirement careers.

Unlike gatherings in previous decades, each year we come together now reveals signs of aging. All of us are over 70. The phrase “please repeat that” seemed to be uttered in every discussion. The group went to bed earlier, woke up later, took more naps, and scheduled fewer hikes than ever before. Our beach sitting was accommodated by high director’s chairs rather than the low-slung variety. Pill bottles were everywhere. Each time we left the condo, someone forgot something.

There was a new member of our party that added an upbeat element to the week. We were eager to show him our favorite eateries and activities on the island, which now felt rediscovered. His first close-up view of the famous wild Chincoteague ponies was a joy to behold. Eagles, ospreys, and oyster-catchers completed the experience for him. The jury is still out on his first raw oyster.

It became obvious as the week progressed that a gathering of older adults involves more story telling than a typical family gathering involving younger adults and children. My spouse and her first cousins re-lived their elementary and high school experiences. My best friend from high school (now married to my wife’s first cousin) and I did the same with our many childhood misadventures. The tales from New Jersey tended to be spicier than the ones from Washington County.

My friend from New Jersey is a retired engineer. I was able to review with him our upcoming home improvement projects. He had many excellent suggestions. We brought our new, baffling telescope, and he carefully explained how to reassemble and operate it.

The same friend had a number of estate issues involving his child and former wife that needed immediate attention. My knowledge was helpful in working through each of the legal matters.

Meals are the heart of family gatherings. Our dinners at the condo and around the island provided ample opportunities to further reminisce and to celebrate a birthday. I have rarely laughed so hard or as often. During the day, each of us felt free to go off on our own for some self-reflection.

Compromise was essential. I like to plan each hour of activities while most of the others were more spontaneous. I learned to step back, stop thinking, and to start enjoying. Making the most of the moments and “going with the flow” were important “mental medicine” for me. I compelled myself to let two cousins plan our boat excursion around the island. They took personal ownership and provided our best memories of the week.

Of course, not everything went according to plan. As we loaded into the bigger, brand-new vehicle for the beach, the battery had died. After an hour of researching dealerships, repair shops, and possible reasons a new battery would go dead, a good Samaritan on vacation saved the day. He had a portable starter that worked when our jumper cables failed.

New stories were created for next year—if we can only remember them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PENNSYLVANIA COAL MAKES A COMEBACK

Pennsylvania has experienced a long and varied relationship with coal. Bituminous (soft) coal was first mined in Pennsylvania at "Coal Hill" (Mount Washington), across the Monongahela River from the city of Pittsburgh.  By 1830, Pittsburgh consumed more than 400 tons of bituminous coal per day for domestic and light industrial use. As the industrial revolution gained momentum, the anthracite coalfields, or “hard coal” of eastern Pennsylvania, captured new markets.

Bituminous coal contains more volatile matter and moisture than anthracite. It generates more smoke and ash when burned. In recent years, bituminous has been used primarily as fuel for electric power generation and in industrial manufacturing. Today, bituminous mining operations remain active in 21 counties in Southwest Pennsylvania.

Because it is nearly pure carbon, anthracite is hard to ignite. It burns slowly, longer, and cleaner than bituminous coal. Historically, anthracite was used for residential and commercial heating.  Its modern usages focus on metallurgy, and water filtration as activated carbon. It is most often the type exported to other countries. Pennsylvania’s anthracite region is located in six counties in Northeastern Pennsylvania. This area contains the only reserves of anthracite coal in the United States.

As recently as 2022, Pennsylvania remained the third largest coal-producing state in the nation. According to COAL.ORG, in Pennsylvania the coal industry supported over 17,000 direct and indirect jobs and contributed billions of dollars to the state’s economy. The coal industry’s slogan was “Coal Powers Pennsylvania.” The claim was that “coal’s ability to provide baseload power was unmatched by any other fuel source.”  

Since 1938, we have known that there was a dark side to using coal. When fossil fuels are burned, they release large amounts of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases trap heat and cause global warming.  Global temperatures passed the critical 1.5°C milestone for the first time in 2024. Warming above 1.5°C risks further sea level rise, extreme weather, biodiversity loss, species extinction, and food scarcity. Scientists believe that continued warming will result in worsening health and poverty for millions.

Coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel of them all. It is responsible for over 0.3°C of the 1°C increase in global average temperatures. This makes it the single largest source of global temperature rise. Pound for pound, coal emits more carbon dioxide than any other fossil fuel—generating roughly forty percent of global emissions from fossil fuel use.

 

In an effort to clean up the environment and combat global warming, federal regulations have consistently reduced coal use by enforcing stricter limits on pollution. For decades, these rules, combined with market shifts toward cheaper natural gas and renewable energy, accelerated the retirement of aging coal-fired power plants.

EPA standards under the Clean Air Act require existing coal-fired power plants that operate after 2039 to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by 90 per cent. Retrofitting with carbon capture and storage is extremely expensive. Many utilities planned to retire these plants rather than comply.

In addition to the environmental concerns, until recently, several other factors hastened the death knell of the coal industry in Southwestern Pennsylvania. First, plentiful natural gas became the dominant energy source. Hydraulic fracking in the Marcellus Shale made natural gas far cheaper and easier to access. Second, for those utilities that still required coal, bituminous supply in the Western States was far cheaper to mine.

Within the last 18 months, the prospects for coal have dramatically changed for the better.  It started when Trump returned to office. By executive order in April 2025, Trump implemented several aggressive administrative and regulatory actions to revive the coal industry. He cited national security and rising energy demand.

The Trump administration's core actions since 2025 have included (1) using “emergency authority” to prevent coal fired power plants from shutting down, (2) designating coal as a critical mineral and reversing mining restrictions, (3) providing federally backed financial subsidies to support the coal industry, and (4) reestablishing The National Coal Council to lobby for the industry.

Two current events have helped to support the President’s initiatives and have lowered opposition. Energy demand from AI and cloud data centers provided a lifeline to the coal industry. By overwhelming regional power grids, these energy “hogs” have compelled utilities to delay the retirement of aging coal-fired power plants to maintain reliable electricity.

More recently, the war in Iran has triggered a massive supply shock. Iran’s effective blockade of the Strait of Hormuz choked off vital Middle Eastern gas exports. Vulnerable nations were forced to restart mothballed plants and burn coal to keep their electricity grids operating.

In light of the power supply crisis, Governor Shapiro has also taken action to keep Pennsylvania coal operations alive. He has supported an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy. This policy balances the concerns of environmentalists with energy grid reliability and economic growth. For the immediate future, he has taken steps to keep coal-fired power plants online.

Following the Trump presidency and the abatement of the factors that have increased the need for fossil fuels, what does the future of coal look like?

According to the think tank Energy Innovation, “Coal-fired power cannot compete economically with clean energy and will continue to lose market share across the United States.

Most energy experts agree that the probable long-term future for coal is a steady, structural decline in power generation, driven by the rollout of cheaper renewables and stricter emissions policies.