If the economy is doing so well and is continuing to grow, why does the Federal Reserve Board say there is less likelihood of a rate hike to tame a too-rapid growth rate?
Historically, the Fed has boosted interest rates to prevent the economy from overheating, and then suffering a rapid cooling -- not to say recession.
But after several months of raising interest rates to implement that policy, the Fed now says the economy is doing well enough on its own so no cooling-off measures -- much less stimulation -- are needed.
Unless, of course, Fed analysts know something the rest of us don't know, and that might be that the economy is about to hit the metaphorical skids and slip aside. If that happens, the Fed can then return to its strategy of lowering interest rates to enable the economy to recover.
"The case for raising rates has decreased somewhat," said Fed Chairman Jerome Powell at a news conference. However, he added that while the agency expects the economy to continue to grow "at a solid pace," there are some signs of weakness and a slowdown in other parts of the world, which give the Fed "reason for caution."
In other words, we're doing okay, but there may be trouble ahead.
Wednesday, January 30, 2019
Thursday, January 24, 2019
Respect
When people want to diss someone, they resort to name-calling. It's very likely common in every society and at every level.
It serves several purposes. To begin with, the use of titles shows respect and acknowledges a hierarchy -- if status is important. So to use a derogatory title is a way of reinforcing that hierarchy.
In some societies, even high officials are addressed by their first names. In others, by titles. And in these groups, the higher the officials, the more likely the disparity between respect and domination.
For example, in America it's customary to address an occupant of the Oval Office -- present or former -- as Mister President, while the president can refer to those he deems underlings by their first names, or by some other appellation of his choosing.
All this despite the principle expressed in 1776 that all are created equal, perhaps in protest of an attitude that a monarch is more equal than others.
(I know, there's no law that says only men can be president. So far, all U.S. presidents have been men. But the day is coming when a woman will preside at the Oval Office desk.)
So it is that the current occupant of the Oval Office publicly refers to the leaders of Congress, the co-equal branch of government, as Chuck and Nancy, while he expects to be addressed as Mr. President.
But despite continually acting like one, he is not a monarch. That differential was eliminated in the 18th Century, as America became an independent nation.
Even so, the custom of showing respect for the individual holding the highest elected office in American government carries forward the use of the term "Mr. President."
Whether that person deserves such respect is decided by individual citizens.
Meanwhile, it behooves that person to show as much respect for others as he demands from them. And name-calling is not the way to do it.
It serves several purposes. To begin with, the use of titles shows respect and acknowledges a hierarchy -- if status is important. So to use a derogatory title is a way of reinforcing that hierarchy.
In some societies, even high officials are addressed by their first names. In others, by titles. And in these groups, the higher the officials, the more likely the disparity between respect and domination.
For example, in America it's customary to address an occupant of the Oval Office -- present or former -- as Mister President, while the president can refer to those he deems underlings by their first names, or by some other appellation of his choosing.
All this despite the principle expressed in 1776 that all are created equal, perhaps in protest of an attitude that a monarch is more equal than others.
(I know, there's no law that says only men can be president. So far, all U.S. presidents have been men. But the day is coming when a woman will preside at the Oval Office desk.)
So it is that the current occupant of the Oval Office publicly refers to the leaders of Congress, the co-equal branch of government, as Chuck and Nancy, while he expects to be addressed as Mr. President.
But despite continually acting like one, he is not a monarch. That differential was eliminated in the 18th Century, as America became an independent nation.
Even so, the custom of showing respect for the individual holding the highest elected office in American government carries forward the use of the term "Mr. President."
Whether that person deserves such respect is decided by individual citizens.
Meanwhile, it behooves that person to show as much respect for others as he demands from them. And name-calling is not the way to do it.
A Voice From The Past
Here's a brief item from the blog of August, 2012. How little things change.
There has been a noticeable change among TV interviewers when dealing with politicians. They remind the subject that he or she did not answer the question, following up with something like, "Are you, or are you not ... ?" This is a good change.
Candidates and elected officials from the president on down talk too much and say too little. Answer the question, candidates. Say what you have to say briefly and concisely, and move on. Otherwise, you give the impression that you don't really know what you're talking about, and you resort to speaking at length in the hope that an idea will come to you while you're prattling.
Heed the advice of Plato: Do not "return a long-winded harangue to every question, impeding the argument and evading the point, and speaking at such length that most of (your) hearers forget the question." (Protagoras, 336:c-d, Jowett translation)
The strategy of pettifoggery and gobbledygook mixed with bombast may sound good to the base of devoted followers, but to those who listen for intelligent ideas amid all the sound and fury, it prompts the question: How dumb do they think we are? The cynic's reply: Very.
Too often, we get the kind of government we deserve, not the kind we need.
There has been a noticeable change among TV interviewers when dealing with politicians. They remind the subject that he or she did not answer the question, following up with something like, "Are you, or are you not ... ?" This is a good change.
Candidates and elected officials from the president on down talk too much and say too little. Answer the question, candidates. Say what you have to say briefly and concisely, and move on. Otherwise, you give the impression that you don't really know what you're talking about, and you resort to speaking at length in the hope that an idea will come to you while you're prattling.
Heed the advice of Plato: Do not "return a long-winded harangue to every question, impeding the argument and evading the point, and speaking at such length that most of (your) hearers forget the question." (Protagoras, 336:c-d, Jowett translation)
The strategy of pettifoggery and gobbledygook mixed with bombast may sound good to the base of devoted followers, but to those who listen for intelligent ideas amid all the sound and fury, it prompts the question: How dumb do they think we are? The cynic's reply: Very.
Too often, we get the kind of government we deserve, not the kind we need.
Sunday, January 20, 2019
Political Linguistics
The war of words in Washington is wounding many Americans who have little or no interest in or connection to the issues at the root of the debate.
For all the ranting about the need to build a Great Wall to keep out murderers, thieves, rapists and drug smugglers, the border barrier already in place has not been extended in the two years since the current president took office.
Moreover, much of the smuggling that does occur goes through established ports of entry, usually hidden in vehicles, which can carry more stuff and is more economical. Criminals they may be, but they're not stupid.
Secondly, the $5.6 billion demanded for wall construction was previously approved by Congress a year ago, but the president himself rejected the plan after pressure from his more conservative allies.
So what are the issues, really, that caused the president to close government operations and put people out of work? That number, approaching one million, includes support employees of other businesses such as restaurants that serve lunch to government workers.
One issue is, of course, the border barrier -- which already exists -- and another is the alleged flood of criminal aliens invading America and destroying the culture.
That allegation, by the way, is not supported by the government's own facts and data that show a sharp drop in smuggling and a corresponding rise in attempts by women and children to escape violence in Central American nations, and not primarily Mexico.
As for immigrants destroying the culture, that bigotry has infected America throughout its history, as the doors of opportunity were slammed shut to keep out those who did not look like, talk like, or behave like those who were already here.
The current president seems to have forgotten, if he ever knew, the words inscribed on the base of the Statue of Liberty:
"Send me your tired, your poor ... the homeless, tempest tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
But then, he doesn't seem to have read the Constitution, either, which specifies the duties, responsibilities and limitations of the nation's chief executive.
As for the president's offer to extend protection to DACA youth in exchange for $5.6 billion to build his precious wall, that offer borders on the meaningless, because courts have already stopped government attempts to send them out of this country to places they have never really known.
But again, knowing that detail would require reading newspapers or watching television news programs, or even listening to his own advisors who know the background details of the problem.
And since he doesn't read much anyway, and only listens to those sycophants who repeat to him what he wants to hear, perhaps it's pointless to try to tell him truth.
Meanwhile, casting aspersions and throwing nasty words at those who disagree does nothing to improve the possibility of agreement or compromise.
Firing those who disagree may have been a useful strategy in the real estate development business, but he can't fire members of Congress, a co-equal branch of government elected by the people.
It's long past time this president read the Constitution.
For all the ranting about the need to build a Great Wall to keep out murderers, thieves, rapists and drug smugglers, the border barrier already in place has not been extended in the two years since the current president took office.
Moreover, much of the smuggling that does occur goes through established ports of entry, usually hidden in vehicles, which can carry more stuff and is more economical. Criminals they may be, but they're not stupid.
Secondly, the $5.6 billion demanded for wall construction was previously approved by Congress a year ago, but the president himself rejected the plan after pressure from his more conservative allies.
So what are the issues, really, that caused the president to close government operations and put people out of work? That number, approaching one million, includes support employees of other businesses such as restaurants that serve lunch to government workers.
One issue is, of course, the border barrier -- which already exists -- and another is the alleged flood of criminal aliens invading America and destroying the culture.
That allegation, by the way, is not supported by the government's own facts and data that show a sharp drop in smuggling and a corresponding rise in attempts by women and children to escape violence in Central American nations, and not primarily Mexico.
As for immigrants destroying the culture, that bigotry has infected America throughout its history, as the doors of opportunity were slammed shut to keep out those who did not look like, talk like, or behave like those who were already here.
The current president seems to have forgotten, if he ever knew, the words inscribed on the base of the Statue of Liberty:
"Send me your tired, your poor ... the homeless, tempest tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
But then, he doesn't seem to have read the Constitution, either, which specifies the duties, responsibilities and limitations of the nation's chief executive.
As for the president's offer to extend protection to DACA youth in exchange for $5.6 billion to build his precious wall, that offer borders on the meaningless, because courts have already stopped government attempts to send them out of this country to places they have never really known.
But again, knowing that detail would require reading newspapers or watching television news programs, or even listening to his own advisors who know the background details of the problem.
And since he doesn't read much anyway, and only listens to those sycophants who repeat to him what he wants to hear, perhaps it's pointless to try to tell him truth.
Meanwhile, casting aspersions and throwing nasty words at those who disagree does nothing to improve the possibility of agreement or compromise.
Firing those who disagree may have been a useful strategy in the real estate development business, but he can't fire members of Congress, a co-equal branch of government elected by the people.
It's long past time this president read the Constitution.
Friday, January 18, 2019
Accomplishments and Vendettas
The president recently claimed that his administration has accomplished more in its first two years than any other presidential administration.
Most significantly, he has shut down the government for a full month, longer than in any other such episode.
As a result, many thousands of government workers are on furlough or are forced to work without pay. This includes airport security workers, FBI agents, Secret Service agents who are directly responsible for the president's safety, as well as many others, who must pinch pennies to buy food, pay rent or mortgages, and even for needed medical care.
Some accomplishment.
He has also exceeded the record for the most lies told by a president in that same period of time.
That too is an accomplishment.
Along the way, he has overseen the biggest and fastest turnover of Cabinet officers and senior advisors than any other administration.
Another accomplishment.
When a nation's economy does well, politicians claim credit for the boom, and when the economy stumbles, they blame someone else, usually a predecessor in the other political party.
The U.S. economy now seems about to stumble, according to many experts. So after more than six years of solid growth, most under his predecessor, who's he going to blame if the economy tanks?
Most likely he will blame Democrats in Congress who won't approve $5 billion to build a Great Wall -- which already exists.
Now he wants to divert funds from disaster relief to pay for the already existing Great Wall.
In his latest power play, he made public a plan by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other senior officials to visit war-torn Afghanistan. He did this after Pelosi suggested he postpone his State of the Union speech to Congress, citing safety issues because of the furloughed security staff -- a problem that exists because of the government shutdown -- for which he himself took credit.
In any case, there is no requirement that a president deliver his State of the Union report to Congress in person. The Constitution simply states that a president make such a report yearly. In fact, for many years the report was done in writing and with little fanfare. It was not until the 20th Century and the advent of broadcasting that the State of the Union report was delivered in a speech to a joint session of Congress.
So what has this president accomplished during his first two years?
Daily news reports are filled with details of what he says and does, as well as the consequences of past words and actions.
He has indeed accomplished many things, but whether on balance these accomplishments have benefited or harmed the nation is for the public -- especially voters -- to decide.
Most significantly, he has shut down the government for a full month, longer than in any other such episode.
As a result, many thousands of government workers are on furlough or are forced to work without pay. This includes airport security workers, FBI agents, Secret Service agents who are directly responsible for the president's safety, as well as many others, who must pinch pennies to buy food, pay rent or mortgages, and even for needed medical care.
Some accomplishment.
He has also exceeded the record for the most lies told by a president in that same period of time.
That too is an accomplishment.
Along the way, he has overseen the biggest and fastest turnover of Cabinet officers and senior advisors than any other administration.
Another accomplishment.
When a nation's economy does well, politicians claim credit for the boom, and when the economy stumbles, they blame someone else, usually a predecessor in the other political party.
The U.S. economy now seems about to stumble, according to many experts. So after more than six years of solid growth, most under his predecessor, who's he going to blame if the economy tanks?
Most likely he will blame Democrats in Congress who won't approve $5 billion to build a Great Wall -- which already exists.
Now he wants to divert funds from disaster relief to pay for the already existing Great Wall.
In his latest power play, he made public a plan by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other senior officials to visit war-torn Afghanistan. He did this after Pelosi suggested he postpone his State of the Union speech to Congress, citing safety issues because of the furloughed security staff -- a problem that exists because of the government shutdown -- for which he himself took credit.
In any case, there is no requirement that a president deliver his State of the Union report to Congress in person. The Constitution simply states that a president make such a report yearly. In fact, for many years the report was done in writing and with little fanfare. It was not until the 20th Century and the advent of broadcasting that the State of the Union report was delivered in a speech to a joint session of Congress.
So what has this president accomplished during his first two years?
Daily news reports are filled with details of what he says and does, as well as the consequences of past words and actions.
He has indeed accomplished many things, but whether on balance these accomplishments have benefited or harmed the nation is for the public -- especially voters -- to decide.
Thursday, January 17, 2019
Generalists
"I'm not a lawyer, but ..."
So goes the preliminary defensive excuse voiced by many people before venturing their opinion.
Since when is there a rule that you need a law degree to have an opinion? Lawyers may be expert in the law, but not necessarily in economics or linguistics or history.
To precede a comment with the denial of being a lawyer is a copout, and gives more credit to lawyers than they may deserve. They are certainly knowledgeable in definitions and procedures in a legal process -- or at least they should be -- but many are not. Some specialize in real estate law or in civil law or in criminal law or in corporate law. Some are generalists, and know the basic principles of many different fields of The Law, just as physicians may be general practitioners or surgeons or ophthalmologists or pediatricians or some other specialty.
Similarly, journalists are generalists. They known the basic principles of reporting and writing as well as those of many other fields, so they can understand and report the latest developments in each field. Granted, the more they know about a particular field the better will be their questions and the better their reporting and writing.
Moreover, many reporters do in fact hold degrees in law, economics, history, sociology, political science and other fields, so you will not hear a reporter say something like, "I'm not a lawyer, but ..." because the reporter may well be a lawyer.
As for what the news may mean, that's another story. Reporters' opinions are not relevant to what they do. They may or they may not have opinions, but objective and neutral journalism requires that they keep their opinions out of the story.
That said, it is also true that some who call themselves reporters are neither objective nor neutral. Generally, that is also clear to readers and viewers of many outlets that purport to practice neutral journalism.
To their credit, however, many (call them "information outlets" instead of "news operations.") clearly state their political leanings.
It's up to viewers to understand that some hosts of information programs are in reality commentators, not neutral reporters. Examples include people like Sean Hannity of the Fox network and Ari Melber of MSNBC. Neither has a journalistic background, even as they work in the general field of journalism.
There is, moreover, a time and a place for analysis and comment in news media, both print and broadcast. These items are clearly marked as interpretation and opinion, compared to straight news reporting.
On the print side of journalism, newspapers clearly label editorial and opinion pieces as such, and put them on a separate page, or even in a special section.
Even those that appear on Page One, though they generally resemble straight news stories, show their interpretive or opinion stance in two ways -- by a label, such as "News Analysis" at the top of the story, and by setting the type in what's called "ragged right margins," compared to the "justified" type for straight news stories.
Their function is to comment on what a news development means, not just what it is.
Unfortunately, some political leaders have yet to learn the difference between news and comment, and expect full and absolute agreement with everything they say and do.
That's not a democracy, but a dictatorship. "I'm not a lawyer, but ..."
So goes the preliminary defensive excuse voiced by many people before venturing their opinion.
Since when is there a rule that you need a law degree to have an opinion? Lawyers may be expert in the law, but not necessarily in economics or linguistics or history.
To precede a comment with the denial of being a lawyer is a copout, and gives more credit to lawyers than they may deserve. They are certainly knowledgeable in definitions and procedures in a legal process -- or at least they should be -- but many are not. Some specialize in real estate law or in civil law or in criminal law or in corporate law. Some are generalists, and know the basic principles of many different fields of The Law, just as physicians may be general practitioners or surgeons or ophthalmologists or pediatricians or some other specialty.
Similarly, journalists are generalists. They known the basic principles of reporting and writing as well as those of many other fields, so they can understand and report the latest developments in each field. Granted, the more they know about a particular field the better will be their questions and the better their reporting and writing.
Moreover, many reporters do in fact hold degrees in law, economics, history, sociology, political science and other fields, so you will not hear a reporter say something like, "I'm not a lawyer, but ..." because the reporter may well be a lawyer.
As for what the news may mean, that's another story. Reporters' opinions are not relevant to what they do. They may or they may not have opinions, but objective and neutral journalism requires that they keep their opinions out of the story.
That said, it is also true that some who call themselves reporters are neither objective nor neutral. Generally, that is also clear to readers and viewers of many outlets that purport to practice neutral journalism.
To their credit, however, many (call them "information outlets" instead of "news operations.") clearly state their political leanings.
It's up to viewers to understand that some hosts of information programs are in reality commentators, not neutral reporters. Examples include people like Sean Hannity of the Fox network and Ari Melber of MSNBC. Neither has a journalistic background, even as they work in the general field of journalism.
There is, moreover, a time and a place for analysis and comment in news media, both print and broadcast. These items are clearly marked as interpretation and opinion, compared to straight news reporting.
On the print side of journalism, newspapers clearly label editorial and opinion pieces as such, and put them on a separate page, or even in a special section.
Even those that appear on Page One, though they generally resemble straight news stories, show their interpretive or opinion stance in two ways -- by a label, such as "News Analysis" at the top of the story, and by setting the type in what's called "ragged right margins," compared to the "justified" type for straight news stories.
Their function is to comment on what a news development means, not just what it is.
Unfortunately, some political leaders have yet to learn the difference between news and comment, and expect full and absolute agreement with everything they say and do.
That's not a democracy, but a dictatorship. "I'm not a lawyer, but ..."
History in the Making
We are watching one of the most momentous eras in American history, as the current president of the United States lurches toward impeachment and likely conviction and removal from office, an event that has never happened.
In the past, two presidents -- Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton -- were impeached, but neither was convicted, much less removed from office.
A third, Richard Nixon, resigned as president before the full House of Representatives could vote on articles of impeachment approved by a congressional committee.
Meanwhile, we hear allies of the current president defend him by saying "no evidence" of wrongdoing "has been publicly revealed."
Note the word "publicly." That doesn't mean no evidence exists, though that's what they would like you to believe. It only means that evidence of wrongdoing has not been made public.
Yet.
Such evidence may well exist, and is in the possession of an investigating branch of the Department of Justice.
Now the question is, when will such evidence of wrongdoing -- assuming it does exist -- be revealed.
Most likely answer: When the recently extended grand jury issues an indictment based on evidence presented by special counsel Robert Mueller and his team of investigators.
Unless, of course, the president's newly appointed attorney general buries any report prepared by the special counsel and ignores a grand jury indictment.
As other high officials have pointed out, no one is above the law, and no one -- not even a president -- is immune from prosecution. It has been Department of Justice policy not to prosecute a president while in office. After he leaves office is another matter.
Note, moreover, that this stipulation is a matter of policy, not law. In fact, the Constitution stipulates that a president could still face prosecution under the law even after he is impeached, convicted and removed from office.
Why? Because double jeopardy does not apply. Impeachment is not a criminal nor a civil procedure, but administrative.
Specifically the Constitution states, in Article 3, Paragraph 7, that "the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law."
Unless, of course, a new president issues a pardon for any and all offences that may have been perpetrated by the alleged offender. That's what Jerry Ford did for Richard Nixon.
Still, there is the issue of possible offenses under state laws, since a president can only issue pardons for federal offenses.
We live in an interesting time.
In the past, two presidents -- Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton -- were impeached, but neither was convicted, much less removed from office.
A third, Richard Nixon, resigned as president before the full House of Representatives could vote on articles of impeachment approved by a congressional committee.
Meanwhile, we hear allies of the current president defend him by saying "no evidence" of wrongdoing "has been publicly revealed."
Note the word "publicly." That doesn't mean no evidence exists, though that's what they would like you to believe. It only means that evidence of wrongdoing has not been made public.
Yet.
Such evidence may well exist, and is in the possession of an investigating branch of the Department of Justice.
Now the question is, when will such evidence of wrongdoing -- assuming it does exist -- be revealed.
Most likely answer: When the recently extended grand jury issues an indictment based on evidence presented by special counsel Robert Mueller and his team of investigators.
Unless, of course, the president's newly appointed attorney general buries any report prepared by the special counsel and ignores a grand jury indictment.
As other high officials have pointed out, no one is above the law, and no one -- not even a president -- is immune from prosecution. It has been Department of Justice policy not to prosecute a president while in office. After he leaves office is another matter.
Note, moreover, that this stipulation is a matter of policy, not law. In fact, the Constitution stipulates that a president could still face prosecution under the law even after he is impeached, convicted and removed from office.
Why? Because double jeopardy does not apply. Impeachment is not a criminal nor a civil procedure, but administrative.
Specifically the Constitution states, in Article 3, Paragraph 7, that "the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law."
Unless, of course, a new president issues a pardon for any and all offences that may have been perpetrated by the alleged offender. That's what Jerry Ford did for Richard Nixon.
Still, there is the issue of possible offenses under state laws, since a president can only issue pardons for federal offenses.
We live in an interesting time.
Tuesday, January 15, 2019
The Twelfth of Ever
The concept of a base 12 system seems to be inherent in humans, not only in their bodies, but in their history and culture as well. In fact, some of the most significant events in history have occurred in a 12-year cycle.
Here are a few examples of the Power of Twelve in history, beginning with the year 1492, when Christopher Columbus made his voyage to America.
That same year back home was when a royal decree ordered all Jews and Muslims either to convert to Catholicism or leave the country. The background to this attitude was a fear that Jews and Muslims, as immigrants, would take over the country. That was at the height of the Spanish Inquisition, which had begun 12 years earlier. (Didn't expect that, did you? But then, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.)
Later in the series of 12-year cycles, in 1620, the Pilgrims land in Massachusetts.
Now fast-forward to 1752, the year that begins the 12th cycle after the Columbus voyage. In that year, the Liberty Bell is delivered to Philadelphia.
Twelve years later, in 1764, Parliament imposes taxes on products shipped to the colonies. But the colonists object, and in another 12 years, they declare independence.
So begins the series of 12-year cycles in American history:
1776 -- American independence is declared, leading to 1787, the 12th year of independence, when a Constitution is written.
1788 -- A new cycle begins, and the new Constitution is ratified.
1800 -- The federal government moves from New York to the new city of Washington, DC.
1812 -- War, as the new nation confirms its freedom from Britain.
1824 -- Illinois abolishes slavery, the first state to do so. John Quincy Adams becomes president despite losing the popular vote.
1836 -- Texas declares independence from Mexico. Battle at the Alamo is fought.
1848 -- Political upheaval in Europe, gold is discovered in California, the U.S. acquires Texas and a vast amount of territory throughout the West, and the Seneca Falls convention declares for the rights of women.
1860 -- Abraham Lincoln is elected president.
Skip two cycles, and we come to:
1896 -- John Philip Sousa composes "The Star-Spangled Banner."
1908 -- The Chicago Cubs win the World Series.
1920 -- Prohibition begins in America, ushering in the Roaring Twenties.
1932 -- The Great Depression is at its worst, Franklin D. Roosevelt is elected president, and Adolf Hitler rises to power in Germany.
1944 -- D-Day, the invasion of Normandy and the beginning of the end of World War II.
1956 -- The Supreme Court declares bus segregation unconstitutional.
1968 -- In one of the most crucial years in American history, Martin Luther King is shot, Robert Kennedy is shot, Richard Nixon is elected president, and Donald Trump becomes exempt from military draft because of bone spurs.
Starting with 1968 as Year One of this cycle, we get to 1979 as Year Twelve, when the fictional movie "The China Syndrome," dealing with the collapse of a nuclear power plant, is released. Twelve days after its release, the real nuclear power plant at Three Mile Island collapses.
1980 -- The start of a new cycle. In this year, John Lennon is shot, Ronald Reagan is elected president, the U.S. Olympic hockey team defeats the Russian team and wins a gold medal in what has been called a "miracle on ice."
1992 -- Bill Clinton is elected president, and is later impeached but not convicted.
2004 -- George W. Bush is re-elected president, after losing the popular vote four years earlier.
2016 --In this year, the beginning of the current 12-year cycle, Donald Trump is elected president.
Whatever that may portend remains to be seen, but there is hope, because in that same year of the 12-year cycle, the Chicago Cubs finally win the World Series again.
Here are a few examples of the Power of Twelve in history, beginning with the year 1492, when Christopher Columbus made his voyage to America.
That same year back home was when a royal decree ordered all Jews and Muslims either to convert to Catholicism or leave the country. The background to this attitude was a fear that Jews and Muslims, as immigrants, would take over the country. That was at the height of the Spanish Inquisition, which had begun 12 years earlier. (Didn't expect that, did you? But then, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.)
Later in the series of 12-year cycles, in 1620, the Pilgrims land in Massachusetts.
Now fast-forward to 1752, the year that begins the 12th cycle after the Columbus voyage. In that year, the Liberty Bell is delivered to Philadelphia.
Twelve years later, in 1764, Parliament imposes taxes on products shipped to the colonies. But the colonists object, and in another 12 years, they declare independence.
So begins the series of 12-year cycles in American history:
1776 -- American independence is declared, leading to 1787, the 12th year of independence, when a Constitution is written.
1788 -- A new cycle begins, and the new Constitution is ratified.
1800 -- The federal government moves from New York to the new city of Washington, DC.
1812 -- War, as the new nation confirms its freedom from Britain.
1824 -- Illinois abolishes slavery, the first state to do so. John Quincy Adams becomes president despite losing the popular vote.
1836 -- Texas declares independence from Mexico. Battle at the Alamo is fought.
1848 -- Political upheaval in Europe, gold is discovered in California, the U.S. acquires Texas and a vast amount of territory throughout the West, and the Seneca Falls convention declares for the rights of women.
1860 -- Abraham Lincoln is elected president.
Skip two cycles, and we come to:
1896 -- John Philip Sousa composes "The Star-Spangled Banner."
1908 -- The Chicago Cubs win the World Series.
1920 -- Prohibition begins in America, ushering in the Roaring Twenties.
1932 -- The Great Depression is at its worst, Franklin D. Roosevelt is elected president, and Adolf Hitler rises to power in Germany.
1944 -- D-Day, the invasion of Normandy and the beginning of the end of World War II.
1956 -- The Supreme Court declares bus segregation unconstitutional.
1968 -- In one of the most crucial years in American history, Martin Luther King is shot, Robert Kennedy is shot, Richard Nixon is elected president, and Donald Trump becomes exempt from military draft because of bone spurs.
Starting with 1968 as Year One of this cycle, we get to 1979 as Year Twelve, when the fictional movie "The China Syndrome," dealing with the collapse of a nuclear power plant, is released. Twelve days after its release, the real nuclear power plant at Three Mile Island collapses.
1980 -- The start of a new cycle. In this year, John Lennon is shot, Ronald Reagan is elected president, the U.S. Olympic hockey team defeats the Russian team and wins a gold medal in what has been called a "miracle on ice."
1992 -- Bill Clinton is elected president, and is later impeached but not convicted.
2004 -- George W. Bush is re-elected president, after losing the popular vote four years earlier.
2016 --In this year, the beginning of the current 12-year cycle, Donald Trump is elected president.
Whatever that may portend remains to be seen, but there is hope, because in that same year of the 12-year cycle, the Chicago Cubs finally win the World Series again.
Lunar Tunes and Many Maladies
"I don't believe in leprechauns at all. But they're there, all the same." -- Pug Mahoney's grandmother.
Some scoff at the idea that a full moon influences behavior. But ask any cop, bartender or hospital staffer and the response will be, "Of course it does."
Many will add, "I don't care what the scientists say. I know what I see. When there's a full moon, people go loony. That's where the word comes from."
Which leads to the issue of folk wisdom and the question of whether a full moon affects behavior. Note the number of times a reference to the moon -- full or otherwise -- appears in song. Here are just three examples:
-- "Full moon and empty arms."
-- "Blue moon, you saw me standing alone."
-- "Howlin' at the moon."
A blue moon, by the way, is when a full moon appears twice in a calendar month. And some things only happen once in a blue moon.
Also, the medical term "influenza" originated in Italy, and the full term to describe the disease was "influenza della luna," or "influence of the moon."
The word moon also rhymes with June, a favorite month in which to marry, after much romantic behavior during times of a full moon.
So whether you believe the moon influences human behavior or not, it's doesn't matter because it's there all the same.
Some scoff at the idea that a full moon influences behavior. But ask any cop, bartender or hospital staffer and the response will be, "Of course it does."
Many will add, "I don't care what the scientists say. I know what I see. When there's a full moon, people go loony. That's where the word comes from."
Which leads to the issue of folk wisdom and the question of whether a full moon affects behavior. Note the number of times a reference to the moon -- full or otherwise -- appears in song. Here are just three examples:
-- "Full moon and empty arms."
-- "Blue moon, you saw me standing alone."
-- "Howlin' at the moon."
A blue moon, by the way, is when a full moon appears twice in a calendar month. And some things only happen once in a blue moon.
Also, the medical term "influenza" originated in Italy, and the full term to describe the disease was "influenza della luna," or "influence of the moon."
The word moon also rhymes with June, a favorite month in which to marry, after much romantic behavior during times of a full moon.
So whether you believe the moon influences human behavior or not, it's doesn't matter because it's there all the same.
Tuesday, January 1, 2019
Beware of Absolutes
"No Administration has accomplished more in its first two years than the Trump Administration." -- President Donald Trump
Here's a brief check list:
During Woodrow Wilson's first two years in office, the Federal Reserve banking system began, in 1914.
When Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in 1933, his first two years saw numerous programs to end the Great Depression, including the New Deal, with its efforts to regulate banks, aid the jobless, create jobs with the unemployed number in the millions, raise farm prices, set minimum wage and production standards, establish the Works Progress Administration (WPA), the Rural Electrification program, the National Recovery Act, and the Social Security Act.
During Dwight D. Eisenhower's first two years in office, the U.S. agreed to an armistice for the war in Korea, joined the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and the Warsaw Treaty Organization. Ike also continued the New Deal program, expanded Social Security, started the Interstate Highway System and established NASA.
As for the Trump Administration's major accomplishments, arguably the biggest and most significant was the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which slashed corporate taxes by 15 percent and reduced the income tax rate for high earners.
Meanwhile, the nation's economy may be on the brink of recession.
Were there other Trump accomplishments that were significant or that matched -- much less exceeded -- the influence and effects of other presidential actions?
So it's possible that the Trump Administration has accomplished more in its first two years than any other administration. But has it been positive or negative? Stay tuned.
Here's a brief check list:
During Woodrow Wilson's first two years in office, the Federal Reserve banking system began, in 1914.
When Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in 1933, his first two years saw numerous programs to end the Great Depression, including the New Deal, with its efforts to regulate banks, aid the jobless, create jobs with the unemployed number in the millions, raise farm prices, set minimum wage and production standards, establish the Works Progress Administration (WPA), the Rural Electrification program, the National Recovery Act, and the Social Security Act.
During Dwight D. Eisenhower's first two years in office, the U.S. agreed to an armistice for the war in Korea, joined the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and the Warsaw Treaty Organization. Ike also continued the New Deal program, expanded Social Security, started the Interstate Highway System and established NASA.
Soon after Lyndon B. Johnson took office, the nation had the Job Corps, the Peace Corps, the Great Society program and the War on Poverty program.
In the first two years of the Barack Obama Administration, the nation got the Affordable Care Act for health care, the Fair Pay Act, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to stimulate the economy after an earlier financial collapse.As for the Trump Administration's major accomplishments, arguably the biggest and most significant was the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which slashed corporate taxes by 15 percent and reduced the income tax rate for high earners.
Meanwhile, the nation's economy may be on the brink of recession.
Were there other Trump accomplishments that were significant or that matched -- much less exceeded -- the influence and effects of other presidential actions?
So it's possible that the Trump Administration has accomplished more in its first two years than any other administration. But has it been positive or negative? Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)