The president often "jokes" about a third and even a fourth term in office, and brags that it "drives them crazy," referring to news media reporters and commentators.
Either he is unaware that the Constitution limits a president to two elected terms in office plus a maximum of two years of an unexpired term if he succeeds to the presidency after the death or resignation of an elected president, or he deliberately ignores it.
If he is unaware of that provision, then his ignorance is not excusable. He took an oath to uphold the Constitution, which he cannot do if he has not read it.
But if he is aware of the two-term limit and continues to speak of his third or even fourth term in office, that leaves two conclusions:
Either he is joking, as he claims, but it's not funny.
Or he is serious, and is planting the idea among his true believers to support him when he makes a move to suspend the Constitution.
And that is not the least bit amusing.
Presidential term limits were put in place after Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to a fourth term in 1944, a move led by Republicans.
That Constitutional amendment -- number 22 -- quickly took effect. Ironically, it prevented the popular Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower from seeking a third term in 1960, to be succeeded by Democrat John F. Kennedy.
Since then, no president, no matter how popular or competent, can seek a third term. That provision, however, has not stopped the current occupant of the Oval Office from talking about becoming "president for life," a term now used by the leader of China. And he regularly comments about his plans for his 12th or 14th year in office.
So is he joking, as he claims? That's hard to tell, since he's not even smiling as he says it. Then again, he seldom smiles anyway, so it's a fair assumption to think that on some level he means it.
Or is his claim of joking really a coverup for his plan to build support for the idea -- no matter how unconstitutional -- among his supporters.
Couple that with his continuing praise for the leaders of Russia and China, as well as his sharp criticism of Fed Chairman Jay Powell (Yes, he got the name wrong. It's Jerome.) and you have a warning about the future for America.
Or as Molly would say to her radio spouse, "'Tain't funny, McGee."
And have you noticed that he only applies the term "nasty" to women critics of what he says and does? Not to men.
Saturday, August 24, 2019
Wednesday, August 21, 2019
Powerful Words
"I am the chosen one."
"Jewish people who vote Democratic are disloyal."
Spoken by the current occupant of the Oval Office at an encounter with news media on the White House lawn this day, Wednesday, 21 August 2019.
Make of it what you will.
"Jewish people who vote Democratic are disloyal."
Spoken by the current occupant of the Oval Office at an encounter with news media on the White House lawn this day, Wednesday, 21 August 2019.
Make of it what you will.
Sunday, August 18, 2019
Whether Wither
The current economy is beginning to seem like Mark Twain's weather comment: Everybody talks about it, but nobody does anything about it.
Now the question becomes whether anybody can do anything about it, or will the economy simply wither on its own.
An ultraconservative school of economic thought says that an economy has a life of its own and that government neither can nor should do anything to influence it. That idea, however, lost most of its influence during the Roosevelt era, when government intervention rescued the nation from the Great Depression.
The more liberal attitude prevailed for many years, even as cycles occasionally raised questions about its validity.
Perhaps both are correct. Every economy has cycles, and when things are going well, government should minimize its intervention. This is true even as government spending always has a major role in any economy.
But when an economy goes into its downward cycle, government can and should increase its spending to compensate for cutbacks in consumer and business spending.
News reports currently stress the possibility of a recession, as predicted by what's called an "inverted yield curve." And while it's true that such a phenomenon has predicted nearly every economic downturn for many years, no one has yet calculated the time frame between the worrisome yield curve and the actual start of a recession.
So just what is an "inverted yield curve, and why is it significant?
Start by plotting the interest rate yield on bonds. Typically, the longer you hold a bond, the higher the interest rate. Short term bonds pay a lower rate. When plotted on a graph showing the two factors, the line will start at a lower point and rise over time. Visually, the line starts on the left and rises to the right.
But when investors fear to lock in their money for a longer term and buy short term bonds instead, the yield curve is inverted -- slanting in the opposite direction, downward from left to right.
Historically, this fear of investors to lock in their money for a long term has been a harbinger of recession. But the time frame, however, from the start of the downward curve to an economic downturn, has not been fixed.
In any case, a recession is defined as two consecutive fiscal quarters of negative growth in an economy. And since the U.S. has yet to see a negative growth rate in a recent quarter, we won't see a recession until next year, according to the standard definition.
That means, even if the current fiscal quarter, which ends in September, shows negative growth and is followed by negative growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the fourth quarter ending in December, we won't know until the numbers are posted sometime in January whether the U.S. has shown two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, thus meeting the definition of recession.
Meanwhile, holiday spending as the year ends is likely to stall a fourth quarter negative.
Maybe.
Now the question becomes whether anybody can do anything about it, or will the economy simply wither on its own.
An ultraconservative school of economic thought says that an economy has a life of its own and that government neither can nor should do anything to influence it. That idea, however, lost most of its influence during the Roosevelt era, when government intervention rescued the nation from the Great Depression.
The more liberal attitude prevailed for many years, even as cycles occasionally raised questions about its validity.
Perhaps both are correct. Every economy has cycles, and when things are going well, government should minimize its intervention. This is true even as government spending always has a major role in any economy.
But when an economy goes into its downward cycle, government can and should increase its spending to compensate for cutbacks in consumer and business spending.
News reports currently stress the possibility of a recession, as predicted by what's called an "inverted yield curve." And while it's true that such a phenomenon has predicted nearly every economic downturn for many years, no one has yet calculated the time frame between the worrisome yield curve and the actual start of a recession.
So just what is an "inverted yield curve, and why is it significant?
Start by plotting the interest rate yield on bonds. Typically, the longer you hold a bond, the higher the interest rate. Short term bonds pay a lower rate. When plotted on a graph showing the two factors, the line will start at a lower point and rise over time. Visually, the line starts on the left and rises to the right.
But when investors fear to lock in their money for a longer term and buy short term bonds instead, the yield curve is inverted -- slanting in the opposite direction, downward from left to right.
Historically, this fear of investors to lock in their money for a long term has been a harbinger of recession. But the time frame, however, from the start of the downward curve to an economic downturn, has not been fixed.
In any case, a recession is defined as two consecutive fiscal quarters of negative growth in an economy. And since the U.S. has yet to see a negative growth rate in a recent quarter, we won't see a recession until next year, according to the standard definition.
That means, even if the current fiscal quarter, which ends in September, shows negative growth and is followed by negative growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the fourth quarter ending in December, we won't know until the numbers are posted sometime in January whether the U.S. has shown two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, thus meeting the definition of recession.
Meanwhile, holiday spending as the year ends is likely to stall a fourth quarter negative.
Maybe.
Sunday, August 4, 2019
"A Well Regulated Militia ... "
Those who favor unrestricted possession of any number of guns by any individual, regardless of any association with any organized group -- military or otherwise -- are fond of quoting the Second Amendment whenever any discussion of gun control comes up.
They focus on the smaller, secondary part of the Constitutional amendment and ignore the definitive first part, which refers to "A well regulated militia," and defines it as "necessary to the security of a free state."
As for the next part, "the right of the people keep and bear arms," that should be read as supporting the duty of the "free and independent states," (Declaration of Independence) to organize their own state militias, separate from any national army. At the time, state militias were the dominant security forces in America. The federal military did not become a major force until after the Civil War.
All this history and easy reading of the Constitution does not stop gun lobbyists from being selective in their choice of phrases in order to back up their claim that every individual has a right to own as many weapons as he or she chooses, regardless of any membership in a "well regulated militia."
" ... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is a good and proper statement designed to prevent a national government from interfering with any state's rights to organize their own "well regulated militia," because such a force is "necessary to the security of a free state."
Since the early days of American independence, when firearms were mostly muskets, flintlock rifles and individual-shot pistols, technology has advanced such that automatic and semi-automatic weapons are easily available to any individual, whether that person is only an avid collector, a member of a "well regulated militia," or is bent on using said weapon to kill dozens of people in a single episode.
So what happened to the concept of the "well regulated militia"? It has been replaced by the National Guard, state police, county and local police, all of them carefully monitored and controlled by state and local governments.
The days of individuals gathering their own automatic weaponry and using them in mass killings of those they dislike should be long past.
They're not.
They focus on the smaller, secondary part of the Constitutional amendment and ignore the definitive first part, which refers to "A well regulated militia," and defines it as "necessary to the security of a free state."
As for the next part, "the right of the people keep and bear arms," that should be read as supporting the duty of the "free and independent states," (Declaration of Independence) to organize their own state militias, separate from any national army. At the time, state militias were the dominant security forces in America. The federal military did not become a major force until after the Civil War.
All this history and easy reading of the Constitution does not stop gun lobbyists from being selective in their choice of phrases in order to back up their claim that every individual has a right to own as many weapons as he or she chooses, regardless of any membership in a "well regulated militia."
" ... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is a good and proper statement designed to prevent a national government from interfering with any state's rights to organize their own "well regulated militia," because such a force is "necessary to the security of a free state."
Since the early days of American independence, when firearms were mostly muskets, flintlock rifles and individual-shot pistols, technology has advanced such that automatic and semi-automatic weapons are easily available to any individual, whether that person is only an avid collector, a member of a "well regulated militia," or is bent on using said weapon to kill dozens of people in a single episode.
So what happened to the concept of the "well regulated militia"? It has been replaced by the National Guard, state police, county and local police, all of them carefully monitored and controlled by state and local governments.
The days of individuals gathering their own automatic weaponry and using them in mass killings of those they dislike should be long past.
They're not.
Friday, August 2, 2019
A Writer's Dilemma
Writing is hard work.
It's more than just pushing a pencil around to form words. Those words have to make sense, and tell a story.
Journalism can sometimes be a bit easier, since you just report the facts. Who said what, where and when. The why isn't always available at the time of writing, especially for a daily news operation, but that part can be left to the commentators and opinion writers to speculate on.
Fiction, on the other hand, can be even more difficult, not only in the creative process, but in marketing the product as well, since that's a separate skill that few writers have.
Moreover, there is the problem of attracting the attention of a publisher. Publishing companies are bombarded with dozens of offerings every day, and the advent of computers and email has made it easier for writers to send copies of their books without worrying about typing a new copy, paying postage, and hoping earlier typescripts are returned.
Modern technology, meanwhile, has made self publishing a lot easier for authors to publish their work on their own, without having to pay others and wait while they get around to doing the work.
In addition, the newly published book becomes available worldwide within hours, and the tech company pays royalties within a few months. By comparison, a traditional publisher may pay royalties only every six months, beginning a full calendar year after publication.
There are also vanity publishers, who will print as many copies as the author wants and is willing to pay for. As for marketing, distribution and sales, the authors are on their own.
Then there is the new breed of publisher, who will take on the job of printing, distributing and marketing the new book on what's called a "contributory" arrangement with the author.
Simply put, this means the author contributes some $2,900 toward the cost of publishing. Later, assuming a royalty of $1 per copy sold, that means nearly 3,000 copies must be sold before the author recoups the investment.
But even if an author pays the basic cost of printing, shipping, handling, sales tax and postage to have a book delivered to the author's home by the self-publishing firm, there remains the issue of persuading local bookstores to stock copies.
Some refuse to deal with any work printed by a large, well known tech company because they fear the worldwide firm is trying to put local booksellers out of business.
Others offer to stock an author's work, but on conditions that make it silly for the author to accept. For example, a bookstore will accept a maximum of three copies, on consignment, with a consignment fee of $15 and a 40 percent share of the retail price.
Consider: Printing, shipping and handling will cost the author $4 per copy. Add to that a consignment fee of $5 per copy and you get a total of $9.
Next, deducting from the retail price of $10, the store keeps $4 and gives the author $6. But the author has already spent $9 per copy, which means a loss of $3 just for having the work printed and delivered to the store. Meanwhile, the author has earned nothing for the time and effort of the creative process of actually writing the book. And the store has received a total of $9 -- consignment fee plus a share of the retail price.
So what's a writer to do?
Traditional publishers show no interest, "contributory" publishers are too expensive and show no signs of a reasonable, timely return on the investment, bookstores either refuse to deal with self-published works or make it financially not feasible for an author to participate.
Conclusion: Stay with the tech company's self-publishing division and do a bit of marketing on your own, all while hoping that worldwide exposure will compensate for the disappointment of losing a local relationship.
Which may not have been there to begin with, so it doesn't matter.
And remember the words of Samuel Johnson: "No one but a blockhead ever wrote except for money."
It's more than just pushing a pencil around to form words. Those words have to make sense, and tell a story.
Journalism can sometimes be a bit easier, since you just report the facts. Who said what, where and when. The why isn't always available at the time of writing, especially for a daily news operation, but that part can be left to the commentators and opinion writers to speculate on.
Fiction, on the other hand, can be even more difficult, not only in the creative process, but in marketing the product as well, since that's a separate skill that few writers have.
Moreover, there is the problem of attracting the attention of a publisher. Publishing companies are bombarded with dozens of offerings every day, and the advent of computers and email has made it easier for writers to send copies of their books without worrying about typing a new copy, paying postage, and hoping earlier typescripts are returned.
Modern technology, meanwhile, has made self publishing a lot easier for authors to publish their work on their own, without having to pay others and wait while they get around to doing the work.
In addition, the newly published book becomes available worldwide within hours, and the tech company pays royalties within a few months. By comparison, a traditional publisher may pay royalties only every six months, beginning a full calendar year after publication.
There are also vanity publishers, who will print as many copies as the author wants and is willing to pay for. As for marketing, distribution and sales, the authors are on their own.
Then there is the new breed of publisher, who will take on the job of printing, distributing and marketing the new book on what's called a "contributory" arrangement with the author.
Simply put, this means the author contributes some $2,900 toward the cost of publishing. Later, assuming a royalty of $1 per copy sold, that means nearly 3,000 copies must be sold before the author recoups the investment.
But even if an author pays the basic cost of printing, shipping, handling, sales tax and postage to have a book delivered to the author's home by the self-publishing firm, there remains the issue of persuading local bookstores to stock copies.
Some refuse to deal with any work printed by a large, well known tech company because they fear the worldwide firm is trying to put local booksellers out of business.
Others offer to stock an author's work, but on conditions that make it silly for the author to accept. For example, a bookstore will accept a maximum of three copies, on consignment, with a consignment fee of $15 and a 40 percent share of the retail price.
Consider: Printing, shipping and handling will cost the author $4 per copy. Add to that a consignment fee of $5 per copy and you get a total of $9.
Next, deducting from the retail price of $10, the store keeps $4 and gives the author $6. But the author has already spent $9 per copy, which means a loss of $3 just for having the work printed and delivered to the store. Meanwhile, the author has earned nothing for the time and effort of the creative process of actually writing the book. And the store has received a total of $9 -- consignment fee plus a share of the retail price.
So what's a writer to do?
Traditional publishers show no interest, "contributory" publishers are too expensive and show no signs of a reasonable, timely return on the investment, bookstores either refuse to deal with self-published works or make it financially not feasible for an author to participate.
Conclusion: Stay with the tech company's self-publishing division and do a bit of marketing on your own, all while hoping that worldwide exposure will compensate for the disappointment of losing a local relationship.
Which may not have been there to begin with, so it doesn't matter.
And remember the words of Samuel Johnson: "No one but a blockhead ever wrote except for money."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)