Hopeful Loser

   It's possible that Donald Trump expects to lose the coming election, so he can  use his allegation of falsity to justify his takeover by force.
   That was the apparent plan eight years ago, when he talked so much about a "rigged" election.
   Even before any votes were counted.
   But after a series of challenges that went all the way to a Supreme Court referee, Trump took the presidency.
   So who did the rigging?
   Now we hear similar warnings, and again they come from Trump himself, but now the warning is of a "dictatorship."
   That's the word he used himself, even as he added the claim that it would be "only on day one."
   But where is the guarantee that day one would be the only day?
   Promises, promises.

   Meanwhile, time is passing. Election day is nearing. Candidates are expanding the volume and number of their claims, both how good they are and how their opponents behave.
   Plus, they warn of how bad things will become if their opponent takes office.
   So what else is new? said the resident cynic.

   Of the main guidelines for journalism -- Who, What, Where, When and Why -- the first four are relatively easy to gather. The final W, however, can be difficult, so it is left out of daily news reports, leaving it to opinion writers or weekly analysts.
   It comes down to this: Why do politicians do what they choose to do?
   Some will say they had no choice; they were forced by circumstances beyond their control.
   Or some will blame it on an evil spirit. "The devil made me do it," they insist.
   Others will say there is always a choice, and they should follow the dictates of their conscience, or of their religious teaching to help resist temptation.
   But is following someone else's dictates really a choice? Where is personal responsibility?
   As for the first option -- "forced by circumstances beyond their control" -- what happened to personal responsibility?
   Politicians repeat this claim, but this time the personal responsibility is on someone else.
   You can't have it both ways.

Election Nearing

   The closer we get to election day, the louder and more boisterous candidates and their supporters behave.
   With the advent of television and national networks, the boisterousity becomes louder and more aggressive daily, even to the level of ignoring truth.
   Not that truth was ever crucial in political campaigning.
   But before television and its nationwide networks, false claims or even those of questionable value, were mostly regional -- if that much.
   Moreover, early regulation of broadcast licensing was more critical of half-truth, lies or even biased reports.
   That was back in the day when many regions had only one or two -- if any -- TV stations accessible, and they were based in the largest nearby city. In addition, their programming  reflected the interests and preferences of urban believers. Suburban and rural viewers saw mostly programs aimed at the majority of viewers -- those who had enough money to respond to advertising.
   Politics has not changed, and corruption remains a problem, especially in cities. In addition, bigotry causes violence.
   In past decades, newcomers struggled for acceptance, often because of prejudice from those whose ancestors came to America much earlier.
   "We were here first," was the motto and justification for demands that they were entitled to seniority and preferential treatment.
   But we don't hear that from the Algonquin, the Lenape and people of the many other tribes who were here before European pilgrims.

Political Biology

   Republicans now claim that Democratic candidate and current Vice President Kamala Harris should not be elected president because she has never had a child.
   But no other U.S. president, going all the way back to George Washington, has ever had a child.
   They were all men.
   Quick biology lesson: Only women can have children. Men cannot.
   Moreover, some presidents never married. Washington married a widow and adopted her children, but sired none of his own.

Word Play

    VP Candidate JD Vance says he is willing to "create stories" to get news media attention.
   Translation: "Tell lies."
   Journalists have a duty to report what politicians say.
   But what if the claim is false?
   Moreover, the claim is provably false?
   Bottom line: It's a lie.
   Not just a mistake in rhetoric, but a full-blown, flat-out lie.
   Time was, reporters did not use such comments but dismissed them as errors n speaking. But when such "errors in speaking" occur often and repeatedly, the conclusion is that such things are either deliberate or examples of incompetence.
   If either is true, the speaker is not a good candidate for any public office. Sadly, such behavior often resonates well with some voters, enough so that they become avid followers of the "creative story" teller.
   A liar.

Gun Happy

"A well regulated militia -- "

   A major problem in America today is that the so-called "militia" is not well regulated or controlled. Therefore, the free cities and states of America are not secure, because there are too many guns, and little control of unregulated civilians pretending to be part of a "militia."
   With the exception of the National Guard -- a well regulated organization supervised by each state -- there are no militias in America states. There may be civilian groups calling themselves militia, but as for being organized, that's another issue.
   Individuals acting on their own and killing others do not qualify as militia. They are criminals.
   Some defend their membership in the National Rifle Association (NRA) as part of a national defense force. It is true that the NRA was formed with the help of the U.S. Army during wartime many decades ago, driven by fears of an invasion. But the odds of invasion are somewhere between slim and none, and in either case we have a well organized national Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Coast Guard and National Guard to protect America from invasion.
   That raises the question of invasion from where -- Canada? Not likely. Nor Mexico.
   Moreover, the U.S. Army canceled its formal relationship with the gun industry long ago, driven in part by a lack of need as well as the industry's desire for profit every year, regardless of wartime conflict.
   Now, there are more guns in America than there are people. And that does not count military weapons.
   Gun lobbyists cite the Second Amendment as their guarantee that they can have as many firearms as they please, with little or no regulation. And they cite the last phrase of the Amendment, that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
   This ignores the first phrase: "A well regulated militia."
  Therefore, government does indeed have the right to regulate gun ownership.
   The issue then becomes an argument over who can own a gun, and how many.
   Is there or should there be a limit to the number of firearms a civilian can own? Many lobbyist insist there should not be any limits.
   Nor should there be a limit on the type of gun a civilian can possess, they claim.
   Many gun owners insist they "need" a high-caliber, multi-shot, long-distance weapon when hunting wildlife.
   In New Jersey?
   And is that fair to Bambi?

True Believers

    Weekend days are light, newswise. That partly depends on politics and whether candidates are active in seeking office. Otherwise, crime takes the headlines. 

   This weekend was typical of election year, but only because of candidate activity. The difference is in their behavior and that of their followers.

   Or should I say, "true believers." 

   This year borders on  near religious devotion to their favored candidate. 

   That's not really unusual. Politics is religious in that way. Followers believe so strongly in their leader that they accept everything the leaders says without doubt or question.

   But there comes a time when people must decide on whom they prefer as a leader. That's when potential leaders must show their abilities to voters.

   The problem then becomes whether voters are willing to accept a political candidate as a government leader. This is where salesmanship comes in.

   So which would you rather have, a salesman of a politician? How about both in one? Or perhaps neither of the above?

   Or a lawyer.

   Or a candidate who is all of the above.

Loser

"Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing."  -- Vince Lombardi

   Why do you suppose Donald Trump rejects the idea of another debate with Kamala Harris?
   From here, the answer is a fear of losing.
   By his standards, winning is the only thing of value. And since that can be usually measured by money, that means money is the only real measure of value.
   Therefore, winning equals money. And for him, that equation goes all the way to the White House.
   There has long been a standard among American politicians and government officials that they should not use their offices as a way to increase their wealth.
   At least, that's what they say. What they actually do is another issue.
   Many deny they do such a thing, that could be a road to prison. Even so, many do just that, in the hope they won't get caught.
   Oddly, all the publicity wrought by news reports about the recent debate conflict generates more money from devoted supporters.
   So even when he loses, his followers send more money, to compensate him for his efforts.
   Even thought he lost.
   Does this suggest he may deliberately lose in order to attract more cash?  Or just that he uses his loss to generate more income?
   Either way, he gains financially.

Debate or Not Debate

    Debate or not debate. That is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to ignore the stings and errors of obnoxious insults, or to reply in kind.
   Will one candidate reply in kind to the personal insults launched by her opponent or will she ignore them and focus on political and economic issues?
   We shall see. An encounter labeled "debate" is on schedule, but whether it comes across as "civil" is an open question.
   At the core of the question is the issue of control. Who's in charge? One of the candidates or the moderator?
   Will the encounter be a "debate" or will one side take the bait and suffer the stings and errors of an outraged opponent?
   If so, who will that be? An outraged real estate salesman or an experienced prosecutor of legal challenges?
   You decide.
   The ultimate winner will be determined after Election Day in November. Will that be decided by the popular vote -- citizens in general -- or will it be decided by a few state-selected members of the Electoral College, who are influenced or controlled by one of the candidates?
   It has happened before.
   Several times.
   You can look it up.

Policy Matters

   When it comes time to set a policy on what to do and how to do it, government leaders should rely on the Five Ws of journalism: Who, What, Where, When and Why.
   Plus, of course, the sixth guideline set by H -- How to do whatever the other guidelines suggest. And that, of course, is the most difficult, even after agreeing on the Why.
   This is when social and religious backgrounds intervene, as people  try to impose their core beliefs on others, who are just as firm in their beliefs.
   For example, many True Believers insist there is only senior deity, and attach the name their culture provides as the only valid one. However, other cultures have similar but different names for any one or several major spiritual leaders.
   That's where trouble starts, and often leads to war.
   But what if all are right? Do the major deities care? Or is there  indeed only one Boss Deity, and He/She controls all the other lesser deities/angels/spirits?
   Pick a name or a language. They differ across cultures and nations, and each builds on the concept of a controlling deity. Or several.
   Is there only one true belief system, and all others are, by definition, phony?
   Or are they all true?
   This is where politics comes in and clashes with spiritual beliefs.
   Perhaps there really is only one Boss God (Dominant Deity) -- or in Latin phrasing, a Domine Deus -- and all other spirits answer to the Boss.
   People use whatever term their language supplies to honor Him/Her.

Word Play

    What does "immune" mean?
   In medicine, it's clear. A person cannot catch a disease. But in current politics, the debate is whether a government official can be prosecuted for alleged wrongdoing, either while in office or later, or whether the supposed action was related to official duties.
   Part of the argument may rely on whether the Constitution specifies that a President is immune from prosecution. For anything. Ever. Under any circumstance. At any time.
   That's the core of the debate between law enforcement officials and followers of Donald Trump, the former president now seeking to regain his office.
   (Whether he was legitimately ousted or not re-elected is a separate argument.)
   History notes that the writers of the Constitution relied on British precedent, which had the tradition that a monarch, as ruler of all, could not be prosecuted. Currently, some Americans insist that Trump enjoys similar immunity.
   But he's not a king, much as he may act like one. A bigger danger is that many Americans believe he should be a total, unquestionable leader. That raises the question of whether he will -- if elected again -- follow the Constitutional rule that limits him to two terms.
   Unless he dictates some things during his first four months in office -- as dictator, to use his own phrasing -- and then returns to the Constitutional rule after suspending the Constitution.
   If in fact he does return.
   The kicker in this argument is whether a new dictator will give up total power in a certain time frame, as promised.
   Promises, promises.

Debate Debate

   What excuse will Donald Trump find to not debate Kamala Harris?
   Already, there have been several challenges that she is not eligible because the original agreement was with Joe Biden, who dropped out of the presidential race. As vice president, Harris stepped in and took the nomination.
   But she was not the original candidate, the argument goes, so the arrangement should be rearranged. Harris has a strong background as prosecutor and as a member of Congress.
   Trump's debate experience is a few encounters with Joe Biden and with Hillary Clinton, in both of which he ignored the rules and repeatedly interrupted the other person's comments.
   Whether he can escape challenges by the more competitive Kamala Harris is an open question.
   Overall, Trump's reputation indicates that he is more concerned with domination than with discussion.
   Whether he will be able to dominate Harris verbally is an open question.

Presidential Immunity -- Continued

   This posting follows up on earlier commentary entered on January 3, 2024.

   The Supreme Court ruled that the President is immune from prosecution for "official" acts done while in office. But what about "unofficial" acts?
   That is the core of the argument rolling again in the court system as Donald Trump tries to cancel any court action against him. But the prosecution revised its case to remove references to acts that could be deemed "official," and refiled court documents to focus on "unofficial" acts.
   Deep background suggests that anyone who has ever been President can commit anything and be free from prosecution because of total immunity.
   If that be the case for Republican Donald Trump, would it not also be true for former Democratic presidents?
   Be careful what you wish for.
   You may get it.

Best Seller Books

   We often read of new books instantly ranking high on the best seller list. However, publishers don't say that the list counts only the number of books sold to distributors. It does not mention them or retailers, much less members of the reading public, the ultimate consumers, who buy single copies.
   The giveaway is the reality that the very week the book is made available to the public, many thousands of copies are listed as "best sellers."
   Sold to whom?
   Distributors and retailers.
   Readers may not get their copies for days of weeks more, and it would be several additional days until they actually finish reading their copies.
   If in fact they do finish reading them.
 

Political Razz ma Tazz

   Politicians lie.

   So what else is news?

   Responsible journalism has a duty to print what a conservative politician says as well as opponent's  views.

   Sometimes, one set of views includes just a few lies, while the other set has none, or a bunch more. So is it journalism's duty to report both sets, without any guide as to which set is true? That suggests readers should decide.

   Or is it journalism's duty to specify who lies and who is truthful?

   Is a puzzlement, as the king of Siam would say.

   There was a time when broadcasters were required to transmit what political leaders said, and were forbidden to present their own opinions, much less whether someone was lying, on the fear of losing their broadcast license

   However, that changed soon after cable television came on the scene. And since their programming was delivered via cable, and not broadcast, there was no danger of losing their broadcast license.

   Why not? Simply because they didn't have one. Broadcast licenses were granted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and generally, any other licenses were granted by individual states.

   Besides, requiring businesses to focus on one aspect of an issue and to denigrate others amounts to control of the news media. And that would be a clear violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of press freedom.

   So challenging news media's decisions as to which stories to carry and how to carry them is not likely. Although some politicians  talk about it. The odd thing is that the very targets of the attack carry reports of the criticism in detail.

   In great detail.

   Many times.

   And since they can respond with their own views as well as continued criticism of the political attacks, one has only a brief guess as to who gets more broadcast time.

   Even so, network broadcast TV news channel programs remain relatively neutral in their coverage of these attacks on journalistic freedom.

   Cable television people have the right to their opinions, both right and left, conservative and liberal.

   If you have any doubt, tune in to the Fox network programs, as well as MSNBC or CNN.

Polly Ticks

   The clock may be running out for the candidate who parrots lies about his opponent. But already, he has started chanting the same rant about a "rigged election," which he did in the previous two elections.
   (He won the first time; does that mean he did the rigging?}
   All this ranting is especially curious because the vote count won't start until after the elections, which is more than two months away.
   By the way, who did the rigging when he "won" the election eight years ago? Even then, he began the chant weeks before Election Day and the official count.
   Keep in mind that he did not win the popular vote either time he ran for the White House office. The first time, he manipulated the electoral vote -- the state by state count -- but lost the popular vote -- the number of people who supported his candidacy.
   So what can we expect from someone who rants about alleged cheating by others when he himself has a long reputation for lying and cheating in business and politics?

Danger

    When a political leader talks about anger more than offering solutions, that is a signal that the leader does not understand the problem.

   Either that, or he is more concerned with his own power than about resolving a problem for the benefit of all citizens.

   Or both.

Blame Game

    If Democrat Kamala Harris is elected to the presidency, America will see the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression of 1929. So said Donald Trump in a campaign rally.

    But all the major recessions of the past 100 years occurred when a Republican was in the White House, beginning with Herbert Hoover as president. And that includes the Great Recession of 2008-2009, when George W. Bush, another Republican, was president.

   Others include the downturn of 1956, under Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and the economic difficulties of 2017, when Trump himself was in the White House.

Political Gibberish

   Time was, using the term "lie" would get the user punched out. And when TV commentators used it, they would apologize. Moreover, news announcers rarely used it at all, and apologized in advance when they had to play a recording of it.
   Now, however, a certain major politician uses the word regularly, often and emphatically, so any attempt to diminish its effect on listeners is pointless.
   There comes a time in journalism when it is essential to report clearly and accurately what a politician says. This is a sound policy, but we now live in abnormal times.
   Note: That time comes sooner and more often when a politician regularly insults reporters by regularly using the term "stupid," as when saying on live television to a network journalist, "That's a stupid question."
   Comment: There are indeed some questions that can be termed "stupid." But realistically, and in the context of neutral journalism, there are only stupid answers.
   There can be  leading questions, designed to help a speaker focus. Even so, this can work two ways -- to help or to entrap. Journalism's duty is to report accurately and completely what a politician or government official says. There is no need for anger. Just report what the politician says. There is no need to report the question. Journalism's duty is to report the answer.
   Or as the old guideline in the PR industry puts it, "Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel."
   But when a politician regularly insults reporters, they can respond by quoting clearly and accurately just what the politician says. They don't clean up the grammar or clarify any confusing phrase. They will report exactly what the politician says as well as the way he says it, without cleaning up the grammar or clarifying any unclear phrases.
   The pen is mightier than the sword.
   This can explain why a certain national political figure has few friends in the news media. Either way, reporters should not be friends with politicians. They can and should be friendly. But that's all.

Presumptions

    If you sound like you know what you're talking about, people assume you do. That's not always a valid assumption.

   The American legal system specifies that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
   That is a presumption.
   There is no such legal verdict as "innocent." The key word is "presumed," and a person has that right until his or her status is proven in a court of law.
   "Beyond reasonable doubt" is another popular legal term. And here we must define "reasonable." That's where lawyerly gamesmanship comes in. Or perhaps we should call it "mumbo-jumbo."
   Politicians use that strategy often, as do real estate sales agents and lawyers. And this is based on the assumption that if you sound like you know what you're talking about, people will assume you do. This, however, is not always a valid assumption.
   "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is another popular legal term.
   Define "reasonable." Here's where lawyerly gamesmanship comes in.
   So even if a person faces scores of allegations spread over dozens of legal cases in several state and federal jurisdictions, he or she should be presumed innocent until and unless proven in a court of law.
   Sound familiar?
   The point is, such a person has not (yet) actually be proven guilty on any of the allegations, so he or she should be presumed innocent until and unless proven otherwise.
   That person may not actually be innocent, but the system stipulates that he or she must be treated as such until and unless proven otherwise.
   That's why the term "allegedly" is used as often as it is in journalism and legalistic jargon. Perhaps we can also use the term "allegedly innocent."
   But no. That's based on an assumption of guilt.

Trial by Jawry

   Some people believe that if they talk longer, louder and more emphatically than others, they will always win any discussion/argument.
   That doesn't work in a courtroom.
   A monitor judges when someone talks too much or out of turn or blathers on about something irrelevant.
   A fast talker is not in charge.
   That's the problem Donald Trump faces in New York City these days. Even when he mumbles during jury selection, the court monitor judges what he says and tells him to be quiet.
   One wonders, however, how often and how many times he can disrupt court proceedings with his yammering despite several warnings from the judge that he will be fined and/or sent to jail if he continues.
   He will not pass Go. He will not collect a bonus.
   And unlike other financial penalties -- some of which he has not paid -- this one he must pay or he will not be released from jail.
   But he seems to believe he is exempt from ordinary rules of human behavior because he is an extraordinary man.
   Non-ordinary, yes.
   Exempt from courtesy, no.
   Therefore, he will face judgment.

Political Know-It-All

   If you sound like you know what you're talking about, people will assume you do.

   It's called polysyllabic nomenclature -- a bunch of long words.

   The same concepts or ideas can be said using plain English -- a bunch of short Anglo-Saxon words -- but you don't always sound like you're part of the high ranking, highly intelligent "upper class" supposedly destined to rule the world.

   That tradition goes back to the year 1066, when invaders from Normandy defeated the locals and set up a talking place for their government. In doing so, they used the French term "parliament," rather than the plain English equivalent -- "talking place."

   The tradition has continued, so even today, when you want to sound educated and intelligent, you use a bunch of long words.

   The trick is to use short words that say the same and are more easily understood.

   Political candidates, however, want to sound like they know what they're talking about, even when they don't.

   That's especially true of politicians who really don't know what they're talking about.

'Nice' Neighbors

   Donald Trump complains that not enough people are coming to America from "nice" countries.

   But.

   If life at home is "nice," there is little need to leave.

   If a person has a job with a decent income and is able to support a family where there is little crime or violence and no war or government corruption, there is no need to leave home.

Cultural Sting

   News commentary is focusing on the coming presidential election and whether the Republican candidate will still be eligible.
   This past week, the focus has been on the court bail issue.
   Will the leading (not yet official) candidate post bail of nearly half a billion dollars, or will he go to jail for non-payment?
   He claims to be a billionaire, even as he insists he cannot afford to post bond.
   Which is it?
   Or is it that bail companies refuse to post bond for him because he has a history of not paying his debts?
   If he really is as rich as he claims, there would be no problem paying bond.
   If he is not wealthy, therefore he lies.
   There was a time when the word "liar" was never used in polite company, much less in American journalism.
   Now, it's common.
   As for threats of lawsuits against journalism outlets that print or broadcast reports of untrue statements or claims ...
   If it ain't true, sue.
   But if the report is true, there is no libel and it's pointless to sue.
   That legal principle in America goes back to 1760, when the New York colonial governor sued a newspaper for printing a story about the governor and his mistress.
   The defense was that the governor did in fact have a mistress, and everyone knew it. Therefore, there was no libel.
   The same principle applies to Donald J. Trump. He complains about the many negative reports about his actions and behavior, but he does not threaten to sue.
   Most likely reason: The reports are true, and therefore not libelous.
   He could indeed sue, but that would be pointless. There are three primary supports for a defense against a libel suit:
   1: The report is true.
   2: It is provably true.
   3: It was published without malice.

   The third defense may be more difficult to establish, but that can be done by showing that the report simply quotes the political opposition, and does not reflect the opinion of the reporter who wrote the story.
   Journalism reporters do just that: They simply report what people say and do, without including their opinions in the story. They leave opinion writing for the editorial page.
   Politicians, of course, insist that reporters weave their opinions into their reports. But quoting opposition leaders as well as candidates, with an equal balance of space and time, is balanced coverage.
   Some insist that quoting the opposition is, in and of itself, proof of bias, and therefore the reporter should be jailed. That happens in some other countries, not in America. The First Amendment to the Constitution, in effect since 1789, disallows that.
   So unless political leaders suspend the Constitution, freedom of the press will stay.
   As will other freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment, including freedom of religion and freedom of speech. But that may well be what some people these days want, that all Americans be members of a single church and political party.
   No immigrants, no Muslims, no Buddhists, no Jews, no Roman Catholics, or any other belief system or ethnicity that does not reflect their vision of what America "should be."
   WASPs only, they insist. All others must leave.

Bigotry Marches to Gory

Give me your tired, your poor
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
-- Emma Lazarus

Unless you're Irish or Italian or Jewish (East Coast)
Or Chinese or Japanese (West Coast)
Or Hispanic (Southern Border).
The North is okay, unless you're Black.

Some of youse guys look like us, so you're okay.
Everyone else stay where you are.
I don't care what the statue says.
We don't want you here.

-- Bobby Bigot

   American politics is marching at a quicker step this month to a gory summer of name-calling and abusive behavior as candidates battle for recognition among voters.
   News media play up the story as candidates compete for attention and advertising dollars.
   All of which leads many Americans to wonder what's going on in the rest of the world.
   There is, of course, the issue of the thousands of people crossing the Southern border to get to Texas and other states, but few news media spend much broadcast time or print space on why they are leaving their home countries.
   Could it be that America is still the Land of Opportunity? Or that there are no jobs to be had where they grew up? And violence? Moreover, they eagerly take jobs that the so-called "good Americans" don't want. Besides, there is the issue of low pay and abusive behavior toward those in jobs like trash collecting, street cleaning, snow removal, house cleaning and other mundane but essential jobs that native Americans won't take.
   Clearly, if their home countries were peaceful and prosperous, there would be no need or desire to leave.
   Why leave your ancestral home unless you must?
   Reason: There is no work.
   America is where the jobs are, and this has been true for hundreds of years. Newcomers want peace and prosperity, but political bigots make things hard for them.
   Bigotry does not build progress.

Leap, Froggy

Thirty days hath September,
April, June and November
All the rest have 31
Seven of them
Except February,
And that's all messed up.

   This year has 366 days, in society's effort to maintain 12 months in a calendar year.
   But it still doesn't work.
   If you divide 12 into 365, you get 30, with five left over. And that means those five are spread among the other months. So four months get 30 days, and seven others get 31, but that accounts for only 11 months. Which means February (named after the ancient goddess Febra) is cheated out of two months.
   Unless the Gremlin jumps in and adds an extra month to make up for the lost time. But he can only do that every four years, lest the other months lose some of their time.
   But why insist on the magic of 12?
   Perhaps because if society divided the monthly lunar cycle of 28 days into 365, the result would be 13 months, with only one day left over, which would give the rest of earthly society a day off, to celebrate the start of a new year.
   However, everyone knows that 13 is unlucky, so those in charge of making up the calendar insisted on a 12 month year, even though it meant we have to hop our way through the complications of four months with 30 days, seven with 31 days, an extra month with 28 days and giving that short period an extra day every four years to balance things out so the powers that be (were?) would not have to deal with the perceived threat of the power of 13.
   But is that really a threat?
   Ask builders, who won't put that number onto one of their floors. Nor will they put that number onto the street address of their buildings. Instead, the street numbers go from 11 to 15. 

 Nor will large cities have a 13th street.

And don't forget what happened to Apollo 13.

Monthly Mooning

  Tomorrow begins the second month of the year, named after the ancient goddess Febra, partner to Janus, who opens the calendar.
   This month holds just 28 days, at the end of which Febra, the goddess of fertility, suffers from a discomfort called fever, which carries her name.
   Nine months later, she gives birth to a new year, and the new Janus is portrayed as an infant.
   (In the ancient, traditional Roman calendar, there were only 10 months to the year, hence the name December. July and August were added later, after the Romans controlled the Gauls and borrowed their 12 month cycle, thus naming the two new months after their own leaders, Julius and Augustus.)
   Soon the offspring of Janus and Febra will March off to battle with those who would try to stop Eastern flowers from springing forth new life throughout Nature.
   Then the goddess April will pass the calendar to her successor, and she will say to the world, "May the Fourth be with you."

   Juno will bust out all over.
   

Memories

 

 

Here's a posting from 15 years ago. History doesn't change much.

 

CITIZENS – "He was the son of Puerto Rican immigrants." Not so. Puerto Rico has been part of the United States for more than 100 years, since the end of the Spanish-American War. The word "immigrant" implies that someone came to America from a foreign country. But since Puerto Rico is part of the U.S., it is not, by definition, a foreign country. People in Puerto Rico send delegates to national political conventions, vote in presidential elections, and serve in the military, as do people in Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands. They are all American citizens and carry U.S. passports. Therefore, they should not be referred to as "immigrants."

 

HISTORY – Spanish is not a foreign language in America, and never has been. Remember 1492 and Columbus, an Italian seaman sponsored by Queen Isabella of Spain? Keep in mind that Spanish was spoken here long before the English arrived. So was Swedish, as well as Dutch and several other languages. Also, while the English organized colonies as business ventures, settlers were recruited from Scotland, Ireland and Wales, many of whom spoke Gaelic or Welsh.

 

WRONG-WAY RALEIGH – A newsletter for apartment dwellers, in its history trivia section, claimed that in 1586, Sir Walter Raleigh brought tobacco to Virginia from England.

 

COMMENTARIAT – There is more danger to individual liberty from the Far Right than from the Liberal Left. Examples: Germany under Hitler, Italy under Mussolini, Spain under Franco, Chile under Allende. "It can't happen here," you say? Yes, it can, and very nearly did. The novel by Sinclair Lewis was fiction, but it was based on real events of the 1930s. Try reading "The Plot to Seize the White House," by Jules Archer (1973), Skyhorse Publishing, New York, 2007. It documents an attempt by corporate America to oust FDR by military force. The duty of a free press is to monitor and expose activities of government and/or any extremist group that threatens liberty.

 

RADIO RHETORIC – The big talkers maintain that their words do not lead others to violence; that they are only exercising their constitutional right to free speech. But words can kill. Not directly, but words have often been used to demonize and dehumanize. And when an individual or group is felt to be less than human, it becomes acceptable to beat, torture and even kill in the name of patriotism, religion or some other fanatical fervor.

 

PLATE STATEMENTS – From New Jersey, one of our favorites: The Unitarian clergy with UU REV on his car license plate.

 

AIN'T CULTURE WUNNERFUL? – Pug Mahoney suggested that Edith Wharton's novel, "The House of Mirth," should be subtitled "The Real Housewives of 1907." Sign on store window: "No Loitering. Police Take Notice." Teenagers are OK, but no cops allowed. A factory banner proclaimed "Now Firing." This stopped us for a moment, until we recognized the building as a ceramic tile factory.

 

HOLLYWOOD CHUTZPAH – A film studio refused to give a mime screen credit for his role in "Revenge of the Fallen" because his performance "was not a speaking part."

 

CREATIVE COINAGE – The CIA does not assassinate, according to former top official Cofer Black. What it does, is "engage in war-fighting, where the goal is to degrade the command and control capability" of the enemy's leadership.

 

BEWARE OF ABSOLUTES – A Middle East government spokesman said its security forces "never fire on innocent civilians." This can be a true statement only if one accepts the premise that there is no such entity as an "innocent" civilian.

 

KINDLING – An Amazon.com exec said of his firm's electronic gadget, "We think reading is an important enough activity that it deserves a purpose-driven device." And all this time, we thought that's what a book is.

 

CHOICE PHRASES – For a know-it-all, she has very little understanding. At the age of 30, he was already like someone's grandfather – set in his ways.

Hypocrisy

   For all his criticism of newcomers to America, the former President almost never mentions his own family history.
   His mother was born and raised on a small island in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland, where English was her second language. The family spoke Gaelic at home. She was the youngest of ten children and did not learn English until she started school. She came to America at the age of 17, and her first jobs were as a domestic helper, until she met and married Fred Trump, Donald's father.
   Her name was Mary Anne MacLeod, and she was born in May 1912 in the village of Tong on the island of Lewis in the Outer Hebrides, and came to America in 1930.
   She acquired American citizenship 12 years later, in March 1942.
   Her son Donald was born in 1946, a middle child. (That explains much of his behavior.)
   This also may explain why the former President almost never mentions her, since he himself is a son of an immigrant.
   And his father was a grandson of immigrants from Germany.
   Does the word hypocrisy come to mind?

Presidential Immunity

   Donald Trump now claims presidential immunity from prosecution in any or all civil or criminal cases against him.

   But.

   He is no longer President.

   Trump also claims new prosecutions amount to double jeopardy because Congress failed to impeach him. Twice.

   But.

   An impeachment trial is neither a civil nor a criminal case. It is only to punish misbehavior in office, and the only punishment can be removal from office. So double jeopardy does not apply.

    Moreover, such a former official may still face criminal or civil prosecution in a court of law. That's why Richard Nixon was pardoned after he left office.

   If  he had  done nothing wrong, why did Gerald Ford issue a pardon?

   And a presidential pardon applies only to federal offenses, not to state or local issues.

   There are several court cases pending against Donald Trump, but some of them are state cases. That could be why his attorneys are trying to get them transferred to federal courts, so if he is convicted and succeeds in getting elected to another term, he could pardon himself.

   We live in interesting times.