A passel of data reports documented healthy signs for the American economy, with unemployment down, personal income up and conditions improving in general.
Overall, the national economy "continued to expand across most regions in October and November," said the Federal Reserve Board's Beige Book report released Wednesday. Earlier, the minutes of the Fed's Open Market Committee meeting pointed to favorable growth rates in several economic data sets, and noted that the Fed staff expects GDP growth to accelerate as the year ends.
Personal income ticked up in October by 0.6 percent, outpacing spending, which was 0.3 percent, according to the Census Bureau. Unemployment rates were lower in October in 231 of the nation's metro areas, and payroll employment was up in 311 areas compared to a year ago, the Labor Department said.
National output (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 3.2 percent in the third quarter, as profits jumped by $133.8 billion, compared to a second quarter drop of $12.5 billion, said the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
However, Fed members decided to hold off yet again in boosting its key interest rate immediately, as they wait for "some further evidence of continued progress."
Even so, that could happen "relatively soon" if incoming data support some action, perhaps at the Fed's next meeting, which is scheduled for December 13-14.
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
Expose or Ignore
Long on bombast, short on evidence.
If not for Twitter, egregiously outrageous comments that are clearly false could be ignored. But when such things are posted by the man who has made himself chief twit and is now President-elect of the United States, whose rantings are followed by millions -- and believed by many -- the messages travel farther and faster than traditional news media can match, so it's journalism's responsibility to expose the postings for what they are: Either flat-out lies or proposals born of monumental ignorance.
The latest in the long series of Tweets posted by Donald Trump calls for jail time and withdrawal of citizenship for those who use flag-burning as a method of protest.
There is, of course, the issue of respect for the national emblem. But it's also true that the proper way to dispose of a flag that is old, threadbare, worn out and generally no longer able to be displayed with honor is this: Burn it. With respect, certainly, and do not just throw it in the trash bin.
The Supreme Court has ruled more than once that flag-burning by protestors, while distasteful to many, is at root related to free speech, and is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
At the same time, those who oppose this act of free speech also are prone to saying vile and vicious things about their political opponents, and demand the same right of free speech in defense of their actions.
You can't have it both ways. Free speech is a right for everyone, not just for those who agree with you.
As for cancelling someone's citizenship, the Supreme Court has ruled that simply cannot be done. Period. End of story. Anyway, how would you cancel citizenship for someone who was born in the U.S. to American parents, raised here, spent a lifetime here and believes in the right of free expression when disagreeing with a political twit?
Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue also, in two cases where the State Department tried to withdraw citizenship from a naturalized American. Can't do it, says SCOTUS.
Maybe it's time loyal Americans sent Trump copies of the Constitution. He may even read it. Then again, he may not, since it would interfere with his activities as Twitter in Chief. Or is it chief twit?
Meanwhile, an independent news media has a responsibility to expose the untruths, the misleading fabrications and insinuations if not downright lies perpetrated by this master of media manipulation.
As for having to choose between exposing lies and documenting ignorance or devoting space and time to important policy and economic issue, a responsible press can and should do both, and not fall into the trap of lapping up juicy rantings at the expense of leaving solid news behind.
It can and must be done, or America stands to lose a free and independent press. Not to mention abandoning First Amendment rights for all.
If not for Twitter, egregiously outrageous comments that are clearly false could be ignored. But when such things are posted by the man who has made himself chief twit and is now President-elect of the United States, whose rantings are followed by millions -- and believed by many -- the messages travel farther and faster than traditional news media can match, so it's journalism's responsibility to expose the postings for what they are: Either flat-out lies or proposals born of monumental ignorance.
The latest in the long series of Tweets posted by Donald Trump calls for jail time and withdrawal of citizenship for those who use flag-burning as a method of protest.
There is, of course, the issue of respect for the national emblem. But it's also true that the proper way to dispose of a flag that is old, threadbare, worn out and generally no longer able to be displayed with honor is this: Burn it. With respect, certainly, and do not just throw it in the trash bin.
The Supreme Court has ruled more than once that flag-burning by protestors, while distasteful to many, is at root related to free speech, and is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
At the same time, those who oppose this act of free speech also are prone to saying vile and vicious things about their political opponents, and demand the same right of free speech in defense of their actions.
You can't have it both ways. Free speech is a right for everyone, not just for those who agree with you.
As for cancelling someone's citizenship, the Supreme Court has ruled that simply cannot be done. Period. End of story. Anyway, how would you cancel citizenship for someone who was born in the U.S. to American parents, raised here, spent a lifetime here and believes in the right of free expression when disagreeing with a political twit?
Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue also, in two cases where the State Department tried to withdraw citizenship from a naturalized American. Can't do it, says SCOTUS.
Maybe it's time loyal Americans sent Trump copies of the Constitution. He may even read it. Then again, he may not, since it would interfere with his activities as Twitter in Chief. Or is it chief twit?
Meanwhile, an independent news media has a responsibility to expose the untruths, the misleading fabrications and insinuations if not downright lies perpetrated by this master of media manipulation.
As for having to choose between exposing lies and documenting ignorance or devoting space and time to important policy and economic issue, a responsible press can and should do both, and not fall into the trap of lapping up juicy rantings at the expense of leaving solid news behind.
It can and must be done, or America stands to lose a free and independent press. Not to mention abandoning First Amendment rights for all.
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
Government: Monitor or Partner?
News item: GDP grew by 3.2 percent in the third quarter of 2016, up from 1.4 percent in the second quarter.
Dismantle government and the nation will prosper, has been the underlying philosophy of conservative Republicans for generations. But for all the talk about reducing government interference with business, it's more likely that GOP control in Washington will lead to closer government partnerships with corporate America.
Nothing new here. That was the case in the 19th Century and early 20th Century, when the Republican Party dominated the federal government and encouraged and cooperated with business interests over those of the general public.
Students of history can cite a long list of examples where business interests used government help in major projects from start to finish. This cooperation including everything from railroad building to suppression of labor rights.
In the guise of not interfering with private enterprise, government often became an enforcement arm to subdue public objection to abusive corporate tactics.
Now, following that same philosophy, the incoming Republican administration wants to dismantle many government programs, claiming that the economy in recent years has been wretched and only by cancelling government programs and reducing government spending can the economy recover.
History and recent events show otherwise.
Throughout the 20th Century and into the 21st Century, the American economy has stumbled or crashed during Republican administrations, and recovered when Democrats took over.
Highlights including the Great Depression, which began in 1929, the big stumble during the Reagan Administration, and the Great Recession during the second Bush Administration. Each time, Democrats inherited a severe economic problem and treated it, leading to recovery and growth.
This is true again this year, as the U.S. economy continued to grow, slowly at first, but accelerating so that the latest report from the Commerce Department showed an annual growth rate of 3.2 percent during the third quarter of this year.
Nevertheless, Republicans led by President-elect Donald Trump have continued their claim that the economy is a mess and only they can fix it.
How? By cutting taxes, which would reduce government revenue, and at the same time increasing government spending, which would increase the deficit and the national debt. It's the return of trickle-down Reaganomics, which teaches that improving income for the wealthy will encourage them to spend more, and the benefits will trickle down to the rest of the economy.
Eventually.
Meanwhile, a bigger worry is the effect of substantially less government monitoring of corporate activities that often cross the line of legality, coupled with increased government cooperation and involvement in business activities.
Leading the list will be Trump's myriad business ventures with their strong potential for conflict with government monitoring and inspection, not least of which is the looming practice of foreign governments renting space at Trump-owned hotels to ingratiate themselves with the President and thereby by influence his policy decisions.
Flatly unconstitutional, if not impeachable offenses.
Yet another example of a government-business joint venture would be the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act, as promised by Trump. But despite the ranting, the ACA, also known as Obamacare, is not likely to disappear. By requiring that everyone buy health insurance (with government help if needed), the act provides a business opportunity for the insurance industry.
Note that the industry itself has not raised objections to the ACA, for that very reason -- it increases their customer base, and thereby boosts their revenue.
The GOP, however, did oppose Obamacare, mainly because it was a Democratic plan. Ironically, it was based on a Republican plan begun in Massachusetts when Mitt Romney was governor.
Despite repeated promises by Trump to "repeal and replace" Obamacare, the President-elect has already begun backing away from that position, saying that some parts will remain. However, there are few specifics on what the rest of the plan would be.
So how about this: The mandate that everyone buy insurance will remain, but the government assistance part will be dropped, on the claim that it's too expensive.
Health care is too important to be left entirely to private enterprise. Why? Because before the start of government social welfare programs such as government-sponsored old age pensions (Social Security), job security and unemployment assistance, health care for retirees (Medicare), and health care for the poor and disabled (Medicaid), people died a lot.
By reducing or eliminating sponsorship of social welfare programs on the premise that they are inherently evil -- read, Communistic -- and that only private enterprise can do things for the best in this best of all possible worlds, a government that abandons its responsibility to the general public in favor of collusion with private enterprise can only invite chaos into society, enriching the few and putting leeches on the many.
Dismantling government, ending its role as monitor and doubling down on its cooperation with corporate America are three very bad ideas.
Dismantle government and the nation will prosper, has been the underlying philosophy of conservative Republicans for generations. But for all the talk about reducing government interference with business, it's more likely that GOP control in Washington will lead to closer government partnerships with corporate America.
Nothing new here. That was the case in the 19th Century and early 20th Century, when the Republican Party dominated the federal government and encouraged and cooperated with business interests over those of the general public.
Students of history can cite a long list of examples where business interests used government help in major projects from start to finish. This cooperation including everything from railroad building to suppression of labor rights.
In the guise of not interfering with private enterprise, government often became an enforcement arm to subdue public objection to abusive corporate tactics.
Now, following that same philosophy, the incoming Republican administration wants to dismantle many government programs, claiming that the economy in recent years has been wretched and only by cancelling government programs and reducing government spending can the economy recover.
History and recent events show otherwise.
Throughout the 20th Century and into the 21st Century, the American economy has stumbled or crashed during Republican administrations, and recovered when Democrats took over.
Highlights including the Great Depression, which began in 1929, the big stumble during the Reagan Administration, and the Great Recession during the second Bush Administration. Each time, Democrats inherited a severe economic problem and treated it, leading to recovery and growth.
This is true again this year, as the U.S. economy continued to grow, slowly at first, but accelerating so that the latest report from the Commerce Department showed an annual growth rate of 3.2 percent during the third quarter of this year.
Nevertheless, Republicans led by President-elect Donald Trump have continued their claim that the economy is a mess and only they can fix it.
How? By cutting taxes, which would reduce government revenue, and at the same time increasing government spending, which would increase the deficit and the national debt. It's the return of trickle-down Reaganomics, which teaches that improving income for the wealthy will encourage them to spend more, and the benefits will trickle down to the rest of the economy.
Eventually.
Meanwhile, a bigger worry is the effect of substantially less government monitoring of corporate activities that often cross the line of legality, coupled with increased government cooperation and involvement in business activities.
Leading the list will be Trump's myriad business ventures with their strong potential for conflict with government monitoring and inspection, not least of which is the looming practice of foreign governments renting space at Trump-owned hotels to ingratiate themselves with the President and thereby by influence his policy decisions.
Flatly unconstitutional, if not impeachable offenses.
Yet another example of a government-business joint venture would be the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act, as promised by Trump. But despite the ranting, the ACA, also known as Obamacare, is not likely to disappear. By requiring that everyone buy health insurance (with government help if needed), the act provides a business opportunity for the insurance industry.
Note that the industry itself has not raised objections to the ACA, for that very reason -- it increases their customer base, and thereby boosts their revenue.
The GOP, however, did oppose Obamacare, mainly because it was a Democratic plan. Ironically, it was based on a Republican plan begun in Massachusetts when Mitt Romney was governor.
Despite repeated promises by Trump to "repeal and replace" Obamacare, the President-elect has already begun backing away from that position, saying that some parts will remain. However, there are few specifics on what the rest of the plan would be.
So how about this: The mandate that everyone buy insurance will remain, but the government assistance part will be dropped, on the claim that it's too expensive.
Health care is too important to be left entirely to private enterprise. Why? Because before the start of government social welfare programs such as government-sponsored old age pensions (Social Security), job security and unemployment assistance, health care for retirees (Medicare), and health care for the poor and disabled (Medicaid), people died a lot.
By reducing or eliminating sponsorship of social welfare programs on the premise that they are inherently evil -- read, Communistic -- and that only private enterprise can do things for the best in this best of all possible worlds, a government that abandons its responsibility to the general public in favor of collusion with private enterprise can only invite chaos into society, enriching the few and putting leeches on the many.
Dismantling government, ending its role as monitor and doubling down on its cooperation with corporate America are three very bad ideas.
Monday, November 28, 2016
Irony and Hypocrisy
Irony is the unexpected, as in you think one thing will happen, but another does instead.
Hypocrisy is when a person says one thing but does the opposite.
Here are some examples from the current political news:
Donald Trump compiled enough electoral votes to win through to the presidency, but fell behind in the popular vote. Now he complains that he would have won a majority of the popular vote if there had not been "millions" of illegal voters.
It's ironic that even though he won, he still complains. And Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway criticizes "crybabies and sore losers" who propose a recount in three states.
Homeowners near a golf course he owns in Scotland refused to sell their property to him, so he built an earthen wall to block their view of the sea. (And sent them a bill.) Separately, there is a wind farm offshore near another of his golf courses, and he is demanding that the towers be taken down because they block his view of the sea.
That's hypocrisy. And, of course, there are the threats to build a wall along the U.S. southern border to keep out Mexicans.
Hypocrisy is when a person says one thing but does the opposite.
Here are some examples from the current political news:
Donald Trump compiled enough electoral votes to win through to the presidency, but fell behind in the popular vote. Now he complains that he would have won a majority of the popular vote if there had not been "millions" of illegal voters.
It's ironic that even though he won, he still complains. And Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway criticizes "crybabies and sore losers" who propose a recount in three states.
Homeowners near a golf course he owns in Scotland refused to sell their property to him, so he built an earthen wall to block their view of the sea. (And sent them a bill.) Separately, there is a wind farm offshore near another of his golf courses, and he is demanding that the towers be taken down because they block his view of the sea.
That's hypocrisy. And, of course, there are the threats to build a wall along the U.S. southern border to keep out Mexicans.
Sunday, November 27, 2016
School Daze
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Common sense is not common.
An educated public helps guarantee a safe and free society.
The nominee to take charge of the U.S. Department of Education favors a voucher system so parents can send their kids to whatever school they prefer, rather than rely on free neighborhood public schools.
If fully developed nationwide, this would effectively destroy an educational system that has worked well in America since the 17th Century, when the Pilgrims insisted that all children learn the Three R's -- reading, writing and arithmetic -- regardless of their ability to pay.
One argument for a school voucher system is that it gives all families a choice.
An argument against it is that it diminishes neighborhood schools, and gives a subsidy to families that don't need financial help.
Conservative dogma says private enterprise always does a better job than government, whatever the task or project. Common sense says otherwise.
There are some areas where privatization leads to destruction of a system that works, to be replaced by an enterprise where profit is the prime motive. Education is a leading example. Others include police and fire protection, road and bridge construction and maintenance, support for the jobless that includes helping them find work, and other social welfare programs such as health care and old age pensions.
But the incoming federal administration looks to dismantle or privatize all social welfare programs that go back some 80 years. And privatizing the entire education system would take down a system that has been in place for nearly 400 years.
In all, signs point to a government that uses the art of dealing from the bottom of the deck to issue trump cards that override programs in place for decades and turns them over to private enterprise whose primary motive is profit, not sharing.
Nothing prevents the wealthy from sending their children to private schools. But for those who cannot, publicly supported elementary and secondary education is essential, and guarantees a citizenry with the skills needed to support and participate in a free society.
An educated public is government's most important product.
Common sense is not common.
An educated public helps guarantee a safe and free society.
The nominee to take charge of the U.S. Department of Education favors a voucher system so parents can send their kids to whatever school they prefer, rather than rely on free neighborhood public schools.
If fully developed nationwide, this would effectively destroy an educational system that has worked well in America since the 17th Century, when the Pilgrims insisted that all children learn the Three R's -- reading, writing and arithmetic -- regardless of their ability to pay.
One argument for a school voucher system is that it gives all families a choice.
An argument against it is that it diminishes neighborhood schools, and gives a subsidy to families that don't need financial help.
Conservative dogma says private enterprise always does a better job than government, whatever the task or project. Common sense says otherwise.
There are some areas where privatization leads to destruction of a system that works, to be replaced by an enterprise where profit is the prime motive. Education is a leading example. Others include police and fire protection, road and bridge construction and maintenance, support for the jobless that includes helping them find work, and other social welfare programs such as health care and old age pensions.
But the incoming federal administration looks to dismantle or privatize all social welfare programs that go back some 80 years. And privatizing the entire education system would take down a system that has been in place for nearly 400 years.
In all, signs point to a government that uses the art of dealing from the bottom of the deck to issue trump cards that override programs in place for decades and turns them over to private enterprise whose primary motive is profit, not sharing.
Nothing prevents the wealthy from sending their children to private schools. But for those who cannot, publicly supported elementary and secondary education is essential, and guarantees a citizenry with the skills needed to support and participate in a free society.
An educated public is government's most important product.
Saturday, November 26, 2016
Resignation Speculation
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave ... " -- Walter Scott
"Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi
"When the President does it, it's not illegal." -- Richard M. Nixon
"The law is totally on my side, meaning, the President can't have a conflict of interest." -- Donald Trump
That last comment can be interpreted two ways. Trump seems to believe that a conflict is not possible, echoing Nixon's statement. Equally, it can be read as meaning conflicts are forbidden.
What are the odds that Donald Trump will step aside before January 20 and not be inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States?
He could still say he won, which to him is the most important part of the game of life, then leave the stadium before the hard part actually begins.
Given the choice of running his many business ventures worldwide without getting tangled in a web of projects sponsored by other governments that would pay his organization, thus violating the U.S. Constitution, or giving up all connections to his many business ventures may well be a tough choice to make.
Can he do both?
Possible, but not likely.
There is no law that says he must give up his business interests. But if he does not, and is caught accepting payments of any kind from a foreign state, he would be guilty of violating the Constitution. Further, such payments could be construed as bribes, which are grounds for impeachment.
Later, after impeachment, trial and conviction, he would be removed from office. At that point, he could face further legal entanglements in civil or criminal court. This would not be double jeopardy, since impeachment is neither a civil nor a criminal matter.
So rather than endanger his many business connections -- and sources of revenue -- he could decide that discretion might be the better path to follow, and maintain that he was stepping aside for the sake of national unity and not burden the presidency with distractions.
He has already taken one step in that direction, however, in settling the Trump University case. He will shell out $25 million to stop that fraud case, thereby avoiding the risk of having to testify in court while in the Oval Office of the White House. Total damages sought in that case came to some $40 million, prompting our resident cynic to say he's already $15 million to the good. In addition, the $25 million payout can be a tax deduction.
There are still dozens more civil cases pending against him and his various companies, however, and some of them could require court testimony.
So between dealing with court cases against him and avoiding charges of taking forbidden payoffs -- emoluments, the Constitution calls them -- a President Trump would have a very busy term.
To avoid all that, and devote all his time to fending off legal challenges, preserving his business ventures and his personal fortune, he would have to fix his priorities. The question being, which is more important, maintaining control of the Trump Organization or being President.
There is a good case to made that he can't have both.
"Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi
"When the President does it, it's not illegal." -- Richard M. Nixon
"The law is totally on my side, meaning, the President can't have a conflict of interest." -- Donald Trump
That last comment can be interpreted two ways. Trump seems to believe that a conflict is not possible, echoing Nixon's statement. Equally, it can be read as meaning conflicts are forbidden.
What are the odds that Donald Trump will step aside before January 20 and not be inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States?
He could still say he won, which to him is the most important part of the game of life, then leave the stadium before the hard part actually begins.
Given the choice of running his many business ventures worldwide without getting tangled in a web of projects sponsored by other governments that would pay his organization, thus violating the U.S. Constitution, or giving up all connections to his many business ventures may well be a tough choice to make.
Can he do both?
Possible, but not likely.
There is no law that says he must give up his business interests. But if he does not, and is caught accepting payments of any kind from a foreign state, he would be guilty of violating the Constitution. Further, such payments could be construed as bribes, which are grounds for impeachment.
Later, after impeachment, trial and conviction, he would be removed from office. At that point, he could face further legal entanglements in civil or criminal court. This would not be double jeopardy, since impeachment is neither a civil nor a criminal matter.
So rather than endanger his many business connections -- and sources of revenue -- he could decide that discretion might be the better path to follow, and maintain that he was stepping aside for the sake of national unity and not burden the presidency with distractions.
He has already taken one step in that direction, however, in settling the Trump University case. He will shell out $25 million to stop that fraud case, thereby avoiding the risk of having to testify in court while in the Oval Office of the White House. Total damages sought in that case came to some $40 million, prompting our resident cynic to say he's already $15 million to the good. In addition, the $25 million payout can be a tax deduction.
There are still dozens more civil cases pending against him and his various companies, however, and some of them could require court testimony.
So between dealing with court cases against him and avoiding charges of taking forbidden payoffs -- emoluments, the Constitution calls them -- a President Trump would have a very busy term.
To avoid all that, and devote all his time to fending off legal challenges, preserving his business ventures and his personal fortune, he would have to fix his priorities. The question being, which is more important, maintaining control of the Trump Organization or being President.
There is a good case to made that he can't have both.
Friday, November 25, 2016
The Class System in America
The rich are different from you and me.
Yes. They have more money.
Whether that conversation really occurred between F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway is doubtful, but it does summarize some of the difficulty Americans have when talking about social levels.
(Here's a link to some background on this mythical exchange, and how it came to be: http://www.quotecounterquote.com/2009/11/rich-are-different-famous-quote.html.)
The reality is that, officially at least, there is no class system in America. The nation does not have an aristocracy, though some in the wealthiest 1 percent seem to believe they deserve special treatment and deference simply because they are wealthy.
In the heat of political and social competition, the motto set in the Declaration of Independence that all are created equal is too often forgotten. Meanwhile, here are a few more mottoes to consider:
Nobody in this country can walk all over you unless you lie down and let 'em.
You may be richer, but that doesn't make you better.
Many of the super-rich, however, subscribe to the motto used in the book "Animal Farm," by George Orwell: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
In any case, whatever passes as a class system in America is based more on money than on birth. The concept of class originated in Europe, and was spelled out in France during the 18th Century, in categories called estates.
There were four of them:
-- The aristocracy, consisting of those who were born to it.
-- The bourgeoisie, or the wealthy merchant and business class.
-- Farmers and laborers, or the working class, a term still used in America.
-- Journalists, who are still known as the Fourth Estate.
So while theoretically there is no official class system in a democratic society, the reality is that many in the several levels of society act as if there is, and that perception is based largely on wealth. Whether that's as it should be remains an open question.
Yes. They have more money.
Whether that conversation really occurred between F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway is doubtful, but it does summarize some of the difficulty Americans have when talking about social levels.
(Here's a link to some background on this mythical exchange, and how it came to be: http://www.quotecounterquote.com/2009/11/rich-are-different-famous-quote.html.)
The reality is that, officially at least, there is no class system in America. The nation does not have an aristocracy, though some in the wealthiest 1 percent seem to believe they deserve special treatment and deference simply because they are wealthy.
In the heat of political and social competition, the motto set in the Declaration of Independence that all are created equal is too often forgotten. Meanwhile, here are a few more mottoes to consider:
Nobody in this country can walk all over you unless you lie down and let 'em.
You may be richer, but that doesn't make you better.
Many of the super-rich, however, subscribe to the motto used in the book "Animal Farm," by George Orwell: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
In any case, whatever passes as a class system in America is based more on money than on birth. The concept of class originated in Europe, and was spelled out in France during the 18th Century, in categories called estates.
There were four of them:
-- The aristocracy, consisting of those who were born to it.
-- The bourgeoisie, or the wealthy merchant and business class.
-- Farmers and laborers, or the working class, a term still used in America.
-- Journalists, who are still known as the Fourth Estate.
So while theoretically there is no official class system in a democratic society, the reality is that many in the several levels of society act as if there is, and that perception is based largely on wealth. Whether that's as it should be remains an open question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)