Author: Marcy

Advocate of Constitutional guarantees to individual liberty.

Shakespeare for Valentine’s Day

If Valentine’s Day candlelight dinner or box of chocolates is not in your budget this year, print a copy of Shakespeare’s Sonnet #116 and read it to your sweetheart. Then have a Happy Valentine’s Day!

How are you all celebrating Valentine’s Day? Romantic dinner by candlelight? Box of La Madeline au Truffe (US$25 per gram)? Or doing not much given the high cost of living?

If the latter, here is an unassuming suggestion: Print a copy of Shakespeare’s Sonnet #116 (funny thing about Shakespeare’s sonnets, they go by number instead of title), read it to your sweetheart, then talk a little bit about it. Not a big, deep discussion, please!

Why Sonnet #116? First, this is the most familiar of Shakespeare’s sonnets, so it must be good. Second, for so many folks, Sonnet #116 bursts into an epiphany when read or heard for the first time. Third, many find this sonnet worth revisiting by way of reminder.

So, here is Shakespeare’s Sonnet #116:

Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments; love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove.
O no, it is an ever-fixèd mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wand’ring bark
Whose worth’s unknown, although his height be taken.
Love’s not time’s fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle’s compass come.
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom:
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.

Depending on our age and social milieu we might know couples that still hold hands walking down the street after 40 years together, or we might know some of today’s ubiquitous single parents (some divorced, some never married).

In Sonnet #116, Shakespeare characterized his view of the hand-holding oldsters – once young with “rosy lips and cheeks.” Challenges surely came their way. Certainly, at times one or the other had to stay steady, like a star, and not bend “with the remover to remove.” Chances are these couples will bear it out “even to the edge of doom.”

Agreed, this is not your typical Valentine’s Day poem, dripping with gleeful passion and lovely allusions. You can tell that from the sonnet’s first line which refers to the “marriage of true minds,” not the marriage of true hearts.

Happy Valentine’s Day!

Picture: Herbert and Zelmyra Fisher of James City, North Carolina. This picture is from Deep Roots at Home. As of February 2024 Herbert and Zelmyra still held the Guinness record for the longest married couple: 86 years of marriage. Herbert passed away in 2011 at age 105, and Zelmyra followed him two years later also at 105.

Here is an excerpt from Herbert and Zelmyra’s Choice Secrets Of Successful & Long Marriage, Deep Roots at Home, September 14, 2020.

“Together, as young friends and then later when married, they survived the effects of World War I and II, the Great Depression, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the civil rights movement and 15 presidential administrations.

During the Depression, Herbert lived off the land and worked for as little as 5 cents a day. They had to raise their own food and ration it for their five children. Unable to afford a car, Herbert got to work as a mechanic the best way he could. Undaunted, Herbert built their home with his own hands in 1942.“

USAID – Humanitarianism vs. America First

The new normal: “Every dollar we spend, every program we fund, and every policy we pursue must be justified with the answer to three simple questions: Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous?”

On January 26, less than a week after President Donald Trump took office, the U.S. State Department announced Secretary Marco Rubio was initiating a review of aid programs under the following guidelines:

“Every dollar we spend, every program we fund, and every policy we pursue must be justified with the answer to three simple questions: Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous?”

As the principal U.S. agency funding foreign assistance, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) was the first to be reviewed, and subsequently slated for elimination, reform or consolidation.

A perusal of the Internet readily shows numerous articles lamenting the humanitarian catastrophe that pausing USAID assistance will cause. One really must dig to find articles confirming the problems inherent in USAID. Depending on viewpoint, this might be because USAID has no problems or because mainstream media is biased. Or all of the above.

In spite of rhetoric about the ills of wealth redistribution, mainly coming from the right, today’s average Americans do observe charity. The National Philanthropic Trust says, “Per capita, Americans voluntarily donate about seven times as much as continental Europeans.”

This humanitarian spirit spills into governmental policies. Therefore, it should not be surprising that U.S. foreign aid agencies have been giving generously to populations in need whether friend of foe. A hungry child in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan experiences the same suffering as a hungry child in the Philippines.

Unfortunately, this humanitarian spirit causes U.S. aid agencies and other parts of government to work at cross purposes, one part spending money and effort on an adversary and the other part spending money and effort combating that same adversary. Here is an example:

The influx of undocumented individuals into the U.S. has become a cause for concern, particularly in conservative circles. Another cause for concern has been reform district attorneys whom conservatives associate with rise in crime. However, USAID funded East West Management Institute, an Open Society Network organization focusing on judicial reform. Also in the Open Society Network is Welcoming America, an organization that empowers “supportive residents of local communities—immigrants and U.S.-born together—to disseminate positive messages about local immigrants.”

This is most probably just one of many examples of cross purpose foreign assistance that does not sit well with the new White House, prompting the swift actions we all have witnessed.

Indeed, as supporters of USAID point out, government spent in fiscal year 2023 only 1.2% of its budget in foreign aid – not a lot to worry about. However, one of the reasons the nation is $36 trillion in debt (121% of GDP) is that members of the U.S. Congress have been either asleep or busy campaigning, while nickel and diming the nation into fiscal unsustainability.

Supporters also have expressed angst that China, our current competitor on many levels, will gain ground if USAID work is paused. Such concern borders on wishful thinking. While USAID focuses on food and social justice, China focuses on roads, hydro power, transportation, and other hard “aid.” The U.S. Government Accountability Office in its October 2024 post says,

“China is the world’s largest debt collector, with outstanding borrower debt sitting between $1.1 and $1.5 trillion. But countries receiving Chinese investments may end up with unsustainable debt that leaves them no choice but to support Chinese global goals.”

Sounds like while the U.S. is playing checkers, China is playing 3-D chess.

Although it is good for the American people to remain charitable and the U.S. to remain engaged in the needs of less fortunate nations, we need to refrain from being naïve. Our legislative leaders have done very little besides bicker and campaign. It is time for somebody to make our government efficient and focused on America’s best interests.

Picture: The former USAID headquarters in Washington DC. USAID employees also occupied a 38,520 sq ft annex building, also located in Washington DC.

Did Greenland say it wanted Texas?

Nations have always felt comfortable taking over other nations. So, it should not be surprising that President-elect Donal Trump wants Greenland. Niccolo Machiavelli explained the situation way back in 1532.

No, Greenland did not say it wants Texas. However, nations have always felt comfortable taking over other nations or occupying foreign territories, and nothing has changed. Examples currently abound: China is committed to reunification with Taiwan, by force if necessary. Russia wants Ukraine as security against NATO encroachment. Israel also cites security as it expands settlements in Palestinian territories and occupies buffer zones in southern Syria. North Korea has never stopped eyeing South Korea.

Therefore, it should not be surprising that President-elect Donald Trump, especially given the expansionist aspirations of China and Russia – as well as the treasure trove of valuable minerals under Arctic soil — wants to take over Greenland. This despite the clear message “Greenland is not for sale” repeated by both Greenland and Denmark. And by the way, Trump also would like to take over Canada and the Panama Canal.

Whether Trump’s threat of maximum menace represent his version of negating tactics or his version of American exceptionalism — i.e. empire building — is anyone’s guess. However, either way, he is seemingly guided by what Niccolo Machiavelli called “effectual truth” in his novel The Prince (1532). Here is an excerpt,

“It remains now to see what the modes and government of a prince should be with subjects and with friends … it has appeared to me more fitting to go directly to the effectual truth of the thing than to the imagination of it … it is so far from how one lives to how one should live that he who lets go of what is done for what should be done learns his ruin rather than his preservation.“

Especially in developed nations, ideal leaders are often envisioned as behaving presidentially, respecting other nations’ sovereignty, practicing “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none” (as Thomas Jefferson advised during his inaugural speech of 1801).

But the U.S. has enjoyed very few years of peace since independence in 1776. During the 19th century, the U.S. used force during its Western expansion and its removal of French and Mexican presence. The 20th century saw the two great wars and combat against Communist expansion. In the 21st century U.S. lives and treasure have been spent establishing footholds in the Middle East. Today, thankfully not U.S. lives, but certainly plenty of U.S. treasure is being spent defending Israel and Ukraine. While China and Russia are just outside the gates.

Perhaps the world is engaging in imagining what should be rather than what is. So, Donald Trump’s expansionist pronouncements stick out like a sore thumb.

Alternatives? Peace through strength (waging war and calling it peace) is the historical possibility chosen by great empires. Globalization as exemplified by the European Union chooses peace and prosperity through national acquiescence. That’s it?

Niccolo Machiavelli is often perceived as supporting ruthless leaders. However, in Chapter 19 of The Prince he says,

… a prince ought to have two fears, one from within, on account of his subjects, the other from without, on account of external powers. From the latter he is defended by being well armed and having good allies … But concerning his subjects, when affairs outside are disturbed he has only to fear that they will conspire secretly, from which a prince can easily secure himself by avoiding being hated and despised, and by keeping the people satisfied with him, which it is most necessary for him to accomplish,

It appears a prince stays in power at the will of his subjects! Would that mean that in our time and place we could at the ballot box choose leaders who prefer peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations? If so, why have we not?

Picture: The symbol for the 1964 World’s Fair in New York state was The Unisphere. The theme of the fair was “Peace Through Understanding.” This picture is from The Legacy of the 1964 World’s Fair in the History website.

With a name like DOGE it’s got to be good

Wasteful government spending is nobody’s secret. Neither are ways to curtail that spending. However, the debt ceiling is raised every year, the spending continues, and the national debt keeps rising. Maybe DOGE, named after a meme coin featuring Kabosu the dog is weird enough to succeed!

We are living in a brave new world of memes, soundbites, and billion-dollar campaign war chests. Thus, chances are media savvy billionaires calling themselves DOGE might succeed in saving this nation from eventual bankruptcy, when other fiscal Cassandras were and are ignored.

Some reminders

As of December 31, 2024, the U.S. national debt was $36 trillion. As of September 30, 2024, the debt to GDP was 123%. What the country owes is greater than what the country produces to pay its debt.

For the last several decades, Congress – keeper of the nation’s purse strings — has shown no interest in cutting spending. Members feign anguish about raising the debt ceiling every year at budget time, then go ahead and raise it.

Voters seem content re-electing spenders and having their giggles at news of any ludicrous government expenditures.

Three outstanding producers of much giggle but little action

The late Senator William Proxmire (D-Wisconsin) issued 168 “Golden Fleece” awards from 1975 to 1988, informing the public of questionable ways Congress was spending taxpayer money. One of his best choices was a 1978 $97,000 ($400,489 today) study by the National Institute of Mental Health of activities in a Peruvian brothel.

Retired Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) served in the U.S. Congress for 12 non-consecutive terms. While in Congress he was known as “Dr. No,” since he would not vote in favor of any proposal not expressly authorized by the Constitution. Imagine how much leaner, better, faster, cheaper government would be if every member of Congress did the same!

Current Senator Rand Paul (R-Kansas) has somewhat followed his father’s footsteps in speaking out against our big, expensive government. So far, Rand Paul has issued 10 annual “Festivus Reports” to acquaint voters of the frivolous ways their hard-earned tax money is spent by Congress. Judging by press reaction, one of the most giggle-worthy expenditures in the 2024 report is National Endowment of the Arts funding for ice-skating drag queens.

Enter DOGE

Soon after his presidential victory, Donald Trump appointed entrepreneurs Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to lead an extra-governmental group tasked with dramatically reducing the federal budget and the national debt. These objectives are to be accomplished by drastically curtailing government spending, downsizing the federal workforce, and radically cutting regulations. This yet to be configured group has been named DOGE, an acronym for Department of Government Efficiency.

Never mind that, in addition to the government waste warriors mentioned above, we already have the Government Accountability Office and the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability shouting from the rooftops about the incredible amount of taxpayer dollars wasted by various and sundry federal government activities.

Never mind that DOGE will need to dodge all manner of pelts that will surely come its way – claims of extra-constitutional actions, challenges from the legion of entities feeding at the public trough, lawsuits from axed civil servants, dissatisfaction from the forever-growing mass of government-dependent voters, and reluctance from Congress members not willing to upset established sources of donations and votes.

How could DOGE miraculously succeed when others have failed?

  • The power of constant soundbites

Most people these days tolerate (or welcome) a ceaseless stream of breaking news and social media notifications. Shortcuts into the populace’s conscious abound. So do media influencers who successfully promote or ruin products, people, and ideas. Just look at your Facebook or X account, and no further indication of this truth is necessary.

DOGE comes with the power of Elon Musk’s frequent soundbites in the news. It comes with the power of X. It comes riding on the waves of a populist movement made credible by the success and high visibility of leaders like Javier Milei of Argentina and Nayib Bukele of El Salvador.

  • The power of ubiquitous memes

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins coined the word “meme,” short for the ancient Greek word “mimeme” meaning cultural copying. Dawkins characterized memes as,

“… melodies, ideas, catchphrases or bits of information that leap from brain to brain through imitation, expediting their transmission.” The surprising power of internet memes, 09/28/2022.

Unsurprisingly, DOGE is a meme coin, Elon Musk’s favorite crypto currency. The coin came into being when a photo of a Shiba Inu dog named Kabosu went viral, and crypto innovators riding on the popularity of Bitcoin produced the DOGE featuring Kabosu. Take your pick as to whether DOGE stands for DOG-E coin or not.

Kabosu, RIP, died May 24, 2024, at the age of 18. But she will forever be remembered thanks to the Kabosu monument built in 2023 in her honor in Sakura City’s Sakura Furusato Hiroba riverside park. See featured image of this article, showing Atsuko Sato (who rescued Kabosu from an animal shelter) cuddling Kabosu at the Sakura monument.

May the fiscal salvation offered by the X owner and frequent poster come to pass.

  • The power of excellence.

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are of the intellectual elites of our times. In the old days we had Nicolaus Copernicus, Isaac Newton, John Locke, Benjemin Franklin – minds that operated outside the accepted norm and thus produced what was unimaginable before they came along.

Nowadays with excellence justifiably comes monetary rewards. Musk and Ramaswamy are billionaires. And with money comes power. Musk contributed $259 million to groups supporting Trump’s 2024 campaign, most certainly because he did want to do what he proposed during an X interview with Trump: cut government waste.

One would be naïve to think members of Congress are not aware that plying ball might translate into re-election support.

  • The power of sudden epiphanies.

Today, January 6, is Epiphany, also called the Day of the Magi and the 12th Day of Christmas. The word epiphany means a sudden realization of something, an unexpected grasp of reality.

Let’s hope that voters, Congress, and the legacy media soon come to the realization that the current national practice of borrowing to support spending is not sustainable.

Christmas in a hot climate

I was born in the Southern Hemisphere, where it can get
hot as blazes in December. So, snow-covered trees made no sense to my family. Ah, but wait ’till you hear about our DIY Nativity Scene. Merry Christmas everyone.

For some people, including me, no Christmas ever goes by without remembrance of childhood. Scenes of trees, sleighs and snow, remind me of my Christmases in sweltering hot weather. See, I was born in the Southern Hemisphere, in South America, where December is summertime.

For my family the snowy tree scenes so popular in the Northern Hemisphere made no sense at all. Besides, they said, what do trees have to do with the birth of Jesus?

Ah, also, real trees were expensive for folks of modest means like us, and they only lasted one season. Some fancy people had fake trees, like those shimmering aluminum ones, but that was equally out of our range.

But my Christmases were unforgettable!

The extended family in which I grew somehow managed to instill in all of us kids that experiences differ according to condition. The trick is to understand the condition, accept it, and build rituals of cheerful dedication.

The ritual of Christmas included us kids scouring the neighborhood for discarded wood, the older kids bringing sand from the beach, one of my uncles cutting branches with lovely leaves, and another uncle building the frame of what was to be the most beautiful Nativity Scene you have ever seen.

The gathering and building are what stand out in my memory.

The uncle whose job was to build the Nativity frame expected teamwork and precision (he was a draughtsman for the army). The uncle in charge of bringing the branches collected them from a veritable jungle that stood mysteriously abandoned for decades in the back of his property.

Gathering and transporting sand required deep planning. The gathering had to be when it was not too hot and the beach was not covered with sunbathing folks. Transporting entailed avoidance of market days when lots of people who also depended on the local streetcar brought home numerous bags of produce (and often a live chicken). My Dad, given that he was known for destroying a wall while trying to hammer in a small nail, did not participate in the building of the Nativity Scene. His job was the Christmas dinner.

Once the frame was built, the canopy of greenery was in place, and the sand was spread evenly on the frame’s platform, we kids were allowed to place rocks and other nature items that we felt were appropriate on the sand.

Lastly came the piece de resistance.

The adults cautiously and lovingly unwrapped the Holy Family, the Angel (the Bible does not mention an angel present at the manger, but Nativity Scenes like to have one), the Three Wise Men (the Bible does not say how many there were, but makes sense to say 3 since they brought 3 gifts), the shepherds and their sheep (yes, mentioned), and the cow and donkey (nothing about them in the Bible, but they fit the story so beautifully).

And voila, there was the Nativity Scene, to us a beautiful and joyous scene that seemed to shout “Hey, cooperation and good will can work. How abut spreading them around as far and wide as you can?”

To this day, although I now live where it is cold in December, I set up a little Nativity Scene at Christmas time. I am happy that my little granddaughters cooperate setting up their tiny Scene in their room every year, the featured picture of this Christmas article.

Have a wonderful Christmas or Hanukkah (they fall on the same day this year), or just celebrate the Season. Best wishes for a prosperous and peaceful 2025.

Marcy Berry
Just Vote No Editor

North Carolina proposed a Convention of States – Be wary

Article V Convention of States is a bulwark against federal government abuses. Only problem is it has never been used and nobody knows how it works.

On December 5, 2024, the North Carolina State Legislature passed a Joint Resolution applying to the U.S. Congress for an Article V Convention of States to limit the term of Congressional Leaders.

To those familiar with what a Convention of States is and what pros/cons such a convention carries, kudos. This Just Vote No article is for folks who say, “What are we getting into here?”

So, first off, what is Article V

Article V of the U.S. Constitution is a crucial bulwark against federal government abuses. It gives states and its people the right to amend the Constitution whether the federal government likes it or not. This form of redress has never been used. All 27 Amendments to the Constitution have been placed via another route offered by Article V – Congress proposes, and states ratify. Here is Article V:

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

The language of Article V is purposefully lean.

Our Founders established an experimental way of governing – We the People, on our own or via our elected representatives, decide the nation’s path. Article V guarantees an antidote against federal misconduct but leaves open how states (The People) use it.

It is clear from the language of Article V that applications from 34 states (2/3 of 50 states) are needed for Congress to call for a Convention of States, and that whatever amendments are proposed at such Convention must then be ratified by the legislatures of 38 states (3/4 of 50 states).

Other than that, at present, there is nothing.

We have no precedent for guidance. We have no rules that guarantee what states propose is what delegates will aim for at a Convention. There is nothing about who can be a delegate, or how delegates should be chosen. We have no guidance when or how U.S. Courts can intervene if amendments stray too far from the intentions of our Founders.

It is not even clear when Congress is required to call a Convention of States, since there is disagreement how applications should be counted. Article V says nothing about subjects on applications, nothing on whether applications expire or are forever valid, nothing on how to count or not count rescinded applications.

Even if we all agree to count only applications currently clearly on the table, does Congress count 9 applications for “Term Limits” and 25 to go. Or count 9 for terms limits plus 19 to “Limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, impose fiscal restraints, and place term limits on federal officials,” so only 6 to go.

Therefore, voters should be wary of assertive self-assured applications.

Here is the wording of Section 1 of the North Carolina application for a Convention of Stares,

“SECTION 1. The legislature of North Carolina hereby makes an application to Congress, as provided by Article V of the Constitution of the United States of America, to call a convention limited to proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America to set a limit on the number of terms that a person may be elected as a member of the United States House of Representatives and to set a limit on the number of terms that a person may be elected as a member of the United States Senate.”

Although this language and that of other applications sound completely straight forward, the people can only depend on the good character and promises of Convention delegates.

The chances that promises would be kept or not is anyone’s guess.

Even a cursory search on the Internet for “Convention of States” will yield numerous pros and cons. The pros mostly point out that a Convention is needed to do the job Congress refuses to do, and there should be no fear of a “runaway Convention” given the specificity of Convention applications. The cons simply disagree that any specificity can exist based on the language of Article V, and Congress’ dysfunction can be easily cured by voters at the ballot box.

Both sides can be right, since Article V doesn’t say much! Both sides can try to guess what the Founders intended via the Federalist Papers or other writings, and one guess would be just as good as another.

Both sides often bring up the first and only Constitutional Convention, which convened in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. The pro side points to the fact that this was a Constitutional Convention, a different animal than a limited Article V Convention of States. The con side sees no difference, based on the language of Article V.

Y’all remember what happened there? That 1787 Convention, attended by George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and other great minds of the time convened to improve the Articles of Confederation which lacked a way that states could operate in concert by a set of rules. As we all know, delegates did not improve the Articles of Confederation but instead wrote a whole new Constitution.

It all sounds a bit too risky. Even if we say the real intent of Convention of States is to scare government into taking action, uncertainties of what happens if a Convention is called remain.

How about the good old ballot box?

The ballot box remains the only sure-fire way that people can control what government does. If voters want a smaller fiscally restrained government, don’t groan and grind teeth when radicals in Congress speak out against increasing spending limits. If voters want terms limits, stop voting for career politicians and support the “citizen statesmen” that our Founders envisioned.

Want to hear the pros/cons first hand?

For those interested in a good collection of pros and cons all in one place, here is a link to a YouTube video called Conference on the Constitutional Convention: Legal Panel. This conference was presented by the Harvard Law School. Five panelists participated in the discussion.

Picture: The Great Seal of North Carolina is embedded in the walkway at the main entrance of the North Carolina State Legislative Building. Around its edge is the state motto, “Esse Quam Videri,” Latin for “To be, rather than to seem.”

San Francisco: Notes from an expatriate

San Francisco is a place of distinctive neighborhoods. One place they get together is Coalition of San Francisco Neighborhoods.

California’s jewel city of San Francisco is a place of neighborhoods, each with its own distinctive features and characteristics. The city is also a physical contradiction in terms. Its lovely neighborhoods of Pacific Heights and Marina contrast sharply with the homeless-filled Tenderloin and SOMA districts.

One place where denizens of these divergent neighborhoods have come together since 1972 to “Advocate for a healthy city” is the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods (CSFN).

Thanks to long-time fellow advocate for a better world and dedicated member of CSFN for sending to the Just Vote No Blog the link to one of CSFN’s YouTubes, this one featuring another long-time fellow advocate.

The YouTube dated November 19, 2024, Chris Bowman on 2024 Election, is filled with his usual great insights. However, the segment this JVN post would like to highlight is Chris’ spot-on description of various labels ascribed to politicians’ governing philosophy (37.00).

Why does it matter? San Francisco, a Republican bastion until around 1964, today is solid left-of-center Democratic. Which is fine, since that is what the city’s voters voted for. But the point of these notes from an expatriate is that what San Francisco calls “moderate” would be viewed in, say, Florida, as socialist, and leftward from there.

So, here are Chris Bowman’s thoughts on the matter, paraphrased best as possible:

Moderate: A leader that wants government to live within its means, without substantially raising taxes.

Conservative: A leader that wants government downsizing, by reducing expenditures and government involvement.

Liberal: A leader that wants economic growth, which increases the tax base, and allows for expenditures on social projects.

Progressive: A leader that wants to raise as much taxes as possible and spend as much as possible on social projects, even if that entails taxing the rich out of existence [or taxing the rich into exile].

Comparison between a liberal and a progressive: A liberal wants a very well-fed goose that can lay lots of golden eggs. A progressive is OK with cutting up the goose to produce a rich stew.

In conclusion, pay no mind to labels San Francisco politicians adopt for themselves, or what labels the media ascribes to them. Pay close attention to what they advocate.

Picture: San Francisco’s beautiful Marina. More like this on bcx.news, Arts, Literature, Photography, Events.

On day one, mind our house divided

Victorious conservatives see the recent decisive presidential election as a mandate for radical change. And progressives are predictably suiting up for battle. A house divided cannot stand.

The recent decisive presidential election showed that a significant number of voters were mad as hell and were not going to take it anymore. However, the aftermath showed some with fear of real and imagined threats and public figures vowing to fight in defense of their turf. Everyone seemingly ignoring that “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

Abraham Lincoln spoke of the peril of a house divided — quoting Matthew 12:25 — at a time of great national sorrow, when the Southern economy dependent on slave labor was made to face an anti-slavery movement. Today, our nation is on a similar, although thankfully not as tragically wrenching, position of divisiveness: populous coastal states dependent on a redistributive economy were made to face a solid mass of conservative middle states.

Obviously, magnitude of suffering is not what can be compared between today’s divisiveness and the post-Civil War discord. What can be instructive, however, is an assessment of what works best after an upheaval. The post-Civil War Reconstruction period tried both change through conciliatory compromise and change through forced acquiescence. The latter overwhelmed the former, leaving unhealed wounds residues of which linger to this day.

Andrew Johnson, Vice President during Abraham Lincoln’s administration, assumed the presidency upon Lincoln’s assassination. He attempted to follow Lincoln’s advice to bind up the nation’s wounds by adopting a conciliatory approach to full emancipation of former slaves.

His efforts were ineffectively lenient, given the enormity of the challenge. The defeated South experienced rampant violence against former slaves. Radical Republicans in Congress upon achieving a majority, implemented a vastly more stringent agenda, imposing military rule in the South, and disenfranchising Southern rebels.

While Radical Republican actions enabled basic requirements of equality with passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, they also ushered Jim Crow. From Whites Only water fountains to Whites Only suburbs, Jim Crow lasted for nearly 100 years. The last vestiges of which were legislatively erased by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but Jim Crow left an entire population of citizens playing catch up.

We should accept that Andrew Johnson’s conciliatory approach did not work. However, we should also speculate whether the Radical Republican approach might have been too harsh, producing unfortunate boomerang effects.

The result of the 2024 presidential election is being lauded by supporters as a mandate for radical change that will necessitate radical actions. Predictably, progressive-socialist bastions are already suiting up for battle – the boomerang effect is already evident.

Progressive state governors like Gavin Newsom of California, J.B. Pritzker of Illinois, Kathy Hochul of New York, and Maura Healey of Massachusetts are leading the charge – in the words of Gavin Newsom – to “Trump-proof” their states.

Less strident state leaders have issued more thoughtful messages. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz made a good point: the Trump-Vance team often spoke of leaving decisions to the states; therefore, he is “willing to take them at their word for that.” Walz listed the areas he will defend: abortion rights, climate change, gun restrictions in schools and labor rights. These issues are good ones for the federal government to handle with finesse rather than bluster.

Admitedly, there are issues that need to be handled firmly, but hopefully not belligerently.

It should be obvious by now given the nation’s current unsustainable $35 trillion debt that government is spending beyond its means trying to support an obscenely bloated bureaucracy and a dependent legal and illegal constituency. The incoming administration has pledged to trim both.

Hopefully, in its efforts to keep its pledge the new administration will act “with malice toward none” by avoiding unnecessary acrimonious words and deeds. This tactic will do wonders to heal the nation’s divisiveness and set it on a path to greater prosperity.

Hopefully, the new majority in Congress will heed its Constitutional duties “to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1). For the last two decades, Congress has abdicated most of its Constitutional responsibilities, by loosening its purse strings ($35 trillion in national debt), adopting a lenient approach to homeland security (open borders and a military not fully prepared), and forgetting what “general” as opposed to selective welfare means.

Hopefully, new leaders will focus on the big picture – national expenditures, prosperity, and a safe homeland. And defer posturing, especially in signing of Executive Orders.

Hopefully, new leaders will mind history and the perils of a house divided.

Holy fatcats! Absolute Batman is coming!

Come October 9, 2024, there will be a new Batman in the Gotham neighborhood: Absolute Batman. He is, well, different, and thus worthy of perusal.

Come October 9, 2024, it is said there will be a new Batman in the Gotham neighborhood: Absolute Batman. He is, well, different, and thus worthy of perusal. More so, because the rest of the DC Comics Trinity — Wonder Woman and Superman – will follow Batman into the new Absolute Universe later in October.

Kudos for DC Comics, writer Scott Snyder, artist Nick Dragotta, and colorist Frank Martin for plunging into what could be called a Batman for our times. Not that DC has been shy about creating some extreme versions of Batman for its Absolute Editions, but this new Absolute Batman feels like a totally inverted image of the prime Batman.

This Batman is not one of the multiple iterations of prime Batman. He is not the brooding Batman of the 1930s (hey, there was a depression then), or the lighter Batman & Robin exclamatory duo of the 1950s (war hero Eisenhower was presiding over a prosperous economy), or even the focused-on-justice-for-Mom-and-Dad Batman of 1989 (people were suffering through an economic slowdown again). This oh so different Batman is not even a figment of his own imagination, like in the 2022 Batman Unburied series.

The new Absolute Batman has shed all his original self, for real!

Batman’s wealthy parents Martha and Thomas Wayne were not killed by thugs, as they were in the prime Batman Universe. They are now very much alive and not at all wealthy. Dad is a teacher, and Mom works in the Mayor’s Office.

As it must follow, Bruce Wayne is not the billionaire owner of Wayne Enterprises, but an engineer (or construction worker per some previews). Thugs are not among his shunned and hunted adversaries, since he grew up with them in the heart of Gotham.

From the perspective of the new Absolute Batman, there are bigger fish to fry than thugs and petty crime bosses. His principal adversaries are the powerful within the established system, those (like the traditional Bruce Wayne?) who have the wealth and resources that most citizens of Gotham lack.

This Batman no longer represents a perceived established system that aims to bring order to Gotham. Absolute Batman’s modus operandi is not to bring order where chaos reigns, but to use disorder and chaos to destroy the established order he finds objectionable.

In an interview with Comicbook, Scott Snyder encapsulates the core of the new Batman,

“I don’t want to give too much away but one of the core concepts of the series is that in this world, Bruce will be the small chaos in the system and the villains will be more powerful, have more resources.”

“We want it to feel like Batman, yet brand new,” … “But the core idea, that he is the anarchy, not the system, and his adversaries are more systemic … “

One must assume the new Absolute Batman is a Batman for our times.

The world is not yet Gotham. But how are we doing in the orderly establishment departments, public or private? Everybody feel comfortable with Big Tech or Big Pharma? Is everybody confident with their own safety and the safety of their family in their homes, streets, schools? Everybody feel confident that on November 5th all will go smoothly?

If sincerely answered, responses to the above questions would be “not great” and “no.” The established establishment, public or private, has no credible plan to lower the unsustainable national debt, curb the power of monopolies, make effective public education available to all children, heal the minds of our youth (think teen suicides and school shootings), or end what is becoming universal dependence on public assistance or selective dependence on criminal endeavors (think gang membership and drug dealing).

In the absence of cogent planning and action, we get extreme gibberish — We will end inflation with price controls! I can end a war with a phone call! Medicare for all! We are being run by a bunch of cat ladies! This real-life twaddle feels like the equivalent of the new Absolute Batman’s hulking inelegant frame bringing chaos and calling it remedy. Meanwhile, believers of the twaddle could be compared to the new Absolute Bruce Wayne, who continues to live in Crime Alley among the thugs so he can learn from them how to fight the “fat cats.”

“This is Absolute Batman, going up against the fat cats, the one percenters, the ones who play the populace and make them dance, sacrificing them for their own purposes, and then making them blame each other. This Absolute Batman has been planning for a long time, staying in Gotham to learn rather than travelling the world and doing the kind of jobs that an eccentric billionaire trust fund kid would never do.” Bleedingcool.com, September 12, 2024.

It will be interesting to see if this inverted Batman sells.

Hopefully, DC Comics will succeed in engaging their readers in the new personality of Bruce Wayne and the new modus operandi of Absolute Batman. A quick look at Reddit>Comics, or any of the numerous comics forums will show that readers pay attention to the origins, motives and conscience of their Superheroes. Will they feel that Absolute Bruce Wayne is a bit too average? A bit too much a product of our times? A bit too obviously a diversity and inclusion justice warrior?

After all, today’s readers can too often find chaos and disorder in their own neighborhoods, schools, and sadly their own homes. Will they be interested in someone who – unlike prime Batman who aims for return to order — uses bursts of brute force to simply plow through adversaries? We shall see.

Picture: This is what Batman looked like back in 1939, when he first appeared in the comics. He was slim, agile, sophisticated. When Absolute Batman comes out in October, make comparisons. The picture is from article on CBR.com, Every Single Batman Suit & Costume, In Chronological Order, dated July 1, 2024.

Grocery prices too high? You can fix that!

When inflation gets so high that voters complain, politicians can dance around the challenge by implementing price controls, breaking up big corporations, or trying other gimmicks that have never worked. Or they can refrain from pressuring the Federal Reserve, and allow them to bring inflation down by increasing interest rates and decreasing the money supply.

The working middle and modest-income classes in the United States are struggling with rising prices and stagnant incomes. They are also hoping government will “do something” to ease their pain. Unfortunately, most often government is the cause of the pain, not the cure.

An article dated November 2013, on the website Federal Reserve History, has some interesting things to say about the Great Inflation of 1965-1982.

Here are a few quotes from that article:

“The Great Inflation was the defining macroeconomic event of the second half of the twentieth century … It was, according to one prominent economist, ‘the greatest failure of American macroeconomic policy in the postwar period.’ “

“In 1964, inflation measured a little more than 1 percent per year. It had been in this vicinity over the preceding six years. Inflation began ratcheting upward in the mid-1960s and reached more than 14 percent in 1980.”

“While economists debate the relative importance of the factors that motivated and perpetuated inflation for more than a decade, there is little debate about its source. The origins of the Great Inflation were policies that allowed for an excessive growth in the supply of money—Federal Reserve policies.”

“The late 1960s and the early 1970s were a turbulent time for the US economy. President Johnson’s Great Society legislation brought about major spending programs across a broad array of social initiatives at a time when the US fiscal situation was already being strained by the Vietnam War.”

“A more disruptive force was the repeated energy crises that increased oil costs and sapped U.S. growth. The first crisis was an Arab oil embargo that began in October 1973 and lasted about five months. During this period, crude oil prices quadrupled to a plateau that held until the Iranian revolution brought a second energy crisis in 1979. The second crisis tripled the cost of oil.”

“The Nixon administration introduced wage and price controls over three phases between 1971 and 1974. Those controls only temporarily slowed the rise in prices while exacerbating shortages, particularly for food and energy. The Ford administration fared no better in its efforts. After declaring inflation “enemy number one,” the president in 1974 introduced the Whip Inflation Now (WIN) program, which consisted of voluntary measures to encourage more thrift. It was a failure.”

“In 1979, Paul Volcker, formerly the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, became chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.”

“By this time, it was generally accepted that reducing inflation required greater control over the growth rate of [bank] reserves specifically, and broad money more generally. … Lending activity fell, unemployment rose, and the economy entered a brief recession … But the Volcker Fed continued to press the fight against high inflation with a combination of higher interest rates and even slower reserve growth … Unemployment peaked at nearly 11 percent, but inflation continued to move lower and by recession’s end, year-over-year inflation was back under 5 percent.”

The meaning, summarized:

*Government spent too much thanks to the Federal Reserve’s generous increase in the money supply and its failure to change monetary policy when inflation started to rise significantly.

*There was no oil price gouging. The significant increase in the price of gas and energy was the result of shortages caused by the Arab oil embargo and by the Iranian revolution.

*The Nixon administration’s wage and price controls did not work. They resulted in massive shortages of goods and an inflation rate of 11%.

*The Ford administration’s measures to encourage corporate and consumer thrift did not work either.

*What did work in bringing inflation down to 3.66% by 1987 were the policies of Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Chairman from August 1979 to August 1987. He raised interest rates as high as 19.08% and decreased the money supply.

*The Federal Reserve continuously plays a balancing act in abiding by its objectives of maximum employment and price stability.

The Somewhat Great Inflation of 2022-2024.

The 9% inflation rate of 2022 pales by comparison to the 13.88% 1980 rate.

However, just as spending on the Vietnam war and the Great Society fueled inflation, spending in response to the 2019-2023 pandemic did as well. In 2020 federal spending increased 45% from 2019, as compared to a 18% increase in spending in response to the Great Recession of 2008-2009.

The Nixon administration price and wage control did nothing to stabilize prices. So far, neither has the Biden administration Inflation Reduction Act. However, interest rate increases have made a difference.

The unadjusted 12-months ended July 2024 inflation rate for all items of goods and services was 2.9%, down from 3.2% in 2023 and 8.5% in 2022. The decrease is thanks to the Federal Reserve Bank steadily increasing the Federal Funds rate from 1.68% in July 2022 to 5.33% in July 2024.

Other factors besides spending.

There are certainly other factors besides excessive government spending without significant increase in production that can trigger inflation. The factors that contributed to the current inflation are mentioned in these two studies:

*A study reported in July 2024 by MIT Sloan School of Management indicates the following triggers and their relative influence on the current inflation:

Money supply 2.90%
Yield curve 3.30%
Wages and salaries 4.80%
Personal consumption 6.20%
Producer prices 10.10%
Interest rates 14.30%
Inflation expectations 16.90%
Federal spending 41.60%

Federal spending outweighs all other influences. Interestingly, money supply is not a significant contributor according to this study. Although, this paragraph from Statista Research dated May 14, 2024, disagrees.

“While between 2000 and 2019, the M1 money supply increased at a slow pace, there was an exceptionally sharp increase in 2020, which was the result of the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The sharpest increase took place in May 2020, when the M1 money supply was increased from 4.8 to 16.2 trillion U.S. dollars.”

*And from Brookings Institution research dated June 13, 2023:

“The pandemic-era inflation has been a complicated phenomenon that involved both multiple sources and complex dynamic interactions. Ultimately, as many have recognized, the inflation largely reflected strong aggregate demand, the product of easy fiscal and monetary policies, excess savings accumulated during the pandemic, and the reopening of locked-down economies.”

Additional factors.

Indeed, the current inflation is complex, with many variables. One variable that the above-mentioned studies do not emphasize because it does not play a major role in inflation is corporations’ ability to raise prices in a consolidated market. Microsoft and Alphabet are examples of near monopolies that are often accused of setting rules and prices largely undisturbed by competitors.

Although those accusations are partly true (Procter & Gamble’s recent report of sales decline attests that the company’s ability to raise prices is not unlimited!), the clamor that government “do something” is laughable, since it is government’s “easy money” that allows formation of such monopolies. Remember, buyouts are mostly leveraged, facilitated by low interest rates.

In conclusion.

Once upon a time, the U.S. dollar was backed by gold. In those old days, politicians could not get re-elected by just spending unlimited amounts of government fiat money giving their constituents the moon – today they can.

Unfortunately, unbridled spending brings on inflation. When inflation gets so high that voters complain, politicians can dance around the challenge by implementing price controls, breaking up big corporations, or trying other gimmicks that have never worked. Or they can refrain from pressuring the Federal Reserve, and allow them to bring inflation down by increasing interest rates and decreasing the money supply.

Thankfully, politicians do not simply step into their roles – they get elected by voters. Thus, voters can fix things that go wrong, like inflation, by voting wisely.