Author: Marcy

Advocate of Constitutional guarantees to individual liberty.

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.

Did Facebook just figure censorship is wrong?

Recently Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted that government officials pressured his company to censor certain Covid-19 content. We will see going forward whether his contrition is real.

On August 27, Mark Zuckerberg expressed what perhaps most people knew. He said in a letter to Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, that government officials pressured Facebook to censor certain Covid-19 content. He indicated in the letter that he regretted not being more outspoken about it.

Although Mr. Zuckerberg has now articulated contrition, it will be his actions not his words that prove his repentance. He could start by directing Facebook engineers and content administrators to restore the “reach” of posts that dared to bring up a situation, event, research that diverged from official prescribed positions during the pandemic.

Interestingly, the censorship alluded by Mark Zuckerberg applied to any Facebook account, no matter how obscure. And that included the Just Vote No Blog.

Up to the rise of Covid-related censorship, the Just Vote No Facebook Page reached a good number of people and received several comments on each post. Then, one fateful day, the Just Vote No Blog placed on its Facebook Page a post criticizing the way the pandemic was being handled by U.S. officials. Mind you, the post acknowledged that Covid-19 was real, and people were dying. The post only disagreed with the official response to the challenge, calling the ensuring disarray Keystone Cops behavior.

Overnight, the “reach” of all subsequent posts was “0,” and comments disappeared. This situation continues to this day.

It will be interesting to see whether Mark Zuckerberg’s newly-found courage and common sense will translate into more diverse posts on his platform. There is so much in cat video and cute memes content most people can tolerate.

Picture: Anonymous engraving of a 19th century service called the Black Cabinet. The cabinet’s duty was to examine private correspondence for security reasons. From arts print website Meinsterdrucke

The Trump/Musk conversation: Over the media’s head?

Our legacy media has not been kind regarding the recent Trump/Musk conversation. Did they miss that this was supposed to be freewheeling and extemporaneous? Did the whole thing go over the media’s head?

The Just Vote No Blog is not a partisan website, but the Trump/Musk conversation live streamed on August 12, was interesting enough to comment on. Equally interesting has been the legacy media’s focus on “slurring” and “rambling.” Did the fact this was a freewheeling, extemporaneous conversation escape the media? Did the noteworthy comments made go over their head? Well, here are this blog’s observation of a few issues discussed on the Trump/Musk conversation.

Eliminate the Department of Education. Trump briefly spoke about such elimination, which he would endeavor for two reasons: 1) Government is way too big and too expensive. Lots needs to be eliminated if the current unsustainable national debt is to be reduced. 2) Constitutionally, what is not listed as duties of the federal government must be left to the states. Education is not a duty of the federal government. The Department of Education is, therefore, a good candidate for elimination.

There are good, decent people coming through our borders. But there are also criminals that are not being vetted. Both Trump and Musk agreed on this point. Both focused on the criminals, since that is the “existential threat” (Musk’s view) to the U.S. Accusations of “racism” do not apply here.

The current level of inflation is a threat and realistic action needs to be taken to bring it under control. Inflation was probably the challenge Musk wanted to focus on the most. He succinctly stated the cause of inflation: Too much government spending with borrowed money. He also stated his view of a remedy: Establish a commission to determine costs/benefits of every current and proposed spending. Trump agreed with Musk’s definition of inflation (“there is too much waste”), but glossed over Musk’s remedy. The objective is to shrink government, not grow it with another commission.

Climate change is not our greatest threat; nuclear war is. Neither Trump nor Musk slighted challenges posed by earth’s changing climate. Their viewpoint, however, is that serious conflicts are brewing that could result in the use of nuclear weapons. Current negotiations are not proving effective. Trump’s view is that the cudgel of severe sanctions aimed as disruptors of peace works better than long-winded talks.

Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un are smart people that know what their threats are. Trump again repeated what gets progressive panties in a bunch. His point is not that ruthless dictators are to be emulated, but that the smart ones know a threat when they see one. A friendly but deadly serious threat of severe sanctions brings better results than an insulting threat of military aggression. Teddy Roosevelt had a great line on this subject: “Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.”

Significant decreases in oil production and electric vehicle mandates are unrealistic ways of mitigating the effects of climate change. The first part of this statement came from Musk, the majority owner of Tesla. Oil and its thousands of derivatives keep the wheels of the economy moving. We cannot significantly decrease oil production without accepting a significant decrease in economic activity. The second part of the statement was what Trump emphasized. His point was simply “An electric car is not for everyone.”

Want to go on strike? “Everyone of you is gone.” It is not surprising that Trump, owner of several businesses, speaking with a fellow business owner, would express his opposition to union-originated strikes. Businesses exist to produce goods and services, not to sit idly while workers strike. Understandably, the UAW immediately filed a lawsuit against Trump and Musk claiming worker intimidation. It will be interesting to see come November if most workers want union protection or want a job – companies that feel pressured by regulations or by unions simply move out of state or out of the country.

Don’t take prosperity for granted. Musk gave Argentina and Venezuela as examples of countries once unbelievably prosperous that fell into total disintegration. Trump agreed, adding the reason for the disintegration was ascension of “stupid people.” Both Trump and Musk also mentioned current President of Argentina Javier Milei, who turned his failed country around in under a year, principally bringing inflation down to single digits in six months. Milei is a libertarian capitalist that knows what he is doing. Milei is not “stupid,” and it shows.

It would be good to hear Vice President Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, in a similar relaxed conversation with a personality of her choice. It is good for voters to get a feel for how candidates for political office talk, just talk. Often what people say in friendly conversation is what they feel about issues.

Picture: From website Donald J. Trump for President 2024

Violence never solves anything

Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump was the victim of an assassination attempt. As other perpetrators of violence, Trump’s assailant solved nothing and failed in his intent in so many ways.

Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump suffered an assassination attempt on July 13, 2024. Thankfully, the tortured soul that pulled the trigger missed. He missed in so many ways. He missed his target, he instead mortally wounded a well-respected father of two, injured two others, and provided a news-worthy image of a bloody but defiant Trump.

If the shooter was looking for fame, he likely failed there as well. His terrible deed was overshadowed by the animated crowd at the Republican National Convention two days later. If history repeats itself, his name will be largely forgotten. Anyone remembers Richard Lawrence, John Flammang Schrank, Giuseppe Zangara, John Warnock Jr, Arthur Bremer, or Lynette Fromme?

There have been perpetrators of violence whom history chooses to remember, but often as creators of martyrs. In this context, perpetrators again fail in their intent. Speaking about Trump’s attempted assassination, HBO show host Bill Maher said: “When I saw that photo today of him with the blood streaming down his face … MAGA nation finally has its full martyr.”

Senseless violence does not end well for either perpetrators or society. Violence does not solve any challenges to which its was aimed. Violent acts should be pre-emptively avoided by shunning needlessly inflammatory speech, demeaning nicknames, and glorification of guns (one thing is to understand the reason the Founding Fathers rightly placed the Second Amendment near the top of the Bill of Rights, but another thing is to flaunt rifles and boast ownership).

Hopefully, there will be no more political violence going forward. Hopefully, our presidential candidates will focus on economic and governance issues, and voters will do so as well. Hopefully, legislators and other officials will behave impartially, firmly abiding by our nation’s Constitutional principles.

Picture: Firefighters of Butler, Pennsylvania, mourned one of their own. Corey Comperatore, well-respected member of the Butler community and volunteer firefighter, was an innocent bystander killed at the Trump rally on July 13, 2024.

Budgets and bills with bolts from the blue

The North Carolina legislature is getting pretty good at inserting surprise policy into last-minute budgets and tacking unrelated items into bills. Some people call these “riders.” Some call it legislating by stealth. None of it good.

A useful new series of articles called “Power & Secrecy” in The News & Observer, one of North Carolina’s premier newspapers, digs into policies emanating from the current state legislature. As its name suggests, the series aims to shed light into veiled actions by the state’s legislative leaders meant to grow legislative power.

Spoiler alert.

The N&O leans left, so it is tempted to emphasize that the current state legislature, faults exposed, is a veto-proof Republican majority. Since seeking power is a party-independent endeavor, emphasis should be on the “veto-proof majority” part, not the “Republican” part.

Things that jump out unexpectedly from budgets and bills.

The North Carolina legislature is getting pretty good at inserting surprise policy into last-minute budgets and tacking unrelated items into bills. Some people call these “riders.”

By way of background. From the late 1980s to the mid-2000, operational rules of North Carolina’s House and Senate forbade tacking on new policy and spending in final versions of state budgets. In 2003, the Democrat-controlled state Senate started whacking off pieces of this prohibition. In 2011, the House, then Republican majority, started doing the same. Today, legislators are free to do both previously prohibited practices.

So, what’s the problem? Firstly, budgets are intended to be means by which legislators allocate funds to previously agreed upon rules, not means by which to create or modify rules. Secondly, there is no robust public debate on new policy inserted in budgets. Thirdly, legislators often pass budgets by way of conference reports, which require a Yes or No vote without possibility of compromise amendments. Fourthly, a tacked on unrelated rule to a bill also forces a Yes or No vote to the entire bill.

Lastly, the nature of riders is stealth, sliding by constituents.

An argument could be made that legislating by stealth saves time and contention. But, it also ignores a lot of constituents. Here are a couple of examples provided by the above-mentioned series of investigative articles:

  • Ignoring environmental concerns.

North Carolina is a pro-business state. However, it does have its share of liberal cities with environmentally conscious constituents that wish to curb business practices they deem environmentally harmful. Pre-emptive budget and bill riders passed by the state legislature prevent that.

The cities of Asheville and Durham were considering regulating plastic bags and food containers back in September 2023. Legislators stepped in with a rider on the state budget prohibiting any North Carolina city or county from regulating or taxing retail packaging.

The piles of Styrofoam and other plastics covering streams and other waterways can get pretty yucky. There isn’t much one can do to prevent wind and rain from moving litter in landfills and streets into storm drains and waterways. And there are biodegradable alternatives, like sugarcane containers.

  • Ignoring pollen, dust, smelly fumes…, and hard to trace campaign money.

Remember the Covid “guidelines” requiring that everybody wear a mask in public? Predictably, normalizing face masks prompted use by individuals who want to hide their identity – including rioters and demonstrators. So, in the usual first you create a problem then you try to solve it creating another problem, the North Carolina legislature passed House Bill 237, prohibiting public use of face masks. Sure, there are exceptions for people in seasonally-appropriate costumes, workers in unhealthy environments, and “Any person wearing a medical or surgical grade mask for the purpose of preventing the spread of contagious disease.” That’s it.

The “health exception” was placed when some legislators refused to sign the bill without the exception. But, apparently, in exchange, a campaign finance rider was tacked on to the mask bill. No, there is no connection between wearing masks in public and allowing political donors to give money to special federal political organizations, that then pass the money on to state and county parties.

Beware of mission creep.

As The News & Observer series on legislative power and secrecy continues, there will surely be much uncovered and placed in the public eye. Hopefully, voters will be watching.

The concern should be that without robust public input a legislature, regardless of stripe, becomes emboldened. It might also become less practical (i.e., being business friendly to grow the economy), and become more ideological (fill in the blank here with any ideology).

A recent article in the New York Times, picked up by several other publications, by columnist Nicholas Kristof wonders where have the majority-Democrat Party progressive legislatures in the West Coast gone wrong. He argues that “West Coast liberalism is more focused on the intentions behind its policies rather than its outcomes.”

A step beyond that would be more focused on personal ideologies than constituents’ wellbeing.

Picture: Micro plastics in the Neuse River. Plastic debris in waterways is not only unsightly, but disastrous. Most of it lasts for decades, and what decays ends up in fish’s stomachs and drinking water.