text:
Philip Roth's Passing, the Forty Percent, a History Lesson and a Foreign Policy Dream
Thoughts on the Passing of Author Philip Roth
Though I didn't know Phil Roth personally, a connection existed between us in that we both were graduated from Weequahic High School in Newark, NJ, in 1950 and in that we had several common acquaintances. Of course, along with many raised in the Weequahic 'Section' (See the map below. Newark natives use that word, 'section' instead of the word "neighborhood" … it's sort of a password to one's Weequahic authenticity), we were very familiar with the setting of many of his novels and were often able to identify similarities with real people we may have known, Swede Mason appearing as Swede Levov in "American Pastoral" as an example.
My graduation was in June of 1950. Phil's was in February of that year.
We ought to have been in the same graduation class (Phil was nine months younger than me), but I suppose somewhere along the line he was in a combined class
composed of ultimate February and June graduates which moved on at its higher level. That occasionally occurred at Peshine Avenue School where I went and I assume the same thing happened at Phil's elementary school, Chancellor Avenue.
We both entered Newark College of Rutgers University in September of 1950. (At the end of the year, Phil transferred to Bucknell University and I transferred to Rutgers main campus in New Brunswick.) We both were in the same freshman English class in the building on Washington Place, facing the southern border of Washington Park. Our instructor was a Ms. Weir, as I recall, and I seem to remember her as being a graduate of Smith College. I don't remember any hints of Phil's future accomplishments showing up in that class.
A few years later, after college and military service, I recall having a few beers in a bar on South Orange Avenue in Newark, not far from the campus of Seton Hall University. Present were Jerry Lechter (whom I have entirely lost touch with) and a friend of his, Bob Heyman, who knew Phil quite well. I have since become somewhat reacquainted with Bob who has retired to South Florida. Anyway, "Goodbye, Columbus," Phil's first novella (along with a few short stories) was just being published. I distinctly remember Heyman cautioning us not to reveal the real characters upon which those in "Goodbye, Columbus" were based, since it was supposed to be original fiction. (Of course, all fiction comes out of an author's experience, so there's nothing wrong in using real people as patterns for fictional characters.) The best man at my wedding, now deceased, had identified the girl in "Goodbye, Columbus" (Brenda Patamkin) as a fictionalized version of someone named Mackie, whose last name I don't recall.
Incidentally, at about that time, I went into a local bookstore in downtown Newark to purchase a copy of "Goodbye, Columbus." Apparently, there had been a book signing there a few weeks earlier and the first edition copy I bought carried Phil's autograph in it. A few years later I lent the book to someone who never returned it to me.
A few years later, I encountered Phil on a Pennsylvania Railroad (one of the predecessors to Amtrak) train heading to Trenton or Philadelphia. I cannot recall why I was on the train, but Phil, with whom I had a brief conversation, was heading for Princeton, where he had something to do with the University.
As for Phil's using local Weequahic names for characters in his book, I do believe there was a very minor character named Jack Lippman in one of his early novels, possibly the very boring "Letting Go." I once checked it out but see no need to attempt to do that again.
Back in the old days, I-78 wasn't there, but Hawthorne Avenue was.
Most recently, over the past few years, I have reconnected with a friend from elementary and high school days who has also retired to South Florida, Howard Silver. Howard was very close with Phil over the years, had maintained that closeness and has passed on information about him to me, particularly articles in the New Yorker which Phil urged be read.
That's about it. Phil led his life the way he wanted to and accomplished greatness. He has left a tremendous heritage to all of us, particularly those who hail from the Weequahic Section of Newark. And I do believe it is a Jewish heritage, because Phil's works were all about a quest for truth about the human condition, and there is something religious about such a mission.
That Forty Percent
There are letters to the Editor of many newspapers. There are numerous opinions voiced on the internet. Journalists write about it daily and are interviewed as part of "panels" on TV news shows. And except for the acknowledged mouthpieces fronting
for the administration and the President on Fox News (and those who get their information exclusively from Fox), most agree about the President's unfitness for office.
But people like to hear voices and read words reinforcing their thoughts and that is why approximately 40% of the American population support Donald Trump and all that he stands for. That is the way they believe and his agreement with that reinforces their conviction. I have referred to such people as being gullible and have lost at least one friend when I implied that in most cases, their gullibility is grounded in stupidity.
If one wants to believe that immigrants are taking away jobs from hard-working Americans, that leaving the level of health care in this country to be determined by the free market pressures exerted by insurance companies and health care providers, that the freedoms allowed by reducing regulations on manufacturing, banking, finance and most businesses results in greater benefits for consumers and working people, that providing an economic safety net for those who are unable to climb the ladder of economic success merely serves to keep them permanently downtrodden, they have found a dear friend in Donald J. Trump.
If they believe that a woman's right to an abortion should be determined by those who, in a country whose Constitution forbids laws respecting an establishment of religion, must defer to those whose personal religions frown on abortion, and if they believe that packing a weapon is the best way to avoid gun violence, Trump is their man. After all, as the song goes … if you are old enough to remember it:
Drinkin' beer in a cabaret, And was I havin' fun,
Till one night she caught me right,
And now I'm on the run!
Lay that pistol down, babe,
Lay that pistol down,
Pistol packin' Mama,
Won't you lay that pistol down!
Yep. That's the way real Americans solve problems in the eyes of many of that 40%. And I don't want to take away from the gullible and the stupid the right to think this way. It's their right.
But once they have sworn their allegiance, their loyalty, to the orange-coiffed one in regard to these traditional right-wing positions, they are highly susceptible to other positions he might take, positions which put the country in great danger.
One is treating relationships with North Korea as if it were negotiations with a used car dealer about the price of a low-mileage four-year old car.
Another is messing with the fundamental groundings of our legal system, developed over the years through our Constitution and its Anglo-Saxon heritage. You don't force law enforcement agencies to reveal how they work up a case in order to prepare a defense for a potential future trial. That's when the evidence is supposed to come out, at a trial or in pre-trial negotiations, not forced out prematurely thereby weakening it. That Trump's lawyers ignore this is an indication of the weakness of any defense they may be thinking of using when Special Counsel Mueller's sure-to-be-damning report comes out.
All of this is made possible by the acquiescence of the Republican Party, the biggest A-holes of all, willing to kiss anyone's backside for the votes of that 40% of Americans.
Numbskull Quiz and a Foreign Policy Solution Which Won't Happen
Who of the following is the bigger numbskull when it comes to formulating foreign policy?
1 President Trump
2 Vice President Pence
3 National Security Advisor Bolton
4 Secretary of State Pompeo
The answer depends on what day, or what time of day, you are seeking an answer. None of them would qualify to formulate a coherent foreign policy for any third world country … such as Mali, for example. Yet we permit them to do it for us. Similarly, if any of them wanted to get an academic position teaching foreign policy, they'd be hard pressed to find a real college or university which would hire them on their merits. (On their reputation, maybe, but on their merits, never.)
But here's a concrete suggestion as to how to remedy this situation. It is quite obvious that the Republican nitwits in the Executive and Legislative branches of our government are unwilling, incapable or unable (maybe all three) of doing anything to put a stop to foreign governments interfering with our election process through clever manipulation of social media and other aspects of the internet.
Such actions on the part of Russia influenced the 2016 election, no matter what the Republican nitwits say, and they will also influence the results of the 2018 elections. Special Counsel Mueller will have more to say about this I am sure. I am certain that Russian coders and hackers and those acting for them are already working overtime for the 2018 (and 2020) elections on this. Congressional and executive branch inaction proves that we have no way of stopping them, but how about turning our continuing vulnerability into an asset?
Our present-day allies throughout the world (the United Kingdom, Germany, France, the Scandinavian countries, most of the rest of the European community, Australia, South Korea, Japan and most of Latin America to name a few) all know how much more realistic, effective and attainable our foreign policy would be if the Republicans were booted from control of both Houses of Congress later this year.
They can help accomplish this by interfering with our election process in the same manner that the Russians did in 2016 and are doing right now. Our guard is down. We are doing nothing to change things from what happened in 2016. Our real allies and friends throughout the world should step up and use the internet and social media to influence our 2018 election. It would be in their interest, and ultimately in the interest of the United States, if our friends stepped in and did this.
It would counterbalance whatever the Russians are doing and honestly, aren't Emmanuel Macron, Theresa May and Angela Merkel more capable of formulating foreign policy objectives more in line with what most Ameicans want than any of the nitwits presently in power in Washington?
(You might note that I have excluded our friends in the Middle East from this list of countries we should be glad to see trying to influence our election. Their self-interest, contrary to that of the countries mentioned above, is narrower.)
Of course, the Democratic Party should not be involved in encouraging this foreign interference in our elections as the Republicans are accused of doing, by some, in 2016. That would be illegal. Democrats know this. But if it happens, without their being involved, it would be good for their party, and ultimately the nation.
Things Really Do Not Change
A respected New York newspaper editorially posed this rhetorical question: "Who would have believed that in this land of liberty, all the powers of our national government would be usurped by a single man, possessing no one qualification for … trust, and who, like a maniac, or a driveller, should make it his daily pastime to tear our constitutional charter into rags and tatters, and trample the rights of the people under his feet.?"
Is this the New York Times writing about Donald Trump? No way! It's the Whig New York American back in 1833 ranting about Andrew Jackson.
The Whigs, who opposed Jackson, cautioned voters that "If by your votes you concede the powers that are claimed, your president has become your monarch!" But the disparate ideologies which kept the Whigs from being truly united against Jackson's populist Presidency still couldn't stop Jackson's Vice President from succeeding him at the end of his term in 1836. Hope we do better in 2018 and 2020 than the Whigs did in 1836 in their battle against what they considered a corrupt White House.
As an aside, were I around in those days, I would have voted for Jackson in 1832 and for his successor, Van Buren, in 1836. They more or less would appeal to today's Democrats. I am not too sure what I would have done in 1828, when Jackson was first elected. That was the most important election in American history, the first one where a vastly increased number of voters (about 1,155,000) exerted a greater influence than the propertied classes which had dominated prior elections. (In 1824, four years earlier, the total Presidential vote was less than a third of the 1828 number, about 350,000.) And it has been fun ever since.
Nobody is perfect, and Andrew Jackson's horrendous persecution of Native Americans cannot be ignored nor forgiven. Further, his opposition to private banking has been mistakenly associated with anti-Semitism because some bankers were Jews. Jackson would have opposed the private Bank of the United States, even if it were run by Martians because it enabled the moneyed and propertied classes to dominate the economy, to the detriment of working people and farmers, his populist base.
Andrew Jackson and Donald Trump can both be called populists. Yes, there is a similarity between Donald Trump's core of support and the base upon which Andrew Jackson depended. Jackson's base, it appears to me, consisted of workers and small farmers for whom he worked hard by opposing high tariffs and the private Banking system. Jackson wanted them to have a greater participation in the nation's economic growth. Trump's similar base, on the other hand, has been duped into thinking he loves them. In reality, he serves the business interests and the wealthy part of the Republican Party, the present-day version of those Jackson opposed, private bankers and high tariff-loving domestic manufacturers.
(Historical Note: If you slept through this in high school, be reminded that the Federalists, the party of the Founding Fathers, were fading into oblivion by the end of the first quarter of the nineteenth century. The opponents of the Federalists, mostly inspired by Thomas Jefferson, called themselves "Democratic Republicans," but really were not particularly "democratic" and in fact, leaned toward a landowner-based conservatism. From Jackson onward, however, the Party became more democratic and farmer/worker-oriented and even dropped "Republican" from its name. And that is the way it has stayed. Those "Democratic Republicans" who were more conservative, like Henry Clay, John Calhoun and Daniel Webster, smoothed over their very significant differences and became the Whig opposition. But this mishmash of leadership couldn't hold their act together and ultimately, some of the political descendants of these Whig opponents of the Jackson Democrats formed what is today's Republican Party, finally electing a President, Abraham Lincoln, in 1860.)
Bonus Feature
If any of you have any doubts about the depths of rabble-rousing dishonesty to which the low-life individual presently occupying the White House has sunk, CLICK HERE to read Frank Cerabino's column from Sunday's Palm Beach Post. It should resonate with Floridians as well as those who have lived on New York's Long Island. (If Clicking doesn't work for you, just copy and paste this on your browser line:
https://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/cerabino-palm-beach-county-has-immigrant-story-fitting-for-president/tMsSabf3ZsklxOqsfLhMXP/ )
Just send it to me by email at Riart1@aol.com. YOU ALSO CAN SEND ME YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO BE PUBLISHED IN THIS BLOG AS WELL AS YOUR COMMENTS AT THAT ADDRESS. (Comments can also be made by clicking on the "Post a Comment" link at the blog's end.)
- May 27, 2018 No comments:
An "Extra" Posting (News Moves Very Fast, Folks)
The "End Game Continues"
How often on a TV show, or in a movie, when a crime is committed in the big city do the cops seek out their contacts in the communities involved, or even in the underworld, to help solve the crime? Informants are usually available to help, sometimes out of the goodness of their hearts, and sometimes in the hope of, or in gratitude for, lenient treatment for their past and possible future transgressions or those of close relatives.
And this extends to the national scene as well, where our intelligence and counter-intelligence operations depend upon the confidentiality of similar informants to protect our national security.
The President of the United States, for reasons unknown but becoming increasingly and suspiciously incredulous, when made fearful by the proximity of such informants, is attempting to demand their identity in order to weaken the efforts of our law enforcement agencies to use them to protect our national security. It is a case where those fearful of being accused of breaking the law, accuse the law enforcers themselves of breaking the law in doing their duty. This is the last defense of the guilty.
Just as his gullible followers, he claims, would still be loyal to him if he shot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue, they are blind to The President's disregard and disrespect for the intelligence and law enforcement communities, as personified by the Department of Justice and the FBI, and his profound ignorance of the roles of the institutions of our government.
Listening to our President and his supporters on this issue, we are reminded of a lesson attributed to many great teachers of the law, "When the law is on your side, hammer home the law. When the facts are on your side, hammer home the facts. When neither is on your side, hammer the table vigorously." The facts and the law will ultimately triumph and this entire disgraceful administration will be long remembered for serving to remind Americans of the continued need to fight for and to protect their government's institutions. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.
Appropriate to these thoughts are the concluding words of the second, not often sung, stanza of "America the Beautiful": "America, America! God mend thine every flaw, Confirm they soul with self-control, Thy liberty in law!"
The Sad Future of Reducing Gun Violence, an Apology, Trump's Counter-Attack and the Trouble with Publix
Sort of an Apology
I am really not very skilled when it comes to computer technology. I can create documents and write things, I can send and receive email, I can create inserts for my documents on "Powerpoint," I can store pictures I take and receive from others, I can pay bills through my checking account … and I can produce this blog. That's about it. To me, my computer is basically a super typewriter and a way of sending and receiving mail.
Ten years ago, these were excellent skills, but today, they do not gain me entry into the field of social media. I dropped out of Facebook recently because I felt it intruded on my privacy … but also, it was a cluttered, confusing mess of postings which in the final analysis, were a waste of time. I am not on Twitter, Instagram nor other things like that because I am too busy with other things, like reading books, magazines, newspapers (real ones, not online versions), writing, occasionally painting and watching plain old fashioned TV, mostly news and sports. That's about all I have time for, so excuse any technical shortcomings you might find in www.Jackspotpourri.com. After that, I am maxed out. (But please click on the ads.)
The Sad Future of Reducing Gun Violence
This is a very tough posting to write. But what I am saying must be said.
Up to now, groups aiming to reduce gun violence have pushed for taking military style assault weapons out of the hands of civilians, primarily because such weapons have been used in mass killings, including those in schools. Conceivably, such a ban might even be permissible under the Second Amendment as being unusual weapons, not in existence at the time nor anticipated by those who designed the Amendment. That has been my position for what it is worth.
The school shooting at the high school in Santa Fe, Texas sheds doubt on this kind of thinking because the weapon used there was a shotgun.
Shotguns are the most common weapon owned by civilians and have many acceptable uses, such as hunting, on farms and ranches and for home protection. While they can't fire with the rapidity of assault weapons, the can spray deadly projectiles with each squeeze of the trigger. They did this in Santa Fe quite effectively.
So we are left with a problem. It is estimated that there are about 310,000,000 people in the United States. Discounting children under age 17, that leaves about 225,000,000 adults in this country. There are at least that number of guns of all sorts in the hands of civilians. Americans have a right to have them according to the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
To deal with this problem without violating the Second Amendment, several approaches are available. They include "hardening" soft targets such as schools and theatre and concert venues with armed guards, metal detectors and armed faculty and staff. They also include increased background checking, screening and waiting periods at the point of purchase of weapons, and that would have to include gun shows and personal private sales as well as weapons purchased over the counter in stores. They include requirements that guns in families with children be kept in locked cabinets. Finally, because those who carry out these acts are usually disturbed in some manner, vast increases in mental health screening, diagnosis and treatment are proposed to enable potential "shooters" to be identified and monitored, including those in school settings as well as those elsewhere in society, where far more shootings occur than in schools.
Another approach, which I haven't heard much about yet, might be to attempt to modify the "gun culture," the routine acceptability of civilians having weapons, which pervades American society. It starts with toys. Check out the toy shelves in Target and Walmart stores and you will find "toys" intended for boys as young as age 3 which simulate weapons and have triggers. It might be more than coincidental that toys intended for girls, with rare exceptions, do not include simulated weapons, and with rare exceptions, most mass killings are carried out by males, who have been raised in, and remain submerged in, our "gun culture." Something to think about.
Honestly, while these approaches have merit and will reduce gun violence to some extent, they are not the solution. If mental health screening can successfully identify even one percent of our population as potential shooters, that would give us a pool of over two million Americans which would have to be monitored and followed closely on a daily basis. And really, I believe that there are more than one percent with such problems. That would be a impossible task. And this would not include the quiet, silent disturbed ones harboring grudges and evil thoughts of which no one around them might be aware. Odd behavior might be entirely innocent, but then again it might be an ominous warning. Who can tell?
They couldn't in Santa Fe. They could in Parkland and it made no difference.
No, the solution does not rest in seeking to pick out potential shooters from a pool of 225 million Americans. At great cost, that will be of minimal help. The bottom line is that a solution rests with the weapons they use. What it comes down to, and this would be a hard pill for many Americans to swallow, would be the repeal of the Second Amendment, or at least a drastic reinterpretation of it by the Supreme Court.
We have national armed forces today. There is a state component to them in the form of National Guard units, but these are really indistinguishable from the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and the Marine Corps. Therefore, there is no need for what the writers of the Second Amendment called "militias." No one is going to "call out the militia" telling them to bring their guns with them. The closest we come to that is activating National Guard units, and they don't bring their own weapons from home with them. Once that fact, and it is a fact, is accepted, the rest of the Amendment's language isn't worth anything. Any interpretation of the Amendment by the Supreme Court to the contrary is wrong, and incidentally, covered with the blood of those massacred at Santa Fe, Parkland, Sandy Hook and elsewhere. The Supreme Court is not God. Their decisions have caused deaths. For those of you who are not familiar with it, here is the Second Amendment. Read it. Try to understand the words. Pretend you are on the Supreme Court.
Get it? This right of the people to keep and bear arms was protected from being infringed upon because that was, back in 1789, a requirement in order to have a well regulated Militia, which was necessary for the security of a free State.
That was written to appease some of these new "free States" (which up to then had been the thirteen colonies), particularly the ones where human slavery was part of their economies, and which did not trust the Federal government and wanted the ability to have their own militia, if it ever came down to needing one. Well it never did (until the Civil War), but certainly, "States" now neither have nor need "militias" any longer other than National Guard units so no one ought to object to the repeal of the Second Amendment. It is that simple. One cannot take the Amendment's final fourteen words as gospel and totally ignore its first thirteen words, which is what most defenders of the Second Amendment do. Once the necessity of the first thirteen words of the Amendment disappear, and they have, the rest is superfluous rubbish, except to the National Rifle Association, a lobbying group for the gun industry. It's written in English. Read it! Make up your own mind. Pretend you are on the Supreme Court.
Repealing the Second Amendment or waiting for the Supreme Court to drastically reinterpret it in a nation where there are probably close to 300,000,000 weapons in the hands of civilians would have to be done very gradually, over many decades of presidencies and sessions of Congress and State legislatures.
Those who have a legitimate need for weapons for self-defense, hunting, farming and ranching uses and sporting activities would always be able to have weapons, but they would have to be licensed to do so. Others would have to have good reason to possess weapons. Yes, the NRA's fear that "They're coming to take your guns" will be partially validated. So what. Lives will be saved. Children will not be shot in schools. Gradually, over the years, existing weapons would be "bought back" by the government at premium prices. Ultimately, this is the way our country can reduce gun violence.
This is the only way we will reduce gun violence in this country and I confidently predict this process will be fully completed by the end of this century. All readers of this blog posting will be dead by then. (Some of them will be silently watching from wherever they end up, depending on their religious persuasion.) It will take that long. Any other solution is delusionary, and sadly, a lot of blood is going to be shed before the country recognizes that.
Trump's Counter-Attack
It's a counter-attack on many fronts. The President insists that it is, and always has been a witch hunt. The latest attacks are on FBI investigations related to individuals having something to do with the Republican campaign and the Bureau's using its usual tools and methods of investigators. That's what law enforcement does when they believe a law has been broken. The attacks on the Special Counsel, his ethics, his background and his methods, accelerate daily. House Intelligence Committee Chair Nunes continues his partisan whitewashing of the President. The integrity of the Department of Justice and its head by default, Ron Rosenstein, is questioned daily. Sometimes-incoherent Rudy Giuliani keeps proclaiming that it all will be over soon since there is nothing to be revealed. Fox TV and chief cheerleader Hannity is aflame nightly with weighty accusations which when put on scale, won't move the dial an ounce.
If any of these arguments had any merit whatsoever, a normal government would turn them over to a "Special Counsel." Well, that's where we are, gang. We did that, appointing one a year ago, but the "government" doesn't like where he is going. It scares them.
ONE QUESTION REMAINS: WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO HIDE, NECESSITATING SUCH A BROAD ATTACK AS DESCRIBED ABOVE? It's right out of Trump's ghost-written book, "The Art of the Deal," where Trump says that "when people treat me badly or unfairly or try to take advantage of me, my general attitude, all my life, has been to fight back very hard." THE ONLY POSSIBLE CONCLUSION IS THAT HE HAS SOMETHING DESPICABLE TO HIDE AND WHEN IT IS REVEALED, THAT WILL BE THE END. AS IN A GAME OF CHESS, WE ARE NOW ENTERING THE "END GAME."
(A random thought. In history, when a bad ruler is gotten rid of, and severe punishment would seem to be out of the question, an alternative has always been exile. [Napoleon ended up on St. Helena.] Once we no longer have need for Guantanamo Bay as a facility for captured Islamic terrorists, it can be turned into a luxurious site for the exile of the 45th President and those of his immediate family and associates who fear that the criminal justice system would put them in a less hospitable environment. It might even be re-named Mar-a-Lago South, and catering would be permitted to keep the exiles occupied along with a mall of upscale shops managed by Ivanka. Don Jr. could be in charge of the pool and the beachfront.)
The Beach at Guantanamo Bay
The Publix Boycott - Read the Editorial
The big grocery shopping chain down here in Florida is Publix. Last week, the Palm Beach Post published an editorial revealing Publix's extensive support of a conservative Republican candidate for Governor, Adam Putnam. I had seen some of his TV commercials and recognized that he is one horrible candidate. (Right now he is Florida's Commisioner of Agriculture, a quite suitable job for one with great expertise dishing out bovine manure.) Check it out by CLICKING RIGHT HERE.
I have written to Publix telling them they have lost a customer. They will probably lose many more. Their cumulative donations to Putnam exceed $650,000, which is far, far more than the token donations some other grocery companies have given to their favorite candidates. Pick your supermarket: Walmart, Target, Winn-Dixie (if they still are in business), Aldi, Trader Joe, Fresh Market or Whole Foods. Vote with your grocery dollar. But stay away from Publix.
Philip Roth's Passing, the Forty Percent, a Histo...
The Sad Future of Reducing Gun Violence, an Apolog...
Truth, Lies, Facts, Shakespeare, Robocalls, Operat...
Guilt, Police Blotters, the Iran Treaty, Our Envir...


Earn a residential energy tax credit and lower your utility bills at the same time when you improve the energy efficiency of your home.
Update:The tax credit discussed in this article was for 2009 and 2010. A smaller tax credit of up to $500 is available for certain home improvements through Dec. 31, 2014. Find out the details.
Uncle Sam is encouraging home owners to become more green by offering residential energy tax credits. Eligible energy-efficiency home improvements, such as adding insulation, can earn a tax credit of up to $1,500. More ambitious projects, such as installing solar panels, can net a credit worth 30% of the total cost.
Improvements must meet IRS energy-efficiency standards to qualify for a residential energy tax credit. Don't assume an Energy Star label is enough. Save receipts and manufacturers' statements certifying the tax credit-worthiness of the products. The IRS could ask for them.
Replace aging windows, HVAC systems, and non-solar water heaters, install efficient biomass stoves, add insulation, or fix a worn roof, and you might collect a tidy credit come tax time. To encourage greater energy efficiency, homeowners can recoup 30% of the cost, up to $1,500, for making any of these qualifying upgrades during 2009 or 2010. Claim the credit for the year in which you complete the project.
The improvements must be made to your existing primary residence to be eligible. You can include the labor costs for HVAC, stove, and water heater installations; only the cost of materials counts for insulation, roofs, and windows (as well as exterior doors and skylights). Ask your contractor for a receipt that itemizes materials and labor. The IRS refers to the tax relief you can get for these projects collectively as the Nonbusiness Energy Property Credit.
Keep in mind that the $1,500 cap applies to all of the projects combined for both years. You can't claim a $1,500 credit for new windows in 2009 and a separate $1,500 credit for a new furnace in 2010. A $5,000 project would max out the credit.
There's no cap on tax credits for a handful of residential projects that involve alternative energy sources including solar, geothermal, and wind. That's good news considering costs can run into five figures for photovoltaic systems (for electricity), solar water heaters, geothermal heat pumps, and small wind turbines. Fuel cells qualify too, though they're subject to slightly different criteria.
This tax incentive is called the Residential Energy Efficient Property Creditby the IRS. Homeowners can earn it anytime between 2009 and 2016 for the tax year that one of these systems is placed into service. The tax credit, equal to 30% of the project cost, applies to second homes as well as primary residences. New homes are eligible too. A rental property generally is excluded unless it's a second home that's only rented out part of the year.
You can use the uncapped tax credit even if you're using the capped tax credit. In fact, you can claim separate uncapped credits for a wind turbine, a geothermal heat pump, and a solar water heater. Use IRS Form 5695, which has separate pages for capped and uncapped tax credits.
A tax credit is usually more valuable than a tax deduction because the credit lowers your tax bill–or increases your refund–dollar for dollar. Think of it this way: A $1,500 deduction will save $363 on taxes owed for a married couple filing jointly with an adjusted gross income of $100,000. That same couple would save the full $1,500 with a $1,500 tax credit. Married filing separately taxpayers may be able to take separate $1,500 tax credits.
Residential energy tax credits do have limits. The IRS considers the credits "non-refundable," which means you can't claim more in credits than you paid out in federal income taxes. You may be able to carry forward some of your surplus uncapped tax credits to future years.
While Form 5695 shouldn't take more than an hour or two to complete, it's a good idea to consult a tax adviser. Credits are gold, so you don't want to risk missing one. H&R Block's average fee to prepare a tax return is $187, but cost varies considerably depending on complexity.


text:
Antipapa Eulalius (Eulasius) (n. ? - d. 423) a fost ales papă de către diaconii din Roma la 27 decembrie 418, la moartea papei Zosimus și a fost papă în perioada 418 - 419 .

Istoria
La moartea papei Zosimus (27 decembrie 418), diaconii din Roma au pus stăpânire pe bazilica din Lateran, împiedicând intrarea celorlalți clerici și l-au ales papă pe șeful lor, Eulalius (Eulasius).

În același timp, prelații reuniți în biserica Sf. Teodora din Roma l-au ales papă pe Bonifaciu.

Amândoi au fost consacrați în duminica următoare, 29 decembrie și amândoi se considerau legitimi, de unde au izbucnit conflicte și lupte.

Eulalius, sprijinit de Prefectul Romei – Simmacus – a avut la început de partea sa și favoarea împăratului. Însă, când susținătorii lui Bonifaciu au reușit să îi facă cunoscut împăratului adevărata stare a lucrurilor, împăratul a convocat la Ravenna pentru luna februarie a anului 419 un sinod în care s-a decis ca amândoi competitorii să fie îndepărtați din Roma.

Bonifaciu s-a supus; Eulalius, însă, susținut de partizanii săi, a încercat – în perioada sărbătorilor de Paști – să se înscăuneze în Lateran; tentativa a eșuat, iar el a fost îndepărtat cu forța și pus sub pază.

Această ultimă încercare l-a făcut să piardă total și definitiv favoarea împăratului și, întrucât Honoriu îl declarase decăzut din drepturile pontificale (414), asta a adus cu sine recunoașterea lui Bonifaciu ca legitim pontif. Bonifaciu a fost primit în Roma cu fastul de rigoare.

Eulalius a fost ținut în arest ("ținut legat") undeva la țară, unde s-a stins uitat și ignorat.

Referințe

Vezi și
 Listă de papi (grafică)

Bibliografie

 Liber Pontificalis, I, pg. 227.
 Enciclopedia Cattolica, Ed. Città del Vaticano; 12 volume, 1946-1954; tipărită la L'Impronte S.P.A., Firenze;
 Enciclopedia dei Papi, Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, fondato da Giovanni Treccani, S.p.A., 2000; în 3 volume;
 John N.D. Kely, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, 1986, Oxford University Press, Oxford-New York;
 Vite dei Papi, Progetto editoriale Piemme-Electa; 2006, Mondadori-Electa S.p.A., Milano; în 2 volume;
 Rendina Claudio, I Papi - storia e segreti, 2005, Newton&Compton editori, Roma, în 2 volume;
 Duemila anni di Papi, a cura di Roberto Magone, 2004, Gribaudo, Savigliano (CN).

Antipapi

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
function MouseListener_onMove(x, y) {
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


China has taken yet another step to transform the yuan into the dominant global currency, a long-term initiative that could ultimately dethrone the dollar as the world's top unit of exchange.
In the last four months alone, China has signed currency swapagreements worth more than $95 billion (650 billion yuan) with an array of nations – including: Argentina, South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Belarus and Hong Kong – that are only too glad to move away from the increasingly shaky U.S. dollar.
For Westerners who are struggling to come to terms with the notion of a disarrayed dollar, the thought of oil, gold or other commodities being priced in yuan instead of dollars has to seem about as likely as having another country put a man on the moon.
But the Chinese yuan is already well on its way to becoming that globally accepted standard unit of exchange and the proverbial genie, as they say, is out of the bottle. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say the dollar's days of dominance are numbered and with each new round of bailout chicanery, the clock is winding down ever faster.
In such Asian markets as Japan, Hong Kong and Mainland China, the long-term planning that's an anathema to Corporate America is actually standard fare. During the height of Japan's dominance in the 1980s, the Western business press – with a touch of derision – wrote about how some Japanese companies routinely formulated business plans with durations of 100 years or more (while working in Asia early in my career, I actually even contributed to several such plans … but that's another story for another time).
That's neither here nor there to most people who note smugly that Japan is getting its comeuppance. But what they don't understand is that Japan is not alone. In fact, many people I talk with are shocked to learn that at a time when the West is still busy handing out Band-Aids in an attempt to deal with the greatest financial crisis on record, China has been quietly and shrewdly reinventing itself with the same kind of long-term vision.
Take commodities, for example. While companies in the United States, Great Britain and Europe are being forced to shed promising assets in order to compensate for massive losses or to pay down debt, cash-rich China has been able to operate as a buyer in a buyer's market. While the rest of the world has interpreted this as a sign that China's interested in buying the things it needs to grow, what they have not understood is that China's also interested in using physical assets as a source of "currency" that offsets an increasingly eviscerated U.S. dollar.
This is actually a double-whammy of sorts, for while the rest of the world has been grappling with the global slowdown, China has been locking up supplies of commodities that are only going to become more scarce (and more valuable) as global demand escalates.
In fact, as I've suggested for months, now, China isn't just going to consume those assets; it's going to use them as part of the same long-term vision it's been staking out with regard to its own currency, the yuan, which it fully intends to boost in status to the point where it becomes an internationally accepted currency.
That's quite a turn of events.
Even now, despite the travails of the U.S. economy, the dollar remains the world's most widely held reserve currency and, as such, is the standard unit of exchange in most international transactions. In fact, many non-U.S. firms (such as Airbus SAS) actually price their manufactured products in dollars. And the dollar is the de facto unit of pricing for such commodities as oil (hence the term "petrodollar"). Several countries even use it as their "official" currency.
But the global financial crisis is threatening that dominance.
The United States has already "injected" into the world economy trillions of dollars that are collectively worth more than 60% of this country's entire gross domestic product (GDP). And the prospect of still more injections for California, GMAC LLC and other "national" interests is extremely worrisome – and not just to millions of Americans, either. If Washington stays on this path, the result will be a currency crisis the likes of which few are capable of imagining and a near-complete devaluation of the once-almighty U.S. dollar.
Ironically, both events will only further embolden China, speeding up its efforts to boost the yuan's international acceptance.
While some experts may question Beijing's motives, it's hard to question China's long-term strategic vision, since the country is actually being forced to take these steps that ensure its own survival. Unfortunately, our leaders in Washington don't seem to understand this, so they're only making matters worse – when they instead could be actively working with China and the world community on this instead of summarily ignoring the fact that the yuan may well be the world's next reserve currency.
At the very least, China's currency is likely to be granted a global status on par with the current major currency trading pairs for purposes of settling international transactions, whether the West wants that to happen or not.
I've outlined this scenario many times in recent years and, quite frankly, too often received blank stares in return. Most folks here in the West just aren't prepared to deal with the idea that the U.S. dollar could be finished and that another currency could replace it after more than 60 years of global dominance. But they better get used to the idea – and in a hurry.
China is acutely aware that not having international currency convertibility hampers both its development and – thanks to the ongoing financial crisis – its potential survival. Not only has China been forced to accept huge reserves built upon previous trade growth (its $2 trillion in reserves is an all-time record), but its own policies have contributed to its relative inability to flex its capital-market muscles. That's especially true in transactions involving U.S. dollar/yuan exchange rates.
What for us sounds quite theoretical in nature represents a very real problem for businessmen such as Dong Xianbin, the chairman of the Guangxi Sanhuan Enterprise Group Holding Co. Ltd. He estimates that he's lost more than 150 million yuan (about $22 million at current exchange rates) on international trade in the past three years alone because of exchange rate changes between the dollar and the yuan. So he's keen to see yuan-based transactions that will reduce exchange-rate risks, or eliminate them entirely. And he's not alone. Thousands of Chinese companies are chomping at the bit for the same reasons.
As a nation, not having a universally accepted currency is a huge issue. China's record reserves are now at risk thanks to the U.S. government's bailout boondoggle, because each new greenback printed debases the value of every other dollar out there, including the ones China holds.
Historically, Beijing sought to mitigate that risk by diversifying its holdings into other currencies most notably the European euro and the Swiss franc, for instance. But now China's facing the kinds of problems that massive mutual funds closer to home must deal with when they hold a disproportionately large amount of money: China's reserve fund is so massive that there's literally no other single currency that can absorb all that liquidity. So even if China wanted to diversify more aggressively, it's going to be hard pressed to do so.
Incidentally, this is precisely why China's so-called "nuclear option" will never become more than a theory bandied about by conspiracy buffs. Under such a scenario, China will either "dump" its dollars, and/or stop buying them, causing the value of the greenback to plummet. China might start selling, but there literally is not another currency on the planet that could absorb a wholesale liquidation.
Therefore, the reality is that China needs to have the U.S. boost the value of the dollar – even as the United States needs to have China do all it can to maintain the dollar's value.
It can seek out other stores of value, such as natural resources, which are highly liquid and reasonably "deep" in global markets, but which can also be very volatile from a pricing standpoint.
Or it can elevate the credibility of its own currency in the international financial markets and effectively remove the exchange rate risks associated with its own partially blocked yuan.
Never one to leave anything to chance, China is pursuing both strategies. For instance, China's been buying gold like there's no tomorrow – and is looking to add to its holdings. Since 2003, China has boosted its holdings of gold by 73% to an estimated 1,054 metric tons, with an approximate value of $31.3 billion. This makes China the fifth-largest holder of gold on the planet, followed by the United States, Greater Europe, and Switzerland.
China's also gone global in its hunt for oil – which, of course, is the only other global "currency" truly in international demand.
While there's a real benefit to having locked up supplies of commodities, they aren't an ideal store of value. And that suggests that what China really needs to do is elevate the global prominence of its own currency at the same time, whether U.S. leaders aid the process or not.
History shows that strong economies tend to have strong currencies. And the actions that I've reported on recently from China – the cross-Straits agreements reached between China and Taiwan, the Hong Kong yuan-trade agreements and the "yuan carry trade," to name a few – only reinforce the effort China is putting forth to achieve this goal.
Speaking of goals … there are obviously plenty of Doubting Thomases on this issue – but they were around years ago before China announced that it wants to put a man on the moon by 2020.
How the New 'Yuan Carry Trade' Will Add to China's Global Muscle, and Possibly Even Accelerate the U.S. Recovery.
China Flexes its Muscles and Finds Support in a Bid to Dump the Dollar as the World's Main Reserve Currency.
What Companies Are Profiting From China's Commodities Crusade?
China: Man on the Moon by 2020? First Lunar Orbiter Launch Successful.
Capitalist system is a whole…if you play with it, you get a semi-socialist system which is destined to fail in time….
Rather than adopt another national currency as the next primary global reserve currency, the world should move to support a common currency which is managed by a monetary union central bank. The Chinese proposal of a new global reserve currency is consistent with this idea.
When such a currency supports countries with 40-50% of the world's GDP, that currency will become the defacto Single Global Currency, and the "tipping point" momentum will favor its continued growth, until it supports all the countries of the world. Thus will come the Single Global Currency managed by a Global Central Bank within a Global Monetary Union, and the benefits can be measured in the trillions, annually.
Such a Single Global Currency will provide what the people of the world want – stable money.
The primary problem for the euro and every regional monetary union today is that they must still exist in the multicurrency world where the value of its currency will fluctuate against other currencies.
In addition to eliminating currency fluctuations, the use of a Single Global Currency would eliminate the current foreign exchange trading expense of $400 billion annually, eliminate currency risk, eliminate current account imbalances, eliminate the need for foreign exchange reserves (now totaling more than $6 trillion); and bring other benefits worth trillions, such as reducing the impact of global financial turmoil such as we are now experiencing.
anniversary of the 1944 conference. That's only 15 years away.
The world is moving toward a Single Global Currency through the creation, expansion and merger of regional monetary unions. Other routes are through "ization" (as in "dollarization"and "euroization") and international monetary conferences proposals and agreements, such as were seen at Bretton Woods. The merger of the eurozone with one or two other currencies is one possible route to a Single Global Currency.
The challenge now is to reach that goal deliberately, as soon as possible, with as little cost and as few crises as possible. If the eurozone were to merge with the U.S. dollar of the yen, or if the yen and the U.S. dollar were to form a monetary union, the road to a Single Global Currency would be clear.
The only remaining questions about implementation of a Single Global Currency are: when? and how much cost and turmoil will the world endure before that implementation.
See the book, "The Single Global Currency – Common Cents for the World."
Mr. Fitz-Gerald is quite right and failed to mention that China's government has a silent agreement with the population. The population will not revolt so long as the government can provide jobs. No jobs, No Peace!
Chinese leaders are pressured to make their country prosperous and they see that there is risk and great opportunity in their future.
I believe that the Chinese renminbi (aka yuan) will replace the US dollar as the world standard for international trade if the US government continues to borrow and then spend a lot of money (with the careless abandon of a drunken sailor on shore leave)?
This is very disturbing to those very same foreigners that the USA hopes will buy our freshly printed currencies (hopefully at not too much of a discount) to pay for our economic stimulation, our imported consumables, and our other government expenses. The discounts offered at public bid by manufacturing nations that have the dollars will depend upon the confidence that we instill these foreigners by our economic actions. Many countries are losing confidence in the dollar as the benchmark for world trade and currency values. Other currencies, like the Chinese Yuan with a more stable value, are now being talked about as a replacement for the US Dollar as the benchmark for international currency values.
Why does any foreigner with US dollars earned by making things for US consumers buy these freshly printed-paper US securities if they cannot be redeemed for gold? Because these printed-paper US securities can be redeemed by foreign entities for title to US real estate, farms, agri-businesses, food supplies, dairies, forests, industries, breweries, hotels, factories, casinos, financial institutions, retail businesses, and most other assets located in the USA, instead of redeeming these dollars for gold. Some US government sources estimate that the title to 25% of our assets with recorded deeds and titles are now listed as foreign owned (http://economyincrisis.org/articles/show/1072) and this percentage is increasing rapidly. Our payments to foreign oil and foreign raw material suppliers are handled in essentially this same manner.
The USA has created a situation that US gold; US currency; and title to US property and other assets are leaving the USA in amounts of value greater than they would be if US citizens were manufacturing the things that US citizens consumed. We must change this situation or we could become a post WWI Germany economically, and this could happen overnight.
A Trade Deficit is created when the USA importing, transportation, distributing and retail sales companies such as WalMart, Home Depot, NTB and etc. pay companies and individuals in foreign countries with US dollars to manufacture the things that these US businesses import, distribute, and then sell to the US consumers. Manufacturers such as GM, Ford, GE, Chrysler, GE, Westinghouse and etc. manufacture vehicles, appliances, and equipment made with imported parts that they paid the companies in the foreign countries with US currency to manufacture these parts for assembly of the finished product in the USA that is then sold to US consumers. What is the dollar value percentage of USA assembled products that are made with imported foreign manufactured parts and/or sub-assemblies?
The only thing that will create/save US jobs, preserve/restore the buying power of the US Dollar is reversing the trade deficit, reducing government borrowing, reducing government spending, and then re-building our gold reserves. Only a positive balance of trade will restore the value of the dollar, and we must accomplish this by any means possible, or accept third world poverty on a large-scale basis. The only way to do this is to produce and export more (dollar value of) things than we import. The only way that we can accomplish exporting US made products is to re-industrialize and make these products with US materials & Labor. The only way that our products will be sold abroad is if these products are either technologically superior, or cheaper.
Wanting to become the World's reserve currency and becoming so are two very different matters. Writing about Mr. Fitz-Geralds thesis and others, Arthur Kroeber strongly disagrees, and writes in today's Financial Times (p. 8) "Don't believe the renminbi hype"
"One baleful consequence of the global financial crisis has been a swarm of ill-informed commentary about the decline of the US and the dollar, and the rise of China and the renminbi. Such hyperbolic claims about a tectonic shift in global power relations are bunkum.
Since last November, the People's Bank of China has initiated more than $100bn in renminbi swap lines with various other central banks, mainly in the developing world. There also has been lots of noise about increasing the use of renminbi in regional trade transactions.
These developments have led many to speculate that China aims to make the renminbi a major global currency, and that it is just a matter of time before the currency of the world's largest creditor supplants that of the world's biggest debtor as the major global reserve asset.
On the potential for the renminbi itself as a reserve currency, commentators frequently confuse three distinct concepts: currency internationalisation, reserve currency, and dominant global reserve currency.
The renminbi will clearly internationalise significantly over the next five to 10 years. Over a longer period (10-20 years) it may emerge as a secondary reserve currency like the Japanese yen, although this is not certain.
But for it to replace the dollar as the main global reserve currency, many decades and a combination of improbable events would be needed.
Plenty of currencies internationalise without becoming substantial vehicles for reserve holdings (Swiss franc, Singapore dollar, etc). The renminbi will certainly become far more widely used in many countries because of China's large role in global trade and the vast numbers of Chinese business and leisure travellers who will trot the globe.
Swaps and trade facilities may help this internationalisation, though it is worth noting that the talk of denominating trade transactions in renminbi remains mostly talk (the practicalities are inconvenient), and the total swap lines initiated by the PBoC since last September are about one-fifth of the international swap lines opened by the US Federal Reserve during the same period.
Internationalisation – ie the increased use of a currency in current-account transactions – is a necessary but insufficient condition for a reserve currency, which emerges only when people want to hold and invest large balances of that currency.
For the renminbi to become a vehicle for reserve holdings, foreigners must be able to invest freely in onshore renminbi financial assets (stocks, bonds and bank deposits), and freely repatriate both their earnings and their capital. For foreign investors to want to hold renminbi assets on a large scale, they must be convinced that China's financial markets are trustworthy and not rigged.
For the renminbi to become even a secondary reserve currency, it must therefore fully liberalise its capital account and set up reliable financial markets that are reasonably free of government interference. Technical difficulties aside, this will require a significant retreat from the current state-dominated model of credit allocation – and this cannot happen quickly.
The US dollar's position as the dominant global reserve currency is secure. It boils down to this: in a fiat currency world (unlike the gold and quasi-gold standards that prevailed until 1971), the dominant reserve currency nation must be a net debtor, not a net creditor.
"Have Faith My Son", the US of A will get through these hard times just as 'easy' as China will. Without the US consumer China has also learned a lesson as their Real Economic Growth has dropped from a high of 14% to only 6.1%, putting China in just as tight a spot as the US. The size of the US economy is HUGE compared to China and can turn around quickly if managed properly. Without the actions taken by the Government, we would fall into a deep 10 year depression with unbearable pain for the public. Dont worry about America it will come out of this banking and market crises even stronger and a lot more humble. In 15 years with 1.5 billion people, China will have the largest economy, but America will have a big piece of it–I know we do business in China every day.
"In an exclusive interview with BBC News Online he said he wanted to clarify news reports in the Chinese media that Beijing would be putting a man on the Moon by 2010 with the establishment of a Moonbase soon afterwards.
"We will explore the Moon certainly," he said from his office in Beijing, "but with unmanned spacecraft." "
Not that it matters to the subject but just to let it straight.
Please ignored my previous message. The article was from 2002.
National Wealth and economic value is created only when you grow something in the earth, extract something from the earth, or make (manufacture or construct) something that is consumable (or useful). Transportation/distribution/warehousing/tax/sales/delivery/packaging costs are added to the value (cost) of the product that was initially created by these basic creative efforts.
Industrious nations like China grow wealthy and secure by making enough products to support their needs on their farms, factories and mines, plus earn additional currency by creating additional wealth by exporting products that they manufactured. The health of every other business depends upon these productive industries.
Do US farms, factories, and mines manufacture, grow or mine enough products to maintain us? NO!!! Could They? YES! Do we need to import additional products and increase the current trade deficit if we do not want to work to make whatever we want to consume? YES!!!
Borrowing money from China and other wealth generating nations to pay US citizens for raking leaves, environmental cleanup, mortgage bailout, union retirements, TARP, business failures, and etc. to stimulate the economy just makes the existing money have less value and less buying power, but does nothing in the long run solution to the foreign trade deficit problem.
Many of my (college educated) friends tell me that this modern economy needs the consumers who do not produce anything but sit idle and consume the things that the workers produce. This is like saying that a slave needs an owner to sit idle and consume the things that the slave works hard and produces for the slave owner's consumption. The slave does not need an owner.
Why can't we just print more paper dollars, T-Bills, bonds and other paper securities and sell them to people in other countries that work to manufacture the things that we consume? We can remain idle and refrain from working while our children work hard later to pay off these bonds and other debts at some later date when they become due. Our children should be happy to work and pay for our priviledge of not working.
Our Political Leaders must lobby loudly and become persistent in their quest for implementing at least an extremely high import tariff on all imported goods, and repeal of the NAFTA, WTO, IMF, and maybe complete withdrawal from the United Nations.
If we want to rebuild our industries, we will need the funding to do it. Do you really think that China and Japan (our leading creditors) or any one else will really give us loans to re-build our manufacturing capability? Will Chinese entities become loan sharks after we sell all of our assets to the foreigners in return for our trade imports of the products that we consume? I just hope it is not too late already.


Hello everyone. I have been having a rough time with some health issues and I have been doing a lot of thinking and praying. After much prayer over the weekend and all day today, it is evident that I simply need to rest. I am going to take some time to deal with what my body needs to get better and I will be back soon. I have turned off comments on my blog for now. I will at least be taking this week off and I will not be writing posts or reading blogs during this time. I will miss what all of you write about and I will jump right back in once I am better. Thank you for your prayers!