When it was conceived, “the Dow” was a pretty solid indicator of the overall economic health of this once-great nation.  It was a quick little snapshot of the strengths of various core industries.  Back then, “the Dow” was actually called ‘the Dow-Jones Industrial Average.’  It was comprised of various industries like Steel and Rail – things the US made and the mechanisms we used to move those good around.

Americans got the update on the nightly news telling everyone where “the Dow” was today.  When “the Dow” went up, America was a little bit stronger.  People got used to it.  They may not have been able to articulate exactly what was in “the Dow” or, perhaps, even what it meant but they knew it measured America’s overall strength of economy and they liked to see it go up.

People do a funny thing: when we like someone or something, we shorten it’s name…unless the name is one syllable, in which case, we lengthen the name.  It’s an odd form of demonstrating affection but it’s so common, so ubiquitous, we don’t even realize we’re doing it.  People liked the Dow Jones Industrial Average and everyone just started using the verbal shorthand, “the Dow.”  We, the people, still get the daily update on “the Dow.”  It still shows up on daily news programs.  And we still call it simply “the Dow.”  But a curious thing happened to “the Dow” between the time it was conceived and today.

As America dismantled it’s manufacturing base, more and more of the elements of “the Dow” were removed.  After all, how can one measure United States Steel when United States Steel doesn’t exist anymore?  So, one by one, as various industries failed or were off-shored in cost-cutting measures, industries were replaced by financial services.  Over time, “the Dow” stopped including any industrial stocks.  This made calling it an “industrial average” kind of dumb so they’ve even changed the name.  These days, “the Dow” is actually ‘The Dow Jones Index.’

There’s an old rule of economics.  We don’t talk about it much today.  It’s seen as poor form or something but the rule remains whether we ignore it or not: Capital is dependent upon, and secondary to, labor.  What we manufacture – what we build – is the true measure of our strength.  As we’ve off-shored industries, we’ve weakened America in every measurable way.  But the clever sods in the corner offices – the people doing the weakening – don’t want us to recognize the fact so they’ve very carefully replaced the industries of the Dow Jones Industrial Average with financial services companies and the nightly reports of the success of “the Dow” continue to this day.  And…oh my god, the thing has shot through the roof.

22,000 points and climbing.  Yet, Americans from sea to shining sea are struggling and suffering in this “gig” economy.  We don’t manufacture like we used to.  People don’t have good jobs in stable industries enabling them to provide for their families.  We don’t maintain our infrastructure.  We’re just not – by and large – building.  Most of us can look around and see that the average American is not doing as well as his or her parents did.  But look at “the Dow.”  It’s off the charts.  How can that be?

The answer is that the Dow Jones Index doesn’t measure America’s overall economic strength anymore.  All it indicates is the happiness level of certain CEOs.  That’s why some large company can lay off 4,000 workers and “the Dow” goes up.  Laying off 4,000 workers is harmful to the overall economy but often temporarily good for bottom line of the company laying them off.  The stock price goes up, the dividend will be higher, the CEO is happy, “the Dow” goes up.

So can we, please, all stop arguing about how well the country is doing based on “the Dow” and whatever number we’re breathlessly fed by the daily infotainment programs?  We already know that the CEOs of the Fortune 500 financial services companies are happy and doing quite well, thank you very much.  Now all we need is some indicator as to the overall strength and health of America.  I don’t know, some kind of…industrial average, perhaps?

Bearing in mind that my “law degree” comes from Tijuana Tech using a mail-in coupon on a cereal box-top, I’d like to take a swing at this “unlimited power to pardon” claim our so-called “President” is making.  As I read it (“it” being the Constitution of the United States), the President has the power to pardon, except in Cases of Impeachment.  I think so because that’s exactly what it says in Article II, Section 2, paragraph 1.

Now, according to my scorecard, a case could be made that our so-called “President” could stand accused of Obstruction of Justice and violation of the Emoluments Clause.  (Article I, Section 9, paragraph 8 where it says “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”)

See how I didn’t mention collusion there?  I’m not sure anybody will ever be able to prove collusion.  It’s not like anybody associated with Trump is going to simply release proof of collusion for all to see, right?  Personally, the reason I think Trump is so obsequious to Putin is because Trump has business holdings in Russia Putin can threaten.  But short of someone voluntarily releasing 3 of the 4 incriminating pages of documents demonstrating at least conspiracy to collude…well, it’s always true that what we “know” and what we can “prove” are not necessarily the same thing…

I’m pretty sure violation of the Emoluments Clause is an impeachable offense.  I’m certain Obstruction of Justice is an impeachable offense.  Historically, that’s been the “kicker” in both of the impeachment cases Congress has tried.  I’ve read that Nixon considered pardoning himself based on that “unlimited power” but, in the end, chose to trade the Oval Office to Gerald Ford in exchange for a Pardon…

One of the things I know is that our Founders were pretty concerned about Monarchs and Monarchy.  They were SO concerned that their first attempt at “government” – the one that failed, the weak central government, power to the states model – didn’t even include an administrative head.  “Let us just let Congress do it”, they thought to  themselves, though they spelled it funny…

But, after the Articles of Confederation crashed and burned and they had to start again from scratch, they acknowledged there should be a central administrative authority to handle certain things and as a check to Congress.  But they were STILL afraid of Monarchs and Monarchy, having just fought a war to fend off such a government.  So, they set up the Presidency, gave him a few “powers” – including Reprieves and Pardons – and tried to leave it at that.  It’s only been through decades of maneuvers, manipulations, and interpretations that the President has become as powerful as he has.

But if he enjoys the unlimited power to Pardon himself in any circumstance, he becomes the Monarch the founders feared.  He could shoot Jeff Sessions in the face at point-blank range on TV and simply look into the camera and declare “I Pardon myself” and there’s nothing anybody could do about it?  (True, if it was Sessions, it’s possible nobody would much care but I STILL don’t want him to have that authority…)  It seems to me that if the President CAN Pardon himself, we’ve NEVER lived in a Constitutional Republic.  We’ve been living in a Monarchy this whole time.  It’s just that nobody ever realized it before…

I’ll tell you this: I don’t want to live in a Monarchy…

I find it ironic that the Republitarians had to put off taking health care away from millions of people until John McCain recovers from a health emergency…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At this point, the list of high-ranking administration officials that have NOT met with Russians is much shorter than the list of those who have.  The list of those who HAVE met with Russians AND reported it properly on their security checks seems even shorter…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Conservatives think the Russian investigation should just go away since it’s clearly a scam.  Not so fast, there, Bucko.  Fair is fair: Democracts should get the same amount of time and money Republitarians used “investigating” Hillary…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Apparently, since they don’t have the needed support for their “plan”, the Senate is going to vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act without a replacement.  According to the CBO, that would be the LEAST damaging proposal they’ve made so far…

I just wanted to highlight this story.  I first saw it reported by the Associated Press.  The story – this version presented by the UK’s ‘Telegraph’ – is that Russian hackers breached voting systems in as many as 39 states.

One thing we can say we “know” with confidence is that if the US government had absolute, 100% proof that the Russians had actually flipped votes in favor of the Donald, they wouldn’t admit it.  We’re told that policy is intended to “protect the integrity of the vote” but I suspect the real intent is to maintain party control of the electronic voting machines.  The parties want to keep the Russians out but they want to ensure their own ability to get in…

So, if the powers that be in the US won’t admit the depth of the Russian breaches (and they won’t) but we suspect that, perhaps, the Russians breached further than we’re being told (and we do) perhaps we didn’t actually elect Donald Trump President.

I’ll tell you this: it won’t change a thing.  He’s still going to run rampant over the Constitution and put the final nail in the coffin of this once-great nation.  But it DOES tend to restore a bit of faith in my fellow Americans that we would NOT, in fact, “elect” such an unqualified, petty, and vicious person to the highest office in the land…

When I read history, I like to think about the events behind the events.  I imagine the movers and shakers of the day and how they influenced things…and why.  I can’t necessarily point to specific findings as “proof” but all the pieces are out there and they sometimes come together for me in unexpected ways.  One example of this is the period in history known as the Dark Ages.  The Dark Ages occurred between the fall of Rome and the beginning of the Enlightenment.  To sum up, it generally refers to a period in Europe when everything was crap for most people.  It’s almost as if when Rome fell, European civilization itself fell with it, as if by magic.

But it wasn’t magic and it was no accident, either.  When Rome fell, the subsequent power vacuum was filled by the Catholic Church.  The church went on a mission…to remove books.  They went out of their way to find any books they could, keep one copy for themselves in the Vatican, and destroy the rest.  With information disappearing, people got dumber…and the church gained power – and money, of course.  Services were given in Latin – which most people no longer spoke.  People had to take the priests word for things and the priests words had an unerring tendency to earn for the church.

I pin the Dark Ages to the church because they only happened where the church was and they didn’t happen where the church wasn’t.  In fact, the Dark Ages finally came to an end when church warriors known as Crusaders discovered a vast library that had been maintained by Arabs.  The Crusaders brought the contents of the library back to Europe, information began to spread again and the Dark Ages gave way to the Enlightenment.  (Now would be the time to acknowledge this is a bit of a simplified telling of events but it’s essentially accurate…)

The reason I’m thinking about the Dark Ages these days is that I think I see another era on the horizon.  We currently live in what’s known (euphemistically, as it happens) as the information age.  Because of computers, we the species have access to vast stores of information.  There’s no way a single entity could ever bottle up information the way the Catholics did fifteen hundred-plus years ago.  But, in a way, ours is the opposite problem.

The information age has been flooded with bad information right along with accurate information.  The result is the same as when all the books were eliminated: people are getting dumber.  When bad information is presented alongside accurate information and looks just the same – just as “official” and legitimate – people get confused and are readily deceived – even otherwise intelligent people.  When one cannot discern between accurate information and “fake news” (actually, “lies”) ALL information becomes useless.

Without solid, trustworthy information, society is…slipping.  We make poor choices about policies and politicians because we don’t know what’s real.  Our infrastructure is failing because we don’t know it’s condition.  Preventable sickness and diseases are on the rise – because of poor information.

No, I’m not calling our current situation a dystopian hellhole similar to Europe in the throes of the Dark Ages – but I fear we’re on the leading edge.  As day-to-day information becomes less accurate, less useful, things are failing around us and I don’t think it’s an accident now any more than it was after the fall of Rome.  I think the hyper-wealthy in this once-great nation have a vested interest in “dumbing down” as many of us as they can and for the same reason the Catholics did it – power and money.

I’ll tell you this: if the masses don’t learn to discern between real and fake information, and quickly, history shows that the future is going to be a less than pleasant ride for most of us…

NOTE: Edited to correct a typo.  I wrote “as if my magic” at the end of the first paragraph when I meant “as if by magic.”