• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Люди771
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы347
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации52
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
Александр Гамильтон
19 июля, 14:13

Literary misquotations quiz: can you get the wrong lines right?

The Bank of England has chosen a contentious quote to adorn its Jane Austen note, joining a long tradition of misused and mangled citations. Do you know your lines?The Bank of England is coming in for some stick over the quotation it has chosen for its new Jane Austen note: "I declare after all there is no enjoyment like reading!" Which character in Pride and Prejudice says it?Mr DarcyElizabeth BennetMrs BennetCaroline BingleyIn 2013, Ireland’s Central Bank misquoted James Joyce on a commemorative coin intended to honour the author. Which is the correct quotation from Ulysses?Ineluctable modality of the invisible: at least if no more, that is thought through my eyes. Signatures of all things I am here to readIrresistible modality of the visible: at least that if no more, thought through my eyes. Signatures of all things I am here to readIneluctable modality of the visible: at least that if no more, thought through my eyes. Signatures of all things I am here to read Ineluctable modality of the visible: at least that if no more, thought through my eyes. Signatures of all things that I am here to readThanks to F Scott Fitzgerald scholar Anne Margaret Daniels for pointing out that Donald Trump misquoted Fitzgerald yesterday. The US president tweeted after the collapse of attempts to repeal and replace Obamacare that The Great Gatsby author wrote: “Never confuse a single defeat with a final defeat.” Which is the correct quotation?“You mustn't confuse a single failure with a final defeat.”“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again.”“You mustn’t confuse failure with success.”“Wake up and smell the covfefe.”The quotation “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics” is widely attributed to Mark Twain, but to whom did Twain himself actually credit it?Walt WhitmanBenjamin Disraeli Nathaniel HawthorneAlexander HamiltonAnd who has the site Quote Investigator pinpointed as the likely origin of “a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes”, which is usually attributed to Twain? Jonathan SwiftVoltaireSamuel JohnsonMary ShelleyTwain is much misquoted. Which of the following lines did he actually say? “Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.”“The only two certainties in life are death and taxes.”"I've never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure."“Ours is the 'land of the free'- nobody denies that - nobody challenges it. (maybe it is because we won't let other people testify.)"Which book retailer used George Orwell to support its argument that publishers were against cheap books by using the partial quotation: if “publishers had any sense, they would combine against them and suppress them” - rather than the full quote, which shows Orwell's support for the idea? "The Penguin books are splendid value for sixpence, so splendid that if other publishers had any sense they would combine against them and suppress them."WaterstonesTescoAmazonWalmartWhich poet wrote “A little learning is a dangerous thing”, a line which is often misquoted as “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing”?Alexander PopeWilliam WordsworthEmily DickinsonPercy ShelleyWho first wrote the line “Elementary, my dear Watson”?Arthur Conan DoyleBenedict CumberbatchPG WodehouseAnthony HorowitzWho wrote the line “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”?VoltaireVoltaire’s biographer Evelyn Beatrice HallJK RowlingPlato9 and above.There's no fooling you! As Shakespeare once said: "You done good, kid!" Didn't he?8 and above.There's no fooling you! As Shakespeare once said: "You done good, kid!" Didn't he?7 and above.Not bad. Try again? Although, as Einstein never said: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."6 and above.Not bad. Try again? Although, as Einstein never said: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."5 and above.Not bad. Try again? Although, as Einstein never said: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."4 and above.As Abraham Lincoln once said: "Jeez, go Google it or something."2 and above.As Abraham Lincoln once said: "Jeez, go Google it or something."3 and above.As Abraham Lincoln once said: "Jeez, go Google it or something."0 and above.As Abraham Lincoln once said: "Jeez, go Google it or something."10 and above.There's no fooling you! As Shakespeare once said: "You done good, kid!" Didn't he? Continue reading...

12 июля, 14:00

Как США выбирали уклад экономики

Первый министр финансов США Александр Гамильтон был отцом американского протекционизма. Он шёл вопреки и мнению Томаса Джефферсона, и английского экономиста Адама Смита, считавших, что лучшая судьба США — оставаться сырьевой страной. Гамильтон резко поднял импортные тарифы на импорт промышленной продукции. Он же был основателем полугосударственного Банка Америки. Если бы не реформы Гамильтона, Америка никогда не […]

12 июля, 00:12

Can majoring in philosophy make you a better person?, by Amy Willis

That's a question that EconTalk host Russ Roberts poses to University of Chicago philosopher Martha Nussbaum in this week's EconTalk episode.* Roberts expresses his concern that we've lost sight of character development in the modern age, and wonders whether the pursuit of philosophy and the humanities more broadly might mitigate that problem. In response, Nussbaum gives an assessment and an appeal for the Humanities in universities today. She says: So, the Humanities--I actually am not as much of a pessimist as you seem to be, because I've just done a new edition of my book, Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities. And, for that, I looked at a lot of data. And, in fact, in our country, where in fact crucial, that we have a liberal arts system, so people study humanities sometimes as Humanities majors, but even if not, they'll study it in their required general education courses. There's actually a pretty robust increase in Humanities enrollments: particularly in community colleges enrollments in the Humanities are way up. And, as I mentioned, in adult continuing education, huge upward surge. So, I am not such a pessimist. I think people need--they feel a thirst for meaning. And it's a very important thing that you don't have to make that your whole life. You could say, 'I'm going to major in computer science because that's where I think the jobs are.' Although, not entirely true: I think there are actually more unemployed computer science majors than unemployed English majors. But anyway, you can do what you want to do. And, still prepare yourself for the whole of life by taking Humanities courses. And we are so lucky that we have this system. Our country, Scotland, Canada, South Korea--those are the only countries that have that liberal arts system. In most countries of the world, like all of Europe, basically, except for Scotland; and in all of Asia, you have to choose, when you enter university, one subject. And then you do only that. So, it's either all Philosophy, or no philosophy; all Literature, or no literature. And so, in that context, it's not surprising that parents and kids are scared. And they think: 'Well, what am I going to do, if I do 3 years of nothing but Philosophy? What am I equipped for?' Well, I don't think they should have to make that choice. Now, there are pockets to resistance to that in the rest of the world. So, for example, all the Jesuit universities in Latin America and elsewhere are basically on the Liberal Arts model. But I really think that's the right way for all universities to be. Because, university education has a two-fold purpose. It prepares you for a career; but it also prepares you for being a good citizen and having a complete, meaningful life. And those are both important purposes. But, we are lucky, anyway, that our university system does preserve that sense. I'm curious...For how many of you does that describe your own university experience? (I will note that Nussbaum earlier makes a similar appeal to exploration in the sciences...but only "really deep science, not just applied money-oriented science...".) There's been much in the media on the demise of the liberal arts in our universities...Are you as sanguine as Nussbaum about their future? Or is their proper place somewhere other than the university? * This reflect only a snippet of this episode; I have purposely highlighted this pointed discussion about the value of leisure and the liberal arts here. The rest of the episode is an equally engaging discussion of Alexander Hamilton and the Herculean choice between a life of fame or a life of virtue. It's one of my favorites this year, and I recommend it heartily. (17 COMMENTS)

11 июля, 14:26

Quotation of the Day…

(Don Boudreaux) Tweet… is from Alexander Hamilton’s The Federalist #78 (1788): This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they […]

10 июля, 15:22

Quotation of the Day…

(Don Boudreaux) Tweet… is from pages 42-43 of my late colleague Jim Buchanan’s 1977 essay “Democratic Values in Taxation, as this essay is reprinted in Debt and Taxes (2000), which is volume 14 of the The Collected Works of James M. Buchanan: Once any precept of legal equality is dropped, and once the fiscal system is thought […]

09 июля, 21:45

The Hamilton Hustle - Why Have Liberals Embraced America's Most Reactionary Founder?

Excerpted from 'The Hamilton Hustle' via The Baffler, authored by Matt Stoller, As Donald Trump settles into The White House, elites in the political class are beginning to recognize that democracy is not necessarily a permanent state of political organization. “Donald Trump’s candidacy is the first time American politics has left me truly afraid,” wrote Vox cofounder Ezra Klein just before the election. Andrew Sullivan argued in New York magazine that American democracy is susceptible, “in stressful times, to the appeal of a shameless demagogue.” Paul Krugman wrote an entire column on why republics end, citing Trump’s violations of political norms. But if you want to understand the politics of authoritarianism in America, the place to start is not with Trump, but with the cool-kid Founding Father of the Obama era, Alexander Hamilton. I’m not just talking about the actual founder, though we’ll come back to him. I’m talking about the personage at the center of the Broadway musical, Hamilton. I’m not going to dissect the show itself - the politics of it are what require reexamination in the wake of Trump. However, it should be granted one unqualified plaudit at the outset: Miranda’s play is one of the most brilliant propaganda pieces in theatrical history. And its construction and success tell us a lot about our current political moment. Before it was even written, the play was nurtured at the highest levels of the political establishment. While working through its material, Miranda road-tested song lyrics at the White House with President Obama. When it was performed, Obama, naturally, loved it. Hamilton, he said, “reminds us of the vital, crazy, kinetic energy that’s at the heart of America.” Michelle Obama pronounced it the best art she had ever seen. The first couple’s comments were just the leading edge of a cultural explosion of praise. Actress Kerry Washington called it “life changing.” Lena Dunham said, “If every kid in America could see Hamilton they would thirst for historical knowledge and then show up to vote.” Saturday Night Live featured a sketch wherein Lorne Michaels begged guest host Miranda for Hamilton tickets (“I can do a matinee!”). It’s perhaps harder to list celebrities who haven’t seen Hamilton than those who have. And in Washington, D.C., politicians who haven’t seen the show are considered uncool. ... And after Trump won, Hamilton became a refuge. Journalist Nancy Youssef tweeted she overheard someone at the Pentagon say, “I am reaffirming my belief in democracy by listening to the Hamilton soundtrack.” ... What’s strange about all of this praise is how it presumes that Alexander Hamilton was a figure for whom social justice and democracy were key animating traits. Given how Democrats, in particular, embraced the show and Hamilton himself as a paragon of social justice, you would think that he had fought to enlarge the democratic rights of all Americans. But Alexander Hamilton simply didn’t believe in democracy, which he labeled an American “disease.” He fought—with military force—any model of organizing the American political economy that might promote egalitarian politics. He was an authoritarian, and proud of it. To assert Hamilton disliked democracy is not controversial. The great historian Henry Adams described an evening at a New York dinner, when Hamilton replied to democratic sentiment by banging the table and saying, “Your people, sir—your people is a great beast!” Hamilton’s recommendation to the Constitutional Convention, for instance, was to have a president for life, and to explicitly make that president not subject to law. Professional historians generally avoid emphasizing Hamilton’s disdain for the people, at least when they write for the broad public. Better to steer safely clear of the freight train of publicity and money behind the modern Hamilton myth. One exception is amateur historian William Hogeland, who noted in a recent Boston Review essay that Hamilton had strong authoritarian tendencies. Hamilton, he wrote, consistently emphasized “the essential relationship between the concentration of national wealth and the obstruction of democracy through military force.” Indeed, most of Hamilton’s legacy is astonishingly counter-democratic. His central role in founding both the financial infrastructure of Wall Street and a nascent military establishment (which supplanted the colonial system of locally controlled democratic militias) was rooted in his self-appointed crusade to undermine the ability of ordinary Americans to govern themselves. We should be grateful not that Hamilton structured the essential institutions of America to fit his vision, but that he failed to do so. Had he succeeded, we would probably be living in a military dictatorship. ... Viewers of the play Hamilton have a difficult time grasping this point. It just seems outlandish that an important American political official would argue that democracy was an actively bad system. Sure, America’s leadership caste has done plenty on its own to subvert the legal norms and folkways of self-rule, via voting restrictions, lobbying and corruption, and other appurtenances of access-driven self-dealing. But the idea of openly opposing the hallowed ideal of popular self-government is simply inconsistent with the past two hundred years of American political culture. And this is because, in the election of 1800, when Hamilton and his Federalist allies were finally crushed, America repudiated aristocracy and began the long journey toward establishing a democratic political culture and undoing some, though not all, of the damage wrought by Hamilton’s plutocratic-leaning Federalist Party. Indeed, the shifting popular image of Hamilton is itself a gauge of the relative strength of democratic institutions at any given moment. In the roaring 1920s, when Wall Street lorded it over all facets of our public life, treasury secretary Andrew Mellon put Hamilton’s face on the ten-dollar bill. Mellon was the third richest man in the country, famous for, among other things, having his brother and chairman of one of his coal mining subsidiaries extoll the virtues of using machine guns to enforce labor discipline. Mellon himself, who later presided over the Great Depression, was routinely lauded by big business interests as the “greatest secretary of the treasury since Alexander Hamilton.” Big business leaders in Pittsburgh, such as Andrew Carnegie and Henry Clay Frick, worshipped Hamilton (as well as Napoleon). During the next decade, as populists put constraints on big money, Hamilton fell into disrepute. In 1925, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, then just a lawyer, recognized Hamilton as an authoritarian, saying that he had in his mind after reading a popular new book on Hamilton and Jefferson “a picture of escape after escape which this nation passed through in those first ten years; a picture of what might have been if the Republic had been finally organized as Alexander Hamilton sought.” By 1947, a post-war congressional report titled “Fascism in Action” listed Hamilton as one intellectual inspiration for the Nazi regime. Hamilton’s name practically became an epithet among Democrats of the New Deal era, which makes it all the more surprising that he is the darling of the modern party. Within this context, it’s useful to recognize that Hamilton the play is not the real story of Alexander Hamilton; rather, as historian Nancy Isenberg has noted, it’s a revealing parable about the politics of the finance-friendly Obama era. The play is based on Ron Chernow’s eight-hundred-page 2004 biography of Hamilton. Chernow argues that “Hamilton was an abolitionist who opposed states’ rights, favored an activist central government, a very liberal interpretation of the Constitution and executive rather than legislative powers.” Hamilton, he notes, “sounds . . . like a modern Democrat.” The abolition arguments are laughably false; Hamilton married into a slaveholding family and traded slaves himself. But they are only part of a much broader obfuscation of Hamilton’s politics. ... We should be grateful for Hamilton’s failures. Had he succeeded, we would probably be living in a military dictatorship. ... The Obama era looks like an echo of the Federalist power grabs of the 1780s and 1790s, both in its enrichment and glorification of financial elites and its open disdain for anything resembling true economic democracy. The Obama political elite, in other words, celebrates Hamilton not in spite of Hamilton’s anti-democratic tendencies, but because of them. Set in contrast to the actual life and career of its subject, the play Hamilton is a feat of political alchemy - as is the stunningly successful marketing campaign surrounding it. But our generation’s version of Hamilton adulation isn’t all that different from the version that took hold in the 1920s: it’s designed to subvert democracy by helping the professional class to associate the rise of finance with the greatness of America, instead of seeing in that financial infrastructure the seeds of a dangerous authoritarian tradition. Read more here...

29 июня, 18:38

Who Would the Founders Impeach?

As discussion of removing Trump ripples through the political world, a legal scholar argues that impeachment is both an essentially American tool and widely misunderstood.

27 июня, 09:23

Текст: Секрет экономического чуда США: Гамильтон против Адама Смита ( Толкователь )

Первый министр финансов США Александр Гамильтон был отцом американского протекционизма. Он шёл вопреки и мнению Томаса Джефферсона, и английского экономиста Адама Смита, считавших, что лучшая судьба США — оставаться сырьевой страной. Гамильтон резко поднял импортные тарифы на импорт промышленной продукции. Он же был основателем полугосударственного Банка Америки. Если бы не реформы Гамильтона, Америка никогда не смогла бы стать экономической, а затем политической сверхдержавой. Корейско-английский экономист Ха-Джун Чхан — редкий сегодня представитель школы кейнсианства. Он противник неограниченного глобализма, неолиберализма (в Англии он близок к Лейбористской партии). Заниматься неортодоксальной экономикой он начал под руководством одного из известнейших бр...

27 июня, 08:28

Секрет экономического чуда США: Гамильтон против Адама Смита

Первый министр финансов США Александр Гамильтон был отцом американского протекционизма. Он шёл вопреки и мнению Томаса Джефферсона, и английского экономиста Адама Смита, считавших, что лучшая судьба США — оставаться сырьевой страной. Гамильтон резко поднял импортные тарифы на импорт промышленной продукции. Он же был основателем полугосударственного Банка Америки. Если бы не реформы Гамильтона, Америка никогда не смогла бы стать экономической, а затем политической сверхдержавой.

11 июня, 21:22

Comey Bolsters Case For Obstruction Of Justice By Trump

Without ever stating that President Donald Trump obstructed justice, former FBI director James Comey methodically laid out the case for charging Trump with the crime of obstruction of justice, an impeachable offense. In written and oral testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Comey provided an explosive account of an attempted cover-up by the president. Obstruction of justice requires the attempt to halt an investigation with a corrupt intent. Trump corruptly tried to block the pending criminal investigation of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. The day after Flynn resigned, the president allegedly warned Comey, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” Comey testified, “I took it as a direction” that “this is what he wants me to do.... [I] replied only that ‘[Flynn] is a good guy.’” According to Comey, Trump asked Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Jared Kushner and others to step out of the Oval Office before the president requested that Comey drop the “open FBI criminal investigation” of Flynn for “his statements in connection with the Russian contacts, and the contacts themselves.” Clearly, the president didn’t want anyone else to hear what he had to say to Comey. This is evidence for the case that Trump made the request to Comey for a corrupt purpose. Comey felt so uncomfortable after the exchange with Trump, he later asked Sessions not to leave him alone with the president. Two weeks earlier, Trump had invited Comey to a private dinner at the White House: just the two of them. Comey said the president asked him whether he liked his job and wanted to keep it, twice demanding “loyalty” from the FBI director. Comey testified that the president said, “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.” Pressed by Trump, Comey said he finally assured the president he would get “honest loyalty” from the FBI director. Comey testified that he was puzzled by the fact that the president had, on “multiple” occasions, told him he was doing a great job and hoped he would remain at the post. Comey, who had repeatedly told Trump he intended to stay, said he thought the president was trying to create a “patronage” relationship by hinting that Comey’s job depended on pledging loyalty to Trump. “I got the sense my job would be contingent upon how he felt I conducted myself and whether I demonstrated loyalty,” Comey testified. On two subsequent occasions, Trump called Comey and told him the Russia investigation was “’a cloud’ impairing his ability to act on behalf of the country.” Trump asked Comey to “lift the cloud.” Trump repeatedly urged Comey to “get that fact out” that Trump wasn’t personally being investigated. Comey testified, “The FBI and the Justice Department had been reluctant to make public statements that we did not have an open case on President Trump for a number of reasons, most importantly because it would create a duty to correct, should that change.” When Comey didn’t halt the investigation of Flynn, Trump fired him. The next day, Trump boasted to Russian officials in the Oval Office, “I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” adding, “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.” The day after talking to the Russian officials, Trump told NBC’s Lester Holt, “When I decided to just do it [fire Comey], I said to myself … this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.” Comey testified that he was confused when he heard the president say on television “that he actually fired me because of the Russia investigation, and learned again from the media that he was privately telling other parties that my firing had relieved great pressure on the Russia investigation.” Comey added, “Something about the way I was conducting it, the president felt created pressure on him that he wanted to relieve.” On May 12, Trump issued a veiled threat against Comey, tweeting, “James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!” Comey testified yesterday, “Lordy, I hope there are tapes,” indicating that such evidence would corroborate his recollection of Trump’s incriminating statements. Comey testified that he had a “gut feeling” that Trump might lie about what had transpired during their conversations. So, he memorialized them in written memoranda. This was a new practice for Comey; he had never thought it necessary to keep a record of his conversations with Presidents Bush and Obama. Comey said his gut told him he couldn’t trust Trump. “I was honestly concerned [Trump] might lie about the nature of our meeting so I thought it important to document,” Comey testified. Trump’s acts constitute probable cause that he engaged in obstruction of justice. As Philip Allen Lacovara, former Justice Department deputy solicitor general and counsel to Watergate special prosecutors Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski, wrote in the Washington Post: Comey’s statement lays out a case against the president that consists of a tidy pattern, beginning with the demand for loyalty, the threat to terminate Comey’s job, the repeated requests to turn off the investigation into Flynn and the final infliction of career punishment for failing to succumb to the president’s requests, all followed by the president’s own concession about his motive. Any experienced prosecutor would see these facts as establishing a prima facie case of obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice is a felony, which is a “High Crime.” The articles of impeachment in the cases of both Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton included allegations of obstruction of justice. Moreover, even if Trump’s conduct did not meet the elements of obstruction of justice, it nevertheless provides a basis for impeachment. The Constitution provides for impeachment of the president when he commits “High Crimes and misdemeanors.” They include, but are not limited to, conduct punishable by the criminal law. Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist No. 65 that offenses are impeachable if they “proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” The Judiciary Committee’s impeachment inquiry staff during the Nixon case wrote in 1974 that impeachment “is to be predicated only upon conduct seriously incompatible with … the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office.” Under the Constitution, the president has a duty to “take Care that the laws be faithfully executed.” By attempting to halt a criminal investigation and then firing the FBI director who refused to comply, Trump violated the “take care” clause of the Constitution. Instead of taking care to enforce the laws, Trump has endeavored to circumvent them. Comey’s written testimony “is the most shocking single document compiled about the official conduct of the public duties of any President since the release of the Watergate tapes,” Benjamin Wittes, editor-in-chief of the Brookings Institution’s Lawfare blog, wrote. To spur the appointment of a special counsel, Comey leaked his memos to a friend who is a professor at Columbia Law School and asked him to make them public. Professor Daniel Richman provided Comey’s memos to the New York Times. On May 17, the Justice Department appointed former FBI director Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump” and “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.” “I don’t think it’s for me to say whether the conversation I had with the president was an effort to obstruct,” Comey testified. “I took it as a very disturbing thing, very concerning, but that’s a conclusion I’m sure the special counsel will work towards to find out the intention and whether that’s an offense.” Comey’s testimony painted a clear pattern of obstruction of justice and of Trump’s failure to take care to enforce the laws. After independent counsel Kenneth Starr concluded there was evidence of wrongdoing by President Clinton, he turned over his findings to the House of Representatives for impeachment proceedings. Mueller could do the same. Copyright Truthout. Reprinted with permission. Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and former president of the National Lawyers Guild. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

09 июня, 08:44

© AP Photo, David Rowland/SNPA via AP Как долго продлится изоляционизм Соединенных Штатов?

Отказ от участия в Парижском соглашении по климату. Выход из ТТП (Транстихоокеанского партнерства). Разрыв с НАФТА (Североамериканской зоной свободной торговли). Намеки на возможный выход из НАТО (Организации Североатлантического договора) и ВТО (Всемирной торговой организации). Примеров, свидетельствующих о том, что Соединенные Штаты находятся в процессе «дистанцирования от мира», больше чем достаточно. Когда в своей речи по поводу выхода США из договора по климату Трамп предполагает, что «был избран, чтобы представлять граждан Питтсбурга, а не Парижа», он лишний раз подтверждает догадки о том, что Соединенные Штаты уходят от международного сообщества в полную изоляцию. Стоит отметить, что эта склонность к изоляционизму вовсе не является изобретением эпохи Трампа — она во многом характеризует саму траекторию развития США как государства.

08 июня, 16:59

Trump's Climate Withdrawal Is An Impeachable Offense

When President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris climate agreement, he acted in concert with 22 Republican senators, who collectively receive $10,694,284 in contributions from the coal and oil industries. These 22 senators wrote to Trump, asking him to pull out of the accord. The president and the senators put their own political and economic interests above the safety, security and indeed survival of the American people and the entire planet. The climate accord is a landmark deal, in which 195 countries responsible for 95 percent of carbon emissions worldwide agreed to voluntarily reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in order to slow down global warming. Under the pact, the Obama administration promised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 26 percent to 29 percent lower than 2005 levels by 2025. But according to the Rhodium Group, Trump’s new policies will only cut emissions 15 percent to 19 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, considerably lower than the commitment made by the Obama administration. The United States is the second largest purveyor of fossil fuels. China, which is first, and India, third, made significant commitments to cut their emissions as well. China is shutting down coal mines and plants and replacing them with solar plants and wind turbines. India is substituting solar panels for expansion of its coal companies. The Climate Action Tracker (CAT), a consortium of four European research organizations, determined that “without any further action, the [United States, under the Obama pledge] will miss its commitment ‘by a large margin.’” The 2015 Clean Power Plan, which would shut down hundreds of coal-fired power plants, freeze construction on new ones, and replace them with new wind and solar farms, was one of the most significant programs in US climate action, according to the CAT. But Trump signed an executive order in March, directing the Environmental Protection Agency to begin withdrawing from the Clean Power Plan. Both China and India, on the other hand, are on track toward meeting their emissions goals, CAT found. A study by the Grantham Research Institute concluded that the existence of the Paris climate agreement has caused dozens of countries to pass new laws requiring the use of clean energy. The United States is now only one of three countries in the world that will not be party to the climate accord. Nicaragua did not join because the agreement wasn’t strong enough. Syria did not join because it is embroiled in a war and operates under a severe sanctions regime. Withdrawing From the Climate Agreement Is a Political Offense Trump’s withdrawal from the climate agreement constitutes an impeachable offense. The Constitution provides for impeachment of the president when he commits “High Crimes” and misdemeanors. They include, but are not limited to, conduct punishable by the criminal law. Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist No. 65 that offenses are impeachable if they “proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” “They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” “The Abuse or Violation of Some Public Trust” No individual embodies the trust of the public more than the president, who is elected by the people. When the people choose their president, they are entrusting that person with their security, well-being and survival. The voters trust the president to act in their best interests and protect them from harm. By withdrawing from the climate agreement, Trump is violating the trust that “We the People” have placed in him. Timothy Wirth, under secretary of state in the Clinton administration, told The Nation that Trump’s withdrawal from the pact was “a stunning moral abdication of responsibility to future generations.” “Injuries Done Immediately to the Society Itself” “We’ve watched Arctic sea ice vanish at a record pace and measured the early disintegration of Antarctica’s great ice sheets,” Middlebury College environmental studies professor Bill McKibben wrote in the New York Times. “We’ve been able to record alarming increases in drought and flood and wildfire, and we’ve been able to link them directly to the greenhouse gases we’ve poured into the atmosphere.” In his analysis for Truthout, Dahr Jamail cites a recently published study showing that “the depletion of dissolved oxygen in Earth’s oceans is occurring much faster than previously believed.” Thus, he writes, anthropogenic climate disruption (ACD) “is now recreating the conditions that caused the worst mass extinction event on Earth, the Permian mass extinction that took place approximately 250 million years ago and annihilated 90 percent of life. Dramatic oceanic warming and acidification were key components of this extinction event, and these conditions align with what we are seeing today.” Jamail adds, “Scientists have said that the U.S. withdrawal [from the climate accord] could add up to 3 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere on an annual basis.” If the climate continues to change at a rapid rate, society itself will be injured. As the glaciers melt and the oceans swell, the land will recede. Crops will die. Mosquitos will increasingly carry diseases. The Earth will be hit with massive floods, devastating heat waves and drought. Polar bears will become extinct. People will lose their lands, their homes and their lives. Indeed, life as we know it will come to an end. “To refuse to act against global warming is to condemn thousands of people to death and suffering today and millions more tomorrow. This is murder,” Mark Hertsgaard wrote in The Nation. A Crime Against Humanity Moreover, by withdrawing the United States from the climate accord, Trump has committed a crime against humanity, which also constitutes a High Crime. Trump has been aided and abetted in his crime against humanity by the following 22 GOP Senators: Inhofe (Oklahoma), Barrasso (Wyoming), McConnell (Kentucky), Cornyn (Texas), Blunt (Missouri), Wicker (Mississippi), Enzi (Wyoming), Crapo (Idaho), Risch (Idaho), Cochran (Mississippi), Rounds (South Dakota), Paul (Kentucky), Boozman (Arkansas), Shelby (Alabama), Strange (Alabama), Hatch (Utah), Lee (Utah), Cruz (Texas), Perdue (Georgia), Tillis (North Carolina), Scott (South Carolina) and Roberts (Kansas). Crimes against humanity can be committed even without a state of war. The Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court (ICC) defines crimes against humanity as “inhumane acts ... intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.” They must be “committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack.” Since taking office, Trump has mounted a methodical assault on the people of the United States. He has systematically endeavored to destroy the social safety net, including the rights to healthcare, public education and a clean environment, as well as the rights of workers, immigrants, women and LGBTQ people. By withdrawing from the climate agreement and refusing to shoulder the United States’ share of responsibility for slowing climate change, Trump has intentionally committed an inhumane act that will ultimately cause great suffering to the people of the world. Although the ICC cannot directly prosecute and try climate crimes, the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC said in a policy paper last year that it would construe crimes against humanity more broadly to include “destruction of the environment” and make prosecution of those crimes a priority. According to the Center for Climate Crime Analysis (CCCA), a new nonprofit established to support the ICC prioritization of environmental crimes, “Climate crimes are criminal activities that result in, or are associated with, the emission of significant amounts of greenhouse gases (GHG). The CCCA does not aim to criminalize GHG emissions per se. Most emissions are legal. However, a significant share of GHG emissions results from, or is associated with, conduct that violates existing criminal law.” The CCA notes, “Climate crimes are often intertwined with other serious international crimes. As a result of this link, as well through their impact on climate change, climate crimes may represent a threat to international peace and security and potentially affect all of humankind and the very foundations of civilization.” Richard Harvey, a specialist in international criminal and environmental law, told Truthout, “Given what the ICC prosecutor and the Center for Climate Crime Analysis consider environmental crimes against humanity, Trump’s attempt to renege on this international agreement is a clear invitation to his Big Carbon cronies to continue policies designed to consign humanity to the greenhouse gas chamber. Is that conspiracy to commit a crime against humanity? You be the judge.” By pulling out of the climate accord, Trump “makes himself guilty of what looks like a grave crime against humanity, the planet Earth, and future generations,” Uffe Elbæk, former Danish minister of culture and leader of Denmark’s Green Party, said. Tom Engelhardt at TomDispatch calls the “system of destruction on a planetary scale ... the ultimate ‘crime against humanity.’” He writes, “It is becoming a ‘terracide.’” The House of Representatives Should Impeach Trump It takes 51 percent of the House of Representatives to impeach the president. Republicans control a majority of the seats in the House. But imperiling the planet should not be a partisan issue. The fact that virtually every other country in the world, as well as U.S. states and cities, corporations and activists worldwide are taking steps on their own to slow the changing climate does not absolve Trump from his crime. It is incumbent upon the House of Representatives to vote for the impeachment of Trump. Meanwhile, we must, and will, continue to build the global climate justice movement. Copyright Truthout. Reprinted with permission. Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and former president of the National Lawyers Guild. Follow her on Twitter. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

31 мая, 19:15

President Donald J. Trump Proclaims June 2017 as National Caribbean-American Heritage Month

NATIONAL CARIBBEAN-AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH, 2017 - - - - - - -  BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROCLAMATION National Caribbean-American Heritage Month is a celebration of the accomplishments of Caribbean Americans and our long, shared history with the peoples of the Caribbean.  We are grateful for the culture Caribbean Americans have shared with our Nation and the many contributions they have made to our society.    Throughout our history, Caribbean Americans have helped create and maintain the strength and independence of our Nation.  Alexander Hamilton, who came from poverty in Nevis, was a key contributor to our Constitution and the first Secretary of the Treasury, helping to establish our modern financial system and to create the United States Coast Guard.  Every day, Caribbean Americans help make America more prosperous and secure.  Our Nation is particularly grateful to the many Caribbean Americans who have served and are currently serving in our Armed Forces, protecting our Nation, and promoting freedom and peace around the world.  Today, more than four million Caribbean Americans live in the United States and continue to contribute to a vibrant culture that enriches our Nation.   NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2017 as National Caribbean-American Heritage Month.  I encourage all Americans to join in celebrating the history, culture, and achievements of Caribbean Americans with appropriate ceremonies and activities. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirty-first day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand seventeen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-first. DONALD J. TRUMP  

Выбор редакции
31 мая, 17:47

8 Steps Experts Take To Tell If An Alexander Hamilton Autograph Is Authentic

It takes a long time to learn the nuances of authentication. But here are 8 questions we ask ourselves in order to authenticate a document signed by Alexander Hamilton.

31 мая, 17:03

3 Best-Ranked Dreyfus Mutual Funds to Boost Your Returns

Below we share with you three top-ranked Dreyfus mutual funds. Each has earned a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #1 (Strong Buy)

30 мая, 12:26

How the ‘Hamilton Effect’ Distorts the Founders

Too often, we look to history not to understand it, but to seek out confirmation for our pre-existing beliefs. That’s a problem.

24 мая, 15:30

Русская ярмарка в Белфасте

21 мая 2017 года в Waterfront Hall «Русскоязычное сообщество Северной Ирландии» организовало Ярмарку, которая стала значимым культурным событием Русского Белфаста.   Гости и участники, пришедшие в Waterfront Hall, окунулись в атмосферу праздника. Поражали своей красотой костюмы ручной работы народов стран бывшего СССР. На ярмарке были представители: России, Казахстана, Украины, Белоруссии, стран Балтии. Гостей праздника ожидали, угощения, сувениры, забавы для детей. Как отметила в своей речи заместитель Мэра г.Белфаста Мэри Эллен Кампбел: «Северная Ирландия и ее столица перестали быть местом двух сообществ (католиков и протестантов), многоцветие культур впечатляет». На открытии фестиваля выступила Александра Гамильтон, герцогиня Аберкорнская, пра праправнучка А. С. Пушкина. Организаторы ярмарки составили отличную концертную программу – детские и взрослые коллективы трогательно делились со зрителями культурным наследием своего народа! Ярко и красочно танцевал коллектив из Литвы, гости рады были вновь увидеть ансамбль «Веренея» из Дублина, многим запомнились частушки и песни хора «Росинка» из Северной Ирландии. Театральный коллектив «Карусель» «Первой русской школы Белфаста» представил зрителю постановку «Телефон» по сказкам К.И. Чуковского. «Сцена театра сразу настроила наших детей на то, чтобы они сгруппировались, соединились вместе и показали свои умения. Чувствовать себя членом одной команды, уметь поддерживать друг друга – один из ключевых моментов нашей образовательной программы. Ведь на практике мы не раз сталкивались с тем, что развитие «чувства локтя» у наших талантливых девочек и мальчиков не мешает им оставаться звездами, а, наоборот, умение каждого слаженно работать в коллективе дает фантастические результаты. Вот и на «Русской ярмарке» наши ученики показали свою сплоченность, умение весело и задорно справляться с затруднениями в непредвиденных моментах. После выступления нас всех – учеников, преподавателей, родителей переполняло чувство радости от хорошо проделанной работы!» - говорит директор школы и организатор Международного фестиваля детских театров «Дружная планета» Елена Геддис. А также, в этом году – гостей ожидала уникальная экспозиция. Коллекционер и мотоциклист Рики Мур, предоставил гостям в полное распоряжение автомобиль Жигули – «Копейка» и мотоцикл Урал. Организаторы благодарят участников и гостей Русской Ярмарки в столице Северной Ирландии.

06 мая, 00:00

Republicans Should Remain the Party of Lincoln, Not Jackson

Rich Lowry, NRODonald Trump is trying to do for Andrew Jackson what Lin-Manuel Miranda did for Alexander Hamilton. Trump, like Miranda, is out to restore the reputation of a great American figure once threatened with removal from U.S. currency. Trump doesn’t have the cultural pull of the writer and star of Hamilton, yet his salvage job might influence Republicans, to the party’s peril.

04 мая, 12:32

Lincoln, Not Jackson

Donald Trump is trying to do for Andrew Jackson what Lin-Manuel Miranda did for Alexander Hamilton.Trump, like Miranda, is out to restore the reputation of a great American figure once threatened with removal from U.S. currency. Trump is merely the president of the United States, so doesn’t have the cultural pull of the writer and star of “Hamilton.” But his salvage job has a chance to be influential with Republicans, to the party’s peril.Trump visited the Hermitage in March and said of Jackson in a riff at the end of his tribute, “We build on your legacy.” His Jackson boosterism caused a brouhaha this week when he mused in an interview about Jackson, had he been around a few decades later, perhaps preventing the Civil War.The Jacksonian tradition in America has, until recently, been neglected and Trump is firmly within it. It deserves to be part of the tapestry of the Republican coalition, but the GOP should curb its enthusiasm. It already has a perfectly acceptable — nay, altogether superior — 19th century champion in the person of Abraham Lincoln.Lincoln is a more suitable Republican hero, not just because he was a founding figure in the party; not just because he was on the right side of slavery (Jackson once offered a cash reward for a runaway slave with a promised bonus “for every hundred lashes a person will give to the amount of three hundred”); and not just because he actually, not just hypothetically, saw the Civil War through with determination, principle and wisdom.Lincoln is also an unsurpassed exemplar of the GOP’s core values of personal responsibility and striving.Jackson, for all his flaws, belongs in the American pantheon. Trump’s comment about the Civil War occasioned much obloquy, but he was right about Jackson’s stalwart unionism.In the midst of the nullification crisis with South Carolina in the 1830s, Jackson told a South Carolina congressman before he headed home, “if one drop of blood be shed there in defiance of the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man of them I can get my hands on to the first tree I can find.” When South Carolina Sen. Robert Hayne doubted the old general would follow through, a colleague replied, “when Jackson begins to talk about hanging, they can begin to look out for ropes.”There’s a reason Lincoln reviewed Jackson’s proclamation against nullification when composing his first inaugural address.There are other similarities. At the Hermitage, Trump talked of Jackson’s rise from backwoods obscurity: Lincoln traced the same path. Trump noted Jackson’s regard for common workers; Lincoln felt the same way (“Whatever is calculated to advance the conditions of the honest, struggling laboring man,” he said, “I am for that thing”). Trump celebrated how Jackson challenged the powerful and connected; Lincoln targeted the Southern planter class as a corrupt establishment. Trump remarked on all the abuse Jackson endured; Lincoln got as much or more.So, why wasn’t Lincoln himself a Jacksonian? This would have been the easy choice given how Jacksonian Democrats dominated the areas where Lincoln grew up and made his first forays into elected politics. He instead became a Whig — and then a Republican — largely as cultural choice.The Whigs disdained Jackson as representing “the passions.” He was a slave owner, gambler and duelist, and therefore, according to the Whigs, lacked the cardinal virtue of self-control.They preferred Henry Clay, who said, “All legislation, all government, all society, is formed upon the principle of mutual concession, politeness, comity, courtesy.” Lincoln identified as a Whig, in the words of one historian, “because he preferred what Whigs believed to be a more civilized way of life.” Self-improvement was the watchword for Whigs, who believed deeply in discipline, lawfulness and reason.And this is the rub. This Whig ethic was passed into the DNA of the Republican Party, but risks getting lost in a newly Jacksonian GOP.First, in the course of defending Trump’s tweets and various other wanderings, the party could begin to argue that words and proprieties don’t matter.This would be a turning away from Lincoln. He had a savage wit, and was a brutal insult artist early in his career. Then, he got more serious. His most famous speeches are models of precision, logic and historical knowledge. Certainly, this is how we should want our leaders to speak and think.Second, there is the factor of new Trump voters. In the 19th century, the different cultural emphases of Democrats and the Whigs tracked their different constituencies. To simplify, the Democrats were the party of the subsistence farmers and the Whigs the party of the people most integrated in the commercial economy. Not coincidentally, the Democrats believed in the natural goodness of the people, while the Whigs preached constant striving.With Trump having won the loyalty of a white working class that is, among other challenges, beset by social dysfunction, the temptation for Republicans will be to forget their message of personal responsibility — to emphasize what has allegedly been done to working-class voters rather than what they can do to help themselves.Democrats have long wanted ownership of Lincoln (the late Mario Cuomo wrote a book about this), and now the GOP’s hold on the Great Emancipator is getting cross-pressured by a Republican president. If a swap of Andrew Jackson for Abraham Lincoln is on offer, the Democrats — already scurrying away from their once signature Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners — would be foolish not to take it.The Party of Lincoln should, despite the enthusiasm of President Trump, keep Old Hickory at a healthy arm’s length.

03 мая, 22:46

Mad About Obama's Paid Speeches? Blame Gerald Ford.

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); WASHINGTON ― Former President Barack Obama’s decision to accept $400,000 from investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald for a speech about health care generated plenty of outrage last week that he is monetizing the presidency. Then there was the counter-argument that those concerned about Obama’s new source of income are just racists. But aside from the accusations of racism, this debate isn’t new. Debates about the propriety of ex-presidential behavior trace back to the country’s founding. But the contemporary question begins 40 years ago with an important decision made by Gerald Ford. Yes, Gerald Ford. Few historians would put Ford, the 38th President of the United States, on their list of most influential and important presidents. His accidental ascension to the presidency after the resignation of Richard Nixon is perhaps best remembered for the pardon he gave his predecessor and his oversight of the country’s official retreat from Vietnam. It was Ford’s time as an ex-president that was truly revolutionary. In a break from every ex-president before him, Ford decided to turn the prestige of the presidency into cash. He joined corporate boards and hit the paid-speaking circuit. “[H]e didn’t just commercialize the former presidency; he created the commercialized former presidency,” Ford biographer Thomas DeFrank said in an interview with the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation. “That’s why I said in my book that every former president should go visit his grave in Grand Rapids and thank him for ensuring that they will be instant zillionaires.” Just like Obama, Ford got serious flak for monetizing the highest office in the nation after leaving it ― from the press, presidential historians and even his former press secretary. Ford even accepted money to hawk a presidential medal collection, signing a 1978 deal with Franklin Mint, which claimed to be the world’s largest private producer of coins. The silver medal set sold for $1,950 and the gold for $2,750.  In a letter featuring his official ex-president letterhead, Ford asked recipients to buy the medals: “From the days of George Washington to our own time, the story of the American presidency has been one of continuing challenge and responsibility. That is why I believe the Medallic History of the American Presidency will provide a meaningful way for many American families to enrich their knowledge and appreciation of the heritage of freedom we enjoy.” “We wish he could earn his way without dragging the presidency into it,” the New York Times responded in an editorial.  Jerald terHorst, Ford’s first White House press secretary, wrote in the Washington Post that he wished his former boss would stop the “huckstering and hustling and merchandising of the presidency.” “Mr. Ford believes in the free enterprise system, and is engaging in that,” Ford’s assistant, Robert Barrett, countered when asked by the Associated Press in 1978. DeFrank later recounted a similar argument from Ford himself: “I will always remember ... him pounding the desk and saying, ‘God damn it, Tom, it’s the free enterprise system at its finest.’” Ford’s reasoning reflects its place in time. The 1970s featured a number of revolutionary decisions in corporate America to decouple itself from its obligations to labor and society at large and enter into the global marketplace, while still asserting its political power in the U.S. Unsurprisingly, income inequality exploded ― arguably leading to today’s record high levels. The nation’s first brand ambassador-turned-president, Ronald Reagan, also benefited from these new post-presidential perks. Japanese firm Fujisankei paid Reagan $2 million to deliver two 20 minutes speeches in Japan in 1989, less than a year after leaving office. Fujisankei paid an additional $5 million to cover costs related to the former president’s trip. Reagan was also criticized for this ―  some guy named Donald Trump even poked fun at him for taking money from U.S. businesses by promoting competitors in Japan. “Former Presidents haven’t always comported themselves with dignity after leaving the Oval Office,”a 1989 New York Times article read. “But none have plunged so blatantly into pure commercialism.” Every president since has followed Ford and Reagan’s lead to varying degrees. George H.W. Bush accepted money for speeches from companies like Amway, Choice Hotels International and Barrick Gold, among others. Bush also received a five-figure honorary role on an advisory board for Barrick Gold, a Canadian mining company. Although a millionaire when he entered the White House, Bush quipped an excuse to the New York Times, “everybody has to earn a living.”  His successor, Bill Clinton, took that to new levels, earning around $100 million from paid speeches since leaving office in 2001. Clinton left office with between $2 million and $10 million in legal debts stemming from his impeachment and disbarment hearings, which put him in a slightly different position than most ex-presidents. He used his early earnings to help pay off these debts and those of some of his White House staff. But continued to amass a substantial fortune from speaking gigs ― and has, as everyone is well aware, received substantial criticism for it. George W. Bush was much less popular when his presidency ended, but still made $15 million from paid speeches in the just the first three years after leaving the White House. Now Obama is taking part in the new ex-president tradition of getting really, really rich. It wasn’t always this way. Harry Truman contemplated this issue upon leaving office in 1953 and decided it was indecorous. Though he received numerous offers to make money after moving back home to Independence, Missouri, he wrote in his memoirs that “I could never lend myself to any transaction, however respectable, that would commercialize on the prestige and dignity of the office of the presidency.” Truman was not a wealthy man in the 19 years he lived after leaving office. He spent much of his time responding to letters from admirers around the country, which he said personally cost him $30,000 a year in postage and related expenses. He did, however, think the government should help defray those costs in some way ― a position that he conveyed to his old friend Speaker Sam Rayburn. Truman’s request entered a long-running debate about what to do with ex-presidents. Alexander Hamilton, the nation’s first treasury secretary, worried in the Federalist Papers prior to the ratification of the Constitution about the “half a dozen men who had had credit enough to be raised to the seat of the supreme magistracy, wandering among the people like discontented ghosts.” “Of course the subject would be relieved of all uncertainty and embarrassment if every President would die at the end of his term,” Grover Cleveland, the 22nd and 24th president and the only one in history to be elected to two non-consecutive terms, opined in a 1891 speech in Sandwich, Massachusetts. William Howard Taft agreed. In a speech to the Lotos Club in New York City following a failed reelection bid in November 1912, ex-presidents should be administered, “a dose of chloroform … and the reduction of the flesh of the thus quietly departed to ashes in a funeral pyre … to fix his place in history and enable the public to pass on to new men and new measures.” This was undoubtedly a jibe at former President Teddy Roosevelt’s decision to come out of retirement and run in the 1912 election. Luckily for Taft, this practice was never adopted, thus allowing him to become the only ex-president to also serve as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Millard Fillmore, who like Ford was never elected to the position but rather acceded to the position upon the death of President Zachary Taylor, had earlier appealed for some sort of government support for the former heads of state in the New York Herald in 1873: “It is a national disgrace that our Presidents, having occupied the highest position in the country should be cast adrift, and, perhaps, be compelled to keep a corner grocery for subsistence.” While no former president has ever had to open a corner grocery store to get by, many have found other ways of paying the bills. Ulysses S. Grant, the 18th president, was the first to pen a memoir about his life and time in office. Grant died of cancer days after finishing the final draft, but his widow, Julia Grant, received $400,000 in royalties for his memoir, which is still widely considered the finest presidential memoir written before or since.  Calvin Coolidge, the 30th president, received a litany of job offers from the business community as his presidency wound down. His reason for rejecting them, “Some of the offers that have come to me would never have come if I had not been President. That means these people are trying to hire not Calvin Coolidge, but a former President of the United States. I can’t make that kind of use of the office.” He added, “I can’t do anything that might take away from the Presidency any of its dignity, or any of the faith the people have in it.” (Coolidge would later take an unpaid board seat at the New York Life Insurance Company.) Truman’s call for support for former presidents garnered sympathy from Democrats in Congress, prompting them to pass the Former Presidents Act in 1958. The bill provides pensions and other benefits to ex-presidents, which have been expanded and increased through legislation in the years since. But Jimmy Carter is the only former president since Ford to follow in Truman’s footsteps in declining to make money through consulting, paid speeches and other means. Carter insisted that it was “inappropriate” for an ex-president to make money in Ford’s “free enterprise system.” To make money, Carter, already the owner of a peanut farm and other real estate holdings, has written more than two dozen books since leaving office. The whole debate over the propriety of ex-presidential money-making now seems rather quaint now given President Donald Trump’s decision to maintain ownership of his real estate and branding business while in the White House, and his regular jaunts to his many eponymous properties. Trump hasn’t even waited until leaving office to monetize the presidency. Take that Gerald Ford. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.