How common, or uncommon, a particular name is is also quite relevant to the discussion of whether it's useful to use just a single name to refer to a particular person.
The UK Prime Minister, for example, is often referred to (newspaper headlines, random people having conversations) as "Boris". It's convenient for headline writers because it's short and so easy to get the typesetting right, and convenient for humans because Boris is an uncommon name in the UK, whereas there are a lot of Johnsons around.
Kamala is, similarly, a fairly uncommon name, so it's likely to identify the VP-elect in a way that "Nancy" without context might not be sufficient to identify the Speaker of the House. By contrast, "Pelosi" is a less common surname than "Harris".
Re the pronunciation of names, I often have difficulty distinguishing between pronunciation and accent. Consider, for example, someone called Mary. In some accents, they would tell you that their name sounds like "merry". In my accent, it doesn't sound at all alike, and if I were to call this particular Mary "Merry", she might reasonably feel that I was mocking her accent by doing so.
But what if your name is one I'm not familiar with. You tell me how you pronounce it, but how much of that is "this is the way the name is pronounced", and how much is your personal accent? If I ask you whether the vowel in your name is the one in word A or the one in word B, and you pronounce words A and B with the same vowel sound, is that question even meaningful?
If that makes you ashamed of me, mt, so be it. I like hearing Gramps49"s point of view most times and I respect him. But his attack on Goldenkey shocked me.
If you will read what you posted, it was SimonToad who said he was ashamed, not me. I was countering him and saying his shame was misplaced.
Sorry, mousethief. You are right. Mea culpa. Inattention to details.
I have been reading The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America by Richard Rothstein. He makes a big point that even in the most liberal communities--and I would say San Fransisco is one of them--we have made a point of segregating blacks from whites. Sometimes we are very much unaware of doing it. Often times it is even in how we address our fellow citizens. Now if Golden Key had addressed all three persons by just their first name, I would not have objected to it. We Americans often prefer a first name basis. Even if she called everyone by their last name, there would have been no problem with that either. But I found it grating to see Biden referenced by just his last name, Nancy Pelosi mentioned by her full name, and Ms Harris by just her first name. I asked why, and I gave the reasion why it grated for me. The point is in America racist behavior can be very subtle and we may not even be aware of it.
Some years ago, when my Filipino/American granddaughter was visiting with her parents, I was playing with her. She was squirming and I was tossing her up in the air. I called her a little monkey. That really upset my son-in-law. Turns out when American troops were sent in to put down the Filipino Revolution they called the Filipinos "monkeys." I was not even aware of the significance of that name to Filipinos. I have avoided that term since.
Now people are jumping all up and down that Ms Harris appeared on the front cover of Vogue Magazine wearing what appeared to be a black tuxedo-like suit with tennis shoes. Reminds me of the time when Obama posed in a light suit.
Golden Key, I am sorry to have offended you. And I apologize to everyone else for carring this part of the conversation much longer than it should have gone.
I would also like to see him move to make the Supreme Court less political. First of all, add new members to counter the overt right wing nature it now has. Then create a new system for appointing members that tries to ensure impartiality.
There is a 'traditionalist' argument in favor of increasing the number of Supreme Court Justices. For a very long time the number of Justices was equal to the number of federal Circuit Courts, with each Supreme Court Justice having responsibility for administrative oversight of a specific circuit. (Supreme Court Justices sometimes heard cases at the Circuit Court level when the Supreme Court wasn't in session.) At any rate, the current number of federal Circuit Courts is now thirteen (eleven numbered circuits, the DC Circuit, and the Federal Circuit). It would be completely consistent with tradition (and thus "conservative") to add four more seats to the U.S. Supreme Court.
I think pardoning the rioters (note: not protesters) en masse now is a terrible idea. I think it would do nothing more than encourage them and demonstrate to others that committing violence to overturn an election is now an acceptable act with no consequences - and that even committing a murder in the attempt is potentially OK.
It's a great mistake to confuse punishing people who commit crimes with crushing all Trump voters; this is exactly the kind of conflation that the radical right propagates. Let them face trial like anyone else accused of a crime.
Even "rioters" is soft pedaling what happened. This was a lynch mob intent on forcing enough Congresspeople to change their votes, or killing enough to achieve the same end. They built a gallows on the National Mall. Here they are chanting "Hang Mike Pence". This was presumably after Trump tweeted out that Pence was a coward and a traitor (rough paraphrase) for not overturning the election. Others expressed the same murderous thoughts about Nancy Pelosi. It was only through the quick thinking of some Capitol Police and Congressional staffers (plus a last minute change of plans to put a significant number of legislators in the gallery instead of on the floor) that avoided an even uglier situation.
Now you could argue that not everyone who stormed the Capitol did so with murder in their heart and I'd agree with you. Historically most lynch mobs had a certain number who were only there for the spectacle of the thing or because all their friends were going. That doesn't mean lynch mobs are no big deal.
As for a blanket pardon, that gets a bit tricky from a legal perspective. Usually pardons are for specific people and cover specific crimes. There are a few outliers in this. For example, Richard Nixon (specific individual) was pardoned"for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974" (not a specific act or set of acts but any federal crimes Nixon may have committed during his tenure as president). The Constitutionality of his pardon was never tested in court. Another example is Carter's memorandum granting amnesty to Vietnam era draft dodgers. This covered a broad class of people (not a specific person) for a specific crime (Selective Service violations). Although Carter couched this in terms of his pardon power some legal experts claim the pardon power doesn't extend that far and this was more akin to a decision not to prosecute (cf. DACA), which is always discretionary. This was also never tested in court.
There's no reason to think that a wave of mass pardons would lead to a change of heart among Trump voters, but it would look like a terrible betrayal to a great many Biden voters.
Now people are jumping all up and down that Ms Harris appeared on the front cover of Vogue Magazine wearing what appeared to be a black tuxedo-like suit with tennis shoes. Reminds me of the time when Obama posed in a light suit.
Their anger is directed at the editors at Vogue, who told Harris' staff a different, more formal, photo would be on the cover, but then made a switch with a photo they had said would be in the photo spread inside. It is usual for a public figure like Harris to sign off on the cover photo. The Vogue editors have massively disrespected our next VP.
I skimmed an article about that. The unapproved switch was a bad idea. But Kamala does look good in that outfit, and IIRC her habit of wearing shoes like that, when out and about, started a trend.
I skimmed an article about that. The unapproved switch was a bad idea. But Kamala does look good in that outfit, and IIRC her habit of wearing shoes like that, when out and about, started a trend.
I skimmed an article about that. The unapproved switch was a bad idea. But Kamala does look good in that outfit, and IIRC her habit of wearing shoes like that, when out and about, started a trend.
A far better trend than 5" heels and pointy toes!
I think they're saving those for Biden's cover photo.
I skimmed an article about that. The unapproved switch was a bad idea. But Kamala does look good in that outfit, and IIRC her habit of wearing shoes like that, when out and about, started a trend.
A far better trend than 5" heels and pointy toes!
I think they're saving those for Biden's cover photo.
You think he could walk in heels? He can hardly walk in flats.
I broke my right foot about 15 years ago. It has been downhill from there since. Two knee replacements, spinal surgery, continued injections in my back about every three months.
No, really, considering how fit Biden looks, I wish I could be like him at 78.
Well, the good news is Biden will have a national vaccination program with 100 mil vaccinated in 100 days. He has got the people to do it, I think.
But does he (or the U.S. actually) have the vaccines?
Well, the US has its very own Pfizer factory, which (unlike the rest of us who are served by a factory in Belgium) will not be affected by the latest retooling and consequent reduction in vaccine availability. So its less of a problem for him than for others.
ANd just to clear up one possible misunderstanding, the promise is 100 million jabs in 100 days...so about 50 million people, not 100 million as is sometimes stated.
Well, the good news is Biden will have a national vaccination program with 100 mil vaccinated in 100 days. He has got the people to do it, I think.
But does he (or the U.S. actually) have the vaccines?
Well, the US has its very own Pfizer factory, which (unlike the rest of us who are served by a factory in Belgium) will not be affected by the latest retooling and consequent reduction in vaccine availability. So its less of a problem for him than for others.
ANd just to clear up one possible misunderstanding, the promise is 100 million jabs in 100 days...so about 50 million people, not 100 million as is sometimes stated.
The Guardian reports the Biden plan is to vaccinate 100 million people in 100 days.
When the Johnson and Johnson vaccine comes online it will only need one jab per person.
There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens:
2
a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3
a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
I suspect Biden will take vs 3 seriously. There will be a time to heal but short-cutting the justice process will not lead to healing. The heresy of cheap grace is a real risk here in my view.
The discussion about names was fascinating. I don't think it necessarily disrespectful to refer to Vice-president-elect Harris as "Kamala" because that is part of her branding but it is something we all should be aware of. Unconscious bias is something we are all vulnerable to.
BTW if you want to be consistent in formality it is Secretary Clinton. William Jefferson Clinton should be addressed as either Former-President Clinton or President Clinton.
Interestingly, one of the effects of a Senate Conviction of Trump would be to remove the "Former-President" honorific*
The mention of Mr Johnson in the UK is interesting. I (and quite a few others) avoid calling him "Boris" because I dispute the false image of himself that he's trying to project.
AFZ
*There's a lot of incorrect information circulating on the effects of Impeachment but this one is true. (Via Andrew Tores reading from the relevant statute)
I share with some of my countrymen a dislike of formality and a fondness for disrespect. It is a facet of our famed egalitarianism, perhaps best exemplified by the noted leveller, Uncle Rupie. I therefore claim cultural exemption from all use of titles and forms.
Interestingly, one of the effects of a Senate Conviction of Trump would be to remove the "Former-President" honorific*
*There's a lot of incorrect information circulating on the effects of Impeachment but this one is true. (Via Andrew Tores reading from the relevant statute)
Do you know of any examples of “Former-President” being used as an honorific? I’ve never heard it; the usual address is “Mr. President”.
Impeached or not, Trump will be a former president - that’s not an honor, it’s just a statement of fact.
BTW if you want to be consistent in formality it is Secretary Clinton. William Jefferson Clinton should be addressed as either Former-President Clinton or President Clinton.
As usual, Miss Manners is instructive, although even she admits that most people are perfectly content to honor the rule more in the breach than in the observance:
The rule is that titles pertaining to an office that only one person occupies at a time are not used after retirement. A former president can use a previously-held, non-unique title, as the first one did by reverting to Gen. Washington in retirement, or the plain citizen's title of "Mr."
Thus, according to her, one would address him as Governor Clinton or Mr. Clinton; and his wife as Senator Clinton or Mrs. Clinton.
Miss Amanda will, however, own as to how she thinks Miss Manners is being overly fussy, even if technically correct (as she always is).
Interestingly, one of the effects of a Senate Conviction of Trump would be to remove the "Former-President" honorific*
*There's a lot of incorrect information circulating on the effects of Impeachment but this one is true. (Via Andrew Tores reading from the relevant statute)
Do you know of any examples of “Former-President” being used as an honorific? I’ve never heard it; the usual address is “Mr. President”.
Impeached or not, Trump will be a former president - that’s not an honor, it’s just a statement of fact.
Indeed but it is a term referred to specifically within the US Code. (As an aside disgraced-former-president is also a description of fact).
f) As used in this section, the term “former President” means a person--
(1) who shall have held the office of President of the United States of America;
(2) whose service in such office shall have terminated other than by removal pursuant to section 4 of article II of the Constitution of the United States of America; and
(3) who does not then currently hold such office.
(Italics mine)
As I understand it, it's equivalent to Lieutenant-Colonel or Vice-Admiral/Rear-Admiral etc. Technically a Vice-Admiral or a Lieutenant-Colonel is a lower rank than a (full) Admiral / Colonel but it's perfectly proper to address Vice-Admiral Smith as simply "Admiral Smith." Similarly, if you listen to newscasters closely they will oft refer to "Former President Bush" but it's also correct and you will hear it sometimes shortened to "President Bush" etc.
I will provide two sources for my view:
1) The West Wing (TV series) did it this way...
2) This article from the Huffington Post:
All U.S. presidents retain their title for life, so all former presidents are referred to as Mr. President or President [last name].
Now I note that in the law I linked to above it uses the term 'former president' all in lower case as a descriptor rather than an honorific but I don't think it a big link to tie the concept of a 'former president' in law with the appropriate use of the honorific. (Of course my argument fails if you don't accept the premise that it's an honorific at all... but I stand by the West Wing and The Huff Post.... )
Well, the good news is Biden will have a national vaccination program with 100 mil vaccinated in 100 days. He has got the people to do it, I think.
But does he (or the U.S. actually) have the vaccines?
Well, the US has its very own Pfizer factory, which (unlike the rest of us who are served by a factory in Belgium) will not be affected by the latest retooling and consequent reduction in vaccine availability. So its less of a problem for him than for others.
ANd just to clear up one possible misunderstanding, the promise is 100 million jabs in 100 days...so about 50 million people, not 100 million as is sometimes stated.
The Guardian reports the Biden plan is to vaccinate 100 million people in 100 days.
The Guardian of course is never in error, unlike all the news outlets reporting what Irepeated.
Interestingly, one of the effects of a Senate Conviction of Trump would be to remove the "Former-President" honorific*
*There's a lot of incorrect information circulating on the effects of Impeachment but this one is true. (Via Andrew Tores reading from the relevant statute)
Do you know of any examples of “Former-President” being used as an honorific? I’ve never heard it; the usual address is “Mr. President”.
Impeached or not, Trump will be a former president - that’s not an honor, it’s just a statement of fact.
Indeed but it is a term referred to specifically within the US Code. (As an aside disgraced-former-president is also a description of fact).
f) As used in this section, the term “former President” means a person--
(1) who shall have held the office of President of the United States of America;
(2) whose service in such office shall have terminated other than by removal pursuant to section 4 of article II of the Constitution of the United States of America; and
(3) who does not then currently hold such office.
(Italics mine)
"As used in this section" means just that - for the purposes of interpreting this particular bit of legislation. It isn't establishing the prescribed usage of the term generally.
As I understand it, it's equivalent to Lieutenant-Colonel or Vice-Admiral/Rear-Admiral etc. Technically a Vice-Admiral or a Lieutenant-Colonel is a lower rank than a (full) Admiral / Colonel but it's perfectly proper to address Vice-Admiral Smith as simply "Admiral Smith." Similarly, if you listen to newscasters closely they will oft refer to "Former President Bush" but it's also correct and you will hear it sometimes shortened to "President Bush" etc.
Again - it's not an honorific, just an identification.
I will provide two sources for my view:
1) The West Wing (TV series) did it this way...
2) This article from the Huffington Post:
All U.S. presidents retain their title for life, so all former presidents are referred to as Mr. President or President [last name].
Now I note that in the law I linked to above it uses the term 'former president' all in lower case as a descriptor rather than an honorific but I don't think it a big link to tie the concept of a 'former president' in law with the appropriate use of the honorific. (Of course my argument fails if you don't accept the premise that it's an honorific at all... but I stand by the West Wing and The Huff Post.... )
AFZ
As far as I can tell, you haven't shown that "Former President" (upper case or lower case) has ever been used as an honorific anywhere, by anyone. It's just a description of fact.
Former presidents are sometimes addressed as "Mr. President" - that is an honorific - but nobody ever calls them "Mr. Former President".
Interestingly, one of the effects of a Senate Conviction of Trump would be to remove the "Former-President" honorific*
*There's a lot of incorrect information circulating on the effects of Impeachment but this one is true. (Via Andrew Tores reading from the relevant statute)
Do you know of any examples of “Former-President” being used as an honorific? I’ve never heard it; the usual address is “Mr. President”.
Impeached or not, Trump will be a former president - that’s not an honor, it’s just a statement of fact.
Indeed but it is a term referred to specifically within the US Code. (As an aside disgraced-former-president is also a description of fact).
f) As used in this section, the term “former President” means a person--
(1) who shall have held the office of President of the United States of America;
(2) whose service in such office shall have terminated other than by removal pursuant to section 4 of article II of the Constitution of the United States of America; and
(3) who does not then currently hold such office.
(Italics mine)
"As used in this section" means just that - for the purposes of interpreting this particular bit of legislation. It isn't establishing the prescribed usage of the term generally.
As I understand it, it's equivalent to Lieutenant-Colonel or Vice-Admiral/Rear-Admiral etc. Technically a Vice-Admiral or a Lieutenant-Colonel is a lower rank than a (full) Admiral / Colonel but it's perfectly proper to address Vice-Admiral Smith as simply "Admiral Smith." Similarly, if you listen to newscasters closely they will oft refer to "Former President Bush" but it's also correct and you will hear it sometimes shortened to "President Bush" etc.
Again - it's not an honorific, just an identification.
I will provide two sources for my view:
1) The West Wing (TV series) did it this way...
2) This article from the Huffington Post:
All U.S. presidents retain their title for life, so all former presidents are referred to as Mr. President or President [last name].
Now I note that in the law I linked to above it uses the term 'former president' all in lower case as a descriptor rather than an honorific but I don't think it a big link to tie the concept of a 'former president' in law with the appropriate use of the honorific. (Of course my argument fails if you don't accept the premise that it's an honorific at all... but I stand by the West Wing and The Huff Post.... )
AFZ
As far as I can tell, you haven't shown that "Former President" (upper case or lower case) has ever been used as an honorific anywhere, by anyone. It's just a description of fact.
Former presidents are sometimes addressed as "Mr. President" - that is an honorific - but nobody ever calls them "Mr. Former President".
Fair enough. But on the BBC they would always say "Former President Clinton" or "President Clinton" rather than Mr Clinton. I accept I am conflating a couple of things. I just think I am being logical.
If Trump can be declared not an official former President then they can hold get togethers of all living former Presidents again. I can't imagine any other former President would want to attend one if Trump was attending.
In properly copyedited print, "former" is not capitalized. Here's the CBS obituary for a former president. The piece initially refers to "former President George H. W. Bush" and his son, "former President George W. Bush," and then says "Mr. Bush" in subsequent references. Further down, it talks about his friendship with "former President Bill Clinton." When it quotes something Obama said about him, it says "President Barack Obama" because it is quoting something Obama said while president in 2009.
Please, this thread was to be about the Biden/Harris administration, not whether how we are to refer to a predessessor. We have other threads to do that.
Today Biden announced he was elevating the Director for Science and the Public Policy to be a cabinet-level position. He nominated Eric Lander to be the director. CNN reports
Lander served as external co-chair of the President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology during the Obama administration. He helped lead the Human Genome Project and has been a pioneer in the field of genomic medicine, according to the transition team. He is the president and founding director of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, a non-profit biomedical research institute.
BTW while questioning the Guardian Report, no one has given a link to any report that counters it.
@Gramps49, that's a smart move by President-Elect Biden. Whilst Trumpism will inevitably partially overshadow his tenure (as with this thread ), I think his Presidency will be defined by his response to Covid-19. He's clearly got this high on his list of priorities.
Former presidents are sometimes addressed as "Mr. President" - that is an honorific - but nobody ever calls them "Mr. Former President".
Agreed on the latter. On the former, I was under the impression that "Mr. President" was the correct form of address for the current President, and "President Obama" (or whoever) was the correct form for a former President.
I agree that people do often address former Presidents as "Mr. President" - just like people often called the late Princess of Wales "Princess Diana", but that doesn't make it correct.
Former presidents are sometimes addressed as "Mr. President" - that is an honorific - but nobody ever calls them "Mr. Former President".
Agreed on the latter. On the former, I was under the impression that "Mr. President" was the correct form of address for the current President, and "President Obama" (or whoever) was the correct form for a former President.
Both are used about the current president - one when speaking TO them, and one when speaking ABOUT them.
Former presidents are sometimes addressed as "Mr. President" - that is an honorific - but nobody ever calls them "Mr. Former President".
Agreed on the latter. On the former, I was under the impression that "Mr. President" was the correct form of address for the current President, and "President Obama" (or whoever) was the correct form for a former President.
I agree that people do often address former Presidents as "Mr. President" - just like people often called the late Princess of Wales "Princess Diana", but that doesn't make it correct.
Historically, the title was reserved for the incumbent president only, and was not to be used for former presidents, holding that it was not proper to use the title as a courtesy title when addressing a former president. According to the official website of the United States of America, the correct way to address a letter is to use "The Honorable John Doe" and the correct salutation is "Mr Doe". Despite that, some sources maintain that living former U.S. presidents continue to be addressed as "Mr. President", both formally and informally, and some contemporary experts on etiquette now maintain that it is entirely appropriate.
In the early years of the republic, things were even more unsettled. The same article says that John Adams thought the president should be addressed as Majesty; Thomas Jefferson said that was "the most superlatively ridiculous thing I ever heard of".
Word is Biden will shut down the Keystone Pipeline project the day he is inaugurated. The Keystone XL project was to have transported dirty oil from the Alberta Tar Sandstone project to refineries in Texas. and Illinois The problem was it would have crossed two major aquifers and Native American land. You might remember during the Obama administration there was a Native American protest. Obama had issued a temporary delay but T gave permission for it to be built.
Comments
How common, or uncommon, a particular name is is also quite relevant to the discussion of whether it's useful to use just a single name to refer to a particular person.
The UK Prime Minister, for example, is often referred to (newspaper headlines, random people having conversations) as "Boris". It's convenient for headline writers because it's short and so easy to get the typesetting right, and convenient for humans because Boris is an uncommon name in the UK, whereas there are a lot of Johnsons around.
Kamala is, similarly, a fairly uncommon name, so it's likely to identify the VP-elect in a way that "Nancy" without context might not be sufficient to identify the Speaker of the House. By contrast, "Pelosi" is a less common surname than "Harris".
Re the pronunciation of names, I often have difficulty distinguishing between pronunciation and accent. Consider, for example, someone called Mary. In some accents, they would tell you that their name sounds like "merry". In my accent, it doesn't sound at all alike, and if I were to call this particular Mary "Merry", she might reasonably feel that I was mocking her accent by doing so.
But what if your name is one I'm not familiar with. You tell me how you pronounce it, but how much of that is "this is the way the name is pronounced", and how much is your personal accent? If I ask you whether the vowel in your name is the one in word A or the one in word B, and you pronounce words A and B with the same vowel sound, is that question even meaningful?
Sorry, mousethief. You are right. Mea culpa. Inattention to details.
Some years ago, when my Filipino/American granddaughter was visiting with her parents, I was playing with her. She was squirming and I was tossing her up in the air. I called her a little monkey. That really upset my son-in-law. Turns out when American troops were sent in to put down the Filipino Revolution they called the Filipinos "monkeys." I was not even aware of the significance of that name to Filipinos. I have avoided that term since.
Now people are jumping all up and down that Ms Harris appeared on the front cover of Vogue Magazine wearing what appeared to be a black tuxedo-like suit with tennis shoes. Reminds me of the time when Obama posed in a light suit.
Golden Key, I am sorry to have offended you. And I apologize to everyone else for carring this part of the conversation much longer than it should have gone.
There is a 'traditionalist' argument in favor of increasing the number of Supreme Court Justices. For a very long time the number of Justices was equal to the number of federal Circuit Courts, with each Supreme Court Justice having responsibility for administrative oversight of a specific circuit. (Supreme Court Justices sometimes heard cases at the Circuit Court level when the Supreme Court wasn't in session.) At any rate, the current number of federal Circuit Courts is now thirteen (eleven numbered circuits, the DC Circuit, and the Federal Circuit). It would be completely consistent with tradition (and thus "conservative") to add four more seats to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Even "rioters" is soft pedaling what happened. This was a lynch mob intent on forcing enough Congresspeople to change their votes, or killing enough to achieve the same end. They built a gallows on the National Mall. Here they are chanting "Hang Mike Pence". This was presumably after Trump tweeted out that Pence was a coward and a traitor (rough paraphrase) for not overturning the election. Others expressed the same murderous thoughts about Nancy Pelosi. It was only through the quick thinking of some Capitol Police and Congressional staffers (plus a last minute change of plans to put a significant number of legislators in the gallery instead of on the floor) that avoided an even uglier situation.
Now you could argue that not everyone who stormed the Capitol did so with murder in their heart and I'd agree with you. Historically most lynch mobs had a certain number who were only there for the spectacle of the thing or because all their friends were going. That doesn't mean lynch mobs are no big deal.
As for a blanket pardon, that gets a bit tricky from a legal perspective. Usually pardons are for specific people and cover specific crimes. There are a few outliers in this. For example, Richard Nixon (specific individual) was pardoned "for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974" (not a specific act or set of acts but any federal crimes Nixon may have committed during his tenure as president). The Constitutionality of his pardon was never tested in court. Another example is Carter's memorandum granting amnesty to Vietnam era draft dodgers. This covered a broad class of people (not a specific person) for a specific crime (Selective Service violations). Although Carter couched this in terms of his pardon power some legal experts claim the pardon power doesn't extend that far and this was more akin to a decision not to prosecute (cf. DACA), which is always discretionary. This was also never tested in court.
As blogger digby points out, these people were angry, aggressive, and sometimes violent when Trump won* four years ago. Giving these people a pardon won't make them not angry because anger is who they are at this point.
I pushed my grandmother down the stairs today. My parents want to call the police, but I don't see how that will unite this family.
Thanks.
I'm sorry about the things Filipinos have faced and do face. You're a good grandpa.
Their anger is directed at the editors at Vogue, who told Harris' staff a different, more formal, photo would be on the cover, but then made a switch with a photo they had said would be in the photo spread inside. It is usual for a public figure like Harris to sign off on the cover photo. The Vogue editors have massively disrespected our next VP.
A far better trend than 5" heels and pointy toes!
I think they're saving those for Biden's cover photo.
You think he could walk in heels? He can hardly walk in flats.
Fortunately agility is not a necessary skill for leadership, except maybe on the dance floor.
No, really, considering how fit Biden looks, I wish I could be like him at 78.
Biden or no one. Trump never had any dignity.
All the more reason not to have T anywhere near the inauguration.
But does he (or the U.S. actually) have the vaccines?
He has said he will use the War Powers Act to increase production.
Well, the US has its very own Pfizer factory, which (unlike the rest of us who are served by a factory in Belgium) will not be affected by the latest retooling and consequent reduction in vaccine availability. So its less of a problem for him than for others.
ANd just to clear up one possible misunderstanding, the promise is 100 million jabs in 100 days...so about 50 million people, not 100 million as is sometimes stated.
The Guardian reports the Biden plan is to vaccinate 100 million people in 100 days.
When the Johnson and Johnson vaccine comes online it will only need one jab per person.
I suspect Biden will take vs 3 seriously. There will be a time to heal but short-cutting the justice process will not lead to healing. The heresy of cheap grace is a real risk here in my view.
The discussion about names was fascinating. I don't think it necessarily disrespectful to refer to Vice-president-elect Harris as "Kamala" because that is part of her branding but it is something we all should be aware of. Unconscious bias is something we are all vulnerable to.
BTW if you want to be consistent in formality it is Secretary Clinton. William Jefferson Clinton should be addressed as either Former-President Clinton or President Clinton.
Interestingly, one of the effects of a Senate Conviction of Trump would be to remove the "Former-President" honorific*
The mention of Mr Johnson in the UK is interesting. I (and quite a few others) avoid calling him "Boris" because I dispute the false image of himself that he's trying to project.
AFZ
*There's a lot of incorrect information circulating on the effects of Impeachment but this one is true. (Via Andrew Tores reading from the relevant statute)
Going by her first name is one way for a woman to have her *own* name, not her father's or her husband's.
And yes, that is a thing.
Impeached or not, Trump will be a former president - that’s not an honor, it’s just a statement of fact.
As usual, Miss Manners is instructive, although even she admits that most people are perfectly content to honor the rule more in the breach than in the observance:
Thus, according to her, one would address him as Governor Clinton or Mr. Clinton; and his wife as Senator Clinton or Mrs. Clinton.
Miss Amanda will, however, own as to how she thinks Miss Manners is being overly fussy, even if technically correct (as she always is).
Indeed but it is a term referred to specifically within the US Code. (As an aside disgraced-former-president is also a description of fact).
The Former President's Act: (3 U.S.C. § 102 note) These notes specify certain benefits that a 'former president' is entitled to and then specifically defines what a 'former president is.'
(Italics mine)
As I understand it, it's equivalent to Lieutenant-Colonel or Vice-Admiral/Rear-Admiral etc. Technically a Vice-Admiral or a Lieutenant-Colonel is a lower rank than a (full) Admiral / Colonel but it's perfectly proper to address Vice-Admiral Smith as simply "Admiral Smith." Similarly, if you listen to newscasters closely they will oft refer to "Former President Bush" but it's also correct and you will hear it sometimes shortened to "President Bush" etc.
I will provide two sources for my view:
1) The West Wing (TV series) did it this way...
2) This article from the Huffington Post:
Now I note that in the law I linked to above it uses the term 'former president' all in lower case as a descriptor rather than an honorific but I don't think it a big link to tie the concept of a 'former president' in law with the appropriate use of the honorific. (Of course my argument fails if you don't accept the premise that it's an honorific at all... but I stand by the West Wing and The Huff Post....
AFZ
The Guardian of course is never in error, unlike all the news outlets reporting what Irepeated.
Former presidents are sometimes addressed as "Mr. President" - that is an honorific - but nobody ever calls them "Mr. Former President".
Fair enough. But on the BBC they would always say "Former President Clinton" or "President Clinton" rather than Mr Clinton. I accept I am conflating a couple of things. I just think I am being logical.
Doesn't stop me being wrong, of course.
AFZ
Yes. "Disgraced" has to do with your relationship to society, not your inner states.
Today Biden announced he was elevating the Director for Science and the Public Policy to be a cabinet-level position. He nominated Eric Lander to be the director. CNN reports
BTW while questioning the Guardian Report, no one has given a link to any report that counters it.
AFZ
Agreed on the latter. On the former, I was under the impression that "Mr. President" was the correct form of address for the current President, and "President Obama" (or whoever) was the correct form for a former President.
I agree that people do often address former Presidents as "Mr. President" - just like people often called the late Princess of Wales "Princess Diana", but that doesn't make it correct.
Both are used about the current president - one when speaking TO them, and one when speaking ABOUT them.