Presumptions

    If you sound like you know what you're talking about, people assume you do. That's not always a valid assumption.

   The American legal system specifies that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
   That is a presumption.
   There is no such legal verdict as "innocent." The key word is "presumed," and a person has that right until his or her status is proven in a court of law.
   "Beyond reasonable doubt" is another popular legal term. And here we must define "reasonable." That's where lawyerly gamesmanship comes in. Or perhaps we should call it "mumbo-jumbo."
   Politicians use that strategy often, as do real estate sales agents and lawyers. And this is based on the assumption that if you sound like you know what you're talking about, people will assume you do. This, however, is not always a valid assumption.
   "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is another popular legal term.
   Define "reasonable." Here's where lawyerly gamesmanship comes in.
   So even if a person faces scores of allegations spread over dozens of legal cases in several state and federal jurisdictions, he or she should be presumed innocent until and unless proven in a court of law.
   Sound familiar?
   The point is, such a person has not (yet) actually be proven guilty on any of the allegations, so he or she should be presumed innocent until and unless proven otherwise.
   That person may not actually be innocent, but the system stipulates that he or she must be treated as such until and unless proven otherwise.
   That's why the term "allegedly" is used as often as it is in journalism and legalistic jargon. Perhaps we can also use the term "allegedly innocent."
   But no. That's based on an assumption of guilt.

Trial by Jawry

   Some people believe that if they talk longer, louder and more emphatically than others, they will always win any discussion/argument.
   That doesn't work in a courtroom.
   A monitor judges when someone talks too much or out of turn or blathers on about something irrelevant.
   A fast talker is not in charge.
   That's the problem Donald Trump faces in New York City these days. Even when he mumbles during jury selection, the court monitor judges what he says and tells him to be quiet.
   One wonders, however, how often and how many times he can disrupt court proceedings with his yammering despite several warnings from the judge that he will be fined and/or sent to jail if he continues.
   He will not pass Go. He will not collect a bonus.
   And unlike other financial penalties -- some of which he has not paid -- this one he must pay or he will not be released from jail.
   But he seems to believe he is exempt from ordinary rules of human behavior because he is an extraordinary man.
   Non-ordinary, yes.
   Exempt from courtesy, no.
   Therefore, he will face judgment.

Political Know-It-All

   If you sound like you know what you're talking about, people will assume you do.

   It's called polysyllabic nomenclature -- a bunch of long words.

   The same concepts or ideas can be said using plain English -- a bunch of short Anglo-Saxon words -- but you don't always sound like you're part of the high ranking, highly intelligent "upper class" supposedly destined to rule the world.

   That tradition goes back to the year 1066, when invaders from Normandy defeated the locals and set up a talking place for their government. In doing so, they used the French term "parliament," rather than the plain English equivalent -- "talking place."

   The tradition has continued, so even today, when you want to sound educated and intelligent, you use a bunch of long words.

   The trick is to use short words that say the same and are more easily understood.

   Political candidates, however, want to sound like they know what they're talking about, even when they don't.

   That's especially true of politicians who really don't know what they're talking about.

'Nice' Neighbors

   Donald Trump complains that not enough people are coming to America from "nice" countries.

   But.

   If life at home is "nice," there is little need to leave.

   If a person has a job with a decent income and is able to support a family where there is little crime or violence and no war or government corruption, there is no need to leave home.

Cultural Sting

   News commentary is focusing on the coming presidential election and whether the Republican candidate will still be eligible.
   This past week, the focus has been on the court bail issue.
   Will the leading (not yet official) candidate post bail of nearly half a billion dollars, or will he go to jail for non-payment?
   He claims to be a billionaire, even as he insists he cannot afford to post bond.
   Which is it?
   Or is it that bail companies refuse to post bond for him because he has a history of not paying his debts?
   If he really is as rich as he claims, there would be no problem paying bond.
   If he is not wealthy, therefore he lies.
   There was a time when the word "liar" was never used in polite company, much less in American journalism.
   Now, it's common.
   As for threats of lawsuits against journalism outlets that print or broadcast reports of untrue statements or claims ...
   If it ain't true, sue.
   But if the report is true, there is no libel and it's pointless to sue.
   That legal principle in America goes back to 1760, when the New York colonial governor sued a newspaper for printing a story about the governor and his mistress.
   The defense was that the governor did in fact have a mistress, and everyone knew it. Therefore, there was no libel.
   The same principle applies to Donald J. Trump. He complains about the many negative reports about his actions and behavior, but he does not threaten to sue.
   Most likely reason: The reports are true, and therefore not libelous.
   He could indeed sue, but that would be pointless. There are three primary supports for a defense against a libel suit:
   1: The report is true.
   2: It is provably true.
   3: It was published without malice.

   The third defense may be more difficult to establish, but that can be done by showing that the report simply quotes the political opposition, and does not reflect the opinion of the reporter who wrote the story.
   Journalism reporters do just that: They simply report what people say and do, without including their opinions in the story. They leave opinion writing for the editorial page.
   Politicians, of course, insist that reporters weave their opinions into their reports. But quoting opposition leaders as well as candidates, with an equal balance of space and time, is balanced coverage.
   Some insist that quoting the opposition is, in and of itself, proof of bias, and therefore the reporter should be jailed. That happens in some other countries, not in America. The First Amendment to the Constitution, in effect since 1789, disallows that.
   So unless political leaders suspend the Constitution, freedom of the press will stay.
   As will other freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment, including freedom of religion and freedom of speech. But that may well be what some people these days want, that all Americans be members of a single church and political party.
   No immigrants, no Muslims, no Buddhists, no Jews, no Roman Catholics, or any other belief system or ethnicity that does not reflect their vision of what America "should be."
   WASPs only, they insist. All others must leave.

Bigotry Marches to Gory

Give me your tired, your poor
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
-- Emma Lazarus

Unless you're Irish or Italian or Jewish (East Coast)
Or Chinese or Japanese (West Coast)
Or Hispanic (Southern Border).
The North is okay, unless you're Black.

Some of youse guys look like us, so you're okay.
Everyone else stay where you are.
I don't care what the statue says.
We don't want you here.

-- Bobby Bigot

   American politics is marching at a quicker step this month to a gory summer of name-calling and abusive behavior as candidates battle for recognition among voters.
   News media play up the story as candidates compete for attention and advertising dollars.
   All of which leads many Americans to wonder what's going on in the rest of the world.
   There is, of course, the issue of the thousands of people crossing the Southern border to get to Texas and other states, but few news media spend much broadcast time or print space on why they are leaving their home countries.
   Could it be that America is still the Land of Opportunity? Or that there are no jobs to be had where they grew up? And violence? Moreover, they eagerly take jobs that the so-called "good Americans" don't want. Besides, there is the issue of low pay and abusive behavior toward those in jobs like trash collecting, street cleaning, snow removal, house cleaning and other mundane but essential jobs that native Americans won't take.
   Clearly, if their home countries were peaceful and prosperous, there would be no need or desire to leave.
   Why leave your ancestral home unless you must?
   Reason: There is no work.
   America is where the jobs are, and this has been true for hundreds of years. Newcomers want peace and prosperity, but political bigots make things hard for them.
   Bigotry does not build progress.

Leap, Froggy

Thirty days hath September,
April, June and November
All the rest have 31
Seven of them
Except February,
And that's all messed up.

   This year has 366 days, in society's effort to maintain 12 months in a calendar year.
   But it still doesn't work.
   If you divide 12 into 365, you get 30, with five left over. And that means those five are spread among the other months. So four months get 30 days, and seven others get 31, but that accounts for only 11 months. Which means February (named after the ancient goddess Febra) is cheated out of two months.
   Unless the Gremlin jumps in and adds an extra month to make up for the lost time. But he can only do that every four years, lest the other months lose some of their time.
   But why insist on the magic of 12?
   Perhaps because if society divided the monthly lunar cycle of 28 days into 365, the result would be 13 months, with only one day left over, which would give the rest of earthly society a day off, to celebrate the start of a new year.
   However, everyone knows that 13 is unlucky, so those in charge of making up the calendar insisted on a 12 month year, even though it meant we have to hop our way through the complications of four months with 30 days, seven with 31 days, an extra month with 28 days and giving that short period an extra day every four years to balance things out so the powers that be (were?) would not have to deal with the perceived threat of the power of 13.
   But is that really a threat?
   Ask builders, who won't put that number onto one of their floors. Nor will they put that number onto the street address of their buildings. Instead, the street numbers go from 11 to 15. 

 Nor will large cities have a 13th street.

And don't forget what happened to Apollo 13.