Presidential Count

    TV networks are saying that if Donald Trump wins today, he will be the only president to serve two non-consecutive terms.
   Not so.
   Grover Cleveland served as both the 22d and the 24th president (1885-89, 1893-97), having been elected in 1884 but defeated four years later by Benjamin Harrison, even though his popular vote was larger. (Source: The World Almanac, 2011 edition.)
   So winning the popular vote but losing the electoral vote is not new. The key to taking a White House post is winning the electoral vote, which is a total of the number of House and Senate representatives from each state. That combined number totals 535.
   This is how George Walker Bush took the presidency in 2001, through a court challenge of a single state's vote so he could gather its electoral vote despite having lost the popular vote.
   That's also why Donald Trump put so much effort into persuading a single state to change its electoral count. The reality is that he lost the popular vote but succeeded isn manipulating the electoral vote in order to take offce. Four years later, he lost both counts. Nevertheless, he remains in denial that he lost re-election.
   So who will be the next president of the United States? We will not really know for several weeks, while the votes are being counted and gathered. And officially, we won't know until Congress accepts the vote of the electoral college in January.

Trim Government

"That government is best that governs least."

                               -- Henry David Thoreau

"All men are created equal." -- Declaration of Independence

"Some are more equal than others." 

                            -- Animal Farm, by George Orwell

   It's time to trim government, say Republicans, as they have insisted for many decades. It's time to cut back on government aid, they add, especially to those who don't deserve it, because this only takes away from families who have earned their wealth over many generations, and prevents them from passing it on to their own friends and family.
   Some in this legion say the best government is no government. Barring that extreme, they would settle for minimal government, with only a few representatives to control the larger population.
   Been there, done that.
   In other nations, it's called a dictatorship. In America, it was called government by a few to represent the many. In the beginning of the republic, voting was limited to the few white men. Enslaved Blacks and women were not included, as were those who could not pass the designated literacy test. But in many parts of the nation, the reading test was used mainly against former slaves. Others were often not tested, and were free to vote even as their literate friends helped them with their ballots.
   In his time, Henry David Thoreau referred to ordinary citizens. But in more modern times, business executives used the same theory to support their demand that government leave them alone so they can deal with workers as they chose.
   They often paid workers as little as they chose, and demanded high prices for groceries at company-owned stores. Result: Workers wound up in debt to their employer, with the danger of losing their jobs and being unable to find another as executives passed the word of any protest.
   In defense of their own interests, workers united.
   Now we are engaged in great civil unrest, testing whether this nation can long endure the treatment of the many by the few who put their own interests above that of the nation as an independent whole.
   Will the nation endure?
   Stay tuned.

Danger to Freedom

   It's odd that the word "liberal" is construed as "dangerous" by many political types. It's especially odd because the word is derived from the Latin term "liber," meaning "free." That's the same source that gives us the term "liberty."
   Maybe that's the reason. Many in the opposite political range perceive free people as a danger to their control of society.
   And that, at the bottom line, is the issue: Control.
   Another term widely used these days is the word "radical." Simply put, it means "out of the ordinary."
   The good side, however, is that commentators on each side of any political issue can actually talk about it. But if one side becomes so dominant that they can criminalize and imprison anyone who disagrees, this free nation has a problem.
   That has happened in other nations, and unless we are careful, it will complete its happening here.
   Meanwhile, it's useful to consider the origin of the words "liberal" and "conservative," especially when talking about politicians.
   "Liberal" is derived from the Latin base and it means "free," while "conservative" means "conserve," or "don't change."
   It comes down to current attitudes toward the definitions. To the newbies, "conservative" means "we're right," and therefore "liberal" means "they're wrong." Along with that is the political and economic policy that says "don't change" because "we benefit from the system."
   But what of others who do not benefit from the dominant system? (By the way, the word "dominant" comes from the same Latin root "domine," which translates as "lord.")
   "That's just the way things are," is the reply from conservatives. "That's no reason to change."
   In a larger sense, that's why labor unions formed. By their definition, workers were being misused and abused because of greed among the owners.
   By that perception, if owners had treated workers fairly and paid them reasonably, there would have been no need for labor to unite and demand fair treatment as well as reasonable pay. By definition, that means getting paid enough to live on.
   Now we see a return to those days when those in prominent positions -- government and business -- insist that their way is the "right way" and all other should do as they're told.
   Obey their betters.
   That went out in the previous century.
   Or did it? Some corporate and political types want a return to those days, when a few controlled the many.
   Royalty was banished from America in 1789
   At least, nominally. The attitude, however, remains among many.

Foreign Trade 101

    The Republican candidate for president wants to raise taxes on imports as a way to protect American business and manufacturing.
   But.
   Basic principle of business is that when costs go up, retail prices go up to cover the increase. That applies equally to foreign trade, the only difference being that the hike is called a tariff, not a sales tax. And like any other boost, the increase is passed on to customers in the form of a higher price.
   So Donald Trump's insistence that boosting tariffs will protect American business shows ignorance of the basic economic principle that when costs rise, so do prices as the boost is passed on to retail customers.
   The reality is that raising import taxes will not protect domestic manufacturers, but only boost prices for consumers.
   Besides, what of products that are not made in the U.S., such as cocoa beans, the main ingredient of chocolate?
   Or any number of other products made in other countries where costs are lower and the difference is passed on to consumers in the form of lower retail prices.
   Clearly, any boost in tariffs (import taxes) is carried forward to a hike in the retail price to consumers, just as a higher minimum wage is incorporated into a boost in the final sales price.
   Be careful what you wish for. You may get it. That's especially true for politicians who call for higher tariffs as a way to reduce imports.
   It doesn't happen. What does happen is that the increase is passed on to consumers.
   Economics 101.

Heritage Surprise

    Christopher Columbus was not Italian, according to recent research. Rather, he was of the Sephardic Jewish tradition in Spain, and traveled westward to find a new route to the homeland of his people as well as for Spanish Muslims.
   So says a new study by Spanish researchers.
   The goal was to evade the Spanish Inquisition, which was at its height in 1492, under the leadership of Ferdinand and Isabella, the new royalty in Spain.
   (Didn't expect that, did you? But nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.)
   The plan formulated was to transfer Jews and Muslims out of Spain and back to their traditional homeland in the Middle East. That was backed up by the knowledge that the world was round, and taking the westward route would bypass territory controlled by Roman Catholics in Italy. This was supported by the belief that the planet was small enough to enable a roundabout route to the homeland.
   This belief supported the explorer's belief that India as part of his voyage, and that's why the people in the Americas are called "Indians."
   The Spanish government plan, led by Ferdinand and Isabella, was to persuade all Jewish and Muslim people in Spain at the time to either convert to Christianity or face deportation. But rather than send the deportees across the Mediterranean to their traditional homeland in the Middle East, the suggestion was to ship them westward and around the globe. It was known at the time that the world was indeed round, but that it was much smaller. That's why, when Columbus arrived in the Americas, he thought had arrived in India, and called the people he encountered "Indians."
   Columbus himself was not Italian, as many now believe, but of the Sephardic Jewish tradition. His goal was to evade the Spanish Inquisition, which was at its height in 1492, under the leadership of Ferdinand and Isabella.
   The tradition of Italian-Americans to honor Columbus as the explorer who discovered America dates back only to the late 19th Century in New York City, when Italian-Americans were under severe discrimination, and a priest came up with the suggestion that the explorer was Italian, and therefore newcomers to America would honor him and celebrate their right to be here.
   At the time, bias against those of Italian heritage was as strong as earlier bias against Irish newcomers. Similar bigotry existed in America later against Japanese American citizens as World War II began, and even now against those of the Hispanic tradition who come the U.S. seeking jobs and security.
   Oddly, those who are the loudest in their condemnation of newcomers are themselves first-generation descendants of those who come to America seeking opportunity.
   "Send me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

Licentious

   Donald Trump now claims the FCC should take away CBS Television's license for broadcasting an interview with Kamala Harris on its weekly program, "60 Minutes."
   Point one: He rejected an interview request from the same program executives.
   Point two: Such a suspension would violate the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment guarantee of a free press. (The FCC has refuted the demand.)
   Point three: If a candidate can succeed in such a demand, so also could a President.
   Point four: If government can control TV media, it could also control print media.
   Point five: If this happens, then the U.S. is no longer a democracy, but a dictatorship.
   Point six: Perhaps this is just what this political leader wants.

   Such a thing has already happened in other countries.

Warning

   Commentators talk often about politicians. But does anyone listen?
   Therein lies the question. Whether 'tis wiser in the mind to suffer the verbal slings and arrows of outrageous politicians or to ignore them.
   Traditionally, many folks say violence is not the answer. But others say yes, it is, citing the need to get the attention of small-minded politicians. (There's another kind?)
   Still others deny that, insisting that such a tactic only leads to pain and injury, both physical and emotional.
   Where's the answer? Where's the game? If we don't play the game, do we suffer shame?
   But like someone once said, if you want to tell 'em something, you gotta get their attention first.
   However, aggressive talking is one thing. Violence is something else, and is not civil.