"Why can't the English teach their children how to speak?" -- Prof. Henry Higgins
America and England: "Two countries separated by a common language." -- Winston Churchill.
Student: "Is that a word?"
Professor: "It is now, you just used it."
Student: "But it's not in the dictionary."
Professor: "Maybe not yet. Meanwhile, get a new dictionary."
Words travel with the speed of a new joke.
Slang or jargon begins with "in" terms invented and used by small groups to enhance communication among insiders, and limit access by outsiders. Slang then spreads to the population at large and becomes recognized as part of the language.
Acceptability, however, varies with the prestige of the originating group. When a new word or term gains usage in a larger or more prestigious group, moreover, its acceptability accelerates. Meanwhile, the originating group may move on to invent newer words. (Ask any teenager. As soon as their parents pick up new slang, teens drop it and invent another term.)
Slang and jargon are two forms of borrowing, as words move from one linguistic group to another, whether a regional or social dialect or a distinct language. Sometimes, moreover, the same term may enter another language twice, taking on different meanings as they do. On example is chef and chief. Both come from French, and each refers to someone in charge -- the first specific to a kitchen, and the second more general.
In America, dozens of words have been borrowed from Spanish, especially in the Southwest and West, then spreading to general, nationwide usage. Examples here include lariat and rodeo. Minority groups also contribute new words to the language. Maven, an expert, is a Yiddish term carried forward from Hebrew, gaining currency in coastal and metropolitan areas, and moving on to nationwide usage. Musicians regularly supply new terms.
English itself is an amalgam of many languages, using Anglo-Saxon, a Germanic dialect, as a base, and incorporating words from Latin, French, Gaelic and Welsh as it grew from its origins in Britain to America and Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India and other nations around the world, picking up many new words along the way.
American English continues that tradition, borrowing and incorporating words from native tribal languages as well as from newcomers who add to the mix.
America has been called a melting pot, but it's more accurate to say it's a kaleidoscope of many cultures and languages, all contributing to the diversity of America. It must be admitted, however, that not all terms make the trip to a larger world, and remain in specific regions. One such is oxter, a word common across the pond, but not in America. (Look it up.)
The study of linguistic variation began as dialectology, which looked at regional differences. In the mid-20th Century, however, it was displaced and incorporated into the wider field of study known as sociolinguistics, which identified differences according to social class as well as geographic region.
And with the study of language differences comes the study of social attitudes. Just as slang and jargon serve to identify members of a group, so does pronunciation. In fact, that tactic goes back millennia, to the use of shibboleth, a word an early Hebrew tribe used to identify fleeing enemy warriors of a competing tribe, who pronounced the word as sibboleth.
All the while, keep in mind that a dictionary is a history book, not a law book. It lists words that people have used, giving definitions and providing pronunciation guides. In fact, dictionaries began life as pronunciation guides for those in the newly wealthy merchant class who wanted to be accepted by the aristocracy.
Variations of that strategy are still useful. Broadcast news announcers all use the dominant America dialect known as North Midland, which spreads from the Northeast and widens as it moves westward, farther from East Coast major cities. Political candidates, too, shift to a regional dialect with greeting voters back home, and return to the more prestigious dialect when in Washington.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Paying It Down
For the first time in at least two years, America's supply of money has dipped, according to one of the measures of money stock compiled by the Federal Reserve, even as another measurement has gone up. What it suggests is that consumers are tapping their savings accounts to pay down debt.
Not that Robby the Robot is rolling down Wall Street yelling, "Danger, Will Robinson," but it does signal a couple of things worth considering. Specifically, the nation's money stock known as M2, which includes savings of various kinds, faded by $26.6 billion in February, even as M1, the amount of money in circulation, rose by $12.4 billion. (M1 measures cash and checkable deposits. M2 adds savings accounts of various kinds.) The numbers, adjusted for seasonal variations, showed up in data released today, March 28, by the Federal Reserve.
Granted, the change is barely a blip on America's monetary radar. The actual totals were $2.4596 trillion for M1 in January and $2.472 trillion in February, a rise of a mere 0.5 percent. M2, meanwhile, faded from $10.4394 trillion in January to $10.4129 trillion in February, a dip of 0.25 percent.
Nevertheless, this isn't chump change, either. An amount of $26.6 billion -- the M2 dip for the month -- is roughly the size of annual GDP for the island nation of Jamaica.
So is it something to worry about? Maybe, and maybe not. Overall, the Fed has kept the growth rate of M1 -- mainly money in circulation -- to about 11.6 percent from a year ago. Growth of M2, however -- which adds savings accounts into the mix -- has faded to a 4.6 percent increase for the three months ending in February, down from an increase of 6.8 percent over the previous 12 months.
On the whole, maybe it's a good thing. It seems consumers took more than $26 billion from their savings accounts and used almost half of it to pay down debts.
An over-simplification? Perhaps. But if consumers add cash to the money flow, the Fed doesn't have to, and that should appease conservatives.
Not that Robby the Robot is rolling down Wall Street yelling, "Danger, Will Robinson," but it does signal a couple of things worth considering. Specifically, the nation's money stock known as M2, which includes savings of various kinds, faded by $26.6 billion in February, even as M1, the amount of money in circulation, rose by $12.4 billion. (M1 measures cash and checkable deposits. M2 adds savings accounts of various kinds.) The numbers, adjusted for seasonal variations, showed up in data released today, March 28, by the Federal Reserve.
Granted, the change is barely a blip on America's monetary radar. The actual totals were $2.4596 trillion for M1 in January and $2.472 trillion in February, a rise of a mere 0.5 percent. M2, meanwhile, faded from $10.4394 trillion in January to $10.4129 trillion in February, a dip of 0.25 percent.
Nevertheless, this isn't chump change, either. An amount of $26.6 billion -- the M2 dip for the month -- is roughly the size of annual GDP for the island nation of Jamaica.
So is it something to worry about? Maybe, and maybe not. Overall, the Fed has kept the growth rate of M1 -- mainly money in circulation -- to about 11.6 percent from a year ago. Growth of M2, however -- which adds savings accounts into the mix -- has faded to a 4.6 percent increase for the three months ending in February, down from an increase of 6.8 percent over the previous 12 months.
On the whole, maybe it's a good thing. It seems consumers took more than $26 billion from their savings accounts and used almost half of it to pay down debts.
An over-simplification? Perhaps. But if consumers add cash to the money flow, the Fed doesn't have to, and that should appease conservatives.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Rip 'N' Read
Back in the day, it was known as "rip 'n' read," as a local radio announcer ripped a packaged news script from a wire service, rushed back to the booth and read the news, often without reading it over before going on the air.
As for local television news programs today, there seems to be a focus almost exclusively on weather, sports and traffic, supplemented by viewer-supplied video of auto accidents and fires. Very little time is spent on government news, business and economic news, or court reporting -- unless it's a major story that can't be ignored and much of the content is provided by PR folk or lawyers and prosecutors anxious for the publicity.
One wonders why such shallow coverage.
As with so many things, a major reason may be financial. Stories other than weather, traffic and police reports take time, expertise and staff to produce. It takes money to hire reporters, writers and producers and give them the time and resources to research and produce good (or even mediocre) material.
Visuals of auto wrecks and fires are attractive and easy to provide for the evening news, especially as viewers send in videos taken by mobile devices. The station thus gets visuals at no cost.
As for business and economic stories, reporters tend to dismiss them as boring or difficult, and people don't care anyway.
A poor excuse may be better than none, but the reality is that the stories themselves are not boring, the presentation is. To some extent, reporters are lazy. They will rush to the flashy, attractive scene like a wolf pack on the hunt, and defend their action in covering The Big Story.
Here's another Truth. The good stories write themselves.
Another defense is that the audience has no interest in dull, boring stories such as government meetings or economic trends. That's a self-fulfilling attitude. If a reporter thinks a story is dull and boring going in, it will be dull and boring coming out. The answer to that attitude is that it's a reporter's job to make the story interesting because it's important. Especially when the subject has something to hide. Many officials disguise their manipulations behind dull, boring facades, knowing that many reporters won't spend the time and effort to look behind the curtain.
Newspapers and magazines often do have the personnel and resources to do investigative reporting, but they too have been suffering in the economic squeeze, as advertising revenue goes down and the companies release some of their best reporters. TV stations have the added disadvantage of needing camera crews. Print media can send one person to cover a story; television must send four or more (reporter, producer, camera operator, sound engineer, and a driver), plus all the expensive equipment.
These are some of the reasons why local television journalism is not what it could be. They are not, however, excuses.
Gossip is easy. It's what people want to know. News is harder. It's what people need to know.
As for local television news programs today, there seems to be a focus almost exclusively on weather, sports and traffic, supplemented by viewer-supplied video of auto accidents and fires. Very little time is spent on government news, business and economic news, or court reporting -- unless it's a major story that can't be ignored and much of the content is provided by PR folk or lawyers and prosecutors anxious for the publicity.
One wonders why such shallow coverage.
As with so many things, a major reason may be financial. Stories other than weather, traffic and police reports take time, expertise and staff to produce. It takes money to hire reporters, writers and producers and give them the time and resources to research and produce good (or even mediocre) material.
Visuals of auto wrecks and fires are attractive and easy to provide for the evening news, especially as viewers send in videos taken by mobile devices. The station thus gets visuals at no cost.
As for business and economic stories, reporters tend to dismiss them as boring or difficult, and people don't care anyway.
A poor excuse may be better than none, but the reality is that the stories themselves are not boring, the presentation is. To some extent, reporters are lazy. They will rush to the flashy, attractive scene like a wolf pack on the hunt, and defend their action in covering The Big Story.
Here's another Truth. The good stories write themselves.
Another defense is that the audience has no interest in dull, boring stories such as government meetings or economic trends. That's a self-fulfilling attitude. If a reporter thinks a story is dull and boring going in, it will be dull and boring coming out. The answer to that attitude is that it's a reporter's job to make the story interesting because it's important. Especially when the subject has something to hide. Many officials disguise their manipulations behind dull, boring facades, knowing that many reporters won't spend the time and effort to look behind the curtain.
Newspapers and magazines often do have the personnel and resources to do investigative reporting, but they too have been suffering in the economic squeeze, as advertising revenue goes down and the companies release some of their best reporters. TV stations have the added disadvantage of needing camera crews. Print media can send one person to cover a story; television must send four or more (reporter, producer, camera operator, sound engineer, and a driver), plus all the expensive equipment.
These are some of the reasons why local television journalism is not what it could be. They are not, however, excuses.
Gossip is easy. It's what people want to know. News is harder. It's what people need to know.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Austerity
Austere: Stern and cold in appearance or manner (Merriam-Webster). Severe, uncompromising, strict, forbidding (dictionary.com).
News item: The UK is heading for a triple-dip recession, its third in five years. (The Guardian).
The numbers tell a story: During the fourth quarter of last year, the British economy faded by 0.3 percent. Germany, the same. France, minus 0.1 percent. Italy, down by 0.2 percent. Spain, off by 0.9 percent. Greece, minus 0.6 percent. The 17 countries that use the euro suffered an economic downturn of 0.4 percent. The U.S. economy was off by 0.1 percent.
A bunch of anomalies? Not likely. We'll know for sure in about two weeks, when figures for the first three months of this year are released.
Meanwhile, politicians trumpet the need for austerity, demanding fierce cutbacks in government spending programs to reduce debt and bring their nations out of an impending economic hole.
Yet, history tells us that every time austerity measures have been tried in the past to heal economic woes, they have failed, and the patient only sickens. A few decades pass, the economy recovers, another downturn looms, politicians renew their call for austerity, and again it fails.
You'd think by now they'd learn. Oh wait, we're talking about politicians, who are convinced of their own rightness, and they ignore all evidence to the contrary.
Consider first just what GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is: It's the total value of all goods and services produced in a nation during a given period, usually calculated quarterly. The components of GDP are Consumption (what people buy), Government (what government spends), Investment (money spent on assets set aside for future production), and Net Exports (the value of stuff produced nationally and sold overseas).
Consumption, the money the general public spends on stuff, accounts for some 80 percent of GDP. When people and firms reduce their consumption, the economy as a whole suffers. So one pay to take up the slack, so to speak, is for government to increase its spending, priming the economic pump to get things flowing again.
If money is the lifeblood of an economy, we can think of government spending as a transfusion. But austerity is a direct contradiction of that policy. If both consumers and government cut back on spending, that only accelerates the downturn. Meanwhile, in a declining economy, firms have no incentive to invest in future production. And as production dips, so do exports, meaning fewer sales overseas and less income at home.
Thus the cycle becomes vicious.
How to break the cycle? Persuade people to increase spending. Good luck with that, when so many don't have jobs. Second, persuade firms to invest in more production capacity. Not gonna happen in the face of falling consumption. Third, increase exports to bring in more cash. Look at the above numbers -- the downturn is international; people can't buy stuff with money they don't have. That leaves government spending, usually on infrastructure projects such as roads, bridges, airports, museums, libraries, etc. which provide jobs for the unemployed, giving them money to spend on consumption.
It has worked before. Yet the austerians call for more reductions, a policy which does not work.
Deficit spending? Of course, at least short term. And there's the thing that rubs austerians the wrong way.
What should happen is that when the economy recovers, government should resume attempts for a balanced budget, setting aside funds for a future rainy day. Will that make everyone happy? Probably not, since austerians are also arch-conservatives who want fewer taxes so they can keep as much money to themselves.
By the way, what happened to the American budget surplus of a dozen years ago? It disappeared as conservatives cut taxes and increased government spending. Now they want to cut spending as well reduce taxes.
How's that austerity thing workin' for ya?
News item: The UK is heading for a triple-dip recession, its third in five years. (The Guardian).
The numbers tell a story: During the fourth quarter of last year, the British economy faded by 0.3 percent. Germany, the same. France, minus 0.1 percent. Italy, down by 0.2 percent. Spain, off by 0.9 percent. Greece, minus 0.6 percent. The 17 countries that use the euro suffered an economic downturn of 0.4 percent. The U.S. economy was off by 0.1 percent.
A bunch of anomalies? Not likely. We'll know for sure in about two weeks, when figures for the first three months of this year are released.
Meanwhile, politicians trumpet the need for austerity, demanding fierce cutbacks in government spending programs to reduce debt and bring their nations out of an impending economic hole.
Yet, history tells us that every time austerity measures have been tried in the past to heal economic woes, they have failed, and the patient only sickens. A few decades pass, the economy recovers, another downturn looms, politicians renew their call for austerity, and again it fails.
You'd think by now they'd learn. Oh wait, we're talking about politicians, who are convinced of their own rightness, and they ignore all evidence to the contrary.
Consider first just what GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is: It's the total value of all goods and services produced in a nation during a given period, usually calculated quarterly. The components of GDP are Consumption (what people buy), Government (what government spends), Investment (money spent on assets set aside for future production), and Net Exports (the value of stuff produced nationally and sold overseas).
Consumption, the money the general public spends on stuff, accounts for some 80 percent of GDP. When people and firms reduce their consumption, the economy as a whole suffers. So one pay to take up the slack, so to speak, is for government to increase its spending, priming the economic pump to get things flowing again.
If money is the lifeblood of an economy, we can think of government spending as a transfusion. But austerity is a direct contradiction of that policy. If both consumers and government cut back on spending, that only accelerates the downturn. Meanwhile, in a declining economy, firms have no incentive to invest in future production. And as production dips, so do exports, meaning fewer sales overseas and less income at home.
Thus the cycle becomes vicious.
How to break the cycle? Persuade people to increase spending. Good luck with that, when so many don't have jobs. Second, persuade firms to invest in more production capacity. Not gonna happen in the face of falling consumption. Third, increase exports to bring in more cash. Look at the above numbers -- the downturn is international; people can't buy stuff with money they don't have. That leaves government spending, usually on infrastructure projects such as roads, bridges, airports, museums, libraries, etc. which provide jobs for the unemployed, giving them money to spend on consumption.
It has worked before. Yet the austerians call for more reductions, a policy which does not work.
Deficit spending? Of course, at least short term. And there's the thing that rubs austerians the wrong way.
What should happen is that when the economy recovers, government should resume attempts for a balanced budget, setting aside funds for a future rainy day. Will that make everyone happy? Probably not, since austerians are also arch-conservatives who want fewer taxes so they can keep as much money to themselves.
By the way, what happened to the American budget surplus of a dozen years ago? It disappeared as conservatives cut taxes and increased government spending. Now they want to cut spending as well reduce taxes.
How's that austerity thing workin' for ya?
Rationalizing
When all else fails, be rational
Tea Party senators are threatening to filibuster any and all measures that would interfere in any way with what they believe is the unrestricted, unlimited Second Amendment right of individuals to bear arms in any number and in any form.
Beware of absolutes. The Second Amendment refers specifically to "a well regulated militia." Assault weapons are just that: weapons to be used for assault, not defense. Those who want to assault Bambi are limited to certain types of weapons. High capacity magazines for assault weapons are not among them.
Recent massacres in America were perpetrated by individuals, not members of "a well regulated militia." A military unit maintains control of its assault weapons, for use in well regulated campaigns against an armed enemy.
School children and theater goers do not comprise an armed enemy.
Here's a comment on the Political Apocalypse posting from an academic friend:
"Politics is about manipulation of emotion rather than driven by some rational economic calculus. It is as if when all else fails in politics, some form of rationality might apply, but only then, and not necessarily even then."
Put another way, when all else fails, be rational.
Tea Party senators are threatening to filibuster any and all measures that would interfere in any way with what they believe is the unrestricted, unlimited Second Amendment right of individuals to bear arms in any number and in any form.
Beware of absolutes. The Second Amendment refers specifically to "a well regulated militia." Assault weapons are just that: weapons to be used for assault, not defense. Those who want to assault Bambi are limited to certain types of weapons. High capacity magazines for assault weapons are not among them.
Recent massacres in America were perpetrated by individuals, not members of "a well regulated militia." A military unit maintains control of its assault weapons, for use in well regulated campaigns against an armed enemy.
School children and theater goers do not comprise an armed enemy.
Here's a comment on the Political Apocalypse posting from an academic friend:
"Politics is about manipulation of emotion rather than driven by some rational economic calculus. It is as if when all else fails in politics, some form of rationality might apply, but only then, and not necessarily even then."
Put another way, when all else fails, be rational.
Monday, March 25, 2013
Insurance
Some folks maintain that insurance is a racket, a scam perpetrated by those who collect policy premiums and delay or refuse to honor claims. These cynics charge that companies sell insurance only to those who don't need it, and not to those who do.
They sell medical insurance to young, healthy people who are not likely to get sick, and if there's a possibility that you might get sick, or if you already have a condition that may in the future require medical attention, they don't want to know you.
It is true that the insurance industry is a private enterprise, in business to make a profit for the owners. The firm must collect more in policy premiums than it pays out in benefits, or the business fails and the firm shuts down.
Responsible firms calculate this risk, and find the answer in spreading the risk, collecting premiums from more people, thus reducing the chance that any single policyholder will suffer a grave enough accident or illness to harm the company. Their answer is to collect more money in premiums from more people, to make up for the benefit payout.
(Either that, or pay no benefits at all, keeping all the money collected. That's what makes it a scam. Granted, not all insurance companies do that, but some do, and that's what makes some folks suspicicious.)
There are reliable reports that clerks are under instruction to routinely reject every third claim, regardless of validity. The burden of proof falls increasingly on the claimant, and generates more paperwork in fighting to collect benefits.
Meanwhile, the company has the use of the cash, investing it in money-making projects to increase profits.
Sound efficient? From the policyholder's viewpoint, no. But from the corporate standpoint, it doesn't matter -- the goal is to increase profit.
There is no doubt that insurance policies are useful and sometimes mandatory. The purpose is to compensate people if or when they suffer a loss, and this applies to auto accidents, mortgages, homes, property damage from storms, or in the shipping industry as well as health care.
But the point is that an insurance plan works best the more people are involved in buying into the risk pool. The bigger the pool, the less cost to each individual.
Therefore, it makes no sense to sell insurance only to healthy people who are not likely to get sick, or to drivers who seldom use their cars, or to offer flood insurance to those living on a mountain, or fire insurance to those living in brick buildings, or life insurance to millionaires.
However, there is always some risk, and the more people share the risk, the better for society.
There is also no doubt that there are abusive practices in the insurance industry. That's why there are government regulators, to oversee the industry and prevent or punish those who abuse the public trust.
There is at least one segment of the industry -- health insurance -- that may be too important to be left to the private sector.
They sell medical insurance to young, healthy people who are not likely to get sick, and if there's a possibility that you might get sick, or if you already have a condition that may in the future require medical attention, they don't want to know you.
It is true that the insurance industry is a private enterprise, in business to make a profit for the owners. The firm must collect more in policy premiums than it pays out in benefits, or the business fails and the firm shuts down.
Responsible firms calculate this risk, and find the answer in spreading the risk, collecting premiums from more people, thus reducing the chance that any single policyholder will suffer a grave enough accident or illness to harm the company. Their answer is to collect more money in premiums from more people, to make up for the benefit payout.
(Either that, or pay no benefits at all, keeping all the money collected. That's what makes it a scam. Granted, not all insurance companies do that, but some do, and that's what makes some folks suspicicious.)
There are reliable reports that clerks are under instruction to routinely reject every third claim, regardless of validity. The burden of proof falls increasingly on the claimant, and generates more paperwork in fighting to collect benefits.
Meanwhile, the company has the use of the cash, investing it in money-making projects to increase profits.
Sound efficient? From the policyholder's viewpoint, no. But from the corporate standpoint, it doesn't matter -- the goal is to increase profit.
There is no doubt that insurance policies are useful and sometimes mandatory. The purpose is to compensate people if or when they suffer a loss, and this applies to auto accidents, mortgages, homes, property damage from storms, or in the shipping industry as well as health care.
But the point is that an insurance plan works best the more people are involved in buying into the risk pool. The bigger the pool, the less cost to each individual.
Therefore, it makes no sense to sell insurance only to healthy people who are not likely to get sick, or to drivers who seldom use their cars, or to offer flood insurance to those living on a mountain, or fire insurance to those living in brick buildings, or life insurance to millionaires.
However, there is always some risk, and the more people share the risk, the better for society.
There is also no doubt that there are abusive practices in the insurance industry. That's why there are government regulators, to oversee the industry and prevent or punish those who abuse the public trust.
There is at least one segment of the industry -- health insurance -- that may be too important to be left to the private sector.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Believability Quotient
Young reporter: "Did you ever have the feeling when working on a story that someone is lying to you?"
Editor: "Of course. It happens all the time. And maybe both sides are. It's our job to find the truth."
Politician: "That's not what I said! What I really meant was ... "
TV Editor: "Roll the video tape."
If you don't want to see it in print, don't say it.
People want to believe their government. Voters want to believe their elected officials, that the politicians speak true and they act in good faith, for the good of all and not just a chosen few.
And despite all the evidence to the contrary, that many officials are corrupt, that they act largely for themselves and their cronies, people still would like to believe in them.
They would like to believe that.
This is what makes the duty of news media so difficult. There is a tendency to first report what politicians say, and then do the fact-checking that shows the oratory to be dissembling, disingenuous, contrary to factual information, using these and some of the many other synonyms available, rather than come flat out and use the plain phrase, "It's a lie."
"Liar" is such a strong word that many folks, especially those in the reporting business who are committed to neutrality, avoid it. They follow the basic dictum of reporting just what the politician or candidate says, leaving the accusatory part of calling him or her a liar to the opposition.
But that takes some of the edge off it, since readers, listeners and the subject of the accusation can respond, "Well, of course the folks in the other party will say that, since they're opposed to us no matter what we say or do."
So that leaves the newspaper readers and TV viewers on their own, not knowing whom to believe. And since there is a widespread tendency to believe the elected leader, that's what readers and viewers do. No matter how outlandish the claim.
There comes a time when merely reporting the sweeping assertions of elected officials is not enough. News media have an obligation to report not only what each side says, but also to supply analysis by independent observers.
Editor: "Of course. It happens all the time. And maybe both sides are. It's our job to find the truth."
Politician: "That's not what I said! What I really meant was ... "
TV Editor: "Roll the video tape."
If you don't want to see it in print, don't say it.
People want to believe their government. Voters want to believe their elected officials, that the politicians speak true and they act in good faith, for the good of all and not just a chosen few.
And despite all the evidence to the contrary, that many officials are corrupt, that they act largely for themselves and their cronies, people still would like to believe in them.
They would like to believe that.
This is what makes the duty of news media so difficult. There is a tendency to first report what politicians say, and then do the fact-checking that shows the oratory to be dissembling, disingenuous, contrary to factual information, using these and some of the many other synonyms available, rather than come flat out and use the plain phrase, "It's a lie."
"Liar" is such a strong word that many folks, especially those in the reporting business who are committed to neutrality, avoid it. They follow the basic dictum of reporting just what the politician or candidate says, leaving the accusatory part of calling him or her a liar to the opposition.
But that takes some of the edge off it, since readers, listeners and the subject of the accusation can respond, "Well, of course the folks in the other party will say that, since they're opposed to us no matter what we say or do."
So that leaves the newspaper readers and TV viewers on their own, not knowing whom to believe. And since there is a widespread tendency to believe the elected leader, that's what readers and viewers do. No matter how outlandish the claim.
There comes a time when merely reporting the sweeping assertions of elected officials is not enough. News media have an obligation to report not only what each side says, but also to supply analysis by independent observers.
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Political Apocalypse
Belief Without Thought
Endangers Freedom
Ambition, Distraction, Vexation, Derision.
These are the Four Horsemen of a political apocalypse. It starts with the overweening Ambition of someone who will use any tactic to achieve success.
One tactic is Distraction, to lead opponents away from the real issues.
The leader also encounters Vexation -- his own and that of opponents -- when neither side will listen to the issues, arguments and debates raised by the other.
The leader then resorts to Derision, dismissing the views of opponents as, at best, not worth considering or, at worst, unpatriotic.
Opponents are thus forced into silence, ignored or persecuted as loonies, interfering with the perceived worthy goals of a hyper-vocal majority.
To hold strongly to a belief is good. To do so without thinking through the implications of the basic premises and their conclusions, but to accept them as Great Truths, accepted solely on the advocacy of another, is fraught with hazard.
Result: Blind, unthinking followers of demagogues, and violence against those who disagree.
Endangers Freedom
Ambition, Distraction, Vexation, Derision.
These are the Four Horsemen of a political apocalypse. It starts with the overweening Ambition of someone who will use any tactic to achieve success.
One tactic is Distraction, to lead opponents away from the real issues.
The leader also encounters Vexation -- his own and that of opponents -- when neither side will listen to the issues, arguments and debates raised by the other.
The leader then resorts to Derision, dismissing the views of opponents as, at best, not worth considering or, at worst, unpatriotic.
Opponents are thus forced into silence, ignored or persecuted as loonies, interfering with the perceived worthy goals of a hyper-vocal majority.
To hold strongly to a belief is good. To do so without thinking through the implications of the basic premises and their conclusions, but to accept them as Great Truths, accepted solely on the advocacy of another, is fraught with hazard.
Result: Blind, unthinking followers of demagogues, and violence against those who disagree.
Friday, March 22, 2013
The Slinky Effect
The multiplier effect works both ways. Slinky-like, a small effort at one end sends a wave of activity all along the economic line. A single dollar's worth of effort is not the total value, because it generates another dollar's worth of activity (more or less) at each point along the way. Added up, the total amounts to many more dollars worth of economic output for one dollar's worth of input.
Here's a family example: Suppose a teenager gets a part-time job and brings home $100 a week. Of that, he or she gives $20 to Mom to help out with food (yes, teenagers do eat), spends another $20 on gas for the car, drops $20 at the local Starbucks on drinks for himself and girlfriend, puts $20 into a college fund, and uses the rest for incidentals.
But this additional boost to the economy doesn't stop there. Consider the employees at the grocery store, the gas station, the baristas, and other employees at wholesale distributors and suppliers, and multiply that one teenager's extra spending by a few million, and after a while you're talking real money.
Now suppose, in the name of austerity and a balanced budget, America cuts Medicare and Obamacare. Yes, it would greatly affect the aged, the poor, and those with part-time jobs and no health care insurance plan.
But the fastest-growing employment field in America today is health care. Reduce the health care program, and you put out of work millions of nurses, physician assistants, lab technicians, aides, hospital support staff, food service and housekeeping workers, plus educators who train the needed nurses, aides, techs, etc. as well as doctors and other specialists. Not to mention the many clerical personnel needed to administer the health care insurance program.
It might, however, increase the demand for funeral workers to lay to rest those who die from lack of adequate health care.
Here's a family example: Suppose a teenager gets a part-time job and brings home $100 a week. Of that, he or she gives $20 to Mom to help out with food (yes, teenagers do eat), spends another $20 on gas for the car, drops $20 at the local Starbucks on drinks for himself and girlfriend, puts $20 into a college fund, and uses the rest for incidentals.
But this additional boost to the economy doesn't stop there. Consider the employees at the grocery store, the gas station, the baristas, and other employees at wholesale distributors and suppliers, and multiply that one teenager's extra spending by a few million, and after a while you're talking real money.
Now suppose, in the name of austerity and a balanced budget, America cuts Medicare and Obamacare. Yes, it would greatly affect the aged, the poor, and those with part-time jobs and no health care insurance plan.
But the fastest-growing employment field in America today is health care. Reduce the health care program, and you put out of work millions of nurses, physician assistants, lab technicians, aides, hospital support staff, food service and housekeeping workers, plus educators who train the needed nurses, aides, techs, etc. as well as doctors and other specialists. Not to mention the many clerical personnel needed to administer the health care insurance program.
It might, however, increase the demand for funeral workers to lay to rest those who die from lack of adequate health care.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Wonkum
Wonk: A studious person who takes an excessive interest in minor details of political policy.
Wonkum: Advice spread by a wonk.
Experts in political policy can get so mired in detail that they lose sight of a wider analysis: to find the greatest good for the greatest number, or to identify useful or achievable goals. Instead, their analyses become so focused on predetermined needs and goals that they see only those policy options that benefit their sponsors.
Sometimes this focus is deliberate. Other times, it is an oversight. Each time, it takes their policy advice to the level of wonkum.
Wonkum: Advice spread by a wonk.
Experts in political policy can get so mired in detail that they lose sight of a wider analysis: to find the greatest good for the greatest number, or to identify useful or achievable goals. Instead, their analyses become so focused on predetermined needs and goals that they see only those policy options that benefit their sponsors.
Sometimes this focus is deliberate. Other times, it is an oversight. Each time, it takes their policy advice to the level of wonkum.
Prime Directive
The prime directive of Editor's Revenge is not to persuade, but to prompt thought. If that means those who disagree reinforce their positions by thinking about them, that's fine. There is danger in those who believe without thinking.
TV news: "We're trying to confirm how the police car came to be stolen."
Viewer curmudgeon: "Somebody took it, that's how."
Pronouncer note: Edinburgh, the capital city of Scotland, does not rhyme with Pittsburgh, the large city in western Pennsylvania.
Usage fun: When a man marries the right woman, he is complete. When he marries the wrong woman, he is finished. When the right woman finds him messing with the wrong woman, he is completely finished.
At this age, I am a curmudgeon. When I was 20, I was just a smart ...
TV news: "We're trying to confirm how the police car came to be stolen."
Viewer curmudgeon: "Somebody took it, that's how."
Pronouncer note: Edinburgh, the capital city of Scotland, does not rhyme with Pittsburgh, the large city in western Pennsylvania.
Usage fun: When a man marries the right woman, he is complete. When he marries the wrong woman, he is finished. When the right woman finds him messing with the wrong woman, he is completely finished.
At this age, I am a curmudgeon. When I was 20, I was just a smart ...
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Eurozone Update
News item: Cyprus shuts banks as crisis deepens.
Sound familiar? FDR declared a bank holiday on taking office in 1933.
Check the commentary on this site a week ago titled "Zoning Out."
The issue now is whether this Cypriot domino will take down any others.
Sound familiar? FDR declared a bank holiday on taking office in 1933.
Check the commentary on this site a week ago titled "Zoning Out."
The issue now is whether this Cypriot domino will take down any others.
Labels
"The French don't care what you do, actually, so long as you pronounce it properly." -- Prof. Henry Higgins
Which is better, a tax credit or a government grant?
Some favor tax credits, but oppose government grants. Why? They maintain tax credits encourage private enterprise, while government grants represent government spending. Put another way: Corporate spending = good. Government spending = bad.
One "saves" money because government is not spending it, while the other "saves" money for the private sector because it does not go to the government. Both, however, encourage economic growth, and the bottom line is that government doesn't get to process the money. Either the government doesn't get the money in the first place (tax credit), or the government gets the money and then spends it (grants).
So it's a fiscal wash.
Meanwhile, more people have jobs. Granted, this includes those on a government payroll who administer the program, but a job is a job, and to an economist, that's a bottom line goal.
Some would argue that a private sector job is better than a government job, but tell that to someone who has no job at all.
Or tell it to teachers, police, firefighters, and prosecutors, as well as federal, state and local representatives and staffers, forest rangers, military personnel, or the myriad other employment categories, including medical and support staff at public hospitals, providing employment that pay wages spent on food, clothing, shelter, entertainment and luxury purchases as well as necessities, all of which keep the general economy rolling.
Or tell it to those who remember the Great Depression of the 1930s, and had government jobs building roads, bridges, libraries, museums, hydroelectric dams and other projects that got the economy moving again.
To say that government spending is bad often means government jobs are bad, and only private sector jobs are good. An understandable attitude, if you are senior management of a corporation looking to keep as much for yourself and your stockholders as you can.
But in economic bad times, senior managers typically don't go out of their way to help the unemployed. More likely, they increase the number of unemployed.
Which is better, a tax credit or a government grant?
Some favor tax credits, but oppose government grants. Why? They maintain tax credits encourage private enterprise, while government grants represent government spending. Put another way: Corporate spending = good. Government spending = bad.
One "saves" money because government is not spending it, while the other "saves" money for the private sector because it does not go to the government. Both, however, encourage economic growth, and the bottom line is that government doesn't get to process the money. Either the government doesn't get the money in the first place (tax credit), or the government gets the money and then spends it (grants).
So it's a fiscal wash.
Meanwhile, more people have jobs. Granted, this includes those on a government payroll who administer the program, but a job is a job, and to an economist, that's a bottom line goal.
Some would argue that a private sector job is better than a government job, but tell that to someone who has no job at all.
Or tell it to teachers, police, firefighters, and prosecutors, as well as federal, state and local representatives and staffers, forest rangers, military personnel, or the myriad other employment categories, including medical and support staff at public hospitals, providing employment that pay wages spent on food, clothing, shelter, entertainment and luxury purchases as well as necessities, all of which keep the general economy rolling.
Or tell it to those who remember the Great Depression of the 1930s, and had government jobs building roads, bridges, libraries, museums, hydroelectric dams and other projects that got the economy moving again.
To say that government spending is bad often means government jobs are bad, and only private sector jobs are good. An understandable attitude, if you are senior management of a corporation looking to keep as much for yourself and your stockholders as you can.
But in economic bad times, senior managers typically don't go out of their way to help the unemployed. More likely, they increase the number of unemployed.
Destination Oblivion
It's easy to criticize and find fault. Ask any comedian or drama reviewer. It's much harder to find common political ground.
An attitude of "my way or the highway" works only if you own the bus, you're the driver and most of the passengers already agree with you. But is it right to dump those who disagree and leave them in a desert while only those who follow the leader/driver travel on to the "Land of Prosperity"?
There are, however, folks who claim such an attitude is right. These folks say: "If they're not with us, they're against us. Let 'em starve. They are the enemy. They don't deserve special treatment, or any consideration at all."
Such an attitude calls for members of the self-chosen group to close ranks and adhere ever more closely to what they feel are basic principles, shutting out those who disagree and refusing any hint of compromise. They hold fast to core beliefs and do not acknowledge the existence, much less the validity, of any other position but their own.
The future for such self-righteous radicals, whether their views are religious or political, is oblivion.
Insisting that everyone conform to the Right Way as the Only Way leads to dictatorship, and examples are available worldwide.
Put another way, if there's only one bus for the True Believers and rest of the fleet is heading in a different direction, that single bus will find itself alone in a desert.
Today's Tea Party Republicans are leading the Radical Right down a straight and very narrow-minded path to a lonely desert, hoping beyond hope that the rest of the nation, especially those inclined to think for themselves and form their own opinions, will see "the error of their ways" and return to the True Path.
But closing ranks and insisting on tighter adherence to core beliefs only shuts out alternate solutions, compromise and progress.
There is more danger to freedom of independent thought from the Radical Right than from the Liberal Left.
"It can't happen here," you say? But it can, and very nearly did, several times in my lifetime. Want examples? Consider Watergate, or the troika of Cheney-Rumsfeld-Bush, or today's Tea Party adherents.
Or read these two books: "It Can't Happen Here," (fiction) and "The Plot to Seize the White House" (fact). Both deal with America in the 1930s.
An attitude of "my way or the highway" works only if you own the bus, you're the driver and most of the passengers already agree with you. But is it right to dump those who disagree and leave them in a desert while only those who follow the leader/driver travel on to the "Land of Prosperity"?
There are, however, folks who claim such an attitude is right. These folks say: "If they're not with us, they're against us. Let 'em starve. They are the enemy. They don't deserve special treatment, or any consideration at all."
Such an attitude calls for members of the self-chosen group to close ranks and adhere ever more closely to what they feel are basic principles, shutting out those who disagree and refusing any hint of compromise. They hold fast to core beliefs and do not acknowledge the existence, much less the validity, of any other position but their own.
The future for such self-righteous radicals, whether their views are religious or political, is oblivion.
Insisting that everyone conform to the Right Way as the Only Way leads to dictatorship, and examples are available worldwide.
Put another way, if there's only one bus for the True Believers and rest of the fleet is heading in a different direction, that single bus will find itself alone in a desert.
Today's Tea Party Republicans are leading the Radical Right down a straight and very narrow-minded path to a lonely desert, hoping beyond hope that the rest of the nation, especially those inclined to think for themselves and form their own opinions, will see "the error of their ways" and return to the True Path.
But closing ranks and insisting on tighter adherence to core beliefs only shuts out alternate solutions, compromise and progress.
There is more danger to freedom of independent thought from the Radical Right than from the Liberal Left.
"It can't happen here," you say? But it can, and very nearly did, several times in my lifetime. Want examples? Consider Watergate, or the troika of Cheney-Rumsfeld-Bush, or today's Tea Party adherents.
Or read these two books: "It Can't Happen Here," (fiction) and "The Plot to Seize the White House" (fact). Both deal with America in the 1930s.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Econometrics
There's no such thing as a sure thing.
Econometrics combines economic theory, statistics and mathematics in an attempt to reduce human behavior to a formula that will accurately predict future business events and behavior.
Hah!
Econometrics does not deal in certainties, however much politicians and investors may want.
It's a useful tool, but like any tool, it's only as good as the user. And since the user, in this case, may be the same person who designed and created the tool, that means the prediction it yields is only as good as the designer.
Or as they say in the computer biz, GIGO -- garbage in, garbage out.
So it's like reading a tout sheet at a race track, or a corporate earnings report, or an investment fund prospectus. But past performance is no guarantee of future growth/profit/victory.
This is not to say that econometrics has no value. But there are limits, and it's important to understand what those limits are. Understanding these limits, and knowing how to use the information within these limits is key to making useful predictions. Pollsters do it regularly, and the better ones point to the "margin of error" in their analyses. A two-point margin of error when one candidate has 51 percent and the other 49 percent could well reverse the conclusion.
Flip a coin, and what's the probability it will come up heads? Answer: 50 percent. And no how many times you toss that coin, each time you toss it, the probability of coming up heads remains 50 percent.
The prediction becomes more complicated when dealing with several coins in the toss, but there remains only one variable for each coin: heads or tails. Move on to a pair of dice, and you increase the number of variables: six sets of spots on each die.
So if you want to, you can deal with the variables in a regularized mathematical way, just as gamblers do with a deck of cards or a roulette wheel. In fact, the science of probability was devised by the 18th Century French mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal, whose patrons happened to be ardent gamblers and card players.
The fun begins when you apply mathematical principles to human behavior.
Statistics has to do with gathering data (numbers) and organizing them into patterns. Probability has to do with what those numbers and patterns portend for the future. When you stir statistics and probability into the human stew that is economic theory, you get a spicy taste of what may happen in the future.
Then again, it may not.
Economics is the study of what people do with what they've got, or what's available to them and whether and how they use it.
Econometrics may be the most challenging of all academic disciplines, because it tries to identify the many relevant variables of human behaviour and sort them using the strict formulas of statistics to come up with a reasonable probability of future action.
The problem is in deciding what is relevant, and what is reasonable.
Lotsa luck with that one.
Econometrics combines economic theory, statistics and mathematics in an attempt to reduce human behavior to a formula that will accurately predict future business events and behavior.
Hah!
Econometrics does not deal in certainties, however much politicians and investors may want.
It's a useful tool, but like any tool, it's only as good as the user. And since the user, in this case, may be the same person who designed and created the tool, that means the prediction it yields is only as good as the designer.
Or as they say in the computer biz, GIGO -- garbage in, garbage out.
So it's like reading a tout sheet at a race track, or a corporate earnings report, or an investment fund prospectus. But past performance is no guarantee of future growth/profit/victory.
This is not to say that econometrics has no value. But there are limits, and it's important to understand what those limits are. Understanding these limits, and knowing how to use the information within these limits is key to making useful predictions. Pollsters do it regularly, and the better ones point to the "margin of error" in their analyses. A two-point margin of error when one candidate has 51 percent and the other 49 percent could well reverse the conclusion.
Flip a coin, and what's the probability it will come up heads? Answer: 50 percent. And no how many times you toss that coin, each time you toss it, the probability of coming up heads remains 50 percent.
The prediction becomes more complicated when dealing with several coins in the toss, but there remains only one variable for each coin: heads or tails. Move on to a pair of dice, and you increase the number of variables: six sets of spots on each die.
So if you want to, you can deal with the variables in a regularized mathematical way, just as gamblers do with a deck of cards or a roulette wheel. In fact, the science of probability was devised by the 18th Century French mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal, whose patrons happened to be ardent gamblers and card players.
The fun begins when you apply mathematical principles to human behavior.
Statistics has to do with gathering data (numbers) and organizing them into patterns. Probability has to do with what those numbers and patterns portend for the future. When you stir statistics and probability into the human stew that is economic theory, you get a spicy taste of what may happen in the future.
Then again, it may not.
Economics is the study of what people do with what they've got, or what's available to them and whether and how they use it.
Econometrics may be the most challenging of all academic disciplines, because it tries to identify the many relevant variables of human behaviour and sort them using the strict formulas of statistics to come up with a reasonable probability of future action.
The problem is in deciding what is relevant, and what is reasonable.
Lotsa luck with that one.
Zonng Out
"Europe is facing a profound economic and political crisis." --Olafur Ragnar Grimmsson, President of Iceland, interview with France24 news, 3/9/2013
The United Kingdom may be heading for a triple-dip recession. -- BBC News, 3/13/2013
As time goes by, there are increasing signs that, despite soaring stock indexes, the world economy may not be responding. Several members of the European Union are already in deep fiscal waters and in danger of going under, and the EU Parliament itself may have to cut its budget by 3.3 percent, since it cannot, by EU rules, operate at a deficit. National governments can, but the cries for austerity are gaining in volume.
Meanwhile, the budget deficit in France remains high, and at least three EU members -- Greece, Ireland and Portugal -- can no longer hit the international financial markets for money and are trying to rely on its EU partners. And the Bundesbank, Germany's central bank, is setting aside billions of euros to cover "risky" moves by the European Central Bank, at the same time lashing out at France for goofing its reform efforts.
The eurozone crisis is not over, the Bundesbank chief told Reuters news service. "The reform course in France seems to have floundered, in Italy it has been brought into question by the elections, and in Cyprus, the situation is especially unclear," according to Jens Weidmann, the head of Germany's central bank.
All of which raises the question of why any nation should retain its membership in the EU. Already, Greenland has dropped out, and Iceland's president says that nation will not join.
The United Kingdom may be heading for a triple-dip recession. -- BBC News, 3/13/2013
As time goes by, there are increasing signs that, despite soaring stock indexes, the world economy may not be responding. Several members of the European Union are already in deep fiscal waters and in danger of going under, and the EU Parliament itself may have to cut its budget by 3.3 percent, since it cannot, by EU rules, operate at a deficit. National governments can, but the cries for austerity are gaining in volume.
Meanwhile, the budget deficit in France remains high, and at least three EU members -- Greece, Ireland and Portugal -- can no longer hit the international financial markets for money and are trying to rely on its EU partners. And the Bundesbank, Germany's central bank, is setting aside billions of euros to cover "risky" moves by the European Central Bank, at the same time lashing out at France for goofing its reform efforts.
The eurozone crisis is not over, the Bundesbank chief told Reuters news service. "The reform course in France seems to have floundered, in Italy it has been brought into question by the elections, and in Cyprus, the situation is especially unclear," according to Jens Weidmann, the head of Germany's central bank.
All of which raises the question of why any nation should retain its membership in the EU. Already, Greenland has dropped out, and Iceland's president says that nation will not join.
Friday, March 8, 2013
Jobs
"Figures don't lie, but liars do figure." -- Mark Twain
"Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes? -- Chico Marx
News item: The U.S. unemployment rate dipped to 7.7 percent as the nation added 265,00 jobs last month, the Labor Department reported. On Wall Street, investors celebrated the news by driving the indexes up even higher.
However, the size of the labor force fell by 130,000 as workers retired or gave up looking for jobs. And the labor force participation rate -- the proportion of people actually working -- dropped to 63.5 percent, a low point. And the austerity ravens are still cawing for cutbacks in spending, meaning fewer jobs in government, including White House tour guides, air traffic controllers, teachers, police and firefighters.
So is this news of an economic recovery, or a sign that stock gamblers (sorry, I mean speculators) are gaming the system? Many players tout what can be seen as good news to push sales, and others are only too eager to snatch up grains of potential good news in hopes of scoring a win as they buy low and sell high.
Consider: These are monthly numbers, with a high degree of volatility. Moreover, the statistics are largely based on sampling surveys, which are not known for strict accuracy (check your old textbook on Statistics 101). The payroll survey -- the number of people actually working -- can be reasonably accurate, because companies report the hard number of workers hired. And the population survey counts the number of people of working age, except those in prison, in school or in the military. But the unemployment number comes from a telephone survey, sampling just a few of the many households in America. It tracks the number of people out of work, able to work and actually looking for work. Calculating the unemployment rate takes numbers from two different surveys, one reasonably accurate and another not so much so. The result is, at best, a reasonable guesstimate and useful largely in a long-term context.
A more practical number is the labor force participation rate, which tracks the number of people actually holding jobs compared to the total population. This number, however, doesn't have the emotional stab that "unemployed" has. Movers, shakers and those who play on the hopes and dreams of others -- advertisers, marketers, sales folk and stock market pitchmen -- much prefer emotional numbers.
In other news, law schools are opening clinics so their graduates -- unemployed and deep in debt -- can get at least some legal experience helping others who can't normally afford lawyers. And the city of Camden, NJ, once home to RCA Victor, Campbell's Soup Co. and a prospering shipyard, is now one of the poorest, most dangerous cities in America, just across the Delaware River from wealthy, prosperous Philadelphia (which itself has crime and poverty problems in many neighborhoods).
So Wall Street thrives as Main Street struggles. Does it have to be this way?
"Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes? -- Chico Marx
News item: The U.S. unemployment rate dipped to 7.7 percent as the nation added 265,00 jobs last month, the Labor Department reported. On Wall Street, investors celebrated the news by driving the indexes up even higher.
However, the size of the labor force fell by 130,000 as workers retired or gave up looking for jobs. And the labor force participation rate -- the proportion of people actually working -- dropped to 63.5 percent, a low point. And the austerity ravens are still cawing for cutbacks in spending, meaning fewer jobs in government, including White House tour guides, air traffic controllers, teachers, police and firefighters.
So is this news of an economic recovery, or a sign that stock gamblers (sorry, I mean speculators) are gaming the system? Many players tout what can be seen as good news to push sales, and others are only too eager to snatch up grains of potential good news in hopes of scoring a win as they buy low and sell high.
Consider: These are monthly numbers, with a high degree of volatility. Moreover, the statistics are largely based on sampling surveys, which are not known for strict accuracy (check your old textbook on Statistics 101). The payroll survey -- the number of people actually working -- can be reasonably accurate, because companies report the hard number of workers hired. And the population survey counts the number of people of working age, except those in prison, in school or in the military. But the unemployment number comes from a telephone survey, sampling just a few of the many households in America. It tracks the number of people out of work, able to work and actually looking for work. Calculating the unemployment rate takes numbers from two different surveys, one reasonably accurate and another not so much so. The result is, at best, a reasonable guesstimate and useful largely in a long-term context.
A more practical number is the labor force participation rate, which tracks the number of people actually holding jobs compared to the total population. This number, however, doesn't have the emotional stab that "unemployed" has. Movers, shakers and those who play on the hopes and dreams of others -- advertisers, marketers, sales folk and stock market pitchmen -- much prefer emotional numbers.
In other news, law schools are opening clinics so their graduates -- unemployed and deep in debt -- can get at least some legal experience helping others who can't normally afford lawyers. And the city of Camden, NJ, once home to RCA Victor, Campbell's Soup Co. and a prospering shipyard, is now one of the poorest, most dangerous cities in America, just across the Delaware River from wealthy, prosperous Philadelphia (which itself has crime and poverty problems in many neighborhoods).
So Wall Street thrives as Main Street struggles. Does it have to be this way?
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Rating Exchange
Currency exchange rates, the bane of many a tourist's mental and fiscal balance, are subject to the same Law of Supply and Demand as any other commodity.
Normally, people don't think of money as a commodity, but it is, because people want it and are willing to pay to get it. At its simplest, this is the Labor Theory of Value: Anything can be valued in terms of the amount of labor required to get it.
When a person or firm does business internationally, the goods or services must be paid for in the local, or seller's, currency. If the buyer doesn't have the local currency, he must somehow acquire it elsewhere. In effect, he goes to the foreign exchange market and buys it. And here is where the Law of Supply and Demand applies.
Tourists, however, function at the retail level in the foreign exchange market, so a drop of one-tenth of a cent is barely noticeable when spending $100. In fact, it's a change of exactly one cent. On the wholesale level -- the international foreign exchange market, where trades are numbered in the millions of dollars -- a drop of one cent on a million-dollar trade amounts to a difference of a thousand dollars. And that becomes quite noticeable when it's done many times a day.
The advantage of a common currency, for example the U.S. dollar throughout all 50 states, the several territories and various nations that use the dollar rather than issue their own money, is that this value in exchange is uniform.
So also with the 17 nations of the European Union that use the euro as a common currency. There is no "foreign exchange" when traveling, importing or exporting among them. There are, however, other factors that affect prices and wages within each nation, just as there are differences between various regions, states and cities in America.
There is, then, at least one good economic reason to preserve the European Union -- a common currency, which helps facilitate trade and growth.
Unfortunately, some nations issued euro-denominated bonds, borrowing beyond their ability to repay.
And unlike in America, there is no federal government or strong enough central bank to bail them out.
Consequently, unless other economically and fiscally healthy euro zone member nations are willing to help shore them up, the governments and economies of the poorly managed nation-states will collapse.
And one by one the euro zone dominoes fall.
Normally, people don't think of money as a commodity, but it is, because people want it and are willing to pay to get it. At its simplest, this is the Labor Theory of Value: Anything can be valued in terms of the amount of labor required to get it.
When a person or firm does business internationally, the goods or services must be paid for in the local, or seller's, currency. If the buyer doesn't have the local currency, he must somehow acquire it elsewhere. In effect, he goes to the foreign exchange market and buys it. And here is where the Law of Supply and Demand applies.
Tourists, however, function at the retail level in the foreign exchange market, so a drop of one-tenth of a cent is barely noticeable when spending $100. In fact, it's a change of exactly one cent. On the wholesale level -- the international foreign exchange market, where trades are numbered in the millions of dollars -- a drop of one cent on a million-dollar trade amounts to a difference of a thousand dollars. And that becomes quite noticeable when it's done many times a day.
The advantage of a common currency, for example the U.S. dollar throughout all 50 states, the several territories and various nations that use the dollar rather than issue their own money, is that this value in exchange is uniform.
So also with the 17 nations of the European Union that use the euro as a common currency. There is no "foreign exchange" when traveling, importing or exporting among them. There are, however, other factors that affect prices and wages within each nation, just as there are differences between various regions, states and cities in America.
There is, then, at least one good economic reason to preserve the European Union -- a common currency, which helps facilitate trade and growth.
Unfortunately, some nations issued euro-denominated bonds, borrowing beyond their ability to repay.
And unlike in America, there is no federal government or strong enough central bank to bail them out.
Consequently, unless other economically and fiscally healthy euro zone member nations are willing to help shore them up, the governments and economies of the poorly managed nation-states will collapse.
And one by one the euro zone dominoes fall.
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Medicaid
News item: Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey and Gov. Rick Scott of Florida have moved to the political center, and have opted to accept federal funds to expand Medicaid.
Herewith, a not-so-imaginary conversation as Republican governors change positions:
Feds: "Here's money to expand Medicaid and provide more health care to the citizens of your state."
Governors: "I'm opposed to government sponsored health care, and anything remotely resembling meddling in state affairs."
Feds: "The money's available and ready. If you don't want it, we'll give it to someone else."
Governors: "On second thought ... I want to do what's best for all the citizens of our great state. Besides, I want to be re-elected. I'll take the money."
Tea Party Activists: "You're abandoning free-market principles of corporate capitalism that made this country what it is."
Comment: Maybe that's a good thing. Some of those principles should be abandoned, especially those that cover up abusive paternalism, and benefit a wealthy few while harming the low-income many.
Herewith, a not-so-imaginary conversation as Republican governors change positions:
Feds: "Here's money to expand Medicaid and provide more health care to the citizens of your state."
Governors: "I'm opposed to government sponsored health care, and anything remotely resembling meddling in state affairs."
Feds: "The money's available and ready. If you don't want it, we'll give it to someone else."
Governors: "On second thought ... I want to do what's best for all the citizens of our great state. Besides, I want to be re-elected. I'll take the money."
Tea Party Activists: "You're abandoning free-market principles of corporate capitalism that made this country what it is."
Comment: Maybe that's a good thing. Some of those principles should be abandoned, especially those that cover up abusive paternalism, and benefit a wealthy few while harming the low-income many.
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Torture
"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!" -- Monty Python
Question: Why is Pfc. Bradley Manning charged and held for leaking government documents while Julian Assange, who spread them, and news media execs, who published them, are not punished?
The answer comes in several parts.
One: First Amendment rules do not neccessarily apply to Private Manning, who was charged under military law, not civil.
Two: Manning was not charged with publishing the documents about military behavior at Abu Ghraib prison, but with leaking them, thus violating his security clearance.
Three: Assange, founder of Wikileaks, is an Australian citizen, living in Denmark at the time of the alleged offense.
Four: The documents made available by Wikileaks were published in other countries, including Australia, England and Germany, then -- as they were visible to the world -- published in America.
Five: American news media have First Amendment protection. It's possible that they might have been prosecuted if national security were involved, but that's doubtful, since the documents and photos depicted events that occurred in the past and were of questionable legality in the first place.
Six: People have a right to know what their government is doing in their name, and how government justifies what many deem torture.
Seven: Government lawyers redefined "torture" out of existence, and people have a right to know this.
The Grand Inquisitors of the Middle Ages felt that anything was permissible as long as interrogators did not break any bones or puncture skin or cause bleeding.
Nonetheless, it was torture.
Question: Why is Pfc. Bradley Manning charged and held for leaking government documents while Julian Assange, who spread them, and news media execs, who published them, are not punished?
The answer comes in several parts.
One: First Amendment rules do not neccessarily apply to Private Manning, who was charged under military law, not civil.
Two: Manning was not charged with publishing the documents about military behavior at Abu Ghraib prison, but with leaking them, thus violating his security clearance.
Three: Assange, founder of Wikileaks, is an Australian citizen, living in Denmark at the time of the alleged offense.
Four: The documents made available by Wikileaks were published in other countries, including Australia, England and Germany, then -- as they were visible to the world -- published in America.
Five: American news media have First Amendment protection. It's possible that they might have been prosecuted if national security were involved, but that's doubtful, since the documents and photos depicted events that occurred in the past and were of questionable legality in the first place.
Six: People have a right to know what their government is doing in their name, and how government justifies what many deem torture.
Seven: Government lawyers redefined "torture" out of existence, and people have a right to know this.
The Grand Inquisitors of the Middle Ages felt that anything was permissible as long as interrogators did not break any bones or puncture skin or cause bleeding.
Nonetheless, it was torture.
Stock Stuff
"The public be damned. My loyalty is to my stockholders." -- William H. Vanderbilt, 19th Century railroad president.
It has been claimed that the stock market, and the Dow in particular, is a barometer of general economic health. 'Tain't necessarily so. Many say it's not a leading indicator, but lagging. One thing to keep in mind is that the most frequently cited Dow average is that of the industrial component. The problem is that there are only 30 corporations in the Dow Jones industrial average, and these are blue-chip companies. That may not be enough for a good picture. The Standard & Poor's average has 500 stocks in its setup, so it's a bit better.
The stock market is doing well; the Dow on Tuesday soared 120 points soon after opening, going well past its 2007 record close of 14,164.53, as well as its previous intraday high of 14,198.10.
At the end of the trading day, the average was up more than 125 points, closing at 14,198.10, a new record high.
This can be seen as a sign of a booming economy, if the barometer mavens are right, or it's a bubble about to burst, as it did several times in the past. Stock prices can be as much symptomatic of investor confidence and exuberance as of company health and growth prospects. Prices respond to the Law of Supply and Demand at least as much as they reflect corporate and -- secondarily -- general economic health.
However, while corporations report record earnings and profits, thus driving up the share price, unemployment remains high. So is the overall economy really doing well, or is it that management is rewarding shareholders?
The prime goal of many managers is to "increase shareholder value," meaning increased dividends and rising stock prices. There are two main ways to boost profits -- increase sales and/or reduce costs. One way to reduce costs is trim wages, and if pay can't be cut, hiring can.
In any case, what investors should be concerned about is the performance of the company whose stock they own. The performance of any other company, or the average prices of stocks in other firms, are not relevant.
A company sells shares in order to raise money for whatever purpose managers choose. And once out there, the stock can be bought and sold on the open market. To that extent, the law of demand and supply operates. If a stock is popular, for whatever reason (rational or otherwise) the price goes up (demand-driven). And the supply is limited to the number of shares the company has issued. But the company is free to issue more shares, thus increasing the supply and, assuming demand is constant, the price goes down. Many companies, when their stock price is so high as to interfere with trading, will split their stock, for example doubling the number of shares available, and thus reducing the price so more investors can participate. The hope is that the price will then resume its rise.
When someone buys stock, that person becomes a part owner of the company, so the hope is that a prospering business will drive up the price and/or increase the dividend paid. Unlike bonds, however, there are no guarantees. A bond is a promise to repay, with a specified amount of interest.
As for institutional investors, yes, they do try to influence management to drive up the stock price and/or increase the dividend. This is what they do.
Whether a certain policy is good for the company is a secondary issue for them. Senior management, those with large stock holdings, do the same thing. Their outlook is short term, focused largely on quarterly earnings and stock prices.
Or as Billy Vanderbilt, son of Cornelius Vanderbilt, the commodore, put it in 1883, railroads are not run for the benefit of the public, but for the investors.
Small investors, on the other hand, are more interested in long term growth and the prosperity of the company. But being relatively small in the number of shares they own, they do not have much influence.
Fair? Unfair? I don't know. Yes, senior managers and outside major stockholders do try to manipulate the numbers and influence the stock price, and there are many governmental regulations now in place to at least minimize the extent of manipulation that goes on. But it still happens, though not to the extent it did in the 19th Century or before the Great Crash of 1929.
One good thing that came out of the Crash was the separation of commercial banks and investment banks. That, however, ended in 1999 when the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which separated the two, was repealed. Commercial banks then became free to indulge in the investing business -- again -- and investment banks got involved in deposits and lending -- again. The remixing of the two caused more problems -- again. Can you say bank failures and the Great Recession? Technically, major banks didn't "fail" because they were bailed out by the government. They were considered "too big to fail," so taxpayer money rescued them. Can you say bank "failures" and the Great Depression? Again?
We know of at least one man who worked on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange for many decades, starting as a runner at the age of 16. But he never bought any shares of stock in any company.
He did, however, play the ponies. The stock market, he felt, was too much of a gamble.
It has been claimed that the stock market, and the Dow in particular, is a barometer of general economic health. 'Tain't necessarily so. Many say it's not a leading indicator, but lagging. One thing to keep in mind is that the most frequently cited Dow average is that of the industrial component. The problem is that there are only 30 corporations in the Dow Jones industrial average, and these are blue-chip companies. That may not be enough for a good picture. The Standard & Poor's average has 500 stocks in its setup, so it's a bit better.
The stock market is doing well; the Dow on Tuesday soared 120 points soon after opening, going well past its 2007 record close of 14,164.53, as well as its previous intraday high of 14,198.10.
At the end of the trading day, the average was up more than 125 points, closing at 14,198.10, a new record high.
This can be seen as a sign of a booming economy, if the barometer mavens are right, or it's a bubble about to burst, as it did several times in the past. Stock prices can be as much symptomatic of investor confidence and exuberance as of company health and growth prospects. Prices respond to the Law of Supply and Demand at least as much as they reflect corporate and -- secondarily -- general economic health.
However, while corporations report record earnings and profits, thus driving up the share price, unemployment remains high. So is the overall economy really doing well, or is it that management is rewarding shareholders?
The prime goal of many managers is to "increase shareholder value," meaning increased dividends and rising stock prices. There are two main ways to boost profits -- increase sales and/or reduce costs. One way to reduce costs is trim wages, and if pay can't be cut, hiring can.
In any case, what investors should be concerned about is the performance of the company whose stock they own. The performance of any other company, or the average prices of stocks in other firms, are not relevant.
A company sells shares in order to raise money for whatever purpose managers choose. And once out there, the stock can be bought and sold on the open market. To that extent, the law of demand and supply operates. If a stock is popular, for whatever reason (rational or otherwise) the price goes up (demand-driven). And the supply is limited to the number of shares the company has issued. But the company is free to issue more shares, thus increasing the supply and, assuming demand is constant, the price goes down. Many companies, when their stock price is so high as to interfere with trading, will split their stock, for example doubling the number of shares available, and thus reducing the price so more investors can participate. The hope is that the price will then resume its rise.
When someone buys stock, that person becomes a part owner of the company, so the hope is that a prospering business will drive up the price and/or increase the dividend paid. Unlike bonds, however, there are no guarantees. A bond is a promise to repay, with a specified amount of interest.
As for institutional investors, yes, they do try to influence management to drive up the stock price and/or increase the dividend. This is what they do.
Whether a certain policy is good for the company is a secondary issue for them. Senior management, those with large stock holdings, do the same thing. Their outlook is short term, focused largely on quarterly earnings and stock prices.
Or as Billy Vanderbilt, son of Cornelius Vanderbilt, the commodore, put it in 1883, railroads are not run for the benefit of the public, but for the investors.
Small investors, on the other hand, are more interested in long term growth and the prosperity of the company. But being relatively small in the number of shares they own, they do not have much influence.
Fair? Unfair? I don't know. Yes, senior managers and outside major stockholders do try to manipulate the numbers and influence the stock price, and there are many governmental regulations now in place to at least minimize the extent of manipulation that goes on. But it still happens, though not to the extent it did in the 19th Century or before the Great Crash of 1929.
One good thing that came out of the Crash was the separation of commercial banks and investment banks. That, however, ended in 1999 when the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which separated the two, was repealed. Commercial banks then became free to indulge in the investing business -- again -- and investment banks got involved in deposits and lending -- again. The remixing of the two caused more problems -- again. Can you say bank failures and the Great Recession? Technically, major banks didn't "fail" because they were bailed out by the government. They were considered "too big to fail," so taxpayer money rescued them. Can you say bank "failures" and the Great Depression? Again?
We know of at least one man who worked on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange for many decades, starting as a runner at the age of 16. But he never bought any shares of stock in any company.
He did, however, play the ponies. The stock market, he felt, was too much of a gamble.
Sunday, March 3, 2013
Whither the European Union?
Forecasts are always dicey, but there are some early signs that the European Union -- such as it is -- won't last.
The initial idea, "a kind of United States of Europe," in Winston Churchill's phrase, was and remains a good idea. The concept may have envisioned an organization similar to what brought the United States of America into being. Churchill himself suggested that France and Germany take the lead in forming such a union. That, however, would require burying centuries-old cultural and political habits, for the greater good of member states. (Perhaps such an attitude would be productive for government leaders in Washington today.)
From its beginning, members of the European Union have debated whether to organize using a federal or an intergovernmental approach to union, with all the benefits that interstate cooperation and planning can bring. But Churchill did not feel that Britain would be a part of the union, except for the economic and free trade part.
America's advantage in forming its "more perfect union," as the Constitution phrased it in 1789, has been not only an economic union, but a political one as well. And while NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Association, has expanded the economic borders, its members have not surrendered political independence. So it would seem the intergovernmental approach, in North America at any rate, would be the better choice -- a sort of international state's rights movement.
That, however, has been a big part of the problem in making a success of the European Union -- how to persuade members to yield some political-economic independence for the greater good of all. But that's not surprising, considering that individuals are often reluctant to surrender some of their independence for the good of all. If individual altruism is problematic, mass altruism is even more so.
Meanwhile, economic problems are spreading across Europe. The unemployment rate in the17 nations that use the euro, the common currency of its members, has risen and now stands at 11.9 percent. Overall, the jobless rate for all 27 members, including those that do not use the euro, is also up, to 10.8 percent. The highest unemployment rates are found in the two nations with the most serious economic problems -- Greece and Spain, with jobless rates of 27 percent and 26.2 percent.
Some of the members, however, remain economically somewhat healthy, and feel they are bearing the brunt of the crisis in the euro zone, meaning they resent supporting those nations in fiscal trouble. Many ask who's to blame for the problem, and cite irresponsible leadership of the debtor nations. "It's their own fault," is the attitude, and "We should not have to pay when they mess up."
There is also a long history of political, cultural, economic and fiscal independence, which many are loath to give up. And don't forget the anti-immigration crowd, who resent newcomers from poorer member nations.
So, will the European Union survive, and open another Golden Door of opportunity for its citizens? Perhaps. But keep in mind the surprise election victory of the anti-immigration Independence Party in Britain.
The initial idea, "a kind of United States of Europe," in Winston Churchill's phrase, was and remains a good idea. The concept may have envisioned an organization similar to what brought the United States of America into being. Churchill himself suggested that France and Germany take the lead in forming such a union. That, however, would require burying centuries-old cultural and political habits, for the greater good of member states. (Perhaps such an attitude would be productive for government leaders in Washington today.)
From its beginning, members of the European Union have debated whether to organize using a federal or an intergovernmental approach to union, with all the benefits that interstate cooperation and planning can bring. But Churchill did not feel that Britain would be a part of the union, except for the economic and free trade part.
America's advantage in forming its "more perfect union," as the Constitution phrased it in 1789, has been not only an economic union, but a political one as well. And while NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Association, has expanded the economic borders, its members have not surrendered political independence. So it would seem the intergovernmental approach, in North America at any rate, would be the better choice -- a sort of international state's rights movement.
That, however, has been a big part of the problem in making a success of the European Union -- how to persuade members to yield some political-economic independence for the greater good of all. But that's not surprising, considering that individuals are often reluctant to surrender some of their independence for the good of all. If individual altruism is problematic, mass altruism is even more so.
Meanwhile, economic problems are spreading across Europe. The unemployment rate in the17 nations that use the euro, the common currency of its members, has risen and now stands at 11.9 percent. Overall, the jobless rate for all 27 members, including those that do not use the euro, is also up, to 10.8 percent. The highest unemployment rates are found in the two nations with the most serious economic problems -- Greece and Spain, with jobless rates of 27 percent and 26.2 percent.
Some of the members, however, remain economically somewhat healthy, and feel they are bearing the brunt of the crisis in the euro zone, meaning they resent supporting those nations in fiscal trouble. Many ask who's to blame for the problem, and cite irresponsible leadership of the debtor nations. "It's their own fault," is the attitude, and "We should not have to pay when they mess up."
There is also a long history of political, cultural, economic and fiscal independence, which many are loath to give up. And don't forget the anti-immigration crowd, who resent newcomers from poorer member nations.
So, will the European Union survive, and open another Golden Door of opportunity for its citizens? Perhaps. But keep in mind the surprise election victory of the anti-immigration Independence Party in Britain.
Censorship
"Journalism is the mouthpiece of the Party. -- Chinese saying
"You can't yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater." -- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. -- Old newsroom saying
The pen is mightier than the sword.
Freedom of the Press, which includes free speech, is enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, promulgated by the United Nations in 1948.
However, free speech does have limits, some agreed on by the general public, and some imposed by government. The problem is that when government goes too far in imposing limits that it becomes censorship. Free speech includes the freedom to criticize, but when government uses censorship to prevent criticism, and to penalize those who challenge its policies that democracies run the risk of degenerating into tyranny.
It's important, though, to remember the context of Justice Holmes' comment upholding limits on speech. The case before the court was about a group distributing pamphlets criticizing war and the draft, and a government ban on such activity, which the court upheld. The alleged offense, however, was in 1915, and the case did not get to the court until 1919, by which time the war was over. So was the ban relevant?
At the same time, hateful speech, that which causes injury to others, libel, slander, and anonymous Web postings that directly or indirectly harm others, are all forms of speech that we are not free to indulge in. False or misleading advertising is also prohibited.
Also, information relative to national security may be subject to restrictions, and such things as cartoons that insult or are offensive to certain groups also face restrictions. But are restrictions on these forms valid? That's where the issue gets sticky.
Some agencies of government, such as the CIA and the FBI, are notorious for labeling anything and everything they gather as "important to national security," and therefore cannot be talked about or released to the public. It becomes laughable when newspaper clippings and magazine articles already in public view are labeled "Top Secret" and further publication or discussion put under pressure to conceal.
The New York Times encountered government opposition when it moved to publish the so-called Pentagon Papers, which detailed lies the government was reporting about the war in Vietnam. At the same time, the Times delayed, at the government's request, publishing information it had obtained about a pending invasion of Cuba. The invasion went ahead as planned, but failed. President John Kennedy was later quoted as saying that if the newspaper had gone ahead and published, the invasion likely would have been called off, saving the administration from the embarrassment of a failed mission.
Then there are incidents like the cartoons published in a Danish newspaper that Muslims around the world deemed extremely offensive to their religion. And the fatwa pronounced against author Salman Rushdie for the supposedly offensive themes in his novel, "The Satanic Verses."
Where is the line that diffentiates free speech from offensive speech? Sometimes free speech is offensive, but does it warrant death threats and violence?
Government uses censorship to prevent or punish criticism, and politicians can be very thin-skinned when reporters question or challenge their policies or behaviors. Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, who along with colleague Alan Bernstein, was instrumental in bringing down President Richard Nixon, encountered this recently when a White House aide allegedly said, "You'll be sorry if you publish this." This time, both sides were being thin-skinned.
Woodward, after all, is the guy wielding the pen.
As for political leaders claiming that the government "is doing this for your own good," that policy, too, has limits. That sort of paternalism is okay in matters of public health and safety, such as food and drug inspection, or construction codes to prevent fires or building collapse, but Big Brother is always looking for ways to impose his group's ideas on the rest of society.
"You can't yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater." -- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. -- Old newsroom saying
The pen is mightier than the sword.
Freedom of the Press, which includes free speech, is enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, promulgated by the United Nations in 1948.
However, free speech does have limits, some agreed on by the general public, and some imposed by government. The problem is that when government goes too far in imposing limits that it becomes censorship. Free speech includes the freedom to criticize, but when government uses censorship to prevent criticism, and to penalize those who challenge its policies that democracies run the risk of degenerating into tyranny.
It's important, though, to remember the context of Justice Holmes' comment upholding limits on speech. The case before the court was about a group distributing pamphlets criticizing war and the draft, and a government ban on such activity, which the court upheld. The alleged offense, however, was in 1915, and the case did not get to the court until 1919, by which time the war was over. So was the ban relevant?
At the same time, hateful speech, that which causes injury to others, libel, slander, and anonymous Web postings that directly or indirectly harm others, are all forms of speech that we are not free to indulge in. False or misleading advertising is also prohibited.
Also, information relative to national security may be subject to restrictions, and such things as cartoons that insult or are offensive to certain groups also face restrictions. But are restrictions on these forms valid? That's where the issue gets sticky.
Some agencies of government, such as the CIA and the FBI, are notorious for labeling anything and everything they gather as "important to national security," and therefore cannot be talked about or released to the public. It becomes laughable when newspaper clippings and magazine articles already in public view are labeled "Top Secret" and further publication or discussion put under pressure to conceal.
The New York Times encountered government opposition when it moved to publish the so-called Pentagon Papers, which detailed lies the government was reporting about the war in Vietnam. At the same time, the Times delayed, at the government's request, publishing information it had obtained about a pending invasion of Cuba. The invasion went ahead as planned, but failed. President John Kennedy was later quoted as saying that if the newspaper had gone ahead and published, the invasion likely would have been called off, saving the administration from the embarrassment of a failed mission.
Then there are incidents like the cartoons published in a Danish newspaper that Muslims around the world deemed extremely offensive to their religion. And the fatwa pronounced against author Salman Rushdie for the supposedly offensive themes in his novel, "The Satanic Verses."
Where is the line that diffentiates free speech from offensive speech? Sometimes free speech is offensive, but does it warrant death threats and violence?
Government uses censorship to prevent or punish criticism, and politicians can be very thin-skinned when reporters question or challenge their policies or behaviors. Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, who along with colleague Alan Bernstein, was instrumental in bringing down President Richard Nixon, encountered this recently when a White House aide allegedly said, "You'll be sorry if you publish this." This time, both sides were being thin-skinned.
Woodward, after all, is the guy wielding the pen.
As for political leaders claiming that the government "is doing this for your own good," that policy, too, has limits. That sort of paternalism is okay in matters of public health and safety, such as food and drug inspection, or construction codes to prevent fires or building collapse, but Big Brother is always looking for ways to impose his group's ideas on the rest of society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)