International Dominoes

"No man is an island, entire of itself." -- John Donne

   Watch for a European domino to topple the American economy. That's no guarantee, of course, but consider these news items:
   -- Ireland officially entered recession for the second time in three years, after recording negative GDP for two consecutive quarters.
   -- The 17 nations that use the euro as a common currency had a combined drop in output of 0.2 percent, and the 27 nations of the European Union as a whole showed a decline of 0.2 percent.
   -- The economy of the euro zone has been receding for a year.
   -- England is pushing for a stronger austerity program.
   -- Germany wants those member nations in difficulty to spend less.
   -- Greece is effectively bankrupt.
   -- Spain and Italy are suffering.
   -- France is on the edge.

   And those are all first quarter items. Data for the second fiscal quarter, which ended today (June 30), very likely will carry more ill tidings.
   Like it or not, the world economy is interlinked. Austere measures to reduce spending in one region can only drag down sales in another area. So if austere policies gain in Europe, that means fewer imports from America. And that principle applies on every level. If townsfolk switch from buying bread from a family-owned baker to a supermarket chain, the small bakery goes out of business.
   If restaurants switch to California wines from French imports, international trade suffers. If they switch again to less expensive New York State vintages, California wineries lose revenue.
   Moreover, if the restaurant's customers don't care for the new wine list, they go elsewhere, and the restaurant loses business.
   And if, in the name of austerity, people stop going out to dinner, many people suffer -- the restaurant closes, and staffers are out of work.
   As economist Paul Krugman so succinctly put it, your spending is my income, and vice versa.
   Theoretically, austerity works -- but only when it's practiced by one population unit, whether an individual, a family, or a nation. But because of the spending/revenue tradeoff, austerity doesn't work when everybody does it.
   It can't.

Good News?

   This you call good news?
　
   The homicide rate in New York City is down 37 percent so far this year, compared to the first half of 2012. "Only" 154 people have been murdered in the Big Apple in the first six months of 2013. In Philadelphia, 115 people have been slain, most by guns, as the city reaches the half-way mark on the calendar. That's a total of 269 murders in just two American cities.
   Politicians and police officials tout the lower numbers as a sign that progress is being made.
   Throughout 2012, there were 419 murders in New York City, more than 500 in Chicago, more than 300 in Philadelphia, and more than 300 in Los Angeles. That's a total of 1,519 people in just four cities. Nationwide, more than 11,000 people were slain by guns last year.
   But we're making progress.

   All these data points are from the FBI, which tracks crime of all sorts throughout the nation. And not only does the FBI track all murders, but it also details the number of killings by rifle, handguns, blunt objects, poisoning, beatings and other methods. You could look it up; the information is publicly available at fbi.gov and its Uniform Crime Reports.

   And the National Rifle Association argues that more people are murdered by blows with hammers than are shot with rifles. That may well be true, but it ignores the number of those killed by handguns.
   Figures don't lie, but carefully selected data points can certainly mislead.
   Keep in mind that in all of Canada, there are fewer than 200 gun deaths yearly. And in the United Kingdom, there were just 27 during 2010.

   Consider the numbers, then decide. Responsible gun ownership is one thing. Murder is quite another.

Double Trouble

   The interest rate on government education loans is set to double, to 6.8 percent, on Monday. That makes it, for the lender, one of the best returns around. Not, however, for the consumer.
   Here's a question: What's the return on investment in a college degree?
   Pick a degree program: History, for example, along with teacher certification, qualifies you for a job in education.
   Suppose, then, the new graduate lands a job teaching at a high school. Suppose, also, that the graduate has $50,000 in loans to pay off and the teaching job pays $25,000. But the interest rate on the borrowed money is doubling, to 6.8 percent.
   Do the math. How much of the new teacher's salary will go to living expenses and how much will go to loan payments? Further, how long will it take to pay off the loan?

   Every individual's situation is different, of course, but a quick look suggests that doubling the interest rate on student loans actively discourages many young folk from borrowing to go to college.
   Is that the plan? To price them out of the market, leaving college slots open only to those who can pay cash?

   That's free-market economics at work. As prices rise, some demand falls off, even as supply holds steady. In this case, price is the interest rate, demand is from the borrowers, and supply is the amount of money available.
   The Law of Supply and Demand applies to money as much as it applies to any other commodity or service. If the price (interest rate) rises, demand lessens. Or if the supply -- the amount of money available -- declines, the price (interest rate) rises.
   By raising the price, thereby reducing demand, government pushes some consumers out of the market. Here, fewer people apply for government loans, so government can reduce the demand and increase revenue as it doubles the price (interest rate).

   Result: Fewer people go to college.

Immigration Nation

   So a bill to reform the immigration system in America is working its way through Congress, and may -- if enacted -- make it possible for the estimated 11 million people who are in the country illegally to rectify their status and live without fear of being sent back to a place they may not even remember, since many were brought here as children.
   But those opposed to the measure still want to tighten border security and block what they call the "jobs magnet" that has been attracting workers to the U.S.
   Whatever happened to the chant about America being the "Land of Opportunity," a place with a "Golden Door," as inscribed on a statue in New York Harbor? A place that has been attracting people to America just because it was, and remains, a "jobs magnet"?
   But no, those 11 million people who are here illegally are too much of a problem, and that problem must be dealt with, opponents claim. Consider this perspective: Some 11 million people out of a total population of more than 300 million amounts to 0.04 percent of everyone living here. But those in the 0.04 percent are a major problem, and take jobs away from "good citizens." Jobs like hotel maids, laundry workers, leaf rakers, trash collectors and other such tasks that should go to native-born college graduates.

   As if they'd take them.

   The bottom line is this: People come to America for the same reason they always have. This is where the jobs are. Even in today's near-recessionary economy, there are still some jobs available for those willing to do them. If there were jobs available at home, there would be no need to leave.
   It's easy enough to compile a list of famous personalities whose parents came to America and took the hard-scrabble jobs that others didn't want. And in doing so, they gave their children opportunities that they would not have had in the "old country."
   The irony is that many of those most vociferous in demanding that the Golden Door be shut are themselves children of immigrants. Some first generation, whose own parents came through the Golden Door of Opportunity. Others may have to go back a few generations to track the migration trail from other countries.
   The fact is that we are all children of immigrants. Unless, of course, you are Cherokee, Iroquois, Algonquin, or a member of any of the many other Native American tribes.

   Finally, consider the emphasis put on tightening border security. Yeah, right, all those Canadians flocking across the line ...

Looking for Mr. Goodnews

   It looked good at first, and a second look almost confirmed it. But an even closer, third look showed a lower increase in national output during the first three months of this year.
   That's the story of GDP estimates for the first quarter. The Bureau of Economic Analysis at first said GDP -- the country's Gross Domestic Product, or the total value of all goods and services produced in America -- rose by 2.5 percent in the first quarter, up from a 0.4 percent growth rate in the fourth quarter of 2012. Then a second estimate showed a rise of 2.4 percent -- almost as good. But yesterday, the government said output rose by only 1.8 percent, based on more complete source data than were available a month ago.
   Meanwhile, mortgage rates are rising, which means fewer home sales, which in turn means fewer sales of home appliances, furniture and other durable goods that home buyers need. And as sales drop, so does production.
   However, Willy Loman-like, some realty experts claimed a boost in mortgage rates is good news for the housing market, because it will prompt those on the fence about buying to jump into the market before rates go even higher.
   Perhaps. But the government's GDP report also noted that an increase in personal consumption expenditures was less than previously estimated, and exports and imports are now estimated to have declined.

   So are we there yet? Is the economic recovery solidly under way? Or will an end to the money-pumping stimulus that the Federal Reserve is considering pull the plug on the recovery machine?

   Sounds like the questions at the end of an old radio soap opera. Even so, it's too important not to stay tuned.

Human Capital

   News items: Philadelphia drops school music program to save money and meet budget. But not football.
   Chicago is spending $33 million toward a 10,000 seat, $173 million basketball arena for a private school, even as it closes 50 public schools because of a $1 billion budget deficit.
   "We can't afford neighborhood schools, but we can bankroll an unnecessary basketball arena for a private university?" said a New York Times report, quoting Bob Fioretti, a Chicago alderman. The new arena would host the team from DePaul University, the largest Roman Catholic college in the nation.
   Meanwhile, many college football coaches are paid more than university presidents.
   In times of budget-trimming, the first to go are music and art programs. True, not everyone has music and art talent.
   But it's also true that not everyone makes the team, or even has the ability to play. True, everyone can watch sports. Also true, everyone can listen to music.
   Moreover, injury and age can halt a playing career, but the mind works always.
   And yes, revenue from ticket sales and media coverage can subsidize other academic pursuits, and defenders claim it does. But in what proportion?
   To a large extent, college football is a farm team system for the professional league, the NFL. Unlike baseball farm teams, however, college players are not paid. Officially, that is. Supposedly, they are still amateurs.

   On balance, many young folks see no adequate return on their investment in higher education. Certainly not from a degree in the Humanities, despite warnings and urgings from senior corporate executives and think tank studies. As far back as the 1980s, Charles L. Brown, chairman of AT&T, cautioned that a well-rounded education -- including the liberal arts -- was essential for those aspiring to senior management.
   And just last week, a report from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences noted that America needs citizens who are "educated in the broadest possible sense," who are "experts in national security, equipped with the cultural understanding, knowledge of social dynamics and language proficiency to lead our foreign service and military."

   So there it is. Not just technical skills, but also a background in culture, sociology, language and other humanist values to fully understand and deal with national and international issues.
   But with schools closing, teachers unemployed, students unable to read, write and calculate at basic levels, how can the nation survive, much less maintain leadership?

   Football, however, seems to be much more important.

Very Interesting

   If interest rates -- the cost of borrowing -- is going up for corporations and home buyers, it's also going up for banks, which means consumers with savings accounts will benefit.
   For now, savings accounts pay less than 1 percent interest. But with the Fed's inflation target of 2 percent, savers lose money.
   For now, banks can borrow from the Federal Reserve at near zero percent interest, or cost of funds. So they borrow from savers and the Fed at less than 1 percent, make mortgage loans at 3 percent, and the difference is profit.
   If, as expected, home loans go to 4 percent, that means more profit for banks. Unless they pay more themselves to acquire funds by boosting rates paid to savers.
   Economics 101 says they should. But will they?
   And if they do, that means borrowing rates to consumers will go up again, so that lenders can maintain their profit margins.

   And away we go.

   Interest rate information, by the way, is not hard to find. Bankers regularly advertise their mortgage and savings rates. And if you want national or regional averages, and data on home sales and housing starts, check web sites run by the Mortgage Bankers Association, the National Association of Realtors, or the Commerce Department.

Espionage and Free Speech

   The U.S. government is chasing Edward Snowden across the globe, charging him with espionage for exposing the government's super dooper scooper snooper program that monitors what people do by telephone and Internet.
   But espionage suggests he was working for a foreign power, delivering government secrets to an enemy. If so, what enemy? The view from here is that he was working for the American people in exposing government snooping. He delivered the documentation not to foreign powers, but to news media.
   Consider also, however, that the reporters, editors, newspapers and broadcasters who published the revelations have not been charged. Not The Guardian, The New York Times, the Washington Post, nor the Associated Press, which distributed the story to thousands of smaller newspapers and other media. Nor have any charges of treason been leveled.

   News media, of course, have battalions of lawyers who can argue First Amendment protection, as The New York Times did in the Pentagon Papers case, when it was shown that the government lied to the American people about its Vietnam war progress.
   In this Internet Age, doesn't Snowden also have First Amendment rights? Don't we all? Hasn't this always been so?

   For centuries, as far back as John Milton's Aeropagitica, it has been argued that people have a right to question and criticize government policy.

   Perhaps more relevant is the idea that Snowden performed a public service in exposing government wrongdoing. The question then becomes, should he be punished for that?

   Or is the government seeking revenge?

Reading and Speaking

   Reading is a learned skill, but many folks -- including teachers, who should know better -- have not mastered the knack of reading aloud without sounding like you're reading aloud. As a result, they pass on to young students the same monotone or sing-song style used by those who do not switch to the speaking mode of reading aloud.
   Broadcasters read like speakers. Actors do it. Politicians do it. Those on the lecture circuit do it.
   It's not that hard. All it takes is a little focus on the idea that you're speaking to someone, and not mumbling through text you have never seen before.
   Children and others learning to read do so in a monotone because their focus is on reading, not on speaking. Once the first has been mastered, it's time to change the focus to speaking, with the same animation used in conversation.

   RANDOM THOUGHTS -- Speaking of focus, consider this: A trend is seldom visible at first look. Sometimes we see a trend only when we look off-center.

   "Most government problems are economic." -- Harry Dexter White.

   With all the warnings about distracted driving, texting, cellphone use and other technologies, some of us remember signs on buses decades ago that read: "Do not talk to driver while vehicle is in motion."

Go Figure

   The economy's improving, so Wall Street gasped in horror, dropping more than 200 points from the Dow after hearing that the Federal Reserve may trim its stimulus program.
   Whatever happened to the idea cherished by conservatives that government should not intervene?
   In effect, financial types are moaning, "We can't do it on our own. We need the Fed to keep supporting the money flow."
   The Fed announced on Wednesday that "economic activity has been expanding at a moderate pace," but unemployment is still too high and lack of government spending is restraining growth. Inflation, moreover, is running below the Fed's objective, so the central bank may pull back from its money-pumping program and let inflation rise a bit.

   Horrors! cried Wall Street, and investors sold off bonds as well as stocks, driving everything down.

   A few weeks ago, former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker warned that inflation is hard to control, even with the best of intentions. He should know; when he took on the job as Fed chief in 1979, inflation was 12 percent. When he left eight years later, it was below 2 percent, and interest rates had tumbled.
   Today, interest rates are at historic lows and inflation is below the Fed's target of 2 percent. But if the Fed pulls back from its current monetary policy, interest rates could rise, and that's what rankled investors.

   So the Big Question is whether inflation can be manipulated to control economic growth. Some Big Name economists say yes, and rising inflation can bring down the unemployment rate (remember the Phillips Curve?). Others say no, that inflation is a tiger that, once let loose, is well-nigh impossible to corral.

More on 12

   From across the pond, this comment on the "coded Christian message" of 12 stars on the European Union flag (see the earlier posting):

   When the EU flag was designed, there were only 12 member states -- one star for each member. To suggest anything more than that is nonsense. Perhaps the fact that there are 13 stripes on the American flag is some homage to the gods of misfortune. Historical reality, of course, is that there were 13 colonies involved in the American war for independence from Britain.
   Moreover, while some Christian churches make wide use of images, including that of the Virgin Mary, some groups view the use of images as idolatry and superstition.

   On the home front, we note that the use of 12 stars on the EU flag most likely refers to the original 12 states, nothing more. And the 13 stripes on the American flag refers to the original 13 states, and is not satanic, or devil worship.

   Remember the principle of Occam's Razor: When given the choice of two explanations for something, and each equally valid, choose the simpler. In this case, simplicity don't enter into it.
   Our correspondent notes that the reporter should have done some research into various Christian denominations active in Europe before making such foolish statements. And the editor certainly should have caught it.
   On the other hand, it's possible that the reporter saw an opportunity to show up the foolishness of the sources. It's been known to happen. But there was no attribution in the statement, so the blame falls to the reporter.

The Power of 12

   The New York Times reported that "Even the European Union's flag -- a circle of 12 yellow stars on a blue background -- has a coded Christian message," based on the number of stars, citing "Christian iconography of the Virgin Mary wearing a crown with 12 stars."
   Moreover, the secular European Union uses 12 stars on its coins.
   But the power of 12 predates Christianity by many centuries, and the use of the number is found in many other places.

   To start with, early math systems used a base 12, rather than 10 as is done today.
   There are 12 months to the year.
   There are 12 hours to a day, and 12 to a night.
   There are 60 minutes to an hour, a multiple of 12.
   There are 60 seconds to a minute, the same multiple.
   There are 12 signs of the zodiac.

   There were 12 tribes of ancient Israelites.


   Recovery programs list 12 steps.
   There were 12 pence to a shilling in English coinage.
   There are 12 members in a jury.
   There are 12 items in a dozen.
   In Ancient Greece, there were 12 Olympic gods, and 12 Titans.


   So to suggest that the use of 12 stars on a flag is "a coded Christian message" is to ignore a much longer, and wider, use of the power of 12.

   There is also a rock music band called The Power of 12. And one of Mel Brooks' more interesting films is titled, "The Twelve Chairs."

Priorities

   Consider this: The number of U.S. civilians killed worldwide in terrorist attacks in all of last year -- ten. So reports the U.S. State Department. The year before, according to the Washington Post, citing State Department data, the total was 17.
   In the past six months, 4,499 Americans have been murdered in gun violence. And that number -- two weeks old -- is already exceeded.
   In 2011 alone, the number of gun homicides in America was 11,101.
   In the past 25 years, the total of terrorism-related deaths in America was 3,487, according to johnstonarchive.net. And that includes the 9/11 deaths, which accounted for most of that total.

   You are a thousand times more likely to be killed in an auto accident than from a terrorist attack. You are 33,000 times more likely to die of cancer than from terrorism.
   So why, since so many more people die of gun violence and so few from terrorism-related incidents, is so little done about guns and so much about terrorism?

   Terrorism is, by definition, a terrible thing. Violent death from any cause is a terrible thing.

   It's time to rethink priorities.

Gun Deaths

   The U.S. is on track to match the number of gun homicides in Mexico in a year.

   Already, just six months after the massacre of school children in Newtown, Conn., there have been more gun deaths in the U.S. than the number of American troops killed in Iraq. Since Dec. 16, the day of the Newtown shootings, 4,499 people have been killed by guns in the U.S., compared to the 4,409 American troops who died in Iraq.
   During 2011, there were 11,101 gun homicides in America, according to data compiled by the University of Sydney and filed on the Web site gunpolicy.org. In Mexico during 2010, some 11,309 people died from gun violence -- double the rate five years before, and more than five times the number slain in 2002 -- 2,606 people, the study showed.
   In contrast, the number of gun homicides in all of Canada during 2011 was just 158, for a rate of 0.46 per 100,000 population. In the United Kingdom during 2010, there were 27 gun homicides. You read that right -- 27 -- for a rate per 100,000 population of 0.04.
   And in Northern Ireland, a region plagued by sectarian violence for many years, there were just four gun deaths in 2011, for a rate of 0.22.

   This past weekend in Chicago, seven people died from gun violence. In Camden, NJ, 67 people were killed by people with guns last year, for a homicide rate of 61 per 100,000 population. With a total population of about 77,000 people, that makes Camden one of the most dangerous cities in America.
   The people at the Brady Campaign report that each day, on average, 32 people are murdered by gun toters, making the U.S. gun homicide rate 20 times greater than 22 other similar nations combined.

   Aside from the loss of life and human achievement, it's been estimated that the cost to America in medical care, law enforcement, increased security and other expenses comes to $100 billion yearly.

   Those are the numbers to think about. You can ask your own questions.

And Around We Go

   American industrial production is holding steady, and using about the same capacity as in recent months, according to fresh data from the Federal Reserve. Output was unchanged in May after dipping 0.4 percent in April. But small gains in manufacturing and mining were offset by a decrease in output by utilities, the Fed said.
   Meanwhile, industry as a whole is using only 77.6 percent of its capacity, off a tenth of a percentage point in May. That's a tad (two tenths of a point) below a year ago and 2.6 points below its 40-year average.

   Translation and conclusion: Manufacturers are not increasing their output or expanding their ability to produce. Which means the demand for their products is not there. Which means they are not hiring. Which means unemployment is still a problem. And graduation days are upon us, which means the workforce is increasing, and more young people will be looking for jobs. But the jobs aren't there.

   And around we go.

Cloud 86

   Many folks are rethinking their use of cloud computing to store data, after revelations of U.S. government scoopers monitoring and analyzing anything and everything that anyone puts on the Internet. "Big Data" has become the latest corporate bogeyman to frighten users who worry about privacy.
   Europeans, especially, are taking a long look at their use of the Cloud, asking why the U.S. government should be sorting through all their Internet communications.

   Time was, people kept their own records and only those with direct physical access could scan them. Then came computers, and data storage -- especially in massive quantities -- became expensive.
   Then the Cloud rolled in, offering to store all your stuff for you, off site, so you no longer had to worry about using up your capacity and slowing your operations. Moreover, users could access all their stuff from anywhere, and only needed smaller, portable devices.

   But all those eggs in one basket comprised too tempting a target.
   So under the banner of the Patriot Act, fanned by anti-terrorism fears, the government became a super dooper scooper snooper, looking for patterns in the phone calls, emails, chats, photos and everything else people stored in the Cloud, all the while believing it was still their own and no one else could see it.

   Except, of course, the proprietors of the Cloud, who promised they wouldn't allow others to view personal files.
   Unless, of course, there was a court order telling them to let others in.
   And, of course, the court order was secret, from a secret court, mandating that the Cloud owners not tell you or anyone else about the secret order from a secret court.

   Secrecy, of course, is important.
   After all, that's why you stored your stuff in the Cloud, because they promised it would be secret.

   Of course.
   A secret is a secret, right?
   Unless it's a matter of national security. But who gets to decide what's a matter of national security, and needs to be secret?

   The Decider in Chief, of course.
   Who is the Decider in Chief?
   That's a secret.

   Of course.

Richer? Says Who?

   Americans are getting wealthier, says the government. The Bureau of Economic Analysis, part of the Department of Commerce, has come out with a new set of figures that show real income rose 2.7 percent in 2011, after adjusting for inflation. Before that adjustment, "personal income across America grew an average of 5.2 percent in 2011, after rising 3.8 percent in 2010."
   Income per person in 2011 -- adjusted for inflation -- was $36,500 across the country, an increase of 2 percent from the year before. Without that adjustment, per capita income nationally averaged $41,600.
   And, in this new set of data, which also measures price levels in states and metro areas, the bureau noted that the most expensive state was Hawaii, with a price index of 116.0, followed by New York at 114.3 and the District of Columbia at 114.2. The index puts the national average at 100.
   The figures were released Wednesday as a preliminary prototype data set, and the BEA said it planned to update the numbers yearly.
   The numbers show real personal income rising for every state, ranging from an increase of 1.3 percent in Mississippi to 10.4 percent in South Dakota.
   The numbers show we're all getting richer, right?

   Now here comes the but.

   What the numbers do not show is the distribution of wealth. As noted in other studies, including one by Prof. G. William Domhoff of the University of California at Santa Cruz, the top 1 percent of American households own 35.4 percent of all privately held wealth, and the next 19 percent own another 53.5 percent. So 20 percent of households control 89 percent of the wealth in America.
   Statistics are useful sets of numbers, and can be very helpful in forming policy decisions, both political and economic. But an average shows only  an overall trend for all Americans, and says nothing about distribution.

Net Worth

   For all the talk about hard times and a dreadful economy, it may be useful to step back and take a look at net worth in America.
   For households, it took a tumble during the Great Recession, but has grown over the past five years or so, topping out at $70.3 trillion in this year's first quarter, after bottoming out at $54.1 trillion in 2008. Just as a point of reference, the total net worth of all households in America in 2003 was $48.0 trillion.
   As for debt, which political types are fond of ranting about, it grew by 4.6 percent in the first three months of this year, a tad less than it grew in 2012.
   Federal nonfinancial debt grew by 10.3 percent in the first three months of this year. a slower growth rate than in 2012 -- 10.9 percent -- which was slower than the 11.4 percent increase in 2011. Granted, federal debt grew by 24.2 percent in 2008, but sign that off as a way for government to spend the country out of the Great Recession that began the year before.
   Meanwhile, state and local government debt has been fading. It was down by 1.7 percent in 2011, and down another 0.2 percent in 2012, but resumed a rise during the first quarter of 1.9 percent.

   So while state and local governments may be holding the budget line (they must operate on a balanced budget), even the federal government seems to be cutting back.
   At least, that's the impression gained from reading a summary of data from the Federal Reserve Board, released on Monday.

On Writing

   Writing has two main purposes: It is a store of information, and a way to transmit information. Moreover, writing is a means of communication that does not depend on instant reception, as does verbal communication.
   Memory, of course, also serves those two purposes, storing the knowledge of an individual as well as the cultural knowledge of the people. But voice communication, either spoken or sung, needs a listener. Writing does not, and can store knowledge far beyond an individual writer's lifetime, and transmit that information to others for many generations.
   Key to both, however, is communication, something today's writers should keep in mind. If your writing is so obtuse that your readers do not understand the information you are trying to transmit, you have failed in your mission: to communicate.
   Know your audience, whether they are readers or listeners. Listeners, of course, can make known immediately that they don't understand what your saying. And they need not actively say so. There is the MEGO phenomenon: My Eyes Glaze Over. Every public speaker, and most parents, have seen it.
   Keep in mind that readers get bored also. Your mission is to communicate. If they don't understand it on first reading, readers have the option of going back and reading a sentence or paragraph a second or third time. But they shouldn't have to. Don't make them. Broadcast news writers know they have only one chance to get their information across to the listener. Print writers should use the same approach.

Terrorized

 There is no privacy on the Internet.

  Members of Congress roundly criticize phone and Internet data collection by government spy agencies, after repeatedly voting for the program. Only when the program is revealed do they rant against it.
   Aside from the hypocrisy issue, there is this: Does it really stop terrorism?
   Defenders point to a handful of incidents where someone was stopped, but a couple or three arrests while scooping up data on millions of phone calls and many millions more emails, videos, chat room postings, and all else that flows through the communications system raises the question of whether the intrusion into the private lives of every American and all the other people around the world who are in the communications mix is justified.
   Government officials claim that yes, it is justified. Senior government security chief James Clapper told NBC News that it's "absurd" to charge the government with abusing the technology. Nonetheless, the government is considering criminal charges against the leaker for violating "a sacred trust" by revealing the program to newspapers.
   Marketers and market research firms as well as hackers have been using the Internet to monitor and track user behavior and preferences since Day One, so it's really no surprise that government is also monitoring and tracking what citizens say and do. The issue is, should they?

   As for the nation being terrorized, look around. Airport security check-in security with its baggage and body searches, office building cameras and recording devices, school lockdowns, government scooping and analysis of phone and internet communications, and widespread insistence that every individual must carry a gun, are all symptoms of a terrorized nation.

   So while so many people live in terror, that means the terrorists have won. There is little need to actually mount an attack. They need only threaten.
  It's like saying "Boo!"

   I don't know what the answer is.
   I do know that all the alleged anti-terrorist security measures are too much of an infringement on our individual freedoms.

   Unless this is a Full Employment Act for the security industry.

   Or, to quote Benjamin Franklin, ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”

   George Orwell was right. Big Brother is here.

Willy Loman Economics

No matter what it is, it's a good sign. The market is always wonderful.

Which is recovering, Europe or America?
There are four choices: The EU, the U.S., both, or neither.

   The U.S. seems to be in recovery mode, but even that is no guarantee that the economy actually is sound and on its way upward. The unemployment rate is basically steady, as the nation added 175,000 jobs last month. The jobless rate itself ticked up a notch, but that could be because discouraged workers have renewed their search.

   Granted, there have been good signs and omens. The Federal Reserve, in its quarterly Beige Book of economic analysis, reported that "Overall economic activity increased at a modest to moderate pace since the last report." And in its yearly report of state performance, the Fed said gross domestic product (GDP) "increased in 49 states and the District of Columbia in 2012," with durable goods manufacturing, finance and insurance, and wholesale trade leading the way. The only state that did not show growth was Connecticut, where GDP was off by 0.1 percent. The Fed noted that nationwide, GDP by state grew by 2.5 percent last year. North Dakota posted a roaring 13.4 percent increase in GDP.
   In the first quarter of this year, national output increased by 2.5 percent, according the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

   So the recovery may well be in place. But the question is, will it hold, or will it by dragged down by continuing stale performance in Europe?

   Taking a world view, consider this: If America leads, can Europe be far behind? That's based on an assumption, that America is destined to lead, and Europe is bound to follow.
   Not necessarily a valid assumption. In part, that assumption reflects arrogance among Americans and a willingness among Europeans to follow. The reality is that arrogance is found worldwide.
   Circumstance may dictate that, for now, the American economy is the largest in the world, but there is no guarantee it will stay that way. Other peoples have prospered in the past, and other nations have dominated -- if only briefly -- the world.

   Examples: Greece and Rome in ancient times, and others before that. Then Italy during the Renaissance and Spain in the 16th Century, followed by intense competition between England and France in the 18th and 19th centuries. In the 20th Century, that rivalry, complicated by the rise of a united Germany, led to two major wars that nearly destroyed them all. Meanwhile, Japan dominated the Far East.
   And all this mutual self-destruction left the U.S. as the dominant world power -- economic if not military -- as European and Asian countries exhausted their resources in war.
   But because their outdated infrastructures were decimated in war, nations had to rebuild, and in doing so updated and replaced their capabilities with new, more efficient equipment.
   In turn, this enabled them to compete more effectively with the purported winner, the nation that had been isolated -- separated from Europe and Asia by major oceans.
   Modern transportation and communication, however, have eliminated that security of isolation, and events that affect the European economy can easily infect the American.

   Meanwhile, whenever economic data reports are released, political types accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative. Many of them are like Willy Loman, the lead character in Arthur Miller's play, Death of a Salesman. The market is always great, and if any problems do show up, blame it on the other guy.

Small but Significant

   The Montclair, NJ, superintendent of schools sent out a note warning of bear "citings" after residents saw the youngster wandering through backyards in town, and near a school. Police and animal control officers were called, and the bear was soon caught and banished to a more rural area of the state.
   Meanwhile, a remedial spelling course is in order -- for the educator, not for the bear.
   Blaming the typist is no excuse, because the note was sent out over the school chief's signature, and thus was her responsibility. Moreover, the assistant to the superintendent of schools should also know the difference between "citing" and "sighting."
   Spellcheck won't help here, until the machine can be taught semantics.

Exceptions

Hypocrisy runs rampant.

   The federal government should not interfere with the private sector and states' rights are paramount, so in this best of all possible worlds, private enterprise can resolve everything, and all things will turn out for the best. So, feds, keep your hands off.

   Except when we have our hands out.
   Like when handing out $40 million to GlaxoSmith-Kline to develop new drugs, totaling perhaps $200 million over five years.
   Like handing out millions to the State of Alaska to build a bridge to an island with only a few hundred resident.
   Like handing out more millions in disaster relief after storms hit places like New Orleans, Florida, Oklahoma, the Jersey Shore and Long Island.
   Like sending federal Forest Service workers to deal with fires.
   Like handing out federal money to provide health care for low-income American citizens. But some states righters refuse the money.
  Apparently, the poor have only themselves to blame for being poor.

DNA and Privacy

   The Supreme Court has ruled that DNA testing is merely a way for you to prove you are who you say you are, and is similar to photographs or fingerprinting, used mainly for identification.
   In deciding that police can take material for DNA testing from anyone, without their consent, after an arrest for a "serious" crime, the court ignored the Constitution's Fourth Amendment prohibition against unwarranted search and seizure, as well as the Fifth Amendment ban on self-incrimination.
   In addition, the ruling did not define what a "serious" crime is, leaving an opening for police to expand their practice to forcibly take cheek swabs from those they arrest, and using that DNA profile not only to track unsolved past crimes, but to forward that profile to a nationwide database, so that even if that person  is later cleared of an offense, the data remains in cyberworld to be used against that person in the future.
   DNA testing may well soon become routine, as police pick up the the court's reasoning that the test is similar to photographs and fingerprinting, and used mainly for identification.
   But the reality is that photos and fingerprints are not invasive, and DNA tests have been used to track unfound or unknown suspects. Moreover, photo arrays are not definitive; witnesses have identified many innocent persons as suspects, and many have been imprisoned based on eyewitness testimony, which is notoriously unreliable.
   
   It is not the responsibility of the accused suspect to prove innocence. The prosecutor must prove guilt.

Dictatorship 101

Stay on message. -- Political campaign guideline

Politics is about control

Control the message, and you control the party.
Control the party, and you control the election.
Control the election, and you control the government.
Control the government, and you control the nation.
Control the nation, and you control the people.

But to control the people, you must control the media.
And to control the media, you must control the message.

   This critique is not aimed at Conservatives or Liberals, Republicans or Democrats, Management or Labor, Capitalists or Socialists. They all do it. In the politics of a dictatorship, it's called propaganda. In business, it's called marketing. Some are more proficient than others, and some are more obvious.
   The danger lies in letting them get away with half-truths and innuendos, as well as outright lies.
   Politicians regularly assail negative news coverage of their activities, especially when reporters expose ironies, inconsistencies and falsehoods in what politicians say and do. Why? Because they cannot control the message. Yet they must use a medium to transmit the message.
   Technology changes things. In the Information Age, it's easy to bypass the traditional print and broadcast media, and not hold press briefings where reporters ask embarrassing questions. Michelle Bachman recently did it by producing and posting a video announcing her decision not to run for re-election to Congress. That way, she had complete control of what was said, how it was said, and how it was presented.
   Keep in mind, though, that it's relatively easy to manipulate the news media. Savvy business and political leaders have been doing it for many years, employing experts in public relations to fashion and tailor the message to best advantage. It's even easier to mold public opinion that is already leaning in your favored direction.
   Consider also that news media do not mold public opinion so much as they reflect it. Or, as the philosopher put it in his treatise on leadership, find out which way the people are heading, and jump in front.

   Thomas Jefferson is reported to have said that given the choice of newspapers without government or government without newspapers, he would choose the former.
   That, however, was said when he was out of office. Once back in power, he signed and used the Sedition Act, which made it a criminal offence to criticize the government.