Responsible Learning

I can't learn you nothin'.
I can teach. Only you can learn.

Schools have a responsibility to teach.
Students have a responsibility to learn.

Education should teach how to think, not what to think.

   For too long, blame for poor performance by young folk, whether in school or on the street, has been put to parents. But to a large extent, the best that parents can do is set an example and encourage children, whether in behavior or in learning.
   Equally, teachers can provide information and insight, offering guidance to students on the road to education. The term itself, "educate," is from the Latin "to lead out." That is, to lead out of the dark, dismal swamp of ignorance (root: not knowing) to the high road of knowledge and understanding, using the bright lamp of learning and offering insights along the way.
   The best teachers are those who do just that, without demanding agreement, but urging thought and analysis as new information is added and blended with what they have previously learned.
   There are some, however, who are so bogged down in what they already "know" to be true that they are unwilling or unable to consider fresh information that might add to or contradict their preconceived notions. These who claim absolute certainty in their beliefs go to great lengths to force others to agree, and even to forbid any investigation of alternatives.
   The most harsh example of this is found among members of the Texas school book commission, the panel that approves textbooks for use throughout the state of Texas. And, that state being a huge market, publishers bend to the demands of these few and tailor their texts to get a stamp of approval from fundamentalists on the panel who insist on the teaching of "creation science" and who press their beliefs that Darwin was wrong.
   They are, of course, free to hold to their beliefs. But when they force these beliefs on others -- and since publishers rewrite their texts to sell in the nation's largest market -- their fundamentalist beliefs are rolled out to smaller school districts nationwide.
   Example: Members of the Texas school book panel do not accept evolution and climate change as scientific truth. Darwin, or course, was an ordained minister. There is little reason to believe Biblical stories necessarily contradict scientific observation. They serve different purposes. As for climate change, the issue is not whether it is happening, but how much humans contribute to it, and how humans can change their ways.

   The purpose of education is to expand knowledge, not to limit it. But like any skill, talent or ability, knowledge can be ill-used, mis-used and abused for less than noble motives. And the techniques of rhetoric can be used to propagate lies as well as truth.

   Marketing and advertising firms use rhetoric to sell products and services.
   Politicians use it to sell their candidates.
   Government leaders use it to sell policy.
   Educators use it to sell ideas.
   The best educators use it to induce good thinking.

   As consumers of all the above, we have the right and the obligation to choose, especially when choosing education. And the more we know, the better we can choose.   
   The right and obligation of responsible choice is ours.

Responsibilty

The Devil made me do it.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Half truths can equal whole lies.

   If everyone is required to have health insurance, purchasing it on the open market, companies will find ways to make it profitable. So why is the GOP bastion of private enterprise opposing a business opportunity?

   A  favorite tactic used by those who are losing arguments is to blame opponents for failing to grasp the truth and logic of their positions. They blame others for their own losses and failings. It's never their fault. It's always someone else's responsibility.
   It's a variation of the Big Lie technique. Say something long enough, loud enough, to enough people, while out-talking or shouting down those who disagree and eventually -- as people hear no other message -- they begin to believe it.
   Shouting down the opposition doesn't make what you say true.
   Chanting relentlessly a political position that favors a minority at the expense of the majority -- for example, "The people don't want health insurance" -- doesn't make it true.
   Moreover, news media share blame as they provide platforms for a mouthy minority to broadcast their chant without challenge.

   The techniques of rhetoric can be learned; they can also be abused.
   Half truths can equal whole lies, especially when important parts are left out.
For example, saying that UPS dropped spousal health care insurance, as Sen. Ted Cruz did on a TV interview program Sunday, is only partly true. The company did do so, but only for those spouses who are working and have their own policies through their own employers. The company can thus avoid duplication.

   As the nation hurtles toward a government shutdown at midnight, both sides blame the other for the pending disaster, claiming inaction by the other party is responsible for lack of a vote on raising the debt ceiling, approving a federal budget and funding national health care reform.
   Reality check: The health care reform measure was passed by Congress, signed by President and approved by the Supreme Court months ago. It is, in fact, law. Yet the House of Representatives, led by a small cadre of arch-conservatives, has voted more than 40 times to overturn it, knowing that such votes are futile. Even so, they hold the entire federal government hostage by refusing to deal with the debt ceiling and the federal budget unless they get their way.
   Some ransom demand.

   Here's something to keep in mind. The law stipulates that everyone have health insurance. But they are to buy it on the open market. Those who already have medical insurance policies, including those on Medicare and Medicaid, are not affected.    
   The problem with those who continue to talk long and loud long after the argument has been lost is that they antagonize others, who soon stop listening, and the talkers are marginalized.
   Except when the news media continue to provide microphones and cameras for demagogues. But that's what demagogues do; they are skillful manipulators of the media, and well talented in the techniques of persuasion.
   
   Universal health care does work, and is essential to society. To claim otherwise, holding the entire nation hostage just to get your way is irresponsible.

Knowledge and Wisdom

  Education leads one to acquire information. Wisdom is knowing what to do with it.

   Contrary to the elitist, aristocratic view that intelligence is genetic and innate -- a product of having smart parents, and only those of "good breeding" should be or can be educated -- there is a more widespread view that education must be available to all, with no regard to parentage, ancestry or wealth.
   We all know people who have attended college and acquired diplomas, but who really don't know squat. Or they have lived sheltered lives, secured by wealth and staff, and have not encountered the realities of everyday life.
   Being smart may help you get rich, but being rich doesn't mean you're smart. Many of the ancient Greeks believed that "excellence was innate, transmitted by heredity and reinforced by upbringing." (Richard Toye, Rhetoric: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2013) This aristocratic view was challenged by the Sophists, Toye notes, who taught that the art of persuasion could be learned by anyone. Unfortunately, the techniques of rhetoric were -- and still are -- misused and abused by those who will go to any length to win a debate, and the Sophists and rhetoric got bad reputations.
   Someone who graduated from both Harvard and Princeton may have shown a level of intelligence, in that he has the ability to acquire information. But wisdom is a different thing. Politicians should have wisdom first. Someone with intelligence will know that a tomato is a fruit, not a vegetable, but may not be wise enough to know it does not work well in a bowl of breakfast cereal.
   Democracy requires a knowledgeable, educated electorate. An aristocracy does not. So, to preserve its elite position, those of an aristocratic bent oppose education for those who are not of the same "class."
   This opposition may not be flagrant, but it's there, nonetheless, even as the so-called elite deny it -- at least not overtly. But deny it they do, by their actions.

Grasping at Principles

   Personal income is up, people are spending more and saving more. Prosperity seems to be showing its pretty head even as the self-appointed magistrates of morality rant on about bad government, and are willing to shut it down to "make government listen," as Sen. Rand Paul put it on the Senate floor.
   Data-trackers at the Bureau of Economic Analysis said personal income rose $57.2 billion, or 0.4 percent in August, and disposable income increased $56.2 billion, or 0.5 percent. Consumer spending, or "personal consumption expenditures," in agency-speak, rose $34.5 billion, or 0.3 percent.
   Remember the Silent Majority? Now we have the Mouthy Minority threatening to shut the whole thing down unless they get their way and the Health Care Law is overturned.
   Their  latest list of demands includes more oil drilling and approval of the Keystone SL pipeline, dropped regulations on greenhouse gases, canceling support for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and making it harder to sue for medical malpractice. If they get all these, in addition to delaying health care reform for a year, noted a New York Times editorial, House Republicans would be willing to go along with approving a budget and raising the debt ceiling. Otherwise, the government shuts down on Monday and defaults on its obligations.
   What are the consequences of this supposed effort to save money by limiting and canceling government programs? Important government services would stop or be severely limited, including health and safety programs, government bonds would default, resulting in higher interest rates, and the overall cost of a shutdown would run into the billions of dollars. But no matter. The Mouthy Minority is so convinced of its own righteousness that they must have things their way.  Make them listen, no matter the cost.
   And what would be the cost? The independent Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted that by a mere threat of default two years ago, Republicans cost taxpayers $1.3 billion, and the ten-year cost of higher-interest bonds would run to $18.9 billion.
   But no matter. Senior citizens might not get their Social Security checks if there is no money available. The military would be paid in IOUs rather than cash. National parks would close as rangers as well as thousands of other government employes would be put on furlough -- without pay.
  And, of course, if people don't have paychecks they can't buy groceries or pay rent or buy gasoline for their cars. Not that it matters, since they won't have jobs to drive to. The economic wave would drown everyone.
   But no matter. There is a principle at stake. And if others die for the principles held by the self-appointed magistrates of morality, so be it. Meanwhile, the magistrates can continue to rant, even as others suffer.

Number Joy -- Not

   You'll hear a lot about how new home sales leaped 7.9 percent in August, to 421,000 from the July figure of 390,000. However, the margin of error in the Census Bureau data is plus or minus 14.6 percent, which means there was virtually no change. In addition, sales in July were down 14.1 percent from the month before.
   So regardless of the salesman's joy of rising numbers, factoring in the range of error in gathering the statistics means that sales were flat all summer. But the good news is that new home sales were up from a year ago. Or were they? The August figure of 421,000 is a preliminary estimate, and showed a rise from the 374,000 of August 2012. Sales for the first six months of 2013 were well over 400,000 monthly, before dropping to 390,000 in July. So the August number will be touted as a recovery, but considering it's an early estimate with a wide margin of error, new home sales may still be zero change.
   The median sales prices of new houses sold in August was $254,600, according to the joint release by the Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the average sales price was $318,900. Those are, of course, nationwide numbers. Regional and urban sales figures will differ.

History Lesson

   We get the kind of government we deserve. Not always the kind we need, but the kind we deserve.

   Here's a history lesson for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a graduate of both Princeton and Harvard, who took to the Senate floor to denounce "appeasement" and compared current U.S. policy to that of Britain "in the 1940s." It was 1938, when then-Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain returned from Germany to announce an agreement with Adolf Hitler that would bring "peace in our time."
   Whether it's appropriate to compare President Barack Obama's health care program to Nazi appeasement efforts is another issue. At least get the decade right.

   Speaking of decades, that's a term that is regularly misused, substituting any ten-year length of time for a decade. Example: In a talk about Cher's singing career that spread over six decades, Kathy Lee Gifford enthused, "That's 60 years!" But a CBS Sunday feature noted that the length of her career was "almost 50 years."
   Here are the relevant years: Cher connected with Sonny Bono and first appeared on television in 1967 (decade one) and is still performing this year (decade six). But from 1967 to 2013 is just 46 years, not 60. We speak of the Roaring Twenties, the Fabulous Fifties, and other ten year periods that start with similar digits as decades. And while 1999 to the year 2000 involves two decades, the length of time is not 20 years -- much less two centuries.
   Check birth dates. For Cher to have been performing professionally for 60 years, as KLG suggested, the singer would have started at the age of seven. Not so. She was 16 when she met Sonny Bono, and 17 when she first appeared on TV.

Numb and Number

"Figures don't lie, but liars do figure." -- Mark Twain

   Math is a language. Like any language, it tells stories, and as with users of  any language, some are better at telling stories than others.
   Just as selective fact-finding can create misleading stories, selective data-picking can bring misleading conclusions.

   Pharmaceutical companies have long been criticized for not publishing research studies that do not support their preconceived notions of how effective a new drug will be. Instead, they bury the results of studies that don't endorse the product.
   That's a form of selective data-picking.

   Politicians hire sympathetic survey firms who contact only people of similar views, so results are skewed toward what the client wants. And sometimes the survey population is not diverse enough to yield accurate results. A classic example is the Chicago newspaper headline in 1948: "Dewey Defeats Truman."
   At the time, the survey was conducted by telephone. However, most households with telephones then were middle class or up, whose members more likely to vote Republican. Working class Democrats, however, did not have telephones, and were more likely to vote in the evening, after the workday ended.
   Market penetration by the telephone industry was far lower than today, when virtually every household in America has a telephone, even as landline phone use has dipped with the advent of mobile devices. In 1985, for example, only 0.1 percent of American households had a cellphone. Now, it's well over 90 percent, and many households have one for each family member.

   With that as background, consider some numbers and the stories they tell, often contradicting the laments by political types anxious to make the opposition look bad.
   The U.S. Census Bureau reported today that tax revenues for state and local governments increased 7.2 percent in the second quarter compared to a year ago, marking the 15th consecutive quarter of year-over-year growth. Tax revenue for the quarter totaled $382.2 billion, the bureau said, compared to $356.7 billion for the second quarter of 2012.
   Property tax revenue has leveled off, and brought in $91.9 billion, the bureau said, noting that this was not statistically different from the $88.5 billion a year earlier.
   Income tax revenue for states and municipalities continued to grow, up 18.2 percent, and sales and receipts taxes rose 4.2 percent, while corporate income tax revenue increased by 14.5 percent.

   What do these numbers mean? Add them to earlier data recently released, and we need to question whether the nation's economy is still in the tank, as some maintain.
   Corporations and the top 10 percent of households are doing well, and the unemployment rate is slowly sliding, even though the wealth of the lowest 40 percent of earners is lower than it was five years ago.
   Granted, there are more people eligible for food stamps, but that's because prices have outpaced their income growth.
   
   To use an accountant's favorite phrase to conclude the story, here's the bottom line: Look at the overall picture that the numbers display, and think of it like looking at a pointilist painting. Get too close, and the myriad of points is confusing. Further away, you can see a portrait. And that has to be shown to others, who will decide whether they and the nation are better off than they were five years ago.

Afghanistanism

 Afghanistanism strikes when opinion writers focus on problems in faraway places while ignoring controversial issues at home.  It started as early as the 19th Century, and use of the term may have peaked in the 1970s. when journalists began to take hard looks at the coverage of news and social issues.
   In its early form, editors and writers let loose serious-sounding tirades on what to do about conflicts -- military and otherwise -- in, for example, Afghanistan, a mountainous country about as far away from the writer as was possible to get.  The label was, and is, derogatory, aimed at those who wrote in high dudgeon on how to resolve conflicts of any kind, especially those that had little or no effect on the interests, needs or everyday lives of local readers. And the further away from Afghanistan the writer was, the higher the dudgeon in which he wrote.
   Sometimes, it was merely a ploy when the editorialists were short of ideas and had nothing else to write about. More to the point, however, it was safe to write about problems in foreign lands, ignoring local controversies which could bring criticism.
   But here's a criticism of the syndrome: There are, of course, problems in other lands, and they should be covered as news events of interest. But not to the extent that local issues are ignored, especially those domestic issues, problems and controversies that can and should be resolved.

   It's a matter of priorities. Which problems should be dealt with first? And in deciding that, it's clear that domestic problems are the ones that can be resolved -- if there is the political will to do it. Ideally, problems in countries as far away as Afghanistan can be resolved. But it's important to remember that the British Army could not control the tribes in the 19th Century, the Soviet Army could not pacify the mountainous region in the 20th Century, and America could not do it in the 21st Century.
   And that raises the question of why these nations intervened in the first place, if not to satisfy the egos and power struggles of politicians.

Throw the Rascals Out!

   Could there be a military coup in America? The possibility is so remote as to be unthinkable, unless someone raises a private army, and the possibility becomes at least thinkable, if not likely.
   There are at least two reasons. One: Americans are independent thinkers.  At least, we would like to think so. There have been occasions when large numbers follow demagogues and for a time a radical groupthink dominates American life. But these times don't last, even for demagogues such as Father  Charles Coughlin in the 1930s or Sen. Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. 
   There have been rare occasions when a single military leader inspired a loyalty strong enough to gather backing for a strike against the government, but these men had a higher loyalty, and refused.
   Dwight D. Eisenhower, a World War II general who later became President, warned of the military-industrial complex as he was leaving office.
   Douglas MacArthur, another enormously popular military leader,was ousted by President Harry Truman for crossing a line and disobeying orders.
   The Bonus Army of disaffected veterans could have been mobilized for a coup in 1933, sponsored by a cabal of industry leaders, but that plan was foiled by the general they tried to recruit to lead the coup and turn out President Franklin D. Roosevelt. (See "The Plot to Seize the White House," by Jules Archer, and "War is a Racket," by Maj. Gen. Smedley D. Butler, USMC, whom the industry leaders approached to lead the coup, but who instead infiltrated the cabal and exposed the plot.)
   As far back the 18th Century, Baron von Steuben, chosen by the Continental Army to improve discipline, lamented that in Germany, his home country, "When I tell a man to do something, he does it. But here, I must explain why, and then he does it."
  So independent thinking, despite occasional lapses into herd mentality, has always been part of American life.

   Reason Two is that there is a better way to trim the nation's leadership of its radical fringe. It's called elections.
   Every two years, voters have the opportunity to change the makeup of the House of Representatives and to modify the scorecard in the Senate. And every four years, the White House may get a new tenant.

   Meanwhile, there are extremists who plan conspiracies to overturn the government, but typically they are as small in number as they are in mind. They are, however, no less dangerous.
   In some countries, the military is also an organized political force. In America, it is not; the government rules the military, not the other way round.
   Even if the unthinkable should become an action, it's more likely that junior officers and the rank and file would ignore invalid, unconstitutional orders that would attempt to overthrow the government.

Twilight of the GOP

Got the dimmer ring?

   The lights may go out in government buildings across the country soon if House Republicans succeed in blocking attempts to enable Washington to pay its bills.
   Amid the operatic posturing and the chorus of chants claiming the American people don't want health care, conservatives are riding a wild merry-go-round, trying to grab a magical ring that will stop the health care law as well as government's ability to pay its bills.
   The Radical Righteous minority with the loudest voices are not fabled Valkyries riding to rescue heroes fallen in political battle. The House has voted more than 40 times to cancel health care for virtually all citizens, claiming that the American people don't want universal health care. What reality are they living in?
   Meanwhile, the Republican Party is abandoning compromise in its knee-jerk negativity to all things that do not conform to their own narrow view. Our way or the highway, the extremists cry. But a government shutdown may well mean they will be the ones on the road to obscurity.

   A military coup is unthinkable in America. But it becomes thinkable if military pay is frozen while those in Congress continue to collect their own checks.
   It can't happen here, you say? On the contrary, it nearly did.  Twice. And not in fiction, either.

Outliers

It's less crowded on the edges of the bell-shaped curve.
Welcome to the fringe.

   Statisticians are fond of scoring everything in numerical gradients, finding the average and the median in every set of results. When a set of scores can offer the average -- also known as the mean -- these results can then be displayed in a manner that shows how far each score deviates from the mean. The resulting graph then takes the shape of a bell.
   A simple calculation of the range of deviations can bring another average, or a standardized deviation from the mean. Within the bell curve, it turns out that 95 percent of all the scores display within two standard deviations on either side of the mean, which is shown as a vertical line down from the top of the bell.
   Medicine makers and physicians rely on this to assure patients that a drug works. They seldom note that for some -- the outliers, those who are not within the Great Middle of the bell -- the drug either doesn't work, or it works too well, with potentially serious side effects.
   Moreover, the medical profession isn't the only one to use the bell curve in analyzing results and effectiveness or in describing events.
   In any instance where number scores can be established -- whether in classroom tests or human behavior -- the bell curve shows up. Teachers use it in grading tests. Sociologists use it in judging behavior.
   Society has a strong urge to pressure members to "get with the program" and to "be part of the team." Some, however, the 2.5 percent on the fringes on either side of the Great Middle -- are quite comfortable in knowing they are not "average."

Smackdown

   JPMorganChase has been smacked with nearly a billion dollars in fines by regulators in two countries because of "serious failings" in portfolio management. Moreover, the financial giant has admitted wrongdoing.
   In London, the Financial Conduct Authority fined the banking giant some $220 million for breaches in its fundamental obligations made by the "London Whale" trader, as well as "failing to get a proper grip" on its business risks. "There were basic failings," said the FCA, "in the operation of fundamental controls over a high risk part of the business," and senior management "failed to respond properly to warning signals that there were problems" in its Chief Investment Office.
   In Washington, the Securities and Exchange Commission will collect a $200 million penalty as JPMorgan admits to the facts in the charges and that it violated federal securities laws.
   The Federal Reserve Board imposed a $200 million penalty for deficiencies in oversight, management and controls.
   And the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency said it penalized JPMorgan $300 million for "unsafe and unsound practices related to derivatives trading activities" at bank's Chief Investment Office.

   The bank had previously been warned, the agencies noted. And the investigation will continue.
   Perspective: In the second fiscal quarter, JPMorgan Chase had net income of $6.5 billion on revenue of $26 billion. For all of 2012, the bank posted net income of $21.3 billion on revenue of $99.9 billion.
   Do the math: The fines total less than 1 percent of its revenue for the year.

Wage Update

   With all the flap about pay levels and the minimum wage, here's a note of reality. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks hourly earnings, and reports that the average hourly rate for all employees on private, nonfarm payrolls is already over $10 an hour. So bringing the federal minimum to that level won't make much of a difference to buyers. The cost of labor is already factored into the selling price of a product.
   However, at the specific level of $10.30, that pay rate is only seven cents above the level of a year ago. Economic recovery may be helping the owners, but workers haven't gained any spending power.
   News item: Government is acting to include home health care aides in the minimum wage law, and to make them eligible for overtime pay after 40 hours in a week.
   Meanwhile, prices continue to rise. The BLS reported that the Consumer Price Index rose 0.1 percent in August, after increasing 0.2 percent in July.

Econ Pickup

   Encouraging words came from the Federal Reserve Board, with its projection that the U.S. economy will pick up to a growth rate of about 3 percent next year, and as much as 3.5 percent in 2015. In the second quarter, economic growth was 2.5 percent at an annualized rate, up from 1.1 percent in the first quarter.
   Moreover, the Fed expects the unemployment rate to drop below 7 percent (its target rate) next year, and to as low as 5.9 percent the year after that. Meanwhile, inflation this year will be as little as about 1 percent, and the Fed projects that it will remain below 2 percent for the next three years.
   However, the Fed's Open Market Committee said the central bank will wait for "more evidence that progress will be sustained before adjusting the pace" of its money-pumping.
   Even so, "economic growth will pick up from its recent pace, and the unemployment rate will decline," despite some downside risks to the economic outlook, according to the minutes of the committee's most recent meeting. And the Fed's monetary policy will "keep the target range for federal funds" at a zero to one-quarter percent interest rate as long as the jobless rate remains above 6.5 percent, the committee said.

   So things may be looking good for some, and while the Fed isn't exactly painting a rosy picture, there are some favorable shadings. However, as reported earlier by the Census Bureau, income levels for the Great Middle have not changed for two years, and are still 8 percent lower than before the recession began. The Gilded Goslings of the fabled 1 percent have recovered, and then some, but they alone can't send the entire economy flying.

The Blamekeepers

  To those who insist on blaming Barack Obama for America's economic woes, here's a reminder:
   The Great Recession began in  2007, more than a year before he was nominated.
   The financial meltdown occurred in September 2008, two months before he was elected.
   President George W. Bush took office in January 2001, with the federal government showing a budget surplus. Eight years later, when he left office, that surplus was gone and the nation was mired in deficit. So much for the conservative principle of pay as you go government budgets.
   However, reality seldom, if ever, interferes with the aims and preconceived notions of the radical political opposition. And now, as the fiscal year nears its end on Sept. 30, the Republican Radical Righteous are gearing up to cancel universal health care, even if that means shutting down the government.

   By the way, governors and state leaders are still fond of touting their accomplishment of a balanced budget each year they have been in office. True enough, as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far. In fact, it's a hot-air claim, since states have no choice but to balance their budgets every year.

Money Talks, But Who Listens?

   Money talks, the saying goes. And politicians listen, especially when money is talking directly to them, and helping to finance their campaigns.
   But there is another message that money brings to those willing to listen, and that is that despite the economic recovery of some businesses and the very wealthy, the folks in the middle are still muddling, with their income levels unchanged for two years. In fact, it's down from pre-recession levels.
   As noted here a few days ago, the top 10 percent of Americans own more than half the wealth of the country, and they have recovered quite nicely from the Great Recession that began in 2007. And the uppermost 1 percent control 20 percent of American wealth.
   But median income of American households has stalled, according to Census Bureau data released today. It's stuck at $51,000, unchanged for two years. To be exact, median household income was $51,017 in 2012, and $51,100 in 2011, a difference that the Census Bureau calls "statistically insignificant." Moreover, that figure is down 8.3 percent from 2007, before the downturn began in the latter part of that year.
  Meanwhile, some 46.5 million Americans -- 15 percent of the total population -- live in poverty, the Census Bureau said. By definition, poverty is when a family of four has income of less than $23,492. And the poverty level also has not changed in two years.

   Here's what was noted in this space August 23: At $10 an hour, the yearly total for a worker is $20,280 for a full 52 weeks, no vacation, and that's still below the government-defined poverty level. But the federal minimum wage is only $7.25, and many restaurants are exempt from that requirement, supposedly because their employees get most of their earnings from tips.

   What's to be done? Granted, raising the minimum wage would result in higher prices for many items, but competition and greater business efficiency could compensate for part of that. But increased prices at high-end restaurants would not elicit much sympathy for the super-wealthy 10 percent, much less the stratospheric one-tenth of 1 percent.
   A pay increase of any kind, no matter the source, results in a boost in spending, even if the worker devotes the same percentage of income to food, clothing and shelter. And a boost in spending helps to fuel economic recovery. Moreover, increased income among the very wealthy does not fuel more spending; rather, it sets aside more savings. And that helps no one. In fact, increased saving is harmful, because it counterbalances spending, and spending is what fuels economic recovery and activity.
   It's called the Paradox of Thrift. 

   So the way to come out of an economic downturn is spending. Republican officials knew that as the Great Depression began in the early 1930s, as they urged Americans to spend.
  Unfortunately, those in the middle class could not, and those in the Gilded Age would not. Therefore, if the private sector could not or would not, it fell to government to prime the economic pump through spending programs. And once things got rolling again, government could then cut back and leave spending to the people.

Metro GDP Report

   Most of America's metropolitan regions saw economic improvement last year, according to government figures released today. Some, however, posted only slight gains, with others at a slower pace than two years earlier.
   The Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis said 305 of the country's 381 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) grew, with the ten largest metro areas showing an average increase of 2.5 percent in 2012, compared to a 1.7 percent rise in GDP in 2011.
   The fastest growing large MSA last year was San Francisco, at 7.4 percent, followed by Houston, 5.3 percent, and Dallas-Ft. Worth at 4.3 percent. However, the nation's largest MSA -- New York City and Northern New Jersey, along with Long Island and the northeast corner of Pennsylvania -- saw growth of just 1.4 percent last year, down from a 3.6 percent boost in 2010.
   Other major regions saw only minor changes, indicating their economies were still struggling -- the Philadelphia MSA, for example, grew by 1.5 percent, up marginally from 1.2 percent some two years earlier, and Chicago, which posted a rise of 2.4 percent, compared to 2.1 percent in 2010.
   For a complete list of all the regions, with total output figures as well as percentage changes, go to: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_metro/2013/pdf/gdp_metro0913.pdf

Bully's Reward

   The best defense is a good offense.

   Never argue with fools. Because, being an intelligent person, you'll try to deal with them on their level. But on their level, they'll beat you every time.

   Words can hurt. Sticks and stones may, indeed, break bones, but words can hurt in far more insidious and destructive ways. And words can hurt forever.

   Bullies seldom fight alone. And they don't fight fair. If they did, they would run the risk of pain. The modern style of bullying is done in cyberspace, an even more insidious and harmful method. It offers the advantage to the bully of distance.
   On childhood streets, bullies have underlings in the gang who support them should the target victim be lucky enough to punch the bully in the nose, causing physical pain. This can be wonderfully effective, since bullies are very good at inflicting pain, but not at receiving it. They are, at root, cowards.
   Meanwhile, the target victim also has the option of walking away, or seeking the support of friends.

  In cyberspace, however, bullies can safely send out harmful and hateful messages day and night, with no risk of suffering a lucky punch in the nose.
   In both arenas, bullies succeed when the victim reacts. By acknowledging pain, whether physical on the street or emotional from email harassment, victims reward the bully's action, thus encouraging the bully to inflict more pain. That is the bully's reward.
   But by not reacting to the bully's barbs, the victim wins and the bully fails.

   It's easy for an outsider to say, "Don't let them get to you." Sometimes, the best defense is a good offense, and this can be done by ignoring the pain and exposing the tactic.
   An old saying in the newspaper business is, "Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel." In the Internet Age, the target has as much access to cyberspace as the bully.

   Expose the bullies for what they are.

Power to (a Few) People

   "There you go again." -- Ronald Reagan, during a televised campaign debate.

   Here we go again.
   The federal fiscal year ends in just two weeks, and there are signs that the GOP is going into reverse gear to shut down the government unless they get their way. And the hostage, again, is likely to be universal health care.

   My way or no way.

   Where is Mitt Romney, now that we need him? Why do we need him? To acknowledge that the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, was based on a statewide universal care measure -- also known as Romneycare -- that he engineered for Massachusetts when he was governor. As a result of that program, fewer than 5 percent of that state's residents lack health insurance. Moreover, on a national level, we need him to acknowledge that universal, government-sponsored health care can work. It works in other countries with similar cultures, and there's no reason it can't work here.
   It's an easy step to conclude that the rest of the nation also wants in on such a program, which is now becoming available. And that's one reason why Romney lost the election.

   Reality, however, has seldom interfered with preconceived notions of extremists, whether on the Right or the Left. Witness the House vote 40 times over to repeal the Affordable Care Act, knowing such an effort is futile. What's up with that?
   Compromise, though sometimes harmful, is what helped form America -- indeed, compromise is crucial to any democratic society -- and continuing compromise is what enables government to function. Without compromise, government ceases to function.
   Now, because of an obdurate few, we have a dysfunctional government.

Wealth and Power

"All animals are equal. But some are more equal than others." -- George Orwell, "Animal Farm."

"I may not be better than anybody else, but I'm just as good." -- The Unsinkable Molly Brown.

It is a fallacy to believe that rich equals better.

There is no place for a caste system in a democratic society.

   News item: Ten percent of Americans now control more than half the wealth of the nation, and the income gap is widening. Moreover, the wealthiest one percent recovered faster from the Great Recession than the rest of the people, many of whom have not only failed to recover lost assets, but are still losing as they continue to hunt for a job.

   Some believe the poor are poor because they deserve to be poor. It is the will of Fate. 
   By that reasoning, those who are born into poverty are there because that is their Destiny. Similarly, those born to wealth -- regardless of ability, intelligence, skill or talent -- deserve respect and deference solely because that is their station in life.
   But having wealth is not by itself alone reason for special treatment. Having wealth and power make you rich and influential. They do not make you a better person.

   "The rich are different from you and me." -- F. Scott Fitzgerald.
   "Yes, they have more money." -- Ernest Hemingway.

   But that's the only difference, and that alone does not entitle them to preferential treatment. -- Pug Mahoney.

Nicknames

Labeling others shows the arrogance of insecurity.

   Those in authority often bestow nicknames on others to stoke their own self-esteem -- or lack of it.
   When nicknames are given in affection and accepted in friendship, they can be a potent social bonding tool. But when a nickname works only one way, as when an authority figure labels others who are in no position to reject or dispute the label, especially when that nickname carries negative undertones, it can be resented by the target and demeaning to both the labeler and the target.

Willful Ignorance

   News Items:
   In Colorado, two legislators who had the temerity to vote for tightening gun laws -- more background checks on buyers and limits on magazine capacity -- were recalled and replaced by NRA favorites.
   In Missouri, legislators want to void federal gun laws and have local police arrest any federal agent who attempts to enforce them.

   The National Rifle Association's goal seems to be this: No gun controls of any kind, anywhere, under any circumstances, ever. A campaign slogan in Colorado was this: "Tell them your Second Amendment rights are not for sale!" Not sure what that means, but it sounds good, aimed at building support for the cause.
   In fact, it was NRA money that bought the recall votes, through a massive advertising and publicity campaign. So what's all this fuss about legal and government policy "not for sale"?

   Read the Constitution and the Second Amendment fully:
   It says nothing about a mob of disorganized rabble waving high-capacity assault weapons at whoever they choose.
   It says nothing about individuals buying, selling and owning as many guns as they want, every month.
   It says nothing about rapid-fire automatic rifles and pistols, or grenade launchers, mortars, cannons or any of that ilk. In fact, bolt-action rifles had not been invented. Most weapons available when the Constitution was written in 1789 were muzzle-loaded weapons, not breech-loading guns with rifled barrels that offered greater accuracy. Moreover, most weapons available at the time were notoriously inaccurate.

   The Constitution does say, quite specifically, in the Second Amendment, that "A well regulated militia (is) essential to the security of a free state."

   So the Colorado movement, supported by the manufacturer-controlled NRA, ignores the "well regulated militia" phrase in the Constitution.
   As for the Missouri action, this is a matter of "who's in charge." Are we to have a strong central government, supported by the various states, or a patchwork of separate states, with a variety of conflicting laws, each state acting as if they are fully independent nations?
   That's why the Articles of Confederation were abandoned, to be replaced by a Constitution and a federal system.
   That's why the Civil War was fought, to establish the strength of a central, federal government and to preserve the union. There were other issues, of course, including the matter of slavery as a source of cheap labor for the agricultural South, and the economics of being able to sell the cotton crop to foreign mills rather than to textile manufacturers in the North.
   For some, however, the issue of states rights has not been resolved, and the War Between the States isn't over.
   Consider this: Was it a Civil War, a War Between the States as it is still known in the South, or was it a struggle to establish the authority of a central, federal government over a disorganized gang of individual states.?

Blinding Faith

   "Sometimes the things you believe in become more real than the things you can explain away or understand." -- From "Brigadoon," by Lerner & Loewe.

   "May the Force be with you." -- From "Star Wars," by George Lucas, director.

   Some believe so strongly in the righteousness of their cause that they lose sight of fact, reality and fairness.

   Faith is a good thing, whether it be a firm belief in yourself and your own abilities, in the principles of a good society, or in a Higher Power, personified or otherwise, that can intervene in human affairs.
   Whether that Power can or should intervene is another issue. Some maintain that this Force is always in control of everything we do. Others, known as Deists, say this Entity cannot and should not intervene. Still others claim there is no such thing as a higher power, by any name. Even so, that is not the issue for today. Many people believe there is a Power that is higher than humans, yet takes an interest in human affairs. However, the point here is the extent of faith -- its value, its use, and its misuse by those who blindly follow their preset notions and beliefs, even as they ignore observable reality and the rights of others to follow their beliefs.

  Consider the conflict arising whenever religion or faith mixes with politics. Or when political beliefs are held with a religious-like zeal. This leads to an attitude that says, "Our way is the right way and the only way, and we will not listen to any who disagree, because obviously they are wrong. They are wrong because they disagree with us."
   That may sound like a simplistic way of putting it, but it accurately describes the behavior of the Radical Righteous conservatives and Tea Party activists who have become so firmly locked into their beliefs that compromise is impossible.
   Yet compromise is the oil that enables the machinery of a democratic society to function. Without compromise, the machine seizes and stops.
   
   In short, blind faith can be a trap.

The Great American Fallacy

Bigger is better.

   The fallacy shows up in American advertising, in sports, in speeches and in writing, and in choosing corporate executives as well as political candidates.
   TV ads tout the advantage of bigger capacity and faster speeds in communication devices, comparing the company's product with other aspects of American life, and using children to do it.
   In sports, two of the most popular games are basketball and football, where height and weight are important, and higher scores are common. Unlike soccer, where a player's legs need only be long enough to reach the ground, and where scores of 1-0 are common. In fact, some of the best players are less than 5' 6" tall, which gives them greater mobility.
   A recent TV commentator noted of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech that, "Incredibly, it was only 1600 words and took just 17 minutes to deliver." As if being longer would have made it better. Keep in mind that Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, another great oration, was less than 300 words.
   One of the reasons contemporary novels are so long is cost. Publishers need to provide larger books to satisfy buyers who feel the expense must be justified by length. But in wartime paper shortages, long books could not be printed.
   As for corporate chief executives, some 64 percent are more than six feet tall, but for all American men, only about a third exceed that mark. In the military, the average height of a U.S.  soldier is about 5'7", according to Army records, not much more than the 5'5" in the Continental Army of 1780.  Hollywood movie images not withstanding, the 19th Century cavalry units had a height maximum in that range. Reason: It was easier on the horses. 
   Very tall male dancers and actors are less successful, since the height differential to their female partners puts them  at a disadvantage.

   Sometimes, however, bigger is in fact better. If a man aspires to play professional basketball or football, a large size matters. But not for jockeys or swimmers.
   At other times, being untall in the business world can be an advantage. Consultants who stand 5'7" or less have noted that this is useful when dealing with corporate clients of 6'2" or more. Why? The tall clients don't feel threatened. That says something about the executives' sense of self-security.
   And there are far more menswear shops featuring "big and tall" sizes than there are for those who are untall. Check it out. Most shops -- and catalogs, too, for that matter -- feature sizes beginning at 44 Regular. The merchant's defense is often a claim that there are no buyers for size 38 Short. But they can't buy what's not in stock. Meanwhile, the shops are ignoring two sizes. Meanwhile, clothing for boys stops at size 16. Perhaps there is a hope that teenage boys grow at least two full sizes within a year.
   All of which is not to say big is bad, but merely to point out certain cultural preferences, even when they are founded on a fallacy.

Puzzlement

May you live in interesting times -- Ancient curse
The times, they are a-changin' -- Bob Dylan

News items:

   Big Data offers more information to Big Brother.
   An aging society makes monetary policy less effective.
   Older people are staying on the job longer in a weak economy as their retirement funds lose value.
   As seniors keep working, fewer slots are available to young folks, so unemployment is low among seniors and high among the young.

   Almost everything we do -- text messages, email, phone calls, and especially Internet searches and the purchases we make online -- are tracked, compiled and monitored by data collection and analysis operations that recommend to vendors who the most likely buyers are so ads can be targeted. The others -- communications of various kinds -- keep the super duper snooper scoopers apprised of what we're doing and who we're talking to.
   At the same time, as people get older, they get more careful about spending and saving money. So on one hand, Big Data helps vendors sell to young folks who use more types of e-communication. But as an aging population gets more careful about money, that can affect central bank monetary policy, making it less effective.
   News reports have described the widespread use -- and abuse -- of data collection and use, as well as its benefits and dangers. And a study released by the International Monetary Fund describes in detail how changes in monetary policy, including efforts to control inflation and reboot the economy, fail to bring enough leverage to bring about beneficial results.
   The working paper focuses on the U.S., Canada, Japan, the UK and Germany "to confirm a weakening of monetary policy effectiveness over time," especially on unemployment and inflation. Want the full copy? Here's a link: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=40916.0 

   Result: The economy is weak, older folks work longer and ignore policy pushes, young people are out of work so they can't afford to buy the stuff advertised on their devices, and Big Brother has more information with less use-value.

Belief is a Choice

"Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?" -- Chico Marx

   Belief is a choice, and there is always a choice.
   Ripley offered a choice: "Believe it or not!"

   When it comes to information belief, here are the choices: The New York Times and the Washington Post, along with other free press outlets; or the FBI and the CIA, along with other governmental and political types.

   Thomas Jefferson noted that given the choice of a government without a free press, or a free press without a government, he would choose the latter. This he said when out of office. As President, he signed the Sedition Act, which made it a criminal offense to criticize the government.

   Many believe it's unpatriotic to criticize the government. Rather, people should always believe what political leaders say. In practice, this is applied only by those who are of the same political party as the government leader.  Those in opposition parties regularly say, "He lies."
   You can't have it both ways.

   Premise: The President should be trusted.
   Conclusion: We trust him because he's the President.
   This is circular logic at its most basic.

Foisting phrases

Beware of Absolutes.

True as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far.

   In California, "Democrats hold every statewide elected office." Thus spake the New York Times in one of its news reports today.
   It's equally true to say that Democrats hold every nationwide elected office.
   The question to keep in mind is this: How many are there?

   In  some states, there are only three positions elected statewide: Governor and two U.S. Senators. If there is a Lieutenant Governor, make the total four. In states with small populations that merit only one delegate to the House of Representatives, that brings the total to a possible five. And if the state attorney general is elected, that makes a possible six.
   How many positions are there in California with officeholders who are elected statewide? (Don't include House delegates, because they are elected in districts within the state, not statewide.) You could look it up, but offhand, most likely there are only four, and if the attorney general is elected (many are appointed, not elected), that would be five.
  Political PR types are fond of foisting phrases that sound more important than they really are, and reporters are lax if they use these phrases without putting them in context. Unless, of course, the reporters are part of the team, which they should not be.

   As for nationwide elected offices, there are only two -- President and Vice President. But in practice, there's only one, since voters choose a pair. Time was, when the Constitution was written, the candidate with the most electoral votes became President, and the runner-up was named Vice President. That was soon changed, however, after the nation wound up with office-holders from different political parties.
   Using the term "every" makes it sound like a big deal. Often, it's not.

Jobs Update

Let's find some bright coins in the mud

   There's some more evidence that the recession trough is ending and the economy is beginning to pick up.
   U.S. employers added 169,000 jobs in August, as the unemployment rate held at 7.3 percent, according to the Labor Department. Also, the number of long-term unemployed held at 4.3 million; this is a drop of 733,000 over the past 12 months, the government agency said. It defines long-term unemployed as being jobless for 27 weeks or more.
   Other data were virtually unchanged from the month before. These included the employment-population ratio, at 58.6 percent, and discouraged workers. The number of those working part-time because full-time work was not available dipped by 334,000.
   So while some nations, such as India and Brazil, are still struggling, the U.S. economy may have finally bottomed out, and efforts to coordinate international economic policy may be gaining. As the meeting of top world leaders ended in Russia, combined words of praise and caution came from the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde.
   "Coordinated action has done much to stabilize the world economy," she said, but "much remains to be done to get the world economy working better."
   The world is changing, Lagarde noted, but "global growth remains subdued," and it will take work from both advanced economies and emerging markets, acting together, to keep things healthy.
   At the summit meeting, the Group of 20 nations voted to monitor more closely practices by multinational corporations that use foreign subsidiaries to avoid taxes.
  Meanwhile, there's a move afoot to crack down on super-large financial institutions, forcing them to increase their reserves and take fewer wild risks, since those banks deemed too big to fail have been a danger to the economy as a whole. Or, as someone once said, "If it's too big to fail, it's too big."

Trade Deficit Perspective

   No surprise. Americans spend more money importing stuff than they collect selling stuff to other countries. In a nutshell, that's what the international trade deficit is.
   It's more than just stuff, however. The total also includes the value of services.
   The latest numbers from the Commerce Department showed July exports totaling $189.4 billion in value, and imports of $228.6 billion, resulting in a goods and services deficit of $39.1 billion, up from a $34.5 billion deficit the month before.
   So how important is this deficit, really? Well, for one thing, the negative sounding word "deficit" makes for a fine talking point for the political opposition. However, it's good to remember that the U.S. has been running a trade deficit for a very long time, even as political administrations change sides. And somebody's making money selling stuff and services overseas, even as the people overseas sell more to Americans than Americans sell to them.
   Why is this? Americans have more money. The country is still the richest in the world, with a total output of $16 trillion, twice that of China, the second richest economy.
   Do the math. What's the percentage? it's quite small, so why are some folks shouting and moaning? The reality is that trade works both ways. You can't do all your business selling and collecting money without eventually spending. Otherwise, you wind up with all money and no food. Not a good idea.
   Just for fun, let's assume a monthly deficit of $36 billion, totaling $432 billion for a year. On a $16 trillion economy, that comes to less than 3 percent for a year.
   Besides, in spending money and buying stuff from others, you help to support prosperity on both sides. And this is as true with individuals and families as it is with nations.
   Granted, at some point, eventually, in the future, if trade only goes one way, one side suffers. So yes, if the U.S. continues to post an international trade deficit, it may in the long run catch up and cause a problem.
   But that's only one side. Mercantilist and colonialist capitalism had no qualms about profiteering and sending the colonies into beggary. As long as it was the colonies that suffered, and not the home country.
   In any case, that international trade deficit covers that entire world. There are certainly many countries where U.S. companies enjoy a surplus.

   Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve Board, in its latest Beige Book summary of economic conditions in America, reported that things continued to improve at a modest pace.
   On the whole, for American companies, things ain't bad. However, many other nations are suffering, and soon may be unable to buy American or make stuff to sell to Americans.
   And then everyone suffers.

Gotcha Journalism

Embarrassment is often the only tool journalism has.

   Those who are caught doing something embarrassing  deride "gotcha journalism" as a vindictive tactic, and they bad-mouth the reporters who write about their exploits. Truth is, they resent being caught and being embarrassed, and attack those who expose them.
   Consider these questions: Is "gotcha journalism" a bad thing? Is it poor reporting and irresponsible news writing? Is it unpatriotic to publicize the failings of a government? Is it counterproductive to reveal the machinations of business leaders who neglect or oppose fair treatment of those they employ?
   Is it "gotcha journalism" to broadcast an interview when a President says, "When the President does it, it's not illegal," as Richard Nixon did during an interview session with David Frost?
   Is it "gotcha journalism" to broadcast an interview when vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin displayed her ignorance while speaking with Katie Couric?
   Is it "gotcha journalism" to expose political leaders -- Governors and Presidents -- as womanizers who then evade and try to cover up their philandering?

   Or is it good journalism, to uncover the exploits, errors and misadventures of government and business officials and inform the public about them?

   A major duty and responsibility of journalism is to find, uncover and expose unfairness, incompetence and mistreatment at any and all levels of society, whether government, political, business or society in general.
   Some in the news business will cry "Gotcha!" as a victory cheer. They need not and should not. And the subjects -- the "gotchees" -- should not whine and complain when they are caught and exposed in their unfairness and incompetence. Rather, they should accept the criticism and their responsibility for their own actions and move on to better things.
   But that may be too much to ask for. Instead, the "gotchees" attack journalists as vindictive, unpatriotic, nasty, mean, and other things that are at least insulting and at worst unprintable.

   In fairness, it mst be said that some reporters go out of their way to embarrass officials purely for the sake of embarrassing them and then being able to gleefully shout "Gotcha!"
   This is not good journalism, since it serves no useful purpose.

Preachifying Truthiness

   Pounding out a message with a small dash of truth may make it sound reasonable and good, but the strategy is often meant only to propagate the goals of the speaker, which may not mesh with the needs and wants of the whole society.
   Preachifying uses the same techniques as advertising and marketing, and these are similar to the same principles used in debating clubs or by lawyers. The idea is not always to advance the truth, but to win the debate or to sell the product. As such, it is a game, with rules first set down in ancient Greece -- the rules of oratory and rhetoric, the misuse of which gave both a bad name.
   This need not be so. Honestly used, rhetoric and oratory are useful, honorable practices. Dishonestly used, they descend to levels described by Mark Twain: "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure." Twain also mention three kinds of lies: "Lies, damn lies, and statistics."
   
   Great orators are not born, they are made, accomplishing through practice the expertise needed to persuade. And as with any talent or skill, some begin at a higher level of ability than others. With practice and polish, they become masters of the craft.
   This is as true of oratory -- the art of persuasion -- as it is of music, drama, comedy, or writing. Techniques can be taught, and skill acquired. Expertise, however, varies with the natural ability of a person to acquire the techniques. And with oratory, as with singing, success depends on the quality of the voice. Anyone can sing, but few rise to the level of Jose Carreras, Placido Domingo or Luciano Pavarotti. Anyone can deliver a speech, but few have the power of the voice given to Martin Luther King Jr.

   There are skills at work in every profession, ranging from the cultural arts of music and drama to the more mundane occupations of sales, marketing, banking or finance. Moreover, these skills can be used to benefit society in general as well as for individual profit. Advertising and marketing can be used to bilk as well as to benefit.
   As for politicians, they use the traditional techniques of oratory, rhetoric, speechmaking and persuasion to advance their positions and reduce opposition.

   Caveat emptor.  Let the buyer beware.