"Who's that? Must be a king."
"King, eh? I didn't vote for him." -- Monty Python
The presidential campaign hasn't even entered the designated election year, and already it has taken on elements of a Shakespearean tragedy, reducing the competition to a level of personal attack unworthy of mature candidates.
Assuming, of course, that the candidates are mature individuals.
Rarely are policy plans and positions mentioned, if in fact there are any. Instead, the talk has been just that -- talk, coupled with warnings that any criticism, disagreement or attack will bring on severe counterattack, coupled with complaints about "unfair" treatment.
It's schoolyard behavior.
"Boo-hoo, that's not fair, you're not being nice to me."
Poor baby.
As if being nice was ever common in an American political campaign.
Disagreement over policy is routine in a mature society, where compromise is essential to progress. But an attitude of "my way or the highway" only leads to chaos, followed by dictatorship.
One candidate -- let's call him DeLear Tremens, since his behavior is like that of the Shakespearean king who went mad when those close to him disagreed with his demands -- began his campaign confident in all the glory that his previous success had provided. Anyway, DT's dreams of power, authority and his self-proclaimed ability to solve all problems if only everyone would do everything his way, dissipated in the swamp of competition, and King DT wound up a shadow of his former swaggering self.
It may be problematic to compare modern American presidential politics to royal retribution in medieval Scotland, and maybe it's just a coincidence that one of the candidates has a Scottish mother and owns several battlefields -- er, golf courses -- in Scotland.
In any case, overweening arrogance may be entertaining in a dramatic theatrical performance when it leads inevitably to the downfall of the arrogator, but when it happens in the real world, especially during a campaign for nomination to be President of the United States, the final act can only be tragic.
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
Sunday, December 27, 2015
Military Trust
The gun lobbyists argue that every individual needs a weapon -- whether single shot or rapid-fire assault weapon -- for self defense, up to and including the need to repel foreign invaders.
Apparently, they don't trust the Marine Corps, the 82d and the 101st Airborne Divisions of the Army, Special Forces troops, the regular army, or even the local and state police forces. Nor, for that matter, the ability of the U.S. Navy and Air Force to prevent a foreign invasion of, for example, Iowa, Kansas, or even Central Pennsylvania, much less coastal New Jersey, Manhattan, the Carolinas, the rest of the East Coast, or the entire West Coast. Not to mention intrusion from Canada, which has the world's longest undefended international border.
As if it would be an easy matter for an invader determined to occupy America to walk through Canada without opposition and march southward into the U.S., where, according to the gun lobby's playbook, a mob of armed individuals would suddenly transform into a "well-organized force" and defeat the invaders, while the Canadian military and Mounties could not, and the U.S. Marines and Army troops would also fail.
Therefore, the argument goes, every American must have a gun, as a patriotic duty.
Ignored in this scenario is the fact that throughout the United States, some 80 Americans die of gun-related violence every day. And the likelihood of a foreign invasion on the ground, either from Canada or Mexico, is somewhere between slim and none.
The defense of America is better left to the "well-organized militia" mentioned in the Constitution and organized by state and federal authorities. A foreign invasion attempted by any other country would have to be met first by Air Force and Navy personnel, and in the unlikely case of a landing, repelled by highly trained ground forces.
Armed individuals can't do it. Leave to the professional military.
Meanwhile, use your guns for the sport of target shooting or hunting. That's what they're designed for.
Apparently, they don't trust the Marine Corps, the 82d and the 101st Airborne Divisions of the Army, Special Forces troops, the regular army, or even the local and state police forces. Nor, for that matter, the ability of the U.S. Navy and Air Force to prevent a foreign invasion of, for example, Iowa, Kansas, or even Central Pennsylvania, much less coastal New Jersey, Manhattan, the Carolinas, the rest of the East Coast, or the entire West Coast. Not to mention intrusion from Canada, which has the world's longest undefended international border.
As if it would be an easy matter for an invader determined to occupy America to walk through Canada without opposition and march southward into the U.S., where, according to the gun lobby's playbook, a mob of armed individuals would suddenly transform into a "well-organized force" and defeat the invaders, while the Canadian military and Mounties could not, and the U.S. Marines and Army troops would also fail.
Therefore, the argument goes, every American must have a gun, as a patriotic duty.
Ignored in this scenario is the fact that throughout the United States, some 80 Americans die of gun-related violence every day. And the likelihood of a foreign invasion on the ground, either from Canada or Mexico, is somewhere between slim and none.
The defense of America is better left to the "well-organized militia" mentioned in the Constitution and organized by state and federal authorities. A foreign invasion attempted by any other country would have to be met first by Air Force and Navy personnel, and in the unlikely case of a landing, repelled by highly trained ground forces.
Armed individuals can't do it. Leave to the professional military.
Meanwhile, use your guns for the sport of target shooting or hunting. That's what they're designed for.
Thursday, December 24, 2015
Journalistic Competence
The good stories write themselves.
Journalists have an obligation to follow the classic rule of the Five W's -- Who, What, Where, When and Why, plus How. There is also a temptation to track the juiciest stories and the most noisy characters, because they're easier to cover.
In that sense many reporters are lazy, and smart politicians and corporate executives, among others, manipulate the media to generate publicity for their cause or candidacy. It beats spending money on advertising.
The Constitution guarantees a free press. It does not guarantee a fair press, nor does it guarantee a competent press. There are no government-issued licenses for reporters and writers, nor should there be. When government authorizes a license for journalists, it can also take away that license. When government issues a license to operate a printing press, it can also cancel that license. And when that happens, the press is no longer free.
Moreover, this freedom applies not only to newspaper publishers, but also to book and magazine publishers, newsletter writers, and to any who vent their opinions and distribute them, whether via hard-copy printers or electronic means.
Certainly there is good reason to license and control many things, including broadcasting, to avoid competitors operating on the same frequency; or medical licenses, to ensure competency; or real estate sales licenses; or licenses for operating machinery of various kinds, including automobiles, trucks, trains, construction equipment, and airplanes. And when operators prove themselves incompetent, their licenses can and should be taken away.
Gathering and disseminating information by news media, however, is entirely different, because licensing those who do it means controlling them and censoring what they do.
At the same time, there is such a thing as false advertising, which is actionable.
Finally, media types have a moral obligation to be fair and accurate. And except for libel, there is no legal obligation to be either. Opinions and comments, especially about public figures, often cross into territory that would otherwise be libelous when printed about so-called ordinary citizens who are not in the public eye.
Political candidates, in the heat of a campaign, utter half-truths, falsehoods and flat-out lies almost every day, and the news media dutifully print their rantings, as well as responses from opponents and clarifications from fact-checkers.
All in all, it's a messy system, but it's better than government licensing and control of information.
"Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of the press." -- U.S. Constitution, First Amendment
Journalists have an obligation to follow the classic rule of the Five W's -- Who, What, Where, When and Why, plus How. There is also a temptation to track the juiciest stories and the most noisy characters, because they're easier to cover.
In that sense many reporters are lazy, and smart politicians and corporate executives, among others, manipulate the media to generate publicity for their cause or candidacy. It beats spending money on advertising.
The Constitution guarantees a free press. It does not guarantee a fair press, nor does it guarantee a competent press. There are no government-issued licenses for reporters and writers, nor should there be. When government authorizes a license for journalists, it can also take away that license. When government issues a license to operate a printing press, it can also cancel that license. And when that happens, the press is no longer free.
Moreover, this freedom applies not only to newspaper publishers, but also to book and magazine publishers, newsletter writers, and to any who vent their opinions and distribute them, whether via hard-copy printers or electronic means.
Certainly there is good reason to license and control many things, including broadcasting, to avoid competitors operating on the same frequency; or medical licenses, to ensure competency; or real estate sales licenses; or licenses for operating machinery of various kinds, including automobiles, trucks, trains, construction equipment, and airplanes. And when operators prove themselves incompetent, their licenses can and should be taken away.
Gathering and disseminating information by news media, however, is entirely different, because licensing those who do it means controlling them and censoring what they do.
At the same time, there is such a thing as false advertising, which is actionable.
Finally, media types have a moral obligation to be fair and accurate. And except for libel, there is no legal obligation to be either. Opinions and comments, especially about public figures, often cross into territory that would otherwise be libelous when printed about so-called ordinary citizens who are not in the public eye.
Political candidates, in the heat of a campaign, utter half-truths, falsehoods and flat-out lies almost every day, and the news media dutifully print their rantings, as well as responses from opponents and clarifications from fact-checkers.
All in all, it's a messy system, but it's better than government licensing and control of information.
"Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of the press." -- U.S. Constitution, First Amendment
Tuesday, December 22, 2015
Economic Trumpedo
We're doing well.
That's what you say. Obviously, you haven't been in a grocery store recently.
The American economy continued a recovery of sorts in the third quarter, as output grew by 2 percent, according to the third estimate by the Commerce Department. Separately, an independent analysis of GOP candidate Donald Trump's tax plan would give the biggest benefits to the wealthiest Americans as it cut federal revenues by $9.5 trillion, offsetting perhaps all of the tax cut incentives and increasing the national debt by nearly 80 percent to as much as triple its ratio of debt to GDP.
Result: A likely crashing return to hard times.
Meanwhile, the economy seems healthy, if not robust. The third quarter growth rate was roughly the same as the second estimate of 2.1 percent. It was down, however, from the 3.9 percent growth rate in the second quarter. The increase largely reflected increased confidence throughout the country, as consumer spending, investment, and state and local spending rose.
Realistically, economic growth was about half the rate it was earlier in the year, but the growth seemed to support last week's attempt by the Federal Reserve Board to tap the brakes slightly by raising interest rates as a way to prevent overheating of the economy.
Whether the economy will withstand the Fed's brake-tapping, or will slip-side into a trench because of it remains an open question. Even the Fed itself put cautionary warnings into its announcement, noting that it would monitor domestic and especially international developments closely, and might even revert to its near-zero rates. However, lenders have already kicked up their charges, and whether they retract their hikes is also an open question.
Meanwhile, other government data point to stagnant wages, and grocery shoppers are already complaining about steadily rising prices. Add to that the trillions of dollars in new debt the government would incur from the tax code revisions proposed by Trump, and the nation faces a huge economic torpedo.
That's what you say. Obviously, you haven't been in a grocery store recently.
The American economy continued a recovery of sorts in the third quarter, as output grew by 2 percent, according to the third estimate by the Commerce Department. Separately, an independent analysis of GOP candidate Donald Trump's tax plan would give the biggest benefits to the wealthiest Americans as it cut federal revenues by $9.5 trillion, offsetting perhaps all of the tax cut incentives and increasing the national debt by nearly 80 percent to as much as triple its ratio of debt to GDP.
Result: A likely crashing return to hard times.
Meanwhile, the economy seems healthy, if not robust. The third quarter growth rate was roughly the same as the second estimate of 2.1 percent. It was down, however, from the 3.9 percent growth rate in the second quarter. The increase largely reflected increased confidence throughout the country, as consumer spending, investment, and state and local spending rose.
Realistically, economic growth was about half the rate it was earlier in the year, but the growth seemed to support last week's attempt by the Federal Reserve Board to tap the brakes slightly by raising interest rates as a way to prevent overheating of the economy.
Whether the economy will withstand the Fed's brake-tapping, or will slip-side into a trench because of it remains an open question. Even the Fed itself put cautionary warnings into its announcement, noting that it would monitor domestic and especially international developments closely, and might even revert to its near-zero rates. However, lenders have already kicked up their charges, and whether they retract their hikes is also an open question.
Meanwhile, other government data point to stagnant wages, and grocery shoppers are already complaining about steadily rising prices. Add to that the trillions of dollars in new debt the government would incur from the tax code revisions proposed by Trump, and the nation faces a huge economic torpedo.
Monday, December 21, 2015
Poll Positions
The only poll that really counts is the one on Election Day.
Polls are useful things, and when conducted by responsible agencies using proven techniques, they can show trends. But it's important to remember that a poll is only a sample, a brief survey of a small portion of the entire population.
Moreover, the answers pollsters get can depend on how they phrase their questions, and the quality of an answer depends on who is being asked.
For example, if the pool of respondents comprises only Republicans, the poll leaves out independents, who also may be able to vote in a primary election. If the poll includes those who are not likely to vote at all, you will get a different set of answers. Moreover, some will respond with the first name that comes to mind, and that could be the candidate who has been getting the most news coverage.
Even the better pollsters, those unaffiliated with a political party or advocacy group, acknowledge a margin of error, which can mean any two leaders may be even, or trade places for the lead.
Meanwhile, candidates can tout the results of one poll's numbers that favor them, and ignore others.
Such a claim can be true, as far as it goes, except that it doesn't go very far, and this amounts to selective truth-telling. Moreover, if an opponent cites alternate polls, or an alternate reading of the same poll, or even mentions the margin of error in the touted poll, an aggrieved candidate will cry "foul!" and accuse the opponent of at least selective truth-telling, if not outright, under-handed manipulation.
Thus, both sides will be guilty of the same charges they sling at each other.
So what's a voter to do, hearing the poll cats snarl innuendo and duplicity, when it's clear that none of the candidates speak the full truth? That's when journalism steps in, reporting not only what each candidate claims, but also detailing facts that contradict the bluster. Last call comes on Election Day, when voters decide who speaks truth.
Polls are useful things, and when conducted by responsible agencies using proven techniques, they can show trends. But it's important to remember that a poll is only a sample, a brief survey of a small portion of the entire population.
Moreover, the answers pollsters get can depend on how they phrase their questions, and the quality of an answer depends on who is being asked.
For example, if the pool of respondents comprises only Republicans, the poll leaves out independents, who also may be able to vote in a primary election. If the poll includes those who are not likely to vote at all, you will get a different set of answers. Moreover, some will respond with the first name that comes to mind, and that could be the candidate who has been getting the most news coverage.
Even the better pollsters, those unaffiliated with a political party or advocacy group, acknowledge a margin of error, which can mean any two leaders may be even, or trade places for the lead.
Meanwhile, candidates can tout the results of one poll's numbers that favor them, and ignore others.
Such a claim can be true, as far as it goes, except that it doesn't go very far, and this amounts to selective truth-telling. Moreover, if an opponent cites alternate polls, or an alternate reading of the same poll, or even mentions the margin of error in the touted poll, an aggrieved candidate will cry "foul!" and accuse the opponent of at least selective truth-telling, if not outright, under-handed manipulation.
Thus, both sides will be guilty of the same charges they sling at each other.
So what's a voter to do, hearing the poll cats snarl innuendo and duplicity, when it's clear that none of the candidates speak the full truth? That's when journalism steps in, reporting not only what each candidate claims, but also detailing facts that contradict the bluster. Last call comes on Election Day, when voters decide who speaks truth.
Thursday, December 17, 2015
The Fed Decides
For the first time since 2007, the U.S. central bank acted to push interest rates up, raising its target rate for federal funds by just a quarter-point, to 0.5 percent. In a statement released today, the Fed said "there has been considerable improvement in labor market conditions this year, and it is reasonably confident that inflation will rise, over the medium term, to its 2 percent objective."
However, the Fed recognized that it takes time for policy action to affect the economy, and it used this to help justify the rate increase. It will continue to watch carefully future developments, expecting that the economy will continue to improve only gradually, with the federal funds target rate "likely to remain, for some time," below long-run levels.
Moreover, "financial and international developments," the Fed said, will play a major role in future interest rate decisions.
So a bit of inflation is OK, according to the Fed's current thinking, and for now, prices generally are rising by less than the 2 percent rate that the central bank deems acceptable.
However, the Fed recognized that it takes time for policy action to affect the economy, and it used this to help justify the rate increase. It will continue to watch carefully future developments, expecting that the economy will continue to improve only gradually, with the federal funds target rate "likely to remain, for some time," below long-run levels.
Moreover, "financial and international developments," the Fed said, will play a major role in future interest rate decisions.
So a bit of inflation is OK, according to the Fed's current thinking, and for now, prices generally are rising by less than the 2 percent rate that the central bank deems acceptable.
Wishful Watching
People see what they look for.
Seek and ye shall find.
"Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it." -- George Santayana
For all the cheering that greeted the Federal Reserve Board's move to kick up interest rates, there were some hints that future economic performance could easily trip over international rocks in the road to recovery.
There are two ways to read the Fed's move. One is to focus on a vote of confidence in the U.S. as a stand-alone economy immune to international variables. Another is to trust the growth signs but keep a wary eye on the world economy and the U.S. as a major player and part of a team.
Consider this: Isolationism not only doesn't work, it is doomed to failure. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 not only failed to rescue America from the economic doldrums of the Great Depression, but retaliatory measures by other trading nations worsened an already dire problem, and sent the world deeper into an economic pit.
Read the U.S. central bank's announcement closely, and you will see caution -- the Fed vowed to monitor world reaction and to stand ready to retreat from its tighter move of this week and to ease its key interest rate back to its seven-year-old near-zero target.
Look at it this way. A boost in the target range of only a quarter-point will take a long time to have any good effect, the Fed noted, and if the negative effect -- which is possible -- hits too hard, too soon, the central bank will return to its near zero rate for federal funds.
At the same time, commercial lenders have been quick to hike the rates they charge borrowers -- the prime rate, available to the most credit-worthy firms, was boosted within hours of the Fed announcement. But these same financial institutions may well be quite slow to lower the price they charge if the Fed returns to its easy money window.
So who benefits? Lenders.
Who suffers? Consumers, as their borrowing cost fails to go back down.
Profits to the financial sector will remain high, and consumers will be squeezed even more tightly.
With luck, of course, the world economy will recover more rapidly and the U.S. will benefit by leading the pack. If not, America will be stranded, with no one able to buy its export products.
Can the U.S. go it alone? Right-wing isolationists say yes, certainly, of course, it's America's destiny.
Those who live in the real world know better.
Seek and ye shall find.
"Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it." -- George Santayana
For all the cheering that greeted the Federal Reserve Board's move to kick up interest rates, there were some hints that future economic performance could easily trip over international rocks in the road to recovery.
There are two ways to read the Fed's move. One is to focus on a vote of confidence in the U.S. as a stand-alone economy immune to international variables. Another is to trust the growth signs but keep a wary eye on the world economy and the U.S. as a major player and part of a team.
Consider this: Isolationism not only doesn't work, it is doomed to failure. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 not only failed to rescue America from the economic doldrums of the Great Depression, but retaliatory measures by other trading nations worsened an already dire problem, and sent the world deeper into an economic pit.
Read the U.S. central bank's announcement closely, and you will see caution -- the Fed vowed to monitor world reaction and to stand ready to retreat from its tighter move of this week and to ease its key interest rate back to its seven-year-old near-zero target.
Look at it this way. A boost in the target range of only a quarter-point will take a long time to have any good effect, the Fed noted, and if the negative effect -- which is possible -- hits too hard, too soon, the central bank will return to its near zero rate for federal funds.
At the same time, commercial lenders have been quick to hike the rates they charge borrowers -- the prime rate, available to the most credit-worthy firms, was boosted within hours of the Fed announcement. But these same financial institutions may well be quite slow to lower the price they charge if the Fed returns to its easy money window.
So who benefits? Lenders.
Who suffers? Consumers, as their borrowing cost fails to go back down.
Profits to the financial sector will remain high, and consumers will be squeezed even more tightly.
With luck, of course, the world economy will recover more rapidly and the U.S. will benefit by leading the pack. If not, America will be stranded, with no one able to buy its export products.
Can the U.S. go it alone? Right-wing isolationists say yes, certainly, of course, it's America's destiny.
Those who live in the real world know better.
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
Leaping Lucre, Batman!
Prices rise to absorb the amount of money available.
Industrial production is down and new home construction is flat, according to government data released today.
Meanwhile, medical care costs are rising, despite a major increase in the number of Americans purchasing health insurance. The industry defends their rising rates by citing the increase in the number of people seeking care. But that's contrary to the concept that the more people contribute to the funding, the lower the risk to the company. Therefore, premiums can be lower.
However, premiums are leaping, and the industry insists that's because their costs are rising. One reason could be that health care providers are raising their fees as they become more confident that they will be paid. That reflects a widespread attitude of confidence that "the insurance will pay," so they seek more treatment.
Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies also boost their prices -- some to egregious levels -- simply because they can. They charge what the market will bear, and there are few controls to rein them in.
All this on a day when the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee meets to consider the state of the economy, and perhaps hike a key interest rate to take away the punch just when the party is getting under way.
Data: Privately owned housing starts in November rose by 10.5 percent from October estimate, the Census Bureau reported. However, the October number reflected a 12 percent drop in construction, and the agency added a caveat that it "does not have sufficient statistical evidence to conclude that the actual change is different from zero."
Separately, the Federal Reserve said industrial production declined again in November, down 0.6 percent, following a 0.4 percent dip in October. In addition, manufacturing was unchanged. Other numbers were also down, with total industrial production in November 1.2 percent below its level a year ago.
As the money supply increases, prices rise. In effect, that's a definition of inflation. Many equate rising prices with inflation, believing that higher prices cause inflation. Actually, it's the other way around. As the money supply is inflated, prices rise to absorb the amount of money available.
However, as prices rise but wages do not, consumers are caught in the squeeze, and industry responds by cutting back production to maintain prices and profits.
All of which raises a big question: Why hit the brakes when the economy is barely cruising?
We'll have the Fed's answer tomorrow.
Industrial production is down and new home construction is flat, according to government data released today.
Meanwhile, medical care costs are rising, despite a major increase in the number of Americans purchasing health insurance. The industry defends their rising rates by citing the increase in the number of people seeking care. But that's contrary to the concept that the more people contribute to the funding, the lower the risk to the company. Therefore, premiums can be lower.
However, premiums are leaping, and the industry insists that's because their costs are rising. One reason could be that health care providers are raising their fees as they become more confident that they will be paid. That reflects a widespread attitude of confidence that "the insurance will pay," so they seek more treatment.
Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies also boost their prices -- some to egregious levels -- simply because they can. They charge what the market will bear, and there are few controls to rein them in.
All this on a day when the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee meets to consider the state of the economy, and perhaps hike a key interest rate to take away the punch just when the party is getting under way.
Data: Privately owned housing starts in November rose by 10.5 percent from October estimate, the Census Bureau reported. However, the October number reflected a 12 percent drop in construction, and the agency added a caveat that it "does not have sufficient statistical evidence to conclude that the actual change is different from zero."
Separately, the Federal Reserve said industrial production declined again in November, down 0.6 percent, following a 0.4 percent dip in October. In addition, manufacturing was unchanged. Other numbers were also down, with total industrial production in November 1.2 percent below its level a year ago.
As the money supply increases, prices rise. In effect, that's a definition of inflation. Many equate rising prices with inflation, believing that higher prices cause inflation. Actually, it's the other way around. As the money supply is inflated, prices rise to absorb the amount of money available.
However, as prices rise but wages do not, consumers are caught in the squeeze, and industry responds by cutting back production to maintain prices and profits.
All of which raises a big question: Why hit the brakes when the economy is barely cruising?
We'll have the Fed's answer tomorrow.
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
Orwell Weeps
Big Brother watched the GOP debate this evening, and he was very happy.
Republican candidate Carly Fiorina defended government surveillance of Internet traffic by pointing out that companies do it now, and parents do it now, tracking the activities of employees and children.
Reminder: Employees are not children.
She also proposed that the FBI "ask" technology firms to help them monitor Internet traffic, and added that the private sector would cooperate.
Reminder: No encryption means no privacy.
Other candidates endorsed the practice of bulk data collection by government, as its agents monitor all Internet activity and check all email messages and telephone records as part of efforts to snare potential terrorists.
And the currently leading candidate, Donald Trump, referred to "our Internet," as if Americans invented it, and therefore the U.S. is entitled to monitor all traffic worldwide. Fact: The concept of an open World Wide Web of an interconnected network of computers (Internet) was developed by Timothy John Berners-Lee, an English computer engineer, who insisted that it remain fully open, with no central control.
George Orwell must be shaking his ghostly head in despondency at the proposals that there be no encryption, and therefore no privacy, of messages or researches traveling on the Internet. His book, "1984", was published in 1948, and warned of the dangers of extensive, if not total, government control. We are now 30 years past the book's title date, and many of the predictions are well on their way to reality.
The positions endorsed by the right-wing candidates amount to censorship, in clear violation of the right of free speech and communication that all are born with, and are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
Republican candidate Carly Fiorina defended government surveillance of Internet traffic by pointing out that companies do it now, and parents do it now, tracking the activities of employees and children.
Reminder: Employees are not children.
She also proposed that the FBI "ask" technology firms to help them monitor Internet traffic, and added that the private sector would cooperate.
Reminder: No encryption means no privacy.
Other candidates endorsed the practice of bulk data collection by government, as its agents monitor all Internet activity and check all email messages and telephone records as part of efforts to snare potential terrorists.
And the currently leading candidate, Donald Trump, referred to "our Internet," as if Americans invented it, and therefore the U.S. is entitled to monitor all traffic worldwide. Fact: The concept of an open World Wide Web of an interconnected network of computers (Internet) was developed by Timothy John Berners-Lee, an English computer engineer, who insisted that it remain fully open, with no central control.
George Orwell must be shaking his ghostly head in despondency at the proposals that there be no encryption, and therefore no privacy, of messages or researches traveling on the Internet. His book, "1984", was published in 1948, and warned of the dangers of extensive, if not total, government control. We are now 30 years past the book's title date, and many of the predictions are well on their way to reality.
The positions endorsed by the right-wing candidates amount to censorship, in clear violation of the right of free speech and communication that all are born with, and are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
Monday, December 14, 2015
Rating a Rise
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Key members of the U.S. Federal Reserve Board meet this week to discuss the state of the economy and decide whether to boost a key interest rate as the economy recovers. And many economic journalists and financial analysts predict the Fed's Open Market Committee will do just that, by perhaps a quarter of a point.
Investors no doubt will be happy with an increase in the cost of borrowing money, since their stock in financial institutions will bring higher yields. But higher interest rates can also bring higher costs of production, which means higher prices, and a higher cost of living even as wages and family income lag other increases.
As it is, the Social Security Administration, relying on Department of Labor statistics, will not provide a cost of living increase to pensioners next month, since the data indicate that the cost of living did not rise over the past year.
Meanwhile, other economies among America's major trading partners continue to struggle, so any attempt to brake the U.S. growth rate, lest it get too rapid, could well cause a skid in its own economic engine and bring more problems than it is meant to solve.
Sounds complicated? It isn't, really. America's recovery from the Great Recession, which ended in 2008, has been quite slow, but steady, even as other nations struggled to stave off a double-dip recession. Applying the brakes too soon can easily bring a second dive in America.
It has happened before, most notably in 1937. The Fed backed off from its support of the economy during the Great Depression, and the country immediately stumbled, not to regain solid footing for several more years, until the start of World War II.
As noted here ten days ago, economic pundits have been predicting a boost in Fed-controlled interest rates for months, saying that as the economy becomes stronger, there will be less need for the Fed to continue to pump money into the economy to encourage growth.
Even Fed Chair Janet Yellen has hinted that the time may well have come. (Then again, it may not.) But that's no proof that the Fed actually will do it.
An interest rate boost from the target of 0.25 percent for the federal funds rate, even to the still minimal 0.5 percent, would cascade through the rest of the economy, to the benefit of some and the detriment of others.
Credit card rates for consumers remain well into double digits, and a guideline hike would send them even higher, which means consumers would stop buying. Which means retailers would suffer, which means less production, which means job layoffs, which means less income for households.
Meanwhile, corporations would pay more for operating capital, which means less borrowing, which means financial institutions would charge more to make up the difference.
And around and down it goes.
The American economy is the strongest it has been in eight years, and the total output of more than $17 trillion in goods and services is more than double what it was some 20 years ago. But is America strong enough to survive alone, as some of the country's major trading partners trip over higher worldwide interest rates? Certain it is that higher interest rates in America will affect financial markets in other nations, and if another nation is in economic difficulty, higher borrowing costs will have repercussions around the world.
So as we concluded ten days ago, the Fed has three options -- raise rates, lower rates, of do nothing. The central bank's key lending rate is near zero now, so it can't go lower. An increase would likely stall the growth potential the economy now has. Therefore, the third option -- doing neither of the above -- would be the safer path, leaving a moderately healthy economy to continue its slow but steady growth.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Key members of the U.S. Federal Reserve Board meet this week to discuss the state of the economy and decide whether to boost a key interest rate as the economy recovers. And many economic journalists and financial analysts predict the Fed's Open Market Committee will do just that, by perhaps a quarter of a point.
Investors no doubt will be happy with an increase in the cost of borrowing money, since their stock in financial institutions will bring higher yields. But higher interest rates can also bring higher costs of production, which means higher prices, and a higher cost of living even as wages and family income lag other increases.
As it is, the Social Security Administration, relying on Department of Labor statistics, will not provide a cost of living increase to pensioners next month, since the data indicate that the cost of living did not rise over the past year.
Meanwhile, other economies among America's major trading partners continue to struggle, so any attempt to brake the U.S. growth rate, lest it get too rapid, could well cause a skid in its own economic engine and bring more problems than it is meant to solve.
Sounds complicated? It isn't, really. America's recovery from the Great Recession, which ended in 2008, has been quite slow, but steady, even as other nations struggled to stave off a double-dip recession. Applying the brakes too soon can easily bring a second dive in America.
It has happened before, most notably in 1937. The Fed backed off from its support of the economy during the Great Depression, and the country immediately stumbled, not to regain solid footing for several more years, until the start of World War II.
As noted here ten days ago, economic pundits have been predicting a boost in Fed-controlled interest rates for months, saying that as the economy becomes stronger, there will be less need for the Fed to continue to pump money into the economy to encourage growth.
Even Fed Chair Janet Yellen has hinted that the time may well have come. (Then again, it may not.) But that's no proof that the Fed actually will do it.
An interest rate boost from the target of 0.25 percent for the federal funds rate, even to the still minimal 0.5 percent, would cascade through the rest of the economy, to the benefit of some and the detriment of others.
Credit card rates for consumers remain well into double digits, and a guideline hike would send them even higher, which means consumers would stop buying. Which means retailers would suffer, which means less production, which means job layoffs, which means less income for households.
Meanwhile, corporations would pay more for operating capital, which means less borrowing, which means financial institutions would charge more to make up the difference.
And around and down it goes.
The American economy is the strongest it has been in eight years, and the total output of more than $17 trillion in goods and services is more than double what it was some 20 years ago. But is America strong enough to survive alone, as some of the country's major trading partners trip over higher worldwide interest rates? Certain it is that higher interest rates in America will affect financial markets in other nations, and if another nation is in economic difficulty, higher borrowing costs will have repercussions around the world.
So as we concluded ten days ago, the Fed has three options -- raise rates, lower rates, of do nothing. The central bank's key lending rate is near zero now, so it can't go lower. An increase would likely stall the growth potential the economy now has. Therefore, the third option -- doing neither of the above -- would be the safer path, leaving a moderately healthy economy to continue its slow but steady growth.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Sunday, December 13, 2015
Morality
Hypocrisy is the cardinal sin that infects mankind.
A well informed electorate is essential to a democracy, but when an organized, ill-informed and misled minority manipulates the electoral process to foment unrest and light the fearful fires of xenophobia, traditional values of morality are in serious danger.
Many who claim to follow principles of a religion often debase the concept of religion through their immoral behavior. But religion, however, has little to do with morality. Religion deals with a person's relationship with a deity. Morality deals with one's relationship with others.
Many religious faiths teach morality. At the same time, those who follow no religious path are often very moral people. They walk a moral path, even as they avoid formal religious teachings.
Others, meanwhile, corrupt the religious principles they claim to follow by committing immoral, even evil, acts.
These fanatics do evil in the name of good. And that is the ultimate hypocrisy.
A well informed electorate is essential to a democracy, but when an organized, ill-informed and misled minority manipulates the electoral process to foment unrest and light the fearful fires of xenophobia, traditional values of morality are in serious danger.
Many who claim to follow principles of a religion often debase the concept of religion through their immoral behavior. But religion, however, has little to do with morality. Religion deals with a person's relationship with a deity. Morality deals with one's relationship with others.
Many religious faiths teach morality. At the same time, those who follow no religious path are often very moral people. They walk a moral path, even as they avoid formal religious teachings.
Others, meanwhile, corrupt the religious principles they claim to follow by committing immoral, even evil, acts.
These fanatics do evil in the name of good. And that is the ultimate hypocrisy.
Thursday, December 10, 2015
Religion in America
"The Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." -- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, signed by President John Adams and approved unanimously by Congress.
For all the fear mongering about the danger that a particular religious faith poses to American values, it's time to look at some numbers.
With a total population of more than 300 million, there are about 35 million atheists and agnostics, 31 million who say they are non-religious, 9 million Jews, 1.4 million Buddhists, 586,000 Hindus, 582,000 Native Americans, 186,000 Sikhs, 340,000 Wiccans, plus millions of others who are Zoroastrian, Confucian, Shinto, Tao, Baha'i, as well as the odd Druid here and there.
Muslims total some 2.7 million, or less than 1 percent of the total population. Moreover, many who follow the principles of Islam were born here and have served with distinction in the American military, government, business and academia.
Islam is not new to America. It was brought here by many captured in Africa and enslaved here in the early years of America. In the 20th Century, there was a strong revival movement among Americans to revive the tradition brought here by their enslaved ancestors.
All these estimates were gathered by private organizations, since the U.S. Census Bureau is prohibited from asking about religious affiliation.
To blame an entire group -- especially one numbering less than 1 percent of the entire population -- for the actions of a couple of individuals is, to use a word favored by a current presidential candidate, stupid.
No one blames all Christians for the recent killings at a Planned Parenthood Clinic, or a church, or a school.
The use of fear mongering to advance a political agenda generates an "us versus them" controversy, at a time when America needs to emphasize the "we."
For all the fear mongering about the danger that a particular religious faith poses to American values, it's time to look at some numbers.
With a total population of more than 300 million, there are about 35 million atheists and agnostics, 31 million who say they are non-religious, 9 million Jews, 1.4 million Buddhists, 586,000 Hindus, 582,000 Native Americans, 186,000 Sikhs, 340,000 Wiccans, plus millions of others who are Zoroastrian, Confucian, Shinto, Tao, Baha'i, as well as the odd Druid here and there.
Muslims total some 2.7 million, or less than 1 percent of the total population. Moreover, many who follow the principles of Islam were born here and have served with distinction in the American military, government, business and academia.
Islam is not new to America. It was brought here by many captured in Africa and enslaved here in the early years of America. In the 20th Century, there was a strong revival movement among Americans to revive the tradition brought here by their enslaved ancestors.
All these estimates were gathered by private organizations, since the U.S. Census Bureau is prohibited from asking about religious affiliation.
To blame an entire group -- especially one numbering less than 1 percent of the entire population -- for the actions of a couple of individuals is, to use a word favored by a current presidential candidate, stupid.
No one blames all Christians for the recent killings at a Planned Parenthood Clinic, or a church, or a school.
The use of fear mongering to advance a political agenda generates an "us versus them" controversy, at a time when America needs to emphasize the "we."
Master Manipulator
Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.
Therein lies the rub. -- Shakespeare
A politician can insult, condemn and criticize as being "unfair" TV and print journalists who cover his campaign all he wants, and that trumpery will be duly documented and reported, as it is journalism's obligation to do.
Report what is said. Obtain alternative views and include them. Document the truth or falsity of what the candidate claims, and follow up with his comments on opposing views, as well as conflicting fact and reality.
The current Republican presidential candidate who happens to be ahead of the pack is fond of insulting and belittling anyone who disagrees with him as being "unfair." He has called major national newspapers "losers" that are "in trouble." He has confused the term "unfair" with negativity.
But consider this: Accurate reporting of negative remarks is in fact fair. If the candidate's insults, abuse and vilification have negative consequences, that is fair and accurate.
Example: Donald Trump's call for a "total and complete shutdown of all Muslims coming into the United States" is a fair and accurate report of what he said. The consequences of such talk are also part of journalism's duty to document and report.
After the worldwide uproar over his trumped-up allegations against all Muslims, a petition signed by more than 300,000 Britons has triggered a formal debate in Parliament that Trump be banned from entering the United Kingdom because of "hate speech."
Further, he was disinvited from a planned visit to Israel for talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump has claimed that he postponed the trip himself "until after I become President."
Yeah, right.
The trip had been scheduled for a few weeks hence, but his self-proclaimed postponement would put it sometime after January 20, 2017.
Assuming he is nominated next summer, and elected in November, 2016.
Heroic assumptions, at best.
Currently, Trump is spending very little money on campaign ads, even as he gets almost hourly coverage of his rallies and rantings. Why isn't he spending as much money as the other candidates? He doesn't have to, since he's getting so much free air time through his trumpery, trumped-up allegations, and irrational ravings.
Meanwhile, there are other candidates in the presidential contests, and they also deserve coverage in the nation's news media. And while it is true that one candidate's antics may be more entertaining, in its perverse way, other candidates also deserve to be covered. TV news in particular is derelict in its journalistic duty when it devotes more time to a particular performer because he may be more colorful.
At the same time, if that candidate espouses positions that are anathema to the principles underlying the American way, then that politician should and must be exposed for what he is.
And the best way to do that is to document and report exactly what the candidate says, as well as the consequences of his tirades.
There are ways.
Therein lies the rub. -- Shakespeare
A politician can insult, condemn and criticize as being "unfair" TV and print journalists who cover his campaign all he wants, and that trumpery will be duly documented and reported, as it is journalism's obligation to do.
Report what is said. Obtain alternative views and include them. Document the truth or falsity of what the candidate claims, and follow up with his comments on opposing views, as well as conflicting fact and reality.
The current Republican presidential candidate who happens to be ahead of the pack is fond of insulting and belittling anyone who disagrees with him as being "unfair." He has called major national newspapers "losers" that are "in trouble." He has confused the term "unfair" with negativity.
But consider this: Accurate reporting of negative remarks is in fact fair. If the candidate's insults, abuse and vilification have negative consequences, that is fair and accurate.
Example: Donald Trump's call for a "total and complete shutdown of all Muslims coming into the United States" is a fair and accurate report of what he said. The consequences of such talk are also part of journalism's duty to document and report.
After the worldwide uproar over his trumped-up allegations against all Muslims, a petition signed by more than 300,000 Britons has triggered a formal debate in Parliament that Trump be banned from entering the United Kingdom because of "hate speech."
Further, he was disinvited from a planned visit to Israel for talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump has claimed that he postponed the trip himself "until after I become President."
Yeah, right.
The trip had been scheduled for a few weeks hence, but his self-proclaimed postponement would put it sometime after January 20, 2017.
Assuming he is nominated next summer, and elected in November, 2016.
Heroic assumptions, at best.
Currently, Trump is spending very little money on campaign ads, even as he gets almost hourly coverage of his rallies and rantings. Why isn't he spending as much money as the other candidates? He doesn't have to, since he's getting so much free air time through his trumpery, trumped-up allegations, and irrational ravings.
Meanwhile, there are other candidates in the presidential contests, and they also deserve coverage in the nation's news media. And while it is true that one candidate's antics may be more entertaining, in its perverse way, other candidates also deserve to be covered. TV news in particular is derelict in its journalistic duty when it devotes more time to a particular performer because he may be more colorful.
At the same time, if that candidate espouses positions that are anathema to the principles underlying the American way, then that politician should and must be exposed for what he is.
And the best way to do that is to document and report exactly what the candidate says, as well as the consequences of his tirades.
There are ways.
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
Trumpery
What's in a name? -- Shakespeare
We report, you decide. -- Fox News slogan
Trumpery means "showy but worthless" and "something without use or value."
Have you noticed that the French verb meaning "to deceive" is "tromper" as in "trompe l'oeil" to fool the eye? So a trumper is a fool. Let's just say it's a coincidence.
Yeah, right.
We report, you decide. -- Fox News slogan
Trumpery means "showy but worthless" and "something without use or value."
Have you noticed that the French verb meaning "to deceive" is "tromper" as in "trompe l'oeil" to fool the eye? So a trumper is a fool. Let's just say it's a coincidence.
Yeah, right.
Tuesday, December 8, 2015
Captain Petard
"Those who would sacrifice a little liberty for more security deserve neither, and will lose both." -- Benjamin Franklin
It has been wisely said by PR people, "Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel." Unlike Donald Trump, journalists have tough hides and insults bounce off. Eventually, however, with enough provocation, they can and will turn, sometimes in subtle ways, sometimes not. Here's a sample of some comments today. From the NY Daily News; "Trump has gone full blown Nazi on us."
Another tabloid, the Philadelphia Daily News, showed a photo of the candidate with right arm raised in a salute gesture and a caption saying "The New Furor." Yet another illustrated its story with a photo of marching storm troopers of 1930s Germany.
He is a prominent candidate, so the news media have an obligation to report what he says and does. Meanwhile, it has also been wisely said, "give someone enough rope and he'll hang himself."
Or as the French might say, he is hoist on his own petard.
More than 50 years ago, Republican presidential contender Barry Goldwater based his campaign on this slogan: "In your heart, you know he's right."
And in his acceptance speech for the nomination, Goldwater said, "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice ... moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
His defense of extremism cost him the election. We can only hope more people vote by using their heads, not succumbing to their emotions.
It has been wisely said by PR people, "Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel." Unlike Donald Trump, journalists have tough hides and insults bounce off. Eventually, however, with enough provocation, they can and will turn, sometimes in subtle ways, sometimes not. Here's a sample of some comments today. From the NY Daily News; "Trump has gone full blown Nazi on us."
Another tabloid, the Philadelphia Daily News, showed a photo of the candidate with right arm raised in a salute gesture and a caption saying "The New Furor." Yet another illustrated its story with a photo of marching storm troopers of 1930s Germany.
He is a prominent candidate, so the news media have an obligation to report what he says and does. Meanwhile, it has also been wisely said, "give someone enough rope and he'll hang himself."
Or as the French might say, he is hoist on his own petard.
More than 50 years ago, Republican presidential contender Barry Goldwater based his campaign on this slogan: "In your heart, you know he's right."
And in his acceptance speech for the nomination, Goldwater said, "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice ... moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
His defense of extremism cost him the election. We can only hope more people vote by using their heads, not succumbing to their emotions.
Shut Down
Kudos to MSNBC anchor Joe Scarborough for shutting down GOP candidate Donald Trump for talking too much. "Donald, you gotta stop talking and let us ask questions," Scarborough said this morning as the candidate rambled on. After a warning, Scarborough then shut Trump down and went to a commercial break. The telephone interview continued after the break, with Scarborough and fellow anchors pressing Trump for specifics on how he would implement his radical proposal for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims coming into the United States." As usual, no specifics came.
At another point, Trump pointed to actions taken by President Franklin D. Roosevelt "in '25, '26, and '27" about other groups in America, specifically Japanese Americans.. Trump specified the years several times, so it was not a slip of the tongue.
Problem: FDR was not President at that time. He did not become President until after the election of 1932. Further, the controversial internment of Japanese Americans did not take place until after the bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941 and America's entry into World War II.
Increasingly, news interviewers are pressing the candidate for specifics and details on many of his allegations, a process that is long overdue.
This morning, for example, Trump spoke at length on the many countries that are supporting ISIS terrorists. But when Scarborough asked Trump to identify those countries, the candidate declined, saying, "they're all over the place, you know who they are." And he stressed that he would not identify them because he had business relations in those countries.
Our resident cynic notes that Trump won't or can't do it because either he doesn't know or because they don't exist.
Other good news: House Speaker Paul Ryan, a fellow Republican, joined other political leaders of both parties as he publicly condemned Trump's remarks as being opposed to American values.
At another point, Trump pointed to actions taken by President Franklin D. Roosevelt "in '25, '26, and '27" about other groups in America, specifically Japanese Americans.. Trump specified the years several times, so it was not a slip of the tongue.
Problem: FDR was not President at that time. He did not become President until after the election of 1932. Further, the controversial internment of Japanese Americans did not take place until after the bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941 and America's entry into World War II.
Increasingly, news interviewers are pressing the candidate for specifics and details on many of his allegations, a process that is long overdue.
This morning, for example, Trump spoke at length on the many countries that are supporting ISIS terrorists. But when Scarborough asked Trump to identify those countries, the candidate declined, saying, "they're all over the place, you know who they are." And he stressed that he would not identify them because he had business relations in those countries.
Our resident cynic notes that Trump won't or can't do it because either he doesn't know or because they don't exist.
Other good news: House Speaker Paul Ryan, a fellow Republican, joined other political leaders of both parties as he publicly condemned Trump's remarks as being opposed to American values.
Monday, December 7, 2015
Ignorance Triumphs
This date, December 7, has acquired a new infamy.
GOP presidential candidate Donald J. Trump has finally crossed the line of faith to American liberty by urging the government to "shut down" the Golden Door to all Muslims.
Lady Liberty weeps in New York Harbor.
Several weeks ago, we warned of "a new low in inanity" by political leaders as they demanded that refugees from war-torn Syria be kept out, even orphan children, and that a religious test be imposed. Recently, Trump endorsed a nationwide database or identification system to keep track of Muslims in America. Today, he went a monstrous step further, calling for a ban on all Muslims, that they all be prevented from coming to America.
Would that include those Muslims born in the U.S.A. who travel abroad and would be barred from coming home? Would the next step be to implement the proposed registration list of Muslims in America, round them up and imprison them first in internment camps and then deport them?
That would be no different from the fear that led to Japanese Americans being interned after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. That would be little different from the bigotry that infested much of Europe during that era.
Desperate times call for desperate measures, say those who defend such tactics. But those who would sacrifice a little liberty for more security deserve neither and will lose both.
GOP presidential candidate Donald J. Trump has finally crossed the line of faith to American liberty by urging the government to "shut down" the Golden Door to all Muslims.
Lady Liberty weeps in New York Harbor.
Several weeks ago, we warned of "a new low in inanity" by political leaders as they demanded that refugees from war-torn Syria be kept out, even orphan children, and that a religious test be imposed. Recently, Trump endorsed a nationwide database or identification system to keep track of Muslims in America. Today, he went a monstrous step further, calling for a ban on all Muslims, that they all be prevented from coming to America.
Would that include those Muslims born in the U.S.A. who travel abroad and would be barred from coming home? Would the next step be to implement the proposed registration list of Muslims in America, round them up and imprison them first in internment camps and then deport them?
That would be no different from the fear that led to Japanese Americans being interned after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. That would be little different from the bigotry that infested much of Europe during that era.
Desperate times call for desperate measures, say those who defend such tactics. But those who would sacrifice a little liberty for more security deserve neither and will lose both.
Saturday, December 5, 2015
Spelling Biz
"The French don't care what you do, actually, as long as you pronounce it properly." -- Henry Higgins
A dictionary is a history book, not a law book.
Dictionaries were first gathered because a thriving merchant class wanted guidelines on how to pronounce words in the way the aristocracy spoke. Hence the term, derived from "diction."
Linguistically, all dialects are equal. They all enable its speakers to communicate with other speakers of that dialect/language. The only reason some dialects have more prestige is because its speakers have more prestige, and that is a social judgment, not linguistic.
Thus, when folks in a rising, thriving, upwardly mobile merchant "class" wanted to be perceived as cultured, they adopted the dialect of the more prestigious, wealthy group or "class."
Today, however, dictionaries have become a compilation of socially accepted ways of spelling words. Again, it is not a law book, mandating ways that writers must spell any given word, but it is a history book, listing the ways skilled writers spell words.
And if you expect logic in the ways words are spelled or pronounced, you will be disappointed.
Example: Some lawyers may spell and pronounce the verb "plead" as "pled," while others will used "pleaded." Why? By analogy, the past tense of the word "bleed" is "bled," not "bleeded." And the past tense of "speed" is "sped," not "speeded." Likewise, the verb "breed" goes to the past tense "bred," not "breeded."
At the same time, the past tense of the verb "lead" (rhymes with breed) is "led," not "leaded" (rhymes with breeded). However, if you mean the noun referring to the metal "lead," and a way of using that metal to attach something, as in "leaded" glass windows, the spelling is the same but the pronunciation is different.
For a long time, dialects were seen to be geographical, markers of where a speaker lived. Eventually, however, linguists documented the reality that dialects also showed a speaker's social level. And some speakers adopt a more prestigious dialect depending on where they are and whom they want to impress.
Example: Politicians running for office may speak one way in the halls of Congress, and quite another on the campaign trail, lest the folks down home think he's a snob.
A dictionary is a history book, not a law book.
Dictionaries were first gathered because a thriving merchant class wanted guidelines on how to pronounce words in the way the aristocracy spoke. Hence the term, derived from "diction."
Linguistically, all dialects are equal. They all enable its speakers to communicate with other speakers of that dialect/language. The only reason some dialects have more prestige is because its speakers have more prestige, and that is a social judgment, not linguistic.
Thus, when folks in a rising, thriving, upwardly mobile merchant "class" wanted to be perceived as cultured, they adopted the dialect of the more prestigious, wealthy group or "class."
Today, however, dictionaries have become a compilation of socially accepted ways of spelling words. Again, it is not a law book, mandating ways that writers must spell any given word, but it is a history book, listing the ways skilled writers spell words.
And if you expect logic in the ways words are spelled or pronounced, you will be disappointed.
Example: Some lawyers may spell and pronounce the verb "plead" as "pled," while others will used "pleaded." Why? By analogy, the past tense of the word "bleed" is "bled," not "bleeded." And the past tense of "speed" is "sped," not "speeded." Likewise, the verb "breed" goes to the past tense "bred," not "breeded."
At the same time, the past tense of the verb "lead" (rhymes with breed) is "led," not "leaded" (rhymes with breeded). However, if you mean the noun referring to the metal "lead," and a way of using that metal to attach something, as in "leaded" glass windows, the spelling is the same but the pronunciation is different.
For a long time, dialects were seen to be geographical, markers of where a speaker lived. Eventually, however, linguists documented the reality that dialects also showed a speaker's social level. And some speakers adopt a more prestigious dialect depending on where they are and whom they want to impress.
Example: Politicians running for office may speak one way in the halls of Congress, and quite another on the campaign trail, lest the folks down home think he's a snob.
Friday, December 4, 2015
Pep Talk
"The stock market has about as much influence on my daily life as baseball." -- Resident cynic Pug Mahoney
Some 211,000 jobs were added in America last month, while the unemployment rate held steady at 5 percent, according to government reports.
Separately, the Federal Reserve noted the overall economy continues to improve moderately, leading Fed Chair Janet Yellen to suggest that an increase in interest rates is likely soon.
Economic pundits have been predicting a boost in Fed-controlled interest rates for months, as the nation's central bank pulls back from its seven-year program of minimal interest rates as a way of encouraging recovery. And they keep saying that as the economy becomes stronger, there will be less need for the Fed to pump more money into the economy to encourage growth.
Whether that time has come is still an open question, and it could be that Yellen's testimony to Congress should be seen as a shout-out to investors, thus encouraging their confidence that growth will continue. Those hints and suggestions, however, are still no proof that the Fed actually will boost its key lending rate when it meets again two weeks from now.
Such a move, however, would be a holiday gift to investors.
In any case, there are three choices -- raise rates, lower rates, or do nothing. The Fed's key lending rate is near zero now, so there's virtually no room to go lower. An increase could stall what little growth potential is in the economy. The third option -- doing neither of the above, could well be the safer path to take, leaving a moderately healthy economy to continue its slow but steady growth rate.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Some 211,000 jobs were added in America last month, while the unemployment rate held steady at 5 percent, according to government reports.
Separately, the Federal Reserve noted the overall economy continues to improve moderately, leading Fed Chair Janet Yellen to suggest that an increase in interest rates is likely soon.
Economic pundits have been predicting a boost in Fed-controlled interest rates for months, as the nation's central bank pulls back from its seven-year program of minimal interest rates as a way of encouraging recovery. And they keep saying that as the economy becomes stronger, there will be less need for the Fed to pump more money into the economy to encourage growth.
Whether that time has come is still an open question, and it could be that Yellen's testimony to Congress should be seen as a shout-out to investors, thus encouraging their confidence that growth will continue. Those hints and suggestions, however, are still no proof that the Fed actually will boost its key lending rate when it meets again two weeks from now.
Such a move, however, would be a holiday gift to investors.
In any case, there are three choices -- raise rates, lower rates, or do nothing. The Fed's key lending rate is near zero now, so there's virtually no room to go lower. An increase could stall what little growth potential is in the economy. The third option -- doing neither of the above, could well be the safer path to take, leaving a moderately healthy economy to continue its slow but steady growth rate.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Theocracy in America
"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States of America." -- U.S. Constitution, Article VI
Theocracy: Government controlled by a specific religious group.
Theocracy in America is not possible, as long as the Constitution is in place.
Recent calls to register all those of a certain faith because they are perceived as "un-American" violates not only the Constitution itself but also the First Amendment guarantee of freedom to practice any religion.
Closing a building dedicated to the practice of a religious faith is a clear violation of the First Amendment, and any move to enable such an action by suspending the Constitution would be a dictatorial act anathema to the spirit of American democracy.
In the current anti-Muslim hysteria, many warn of a conspiracy to impose Sharia law on America, just as it dominates in some Middle Eastern nations. But to counter such fear by imposing Biblical law is equally dangerous, and against the guiding principles established by the founders.
Theocracy: Government controlled by a specific religious group.
Theocracy in America is not possible, as long as the Constitution is in place.
Recent calls to register all those of a certain faith because they are perceived as "un-American" violates not only the Constitution itself but also the First Amendment guarantee of freedom to practice any religion.
Closing a building dedicated to the practice of a religious faith is a clear violation of the First Amendment, and any move to enable such an action by suspending the Constitution would be a dictatorial act anathema to the spirit of American democracy.
In the current anti-Muslim hysteria, many warn of a conspiracy to impose Sharia law on America, just as it dominates in some Middle Eastern nations. But to counter such fear by imposing Biblical law is equally dangerous, and against the guiding principles established by the founders.
Thursday, December 3, 2015
Cruz-ified Economy
"I don't give a damn about a Greenback dollar, spend it fast as I can." -- American folk song.
Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican presidential candidate, wants a return to the gold standard, and audit the U.S. central bank in the process. But by hobbling the Federal Reserve Board and restricting the money supply to the amount of gold and silver the nation has in its possession would effectively eliminate paper currency.
Consider: How far would you get if all your transactions had to be paid for with coins only -- no paper money, no credit or debit cards, and likely no checks, either. After all, that was what prevailed in America in the 19th Century. What little paper money existed was highly suspect and mistrusted.
A primary mission of the Federal Reserve Board is to control the supply of money. But by severely auditing the Fed, in effect making it powerless, would mean the money supply goes out of control, leading to hyper-inflation.
A widespread 19th Century comment was that Greenback dollars were not worth the paper they were printed on, because they were not backed by gold or silver held by the government. That's the underlying rationale behind the call for a return to the gold standard. It was suspended by President Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression, and later abandoned entirely by President Richard M. Nixon.
Those of a certain age may remember using "silver certificates" issued by the government, which said, "This certifies that there is on deposit with the U.S. Treasury One Dollar in silver, payable to the bearer on demand."
Today, bills in circulation merely say, "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private."
Returning to the gold standard, mandating that the supply of money be limited to the amount of gold on hand is nothing short of a pipe dream, and a catastrophe to the economy.
Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican presidential candidate, wants a return to the gold standard, and audit the U.S. central bank in the process. But by hobbling the Federal Reserve Board and restricting the money supply to the amount of gold and silver the nation has in its possession would effectively eliminate paper currency.
Consider: How far would you get if all your transactions had to be paid for with coins only -- no paper money, no credit or debit cards, and likely no checks, either. After all, that was what prevailed in America in the 19th Century. What little paper money existed was highly suspect and mistrusted.
A primary mission of the Federal Reserve Board is to control the supply of money. But by severely auditing the Fed, in effect making it powerless, would mean the money supply goes out of control, leading to hyper-inflation.
A widespread 19th Century comment was that Greenback dollars were not worth the paper they were printed on, because they were not backed by gold or silver held by the government. That's the underlying rationale behind the call for a return to the gold standard. It was suspended by President Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression, and later abandoned entirely by President Richard M. Nixon.
Those of a certain age may remember using "silver certificates" issued by the government, which said, "This certifies that there is on deposit with the U.S. Treasury One Dollar in silver, payable to the bearer on demand."
Today, bills in circulation merely say, "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private."
Returning to the gold standard, mandating that the supply of money be limited to the amount of gold on hand is nothing short of a pipe dream, and a catastrophe to the economy.
Whacko Central
Are there no depths to which this lunatic will not sink?
Now he's charging that President Obama is "hiding" something by refusing to use the term "Islamic terrorism," implying that the President is a closet Muslim in league with those who shoot up civilians in California and other places.
The GOP candidate's rantings are a replay of charges made several years ago that included blatantly false allegations about Obama's citizenship.
Next we'll hear that if more people in California had guns, they could have returned the whacko fire. Reality: They'd wind up shooting each other.
There are already more guns in America than there are people. When will the lunacy end?
Now he's charging that President Obama is "hiding" something by refusing to use the term "Islamic terrorism," implying that the President is a closet Muslim in league with those who shoot up civilians in California and other places.
The GOP candidate's rantings are a replay of charges made several years ago that included blatantly false allegations about Obama's citizenship.
Next we'll hear that if more people in California had guns, they could have returned the whacko fire. Reality: They'd wind up shooting each other.
There are already more guns in America than there are people. When will the lunacy end?
Monday, November 30, 2015
Inciting to Riot
"No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar." -- Abraham Lincoln
Violent verbiage leads quickly to physical violence.
Politics in America is increasingly violent in speech as candidates spew lies, insults, mockery and vilification to any who dare to disagree or, worse, to call him out for his offenses against civility. And the worst offender these days is Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump.
When a political candidate encourages, or even suggests, hints, or implies that non-supporters be forcibly removed from a rally, and his True Believers gang up and beat up those who heckled or disagreed with the candidate, this can easily lead to uncontrolled assault, not only on the protesters, but on the Constitutional First Amendment right of free speech.
In short, the candidate is inciting to riot as he urges his Faithful Followers to eject dissenters.
Last week, a group of students attended a Trump rally as part of a class assignment and shouted their disagreement with something the candidate said. With Trump's encouragement, some of the candidate's supporters crowded the students and enthusiastically removed them from the rally hall.
Fortunately, none of the students were seriously hurt.
However, this could easily have escalated to a more violent encounter, and it's highly likely that anti-candidate demonstrators could show up at a rally to voice their opinions, only to be confronted by pro-candidate True Believers who brook no disagreement with the Word according to their self-appointed leader. If said leader encourages his followers to take action against the demonstrators, including the hint or suggestion of removing them by force, this become tantamount to inciting to riot, a criminal offence under federal law. (See U.S. Code, Section 2101:Riots)
There have been many examples of Trump's insults, mockery, vilification and outright lies as he pursues his political goals. His behavior worsens when he doubles down on his claims even after they have been proven false, and he demands apologies from those who have shown them to be false.
It is a journalistic duty to report fairly and accurately what is said, following the classic Five W's of the news business -- Who, What, Where, When, and Why. In addition, there is the How aspect, which also must be reported.
But some more extremist candidates -- especially Donald Trump -- confuse "fair" with "sympathetic." He keeps calling for news media to treat him fairly, but instantly attacks any journalism outlet that reports anything negative, such as showing that his claims are false.
Example: He may well have seen video on television of large crowds of people celebrating as the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York fell on September 11, 2001. But the crowds were not in Jersey City, as Trump has insisted, relying on his self-proclaimed "world's best memory." There were indeed crowds celebrating, but they were dancing in the streets of Gaza and Palestine, not in New Jersey.
When he imitated the gesturing of a reporter for the New York Times, who happened to have a physical disability, saying "You should see this guy," and later denied ever having met that reporter, despite having "the world's greatest memory," he may well have stepped far beyond the "racist lies" that the New York Times called him on in an editorial.
Entertaining though he may be to many True Believers, who will always remain convinced of his Righteousness, regardless of fact or reality, there are some things that most American voters will not accept. One is lies, and another is mockery of the handicapped.
So keep talking, Mr. Trump. The news media will continue to record and report exactly what you say, as well as balancing your claims with fact and truth.
And if you deny saying it, the media will report that, too, even as they roll the video recording of what you said, where and when you said it, and to whom you said it.
And if you continue to deny it, they will roll the video again. And again. And again. And again.
Violent verbiage leads quickly to physical violence.
Politics in America is increasingly violent in speech as candidates spew lies, insults, mockery and vilification to any who dare to disagree or, worse, to call him out for his offenses against civility. And the worst offender these days is Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump.
When a political candidate encourages, or even suggests, hints, or implies that non-supporters be forcibly removed from a rally, and his True Believers gang up and beat up those who heckled or disagreed with the candidate, this can easily lead to uncontrolled assault, not only on the protesters, but on the Constitutional First Amendment right of free speech.
In short, the candidate is inciting to riot as he urges his Faithful Followers to eject dissenters.
Last week, a group of students attended a Trump rally as part of a class assignment and shouted their disagreement with something the candidate said. With Trump's encouragement, some of the candidate's supporters crowded the students and enthusiastically removed them from the rally hall.
Fortunately, none of the students were seriously hurt.
However, this could easily have escalated to a more violent encounter, and it's highly likely that anti-candidate demonstrators could show up at a rally to voice their opinions, only to be confronted by pro-candidate True Believers who brook no disagreement with the Word according to their self-appointed leader. If said leader encourages his followers to take action against the demonstrators, including the hint or suggestion of removing them by force, this become tantamount to inciting to riot, a criminal offence under federal law. (See U.S. Code, Section 2101:Riots)
There have been many examples of Trump's insults, mockery, vilification and outright lies as he pursues his political goals. His behavior worsens when he doubles down on his claims even after they have been proven false, and he demands apologies from those who have shown them to be false.
It is a journalistic duty to report fairly and accurately what is said, following the classic Five W's of the news business -- Who, What, Where, When, and Why. In addition, there is the How aspect, which also must be reported.
But some more extremist candidates -- especially Donald Trump -- confuse "fair" with "sympathetic." He keeps calling for news media to treat him fairly, but instantly attacks any journalism outlet that reports anything negative, such as showing that his claims are false.
Example: He may well have seen video on television of large crowds of people celebrating as the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York fell on September 11, 2001. But the crowds were not in Jersey City, as Trump has insisted, relying on his self-proclaimed "world's best memory." There were indeed crowds celebrating, but they were dancing in the streets of Gaza and Palestine, not in New Jersey.
When he imitated the gesturing of a reporter for the New York Times, who happened to have a physical disability, saying "You should see this guy," and later denied ever having met that reporter, despite having "the world's greatest memory," he may well have stepped far beyond the "racist lies" that the New York Times called him on in an editorial.
Entertaining though he may be to many True Believers, who will always remain convinced of his Righteousness, regardless of fact or reality, there are some things that most American voters will not accept. One is lies, and another is mockery of the handicapped.
So keep talking, Mr. Trump. The news media will continue to record and report exactly what you say, as well as balancing your claims with fact and truth.
And if you deny saying it, the media will report that, too, even as they roll the video recording of what you said, where and when you said it, and to whom you said it.
And if you continue to deny it, they will roll the video again. And again. And again. And again.
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Health and Laughter
Thankful things to mull over on a holiday weekend.
New home sales rose in October to 495,000, a 10.7 percent increase from the month before. That's a seasonally adjusted annual rate, but nonetheless a healthy sign. Personal income increased $69.1 billion and disposable income rose by $56.8 billion in October, and spending rose by $15.2 billion, according to new government data.
Meanwhile, total output -- Gross Domestic Product -- in the nation during the third quarter rose by 2.1 percent. Corporate profits, however, dipped to $22.7 billion in the three months that ended Sept. 30, after rising by $70.4 billion in the second quarter.
So overall, the American economic outlook seems healthy. Give thanks for that.
Here's something from the resident eagle-eyed copy editor, who saw this on the NY Times Online web site Thanksgiving eve:
"Turkey shoots down Russian warplane."
I picture a giant bird with an AK 47.
New home sales rose in October to 495,000, a 10.7 percent increase from the month before. That's a seasonally adjusted annual rate, but nonetheless a healthy sign. Personal income increased $69.1 billion and disposable income rose by $56.8 billion in October, and spending rose by $15.2 billion, according to new government data.
Meanwhile, total output -- Gross Domestic Product -- in the nation during the third quarter rose by 2.1 percent. Corporate profits, however, dipped to $22.7 billion in the three months that ended Sept. 30, after rising by $70.4 billion in the second quarter.
So overall, the American economic outlook seems healthy. Give thanks for that.
Here's something from the resident eagle-eyed copy editor, who saw this on the NY Times Online web site Thanksgiving eve:
"Turkey shoots down Russian warplane."
I picture a giant bird with an AK 47.
Monday, November 23, 2015
Word Masters
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."
-- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass.
Conflating events. Rewarded for making provocative statements. Playing fast and loose with the facts. Distorts the truth. Speaks erroneously. Demonstrably untrue. Factually inaccurate Disingenuous. False statement . Fabricated. Misrepresented. Questionable veracity. Misleading. Doesn't ring true. Refuses to admit a mistake.
And unless they're writing an opinion piece, reporters don't even use those terms themselves. Instead, they find others to interview, and quote other sources in opposition to the questionable comments. This way, they can claim the shelter of "balanced reporting."
This may be a good thing, however, since readers and TV viewers expect news reports to be unbiased. Or they should.
It's amusing, however, to watch those caught perpetrating untruths (read: lying) attacking journalists as being biased. Rather than admit they were mistaken at best or flat-out lying at worst, they go on the attack, calling media reports scurrilous, biased, prejudiced, or a few other labels that satisfy their supporters but do nothing to clarify or modify their claims.
The irony is that those caught in the most flagrant of tall tales use that same media to attack their media critics. And the print and TV journalists dutifully report those attacks, even as they are themselves the targets.
Fortunately, journalists have thicker skins than politicians.
What they can do, however, is to continue reporting just what the candidate says, and when the politician insists, "I was misquoted," television can simply replay the video. And print media can collect all the times the person spoke an untruth, either from ignorance or deliberate misfeasance or malfeasance, along with documentation showing how and why the speaker was wrong.
And when the speaker cries yet again of being a victim of biased reporting, the media can report that, too, along with further evidence damaging to the speaker's cause.
Meanwhile, a candidate may be expert in one field, but that expertise does not automatically extend to expertise in every field. Or, as a reporter friend once said, "I made a deal with my auto mechanic. I don't fix cars, and he doesn't write news stories."
Thursday, November 19, 2015
Closing the Golden Door
"If ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." -- Shakespeare
"It pays to be ignorant."-- Early radio program theme song
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." -- H.L. Mencken
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." -- Emma Lazarus, inscribed on the Statue of Liberty
"All they will call you will be deportees." -- Woody Guthrie
We're seeing a new low in inanity perpetrated by political leaders in America. From the malevolent bluster of Donald Trump to the foreign policy ignorance of Ben Carson to the immoral demands by many governors and Congressional folk insisting that the Golden Door of America be closed to Syrian refugees, even to a proposal that a religious test be imposed on them to keep out those of a different faith. Ignorance triumphs.
So what else is new. Such cancerous attitudes have infected the American body politic for generations. In the 19th Century it was bias against Irish and Italian newcomers, as well as Chinese. In the 20th Century the door was closed to many European Jews, most notably a ship carrying refugees from Nazi Germany, which was turned away, resulting in passengers being sent to death camps. During those same years, many American citizens of Japanese descent living in California were rounded up and sent to internment camps. Later in the 20th Century, Mexican laborers were corralled and deported. That same cry is being heard again in this 21st Century presidential election campaign.
Anti-immigrant bias has long been a festering sore infecting many in America, despite the reality that almost everyone here is descended from people who came here from other countries. One exception would be the various members of Native tribes who were here long before Columbus, or the Vikings, or even Brendan the Navigator and his assemblage of Irish monks. There was even an effort to send many who were brought here as slaves from Africa, back to Africa, to a new country called Liberia (freedom), with a capital named after a U.S. president (Monrovia).
"America for the Americans!" was the chant. But how long must a family be here until they qualify? In the final analysis, we are all children of immigrants, whether those newcomers arrived willingly, as refugees, or as slaves.
"It pays to be ignorant."-- Early radio program theme song
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." -- H.L. Mencken
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." -- Emma Lazarus, inscribed on the Statue of Liberty
"All they will call you will be deportees." -- Woody Guthrie
We're seeing a new low in inanity perpetrated by political leaders in America. From the malevolent bluster of Donald Trump to the foreign policy ignorance of Ben Carson to the immoral demands by many governors and Congressional folk insisting that the Golden Door of America be closed to Syrian refugees, even to a proposal that a religious test be imposed on them to keep out those of a different faith. Ignorance triumphs.
So what else is new. Such cancerous attitudes have infected the American body politic for generations. In the 19th Century it was bias against Irish and Italian newcomers, as well as Chinese. In the 20th Century the door was closed to many European Jews, most notably a ship carrying refugees from Nazi Germany, which was turned away, resulting in passengers being sent to death camps. During those same years, many American citizens of Japanese descent living in California were rounded up and sent to internment camps. Later in the 20th Century, Mexican laborers were corralled and deported. That same cry is being heard again in this 21st Century presidential election campaign.
Anti-immigrant bias has long been a festering sore infecting many in America, despite the reality that almost everyone here is descended from people who came here from other countries. One exception would be the various members of Native tribes who were here long before Columbus, or the Vikings, or even Brendan the Navigator and his assemblage of Irish monks. There was even an effort to send many who were brought here as slaves from Africa, back to Africa, to a new country called Liberia (freedom), with a capital named after a U.S. president (Monrovia).
"America for the Americans!" was the chant. But how long must a family be here until they qualify? In the final analysis, we are all children of immigrants, whether those newcomers arrived willingly, as refugees, or as slaves.
Wednesday, November 18, 2015
Fed Fudge
As expected, the U.S. Federal Reserve has backed off any plan to boost interest rates, citing "uncertainty" after its earlier projections for growth. This follows reports that economic conditions in other nations have stalled, coupled with suggestions that the European Central Bank will lower its interest rate to provide another boost to the economy in the European Union.
The Fed cited the "risks to the forecast for real GDP and inflation were tilted to the downside," according to its report on last month's meeting of the Fed's Open Market Committee. Therefore, "neither monetary nor fiscal policy was well positioned to help the economy withstand substantial adverse shocks."
We noted earlier this week in this space that stalled growth in Europe would prompt the ECB to further stimulate the economy with lower interest rates, and that would lead the Fed to do likewise, not as a follower, but in a realistic awareness that the U.S. cannot remain an economic island, entire of itself.
Even so, the Fed claimed that risks to the economic outlook and the labor market are "nearly balanced," but it is "monitoring global economic and financial developments."
In the past few days, the economy in China has gone into recession, and that decline in growth has spilled over to Japan.
Today, the Fed released an unusually long set of minutes from its October meeting, citing "uncertainties" associated with the outlook for economic activity, the labor market and inflation. Consequently, the Fed voted to wait for more information before changing its target interest rate for federal funds from its near-zero level, where it has been for more than five years.
However, the Fed emphasized that "while no decision has been made," it may act at its next meeting in mid-December, "provided that unanticipated shocks do not adversely affect the economic outlook" and that new data support its plan to boost interest rates.
That, of course, assumes continuing health in the American economy despite stumbling in the rest of the world.
Meanwhile, an increase in cost-of-living retirement benefits for Social Security recipients is not planned, as other government agencies point to stalled prices over the past year.
Tell that to the folks who buy groceries and face rent increases.
The Fed cited the "risks to the forecast for real GDP and inflation were tilted to the downside," according to its report on last month's meeting of the Fed's Open Market Committee. Therefore, "neither monetary nor fiscal policy was well positioned to help the economy withstand substantial adverse shocks."
We noted earlier this week in this space that stalled growth in Europe would prompt the ECB to further stimulate the economy with lower interest rates, and that would lead the Fed to do likewise, not as a follower, but in a realistic awareness that the U.S. cannot remain an economic island, entire of itself.
Even so, the Fed claimed that risks to the economic outlook and the labor market are "nearly balanced," but it is "monitoring global economic and financial developments."
In the past few days, the economy in China has gone into recession, and that decline in growth has spilled over to Japan.
Today, the Fed released an unusually long set of minutes from its October meeting, citing "uncertainties" associated with the outlook for economic activity, the labor market and inflation. Consequently, the Fed voted to wait for more information before changing its target interest rate for federal funds from its near-zero level, where it has been for more than five years.
However, the Fed emphasized that "while no decision has been made," it may act at its next meeting in mid-December, "provided that unanticipated shocks do not adversely affect the economic outlook" and that new data support its plan to boost interest rates.
That, of course, assumes continuing health in the American economy despite stumbling in the rest of the world.
Meanwhile, an increase in cost-of-living retirement benefits for Social Security recipients is not planned, as other government agencies point to stalled prices over the past year.
Tell that to the folks who buy groceries and face rent increases.
Selective Truth Telling
Hypocrisy infects the body politic.
"Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi
"It's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game." -- Grantland Rice
In their zeal for juicy stories, political candidates often seize on one small segment of an opponent's speech, emphasize that bit alone, and pile on the criticism, often ignoring context.
Sometimes this strategy is justified, but at other times it can be part of an effort to feed the media with stuff that "makes good copy," and will damage the candidate.
Truth is less important.
An obsession with sports and winning has spread so far into American culture that politicians are more concerned with winning election than in getting anything done. Therein lies the difference. Politics is about winning. Government is about doing.
"Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi
"It's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game." -- Grantland Rice
In their zeal for juicy stories, political candidates often seize on one small segment of an opponent's speech, emphasize that bit alone, and pile on the criticism, often ignoring context.
Sometimes this strategy is justified, but at other times it can be part of an effort to feed the media with stuff that "makes good copy," and will damage the candidate.
Truth is less important.
An obsession with sports and winning has spread so far into American culture that politicians are more concerned with winning election than in getting anything done. Therein lies the difference. Politics is about winning. Government is about doing.
Monday, November 16, 2015
Right Left Out
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
Freedom of speech works both ways. That's a concept many activists, especially on the left, too often forget as they strive to advance their cause. This is not to say the cause is wrong, or that their efforts are not legitimate, but in stifling the voices of those who disagree or have alternate suggestions on how to achieve a common goal, activists violate the very principle that enables their activism.
The right of free speech and the power to protest are two fundamental principles guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. Shutting out disagreement, however, tramples on those same rights endowed to all.
The left-wing demonstrators at the University of Missouri were right in demanding action by school officials to stop bigotry on the campus. But to refuse to listen to alternative ways to deal with the problem violates the free speech rights of those who disagree.
Equally problematic, moreover, is the attempt by some activists -- especially a journalism faculty member -- to force a student journalist to leave the scene of the demonstration, which was held in a public place and was supposedly open to all. In this case, the college fired the teacher, and was justified in doing so.
It's an open question, however, as to whether conservatives or liberals are more likely to stifle disagreement, trampling on the free speech rights of those who disagree. Historically, such tactics have been used by either side in various countries around the world, whether the disagreement is over politics, religion or anything else. It's especially egregious, moreover, when one side uses its religious beliefs to claim they have divine authorization to impose their views on others, ignoring the civil rights of opponents while proclaiming the righteousness of their own religious rights.
The Bill of Rights listed in the U.S. Constitution protects not only the free exercise of religion, but also free speech and a free press. Moreover, no single set of religious beliefs may take precedence over any other, a concept embodied in Article VI of the Constitution itself, which prohibits any religious test.
Freedom of speech works both ways. That's a concept many activists, especially on the left, too often forget as they strive to advance their cause. This is not to say the cause is wrong, or that their efforts are not legitimate, but in stifling the voices of those who disagree or have alternate suggestions on how to achieve a common goal, activists violate the very principle that enables their activism.
The right of free speech and the power to protest are two fundamental principles guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. Shutting out disagreement, however, tramples on those same rights endowed to all.
The left-wing demonstrators at the University of Missouri were right in demanding action by school officials to stop bigotry on the campus. But to refuse to listen to alternative ways to deal with the problem violates the free speech rights of those who disagree.
Equally problematic, moreover, is the attempt by some activists -- especially a journalism faculty member -- to force a student journalist to leave the scene of the demonstration, which was held in a public place and was supposedly open to all. In this case, the college fired the teacher, and was justified in doing so.
It's an open question, however, as to whether conservatives or liberals are more likely to stifle disagreement, trampling on the free speech rights of those who disagree. Historically, such tactics have been used by either side in various countries around the world, whether the disagreement is over politics, religion or anything else. It's especially egregious, moreover, when one side uses its religious beliefs to claim they have divine authorization to impose their views on others, ignoring the civil rights of opponents while proclaiming the righteousness of their own religious rights.
The Bill of Rights listed in the U.S. Constitution protects not only the free exercise of religion, but also free speech and a free press. Moreover, no single set of religious beliefs may take precedence over any other, a concept embodied in Article VI of the Constitution itself, which prohibits any religious test.
Sunday, November 15, 2015
Isolationism Redux
No man is an island, entire of itself.
Neither is a nation.
Walls and blockades don't work. Trade does.
The U.S. economy is approaching a healthy growth pace, but many other nations are stalled on the path to prosperity, including several important trading partners in Europe, Asia and Latin America.
Even so, in the misguided belief that an isolated country is a secure country, conservatives are demanding protective walls, both physical and economic, to isolate America from the rest of the world.
American isolationism failed in the 1920s and 1930s. In fact, the Smoot-Hawley tariff barriers only led to retaliation by other trading nations, and all sides suffered. Moreover, isolationist thinking at the time went hand in hand with bigotry and suppression of minority groups as well as efforts to replace democracy with authoritarianism. There have been at least three books published on that danger, only two of which were fiction: "It Can't Happen Here," by Sinclair Lewis (1935), "The Plot Against America," by Philip Roth (2004), and "The Plot to Seize the White House," by Jules Archer (1973). The first two are fictionalized novels of real possibilities, and the third documents a real conspiracy. All three deal with isolationist radicals of the 1930s who were determined to close all borders and build a Fortress America.
Isolationist thinking fails to consider international reality.
The Great Wall of China, so highly praised by Donald J. Trump, was built by an emperor. The Iron Curtain and the Berlin Wall were built by Communist dictators. And the U.S. blockade of Cuba not only failed to overthrow the Castro regime, but also worsened the poverty of the Cuban people.
Erecting a wall to keep out Mexicans is not only impractical and racist (no Canadian wall has been suggested), but will only make things worse for America's southern neighbors.
If conservative politicians have their way and isolate the nation as a way to "retrieve" jobs from other countries and kick start a surge in American manufacturing, the strategy may enjoy short-term success, but if the retrieved jobs are lost by other trading partners, workers there will be unable to buy. In short, an isolationist policy, like its mercantilist ancestor, is self-defeating. To think an isolationist economy can survive and thrive on its own is a pipe dream.
The Great Wall in China, the Iron Curtain and the Berlin Wall in Europe, as well as the Cuban Blockade, all throttled economic growth and severely harmed people's rights in all those insulated countries.
Walls and trade barriers are built by insecure dictators and repressive regimes unsure of their own security. They mislead their citizens into believing the folly that success comes in isolation.
That way madness lies.
Basic economic analysis and practice shows that mutual trade benefits all trading partners. No modern nation can long endure in a standalone economy.
With that in mind, take note that in the European Union, despite its open borders and a currency common to 19 of its 28 members, growth has been essentially flat this year, leading to speculation that the European Central Bank will boost its economic stimulus program yet again, by lowering interest rates.
In turn, this will give pause to the U.S. Federal Reserve, and delay its plan to pull back from its stimulus program.
If the European Central Bank continues its efforts through a low-interest rate policy because growth is too slow, the Fed probably will do likewise, not as a follower, but in a realistic awareness that the U.S. cannot remain an island.
Neither is a nation.
Walls and blockades don't work. Trade does.
The U.S. economy is approaching a healthy growth pace, but many other nations are stalled on the path to prosperity, including several important trading partners in Europe, Asia and Latin America.
Even so, in the misguided belief that an isolated country is a secure country, conservatives are demanding protective walls, both physical and economic, to isolate America from the rest of the world.
American isolationism failed in the 1920s and 1930s. In fact, the Smoot-Hawley tariff barriers only led to retaliation by other trading nations, and all sides suffered. Moreover, isolationist thinking at the time went hand in hand with bigotry and suppression of minority groups as well as efforts to replace democracy with authoritarianism. There have been at least three books published on that danger, only two of which were fiction: "It Can't Happen Here," by Sinclair Lewis (1935), "The Plot Against America," by Philip Roth (2004), and "The Plot to Seize the White House," by Jules Archer (1973). The first two are fictionalized novels of real possibilities, and the third documents a real conspiracy. All three deal with isolationist radicals of the 1930s who were determined to close all borders and build a Fortress America.
Isolationist thinking fails to consider international reality.
The Great Wall of China, so highly praised by Donald J. Trump, was built by an emperor. The Iron Curtain and the Berlin Wall were built by Communist dictators. And the U.S. blockade of Cuba not only failed to overthrow the Castro regime, but also worsened the poverty of the Cuban people.
Erecting a wall to keep out Mexicans is not only impractical and racist (no Canadian wall has been suggested), but will only make things worse for America's southern neighbors.
If conservative politicians have their way and isolate the nation as a way to "retrieve" jobs from other countries and kick start a surge in American manufacturing, the strategy may enjoy short-term success, but if the retrieved jobs are lost by other trading partners, workers there will be unable to buy. In short, an isolationist policy, like its mercantilist ancestor, is self-defeating. To think an isolationist economy can survive and thrive on its own is a pipe dream.
The Great Wall in China, the Iron Curtain and the Berlin Wall in Europe, as well as the Cuban Blockade, all throttled economic growth and severely harmed people's rights in all those insulated countries.
Walls and trade barriers are built by insecure dictators and repressive regimes unsure of their own security. They mislead their citizens into believing the folly that success comes in isolation.
That way madness lies.
Basic economic analysis and practice shows that mutual trade benefits all trading partners. No modern nation can long endure in a standalone economy.
With that in mind, take note that in the European Union, despite its open borders and a currency common to 19 of its 28 members, growth has been essentially flat this year, leading to speculation that the European Central Bank will boost its economic stimulus program yet again, by lowering interest rates.
In turn, this will give pause to the U.S. Federal Reserve, and delay its plan to pull back from its stimulus program.
If the European Central Bank continues its efforts through a low-interest rate policy because growth is too slow, the Fed probably will do likewise, not as a follower, but in a realistic awareness that the U.S. cannot remain an island.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)