"I lift my lamp beside the Golden Door." -- Emma Lazarus, as inscribed on the Statue of Liberty.
The inanity of GOP candidate proposals is plumbing new depths of idiocy.
First there was the Great Wall of Mexico, which would stretch 2,000 miles along the southern borders of four states. Now, Scott Walker has praised as "legitimate" an idea to erect a 5,000 mile wall along the northern border of the U.S. to keep out undesirables from Canada.
Also, Chris Christie has urged that newcomers and visitors to the U.S. be tracked daily, just as FedEx tracks packages. Perhaps Christie will agree to a microchip under his own skin when he visits Canada.
Question: How dumb do they think voters are? If the politicians think voters are as intelligent as the candidates, that speaks poorly of the candidates.
Here's a very short list of Canadians who have contributed greatly in the U.S.: John Kenneth Galbraith, economist and advisor to Presidents; David Brooks, newspaper columnist; Morley Safer, Peter Jennings, and Ashleigh Banfield, TV journalists; Michael J. Fox, Pamela Anderson, Paul Anka, Dan Aykroyd, and Jim Carey, entertainers.
Other prominent newcomers to America would include Henry Kissinger (Germany), Madeleine Albright (Czechoslovakia), Wolf Blitzer (Germany), Arianna Huffington (Greece), George Soros (Hungary), and Sergey Brin, a co-founder of Google, who was born in Moscow.
Even Donald Trump's grandfather, who immigrated to the U.S. from Germany in 1885. And presidential candidate Bobby Jindal, whose parents came from India.
So to wall off America and close the Golden Door of opportunity is to deprive the nation of a great reservoir of talent.
Monday, August 31, 2015
Sunday, August 30, 2015
Nativist Nonsense
"Take our country back!"
For all the warning rants that undocumented or illegal newcomers are either taking jobs away from "good Americans" or draining the social welfare system collecting benefits they are not entitled to, the reality is that newcomers typically sign on for jobs that other Americans do not want and will not take. As for collecting benefits, those who are in America illegally avoid contact with government agencies, lest they be discovered and deported. Meanwhile, payroll deductions help support a social welfare program they dare not use.
But this does not deter the demagogues, because they thrive on fear.
As for promising that "as President, I will build a wall so strong it will make your head spin," this is a meaningless promise, since America's system of government requires approval from both houses of Congress, as well as passage of a funding bill by Congress.
Even a dictator is powerless without a devoted army of followers who do what the beloved leader says. In America, a President may propose, but without the consent and budget approval from Congress, proposals are just that.
Only if a politician is persuasive enough to convince a large enough number of followers to blindly follow his lead, will that politician succeed. Once that happens, America becomes a dictatorship.
But to the issue of closing America's southern border, and financing construction of a wall by seizing remittances that relatives and friends try to send to their needy families, or by imposing prohibitive import tariffs on incoming goods on the pretext of also "saving American jobs," that, too, is dangerous, and leads to retaliatory tariffs on American exports, thus raising prices on both sides of the border.
All of this is counter to the concept of free trade being beneficial to all participants. Not all opposition to free trade pacts comes from Fortress America conservatives. Hard Left liberals also oppose them, but for different reasons. Despite historical economic evidence, both sides warn of a disastrous outflow of jobs, with left-wingers complaining of tyrannical influence on government policy by corporate bosses.
On the Left, many fear a loss of jobs as lower labor costs in other countries prompt firms to relocate their operations. On the Right, the fear of competition is about the loss of contracts and profits, as foreign firms leverage lower costs to make more stuff to sell at lower prices in America.
Lost in the argumentative shuffle is the fact that more jobs in other countries means less emigration to America, legal or otherwise. And while low-wage, low-skill jobs would increase in other countries, high-wage, high-skill jobs would increase in the U.S. At root, this is why highly educated, skilled Americans do not want and will not take low-wage, low-skill jobs. Yet theses same Americans enjoy the services of landscape workers, kitchen helpers and hotel housekeeping staff, many of whom fill the positions that American college students and graduates don't want.
For all the warning rants that undocumented or illegal newcomers are either taking jobs away from "good Americans" or draining the social welfare system collecting benefits they are not entitled to, the reality is that newcomers typically sign on for jobs that other Americans do not want and will not take. As for collecting benefits, those who are in America illegally avoid contact with government agencies, lest they be discovered and deported. Meanwhile, payroll deductions help support a social welfare program they dare not use.
But this does not deter the demagogues, because they thrive on fear.
As for promising that "as President, I will build a wall so strong it will make your head spin," this is a meaningless promise, since America's system of government requires approval from both houses of Congress, as well as passage of a funding bill by Congress.
Even a dictator is powerless without a devoted army of followers who do what the beloved leader says. In America, a President may propose, but without the consent and budget approval from Congress, proposals are just that.
Only if a politician is persuasive enough to convince a large enough number of followers to blindly follow his lead, will that politician succeed. Once that happens, America becomes a dictatorship.
But to the issue of closing America's southern border, and financing construction of a wall by seizing remittances that relatives and friends try to send to their needy families, or by imposing prohibitive import tariffs on incoming goods on the pretext of also "saving American jobs," that, too, is dangerous, and leads to retaliatory tariffs on American exports, thus raising prices on both sides of the border.
All of this is counter to the concept of free trade being beneficial to all participants. Not all opposition to free trade pacts comes from Fortress America conservatives. Hard Left liberals also oppose them, but for different reasons. Despite historical economic evidence, both sides warn of a disastrous outflow of jobs, with left-wingers complaining of tyrannical influence on government policy by corporate bosses.
On the Left, many fear a loss of jobs as lower labor costs in other countries prompt firms to relocate their operations. On the Right, the fear of competition is about the loss of contracts and profits, as foreign firms leverage lower costs to make more stuff to sell at lower prices in America.
Lost in the argumentative shuffle is the fact that more jobs in other countries means less emigration to America, legal or otherwise. And while low-wage, low-skill jobs would increase in other countries, high-wage, high-skill jobs would increase in the U.S. At root, this is why highly educated, skilled Americans do not want and will not take low-wage, low-skill jobs. Yet theses same Americans enjoy the services of landscape workers, kitchen helpers and hotel housekeeping staff, many of whom fill the positions that American college students and graduates don't want.
Petulance and Insecurity
Bullying covers up fear.
"My way or the highway!"
The root cause of rude, obnoxious and overbearing behavior is insecurity. A bully does what he does because he is basically insecure. To cover up his lack of self-confidence, he over-compensates by bullying others into submission, forcing them to yield and do what he wants, thus "proving," to himself at least his competence.
The odd thing is, this tactic often works, since it relies on a strong sense of courtesy and civility that most people have, and on some level they see that the one with the loudest mouth must want whatever the issue is quite strongly.
News reporters, meanwhile, develop a shield of courtesy that enables them to listen and record what is being said, no matter how rude the assault. They rely on time and exposure, knowing that eventually the demagogue will overstep the bounds of civility that even the most devoted supporter ignores.
Currently, one man dominates the media field and provides entertainment for many with his often outrageous outbursts. Behavior like that is only entertaining, but easy for journalists to cover. The story practically writes itself, especially when presentations by other candidates are dull by comparison, even when their policies and positions are well thought out and have substantial depth.
A score of candidates from the two major parties in America want to move to the White House, but with Mr. Bluster attracting all the cameras, and before larger crowds, the others try to compete by matching the bombast.
However, their attack skills are no match for Mr. Bluster, and the exchanges only drag down what little quality of debate there was to begin with.
"My way or the highway!"
The root cause of rude, obnoxious and overbearing behavior is insecurity. A bully does what he does because he is basically insecure. To cover up his lack of self-confidence, he over-compensates by bullying others into submission, forcing them to yield and do what he wants, thus "proving," to himself at least his competence.
The odd thing is, this tactic often works, since it relies on a strong sense of courtesy and civility that most people have, and on some level they see that the one with the loudest mouth must want whatever the issue is quite strongly.
News reporters, meanwhile, develop a shield of courtesy that enables them to listen and record what is being said, no matter how rude the assault. They rely on time and exposure, knowing that eventually the demagogue will overstep the bounds of civility that even the most devoted supporter ignores.
Currently, one man dominates the media field and provides entertainment for many with his often outrageous outbursts. Behavior like that is only entertaining, but easy for journalists to cover. The story practically writes itself, especially when presentations by other candidates are dull by comparison, even when their policies and positions are well thought out and have substantial depth.
A score of candidates from the two major parties in America want to move to the White House, but with Mr. Bluster attracting all the cameras, and before larger crowds, the others try to compete by matching the bombast.
However, their attack skills are no match for Mr. Bluster, and the exchanges only drag down what little quality of debate there was to begin with.
Saturday, August 29, 2015
Newsiness
Competent Journalism is not an oxymoron.
News media do not mold public opinion so much as they reflect it.
There's often a thin line between news and gossip.
The term "Newsiness," like "Truthiness," may sound like a story is important, but a closer look often reveals little of substance.
Sometimes "wolfpack journalism" and often "herd journalism" overwhelms the crowd of reporters at an event and influences the way the story is covered. This can be a good thing, as reporters chase a big story, but too often the subject is a very easy target, as news crews surround the stumbling subject.
Other times, clever marketing of an entertaining politician attracts and manipulates journalists, enticing them with frothy phrases and and catchy quotes. The problem here, of course, is that while the subjects may sound like they know what they're talking about, that's no guarantee that they do.
So it is with the current political campaign. Smart candidates, like corporate executives, recognize that reporters are sometimes lazy, and can be easily led or misled with tales of sound and fury. But as Shakespeare pointed out, these tales are often told by idiots, and signify nothing.
At the same time, the more competent, aggressive journalists struggle to get through the crowd to ask the tough questions. They then face the accusation -- usually from an aggrieved, novice politician -- that they are pushy, unfair, or disrespectful. Far too many corporate executives and politicians believe that if a reporter is not an advocate for their positions, they are therefore adversaries, are treated as enemies.
While it may occasionally be true that reporters show little respect for certain politicians, this could well be justified. More often, however, it's important to remember that good reporters are neither advocates nor adversaries. They ask the tough questions because they need to be asked.
So there needs to be a balance. When news subjects -- man or woman -- show little depth or knowledge of the field they hope to work in, whether corporate, diplomatic, international relations, economic policy or anything else, it's the duty and obligation of journalists to expose that incompetence. Not because they are vindictive, although politicians may say that in an attack response, but because reporters have an obligation to the general public, and to voters especially.
Demagogues are particularly glib in arousing the ire of crowds, and they do this by smearing minorities and attacking those who question or disagree with their political platitudes.
Journalists, then, must keep a thick skin and not be offended by such machinations, and to continue their neutrality and report just what the candidate says, and to explain its consequences.
News media do not mold public opinion so much as they reflect it.
There's often a thin line between news and gossip.
The term "Newsiness," like "Truthiness," may sound like a story is important, but a closer look often reveals little of substance.
Sometimes "wolfpack journalism" and often "herd journalism" overwhelms the crowd of reporters at an event and influences the way the story is covered. This can be a good thing, as reporters chase a big story, but too often the subject is a very easy target, as news crews surround the stumbling subject.
Other times, clever marketing of an entertaining politician attracts and manipulates journalists, enticing them with frothy phrases and and catchy quotes. The problem here, of course, is that while the subjects may sound like they know what they're talking about, that's no guarantee that they do.
So it is with the current political campaign. Smart candidates, like corporate executives, recognize that reporters are sometimes lazy, and can be easily led or misled with tales of sound and fury. But as Shakespeare pointed out, these tales are often told by idiots, and signify nothing.
At the same time, the more competent, aggressive journalists struggle to get through the crowd to ask the tough questions. They then face the accusation -- usually from an aggrieved, novice politician -- that they are pushy, unfair, or disrespectful. Far too many corporate executives and politicians believe that if a reporter is not an advocate for their positions, they are therefore adversaries, are treated as enemies.
While it may occasionally be true that reporters show little respect for certain politicians, this could well be justified. More often, however, it's important to remember that good reporters are neither advocates nor adversaries. They ask the tough questions because they need to be asked.
So there needs to be a balance. When news subjects -- man or woman -- show little depth or knowledge of the field they hope to work in, whether corporate, diplomatic, international relations, economic policy or anything else, it's the duty and obligation of journalists to expose that incompetence. Not because they are vindictive, although politicians may say that in an attack response, but because reporters have an obligation to the general public, and to voters especially.
Demagogues are particularly glib in arousing the ire of crowds, and they do this by smearing minorities and attacking those who question or disagree with their political platitudes.
Journalists, then, must keep a thick skin and not be offended by such machinations, and to continue their neutrality and report just what the candidate says, and to explain its consequences.
Friday, August 28, 2015
Zombie Economics
The Silent Majority is neither
silent nor a majority.
If you make it, they will
buy.
"You ain't seen nothin' yet." --
Al Jolson
The U.S. economy continues to
show healthy signs even as other major countries struggle, but America is not
strong enough to carry the world, and any attempts to wall off the country from
others can only lead to international disaster.
Domestic economic growth jumped
to 3.7 percent in the second quarter of this year, according to the U.S.
Department of Commerce, up from an earlier estimate of 2.3 percent. That
compares to a first quarter growth in GDP of 0.6 percent.
Even so, the financial yo-yo on
Wall Street and stock markets around the world prompted officials at the Federal
Reserve to suggest that the nation's central bank will not raise its base
interest rate next month, as many have expected.
Meanwhile, leading presidential
candidates have been making noises reminiscent of the supply-side mavens of the
Reagan Era, when the cry was "cut taxes and government revenues will increase."
This strategy was also known as trickle-down economics, and voodoo economics.
The chant was that if government reduces taxes on the wealthy, more money would
be available for investment, which would lead to more production on the supply
side, which meant consumers would buy more stuff. Hence the name "supply-side
economics." What was forgotten was that with little or no demand for a product,
an increase in supply was pointless and wasteful.
Political opponents of the
strategy were fond of saying it would reduce taxes across the board, and the
resulting increases in supply and consumption would mean more tax revenue for
government. However, as Bruce Bartlett, a government official who help to bring
about the emphasis on supply-side economics in the 1970s, pointed out years
later, there were several qualifiers. In an Op-Ed piece for the New York Times
in April of 2007, "The original supply-siders suggested that some tax
cuts under very special circumstances, might induce an unlocking
effect" that would bring more gains and more taxes, "even at a lower
rate."
Note the four qualifiers
(italics added): suggested, some, might, very special circumstances. No
guarantees there. In any case, the proposal was to be applied to marginal tax
rates at upper income levels, not lower taxes at all levels.
Bartlett also pointed out that
many of the supply-side proposals have, in fact, been adopted by
mainstream economists.
To some extent, trimming tax
rates on high earners will add some additional cash to the investment stream,
enabling more production and an increased supply of goods. But if demand does
not also increase to absorb that additional supply, the change is
pointless.
"Buy now," is the chant. "With
what?" is the reply from the unemployed.
If the U.S. walls off the rest
of the world, as was done by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of the 1930s, and as proposed by
a leading GOP presidential candidate today, the result will be a replay of the
Great Depression of the 1930s.
Punitive tariffs and
confiscation of remittances that workers in America attempt to send to their
needy friends and relatives in Mexico and other countries will only bring
retaliation by other governments.
Halting immigration reduces the
labor supply and leads to higher wages, in turn causing higher prices, which
cuts down sales, which slows production, which eliminates jobs, which boosts
unemployment, which leads to hunger and homelessness, which causes political
upheaval.
People come to America because
this is where the jobs are, and those who come often pick up the jobs that nativists do not want and will not take.
So despite all the metaphorical
stakes driven through the heart of a fatally flawed doctrine, extremist
supply-side acolytes continue to suck the life blood of a healthy, recovering
economy, and threaten a repeat of the 1930s-era disaster.
Like all the walking dead, the
zombie of "voodoo economics" lives on in the minds of those who fear the
"Other."
"Take our country back," is the
chant. That, too, is an echo of demagogues who rise to power on the xenophobic
fears of a few.
But this new Silent Majority is
neither silent nor a majority.
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
Bump the Blowhard
Never pick a fight with some one who buys ink by the barrel.
A popular TV news anchor, Jorge Ramos of Univision, was tossed out of a news conference with GOP candidate Donald J. Trump when he tried to ask questions about the candidate's immigration statements.
Trump's response: "Sit down. Sit down. You weren't called on. Go back to Univision."
In fairness, it must be said that Ramos was allowed to return, and there was then a strong encounter between the two. Nevertheless, to evict a prominent journalist from a public setting while cameras are rolling can only come back to haunt.
I saw the NBC coverage of the Trump-Ramos duel, and thought they were bending over backwards to be "neutral." I saw a longer clip last night on CNN, which was more informative. I can only guess what Univision will be doing. Should the rest of the press corps have left in a protest of Trump's treatment of the news anchor? A mass walkout like that is not likely until and unless the candidate really goes around the bend.
Attacking the media suits his purpose, and as long as reporters provide him with a forum, he'll use it. Besides, a mass walkout would only "prove" his point that the media "don't like him," and aren't "fair," which will play well with his base of followers, and there are many of them. He attracts a crowd, no question, and he's more interesting to listen to than the other candidates, whether you support his "positions" or not. All this, especially the large crowds he attracts, make him hard to ignore. Again, ignoring him only feeds his ego and "supports" his contention that the media are "unfair."
His treatment of Ramos only worsens his relationship with potential Latino voters, and echoes his attack on Megyn Kelly after the Fox News anchor questioned the candidate about his attitudes and comments on women. Trump then complained that Kelly's question meant she was not "being nice," that she was "not fair," and that "you see her bleeding from her ... wherever."
Childish, of course. All of this is the behavior of a petulant bully who doesn't get his own way. At the same time, ignoring him can be counterproductive, since it not only supports his arguments to his most ardent followers, but also fails to warn the wider public of the danger he poses. And that, I believe is more important. It's a reporter's job to remain neutral and record what is said.
The real power is the pen. Besides, the columnists and
commentators have the duty and obligation to criticize.
A popular TV news anchor, Jorge Ramos of Univision, was tossed out of a news conference with GOP candidate Donald J. Trump when he tried to ask questions about the candidate's immigration statements.
Trump's response: "Sit down. Sit down. You weren't called on. Go back to Univision."
In fairness, it must be said that Ramos was allowed to return, and there was then a strong encounter between the two. Nevertheless, to evict a prominent journalist from a public setting while cameras are rolling can only come back to haunt.
I saw the NBC coverage of the Trump-Ramos duel, and thought they were bending over backwards to be "neutral." I saw a longer clip last night on CNN, which was more informative. I can only guess what Univision will be doing. Should the rest of the press corps have left in a protest of Trump's treatment of the news anchor? A mass walkout like that is not likely until and unless the candidate really goes around the bend.
Attacking the media suits his purpose, and as long as reporters provide him with a forum, he'll use it. Besides, a mass walkout would only "prove" his point that the media "don't like him," and aren't "fair," which will play well with his base of followers, and there are many of them. He attracts a crowd, no question, and he's more interesting to listen to than the other candidates, whether you support his "positions" or not. All this, especially the large crowds he attracts, make him hard to ignore. Again, ignoring him only feeds his ego and "supports" his contention that the media are "unfair."
His treatment of Ramos only worsens his relationship with potential Latino voters, and echoes his attack on Megyn Kelly after the Fox News anchor questioned the candidate about his attitudes and comments on women. Trump then complained that Kelly's question meant she was not "being nice," that she was "not fair," and that "you see her bleeding from her ... wherever."
Childish, of course. All of this is the behavior of a petulant bully who doesn't get his own way. At the same time, ignoring him can be counterproductive, since it not only supports his arguments to his most ardent followers, but also fails to warn the wider public of the danger he poses. And that, I believe is more important. It's a reporter's job to remain neutral and record what is said.
The real power is the pen. Besides, the columnists and
commentators have the duty and obligation to criticize.
Friday, August 21, 2015
Double Dip Danger
Evidence is piling up that the Federal Reserve will not boost interest rates next month, as some have predicted. Instead, that move may not come until some time next year, probably in the summer, a point made here July 8.
Today, New York Stock Exchange reported a major plunge, as the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost some 530 points, continuing a six-day decline.
Also, a blogger for Marketwatch wrote that the Fed "would be nuts" to raise interest rates in September. The crisis may be gone, "but the effects still linger," said Cullen Roche, insisting that the economy remains sluggish.
And Mike Bird of Business Insider pointed to disasters around the world and said the Fed "is at risk of repeating one of the biggest mistakes in the history of the U.S. economy." In 1936, encouraging signs led the central bank and the government of President Franklin D. Roosevelt to pull back its support measures. Result: A second crash, sending the economy further into its Great Depression.
Last week, Japan reported a drop in second quarter output, and China devalued its currency to help stimulate its world trade and keep its growth rate of about 7 percent.
And in a report on the most recent meeting of its Open Market Committee, which regulates the money supply, the Fed maintained that the economy continued to expand, but the Fed would remain watchful "for some time" before acting to bring its key interest rate to what it considers a level that is "normal in the longer run."
That meeting, however, was held in late July, and the minutes of the meeting were released on Wednesday, as the Wall Street plunge was gaining momentum.
But there was some hope. The proposed federal budget for the coming fiscal year "would make U.S. output larger over the next decade" and proposed changes in immigration laws would help to reduce deficits. That analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
Today, New York Stock Exchange reported a major plunge, as the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost some 530 points, continuing a six-day decline.
Also, a blogger for Marketwatch wrote that the Fed "would be nuts" to raise interest rates in September. The crisis may be gone, "but the effects still linger," said Cullen Roche, insisting that the economy remains sluggish.
And Mike Bird of Business Insider pointed to disasters around the world and said the Fed "is at risk of repeating one of the biggest mistakes in the history of the U.S. economy." In 1936, encouraging signs led the central bank and the government of President Franklin D. Roosevelt to pull back its support measures. Result: A second crash, sending the economy further into its Great Depression.
Last week, Japan reported a drop in second quarter output, and China devalued its currency to help stimulate its world trade and keep its growth rate of about 7 percent.
And in a report on the most recent meeting of its Open Market Committee, which regulates the money supply, the Fed maintained that the economy continued to expand, but the Fed would remain watchful "for some time" before acting to bring its key interest rate to what it considers a level that is "normal in the longer run."
That meeting, however, was held in late July, and the minutes of the meeting were released on Wednesday, as the Wall Street plunge was gaining momentum.
But there was some hope. The proposed federal budget for the coming fiscal year "would make U.S. output larger over the next decade" and proposed changes in immigration laws would help to reduce deficits. That analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
Wednesday, August 19, 2015
Danger Signs
There are two ways to end birthright citizenship:
1/ Change the Constitution by canceling the 14th Amendment.
2/ Suspend the Constitution by executive fiat.
It can't happen here, you say?
Dictators do such things.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Sunday, August 16, 2015
Birther Insults
"I still don't know if he (Barack Obama) was born in America. I've moved on to other things." -- Donald J. Trump, Republican candidate for President.
Children of Americans are American citizens no matter where they are born.
To claim that those not born in America are not fully American citizens is an insult to American military personnel serving in other countries.
It also shows a deliberate ignoring of law and fact in a blatant attempt to score points with certain segments of the voting public who will believe anything a celebrity says, whether true or not.
Moreover, top news reporters such as Chuck Todd of NBC should know better than to keep bringing up the birther question, since it has been a non-issue from Day One. It was only employed by Trump and others of the Radical Right to attack the Democratic candidate, insisting that Obama was not born in America and therefore was not a citizen and was ineligible to become President. It has not been used against Republican candidates who were born in other countries.
Fact: The Constitution stipulates that a candidate for President be a natural-born citizen. It does not require that the candidate be native-born.
Fact: A child of an American citizen is an American citizen, no matter where the birth takes place.
Fact: Sen. Ted Cruz, currently a Republican candidate for the presidency, was born in Canada. His father was from Cuba, but his mother was American, so he acquired citizenship through her.
Fact: Sen. John McCain, a Republican candidate for the presidency in 2008, was born in Panama, at a U.S. military base. His father, a U.S. naval officer, and his mother were both American citizens.
Fact: George Romney, father of Mitt Romney, and also a Republican candidate for President, was born in Mexico, the son of Mormon missionaries, and both American citizens.
But the birthplaces of those three seems not to matter, since they are Republicans.
Fact: Barack Obama's mother was from Kansas, so he is an American citizen through her, regardless of where he was born or where his father was from.
Fact: Obama's birthplace and citizenship had to be first proven when he acquired a driver's license, second when registered to vote, third when he entered college, and finally when he applied for a marriage license. To claim that the birth certificate issued in Hawaii was likely a forgery is to insult all the government officials who processed all those applications going back some 40 years.
Truth, however, has never seemed to be an obstacle for the current leading candidate for the Republican nomination. Nearly every question brings variations on this reply: "Trust me, I know what I'm doing and I know how to get things done. I'll give you details of my plans and policies when I think it's time for you to know."
When will that time be? That question brings only yet another variation on the answer, if not an insult to the questioner.
Final note: Those born in America are American citizens, regardless of their parents' citizenship status. To call for the deportation of these families, as Trump did over the weekend in an interview with Chuck Todd of NBC, shows not only insensitivity to family values, but an ignorance of the law. Children born in America are American citizens, as a matter of Constitutional law, and cannot be deported.
(Exception: Children of those in the diplomatic corps, though born in America, remain citizens of the home country.)
Children of Americans are American citizens no matter where they are born.
To claim that those not born in America are not fully American citizens is an insult to American military personnel serving in other countries.
It also shows a deliberate ignoring of law and fact in a blatant attempt to score points with certain segments of the voting public who will believe anything a celebrity says, whether true or not.
Moreover, top news reporters such as Chuck Todd of NBC should know better than to keep bringing up the birther question, since it has been a non-issue from Day One. It was only employed by Trump and others of the Radical Right to attack the Democratic candidate, insisting that Obama was not born in America and therefore was not a citizen and was ineligible to become President. It has not been used against Republican candidates who were born in other countries.
Fact: The Constitution stipulates that a candidate for President be a natural-born citizen. It does not require that the candidate be native-born.
Fact: A child of an American citizen is an American citizen, no matter where the birth takes place.
Fact: Sen. Ted Cruz, currently a Republican candidate for the presidency, was born in Canada. His father was from Cuba, but his mother was American, so he acquired citizenship through her.
Fact: Sen. John McCain, a Republican candidate for the presidency in 2008, was born in Panama, at a U.S. military base. His father, a U.S. naval officer, and his mother were both American citizens.
Fact: George Romney, father of Mitt Romney, and also a Republican candidate for President, was born in Mexico, the son of Mormon missionaries, and both American citizens.
But the birthplaces of those three seems not to matter, since they are Republicans.
Fact: Barack Obama's mother was from Kansas, so he is an American citizen through her, regardless of where he was born or where his father was from.
Fact: Obama's birthplace and citizenship had to be first proven when he acquired a driver's license, second when registered to vote, third when he entered college, and finally when he applied for a marriage license. To claim that the birth certificate issued in Hawaii was likely a forgery is to insult all the government officials who processed all those applications going back some 40 years.
Truth, however, has never seemed to be an obstacle for the current leading candidate for the Republican nomination. Nearly every question brings variations on this reply: "Trust me, I know what I'm doing and I know how to get things done. I'll give you details of my plans and policies when I think it's time for you to know."
When will that time be? That question brings only yet another variation on the answer, if not an insult to the questioner.
Final note: Those born in America are American citizens, regardless of their parents' citizenship status. To call for the deportation of these families, as Trump did over the weekend in an interview with Chuck Todd of NBC, shows not only insensitivity to family values, but an ignorance of the law. Children born in America are American citizens, as a matter of Constitutional law, and cannot be deported.
(Exception: Children of those in the diplomatic corps, though born in America, remain citizens of the home country.)
Thursday, August 13, 2015
The Merchant of Menace
Whoever has the most gold at the end, wins.
"I keep whining and whining until I win." -- The Candidate
Business executives praise the benefits of competition, which to them means selling more stuff than the other guy, cutting the other guy out of opportunities to do any business, until he is forced to shut down. Result: Winner takes all.
During the colonial era, nations operated the same way, setting things up so that the mother country imported raw materials from the colony, kept the manufacturing facilities at home, and sold the completed products to the colonies, keeping the profits to itself.
Then, to close the cycle even tighter, laws were passed mandating that all exports and imports between the colony and the mother country be carried only on ships registered to the mother country. The goal was to cut out all competition from other nations.
Politicians and business executives praised such a system for keeping jobs at home, providing marketing opportunities for companies in the nation, and keeping out competition, thus ensuring prosperity for everyone in the nation.
Sound familiar? It's an attractive notion, promising to expand job opportunities, especially in manufacturing, and prosperity as exports outweigh imports and improve the balance of trade. The result, believers promise, will be that we sell more stuff than we buy, and become rich in doing so.
However, there comes a point when we have sold so much stuff and bought so little that we have all the money and the other guy has none. That may work on an individual or small company level, as long as the other guy, the customer or the competitor, can go elsewhere for a job or market opportunities. But on a national level, it doesn't work.
This was the dominant economic theory in the 17th and 18th Centuries, and it's called mercantilism. Merchants rule, supported by politicians, protectionists, exporters and any who believe in the natural superiority of one nation over all others.
The danger, however, is that when one nation enriches itself at the expense of other nations, the winner soon runs out of markets. The winning nation has all the money and the loser has none. Result: Insanely high prices chasing fewer goods in the winning nation, and poverty in the losing country.
The definition of mercantilism, then, according to Sean M. Flynn, author of "Economics for Dummies," is this: "Trade is one-sided, set up to benefit the mother country at the expense of the colony."
Common sense says that such an arrangement can only be disastrous. Consider the experience of Spain, when it colonized the New World, intending to find and take home all the gold its conquerors could find. All the money went back to Spain, and the result was hyperinflation, and the people in the Americas were impoverished.
Or consider the experience of England, which wanted to keep all manufacturing at home, while America supplied raw materials at low cost and was forced to buy only English-made goods at higher prices. Result: Revolution.
Adam Smith, founder of modern economics, diagnosed the fatal illness of mercantile theory in 1776, in his book "The Wealth of Nations," in which he detailed the advantages of international trade.
Later, David Ricardo (1772-1823) wrote the obituary of the mercantilist zombie with his arguments for free trade and comparative advantage.
"Few ideas have been so widely accepted by economists and as roundly rejected by many other people as the doctrine of free international trade," said Bob McTeer, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
Adam Smith drove a stake through the heart of mercantilism some 240 years ago, wrote Charles L. Hooper, a visiting fellow with the Hoover Institution, in 2011, "but the rest of the world never got the memo."
"Unfortunately, the archaic and counterproductive ideas of mercantilism are alive and kicking in 21st-Century America," Hooper added.
Many politicians and business leaders, then, are mercantilists, preaching an economic dogma that has been shown to be destructive many times over. And as the nation stumbles its way toward a presidential election, it's important to recognize that the rantings of candidates assailing other countries for "stealing jobs" from America ignore the reality that companies have long had a practice of relocating the facilities from high-wage regions to other areas with abundant labor at lower wages, or cheaper energy, or for other savings in the cost or production.
It happened in the New England textile industry, as companies moved to the Carolinas. That's no different in principle than relocating to another country.
But who really wins in the competition to cut costs and increase profits? The corporate magnate, with the support of government officials and those who believe, falsely, that long-term prosperity is a one-way street, and only by destroying the competition can a nation be successful for all its citizens.
Meanwhile, as jobs go to low-wage countries, workers there gain money to buy products made by workers of higher skill (and higher wages) at home. Result: Both sides prosper.
"I keep whining and whining until I win." -- The Candidate
Business executives praise the benefits of competition, which to them means selling more stuff than the other guy, cutting the other guy out of opportunities to do any business, until he is forced to shut down. Result: Winner takes all.
During the colonial era, nations operated the same way, setting things up so that the mother country imported raw materials from the colony, kept the manufacturing facilities at home, and sold the completed products to the colonies, keeping the profits to itself.
Then, to close the cycle even tighter, laws were passed mandating that all exports and imports between the colony and the mother country be carried only on ships registered to the mother country. The goal was to cut out all competition from other nations.
Politicians and business executives praised such a system for keeping jobs at home, providing marketing opportunities for companies in the nation, and keeping out competition, thus ensuring prosperity for everyone in the nation.
Sound familiar? It's an attractive notion, promising to expand job opportunities, especially in manufacturing, and prosperity as exports outweigh imports and improve the balance of trade. The result, believers promise, will be that we sell more stuff than we buy, and become rich in doing so.
However, there comes a point when we have sold so much stuff and bought so little that we have all the money and the other guy has none. That may work on an individual or small company level, as long as the other guy, the customer or the competitor, can go elsewhere for a job or market opportunities. But on a national level, it doesn't work.
This was the dominant economic theory in the 17th and 18th Centuries, and it's called mercantilism. Merchants rule, supported by politicians, protectionists, exporters and any who believe in the natural superiority of one nation over all others.
The danger, however, is that when one nation enriches itself at the expense of other nations, the winner soon runs out of markets. The winning nation has all the money and the loser has none. Result: Insanely high prices chasing fewer goods in the winning nation, and poverty in the losing country.
The definition of mercantilism, then, according to Sean M. Flynn, author of "Economics for Dummies," is this: "Trade is one-sided, set up to benefit the mother country at the expense of the colony."
Common sense says that such an arrangement can only be disastrous. Consider the experience of Spain, when it colonized the New World, intending to find and take home all the gold its conquerors could find. All the money went back to Spain, and the result was hyperinflation, and the people in the Americas were impoverished.
Or consider the experience of England, which wanted to keep all manufacturing at home, while America supplied raw materials at low cost and was forced to buy only English-made goods at higher prices. Result: Revolution.
Adam Smith, founder of modern economics, diagnosed the fatal illness of mercantile theory in 1776, in his book "The Wealth of Nations," in which he detailed the advantages of international trade.
Later, David Ricardo (1772-1823) wrote the obituary of the mercantilist zombie with his arguments for free trade and comparative advantage.
"Few ideas have been so widely accepted by economists and as roundly rejected by many other people as the doctrine of free international trade," said Bob McTeer, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
Adam Smith drove a stake through the heart of mercantilism some 240 years ago, wrote Charles L. Hooper, a visiting fellow with the Hoover Institution, in 2011, "but the rest of the world never got the memo."
"Unfortunately, the archaic and counterproductive ideas of mercantilism are alive and kicking in 21st-Century America," Hooper added.
Many politicians and business leaders, then, are mercantilists, preaching an economic dogma that has been shown to be destructive many times over. And as the nation stumbles its way toward a presidential election, it's important to recognize that the rantings of candidates assailing other countries for "stealing jobs" from America ignore the reality that companies have long had a practice of relocating the facilities from high-wage regions to other areas with abundant labor at lower wages, or cheaper energy, or for other savings in the cost or production.
It happened in the New England textile industry, as companies moved to the Carolinas. That's no different in principle than relocating to another country.
But who really wins in the competition to cut costs and increase profits? The corporate magnate, with the support of government officials and those who believe, falsely, that long-term prosperity is a one-way street, and only by destroying the competition can a nation be successful for all its citizens.
Meanwhile, as jobs go to low-wage countries, workers there gain money to buy products made by workers of higher skill (and higher wages) at home. Result: Both sides prosper.
Sunday, August 9, 2015
License to Shrill
Disingenuous: Not frank or honest. Deceptively simple.
Politicians often lie.
Last week's presidential promenade was less a debate than a competition to see who could talk longer, louder and say less than the others.
Several governors on the stage made much of their record of balancing their state budgets every year they were in office. This is a true statement, and by stressing that accomplishment, they imply that their predecessors did not. But it's also true that they have no choice. By law, every governor of every state must present a balanced budget every year. Only the federal government can operate at a deficit. States cannot.
Jeb Bush claimed credit for an economic boom while he was governor of Florida, and he maintained that he could replicate that 4 percent annual growth rate on a national level if elected President. What he did not say was that the boom was fueled by a spurt in housing development, and was coincidental with his time if office. Moreover, the Florida boom went bust soon afterward. Does he accept blame for that? A silent no. But then again, politicians always claim credit when good things happen. When bad things happen, they blame their predecessor.
Chris Christie mentioned several times that he was appointed to the post of federal prosecutor for New Jersey on Sept. 10, 2001, the day before the disasters of 9/11, and said the World Trade Center disaster happened "in my state."
Fact: Christie was nominated for that position on Dec. 7, 2001, a full three months after the 9/11 attack. His appointment was confirmed by the U.S. Senate three weeks later, on Dec. 20, and he took office Jan. 17, 2002.
At the time, his nomination was criticized by many legal professionals in New Jersey because Christie had no prior experience in a federal courtroom, and little experience in criminal law. He did, however, raise substantial funds for the presidential campaign of George W. Bush.
Geography lesson: The Twin Towers of the World Trade Center were located in Lower Manhattan, New York City.
So the questions become these: 1/ Are the candidates disingenuous, in that they leave out key information and stress deceptively simple scenarios that make them appear more qualified than they really are? Or 2/ Are they incompetent, in that they don't really know what they're talking about? Or 3/ Are they telling flat-out lies?
Politicians often lie.
Last week's presidential promenade was less a debate than a competition to see who could talk longer, louder and say less than the others.
Several governors on the stage made much of their record of balancing their state budgets every year they were in office. This is a true statement, and by stressing that accomplishment, they imply that their predecessors did not. But it's also true that they have no choice. By law, every governor of every state must present a balanced budget every year. Only the federal government can operate at a deficit. States cannot.
Jeb Bush claimed credit for an economic boom while he was governor of Florida, and he maintained that he could replicate that 4 percent annual growth rate on a national level if elected President. What he did not say was that the boom was fueled by a spurt in housing development, and was coincidental with his time if office. Moreover, the Florida boom went bust soon afterward. Does he accept blame for that? A silent no. But then again, politicians always claim credit when good things happen. When bad things happen, they blame their predecessor.
Chris Christie mentioned several times that he was appointed to the post of federal prosecutor for New Jersey on Sept. 10, 2001, the day before the disasters of 9/11, and said the World Trade Center disaster happened "in my state."
Fact: Christie was nominated for that position on Dec. 7, 2001, a full three months after the 9/11 attack. His appointment was confirmed by the U.S. Senate three weeks later, on Dec. 20, and he took office Jan. 17, 2002.
At the time, his nomination was criticized by many legal professionals in New Jersey because Christie had no prior experience in a federal courtroom, and little experience in criminal law. He did, however, raise substantial funds for the presidential campaign of George W. Bush.
Geography lesson: The Twin Towers of the World Trade Center were located in Lower Manhattan, New York City.
So the questions become these: 1/ Are the candidates disingenuous, in that they leave out key information and stress deceptively simple scenarios that make them appear more qualified than they really are? Or 2/ Are they incompetent, in that they don't really know what they're talking about? Or 3/ Are they telling flat-out lies?
Saturday, August 8, 2015
Respect and Fairness
"I'm not here to make friends. I'm here to ask questions." -- CNN Anchor Don Lemon.
"If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." -- Harry Truman.
Many politicians feel that if you are not an advocate, you are an adversary. News reporters are neither. They ask the tough questions because they need to be asked.
A current Candidate has demanded that he be treated with respect and fairness. This, however, works both ways. Respect cannot be demanded; it must be earned. And when the Candidate fumes and blusters with abuse and insult at anyone who dares to question or disagree with him, he shows no respect for others. Therefore, he should not expect any in return.
It follows, then, that this Candidate shall remain nameless in this space until he shows respect for others and earns respect from others. If the Candidate continues to behave like a petulant child when things don't go his way, he can pick up his metaphorical marbles and go home.
As for fairness, when the Candidate cries that a debate moderator "isn't being fair" because "she isn't being nice to me," that shows still more of the petulant, childish behavior common among arrogant bullies who demand obedience without challenge or question.
In a republic founded on democratic principles, anyone can ask any question of anyone at any time. Free speech and a free press are an inherent part of that principle, and during a political debate, moderators have the right and the obligation to ask tough questions, and to challenge the Candidate if he does not answer. Journalists ask these questions not because they have any special rights, but they do so on behalf of all citizens.
To abuse and vilify the questioner shows contempt for all citizens. And such behavior is contemptible.
"If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." -- Harry Truman.
Many politicians feel that if you are not an advocate, you are an adversary. News reporters are neither. They ask the tough questions because they need to be asked.
A current Candidate has demanded that he be treated with respect and fairness. This, however, works both ways. Respect cannot be demanded; it must be earned. And when the Candidate fumes and blusters with abuse and insult at anyone who dares to question or disagree with him, he shows no respect for others. Therefore, he should not expect any in return.
It follows, then, that this Candidate shall remain nameless in this space until he shows respect for others and earns respect from others. If the Candidate continues to behave like a petulant child when things don't go his way, he can pick up his metaphorical marbles and go home.
As for fairness, when the Candidate cries that a debate moderator "isn't being fair" because "she isn't being nice to me," that shows still more of the petulant, childish behavior common among arrogant bullies who demand obedience without challenge or question.
In a republic founded on democratic principles, anyone can ask any question of anyone at any time. Free speech and a free press are an inherent part of that principle, and during a political debate, moderators have the right and the obligation to ask tough questions, and to challenge the Candidate if he does not answer. Journalists ask these questions not because they have any special rights, but they do so on behalf of all citizens.
To abuse and vilify the questioner shows contempt for all citizens. And such behavior is contemptible.
Wednesday, August 5, 2015
Xenophobia
There can be no "Us" without a "Them."
The politics of fear is often a fear of foreigners.
Throughout history, not only in America but worldwide, there has been a suspicion of "Others" who don't conform to what a dominant, nativist group considers the right, or proper way to act, think, speak and behave. Which is to say, "My way is the best way because that's the way I know, and anyone who doesn't do things my way is wrong, and most likely evil."
Moreover, this way of thinking applies not only to ethnic and cultural groups, but to gender as well. For example, consider this: Men and Women are different. Chauvinistic thinking concludes that because women are different, they are therefore inferior.
That, however, is clearly a fallacy. (Vive la difference! say the French.) Being different does not make one inferior.
An identical fallacy applies to the conclusion that members of a different ethnic, cultural, linguistic, educational or even income group are, because of that difference, inferior.
Moreover, when a dominant group manages to persuade itself that because members of "The Other" are different, they are less than human, and can be treated (mistreated) accordingly.
This happened in the 19th Century, when the Know-Nothing Party enjoyed cartoons that depicted Irish immigrants with simian features, thus reinforcing the idea that they were less than human. It happened as Americans moved westward and encountered others who were already there and objected to infringements on their territory.
It happened again in the 20th Century, when subscribers to an Other religion were consigned to ovens.
And it continues to happen in America as a fear of those of a different color fuels suspicion and violence.
These are but a few examples. History and contemporary reports describe many others.
It's important to remember, however, that fear and suspicion work in both directions. Just as members of a dominant group may fear members of "The Other," those in the minority may fear the domineering attitudes of authority figures, reinforced by their own past experience.
It's long past time we learned to accept differences for what they are -- mostly just differences, not symptoms of inferiority.
The politics of fear is often a fear of foreigners.
Throughout history, not only in America but worldwide, there has been a suspicion of "Others" who don't conform to what a dominant, nativist group considers the right, or proper way to act, think, speak and behave. Which is to say, "My way is the best way because that's the way I know, and anyone who doesn't do things my way is wrong, and most likely evil."
Moreover, this way of thinking applies not only to ethnic and cultural groups, but to gender as well. For example, consider this: Men and Women are different. Chauvinistic thinking concludes that because women are different, they are therefore inferior.
That, however, is clearly a fallacy. (Vive la difference! say the French.) Being different does not make one inferior.
An identical fallacy applies to the conclusion that members of a different ethnic, cultural, linguistic, educational or even income group are, because of that difference, inferior.
Moreover, when a dominant group manages to persuade itself that because members of "The Other" are different, they are less than human, and can be treated (mistreated) accordingly.
This happened in the 19th Century, when the Know-Nothing Party enjoyed cartoons that depicted Irish immigrants with simian features, thus reinforcing the idea that they were less than human. It happened as Americans moved westward and encountered others who were already there and objected to infringements on their territory.
It happened again in the 20th Century, when subscribers to an Other religion were consigned to ovens.
And it continues to happen in America as a fear of those of a different color fuels suspicion and violence.
These are but a few examples. History and contemporary reports describe many others.
It's important to remember, however, that fear and suspicion work in both directions. Just as members of a dominant group may fear members of "The Other," those in the minority may fear the domineering attitudes of authority figures, reinforced by their own past experience.
It's long past time we learned to accept differences for what they are -- mostly just differences, not symptoms of inferiority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)