"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.
Monday, November 30, 2015
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.
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
Slant and Bias
How gullible do they think we are? Answer: Very.
Ignore the premise of the question.
Candidates can't complain about media bias from the moderators in the latest GOP debate, hosted by Fox Business Network. If any, bias was in their favor, with questions reflecting conservative views. Even so, the contestants often were non-responsive, as they switched to their prepared talking points.
Many of the questions were highly selective, slanted against the economic progress of the past six years under the Democratic administration of President Barack Obama. Example: The first question of the evening cited the number of people out of work in America, rather than job growth -- 571,000 jobs were added in October, as the unemployment rate dipped again, to 5 percent.
Candidates continued to hammer at the theme that the nation is an economic disaster, despite the reality that recovery remains steady. Political candidates and those out of office have never let the facts get in the way of a good slogan, nor have they paused before spreading a good story about themselves, regardless of petty details like truth.
Consider the slogan, "Make America Great Again." This is based on the idea that the country is no longer great, and only the sloganeer can change that. They warn that disaster is either already here or is about to open an economic abyss and tumble the nation to perdition.
Here are some of the ideas put forth by some of the candidates at the debate:
-- Return to the gold standard in determining money supply.
-- Hobble the Federal Reserve Board, or dismantle the central bank entirely.
-- Impose sharp cuts in social assistance programs.
-- Slash taxes and reduce spending, but boost military and defense spending.
-- Repeal government regulation.
The first two alone are enough to make an economist cringe. Why? Limiting the amount of money in circulation to the amount of gold or silver in hand would stifle wages, and limit purchases, except for the ultra-few who had hard cash, returning society to the Golden Age of the late 19th Century. And abolishing the central bank would cancel any ability to encourage growth and limit inflation, using the supply of currency in circulation, as well as interest rates, as levers.
Failure to help those in need is immoral.
As for slashing taxes and spending, except for boosting large outlays for the military -- you can't do both.
And repealing government regulation of questionable business practices ... you're kidding, right?
As for selective truth-telling, candidate John Kasich claimed credit for balancing the federal budget while he was chairman of a Senate committee. While it is true that he was chairman of the committee at the time, it is also true that the federal budget was balanced during the administration of Democratic President Bill Clinton, who first reduced the deficit inherited from his two predecessors, Republicans Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and then posted four consecutive balanced budgets and a surplus.
That surplus promptly disappeared and the budget crashed into a major deficit pit under the next president, Republican George W. Bush. Kasich made no mention of that.
It's time for debate moderators to return to the basic journalistic guideline of the Five Ws -- Who, What, Where, When, and Why. Plus the H-word, the one often forgotten, but possibly more important than any of the others: How do you plan to do this?
For too long, candidates have been ignoring journalists' questions, forgetting that reporters are citizens first, and ask tough questions because they need to be asked, and they do it on behalf of all citizens.
Ignore the premise of the question.
Candidates can't complain about media bias from the moderators in the latest GOP debate, hosted by Fox Business Network. If any, bias was in their favor, with questions reflecting conservative views. Even so, the contestants often were non-responsive, as they switched to their prepared talking points.
Many of the questions were highly selective, slanted against the economic progress of the past six years under the Democratic administration of President Barack Obama. Example: The first question of the evening cited the number of people out of work in America, rather than job growth -- 571,000 jobs were added in October, as the unemployment rate dipped again, to 5 percent.
Candidates continued to hammer at the theme that the nation is an economic disaster, despite the reality that recovery remains steady. Political candidates and those out of office have never let the facts get in the way of a good slogan, nor have they paused before spreading a good story about themselves, regardless of petty details like truth.
Consider the slogan, "Make America Great Again." This is based on the idea that the country is no longer great, and only the sloganeer can change that. They warn that disaster is either already here or is about to open an economic abyss and tumble the nation to perdition.
Here are some of the ideas put forth by some of the candidates at the debate:
-- Return to the gold standard in determining money supply.
-- Hobble the Federal Reserve Board, or dismantle the central bank entirely.
-- Impose sharp cuts in social assistance programs.
-- Slash taxes and reduce spending, but boost military and defense spending.
-- Repeal government regulation.
The first two alone are enough to make an economist cringe. Why? Limiting the amount of money in circulation to the amount of gold or silver in hand would stifle wages, and limit purchases, except for the ultra-few who had hard cash, returning society to the Golden Age of the late 19th Century. And abolishing the central bank would cancel any ability to encourage growth and limit inflation, using the supply of currency in circulation, as well as interest rates, as levers.
Failure to help those in need is immoral.
As for slashing taxes and spending, except for boosting large outlays for the military -- you can't do both.
And repealing government regulation of questionable business practices ... you're kidding, right?
As for selective truth-telling, candidate John Kasich claimed credit for balancing the federal budget while he was chairman of a Senate committee. While it is true that he was chairman of the committee at the time, it is also true that the federal budget was balanced during the administration of Democratic President Bill Clinton, who first reduced the deficit inherited from his two predecessors, Republicans Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and then posted four consecutive balanced budgets and a surplus.
That surplus promptly disappeared and the budget crashed into a major deficit pit under the next president, Republican George W. Bush. Kasich made no mention of that.
It's time for debate moderators to return to the basic journalistic guideline of the Five Ws -- Who, What, Where, When, and Why. Plus the H-word, the one often forgotten, but possibly more important than any of the others: How do you plan to do this?
For too long, candidates have been ignoring journalists' questions, forgetting that reporters are citizens first, and ask tough questions because they need to be asked, and they do it on behalf of all citizens.
Saturday, November 7, 2015
Fuzz Words
The issue is not whether politicians lie, but what are they lying about today?
Words can hurt, so to take some of the sting off a word, people use synonyms, often Latin-based phrases rather than Anglo-Saxon based words.
For example, here are some terms used by journalists when challenging claims made by a political candidate: Demonstrably untrue, factually inaccurate, disingenuous, false statement, fabricated, misrepresented, questionable veracity, misleading, doesn't ring true. Meanwhile, an outspoken political opponent may use the more blunt, "He lies."
For a candidate to challenge reporters by demanding that they answer questions, thus sidestepping an issue, is pointless. Reporters do not answer questions, they ask them, and their opinions are not relevant to what they do. A candidate for public office must be able to answer questions truthfully.
Example 1: For a candidate to claim he was offered a full scholarship to the West Point Military Academy, as Republican Ben Carson has done repeatedly, is to mislead others, and exposes a belief that readers and supporters are gullible.
Fact: No one ever gets a scholarship to West Point, since there is no tuition to begin with. Attendance is free to every cadet who manages to pass the strict admittance process.
Example 2: Chris Christie claimed he was named U.S. attorney for New Jersey the day before the 9/11 terrorist attack on what he called "my state."
Fact: his appointment was not announced until December of that year, three months after the attack. Moreover, the targets of two of the planes were the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, in New York City. A third aircraft struck the Pentagon in Washington, DC, and a fourth crashed in Pennsylvania.
When politicians get defensive and assail news media for what they perceive as negative reports, it's important to remember that a journalist's duty is to report not only what a candidate says, but also to report truth.
Or as a young reporter once asked her editor, "Did you ever get the feeling when working on a story that someone is lying to you?"
The editor replied, "Of course. It happens all the time. But it's not our job to say he or she is lying. It's our job to report both sides of an issue, and the reader decides who's more credible."
Currently, there's been a rash of stories about GOP candidates claiming things that are untrue, false, misleading, etc. That's a sign of good reporting.
This is not to say that Democrats are immune to critical exposes by the news media. Many just have not been caught. Yet.
Audacity in a news reporter is a virtue.
Mendacity masquerading as virtuous outrage is a vice, and journalists have a duty to expose it.
Words can hurt, so to take some of the sting off a word, people use synonyms, often Latin-based phrases rather than Anglo-Saxon based words.
For example, here are some terms used by journalists when challenging claims made by a political candidate: Demonstrably untrue, factually inaccurate, disingenuous, false statement, fabricated, misrepresented, questionable veracity, misleading, doesn't ring true. Meanwhile, an outspoken political opponent may use the more blunt, "He lies."
For a candidate to challenge reporters by demanding that they answer questions, thus sidestepping an issue, is pointless. Reporters do not answer questions, they ask them, and their opinions are not relevant to what they do. A candidate for public office must be able to answer questions truthfully.
Example 1: For a candidate to claim he was offered a full scholarship to the West Point Military Academy, as Republican Ben Carson has done repeatedly, is to mislead others, and exposes a belief that readers and supporters are gullible.
Fact: No one ever gets a scholarship to West Point, since there is no tuition to begin with. Attendance is free to every cadet who manages to pass the strict admittance process.
Example 2: Chris Christie claimed he was named U.S. attorney for New Jersey the day before the 9/11 terrorist attack on what he called "my state."
Fact: his appointment was not announced until December of that year, three months after the attack. Moreover, the targets of two of the planes were the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, in New York City. A third aircraft struck the Pentagon in Washington, DC, and a fourth crashed in Pennsylvania.
When politicians get defensive and assail news media for what they perceive as negative reports, it's important to remember that a journalist's duty is to report not only what a candidate says, but also to report truth.
Or as a young reporter once asked her editor, "Did you ever get the feeling when working on a story that someone is lying to you?"
The editor replied, "Of course. It happens all the time. But it's not our job to say he or she is lying. It's our job to report both sides of an issue, and the reader decides who's more credible."
Currently, there's been a rash of stories about GOP candidates claiming things that are untrue, false, misleading, etc. That's a sign of good reporting.
This is not to say that Democrats are immune to critical exposes by the news media. Many just have not been caught. Yet.
Audacity in a news reporter is a virtue.
Mendacity masquerading as virtuous outrage is a vice, and journalists have a duty to expose it.
Friday, November 6, 2015
Jobs and Seekers
The unemployment rate in America dropped to 5 percent in October as the nation added 271,000 jobs, the government reported.
Meanwhile, migrants escaping troubles in the Middle East and seeking safety in Europe not only will add to the labor force there but may well boost the economy of nations in the European Union. A prediction by the European Commission said three million newcomers would help to fill the demand for workers and would boost the EU economy. The lift would be small, the commission noted -- about a quarter of a percent over three years -- but government spending to accommodate the refugees would stimulate the regional economy. Moreover, the larger labor force would make more workers available as the economy recovers.
As the European Commission put it in its report, the additional workers would help the economy "provided the right policies are in place to facilitate access to the labor market."
There will be problems, of course, as there always are with a changing population. Cultural differences may cause stress, and worker education and skills will need to match employer needs. But those issues face every nation with a history of immigration, notably the U.S. Over time, America has been the better for it.
Meanwhile, the economy in America continues its recovery. And political rhetoric attacking newcomers and blaming them for any and all ills of society is no more true today than it was in the 19th Century years of the Know Nothing Party, and the employment signs that said, "Help Wanted -- NINA." (No Irish Need Apply.)
Meanwhile, migrants escaping troubles in the Middle East and seeking safety in Europe not only will add to the labor force there but may well boost the economy of nations in the European Union. A prediction by the European Commission said three million newcomers would help to fill the demand for workers and would boost the EU economy. The lift would be small, the commission noted -- about a quarter of a percent over three years -- but government spending to accommodate the refugees would stimulate the regional economy. Moreover, the larger labor force would make more workers available as the economy recovers.
As the European Commission put it in its report, the additional workers would help the economy "provided the right policies are in place to facilitate access to the labor market."
There will be problems, of course, as there always are with a changing population. Cultural differences may cause stress, and worker education and skills will need to match employer needs. But those issues face every nation with a history of immigration, notably the U.S. Over time, America has been the better for it.
Meanwhile, the economy in America continues its recovery. And political rhetoric attacking newcomers and blaming them for any and all ills of society is no more true today than it was in the 19th Century years of the Know Nothing Party, and the employment signs that said, "Help Wanted -- NINA." (No Irish Need Apply.)
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
Prosperity and Politics
Political candidates promise to bring jobs back to America from other countries, but they don't specify what kind of jobs they would bring back, even as they imply they would do it single-handedly.
Landscaping and construction jobs, for example, cannot be exported, much less brought back, since they are by definition local.
Manufacturing jobs can be relocated, but bringing them back to America would require paying higher, U.S.-level wages. In many cases, that's why the manufacturers left in the first place. Meanwhile, higher wages is what attracts many newcomers, and always has. If jobs were available at home, along with safety, security and opportunity, there would be little reason to leave. That's why America has long been called the Land of Opportunity.
So for those with a gut-level fear of newcomers, the best way to resolve that fear is to help other nations achieve peace and prosperity through good jobs, healthy trade and political stability.
Competition is a wonderful thing, but if the goal is to win, even by reducing other competitors to beggary, both sides lose. Political candidates sometimes spout the rhetoric of win, win, win, and accuse all others of being low-energy losers. This is counterproductive at best and destructive at worst.
There's nothing really new here. The danger of such behavior was well established by Adam Smith in the first and most important book on modern economics, "The Wealth of Nations," published in 1776.
As for creating jobs, skill levels, prevailing wages and the cost of living must also be considered, as well as location.
Construction jobs, which are often touted as nearly magical cures by politicians seeking votes, are by nature temporary and local. When a construction project is complete, the jobs go away. In a flourishing economy, construction workers move on to a new project. Without new projects, however, unemployment rises, income falls, sales and purchases decline and the downward economic spiral continues.
The question, then, becomes one of how to stop the downward spiral of economic recession.
The most effective answer -- a basic principle of Economics 101 and well known to any practical thinker -- is to spend money, which is the lifeblood of any modern economy. That's easy to say as long as workers have jobs, and wages to support their families. In times of mass unemployment, however, consumers cannot make purchases with money they don't have. This is where government steps in, sponsoring construction projects that hire workers and give them wages for food, clothing, shelter and other necessities, as well as a few luxuries.
To claim that austerity is the solution defies logic.
Meanwhile, the claim that the American economy is tottering is demonstrably untrue, and political candidates who obsess on that claim ignore reality.
On an international level, the U.S. trade deficit continues to decline as the trade gap closes. The dollar is strong relative to other currencies, which is good news for tourists. The employment level is slowly growing as the unemployment rate subsides. Overall, the American economy continues to recover, albeit it slowly and despite rantings by opposition candidates.
On a wider level, economic conditions throughout the Western Hemisphere continue to slow down, according to the International Monetary Fund, even as the U.S. economy "regained momentum after a slow start" earlier this year.
So why bring back jobs from other nations, if that means fewer jobs in other countries, leading to less money and worsening conditions for workers there, who would be unable to buy American products? And if the jobs do come back, what will be the wages? Will they be lower than they had been, which would hurt the American workers, or will they match other U.S. pay levels, which would result in higher consumer prices?
Better to encourage job growth in other countries, especially in lower-wage countries, so they could buy more stuff made in America by skilled workers who deservedly earn higher wages.
This way, both sides win, and there are no losers.
Maybe it's time the candidates read up on Economics 101, and Adam Smith's principle of comparative advantage.
Landscaping and construction jobs, for example, cannot be exported, much less brought back, since they are by definition local.
Manufacturing jobs can be relocated, but bringing them back to America would require paying higher, U.S.-level wages. In many cases, that's why the manufacturers left in the first place. Meanwhile, higher wages is what attracts many newcomers, and always has. If jobs were available at home, along with safety, security and opportunity, there would be little reason to leave. That's why America has long been called the Land of Opportunity.
So for those with a gut-level fear of newcomers, the best way to resolve that fear is to help other nations achieve peace and prosperity through good jobs, healthy trade and political stability.
Competition is a wonderful thing, but if the goal is to win, even by reducing other competitors to beggary, both sides lose. Political candidates sometimes spout the rhetoric of win, win, win, and accuse all others of being low-energy losers. This is counterproductive at best and destructive at worst.
There's nothing really new here. The danger of such behavior was well established by Adam Smith in the first and most important book on modern economics, "The Wealth of Nations," published in 1776.
As for creating jobs, skill levels, prevailing wages and the cost of living must also be considered, as well as location.
Construction jobs, which are often touted as nearly magical cures by politicians seeking votes, are by nature temporary and local. When a construction project is complete, the jobs go away. In a flourishing economy, construction workers move on to a new project. Without new projects, however, unemployment rises, income falls, sales and purchases decline and the downward economic spiral continues.
The question, then, becomes one of how to stop the downward spiral of economic recession.
The most effective answer -- a basic principle of Economics 101 and well known to any practical thinker -- is to spend money, which is the lifeblood of any modern economy. That's easy to say as long as workers have jobs, and wages to support their families. In times of mass unemployment, however, consumers cannot make purchases with money they don't have. This is where government steps in, sponsoring construction projects that hire workers and give them wages for food, clothing, shelter and other necessities, as well as a few luxuries.
To claim that austerity is the solution defies logic.
Meanwhile, the claim that the American economy is tottering is demonstrably untrue, and political candidates who obsess on that claim ignore reality.
On an international level, the U.S. trade deficit continues to decline as the trade gap closes. The dollar is strong relative to other currencies, which is good news for tourists. The employment level is slowly growing as the unemployment rate subsides. Overall, the American economy continues to recover, albeit it slowly and despite rantings by opposition candidates.
On a wider level, economic conditions throughout the Western Hemisphere continue to slow down, according to the International Monetary Fund, even as the U.S. economy "regained momentum after a slow start" earlier this year.
So why bring back jobs from other nations, if that means fewer jobs in other countries, leading to less money and worsening conditions for workers there, who would be unable to buy American products? And if the jobs do come back, what will be the wages? Will they be lower than they had been, which would hurt the American workers, or will they match other U.S. pay levels, which would result in higher consumer prices?
Better to encourage job growth in other countries, especially in lower-wage countries, so they could buy more stuff made in America by skilled workers who deservedly earn higher wages.
This way, both sides win, and there are no losers.
Maybe it's time the candidates read up on Economics 101, and Adam Smith's principle of comparative advantage.
Monday, November 2, 2015
Gotcha
Republicans don't like journalists because they can't control them.
"If you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen." -- Harry S. Truman
Presidential candidates and Republican Party operatives have renewed their attack on what they call the "lamestream media" after disappointing --- dare we say failing? -- performances at the most recent televised "debate."
Their major complaint seems to be against what they call "gotcha" questions from the journalist-moderators. They charge that the prime goal of the moderators was to ask "gotcha" questions intended solely to embarrass the candidates, and not to obtain substantive responses to serious questions.
A major irony was the proposal by Sen. Ted Cruz that the next Republican debate be moderated by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Levin. "Now that would be a debate," Sen. Cruz proclaimed.
Our resident cynic, Pug Mahoney, noted that it would be less a debate than a propaganda session, since the three proposed moderators -- all ultra-conservative broadcast commentators -- likely don't even know the meaning of the word "neutral."
That, however, is what journalists and debate moderators should be -- neutral. As noted here previously, reporters ask tough questions because they need to be asked. To brand a reporter or moderator as an adversary who asks "mean spirited" questions in an attempt to embarrass the candidate shows first a lack of understanding of the reporter's role. Secondly, and more important, it reveals an attempt to control the message by controlling the questioner, and in a larger sense to control the news media.
At the same time, however, the moderator of a political debate should be able to control the proceedings. Unfortunately, that was something the journalist-moderators at last week's debate failed to do. They lost control within the first five minutes of the program, and the "debate" collapsed into a competitive quagmire of attempts by the various candidates to take control. None did, so for the remainder of the two-hour program, contestants continued to talk even as the moderator reminded them that their time had expired.
A result of all the night's confusion was that there was very little substantive discussion of issues expected in a debate sponsored by CNBC, the television network devoted to business and the economy.
In short, it is a reporter's job to ask tough questions.
As presidential candidate Chris Christie, Republican governor of New Jersey and a participant in the recent debate, put it, anyone who aspires to be President of the United States should be able to handle tough questions.
Ultimately, the issue is this: Do reporters set out to embarrass politicians by asking "gotcha" questions? Perhaps. But at root, journalists ask questions to get at the truth, and to establish whether the contestant knows the topic and can speak knowledgeably about it. If the candidate suffers embarrassment for failing the test, that's on him or her.
Or to put it another way, embarrassment is the only weapon news reporters have.
"If you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen." -- Harry S. Truman
Presidential candidates and Republican Party operatives have renewed their attack on what they call the "lamestream media" after disappointing --- dare we say failing? -- performances at the most recent televised "debate."
Their major complaint seems to be against what they call "gotcha" questions from the journalist-moderators. They charge that the prime goal of the moderators was to ask "gotcha" questions intended solely to embarrass the candidates, and not to obtain substantive responses to serious questions.
A major irony was the proposal by Sen. Ted Cruz that the next Republican debate be moderated by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Levin. "Now that would be a debate," Sen. Cruz proclaimed.
Our resident cynic, Pug Mahoney, noted that it would be less a debate than a propaganda session, since the three proposed moderators -- all ultra-conservative broadcast commentators -- likely don't even know the meaning of the word "neutral."
That, however, is what journalists and debate moderators should be -- neutral. As noted here previously, reporters ask tough questions because they need to be asked. To brand a reporter or moderator as an adversary who asks "mean spirited" questions in an attempt to embarrass the candidate shows first a lack of understanding of the reporter's role. Secondly, and more important, it reveals an attempt to control the message by controlling the questioner, and in a larger sense to control the news media.
At the same time, however, the moderator of a political debate should be able to control the proceedings. Unfortunately, that was something the journalist-moderators at last week's debate failed to do. They lost control within the first five minutes of the program, and the "debate" collapsed into a competitive quagmire of attempts by the various candidates to take control. None did, so for the remainder of the two-hour program, contestants continued to talk even as the moderator reminded them that their time had expired.
A result of all the night's confusion was that there was very little substantive discussion of issues expected in a debate sponsored by CNBC, the television network devoted to business and the economy.
In short, it is a reporter's job to ask tough questions.
As presidential candidate Chris Christie, Republican governor of New Jersey and a participant in the recent debate, put it, anyone who aspires to be President of the United States should be able to handle tough questions.
Ultimately, the issue is this: Do reporters set out to embarrass politicians by asking "gotcha" questions? Perhaps. But at root, journalists ask questions to get at the truth, and to establish whether the contestant knows the topic and can speak knowledgeably about it. If the candidate suffers embarrassment for failing the test, that's on him or her.
Or to put it another way, embarrassment is the only weapon news reporters have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)