He makes good copy.
My opinions are not relevant to what I do.
It is a puzzlement. News media are now being criticized for extensive coverage of a presidential candidate, based on the idea that he is little more than an entertainer, and a master manipulator of the news cycle. The accusation is that the Republican Party and lax journalists have created this media monster, who is now out of control.
All this raises the question of whether the candidacy should have been ignored in the first place. Answer: No. But there could have been limits.
Flash and dash make some stories easy to cover, and outrageous acts and comments make some stories even easier. It takes little effort on the part of reporters to uncover a crisp, exciting angle to a story or a candidate's daily actions when said candidate is an expert at manipulating the media to call attention to himself.
But the Five Ws of journalism -- Who, What, Where, When and Why -- apply not only to elements of a story, but equally to a candidate. The Who, Where and When are easy enough. The What can be a challenge, but not when the candidate splashes a diatribe about anything and everything, spiced with insult, vilification and abuse of opponents or anyone else who disagrees.
In short, it makes good copy, as the old newsroom saying goes, and spices up the story even when there are few specifics about the candidate's policies or positions.
The most difficult of the Five Ws, however, is the Why. It's easy enough to write about Who the candidate is, identify Where and When the candidate speaks, and report What the candidate says.
But there's more to it than that. For example, is What the candidate says true or false, or misleading, or irrelevant, or has little or no substance, even though it may be entertaining?
Most important, however, is the Why. Why does the candidate say or do what he does? What motivation is there, and How does the candidate plan to implement his policies -- if in fact he speaks of them at all -- when and if he is elected?
Currently, there has been much lamenting of the media's role in enabling the rise in popularity of the leading Republican candidate for the presidency. The complaint has been raised that You-Know-Who is unfit, unqualified, and even dangerous, and should not be considered a legitimate candidate.
It's too late to take back all the news coverage devoted to the candidate since last summer, and it's not relevant to claim that journalism should not have covered his campaign at all.
The point is that he is a candidate, he leads in many surveys, he has many supporters who show up at campaign rallies, and who believe what he says, regardless of news reports detailing the absurdities of many of his more coarse remarks, not to mention their validity or truthfulness.
Should the media have ignored him from the first? No, since he was and is a candidate. Should the media have been more critical earlier in the campaign, or given less coverage to him and more to several other candidates? Perhaps, but You-Know-Who is a more colorful and entertaining speaker, and that makes a reporter's job easier.
Can it be said that many reporters are basically lazy, and chase after the most flashy and entertaining of those involved in any particular story? Absolutely.
Should the news media have ignored You-Know-Who, basing their judgment on whether he was a viable candidate? No, because that's not their job.
Whether he was or is a good candidate, a qualified candidate, or even a dangerous candidate can be shown through continuing coverage of the candidate's speeches, comments and actions.
The danger for reporters is falling for the glamorous and entertaining aspects of the campaign, and not detailing the mundane details and specifics of any policy plan for government.
A candidate cannot and should not be ignored. But every candidate deserves to have his comments, actions and speeches recorded and reported, so that readers, viewers and voters have sufficient information to decide whether to support any particular candidate.
Thursday, March 31, 2016
Wednesday, March 30, 2016
Carlinomics
"It's all about stuff." -- George Carlin
What's an easy way to think about economics? Take away all the abstract notions and mathematical models, and you get to the George Carlin School of Economics. It's all about stuff.
Put it this way: I've got stuff. You've got stuff. I have more stuff than I need, and you have some stuff that I want. So we'll trade. But sometimes I don't have the stuff that you want or need so we can't trade, unless we find someone else who also has stuff, who would be willing to trade some of his stuff for some of your stuff, which would mean you still have more stuff than you need, but some of the extra stuff is stuff that I want. So we arrange a three-way trade.
But that can get complicated when there are more than three people involved in trading stuff. After all, how many different kinds of stuff are there? Really, there's stuff and there's stuff. Good stuff, not so good stuff, really good stuff, and maybe even some bad stuff, or stuff that nobody wants.
Anyway, how do we arrange to trade stuff when there are so many different kinds of stuff?
Here's an idea. Let's invent money. That way, we can trade stuff for money, which we take to the next person who may not want my stuff but is willing to take money for stuff that I need, and then he can use the money to buy stuff that he needs.
And just to make it sound technical when we put it in a textbook on economics, we'll call money a "medium of exchange."
But what if we don't want to trade stuff right away, but we still want to have some money stuff that we can use for trading later? That's easy. We just call our money stuff "a store of value." Not like it's a shop, but it's just a way to keep stuff we think is valuable so we can trade it for stuff we need later.
So what about this money stuff? Does it have any value of its own? Sometimes, yes. Like gold or silver. But it doesn't have to.
Look at it this way. You have a job, right? So you go to work and at the end of the week, the boss gives you a piece of paper called a paycheck, which you take to the bank and trade it for more pieces of paper called money. You then take some of those pieces of paper to a grocery store and you trade those pieces of paper for food.
That's quite a system, when you think about it. No real stuff is being traded. Just pieces of paper.
Take it a step further, and many jobs don't even give you a paycheck. Instead, your salary is sent directly to a money store called a bank, which gives you a piece of plastic that shows you have some money stuff.
So instead of bringing pieces of paper money stuff to the grocery store, you just bring the plastic card, wave it at a machine after you select your food stuff, and everybody's happy.
We have even eliminated money stuff.
It's quite a system, when you think of it.
As long as we trust each other. And the banks. And the people who print the pieces of paper called money stuff.
Of course, when there are too many pieces of paper money stuff and not enough food stuff or clothing stuff, then people need more pieces of paper to trade for their stuff.
That's called inflation.
And if people can't get a job to earn money stuff so they can buy food stuff, that's called a Recession. When they don't have money stuff and they're hungry, sometimes they steal stuff so they can eat. That's called crime.
Unless a government hires them to make stuff and do stuff so they can have money stuff to buy food stuff. That's called "economic stimulus."
On the other hand, there are some folks who have lots and lots of money stuff but don't want to share it, or they won't hire other folks to do stuff for them so the worker folks can have money stuff too. That's called greed, and is common among folks who want to keep all the money stuff. It's also known as "mercantilism," which means that "who ever has all the money stuff at the end, wins."
The problem there, of course, is that the people with all the money stuff must use it to trade for food stuff and clothing stuff, so that the folks who grow the food stuff can use the money stuff to buy clothing stuff.
That's called a market system.
And the bottom line is that it's all about stuff.
What's an easy way to think about economics? Take away all the abstract notions and mathematical models, and you get to the George Carlin School of Economics. It's all about stuff.
Put it this way: I've got stuff. You've got stuff. I have more stuff than I need, and you have some stuff that I want. So we'll trade. But sometimes I don't have the stuff that you want or need so we can't trade, unless we find someone else who also has stuff, who would be willing to trade some of his stuff for some of your stuff, which would mean you still have more stuff than you need, but some of the extra stuff is stuff that I want. So we arrange a three-way trade.
But that can get complicated when there are more than three people involved in trading stuff. After all, how many different kinds of stuff are there? Really, there's stuff and there's stuff. Good stuff, not so good stuff, really good stuff, and maybe even some bad stuff, or stuff that nobody wants.
Anyway, how do we arrange to trade stuff when there are so many different kinds of stuff?
Here's an idea. Let's invent money. That way, we can trade stuff for money, which we take to the next person who may not want my stuff but is willing to take money for stuff that I need, and then he can use the money to buy stuff that he needs.
And just to make it sound technical when we put it in a textbook on economics, we'll call money a "medium of exchange."
But what if we don't want to trade stuff right away, but we still want to have some money stuff that we can use for trading later? That's easy. We just call our money stuff "a store of value." Not like it's a shop, but it's just a way to keep stuff we think is valuable so we can trade it for stuff we need later.
So what about this money stuff? Does it have any value of its own? Sometimes, yes. Like gold or silver. But it doesn't have to.
Look at it this way. You have a job, right? So you go to work and at the end of the week, the boss gives you a piece of paper called a paycheck, which you take to the bank and trade it for more pieces of paper called money. You then take some of those pieces of paper to a grocery store and you trade those pieces of paper for food.
That's quite a system, when you think about it. No real stuff is being traded. Just pieces of paper.
Take it a step further, and many jobs don't even give you a paycheck. Instead, your salary is sent directly to a money store called a bank, which gives you a piece of plastic that shows you have some money stuff.
So instead of bringing pieces of paper money stuff to the grocery store, you just bring the plastic card, wave it at a machine after you select your food stuff, and everybody's happy.
We have even eliminated money stuff.
It's quite a system, when you think of it.
As long as we trust each other. And the banks. And the people who print the pieces of paper called money stuff.
Of course, when there are too many pieces of paper money stuff and not enough food stuff or clothing stuff, then people need more pieces of paper to trade for their stuff.
That's called inflation.
And if people can't get a job to earn money stuff so they can buy food stuff, that's called a Recession. When they don't have money stuff and they're hungry, sometimes they steal stuff so they can eat. That's called crime.
Unless a government hires them to make stuff and do stuff so they can have money stuff to buy food stuff. That's called "economic stimulus."
On the other hand, there are some folks who have lots and lots of money stuff but don't want to share it, or they won't hire other folks to do stuff for them so the worker folks can have money stuff too. That's called greed, and is common among folks who want to keep all the money stuff. It's also known as "mercantilism," which means that "who ever has all the money stuff at the end, wins."
The problem there, of course, is that the people with all the money stuff must use it to trade for food stuff and clothing stuff, so that the folks who grow the food stuff can use the money stuff to buy clothing stuff.
That's called a market system.
And the bottom line is that it's all about stuff.
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Rules of Engagement
Rule Number One: Do not beat up on women.
Rule Number Two: Do not beat up on reporters.
Rule Number Three: Never, ever beat up on a woman reporter, even if said reporter is a royal pest.
Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski apparently broke all three rules when he man-handled a woman reporter away from the candidate, leaving bruises on her arm. Lewandowski was arrested and now faces charges. Trump, of course, stands by his man, alleging that he was treated "unfairly," and was "maligned." Notwithstanding video evidence documenting the confrontation.
Politicians often regard reporters as pests. But that's their job, to ask tough questions, even as they trail the pol and point a microphone at him. Those on the Secret Service protective detail quickly get to know who's a reporter and who's a danger, especially when reporters have identifying badges in addition to microphones and other recording equipment.
Soon we expect to hear these phrases from the candidate, reminiscent of comments made about his opponents:
"She started it. She did it first. It's her own fault, she should not have been in the way. She should not ask tough questions."
DT has a history of attacking and insulting anyone who disagrees with him on any issue, anytime, anywhere, any how. He is especially spiteful when tough questions come from women, such as his attitude toward Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly.
Repeated examples of this attitude raise the question of whether he is, at root, afraid of women.
This would explain his reluctance or refusal to appear on "The View" broadcast program, facing such intelligent, well educated and independent women as Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg.
Or his absence from any appearance on the Rachel Maddow Program. She is one of the most intelligent and well educated women in all broadcasting, with a doctorate in political science from Oxford University, earned through a Rhodes Scholarship.
So what's DT afraid of? Or does he not have the cojones to debate a woman?
Rule Number Two: Do not beat up on reporters.
Rule Number Three: Never, ever beat up on a woman reporter, even if said reporter is a royal pest.
Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski apparently broke all three rules when he man-handled a woman reporter away from the candidate, leaving bruises on her arm. Lewandowski was arrested and now faces charges. Trump, of course, stands by his man, alleging that he was treated "unfairly," and was "maligned." Notwithstanding video evidence documenting the confrontation.
Politicians often regard reporters as pests. But that's their job, to ask tough questions, even as they trail the pol and point a microphone at him. Those on the Secret Service protective detail quickly get to know who's a reporter and who's a danger, especially when reporters have identifying badges in addition to microphones and other recording equipment.
Soon we expect to hear these phrases from the candidate, reminiscent of comments made about his opponents:
"She started it. She did it first. It's her own fault, she should not have been in the way. She should not ask tough questions."
DT has a history of attacking and insulting anyone who disagrees with him on any issue, anytime, anywhere, any how. He is especially spiteful when tough questions come from women, such as his attitude toward Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly.
Repeated examples of this attitude raise the question of whether he is, at root, afraid of women.
This would explain his reluctance or refusal to appear on "The View" broadcast program, facing such intelligent, well educated and independent women as Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg.
Or his absence from any appearance on the Rachel Maddow Program. She is one of the most intelligent and well educated women in all broadcasting, with a doctorate in political science from Oxford University, earned through a Rhodes Scholarship.
So what's DT afraid of? Or does he not have the cojones to debate a woman?
Pencil Patrol
When in doubt, rephrase.
The Grammar Gremlin says that subject and verb must agree in a sentence. But what's a writer to do when a group noun and a plural noun appear in the same phrase?
A syndicated columnist was trapped by that problem with this phrasing: "A substantial proportion of Republicans says it won't support him ... " The question is, what is the subject of the sentence? Is it "proportion," which calls for the singular verb "says," or is the subject "Republicans," which of course is plural, and would call for the verb "say."
Or is the subject of the sentence the entire phrase "proportion of Republicans"? Which, then, should be the operative verb?
Depending on which grammar text you consult, the answer could be either. Or both, depending on the sense of the sentence. Does the reader construe the subject as plural, "Republicans," or as a group noun "proportion" which according to some takes a singular verb.
Thus we have an internal or group debate as to whether group nouns are acting collectively, or as a bunch or individuals, as in "Captain, the crew is ready to make sail." Or this, "Captain, (members of) the crew are going ashore."
A writer's task is to communicate, and whatever interferes with the flow of communication must be avoided. Therefore, rather than subject readers to a puzzlement over whether the verb should be singular or plural, rephrase the sentence to remove all questions.
Try this: "Many Republicans say ..." Or this "In substantial numbers, Republicans say ..." Or any other combination of words that cancels the possibility of debate over what "should be."
The Grammar Gremlin says that subject and verb must agree in a sentence. But what's a writer to do when a group noun and a plural noun appear in the same phrase?
A syndicated columnist was trapped by that problem with this phrasing: "A substantial proportion of Republicans says it won't support him ... " The question is, what is the subject of the sentence? Is it "proportion," which calls for the singular verb "says," or is the subject "Republicans," which of course is plural, and would call for the verb "say."
Or is the subject of the sentence the entire phrase "proportion of Republicans"? Which, then, should be the operative verb?
Depending on which grammar text you consult, the answer could be either. Or both, depending on the sense of the sentence. Does the reader construe the subject as plural, "Republicans," or as a group noun "proportion" which according to some takes a singular verb.
Thus we have an internal or group debate as to whether group nouns are acting collectively, or as a bunch or individuals, as in "Captain, the crew is ready to make sail." Or this, "Captain, (members of) the crew are going ashore."
A writer's task is to communicate, and whatever interferes with the flow of communication must be avoided. Therefore, rather than subject readers to a puzzlement over whether the verb should be singular or plural, rephrase the sentence to remove all questions.
Try this: "Many Republicans say ..." Or this "In substantial numbers, Republicans say ..." Or any other combination of words that cancels the possibility of debate over what "should be."
Friday, March 25, 2016
Parse This
Today's challenge: Diagram a Trump sentence. (Suggested by Dan Balz of the Washington Post to Chuck Todd of MSNBC.)
Buzzword of the Week: Existential, as in "existential threat." That phrase has cropped up daily for some time now, reaching all the way to the White House, when President Barack Obama used it several times during a talk.
Chief copy editor Pug Mahoney wondered how an "existential threat" differs from any other threat, so we checked various dictionary definitions. The word "existential" is defined as "of or pertaining to existence." Which really tells us nothing, as is often the case with dictionaries, since they define words in terms of themselves. In any case, an "existential threat" is little more than a "real threat," as opposed to an unreal or nonexistent threat. Maybe politicians use "existential" because such a threat sounds so much more serious, even though it's no less real.
The question then becomes whether a threat is more real, more serious, has more potential to cause more damage, or any of various other permutations of threatendom.
In addition, is the threat a danger to someone's very existence, and not just a warning to beware of an icy sidewalk?
If that's the case, say so. Give the public something to go on, rather than rely on a word that has been used so often it becomes a buzzword, where overuse erodes whatever value the word might have had originally.
Buzzword of the Week: Existential, as in "existential threat." That phrase has cropped up daily for some time now, reaching all the way to the White House, when President Barack Obama used it several times during a talk.
Chief copy editor Pug Mahoney wondered how an "existential threat" differs from any other threat, so we checked various dictionary definitions. The word "existential" is defined as "of or pertaining to existence." Which really tells us nothing, as is often the case with dictionaries, since they define words in terms of themselves. In any case, an "existential threat" is little more than a "real threat," as opposed to an unreal or nonexistent threat. Maybe politicians use "existential" because such a threat sounds so much more serious, even though it's no less real.
The question then becomes whether a threat is more real, more serious, has more potential to cause more damage, or any of various other permutations of threatendom.
In addition, is the threat a danger to someone's very existence, and not just a warning to beware of an icy sidewalk?
If that's the case, say so. Give the public something to go on, rather than rely on a word that has been used so often it becomes a buzzword, where overuse erodes whatever value the word might have had originally.
Monday, March 21, 2016
Who That
Who is for people. That is for things.
Copy editors unite! You have nothing to lose but your pencils!
One would think pronouns are the easiest terms to keep in place. But one would be mistaken.
Example: Many allegedly professional users of the language regularly type or say things like, "All the people that want this, please raise their hands."
The pronoun that best fits here is "who," since it deals with people. The term "that" should be reserved for things or concepts. Also, in the sample sentence, since it is a form of direct address, use the phrase "your hands."
Umm, y'know, it's like, yeah. Thoughtful speakers (and writers) would do well to eliminate all of those from their lexicon. They are fill words, used mostly by speakers unsure of what they want to say, so they fill time with meaningless words and terms while they struggle to find something to say.
It's an understandable tactic, especially when dealing with broadcast people who feel obligated to prevent what's know in the trade as "dead air," that is, silence. However, what results is fill words, gobbledygook and yammering as they fight to keep control of the microphone and camera.
During this election cycle, such a tactic will be especially noticeable among candidates during debates, or even during interviews.
The idea seems to be if you keep talking long enough and loud enough, people will assume you know what you're talking about, and they will forget that you're not answering the question.
Notice to politicians: There are some in the audience who recognize when candidates are Blowing Smoke (note the capital letters) and not responding to the question.
Full disclosure and fair warning: Our resident critic, Dinty Ramble, and his snarky editor, Pug Mahoney, are back at work and on the job.
Copy editors unite! You have nothing to lose but your pencils!
One would think pronouns are the easiest terms to keep in place. But one would be mistaken.
Example: Many allegedly professional users of the language regularly type or say things like, "All the people that want this, please raise their hands."
The pronoun that best fits here is "who," since it deals with people. The term "that" should be reserved for things or concepts. Also, in the sample sentence, since it is a form of direct address, use the phrase "your hands."
Umm, y'know, it's like, yeah. Thoughtful speakers (and writers) would do well to eliminate all of those from their lexicon. They are fill words, used mostly by speakers unsure of what they want to say, so they fill time with meaningless words and terms while they struggle to find something to say.
It's an understandable tactic, especially when dealing with broadcast people who feel obligated to prevent what's know in the trade as "dead air," that is, silence. However, what results is fill words, gobbledygook and yammering as they fight to keep control of the microphone and camera.
During this election cycle, such a tactic will be especially noticeable among candidates during debates, or even during interviews.
The idea seems to be if you keep talking long enough and loud enough, people will assume you know what you're talking about, and they will forget that you're not answering the question.
Notice to politicians: There are some in the audience who recognize when candidates are Blowing Smoke (note the capital letters) and not responding to the question.
Full disclosure and fair warning: Our resident critic, Dinty Ramble, and his snarky editor, Pug Mahoney, are back at work and on the job.
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Inciting to Riot Part 4
"Bad things" including "riots" will happen, if he's not nominated on the first ballot, says the candidate.
"I wouldn't lead it, but I think bad things would happen," said GOP front runner Donald Trump in an interview broadcast on CNN and reported by the New York Times.
That may not be a direct threat, but warnings are often perceived as instructions to followers to do just that, especially when there is a past pattern of comments encouraging supporters to beat up on hecklers and protesters.
"I think we'll win" the nomination before getting to the Republican national convention, said Trump, "but if we didn't and we're 20 votes short ... I think you'd have riots."
Meanwhile, during a morning interview on MSNBC, Trump insisted his main advisor on foreign policy is himself. Several months ago, when asked about policy advisors, he said he watches television shows.
"My primary consultant is myself," Trump said. "I have a good instinct for this stuff," he added.
Instinct is no substitute for knowledge and experience.
Separately, Trump has reached the top ten list of risks to the world economy, according to The Economist Intelligence Unit, a part of The Economist publishing firm.
A Trump victory, the Intelligence Unit said, "could escalate rapidly into a trade war." And Robert Powell, an analyst with the unit, said, "The impact for the world would be bad, and "the impact for the U.S. would be even worse."
Item: Corey Lewandowski, the Trump campaign manager facing allegations that he assaulted a reporter, will be a delegate representing New Hampshire when the GOP convention opens in Cleveland. Lewandowski is a former state director of Americans for Prosperity, the arch-conservative group formed by the Koch Brothers.
A new book, "Dark Money," by Jane Mayer, details the brothers' plans to coordinate efforts by the ultra-wealthy to overturn most or all of the social welfare government programs enacted since the Great Depression of the 1930s, and to focus on control of government by the richest of the rich in America.
Another new book, "Saving Capitalism for the Many, Not the Few," by economist Robert B. Reich, details how calls for a "free market," released from government regulation, is in reality a plan by business executives to shape government regulations in their favor.
"I wouldn't lead it, but I think bad things would happen," said GOP front runner Donald Trump in an interview broadcast on CNN and reported by the New York Times.
That may not be a direct threat, but warnings are often perceived as instructions to followers to do just that, especially when there is a past pattern of comments encouraging supporters to beat up on hecklers and protesters.
"I think we'll win" the nomination before getting to the Republican national convention, said Trump, "but if we didn't and we're 20 votes short ... I think you'd have riots."
Meanwhile, during a morning interview on MSNBC, Trump insisted his main advisor on foreign policy is himself. Several months ago, when asked about policy advisors, he said he watches television shows.
"My primary consultant is myself," Trump said. "I have a good instinct for this stuff," he added.
Instinct is no substitute for knowledge and experience.
Separately, Trump has reached the top ten list of risks to the world economy, according to The Economist Intelligence Unit, a part of The Economist publishing firm.
A Trump victory, the Intelligence Unit said, "could escalate rapidly into a trade war." And Robert Powell, an analyst with the unit, said, "The impact for the world would be bad, and "the impact for the U.S. would be even worse."
Item: Corey Lewandowski, the Trump campaign manager facing allegations that he assaulted a reporter, will be a delegate representing New Hampshire when the GOP convention opens in Cleveland. Lewandowski is a former state director of Americans for Prosperity, the arch-conservative group formed by the Koch Brothers.
A new book, "Dark Money," by Jane Mayer, details the brothers' plans to coordinate efforts by the ultra-wealthy to overturn most or all of the social welfare government programs enacted since the Great Depression of the 1930s, and to focus on control of government by the richest of the rich in America.
Another new book, "Saving Capitalism for the Many, Not the Few," by economist Robert B. Reich, details how calls for a "free market," released from government regulation, is in reality a plan by business executives to shape government regulations in their favor.
Hypercorrectness
If you sound like you know what you're talking about, people will assume you do.
No one is immune from the malady known as hypercorrectness, including the President of the United States.
In an effort to appear fully expert in grammatical usage, people go too far, substituting terms that are actually wrong.
Example: A dispatch from the White House said, "Today, I will announce the person whom I believe is eminently qualified to sit on the Supreme Court." Signed, President Barack Obama.
Problem: The pronoun should be "who," not "whom."
Proof: Take out the phrase "I believe" and you get the phrase "the person who is eminently qualified ..."
Why: The pronoun "whom" indicates the objective case, and compares to the pronoun "him." Note the letter "m" in both cases.
One possible cause of the mistake is that the writer's mind focused on the phrase, "I will announce .... him" rather than the following idea that "he is qualified."
Even better would be to write the sentence this way: "I will announce the name of the person who is eminently qualified ... "
It's a common problem, trading what some folks feel is the more prestigious word whom for what they consider the mundane who.
That may explain it, but it does not excuse it.
With all the resources available to any occupant of the White House, one would think a skilled grammarian, or at least a competent editor, would be available to the Commander in Chief.
By the way, the nominee is Merrick Garland. (Two R's, please. Rule Number One: Get the name right.)
No one is immune from the malady known as hypercorrectness, including the President of the United States.
In an effort to appear fully expert in grammatical usage, people go too far, substituting terms that are actually wrong.
Example: A dispatch from the White House said, "Today, I will announce the person whom I believe is eminently qualified to sit on the Supreme Court." Signed, President Barack Obama.
Problem: The pronoun should be "who," not "whom."
Proof: Take out the phrase "I believe" and you get the phrase "the person who is eminently qualified ..."
Why: The pronoun "whom" indicates the objective case, and compares to the pronoun "him." Note the letter "m" in both cases.
One possible cause of the mistake is that the writer's mind focused on the phrase, "I will announce .... him" rather than the following idea that "he is qualified."
Even better would be to write the sentence this way: "I will announce the name of the person who is eminently qualified ... "
It's a common problem, trading what some folks feel is the more prestigious word whom for what they consider the mundane who.
That may explain it, but it does not excuse it.
With all the resources available to any occupant of the White House, one would think a skilled grammarian, or at least a competent editor, would be available to the Commander in Chief.
By the way, the nominee is Merrick Garland. (Two R's, please. Rule Number One: Get the name right.)
Monday, March 14, 2016
Trickle Down Flaw
Prices rise to absorb the amount of money available. Ask any tourist.
If you make it, they will buy.
Give tax breaks to the rich and the benefits will trickle down through the rest of the economy and everyone becomes better off.
That summarizes the core of Supply Side Economics and its companion Trickle Down Theory.
A major flaw in that proposal is that the rich don't spend the extra cash that tax reductions provide, but instead put it aside in bank accounts and investments, adding to their net wealth. Thus, they become even more rich.
There is, after all, a practical limit to how much they can spend. Even if they do look to buy more stuff, the extra supply of cash results in higher prices, even on luxury goods, which those at lower income levels can't afford anyway. And as prices rise, the unaffordability quotient for mid-level households is even greater.
Result: The wealth gap widens. And as wage levels stagnate, as they have in recent years, the poverty level rises also, and erodes the middle class even more.
Wait for the trickle? In the long run, everyone will benefit, claim the supply siders.
Don't hold your breath, because "In the long run, we are all dead," quoth John Maynard Keynes.
If you make it, they will buy.
Give tax breaks to the rich and the benefits will trickle down through the rest of the economy and everyone becomes better off.
That summarizes the core of Supply Side Economics and its companion Trickle Down Theory.
A major flaw in that proposal is that the rich don't spend the extra cash that tax reductions provide, but instead put it aside in bank accounts and investments, adding to their net wealth. Thus, they become even more rich.
There is, after all, a practical limit to how much they can spend. Even if they do look to buy more stuff, the extra supply of cash results in higher prices, even on luxury goods, which those at lower income levels can't afford anyway. And as prices rise, the unaffordability quotient for mid-level households is even greater.
Result: The wealth gap widens. And as wage levels stagnate, as they have in recent years, the poverty level rises also, and erodes the middle class even more.
Wait for the trickle? In the long run, everyone will benefit, claim the supply siders.
Don't hold your breath, because "In the long run, we are all dead," quoth John Maynard Keynes.
Speech Patterns
"Speak the speech I pray you, as I did teach it to you, trippingly on the tongue." -- Shakespeare
Grammarians tell you what should be.
Linguists describe what is.
When in doubt, rephrase the sentence.
You learn your language from your parents, but your dialect from your peers, whoever you choose them to be. You cannot choose your parents, but you can select your peers.
That's why children of immigrants speak English in an American dialect. They learn basic stuff from their parents at home, but once they are old enough to play with other kids on the street and go to school, they alter their speech patterns to conform with phrasings they feel are more appropriate.
Moreover, youths may well change their dialect several times as they mature. At first, they adopt the speech patterns of the other kids on the street. Then, they may emulate a favorite teacher or other adults. Or they may continue to follow their parents' dialect, especially if that is a regional or social dialect also heard in the neighborhood and in school.
To a linguist, all dialects are equal. They all enable its speakers to communicate easily and help to identify the group. Therefore, as a youth wants to become a member of a group, a youth will adopt that dialect.
Some teachers try to suppress some dialect or speech pattern as being "incorrect," but that is often a useless effort.
Here's an example: The sounds represented by the letters T and D are often dropped from the middle or the endings of words, even among many so-called professional users of English in America. Thus, we hear the word "dentistry" spoken as "dennisry." Or the TV network news program "20/20" comes out "Twenny-twenny." And the casino resort on the New Jersey Shore loses all its T sounds and becomes "Allanic Siddy" as the T sound in "city" is vocalized and becomes a D sound.
This is not to say such pronunciations are wrong. Rather, this merely points to what is part of the regional or social dialect in the South Jersey-Philadelphia region.
Moral: Pronounce as you will, but remember that this identifies you as a member of a social, regional or professional group. The important thing is to know which group you want to be identified with.
(Note: A grammarian would insist that sentence should be "... to know with whom you want to be identified." It is grammatically correct, but clumsy. Moreover, when a reader stops to puzzle out which is "correct," the writer has stalled communication. Don't go there. When in doubt, rephrase. As someone once said, "A preposition is something you should never end a sentence with." Or as Winston Churchill put it, "That is the sort of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put.")
And to build group identification, you will hear various people, especially politicians, change the strength of their dialect depending on their audience. A Southern candidate at a rally in Alabama or Texas may be easily understood by those in the audience, but to a Boston or New York City cab driver the speech may be incomprehensible.
Grammarians tell you what should be.
Linguists describe what is.
When in doubt, rephrase the sentence.
You learn your language from your parents, but your dialect from your peers, whoever you choose them to be. You cannot choose your parents, but you can select your peers.
That's why children of immigrants speak English in an American dialect. They learn basic stuff from their parents at home, but once they are old enough to play with other kids on the street and go to school, they alter their speech patterns to conform with phrasings they feel are more appropriate.
Moreover, youths may well change their dialect several times as they mature. At first, they adopt the speech patterns of the other kids on the street. Then, they may emulate a favorite teacher or other adults. Or they may continue to follow their parents' dialect, especially if that is a regional or social dialect also heard in the neighborhood and in school.
To a linguist, all dialects are equal. They all enable its speakers to communicate easily and help to identify the group. Therefore, as a youth wants to become a member of a group, a youth will adopt that dialect.
Some teachers try to suppress some dialect or speech pattern as being "incorrect," but that is often a useless effort.
Here's an example: The sounds represented by the letters T and D are often dropped from the middle or the endings of words, even among many so-called professional users of English in America. Thus, we hear the word "dentistry" spoken as "dennisry." Or the TV network news program "20/20" comes out "Twenny-twenny." And the casino resort on the New Jersey Shore loses all its T sounds and becomes "Allanic Siddy" as the T sound in "city" is vocalized and becomes a D sound.
This is not to say such pronunciations are wrong. Rather, this merely points to what is part of the regional or social dialect in the South Jersey-Philadelphia region.
Moral: Pronounce as you will, but remember that this identifies you as a member of a social, regional or professional group. The important thing is to know which group you want to be identified with.
(Note: A grammarian would insist that sentence should be "... to know with whom you want to be identified." It is grammatically correct, but clumsy. Moreover, when a reader stops to puzzle out which is "correct," the writer has stalled communication. Don't go there. When in doubt, rephrase. As someone once said, "A preposition is something you should never end a sentence with." Or as Winston Churchill put it, "That is the sort of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put.")
And to build group identification, you will hear various people, especially politicians, change the strength of their dialect depending on their audience. A Southern candidate at a rally in Alabama or Texas may be easily understood by those in the audience, but to a Boston or New York City cab driver the speech may be incomprehensible.
Saturday, March 12, 2016
Responsibility
As a man speaks, so is he.
Inciting to riot, part 3
Of journalists: "Lying scum." "Dishonest."
Of women: "Fat pigs." "Disgusting."
Of other candidates: "Liar." "Nasty."
Of government leaders: "Stupid."
Of protesters: "I'd like to punch him in the face." "In the old days, he'd be taken out on a stretcher." "Get him out of here." "Go home to mommy." "Get a job." "Take him out." "Maybe he should be roughed up."
Of immigrants: "Rapists." "Criminals."
Of Islam: A religion of "hate." There should be "a total and complete shutdown of all Muslims" trying to enter the United States.
At campaign rallies, supporters beat up and punch protesters, and the candidate promises to pay legal expenses.
Meanwhile, the candidate disavows any responsibility for any consequences of his words.
Inciting to riot, part 3
Of journalists: "Lying scum." "Dishonest."
Of women: "Fat pigs." "Disgusting."
Of other candidates: "Liar." "Nasty."
Of government leaders: "Stupid."
Of protesters: "I'd like to punch him in the face." "In the old days, he'd be taken out on a stretcher." "Get him out of here." "Go home to mommy." "Get a job." "Take him out." "Maybe he should be roughed up."
Of immigrants: "Rapists." "Criminals."
Of Islam: A religion of "hate." There should be "a total and complete shutdown of all Muslims" trying to enter the United States.
At campaign rallies, supporters beat up and punch protesters, and the candidate promises to pay legal expenses.
Meanwhile, the candidate disavows any responsibility for any consequences of his words.
Thursday, March 10, 2016
Inciting to Riot Part 2
Law enforcement officials are investigating a senior Trump aide for allegedly assaulting a woman reporter for a major U.S. newspaper during a rally for the GOP candidate.
When charges are filed, news media will cover the story.
When charges are filed, news media will cover the story.
Inciting to Riot
Respect cannot be demanded. It must be earned.
Courtesy is always appropriate.
"He deserved it. Every bit of it. The next time we see him we may have to kill him." -- Trump supporter John McGraw after being arrested for assaulting a protester on camera. The protester was being escorted out of the rally by police at the time of the assault.
"I'd like to punch him in the face." -- Republican candidate Donald Trump at another rally as a protester was forcibly removed.
"Maybe he should be roughed up." -- Donald Trump, at yet another rally in which a heckler was assaulted.
"We report, you decide." -- Slogan of Fox News, conservative TV network.
Is this the kind of person who should be President of the United States of America?
Courtesy is always appropriate.
"He deserved it. Every bit of it. The next time we see him we may have to kill him." -- Trump supporter John McGraw after being arrested for assaulting a protester on camera. The protester was being escorted out of the rally by police at the time of the assault.
"I'd like to punch him in the face." -- Republican candidate Donald Trump at another rally as a protester was forcibly removed.
"Maybe he should be roughed up." -- Donald Trump, at yet another rally in which a heckler was assaulted.
"We report, you decide." -- Slogan of Fox News, conservative TV network.
Is this the kind of person who should be President of the United States of America?
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
It Must Not Happen Here
Isolationism ignores reality.
"It can't happen here," you say? But it nearly did, at least twice before, and now a closed-border, isolationist America is once again being proposed.
The current political campaign is full of promises to "make America great again," shutting out those deemed undesirable, and shipping out those who somehow "don't belong."
The danger of such an attitude was raised in this space last November, just five months after the leading GOP candidate for the presidency launched his current campaign.
"It Can't Happen Here," said Sinclair Lewis in his book of that title in 1935.
Philip Roth warned of "The Plot Against America" in his book published in 2004.
Both were fictionalized novels of real possibilities.
A third book, "The Plot to Seize the White House," written by Jules Archer and published in 1973, documented a real conspiracy by isolationist radicals of the 1930s who wanted to close all borders and build a Fortress America.
The Jules Archer book dealt with a plan by ultra-conservative corporate moguls to oust President Franklin D. Roosevelt and install their own leader.
A second attempt to subvert democratic channels and initiate full control by the White House was planned during the presidency of Richard M. Nixon, but it was foiled by close aides, led by senior advisor Henry Kissinger.
All three of the books mentioned were based on events of the 1930s, when isolationist thinking and metaphorical wall-building in the form of high tariffs were riding high. At the time, the Smoot-Hawley tariff act imposed high fees on imports in a vain attempt to protect American products. But retaliation by other trading nations only raised prices for consumers everywhere, and all sides suffered.
Recently, the leading contender for the Republican nomination insisted he would not only build a wall 40 feet high to keep out people from Mexico, but would impose a 35 percent tax on all products exported from that country to the U.S. as a way of paying for the wall.
But consider this: A wall stops travel from both sides, and a high tariff is added to the final sale price, imposing the cost of wall-building on American consumers.
Moreover, as noted here last November, isolationist thinking at the time of the Great Depression "went hand in hand with bigotry and suppression of minority groups as well as efforts to replace democracy with authoritarianism."
Sound familiar?
Isolationist demagogues of the 1930s not only prolonged and worsened the economic health of all sides, but also created conditions that helped lead to war.
Unless voters reject another such xenophobic demagogue, it likely will happen here.
"It can't happen here," you say? But it nearly did, at least twice before, and now a closed-border, isolationist America is once again being proposed.
The current political campaign is full of promises to "make America great again," shutting out those deemed undesirable, and shipping out those who somehow "don't belong."
The danger of such an attitude was raised in this space last November, just five months after the leading GOP candidate for the presidency launched his current campaign.
"It Can't Happen Here," said Sinclair Lewis in his book of that title in 1935.
Philip Roth warned of "The Plot Against America" in his book published in 2004.
Both were fictionalized novels of real possibilities.
A third book, "The Plot to Seize the White House," written by Jules Archer and published in 1973, documented a real conspiracy by isolationist radicals of the 1930s who wanted to close all borders and build a Fortress America.
The Jules Archer book dealt with a plan by ultra-conservative corporate moguls to oust President Franklin D. Roosevelt and install their own leader.
A second attempt to subvert democratic channels and initiate full control by the White House was planned during the presidency of Richard M. Nixon, but it was foiled by close aides, led by senior advisor Henry Kissinger.
All three of the books mentioned were based on events of the 1930s, when isolationist thinking and metaphorical wall-building in the form of high tariffs were riding high. At the time, the Smoot-Hawley tariff act imposed high fees on imports in a vain attempt to protect American products. But retaliation by other trading nations only raised prices for consumers everywhere, and all sides suffered.
Recently, the leading contender for the Republican nomination insisted he would not only build a wall 40 feet high to keep out people from Mexico, but would impose a 35 percent tax on all products exported from that country to the U.S. as a way of paying for the wall.
But consider this: A wall stops travel from both sides, and a high tariff is added to the final sale price, imposing the cost of wall-building on American consumers.
Moreover, as noted here last November, isolationist thinking at the time of the Great Depression "went hand in hand with bigotry and suppression of minority groups as well as efforts to replace democracy with authoritarianism."
Sound familiar?
Isolationist demagogues of the 1930s not only prolonged and worsened the economic health of all sides, but also created conditions that helped lead to war.
Unless voters reject another such xenophobic demagogue, it likely will happen here.
Tuesday, March 8, 2016
Who's On First?
Candidate Ted Cruz said the reason the constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion, of speech and of the press were embodied in the First Amendment was because the founders thought them the most important.
However, one would think that a graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School who clerked for a Supreme Court justice, served as attorney general for the state of Texas, became a U.S. senator and now aspires to be President of the United States would know well the Constitution and its Amendments.
In fact, the initial proposed amendments were twelve in number, of which the first two were not promptly ratified. Thus, the proposed Amendment Three, guaranteeing religious rights as well as speech and press rights, became the First Amendment.
The original lead amendment had to do with apportionment of representatives but was never ratified, and the second proposed amendment related to compensation for members of Congress. It was not ratified until 1992, becoming Amendment 27.
James Madison proposed all twelve of the initial amendments. The first one was intended to prevent the House of Representatives from becoming too small to matter. It went nowhere, since the Constitution itself mandates that each state shall have at least one representative, regardless of population size.
Originally, the Constitution stipulated one representative for every 30,000 people, but clearly that would eventually become unwieldy, so in 1911 Congress approved a statute limiting the House to 435 members. It was legally entitled to do this.
The second of Madison's proposals would have prohibited Congress from giving itself a pay increase. It could, but the boost would not take effect until the beginning of the next Congress. Again, that didn't happen until nearly the 21st Century.
So why did candidate Cruz claim the First Amendment was first because the founders thought its guarantees were the most important in the Bill of Rights?
One can only speculate. Either he didn't know the history of the Constitution -- unlikely for someone of his academic and political background -- or he was using this claim as a ploy to appeal to a certain segment of the electorate, based on the idea that voters were ignorant of the Constitution.
However, one would think that a graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School who clerked for a Supreme Court justice, served as attorney general for the state of Texas, became a U.S. senator and now aspires to be President of the United States would know well the Constitution and its Amendments.
In fact, the initial proposed amendments were twelve in number, of which the first two were not promptly ratified. Thus, the proposed Amendment Three, guaranteeing religious rights as well as speech and press rights, became the First Amendment.
The original lead amendment had to do with apportionment of representatives but was never ratified, and the second proposed amendment related to compensation for members of Congress. It was not ratified until 1992, becoming Amendment 27.
James Madison proposed all twelve of the initial amendments. The first one was intended to prevent the House of Representatives from becoming too small to matter. It went nowhere, since the Constitution itself mandates that each state shall have at least one representative, regardless of population size.
Originally, the Constitution stipulated one representative for every 30,000 people, but clearly that would eventually become unwieldy, so in 1911 Congress approved a statute limiting the House to 435 members. It was legally entitled to do this.
The second of Madison's proposals would have prohibited Congress from giving itself a pay increase. It could, but the boost would not take effect until the beginning of the next Congress. Again, that didn't happen until nearly the 21st Century.
So why did candidate Cruz claim the First Amendment was first because the founders thought its guarantees were the most important in the Bill of Rights?
One can only speculate. Either he didn't know the history of the Constitution -- unlikely for someone of his academic and political background -- or he was using this claim as a ploy to appeal to a certain segment of the electorate, based on the idea that voters were ignorant of the Constitution.
Monday, March 7, 2016
Declaration of Journalistic Independence
When in the course of political events, it becomes necessary for journalists to declare their independence from the bullying of an abusive candidate, a decent respect for the opinions of the public and of voters requires that they declare the causes which impel them to this declaration.
We hold this Truth to be self-evident, that all are endowed with the Right of Free Speech and of a Free Press. Moreover, this Right is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, and whenever any form of political movement becomes destructive of this Right, it is the duty of a Free Press to expose the abuses of any candidate who threatens to limit this Right.
Prudence and responsibility have shown that journalists are disposed to ignore such insults and vilification while they can. But when a long train of Abuses, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a desire to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to oppose such a candidate. The History of the present leading candidate for the Republican nomination for the presidency is a History of repeated insults, abuses, vilifications, forced removals, encouraging of beatings, threats to change laws, and attempts to control news coverage, all having a direct object -- to establish an absolute tyranny over Free Speech and a Free Press. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
The candidate has a policy of insulting anyone and everyone who disagrees with him, but there is a special venom for journalists. He has called them "scum" among many other things. He has confined them to a pen as they attended rallies, and his staff has threatened them if they try to do their jobs. He has encouraged his staff to forcibly eject reporters from press conferences, notably Jorge Ramos of Univision.
He has mocked and mimicked a New York Times reporter with a physical disability. He has barred a BuzzFeed reporter from attending a news event. He has denied press credential to reporters from the Des Moines Register. He has said of hecklers, "Maybe he should be roughed up," and "I would like to punch him in the face." He has claimed that he could "shoot someone'' on the streets of New York City "and not lose any votes." He has implied that a woman debate moderator asked tough questions because she was menstruating. He has labeled opposing news outlets as weak, or failing, or dishonest, "a total disgrace," run by incompetents, and has promised to "open up libel laws," so when news media publish negative reports he can "sue them and win lots of money."
Therefore, it is the duty and responsibility of news organizations to remind the candidate that they are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent; that they have no duty of any allegiance to any candidate who demands submission to his arbitrary, unconstitutional and illegal wishes. That they have full power to report the news freely, and to express opinions on the competence and abilities of any candidate for any office.
Here's a partial list of newspapers and magazines opposing Trump:
The National Review, The Federalist, New York Times, Boston Globe, the Christian Post, Manchester (NH) Union Leader, New York Daily News, Philadelphia Daily News, Los Angeles Times, Des Moines Register, and others.
All have been dismissed by the candidate as weak, failing, dishonest and other derisive terms.
For months, such insults have been ignored by journalists as they continue to do their constitutionally protected duty of reporting the news without fear or favor. In fact, journalists seldom, if ever, take these abusive tactics personally, instead taking notes and reporting them to readers and viewers as part of their duty.
However, there comes a time when bullying can backfire, as readers and viewers recognize such tactics for what they are -- over-compensating by a basically insecure person who only finds strength by belittling others.
The candidate makes much of his own success in business. But as for labeling others incompetent failures, here's a partial list of the candidate's own record of business failures:
Four hotel-casinos in Atlantic City. Bankrupt.
Plaza Hotel in New York City. Bankrupt.
Trump University. Challenged by New York State as an unlicensed educational institution. Name changed. Now being prosecuted as an alleged scam.
Trump Mortgage. Failed in just six months.
Trump Steak. Trump Vodka. Trump Airlines. All failures.
Investment in a Broadway play, insisting that his name get top billing. The play flopped, and he never again tried to be a producer.
And finally, if he is as great a success as he claims to be, and as rich as he claims to be, let him release tax returns, especially those no longer under audit, to prove it.
We hold this Truth to be self-evident, that all are endowed with the Right of Free Speech and of a Free Press. Moreover, this Right is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, and whenever any form of political movement becomes destructive of this Right, it is the duty of a Free Press to expose the abuses of any candidate who threatens to limit this Right.
Prudence and responsibility have shown that journalists are disposed to ignore such insults and vilification while they can. But when a long train of Abuses, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a desire to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to oppose such a candidate. The History of the present leading candidate for the Republican nomination for the presidency is a History of repeated insults, abuses, vilifications, forced removals, encouraging of beatings, threats to change laws, and attempts to control news coverage, all having a direct object -- to establish an absolute tyranny over Free Speech and a Free Press. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
The candidate has a policy of insulting anyone and everyone who disagrees with him, but there is a special venom for journalists. He has called them "scum" among many other things. He has confined them to a pen as they attended rallies, and his staff has threatened them if they try to do their jobs. He has encouraged his staff to forcibly eject reporters from press conferences, notably Jorge Ramos of Univision.
He has mocked and mimicked a New York Times reporter with a physical disability. He has barred a BuzzFeed reporter from attending a news event. He has denied press credential to reporters from the Des Moines Register. He has said of hecklers, "Maybe he should be roughed up," and "I would like to punch him in the face." He has claimed that he could "shoot someone'' on the streets of New York City "and not lose any votes." He has implied that a woman debate moderator asked tough questions because she was menstruating. He has labeled opposing news outlets as weak, or failing, or dishonest, "a total disgrace," run by incompetents, and has promised to "open up libel laws," so when news media publish negative reports he can "sue them and win lots of money."
Therefore, it is the duty and responsibility of news organizations to remind the candidate that they are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent; that they have no duty of any allegiance to any candidate who demands submission to his arbitrary, unconstitutional and illegal wishes. That they have full power to report the news freely, and to express opinions on the competence and abilities of any candidate for any office.
Here's a partial list of newspapers and magazines opposing Trump:
The National Review, The Federalist, New York Times, Boston Globe, the Christian Post, Manchester (NH) Union Leader, New York Daily News, Philadelphia Daily News, Los Angeles Times, Des Moines Register, and others.
All have been dismissed by the candidate as weak, failing, dishonest and other derisive terms.
For months, such insults have been ignored by journalists as they continue to do their constitutionally protected duty of reporting the news without fear or favor. In fact, journalists seldom, if ever, take these abusive tactics personally, instead taking notes and reporting them to readers and viewers as part of their duty.
However, there comes a time when bullying can backfire, as readers and viewers recognize such tactics for what they are -- over-compensating by a basically insecure person who only finds strength by belittling others.
The candidate makes much of his own success in business. But as for labeling others incompetent failures, here's a partial list of the candidate's own record of business failures:
Four hotel-casinos in Atlantic City. Bankrupt.
Plaza Hotel in New York City. Bankrupt.
Trump University. Challenged by New York State as an unlicensed educational institution. Name changed. Now being prosecuted as an alleged scam.
Trump Mortgage. Failed in just six months.
Trump Steak. Trump Vodka. Trump Airlines. All failures.
Investment in a Broadway play, insisting that his name get top billing. The play flopped, and he never again tried to be a producer.
And finally, if he is as great a success as he claims to be, and as rich as he claims to be, let him release tax returns, especially those no longer under audit, to prove it.
Sunday, March 6, 2016
Dr. Frankenstein's Media Marvel
With all the hand-wringing among the pundits over the roaring popularity of Donald Trump, one wonders whether the news media still have the influence on public opinion they used to have. If they ever did.
Increasingly, columnists are bemoaning the concept that the GOP front-runner is a product of the party's own subtle bigotry, shown over more than a decade, of weaving danger signals through its tapestry of policies and programs. The difference now, of course, is that Trump is not subtle about it, which is embarrassing to the party establishment because he's not one of them and can't be controlled. He's not part of their program. He's running his own show, and that's what appeals to many voters in his base.
Meanwhile, television and print media were a prime showcase, theater and stage for the message that so many Trumpsters find appealing. It was entertaining, of course, until the message became increasingly vitriolic and both the party establishment and journalists recognized the danger, comparing the candidate to demagogues and dictators of the past.
But the question is this: Do party leaders and media folk now recognize their role in enabling the rise of the media marvel, and are now unable to take him down?
The Republican establishment dealt the race and xenophobia cards from below the deck, burying them in the hands of someone skilled at dealing. Now the wheeler-dealer is playing those cards openly, and winning the game, to the embarrassment of those who thought they had stacked the deck in their own favor.
All the while, the media covered the game, watching and hoping that the sharpie they had helped create would soon lose.
It hasn't happened, and now they worry that the joker they helped create holds all the aces.
However, it is also true that news media have a responsibility to report on the progress of the game, even from the beginning, no matter how they may feel about any of the players.
When a candidate for the nation's top public office attracts thousands to his rallies and wins many preliminary voting contests, journalism has a responsibility to report that, even at the risk of enabling the rise to continue.
This is what happens when a master media manipulator deals himself in. And it's not that he's stacking the deck, either. Casino owners have long known that there are some who are skilled at playing the game, so they try to ban them from the playing floor.
This didn't happen in the casino that is American politics today. The Republican Party invented the Fear of Foreigners game, as long ago as the mid-19th Century and the Know-Nothing Party's ploy against Irish Catholic immigrants.
Now that game is being played again, and a master deal-maker is winning.
Is it possible to stack the deck against him? That question will be answered come convention time in Cleveland next summer.
Meanwhile, the news media have a responsibility to keep the public informed.
Increasingly, columnists are bemoaning the concept that the GOP front-runner is a product of the party's own subtle bigotry, shown over more than a decade, of weaving danger signals through its tapestry of policies and programs. The difference now, of course, is that Trump is not subtle about it, which is embarrassing to the party establishment because he's not one of them and can't be controlled. He's not part of their program. He's running his own show, and that's what appeals to many voters in his base.
Meanwhile, television and print media were a prime showcase, theater and stage for the message that so many Trumpsters find appealing. It was entertaining, of course, until the message became increasingly vitriolic and both the party establishment and journalists recognized the danger, comparing the candidate to demagogues and dictators of the past.
But the question is this: Do party leaders and media folk now recognize their role in enabling the rise of the media marvel, and are now unable to take him down?
The Republican establishment dealt the race and xenophobia cards from below the deck, burying them in the hands of someone skilled at dealing. Now the wheeler-dealer is playing those cards openly, and winning the game, to the embarrassment of those who thought they had stacked the deck in their own favor.
All the while, the media covered the game, watching and hoping that the sharpie they had helped create would soon lose.
It hasn't happened, and now they worry that the joker they helped create holds all the aces.
However, it is also true that news media have a responsibility to report on the progress of the game, even from the beginning, no matter how they may feel about any of the players.
When a candidate for the nation's top public office attracts thousands to his rallies and wins many preliminary voting contests, journalism has a responsibility to report that, even at the risk of enabling the rise to continue.
This is what happens when a master media manipulator deals himself in. And it's not that he's stacking the deck, either. Casino owners have long known that there are some who are skilled at playing the game, so they try to ban them from the playing floor.
This didn't happen in the casino that is American politics today. The Republican Party invented the Fear of Foreigners game, as long ago as the mid-19th Century and the Know-Nothing Party's ploy against Irish Catholic immigrants.
Now that game is being played again, and a master deal-maker is winning.
Is it possible to stack the deck against him? That question will be answered come convention time in Cleveland next summer.
Meanwhile, the news media have a responsibility to keep the public informed.
Friday, March 4, 2016
Libel and Libido
If it's true, it's not libel.
The first and best defense against a libel allegation is truth.
That legal precedent was established in America in 1760, when a New York City newspaper publisher, John Peter Zenger, was charged with printing a "false libel" about the colonial governor. The defense lawyer, however, argued that the report -- that the governor had a mistress -- was true, and therefore not libelous.
The jury agreed.
There are other defenses, but the three main bulwarks are these: The report is true, it is provably true, and it was printed without malice.
Meanwhile, there is the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, guaranteeing a free press as well as free speech. In addition, there are legal protections covering other circumstances, including comments made by lawyers in open court, and things said by politicians during open, public meetings of Congress.
Moreover, there is the doctrine of fair comment, which covers negative things said about public figures.
Nonetheless, a leading presidential candidate this year wants to weaken libel laws so that he can more easily sue publications that criticize what he says and does, or otherwise prints negative things about him.
Sorry, Donald, that's not enough. For one thing, there is no federal libel law, so you would have to sue each publication in each state. Meanwhile, you would also have to sue every columnist in every newspaper or magazine that criticizes you, as well as every TV and radio commentator.
Big Brother you ain't.
The colonial governor of New York didn't like it that Zenger printed "news" of the governor's mistress. But it was true, and many people already knew that the governor had a mistress.
The current candidate may not like negative or critical coverage, but that doesn't make it unfair. Nor does your dislike of negative coverage make it untrue.
Your insistence that everyone treat you "fairly" betrays an expectation that fair equals agreement.
However, it is the duty of journalists to report truth. You may not like the question, but that's not going to stop journalists as representatives of the general public from asking tough questions. They ask the tough questions because they need to be asked.
An informed electorate is essential for a functioning democracy, and journalism is crucial to an informed electorate.
Moreover, threatening to change libel laws to stop unfavorable treatment of what you say and do betrays an arrogance bred by insecurity and a weak libido.
But that's true for all bullies. They are insecure in their own sense of self and compensate for that basic personal weakness by beating up on others, either physically or verbally.
Note that the leading Republican candidate has taken to referring to a major challenger as "Little Marco." That phrase was used at least six times during a televised debate this week. This is a typical manifestation of the Great American Fallacy, that bigger is better. And it is evidence of the candidate's deep-seated sense of insecurity.
He may be taller, but that does not make him better.
The first and best defense against a libel allegation is truth.
That legal precedent was established in America in 1760, when a New York City newspaper publisher, John Peter Zenger, was charged with printing a "false libel" about the colonial governor. The defense lawyer, however, argued that the report -- that the governor had a mistress -- was true, and therefore not libelous.
The jury agreed.
There are other defenses, but the three main bulwarks are these: The report is true, it is provably true, and it was printed without malice.
Meanwhile, there is the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, guaranteeing a free press as well as free speech. In addition, there are legal protections covering other circumstances, including comments made by lawyers in open court, and things said by politicians during open, public meetings of Congress.
Moreover, there is the doctrine of fair comment, which covers negative things said about public figures.
Nonetheless, a leading presidential candidate this year wants to weaken libel laws so that he can more easily sue publications that criticize what he says and does, or otherwise prints negative things about him.
Sorry, Donald, that's not enough. For one thing, there is no federal libel law, so you would have to sue each publication in each state. Meanwhile, you would also have to sue every columnist in every newspaper or magazine that criticizes you, as well as every TV and radio commentator.
Big Brother you ain't.
The colonial governor of New York didn't like it that Zenger printed "news" of the governor's mistress. But it was true, and many people already knew that the governor had a mistress.
The current candidate may not like negative or critical coverage, but that doesn't make it unfair. Nor does your dislike of negative coverage make it untrue.
Your insistence that everyone treat you "fairly" betrays an expectation that fair equals agreement.
However, it is the duty of journalists to report truth. You may not like the question, but that's not going to stop journalists as representatives of the general public from asking tough questions. They ask the tough questions because they need to be asked.
An informed electorate is essential for a functioning democracy, and journalism is crucial to an informed electorate.
Moreover, threatening to change libel laws to stop unfavorable treatment of what you say and do betrays an arrogance bred by insecurity and a weak libido.
But that's true for all bullies. They are insecure in their own sense of self and compensate for that basic personal weakness by beating up on others, either physically or verbally.
Note that the leading Republican candidate has taken to referring to a major challenger as "Little Marco." That phrase was used at least six times during a televised debate this week. This is a typical manifestation of the Great American Fallacy, that bigger is better. And it is evidence of the candidate's deep-seated sense of insecurity.
He may be taller, but that does not make him better.
Wednesday, March 2, 2016
Willy Loman Economics
The U.S. economy isn't dead yet, or even dying, despite what some presidential candidates are claiming, but the Federal Reserve is pushing to stress the positive in its latest summary of current economic conditions.
In its latest Beige Book summary, released today, increases in various districts were termed moderate, slight or mixed, with one district "flat," and another showing a "modest decline."
Manufacturing activity overall was flat, the report said, "although conditions varied considerably." Agricultural conditions were "flat to down moderately," according to the Fed summary, and although labor market conditions "continued to improve," showing "modest gains," wage growth "varied considerably."
The Fed almost never acknowledges strongly negative conditions, probably for fear of making things worse. In a way, this can be called the Willy Loman School of Economics. According to Willy, the lead character in the Arthur Miller play, "Death of a Salesman," things are always great. But the tragedy of Willy Loman was his inability or refusal to recognize a market downturn. Finally, in a graveside eulogy, Willy Loman was called "a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine." But when people stop smiling back, it's a tragedy.
Perhaps the Fed deliberately accentuates the positive, holding its moves in reserve as it works quietly to support the economy when things begin to slow, and pull back the financial reins to prevent a runaway.
Will they admit this? In a vague way, yes, but without being specific. Having a Willy Loman as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board would indeed be a tragedy for the American economy.
Sometimes things are in reality not great.
In its latest Beige Book summary, released today, increases in various districts were termed moderate, slight or mixed, with one district "flat," and another showing a "modest decline."
Manufacturing activity overall was flat, the report said, "although conditions varied considerably." Agricultural conditions were "flat to down moderately," according to the Fed summary, and although labor market conditions "continued to improve," showing "modest gains," wage growth "varied considerably."
The Fed almost never acknowledges strongly negative conditions, probably for fear of making things worse. In a way, this can be called the Willy Loman School of Economics. According to Willy, the lead character in the Arthur Miller play, "Death of a Salesman," things are always great. But the tragedy of Willy Loman was his inability or refusal to recognize a market downturn. Finally, in a graveside eulogy, Willy Loman was called "a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine." But when people stop smiling back, it's a tragedy.
Perhaps the Fed deliberately accentuates the positive, holding its moves in reserve as it works quietly to support the economy when things begin to slow, and pull back the financial reins to prevent a runaway.
Will they admit this? In a vague way, yes, but without being specific. Having a Willy Loman as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board would indeed be a tragedy for the American economy.
Sometimes things are in reality not great.
Walking Dead Mercantilism
Zombie politics leads to a walking dead economy.
Envy is a powerful force.
"Whoever has the most gold at the end, wins," summarizes mercantile economics, popular in the 18th Century but still followed today by those who adhere to free-market economics unfettered by any government regulation, notwithstanding the reality that markets cannot exist without some form of regulation.
But the problem with mercantile thinking is this: If the winner has all the money, the loser has none and therefore cannot buy anything from the winner. Thus, there is no market at all.
And so goes the cycle, until one nation dominates the world, since it has all the money. It produces nothing and it makes nothing, but it has won and that's all that matters.
Inevitably, however, the losers soon become resentful, hungry and poor. Envy is a powerful economic force, just as hunger and poverty are powerful political forces.
Soon enough, then, the losers get desperate and a leader arises, encouraging people to organize and fight for what they need to survive.
Sound familiar?
It happened to the Roman Empire two thousand years ago, it happened to Spain in the 18th Century, and it happened to the British Empire soon after.
On a different level, it happened in America in the 19th and 20th Centuries as workers formed unions to push for fair treatment by industrial tyrants. And unless attitudes change as some U.S. political leaders and candidates call for dominance over American trading partners, the result will be an attempt to form an economic empire that will eventually collapse behind its own walls.
Walls do not make for good trading partners, whether those barriers be physical blockades or high import tariffs. Eventually, the wall and its sponsoring government both collapse.
Over time, the Great Wall of China failed., the Roman walls in Britain failed, the Berlin Wall failed, the Iron Curtain failed, and the proposed Mexican wall will fail.
Some call these variations on mercantilism supply-side economics. "If you make it, they will buy," is the article of faith guiding the cause.
But the question soon becomes, "With what? The people have no money."
Some call it Voodoo Economics, the idea that if you cut taxes at the top, in the long run the benefits will trickle down and energize everyone.
However, as economist John Maynard Keynes pointed out, "In the long run we are all dead."
But mercantilistic supply siders don't care about the long run. They want all the money now, so they and they alone can eat drink and be merry, with no cares for those not part of their own self-perceived elite.
Envy is a powerful force.
"Whoever has the most gold at the end, wins," summarizes mercantile economics, popular in the 18th Century but still followed today by those who adhere to free-market economics unfettered by any government regulation, notwithstanding the reality that markets cannot exist without some form of regulation.
But the problem with mercantile thinking is this: If the winner has all the money, the loser has none and therefore cannot buy anything from the winner. Thus, there is no market at all.
And so goes the cycle, until one nation dominates the world, since it has all the money. It produces nothing and it makes nothing, but it has won and that's all that matters.
Inevitably, however, the losers soon become resentful, hungry and poor. Envy is a powerful economic force, just as hunger and poverty are powerful political forces.
Soon enough, then, the losers get desperate and a leader arises, encouraging people to organize and fight for what they need to survive.
Sound familiar?
It happened to the Roman Empire two thousand years ago, it happened to Spain in the 18th Century, and it happened to the British Empire soon after.
On a different level, it happened in America in the 19th and 20th Centuries as workers formed unions to push for fair treatment by industrial tyrants. And unless attitudes change as some U.S. political leaders and candidates call for dominance over American trading partners, the result will be an attempt to form an economic empire that will eventually collapse behind its own walls.
Walls do not make for good trading partners, whether those barriers be physical blockades or high import tariffs. Eventually, the wall and its sponsoring government both collapse.
Over time, the Great Wall of China failed., the Roman walls in Britain failed, the Berlin Wall failed, the Iron Curtain failed, and the proposed Mexican wall will fail.
Some call these variations on mercantilism supply-side economics. "If you make it, they will buy," is the article of faith guiding the cause.
But the question soon becomes, "With what? The people have no money."
Some call it Voodoo Economics, the idea that if you cut taxes at the top, in the long run the benefits will trickle down and energize everyone.
However, as economist John Maynard Keynes pointed out, "In the long run we are all dead."
But mercantilistic supply siders don't care about the long run. They want all the money now, so they and they alone can eat drink and be merry, with no cares for those not part of their own self-perceived elite.
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
Balls and Walls
Late news from Ireland notes that another golf course may have put the Donald in his cups. It seems he bought one in County Clare two years ago, spent big bucks in upgrades and now wants to build a wall some two miles long so the nearby ocean doesn't erode his investment.
Authorities are reluctant, so the golf mogul has threatened to close the resort.
Can you say, "Nyah, nyah, do things my way or I'll go home."
A similar threat was made in Scotland, prompting the Scots to respond, "Good. Go home. We don't want you anyway."
Moreover, many of the best golf courses have been laid out by the seaside, so trying to keep out the sea is reminiscent of the legendary king trying to turn back the tide.
As the king found out, Nature doesn't listen to such talk.
When last I noticed, the Irish and the Scots, like Nature herself, don't like being threatened. And since there are many in America of that same tradition (children of immigrants, by the way, who came here looking for jobs, as newcomers often do), that is likely to show up at the ballot box.
Meanwhile, the candidate has repeatedly threatened to leave the Republican Party if he doesn't get his way. Or as he puts it, if the party doesn't treat him "fairly."
The problem with that is equating "fair" with agreement, and not asking any questions. But it's the responsibility of journalists, as representatives of the general public, to ask questions, to get responsible answers, and to inform the voting electorate of what a candidate proposes and especially how he plans to pay for these proposals.
So far, responses have not been adequate, if the candidate answers the questions at all. Instead, he resorts to insult and abuse and then changes the subject, demanding that he be treated "fairly."
Like all bullies, he cannot tolerate disagreement.
Authorities are reluctant, so the golf mogul has threatened to close the resort.
Can you say, "Nyah, nyah, do things my way or I'll go home."
A similar threat was made in Scotland, prompting the Scots to respond, "Good. Go home. We don't want you anyway."
Moreover, many of the best golf courses have been laid out by the seaside, so trying to keep out the sea is reminiscent of the legendary king trying to turn back the tide.
As the king found out, Nature doesn't listen to such talk.
When last I noticed, the Irish and the Scots, like Nature herself, don't like being threatened. And since there are many in America of that same tradition (children of immigrants, by the way, who came here looking for jobs, as newcomers often do), that is likely to show up at the ballot box.
Meanwhile, the candidate has repeatedly threatened to leave the Republican Party if he doesn't get his way. Or as he puts it, if the party doesn't treat him "fairly."
The problem with that is equating "fair" with agreement, and not asking any questions. But it's the responsibility of journalists, as representatives of the general public, to ask questions, to get responsible answers, and to inform the voting electorate of what a candidate proposes and especially how he plans to pay for these proposals.
So far, responses have not been adequate, if the candidate answers the questions at all. Instead, he resorts to insult and abuse and then changes the subject, demanding that he be treated "fairly."
Like all bullies, he cannot tolerate disagreement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)