Responsible journalism is not an oxymoron.
Politicians and corporate executive see reporters as nosy buttinskies, while journalists see themselves as responsible guardians of democracy, with a duty to uncover and expose fraud, lies, corruption and other forms of wrongdoing.
To them, it's a challenge, while to their targets its a nuisance or annoyance at best and at worst an un-American insult to their self-perceived importance as leaders of the nation's welfare -- usually with themselves as chief beneficiaries. Therefore, any disagreement is attacked as unpatriotic or even criminal.
One leading political candidate currently is facing charges of fraud, deception -- and, to a journalist the most egregious sin of all -- plagiarism.
When the candidate offers as a defense that he didn't know what his business subsidiaries or partners were doing, that he had merely licensed the use of his name for an enterprise, the question becomes whether ignorance is an acceptable excuse.
Ignorance may be a reason, but it's not an excuse. Or as a sign on a former President's desk put it, "The buck stops here."
If a business has your name on it, and touts you as the source of whatever knowledge, skill or value is being marketed, then you are responsible for what goes on. If you're eager to take credit (and profit), you must also be willing to accept blame.
It is also true, of course, that there are some media outlets in constant, almost vindictive attack mode against one or more candidates, political parties, organizations or corporations, often for ideological reasons.
In that case, the issue is whether these media outlets are commentators or responsible journalists. Both, however, are protected by the Constitutional guarantee of the right to speak and print.
Every media outlet has an agenda. For some, their purpose is to promote a cause or to spread an idea, or to inform members of their organization's activities. These can include churches, civil rights or environmental groups, as well as clubs of every description. Only the laws of libel prevent them from publishing the most scandalous gossip.
For mainstream journalism, such as radio, television, magazines and daily newspapers, the agenda is to be neutral in their news sections, even as they provide space and time for analysis and opinion.
It may seem that news outlets, especially print media, are devoting an extraordinary amount of space to one candidate's activities and speeches, along with fact-checking of his allegations as well as deep coverage of various lawsuits -- numbering in the thousands -- against him and/or his business ventures and bankruptcies.
But there are indeed an extraordinary number of questionable if not illegal activities attributed to him and his businesses. Therefore, it is journalism's responsibility to bring this information to the attention of voters and to law enforcement, if they're not already on the case.
Will the news hounds also sniff out questionable activities perpetrated by other candidates? Certainly. That's their duty and responsibility.
Meanwhile, the allegations made against one candidate are very available, and very juicy.
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Wednesday, June 29, 2016
Language Lore
"Dad, please don't say 'Way cool' in front of my friends."
Language changes with every generation, and slang becomes standard usage when a majority of users believe it is. When parents start using teen slang, their children quickly drop it and invent new ones.
Words and phrases enter and leave a language constantly. What is popular this year may be gone next year, and terms that are mocked and derided today may become standard usage next month. Words that were considered obscene last year may be fully acceptable today. However, it's still true that some words are banned from broadcast media, but are heard regularly on cable outlets.
Just because a word isn't in a dictionary is no proof that it doesn't exist. A dictionary is a history book, not a law book. Furthermore, its name derives from the root word "diction," and the book was at first a guide to pronunciation as the merchant class acquired enough wealth to challenge the alleged dominance of the aristocracy.
To be accepted into "elite, polite," society meant folks had to talk like them. This was perhaps more true in a class-conscious society than in others where class was considered less important.
Americans like to think they live in a class-less society, but that's true only to the extent that there are no aristocrats or hereditary landed gentry, as in some countries that still have monarchs and royalty. The reality is that class in America is based on money. Thus, the wealthy comprise the elite, compared to what is called the "working class," which implies that the money class doesn't work.
The truth is that money can't buy class. That's a matter of behavior. There are many folks who have trunkloads of money, but no class.
Language changes with every generation, and slang becomes standard usage when a majority of users believe it is. When parents start using teen slang, their children quickly drop it and invent new ones.
Words and phrases enter and leave a language constantly. What is popular this year may be gone next year, and terms that are mocked and derided today may become standard usage next month. Words that were considered obscene last year may be fully acceptable today. However, it's still true that some words are banned from broadcast media, but are heard regularly on cable outlets.
Just because a word isn't in a dictionary is no proof that it doesn't exist. A dictionary is a history book, not a law book. Furthermore, its name derives from the root word "diction," and the book was at first a guide to pronunciation as the merchant class acquired enough wealth to challenge the alleged dominance of the aristocracy.
To be accepted into "elite, polite," society meant folks had to talk like them. This was perhaps more true in a class-conscious society than in others where class was considered less important.
Americans like to think they live in a class-less society, but that's true only to the extent that there are no aristocrats or hereditary landed gentry, as in some countries that still have monarchs and royalty. The reality is that class in America is based on money. Thus, the wealthy comprise the elite, compared to what is called the "working class," which implies that the money class doesn't work.
The truth is that money can't buy class. That's a matter of behavior. There are many folks who have trunkloads of money, but no class.
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
Petty Politics Stifles Recovery
Question: Are other countries "stealing" American jobs and manufacturing operations, or is Congressional obduracy driving them away?
"I will bring back jobs!" the candidate shouts. The economy is in terrible shape, he insists, and good American jobs are disappearing by the thousands to foreign companies. And he blames international companies, aided by foreign governments, for the employment theft.
Meanwhile, his own party tromps on a key government program that helps U.S. firms small and large by providing financing for their exports. Result: U.S. firms lose business because they cannot sell stuff overseas, so they relocate operations to other countries. And that means closed factories and lost jobs in America. Large corporations can do this. Small companies just go out of business.
So instead of helping U.S. firms increase sales and expand their workforce, this failure to assist in financing does just the opposite.
For 80 years, the Export-Import Bank has provided financing to help U.S. companies sell stuff to overseas customers. And the bank has consistently done so at a profit, turning over its earnings to the U.S. Treasury. In the process, U.S. companies thrive and American workers have good jobs.
How it works:
A foreign customer wants to buy an airplane from Boeing, for example, but can't find the cash at home. The Ex-Im Bank in Washington finances the deal. Boeing sells an airplane and its workers have jobs. The customer gets an airplane at reasonable financing, its personnel have jobs, and people have transportation.
The loan is paid back, and the Ex-Im Bank net after expenses goes to the U.S. Treasury.
Who loses? No one. So why shut down a good thing? Petty Politics.
Last year, the Ex-Im Bank supported $17 billion in exports, along with 109,000 jobs. After expenses, the bank remitted $451.6 million to the U.S. Treasury. Over the past two decades, the bank posted a surplus of $7 billion, which went to the Treasury. Some 90 percent of their business is helping small firms get financing for overseas transactions, at a default rate of 0.2 percent.
But ...
Republicans in Congress have stalled renewing the bank's charter, and the bank has not taken on a new customer for a full year. Now, a single senator has blocked high-ticket sales by U.S. manufacturers.
Recently, GE said it would shift some of its operations from South Carolina to France, as that country will provide help in financing sale of large turbines to customers in other nations.
How did Congress make this happen? One, by stalling a renewal of the Ex-Im Bank charter, which would have put it out of business entirely, resulting in lost revenue to the U.S. Treasury. The charter was renewed a few months ago, after more months of political chatter.
Two, by refusing to approve new members of the bank's board of directors, leaving it without a quorum to approve major deals above $10 million. The Ex-Im Bank board now has just two members, while it is set up for five. It needs one more for a quorum. But without three members, the bank is unable to complete financing transactions of $10 million or more.
There are now 30 deals totaling more than $20 billion waiting for approval by the Ex-Im board, but without a quorum, the deals are in financial limbo.
Who's behind this?
Sen. Richard Shelby, Republican from Alabama, chair of the Senate Banking Committee, according to published reports. Sen. Shelby has blocked the appointment by President Barack Obama of a third board member, which would give it a quorum and the ability to approve those $20 billion worth of contracts.
So what's a business to do? Go elsewhere, that's what.
This is a big reason why firms like Boeing and GE are closing American shops and moving operations to other countries, where they and their customers can get financing help.
And this is how American jobs go overseas.
In seems that GOP legislators, in their personal animosity to anything and everything Democrat Obama may propose, are abandoning their historic close ties to business.
Their political egos may be satisfied, but citizen welfare suffers.
Even so, despite Congressional fiddling, the U.S. economy continues to burn -- though not as brightly as it could.
After nearly flaming out eight years ago, during the worst downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s (which also began during a Republican administration), the U.S. economy has been slowly recovering.
Growth in the first quarter of this year was 1.1 percent, according to the latest estimate by the Commerce Department, compared to 1.4 percent in the final three months of 2015. Corporate profits, meanwhile, were up and the unemployment rate remained below 5 percent.
But could the economy have recovered faster and farther with more government help? Probably. But when any attempts by a Democratic administration are blocked by a Republican Congress determined to prove Obama a failure, who really suffers?
As for the current leading GOP contender for the presidency and his history of lining his own pockets as contractors and customers of his many business ventures, as well as the businesses themselves, go broke ...
"I will bring back jobs!" the candidate shouts. The economy is in terrible shape, he insists, and good American jobs are disappearing by the thousands to foreign companies. And he blames international companies, aided by foreign governments, for the employment theft.
Meanwhile, his own party tromps on a key government program that helps U.S. firms small and large by providing financing for their exports. Result: U.S. firms lose business because they cannot sell stuff overseas, so they relocate operations to other countries. And that means closed factories and lost jobs in America. Large corporations can do this. Small companies just go out of business.
So instead of helping U.S. firms increase sales and expand their workforce, this failure to assist in financing does just the opposite.
For 80 years, the Export-Import Bank has provided financing to help U.S. companies sell stuff to overseas customers. And the bank has consistently done so at a profit, turning over its earnings to the U.S. Treasury. In the process, U.S. companies thrive and American workers have good jobs.
How it works:
A foreign customer wants to buy an airplane from Boeing, for example, but can't find the cash at home. The Ex-Im Bank in Washington finances the deal. Boeing sells an airplane and its workers have jobs. The customer gets an airplane at reasonable financing, its personnel have jobs, and people have transportation.
The loan is paid back, and the Ex-Im Bank net after expenses goes to the U.S. Treasury.
Who loses? No one. So why shut down a good thing? Petty Politics.
Last year, the Ex-Im Bank supported $17 billion in exports, along with 109,000 jobs. After expenses, the bank remitted $451.6 million to the U.S. Treasury. Over the past two decades, the bank posted a surplus of $7 billion, which went to the Treasury. Some 90 percent of their business is helping small firms get financing for overseas transactions, at a default rate of 0.2 percent.
But ...
Republicans in Congress have stalled renewing the bank's charter, and the bank has not taken on a new customer for a full year. Now, a single senator has blocked high-ticket sales by U.S. manufacturers.
Recently, GE said it would shift some of its operations from South Carolina to France, as that country will provide help in financing sale of large turbines to customers in other nations.
How did Congress make this happen? One, by stalling a renewal of the Ex-Im Bank charter, which would have put it out of business entirely, resulting in lost revenue to the U.S. Treasury. The charter was renewed a few months ago, after more months of political chatter.
Two, by refusing to approve new members of the bank's board of directors, leaving it without a quorum to approve major deals above $10 million. The Ex-Im Bank board now has just two members, while it is set up for five. It needs one more for a quorum. But without three members, the bank is unable to complete financing transactions of $10 million or more.
There are now 30 deals totaling more than $20 billion waiting for approval by the Ex-Im board, but without a quorum, the deals are in financial limbo.
Who's behind this?
Sen. Richard Shelby, Republican from Alabama, chair of the Senate Banking Committee, according to published reports. Sen. Shelby has blocked the appointment by President Barack Obama of a third board member, which would give it a quorum and the ability to approve those $20 billion worth of contracts.
So what's a business to do? Go elsewhere, that's what.
This is a big reason why firms like Boeing and GE are closing American shops and moving operations to other countries, where they and their customers can get financing help.
And this is how American jobs go overseas.
In seems that GOP legislators, in their personal animosity to anything and everything Democrat Obama may propose, are abandoning their historic close ties to business.
Their political egos may be satisfied, but citizen welfare suffers.
Even so, despite Congressional fiddling, the U.S. economy continues to burn -- though not as brightly as it could.
After nearly flaming out eight years ago, during the worst downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s (which also began during a Republican administration), the U.S. economy has been slowly recovering.
Growth in the first quarter of this year was 1.1 percent, according to the latest estimate by the Commerce Department, compared to 1.4 percent in the final three months of 2015. Corporate profits, meanwhile, were up and the unemployment rate remained below 5 percent.
But could the economy have recovered faster and farther with more government help? Probably. But when any attempts by a Democratic administration are blocked by a Republican Congress determined to prove Obama a failure, who really suffers?
As for the current leading GOP contender for the presidency and his history of lining his own pockets as contractors and customers of his many business ventures, as well as the businesses themselves, go broke ...
Saturday, June 25, 2016
The Challenge of Writing
Perception is reality.
Writing is hard work, but teachers make it harder when they impose writing assignments as punishment.
They may not think of it that way, but when they tell a youth to write 500 words apologizing for what he or she did, explaining why it was wrong to do it and promising never to do it again, it is perceived as punishment.
Teens being what they are, any attempt at behavior modification through writing assignments is resented, and only hardens the teen's fear of writing.
Yes, writing is hard work. But so is football, or playing the violin, or doing algebra. Coaches, band instructors and mathematicians don't impose punishments of ten laps around the track, or 30 minutes of scale exercises, or algebra puzzles.
Rather, they are seen as practice sessions to build proficiency and sharpen skills.
For teachers, school principals, and especially for juvenile court judges to require essays -- even if they call them educational experiences -- is not only counter productive, but it also heightens resentment against authority and fear of writing.
Writing is a challenge and, like music and sports, it comes more easily to some than to others.
People do music and sports because they want to, not because they must.
Teachers should encourage young folk to rise to a challenge, whether it be sports, music, art, math puzzles -- or writing.
Writing is hard work, but teachers make it harder when they impose writing assignments as punishment.
They may not think of it that way, but when they tell a youth to write 500 words apologizing for what he or she did, explaining why it was wrong to do it and promising never to do it again, it is perceived as punishment.
Teens being what they are, any attempt at behavior modification through writing assignments is resented, and only hardens the teen's fear of writing.
Yes, writing is hard work. But so is football, or playing the violin, or doing algebra. Coaches, band instructors and mathematicians don't impose punishments of ten laps around the track, or 30 minutes of scale exercises, or algebra puzzles.
Rather, they are seen as practice sessions to build proficiency and sharpen skills.
For teachers, school principals, and especially for juvenile court judges to require essays -- even if they call them educational experiences -- is not only counter productive, but it also heightens resentment against authority and fear of writing.
Writing is a challenge and, like music and sports, it comes more easily to some than to others.
People do music and sports because they want to, not because they must.
Teachers should encourage young folk to rise to a challenge, whether it be sports, music, art, math puzzles -- or writing.
The Wizard of Ego
Boris Trumpledore, the Wizard of Ego and Pry Mincer of the Benighted Kingdom, will meet the King of Debtland to renegotiate trade agreements for their own countries as well as those that hold their debts, known as the Carry Nations.
International financial markets have stopped all trading in government bonds issued by the two nations after a near total collapse following an announcement by the King of Debtland that he would renegotiate the terms of all outstanding notes and bonds in an effort, he said, to reduce his nation's debt load, "which is too high," he insisted.
This despite unanimous warnings from financial experts that such an action would equal default by the government of the world's largest trading nation, and would cause an international collapse.
"Trust me, it will work out fine," said the King. "I did it with many of my companies, and as a result my family's wealth soared. So if it works in business, it will work even better in government," he insisted.
But when a reporter pointed that a country is not a company, and that many of the King's companies went bankrupt after the so-called negotiations, the King ordered the journalist out of the room and cancelled his press credentials.
The King did not respond to the reporter's question.
Meanwhile, Boris Trumpledore, the newly named Pry Mincer of the Benighted Kingdom, said he would initiate similar measures for his country's debt load.
And when asked about the danger of default through such a write-down, and a consequent collapse of financial markets, thus causing an economic depression in the Benighted Kingdom that would spread to other nations, Trumpledore accused journalists who asked such questions of "a total lack of patriotism."
"Trust me," Trumpledore said, echoing the King of Debtland, "and don't listen to those so-called experts and their political allies who are only interested in their own efforts to enrich themselves and increase their power."
Yeah, right, said a quiet voice in the back of the room. We've heard that before, and the result was a worldwide depression and major war.
International financial markets have stopped all trading in government bonds issued by the two nations after a near total collapse following an announcement by the King of Debtland that he would renegotiate the terms of all outstanding notes and bonds in an effort, he said, to reduce his nation's debt load, "which is too high," he insisted.
This despite unanimous warnings from financial experts that such an action would equal default by the government of the world's largest trading nation, and would cause an international collapse.
"Trust me, it will work out fine," said the King. "I did it with many of my companies, and as a result my family's wealth soared. So if it works in business, it will work even better in government," he insisted.
But when a reporter pointed that a country is not a company, and that many of the King's companies went bankrupt after the so-called negotiations, the King ordered the journalist out of the room and cancelled his press credentials.
The King did not respond to the reporter's question.
Meanwhile, Boris Trumpledore, the newly named Pry Mincer of the Benighted Kingdom, said he would initiate similar measures for his country's debt load.
And when asked about the danger of default through such a write-down, and a consequent collapse of financial markets, thus causing an economic depression in the Benighted Kingdom that would spread to other nations, Trumpledore accused journalists who asked such questions of "a total lack of patriotism."
"Trust me," Trumpledore said, echoing the King of Debtland, "and don't listen to those so-called experts and their political allies who are only interested in their own efforts to enrich themselves and increase their power."
Yeah, right, said a quiet voice in the back of the room. We've heard that before, and the result was a worldwide depression and major war.
Friday, June 24, 2016
Rational Choices and Heroic Assumptions
Emotions are not rational. If they were, they wouldn't be emotions.
A fallacy in the teaching of Economics 101 is that people make rational choices in how they use the resources available to them.
This assumes that people are rational and behave in a rational manner.
A heroic assumption, at best. Sometimes, some people do indeed behave rationally. But not everyone does, all the time.
Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, warned of "irrational exuberance" among stock market investors. Equally, there can be irrational pessimism in the face of events like the British vote to leave the European Union.
On a larger scale, there is the behavior of extremists toward those of different religions, ethnicity, race or social standing. This, too, can be irrational. Extremists build walls of various kinds to reassure themselves of their self-perceived superiority.
In contrast, there is the philosophy nurtured in the Age of Reason, which led the American founders to declare that all are created equal. But to extremists, some are more equal than others, as George Orwell put it in his novel, "Animal Farm."
And despite the clear phrasing in the core documents of the American republic, echoing basic principles of many spiritual paths around the world, there remain in many countries that profess to be democratic the idea that one group is somehow superior to others.
All these factors may underlie the referendum result calling for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to leave the European Union. Polls suggest that the Brexit vote was supported largely by xenophobic, less educated workers who feared a loss of their status as a somehow superior group destined to continue the tradition of "Rule Britannia." Citizens of other European nations didn't necessarily agree with that idea.
Nor did the Scots and the Irish, and so voters in those regions rejected the idea of leaving the EU.
Nonetheless, voters throughout the United Kingdom, which comprises England, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall and part of Ireland, most likely led by a big turnout of English workers, approved a plan to leave. The margin was 52 percent to 48 percent.
Here are some consequences of the split:
-- Scotland may hasten efforts to leave the joined kingdoms and declare full independence.
-- Other European nations may also decide to leave the EU.
-- Even Northern Ireland, once dominated by Protestants who feared the idea of being connected to the largely Catholic Republic of Ireland, may decide it's no longer in their economic best interest to maintain close political ties to England. This would be especially true if Scotland acts to secede,
Realistically, the British Empire is no more. The Commonwealth remains as an agreement to maintain easier international trade and cultural ties, but members of the Commonwealth are basically independent nations.
Winston Churchill, the archetypal Brit, spoke of a United States of Europe, but he did not necessarily mean that the British Isles would be included. Instead, he meant if for nations on the Continent. Indeed, the early moves toward a union of European nations were focused on the coal resources of the Ruhr region, which Germany and France had fought over repeatedly.
Britain lost its position as leader of the free world when its empire broke up after World War II. Unfortunately, many in that island believe they still are the most important people in the world. However, that attitude is widespread in other nations also.
So was the vote to leave the European Union rational? Many of the English, especially the less educated, lower income voters afflicted with xenophobia, said yes to Brexit. Others, including economists, bankers, corporate leaders and those of higher income and more education, as well as citizens of Scotland and Northern Ireland, voted to remain.
It has been said that the principles of Economics 101 are "just common sense." To some, however, that's not common sense. To them, common sense is a form of us versus them.
A fallacy in the teaching of Economics 101 is that people make rational choices in how they use the resources available to them.
This assumes that people are rational and behave in a rational manner.
A heroic assumption, at best. Sometimes, some people do indeed behave rationally. But not everyone does, all the time.
Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, warned of "irrational exuberance" among stock market investors. Equally, there can be irrational pessimism in the face of events like the British vote to leave the European Union.
On a larger scale, there is the behavior of extremists toward those of different religions, ethnicity, race or social standing. This, too, can be irrational. Extremists build walls of various kinds to reassure themselves of their self-perceived superiority.
In contrast, there is the philosophy nurtured in the Age of Reason, which led the American founders to declare that all are created equal. But to extremists, some are more equal than others, as George Orwell put it in his novel, "Animal Farm."
And despite the clear phrasing in the core documents of the American republic, echoing basic principles of many spiritual paths around the world, there remain in many countries that profess to be democratic the idea that one group is somehow superior to others.
All these factors may underlie the referendum result calling for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to leave the European Union. Polls suggest that the Brexit vote was supported largely by xenophobic, less educated workers who feared a loss of their status as a somehow superior group destined to continue the tradition of "Rule Britannia." Citizens of other European nations didn't necessarily agree with that idea.
Nor did the Scots and the Irish, and so voters in those regions rejected the idea of leaving the EU.
Nonetheless, voters throughout the United Kingdom, which comprises England, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall and part of Ireland, most likely led by a big turnout of English workers, approved a plan to leave. The margin was 52 percent to 48 percent.
Here are some consequences of the split:
-- Scotland may hasten efforts to leave the joined kingdoms and declare full independence.
-- Other European nations may also decide to leave the EU.
-- Even Northern Ireland, once dominated by Protestants who feared the idea of being connected to the largely Catholic Republic of Ireland, may decide it's no longer in their economic best interest to maintain close political ties to England. This would be especially true if Scotland acts to secede,
Realistically, the British Empire is no more. The Commonwealth remains as an agreement to maintain easier international trade and cultural ties, but members of the Commonwealth are basically independent nations.
Winston Churchill, the archetypal Brit, spoke of a United States of Europe, but he did not necessarily mean that the British Isles would be included. Instead, he meant if for nations on the Continent. Indeed, the early moves toward a union of European nations were focused on the coal resources of the Ruhr region, which Germany and France had fought over repeatedly.
Britain lost its position as leader of the free world when its empire broke up after World War II. Unfortunately, many in that island believe they still are the most important people in the world. However, that attitude is widespread in other nations also.
So was the vote to leave the European Union rational? Many of the English, especially the less educated, lower income voters afflicted with xenophobia, said yes to Brexit. Others, including economists, bankers, corporate leaders and those of higher income and more education, as well as citizens of Scotland and Northern Ireland, voted to remain.
It has been said that the principles of Economics 101 are "just common sense." To some, however, that's not common sense. To them, common sense is a form of us versus them.
Thursday, June 23, 2016
Journalistic License
Politicians like to use the news media to spread their messages to voters. Then they complain when the consequences of what they say and do are also printed and broadcast.
Sorry guys, you can't have it both ways.
One possible "solution" would be to loosen the libel laws so those who feel offended could sue and get lots of money. The traditional legal defense, of course, is that the report is true, provably true and printed without malice. In addition, things said in open court or during debate in Congress or comments made about people prominent in the public eye are not subject to libel suits, since they are a way to encourage debate. This is why candidates get away with saying the outrageous things they say about their opponents.
Another "solution" that would satisfy unhappy politicians might be a plan to require licensing of news reporters, editors and their publications as a way to "ensure competence."
The rationale would be that professionals in other fields, such as doctors, lawyers, stock brokers, real estate sales agents, plumbers and electricians are licensed, and if they mess up, they can be sued for malpractice or malfeasance, and the license of the offender can be canceled.
There are, of course, some countries where that very thing happens to journalistic practitioners. Regulation of the news media is such that government has a very effective way of controlling their political messages -- control of the press and other news outlets.
As much as corporate and political moguls in America try to control the news media, the best they can do -- so far -- is to manipulate.
Unfortunately, many news outlets are too easily manipulated. To some extent, however, that manipulation is appropriate, The term "media" is simply the plural of "medium," something in the middle, or a person or system used to convey a message.
Corporate titans and government biggies are more than happy when good news splashes across Page One or leads the evening news broadcast. But they are unhappy, if not angry, when bad news breaks, so they attack the messenger.
A larger goal, then, would be for them to forbid the messenger from carrying any message that would be detrimental to the company or to the government.
But it is journalism's duty and responsibility to report both sides of any issue, and to check the facts claimed by any public speaker, and to be able to do so without fear of losing a license.
And unless the First Amendment to the Constitution is repealed, there will be no license to be cancelled.
That, however, is just what some politicians secretly want -- the ability to cancel a license if things don't go their way. Few would admit that, since it would run afoul of tradition, custom, law and, of course, the Constitution.
Even so, message control and media manipulation are powerful forces guiding political minds and plans.
To counterbalance these forces and keep the general public and especially voters informed of the many sides of any issue requires a free and independent press. And this includes broadcast media as well as the new channel of social media.
No one has proposed licensing newspapers and magazines, nor has there been any talk of controlling, licensing, regulating or suppressing postings on social media. Yet.
But abuses often result in regulation. And regulation itself can be abusive to freedom.
Sorry guys, you can't have it both ways.
One possible "solution" would be to loosen the libel laws so those who feel offended could sue and get lots of money. The traditional legal defense, of course, is that the report is true, provably true and printed without malice. In addition, things said in open court or during debate in Congress or comments made about people prominent in the public eye are not subject to libel suits, since they are a way to encourage debate. This is why candidates get away with saying the outrageous things they say about their opponents.
Another "solution" that would satisfy unhappy politicians might be a plan to require licensing of news reporters, editors and their publications as a way to "ensure competence."
The rationale would be that professionals in other fields, such as doctors, lawyers, stock brokers, real estate sales agents, plumbers and electricians are licensed, and if they mess up, they can be sued for malpractice or malfeasance, and the license of the offender can be canceled.
There are, of course, some countries where that very thing happens to journalistic practitioners. Regulation of the news media is such that government has a very effective way of controlling their political messages -- control of the press and other news outlets.
As much as corporate and political moguls in America try to control the news media, the best they can do -- so far -- is to manipulate.
Unfortunately, many news outlets are too easily manipulated. To some extent, however, that manipulation is appropriate, The term "media" is simply the plural of "medium," something in the middle, or a person or system used to convey a message.
Corporate titans and government biggies are more than happy when good news splashes across Page One or leads the evening news broadcast. But they are unhappy, if not angry, when bad news breaks, so they attack the messenger.
A larger goal, then, would be for them to forbid the messenger from carrying any message that would be detrimental to the company or to the government.
But it is journalism's duty and responsibility to report both sides of any issue, and to check the facts claimed by any public speaker, and to be able to do so without fear of losing a license.
And unless the First Amendment to the Constitution is repealed, there will be no license to be cancelled.
That, however, is just what some politicians secretly want -- the ability to cancel a license if things don't go their way. Few would admit that, since it would run afoul of tradition, custom, law and, of course, the Constitution.
Even so, message control and media manipulation are powerful forces guiding political minds and plans.
To counterbalance these forces and keep the general public and especially voters informed of the many sides of any issue requires a free and independent press. And this includes broadcast media as well as the new channel of social media.
No one has proposed licensing newspapers and magazines, nor has there been any talk of controlling, licensing, regulating or suppressing postings on social media. Yet.
But abuses often result in regulation. And regulation itself can be abusive to freedom.
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
Luckonomics
Once is an accident. Twice is a coincidence. Three times or more is a pattern.
Presidents claim credit when the national economy does well on their watch, and blame their predecessor when it doesn't. The question, then, is whether the person in the White House really has any direct influence on the economy, or whether it's a matter of luck.
Since the end of the Great Depression, America has shown economic recovery and growth while a Democrat occupied the White House, and a slowdown during a Republican's tenure.
So is that an accident, a coincidence, or a blame-worthy pattern?
As noted in this column last September, in the 67 years between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the Great Depression, 15 men served as President, all but three of them Republicans. In that time, there were four economic crises or recessions, three of which began during a Republican presidency.
The Great Depression began its chaotic slide in October 1929, when Republican Herbert Hoover was President, and did not fully recover until World War 2 began. Since then, there have been variations in the cycle, including downturns in the Eisenhower years, the Nixon years, and the Reagan-Bush years, as Republicans pushed their conservative agenda of limited government. Oddly, this led to higher budget deficits.
Democrat Bill Clinton (1993-2001) not only steadily reduced federal budget deficits but posted four years with budget surplus. Then, under his successor, Republican George W. Bush, the surplus disappeared, the deficit soared to a record $1.4 trillion and the nation stumbled into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
In the seven years since Democrat Barack Obama took office, the deficit has been steadily trimmed and the overall economy has steadily, albeit slowly, recovered.
Now, according to an analysis released this week by the International Monetary Fund, the U.S. economy "is, overall, in good shape," with a total of 2.4 million new jobs created over the past year. The unemployment rate has dropped to 4.7 percent, "its lowest level since the eve of the Great Recession," the IMF said. Inflation "remains contained, and the U.S. economy has repeatedly demonstrated its resilience" in the face of several negative influences including market volatility and international unsteadiness.
In the current presidential campaign, voters face the choice of a Democrat, Hillary Clinton, or the leading Republican, Donald Trump.
News media daily supply details of the speeches, promises, experiences and past performance records of each. Whether one set of promises outweighs the other is for voters to decide come Election Day in November. Meanwhile, it's important to pay some attention to the plans and proposals touted by each of the candidates, and to decide whether these ideas are solid and potentially productive, or empty and likely to lead to another recession.
We can only weigh their words against past performance records, not only their individual records, but the overall history of the philosophies that guide their political parties and organizations.
Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.
Presidents claim credit when the national economy does well on their watch, and blame their predecessor when it doesn't. The question, then, is whether the person in the White House really has any direct influence on the economy, or whether it's a matter of luck.
Since the end of the Great Depression, America has shown economic recovery and growth while a Democrat occupied the White House, and a slowdown during a Republican's tenure.
So is that an accident, a coincidence, or a blame-worthy pattern?
As noted in this column last September, in the 67 years between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the Great Depression, 15 men served as President, all but three of them Republicans. In that time, there were four economic crises or recessions, three of which began during a Republican presidency.
The Great Depression began its chaotic slide in October 1929, when Republican Herbert Hoover was President, and did not fully recover until World War 2 began. Since then, there have been variations in the cycle, including downturns in the Eisenhower years, the Nixon years, and the Reagan-Bush years, as Republicans pushed their conservative agenda of limited government. Oddly, this led to higher budget deficits.
Democrat Bill Clinton (1993-2001) not only steadily reduced federal budget deficits but posted four years with budget surplus. Then, under his successor, Republican George W. Bush, the surplus disappeared, the deficit soared to a record $1.4 trillion and the nation stumbled into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
In the seven years since Democrat Barack Obama took office, the deficit has been steadily trimmed and the overall economy has steadily, albeit slowly, recovered.
Now, according to an analysis released this week by the International Monetary Fund, the U.S. economy "is, overall, in good shape," with a total of 2.4 million new jobs created over the past year. The unemployment rate has dropped to 4.7 percent, "its lowest level since the eve of the Great Recession," the IMF said. Inflation "remains contained, and the U.S. economy has repeatedly demonstrated its resilience" in the face of several negative influences including market volatility and international unsteadiness.
In the current presidential campaign, voters face the choice of a Democrat, Hillary Clinton, or the leading Republican, Donald Trump.
News media daily supply details of the speeches, promises, experiences and past performance records of each. Whether one set of promises outweighs the other is for voters to decide come Election Day in November. Meanwhile, it's important to pay some attention to the plans and proposals touted by each of the candidates, and to decide whether these ideas are solid and potentially productive, or empty and likely to lead to another recession.
We can only weigh their words against past performance records, not only their individual records, but the overall history of the philosophies that guide their political parties and organizations.
Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
Shill Game
The secret of success in business, as taught at Trump University, is OPM -- use Other People's Money.
The candidate is now on a money tour to persuade donors to place their bets on a Trump card for a winning candidacy. But one question is whether this is a stacked deck.
Filings with the Federal Election Commission show that the Donald Trump campaign has a little more than $1 million cash on hand, compared to $41 million in the Hillary Clinton fund.
So what happened to the Trumpian boast that he was funding his own campaign, when it appears to be nearly bankrupt and he's out soliciting?
True, he was spending very little during the primary season, relying heavily on all the free publicity and air time he could milk from the TV networks and social media.
But now, the news media are spending more time and space uncovering his history of manipulating his business ventures, squeezing cash from them and then sending them into bankruptcy as he continued to draw salaries and bonuses.
"Atlantic City was a cash cow for me for a long time," Trump has boasted. But even as he milked the cash cow dry, investors large and small, contractors and employees went broke or lost their jobs as he stalled or refused to pay contractors for work done and his hotels and casinos went bankrupt.
"He has written a lot of books about business," said Hillary Clinton, his opponent in the current presidential campaign, "but they all end in Chapter 11."
Meanwhile, Trump's promise to "renegotiate" federal debt as a way to deal with national fiscal issues, would equal default, Clinton noted, something that has never been done in the nation's history. The policy of honoring government issued bonds traces to Alexander Hamilton, who insisted that the new government's bonds issued during the War for Independence be paid off in full, establishing America as a safe haven for investors worldwide.
But the presumptive Republican nominee wants to extend his past business practices to a national government level. And as he campaigns for the presidency, he says he will fund his own efforts if he can't get help from the Republican Party.
In the past, he has borrowed from himself to continue his efforts. But in practice, he would lend to his campaign organization, and pay himself back as the campaign borrows from one of his businesses, which then goes into bankruptcy.
Who wins and who loses? Trump wins and investors lose. And this is another example of the Trump U teaching manual: Use OPM -- Other People's Money.
The candidate is now on a money tour to persuade donors to place their bets on a Trump card for a winning candidacy. But one question is whether this is a stacked deck.
Filings with the Federal Election Commission show that the Donald Trump campaign has a little more than $1 million cash on hand, compared to $41 million in the Hillary Clinton fund.
So what happened to the Trumpian boast that he was funding his own campaign, when it appears to be nearly bankrupt and he's out soliciting?
True, he was spending very little during the primary season, relying heavily on all the free publicity and air time he could milk from the TV networks and social media.
But now, the news media are spending more time and space uncovering his history of manipulating his business ventures, squeezing cash from them and then sending them into bankruptcy as he continued to draw salaries and bonuses.
"Atlantic City was a cash cow for me for a long time," Trump has boasted. But even as he milked the cash cow dry, investors large and small, contractors and employees went broke or lost their jobs as he stalled or refused to pay contractors for work done and his hotels and casinos went bankrupt.
"He has written a lot of books about business," said Hillary Clinton, his opponent in the current presidential campaign, "but they all end in Chapter 11."
Meanwhile, Trump's promise to "renegotiate" federal debt as a way to deal with national fiscal issues, would equal default, Clinton noted, something that has never been done in the nation's history. The policy of honoring government issued bonds traces to Alexander Hamilton, who insisted that the new government's bonds issued during the War for Independence be paid off in full, establishing America as a safe haven for investors worldwide.
But the presumptive Republican nominee wants to extend his past business practices to a national government level. And as he campaigns for the presidency, he says he will fund his own efforts if he can't get help from the Republican Party.
In the past, he has borrowed from himself to continue his efforts. But in practice, he would lend to his campaign organization, and pay himself back as the campaign borrows from one of his businesses, which then goes into bankruptcy.
Who wins and who loses? Trump wins and investors lose. And this is another example of the Trump U teaching manual: Use OPM -- Other People's Money.
Monday, June 20, 2016
Quotables
"The Constitution guarantees a free press. It does not guarantee a fair press." -- Edwin Newman, journalist.
"Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?" -- Chico Marx.
"Who you gonna believe, a demagogue or a daily newspaper?" -- Pug Mahoney, editor.
"Figures don't lie, but liars do figure." -- Mark Twain.
"My head's made up. You can't confuse me with the facts." -- Chester A. Reilly.
"Assumptions make good copy, but seldom good facts." -- Pug Mahoney.
"In your heart, you know he's right." -- Campaign slogan for Barry Goldwater presidential campaign, 1964.
"Better you should vote from your head." -- Dinty Ramble.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." -- Barry Goldwater, 1964.
"Those who would sacrifice a little liberty for more security deserve neither and will lose both." -- Attributed to Benjamin Franklin.
"You can't insult your way to the presidency." -- Jeb Bush to Donald Trump.
But what if he succeeds?
This election campaign is building the elements of a Shakespearean tragedy.
Demagogue devotees of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your sanity.
Belief without thought endangers freedom.
"Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?" -- Chico Marx.
"Who you gonna believe, a demagogue or a daily newspaper?" -- Pug Mahoney, editor.
"Figures don't lie, but liars do figure." -- Mark Twain.
"My head's made up. You can't confuse me with the facts." -- Chester A. Reilly.
"Assumptions make good copy, but seldom good facts." -- Pug Mahoney.
"In your heart, you know he's right." -- Campaign slogan for Barry Goldwater presidential campaign, 1964.
"Better you should vote from your head." -- Dinty Ramble.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." -- Barry Goldwater, 1964.
"Those who would sacrifice a little liberty for more security deserve neither and will lose both." -- Attributed to Benjamin Franklin.
"You can't insult your way to the presidency." -- Jeb Bush to Donald Trump.
But what if he succeeds?
This election campaign is building the elements of a Shakespearean tragedy.
Demagogue devotees of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your sanity.
Belief without thought endangers freedom.
Sunday, June 19, 2016
The Dismal Science
Economics is the study of what people do with what's available.
Many journalists dislike writing about business and economics because they think it's "too hard."
The topic may not be as juicy, dramatic, thrilling and exciting as crime or sports reporting, but it's no less important. Indeed, it can be far more important. For example, what can be more important than 50 million Americans out of work, a 20 percent unemployment rate, businesses large and small collapsing daily, families losing their homes and millions relying on soup kitchens for food, as a result of an economic collapse such as the Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression that followed, as well as the Great Recession of 2008?
Many journalists chase after the stories that people want to know, but ignore the stories that people need to know.
People want to know who won the Big Game, or who was arrested, or which celebrity is dating which, or how the political candidates insulted and mocked their rivals.
Those stories are easy to gather, and have an audience and readership eager to hear them. But is that news or gossip? Sometimes there's a thin line between the two.
This is not to say that gossip isn't interesting. It is, and the news media's duty is to entertain as well as to inform. But many reporters claim they can't do stories on economics because they don't understand them, or they're too hard, or people aren't interested. However, it's a journalist's job to incite interest. Meanwhile, they take up the challenge of translating a politician's gobbledygook into plain language in order to entertain, interest and inform readers.
Academics are no less skilled at perpetrating gobbledygook, yet the consequences are far more important. The difference is that politicians are more adept at entertaining an audience than are academics.
At the same time, readers don't want to hear stories of impending disaster -- unless it's an earthquake or fire, or a crime far from home. So, like the boy who cried "Wolf!" reporters who quote economic predictions of recession are ignored. Unfortunately, they are later criticized when disaster does strike.
Meanwhile, some self-serving politicians play on the fears of some, and promise to rescue the nation from the perceived, if imaginary, danger inherent in the more obscure comments of a few academics.
Journalists sometimes fall into the same trap, reporting the more entertaining or dire warnings of politicians without the balance of clear academic understanding. In this case, the emphasis must be on the word "clear." Not all academics are, and that's what makes their pronouncements "dismal."
But trying to make the pronouncements clear is too hard, some journalists complain. Actually, it's no more difficult than compiling and explaining the statistical batting averages and won/loss averages of baseball players.
Economics also deals with statistics. It's up to journalists to explain them clearly.
So why is Economics called "the dismal science"? Two reasons: It deals with potential losses as well as wins; recessions as well as prosperity. Secondly, many economists are dismal writers.
But writing about baseball statistics is no more difficult then writing about economic statistics.
The challenge is in the explaining, and that's no harder than explaining why the home team lost the Big Game.
Many journalists dislike writing about business and economics because they think it's "too hard."
The topic may not be as juicy, dramatic, thrilling and exciting as crime or sports reporting, but it's no less important. Indeed, it can be far more important. For example, what can be more important than 50 million Americans out of work, a 20 percent unemployment rate, businesses large and small collapsing daily, families losing their homes and millions relying on soup kitchens for food, as a result of an economic collapse such as the Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression that followed, as well as the Great Recession of 2008?
Many journalists chase after the stories that people want to know, but ignore the stories that people need to know.
People want to know who won the Big Game, or who was arrested, or which celebrity is dating which, or how the political candidates insulted and mocked their rivals.
Those stories are easy to gather, and have an audience and readership eager to hear them. But is that news or gossip? Sometimes there's a thin line between the two.
This is not to say that gossip isn't interesting. It is, and the news media's duty is to entertain as well as to inform. But many reporters claim they can't do stories on economics because they don't understand them, or they're too hard, or people aren't interested. However, it's a journalist's job to incite interest. Meanwhile, they take up the challenge of translating a politician's gobbledygook into plain language in order to entertain, interest and inform readers.
Academics are no less skilled at perpetrating gobbledygook, yet the consequences are far more important. The difference is that politicians are more adept at entertaining an audience than are academics.
At the same time, readers don't want to hear stories of impending disaster -- unless it's an earthquake or fire, or a crime far from home. So, like the boy who cried "Wolf!" reporters who quote economic predictions of recession are ignored. Unfortunately, they are later criticized when disaster does strike.
Meanwhile, some self-serving politicians play on the fears of some, and promise to rescue the nation from the perceived, if imaginary, danger inherent in the more obscure comments of a few academics.
Journalists sometimes fall into the same trap, reporting the more entertaining or dire warnings of politicians without the balance of clear academic understanding. In this case, the emphasis must be on the word "clear." Not all academics are, and that's what makes their pronouncements "dismal."
But trying to make the pronouncements clear is too hard, some journalists complain. Actually, it's no more difficult than compiling and explaining the statistical batting averages and won/loss averages of baseball players.
Economics also deals with statistics. It's up to journalists to explain them clearly.
So why is Economics called "the dismal science"? Two reasons: It deals with potential losses as well as wins; recessions as well as prosperity. Secondly, many economists are dismal writers.
But writing about baseball statistics is no more difficult then writing about economic statistics.
The challenge is in the explaining, and that's no harder than explaining why the home team lost the Big Game.
Saturday, June 18, 2016
Brexit Fix
If it ain't broke, don't Brexit.
Many believe the European Union is failing and the only way healthy members can survive is to leave. This is especially true in the United Kingdom, where a vote will be held next week on whether to remain or leave.
But Adam Smith, the founder of modern economic theory, showed that the best way for nations to survive is for each to focus on what it does best and allow free trade with others. One example he used in his 1776 book, The Wealth of Nations, was the comparative advantage Spain had in making wine, contrasted with Britain's advantage in manufacturing. This was not to say that manufacturing could not take place in Spain or that wine making could not take place in Britain. But for those who have ever tasted British wine, the choice is clear.
In the European Union as now set up, trade between nations is easier, and workers can easily move from one to another, following job openings. If the UK leaves the EU, that will mean that many who now work in England, taking jobs that native Britons do not want, will have to return to their native countries.
For example, if the UK leaves and the Republic of Ireland remains, citizens of Ireland who work in the northern part of the island that is still part of the United Kingdom, will have to deal with border crossings every day. And restaurant workers in England, such as cooks, servers, cashiers, and cleanup personnel, will have to return to their home countries, which could include Spain and Portugal or several Eastern European countries, where jobs are scarce.
Clearly, there are economic problems worldwide, Europe and America continue to recover from the worst downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
In the UK itself, however, there has been good progress, according to the International Monetary Fund.
"The economy in the United Kingdom has performed well in recent years," the IMF said in a new report, even as it faces "important challenges and risks."
Growth has been "near the top among major advanced economies," the report said, and employment "has risen to a record high" as the unemployment rate remained low.
One of the risks and a major source of uncertainty, moreover, is the possibility that the UK may abandon its membership in the European Union. As a result of this uncertainty, "economic growth slowed in the first half of this year," according to the IMF report.
If UK voters approve the plan to exit the EU, negotiations on how to accomplish this as well as set up any future relationship with other members of the union could drag on for years.
Meanwhile, confidence among workers and companies could well suffer as they wait for things to settle down. Economic growth could well go negative, spending could drop and jobs would be cut -- two clear symptoms of an economic recession.
A side complication would be increasing pressure in Scotland to break its centuries-old political link with England. Polls suggest more Scots want to remain in the EU, while many in England want to leave. If next week's referendum results in the UK leaving the EU, a consequence could well be that Scotland might leave the UK, retrieving full independence. And that would mean more complicated negotiations to establish border and customs crossings between Scotland and England, in addition to reopening border crossings between the Republic of Ireland and the six counties of Northern Ireland that remain part of the UK.
On this side of the pond, America in 1776 defined its split by declaring itself as thirteen "free and independent states." But initially, the new nation made the mistake of allowing each state to erect trade barriers and to issue its own currency, which meant that money acquired in one state could not be spent in another. Fortunately, that situation last only a few years under the Articles of Confederation, and was resolved when the Constitution of 1789 took effect, and eventually monetary unity was established.
In Europe, there have been several steps toward full unity, but not all members use the euro, so full monetary unity has not yet happened. Fiscal unity is still a goal, and political unity remains a dream, held back by nationalistic fervor.
And it is this nationalism, recently reviving and growing in many member countries, that is likely to be the final straw in the breakup referendum, beginning in Great Britain.
Many believe the European Union is failing and the only way healthy members can survive is to leave. This is especially true in the United Kingdom, where a vote will be held next week on whether to remain or leave.
But Adam Smith, the founder of modern economic theory, showed that the best way for nations to survive is for each to focus on what it does best and allow free trade with others. One example he used in his 1776 book, The Wealth of Nations, was the comparative advantage Spain had in making wine, contrasted with Britain's advantage in manufacturing. This was not to say that manufacturing could not take place in Spain or that wine making could not take place in Britain. But for those who have ever tasted British wine, the choice is clear.
In the European Union as now set up, trade between nations is easier, and workers can easily move from one to another, following job openings. If the UK leaves the EU, that will mean that many who now work in England, taking jobs that native Britons do not want, will have to return to their native countries.
For example, if the UK leaves and the Republic of Ireland remains, citizens of Ireland who work in the northern part of the island that is still part of the United Kingdom, will have to deal with border crossings every day. And restaurant workers in England, such as cooks, servers, cashiers, and cleanup personnel, will have to return to their home countries, which could include Spain and Portugal or several Eastern European countries, where jobs are scarce.
Clearly, there are economic problems worldwide, Europe and America continue to recover from the worst downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
In the UK itself, however, there has been good progress, according to the International Monetary Fund.
"The economy in the United Kingdom has performed well in recent years," the IMF said in a new report, even as it faces "important challenges and risks."
Growth has been "near the top among major advanced economies," the report said, and employment "has risen to a record high" as the unemployment rate remained low.
One of the risks and a major source of uncertainty, moreover, is the possibility that the UK may abandon its membership in the European Union. As a result of this uncertainty, "economic growth slowed in the first half of this year," according to the IMF report.
If UK voters approve the plan to exit the EU, negotiations on how to accomplish this as well as set up any future relationship with other members of the union could drag on for years.
Meanwhile, confidence among workers and companies could well suffer as they wait for things to settle down. Economic growth could well go negative, spending could drop and jobs would be cut -- two clear symptoms of an economic recession.
A side complication would be increasing pressure in Scotland to break its centuries-old political link with England. Polls suggest more Scots want to remain in the EU, while many in England want to leave. If next week's referendum results in the UK leaving the EU, a consequence could well be that Scotland might leave the UK, retrieving full independence. And that would mean more complicated negotiations to establish border and customs crossings between Scotland and England, in addition to reopening border crossings between the Republic of Ireland and the six counties of Northern Ireland that remain part of the UK.
On this side of the pond, America in 1776 defined its split by declaring itself as thirteen "free and independent states." But initially, the new nation made the mistake of allowing each state to erect trade barriers and to issue its own currency, which meant that money acquired in one state could not be spent in another. Fortunately, that situation last only a few years under the Articles of Confederation, and was resolved when the Constitution of 1789 took effect, and eventually monetary unity was established.
In Europe, there have been several steps toward full unity, but not all members use the euro, so full monetary unity has not yet happened. Fiscal unity is still a goal, and political unity remains a dream, held back by nationalistic fervor.
And it is this nationalism, recently reviving and growing in many member countries, that is likely to be the final straw in the breakup referendum, beginning in Great Britain.
Friday, June 17, 2016
Candidate Credentials
Whom do you trust?
Candidate H has spent a lifetime in politics and government, including service as U.S. senator representing New York State and as Secretary of State for the federal government. This candidate has no experience in business.
Candidate D has spent a lifetime in business, including numerous business failures, bankruptcies, allegations of fraud and charges of milking cash from business ventures before sending them into bankruptcy. This candidate has no experience in politics or government.
Candidate H has released complete financial statements of net worth and tax returns.
Candidate D refuses to release net worth figures, instead giving the candidate's own totals, without providing evidence or documentation. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) audits this candidate's tax returns yearly, while audits of other individuals and major companies are only occasional, if not rare.
Candidate H delivers speeches regularly on policies and strategies, but seems uncomfortable holding press conferences, where the candidate takes questions directly from journalists.
Candidate D speaks to journalists regularly, but is light on specifics and often indulges in mockery and insult when the questions become too tough. In addition, this candidate has barred reporters from major news media from attending campaign events, after the candidate is offended by negative coverage in these news outlets.
Candidate H welcomes refugees from other nations fleeing danger and seeking opportunity in America.
Candidate D wants to bar all those of a certain religious faith, and build a border wall to keep out "undesirables," as well as deport millions of others, including family members who were born in America and are therefore U.S. citizens.
We report, you decide.
Candidate H has spent a lifetime in politics and government, including service as U.S. senator representing New York State and as Secretary of State for the federal government. This candidate has no experience in business.
Candidate D has spent a lifetime in business, including numerous business failures, bankruptcies, allegations of fraud and charges of milking cash from business ventures before sending them into bankruptcy. This candidate has no experience in politics or government.
Candidate H has released complete financial statements of net worth and tax returns.
Candidate D refuses to release net worth figures, instead giving the candidate's own totals, without providing evidence or documentation. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) audits this candidate's tax returns yearly, while audits of other individuals and major companies are only occasional, if not rare.
Candidate H delivers speeches regularly on policies and strategies, but seems uncomfortable holding press conferences, where the candidate takes questions directly from journalists.
Candidate D speaks to journalists regularly, but is light on specifics and often indulges in mockery and insult when the questions become too tough. In addition, this candidate has barred reporters from major news media from attending campaign events, after the candidate is offended by negative coverage in these news outlets.
Candidate H welcomes refugees from other nations fleeing danger and seeking opportunity in America.
Candidate D wants to bar all those of a certain religious faith, and build a border wall to keep out "undesirables," as well as deport millions of others, including family members who were born in America and are therefore U.S. citizens.
We report, you decide.
Thursday, June 16, 2016
The Fifth Freedom
Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship,
Freedom from Want, Freedom from Fear.
On January 6, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt in his annual State of the Union message listed the Four Freedoms essential to people worldwide. It is now time to add a fifth: Freedom from Persecution.
Many of the people who came to America in its early years did so to escape religious persecution. The Puritans came to Massachusetts, Catholics to Maryland and Quakers to Pennsylvania, among others.
They did this not only in their search for freedom, but to escape an official ban on any of their members holding office, attending major universities or practicing medicine, among other professions. In fact, in England in the 18th Century, only members of the Established Church of England (Episcopal) were eligible to sit in Parliament or to attend either of the only two universities that trained physicians.
Therefore, the diverse members of the Constitutional Convention meeting in Philadelphia decided, "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the United States." This remains in place in Article VI of the Constitution, adopted in 1789.
In addition, the First Amendment stipulates that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Periodically in America, there are examples of bigotry and persecution against newcomers and minority groups who don't meet some standard that a few seek to impose on the many, and they try to shut the Golden Door mentioned on the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor.
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," it says. But in the 19th Century, the call was, "Except no Irish." In the 1930s, the call was, "Except no Jews," and refugees from Nazi Germany were turned away. Currently, the call is, "Except no Muslims."
Who's next?
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me."
Freedom from Want, Freedom from Fear.
On January 6, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt in his annual State of the Union message listed the Four Freedoms essential to people worldwide. It is now time to add a fifth: Freedom from Persecution.
Many of the people who came to America in its early years did so to escape religious persecution. The Puritans came to Massachusetts, Catholics to Maryland and Quakers to Pennsylvania, among others.
They did this not only in their search for freedom, but to escape an official ban on any of their members holding office, attending major universities or practicing medicine, among other professions. In fact, in England in the 18th Century, only members of the Established Church of England (Episcopal) were eligible to sit in Parliament or to attend either of the only two universities that trained physicians.
Therefore, the diverse members of the Constitutional Convention meeting in Philadelphia decided, "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the United States." This remains in place in Article VI of the Constitution, adopted in 1789.
In addition, the First Amendment stipulates that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Periodically in America, there are examples of bigotry and persecution against newcomers and minority groups who don't meet some standard that a few seek to impose on the many, and they try to shut the Golden Door mentioned on the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor.
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," it says. But in the 19th Century, the call was, "Except no Irish." In the 1930s, the call was, "Except no Jews," and refugees from Nazi Germany were turned away. Currently, the call is, "Except no Muslims."
Who's next?
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me."
--Martin Niemoller
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
Vary Interest Thing
Economic activity in the U.S. is likely to maintain its current pace for the next two years, according to estimates from the Federal Reserve Board, so don't expect a major change in the central bank's interest rate policy any time soon.
At the regular meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee this week, the agency said it will keep its key interest rate below 0.5 percent until economic conditions show further improvement. When that will be is an open question.
The Fed noted that growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is projected to be about 2 percent for the next three years, the unemployment rate will be below 5 percent, and the inflation rate is not likely to reach the Fed target of 2 percent until that time.
The central bank governors said the pace of improvement in the labor market has slowed even as overall economic activity "appears to have picked up." And although the unemployment rate has declined -- a good sign -- job gains have also diminished -- not a good sign.
Consequently, the economic monitors expect "only gradual increases" in interest rates as the economy "evolves."
Bottom line: Don't look for the stimulus program to ease up "for some time," as the Fed put it. Good bet: Wait 'til next year.
At the regular meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee this week, the agency said it will keep its key interest rate below 0.5 percent until economic conditions show further improvement. When that will be is an open question.
The Fed noted that growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is projected to be about 2 percent for the next three years, the unemployment rate will be below 5 percent, and the inflation rate is not likely to reach the Fed target of 2 percent until that time.
The central bank governors said the pace of improvement in the labor market has slowed even as overall economic activity "appears to have picked up." And although the unemployment rate has declined -- a good sign -- job gains have also diminished -- not a good sign.
Consequently, the economic monitors expect "only gradual increases" in interest rates as the economy "evolves."
Bottom line: Don't look for the stimulus program to ease up "for some time," as the Fed put it. Good bet: Wait 'til next year.
Ban the Irish?
GOP candidate Donald Trump calls for a ban on immigration from any country where terrorists act against U.S allies.
Does that include the IRA?
The Irish Republican Army in Ireland has sent its members to the United Kingdom, a U.S. ally, and attacked targets in England. Granted, that hasn't happened recently, and the IRA has been relatively quiet.
Like leprechauns, many people may not believe in them, but they're there all the same.
And if the proposed ban on immigration from any country where there is terrorist activity takes effect, that would mean no Irish need apply for travel or citizenship in America.
Tell that to the many millions of Irish-American voters already here.
Does that include the IRA?
The Irish Republican Army in Ireland has sent its members to the United Kingdom, a U.S. ally, and attacked targets in England. Granted, that hasn't happened recently, and the IRA has been relatively quiet.
Like leprechauns, many people may not believe in them, but they're there all the same.
And if the proposed ban on immigration from any country where there is terrorist activity takes effect, that would mean no Irish need apply for travel or citizenship in America.
Tell that to the many millions of Irish-American voters already here.
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
Credentials and Control
Denying access won't stop the story.
Only dictators can control the press.
The Donald Trump presidential campaign has withdrawn press credentials from the Washington Post, one of America's top newspapers. Why? Because the candidate didn't like a headline and the coverage of news stories about his sayings and doings.
He has a right to withhold press credentials for any reason he likes, or for no reason at all. But he cannot stop reporters from obtaining tickets to public events and entering the venue as members of the general public.
Nor can he stop reporters from watching Trump talk on television and basing their coverage on that, as well as reading his Twitter feed, and interviewing people on the street outside the campaign venue.
His staff has blocked other members of the public from entering unless they pledge allegiance to the candidate. Does he have a right to do this, also? Probably, yes, since it is a private event. But whether that's a smart thing to do is an entirely different question.
The background to the Washington Post ban is the news stories reporting Trump's comments on the Orlando massacre. The coverage noted the vague insinuations uttered by Trump that President Obama was somehow complicit in the shooting. Because of this reporting, Trump accused the Post of inaccurate and unfair reporting. But if Trump's comments were indeed vague and insinuated that the President knew or should have known that something like this was brewing, then reporting what the candidate said was part of journalism's duty
If the candidate has a habit of being vague, seldom providing specifics, then that is what the news media should report. Trump typically does speak at length with insult and vague insinuations against anyone who disagrees with him in any way. But this candidate takes offense against anyone who reports anything negative about what he says and does.
Moreover, the Washington Post is not the first major news outlet to be banished from Trump events. There have been several others, most of them online news channels.
Trump charged that the headline on story that annoyed him was inaccurate and unfair. Here it must be said that a headline is often a compromise, due to limited space. Only a few characters can fit per column, and the skill of headline writing can rise to the level of art as it calls for a summary of a complex story in perhaps five words.
And if the story itself consists of vague insinuations, as Trump speeches often do, it's especially difficult for writers, editors and headline writers to be precise when confronted with obscure hints and implications.
Nonetheless, when a newspaper quotes a politician's exact words, that's part of the job, to write what those words mean and the consequences of an inflammatory speech.
And if the candidate doesn't like it ...
Politicians demand to be quoted exactly, but they often complain when the repercussions are negative, and they blame the news media for the results.
Note to candidate Trump: You can't have it both ways.
Nor can you control what a free press writes about you. And as a public figure, the laws of libel are different. It's called the principle of open debate and fair comment. Otherwise, Trump himself would be subject of libel suits for his false allegations and name calling against his opponents, including such comments as "Crooked Hillary" or "Lyin' Ted."
Moreover, when news media report on civil or criminal charges filed in a court of law, citing and quoting official documents prepared by prosecutors and regulatory agencies, you cannot sue for libel, much as you might like to. The news is that fraud charges were filed. If you are later cleared, the news media will report that, too.
It does little good to whine "unfair" or "inaccurate" or "misconstrued" or "what I really meant was ... "
If you really are the reasonable, intelligent person you claim to be, say what you really mean in the first place. The news media will record and report what you say and do as if you really did mean it in the first place.
When it comes back to haunt you, don't blame the messenger.
Only dictators can control the press.
The Donald Trump presidential campaign has withdrawn press credentials from the Washington Post, one of America's top newspapers. Why? Because the candidate didn't like a headline and the coverage of news stories about his sayings and doings.
He has a right to withhold press credentials for any reason he likes, or for no reason at all. But he cannot stop reporters from obtaining tickets to public events and entering the venue as members of the general public.
Nor can he stop reporters from watching Trump talk on television and basing their coverage on that, as well as reading his Twitter feed, and interviewing people on the street outside the campaign venue.
His staff has blocked other members of the public from entering unless they pledge allegiance to the candidate. Does he have a right to do this, also? Probably, yes, since it is a private event. But whether that's a smart thing to do is an entirely different question.
The background to the Washington Post ban is the news stories reporting Trump's comments on the Orlando massacre. The coverage noted the vague insinuations uttered by Trump that President Obama was somehow complicit in the shooting. Because of this reporting, Trump accused the Post of inaccurate and unfair reporting. But if Trump's comments were indeed vague and insinuated that the President knew or should have known that something like this was brewing, then reporting what the candidate said was part of journalism's duty
If the candidate has a habit of being vague, seldom providing specifics, then that is what the news media should report. Trump typically does speak at length with insult and vague insinuations against anyone who disagrees with him in any way. But this candidate takes offense against anyone who reports anything negative about what he says and does.
Moreover, the Washington Post is not the first major news outlet to be banished from Trump events. There have been several others, most of them online news channels.
Trump charged that the headline on story that annoyed him was inaccurate and unfair. Here it must be said that a headline is often a compromise, due to limited space. Only a few characters can fit per column, and the skill of headline writing can rise to the level of art as it calls for a summary of a complex story in perhaps five words.
And if the story itself consists of vague insinuations, as Trump speeches often do, it's especially difficult for writers, editors and headline writers to be precise when confronted with obscure hints and implications.
Nonetheless, when a newspaper quotes a politician's exact words, that's part of the job, to write what those words mean and the consequences of an inflammatory speech.
And if the candidate doesn't like it ...
Politicians demand to be quoted exactly, but they often complain when the repercussions are negative, and they blame the news media for the results.
Note to candidate Trump: You can't have it both ways.
Nor can you control what a free press writes about you. And as a public figure, the laws of libel are different. It's called the principle of open debate and fair comment. Otherwise, Trump himself would be subject of libel suits for his false allegations and name calling against his opponents, including such comments as "Crooked Hillary" or "Lyin' Ted."
Moreover, when news media report on civil or criminal charges filed in a court of law, citing and quoting official documents prepared by prosecutors and regulatory agencies, you cannot sue for libel, much as you might like to. The news is that fraud charges were filed. If you are later cleared, the news media will report that, too.
It does little good to whine "unfair" or "inaccurate" or "misconstrued" or "what I really meant was ... "
If you really are the reasonable, intelligent person you claim to be, say what you really mean in the first place. The news media will record and report what you say and do as if you really did mean it in the first place.
When it comes back to haunt you, don't blame the messenger.
Religious Tests
"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under these United States." -- The Constitution, Article VI.
"We don't have religious tests here." -- President Barack Obama.
Citizenship is a public trust, and therefore the proposed ban on Muslims entering the U.S. is unconstitutional, regardless of what GOP candidate Donald Trump claims.
The shooter responsible for the massacre in Orlando was born in the Borough of Queens in New York City (coincidentally, so was Trump). Nevertheless, Trump insists on calling him "an Afghan," since that's where his parents came from.
But how many generations are needed until a family qualifies as "true American"? Trump's grandfather was an immigrant from Germany. Does that make the grandson less American?
In effect, Trump is echoing a chant used by 19th Century extremists to keep out newcomers from certain European countries. At the time, the ban was used primarily against Irish immigrants seeking jobs but also was used against people from Italy and Germany.
Now, the chant of "No Irish Need Apply" is being changed to "No Muslims Need Apply."
"We don't have religious tests here." -- President Barack Obama.
Citizenship is a public trust, and therefore the proposed ban on Muslims entering the U.S. is unconstitutional, regardless of what GOP candidate Donald Trump claims.
The shooter responsible for the massacre in Orlando was born in the Borough of Queens in New York City (coincidentally, so was Trump). Nevertheless, Trump insists on calling him "an Afghan," since that's where his parents came from.
But how many generations are needed until a family qualifies as "true American"? Trump's grandfather was an immigrant from Germany. Does that make the grandson less American?
In effect, Trump is echoing a chant used by 19th Century extremists to keep out newcomers from certain European countries. At the time, the ban was used primarily against Irish immigrants seeking jobs but also was used against people from Italy and Germany.
Now, the chant of "No Irish Need Apply" is being changed to "No Muslims Need Apply."
Monday, June 13, 2016
Guns and Freedom
"A well regulated militia ..." -- U.S. Constitution, Second Amendment.
Muzzle loading muskets and single shot, breech loading rifles would be no match for rapid fire, semi-automatic assault weapons available over-the-counter today, or that can be purchased at gun shows immediately, without a background check or a waiting period.
But single shot weaponry was the only kind available to Americans in the 18th Century, at the time the Constitution was adopted. Moreover, relatively few citizens could afford a firearm of any kind, much less collect an arsenal. Mass production, using standardized interchangeable parts, didn't happen until later, led in part by Samuel Colt, who received a patent for his first revolver in 1836. And even that weapon held only six bullets.
The gun industry (Read: NRA) and its supporters speak at great length about the need for self protection and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." But in doing so, they ignore the first part of the Second Amendment, which specifies that a "well regulated militia (is) essential to the security of a free state."
The key words, then, are state, militia, and well regulated. The gun lobby ignores all three concepts. Instead, it aims solely at the so-called "right" of any and all individuals to own as many weapons as they like, of as many types as they choose.
At the time of American independence, few people actually owned a firearm, and those who did were expected to be part of a state militia. A state did not supply weapons; rather, it relied on those who did to join the militia for protection of the entire community.
There were, of course, hunters who used their guns to supply food for their families. Many still do. But many states do not allow automatic or semiautomatic rifles for hunting. Single shot weapons only. Moreover, some states in heavily populated areas ban the use of rifles when hunting. Shotguns only, since their discharge travels only a short distance, typically less than 50 yards.
The only use for assault weapons, therefore, is just that. To assault people. And this should be reserved for use by a well organized militia, sponsored and controlled as an essential part of the security of a free state.
In the aftermath of the Orlando, Fla., massacre, a leading spokesman for a gun owners association claimed that the AR 15 weapon, like the one used in the night club murders, is not dangerous, because it is only semi-automatic, not fully automatic. That, however, is no consolation to the families of the 50 dead victims and the dozens more who were injured. A single shot can be just as fatal as multiple rounds from an assault weapon.
In addition, in his interview with a radio station in Ireland, Richard Feldman, the American president of the Independent Firearms Owners Association, insisted that if guns were taken away from the police in Dublin, crime would increase. But when he was reminded that police in that country do not carry guns, there was no reply. Instead, he called the radio questioner "ignorant," and slammed down the phone.
So who's the ignoramus?
It has become popular in America for some politicians to claim that the only way to stop bad guys with guns is by good guys with guns. But how is one to know the difference, especially if many people in crowded places such as night clubs, theaters and shopping malls also have guns?
Will there be some rule that the bad guys must wear black hats, so the good guys, who would wear white hats, would be able to identify them? That may have worked in old-time Hollywood movies, but not likely today. And how to protect innocent bystanders from crossfire of opposing shooters, even if some are police? The off-duty policeman in the dark, crowded Colorado theater, scene of another mass shooting, knew better than to draw his weapon.
Muzzle loading muskets and single shot, breech loading rifles would be no match for rapid fire, semi-automatic assault weapons available over-the-counter today, or that can be purchased at gun shows immediately, without a background check or a waiting period.
But single shot weaponry was the only kind available to Americans in the 18th Century, at the time the Constitution was adopted. Moreover, relatively few citizens could afford a firearm of any kind, much less collect an arsenal. Mass production, using standardized interchangeable parts, didn't happen until later, led in part by Samuel Colt, who received a patent for his first revolver in 1836. And even that weapon held only six bullets.
The gun industry (Read: NRA) and its supporters speak at great length about the need for self protection and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." But in doing so, they ignore the first part of the Second Amendment, which specifies that a "well regulated militia (is) essential to the security of a free state."
The key words, then, are state, militia, and well regulated. The gun lobby ignores all three concepts. Instead, it aims solely at the so-called "right" of any and all individuals to own as many weapons as they like, of as many types as they choose.
At the time of American independence, few people actually owned a firearm, and those who did were expected to be part of a state militia. A state did not supply weapons; rather, it relied on those who did to join the militia for protection of the entire community.
There were, of course, hunters who used their guns to supply food for their families. Many still do. But many states do not allow automatic or semiautomatic rifles for hunting. Single shot weapons only. Moreover, some states in heavily populated areas ban the use of rifles when hunting. Shotguns only, since their discharge travels only a short distance, typically less than 50 yards.
The only use for assault weapons, therefore, is just that. To assault people. And this should be reserved for use by a well organized militia, sponsored and controlled as an essential part of the security of a free state.
In the aftermath of the Orlando, Fla., massacre, a leading spokesman for a gun owners association claimed that the AR 15 weapon, like the one used in the night club murders, is not dangerous, because it is only semi-automatic, not fully automatic. That, however, is no consolation to the families of the 50 dead victims and the dozens more who were injured. A single shot can be just as fatal as multiple rounds from an assault weapon.
In addition, in his interview with a radio station in Ireland, Richard Feldman, the American president of the Independent Firearms Owners Association, insisted that if guns were taken away from the police in Dublin, crime would increase. But when he was reminded that police in that country do not carry guns, there was no reply. Instead, he called the radio questioner "ignorant," and slammed down the phone.
So who's the ignoramus?
It has become popular in America for some politicians to claim that the only way to stop bad guys with guns is by good guys with guns. But how is one to know the difference, especially if many people in crowded places such as night clubs, theaters and shopping malls also have guns?
Will there be some rule that the bad guys must wear black hats, so the good guys, who would wear white hats, would be able to identify them? That may have worked in old-time Hollywood movies, but not likely today. And how to protect innocent bystanders from crossfire of opposing shooters, even if some are police? The off-duty policeman in the dark, crowded Colorado theater, scene of another mass shooting, knew better than to draw his weapon.
Saturday, June 11, 2016
Presidents and Spouses
Language evolves with society.
What role and title will Bill Clinton have if Hillary Clinton becomes President?
There are already some warnings that if Mrs. Clinton moves into the Oval Office, that will mean a continuation of Mr. Clinton's presidency, and a constitutional conflict since only two terms are allowed.
That would mean, however, that Hillary Clinton would be subservient to her husband's instructions.
Not likely.
In any case, many presidential spouses have been partners and advisors to the person who actually held the office. For example, John and Abigail Adams had a long and fruitful partnership, in which the man who became the nation's second President no doubt relied on his wife's input.
To suggest that spouses don't talk to each other is silly. Presidential spouses have long been influential in helping the President, sometimes to the extent of actually acting in the President's place.
There is the example of Woodrow Wilson, who had a stroke near the end of his term rendering him incapacitated, and his wife Edith effectively became acting President as she prevented other government officials from contacting him.
Later, Eleanor Roosevelt became the eyes and ears for her husband Franklin, who was unable to travel easily, incapacitated by polio. She was a touring advisor for him, gathering information on his behalf.
Nancy Reagan was a very strong protector of her husband, President Ronald Reagan, during his long political career, especially during his final years in the White House when Alzheimer's disease was taking its toll.
And there is no doubt that Michelle Obama, herself a highly educated and intelligent woman, talks regularly with her husband, President Barack Obama.
Nor is there any doubt that Hillary Clinton has been a partner and close advisor to her husband during his long political career, which included being governor of Arkansas as well as President. And why would anyone think that Bill has not helped Hillary during her career as senator and as secretary of state?
Having a member of the family with experience in politics and government is a valuable resource.
What role did George H.W. Bush, the 41st President, have in advising his son, George W. Bush, the 43rd President? Was he consulted at all? Should he have been? If not, why not?
It's a reasonable assumption that Presidents often consult with former Presidents on major issues that affect the country.
Much talk time has also been invested in speculating on what title Bill Clinton would have if Hillary Clinton should become President.
Wives of Presidents have traditionally been called First Lady. That, however, is a courtesy title, not a reference to an elected office. So would Bill Clinton be known as First Husband? That suggests there might be a Second Husband.
How about First Gentleman? First Dude? First Man? First Spouse?
Enough. He now holds the title of former President, as do several other recent occupants of the Oval Office, and will always hold that appellation. To invent and attach any other would be a reduction in status.
Speaking of titles, men who have held the highest office in the land have been addressed as Mr. President. So if Hillary Clinton succeeds, should she be called Mrs. President? No. That implies a secondary relationship, that of wife of a President. Nor does Madame President sound acceptable.
In 1981, when President Ronald Reagan named Sandra Day O'Connor to be the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court, the traditional title of Mr. Justice So-And-So was changed, dropping the "mister."
Similarly, corporations have abandoned the use of the term "Mr. Chairman," because so many women now have the job of chief executive. And the leader of the Federal Reserve Board is referred to as Chair Janet Yellen.
What role and title will Bill Clinton have if Hillary Clinton becomes President?
There are already some warnings that if Mrs. Clinton moves into the Oval Office, that will mean a continuation of Mr. Clinton's presidency, and a constitutional conflict since only two terms are allowed.
That would mean, however, that Hillary Clinton would be subservient to her husband's instructions.
Not likely.
In any case, many presidential spouses have been partners and advisors to the person who actually held the office. For example, John and Abigail Adams had a long and fruitful partnership, in which the man who became the nation's second President no doubt relied on his wife's input.
To suggest that spouses don't talk to each other is silly. Presidential spouses have long been influential in helping the President, sometimes to the extent of actually acting in the President's place.
There is the example of Woodrow Wilson, who had a stroke near the end of his term rendering him incapacitated, and his wife Edith effectively became acting President as she prevented other government officials from contacting him.
Later, Eleanor Roosevelt became the eyes and ears for her husband Franklin, who was unable to travel easily, incapacitated by polio. She was a touring advisor for him, gathering information on his behalf.
Nancy Reagan was a very strong protector of her husband, President Ronald Reagan, during his long political career, especially during his final years in the White House when Alzheimer's disease was taking its toll.
And there is no doubt that Michelle Obama, herself a highly educated and intelligent woman, talks regularly with her husband, President Barack Obama.
Nor is there any doubt that Hillary Clinton has been a partner and close advisor to her husband during his long political career, which included being governor of Arkansas as well as President. And why would anyone think that Bill has not helped Hillary during her career as senator and as secretary of state?
Having a member of the family with experience in politics and government is a valuable resource.
What role did George H.W. Bush, the 41st President, have in advising his son, George W. Bush, the 43rd President? Was he consulted at all? Should he have been? If not, why not?
It's a reasonable assumption that Presidents often consult with former Presidents on major issues that affect the country.
Much talk time has also been invested in speculating on what title Bill Clinton would have if Hillary Clinton should become President.
Wives of Presidents have traditionally been called First Lady. That, however, is a courtesy title, not a reference to an elected office. So would Bill Clinton be known as First Husband? That suggests there might be a Second Husband.
How about First Gentleman? First Dude? First Man? First Spouse?
Enough. He now holds the title of former President, as do several other recent occupants of the Oval Office, and will always hold that appellation. To invent and attach any other would be a reduction in status.
Speaking of titles, men who have held the highest office in the land have been addressed as Mr. President. So if Hillary Clinton succeeds, should she be called Mrs. President? No. That implies a secondary relationship, that of wife of a President. Nor does Madame President sound acceptable.
In 1981, when President Ronald Reagan named Sandra Day O'Connor to be the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court, the traditional title of Mr. Justice So-And-So was changed, dropping the "mister."
Similarly, corporations have abandoned the use of the term "Mr. Chairman," because so many women now have the job of chief executive. And the leader of the Federal Reserve Board is referred to as Chair Janet Yellen.
Friday, June 10, 2016
Trolling
The World Wide Web has been a wonderful innovation for 27 years, enabling people to use the interconnected network of computers to find and share information of every kind easily and quickly.
The downside is that malicious users can flood web sites and search engines with wrong information and propaganda favoring or opposing individuals and groups.
The trolls, as they are called, can harass their targets so much that some vulnerable individuals, especially teenage girls, have been driven to suicide.
On a larger scale, trolls can overwhelm the open information network with false or misleading data, prompting higher status on their favored subject. Nations, moreover, use this same computer technology to suppress information about their regime and to push their propaganda.
There has been so much misuse of the Web's capabilities that the man who devised the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee, is considering revamping or revising the system, or even developing a new method of information sharing that would disallow the abuses that have become so common.
Online surveys are particularly vulnerable to packing by trolls.
For example, self-appointed trolls can pack an online survey or opinion poll to promote or to drown an issue or a political candidacy. An organization that claims to represent Irish-Americans released a survey of 7,000 Americans of Irish heritage who strongly supported the candidacy of Donald Trump for the U.S. presidency, and posted a Facebook page showing Trump at his oceanfront golf course in Ireland and touting the many jobs that the course brought to the region. It did not, however, note his request to build a wall to keep out the tide, and his threat to shut down the course if his plan be rejected by local officials.
The alleged survey was promoted as evidence that Trump's candidacy is supported by a majority of Irish-Americans. But whether another poll by one of the older reputable opinion survey firms would bring the same results is an open question. One problem traditional pollsters face is the decline of landline telephone surveys, especially among younger folk, many of whom don't have landline telephones.
Another example was a bid by Time Magazine, asking readers to nominate someone for Person of the Year. Overwhelmingly, many thousands of computer users -- or a few users filing multiple nominations -- promoted Kim Jong Un, the leader of North Korea. It's possible, of course, that the dictator could well be the person who most influenced the fate of the world for good or ill in a particular year. It's also possible that trolls packed the survey results.
And, of course, there is the issue of dictatorial regimes blocking access from other countries and monitoring the activities of computer users within its borders.
All this has prompted Berners-Lee to say it's time to set up a new system that really would be unrestricted, immune to misuse, and open to all computer users worldwide.
The downside is that malicious users can flood web sites and search engines with wrong information and propaganda favoring or opposing individuals and groups.
The trolls, as they are called, can harass their targets so much that some vulnerable individuals, especially teenage girls, have been driven to suicide.
On a larger scale, trolls can overwhelm the open information network with false or misleading data, prompting higher status on their favored subject. Nations, moreover, use this same computer technology to suppress information about their regime and to push their propaganda.
There has been so much misuse of the Web's capabilities that the man who devised the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee, is considering revamping or revising the system, or even developing a new method of information sharing that would disallow the abuses that have become so common.
Online surveys are particularly vulnerable to packing by trolls.
For example, self-appointed trolls can pack an online survey or opinion poll to promote or to drown an issue or a political candidacy. An organization that claims to represent Irish-Americans released a survey of 7,000 Americans of Irish heritage who strongly supported the candidacy of Donald Trump for the U.S. presidency, and posted a Facebook page showing Trump at his oceanfront golf course in Ireland and touting the many jobs that the course brought to the region. It did not, however, note his request to build a wall to keep out the tide, and his threat to shut down the course if his plan be rejected by local officials.
The alleged survey was promoted as evidence that Trump's candidacy is supported by a majority of Irish-Americans. But whether another poll by one of the older reputable opinion survey firms would bring the same results is an open question. One problem traditional pollsters face is the decline of landline telephone surveys, especially among younger folk, many of whom don't have landline telephones.
Another example was a bid by Time Magazine, asking readers to nominate someone for Person of the Year. Overwhelmingly, many thousands of computer users -- or a few users filing multiple nominations -- promoted Kim Jong Un, the leader of North Korea. It's possible, of course, that the dictator could well be the person who most influenced the fate of the world for good or ill in a particular year. It's also possible that trolls packed the survey results.
And, of course, there is the issue of dictatorial regimes blocking access from other countries and monitoring the activities of computer users within its borders.
All this has prompted Berners-Lee to say it's time to set up a new system that really would be unrestricted, immune to misuse, and open to all computer users worldwide.
Thursday, June 9, 2016
One-Armed Economist
Economists are fond of saying, "On the other hand," Fed Chair Janet Yellen reminded her Philadelphia audience this week. And unlike President Harry Truman, who asked for a one-armed economist, Yellen pointed out that the real world doesn't work that way.
Yes, the economic expansion since the Great Recession has been under way for seven years, she said. But there are also danger signs, both in America and in the world.
"I expect the economic expansion to continue," Yellen said, but "economic developments abroad have significantly restrained growth in the United States." However, she added that she is "cautiously optimistic that these headwinds are fading."
Even so, there are "four areas of uncertainty" that could stall further growth. These four are domestic demand, financial stresses from abroad, the outlook for productivity growth, and how quickly inflation will move back to the 2 percent rate that the Fed considers acceptable.
As it is, the Fed has been holding a key interest rate low in its efforts to stimulate the American economy, and recent predictions that the central bank will boost this federal funds rate soon have met with new definitions of the term "soon."
Yellen stressed that the economic outlook is "uncertain, so monetary policy cannot proceed on any preset path."
So despite the many predictions since last fall that the Fed will adjust its monetary policy "next month," all those months have passed, and given the data points that have come out in recent days, especially the poor job increase rate and rattlings from other major countries, no action is likely to come from the meeting next week of the Fed's Open Market Committee.
Yes, the economic expansion since the Great Recession has been under way for seven years, she said. But there are also danger signs, both in America and in the world.
"I expect the economic expansion to continue," Yellen said, but "economic developments abroad have significantly restrained growth in the United States." However, she added that she is "cautiously optimistic that these headwinds are fading."
Even so, there are "four areas of uncertainty" that could stall further growth. These four are domestic demand, financial stresses from abroad, the outlook for productivity growth, and how quickly inflation will move back to the 2 percent rate that the Fed considers acceptable.
As it is, the Fed has been holding a key interest rate low in its efforts to stimulate the American economy, and recent predictions that the central bank will boost this federal funds rate soon have met with new definitions of the term "soon."
Yellen stressed that the economic outlook is "uncertain, so monetary policy cannot proceed on any preset path."
So despite the many predictions since last fall that the Fed will adjust its monetary policy "next month," all those months have passed, and given the data points that have come out in recent days, especially the poor job increase rate and rattlings from other major countries, no action is likely to come from the meeting next week of the Fed's Open Market Committee.
Wednesday, June 8, 2016
Who's a Fascist?
Fascism -- Any program for setting up a centralized autocratic national regime with severely nationalistic policies, exercising regimentation of industry, commerce, and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of opposition. --Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1958 edition.
Autocratic: The military "will do what I tell them," which could include killing the families of alleged terrorists.
Nationalistic: "America First."
Regimentation: Everyone should conform to his wishes, including judges, government officials and corporate executives as well as journalists.
Censorship: The news media "make me look very bad."
Forcible suppression of opposition: Protesters at campaign rallies "should be roughed up."
By definition and by his words and deeds, You-Know-Who meets the characteristics and features of a fascist.
Autocratic: The military "will do what I tell them," which could include killing the families of alleged terrorists.
Nationalistic: "America First."
Regimentation: Everyone should conform to his wishes, including judges, government officials and corporate executives as well as journalists.
Censorship: The news media "make me look very bad."
Forcible suppression of opposition: Protesters at campaign rallies "should be roughed up."
By definition and by his words and deeds, You-Know-Who meets the characteristics and features of a fascist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)