Politicians are fond of saying, "What I really meant was ... " when their words come back to haunt them when published or broadcast.
A reporter's response is this: "We only reported what you said. If you meant something else, you should have said something else."
"But it was taken out of context," the politician objects.
"There was no context," replies the reporter. "It was a brief quote, reported in full."
And TV folks can add, "Roll the video. This is what was said."
Meanwhile, there are words that are so loaded with emotion and secondary meanings that they can be triply damaging to anyone who uses them carelessly or speaks ill of someone with certain attributes.
Here's an example from this weekend: "Mother dead soldier."
To criticize, attack or belittle in any way such a person is asking for trouble. Yet that is exactly what a candidate did, insisting that the mother of an American officer killed in Iraq did not speak at the Democratic National Convention because, according to the candidate, as a Muslim she was not allowed to speak publicly.
Instead, her husband spoke at length of the death of their son, and challenged the Republican candidate to list any sacrifice he might have made. Moreover, the father offered to lend the candidate his copy of the Constitution, since clearly the candidate had never read it.
In response, the candidate claimed via a Twitter post that he had been "viciously attacked," and deserved an opportunity to respond.
Then he appeared on TV talk shows to insist that his record of success in business, creating many thousands of jobs, was a sacrifice on his part.
Some response. Some sacrifice.
Reporters and editors have a journalistic responsibility to record and publish accurately and succinctly what is said and done that is newsworthy. At the same time, there is such a thing as editorial judgment, the decision-making process as to what is newsworthy and what is not.
Some comments can be placed in the lead paragraph on Page One, and some can be relegated to the end of another story at the bottom of Page 17.
This depends largely on what the editors perceive as news value. That, in turn, is heavily influenced by the characteristics and demographics of the readership.
How a story is handled and where it is placed depends heavily on a variety of factors, some of which do indeed reflect the views of the publication's owners as well as the opinions of the readers. Most major American newspapers strive to be neutral, and report objectively what is said by political candidates. That in itself reflects the opinion of the publishers. Be neutral and objective.
Even so, some candidates are prone to say things so outrageous that they deserve to be placed prominently, and that means the top of Page One.
Is this news judgment or bias? Or does it reflect the values and opinions of the readership, those people who want neutral and objective reporting?
There are some comments, however, that are so loaded with negative connotations that no amount of polite phrasing can cleanse or neutralize them.
One such phrase is "belittle mother of dead soldier."
The full headline, on Page One of the New York Times Sunday morning, was this: "Trump belittles / Muslim mother / of dead soldier."
In interviews later, she explained that she did not speak at the convention because her emotions were so strong, even years after her son died in Iraq in a car bomb explosion. Moreover, she is still unable to enter a room in her home where her son's pictures remain.
Yet the candidate responds, not with sympathy but by redoubling his self-praise for his own accomplishments and success in business, no matter the sacrifices of others.
And all along, the news media will record and report exactly what the candidate says and does.
Sunday, July 31, 2016
Saturday, July 30, 2016
American Strength
The real source of national strength in America is not in demagogues but in the will to resist them.
Many may urge that they be ignored, and eventually their popularity will fade and they will go away. It may be true that some demagogues do eventually lose their appeal and faith in their cause diminishes.
But meanwhile, the greater danger is not in the individual preacher of hate, racism and bigotry. Rather, the danger lies with the mass of those who believe his rantings and his call for strength and unity in beating down a perceived enemy, who may be foreign but more often is alleged to be within, hiding among the larger population, who must be exposed and eliminated.
The real danger is indeed within and among us. But it is not from the foreign few who escape to America seeking safety and a better life. Instead, the danger comes from the rabid rantings of the self-appointed leader, the demagogue who warns of societal infections that don't exist.
It is unrealistic to claim that there are no problems in American society, or to insist that all the blame can be put to any single group, be they members of a minority associated with race, religion or ethnicity, or anything else.
Migration to America is not in itself the problem, because we are all migrants or descended from migrants. Even those who were already here when Europeans first arrived in the 15th Century are descended from tribes that crossed from Siberia to Alaska and then spread to the rest of North, Central and South America many hundreds of years before.
Yet those Americans whose families have been here for only three generations somehow believe that this gives them a right to shut the Golden Door of opportunity to newcomers who may not look like them or share the same beliefs.
That's not what America is.
Every generation of Americans must grapple with the same bigotry and fear of The Others that infects the body politic.
Before and after the Civil War it was bias against newcomers from Ireland. Then that bias was expanded to include prejudice against Africans whose forebears were brought here forcibly as slaves but were freed during the Civil War. Soon that fear of The Other spread further, marking Jews, Italians and East Europeans as somehow carrying a social virus that would destroy their "real America."
All along, the native tribes were feared and belittled as Others, and therefore dangerous.
Asians, too, were relegated to a low status, fit only for service jobs to support the dominant culture. This bigotry against Asians found a low point when Japanese-Americans were forced into internment camps in the 1940s as World War II broke out.
Through all this, however, the true spirit of America did not die. It was battered, sickened and weakened, but it came back stronger than ever so that in 1960 an Irish Catholic moved into the White House as President, and by 2008, an African-American was elected President.
In addition, the Supreme Court changed over time from being exclusively white Protestant men to a bench of several other backgrounds, not one of whom matches that previous standard.
Meanwhile, the complexion of Congress also changed, no longer being largely that of white, Christian men of European descent, but now including women and men of many ethnic and spiritual backgrounds.
This year, American voters will elect a new President, and as with nearly everything in life, there is a choice.
One candidate is a man who embraces bigotry and nativism and wants to erect great barriers to keep out those he deems undesirable, basing his selectivity rules on race, ethnicity and religion -- all of which are forbidden by the United States Constitution.
Or voters may prefer a woman who has spent decades opposing bias and discrimination in America, followed by years of experience in government and foreign policy. If elected, she would be the first woman to serve as President, even as it took nearly 100 years from the time American women gained the right to vote.
The man has a proven history of cheating customers, clients and contractors, while spreading lies and insults about any who oppose or disagree with him.
The woman candidate has faced down charges of felonies and falsehoods, none of which have been proven.
The question for voters, then, is which to choose, experience or insult? A history of competence, or a history of fraud?
Which would form the better basis for a system of government?
Many may urge that they be ignored, and eventually their popularity will fade and they will go away. It may be true that some demagogues do eventually lose their appeal and faith in their cause diminishes.
But meanwhile, the greater danger is not in the individual preacher of hate, racism and bigotry. Rather, the danger lies with the mass of those who believe his rantings and his call for strength and unity in beating down a perceived enemy, who may be foreign but more often is alleged to be within, hiding among the larger population, who must be exposed and eliminated.
The real danger is indeed within and among us. But it is not from the foreign few who escape to America seeking safety and a better life. Instead, the danger comes from the rabid rantings of the self-appointed leader, the demagogue who warns of societal infections that don't exist.
It is unrealistic to claim that there are no problems in American society, or to insist that all the blame can be put to any single group, be they members of a minority associated with race, religion or ethnicity, or anything else.
Migration to America is not in itself the problem, because we are all migrants or descended from migrants. Even those who were already here when Europeans first arrived in the 15th Century are descended from tribes that crossed from Siberia to Alaska and then spread to the rest of North, Central and South America many hundreds of years before.
Yet those Americans whose families have been here for only three generations somehow believe that this gives them a right to shut the Golden Door of opportunity to newcomers who may not look like them or share the same beliefs.
That's not what America is.
Every generation of Americans must grapple with the same bigotry and fear of The Others that infects the body politic.
Before and after the Civil War it was bias against newcomers from Ireland. Then that bias was expanded to include prejudice against Africans whose forebears were brought here forcibly as slaves but were freed during the Civil War. Soon that fear of The Other spread further, marking Jews, Italians and East Europeans as somehow carrying a social virus that would destroy their "real America."
All along, the native tribes were feared and belittled as Others, and therefore dangerous.
Asians, too, were relegated to a low status, fit only for service jobs to support the dominant culture. This bigotry against Asians found a low point when Japanese-Americans were forced into internment camps in the 1940s as World War II broke out.
Through all this, however, the true spirit of America did not die. It was battered, sickened and weakened, but it came back stronger than ever so that in 1960 an Irish Catholic moved into the White House as President, and by 2008, an African-American was elected President.
In addition, the Supreme Court changed over time from being exclusively white Protestant men to a bench of several other backgrounds, not one of whom matches that previous standard.
Meanwhile, the complexion of Congress also changed, no longer being largely that of white, Christian men of European descent, but now including women and men of many ethnic and spiritual backgrounds.
This year, American voters will elect a new President, and as with nearly everything in life, there is a choice.
One candidate is a man who embraces bigotry and nativism and wants to erect great barriers to keep out those he deems undesirable, basing his selectivity rules on race, ethnicity and religion -- all of which are forbidden by the United States Constitution.
Or voters may prefer a woman who has spent decades opposing bias and discrimination in America, followed by years of experience in government and foreign policy. If elected, she would be the first woman to serve as President, even as it took nearly 100 years from the time American women gained the right to vote.
The man has a proven history of cheating customers, clients and contractors, while spreading lies and insults about any who oppose or disagree with him.
The woman candidate has faced down charges of felonies and falsehoods, none of which have been proven.
The question for voters, then, is which to choose, experience or insult? A history of competence, or a history of fraud?
Which would form the better basis for a system of government?
Friday, July 29, 2016
Slow But Steady
The health of the American economy is not showing super-fast growth, but sometimes that's a good thing, since the faster things boom, the sooner they bust.
The Census Bureau reported the total output of goods and services in America during the second quarter of this year scored an early estimate of 1.2 percent, compared to 0.8 percent in the first quarter.
It was the ninth consecutive period of improvement, according to the report.
The Census Bureau reported the total output of goods and services in America during the second quarter of this year scored an early estimate of 1.2 percent, compared to 0.8 percent in the first quarter.
It was the ninth consecutive period of improvement, according to the report.
Progressive
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." -- Shakespeare
What's in a name?
Democrats now use the term "progressive" to describe their social welfare agenda, abandoning the term "liberal" which, to some, has become a dirty word closely allied to "socialist," which in turn is reminiscent of "communist" and therefore evil.
It's part of an effort described here recently that details how changing a name can change the meaning.
Reality, however, has a sometimes unpleasant way of intruding on propagandists who try to spin terms to benefit themselves or demonize opponents.
The term "progressive" in its political use by Democrats today, is borrowed from the days of Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican president who split from the GOP to form the Progressive Party in 1912.
After succeeding William McKinley, who was assassinated in 1901, Roosevelt was elected in his own right in 1904. He had been McKinley's vice president, and became the youngest man ever to serve as President. (John F. Kennedy was the youngest to be elected President.)
In 1908, however, Roosevelt chose not to run for re-election, although he could have, but instead supported the election of William Howard Taft. Roosevelt was disappointed in his friend Taft for not following strongly enough the social welfare policies TR had begun, so in 1912 he opposed Taft's renomination and left the Republican Party to form the Progressive Party.
As a result of this split, Woodrow Wilson won the election in 1912, to become only the second Democrat to occupy the White House since the Civil War. The other was Grover Cleveland. In contrast, eleven Republicans presided over the nation until the Great Depression, when Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat and a distant cousin of TR, was elected in 1932.
FDR, with the support of a heavily Democratic Congress, implemented many social welfare policies familiar to the Progressives of a quarter-century earlier.
In recent years, the terms "liberal" and "socialist" have been demonized by conservative Republicans in their efforts to regain dominance in politics and government. Consequently, the use of the term "socialist," which is perceived as negative, is now being abandoned by Democrats in favor of the term "progressive," partly because of its root word "progress."
Even Sen. Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist who ran this year as a Democrat, has stopped using the term in favor of the revived term "progressive."
There is some irony in the fact that Democrats are using a word originally used in the political sense by a Republican.
Will it help to maintain the success of Democrats in seeking to occupy the Presidency, dominated by Republicans in the 19th Century? Between the Civil War and the Great Depression, there were 11 Republican Presidents and just two Democrats. Since then, there have been six Republican and seven Democratic Presidents.
A brief look at the economic health of the nation, correlated with which party controlled the White House at the time of economic downturns and crises, makes for interesting reading.
What's in a name?
Democrats now use the term "progressive" to describe their social welfare agenda, abandoning the term "liberal" which, to some, has become a dirty word closely allied to "socialist," which in turn is reminiscent of "communist" and therefore evil.
It's part of an effort described here recently that details how changing a name can change the meaning.
Reality, however, has a sometimes unpleasant way of intruding on propagandists who try to spin terms to benefit themselves or demonize opponents.
The term "progressive" in its political use by Democrats today, is borrowed from the days of Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican president who split from the GOP to form the Progressive Party in 1912.
After succeeding William McKinley, who was assassinated in 1901, Roosevelt was elected in his own right in 1904. He had been McKinley's vice president, and became the youngest man ever to serve as President. (John F. Kennedy was the youngest to be elected President.)
In 1908, however, Roosevelt chose not to run for re-election, although he could have, but instead supported the election of William Howard Taft. Roosevelt was disappointed in his friend Taft for not following strongly enough the social welfare policies TR had begun, so in 1912 he opposed Taft's renomination and left the Republican Party to form the Progressive Party.
As a result of this split, Woodrow Wilson won the election in 1912, to become only the second Democrat to occupy the White House since the Civil War. The other was Grover Cleveland. In contrast, eleven Republicans presided over the nation until the Great Depression, when Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat and a distant cousin of TR, was elected in 1932.
FDR, with the support of a heavily Democratic Congress, implemented many social welfare policies familiar to the Progressives of a quarter-century earlier.
In recent years, the terms "liberal" and "socialist" have been demonized by conservative Republicans in their efforts to regain dominance in politics and government. Consequently, the use of the term "socialist," which is perceived as negative, is now being abandoned by Democrats in favor of the term "progressive," partly because of its root word "progress."
Even Sen. Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist who ran this year as a Democrat, has stopped using the term in favor of the revived term "progressive."
There is some irony in the fact that Democrats are using a word originally used in the political sense by a Republican.
Will it help to maintain the success of Democrats in seeking to occupy the Presidency, dominated by Republicans in the 19th Century? Between the Civil War and the Great Depression, there were 11 Republican Presidents and just two Democrats. Since then, there have been six Republican and seven Democratic Presidents.
A brief look at the economic health of the nation, correlated with which party controlled the White House at the time of economic downturns and crises, makes for interesting reading.
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
Muzzle Mystery
Managing editors in real life often seem like they're straight out of central casting. Think of characters like Lou Grant of the TV series, Perry White of the Superman stories, or Walter Burns of the movie "The Front Page."
Cynical and aggressive, but they are also protective of their staff even as they demand objective and neutral reporting.
Reporters, in turn, are thick-skinned and able to ignore resistance by newsy subjects as they chase down important stories.
However, there are limits, and the more someone tries to suppress a story or prevent journalists from doing the job of providing important information to the public, the sharper their curiosity and their pencils get.
This situation goes with the territory, and reporters don't let it bother them. But when a political candidate resorts to personal abuse in an effort to control news media and dictate how a story is handled, then reporters double down in their efforts to expose any public figure's failings. Moreover, they are supported by their editors.
In the latest episode, one current candidate was heard today telling NBC reporter Katy Tur to "Be quiet." This same candidate told Jorge Ramos of Univision to "Sit down, you weren't called on." In addition, the press credentials of several media outlets were revoked because the candidate did not like the coverage. He also publicly mocked a reporter's physical disability, as well as insinuating that a woman TV interviewer was asking tough questions because she was menstruating at the time.
This candidate should learn that the more you try to muzzle the press, the louder they growl. Journalists will continue to do their jobs, reporting exactly what is said.
How those quotes are handled is another issue.
There are ways.
Cynical and aggressive, but they are also protective of their staff even as they demand objective and neutral reporting.
Reporters, in turn, are thick-skinned and able to ignore resistance by newsy subjects as they chase down important stories.
However, there are limits, and the more someone tries to suppress a story or prevent journalists from doing the job of providing important information to the public, the sharper their curiosity and their pencils get.
This situation goes with the territory, and reporters don't let it bother them. But when a political candidate resorts to personal abuse in an effort to control news media and dictate how a story is handled, then reporters double down in their efforts to expose any public figure's failings. Moreover, they are supported by their editors.
In the latest episode, one current candidate was heard today telling NBC reporter Katy Tur to "Be quiet." This same candidate told Jorge Ramos of Univision to "Sit down, you weren't called on." In addition, the press credentials of several media outlets were revoked because the candidate did not like the coverage. He also publicly mocked a reporter's physical disability, as well as insinuating that a woman TV interviewer was asking tough questions because she was menstruating at the time.
This candidate should learn that the more you try to muzzle the press, the louder they growl. Journalists will continue to do their jobs, reporting exactly what is said.
How those quotes are handled is another issue.
There are ways.
Whacksing and Whining
He who relies most heavily on Twitter becomes Chief Twit.
Criticizing and complaining is no way to run a country, and praising dictators shows a likelihood that the praiser will do the same.
After hearing regular, if not daily, comments in praise of Vladimir Putin's leadership style in Russia, plus calls for strong, tough leadership and verbal attacks on opponents as weak, dishonest, corrupt or liars, one wonders what this behavior says about the candidate's future performance.
When news media report a candidate's failings, half-truths, legal problems, misleading allegations and flat-out lies, the candidate retaliates by calling news media weak, failing, unfair, dishonest, or whatever other insulting adjective comes to mind at the moment. This shows a pattern of attacking anyone who disagrees with anything he says, ever, regardless of fact or history.
Truth, to this candidate, seems to be whatever happens to be in his head at that moment. And when challenged, he intensifies and expands his accusations.
Is this the kind of person wanted or needed to be chief executive of a major democracy?
One prime example of Donald Trump's trouble-talk is his insistence that on 9/11, thousands of people gathered on the streets of Jersey City, NJ, and celebrated as the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center came tumbling down.
It didn't happen, despite his claim that "I saw it. I was watching on television." There was indeed video of people dancing in the streets on that day, but it was on the streets of Gaza in the Middle East. Not in New Jersey.
Nonetheless, that's part of a pattern of never admitting an error or acknowledging a mistake, or even being wrong, about anything, any time, ever.
And despite nine (count 'em, nine) Congressional and FBI investigations of the Benghazi episode, all led by Republican officials, none of the probes found any culpability on the part of Hillary Clinton, secretary of state at the time, and now the Democratic nominee for the Presidency.
Nonetheless, even as Trump blames Clinton for not protecting the Benghazi offices of the State Department, noting that military assistance was too far away to help and should have been closer, Trump now vows that his future policy would bring American troops back to the U.S., rather than remain at their posts in other parts of the world.
In addition, he promises to think twice before sending troops to help NATO allies under attack, if any such country does not pay its "fair share" of defense costs. This despite the NATO contract that calls for mutual aid if any member is attacked.
So much for promises.
But that's no surprise, since the Republican presidential nominee has a history of not paying contractors who complete work at his casinos or other projects., thus driving them into bankruptcy.
Not to mention bilking those who signed up for expensive real estate training courses at the now defunct Trump University, which is facing trial on multiple charges of fraud.
But all of that is history, one might say, and his defenders may claim it won't happen in the future.
Behavior patterns, however, seldom change among the ethically challenged. Past performance often does indeed predict future behavior.
Criticizing and complaining is no way to run a country, and praising dictators shows a likelihood that the praiser will do the same.
After hearing regular, if not daily, comments in praise of Vladimir Putin's leadership style in Russia, plus calls for strong, tough leadership and verbal attacks on opponents as weak, dishonest, corrupt or liars, one wonders what this behavior says about the candidate's future performance.
When news media report a candidate's failings, half-truths, legal problems, misleading allegations and flat-out lies, the candidate retaliates by calling news media weak, failing, unfair, dishonest, or whatever other insulting adjective comes to mind at the moment. This shows a pattern of attacking anyone who disagrees with anything he says, ever, regardless of fact or history.
Truth, to this candidate, seems to be whatever happens to be in his head at that moment. And when challenged, he intensifies and expands his accusations.
Is this the kind of person wanted or needed to be chief executive of a major democracy?
One prime example of Donald Trump's trouble-talk is his insistence that on 9/11, thousands of people gathered on the streets of Jersey City, NJ, and celebrated as the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center came tumbling down.
It didn't happen, despite his claim that "I saw it. I was watching on television." There was indeed video of people dancing in the streets on that day, but it was on the streets of Gaza in the Middle East. Not in New Jersey.
Nonetheless, that's part of a pattern of never admitting an error or acknowledging a mistake, or even being wrong, about anything, any time, ever.
And despite nine (count 'em, nine) Congressional and FBI investigations of the Benghazi episode, all led by Republican officials, none of the probes found any culpability on the part of Hillary Clinton, secretary of state at the time, and now the Democratic nominee for the Presidency.
Nonetheless, even as Trump blames Clinton for not protecting the Benghazi offices of the State Department, noting that military assistance was too far away to help and should have been closer, Trump now vows that his future policy would bring American troops back to the U.S., rather than remain at their posts in other parts of the world.
In addition, he promises to think twice before sending troops to help NATO allies under attack, if any such country does not pay its "fair share" of defense costs. This despite the NATO contract that calls for mutual aid if any member is attacked.
So much for promises.
But that's no surprise, since the Republican presidential nominee has a history of not paying contractors who complete work at his casinos or other projects., thus driving them into bankruptcy.
Not to mention bilking those who signed up for expensive real estate training courses at the now defunct Trump University, which is facing trial on multiple charges of fraud.
But all of that is history, one might say, and his defenders may claim it won't happen in the future.
Behavior patterns, however, seldom change among the ethically challenged. Past performance often does indeed predict future behavior.
Brexit Mess
From our Dublin correspondent:
Politicians in Northern Ireland are threatening to go to court over Brexit. The Good Friday agreement which brought a dramatic change to Irish politics on both sides of the border incorporated many aspects of European Union law. If the United Kingdom leaves the EU, many fear a return to the past and the bad days. The Northern Ireland politicians want those things that are in the Good Friday agreement put into domestic law. The Brexiteers campaigned to get rid of these EU laws and to leave the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. If the NI politicians go to court there is a question as to which court to go to. Going to a European Court will annoy those who campaigned for Brexit and only reinforce their commitment to leave the EU. A domestic court may not want to touch the case. A court in NI or England will not have the authority to change international agreements. What a mess.
A bit of background. The European Court of Human Rights was set up after WW2 to try to prevent a repeat of the atrocities that occurred. Membership of the court is a requirement of the EU. It predates the EU and nearly every country in Europe has signed up.
Because the UK has lost some cases in that court they resent being told to amend their ways and the Brexiteers particularly dislike the court.
Politicians in Northern Ireland are threatening to go to court over Brexit. The Good Friday agreement which brought a dramatic change to Irish politics on both sides of the border incorporated many aspects of European Union law. If the United Kingdom leaves the EU, many fear a return to the past and the bad days. The Northern Ireland politicians want those things that are in the Good Friday agreement put into domestic law. The Brexiteers campaigned to get rid of these EU laws and to leave the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. If the NI politicians go to court there is a question as to which court to go to. Going to a European Court will annoy those who campaigned for Brexit and only reinforce their commitment to leave the EU. A domestic court may not want to touch the case. A court in NI or England will not have the authority to change international agreements. What a mess.
A bit of background. The European Court of Human Rights was set up after WW2 to try to prevent a repeat of the atrocities that occurred. Membership of the court is a requirement of the EU. It predates the EU and nearly every country in Europe has signed up.
Because the UK has lost some cases in that court they resent being told to amend their ways and the Brexiteers particularly dislike the court.
Wreckless
The economy's a wreck, chants the outsider, and "only I can fix it," by bringing back jobs that were stolen by unscrupulous foreigners in other countries.
The reality, however, is something else, and the evidence is clear in the numbers, regardless of the propaganda spouted by some.
The latest data show economic growth in 37 states and the District of Columbia during the first three months of this year, with construction leading with a 9 percent growth rate -- the eighth consecutive quarter of growth for this industry. Besides construction, health care and social assistance, as well as retail trade, were major contributors to economic health, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis in the Department of Commerce.
Moreover, the Federal Reserve Board said the growth rate nationwide continues its "moderate" pace. However, the recovery is still not strong enough to warrant a change in the central bank's key lending rate, which will remain at the 0.25 to 0.5 range. This is good news for government borrowers that want to invest in infrastructure projects.
Ten states showed clearly negative growth in the first quarter, the BEA said, and three others were borderline. North Dakota showed the lowest negative number, with a growth rate of -11.4 percent. The highest growth rate was posted by Arkansas, at 3.9 percent.
So to borrow and expand on a campaign slogan of several elections ago, are you better off now that you were a year ago, or will you believe the fear mongering rhetoric of those who challenge what appears to be progress?
The reality, however, is something else, and the evidence is clear in the numbers, regardless of the propaganda spouted by some.
The latest data show economic growth in 37 states and the District of Columbia during the first three months of this year, with construction leading with a 9 percent growth rate -- the eighth consecutive quarter of growth for this industry. Besides construction, health care and social assistance, as well as retail trade, were major contributors to economic health, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis in the Department of Commerce.
Moreover, the Federal Reserve Board said the growth rate nationwide continues its "moderate" pace. However, the recovery is still not strong enough to warrant a change in the central bank's key lending rate, which will remain at the 0.25 to 0.5 range. This is good news for government borrowers that want to invest in infrastructure projects.
Ten states showed clearly negative growth in the first quarter, the BEA said, and three others were borderline. North Dakota showed the lowest negative number, with a growth rate of -11.4 percent. The highest growth rate was posted by Arkansas, at 3.9 percent.
So to borrow and expand on a campaign slogan of several elections ago, are you better off now that you were a year ago, or will you believe the fear mongering rhetoric of those who challenge what appears to be progress?
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
Economics, Politics and Language
Economics, politics and language are tightly interconnected.
That may not seem so at first mention, but consider these definitions:
-- Economics is the study of what people do with what's available.
-- Politics is how people decide who gets to do what, and who's in charge.
-- Language is used to describe what people say, do and how they think.
Together, these concepts explain and describe three key elements of society, and it is journalism's job to report how they interact. Academia nuts point to other areas of study, but most are variations of these three main areas of the social sciences. They are distinct from the pure sciences, such as chemistry, physics and medicine.
The above definitions may be called simplistic, but for a general audience they can be a good place to start for an understanding of how they interact.
Originally, economics began in ancient Greece as a term to describe how a household was run, and the study was later expanded to become political economics, the study of how a city-state was run. In modern times, the term is used primarily to describe the study of how an entire society makes use of what is available.
Thus, politics and economics have always been closely tied together, even as the term politics became allied with the business of government. In fact, government and how it behaves in using resources is an important part of any economy, and is second only to consumer spending in measuring the status of a nation's political and economic health.
So when politicians convene to decide whom to nominate as a potential leader of government, they are basically also deciding who will lead government's activity in encouraging economic growth.
Conservatives adhere to the idea that government interference in business is always bad, and an unfettered "free market" is always best.
Reality check: There is no such thing as a totally free market. Equally, a market totally controlled by government is not workable. Somewhere in the middle is where many modern economies succeed.
The trick, then, is to find that mid-point that benefits most and harms the fewest.
To help find that level is where politics and economics interact, and where journalism, using language, reports on whatever progress is being made, by government and business leaders, as well as by consumers and their advocates.
That may not seem so at first mention, but consider these definitions:
-- Economics is the study of what people do with what's available.
-- Politics is how people decide who gets to do what, and who's in charge.
-- Language is used to describe what people say, do and how they think.
Together, these concepts explain and describe three key elements of society, and it is journalism's job to report how they interact. Academia nuts point to other areas of study, but most are variations of these three main areas of the social sciences. They are distinct from the pure sciences, such as chemistry, physics and medicine.
The above definitions may be called simplistic, but for a general audience they can be a good place to start for an understanding of how they interact.
Originally, economics began in ancient Greece as a term to describe how a household was run, and the study was later expanded to become political economics, the study of how a city-state was run. In modern times, the term is used primarily to describe the study of how an entire society makes use of what is available.
Thus, politics and economics have always been closely tied together, even as the term politics became allied with the business of government. In fact, government and how it behaves in using resources is an important part of any economy, and is second only to consumer spending in measuring the status of a nation's political and economic health.
So when politicians convene to decide whom to nominate as a potential leader of government, they are basically also deciding who will lead government's activity in encouraging economic growth.
Conservatives adhere to the idea that government interference in business is always bad, and an unfettered "free market" is always best.
Reality check: There is no such thing as a totally free market. Equally, a market totally controlled by government is not workable. Somewhere in the middle is where many modern economies succeed.
The trick, then, is to find that mid-point that benefits most and harms the fewest.
To help find that level is where politics and economics interact, and where journalism, using language, reports on whatever progress is being made, by government and business leaders, as well as by consumers and their advocates.
Sunday, July 24, 2016
Religious Test
Religion and morality are separate and distinct concepts.
It's been said before, but it needs repeating every time it comes up. The latest smear attempt is the talk that Bernie Sanders is a non-observant Jew and may even be an atheist.
He has acknowledged his Jewish heritage and that he no longer practices that tradition. As for being an atheist, so what if he is?
To continue chanting the canard that a candidate for public office must be a spiritual person and follow a specific religious tradition is to ignore history and even the law in America.
The Constitution is quite specific: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" (Article VI) and the First Amendment carries this concept even further, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
It is clear, then, that everyone has the right to follow any spiritual tradition, or even none at all.
Yet there are many on the radical right who insist on repeating the fiction that only adherents of one specific spiritual belief -- Christianity -- are entitled or qualified to serve in government.
In the first place, this ignores the many millions of Americans who follow the traditions of Native American people, New Age, Baha'i, Celtic Paganism, Wicca, Druidry, Shamanism, Shinto, Hare Krishna, Buddhism, Tao, Hindu, Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrian, or one of many other traditions, or none of the above, or say they are atheist or agnostic. Moreover, the Christian share of the U.S. population is declining, according to a Pew Research report, while the share of those of non-Christian faiths is rising.
There are no official government statistics on religious beliefs in America, since the Census Bureau does not ask such questions. The main source of data available comes from the church groups themselves, or from surveys. Moreover, each church keeps data its own way, and some may count those who were born and raised in the tradition, but who dropped out decades ago.
Another important fact to keep in mind is that "the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" -- that being a quote from an international treaty signed by President John Adams on January 1, 1797 and ratified unanimously by Congress on June 7 of that same year.
Finally, consider this: There is a difference between being religious and being spiritual. The term "religion" derives from words meaning to tie together again. Think "ligature" and "ligament" as things that tie other things together. A spiritual person acknowledges that there exist entities in an Otherworld, and perhaps even communicates with them, but feels no need to join an organization that stipulates how you should behave toward these entities, usually under the guidance and instruction of another person said to be in charge.
"I once was lost, but now I'm found," goes the hymn. But there are many who feel they were never lost. Further, these folks believe that religion and morality are two entirely separate concepts: Religion deals with your relationship with a deity, while morality deals with your relationship with other people.
One need not be religious to be moral.
It's been said before, but it needs repeating every time it comes up. The latest smear attempt is the talk that Bernie Sanders is a non-observant Jew and may even be an atheist.
He has acknowledged his Jewish heritage and that he no longer practices that tradition. As for being an atheist, so what if he is?
To continue chanting the canard that a candidate for public office must be a spiritual person and follow a specific religious tradition is to ignore history and even the law in America.
The Constitution is quite specific: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" (Article VI) and the First Amendment carries this concept even further, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
It is clear, then, that everyone has the right to follow any spiritual tradition, or even none at all.
Yet there are many on the radical right who insist on repeating the fiction that only adherents of one specific spiritual belief -- Christianity -- are entitled or qualified to serve in government.
In the first place, this ignores the many millions of Americans who follow the traditions of Native American people, New Age, Baha'i, Celtic Paganism, Wicca, Druidry, Shamanism, Shinto, Hare Krishna, Buddhism, Tao, Hindu, Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrian, or one of many other traditions, or none of the above, or say they are atheist or agnostic. Moreover, the Christian share of the U.S. population is declining, according to a Pew Research report, while the share of those of non-Christian faiths is rising.
There are no official government statistics on religious beliefs in America, since the Census Bureau does not ask such questions. The main source of data available comes from the church groups themselves, or from surveys. Moreover, each church keeps data its own way, and some may count those who were born and raised in the tradition, but who dropped out decades ago.
Another important fact to keep in mind is that "the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" -- that being a quote from an international treaty signed by President John Adams on January 1, 1797 and ratified unanimously by Congress on June 7 of that same year.
Finally, consider this: There is a difference between being religious and being spiritual. The term "religion" derives from words meaning to tie together again. Think "ligature" and "ligament" as things that tie other things together. A spiritual person acknowledges that there exist entities in an Otherworld, and perhaps even communicates with them, but feels no need to join an organization that stipulates how you should behave toward these entities, usually under the guidance and instruction of another person said to be in charge.
"I once was lost, but now I'm found," goes the hymn. But there are many who feel they were never lost. Further, these folks believe that religion and morality are two entirely separate concepts: Religion deals with your relationship with a deity, while morality deals with your relationship with other people.
One need not be religious to be moral.
Electoral Fix
The fix is in.
The presidency is the only federal political office not filled by a direct vote of American citizens. Rather, the President is chosen by a group known as electors, selected from each state in a manner chosen by each state.
How many are there? Each state gets as many electors as there are members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. There is, however, a safety valve, which prohibits members of Congress from serving as electors. In addition, the District of Columbia gets three electors. Further, the Constitution does not require them to vote for the candidate with the largest popular vote.
So it is easily possible that the candidate with the most votes nationwide does not become President. In fact, that has already happened. Twice.
Most recently, it was when Democrat Al Gore lost his bid for the White House to Republican George W. Bush. Earlier, Democrat Samuel J. Tilden lost in 1876 to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes. Each Democratic candidate had a clear national majority.
As it happened, Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina and Oregon submitted two sets of votes in 1876, leading Congress to name a special commission to resolve the issue. In the campaign of 2000, Florida again played a key role.
Both disputes dragged on for months, until finally settled when strategic maneuvering enabled the Republican candidate to gain the White House. Finally, both Tilden and Gore accepted the decisions against them to avoid rancor that might have become violent.
Those who want more details on the Hayes-Tilden or the Bush-Gore elections can find plenty using a Web search.
As it is, the key number for a presidential candidate is not how many citizen votes are won nationwide, but the number of electoral votes. Currently, the total of electors is 538, and a candidate needs a simple majority of 270 votes to win the presidency.
Why such a strange system? Largely because those who wrote the Constitution did not fully trust the mass of citizens, who might be swayed by demagogues or fast talkers who were not really qualified to lead a democratic republic.
Instead, they arranged for an interim body, whose members would, hopefully, select a well qualified leader. Unfortunately, it hasn't always worked out that way.
Typically, those chosen as electors do indeed vote for the presidential candidate to whom they are committed, and most states have a winner-take-all system, where the popular vote dictates who gets all the supporting electors. Maine and Nebraska, however, have a proportional system of allocating electors.
Understanding the system, therefore, is important, especially because one of the candidates this year is fond of alleging that "the system is rigged." It must be noted, moreover, that this same candidate has a history of gaming whatever system he is artfully dealing with as a way of winning the biggest payoff to himself, regardless of the harm it may do to others.
"The system is broken," he says, and "I am the only one who can fix it."
But whether this "fix" will benefit the majority of Americans or only a favored few is an open question.
The presidency is the only federal political office not filled by a direct vote of American citizens. Rather, the President is chosen by a group known as electors, selected from each state in a manner chosen by each state.
How many are there? Each state gets as many electors as there are members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. There is, however, a safety valve, which prohibits members of Congress from serving as electors. In addition, the District of Columbia gets three electors. Further, the Constitution does not require them to vote for the candidate with the largest popular vote.
So it is easily possible that the candidate with the most votes nationwide does not become President. In fact, that has already happened. Twice.
Most recently, it was when Democrat Al Gore lost his bid for the White House to Republican George W. Bush. Earlier, Democrat Samuel J. Tilden lost in 1876 to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes. Each Democratic candidate had a clear national majority.
As it happened, Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina and Oregon submitted two sets of votes in 1876, leading Congress to name a special commission to resolve the issue. In the campaign of 2000, Florida again played a key role.
Both disputes dragged on for months, until finally settled when strategic maneuvering enabled the Republican candidate to gain the White House. Finally, both Tilden and Gore accepted the decisions against them to avoid rancor that might have become violent.
Those who want more details on the Hayes-Tilden or the Bush-Gore elections can find plenty using a Web search.
As it is, the key number for a presidential candidate is not how many citizen votes are won nationwide, but the number of electoral votes. Currently, the total of electors is 538, and a candidate needs a simple majority of 270 votes to win the presidency.
Why such a strange system? Largely because those who wrote the Constitution did not fully trust the mass of citizens, who might be swayed by demagogues or fast talkers who were not really qualified to lead a democratic republic.
Instead, they arranged for an interim body, whose members would, hopefully, select a well qualified leader. Unfortunately, it hasn't always worked out that way.
Typically, those chosen as electors do indeed vote for the presidential candidate to whom they are committed, and most states have a winner-take-all system, where the popular vote dictates who gets all the supporting electors. Maine and Nebraska, however, have a proportional system of allocating electors.
Understanding the system, therefore, is important, especially because one of the candidates this year is fond of alleging that "the system is rigged." It must be noted, moreover, that this same candidate has a history of gaming whatever system he is artfully dealing with as a way of winning the biggest payoff to himself, regardless of the harm it may do to others.
"The system is broken," he says, and "I am the only one who can fix it."
But whether this "fix" will benefit the majority of Americans or only a favored few is an open question.
Friday, July 22, 2016
Defamation Nation
Make truth grate again.
This is the pot-kettle syndrome with a vengeance.
The candidate has demanded that the man who wrote his book for him return all the money he has been paid over the past 26 years since "The Art of the Deal" was published.
In a letter to writer Tony Schwartz, the candidate's lawyer alleged defamation of the candidate, and threatened a lawsuit unless Schwartz return half the advance and all the royalties he collected for writing the book.
Such a vengeful tactic is typical. Donald Trump has a history of refusing to pay for work done if he decides he doesn't like it, for whatever reason. This time, however, it has taken him 26 years to decide he doesn't like the work Schwartz did in writing the book that helped to make Trump famous.
All this came to light after an interview published in The New Yorker magazine in which Schwartz detailed all the reasons Trump should not be elected, based on his experiences in preparing the book. Schwartz said he remained quiet until now, but could do so no longer. The magazine interview was written by New Yorker staff writer Jane Mayer, who has also come under fire for her book, "Dark Money," about the Koch brothers and other billionaires who use their money to influence political decisions that favor their business agenda.
Trump has claimed full credit for writing his book, but Schwartz maintains Trump made only minor changes, mostly deleting one passage critical of another man who had become a partner of sorts.
But for all the allegations of defamation, here's a reality check: If it's true, it's not defamation. Moreover, the candidate's rant exemplifies the pot-kettle syndrome with a vengeance. If Trump can claim the right to sue over comments defamatory and derogatory to him, then all those whom he has criticized have the same right, since Trump has used terms like liar, crooked, corrupt, criminal, and many others against his opponents.
In addition, the threat of a lawsuit fits the candidate's call for looser libel laws "so we can win more money." This seems to be the driving force to all of the candidate's efforts over a lifetime. It's not about getting anything done, it's about getting more money. That is also behind his well documented strategy of stiffing contractors for work done at his casinos and other business ventures, paying non-union or undocumented immigrant workers less than they deserve, "renegotiating" contracts after the work is done, and paying himself big bucks while a Trump project goes bankrupt.
It is the duty and responsibility of journalism to report every side of an issue. Or, as Harry S. Truman once said, "If you don't like the heat, stay out of the kitchen."
Here's another guideline: If you don't want to be called out as a liar, don't lie.
Meanwhile, journalists are duty bound to monitor the speeches and claims of prominent people and political candidates and expose them when they are ethically challenged truth-benders. And thanks to digital memories and search engines, this is far easier than it was in the years BC (Before Computers).
This is the pot-kettle syndrome with a vengeance.
The candidate has demanded that the man who wrote his book for him return all the money he has been paid over the past 26 years since "The Art of the Deal" was published.
In a letter to writer Tony Schwartz, the candidate's lawyer alleged defamation of the candidate, and threatened a lawsuit unless Schwartz return half the advance and all the royalties he collected for writing the book.
Such a vengeful tactic is typical. Donald Trump has a history of refusing to pay for work done if he decides he doesn't like it, for whatever reason. This time, however, it has taken him 26 years to decide he doesn't like the work Schwartz did in writing the book that helped to make Trump famous.
All this came to light after an interview published in The New Yorker magazine in which Schwartz detailed all the reasons Trump should not be elected, based on his experiences in preparing the book. Schwartz said he remained quiet until now, but could do so no longer. The magazine interview was written by New Yorker staff writer Jane Mayer, who has also come under fire for her book, "Dark Money," about the Koch brothers and other billionaires who use their money to influence political decisions that favor their business agenda.
Trump has claimed full credit for writing his book, but Schwartz maintains Trump made only minor changes, mostly deleting one passage critical of another man who had become a partner of sorts.
But for all the allegations of defamation, here's a reality check: If it's true, it's not defamation. Moreover, the candidate's rant exemplifies the pot-kettle syndrome with a vengeance. If Trump can claim the right to sue over comments defamatory and derogatory to him, then all those whom he has criticized have the same right, since Trump has used terms like liar, crooked, corrupt, criminal, and many others against his opponents.
In addition, the threat of a lawsuit fits the candidate's call for looser libel laws "so we can win more money." This seems to be the driving force to all of the candidate's efforts over a lifetime. It's not about getting anything done, it's about getting more money. That is also behind his well documented strategy of stiffing contractors for work done at his casinos and other business ventures, paying non-union or undocumented immigrant workers less than they deserve, "renegotiating" contracts after the work is done, and paying himself big bucks while a Trump project goes bankrupt.
It is the duty and responsibility of journalism to report every side of an issue. Or, as Harry S. Truman once said, "If you don't like the heat, stay out of the kitchen."
Here's another guideline: If you don't want to be called out as a liar, don't lie.
Meanwhile, journalists are duty bound to monitor the speeches and claims of prominent people and political candidates and expose them when they are ethically challenged truth-benders. And thanks to digital memories and search engines, this is far easier than it was in the years BC (Before Computers).
Thursday, July 21, 2016
Trade Off
Trade is a two-way deal.
When one party to a transaction benefits and the other side loses, not only is it a bad deal, but it's often accomplished through cheating.
The so-called winner may think he got a good deal because he benefited more than the other guy, and that may be acceptable for a single transaction. But when the imbalance continues, and one side goes bankrupt or is reduced to poverty, it becomes a policy known in textbooks as "beggar thy neighbor."
Just as this can happen at a retail level, where the grocer winds up with all the cash and a family can no longer afford to buy food, it can also happen in industry and even internationally.
The rise of labor unions helped end abuses by employers, but such a short-sighted policy also happens on a national level. Historically, colonial powers did it to drain resources from their subject nations. Result: The "winner" collected all the wealth and soon found itself with no customers for what little it did produce, and no more resources at the victimized nation. Meanwhile, the subject people rebelled, and sought independence, since they had nothing and therefore nothing to lose in the attempt.
Enter Adam Smith, who in his 1776 book, "The Wealth of Nations," pointed out that trade is good when both sides benefit, and one way to ensure that is for each nation to work at what it does best. Smith called this "comparative advantage."
That principle still applies.
Moreover, it applies not only to stuff, but to labor as well, whether the issue is the skill level of workers or the number of workers available. When the supply of workers is high and the demand low, wages will not be as high as in the opposite situation. When demand is high and supply low, wages will rise to attract more people to the available jobs.
Put simply, that's why so many people come to America.
Conversely, that's why some firms move to other countries, where wages are lower, there are more workers available and living costs are lower. Clearly, those same workers can't afford to come to America because of higher costs of living, so the jobs go to them.
Here, then, is the bottom line, as an accountant might say: Any move by politicians to bring jobs back to America will inevitably clash with the economic Law of Supply and Demand.
Even if the politicians succeed in forcing firms to return their operations to the U.S., the employers will have to pay higher wages to match living costs and, in many cases, labor union contracts. In turn, this will mean higher prices for consumers. Unless, of course, the firms can break the contract and the union.
On balance, then, nobody wins.
Except perhaps corporate management, who take the same percentage of the sales price, which means more income for them.
Meanwhile, the politicians who arranged the deal can satisfy their egos for doing what they did, but the main beneficiaries are the corporate moguls who reap more profit, and maybe sharing some of that with their politician friends.
Workers may indeed have more jobs, but higher prices eat up whatever higher wages they might have.
In addition, those same higher wages, coupled with the lack of job opportunities at home, will attract yet more hopeful workers the politicians claimed they would keep out.
The Golden Door does not close.
When one party to a transaction benefits and the other side loses, not only is it a bad deal, but it's often accomplished through cheating.
The so-called winner may think he got a good deal because he benefited more than the other guy, and that may be acceptable for a single transaction. But when the imbalance continues, and one side goes bankrupt or is reduced to poverty, it becomes a policy known in textbooks as "beggar thy neighbor."
Just as this can happen at a retail level, where the grocer winds up with all the cash and a family can no longer afford to buy food, it can also happen in industry and even internationally.
The rise of labor unions helped end abuses by employers, but such a short-sighted policy also happens on a national level. Historically, colonial powers did it to drain resources from their subject nations. Result: The "winner" collected all the wealth and soon found itself with no customers for what little it did produce, and no more resources at the victimized nation. Meanwhile, the subject people rebelled, and sought independence, since they had nothing and therefore nothing to lose in the attempt.
Enter Adam Smith, who in his 1776 book, "The Wealth of Nations," pointed out that trade is good when both sides benefit, and one way to ensure that is for each nation to work at what it does best. Smith called this "comparative advantage."
That principle still applies.
Moreover, it applies not only to stuff, but to labor as well, whether the issue is the skill level of workers or the number of workers available. When the supply of workers is high and the demand low, wages will not be as high as in the opposite situation. When demand is high and supply low, wages will rise to attract more people to the available jobs.
Put simply, that's why so many people come to America.
Conversely, that's why some firms move to other countries, where wages are lower, there are more workers available and living costs are lower. Clearly, those same workers can't afford to come to America because of higher costs of living, so the jobs go to them.
Here, then, is the bottom line, as an accountant might say: Any move by politicians to bring jobs back to America will inevitably clash with the economic Law of Supply and Demand.
Even if the politicians succeed in forcing firms to return their operations to the U.S., the employers will have to pay higher wages to match living costs and, in many cases, labor union contracts. In turn, this will mean higher prices for consumers. Unless, of course, the firms can break the contract and the union.
On balance, then, nobody wins.
Except perhaps corporate management, who take the same percentage of the sales price, which means more income for them.
Meanwhile, the politicians who arranged the deal can satisfy their egos for doing what they did, but the main beneficiaries are the corporate moguls who reap more profit, and maybe sharing some of that with their politician friends.
Workers may indeed have more jobs, but higher prices eat up whatever higher wages they might have.
In addition, those same higher wages, coupled with the lack of job opportunities at home, will attract yet more hopeful workers the politicians claimed they would keep out.
The Golden Door does not close.
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
Fault Lines
Melania Trump's writer-friend 'fessed up that she was the one who lifted phrases from Michelle Obama's convention speech, claiming it was an innocent mistake.
Separately, the candidate's chief strategist blamed the media for manufacturing a plagiarism issue.
The attitude seems to be that if the news media hadn't exposed the issue, it wouldn't be a problem.
It doesn't work that way, guys. Journalism's job is to expose wrongdoing, and in the communications biz, plagiarism is a cardinal sin.
Now Melania's helper in writing the speech, Meredith McIver, has admitted to taking two passages from the speech made eight years ago by Michelle Obama when her husband Barack was nominated at the Democratic National Convention. But a comparison of the two texts shows numerous other plagiarized passages.
An innocent mistake? That's a sophomoric excuse, and if it doesn't work among students, it cannot work at the presidential level.
As for Trump aide Paul Manafort's attempt to say it's the news media's fault, that doesn't work, either. The issue of plagiarism wasn't manufactured by the press. It really did happen, and was readily and fully documented.
The candidate himself has spent a lifetime blaming others whenever he is caught doing something he shouldn't.
As for lifting key phrases from others and using them himself, this has already happened numerous times. To expect him to change now, after some 50 years of successful buck-passing, is unrealistic.
Ain't gonna happen.
Separately, the candidate's chief strategist blamed the media for manufacturing a plagiarism issue.
The attitude seems to be that if the news media hadn't exposed the issue, it wouldn't be a problem.
It doesn't work that way, guys. Journalism's job is to expose wrongdoing, and in the communications biz, plagiarism is a cardinal sin.
Now Melania's helper in writing the speech, Meredith McIver, has admitted to taking two passages from the speech made eight years ago by Michelle Obama when her husband Barack was nominated at the Democratic National Convention. But a comparison of the two texts shows numerous other plagiarized passages.
An innocent mistake? That's a sophomoric excuse, and if it doesn't work among students, it cannot work at the presidential level.
As for Trump aide Paul Manafort's attempt to say it's the news media's fault, that doesn't work, either. The issue of plagiarism wasn't manufactured by the press. It really did happen, and was readily and fully documented.
The candidate himself has spent a lifetime blaming others whenever he is caught doing something he shouldn't.
As for lifting key phrases from others and using them himself, this has already happened numerous times. To expect him to change now, after some 50 years of successful buck-passing, is unrealistic.
Ain't gonna happen.
Amateur Hour
Give him the gong. -- Major Bowes, founder and host of the Original Amateur Hour.
Did the professional speech writers get paid for the draft they supplied to Ivania Trump a month before the Republic National Convention?
It turns out that the wife of the GOP nominee for President didn't like the version written by two nationally known speech writers, so she turned to a friend -- a former dancer who majored in English -- for help in rewriting the text.
No sooner was it delivered, with an estimated 37 million people watching on national television, than a flood of criticism washed away any value the speech might have had. It was, indeed, well delivered. However, with numerous examples of phrasings and entire sentences lifted from Michelle Obama's convention speech to Democrats eight years ago in praise of her own husband, President Barack Obama, whatever value Mrs. Trump's speech might have had was immediately drowned by accusations of plagiarism.
Now one wonders whether the two professional speech writers initially hired to draft a convention speech for Ivania actually got paid for the work they did.
Considering Donald Trump's penchant for stiffing contractors for work done, using various excuses for not paying them, then offering to hire them for additional work, one would not be surprised if this is a Trump family tradition.
Did they think no one would notice the borrowed passages?
This latest episode adds to the history of Trump practices of listening to no one but himself. Now it seems this is a family practice, as the various Trumps try to control every aspect of the Republican Party.
Time to rename it the Trump Party, and the only ones invited are members of the family.
Did the professional speech writers get paid for the draft they supplied to Ivania Trump a month before the Republic National Convention?
It turns out that the wife of the GOP nominee for President didn't like the version written by two nationally known speech writers, so she turned to a friend -- a former dancer who majored in English -- for help in rewriting the text.
No sooner was it delivered, with an estimated 37 million people watching on national television, than a flood of criticism washed away any value the speech might have had. It was, indeed, well delivered. However, with numerous examples of phrasings and entire sentences lifted from Michelle Obama's convention speech to Democrats eight years ago in praise of her own husband, President Barack Obama, whatever value Mrs. Trump's speech might have had was immediately drowned by accusations of plagiarism.
Now one wonders whether the two professional speech writers initially hired to draft a convention speech for Ivania actually got paid for the work they did.
Considering Donald Trump's penchant for stiffing contractors for work done, using various excuses for not paying them, then offering to hire them for additional work, one would not be surprised if this is a Trump family tradition.
Did they think no one would notice the borrowed passages?
This latest episode adds to the history of Trump practices of listening to no one but himself. Now it seems this is a family practice, as the various Trumps try to control every aspect of the Republican Party.
Time to rename it the Trump Party, and the only ones invited are members of the family.
Tuesday, July 19, 2016
Plagiary
Once is an accident. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is a pattern.
At a time of intense competition, when every word and action is scrutinized and monitored for the smallest hint of possible error, or something that could be interpreted as a mistake, how is it that a prime time television speech to a national political convention could be delivered with three examples of plagiarism?
It could be, of course, that the three phrasings in Melania Trump's speech praising her husband to Republicans, which were identical to lines in Michelle Obama's speech at a previous convention of Democrats, may be excused as standard examples of American dream-speak. Things like, if you work hard and apply yourself, you too can be successful.
Or it could be that they were lifted verbatim from Michelle Obama's earlier speech. Cable news shows had a field day running clips of both, and the phrasings were, in fact, identical.
Did the Trump think no one would notice? Was the repetition by accident or by design?
Reporters have long memories, but one may well ask if they are really that good.
It's also possible that the opposition party monitored Melania's talk hoping to find something useful, and then tip off the reporters and TV folk to find video clips of the two women saying identical things, four or eight years apart.
But regardless of who found the repetition/plagiarism, the issue remains this: How did it happen?
Was it coincidence, using a standard American culture-thought but with identical phrasing? Or was it deliberate plagiarism?
When challenged, the Trump team used its usual double-down defense, attacking those who dared to point out anything resembling a fault.
This, however, does not change the reality of verbatim repetition in a nationally televised speech.
Once is an accident. Twice is a coincidence. Three times or more is a pattern.
At a time of intense competition, when every word and action is scrutinized and monitored for the smallest hint of possible error, or something that could be interpreted as a mistake, how is it that a prime time television speech to a national political convention could be delivered with three examples of plagiarism?
It could be, of course, that the three phrasings in Melania Trump's speech praising her husband to Republicans, which were identical to lines in Michelle Obama's speech at a previous convention of Democrats, may be excused as standard examples of American dream-speak. Things like, if you work hard and apply yourself, you too can be successful.
Or it could be that they were lifted verbatim from Michelle Obama's earlier speech. Cable news shows had a field day running clips of both, and the phrasings were, in fact, identical.
Did the Trump think no one would notice? Was the repetition by accident or by design?
Reporters have long memories, but one may well ask if they are really that good.
It's also possible that the opposition party monitored Melania's talk hoping to find something useful, and then tip off the reporters and TV folk to find video clips of the two women saying identical things, four or eight years apart.
But regardless of who found the repetition/plagiarism, the issue remains this: How did it happen?
Was it coincidence, using a standard American culture-thought but with identical phrasing? Or was it deliberate plagiarism?
When challenged, the Trump team used its usual double-down defense, attacking those who dared to point out anything resembling a fault.
This, however, does not change the reality of verbatim repetition in a nationally televised speech.
Once is an accident. Twice is a coincidence. Three times or more is a pattern.
Wrenching Outlook
"Brexit has thrown a spanner in the works." -- Maurice Obstfeld, IMF chief economist.
Economic health in Europe will be hit hard as Britain leaves the European Union, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). And the fallout from the Brexit vote will spread to America and elsewhere, the IMF said.
"Global growth, already sluggish, will suffer as a result" of the vote by the United Kingdom to leave the EU, the IMF said in its report on the global economy.
Britain and Europe will be hit hardest by fallout from last month's Brexit vote, the IMF said. This means policy makers must strengthen banking systems and get to work on important structural reforms, according to the IMF.
Specifically, the IMF said the UK economy will slow to a 1.7 percent growth rate this year, and to 1.3 percent next year. Throughout the euro area, the countries using that common currency will see a growth rate of just 1.4 percent next year.
Even so, the IMF warned that "more negative outcomes are a distinct possibility," as the effects of a British exit from the EU add economic and political uncertainty.
In addition, the breakup will be felt globally, with slowdowns likely in the U.S., Japan, China and other advanced economies.
Economic health in Europe will be hit hard as Britain leaves the European Union, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). And the fallout from the Brexit vote will spread to America and elsewhere, the IMF said.
"Global growth, already sluggish, will suffer as a result" of the vote by the United Kingdom to leave the EU, the IMF said in its report on the global economy.
Britain and Europe will be hit hardest by fallout from last month's Brexit vote, the IMF said. This means policy makers must strengthen banking systems and get to work on important structural reforms, according to the IMF.
Specifically, the IMF said the UK economy will slow to a 1.7 percent growth rate this year, and to 1.3 percent next year. Throughout the euro area, the countries using that common currency will see a growth rate of just 1.4 percent next year.
Even so, the IMF warned that "more negative outcomes are a distinct possibility," as the effects of a British exit from the EU add economic and political uncertainty.
In addition, the breakup will be felt globally, with slowdowns likely in the U.S., Japan, China and other advanced economies.
Monday, July 18, 2016
Civil Discourse
Demonize not, lest ye become demons.
America's founders recognized the value of open discussion with those who disagreed, knowing that compromise is the road to progress.
But for those who are so mentally, spiritually and emotionally locked in to their self-assigned importance that they dismiss or demonize any who disagree, compromise is the road to perdition.
Sad, disgusting, total disgrace, dishonest, weak, horrible, stupid, crooked, liar, boring, little, shameful, incredible, terrible, unbelievable, bad, incompetent, corrupt, criminal.
Bombastic, arrogant, ignorant, bully, egotistic, braggart, thin-skinned, insecure, temperamentally unfit.
These are some of the words thrown around by and about candidates hoping to be the next President of the United States of America.
How's that for civil discourse?
The hazard is that violent talk soon leads to violent action, and that has already happened many times in recent months, with the tacit and sometimes specific approval of one of the candidates.
There is more danger to freedom from the radical right than from the liberal left.
Those who would dictate the terms, actions, beliefs and behaviors of all citizens and voters are, by definition, dictators. And those who seek full control of news media coverage as they seek political office fit that same definition, especially when they encourage, incite, approve or even refuse to condemn violence against protestors.
America's founders recognized the value of open discussion with those who disagreed, knowing that compromise is the road to progress.
But for those who are so mentally, spiritually and emotionally locked in to their self-assigned importance that they dismiss or demonize any who disagree, compromise is the road to perdition.
Sad, disgusting, total disgrace, dishonest, weak, horrible, stupid, crooked, liar, boring, little, shameful, incredible, terrible, unbelievable, bad, incompetent, corrupt, criminal.
Bombastic, arrogant, ignorant, bully, egotistic, braggart, thin-skinned, insecure, temperamentally unfit.
These are some of the words thrown around by and about candidates hoping to be the next President of the United States of America.
How's that for civil discourse?
The hazard is that violent talk soon leads to violent action, and that has already happened many times in recent months, with the tacit and sometimes specific approval of one of the candidates.
There is more danger to freedom from the radical right than from the liberal left.
Those who would dictate the terms, actions, beliefs and behaviors of all citizens and voters are, by definition, dictators. And those who seek full control of news media coverage as they seek political office fit that same definition, especially when they encourage, incite, approve or even refuse to condemn violence against protestors.
Sunday, July 17, 2016
Word Wizardry
Change a word, change the meaning.
Words are fashionable. They come in and go out of favor for a myriad of reasons, and a word can grow from a coined word to slang to acceptable to overuse in just a few weeks. And in the course of its growth cycle, it can just as quickly become a standard part of the language. Or, in the case of teenagers, it can be dropped by its prime movers as soon as another group, such as parents, pick it up and start using it.
Society's sense of propriety can also determine whether a word can be used, and in what circumstances.
Time was, many four-letter Anglo-Saxon terms were seldom used in what was called "polite society," but now are heard regularly on television and seen more often in print.
Along the way, marketers, advertisers and those with a special interest in encouraging or demeaning a practice or a product invent "new" words to influence readers and listeners.
Does this really change the meaning? Or is it a subtle attempt to promote one concept as it demeans another?
Example: GOP leaders have taken to referring to their opposition as the "Democrat" party, as a way of suggesting that the group is not really "democratic."
Here's another example: Pharmaceutical companies often use initials to mention a condition that their latest concoction will help to relieve, without mentioning just what those initials stand for. When pressed, they will use arcane Latin words to spell out what the initials stand for. This, of course, tells consumers nothing, unless they remember what little Latin they learned in high school.
Specifically, one TV commercial claims the product "helps to relieve symptoms of BPH." Whatever that is. It turns out the BPH stands for "benign prostate hyperplasia," which sounds even more catastrophic, especially for men concerned about the dangers of a prostate problem.
Until you remember that "benign" means that it's relatively harmless, and "hyperplasia" means only that it's enlarged. Granted, eventually, perhaps, over a period of years, an enlarged prostate may become a problem. Then again, it may not. In any case, it may well take 20 or 30 years or more until it does. And in that time ...
Meanwhile, there are indeed words that are hateful. But there are also words that are appropriate and should be used, instead of variations that suggest extra benefit or harsher results that don't really exist.
As Humpty Dumpty said, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
But Alice objected: "The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."
Welcome to the Wonderland of Words, with deep respect to Lewis Carroll.
Words are fashionable. They come in and go out of favor for a myriad of reasons, and a word can grow from a coined word to slang to acceptable to overuse in just a few weeks. And in the course of its growth cycle, it can just as quickly become a standard part of the language. Or, in the case of teenagers, it can be dropped by its prime movers as soon as another group, such as parents, pick it up and start using it.
Society's sense of propriety can also determine whether a word can be used, and in what circumstances.
Time was, many four-letter Anglo-Saxon terms were seldom used in what was called "polite society," but now are heard regularly on television and seen more often in print.
Along the way, marketers, advertisers and those with a special interest in encouraging or demeaning a practice or a product invent "new" words to influence readers and listeners.
Does this really change the meaning? Or is it a subtle attempt to promote one concept as it demeans another?
Example: GOP leaders have taken to referring to their opposition as the "Democrat" party, as a way of suggesting that the group is not really "democratic."
Here's another example: Pharmaceutical companies often use initials to mention a condition that their latest concoction will help to relieve, without mentioning just what those initials stand for. When pressed, they will use arcane Latin words to spell out what the initials stand for. This, of course, tells consumers nothing, unless they remember what little Latin they learned in high school.
Specifically, one TV commercial claims the product "helps to relieve symptoms of BPH." Whatever that is. It turns out the BPH stands for "benign prostate hyperplasia," which sounds even more catastrophic, especially for men concerned about the dangers of a prostate problem.
Until you remember that "benign" means that it's relatively harmless, and "hyperplasia" means only that it's enlarged. Granted, eventually, perhaps, over a period of years, an enlarged prostate may become a problem. Then again, it may not. In any case, it may well take 20 or 30 years or more until it does. And in that time ...
Meanwhile, there are indeed words that are hateful. But there are also words that are appropriate and should be used, instead of variations that suggest extra benefit or harsher results that don't really exist.
As Humpty Dumpty said, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
But Alice objected: "The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."
Welcome to the Wonderland of Words, with deep respect to Lewis Carroll.
Saturday, July 16, 2016
The Great American Fallacy
Bigger equals better.
An important, though subconscious, reason Donald Trump chose Indiana Gov. Mike Pence as his running mate in this year's presidential election is very likely this: Pence is short.
Standing on stage together, the lead candidate is taller, visual evidence that he is therefore bigger, which in turn implies that he is better.
It's part of what can be called the Great American Fallacy, that bigger equals better. This is true for many men, especially those who are at root insecure and thin-skinned about their own abilities.
Consider previous behavior evidence of this candidate. He relies heavily on disparaging insults to put down opponents and those who disagree with him. He coined a nickname for one candidate as "Little Marco," to emphasize the difference in size.
He has bragged about the size of his ... whatever, as proof of his strength and manhood.
And now he has selected a less tall person to work alongside him on the road to the White House.
Moreover, to emphasize the difference in size -- and therefore to suggest importance, etc. -- the campaign poster puts the main presumptuous nominee in very large capital letters over and above that of the not-tall governor, so it looks like this:
Throughout America, there are many examples of height bias, especially by men toward other men.
Several major business schools have tracked the careers of their graduates, and have documented that men 6 feet tall and taller get better, higher paying jobs sooner than their fellow graduates 5' 8" and less.
Professional business and engineering consultants have acknowledged that being less tall than corporate executives is actually an advantage, because they are not perceived as a threat.
Similarly, un-tall male journalists can testify that this is also an advantage for them when interviewing politicians, and for the same reason.
Consider also the sports most popular in America. In both football and basketball, the players are bigger and the scores higher. In soccer, however, the most popular sport in the rest of the world, a player's legs need only be long enough to reach the ground, and scores are typically in the low single digits.
In politics, Lyndon B. Johnson, who stood about 6'4", famously used his height to overwhelm those he encountered, by standing very close to them, ensuring that he would look down on them.
Perhaps this same underlying, subconscious attitude is what prompted Trump to select Pence as his running mate, to constantly show who was boss.
Bigger, therefore better, ain't necessarily so.
An important, though subconscious, reason Donald Trump chose Indiana Gov. Mike Pence as his running mate in this year's presidential election is very likely this: Pence is short.
Standing on stage together, the lead candidate is taller, visual evidence that he is therefore bigger, which in turn implies that he is better.
It's part of what can be called the Great American Fallacy, that bigger equals better. This is true for many men, especially those who are at root insecure and thin-skinned about their own abilities.
Consider previous behavior evidence of this candidate. He relies heavily on disparaging insults to put down opponents and those who disagree with him. He coined a nickname for one candidate as "Little Marco," to emphasize the difference in size.
He has bragged about the size of his ... whatever, as proof of his strength and manhood.
And now he has selected a less tall person to work alongside him on the road to the White House.
Moreover, to emphasize the difference in size -- and therefore to suggest importance, etc. -- the campaign poster puts the main presumptuous nominee in very large capital letters over and above that of the not-tall governor, so it looks like this:
TRUMP
PENCE
Several major business schools have tracked the careers of their graduates, and have documented that men 6 feet tall and taller get better, higher paying jobs sooner than their fellow graduates 5' 8" and less.
Professional business and engineering consultants have acknowledged that being less tall than corporate executives is actually an advantage, because they are not perceived as a threat.
Similarly, un-tall male journalists can testify that this is also an advantage for them when interviewing politicians, and for the same reason.
Consider also the sports most popular in America. In both football and basketball, the players are bigger and the scores higher. In soccer, however, the most popular sport in the rest of the world, a player's legs need only be long enough to reach the ground, and scores are typically in the low single digits.
In politics, Lyndon B. Johnson, who stood about 6'4", famously used his height to overwhelm those he encountered, by standing very close to them, ensuring that he would look down on them.
Perhaps this same underlying, subconscious attitude is what prompted Trump to select Pence as his running mate, to constantly show who was boss.
Bigger, therefore better, ain't necessarily so.
Friday, July 15, 2016
Selective Memories
"There are none so blind as those who will not see." -- John Haywood, 1546. Jonathan Swift, 1748.
It's a truism among copy editors that the eye sees what the brain knows should be there. That's why typographical errors sneak into print.
It's also true that people hear what they're listening for.
People see in demagogues the hero they long for, and they hear in his speeches the promises they hope for.
Whether these heroics and promises are true and realistic do not matter. The candidate is saying things the audience wants to hear, and the listeners are ready and determined to believe them.
Despite overwhelming evidence of fraud, deception, cheating, stiffing of contractors and misuse of bankruptcy laws, piled up over decades of lawsuits and news reports, as well as misleading claims and outright lies, plus a near total ignorance of diplomacy, government, and international affairs, many of the demagogue's most devoted followers refuse to see, hear or accept factual information about their hero's behavior and intentions.
Every citizen is free to choose a candidate based on political affiliation, gender, ethnicity, race, religion, or even the hard-to-measure likeability quotient (whatever that is), in addition to political, governmental, business or academic experience. None of the above, however, can be a legal requirement. Indeed, the U.S. Constitution specifically forbids any religious test as a qualification to any office.
A voter's conscience may influence a choice, but that is a private matter, and not a public or legal issue.
The best that can be expected, therefore, is that voter conscience, intelligence, education and familiarity with important issues will lead to rational and wise choices on Election Day.
Meanwhile, it is up to responsible news media to provide the information citizens need, to help them decide wisely. And it is up to a responsible citizenry to keep themselves informed.
It's a truism among copy editors that the eye sees what the brain knows should be there. That's why typographical errors sneak into print.
It's also true that people hear what they're listening for.
People see in demagogues the hero they long for, and they hear in his speeches the promises they hope for.
Whether these heroics and promises are true and realistic do not matter. The candidate is saying things the audience wants to hear, and the listeners are ready and determined to believe them.
Despite overwhelming evidence of fraud, deception, cheating, stiffing of contractors and misuse of bankruptcy laws, piled up over decades of lawsuits and news reports, as well as misleading claims and outright lies, plus a near total ignorance of diplomacy, government, and international affairs, many of the demagogue's most devoted followers refuse to see, hear or accept factual information about their hero's behavior and intentions.
Every citizen is free to choose a candidate based on political affiliation, gender, ethnicity, race, religion, or even the hard-to-measure likeability quotient (whatever that is), in addition to political, governmental, business or academic experience. None of the above, however, can be a legal requirement. Indeed, the U.S. Constitution specifically forbids any religious test as a qualification to any office.
A voter's conscience may influence a choice, but that is a private matter, and not a public or legal issue.
The best that can be expected, therefore, is that voter conscience, intelligence, education and familiarity with important issues will lead to rational and wise choices on Election Day.
Meanwhile, it is up to responsible news media to provide the information citizens need, to help them decide wisely. And it is up to a responsible citizenry to keep themselves informed.
Thursday, July 14, 2016
The Rise of Bigotry
E Pluribus, Unum. Out of Many, One.
How many generations are needed before members of a family become "true Americans"? Children of immigrants remain proud of their heritage, even unto many generations.
On March 17, those of Irish heritage parade their pride in cities throughout the country.
Similar celebrations are held by descendants of those who came from many other nations.
In the autumn, those of German heritage hold an Oktoberfest, and all are welcome to attend.
February is Black Heritage Month, honoring the achievements of those who were brought unwillingly to America.
Nearly every ethnic, cultural or religious group in America celebrates the values held by their members. This is one of the firm foundations of the American Way.
However, there have been exceptions and blots on the American tradition, shameful episode in American history.
In the 19th Century, the Know Nothing Party tried to formally ban Irish and German immigrants from coming to America. Bias was so strong that employers could even advertise for workers using abbreviations. Example: "Help Wanted -- NINA." (No Irish Need Apply.)
During World War II, Japanese-Americans were sent to internment camps on the West Coast. On the East Coast, similar monitoring was done to Italian and German families.
Meanwhile, a ship full of Jewish refugees was turned away from several East Coast ports, until it returned to Nazi Germany, where its passengers were sent to death camps. The episode inspired a movie, "The Ship of Fools."
Muhammad Ali came home to Louisville, KY, with an Olympic Gold Medal in boxing, but was refused entry to a restaurant because of his skin color. In frustration, he threw the medal into a river.
American women were denied the right to vote until the early 20th Century.
Black citizens were routinely denied the same right in many parts of the South until the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. Some regions still try.
The struggle to ensure American rights for some American citizens continues, as some accuse those who disagree as being mentally unfit, or biased because of their heritage, or religion, or gender. In short, the only ones qualified to have an opinion on what he says or does must be of the same heritage, gender, ethnicity, or religion as Himself.
And even then, the opinions of others are to respected only if they agree with his.
That's not the America upholding the principles in the founding documents of 240 years ago.
How many generations are needed before members of a family become "true Americans"? Children of immigrants remain proud of their heritage, even unto many generations.
On March 17, those of Irish heritage parade their pride in cities throughout the country.
Similar celebrations are held by descendants of those who came from many other nations.
In the autumn, those of German heritage hold an Oktoberfest, and all are welcome to attend.
February is Black Heritage Month, honoring the achievements of those who were brought unwillingly to America.
Nearly every ethnic, cultural or religious group in America celebrates the values held by their members. This is one of the firm foundations of the American Way.
However, there have been exceptions and blots on the American tradition, shameful episode in American history.
In the 19th Century, the Know Nothing Party tried to formally ban Irish and German immigrants from coming to America. Bias was so strong that employers could even advertise for workers using abbreviations. Example: "Help Wanted -- NINA." (No Irish Need Apply.)
During World War II, Japanese-Americans were sent to internment camps on the West Coast. On the East Coast, similar monitoring was done to Italian and German families.
Meanwhile, a ship full of Jewish refugees was turned away from several East Coast ports, until it returned to Nazi Germany, where its passengers were sent to death camps. The episode inspired a movie, "The Ship of Fools."
Muhammad Ali came home to Louisville, KY, with an Olympic Gold Medal in boxing, but was refused entry to a restaurant because of his skin color. In frustration, he threw the medal into a river.
American women were denied the right to vote until the early 20th Century.
Black citizens were routinely denied the same right in many parts of the South until the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. Some regions still try.
The struggle to ensure American rights for some American citizens continues, as some accuse those who disagree as being mentally unfit, or biased because of their heritage, or religion, or gender. In short, the only ones qualified to have an opinion on what he says or does must be of the same heritage, gender, ethnicity, or religion as Himself.
And even then, the opinions of others are to respected only if they agree with his.
That's not the America upholding the principles in the founding documents of 240 years ago.
Wary Words
If you don't want to see it in print, don't put it into the computer.
There is no privacy on the Internet.
Total objectivity is not possible in humans. We can, however, strive to be neutral, much like referees in sports.
We can also be mindful of cultural baggage, which can cloud our perceptions and lead to misunderstandings.
He must be brilliant. I didn't understand a word he said.
If you sound like you know what you're talking about, people will assume you do.
It sounds good, so it must be important.
Standards of usage in language and writing are upheld primarily by copy editors at newspapers and magazines.
In their efforts to sound more folksy, politicians change their speech patterns while campaigning. This way, some voters may think they really are "just plain folks."
The secret of good writing is not in knowing what to put in, but in knowing what to leave out.
If brevity be the soul of wit, silence may mean you're the smartest one in the room.
It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought to be foolish than to open your mouth, speak up and prove it.
Pay attention to what you say. Others may be listening.
There is no privacy on the Internet.
Total objectivity is not possible in humans. We can, however, strive to be neutral, much like referees in sports.
We can also be mindful of cultural baggage, which can cloud our perceptions and lead to misunderstandings.
He must be brilliant. I didn't understand a word he said.
If you sound like you know what you're talking about, people will assume you do.
It sounds good, so it must be important.
Standards of usage in language and writing are upheld primarily by copy editors at newspapers and magazines.
In their efforts to sound more folksy, politicians change their speech patterns while campaigning. This way, some voters may think they really are "just plain folks."
The secret of good writing is not in knowing what to put in, but in knowing what to leave out.
If brevity be the soul of wit, silence may mean you're the smartest one in the room.
It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought to be foolish than to open your mouth, speak up and prove it.
Pay attention to what you say. Others may be listening.
Wednesday, July 13, 2016
Election Economics
The issue of jobs comes up often as politicians promise prosperity during election campaigns, with a focus usually on the importance of manufacturing jobs.
While jobs in what's called the goods producing sector of the workforce are an important measure of what a country needs, it's not the only, or even the largest, employment sector. That would be in retail.
Of a total population of some 300 million people in America, the total civilian labor force is 160 million, and the total non-farm labor force numbers 144 million. Right away, it's clear that relatively few people -- 16 million -- are employed in agriculture, compared to the total work force.
Military personnel are also excluded, since the unemployment rate is related to the civilian labor force. Nor are children, retirees, prison inmates, students and those in hospitals, since they are not available and actively seeking work.
The largest employment sector, according to Department of Labor statistics, is retail, which has 16 million employees. Manufacturing follows, with a total of 12.3 million workers. And there are 6.6 million construction workers.
All of these are important, and in some states the service sector, such as finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) provides the most support for a regional economy.
But for all the talk by political candidates about the need to bring manufacturing jobs back to this country, the reality is that many have gone and are not coming back.
Moreover, the reasons for this are not hard to identify.
One is technology, which enables manufacturers to produce more stuff more efficiently and at lower cost, even as wages rise to match new skill levels needed with more complex technology. So while steel production in America has not declined, the workers doing so has been reduced.
A second reason, related to the first, is wages. Some products, such as garments, require more hands-on work. That's why much of this production has gone to other countries, where there are more people who are willing to work for lower wages. In fact, were it not for this transfer of garment making, workers in many of these countries would have no jobs at all.
Meanwhile, American workers who formerly had such jobs moved on to finance, communications and other service sector jobs that demand higher skills and offer higher wages.
Bottom line: Many people benefit as economies grow internationally.
So for all the political noise about America losing so much, the reality is that the U.S. is in its seventh consecutive year of economic expansion, the unemployment rate is down to 4.9 percent, and household net worth is back to pre-crisis peaks, with household disposable income growing at 3 percent, according to a recent report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
The Federal Reserve Board today noted that economic activity nationwide "continued to expand," though at a modest pace, from mid-May through the end of June. Pressure to increase wages was modest to moderate, the Fed said, except for the need for skilled workers and hard-to-fill positions.
Moreover, a historical reality is that times and conditions have changed. Some 70 years ago, many manufacturing jobs offered high wages even in low-skill positions. That was an example of the basic economic Law of Demand and Supply. There was a shortage of workers in the face of soaring demand. To compensate for that, industries developed more technology, to make production more efficient with fewer workers.
Since then, low-skill, low-pay jobs went elsewhere, and many urban areas of the United States shifted to service-sector employment. Meanwhile, highway construction enabled many folks employed in the cities to buy homes in the suburbs. There were fewer moderate-pay, low-skill jobs for city residents unable to qualify for higher-paying service sector jobs, and the result was increasing urban unemployment and poverty.
An important issue for politicians who claim to seek answers to economic problems, then, is to offer incentives for better education and skills training in urban areas, thereby rebuilding America's economy from within, rather than pushing the impossible dream of bringing back what is long gone.
While jobs in what's called the goods producing sector of the workforce are an important measure of what a country needs, it's not the only, or even the largest, employment sector. That would be in retail.
Of a total population of some 300 million people in America, the total civilian labor force is 160 million, and the total non-farm labor force numbers 144 million. Right away, it's clear that relatively few people -- 16 million -- are employed in agriculture, compared to the total work force.
Military personnel are also excluded, since the unemployment rate is related to the civilian labor force. Nor are children, retirees, prison inmates, students and those in hospitals, since they are not available and actively seeking work.
The largest employment sector, according to Department of Labor statistics, is retail, which has 16 million employees. Manufacturing follows, with a total of 12.3 million workers. And there are 6.6 million construction workers.
All of these are important, and in some states the service sector, such as finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) provides the most support for a regional economy.
But for all the talk by political candidates about the need to bring manufacturing jobs back to this country, the reality is that many have gone and are not coming back.
Moreover, the reasons for this are not hard to identify.
One is technology, which enables manufacturers to produce more stuff more efficiently and at lower cost, even as wages rise to match new skill levels needed with more complex technology. So while steel production in America has not declined, the workers doing so has been reduced.
A second reason, related to the first, is wages. Some products, such as garments, require more hands-on work. That's why much of this production has gone to other countries, where there are more people who are willing to work for lower wages. In fact, were it not for this transfer of garment making, workers in many of these countries would have no jobs at all.
Meanwhile, American workers who formerly had such jobs moved on to finance, communications and other service sector jobs that demand higher skills and offer higher wages.
Bottom line: Many people benefit as economies grow internationally.
So for all the political noise about America losing so much, the reality is that the U.S. is in its seventh consecutive year of economic expansion, the unemployment rate is down to 4.9 percent, and household net worth is back to pre-crisis peaks, with household disposable income growing at 3 percent, according to a recent report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
The Federal Reserve Board today noted that economic activity nationwide "continued to expand," though at a modest pace, from mid-May through the end of June. Pressure to increase wages was modest to moderate, the Fed said, except for the need for skilled workers and hard-to-fill positions.
Moreover, a historical reality is that times and conditions have changed. Some 70 years ago, many manufacturing jobs offered high wages even in low-skill positions. That was an example of the basic economic Law of Demand and Supply. There was a shortage of workers in the face of soaring demand. To compensate for that, industries developed more technology, to make production more efficient with fewer workers.
Since then, low-skill, low-pay jobs went elsewhere, and many urban areas of the United States shifted to service-sector employment. Meanwhile, highway construction enabled many folks employed in the cities to buy homes in the suburbs. There were fewer moderate-pay, low-skill jobs for city residents unable to qualify for higher-paying service sector jobs, and the result was increasing urban unemployment and poverty.
An important issue for politicians who claim to seek answers to economic problems, then, is to offer incentives for better education and skills training in urban areas, thereby rebuilding America's economy from within, rather than pushing the impossible dream of bringing back what is long gone.
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Code Word Coverup
Name calling covers up insecurity.
Children resort to name-calling and blaming others for their own shortcomings. Many times, the abusive labels and names they try to paste on others are the very qualities they are guilty of themselves.
For example, the accusation "crooked" is voiced repeatedly by one person who is the target of a multiple-count fraud charge by federal prosecutors. This same person has been sued many hundreds of times by contractors to force this person to pay for work done at various business ventures.
"Liar" is another term thrown out by this same political candidate, who has been caught, called out and corrected by fact checkers almost daily.
"Dishonest" is the word this politician uses against news media that expose the candidate's business dealings that send contractors into bankruptcy while he enlarges his own accounts.
He calls women who disagree with him "fat," and claims women journalists who ask sharp questions must be in the cranky phase of their menstrual cycle.
He insists his business in Scotland will benefit because citizens of that country voted to leave the European Union. In fact, Scots voted strongly to remain, as did citizens in Northern Ireland. However, they were narrowly outvoted by citizens in England and Wales, the two other countries that are part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
He has mocked a competitor who is not as tall as he is, as if size equals competence.
In short, rather than display knowledge and expertise vital to any candidate for a major public office, he relies on mockery, insult and abuse to cover up his own ignorance, inexperience, insecurity and lack of compassion.
We hear what he claims, even as he refuses to provide verifiable details.
So who is to be believed, the one who gives no evidence to support his claims and accusations, or the dozens of independent journalists who not only report what the candidate says, but also give documentary evidence on why he's mistaken, or ill-informed?
Or even flat-out wrong, provably wrong, and loudly flaunting a pack of lies?
To quote the motto of the right-wing, conservative Fox News organization, "We report, you decide."
Meanwhile, we may be watching the destruction of the Republican Party, which very likely could occur as early as next week during their national convention in Cleveland.
All the while, print and broadcast journalists representing media outlets of all persuasions and from numerous countries will cover the story as it happens. And yes, some reporting and commentary will be slanted, others interpretive, and most neutral. Readers and viewers have the option and the responsibility to consider the reputations of each reporting organization and individual while they decide.
Children resort to name-calling and blaming others for their own shortcomings. Many times, the abusive labels and names they try to paste on others are the very qualities they are guilty of themselves.
For example, the accusation "crooked" is voiced repeatedly by one person who is the target of a multiple-count fraud charge by federal prosecutors. This same person has been sued many hundreds of times by contractors to force this person to pay for work done at various business ventures.
"Liar" is another term thrown out by this same political candidate, who has been caught, called out and corrected by fact checkers almost daily.
"Dishonest" is the word this politician uses against news media that expose the candidate's business dealings that send contractors into bankruptcy while he enlarges his own accounts.
He calls women who disagree with him "fat," and claims women journalists who ask sharp questions must be in the cranky phase of their menstrual cycle.
He insists his business in Scotland will benefit because citizens of that country voted to leave the European Union. In fact, Scots voted strongly to remain, as did citizens in Northern Ireland. However, they were narrowly outvoted by citizens in England and Wales, the two other countries that are part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
He has mocked a competitor who is not as tall as he is, as if size equals competence.
In short, rather than display knowledge and expertise vital to any candidate for a major public office, he relies on mockery, insult and abuse to cover up his own ignorance, inexperience, insecurity and lack of compassion.
We hear what he claims, even as he refuses to provide verifiable details.
So who is to be believed, the one who gives no evidence to support his claims and accusations, or the dozens of independent journalists who not only report what the candidate says, but also give documentary evidence on why he's mistaken, or ill-informed?
Or even flat-out wrong, provably wrong, and loudly flaunting a pack of lies?
To quote the motto of the right-wing, conservative Fox News organization, "We report, you decide."
Meanwhile, we may be watching the destruction of the Republican Party, which very likely could occur as early as next week during their national convention in Cleveland.
All the while, print and broadcast journalists representing media outlets of all persuasions and from numerous countries will cover the story as it happens. And yes, some reporting and commentary will be slanted, others interpretive, and most neutral. Readers and viewers have the option and the responsibility to consider the reputations of each reporting organization and individual while they decide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)