A passel of data reports documented healthy signs for the American economy, with unemployment down, personal income up and conditions improving in general.
Overall, the national economy "continued to expand across most regions in October and November," said the Federal Reserve Board's Beige Book report released Wednesday. Earlier, the minutes of the Fed's Open Market Committee meeting pointed to favorable growth rates in several economic data sets, and noted that the Fed staff expects GDP growth to accelerate as the year ends.
Personal income ticked up in October by 0.6 percent, outpacing spending, which was 0.3 percent, according to the Census Bureau. Unemployment rates were lower in October in 231 of the nation's metro areas, and payroll employment was up in 311 areas compared to a year ago, the Labor Department said.
National output (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 3.2 percent in the third quarter, as profits jumped by $133.8 billion, compared to a second quarter drop of $12.5 billion, said the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
However, Fed members decided to hold off yet again in boosting its key interest rate immediately, as they wait for "some further evidence of continued progress."
Even so, that could happen "relatively soon" if incoming data support some action, perhaps at the Fed's next meeting, which is scheduled for December 13-14.
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
Expose or Ignore
Long on bombast, short on evidence.
If not for Twitter, egregiously outrageous comments that are clearly false could be ignored. But when such things are posted by the man who has made himself chief twit and is now President-elect of the United States, whose rantings are followed by millions -- and believed by many -- the messages travel farther and faster than traditional news media can match, so it's journalism's responsibility to expose the postings for what they are: Either flat-out lies or proposals born of monumental ignorance.
The latest in the long series of Tweets posted by Donald Trump calls for jail time and withdrawal of citizenship for those who use flag-burning as a method of protest.
There is, of course, the issue of respect for the national emblem. But it's also true that the proper way to dispose of a flag that is old, threadbare, worn out and generally no longer able to be displayed with honor is this: Burn it. With respect, certainly, and do not just throw it in the trash bin.
The Supreme Court has ruled more than once that flag-burning by protestors, while distasteful to many, is at root related to free speech, and is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
At the same time, those who oppose this act of free speech also are prone to saying vile and vicious things about their political opponents, and demand the same right of free speech in defense of their actions.
You can't have it both ways. Free speech is a right for everyone, not just for those who agree with you.
As for cancelling someone's citizenship, the Supreme Court has ruled that simply cannot be done. Period. End of story. Anyway, how would you cancel citizenship for someone who was born in the U.S. to American parents, raised here, spent a lifetime here and believes in the right of free expression when disagreeing with a political twit?
Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue also, in two cases where the State Department tried to withdraw citizenship from a naturalized American. Can't do it, says SCOTUS.
Maybe it's time loyal Americans sent Trump copies of the Constitution. He may even read it. Then again, he may not, since it would interfere with his activities as Twitter in Chief. Or is it chief twit?
Meanwhile, an independent news media has a responsibility to expose the untruths, the misleading fabrications and insinuations if not downright lies perpetrated by this master of media manipulation.
As for having to choose between exposing lies and documenting ignorance or devoting space and time to important policy and economic issue, a responsible press can and should do both, and not fall into the trap of lapping up juicy rantings at the expense of leaving solid news behind.
It can and must be done, or America stands to lose a free and independent press. Not to mention abandoning First Amendment rights for all.
If not for Twitter, egregiously outrageous comments that are clearly false could be ignored. But when such things are posted by the man who has made himself chief twit and is now President-elect of the United States, whose rantings are followed by millions -- and believed by many -- the messages travel farther and faster than traditional news media can match, so it's journalism's responsibility to expose the postings for what they are: Either flat-out lies or proposals born of monumental ignorance.
The latest in the long series of Tweets posted by Donald Trump calls for jail time and withdrawal of citizenship for those who use flag-burning as a method of protest.
There is, of course, the issue of respect for the national emblem. But it's also true that the proper way to dispose of a flag that is old, threadbare, worn out and generally no longer able to be displayed with honor is this: Burn it. With respect, certainly, and do not just throw it in the trash bin.
The Supreme Court has ruled more than once that flag-burning by protestors, while distasteful to many, is at root related to free speech, and is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
At the same time, those who oppose this act of free speech also are prone to saying vile and vicious things about their political opponents, and demand the same right of free speech in defense of their actions.
You can't have it both ways. Free speech is a right for everyone, not just for those who agree with you.
As for cancelling someone's citizenship, the Supreme Court has ruled that simply cannot be done. Period. End of story. Anyway, how would you cancel citizenship for someone who was born in the U.S. to American parents, raised here, spent a lifetime here and believes in the right of free expression when disagreeing with a political twit?
Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue also, in two cases where the State Department tried to withdraw citizenship from a naturalized American. Can't do it, says SCOTUS.
Maybe it's time loyal Americans sent Trump copies of the Constitution. He may even read it. Then again, he may not, since it would interfere with his activities as Twitter in Chief. Or is it chief twit?
Meanwhile, an independent news media has a responsibility to expose the untruths, the misleading fabrications and insinuations if not downright lies perpetrated by this master of media manipulation.
As for having to choose between exposing lies and documenting ignorance or devoting space and time to important policy and economic issue, a responsible press can and should do both, and not fall into the trap of lapping up juicy rantings at the expense of leaving solid news behind.
It can and must be done, or America stands to lose a free and independent press. Not to mention abandoning First Amendment rights for all.
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
Government: Monitor or Partner?
News item: GDP grew by 3.2 percent in the third quarter of 2016, up from 1.4 percent in the second quarter.
Dismantle government and the nation will prosper, has been the underlying philosophy of conservative Republicans for generations. But for all the talk about reducing government interference with business, it's more likely that GOP control in Washington will lead to closer government partnerships with corporate America.
Nothing new here. That was the case in the 19th Century and early 20th Century, when the Republican Party dominated the federal government and encouraged and cooperated with business interests over those of the general public.
Students of history can cite a long list of examples where business interests used government help in major projects from start to finish. This cooperation including everything from railroad building to suppression of labor rights.
In the guise of not interfering with private enterprise, government often became an enforcement arm to subdue public objection to abusive corporate tactics.
Now, following that same philosophy, the incoming Republican administration wants to dismantle many government programs, claiming that the economy in recent years has been wretched and only by cancelling government programs and reducing government spending can the economy recover.
History and recent events show otherwise.
Throughout the 20th Century and into the 21st Century, the American economy has stumbled or crashed during Republican administrations, and recovered when Democrats took over.
Highlights including the Great Depression, which began in 1929, the big stumble during the Reagan Administration, and the Great Recession during the second Bush Administration. Each time, Democrats inherited a severe economic problem and treated it, leading to recovery and growth.
This is true again this year, as the U.S. economy continued to grow, slowly at first, but accelerating so that the latest report from the Commerce Department showed an annual growth rate of 3.2 percent during the third quarter of this year.
Nevertheless, Republicans led by President-elect Donald Trump have continued their claim that the economy is a mess and only they can fix it.
How? By cutting taxes, which would reduce government revenue, and at the same time increasing government spending, which would increase the deficit and the national debt. It's the return of trickle-down Reaganomics, which teaches that improving income for the wealthy will encourage them to spend more, and the benefits will trickle down to the rest of the economy.
Eventually.
Meanwhile, a bigger worry is the effect of substantially less government monitoring of corporate activities that often cross the line of legality, coupled with increased government cooperation and involvement in business activities.
Leading the list will be Trump's myriad business ventures with their strong potential for conflict with government monitoring and inspection, not least of which is the looming practice of foreign governments renting space at Trump-owned hotels to ingratiate themselves with the President and thereby by influence his policy decisions.
Flatly unconstitutional, if not impeachable offenses.
Yet another example of a government-business joint venture would be the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act, as promised by Trump. But despite the ranting, the ACA, also known as Obamacare, is not likely to disappear. By requiring that everyone buy health insurance (with government help if needed), the act provides a business opportunity for the insurance industry.
Note that the industry itself has not raised objections to the ACA, for that very reason -- it increases their customer base, and thereby boosts their revenue.
The GOP, however, did oppose Obamacare, mainly because it was a Democratic plan. Ironically, it was based on a Republican plan begun in Massachusetts when Mitt Romney was governor.
Despite repeated promises by Trump to "repeal and replace" Obamacare, the President-elect has already begun backing away from that position, saying that some parts will remain. However, there are few specifics on what the rest of the plan would be.
So how about this: The mandate that everyone buy insurance will remain, but the government assistance part will be dropped, on the claim that it's too expensive.
Health care is too important to be left entirely to private enterprise. Why? Because before the start of government social welfare programs such as government-sponsored old age pensions (Social Security), job security and unemployment assistance, health care for retirees (Medicare), and health care for the poor and disabled (Medicaid), people died a lot.
By reducing or eliminating sponsorship of social welfare programs on the premise that they are inherently evil -- read, Communistic -- and that only private enterprise can do things for the best in this best of all possible worlds, a government that abandons its responsibility to the general public in favor of collusion with private enterprise can only invite chaos into society, enriching the few and putting leeches on the many.
Dismantling government, ending its role as monitor and doubling down on its cooperation with corporate America are three very bad ideas.
Dismantle government and the nation will prosper, has been the underlying philosophy of conservative Republicans for generations. But for all the talk about reducing government interference with business, it's more likely that GOP control in Washington will lead to closer government partnerships with corporate America.
Nothing new here. That was the case in the 19th Century and early 20th Century, when the Republican Party dominated the federal government and encouraged and cooperated with business interests over those of the general public.
Students of history can cite a long list of examples where business interests used government help in major projects from start to finish. This cooperation including everything from railroad building to suppression of labor rights.
In the guise of not interfering with private enterprise, government often became an enforcement arm to subdue public objection to abusive corporate tactics.
Now, following that same philosophy, the incoming Republican administration wants to dismantle many government programs, claiming that the economy in recent years has been wretched and only by cancelling government programs and reducing government spending can the economy recover.
History and recent events show otherwise.
Throughout the 20th Century and into the 21st Century, the American economy has stumbled or crashed during Republican administrations, and recovered when Democrats took over.
Highlights including the Great Depression, which began in 1929, the big stumble during the Reagan Administration, and the Great Recession during the second Bush Administration. Each time, Democrats inherited a severe economic problem and treated it, leading to recovery and growth.
This is true again this year, as the U.S. economy continued to grow, slowly at first, but accelerating so that the latest report from the Commerce Department showed an annual growth rate of 3.2 percent during the third quarter of this year.
Nevertheless, Republicans led by President-elect Donald Trump have continued their claim that the economy is a mess and only they can fix it.
How? By cutting taxes, which would reduce government revenue, and at the same time increasing government spending, which would increase the deficit and the national debt. It's the return of trickle-down Reaganomics, which teaches that improving income for the wealthy will encourage them to spend more, and the benefits will trickle down to the rest of the economy.
Eventually.
Meanwhile, a bigger worry is the effect of substantially less government monitoring of corporate activities that often cross the line of legality, coupled with increased government cooperation and involvement in business activities.
Leading the list will be Trump's myriad business ventures with their strong potential for conflict with government monitoring and inspection, not least of which is the looming practice of foreign governments renting space at Trump-owned hotels to ingratiate themselves with the President and thereby by influence his policy decisions.
Flatly unconstitutional, if not impeachable offenses.
Yet another example of a government-business joint venture would be the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act, as promised by Trump. But despite the ranting, the ACA, also known as Obamacare, is not likely to disappear. By requiring that everyone buy health insurance (with government help if needed), the act provides a business opportunity for the insurance industry.
Note that the industry itself has not raised objections to the ACA, for that very reason -- it increases their customer base, and thereby boosts their revenue.
The GOP, however, did oppose Obamacare, mainly because it was a Democratic plan. Ironically, it was based on a Republican plan begun in Massachusetts when Mitt Romney was governor.
Despite repeated promises by Trump to "repeal and replace" Obamacare, the President-elect has already begun backing away from that position, saying that some parts will remain. However, there are few specifics on what the rest of the plan would be.
So how about this: The mandate that everyone buy insurance will remain, but the government assistance part will be dropped, on the claim that it's too expensive.
Health care is too important to be left entirely to private enterprise. Why? Because before the start of government social welfare programs such as government-sponsored old age pensions (Social Security), job security and unemployment assistance, health care for retirees (Medicare), and health care for the poor and disabled (Medicaid), people died a lot.
By reducing or eliminating sponsorship of social welfare programs on the premise that they are inherently evil -- read, Communistic -- and that only private enterprise can do things for the best in this best of all possible worlds, a government that abandons its responsibility to the general public in favor of collusion with private enterprise can only invite chaos into society, enriching the few and putting leeches on the many.
Dismantling government, ending its role as monitor and doubling down on its cooperation with corporate America are three very bad ideas.
Monday, November 28, 2016
Irony and Hypocrisy
Irony is the unexpected, as in you think one thing will happen, but another does instead.
Hypocrisy is when a person says one thing but does the opposite.
Here are some examples from the current political news:
Donald Trump compiled enough electoral votes to win through to the presidency, but fell behind in the popular vote. Now he complains that he would have won a majority of the popular vote if there had not been "millions" of illegal voters.
It's ironic that even though he won, he still complains. And Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway criticizes "crybabies and sore losers" who propose a recount in three states.
Homeowners near a golf course he owns in Scotland refused to sell their property to him, so he built an earthen wall to block their view of the sea. (And sent them a bill.) Separately, there is a wind farm offshore near another of his golf courses, and he is demanding that the towers be taken down because they block his view of the sea.
That's hypocrisy. And, of course, there are the threats to build a wall along the U.S. southern border to keep out Mexicans.
Hypocrisy is when a person says one thing but does the opposite.
Here are some examples from the current political news:
Donald Trump compiled enough electoral votes to win through to the presidency, but fell behind in the popular vote. Now he complains that he would have won a majority of the popular vote if there had not been "millions" of illegal voters.
It's ironic that even though he won, he still complains. And Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway criticizes "crybabies and sore losers" who propose a recount in three states.
Homeowners near a golf course he owns in Scotland refused to sell their property to him, so he built an earthen wall to block their view of the sea. (And sent them a bill.) Separately, there is a wind farm offshore near another of his golf courses, and he is demanding that the towers be taken down because they block his view of the sea.
That's hypocrisy. And, of course, there are the threats to build a wall along the U.S. southern border to keep out Mexicans.
Sunday, November 27, 2016
School Daze
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Common sense is not common.
An educated public helps guarantee a safe and free society.
The nominee to take charge of the U.S. Department of Education favors a voucher system so parents can send their kids to whatever school they prefer, rather than rely on free neighborhood public schools.
If fully developed nationwide, this would effectively destroy an educational system that has worked well in America since the 17th Century, when the Pilgrims insisted that all children learn the Three R's -- reading, writing and arithmetic -- regardless of their ability to pay.
One argument for a school voucher system is that it gives all families a choice.
An argument against it is that it diminishes neighborhood schools, and gives a subsidy to families that don't need financial help.
Conservative dogma says private enterprise always does a better job than government, whatever the task or project. Common sense says otherwise.
There are some areas where privatization leads to destruction of a system that works, to be replaced by an enterprise where profit is the prime motive. Education is a leading example. Others include police and fire protection, road and bridge construction and maintenance, support for the jobless that includes helping them find work, and other social welfare programs such as health care and old age pensions.
But the incoming federal administration looks to dismantle or privatize all social welfare programs that go back some 80 years. And privatizing the entire education system would take down a system that has been in place for nearly 400 years.
In all, signs point to a government that uses the art of dealing from the bottom of the deck to issue trump cards that override programs in place for decades and turns them over to private enterprise whose primary motive is profit, not sharing.
Nothing prevents the wealthy from sending their children to private schools. But for those who cannot, publicly supported elementary and secondary education is essential, and guarantees a citizenry with the skills needed to support and participate in a free society.
An educated public is government's most important product.
Common sense is not common.
An educated public helps guarantee a safe and free society.
The nominee to take charge of the U.S. Department of Education favors a voucher system so parents can send their kids to whatever school they prefer, rather than rely on free neighborhood public schools.
If fully developed nationwide, this would effectively destroy an educational system that has worked well in America since the 17th Century, when the Pilgrims insisted that all children learn the Three R's -- reading, writing and arithmetic -- regardless of their ability to pay.
One argument for a school voucher system is that it gives all families a choice.
An argument against it is that it diminishes neighborhood schools, and gives a subsidy to families that don't need financial help.
Conservative dogma says private enterprise always does a better job than government, whatever the task or project. Common sense says otherwise.
There are some areas where privatization leads to destruction of a system that works, to be replaced by an enterprise where profit is the prime motive. Education is a leading example. Others include police and fire protection, road and bridge construction and maintenance, support for the jobless that includes helping them find work, and other social welfare programs such as health care and old age pensions.
But the incoming federal administration looks to dismantle or privatize all social welfare programs that go back some 80 years. And privatizing the entire education system would take down a system that has been in place for nearly 400 years.
In all, signs point to a government that uses the art of dealing from the bottom of the deck to issue trump cards that override programs in place for decades and turns them over to private enterprise whose primary motive is profit, not sharing.
Nothing prevents the wealthy from sending their children to private schools. But for those who cannot, publicly supported elementary and secondary education is essential, and guarantees a citizenry with the skills needed to support and participate in a free society.
An educated public is government's most important product.
Saturday, November 26, 2016
Resignation Speculation
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave ... " -- Walter Scott
"Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi
"When the President does it, it's not illegal." -- Richard M. Nixon
"The law is totally on my side, meaning, the President can't have a conflict of interest." -- Donald Trump
That last comment can be interpreted two ways. Trump seems to believe that a conflict is not possible, echoing Nixon's statement. Equally, it can be read as meaning conflicts are forbidden.
What are the odds that Donald Trump will step aside before January 20 and not be inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States?
He could still say he won, which to him is the most important part of the game of life, then leave the stadium before the hard part actually begins.
Given the choice of running his many business ventures worldwide without getting tangled in a web of projects sponsored by other governments that would pay his organization, thus violating the U.S. Constitution, or giving up all connections to his many business ventures may well be a tough choice to make.
Can he do both?
Possible, but not likely.
There is no law that says he must give up his business interests. But if he does not, and is caught accepting payments of any kind from a foreign state, he would be guilty of violating the Constitution. Further, such payments could be construed as bribes, which are grounds for impeachment.
Later, after impeachment, trial and conviction, he would be removed from office. At that point, he could face further legal entanglements in civil or criminal court. This would not be double jeopardy, since impeachment is neither a civil nor a criminal matter.
So rather than endanger his many business connections -- and sources of revenue -- he could decide that discretion might be the better path to follow, and maintain that he was stepping aside for the sake of national unity and not burden the presidency with distractions.
He has already taken one step in that direction, however, in settling the Trump University case. He will shell out $25 million to stop that fraud case, thereby avoiding the risk of having to testify in court while in the Oval Office of the White House. Total damages sought in that case came to some $40 million, prompting our resident cynic to say he's already $15 million to the good. In addition, the $25 million payout can be a tax deduction.
There are still dozens more civil cases pending against him and his various companies, however, and some of them could require court testimony.
So between dealing with court cases against him and avoiding charges of taking forbidden payoffs -- emoluments, the Constitution calls them -- a President Trump would have a very busy term.
To avoid all that, and devote all his time to fending off legal challenges, preserving his business ventures and his personal fortune, he would have to fix his priorities. The question being, which is more important, maintaining control of the Trump Organization or being President.
There is a good case to made that he can't have both.
"Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi
"When the President does it, it's not illegal." -- Richard M. Nixon
"The law is totally on my side, meaning, the President can't have a conflict of interest." -- Donald Trump
That last comment can be interpreted two ways. Trump seems to believe that a conflict is not possible, echoing Nixon's statement. Equally, it can be read as meaning conflicts are forbidden.
What are the odds that Donald Trump will step aside before January 20 and not be inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States?
He could still say he won, which to him is the most important part of the game of life, then leave the stadium before the hard part actually begins.
Given the choice of running his many business ventures worldwide without getting tangled in a web of projects sponsored by other governments that would pay his organization, thus violating the U.S. Constitution, or giving up all connections to his many business ventures may well be a tough choice to make.
Can he do both?
Possible, but not likely.
There is no law that says he must give up his business interests. But if he does not, and is caught accepting payments of any kind from a foreign state, he would be guilty of violating the Constitution. Further, such payments could be construed as bribes, which are grounds for impeachment.
Later, after impeachment, trial and conviction, he would be removed from office. At that point, he could face further legal entanglements in civil or criminal court. This would not be double jeopardy, since impeachment is neither a civil nor a criminal matter.
So rather than endanger his many business connections -- and sources of revenue -- he could decide that discretion might be the better path to follow, and maintain that he was stepping aside for the sake of national unity and not burden the presidency with distractions.
He has already taken one step in that direction, however, in settling the Trump University case. He will shell out $25 million to stop that fraud case, thereby avoiding the risk of having to testify in court while in the Oval Office of the White House. Total damages sought in that case came to some $40 million, prompting our resident cynic to say he's already $15 million to the good. In addition, the $25 million payout can be a tax deduction.
There are still dozens more civil cases pending against him and his various companies, however, and some of them could require court testimony.
So between dealing with court cases against him and avoiding charges of taking forbidden payoffs -- emoluments, the Constitution calls them -- a President Trump would have a very busy term.
To avoid all that, and devote all his time to fending off legal challenges, preserving his business ventures and his personal fortune, he would have to fix his priorities. The question being, which is more important, maintaining control of the Trump Organization or being President.
There is a good case to made that he can't have both.
Friday, November 25, 2016
The Class System in America
The rich are different from you and me.
Yes. They have more money.
Whether that conversation really occurred between F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway is doubtful, but it does summarize some of the difficulty Americans have when talking about social levels.
(Here's a link to some background on this mythical exchange, and how it came to be: http://www.quotecounterquote.com/2009/11/rich-are-different-famous-quote.html.)
The reality is that, officially at least, there is no class system in America. The nation does not have an aristocracy, though some in the wealthiest 1 percent seem to believe they deserve special treatment and deference simply because they are wealthy.
In the heat of political and social competition, the motto set in the Declaration of Independence that all are created equal is too often forgotten. Meanwhile, here are a few more mottoes to consider:
Nobody in this country can walk all over you unless you lie down and let 'em.
You may be richer, but that doesn't make you better.
Many of the super-rich, however, subscribe to the motto used in the book "Animal Farm," by George Orwell: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
In any case, whatever passes as a class system in America is based more on money than on birth. The concept of class originated in Europe, and was spelled out in France during the 18th Century, in categories called estates.
There were four of them:
-- The aristocracy, consisting of those who were born to it.
-- The bourgeoisie, or the wealthy merchant and business class.
-- Farmers and laborers, or the working class, a term still used in America.
-- Journalists, who are still known as the Fourth Estate.
So while theoretically there is no official class system in a democratic society, the reality is that many in the several levels of society act as if there is, and that perception is based largely on wealth. Whether that's as it should be remains an open question.
Yes. They have more money.
Whether that conversation really occurred between F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway is doubtful, but it does summarize some of the difficulty Americans have when talking about social levels.
(Here's a link to some background on this mythical exchange, and how it came to be: http://www.quotecounterquote.com/2009/11/rich-are-different-famous-quote.html.)
The reality is that, officially at least, there is no class system in America. The nation does not have an aristocracy, though some in the wealthiest 1 percent seem to believe they deserve special treatment and deference simply because they are wealthy.
In the heat of political and social competition, the motto set in the Declaration of Independence that all are created equal is too often forgotten. Meanwhile, here are a few more mottoes to consider:
Nobody in this country can walk all over you unless you lie down and let 'em.
You may be richer, but that doesn't make you better.
Many of the super-rich, however, subscribe to the motto used in the book "Animal Farm," by George Orwell: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
In any case, whatever passes as a class system in America is based more on money than on birth. The concept of class originated in Europe, and was spelled out in France during the 18th Century, in categories called estates.
There were four of them:
-- The aristocracy, consisting of those who were born to it.
-- The bourgeoisie, or the wealthy merchant and business class.
-- Farmers and laborers, or the working class, a term still used in America.
-- Journalists, who are still known as the Fourth Estate.
So while theoretically there is no official class system in a democratic society, the reality is that many in the several levels of society act as if there is, and that perception is based largely on wealth. Whether that's as it should be remains an open question.
Tuesday, November 22, 2016
Nitpicking and Impeachable Offences
Donald Trump will not be the 45th person to occupy the Oval Office, as referred to by a panelist on MSNBC Sunday evening. He will be the 45th President, but only 43 persons have occupied the Oval Office, one of whom was not elected either President or Vice President.
Why the different numbers? Because Grover Cleveland was elected for two terms but they were not consecutive. He was elected to be the 22d President, but four years later lost to Benjamin Harrison, who served as the 23d President. Cleveland then returned to the Oval Office after defeating Harrison, to become the 24th President.
Secondly, Gerald Ford was not elected to either the vice presidency or the presidency. He was speaker of the House when Spiro Agnew resigned, so Ford moved up to the vice presidency, and then to the presidency when Richard Nixon resigned.
This year, the President-elect has begun backing away from some of his campaign promises, especially those that have little or no real chance of working. This includes a vow to imprison Hillary Clinton. The FBI and Congressional investigations have not found sufficient evidence to proceed with criminal prosecutions. In addition, a President does not have direct authority to investigate alleged wrongdoing. He can appoint a special prosecutor to deal with the case, but numerous others have already been down that investigative road and found it empty.
He also tried to back out of a meeting with staff journalists at the New York Times, claiming that the newspaper tried to change the ground rules at the last minute. The Times denied that, saying it was the Trump team that wanted to switch to an off-the-record talk, but the newspaper refused.
Earlier, several prominent TV news hosts attended an off-the-record meeting with the President-elect, but were treated to a tongue-lashing for what Trump called their biased and unfair reporting. Somehow, other news outlets found out what was said, even as the broadcast folk kept to their agreement.
Meanwhile, Trump has yet to hold a general press conference, which has been standard for winners to do within a few days of their election victory. When or whether Trump will host such a meeting with reporters is an open question.
Trump was successful during the campaign in dominating news coverage with his sometimes theatrical performances. They made "good copy" as the newsroom saying goes, but journalists eventually realized that they were being used.
But the big story finally reaching the print and broadcast outlets is the problem of entanglements between Trump's worldwide business interests and decisions he might make as President.
He insists it's perfectly legal for him to continue to run his businesses while he is President, but he is putting management of the Trump Organization in the hands of his three eldest children and his son-in-law.
A blind trust it ain't.
Even so, when foreign states do business with a Trump-owned enterprise, there is a strong risk of violating the U.S. Constitution, which stipulates that no American official can accept payments of any kind from a foreign state or ruler. Specifically, it's called the "emoluments clause" of the Constitution, and it appears twice in that document.
So if officials from other nations pay rent to stay at a Trump-owned hotel, that can easily be seen as an "emolument" to the President. And if by doing so it curries favor with the President, that can be called bribery, which is an impeachable offence.
Expect journalists and the political opposition to keep a close eye on Trump's business dealings, especially with state-owned banks in other countries that hold mortgages on Trump properties, as well as construction projects and other ventures done in collaboration with foreign governments.
Possible consequences: Impeachment, conviction and removal from office. And the tabloid headline will be "Congress to Prez: You're Fired."
Why the different numbers? Because Grover Cleveland was elected for two terms but they were not consecutive. He was elected to be the 22d President, but four years later lost to Benjamin Harrison, who served as the 23d President. Cleveland then returned to the Oval Office after defeating Harrison, to become the 24th President.
Secondly, Gerald Ford was not elected to either the vice presidency or the presidency. He was speaker of the House when Spiro Agnew resigned, so Ford moved up to the vice presidency, and then to the presidency when Richard Nixon resigned.
This year, the President-elect has begun backing away from some of his campaign promises, especially those that have little or no real chance of working. This includes a vow to imprison Hillary Clinton. The FBI and Congressional investigations have not found sufficient evidence to proceed with criminal prosecutions. In addition, a President does not have direct authority to investigate alleged wrongdoing. He can appoint a special prosecutor to deal with the case, but numerous others have already been down that investigative road and found it empty.
He also tried to back out of a meeting with staff journalists at the New York Times, claiming that the newspaper tried to change the ground rules at the last minute. The Times denied that, saying it was the Trump team that wanted to switch to an off-the-record talk, but the newspaper refused.
Earlier, several prominent TV news hosts attended an off-the-record meeting with the President-elect, but were treated to a tongue-lashing for what Trump called their biased and unfair reporting. Somehow, other news outlets found out what was said, even as the broadcast folk kept to their agreement.
Meanwhile, Trump has yet to hold a general press conference, which has been standard for winners to do within a few days of their election victory. When or whether Trump will host such a meeting with reporters is an open question.
Trump was successful during the campaign in dominating news coverage with his sometimes theatrical performances. They made "good copy" as the newsroom saying goes, but journalists eventually realized that they were being used.
But the big story finally reaching the print and broadcast outlets is the problem of entanglements between Trump's worldwide business interests and decisions he might make as President.
He insists it's perfectly legal for him to continue to run his businesses while he is President, but he is putting management of the Trump Organization in the hands of his three eldest children and his son-in-law.
A blind trust it ain't.
Even so, when foreign states do business with a Trump-owned enterprise, there is a strong risk of violating the U.S. Constitution, which stipulates that no American official can accept payments of any kind from a foreign state or ruler. Specifically, it's called the "emoluments clause" of the Constitution, and it appears twice in that document.
So if officials from other nations pay rent to stay at a Trump-owned hotel, that can easily be seen as an "emolument" to the President. And if by doing so it curries favor with the President, that can be called bribery, which is an impeachable offence.
Expect journalists and the political opposition to keep a close eye on Trump's business dealings, especially with state-owned banks in other countries that hold mortgages on Trump properties, as well as construction projects and other ventures done in collaboration with foreign governments.
Possible consequences: Impeachment, conviction and removal from office. And the tabloid headline will be "Congress to Prez: You're Fired."
Sunday, November 20, 2016
Satire, Sarcasm and Fake News
Believability is the essence of responsible news media.
Satire is a potent literary weapon, and in skilled hands it can bring about social and political change even as it entertains and educates.
When well done, satire can translate a complex issue to a level easily understandable by all. But when done by the less skilled and mean-spirited, satire can become merely a vicious attack, with no entertainment or educational value, and only ignites and fans the flames of hatred.
At the same time, satirists may antagonize their targets without arousing entertainment for a general audience. When this happens, particularly if the target is politically powerful, satirists risk persecution, prosecution and prison even if they have broken no law. In some countries, dictatorial regimes have enacted laws banning any criticism of government, making satire a felony.
Powerful people can be very thin-skinned and super-sensitive to disagreement, which to them is criticism and a personal attack. This is why the framers of the U.S. Constitution put in writing a guarantee that there be no law restricting freedom of speech or of the press.
Realistically, however, there are some restrictions that were already in place before the Constitution was written, and remain in place today. A major such restriction is the law of libel, which protects a person from false and malicious attacks that damage a reputation.
Yet even here there are exceptions. One of these deals with open debate on issues of serious interest to the public. This is why lawyers in open court can say the outrageous things they do in search of truth. A similar standard applies in Congress, and during political campaigns.
In addition, those who become public figures may also become targets of criticism simply because they are public figures.
Satire and sarcasm often work together to attract attention and point out flaws in a political process or the actions of a prominent individual. It's called "fair comment."
In literature, the tactic goes as far back as Geoffrey Chaucer, William Shakespeare and Jonathon Swift.
Currently, the TV performers on "Saturday Night Live" use satire regularly to comment on political candidates of every persuasion. Some, however, are more sensitive to criticism than others. So biting have the comedians become in some of their skits that some targets of their satire have threatened to sue. They view satire as a personal attack, and want to loosen libel laws so they can win money.
Realistically, satirical sketches can indeed be viewed as personal attacks. But some people just can't take a joke. And the more they protest, the more they likely they will be targets of additional satire, plus sarcasm from media commentators.
Mixed in with all this is the increase of fake news, or false information masquerading as legitimate news reports. Those who do it may defend it as satire or sarcasm, but at root the items are no more than deliberate attempts to undermine political opposition by spreading misleading and downright false information.
Viewed that way, the spread of false reports presented as news, often mimicking legitimate news sources, is a deliberate attempt to sabotage and destroy someone's reputation.
Hiding behind the First Amendment and thereby claiming immunity from prosecution in the name of promoting vigorous debate, all while remaining anonymous, is tantamount to cowardice.
There are no controls on electronic social media anymore than there are on back fence gossip.
It has been said that a lie can fly around the world before truth wakes up in the morning. Currently, liars have access to an interconnected network of computers that does indeed spread fake news around the world, literally in seconds. Truth is thus relegated to a constant game of catch-up.
Awake and alert news professionals now must beat back the pulp of lies with documented truth. And to the extent that providers of social media say they only build the platforms and are not monitors or editors of the written content, they become part of the problem.
Technically, they may be correct. They are not editors or censors. But they may have to assume some responsibility for the misinformation spread from their platforms, just as newspaper owners are responsible for what appears in their print pages.
But until that problem is resolved, Internet subscribers, readers and views of material on social media web sites have a responsibility to judge the reliability of the source, just as they decide on the believability quotient of newspapers, magazines and TV programs.
Satire is a potent literary weapon, and in skilled hands it can bring about social and political change even as it entertains and educates.
When well done, satire can translate a complex issue to a level easily understandable by all. But when done by the less skilled and mean-spirited, satire can become merely a vicious attack, with no entertainment or educational value, and only ignites and fans the flames of hatred.
At the same time, satirists may antagonize their targets without arousing entertainment for a general audience. When this happens, particularly if the target is politically powerful, satirists risk persecution, prosecution and prison even if they have broken no law. In some countries, dictatorial regimes have enacted laws banning any criticism of government, making satire a felony.
Powerful people can be very thin-skinned and super-sensitive to disagreement, which to them is criticism and a personal attack. This is why the framers of the U.S. Constitution put in writing a guarantee that there be no law restricting freedom of speech or of the press.
Realistically, however, there are some restrictions that were already in place before the Constitution was written, and remain in place today. A major such restriction is the law of libel, which protects a person from false and malicious attacks that damage a reputation.
Yet even here there are exceptions. One of these deals with open debate on issues of serious interest to the public. This is why lawyers in open court can say the outrageous things they do in search of truth. A similar standard applies in Congress, and during political campaigns.
In addition, those who become public figures may also become targets of criticism simply because they are public figures.
Satire and sarcasm often work together to attract attention and point out flaws in a political process or the actions of a prominent individual. It's called "fair comment."
In literature, the tactic goes as far back as Geoffrey Chaucer, William Shakespeare and Jonathon Swift.
Currently, the TV performers on "Saturday Night Live" use satire regularly to comment on political candidates of every persuasion. Some, however, are more sensitive to criticism than others. So biting have the comedians become in some of their skits that some targets of their satire have threatened to sue. They view satire as a personal attack, and want to loosen libel laws so they can win money.
Realistically, satirical sketches can indeed be viewed as personal attacks. But some people just can't take a joke. And the more they protest, the more they likely they will be targets of additional satire, plus sarcasm from media commentators.
Mixed in with all this is the increase of fake news, or false information masquerading as legitimate news reports. Those who do it may defend it as satire or sarcasm, but at root the items are no more than deliberate attempts to undermine political opposition by spreading misleading and downright false information.
Viewed that way, the spread of false reports presented as news, often mimicking legitimate news sources, is a deliberate attempt to sabotage and destroy someone's reputation.
Hiding behind the First Amendment and thereby claiming immunity from prosecution in the name of promoting vigorous debate, all while remaining anonymous, is tantamount to cowardice.
There are no controls on electronic social media anymore than there are on back fence gossip.
It has been said that a lie can fly around the world before truth wakes up in the morning. Currently, liars have access to an interconnected network of computers that does indeed spread fake news around the world, literally in seconds. Truth is thus relegated to a constant game of catch-up.
Awake and alert news professionals now must beat back the pulp of lies with documented truth. And to the extent that providers of social media say they only build the platforms and are not monitors or editors of the written content, they become part of the problem.
Technically, they may be correct. They are not editors or censors. But they may have to assume some responsibility for the misinformation spread from their platforms, just as newspaper owners are responsible for what appears in their print pages.
But until that problem is resolved, Internet subscribers, readers and views of material on social media web sites have a responsibility to judge the reliability of the source, just as they decide on the believability quotient of newspapers, magazines and TV programs.
Saturday, November 19, 2016
Heroic Assumptions
A basic assumption of Economics 101 is that people make rational decisions about how they utilize resources available to them. This, however, comes from another assumption -- that people are rational. Indeed, sometimes they are, but often they are not.
Another heroic assumption is that the stock market is a barometer of the nation's economy, and thus predicts when, where and how consumers will spend their money, and on what. Perhaps a better metaphor would be that investors on Wall Street comprise a thermometer, and reflect the rise or fall of the public's propensity to buy or sell stuff.
Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, used the phrase "irrational exuberance" to describe investor behavior during the dot.com bubble of the 1990s. And Robert Shiller also used it as the title of his book on behavioral economics.
While early studies of the "abysmal science" focused on the premise that people were rational and made rational decisions, more recent observations have changed that outlook.
Scientists have long used assumptions to develop theories, which then are applied to reality to check on their validity. Economics, however, is not a pure science, as can be said of chemistry or physics. It is a social science, and deals with human behavior, using the assumption that human do indeed behave rationally often enough to justify some of the theoretical assumptions.
'Tain't so, McGee. At least, not always.
People often react to circumstances and events through their emotions. But emotions -- such as fear and love -- are not rational. If they were, they wouldn't be emotions.
Granted, people give reasons for their behavior, and in some circumstances -- being charged by a rogue elephant or attacked by a rabid wolf, for instance -- the emotion of fear is well founded.
Nonetheless, fear remains an emotion, even as victims of the attack rationalize their fear by citing the behavior of other creatures. That, however, is done from observing what actually is happening, not from speculating on what might happen. Then again, it might not.
Speculating is a very useful strategy, when based on observable qualities and events that would, assuming nothing else changes, lead to a new situation.
And there lies the classic assumption of Economics 101 -- the ceteris paribus assumption, from the Latin for "other things equal."
That, however, can become a heroic assumption, that other things will remain on par with each other and there will be no changes.
But history shows that people -- their actions, attitudes and customs -- do indeed change, sometimes slowly over a long period, and sometimes radically swiftly.
As every investor knows, past performance is no guarantee of future returns. But it can be a useful gauge, applicable to horse races as well as to the stock market.
The same can be said of political candidates.
Another heroic assumption is that the stock market is a barometer of the nation's economy, and thus predicts when, where and how consumers will spend their money, and on what. Perhaps a better metaphor would be that investors on Wall Street comprise a thermometer, and reflect the rise or fall of the public's propensity to buy or sell stuff.
Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, used the phrase "irrational exuberance" to describe investor behavior during the dot.com bubble of the 1990s. And Robert Shiller also used it as the title of his book on behavioral economics.
While early studies of the "abysmal science" focused on the premise that people were rational and made rational decisions, more recent observations have changed that outlook.
Scientists have long used assumptions to develop theories, which then are applied to reality to check on their validity. Economics, however, is not a pure science, as can be said of chemistry or physics. It is a social science, and deals with human behavior, using the assumption that human do indeed behave rationally often enough to justify some of the theoretical assumptions.
'Tain't so, McGee. At least, not always.
People often react to circumstances and events through their emotions. But emotions -- such as fear and love -- are not rational. If they were, they wouldn't be emotions.
Granted, people give reasons for their behavior, and in some circumstances -- being charged by a rogue elephant or attacked by a rabid wolf, for instance -- the emotion of fear is well founded.
Nonetheless, fear remains an emotion, even as victims of the attack rationalize their fear by citing the behavior of other creatures. That, however, is done from observing what actually is happening, not from speculating on what might happen. Then again, it might not.
Speculating is a very useful strategy, when based on observable qualities and events that would, assuming nothing else changes, lead to a new situation.
And there lies the classic assumption of Economics 101 -- the ceteris paribus assumption, from the Latin for "other things equal."
That, however, can become a heroic assumption, that other things will remain on par with each other and there will be no changes.
But history shows that people -- their actions, attitudes and customs -- do indeed change, sometimes slowly over a long period, and sometimes radically swiftly.
As every investor knows, past performance is no guarantee of future returns. But it can be a useful gauge, applicable to horse races as well as to the stock market.
The same can be said of political candidates.
Friday, November 18, 2016
Mandate?
Throughout the country, no region had an unemployment rate significantly different from the nationwide rate of 4.9 percent in October, according to the U.S. Labor Department.
New England had the lowest jobless rate, 3.9 percent, and the Middle Atlantic and Pacific states the highest, 5.4 percent.
At the same time, payroll employment rose in 31 states and the District of Columbia compared to a year ago. Only two states -- Wyoming and South Dakota -- had significant over-the-year declines in employment, the Labor Department reported.
Now compare these official figures to the campaign complaints that the nation was hemorrhaging jobs and that only the Republican nominee, Donald Trump, can stop the problem. For whatever reason, the speechifying worked, and Trump was elected President.
Moreover, his surrogates are claiming a "mandate" from voters endorsing his claim that Trump is "the only one who can fix" a broken system.
But Trump fell behind Democrat Hillary Clinton by more than a million votes, and Democrats gained seats in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Republicans now will have a majority in the Senate and House, but only barely, and Republican Trump will occupy the White House only because he gathered a majority of electoral votes. This even as he complained repeatedly that the system was "rigged" against him.
But if he won, how is it that the system was rigged?
Maybe because his team learned the ropes and how to arrange the rigging so he won. When more than 60 million Americans voted against him, outvoting those who favored Trump by more than one million, that's not already a mandate.
Want an example of a real mandate? Alf Landon got just eight electoral votes when he ran against Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936.
Separately, the President-elect has vowed to cut taxes and increase government spending to rescue what he claims is a fading economy.
Consider: Less revenue and more spending equals bankruptcy. But while Trump may have been an expert in using bankruptcy proceedings to enrich himself even as his business ventures went broke, that strategy cannot work on a national level.
Reducing taxes on the wealthy in the hope that the change will eventually trickle down to benefit everyone else didn't work in the Reagan era, and it's not going to work now.
It will, however, widen the gap between the super-rich and the average wage earner. It did so then, and it will again next year if Reaganomics returns in the guise of Trumpian economics.
The American economy has in fact been recovering, however slowly, for several years. To make radical changes in government economic policy now can only lead to disaster on a scale comparable to 1929 and the subsequent Great Depression.
Look for disaster to strike the American economy within a year of Trumponomics being enacted.
New England had the lowest jobless rate, 3.9 percent, and the Middle Atlantic and Pacific states the highest, 5.4 percent.
At the same time, payroll employment rose in 31 states and the District of Columbia compared to a year ago. Only two states -- Wyoming and South Dakota -- had significant over-the-year declines in employment, the Labor Department reported.
Now compare these official figures to the campaign complaints that the nation was hemorrhaging jobs and that only the Republican nominee, Donald Trump, can stop the problem. For whatever reason, the speechifying worked, and Trump was elected President.
Moreover, his surrogates are claiming a "mandate" from voters endorsing his claim that Trump is "the only one who can fix" a broken system.
But Trump fell behind Democrat Hillary Clinton by more than a million votes, and Democrats gained seats in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Republicans now will have a majority in the Senate and House, but only barely, and Republican Trump will occupy the White House only because he gathered a majority of electoral votes. This even as he complained repeatedly that the system was "rigged" against him.
But if he won, how is it that the system was rigged?
Maybe because his team learned the ropes and how to arrange the rigging so he won. When more than 60 million Americans voted against him, outvoting those who favored Trump by more than one million, that's not already a mandate.
Want an example of a real mandate? Alf Landon got just eight electoral votes when he ran against Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936.
Separately, the President-elect has vowed to cut taxes and increase government spending to rescue what he claims is a fading economy.
Consider: Less revenue and more spending equals bankruptcy. But while Trump may have been an expert in using bankruptcy proceedings to enrich himself even as his business ventures went broke, that strategy cannot work on a national level.
Reducing taxes on the wealthy in the hope that the change will eventually trickle down to benefit everyone else didn't work in the Reagan era, and it's not going to work now.
It will, however, widen the gap between the super-rich and the average wage earner. It did so then, and it will again next year if Reaganomics returns in the guise of Trumpian economics.
The American economy has in fact been recovering, however slowly, for several years. To make radical changes in government economic policy now can only lead to disaster on a scale comparable to 1929 and the subsequent Great Depression.
Look for disaster to strike the American economy within a year of Trumponomics being enacted.
Thursday, November 17, 2016
Fake News
"Who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?" -- Chico Marx
The Constitution guarantees free speech and a free press. It does not guarantee a fair or even competent press. However, most major news media try their best to be both.
There are, of course, some that are biased to the point of being propaganda arms of certain organizations, but historically they have been limited in their circulation by practical matters such as production and distribution costs of paper-based publications, as well as licensing restrictions by government agencies requiring broadcast outlets to provide at least some attempt at balanced coverage. There are also investment costs in setting up a radio or television operation, plus the practical geographical limits on how many people they can reach.
All that, however, has been overtaken by social media and the Internet. Anyone with access to a computer and a minimum of technical skill can perpetrate the most outlandish of ideas and stories posing as truth when there is no relation at all to fact or reality.
Nevertheless, for reasons of their own, people do that, and for other reasons known best to themselves, political campaign teams, for example, copy and pass to their followers stories that are blatantly false. Why? When it comes to damaging the reputations of their opponents, anything goes. No attempts are made by political operatives to verify the accusations.
By the time someone with a smidgen of responsibility objects to the posting and the text deleted, the damage has been done, as millions of their followers copy and forward the false report to others.
Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, has declined any responsibility for this kind of content flaring around the world, noting that Facebook is a tech company, not an editing company.
This is true as far as it goes. But the reality is that it doesn't go very far.
Traditional news outlets face the consequences of libel lawsuits when they publish false stories that damage a person's reputation when they do so with actual malice or a disregard for whether the information is true or not.
Those who use social news platforms to post false, misleading, slanderous and libelous stories about others conceivably would face similar consequences. But first they would have to be found, identified and prosecuted.
Unfortunately, the perpetrators of fake news hide behind labels nearly identical to legitimate news outlets, and file their postings from countries unreachable by American enforcers.
In addition, libel laws in the U.S. are predominantly state statutes, not federal.
Perhaps it's time for Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms to recognize they have a role in monitoring what is posted on their sites.
This is not censorship. It's called editing, and can be a way to protect not only the company from being accused of participating in libel and slander, but also assures the general public that lies, slander, bigotry and libel will not be tolerated in a democratic society.
Free speech is one thing, and includes the right to criticize politicians, government officials, corporate executives and any perpetrators of wrongdoing.
Deliberately spreading lies and hiding behind a technological wall while doing so is quite another thing, however, and must not be tolerated.
The Constitution guarantees free speech and a free press. It does not guarantee a fair or even competent press. However, most major news media try their best to be both.
There are, of course, some that are biased to the point of being propaganda arms of certain organizations, but historically they have been limited in their circulation by practical matters such as production and distribution costs of paper-based publications, as well as licensing restrictions by government agencies requiring broadcast outlets to provide at least some attempt at balanced coverage. There are also investment costs in setting up a radio or television operation, plus the practical geographical limits on how many people they can reach.
All that, however, has been overtaken by social media and the Internet. Anyone with access to a computer and a minimum of technical skill can perpetrate the most outlandish of ideas and stories posing as truth when there is no relation at all to fact or reality.
Nevertheless, for reasons of their own, people do that, and for other reasons known best to themselves, political campaign teams, for example, copy and pass to their followers stories that are blatantly false. Why? When it comes to damaging the reputations of their opponents, anything goes. No attempts are made by political operatives to verify the accusations.
By the time someone with a smidgen of responsibility objects to the posting and the text deleted, the damage has been done, as millions of their followers copy and forward the false report to others.
Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, has declined any responsibility for this kind of content flaring around the world, noting that Facebook is a tech company, not an editing company.
This is true as far as it goes. But the reality is that it doesn't go very far.
Traditional news outlets face the consequences of libel lawsuits when they publish false stories that damage a person's reputation when they do so with actual malice or a disregard for whether the information is true or not.
Those who use social news platforms to post false, misleading, slanderous and libelous stories about others conceivably would face similar consequences. But first they would have to be found, identified and prosecuted.
Unfortunately, the perpetrators of fake news hide behind labels nearly identical to legitimate news outlets, and file their postings from countries unreachable by American enforcers.
In addition, libel laws in the U.S. are predominantly state statutes, not federal.
Perhaps it's time for Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms to recognize they have a role in monitoring what is posted on their sites.
This is not censorship. It's called editing, and can be a way to protect not only the company from being accused of participating in libel and slander, but also assures the general public that lies, slander, bigotry and libel will not be tolerated in a democratic society.
Free speech is one thing, and includes the right to criticize politicians, government officials, corporate executives and any perpetrators of wrongdoing.
Deliberately spreading lies and hiding behind a technological wall while doing so is quite another thing, however, and must not be tolerated.
Reality Check
Oops. "Never mind." -- Gilda Radner as Roseanne Roseannadanna, "Saturday Night Live."
The President-elect has promised he will bring back jobs, close the border, send immigrants home, and reduce corporate taxes to encourage American companies to close their overseas operations and return home, all part of hit master plan to "make America great again."
It all sounded good, and helped to get Donald Trump elected to the presidency of the United States. When that's in place, there will be "a flood of companies leaving Ireland and Canada and Germany and France and they are going to come back to the United States," according to Stephen Moore, senior economic advisor to Trump, in an interview published in the Irish Times.
Now comes the reality. The Trump plan, according to the Irish Times business and tech writer Karlin Lillington, "reveals a surprising lack of global business knowledge and understanding, especially for a supposedly business-focused administration and candidate."
The report listed numerous reasons why the Trump plan is unworkable. Here are a few:
First, cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent won't matter, since the Irish corporate tax rate is 12.5 percent.
Second, many multinational firms have only nominal headquarters in Ireland to take advantage of the tax structure, and have only a handful of employees. That's a similar reason many U.S. firms are headquartered in Delaware, but all their operations are elsewhere.
Third, major tech firms locate operations in other countries to be close to their customers.
Fourth, these firms want workers with close understanding of the language, culture and customs of the customers, and the best way to accomplish that is to hire local workers with those skills.
Fifth, relocating all those workers to the U.S. would be silly, since it would put a greater distance -- perhaps five or six times zones -- away from their clients.
Sixth, asking them to emigrate from their homes would clash with the announced Trump plan to slow or stop immigration.
Seventh, there are not enough people in America with the needed technical, linguistic and cultural knowledge to fill the positions even if the jobs did come back.
Eighth, even if the workers with the needed skills were willing to transfer to U.S. facilities, why would they want to, when living expenses are so much higher in America? They would rather stay home.
There's nothing new there. Historically, the reason people left home and moved to America was because this was where the jobs were.
In short, many high-tech jobs are long gone from America, and they're not coming back. Cutting taxes won't be enough, and asking workers to go someplace where they will face intense bigotry is foolish on its face.
Similar factors apply to other jobs in manufacturing industries. Companies relocate to regions where workers are available and wages are lower. That happened to the textile industry in New England, when they relocated to the Carolinas, and eventually moved again out of the U.S. to other countries where costs were lower.
Every business executive with any basic knowledge of economics knows this.
One wonders whether members of Team Trump know what everyone else knows well.
Here's a link to the full report in the Irish Times:
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/donald-trump-s-team-reveals-surprising-lack-of-global-business-knowledge-1.2870459
The President-elect has promised he will bring back jobs, close the border, send immigrants home, and reduce corporate taxes to encourage American companies to close their overseas operations and return home, all part of hit master plan to "make America great again."
It all sounded good, and helped to get Donald Trump elected to the presidency of the United States. When that's in place, there will be "a flood of companies leaving Ireland and Canada and Germany and France and they are going to come back to the United States," according to Stephen Moore, senior economic advisor to Trump, in an interview published in the Irish Times.
Now comes the reality. The Trump plan, according to the Irish Times business and tech writer Karlin Lillington, "reveals a surprising lack of global business knowledge and understanding, especially for a supposedly business-focused administration and candidate."
The report listed numerous reasons why the Trump plan is unworkable. Here are a few:
First, cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent won't matter, since the Irish corporate tax rate is 12.5 percent.
Second, many multinational firms have only nominal headquarters in Ireland to take advantage of the tax structure, and have only a handful of employees. That's a similar reason many U.S. firms are headquartered in Delaware, but all their operations are elsewhere.
Third, major tech firms locate operations in other countries to be close to their customers.
Fourth, these firms want workers with close understanding of the language, culture and customs of the customers, and the best way to accomplish that is to hire local workers with those skills.
Fifth, relocating all those workers to the U.S. would be silly, since it would put a greater distance -- perhaps five or six times zones -- away from their clients.
Sixth, asking them to emigrate from their homes would clash with the announced Trump plan to slow or stop immigration.
Seventh, there are not enough people in America with the needed technical, linguistic and cultural knowledge to fill the positions even if the jobs did come back.
Eighth, even if the workers with the needed skills were willing to transfer to U.S. facilities, why would they want to, when living expenses are so much higher in America? They would rather stay home.
There's nothing new there. Historically, the reason people left home and moved to America was because this was where the jobs were.
In short, many high-tech jobs are long gone from America, and they're not coming back. Cutting taxes won't be enough, and asking workers to go someplace where they will face intense bigotry is foolish on its face.
Similar factors apply to other jobs in manufacturing industries. Companies relocate to regions where workers are available and wages are lower. That happened to the textile industry in New England, when they relocated to the Carolinas, and eventually moved again out of the U.S. to other countries where costs were lower.
Every business executive with any basic knowledge of economics knows this.
One wonders whether members of Team Trump know what everyone else knows well.
Here's a link to the full report in the Irish Times:
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/donald-trump-s-team-reveals-surprising-lack-of-global-business-knowledge-1.2870459
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
Yammer, Yammer, Yammer
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." -- Shakespeare
"Ignore the premise of the question." -- Chief of Staff Leo McGarry on the fictional TV series "The West Wing."
Politicians and the surrogates have long practiced the strategy of dancing around or ignoring a reporter's question, no matter how direct. Now we're seeing a variation on that, as speakers talk longer, louder and say less. But TV interviewers are beginning to alter their own strategies to cope with the political yammering. They put the question again, noting that the response was a non-answer.
In the past, journalists maintained a politeness, waiting until the subject stopped talking. That, however, has recently become pointless, since not only was the premise of the question ignored, but the interviewee continued to talk at great length on something that was irrelevant and repetitious.
Consequently, news media hosts have taken to interrupting the political flack and insisting that the question be addressed. Even that, however, is difficult because the subject of the interview keeps talking.
The strategy seems to be that as long as they keep talking, they maintain control of the interview and they will control the news flow.
Journalists in general and TV news talk show hosts in particular have a tradition of being polite to their subjects, especially those holding political office.
However, that exposes them to a risk of being used as platforms for the political talking point of the day, regardless of the validity of the question.
That time is passing. Media folk have become aware that they are being manipulated and used as platforms for propaganda. By failing to stay on their mission of gathering and reporting information that the public needs to know, they are enabling politicians to erode their right of press freedom.
Controlling the news media is the first strategy on the road to full control of public action. When journalists surrender to politicians even partial control of what they report, they fail in their duty to voters.
Fortunately, there are signs that reporters have become aware that the yammering strategy has become standard for many politicians.
And at the risk of being called impolite, or worse, television journalists are refusing to allow politicians and their surrogates to take control.
"Ignore the premise of the question." -- Chief of Staff Leo McGarry on the fictional TV series "The West Wing."
Politicians and the surrogates have long practiced the strategy of dancing around or ignoring a reporter's question, no matter how direct. Now we're seeing a variation on that, as speakers talk longer, louder and say less. But TV interviewers are beginning to alter their own strategies to cope with the political yammering. They put the question again, noting that the response was a non-answer.
In the past, journalists maintained a politeness, waiting until the subject stopped talking. That, however, has recently become pointless, since not only was the premise of the question ignored, but the interviewee continued to talk at great length on something that was irrelevant and repetitious.
Consequently, news media hosts have taken to interrupting the political flack and insisting that the question be addressed. Even that, however, is difficult because the subject of the interview keeps talking.
The strategy seems to be that as long as they keep talking, they maintain control of the interview and they will control the news flow.
Journalists in general and TV news talk show hosts in particular have a tradition of being polite to their subjects, especially those holding political office.
However, that exposes them to a risk of being used as platforms for the political talking point of the day, regardless of the validity of the question.
That time is passing. Media folk have become aware that they are being manipulated and used as platforms for propaganda. By failing to stay on their mission of gathering and reporting information that the public needs to know, they are enabling politicians to erode their right of press freedom.
Controlling the news media is the first strategy on the road to full control of public action. When journalists surrender to politicians even partial control of what they report, they fail in their duty to voters.
Fortunately, there are signs that reporters have become aware that the yammering strategy has become standard for many politicians.
And at the risk of being called impolite, or worse, television journalists are refusing to allow politicians and their surrogates to take control.
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
Pressing Issues
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
"If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." -- Harry Truman
Members of the news media are doing a lot of soul searching these days about how they got distracted during the election campaign and wrongly predicted the results.
It's true that Donald Trump resorted to personal attacks on those who disagreed with him, labeling any critical report "unfair," regardless of its accuracy.
And he characterized as "weak" and "failing" any newspaper that published reports illustrating his failures in business as well as in personal relationships.
But that was then. This is now. Donald Trump will be inaugurated January 20, and we will see whether, as President of the United States, he takes revenge on his adversaries.
A reader of this blog has questioned whether we will "step back a bit, and give the man a fair and even opportunity" to prove us wrong, or to prove himself wrong.
A proper question. But that does not mean that journalists in general, and our resident cynic Pug Mahoney, will back off and accept anything and everything Trump does as President.
We can and do respect the office of President. That does not mean, however, that we must always respect the occupant of that office, much less agree with everything he says and does. This has been true for Republican members of Congress the past eight years (almost) of Barack Obama's term in office. Senior GOP leaders in Congress spoke repeatedly of their intention to make him "a one term President," and they moved to block many of his programs at every turn.
Meanwhile, the proper function of journalism is to monitor and report on the activities of elected officials, whether news media staffers agree with them or not.
The bottom line is this: Donald Trump has been elected President of the United States, and will take the oath of office on January 20, 2017. Whether anyone likes that or not, it is the reality, and we face four years of rancor between Trump supporters in Congress and the general public, and stern opposition from others in Congress and among citizens.
In the midst of all this will be reporters and editors of newspapers, magazines, television, radio and social media outlets, which now attract perhaps more readers than the traditional news media.
Much depends, therefore, on the believability quotient of each of these media. Traditional media may have tarnished their image over the past year with what some say was overzealous reporting of Trump's flaws and insufficient emphasis on Hillary Clinton's shortcomings.
But the reality is that many negative stories were printed and reported about each. At the end of the season, Trump won through to the White House, even with fewer votes than Clinton.
Now the season is over, and the winner moves to the Big League stadium in Washington. Meanwhile, journalists will continue their tradition of monitoring and reporting the activities of elected officials, all the way up to and including the President of the United States.
However, some of the proposals put forth by Trump the candidate were deemed so outrageous and dangerous by many observers that increased vigilance is called for.
It has been said that "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." And regardless of who first spoke that phrase, it falls to a free press, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of America's Constitution, to be the monitors who keep that watchful eye.
Otherwise, any attempt to "ease the libel laws," as Trump suggested, as a way to minimize criticism and "get lots of money," endangers the rights of citizens throughout the nation. And suppressing the news media would be the first step down that long road.
"If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." -- Harry Truman
Members of the news media are doing a lot of soul searching these days about how they got distracted during the election campaign and wrongly predicted the results.
It's true that Donald Trump resorted to personal attacks on those who disagreed with him, labeling any critical report "unfair," regardless of its accuracy.
And he characterized as "weak" and "failing" any newspaper that published reports illustrating his failures in business as well as in personal relationships.
But that was then. This is now. Donald Trump will be inaugurated January 20, and we will see whether, as President of the United States, he takes revenge on his adversaries.
A reader of this blog has questioned whether we will "step back a bit, and give the man a fair and even opportunity" to prove us wrong, or to prove himself wrong.
A proper question. But that does not mean that journalists in general, and our resident cynic Pug Mahoney, will back off and accept anything and everything Trump does as President.
We can and do respect the office of President. That does not mean, however, that we must always respect the occupant of that office, much less agree with everything he says and does. This has been true for Republican members of Congress the past eight years (almost) of Barack Obama's term in office. Senior GOP leaders in Congress spoke repeatedly of their intention to make him "a one term President," and they moved to block many of his programs at every turn.
Meanwhile, the proper function of journalism is to monitor and report on the activities of elected officials, whether news media staffers agree with them or not.
The bottom line is this: Donald Trump has been elected President of the United States, and will take the oath of office on January 20, 2017. Whether anyone likes that or not, it is the reality, and we face four years of rancor between Trump supporters in Congress and the general public, and stern opposition from others in Congress and among citizens.
In the midst of all this will be reporters and editors of newspapers, magazines, television, radio and social media outlets, which now attract perhaps more readers than the traditional news media.
Much depends, therefore, on the believability quotient of each of these media. Traditional media may have tarnished their image over the past year with what some say was overzealous reporting of Trump's flaws and insufficient emphasis on Hillary Clinton's shortcomings.
But the reality is that many negative stories were printed and reported about each. At the end of the season, Trump won through to the White House, even with fewer votes than Clinton.
Now the season is over, and the winner moves to the Big League stadium in Washington. Meanwhile, journalists will continue their tradition of monitoring and reporting the activities of elected officials, all the way up to and including the President of the United States.
However, some of the proposals put forth by Trump the candidate were deemed so outrageous and dangerous by many observers that increased vigilance is called for.
It has been said that "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." And regardless of who first spoke that phrase, it falls to a free press, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of America's Constitution, to be the monitors who keep that watchful eye.
Otherwise, any attempt to "ease the libel laws," as Trump suggested, as a way to minimize criticism and "get lots of money," endangers the rights of citizens throughout the nation. And suppressing the news media would be the first step down that long road.
Monday, November 14, 2016
Swampgate
"You gotta know the territory." -- Prof. Harold Hill, "The Music Man," master salesman who supplies River City with a boys' band, even as he knows nothing about music.
Question: If the new President "drains the swamp" in Washington as he has promised, where will the political alligators go?
Answer: Inside, to the halls of power in the White House and the Capitol building, as they "help" Donald Trump "reform" the financial system of all the abuses and loopholes he has utilized in the past to enrich himself and his family.
Already, Washington insiders and lobbyists are scrambling for positions in the upcoming Trump administration, bragging that they are the ones who know the territory.
Meanwhile, Trump is keeping his transition team mostly in the family, with three of his children and his son-in-law prominent diggers of the drainage ditch.
All this from a master salesman from out of town whose song and dance has persuaded American voters that only he can fix what he claims is a broken system.
But you can't fix what you don't understand. Perhaps that's why the new music man in town is hiring expert local musicians who know the score. Whether the new conductor can harmonize the players into a symphony of cooperation and progress won't be known until after the overture.
Stay tuned.
Question: If the new President "drains the swamp" in Washington as he has promised, where will the political alligators go?
Answer: Inside, to the halls of power in the White House and the Capitol building, as they "help" Donald Trump "reform" the financial system of all the abuses and loopholes he has utilized in the past to enrich himself and his family.
Already, Washington insiders and lobbyists are scrambling for positions in the upcoming Trump administration, bragging that they are the ones who know the territory.
Meanwhile, Trump is keeping his transition team mostly in the family, with three of his children and his son-in-law prominent diggers of the drainage ditch.
All this from a master salesman from out of town whose song and dance has persuaded American voters that only he can fix what he claims is a broken system.
But you can't fix what you don't understand. Perhaps that's why the new music man in town is hiring expert local musicians who know the score. Whether the new conductor can harmonize the players into a symphony of cooperation and progress won't be known until after the overture.
Stay tuned.
Meeting the Press
An important issue facing President-elect Donald Trump is whether he will answer direct questions from the White House press corps.
In the past, he has ejected reporters from his news conferences and banned others from attending campaign events.
As President, however, that will present a major problem, first as a public relations issue and then as a communications issue.
Can he deny press credentials to an individual journalist assigned to cover the White House? Yes. Should he engage in wholesale denial to any reporters or their media organizations that are critical of his positions or who ask tough questions?
That's a whole 'nother issue.
Trump has a history of belittling and insulting those who disagree with him, but doing that as a private citizen or as a candidate is one thing. Doing similar things as President of the United States, effectively attempting to restrain constitutionally protected press freedom is a dangerous path to take.
As a candidate, he was able to say and do many things that millions of people found objectionable. But as the elected leader of America, "There are rules and laws, and you have to pay attention to them," as President Barack Obama put it during a news conference in Washington today. In addition, "You have to listen to the lawyers," Obama said.
So after January 20, when Donald Trump will be inaugurated as 45th President of the United States, will he speak and act as he has during his business career and the election campaign, and what will be the consequences if he does?
Acting toward Congress in the way he has treated others during his business career is likely to arouse some serious opposition within that legislative body, to the extent that Trump will be unable to make progress with his announced programs.
Moreover, treating the White House press corps and other journalists who don't kowtow to his every wish as he has treated other journalists will not exactly endear him to editors or, for that matter, to readers and viewers who rely on news media for information.
Trump could refuse to hold press conferences at all, as is his right. Other Presidents have done that. But as President, he will need a free press to enable him to convey his messages to the public. Trump has indicated he will continue to use social media such as Twitter to deal directly with the public. But text message limitations of 140 characters won't be enough.
And trying to control the press, especially the White House press corps, is a one-way trip to disasterville.
In the past, he has ejected reporters from his news conferences and banned others from attending campaign events.
As President, however, that will present a major problem, first as a public relations issue and then as a communications issue.
Can he deny press credentials to an individual journalist assigned to cover the White House? Yes. Should he engage in wholesale denial to any reporters or their media organizations that are critical of his positions or who ask tough questions?
That's a whole 'nother issue.
Trump has a history of belittling and insulting those who disagree with him, but doing that as a private citizen or as a candidate is one thing. Doing similar things as President of the United States, effectively attempting to restrain constitutionally protected press freedom is a dangerous path to take.
As a candidate, he was able to say and do many things that millions of people found objectionable. But as the elected leader of America, "There are rules and laws, and you have to pay attention to them," as President Barack Obama put it during a news conference in Washington today. In addition, "You have to listen to the lawyers," Obama said.
So after January 20, when Donald Trump will be inaugurated as 45th President of the United States, will he speak and act as he has during his business career and the election campaign, and what will be the consequences if he does?
Acting toward Congress in the way he has treated others during his business career is likely to arouse some serious opposition within that legislative body, to the extent that Trump will be unable to make progress with his announced programs.
Moreover, treating the White House press corps and other journalists who don't kowtow to his every wish as he has treated other journalists will not exactly endear him to editors or, for that matter, to readers and viewers who rely on news media for information.
Trump could refuse to hold press conferences at all, as is his right. Other Presidents have done that. But as President, he will need a free press to enable him to convey his messages to the public. Trump has indicated he will continue to use social media such as Twitter to deal directly with the public. But text message limitations of 140 characters won't be enough.
And trying to control the press, especially the White House press corps, is a one-way trip to disasterville.
Monday Morning Quarterbacking
What went wrong? say the pollsters and media mavens.
What do we do now? say the Democrats and opposition Republicans.
For all the second-guessing and protesting going on around the country, coupled with cheering and jubilation in other parts of the nation, the final score is that Republicans won control of the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Yes, Donald Trump collected a majority of electoral votes and was named President-elect of the United States. And no, he did not collect a majority of votes from the citizens of America.
And despite what the Trump surrogates claim, this is not a mandate. Were it so, the candidate would have collected a substantial majority of votes throughout the country as well as in enough key states to gain a more narrow majority of electoral votes.
Now the issue becomes whether to change the Constitution and abolish the electoral college in favor of a direct election to the presidency rather than the indirect system that's been in place since 1789. It was set up because the framers of the Constitution did not trust the so-called Average American to choose wisely. Instead, they would choose supposedly wiser, better educated men to choose a President for them.
And yes, at the time voting meant only white male property owners would do the actual choosing.
That was then. This is now.
However, the odds of amending the Constitution to abolish what for Republicans was a successful system are somewhere between slim and none. At least, not for a few more years.
It's possible, though, that midterm elections in 2018 might switch control of the House and Senate to Democrats, and the next population census, in 2020, will call for redistricting of population areas. If Dems are still in control after that, redrawing election districts could be done in such a way as to help the party maintain control until the next census ten years later.
It's called gerrymandering, and that's been a tradition in American politics in America since the early 19th Century, when politicians in Massachusetts redrew a district to ensure the re-election of one Elbridge Gerry. A diagram of the new district reminded a cartoonist of the shape of an angry salamander, so he coined the term "gerrymander" to describe the manner and shape of the contrived district.
Thus began a well honed tradition in American politics.
As for whether the new President will actually do what he said during the campaign he would do when in office, he is already modifying his promises. Like any other salesman, he said the things helpful to sell the product -- in this case, himself. Then when the sale is made, he can carry on with his own agenda -- whatever that may be.
But even if we take him at his word, that he will try to do all the things he promised, the reality is that he will need the support of Congress to do that. There is enough opposition to him personally from both Democrats and Republicans to at least slow him down, force him to modify his proposals, or even to abandon some of them.
As for using a bunch of executive decrees to bypass Congress, he would then face legal challenges all the way to the Supreme Court, which could very likely reject them.
It has happened before. When Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt set up various programs in his efforts to help the nation recover from the Great Depression, the Republican-dominated Supreme Court regularly overturned them. Granted, FDR then simply renamed a program and started again, but meanwhile that gave him time to continue while the challenge worked its way through the court system.
So what will happen now? Trump does not have a mandate, such as FDR had in both the popular vote and the electoral vote. The reality is that Trump won an upset victory, which few analysts and commentators expected.
The questions now are whether Trump will modify his sales pitches to help close the deal on various programs he has offered, abandon some as being unsalable, or develop new ones more likely to satisfy the needs and wants of the American public.
When a salesman has trouble persuading customers to buy a product, a successful strategy is to either change the product, modify the sales pitch or find some new customers.
On a national government level, the American public as customers aren't going anywhere.
Donald Trump, master salesman and President-elect, has already begun to change his products and modify his sales pitches.
What do we do now? say the Democrats and opposition Republicans.
For all the second-guessing and protesting going on around the country, coupled with cheering and jubilation in other parts of the nation, the final score is that Republicans won control of the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Yes, Donald Trump collected a majority of electoral votes and was named President-elect of the United States. And no, he did not collect a majority of votes from the citizens of America.
And despite what the Trump surrogates claim, this is not a mandate. Were it so, the candidate would have collected a substantial majority of votes throughout the country as well as in enough key states to gain a more narrow majority of electoral votes.
Now the issue becomes whether to change the Constitution and abolish the electoral college in favor of a direct election to the presidency rather than the indirect system that's been in place since 1789. It was set up because the framers of the Constitution did not trust the so-called Average American to choose wisely. Instead, they would choose supposedly wiser, better educated men to choose a President for them.
And yes, at the time voting meant only white male property owners would do the actual choosing.
That was then. This is now.
However, the odds of amending the Constitution to abolish what for Republicans was a successful system are somewhere between slim and none. At least, not for a few more years.
It's possible, though, that midterm elections in 2018 might switch control of the House and Senate to Democrats, and the next population census, in 2020, will call for redistricting of population areas. If Dems are still in control after that, redrawing election districts could be done in such a way as to help the party maintain control until the next census ten years later.
It's called gerrymandering, and that's been a tradition in American politics in America since the early 19th Century, when politicians in Massachusetts redrew a district to ensure the re-election of one Elbridge Gerry. A diagram of the new district reminded a cartoonist of the shape of an angry salamander, so he coined the term "gerrymander" to describe the manner and shape of the contrived district.
Thus began a well honed tradition in American politics.
As for whether the new President will actually do what he said during the campaign he would do when in office, he is already modifying his promises. Like any other salesman, he said the things helpful to sell the product -- in this case, himself. Then when the sale is made, he can carry on with his own agenda -- whatever that may be.
But even if we take him at his word, that he will try to do all the things he promised, the reality is that he will need the support of Congress to do that. There is enough opposition to him personally from both Democrats and Republicans to at least slow him down, force him to modify his proposals, or even to abandon some of them.
As for using a bunch of executive decrees to bypass Congress, he would then face legal challenges all the way to the Supreme Court, which could very likely reject them.
It has happened before. When Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt set up various programs in his efforts to help the nation recover from the Great Depression, the Republican-dominated Supreme Court regularly overturned them. Granted, FDR then simply renamed a program and started again, but meanwhile that gave him time to continue while the challenge worked its way through the court system.
So what will happen now? Trump does not have a mandate, such as FDR had in both the popular vote and the electoral vote. The reality is that Trump won an upset victory, which few analysts and commentators expected.
The questions now are whether Trump will modify his sales pitches to help close the deal on various programs he has offered, abandon some as being unsalable, or develop new ones more likely to satisfy the needs and wants of the American public.
When a salesman has trouble persuading customers to buy a product, a successful strategy is to either change the product, modify the sales pitch or find some new customers.
On a national government level, the American public as customers aren't going anywhere.
Donald Trump, master salesman and President-elect, has already begun to change his products and modify his sales pitches.
Saturday, November 12, 2016
Language, Politics and Hypocrisy
Politics isn't about getting something done. It's about staying in office.
Candidates say what they think voters want to hear in order to win election.
That doesn't necessarily mean they will do what they say they will do once in office. The first goal is to get elected. The second goal is to get re-elected. Along the way, perhaps they will accomplish something. Maybe. Then again, maybe not.
Elected officials with a conscience (Yes, there are some.) have decided not to seek re-election, largely because they found themselves from Day One learning how to raise funds for the next election campaign. In good conscience, then, they dropped out of the hypocrisy game and went home.
We all know by now some of the more flagrant promises made by the victorious candidate during the campaign for President of the United States. Already, he has begun backing away from those very promises.
The resident cynic, Pug Mahoney, notes that this is typical of politicians. They say what they feel needs to be said, mouthing promises that people want to hear, hoping that playing on the hopes and fears of the electorate will lead to victory on Election Day.
'Twas always thus.
But the larger issue is why journalists allowed themselves to be used as media pawns in distracting voters from the really important issues facing the country.
The answer to that, as suggested in this space in the past, is that reporters themselves are easily distracted. Offer them a juicy treat, and they will follow it, even as they know there are other stories that should be tracked down and reported.
Gossip attracts more readers and viewers, and sells more copies and raises broadcast ratings, which in turn brings in more revenue.
Granted, conscientious journalists try to focus their attention, and public attention, on serious issues. But they are too often overruled by a management more interested in readership and revenue than in public service.
If a newspaper is big enough and healthy enough, it can maintain its emphasis on serious issues. But when competing news outlets follow the gossip carrot dangled by candidates, the pressure to follow the same carrot in hopes of getting a bigger bite can quickly distract even a conscientious news outlet from following the more distant but more important calling.
Smart politicians and their campaign teams know this, and plan their strategies to get more coverage with less effort.
As the 19th Century corporate chieftain said when pressured by a reporter respond to the public's right and need to know, "The public be damned. I'm working for my shareholders."
With very little effort, that same attitude can be transferred to political candidates and their corporate backers.
Candidates say what they think voters want to hear in order to win election.
That doesn't necessarily mean they will do what they say they will do once in office. The first goal is to get elected. The second goal is to get re-elected. Along the way, perhaps they will accomplish something. Maybe. Then again, maybe not.
Elected officials with a conscience (Yes, there are some.) have decided not to seek re-election, largely because they found themselves from Day One learning how to raise funds for the next election campaign. In good conscience, then, they dropped out of the hypocrisy game and went home.
We all know by now some of the more flagrant promises made by the victorious candidate during the campaign for President of the United States. Already, he has begun backing away from those very promises.
The resident cynic, Pug Mahoney, notes that this is typical of politicians. They say what they feel needs to be said, mouthing promises that people want to hear, hoping that playing on the hopes and fears of the electorate will lead to victory on Election Day.
'Twas always thus.
But the larger issue is why journalists allowed themselves to be used as media pawns in distracting voters from the really important issues facing the country.
The answer to that, as suggested in this space in the past, is that reporters themselves are easily distracted. Offer them a juicy treat, and they will follow it, even as they know there are other stories that should be tracked down and reported.
Gossip attracts more readers and viewers, and sells more copies and raises broadcast ratings, which in turn brings in more revenue.
Granted, conscientious journalists try to focus their attention, and public attention, on serious issues. But they are too often overruled by a management more interested in readership and revenue than in public service.
If a newspaper is big enough and healthy enough, it can maintain its emphasis on serious issues. But when competing news outlets follow the gossip carrot dangled by candidates, the pressure to follow the same carrot in hopes of getting a bigger bite can quickly distract even a conscientious news outlet from following the more distant but more important calling.
Smart politicians and their campaign teams know this, and plan their strategies to get more coverage with less effort.
As the 19th Century corporate chieftain said when pressured by a reporter respond to the public's right and need to know, "The public be damned. I'm working for my shareholders."
With very little effort, that same attitude can be transferred to political candidates and their corporate backers.
Friday, November 11, 2016
The Apprentice President
Will America become a Trump family business?
Naming his children to his transition team and planning to leave them in charge of his many business ventures, without the assurance of a blind trust, Donald Trump as President will effectively treat the United States government as a family business.
The world has a name for that. It's called a monarchy.
For the second time in five presidential election cycles, the candidate who collected the most votes failed to win through to the Oval Office.
What a weird system.
But unless the Constitution is changed, that's the system we're stuck with.
Meanwhile, like a seaman apprentice new to a sailing ship, the newbie must rely on seasoned hands to show him the ropes among the sails, until he knows the rigging and can easily work the system.
There are many old hands in Congress, and it remains to be seen how well the apprentice President learns the ropes on Capitol Hill so he can guide the ship of state toward his preferred destination.
That assumes that all the Republican hands in Congress follow the new captain's orders and there is no mutiny from Democrats.
Trump has been used to getting his own way throughout his business career. When his ventures fail and go bankrupt, he has already paid himself well, draining wealth from the projects before letting them sink.
Now, however, it is not just one or several business ventures that could fall apart, but the entire country. And if he carries out his threats to cancel international trade agreements, health care programs, defense pacts, economic assistance plans and other government ventures, especially anti-pollution efforts to deal with climate change, the entire world may suffer.
But not the family business. As members of the transition team, his children will have access to top secret information about all the nation's activities even as they continue to operate all the aspects of the Trump business empire.
What's to stop them from using that information to pressure competitors -- both business and political -- into yielding to Trump interests at the expense of their own? And if Donald Trump as President continues even a semi-active part in the family business, that creates a conflict of interest dangerous to government and consumer interests as well as international relationships with other sovereign nations, both friendly and otherwise.
So unless the new President backs away from his family business ventures and sets up a truly blind trust -- one in which his family members have no part and he, at minimum, never participates in business discussions -- there will remain the suspicion and the very real danger that the United States of America is becoming a Trump family business.
America once was part of such an arrangement, but declared its independence from the family business in 1776.
Naming his children to his transition team and planning to leave them in charge of his many business ventures, without the assurance of a blind trust, Donald Trump as President will effectively treat the United States government as a family business.
The world has a name for that. It's called a monarchy.
For the second time in five presidential election cycles, the candidate who collected the most votes failed to win through to the Oval Office.
What a weird system.
But unless the Constitution is changed, that's the system we're stuck with.
Meanwhile, like a seaman apprentice new to a sailing ship, the newbie must rely on seasoned hands to show him the ropes among the sails, until he knows the rigging and can easily work the system.
There are many old hands in Congress, and it remains to be seen how well the apprentice President learns the ropes on Capitol Hill so he can guide the ship of state toward his preferred destination.
That assumes that all the Republican hands in Congress follow the new captain's orders and there is no mutiny from Democrats.
Trump has been used to getting his own way throughout his business career. When his ventures fail and go bankrupt, he has already paid himself well, draining wealth from the projects before letting them sink.
Now, however, it is not just one or several business ventures that could fall apart, but the entire country. And if he carries out his threats to cancel international trade agreements, health care programs, defense pacts, economic assistance plans and other government ventures, especially anti-pollution efforts to deal with climate change, the entire world may suffer.
But not the family business. As members of the transition team, his children will have access to top secret information about all the nation's activities even as they continue to operate all the aspects of the Trump business empire.
What's to stop them from using that information to pressure competitors -- both business and political -- into yielding to Trump interests at the expense of their own? And if Donald Trump as President continues even a semi-active part in the family business, that creates a conflict of interest dangerous to government and consumer interests as well as international relationships with other sovereign nations, both friendly and otherwise.
So unless the new President backs away from his family business ventures and sets up a truly blind trust -- one in which his family members have no part and he, at minimum, never participates in business discussions -- there will remain the suspicion and the very real danger that the United States of America is becoming a Trump family business.
America once was part of such an arrangement, but declared its independence from the family business in 1776.
Thursday, November 10, 2016
Whiner in Chief
The bad news for many Americans is that Donald Trump has been elected President.
The good news is that he will have to deal with members of Congress whose egos are even bigger than his. And they cherish the Constitutional notion that Congress is a co-equal branch of the government of the United States, along with the Supreme Court.
The whiner who succeeded for so long by bullying and insulting others who disagreed with him will now be faced with trying to bully and insult members of Congress. Good luck with that one.
As for trying to bully and insult members of the Supreme Court in order to get his way, no amount of luck or persistent whining and nagging will help, since SCOTUS justices are appointed for life. Moreover, they take seriously their oath to follow the Constitution and the law.
Other Presidents have appointed justices who they believed will follow their wishes, but instead followed moral and legal correctness rather than Presidential preferences. Example: Earl Warren, who was named by Dwight D. Eisenhower, but soon asserted his independence.
Trump succeeded in getting elected by playing on the fears and anger of many millions of Americans who thought they were being bypassed by the system and losing out to The Others, those "suspicious outsiders" who were allegedly taking over from the "real Americans."
He complained for months that "the system is rigged" against him. But a reality is that by appealing to those who felt they were somehow left out, Trump rigged the electoral system in his favor. For the second time in this century, the candidate who won the most popular votes lost the presidency to the candidate who amassed a simple majority of electoral votes.
Trump did this by appealing to the anger and fear of voters in states most likely to accept his warnings about The Others, giving him enough electoral votes to become President despite losing the overall national vote.
Some now argue that this is a bad system, and should be changed. However, it's the one that has been in place since 1789. And yes, it can and has been manipulated by those clever enough to rig it in their favor, even as they complained about the rigging.
In any case, Donald Trump will be inaugurated on January 20, 2017, as the 45th President of the United States.
Baron von Steuben, a military aide to General George Washington during the War for Independence, said that in his native Germany, when he told a soldier to do something, it was done without question. But in America, the baron lamented that he must first explain to the trooper why it should be done before the soldier would carry out the order.
President-elect Trump would be well advised to emulate von Steuben's attitude.
The good news is that he will have to deal with members of Congress whose egos are even bigger than his. And they cherish the Constitutional notion that Congress is a co-equal branch of the government of the United States, along with the Supreme Court.
The whiner who succeeded for so long by bullying and insulting others who disagreed with him will now be faced with trying to bully and insult members of Congress. Good luck with that one.
As for trying to bully and insult members of the Supreme Court in order to get his way, no amount of luck or persistent whining and nagging will help, since SCOTUS justices are appointed for life. Moreover, they take seriously their oath to follow the Constitution and the law.
Other Presidents have appointed justices who they believed will follow their wishes, but instead followed moral and legal correctness rather than Presidential preferences. Example: Earl Warren, who was named by Dwight D. Eisenhower, but soon asserted his independence.
Trump succeeded in getting elected by playing on the fears and anger of many millions of Americans who thought they were being bypassed by the system and losing out to The Others, those "suspicious outsiders" who were allegedly taking over from the "real Americans."
He complained for months that "the system is rigged" against him. But a reality is that by appealing to those who felt they were somehow left out, Trump rigged the electoral system in his favor. For the second time in this century, the candidate who won the most popular votes lost the presidency to the candidate who amassed a simple majority of electoral votes.
Trump did this by appealing to the anger and fear of voters in states most likely to accept his warnings about The Others, giving him enough electoral votes to become President despite losing the overall national vote.
Some now argue that this is a bad system, and should be changed. However, it's the one that has been in place since 1789. And yes, it can and has been manipulated by those clever enough to rig it in their favor, even as they complained about the rigging.
In any case, Donald Trump will be inaugurated on January 20, 2017, as the 45th President of the United States.
Baron von Steuben, a military aide to General George Washington during the War for Independence, said that in his native Germany, when he told a soldier to do something, it was done without question. But in America, the baron lamented that he must first explain to the trooper why it should be done before the soldier would carry out the order.
President-elect Trump would be well advised to emulate von Steuben's attitude.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)