Evasion as Media Control

   Ignoring the press does not make it go away, nor does it mean you control what journalists do.
   For a second time, the President-elect today evaded the small team of reporters assigned to be near him whenever he appears in public. There is, of course, a right to privacy, but for decades it has been standard practice that a handful of journalists be instantly available. Just in case.
   This is not harassment of the incoming leader of the free world, but it is an effort to make sure the President (and the President-elect) has access to the news media in an emergency. And if an emergency involves the chief executive directly, journalists will be available to cover the issue and keep the public informed.
   But to deliberately mislead the coverage team, telling them you're calling it a day, and then sneaking out the back door to an activity in some other public place is tantamount to media control, and ignores responsibility to the public.
   Reporters do not have any more right of access to public official and events, but as citizens themselves, they have no less a right. As representatives of the general public, they have an important role in keeping citizens informed.
   Donald Trump today ditched the press team just so he could play golf. Several weeks ago, he evaded the assigned team and went out to a public restaurant for dinner.  On each occasion, there was no national emergency that would have called for immediate response from the President-elect, nor was there any threat to him. But both activities were in public places, where Trump was seen by the public but there were no reporters on hand to cover any newsworthy event.

   Separately, the President-elect has inserted himself into public policy and international diplomacy issues weeks before Inauguration Day. He certainly has a right to have opinions and to express those opinions. As do we all. But he is not yet President, nor is he a monarch, although sometimes he behaves like one.
   However, he does have a responsibility to represent all Americans and to keep the public informed as to his comings and goings, especially in public places. And the medium through which that information is transmitted is traditionally and primarily journalism -- the news media.
   To ignore reporters and to rely exclusively on Twitter shows a contempt for journalism and for the general public. But more important, it betrays an attempt to control everything he deals with. That may be a useful strategy as head of a private company, but the White House is not Trump Tower.

Listen up, Donald!

   Listen up, Donald!
   Can it be that everybody else is wrong, including the FBI, the CIA, the director of national intelligence and more than a dozen other anti-spy agencies who have said the Russians tried to influence the American presidential election?
   There doesn't seem to be any clear evidence that they succeeded, but there's plenty of evidence that they tried. In any case, you won. And no, it was not a "landslide," as you have boasted, claiming the largest electoral margin in American history.
   A margin of 74 electoral votes was comfortable, of course, but as for being the largest ever, no way. And as for a "landslide," you got buried in the popular count, falling nearly 3 million votes behind your opponent.
   The system was "rigged," as you complained about many times during the campaign. But if it was rigged against you, how comes it that you won? So maybe the fix was in, after all.
   You also warned that the "system is broken," and that "Only I can fix it." Considering the results, maybe you were right. The system is broken, and you fixed it so that you won. Did you have help from the Russian hackers? Just a question.

   Wait a minute. Here's another thought. Maybe the Russian hackers were trying to fix the election results so that you lost. An interesting thought, but if so, they failed. The highly touted Russian intelligence system had their chance, and they muffed it. And now they're being booted out of the country.
   And what's your reaction? Bleh! "It's time to move on."
   You've been plentiful in your praise of Russian leader Vladimir Putin many times in the past. Why not now? Could it be that your Kremlin buddy failed you? Or could it be that he actually helped, and now you can't admit it. Maybe that's why you're making little of President Barack Obama's action in booting a spy squadron out of the country.
   You could, however, invite them back in after Inauguration Day.

Cash Stash

It's a clear sign of trickle down don't.

   Repatriating cash from overseas profits will lead to more investment, expanded production, more jobs and higher wages, says the President-elect.
   More likely, however, bringing home the money will stay close to the pockets of those who control it, namely corporate executives and major stockholders.
   In theory, cutting taxes as an inducement to bring back profits earned and stashed overseas would enable U.S. firms to reinvest the funds for expanded production and more jobs.
   An equally valid theory, however, would be that firms use the extra cash to pay down corporate debt, buy back stock or give senior executives a bonus or a pay hike as a reward for their cleverness.
   No matter which method the firms choose, the value of the stock the execs hold will rise along with stock on the open market.
   So what happened to the jobs?

Watchdog Journalism

Q/ How can you tell when a politician is lying?
A/ His lips move.

   Changes in the information media now call for a new breed of journalistic watchdogs.
   Time was, newshounds sniffed out stories that corporate moguls and government officials didn't want people to know. It was journalism's duty to expose important information to public view, fulfilling the public's right to know.
   At the same time, journalists filtered the blustery rantings of politicians and passed on only those news items that had value -- a decision made by journalists, and not by those who wanted only their own propaganda to be publicized.
   But times have changed. Politicians now can bypass reporters and communicate directly to the public through social media, using Twitter, Facebook and other channels to transmit their messages, unfiltered, to loyal supporters as well as general readers alike.
   Politicians of the new breed praise the social media as a way to spread their messages directly and instantly to millions. But this also enables them to avoid the fact-checking and opinion-balancing role of traditional news outlets.
   It's like having your own broadcast station without the bother of licensing, editing or revenue to cover operating expenses, or of having to follow any traditional rules about balanced news coverage.
   Time was, journalists were able to check for fact, balance the politician's message with opposing views and trim the excess verbiage.
   Now, with unfiltered, undocumented, unbalanced and perhaps untrue 140-character tirades going out instantly to millions, it's time for a new set of responsibilities, both for journalists and for members of the general public.
   Journalists will be playing catch-up as never before, and no longer have the time to consider alternate voices and check for factual accuracies as they once did, so they will have be more prepared, anticipating what a politician might say and having background information always at hand.
   Secondly, the public must be more suspicious than ever of political rantings.
   It has come to a point where many in the public choose to believe a politician rather than a daily newspaper, especially when the politician regularly attacks the news media and accuses reporters of lying.
   But given the choice of believing a politician or a daily newspaper, which would you choose?
   Journalism may have lost some of its credibility because of the constant attack by popular celebrity-conscious politicians, as well as through its own sometimes faulty reporting. It's time to get it back.
   After all, there's nothing riding on that but freedom and democracy.
   Think about it.

Shifty

"I want what I want when I want it, and if I don't get it, you'll be sorry." Note that the first person pronoun appears four times in that sentence, but the second person pronoun "you," referring to others, appears only once.

   America's shift to the righteous is likely to accelerate in the coming year, as the new Administration puts in place many of the changes talked about during the election campaign.
   This assumes, of course, that the Senate consents to the Cabinet nominees and senior-level administrators proposed by President-elect Donald Trump and that the nominees continue their past policy and performance preferences.
   This also assumes that the new President takes an active part in setting up the programs he talked about so much. It's also possible that he will delegate daily operations of the Administration to his Vice President while he, as President, travels to rallies where he takes credit for successful changes as he blames others for failures.
   That, too, would be no surprise, since it follows his traditional business practices.
   There's no way to know for sure what will happen, even in the most fortuitous of circumstances, since even the President-elect himself has said many times, "I want to be unpredictable."
   One thing is predictable, however. Trump has a deep need for praise and adulation, which he has demonstrated for many decades. Couple that with his history of blaming others for failures, and there's no reason to think that, at age 70, he's likely to change.

Where's the Money Going?

   Production and profits are increasing, and Wall Street is watching the Dow Jones Industrial Index reach for 20,000, but personal income is flat and prices are rising, according to various official figures.
   So who's reaping the benefits in the current U.S. economy?
   National output (GDP) grew by 3.5 percent in the third quarter and profits from current production rose by $117.8 trillion after falling by $12.5 billion in the second quarter, according to the Commerce Department.
   Separately, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) said the producer price index increased 0.4 percent in November. Payroll employment was flat in 39 states and rose in only 9 states, the BLS reported.
   Taken together, it seems business and investors are happy. Wage earners, on the other hand, not so much. Hourly earnings decreased 0.4 percent in November, according to BLS data, largely due to an increase in the Consumer Price Index.
   Moreover, it would take a boost in wage growth of 3.5 percent to 4 percent for workers "to begin to reap the benefits of economic growth, and to achieve a genuine recovery from the Great Recession," as stated in a report by the Economic Policy Institute.
   Meanwhile, the incoming President of the United States is planning on lower corporate tax rates and less government regulation, in a rebirth of free-market, trickle-down economics espoused for many decades by conservative political leaders.
   So once again, the question is, who stands to gain most as the nation acquires a new government next month?
   You guess.

Promises

'Tis the season of promises.

   The Winter Solstice marks the end of one season and the beginning of another. The sun seems to stand still for a day, as it decides whether to return to the northern latitudes after retreating southward for several months.
   The ancients saw this as a renewal, a promise of the return to better things, both weatherwise and otherwise.
   Likewise, more recent spiritual traditions adopted the observances made this time of year and wove them into their belief systems
   It's no coincidence that four major festivals are observed at this time of the year. There is, of course, the Winter Solstice, marked by Druids who saw the shortest day overcoming the longest night, showing a promise of better things to come.
   Christianity chose to mark the birth of the Savior around this same time, originally the same day as the Solstice until the Gregorian calendar moved Christmas Day to December 25. Scholars have also noted that the likelihood of the birth taking place in late December was slim, since the idea of traveling in midwinter was quite difficult. Moreover, the tradition of displaying newborn sheep is also contrary to reality, since sheep typically give birth in the spring, not in December.
   As for shepherds abiding in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night in midwinter ...
   This year, the Jewish tradition of Chanukah is observed on the same day as Christmas. And Kwanzaa, the revival of an ancient African holiday, begins on December 26.
   In addition, spiritual traditions around the world that have close ties to the seasons and changes in nature also watch for change and improvement, not only in the weather, but for health and welfare as well.
   
   All this comes to mind as America nears Inauguration Day. In another month, a new President will take office, and the world will soon know whether the campaign promises of the past six months will be kept.
   Some agree with these promises, and look forward to them being kept.
   Others fear the consequences of some of these same promises, and will hope and pray for change. We live in interesting times.

A Paranoid President

Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, but three times is a pattern.

   Like it or not, Donald Trump has now been officially confirmed by the Electoral College as the next President of the United States and will be inaugurated come January 20.
   But there will still be widespread disagreement over his attitudes, policies and what he says and does. That's part of America; the right to disagree, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
   Respect for the office of the Presidency is one thing. Respect for the person who occupies that office is quite another.
   The Republican Party has long criticized the policies and actions of President Barack Obama, a Democrat, and Trump himself has led the assault on the issue of Obama's citizenship. Their right to disagree and criticize was and is guaranteed by the First Amendment, but now that Trump heads for the White House, criticism of his own actions and policies will continue and likely accelerate.
   But Trump has shown a notoriously thin skin about disagreements or protests of any kind, and that leads to serious questions about what he will do once inaugurated.
   Reports have surfaced that he plans to bring his private security squad with him to the Presidency. Whether this would replace the Secret Service security force is another question, but any plan to use his own shows a strong likelihood to continue his past pattern of suppressing dissent of any kind.
   The Secret Service has been protecting Presidents and their families since 1865, and has been careful to keep that duty separate from any notion of preventing protests or suppressing disagreement. But throughout his campaign, Trump's personal security guards have screened rally attendees to keep out non-supporters, and they have forcefully ejected those even suspected of being potential protestors. Moreover, the candidate has encouraged violence against demonstrators at campaign rallies.
   Couple this pattern with plans to control seating arrangements for reporters in the White House briefing room, along with his refusal to hold an open press conference since the election, as well as his pattern of attacking news media even as he barricades reporters in a side corner at campaign rallies, and there emerges a pattern of trying to exert complete control over all things, up to and including restaurant reviews.
   An example of that last item was his early morning Twitter posting attacking Vanity Fair magazine for an unfavorable review of a restaurant in one of his hotels.
   A man who is about to become the elected leader of the world's most powerful nation should have more important things to worry about than restaurant reviews.
   But being thin skinned to near paranoid sensitivities demonstrates a clear and present danger to American principles.
   When the President of the United States is so fearful of criticism that he personally attacks a review of a restaurant he owns, then the nation can only wonder what his reaction might be to criticism by the leader of a foreign country, whether friendly or not.

Lest We Forget

"I lift my lamp beside the golden door." --From the inscription on the Statue of Liberty, poem by Emma Lazarus

   The American Dream has become a nightmare for many newcomers, as the self-appointed guardians of the culture try to close the door of opportunity to those seeking a new life in freedom and democracy.
   Nonetheless, these "guardians" act in clear violation of tradition, law and Constitutional principles in blocking any change in what they perceive as the American Way.
   But they forget and ignore that it was this same set of principles that enabled their ancestors to come here in the first place, on the premise that all are created equal, and that the Constitution forbids any religious test for any public office, and the First Amendment specifies that there be no law establishing an official religion, or restricting the free exercise of any other.
   Now we are engaged in a great civil divide, testing whether this nation can endure, and survive a conflict that stresses one set of values and would ban all others.
   Building walls and demanding that others pay for them is fruitless, and any attempt to do that will only shatter the cultural kaleidoscope that is American culture.
   In the 19th Century, the Know Nothing Party tried to keep out Irish Catholics seeking refuge from the Great Famine. In the 20th Century, the government rounded up Japanese Americans, even those born here, and shipped them to internment camps as war broke out.
   Today, there is a proposal to round up Hispanic people, even those born here, and send them out of the country.
   It is true that the number of foreign-born Americans has increased sharply, and many of them came here from Mexico. But that does not mean they all came here illegally. Some did, but they left home for reasons similar to those that led many others to leave their home countries for what they hoped to be a Land of Opportunity.
   Some could change their names and blend. Others could not change their skin tones or facial features, but became Americans anyway. Still others did not change their names, and kept to many of their ancestral cultural traditions and religious beliefs.
   But to expect them to change, to demand that they change or face deportation is not only immoral, it is also illegal and, most importantly, it is unconstitutional.
   The total population of the U.S. is now about 325 million, according to the Census Bureau. Of that total, some 57 million people, about 17 percent, are of Hispanic origin, making them the largest ethnic or racial minority. And six Hispanic names now appear on the list of the 15 most popular surnames in America.
   That does not mean, however, that they all speak Spanish and do not know English. Many families have been in America for generations, just as many people with German, Polish, French, or Chinese names have no knowledge of their ancestral languages.
   Ethnic nationalism that dictates dominance by one group and the subordination of all others is inherently bigoted and violates the American traditions of equality as inscribed in law and the Constitution.
   To allow it to thrive is to subscribe to its bias, and becomes by definition un-American.

American Names

   In 1990, of the 15 most popular family names in America, all were Anglo-Saxon. None were Hispanic, or Irish, or Polish, or even German, which was the most widely cited country of origin mentioned.
   Ten years later, four Hispanic names appeared on the list compiled by the U.S. Census. And in the 2010 Census, there were six.
   The top five are still English names -- Smith, Johnson, Williams, Brown and Jones. But Garcia has moved to sixth place in the top 15, bypassing Miller and Davis.
   Slots nine through thirteen are now occupied by Rodriguez, Martinez, Hernandez, Lopez, and Gonzalez.
   What does it all mean? First, that the Hispanic population in America is expanding. But that doesn't mean they're in America illegally. Spanish names have been common here since long before 1620, when the Pilgrims arrived from England. Moreover, many areas derive their state names from Spanish, including Florida, Texas, Arizona, California, Montana, Colorado, Nevada and, of course, New Mexico. Plus Puerto Rico, which has commonwealth status and whose residents hold American citizenship.
   People of Spanish heritage have been part of America since the earliest colonial days, and many segments of the population, including the Hispanic cohort, have been expanding, both among those who have lived here for many generations, as well as newcomers.
   America has never been a melting pot, despite the popularity of that phrase. Rather, this nation is a kaleidoscope of many different groups, ethnic and cultural. To expect newcomers as well as those families already here to abandon their history and heritage and conform to one whose members claim they and they alone represent a "real" American tradition is short-sighted and unrealistic, sometimes crossing a line into bigotry.

Ho Ho Ho

   What's funny about lower wages, higher prices and rising interest rates?
   Very little, especially this holiday season, as economic data and campaign promises offer conflicting signals for what the future holds.
   Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a jump in consumer prices for November, as well as a drop in wages.
   Couple that with yesterday's move by the Federal Reserve Board to boost its key interest rate, plus earlier news that retirees will not get a raise in their Social Security pensions and you have an overall forecast of harder times to come for millions of Americans.
   Meanwhile, President-elect Donald Trump is promising lower taxes and increased government spending, which will help the wealthy and boost revenue for contractors but will also cause higher inflation, with rising prices hurting workers and retirees even more.
   Further, to counter rising inflation and to prevent a too-rapid economic growth rate, the Fed will boost interest rates even more. The Fed has already indicated there will be several more rate hikes in the coming year.
   So happy holiday greetings to everyone, as Americans try to absorb the news of a 0.2 percent rise in the Consumer Price Index for November, as average hourly earnings, adjusted for inflation, fell by 0.4 percent.
   Overall, the cost of living is rising, but income is not.
   Ho Ho Ho, and the joke's on you.

Purge Update

   It only took two days, but the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) flatly refused to give the Trump transition team the names of its staffers who have attended climate change meetings of any kind.
   The Trumperos had sent a list of 74 questions to the EPA wanting to know who went where and when, and what the meeting was about. The clear purpose -- although denied -- was to compile a list of those sympathetic to the concept of climate change so they could be purged from government once the Administration changes hands and the Department of Energy comes under the supervision of Rick Perry, a climate change denier who is the Trump choice to head the agency.
   The transition team backed off.
   Meanwhile, opposition is building against other Trumpian ideas that would upend or shut down many other government programs.

Buzzwords

"My words mean just what I want them to mean, neither more nor less." -- Humpty Dumpty.

If you sound like you know what you're talking about, people assume you do. -- Pug Mahoney

  Words matter, and they are important because they convey a meaning. If they don't, or when they are overused, they lose meaning and become useless.
   That's what happens with buzzwords. They become popular and overused, appearing in contexts far removed from their origin and become fill words; that is, they take up space and time, and perhaps sound important, but in reality mean nothing.
   Today's examples are iconic and existential. Right away, the examples sound like they will be important, and readers may become anxious to know what the relevant words are.
   But the examples to be considered are those two words themselves: iconic, and existential. What do they really mean?
   They have been bandied about so much by recent TV commentators and politicians that listeners assume they describe something really big, and really important.
   A quick check with a dictionary, however, reveals that the words as used have little or nothing to do with the topic, as in "an existential threat."
   The impression is that an "existential threat" is somehow more dangerous than some other kind of threat. But the term "existential," as defined in the New Oxford American Dictionary, means "of or pertaining to existence." It is because it is.
   There is another meaning used by philosophers such as Nietzsche and Kierkegaard having far more subtle and complicated connotations that are in no way connected to the popular usage.
   The second example for today, iconic, is defined as "relating to an icon." That, of course, is easy to discern, but consider the meaning of the term "icon," which refers to an image of a holy figure, or a representative symbol.
    In current popular usage, iconic is used as an adjective to emphasize that the person or thing referred to is somehow really, really big and very important, much more so than an ordinary person or thing.
   Any connection to a religious or holy figure is coincidental, and may represent a symbol that is quite the opposite of spirituality or morality.

Rate Hike

  As expected, the Federal Reserve Board moved to boost its interest rate a quarter-point, citing continuing "moderate" expansion of the economy, increasing employment and low unemployment, as well as a lower than expected inflation rate.
   And the Fed's Open Market Committee left the door open for future increases depending on market conditions, but it cautioned that its federal funds rate "is likely to remain, for some time, below" long-run expectations.
   The target rate is now set at 1/2 percent to 3/4 percent.
   Meanwhile, the Fed estimated economic growth to be 1.9 percent as this year ends, rising to 2.1 percent in 2017. However, longer run projections put the Gross Domestic Product growth rate at 2.0 percent in 2018 and fading to 1.9 percent in 2019.
   Whether Fed's strategy of boosting interest rates to prevent overheating of the economy will work or instead stall the already slow recovery is an open question. Either way, the Fed is still keeping rates relatively low in order to encourage growth in the economy, which has been slow since the Great Recession of 2008-2009. But spending practices of the incoming Republican administration will very likely influence the Fed's future decisions.
   Which way, however, remains to be seen.

Control Freak

   Donald Trump has already started his re-election campaign, as he refers to his coming "eight years" in office as President of the United States.
   The catch is that he hasn't yet been inaugurated for a first term, much less even been formally chosen by the Electoral College, which won't happen until Monday, Dec. 19.
   And there is a growing move that the electors will exercise their Constitutional duty and choose someone who better fits their standards of who should become President.
   Meanwhile, Trump continues to manipulate news media coverage by announcing his opinions and announcements via Twitter, not by an open press conference where reporters can ask questions.
   He has yet to hold an open news conference, and has delayed until "sometime in January" his plan to step aside from the daily operations of his business empire and let his children do the job. No conflict, he insists.
   In short, by not speaking directly to reporters, he controls the message. Moreover, when negative news does break, he makes a separate announcement designed to outshine the hard news by displaying a juicy, gossipy, flashy bit of trivia that reporters jump on like a cat playing with a toy mouse.
   However, journalists have finally come to recognize the distraction tactics and are actively questioning Trump's motives.
   But in the longer outlook, here are some other issues to watch for:
   Trump's first move as President -- assuming the Electoral College confirms his move to the Oval Office -- might well be an effort to further control news coverage. He has been expert in manipulating reporters for several years, but as President he could well try to formalize media coverage. In a basic form, Trump could continue his practice of not talking to journalists, and perhaps forbidding his colleagues to do the same. In its extreme form, media control could include suspending the Constitution and the First Amendment guarantee of press freedom in the name of "national security." And considering his choices for Cabinet secretaries and close economic and military advisors, this may not be as outrageous as it sounds.
   Second, there could be a proposal to cancel the Constitutional provision limiting a President to two elected terms.
   Impossible, you say? But all the so-called experts said in early November that he had virtually no chance of winning through to the Presidency. Nonetheless, he did, despite losing the popular vote by a margin approaching three million ballots.
   In any case, the free flow of information, based on Constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment rights, would be impeded by a control freak who cannot handle disagreement of any kind, from anyone, ever.
   Or rather, he might try. But whether he succeeds is quite another matter. If nothing else, reporters are an independent lot, and when their independence is threatened, they sharpen their pencils and open their notebooks.
   A free society depends on it.
   And remember this: The government does not grant us the rights listed in the First Amendment. We were born with them, and the Constitution forbids the government from restricting them.

The Copy Editor Strikes

   Spell check programs are useful things, but they are no substitute for knowledge. Any copy editor worth the title will likely find an error in any newspaper on any given day. Or on their web sites.
   Today's example comes from the Business Page of the New York Times, where an economics writer referred to "well healed donors" to a politician.
   Nope. The phrase does not refer to medical progress, but to shoes, as in "well heeled." The origin goes back to the 18th Century, when rich folks could afford to have their shoes repaired regularly as the wooden heels wore down. Unlike the poor, who were known as being "down at the heels."
   Second example comes from the NYT web site, which named the oil company "Exxon Mobile." Other than providing fuel for fast-moving vehicles, the second part of the company name is Mobil.
   No "e," if you please, squire.

Dismantling Government Part Two

The purge plan continues

   The man who proposed shutting down the Department of Energy is Donald Trump's selection to head that department.
   Team Trump said the President-elect has decided on Rick Perry, former governor of Texas, as his Cabinet choice for secretary of energy. During a debate of candidates, Perry started to list agencies he wanted to eliminate, but could not remember them.
   Earlier, Trump chose Rex Tillerson, the chief executive of Exxon Mobil, to be secretary of state. Tillerson has close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
   A day before, Trumperos began listing EPA staffers who had attended climate change meetings. Next step would be to purge them from the Environmental Protection Agency.
   As noted here Dec. 8, judging from recent choices for senior administrators, with their long history of opposition to government and its programs, the stage is being set for a large-scale takedown of government regulation and monitoring of corporate activities.

Electoral Momentum

   Pressure is building among presidential electors to bypass Donald Trump when they meet next week to finalize the results of the 2016 election.
   Meanwhile, Trump has delayed a planned press conference until after the electors meet. And he has decided to continue his role as executive producer of the TV show "The Apprentice," even as he keeps his job as leader of the Trump Organization, his worldwide business empire.
   There's just one problem: Constitutionally, he can't do both.
   Therefore, that leaves two possibilities.
   First, electors will choose someone else to be President. There is no Constitutional requirement that they conform to the popular vote, and momentum is accelerating to have some of the members of the Electoral College change their minds. Those leading the effort need only persuade 36 members of the group to abandon Trump and switch. Of the total 538 electors, 305 are supposedly Trump supporters, and 270 would constitute a majority to finalize the Presidential election.
   After the elector meeting, Trump can use his planned press conference to announce his next step.
   First, if he loses, he can attack the vote as "rigged," and start a legal challenge. Or he can say he will return to his business empire and abandon his claim to the Presidency. Second, if he wins the electoral vote, he can use the press conference to gloat, even as he vows to keep his business interests. That, however, increases the risk of impeachment.

Purging Government

   The Trump transition team is compiling a list of staffers at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) who have attended climate change meetings. They have sent a questionnaire with some 70 items wanting to know who did what, when and where.
   Next step: Get them out, as a new leader -- an opponent of regulation and a climate change denier -- takes over as head of the EPA.
   Couple that with President-elect Donald Trump's other choices for Cabinet-level positions in a new Administration, and all signs point to a purge of professionals in favor of arch-conservatives who want to eliminate government regulation of anything that might impede corporate profits.

Language and Success

Challenge for the day: Diagram a Trump sentence

   Political leaders reflect social attitudes even as they set examples for people to follow. This applies also to language. The speech patterns used by the highest ranking civil leader of a nation tends to be the one that many people imitate, on a deep-seated follow-the-leader attitude.
   So when a new leader moves into position in a country, the rest of the population moves along, since the leader typically has read the emotions and attitudes of the nation and begins actions that many people -- even subconsciously -- will endorse.
   That's the definition of a demagogue -- someone who taps into and amplifies the feelings of the mass of people, so it manifests in support for policies that run counter to established tradition in that same nation.
   History is filled with examples of that phenomenon, and there are more examples around the world today.
   In America today, however, a business mogul turned politician has written a new set of rules -- for oratory and grammar, anyway -- but the older strategy of tapping into perceived slights remains.
   Or it may equally be said that he is ignoring traditional grammar in the guise of "telling it like it is," which appeals to his listeners, just as he has ignored traditional rules of political campaign behavior.
   He has defended some of his remarks as being "truthful hyperbole," but while it certainly is hyperbolic, truthful it ain't.
   The bigger problem may be that people hear what they are listening for.

Margin of Truth

   "One of the largest electoral vote margins in history" was the claim by Donald Trump describing his election victory. And Michael Smerconish read that statement twice during his CNN show on Saturday, but without a word on its veracity.
   True? Not even close. A quick look in a fact book shows that Barack Obama defeated John McCain in 2008 by an electoral vote margin of 192. In 1996, Bill Clinton posted a margin of 220 electoral votes over Bob Dole. In 1984, Ronald Reagan won over Walter Mondale by a margin of 512, and four years earlier ousted Jimmy Carter by 440 electoral votes. In 1972, Richard Nixon turned away a challenge by George McGovern by a margin of 471 electoral votes.
   But the biggest margin was posted in 1936, when Franklin D. Roosevelt posted a total of 523 electoral votes to challenger Al Landon's 8, for a margin of 515. And that was before Alaska and Hawaii achieved statehood, which raised the electoral total. Later, the District of Columbia also got a few electoral votes, which brought the grand total to 538.
   So what was Trump's margin of victory in the electoral college? A total of 306 to Hillary Clinton's 232, making a difference of 74. A good margin, certainly, but far from being one of the largest in history.
   The President-elect can make whatever claims he likes, but it's up to responsible journalists to post fact, as well as report the fanciful claims of a politician.
   Smerconish dropped the ball on this one.

Flat COLA

   Any sparkle that retirees may have hoped for as the holiday nears was flattened by the news that, for the second consecutive year, their Social Security benefits will not rise.
   Technically, there will be a Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) of 0.3 percent -- that's three-tenths of one percent -- but that increase of a few dollars will be eaten up by an equivalent boost in the Medicare health care insurance premium, so the net monthly payment will be the same.
   Meanwhile, income for the top tier of Americans continued to rise and the gap between the wealthy and those in the middle continued to widen.
   Next question: What happened to the campaign promises to help average income Americans cope with economic hardship? And how is stocking the Presidential Cabinet with billionaire corporate executives and opponents of a higher minimum wage going to help those same average Americans?

Zealots and Politicians

Here's another reprint from a posting made four years ago. The concept is as true now as it was then.

"Ignore the premise of the question." -- Leo McGarry, fictional advisor to the President on "The West Wing" TV series

All politicians lie -- Pug Mahoney

   There has been a noticeable change among TV interviewers when dealing with politicians. They remind the subject that he or she did not answer the question, following up with something like, "Are you, or are you not ... ?" This is a good change.
   Candidates and elected officials talk too much and say too little. Answer the question. Say what you have to say briefly and concisely, and move on. Otherwise, you give the impression that you don't really know what you're talking about, and you resort to speaking at length in the hope that an idea will come to you while you're prattling.
   Heed the advice of Plato: Do not "return a long-winded harangue to every question, impeding the argument and evading the point, and speaking at such length that most of (your) hearers forget the question." (Protagoras, 336:c-d, Jowett translation)
   The strategy of pettifoggery and gobbledygook mixed with bombast may sound good to the base of devoted followers, but to those who listen for intelligent ideas amid all the sound and fury, it prompts the question: How dumb do they think we are? The cynic's reply: Very.
   Too often, we get the kind of government we deserve, not the kind we need. 

Enough Already

   Note to the Donald: Enough already with the campaigning. You won. Now it's time to get down to business. Or does your weak ego need more stroking?

   Herewith some comments from four years ago that are still relevant:

Media Musings
18 August 2012

   News reporters have no greater right to attend government sessions and political meetings than anyone else. But they have no less a right.
   In an "open public meeting," news reporters have a right to attend, first as members of the public, and second, as representatives of those who cannot attend.
   There was a time when candidates would refuse to speak at a campaign rally if there was a neutral reporter in the audience ready to write down and spread the word on what the candidate actually said.
   That time has passed, and now candidates pack the audience with supporters to ensure cheers for the benefit of the TV cameras.
   The downside, of course, is that video recordings take down every word, verbatim, and without any interpretation or fact-checking that a journalist might put in the report.
   Maybe that's why candidates seldom say anything of substance.


Competitive Talking
18 August 2012

   Political debate is becoming an Olympic sport -- whoever can talk longer, louder and say less, wins.
   The strategy is to keep talking, not let the other guy get a word in, and stay "on message," adhering to the designated talking point of the day regardless of any question put to the debate panel.
   Debaters (?) score points by ignoring the question, interrupting the opponent, using up the time allotted and generally monopolizing the discourse by talking over or shouting down others.

Dismantling Government

The past is prologue to the future.

   Investors know that past success is no guarantee of future performance, but it can be a reasonable guideline. The same can be said of politicians, just as it is also said of race horses.
   Past performance is a useful predictor for those at a racetrack, but when it comes to government, experience is more important. When choosing managers to help run a corporation, experience in a related field becomes an important measure or predictor of future performance.
   Whether intentional or not, both the chooser and the choosee are likely to continue the same path and make decisions similar to those made in the past. Some patterns of behavior are hard to break, and unless there is a strong incentive to break a habit, a pattern will continue.
   So it's hard to see how the promises of America's President-elect will be fulfilled when he chooses people to manage various departments and their past experience and performance run contrary to the chief executive's promises.
   Conclusion: The incoming chief executive did not mean what he said when he made promises during the Presidential campaign. Or, as a supporter recently said, the candidate should not have been taken literally.
   Here's a wakeup call for politicians and their supporters: When you say something, people assume you mean what you say. Later, when it turns out you didn't mean what you said and you do the opposite, people conclude either that you lied or that you're incompetent.
   Or both. In short, trust cannot be demanded. It must be earned. And as folks in New Jersey used to say, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
   When a candidate repeatedly makes promises and says, "Trust me" to voters, then violates that trust by breaking his promises, the public will react.
   Donald Trump made many promises that helped him to victory in the Presidential election. However, even before his victory is confirmed by the Electoral College and before he is inaugurated, he has begun to break his promises, sometimes even denying that he ever made them, insisting that his comment was only "a euphemism."
   Trump has a history of starting a business venture, either by purchase or acquisition, paying himself big bucks for a while, then letting the business venture go bankrupt.
   It's one thing, however, to do that in business. It's quite another to let a nation go bankrupt while your family business organization rakes in profits as the government is dismantled.
   Judging from the choices announced in the past week of senior administrators, with their long history of opposition to government and its programs, the stage is being set for a large-scale takedown of government regulation and monitoring of corporate activities.
   The country has in the past survived widespread corporate bankruptcies. Whether the nation can survive a government bankruptcy is quite another case.

Truth Monitors

   Traditional news media are less relevant these days as social media become the prime source of information for many millions of people. That's the current worry among journalists as fake news stories feed the public's voracious appetite for material they fervently want to believe, and the True Believers ignore information that conflicts with their basic articles of faith.
   "Facts don't matter anymore," said one of the candidate's surrogates. Apparently what does matter is that campaigners tell voters what they want to hear, putting them in conflict with journalism's duty to inform the public on what people need to know.
   Editors continue to screen the claims and comments of those eager to reach readers and viewers, but as those in the public eye reach millions of followers directly via Facebook, Twitter and other sites, their messages go out unfiltered and unchecked, virtual propaganda not subject to believability quotients and thus readily accepted by the Trusting Followers no matter how outrageous or even silly the claim.
   Meanwhile, many followers of social media seem unwilling or unable to separate satire from what has become known as "fake news."
   What's the difference? Consider: Satire is clearly fiction, meant to be entertaining, and to criticize or offer a lesson. In current usage, "fake news" masquerades as truth in the guise of legitimate journalism, designed to destroy someone's reputation and to attract readers who read advertising on the fake news website, thus providing the producer with an income.
   With no editors to monitor the items posted on fake news websites, libel and slander dressed up to look like traditional news become an international plague.
   Major platforms like Facebook and Twitter are being pressured to somehow monitor the postings and prevent the spread of lies, but that puts them in the role of acting as editors, not merely tech firms offering an outlet for users.
   There are clear laws against libel, but since most of the fake news perpetrators operate anonymously, it's very difficult to catch them. In any case, the damage is already done.
   Traditional journalism can do its part by exposing the falsehoods and prosecuting imitators, but more important will be a major project of rebuilding trust among readers and viewers, even as they cover even the most outrageous attacks against them by political demagogues.

Elector Conscience

   As noted here previously, there is no Constitutional requirement that members of the Electoral College vote for any particular candidate when choosing a President and Vice President. It has been customary that the candidate who collects the most votes in any individual state gets the support of all the electors in that state.
   By that count, Donald Trump gathered enough electoral votes in enough states to win through to the Presidency. However, the electors have not yet formalized that victory, and that won't happen until they meet on December 19.
   Meanwhile, electors face a crisis of conscience. Do they vote for a candidate they know is unfit, in addition to falling behind in the nationwide popular vote by some 2.6 million votes, or do they fill their constitutional and moral duty and choose someone for President who is in fact qualified and fit to lead the country?
   So far, two electors -- both from Texas -- have publicly said they cannot, in good conscience, vote for Trump. One has resigned from the group, and the other has said (in an Op-Ed column in today's New York Times) he will not vote for Trump and has urged his fellow electors to choose someone else.
   It's important to remember, therefore, that there is no guarantee that Trump  will be inaugurated President come January 20, 2017. It's entirely possible that when the electors meet on December 19, they will choose someone else.
   Whom they choose will be up to them. The Constitution does not require that the President be the one preferred by the most voting citizens. In fact, this is the only federal office not filled by a direct vote of the people. The Electoral College was set up to prevent a demagogue from hypnotizing the public into putting an unfit candidate into the Presidency.
   In two weeks, we'll know whether the system works as intended.

Banking on a Recovery

   There are three main parts to any modern economy -- consumers who buy stuff, businesses that make stuff, and governments that spend money on services and lots more stuff.
   That's an oversimplification, but it's a good starting point to explain where the American economy is now, why it's not going as well as it could and who can step in to help.
   An economy grows when people buy more stuff, assuming they have the money to do so, which encourages businesses to make more stuff that people will buy. That's another simplified version of the Law of Supply and Demand -- consumers demand stuff, and businesses supply it. In addition, government is another buyer, and when an economy slows down, government can step in to artificially boost demand by buying more stuff, which can include spending on infrastructure projects that provide employment, so workers have more money so they can buy more stuff that businesses will be happy to supply.
   Round and round it goes.
   But when one group cuts back in its spending -- for instance, workers lose wages when they're out of a job -- the other group also cuts back. Businesses reduce production because there are fewer buyers.
   Round and round it goes.
   Here again is where government can step in, and when the business and consumer parts of the economy regain strength, government can step back.
   That's called fiscal policy.
   
   In America recently, however, government has not been spending as much as it could, so economic growth has been quite slow. Political gamesmanship has been stalling the federal government from doing more, as the Out Party delays projects and blames the In Party for poor economic performance.
   Another way to influence economic growth is what a central bank does, controlling the amount of money available, which affects interest rates, which in turn affects spending, investment and saving.
   That's called monetary policy.
   The U.S. Federal Reserve, as the nation's central bank, has been trying to encourage economic recovery by keeping interest rates low, which should discourage saving and encourage spending. 
after all, why keep money in a bank account if any return is overwhelmed by inflation. Simply put, if a savings account pays 1 percent and inflation is 2 percent, you are effectively losing money. So you might as well spend it, because prices keep going up and your income is not.
   Moreover, it's not just the U.S. Fed that has kept interest rates near zero. (That's a key rate available only to other financial institutions. Credit card holders are still paying interest rates in the double-digits.) Central banks in other major nations have actually gone negative in their key rates, which means other institutions are paying the central bank to hold their cash.
   In short, the American economy is crawling along, and the Fed's monetary policy has not helped. Consumers are watching their wallets, and producers are waiting for a pickup in demand before they boost supply. In effect, everybody's waiting for the other guy to start.
   Don't hold your breath.
   That leaves government, as the third major player in the national economy, to step in and kickstart the economy, since the central bank's effort at priming the economic pump has not worked.
   
   Now the question is, will the incoming government leaders step up and launch new projects and services to fuel faster growth in the American economy? Low interest rates ordinarily would encourage borrowing to finance such projects, even if it means going into debt. Then, when boom times return, government can step back as businesses and consumers benefit from  a healthier economy. Or will the new administration insist that government is not the solution, but rather is the problem? This has been a conservative argument for many years, and its leaders maintain that lower government spending, less regulation and lower taxes combine to let the benefits trickle down through businesses and then to consumers.
   
   Given the history of past promises and actions, and recent nominations announced by the incoming President-elect, who is more likely to benefit from strategies after Inauguration Day?
   Monetary policies by the Federal Reserve, as well as by other nations' central banks, have not helped. If the new federal government under President-elect Donald Trump behaves as recent history indicates it will, and fiscal policy does not change substantially, we can expect major changes in the American economy. And not for the better.

Crash Lessons

"Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it." -- George Santayana

"What's good for General Motors is good for the country." -- Charles Wilson, corporate executive and Secretary of Defense, 1953-1957.

   Wall Street has been celebrating the prospect of a Trump presidency, with the news that several of the financial district's biggest names are to have prominent places in the new Republican administration.
   Meanwhile, the outgoing Democratic administration of President Barack Obama is leaving a recovering economy. Usually, it's the other way around, as incoming politicians blame their predecessors for economic disaster and promise that they will do better.
   Let's remember 1929, when the incoming President proclaimed that "the business of America is business," and soon ushered in the Great Depression.
   Let's remember the Reagan years, which started off well but ended with increased national debt and deficits.
   Let's remember the Bush II years, when the administration inherited a balanced budget and reduced debt, but left a major deficit and increased debt as the economy fell into the Great Recession.
   Now let's look at the current economy, which is heading for good health. How long will it be before the incoming President, Donald Trump, and his Wall Street buddies put in place their version of what's good for America and the nation reacts?
   If history is any guide, and it often is in politics, and the Federal Reserve Board taps the economic brakes later this month, the combination of a business-friendly government and higher interest rates could well send the national economy into a tailspin and a crash.
   See a pattern yet? Republicans dominate Washington and the economy slides. Democrats take over and the national engine is back on the road. Then the GOP gets back in the driver's seat and the economy stumbles again.
   Here's a guess: Within six months, we'll see problems.

Acolytes of Ignorance

"Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." -- Thomas Gray, 1777

   The blissful ignorance emanating from Trumpworld includes these quotes from the soon-to-be President's acolytes:
   "Facts don't matter any more."
   "Take him seriously, but don't take him literally."
   And these from the Ignoramus in Chief:  "I never said that." (Roll the video.) "Oh, well maybe I did, but what I said was a euphemism."
   He has also alleged that the reason he lost the popular vote count by 2.6 million was because millions of people voted illegally.
   Nevertheless, Trump claimed a "landslide" and a "mandate" as he continued his diatribe against journalists who expose the falsehoods and document the truth.
   Politicians are fond of backing away from embarrassing comments by insisting they were misquoted, or their remarks were taken out of context, and claiming that "What I really meant was ... "
   Nice try, but journalists don't work that way. News writers can only report what you say. As for what you really mean, you should say that up front.
   Put it this way: How are we to know when you are speaking literally or metaphorically, when the phrasing and the meaning is clear?
   When a Trumpworld surrogate says journalists should "take him seriously, but don't take him literally," how is anyone to know the difference? Donald Trump nearly always presents a serious demeanor when he speaks. His jokes are nearly nonexistent. In any case, when a major political leader speaks, journalists report exactly what he says. When a comment comes back to bite, the fault is with the speaker, not the reporter.
   There is no bigger league than the presidency of the United States, and every word that a President or a President-elect says is to be reported and documented to the American public. And it's the duty of journalists to expose inconsistencies, untruths and ignorance in order to protect the American system.
   Unfortunately, the news media got caught in the sizzle cooked up by the Republican candidate, rather than looking for the steak -- which wasn't there. Recently, journalists have been doing a lot of soul searching since the election, and became aware they were derelict in their reporting duties. They reported what was said -- literally, on the assumption that the candidate said what he meant and meant what he said.
   Now the successful candidate Donald Trump and his acolytes insist that journalists were wrong in reporting just what the candidate said, without pointing out and explaining the metaphors and euphemisms.
   Roll the video. There were no metaphors or euphemisms when Trump listed many times what he would or would not do as President.
   A reporter's duty is just that -- to report what is said and done. To expect journalism to explain what a candidate "really meant" when he said something unrealistic, ignorant, counter-factual and even unconstitutional is to believe journalists are "part of the team," and will write only the good, complimentary stuff while covering up the rest.
   Journalists are scorekeepers, not part of the team.

Jobs and Tweetie Bird's Truth

   For more than six years, the labor market has expanded, businesses have added 15.6 million jobs and the unemployment rate has dropped to its lowest level since August 2007.
   In November, the jobless rate dipped again, to 4.6 percent, as payroll employment increased by 178,000, the Labor Department reported.
   Professional business services, health care and construction led the gains in employment, the report said.
   Add this to the spate of reports in recent days that the American economy is steadily growing, even as some warn of an exodus of jobs to other nations. But it's also true that while employment at some firms is down, overall production is up, as technology enables more output per worker. In turn, this calls for higher skills, and thus higher wages.
   Couple that, however, with wage levels in the U.S. and compare them with wage levels for similar jobs elsewhere. If an American worker collects $20 an hour, while a worker in Mexico, for example, is paid $5 an hour for a nearly identical job, it's not hard to figure why a manufacturer would want to relocate to the lower cost region.
   There's nothing really new about this phenomenon. That's why textile firms left New England and moved to the Carolinas after strong unionized labor negotiated higher paychecks a hundred years ago. There was also the matter of cheaper, more efficient energy costs.
   Meanwhile, news reports have been full of stories about how President-elect Donald Trump was behind the effort to stop the Carrier company from shutting down a plant in Indiana and moving to Mexico, meaning a thousand or more workers would be jobless.
   But thanks to a vigilant news media, we know that the company got tax incentives worth a reported $7 million as part of the deal. Moreover, the deal was arranged at the state level, where Mike Pence is still governor and not yet vice president of the U.S. So the financial hit will bite Indiana taxpayers. In addition, another thousand or more jobs will still be cut from Carrier employment rolls. And it's likely that Carrier's parent company cooperated so it would not jeopardize federal contracts.
   So much for watching out for the little guy.

   The bottom line is that the U.S. economy is healthy and growing, even as it suffers growing pains when manufacturers adjust their technology. More people are working and income levels, according to other data sets, are rising.
   This may not be the great news that low-technology workers and low-income families want to hear, since their income is stagnant, but the overall economy continues to recover from the Great Recession of eight years ago.
   The benefits touted by the Great Deal Maker and Twitter in Chief are scattered and largely go to corporations. Some jobs were indeed saved by the Carrier deal, but an even larger number at the same firm will still go away, even as the company picks up a fat check from Indiana taxpayers.
   The larger picture, however, is one of economic health, regardless of what the Twitter in Chief (or is it chief twit?) claims.
   As for helping "average workers," he seems to be stacking the Cabinet deck with his corporate and Wall Street buddies who contributed bigly to his election campaign.