Life is a series of if-then statements. That's why forecasting, economic and otherwise, can be very dodgy.
Even so, this is the season for predictions of what's likely to happen in the coming year. But given the number of times forecasters are tripped up by reality, here are some things to remember.
Surveys and polls are useful devices for measuring attitudes and opinions of a sample group on a given day or brief time period, then comparing these results with those in previous surveys.
But.
In any survey, there are several assumptions.
First assumption: The survey is based on a valid, representative sample. That is, the responses accurately reflect the opinions of the population at large. Often, this is true, when the polling is done by independent, nonpartisan groups using scientifically valid statistically techniques.
Moreover, the questions are carefully worded to avoid leading respondents to a politically desired answer.
Therefore, the reputation of the surveyors is critical.
Second assumption: The sponsors of the survey, and the pollsters themselves, do not have an interest in a specific outcome of the survey.
Third assumption: The answers are truthful, and are not attempts by the people surveyed to please the pollster.
Fourth assumption: The statistical sample will remain valid even if the opinions of the larger population base changes slightly.
Fifth assumption: The survey base won't change drastically.
Reality, however, has a way of stomping on assumptions. Pollsters know this and don't claim that their results will never change.
Partisan pollsters, on the other hand, often insist that their survey results are immutable, and accurately reflect the opinions of the entire nation.
Beware of absolutes.
In effect, partisan pollsters deliver advance sales pitches for a politician with an agenda designed for a specific purpose.
So how is the public to know the difference? Here is one of the duties of a free and independent press.
Journalists will report the results of the polls, but will also note the affiliation of the pollster, if any.
Otherwise, surveys and polls masquerading as valid and truthful representations of public opinion become little more than government propaganda.
Sunday, December 31, 2017
Society and Pathology
Much has been written recently about the current president and the pathology of what he says and does.
There are those who portray everything he says and does as negative, and there are those who see everything as positive, worthy of support and praise, if not adulation.
As with many other things in life, however, truth and reality -- and how we perceive them -- may be somewhere in between total unequivocal fact, accidental misrepresentation, and flat-out lies.
A dictionary definition of Truth is "that which conforms to fact or reality." We know what a person says, and news media report these comments when they are uttered by a political leader. But whether these comments, which a person insists are true and conform to fact and reality, actually do so is often an open question.
The American Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal."
This may well be what folks agree is a great truth, but whether it conforms to fact and reality depends on how people treat each other. In the days of slavery and during wartime, people treat subjects and opponents as somehow less than human, and therefore not equal.
Unfortunately, attitudes like this are still widespread, in America and around the world.
In any case, a major function of journalism is to seek out truth and expose wrongdoing by those who do not respect truth.
May it always be so.
There are those who portray everything he says and does as negative, and there are those who see everything as positive, worthy of support and praise, if not adulation.
As with many other things in life, however, truth and reality -- and how we perceive them -- may be somewhere in between total unequivocal fact, accidental misrepresentation, and flat-out lies.
A dictionary definition of Truth is "that which conforms to fact or reality." We know what a person says, and news media report these comments when they are uttered by a political leader. But whether these comments, which a person insists are true and conform to fact and reality, actually do so is often an open question.
The American Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal."
This may well be what folks agree is a great truth, but whether it conforms to fact and reality depends on how people treat each other. In the days of slavery and during wartime, people treat subjects and opponents as somehow less than human, and therefore not equal.
Unfortunately, attitudes like this are still widespread, in America and around the world.
In any case, a major function of journalism is to seek out truth and expose wrongdoing by those who do not respect truth.
May it always be so.
Saturday, December 30, 2017
Reporters and Advocates
Commentators have criticized the New York Times reporter who interviewed Donald Trump for not challenging some of the president's remarks.
That's not necessarily a reporter's job, especially when the interview subject is overly sensitive to disagreement of any kind and only doubles down on his positions when challenged.
A reporter's job is to record what the person says and does and report his comments without judgement.
Moreover, this can become even more revealing when the interviewee is prone to verbal wandering. And when dealing with Trump, it's useful to not clean up the grammar and syntax or to challenge the factual inaccuracies.
Checking the facts and presenting the alternative evidence can be done later for the print edition, and retaining the grammar and syntax gives an accurate record of how the subject handles and responds to information.
So the question for news consumers becomes this: Can a journalist be guilty of bias when reporting exactly what a president says and does, in all its grammatical and syntactical confusion and obfuscation?
You be the judge.
That's not necessarily a reporter's job, especially when the interview subject is overly sensitive to disagreement of any kind and only doubles down on his positions when challenged.
A reporter's job is to record what the person says and does and report his comments without judgement.
Moreover, this can become even more revealing when the interviewee is prone to verbal wandering. And when dealing with Trump, it's useful to not clean up the grammar and syntax or to challenge the factual inaccuracies.
Checking the facts and presenting the alternative evidence can be done later for the print edition, and retaining the grammar and syntax gives an accurate record of how the subject handles and responds to information.
So the question for news consumers becomes this: Can a journalist be guilty of bias when reporting exactly what a president says and does, in all its grammatical and syntactical confusion and obfuscation?
You be the judge.
Say What?
Recent quotes from President Donald J. Trump:
"I have an absolute right to do what I want."
"There is no collusion with Russia."
"All forms of media will tank if I'm not there because without me their ratings are going down the tubes."
News outlets "have to let me win" because they are profiting from the presidency through the extensive coverage of what he says and does.
As if the revenues of newspapers, magazines and TV news channels depend on how they cover the actions and comments of the president.
Reality check: The price of a daily newspaper barely covers the cost of the paper it's printed on. The main source of revenue is from advertising.
Cable news channels were profitable before he took office, and will be so after he leaves. Viewership may have increased as a result of coverage of this president's behavior, but that has no direct bearing on revenue. News programs are not like entertainment shows, which can rise or fall depending on how many viewers they attract. All-news cable channels carry the news, and while some are slanted in their coverage -- Fox, for example, is a clear Trump supporter while MSNBC is not. CNN tends to work from the middle. Furthermore, network news programs are more neutral in their coverage.
As for the print media, the amount of space they devote to any news story involving a politician depends almost exclusively on editorial decisions on its news value.
Newspapers are not in the entertainment business. To talk about them as if ratings dictate how they cover the news betrays an ignorance of how journalism works.
But then, why should this display of ignorance be any different from the ignorance displayed in so many other fields, ranging from economics to government and international policy?
Or the Constitution, for that matter. No president has an "absolute right" to do whatever he wants, whether it be dictating legislative policy or firing those investigating legal wrongdoing by government officials -- including the president.
"I have an absolute right to do what I want."
"There is no collusion with Russia."
"All forms of media will tank if I'm not there because without me their ratings are going down the tubes."
News outlets "have to let me win" because they are profiting from the presidency through the extensive coverage of what he says and does.
As if the revenues of newspapers, magazines and TV news channels depend on how they cover the actions and comments of the president.
Reality check: The price of a daily newspaper barely covers the cost of the paper it's printed on. The main source of revenue is from advertising.
Cable news channels were profitable before he took office, and will be so after he leaves. Viewership may have increased as a result of coverage of this president's behavior, but that has no direct bearing on revenue. News programs are not like entertainment shows, which can rise or fall depending on how many viewers they attract. All-news cable channels carry the news, and while some are slanted in their coverage -- Fox, for example, is a clear Trump supporter while MSNBC is not. CNN tends to work from the middle. Furthermore, network news programs are more neutral in their coverage.
As for the print media, the amount of space they devote to any news story involving a politician depends almost exclusively on editorial decisions on its news value.
Newspapers are not in the entertainment business. To talk about them as if ratings dictate how they cover the news betrays an ignorance of how journalism works.
But then, why should this display of ignorance be any different from the ignorance displayed in so many other fields, ranging from economics to government and international policy?
Or the Constitution, for that matter. No president has an "absolute right" to do whatever he wants, whether it be dictating legislative policy or firing those investigating legal wrongdoing by government officials -- including the president.
Friday, December 29, 2017
Trolling
Children know that trolls are malevolent and live under bridges. In a park near my childhood home, there was a bridge which I refused to cross despite my mother's assurance that it was safe.
Nevertheless, I knew there was a troll under that rickety bridge, lurking ...
Today, people worry about trolls waiting under internet bridges, stalking the unwary and posting malevolent and "fake news" about them. The latest report is about a journalist who exposed the activities of trolls on Twitter.
In retaliation, the Twitter trolls posted many thousands of malevolent denials, enough so that the company cancelled the journalist's account, thus giving the trolls a victory.
The journalist managed to regain access, but the damage was done, and the trolls remain under the internet bridge, waiting to attack the unwary.
One solution might be to have the internet service providers such as Twitter, Facebook and the rest monitor the postings for accuracy, balance and fairness. This they have never done, on the premise that the internet is a public platform and the companies are not editors or censors.
True enough, as far as it goes. The problem is that it doesn't go far enough.
News media, both print and broadcast, are also platforms for information and comment and they have editors to select which stories get what amount of space and time and which do not. Newspapers also carry letters to the editor to convey alternate opinions, if not alternate facts.
The tradition of free speech enables anyone to mount a physical platform in a public square and speak at length on whatever topic. Or distribute comments and opinions either printed on an office copier or published on the internet.
Moreover, there are limits to freedom of speech. For example, you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The laws against libel and slander also apply. But even these have limits, leaving public figures open to criticism and comments that, when said of so-called "ordinary citizens" would be libelous. In addition, satire and comedy can bring some really outrageous jokes targeted at others, especially politicians.
Readers and viewers have the option to read and share these comments and opinions, or to ignore them.
You may have the right of free speech. But others have the right to ignore you.
So the puzzle is this: Should Twitter, Facebook and the rest be held responsible for the content distributed on their platforms, or should the readers and viewers have the choice of ignoring the trolls or canceling their subscriptions, just as angry newspaper readers used to do in years gone by?
The choice for this editor is to stay off the bridge platform. That way, the trolls can't get you.
Either that, or follow Mom's advice: Get on the bridge and ignore the trolls like they don't exist.
Nevertheless, I knew there was a troll under that rickety bridge, lurking ...
Today, people worry about trolls waiting under internet bridges, stalking the unwary and posting malevolent and "fake news" about them. The latest report is about a journalist who exposed the activities of trolls on Twitter.
In retaliation, the Twitter trolls posted many thousands of malevolent denials, enough so that the company cancelled the journalist's account, thus giving the trolls a victory.
The journalist managed to regain access, but the damage was done, and the trolls remain under the internet bridge, waiting to attack the unwary.
One solution might be to have the internet service providers such as Twitter, Facebook and the rest monitor the postings for accuracy, balance and fairness. This they have never done, on the premise that the internet is a public platform and the companies are not editors or censors.
True enough, as far as it goes. The problem is that it doesn't go far enough.
News media, both print and broadcast, are also platforms for information and comment and they have editors to select which stories get what amount of space and time and which do not. Newspapers also carry letters to the editor to convey alternate opinions, if not alternate facts.
The tradition of free speech enables anyone to mount a physical platform in a public square and speak at length on whatever topic. Or distribute comments and opinions either printed on an office copier or published on the internet.
Moreover, there are limits to freedom of speech. For example, you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The laws against libel and slander also apply. But even these have limits, leaving public figures open to criticism and comments that, when said of so-called "ordinary citizens" would be libelous. In addition, satire and comedy can bring some really outrageous jokes targeted at others, especially politicians.
Readers and viewers have the option to read and share these comments and opinions, or to ignore them.
You may have the right of free speech. But others have the right to ignore you.
So the puzzle is this: Should Twitter, Facebook and the rest be held responsible for the content distributed on their platforms, or should the readers and viewers have the choice of ignoring the trolls or canceling their subscriptions, just as angry newspaper readers used to do in years gone by?
The choice for this editor is to stay off the bridge platform. That way, the trolls can't get you.
Either that, or follow Mom's advice: Get on the bridge and ignore the trolls like they don't exist.
Thursday, December 28, 2017
Satire is the Best Revenge
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you ...
-- Rudyard Kipling
The pen is mightier than the sword.
One of the most important characteristics of a good reporter is to have a thick skin, especially when politicians attack a straight, neutral recitation of factual information as "fake news."
Sometimes that's hard to do. People have a natural inclination to strike back when they are criticized, but journalists have a more potent weapon -- a pencil, and when strategically used, the resulting power of the press is something that no politician in a free society can overcome.
Note the caveat: A free society. Too often, the first oppression that an incipient dictator uses is against news media.
But as long as journalists fulfill their responsibility to keep the public informed on what politicians are up to, democracy will thrive.
In addition to straight reporting in the face of continuing insults and accusations of bias, "made-up stories" and "fake news," there is the enormously more powerful weapon of satire.
From Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal" on how to deal with poverty in 18th Century Ireland, to Mel Brooks' 1967 sendup of Nazi Germany in "The Producers" and its leading song, "Springtime for Hitler," to the continuing skits on television's "Saturday Night Live," which poke fun at the current president, satire has long been a way of generating laughter at those who endanger society.
May it always be so.
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you ...
-- Rudyard Kipling
The pen is mightier than the sword.
One of the most important characteristics of a good reporter is to have a thick skin, especially when politicians attack a straight, neutral recitation of factual information as "fake news."
Sometimes that's hard to do. People have a natural inclination to strike back when they are criticized, but journalists have a more potent weapon -- a pencil, and when strategically used, the resulting power of the press is something that no politician in a free society can overcome.
Note the caveat: A free society. Too often, the first oppression that an incipient dictator uses is against news media.
But as long as journalists fulfill their responsibility to keep the public informed on what politicians are up to, democracy will thrive.
In addition to straight reporting in the face of continuing insults and accusations of bias, "made-up stories" and "fake news," there is the enormously more powerful weapon of satire.
From Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal" on how to deal with poverty in 18th Century Ireland, to Mel Brooks' 1967 sendup of Nazi Germany in "The Producers" and its leading song, "Springtime for Hitler," to the continuing skits on television's "Saturday Night Live," which poke fun at the current president, satire has long been a way of generating laughter at those who endanger society.
May it always be so.
Wednesday, December 27, 2017
Bridal Diplomania
To invite, or not to invite
That is the question.
Whether 'tis nobler in the marriage
To suffer the Tweets and barbs
Of an outraged president
Or to invite a family friend
And risk an international diplomatic crisis.
Ay, there's the rub.
Shakespeare himself could not have written a more convoluted plot over an upcoming marriage ceremony than the one now playing out over the planned nuptials of Prince Harry of the United Kingdom and Meghan Markle, a princess of Hollywood and American show business.
Harry has indicated he doesn't really get along well with the new guy in the Oval Office, and Meghan has said she doesn't want him to attend because of his comments and attitudes about women and people of color.
Harry, on the other hand, gets along very well with Barack Obama, the former president of the United States, as well as with Michelle Obama, the former First Lady.
A decision on who will be on the wedding invitation list has not yet been made, Harry says.
Meanwhile, the British government and the prime minister are not on good terms with the current American president and would likely be displeased if the new guy were invited.
This is further complicated by the potential anger in the Oval Office if the Obama couple were invited. Doubly so if the current president be snubbed.
As devotees of soap operas might say, Well you see, it's like this:
If the new guy is invited, will he accept, knowing he's not really wanted?
If the predecessor, a family friend, is invited, how much will that annoy the new guy?
If both are invited and attend, where will they sit, and will they accept the seating arrangements?
If Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip are seated in the first row, does that mean President Donald Trump will get a second row seat, and on which side? Behind the American bride's family, or behind the queen and the groom's family?
Will the Trumps and Obamas be seated in the same row, or will Trump insist on a front row seat, with Obama relegated to secondary status?
Or will Meghan and Harry invite just the Obamas and not the Trumps? Or neither of the above?
Note: Obama, president at the time of Prince William's wedding, was not invited, and the ceremony was kept a family affair within the United Kingdom.
As the oldest son, William is heir to the throne, after his father Prince Charles. Then there are the two children of William and Kate.
That makes Harry fifth in line of succession to the throne, so the diplomatic consequences of snubbery are not really an issue.
Unless one of the snubbees makes it one. And considering the past history of You Know Who, don't be surprised if that happens.
And you thought you had problems.
That is the question.
Whether 'tis nobler in the marriage
To suffer the Tweets and barbs
Of an outraged president
Or to invite a family friend
And risk an international diplomatic crisis.
Ay, there's the rub.
Shakespeare himself could not have written a more convoluted plot over an upcoming marriage ceremony than the one now playing out over the planned nuptials of Prince Harry of the United Kingdom and Meghan Markle, a princess of Hollywood and American show business.
Harry has indicated he doesn't really get along well with the new guy in the Oval Office, and Meghan has said she doesn't want him to attend because of his comments and attitudes about women and people of color.
Harry, on the other hand, gets along very well with Barack Obama, the former president of the United States, as well as with Michelle Obama, the former First Lady.
A decision on who will be on the wedding invitation list has not yet been made, Harry says.
Meanwhile, the British government and the prime minister are not on good terms with the current American president and would likely be displeased if the new guy were invited.
This is further complicated by the potential anger in the Oval Office if the Obama couple were invited. Doubly so if the current president be snubbed.
As devotees of soap operas might say, Well you see, it's like this:
If the new guy is invited, will he accept, knowing he's not really wanted?
If the predecessor, a family friend, is invited, how much will that annoy the new guy?
If both are invited and attend, where will they sit, and will they accept the seating arrangements?
If Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip are seated in the first row, does that mean President Donald Trump will get a second row seat, and on which side? Behind the American bride's family, or behind the queen and the groom's family?
Will the Trumps and Obamas be seated in the same row, or will Trump insist on a front row seat, with Obama relegated to secondary status?
Or will Meghan and Harry invite just the Obamas and not the Trumps? Or neither of the above?
Note: Obama, president at the time of Prince William's wedding, was not invited, and the ceremony was kept a family affair within the United Kingdom.
As the oldest son, William is heir to the throne, after his father Prince Charles. Then there are the two children of William and Kate.
That makes Harry fifth in line of succession to the throne, so the diplomatic consequences of snubbery are not really an issue.
Unless one of the snubbees makes it one. And considering the past history of You Know Who, don't be surprised if that happens.
And you thought you had problems.
Tuesday, December 26, 2017
Diss Train
The train of insults, vilification and abuse will soon leave the White House station and many voters will not be on it, because they won't take a chance on going off the rails of sanity.
The latest episodes of disrespect include threats to withhold funding from the United Nations because the U.S. was criticized for announcing it would move its embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
So the Rambler in Chief pouts that he will pick up his marbles and go home. Assuming, of course, that he hasn't lost what few he had.
Also, the Pouter in Chief escalated his Twitter assault on the deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, after reports that the FBI official will retire sometime early next year.
To put it another way, he's criticizing someone who is already on the way out. Question: Why bother attacking an adversary who has already conceded? If, in fact, this is a concession or an admission of defeat. Perhaps the FBI guy has had enough grief. Or it may just be that it's retirement time.
Either way, if you perceive this as a victory of some sort, why rub it in?
It has been said that nobody likes a sore loser. An angry winner gets even less respect.
The latest episodes of disrespect include threats to withhold funding from the United Nations because the U.S. was criticized for announcing it would move its embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
So the Rambler in Chief pouts that he will pick up his marbles and go home. Assuming, of course, that he hasn't lost what few he had.
Also, the Pouter in Chief escalated his Twitter assault on the deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, after reports that the FBI official will retire sometime early next year.
To put it another way, he's criticizing someone who is already on the way out. Question: Why bother attacking an adversary who has already conceded? If, in fact, this is a concession or an admission of defeat. Perhaps the FBI guy has had enough grief. Or it may just be that it's retirement time.
Either way, if you perceive this as a victory of some sort, why rub it in?
It has been said that nobody likes a sore loser. An angry winner gets even less respect.
Saturday, December 23, 2017
Groveling
Donald J. Trump is the president of the United States. He is not -- repeat, not -- the pope, emperor, monarch, fearless leader or any other type of blessed dictator who deserves such heaping adulation that has been shown to him by other members of the government.
In public, no less. It's embarrassing to Americans who live the tradition that all are created equal.
In recent days, Republicans have lavished such praise on the president as to make one wonder what they hope to accomplish by such groveling.
A particularly embarrassing comment was made by Rep. Diane Black of Tennessee, who said, "Thank you, President Trump, for allowing us to have you as our president."
Allow? One hopes she was not serious.
Unfortunately, such degrading, craven butt-kissing is all too common these days among Republicans in government.
Even the vice president, Mike Pence, stooped to give thanks to the boss's self-believed eminence 14 times in three minutes during a meeting of Cabinet members.
Why? When and how did it come about that the imperial presidency reached reality in the image of Donald Trump?
Somehow, Republican members of Congress have forgotten that they are part of a co-equal branch of government, and are not -- repeat, not -- subordinate to the whims and wishes of a self-delusional, woefully insecure person such as the current president.
They had no hesitation in criticizing Barack Obama, a Democrat, echoing the flagrant falsehoods perpetrated by the one who perceives himself a demigod and now happens to be president, a circumstance brought about by manipulating the electoral system even as he lost the popular vote.
Meanwhile, this administration, with the collusion of a Republican dominated Congress, is dismantling government and destroying social welfare programs, even as it enables plunder of the nation's wealth by corporations and wealthy individuals.
Fortunately, the nation still has an independent press, with journalists ready, willing and able to monitor and publicize the activities of this incipient imperial presidency, with the collaboration of what was designed to be an independent, co-equal branch of government, the Congress.
But if this new guy succeeds in silencing the critical voices of print and broadcast journalists, the nation will be in big trouble.
It can't happen here, you say?
Read some recent history of what happened in other countries. The signs are that attempts are being made to make it happen here and now in this country.
And if you think that's "fake news," take another think while you still can.
In public, no less. It's embarrassing to Americans who live the tradition that all are created equal.
In recent days, Republicans have lavished such praise on the president as to make one wonder what they hope to accomplish by such groveling.
A particularly embarrassing comment was made by Rep. Diane Black of Tennessee, who said, "Thank you, President Trump, for allowing us to have you as our president."
Allow? One hopes she was not serious.
Unfortunately, such degrading, craven butt-kissing is all too common these days among Republicans in government.
Even the vice president, Mike Pence, stooped to give thanks to the boss's self-believed eminence 14 times in three minutes during a meeting of Cabinet members.
Why? When and how did it come about that the imperial presidency reached reality in the image of Donald Trump?
Somehow, Republican members of Congress have forgotten that they are part of a co-equal branch of government, and are not -- repeat, not -- subordinate to the whims and wishes of a self-delusional, woefully insecure person such as the current president.
They had no hesitation in criticizing Barack Obama, a Democrat, echoing the flagrant falsehoods perpetrated by the one who perceives himself a demigod and now happens to be president, a circumstance brought about by manipulating the electoral system even as he lost the popular vote.
Meanwhile, this administration, with the collusion of a Republican dominated Congress, is dismantling government and destroying social welfare programs, even as it enables plunder of the nation's wealth by corporations and wealthy individuals.
Fortunately, the nation still has an independent press, with journalists ready, willing and able to monitor and publicize the activities of this incipient imperial presidency, with the collaboration of what was designed to be an independent, co-equal branch of government, the Congress.
But if this new guy succeeds in silencing the critical voices of print and broadcast journalists, the nation will be in big trouble.
It can't happen here, you say?
Read some recent history of what happened in other countries. The signs are that attempts are being made to make it happen here and now in this country.
And if you think that's "fake news," take another think while you still can.
Friday, December 22, 2017
The Unquiet Man
The Unquiet Man's representative at the United Nations warned that a vote against him "will be remembered." Representative Feeney said she made a list of those opposing the Squire's position on Jerusalem, and when they should ask for help in the future she would, at the Squire's direction, look for the name in her book and then "strike a line through it."
"That for them," said the Squire.
"That for them," said the Squire.
Beware of Absolutes
The president is fond of "truthful hyperbole," but when that exaggeration crosses the line into the realm of absolute falsehood -- read "lies" -- it's time to flag him.
He may even have set a record for the most lies told in a 20-minute period by any other president, or even himself.
In speaking to reporters in the Oval Office at a rushed signing of the tax overhaul legislation and several other bills, the president claimed that he had achieved "the most legislative accomplishments of any president."
Other than the tax reform bill that he signed today, how many others have there been? We can't think of any, major or otherwise. Compare that to the achievements of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the first year of his presidency as the Great Depression roared across America.
He also called the tax cut in the current bill the largest ever. No. Adjusted for inflation, it falls behind the reductions enacted during the Obama administration.
He continued his attack on the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, insisting it was a disaster. A day earlier, his own administration reported that 8.8 million people had signed up for health insurance available through the Affordable Care Act, most during the open enrollment period of recent weeks.
He touted the benefits of the new tax bill for owners of small farms and businesses as the estate tax is cut. Most people think of small farms and businesses as family owned. But to gain a benefit from the estate tax, the total value of an estate must exceed $10 million for an individual, or $20 million for a couple, and the tax is levied on only the excess of those amounts.
How many Americans have estates valued at more than $10 million that they would pass on to their children?
Other news media outlets have been tracking the number of lies this president has told in his first 11 months in office. The question now is what the total will be as the year ends, and whether that total includes the number of times a given untruth was repeated.
As for today's performance in the Oval Office, we counted at least four in the first 20 minutes of talking.
That's certainly a record of some kind.
He may even have set a record for the most lies told in a 20-minute period by any other president, or even himself.
In speaking to reporters in the Oval Office at a rushed signing of the tax overhaul legislation and several other bills, the president claimed that he had achieved "the most legislative accomplishments of any president."
Other than the tax reform bill that he signed today, how many others have there been? We can't think of any, major or otherwise. Compare that to the achievements of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the first year of his presidency as the Great Depression roared across America.
He also called the tax cut in the current bill the largest ever. No. Adjusted for inflation, it falls behind the reductions enacted during the Obama administration.
He continued his attack on the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, insisting it was a disaster. A day earlier, his own administration reported that 8.8 million people had signed up for health insurance available through the Affordable Care Act, most during the open enrollment period of recent weeks.
He touted the benefits of the new tax bill for owners of small farms and businesses as the estate tax is cut. Most people think of small farms and businesses as family owned. But to gain a benefit from the estate tax, the total value of an estate must exceed $10 million for an individual, or $20 million for a couple, and the tax is levied on only the excess of those amounts.
How many Americans have estates valued at more than $10 million that they would pass on to their children?
Other news media outlets have been tracking the number of lies this president has told in his first 11 months in office. The question now is what the total will be as the year ends, and whether that total includes the number of times a given untruth was repeated.
As for today's performance in the Oval Office, we counted at least four in the first 20 minutes of talking.
That's certainly a record of some kind.
Thursday, December 21, 2017
Timing
A federal judge in New York rejected a challenge to the president based on the emoluments clause of the Constitution, but noted that the case was not yet "ripe" for adjudication, thus leaving an opening for future challenges.
The challenge was based on the constitutional ban on elected officials receiving any benefit or emolument of any kind from foreign governments without the approval of Congress.
The president owns or controls many hotels, and Judge George B. Daniels of Southern District Court in Manhattan said the challengers failed to prove that they had suffered from the competition.
The judge noted that customers could well be patronizing Trump-owned businesses to take advantage of better quality or price, which would not be related to the presidency.
In addition, he ruled, the emoluments clause of the Constitution is meant to protect Americans from corruption wrought by payments from foreign officials, not from competition between American-owned firms and those controlled by a president.
Finally, the issue is first one for Congress to decide, and until then, the case is not yet ripe.
In short, the problem is not yet going away, since the president has numerous businesses, and until it is proven that foreign governments or customers use that as a way to influence presidential decisions, and the president accepts payments from them, there isn't a constitutional problem.
Yet.
The challenge was based on the constitutional ban on elected officials receiving any benefit or emolument of any kind from foreign governments without the approval of Congress.
The president owns or controls many hotels, and Judge George B. Daniels of Southern District Court in Manhattan said the challengers failed to prove that they had suffered from the competition.
The judge noted that customers could well be patronizing Trump-owned businesses to take advantage of better quality or price, which would not be related to the presidency.
In addition, he ruled, the emoluments clause of the Constitution is meant to protect Americans from corruption wrought by payments from foreign officials, not from competition between American-owned firms and those controlled by a president.
Finally, the issue is first one for Congress to decide, and until then, the case is not yet ripe.
In short, the problem is not yet going away, since the president has numerous businesses, and until it is proven that foreign governments or customers use that as a way to influence presidential decisions, and the president accepts payments from them, there isn't a constitutional problem.
Yet.
Wednesday, December 20, 2017
The Arrogance of Height
Nicknames are useful devices when insecure people want to show disrespect for those who do not agree with them.
(And yes, nicknames can also be terms of endearment, but that's another issue.)
Currently, the new guy in the Oval Office denigrates his opponents with such terms as "Little Marco," or "Little Rocket Man," when he speaks of Sen. Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, or Kim Jung-un, the ruler of North Korea.
Oddly, he does not use such terms when speaking of Vladimir Putin, president of Russia, who stands 5 feet, 6 inches tall.
Kim Jung-un is reported to be 5 feet 3 inches, and Sen. Rubio is said to be about 5 feet, 8 inches.
The president has made much of the size of his own ... whatever, assuring audiences that "There's nothing wrong down there, I can tell you." And he says he stands 6 feet, 3 1/2 inches tall.
That's the same size as Elwood P. Dowd's invisible friend Harvey the Rabbit. That extra half-inch was very important to Harvey, as it is with the current president.
Why that's so important is a matter for psychologists to discuss, along with the issue of height generally.
Considering all these factors, an argument could be made that height is one reason why the president dismissed former FBI Director James Comey, who stands 6 feet, 7 inches tall.
For the record, the average height of an American man is 5 feet, 9.5 inches. In Canada, the number is 5 feet, 9 inches, roughly the same as in France. In Germany, the average is 5 feet, 11 inches, and in Britain it's 5 feet, 9.75 inches.
In other, less prosperous countries in Asia and Latin America, the average is lower.
Curiously, the issue of relative height is mentioned more often by men who are taller than average than by those of average stature or less.
One wonders why.
(And yes, nicknames can also be terms of endearment, but that's another issue.)
Currently, the new guy in the Oval Office denigrates his opponents with such terms as "Little Marco," or "Little Rocket Man," when he speaks of Sen. Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, or Kim Jung-un, the ruler of North Korea.
Oddly, he does not use such terms when speaking of Vladimir Putin, president of Russia, who stands 5 feet, 6 inches tall.
Kim Jung-un is reported to be 5 feet 3 inches, and Sen. Rubio is said to be about 5 feet, 8 inches.
The president has made much of the size of his own ... whatever, assuring audiences that "There's nothing wrong down there, I can tell you." And he says he stands 6 feet, 3 1/2 inches tall.
That's the same size as Elwood P. Dowd's invisible friend Harvey the Rabbit. That extra half-inch was very important to Harvey, as it is with the current president.
Why that's so important is a matter for psychologists to discuss, along with the issue of height generally.
Considering all these factors, an argument could be made that height is one reason why the president dismissed former FBI Director James Comey, who stands 6 feet, 7 inches tall.
For the record, the average height of an American man is 5 feet, 9.5 inches. In Canada, the number is 5 feet, 9 inches, roughly the same as in France. In Germany, the average is 5 feet, 11 inches, and in Britain it's 5 feet, 9.75 inches.
In other, less prosperous countries in Asia and Latin America, the average is lower.
Curiously, the issue of relative height is mentioned more often by men who are taller than average than by those of average stature or less.
One wonders why.
GOP: Greed + Opportunity = Plunder
The so-called Tax Reform Bill heading for approval in Washington exemplifies a new name for the political group formerly known as the Grand Old Party (Republican).
Every nonpartisan analysis has shown that the prime beneficiaries of the changes will be the ultra-rich, including members of Congress, who are donors or members of the Republican Party.
Clearly, the driving force behind the changes is greed. And now that these folks have the opportunity to force through changes in the nation's tax code to reward themselves, it amounts to plundering the rest of American taxpayers.
Examples: Some 83 percent of the gains will go to the top 1 percent of Americans, including the president's family. At the same time, the new plan will add $1.5 trillion to the national deficit, despite the ranting by Republican hawks that any deficit endangers the nation.
Meanwhile, polls show that only 7 percent of Americans agree that the measure will benefit middle income Americans. Instead, it will primarily reward the top 0.1 percent.
Therefore, GOP can now be said to stand for Greed plus Opportunity equals Plunder.
Every nonpartisan analysis has shown that the prime beneficiaries of the changes will be the ultra-rich, including members of Congress, who are donors or members of the Republican Party.
Clearly, the driving force behind the changes is greed. And now that these folks have the opportunity to force through changes in the nation's tax code to reward themselves, it amounts to plundering the rest of American taxpayers.
Examples: Some 83 percent of the gains will go to the top 1 percent of Americans, including the president's family. At the same time, the new plan will add $1.5 trillion to the national deficit, despite the ranting by Republican hawks that any deficit endangers the nation.
Meanwhile, polls show that only 7 percent of Americans agree that the measure will benefit middle income Americans. Instead, it will primarily reward the top 0.1 percent.
Therefore, GOP can now be said to stand for Greed plus Opportunity equals Plunder.
Tuesday, December 19, 2017
Danger in the Workplace
Fatal injuries to workers increased by 7 percent in 2016, rising above the 5,000 level for the first time, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It was the third consecutive year in which fatal workplace injuries increased.
The most common cause of work injuries involved the transportation industry, the BLS said, with 2,083 deaths, some 40 percent of the year's total of 5,190. Violence was the second most common cause of fatal workplace injuries, followed by injuries from falls, slips and trips, especially among roofers, carpenters, tree trimmers, heavy equipment workers and truck drivers.
The highest percentage increase in workplace fatalities was among Asian workers (40 percent), followed by African-Americans (19 percent). Foreign-born workers made up about one-fifth or the total fatal work injuries, the BLS report said, with 37 percent of those workers born in Mexico.
All these numbers raise the question of why workplace fatalities are increasing, what can be done to alleviate the problem, and whether government intervention is called for to help resolve it.
Blaming the previous administration for anything and everything unpleasant seems to be a standard strategy for the new guys, but considering their nearly constant preaching about concern for workers and middle-income families, perhaps it's time for them to move away from tax code changes that benefit primarily themselves and the super-rich and start keeping their promises.
The most common cause of work injuries involved the transportation industry, the BLS said, with 2,083 deaths, some 40 percent of the year's total of 5,190. Violence was the second most common cause of fatal workplace injuries, followed by injuries from falls, slips and trips, especially among roofers, carpenters, tree trimmers, heavy equipment workers and truck drivers.
The highest percentage increase in workplace fatalities was among Asian workers (40 percent), followed by African-Americans (19 percent). Foreign-born workers made up about one-fifth or the total fatal work injuries, the BLS report said, with 37 percent of those workers born in Mexico.
All these numbers raise the question of why workplace fatalities are increasing, what can be done to alleviate the problem, and whether government intervention is called for to help resolve it.
Blaming the previous administration for anything and everything unpleasant seems to be a standard strategy for the new guys, but considering their nearly constant preaching about concern for workers and middle-income families, perhaps it's time for them to move away from tax code changes that benefit primarily themselves and the super-rich and start keeping their promises.
Monday, December 18, 2017
"Peace Through Strength"
President Donald Trump today called for a new strategy for a new era of competition, a "great reawakening" of an "America first" policy that would use "peace through strength" to ensure U.S. dominance in the world.
Each phrase echoed strategies used by other leaders to justify plans to win, no matter the issue, whether it be commerce, diplomacy or war.
The phrase, "peace through strength" was first used by the Roman Emperor Hadrian in the First Century and echoed by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Critics have called it a short step from there to the practice of "peace through war."
The call for a "great reawakening" revives the emphasis on the religious evangelicalism of the 19th Century in Europe and America, similar to what many say is happening in America today.
And the "America first" slogan echoes that used by isolationists in the 1930s.
The president's speech led with a litany of what he felt were "failures of the past administrations," who had "lost sight of America's destiny," and he said he was "reasserting" a "domestic truth that a nation without borders is not a nation."
Trump stressed the need to secure America's southern border, but he made no mention of the nation's northern border. Mexicans and Canadians may make of that what they will.
And he spoke of the need for new alliances "with those who share our goals." But what of those who don't? Is this a threat, a case of saying, "do things my way, or else"?
In all, the speech on national security echoed his history of wanting to win, anything, always, and it brought to mind his business strategy of wielding a big stick, bullying and threatening others to get his own way.
In short, it blends isolationism with a policy of dominating other nations, threatening them to follow his orders or suffer consequences.
Each phrase echoed strategies used by other leaders to justify plans to win, no matter the issue, whether it be commerce, diplomacy or war.
The phrase, "peace through strength" was first used by the Roman Emperor Hadrian in the First Century and echoed by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Critics have called it a short step from there to the practice of "peace through war."
The call for a "great reawakening" revives the emphasis on the religious evangelicalism of the 19th Century in Europe and America, similar to what many say is happening in America today.
And the "America first" slogan echoes that used by isolationists in the 1930s.
The president's speech led with a litany of what he felt were "failures of the past administrations," who had "lost sight of America's destiny," and he said he was "reasserting" a "domestic truth that a nation without borders is not a nation."
Trump stressed the need to secure America's southern border, but he made no mention of the nation's northern border. Mexicans and Canadians may make of that what they will.
And he spoke of the need for new alliances "with those who share our goals." But what of those who don't? Is this a threat, a case of saying, "do things my way, or else"?
In all, the speech on national security echoed his history of wanting to win, anything, always, and it brought to mind his business strategy of wielding a big stick, bullying and threatening others to get his own way.
In short, it blends isolationism with a policy of dominating other nations, threatening them to follow his orders or suffer consequences.
Saturday, December 16, 2017
Snark Attack
"Snark" is now a verb.
Coined by Lewis Carroll in his story about a creature with the features of both a snake and a shark, the noun soon became an adjective -- snarky -- and was applied to people and their remarks that were snide, sarcastic, or both.
For many decades, it was used as an adjective, relegated as slang by most dictionaries, and popular in the UK. In recent years, "snarky" has become more widespread in the U.S., but was stilled regarded as slang.
Inevitably, the word graduated from noun to adjective and now can be a verb, reaching firm approval when it appeared today in the New York Times in a story about a judicial nominee, Matthew Petersen, being questioned by Senate committee member John Kennedy. (Page A13 in the print edition, under the headline, "When Asked About Law / Judicial Nominee Stumbles.")
According to the report, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse "snarked" that Petersen "couldn't answer a single one" of inquiries that were "basic questions of law."
Whitehouse posted a video clip of the incident, which was picked up by TV news media and has gone viral on the internet.
New words are coined and spread daily. Many enjoy a brief surge of popularity among small groups, and perhaps become widespread slang until they eventually become so widely used that they appear in print in major publications and are picked up by compilers of dictionaries.
Welcome to the lexicon, "snark," and thanks to Lewis Carroll, a prolific inventor of new words and phrases, as well as the New York Times, which brought "to snark" to maturity.
Coined by Lewis Carroll in his story about a creature with the features of both a snake and a shark, the noun soon became an adjective -- snarky -- and was applied to people and their remarks that were snide, sarcastic, or both.
For many decades, it was used as an adjective, relegated as slang by most dictionaries, and popular in the UK. In recent years, "snarky" has become more widespread in the U.S., but was stilled regarded as slang.
Inevitably, the word graduated from noun to adjective and now can be a verb, reaching firm approval when it appeared today in the New York Times in a story about a judicial nominee, Matthew Petersen, being questioned by Senate committee member John Kennedy. (Page A13 in the print edition, under the headline, "When Asked About Law / Judicial Nominee Stumbles.")
According to the report, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse "snarked" that Petersen "couldn't answer a single one" of inquiries that were "basic questions of law."
Whitehouse posted a video clip of the incident, which was picked up by TV news media and has gone viral on the internet.
New words are coined and spread daily. Many enjoy a brief surge of popularity among small groups, and perhaps become widespread slang until they eventually become so widely used that they appear in print in major publications and are picked up by compilers of dictionaries.
Welcome to the lexicon, "snark," and thanks to Lewis Carroll, a prolific inventor of new words and phrases, as well as the New York Times, which brought "to snark" to maturity.
Money Talks, Neutrality Walks
As is true in many other aspects of life, devotees of free market economics have put pressure on government agencies to cancel rules that treated internet service providers the same as telephone companies -- public utilities obliged to serve all customers equally.
Instead, for a price, some users of the internet will be able to get faster, better access than others. And those who operate web sites will have more control over who sees what.
One wonders whether campaign donations from corporations helped to influence the administration on its decision to set the providers free to run their enterprises as they choose.
Or maybe it's just another aspect of Trumponomics, the doctrine of unbridled competition exemplified by the "laissez faire" classical economics of the 19th Century, which said business should be left alone and the economy will find its own equilibrium and all things will be for the best in this best of all possible worlds.
Call it hunky-dory hope that eventually, in the long run, everything will work out and we'll all be happy.
On the other hand, in the long run we'll all be dead.
Instead, for a price, some users of the internet will be able to get faster, better access than others. And those who operate web sites will have more control over who sees what.
One wonders whether campaign donations from corporations helped to influence the administration on its decision to set the providers free to run their enterprises as they choose.
Or maybe it's just another aspect of Trumponomics, the doctrine of unbridled competition exemplified by the "laissez faire" classical economics of the 19th Century, which said business should be left alone and the economy will find its own equilibrium and all things will be for the best in this best of all possible worlds.
Call it hunky-dory hope that eventually, in the long run, everything will work out and we'll all be happy.
On the other hand, in the long run we'll all be dead.
Friday, December 15, 2017
Closing In
The special counsel's probe into shenanigans in Washington is moving closer to the White House and the doings of its staffers.
The son of the president doesn't want to talk to the investigators, claiming his conversations with his father are privileged. That's not likely to pass muster, since neither is an attorney.
The next step would be to subpoena him -- the son, that is, and if he still declines, cite him with contempt.
Moreover, as the trail leads closer to the Oval Office, it's quite likely that the president himself will be invited for an interview with the investigators.
But what if he declines the invitation, claiming executive privilege as chief law enforcement officer of the country? As president, that is one of his responsibilities.
So if he refuses to talk voluntarily, will the special counsel subpoena the president, and will the president reject the subpoena on the same grounds, similar to the argument made last week that because he is the president, he cannot be accused of obstruction of justice because he is the president?
Round and round it goes, and where does it stop? To the courts, of course, and eventually to the Supreme Court.
Then we have a clash between the president and SCOTUS. The two are, according to the Constitution, co-equal branches of government, along with Congress.
Not according to the new guy, of course, who seems to feel he's the boss of everybody, and when you're the boss, you can do anything. It's sad enough that the members of his own party, the Republicans, have a slim margin in each house of Congress, and have been falling in line behind his leadership, such as it is.
But when the president rejects a request and defies a subpoena from an investigator into major wrongdoing on the ground that he himself is the nation's chief investigator and therefore can't be investigated, it's time for the nation's chief arbiter of the law and the Constitution to step in.
SCOTUS v. U.S. President, the case file will be.
And that story will dominate the news cycle for months.
The son of the president doesn't want to talk to the investigators, claiming his conversations with his father are privileged. That's not likely to pass muster, since neither is an attorney.
The next step would be to subpoena him -- the son, that is, and if he still declines, cite him with contempt.
Moreover, as the trail leads closer to the Oval Office, it's quite likely that the president himself will be invited for an interview with the investigators.
But what if he declines the invitation, claiming executive privilege as chief law enforcement officer of the country? As president, that is one of his responsibilities.
So if he refuses to talk voluntarily, will the special counsel subpoena the president, and will the president reject the subpoena on the same grounds, similar to the argument made last week that because he is the president, he cannot be accused of obstruction of justice because he is the president?
Round and round it goes, and where does it stop? To the courts, of course, and eventually to the Supreme Court.
Then we have a clash between the president and SCOTUS. The two are, according to the Constitution, co-equal branches of government, along with Congress.
Not according to the new guy, of course, who seems to feel he's the boss of everybody, and when you're the boss, you can do anything. It's sad enough that the members of his own party, the Republicans, have a slim margin in each house of Congress, and have been falling in line behind his leadership, such as it is.
But when the president rejects a request and defies a subpoena from an investigator into major wrongdoing on the ground that he himself is the nation's chief investigator and therefore can't be investigated, it's time for the nation's chief arbiter of the law and the Constitution to step in.
SCOTUS v. U.S. President, the case file will be.
And that story will dominate the news cycle for months.
Wednesday, December 13, 2017
Tapping the Economic Brakes
As expected, the Federal Reserve Board boosted interest rates a notch to prevent the U.S. economy from racing to an unsustainable growth speed.
The Fed decided to raise its target range for the federal funds rate -- its key rate to the largest borrowers -- to 1.25 to 1.5 percent.
Separately, the Fed estimated the national economic growth rate, as measured by Growth Domestic Product (total output of goods and services), to be 2.5 percent in 2018.
This contrasts with the president's announced hope that GDP with "rocket" to a growth rate of more than 3 percent, and the administration is hoping to touch that off through massive tax cuts in a plan now moving through Congress.
Delegates from the House and the Senate have reportedly reached a compromise on their versions of the tax reform bill, with a final vote perhaps next week and delivery to the president for his signature by Christmas.
Whether that happens or the bill is blocked by Democrats remains an open question.
Separately, economists are generally agreed that such a tax plan, to sharply cut taxes in the hope that this will fuel an economic takeoff, won't work, but will only fatten the purses of those who already have full wallets.
In addition, there is the likelihood that the Federal Reserve will step in to boost interest rates sharply to prevent the economy from accelerating too quickly.
In any case, even if the Republican plan moves forward, it will be several months before its effects, if any, can be measured. In turn, that means the Fed would be unable to act until then.
Meanwhile, consumers are faced with sharp increases in insurance premiums and other expenses that take effect with the start of a new calendar year.
The Fed decided to raise its target range for the federal funds rate -- its key rate to the largest borrowers -- to 1.25 to 1.5 percent.
Separately, the Fed estimated the national economic growth rate, as measured by Growth Domestic Product (total output of goods and services), to be 2.5 percent in 2018.
This contrasts with the president's announced hope that GDP with "rocket" to a growth rate of more than 3 percent, and the administration is hoping to touch that off through massive tax cuts in a plan now moving through Congress.
Delegates from the House and the Senate have reportedly reached a compromise on their versions of the tax reform bill, with a final vote perhaps next week and delivery to the president for his signature by Christmas.
Whether that happens or the bill is blocked by Democrats remains an open question.
Separately, economists are generally agreed that such a tax plan, to sharply cut taxes in the hope that this will fuel an economic takeoff, won't work, but will only fatten the purses of those who already have full wallets.
In addition, there is the likelihood that the Federal Reserve will step in to boost interest rates sharply to prevent the economy from accelerating too quickly.
In any case, even if the Republican plan moves forward, it will be several months before its effects, if any, can be measured. In turn, that means the Fed would be unable to act until then.
Meanwhile, consumers are faced with sharp increases in insurance premiums and other expenses that take effect with the start of a new calendar year.
Referendum
The people of Alabama have spoken, and the message is loud and clear.
They do not want an accused child molester, an ardent Trump supporter who defies court orders, to represent them in the U.S. Senate.
For the first time in 25 years, Alabama voters elected a Democrat, a former prosecutor who tracked down and convicted Ku Klux Klansmen who killed little girls in a church more than 40 years ago.
They rejected a bid by Roy Moore, a Republican judge who was ousted from his post on the state supreme court (twice) for defying federal court orders, and who was fully embraced by the president (himself an accused sexual predator) because, according to Donald Trump, any Republican is a better choice than a Democrat.
Despite a strong endorsement of Moore by the president, voters chose Democrat Doug Jones.
After hearing the results, the president said via Twitter that he knew it all along, that Moore could not win, and he started looking for someone else to blame rather than accept that he made a mistake in endorsing a loser.
It's reminiscent of a kid who is passed over for a slot on a pickup baseball game and insists that he "didn't want to play that stupid game anyway."
So was the vote a referendum on child molesters who defy court orders or an opinion of the president's attitudes and his embrace of a man who was banned from a shopping mall for his predatory behavior?
Or was it a referendum on the president himself?
Or was it a preference for a responsible, credible lawman? Or was it all of the above?
A larger question is this: What does this special election in Alabama portend for the nation as a whole?
We won't really know for another year, when Americans vote in the next regularly scheduled election for members of Congress -- all members of the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate.
Meanwhile, the escapades -- sexual and otherwise -- of government officials, corporate executives and entertainers occupy headlines in national newspapers and dominate TV news coverage as more and more women come forward with accusations of misbehavior by men who fancy themselves powerful enough to do as they please with women and think they are immune from prosecution of their predatory behavior.
And this includes the president.
No one is above the law.
They do not want an accused child molester, an ardent Trump supporter who defies court orders, to represent them in the U.S. Senate.
For the first time in 25 years, Alabama voters elected a Democrat, a former prosecutor who tracked down and convicted Ku Klux Klansmen who killed little girls in a church more than 40 years ago.
They rejected a bid by Roy Moore, a Republican judge who was ousted from his post on the state supreme court (twice) for defying federal court orders, and who was fully embraced by the president (himself an accused sexual predator) because, according to Donald Trump, any Republican is a better choice than a Democrat.
Despite a strong endorsement of Moore by the president, voters chose Democrat Doug Jones.
After hearing the results, the president said via Twitter that he knew it all along, that Moore could not win, and he started looking for someone else to blame rather than accept that he made a mistake in endorsing a loser.
It's reminiscent of a kid who is passed over for a slot on a pickup baseball game and insists that he "didn't want to play that stupid game anyway."
So was the vote a referendum on child molesters who defy court orders or an opinion of the president's attitudes and his embrace of a man who was banned from a shopping mall for his predatory behavior?
Or was it a referendum on the president himself?
Or was it a preference for a responsible, credible lawman? Or was it all of the above?
A larger question is this: What does this special election in Alabama portend for the nation as a whole?
We won't really know for another year, when Americans vote in the next regularly scheduled election for members of Congress -- all members of the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate.
Meanwhile, the escapades -- sexual and otherwise -- of government officials, corporate executives and entertainers occupy headlines in national newspapers and dominate TV news coverage as more and more women come forward with accusations of misbehavior by men who fancy themselves powerful enough to do as they please with women and think they are immune from prosecution of their predatory behavior.
And this includes the president.
No one is above the law.
Monday, December 11, 2017
Social Economics
We are witnessing a renewed clash between those who favor free market economics and those who prefer social economics, an effort by every segment of society to help ensure all citizens benefit from a healthy society.
In a fully free market economy, players follow only the rules they choose to observe, claiming that free and open competition will benefit society in such a way as to guarantee the survival of the fittest.
At the other extreme is an economy fully controlled by government, designed to guarantee the survival of everyone.
As part of the battle, free marketeers have made "socialism" a dirty word -- part of their strategy to win regardless of the cost to others.
It seems current free marketeers have learned little from history, and are likely to repeat it.
There are many folks still alive today who remember the disastrous years of the Great Depression, when those who believed in free market theory shrugged off the problems faced by those whose wages were cut or who lost their jobs as employers reacted to a decline in business.
The suggestion at the time that government intervention with public works projects to provide employment was contrary to basic economic theory because, to them, government had no role in managing an economy. According to this interpretation of this free market theory, reduced wages were a necessary function of a firm's responsibility to its owners and shareholders.
To them, the basic economic law of demand and supply applied equally to labor as to any other input, and labor union contracts fixing a pay level led to what they called "sticky wages," preventing a firm from adjusting its costs as sales declined.
Others have pointed out, however, that if employers had treated workers fairly to begin with, labor unions would not have been necessary as a way to force fair treatment and adequate wages.
It may be simplistic to say, but this clash between labor and management -- which began in the 19th Century -- resulted in some countries moving to strong government control of an economy and others, including the U.S. and most European nations, moving to what economists call a mixed economy, which is somewhere between a fully free market and full government control.
Now, the problem lies in determining where on the social economic spectrum a nation can best serve its people.
Full corporate freedom leads inevitably to labor action, strikes and sometimes violence to force fair wages and treatment. Full government control means arbitrary decisions by officials too often out of touch with the needs of producers as well as consumers.
Meanwhile, the pendulum swings between the two extremes, as consumer and labor oriented factions sometimes dominate government, alternating with profit oriented producer factions.
We now see a national government in the guise of the Republican Party favoring the needs, wants and desires of Big Business, often at the expense of wage and salary workers and consumers.
The current administration has been reducing or eliminating regulations that protect many natural resources so that producers can get at them to produce more and increase their profits.
But unless consumers maintain their ability to purchase the additional products and services, through reasonable wages and prices, the consequences can mean an economic catastrophe.
Too much emphasis on one side, from a government determined to bring back a free market economy, can easily cause some of the major social problems that government itself should set out to prevent.
Danger. That way madness lies.
In a fully free market economy, players follow only the rules they choose to observe, claiming that free and open competition will benefit society in such a way as to guarantee the survival of the fittest.
At the other extreme is an economy fully controlled by government, designed to guarantee the survival of everyone.
As part of the battle, free marketeers have made "socialism" a dirty word -- part of their strategy to win regardless of the cost to others.
It seems current free marketeers have learned little from history, and are likely to repeat it.
There are many folks still alive today who remember the disastrous years of the Great Depression, when those who believed in free market theory shrugged off the problems faced by those whose wages were cut or who lost their jobs as employers reacted to a decline in business.
The suggestion at the time that government intervention with public works projects to provide employment was contrary to basic economic theory because, to them, government had no role in managing an economy. According to this interpretation of this free market theory, reduced wages were a necessary function of a firm's responsibility to its owners and shareholders.
To them, the basic economic law of demand and supply applied equally to labor as to any other input, and labor union contracts fixing a pay level led to what they called "sticky wages," preventing a firm from adjusting its costs as sales declined.
Others have pointed out, however, that if employers had treated workers fairly to begin with, labor unions would not have been necessary as a way to force fair treatment and adequate wages.
It may be simplistic to say, but this clash between labor and management -- which began in the 19th Century -- resulted in some countries moving to strong government control of an economy and others, including the U.S. and most European nations, moving to what economists call a mixed economy, which is somewhere between a fully free market and full government control.
Now, the problem lies in determining where on the social economic spectrum a nation can best serve its people.
Full corporate freedom leads inevitably to labor action, strikes and sometimes violence to force fair wages and treatment. Full government control means arbitrary decisions by officials too often out of touch with the needs of producers as well as consumers.
Meanwhile, the pendulum swings between the two extremes, as consumer and labor oriented factions sometimes dominate government, alternating with profit oriented producer factions.
We now see a national government in the guise of the Republican Party favoring the needs, wants and desires of Big Business, often at the expense of wage and salary workers and consumers.
The current administration has been reducing or eliminating regulations that protect many natural resources so that producers can get at them to produce more and increase their profits.
But unless consumers maintain their ability to purchase the additional products and services, through reasonable wages and prices, the consequences can mean an economic catastrophe.
Too much emphasis on one side, from a government determined to bring back a free market economy, can easily cause some of the major social problems that government itself should set out to prevent.
Danger. That way madness lies.
Idyll Thoughts
When you have facts on your side, argue the facts.
When you have law on your side, argue the law.
When you have neither, pound the table.
Political bravery is an oxymoron.
Arrogance is its own reward.
Ignorance is its own punishment.
Name calling is no substitute for intelligent conversation or debate.
When arrogance joins ignorance in a single person, the result is a toxic, dangerous brew, especially concocted in a politician with an expert sales pitch.
Life is a series of if-then statements. If this happens, then I will do that. If that had not happened in the past, then I would not be stuck where I am today.
That's called rationalizing, and it's an insecure person's way of blaming others for his or her lack of success and threatening others unless they do what they're told.
What would happen if the U.S. tried to annex Canada, to "protect" its northern border? Statehood was, in fact, offered to Canadian provinces soon after U.S. independence, but the offer was rejected.
Building a wall is one way to keep out those who don't look alike and talk alike, but since Canadians can easily "blend," why not make it official?
Can you say, "Nonsense"?
Progress report: The Editor's Revenge blog attracts readers in ten countries every week, and has reached a total of some 100 nations over time.
As always, comments and reactions are welcome, especially from those who disagree.
Talk is safer and cheaper than violence.
When you have law on your side, argue the law.
When you have neither, pound the table.
Political bravery is an oxymoron.
Arrogance is its own reward.
Ignorance is its own punishment.
Name calling is no substitute for intelligent conversation or debate.
When arrogance joins ignorance in a single person, the result is a toxic, dangerous brew, especially concocted in a politician with an expert sales pitch.
Life is a series of if-then statements. If this happens, then I will do that. If that had not happened in the past, then I would not be stuck where I am today.
That's called rationalizing, and it's an insecure person's way of blaming others for his or her lack of success and threatening others unless they do what they're told.
What would happen if the U.S. tried to annex Canada, to "protect" its northern border? Statehood was, in fact, offered to Canadian provinces soon after U.S. independence, but the offer was rejected.
Building a wall is one way to keep out those who don't look alike and talk alike, but since Canadians can easily "blend," why not make it official?
Can you say, "Nonsense"?
Progress report: The Editor's Revenge blog attracts readers in ten countries every week, and has reached a total of some 100 nations over time.
As always, comments and reactions are welcome, especially from those who disagree.
Talk is safer and cheaper than violence.
Sunday, December 10, 2017
The Pot-Kettle Syndrome
Their names are well known. Likewise their political affiliation. The ironic part is that GOP goosers are honking at high decibel levels about the misdeeds of Democrats but make no apology for their own similar behavior.
Friday, December 8, 2017
Economic Leveling
Expect the Federal Reserve Board to carry out its intent to stabilize the U.S. economy as fresh data came in showing continuing health in the jobs market.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday that the nationwide unemployment rate held steady at 4.1 percent in November even as employers hired 228,000 more workers in the month. In addition, average earnings rose again, for a 2.5 percent increase from a year ago.
The jobless rate is the lowest in 17 years, and this level is what experts call full employment. Moreover, employers have hired more people every month for seven years.
And despite the president's bid to cut taxes and thus ignite a "rocket" economic takeoff, the independent Federal Reserve has repeatedly hinted it will boost interest rates to prevent just that. The danger of a too-rapid growth rate, experts say, is that it's too likely to result in a sudden, rapid decline. That's just what the Fed wants to prevent.
The president has been claiming credit for the healthy economy, even though he has been in office for less than a year, and economic growth has been steadily upward for some eight years.
The tax cut promise relies on the theory that increased corporate profit will trickle down to workers through more hiring and increased wages. Conservative politicians tout this promise regularly, but economist note that in reality, it does not work.
The national jobless rate of 4.1 percent is a good sign, of course, but unemployment figures are based on a monthly telephone survey and, while useful as a monthly snapshot, it is not as accurate as the payroll employment figure, which is based on hard data of the numbers of people actually employed.
In addition, the jobless figures vary widely by age, gender, region and race. For example, the latest figures show that the unemployment rate for black workers, at 7.3 percent, is double that for white workers, which is 3.6 percent.
In regions like coal-mining towns, the unemployment rate is far higher. And the overall figure can jump considerably in June and July, when students finish school and enter the work force.
Overall, however, the nationwide figure is considered to be a reasonably good barometer of employment health.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday that the nationwide unemployment rate held steady at 4.1 percent in November even as employers hired 228,000 more workers in the month. In addition, average earnings rose again, for a 2.5 percent increase from a year ago.
The jobless rate is the lowest in 17 years, and this level is what experts call full employment. Moreover, employers have hired more people every month for seven years.
And despite the president's bid to cut taxes and thus ignite a "rocket" economic takeoff, the independent Federal Reserve has repeatedly hinted it will boost interest rates to prevent just that. The danger of a too-rapid growth rate, experts say, is that it's too likely to result in a sudden, rapid decline. That's just what the Fed wants to prevent.
The president has been claiming credit for the healthy economy, even though he has been in office for less than a year, and economic growth has been steadily upward for some eight years.
The tax cut promise relies on the theory that increased corporate profit will trickle down to workers through more hiring and increased wages. Conservative politicians tout this promise regularly, but economist note that in reality, it does not work.
The national jobless rate of 4.1 percent is a good sign, of course, but unemployment figures are based on a monthly telephone survey and, while useful as a monthly snapshot, it is not as accurate as the payroll employment figure, which is based on hard data of the numbers of people actually employed.
In addition, the jobless figures vary widely by age, gender, region and race. For example, the latest figures show that the unemployment rate for black workers, at 7.3 percent, is double that for white workers, which is 3.6 percent.
In regions like coal-mining towns, the unemployment rate is far higher. And the overall figure can jump considerably in June and July, when students finish school and enter the work force.
Overall, however, the nationwide figure is considered to be a reasonably good barometer of employment health.
Thursday, December 7, 2017
Lysistrata for Congress
This is not to suggest that women in Congress today use a similar tactic that Lysistrata used to persuade men in ancient Athens to change their ways.
According to the play by Aristophanes, the women of Athens withheld their sexual favors until and unless the men stopped warfare. The issue today is, of course, somewhat different.
Women today can and do vote. They can withhold their support for male colleagues in Congress, and women voters in the several states can withhold their support for candidates who do not conform to moral and ethical behavior.
This is, in effect, what happened in Washington when several dozen woman senators led the demand that Democratic Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota resign. Meanwhile, there is no such similar move among Republicans to persuade the president to step down because of similar accusations.
Some of the complaints, of course, are valid and should not be ignored, while others are as phony as a three-dollar bill. The clue lies in believability and evidence, knowing that some accusations are little more than ploys engineered by political foes designed solely to discredit someone of the opposite party, regardless of any connection to fact or reality.
Suppose, however, that complaints of inappropriate sexual behavior ranging from unwanted advances up to and including assault are true. Fairness dictates that if Democrats accused of such misbehavior should resign, so also should Republicans, those in office as well as candidates.
Otherwise, those who insist on punishment for men on one side of the political divide, but remain quiet about colleagues in the same party who do the same or worse, are guilty of hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy among politicians? Good grief! Who would think such a thing?
According to the play by Aristophanes, the women of Athens withheld their sexual favors until and unless the men stopped warfare. The issue today is, of course, somewhat different.
Women today can and do vote. They can withhold their support for male colleagues in Congress, and women voters in the several states can withhold their support for candidates who do not conform to moral and ethical behavior.
This is, in effect, what happened in Washington when several dozen woman senators led the demand that Democratic Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota resign. Meanwhile, there is no such similar move among Republicans to persuade the president to step down because of similar accusations.
Some of the complaints, of course, are valid and should not be ignored, while others are as phony as a three-dollar bill. The clue lies in believability and evidence, knowing that some accusations are little more than ploys engineered by political foes designed solely to discredit someone of the opposite party, regardless of any connection to fact or reality.
Suppose, however, that complaints of inappropriate sexual behavior ranging from unwanted advances up to and including assault are true. Fairness dictates that if Democrats accused of such misbehavior should resign, so also should Republicans, those in office as well as candidates.
Otherwise, those who insist on punishment for men on one side of the political divide, but remain quiet about colleagues in the same party who do the same or worse, are guilty of hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy among politicians? Good grief! Who would think such a thing?
Irony
Al Franken says he will resign from the U.S. Senate in the face of allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior against him. Even as he did so, the Minnesota Democrat noted the "irony" that he is forced to leave office while the man in the Oval Office -- recorded as bragging about his sexual prowess -- endorses a candidate in Alabama who has been charged with molesting minor girls.
So what are the rules? Why is such behavior "acceptable" for Republican men to indulge in but not for Democrats?
So what are the rules? Why is such behavior "acceptable" for Republican men to indulge in but not for Democrats?
Wednesday, December 6, 2017
Fame and Nationality
Fame in one country does not automatically bring citizenship in another. That, however, does not stop some in the news media from claiming citizenship for a famous person who is really from another country, and is not part of the national heritage of those who refer to the star as one of their own.
This happened recently when newspapers in Britain said Wimbledon tennis champion Andy Murray is English. Not so. While it may be technically acceptable to refer to him as British, since Scotland is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Scotland remains a separate country. It has its own currency. And fellow Scots vehemently resent losing their nationality in any way.
Scotland has been part of the United Kingdom since Queen Elizabeth I was succeeded in 1603 by her cousin James, who had been king of Scotland for several years until he added the English crown to his attire. And while the English refer to him as James I, to Scots he is James VI, since he is the sixth of that name to wear the crown of Scotland.
Moreover, the formal name of the monarchy did not become official until 1707, when the Act of Union was approved and the king became the ruler of Great Britain. That solved the problem of which came first in the official name, England or Scotland.
In addition, Ireland lost its independent Parliament around the same time, and the monarch became king of Great Britain and Ireland.
And, of course, the Irish rebelled in 1916 and the island was split by a peace treaty that gave 26 of the counties semi-independent status while six of the counties in the north remained part of the UK. Then, in 1947, the southern part declared its full independence and became the Republic of Ireland.
Even so, there were and are some who continue to refer to both islands as the United Kingdom, and its people as British.
For example, the actress Saoise Ronan starred in the film "Lady Bird," got rave reviews for her performance and was nominated for an Oscar in the film "Brooklyn." The British media are claiming her as British, as they have with Colin Farrell, Ruth Negga, Michael Fassbender and the boxer Katie Taylor. They use the argument that they are from the British Isles.
This supposed compliment ignores their nationality of being Irish -- not from the six counties of Northern Ireland that remain subject to the British crown, but they are from the fully independent Republic of Ireland. This may geographically be one of the British Isles, but that does not make its people British.
They may have achieved fame in England, but that does not make them English.
Similarly, when Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, its people strongly resented being called Russian.
And undoubtedly, Canadians who achieve fame in the United States would dislike being referred to as Americans, since their country is part of the continent of North America.
While it may be difficult to discern from speech patterns whether a person is from Canada or the U.S., that's not the case with Ukrainians, who have their own language that is not at all related to Russian.
Here's a brief list of a few people who achieved fame in the United States, but were actually from Canada: William Shatner (Capt. Kirk of the "Star Wars" series), Ali Velshi, an MSNBC News anchor, Lorne Greene (star of the "Bonanza" TV series), Morley Safer (CBS News), actor Michael J. Fox, Justin Bieber, and Raymond Burr.
This happened recently when newspapers in Britain said Wimbledon tennis champion Andy Murray is English. Not so. While it may be technically acceptable to refer to him as British, since Scotland is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Scotland remains a separate country. It has its own currency. And fellow Scots vehemently resent losing their nationality in any way.
Scotland has been part of the United Kingdom since Queen Elizabeth I was succeeded in 1603 by her cousin James, who had been king of Scotland for several years until he added the English crown to his attire. And while the English refer to him as James I, to Scots he is James VI, since he is the sixth of that name to wear the crown of Scotland.
Moreover, the formal name of the monarchy did not become official until 1707, when the Act of Union was approved and the king became the ruler of Great Britain. That solved the problem of which came first in the official name, England or Scotland.
In addition, Ireland lost its independent Parliament around the same time, and the monarch became king of Great Britain and Ireland.
And, of course, the Irish rebelled in 1916 and the island was split by a peace treaty that gave 26 of the counties semi-independent status while six of the counties in the north remained part of the UK. Then, in 1947, the southern part declared its full independence and became the Republic of Ireland.
Even so, there were and are some who continue to refer to both islands as the United Kingdom, and its people as British.
For example, the actress Saoise Ronan starred in the film "Lady Bird," got rave reviews for her performance and was nominated for an Oscar in the film "Brooklyn." The British media are claiming her as British, as they have with Colin Farrell, Ruth Negga, Michael Fassbender and the boxer Katie Taylor. They use the argument that they are from the British Isles.
This supposed compliment ignores their nationality of being Irish -- not from the six counties of Northern Ireland that remain subject to the British crown, but they are from the fully independent Republic of Ireland. This may geographically be one of the British Isles, but that does not make its people British.
They may have achieved fame in England, but that does not make them English.
Similarly, when Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, its people strongly resented being called Russian.
And undoubtedly, Canadians who achieve fame in the United States would dislike being referred to as Americans, since their country is part of the continent of North America.
While it may be difficult to discern from speech patterns whether a person is from Canada or the U.S., that's not the case with Ukrainians, who have their own language that is not at all related to Russian.
Here's a brief list of a few people who achieved fame in the United States, but were actually from Canada: William Shatner (Capt. Kirk of the "Star Wars" series), Ali Velshi, an MSNBC News anchor, Lorne Greene (star of the "Bonanza" TV series), Morley Safer (CBS News), actor Michael J. Fox, Justin Bieber, and Raymond Burr.
Global Economy
Regardless of what the current president says, we live in a global economy. And a major beneficiary of that globalization is himself, with his extensive investments in real estate worldwide, as well as his clothing lines made elsewhere and brought to the U.S. for sale for his profit.
On its face, closing borders and shutting out others is a disastrous strategy, since it assumes that one nation can have a self-sustaining economy and stand alone, supplying all the needs and wants of its citizens, with well paying jobs and reasonable prices.
It doesn't happen.
Technology, automation and machines increase productivity, with the same number or fewer workers, even at higher pay for each. Total expense for labor and production is therefore lower. Also, greater output enables lower per-unit price, so the company still makes a profit -- even a higher profit.
Meanwhile, workers let go in the process of increased efficiency move on to other fields, learning new skills with more education. Result: Higher pay, better hours and working conditions, less physical labor and more satisfaction for a challenging job well done.
And because of this increased production at lower cost, the market for the product expands beyond a nation's borders. At the same time, each nation discovers what it is most efficient at producing, and focuses on that. By definition, this means a global economy, a situation outlined more than 200 years ago by Adam Smith in his book, "The Wealth of Nations."
Moreover, this force, guided by what Smith called the "invisible hand" of a free market, operated in a global economy.
So to close a nation's borders to protect its markets, even as these protectionists praise the virtues of a free market, is contradictory at best and downright silly at worst.
You can't have it both ways. Yet that seems to be what many politicians in Washington seem to be aiming for: A fully free market economy, entire of itself, with tight borders to keep out others producers even as it aims to keep its export markets.
Ain't gonna happen. It will only mean other nations will also raise tariff barriers to protect their producers, and everybody loses.
On its face, closing borders and shutting out others is a disastrous strategy, since it assumes that one nation can have a self-sustaining economy and stand alone, supplying all the needs and wants of its citizens, with well paying jobs and reasonable prices.
It doesn't happen.
Technology, automation and machines increase productivity, with the same number or fewer workers, even at higher pay for each. Total expense for labor and production is therefore lower. Also, greater output enables lower per-unit price, so the company still makes a profit -- even a higher profit.
Meanwhile, workers let go in the process of increased efficiency move on to other fields, learning new skills with more education. Result: Higher pay, better hours and working conditions, less physical labor and more satisfaction for a challenging job well done.
And because of this increased production at lower cost, the market for the product expands beyond a nation's borders. At the same time, each nation discovers what it is most efficient at producing, and focuses on that. By definition, this means a global economy, a situation outlined more than 200 years ago by Adam Smith in his book, "The Wealth of Nations."
Moreover, this force, guided by what Smith called the "invisible hand" of a free market, operated in a global economy.
So to close a nation's borders to protect its markets, even as these protectionists praise the virtues of a free market, is contradictory at best and downright silly at worst.
You can't have it both ways. Yet that seems to be what many politicians in Washington seem to be aiming for: A fully free market economy, entire of itself, with tight borders to keep out others producers even as it aims to keep its export markets.
Ain't gonna happen. It will only mean other nations will also raise tariff barriers to protect their producers, and everybody loses.
Double Standard
No one is above the law, or exempt from moral behavior.
More than two dozen Democratic colleagues of Sen. Al Franken now say that he should resign because of the allegations of sexual misbehavior lodged against him.
But if Sen. Franken should step aside because of this issue, so also should Roy Moore, the Alabama Republican who is likely to be elected to the Senate next week, as well as President Donald Trump, who also has been accused of multiple examples of unwanted and inappropriate behavior toward women for many years.
Moral and ethical standards do not have varying levels depending on political affiliation or elective office.
Claims are being made that the president is exempt from prosecution because he is the chief executive office of the nation's laws, and is therefore exempt from that standard because he sets the standard.
But if the president's behavior is acceptable, excusable or "legal," then so also is similar behavior by others, whether they be Republicans or Democrats, elected officials and candidates, or any other ordinary citizen.
What is inappropriate behavior for one man applies also to every man -- including the president of the United States.
More than two dozen Democratic colleagues of Sen. Al Franken now say that he should resign because of the allegations of sexual misbehavior lodged against him.
But if Sen. Franken should step aside because of this issue, so also should Roy Moore, the Alabama Republican who is likely to be elected to the Senate next week, as well as President Donald Trump, who also has been accused of multiple examples of unwanted and inappropriate behavior toward women for many years.
Moral and ethical standards do not have varying levels depending on political affiliation or elective office.
Claims are being made that the president is exempt from prosecution because he is the chief executive office of the nation's laws, and is therefore exempt from that standard because he sets the standard.
But if the president's behavior is acceptable, excusable or "legal," then so also is similar behavior by others, whether they be Republicans or Democrats, elected officials and candidates, or any other ordinary citizen.
What is inappropriate behavior for one man applies also to every man -- including the president of the United States.
Tuesday, December 5, 2017
Revisionist History
"You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." -- Abraham Lincoln.
"If the president does it, it's not illegal." -- Richard Nixon
"The president cannot obstruct justice, because he is the chief executive." -- John Dowd, lawyer for Donald Trump
"L'etat, c'est moi." (I am the state.) -- Louis XIV, king of France.
Truth cannot be cornered. -- Pug Mahoney
The circus now playing in Washington has a ringmaster determined to fool all the people of America all the time, and is trying to back Truth into a corner.
It seems to have escaped his attention that in the public and political ring there are no corners, and a free press is always on the perimeter watching, monitoring, tracking and reporting what he says and does, as well as whether it conforms to fact and reality, and how it compares to what he has said and done in the past.
But thanks go to past associates who have developed an attack of conscience, and an active news media ready to report his emphasis on "alternative facts" as well as how these claims conflict with past history and fact.
The president's lawyer, John Dowd, now claims it was he, not the president, who used the president's Twitter account to attack former aide Mike Flynn for having pled guilty to a charge that he lied to the FBI.
Grammarians, linguists and especially other lawyers quickly pointed out that no competent lawyer would use "pled" as the past tense form of the verb "plead." The preferred form is "pleaded."
Granted, many people do indeed use the form "pled," but they are not lawyers, linguists or editors.
And this gives impetus to the suspicion that the president himself tweeted that particular message, since it's another example of his pattern of language usage evident in his many other tweets. Besides, since when does this president allow others to use his Twitter account? Especially when access requires a password?
So it would seem that lawyer Dowd is taking a fall on behalf of his client the president. And that in itself raises these questions: Why would he do that? Why would he risk his own career and possibly be disbarred for doing stuff that runs counter to law and ethics?
As for the argument that a president cannot obstruct justice because he is the president, that's a ploy that's known to any student of Logic 101 as circular logic. Moreover, while the president is indeed the chief executive of federal law in America, that does not raise his status above the other two branches of government.
Try using that argument to the Supreme Court and see how far you get.
The president's constitutional obligation is to enforce all laws, not just those that serve his own purposes while he ignores others.
As for revising history, the president now claims the "Access Hollywood" recording in which he bragged about his sexual prowess and his ability to grab women by their private parts because he was a celebrity and therefore "can do anything," is a fake. It was not his voice, and not his image on the recording, the president alleges.
In response, the host of the "Access Hollywood" show wrote in the New York Times that it was indeed Donald Trump who said (and later admitted to saying) exactly what he was quoted as saying. Moreover, there were seven other people on the bus who heard him.
As another president once said, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."
Thanks to the First Amendment of the Constitution, we have some people who cannot be fooled and are ready and able to expose foolishness to all the people, at any time.
"If the president does it, it's not illegal." -- Richard Nixon
"The president cannot obstruct justice, because he is the chief executive." -- John Dowd, lawyer for Donald Trump
"L'etat, c'est moi." (I am the state.) -- Louis XIV, king of France.
Truth cannot be cornered. -- Pug Mahoney
The circus now playing in Washington has a ringmaster determined to fool all the people of America all the time, and is trying to back Truth into a corner.
It seems to have escaped his attention that in the public and political ring there are no corners, and a free press is always on the perimeter watching, monitoring, tracking and reporting what he says and does, as well as whether it conforms to fact and reality, and how it compares to what he has said and done in the past.
But thanks go to past associates who have developed an attack of conscience, and an active news media ready to report his emphasis on "alternative facts" as well as how these claims conflict with past history and fact.
The president's lawyer, John Dowd, now claims it was he, not the president, who used the president's Twitter account to attack former aide Mike Flynn for having pled guilty to a charge that he lied to the FBI.
Grammarians, linguists and especially other lawyers quickly pointed out that no competent lawyer would use "pled" as the past tense form of the verb "plead." The preferred form is "pleaded."
Granted, many people do indeed use the form "pled," but they are not lawyers, linguists or editors.
And this gives impetus to the suspicion that the president himself tweeted that particular message, since it's another example of his pattern of language usage evident in his many other tweets. Besides, since when does this president allow others to use his Twitter account? Especially when access requires a password?
So it would seem that lawyer Dowd is taking a fall on behalf of his client the president. And that in itself raises these questions: Why would he do that? Why would he risk his own career and possibly be disbarred for doing stuff that runs counter to law and ethics?
As for the argument that a president cannot obstruct justice because he is the president, that's a ploy that's known to any student of Logic 101 as circular logic. Moreover, while the president is indeed the chief executive of federal law in America, that does not raise his status above the other two branches of government.
Try using that argument to the Supreme Court and see how far you get.
The president's constitutional obligation is to enforce all laws, not just those that serve his own purposes while he ignores others.
As for revising history, the president now claims the "Access Hollywood" recording in which he bragged about his sexual prowess and his ability to grab women by their private parts because he was a celebrity and therefore "can do anything," is a fake. It was not his voice, and not his image on the recording, the president alleges.
In response, the host of the "Access Hollywood" show wrote in the New York Times that it was indeed Donald Trump who said (and later admitted to saying) exactly what he was quoted as saying. Moreover, there were seven other people on the bus who heard him.
As another president once said, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."
Thanks to the First Amendment of the Constitution, we have some people who cannot be fooled and are ready and able to expose foolishness to all the people, at any time.
Friday, December 1, 2017
Trumponomics
We are watching the rapid return of an economic doctrine that was abandoned by many political and economic experts many years ago.
Call it Trumponomics. It's a return to a fully free market with no government intervention, regulation or control of any sort.
In the latest incarnation of the 19th Century practice of "laissez-faire" economics (from the French for "leave it alone"), the U.S. government is dismantling a series of social welfare programs, canceling tax benefits for low and middle income Americans while adding assistance for those at the highest income levels, abandoning protections for national parks to enable corporate access to natural resources, and more.
The next target could be the federal minimum wage law, either by actively lowering it or by passively refusing to enforce it. Fortunately for many workers, most state minimum wage laws are already higher than the federal level. But don't be surprised if some states follow the conservative lead and refuse to enforce their own levels, or by not adjusting the minimum for inflation.
It may well be true that government intervention in the private sector should be minimal, following the premise that "the government that governs best is the one that governs least." But it's also true that government can and should act where the private sector does not.
Not mentioned yet in news reports is the possibility that the new administration will move to loosen labor laws in an effort to stifle unions that protect the interests of workers. Historically, an argument could be made that if companies treated workers fairly and paid them reasonably well, there would have no need for unions, organizing workers to demand fair treatment and reasonable wages.
The term "regime" is sometimes used to describe a president's government and his administration. But "regime" is rooted in the Latin for for king.
The behavior of the current occupant of the Oval Office is such that he fancies himself so important that no one should question him about anything, ever, and those who do not pledge total loyalty to him are soon fired.
There have been several instances of that recently, and unless this self-delusional "king" is deposed, or persuaded to change his ways, American ideals are tarnished and the nation's goal of equal treatment for all is in trouble.
Call it Trumponomics. It's a return to a fully free market with no government intervention, regulation or control of any sort.
In the latest incarnation of the 19th Century practice of "laissez-faire" economics (from the French for "leave it alone"), the U.S. government is dismantling a series of social welfare programs, canceling tax benefits for low and middle income Americans while adding assistance for those at the highest income levels, abandoning protections for national parks to enable corporate access to natural resources, and more.
The next target could be the federal minimum wage law, either by actively lowering it or by passively refusing to enforce it. Fortunately for many workers, most state minimum wage laws are already higher than the federal level. But don't be surprised if some states follow the conservative lead and refuse to enforce their own levels, or by not adjusting the minimum for inflation.
It may well be true that government intervention in the private sector should be minimal, following the premise that "the government that governs best is the one that governs least." But it's also true that government can and should act where the private sector does not.
Not mentioned yet in news reports is the possibility that the new administration will move to loosen labor laws in an effort to stifle unions that protect the interests of workers. Historically, an argument could be made that if companies treated workers fairly and paid them reasonably well, there would have no need for unions, organizing workers to demand fair treatment and reasonable wages.
The term "regime" is sometimes used to describe a president's government and his administration. But "regime" is rooted in the Latin for for king.
The behavior of the current occupant of the Oval Office is such that he fancies himself so important that no one should question him about anything, ever, and those who do not pledge total loyalty to him are soon fired.
There have been several instances of that recently, and unless this self-delusional "king" is deposed, or persuaded to change his ways, American ideals are tarnished and the nation's goal of equal treatment for all is in trouble.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)