Those who expected significant details on policy proposals in the president's speech to Congress Tuesday evening were disappointed.
It was more a rerun of his many campaign speeches than a call to specific action. He was, of course, interrupted many times by applause from Republicans in the chamber, while Democrats on the other side of the aisle remained silent -- also typical.
The daily press will of course, run long stories detailing what he said, along with reaction from political colleagues and opponents.
But the reaction from here is that while snippets of information released earlier in the day indicated specifics on new proposals would be delivered, that didn't happen.
Fact checkers, meanwhile, will be combing through the text of the speech to find comments and claims that conflict with readily available reliable data.
As for rhetorical flourishes that raise the spirit of listeners, there were few.
The most powerful moment of the evening was when the president introduced the widow of the Navy SEAL killed in action last week. During a long, standing ovation, TV cameras showed her by turns wiping away tears, clasping her hands and looking upward, as if in prayer to her lost husband.
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
Econowatch
The U.S. economy may be on a wait and see stance while the new administration gets its act together in Washington.
How this changes could very well depend on what the president says this evening in his speech to Congress. Recently, he has called for a $54 billion increase in defense spending, to be covered by sharp cuts in other government expenditures.
A big increase in defense spending would boost total output of goods and services, but without more revenue, such a policy would increase the government deficit as well as the national debt.
This could also lead to more inflation. Coupled with continued flat wage growth, the average worker would be worse off, as prices rises but income remains the same.
And as defense spending rises sharply, suppliers of munitions would benefit from the additional business.
All in all, it's reminiscent of the script of George Bernard Shaw's play, "Major Barbara."
Gross Domestic Product (GDP). the standard index of output used to measure national economic health, posted a 1.9 percent growth rate in the fourth quarter of 2016, the same as an earlier estimate posted several weeks ago. That, however, is down from the 3.5 percent final number for the third quarter of last year.
The Commerce Department announcement said "the general picture of economic growth remains the same," even as personal consumption spending notched a larger increase, but state and local government spending grew more slowly. In addition, there were fewer exports and a rise in imports, as well as a downturn in federal government spending.
Taken together, the various elements counter-balanced each other, resulting in what can be described as a pause in the GDP growth rate.
Separately, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said unemployment rates for all of 2016 faded in 38 states and the District of Columbia, rose in just nine states and held steady in three states. Nationwide, the unemployment rate has been below 5 percent for several months.
How this changes could very well depend on what the president says this evening in his speech to Congress. Recently, he has called for a $54 billion increase in defense spending, to be covered by sharp cuts in other government expenditures.
A big increase in defense spending would boost total output of goods and services, but without more revenue, such a policy would increase the government deficit as well as the national debt.
This could also lead to more inflation. Coupled with continued flat wage growth, the average worker would be worse off, as prices rises but income remains the same.
And as defense spending rises sharply, suppliers of munitions would benefit from the additional business.
All in all, it's reminiscent of the script of George Bernard Shaw's play, "Major Barbara."
Gross Domestic Product (GDP). the standard index of output used to measure national economic health, posted a 1.9 percent growth rate in the fourth quarter of 2016, the same as an earlier estimate posted several weeks ago. That, however, is down from the 3.5 percent final number for the third quarter of last year.
The Commerce Department announcement said "the general picture of economic growth remains the same," even as personal consumption spending notched a larger increase, but state and local government spending grew more slowly. In addition, there were fewer exports and a rise in imports, as well as a downturn in federal government spending.
Taken together, the various elements counter-balanced each other, resulting in what can be described as a pause in the GDP growth rate.
Separately, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said unemployment rates for all of 2016 faded in 38 states and the District of Columbia, rose in just nine states and held steady in three states. Nationwide, the unemployment rate has been below 5 percent for several months.
Monday, February 27, 2017
Invitation to Fight
"We have to start winning wars again," said the president as he prepared a federal budget with a $54 billion increase in defense spending. He called the proposed boost in the military and national security portion of the U.S. budget, "historic," and "massive," saying he is a "total nationalist" who wants to "make the nation safe."
He was not specific on what the dangers are, and whether they are real. He has in the past warned of unwanted immigrants pouring into the country -- in his view entering by the thousands, with no one knowing who they are or where they came from.
As for the need to "start winning wars again," that implies that more war is expected. From where, when and why was not mentioned.
But the danger of talking about war, meanwhile lamenting that the nation has in the past lost, only increases the possibility of igniting a military conflict, especially when such talk is coupled with a "massive" increase in spending to rebuild what the president has called "a depleted military."
During the same comments about boosting defense spending, the president said the cost would be covered by cuts in the diplomacy budget of the State Department as well as significant reductions in infrastructure spending for projects like roads, bridges, rail and airport improvements and repairs. "We want to make sure it's done right," he said. Translation: Don't hold your breath waiting for the work to be approved.
In addition, he suggested sharp budget reductions at the Environmental Protection Agency, and smaller contributions to cultural groups like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Finally, critics have maintained that the boost in defense spending -- $54 billion is 10 percent of the total for the agencies involved -- will not be made up by the proposed budget cuts for other federal projects and agencies. The result, they insist, will be severe deficit spending and a major increase in the federal debt, a sharp contrast to the campaign promises made during the recent election campaign.
A slight ray of hope may be that the budget proposal is still being worked on, and must be approved by Congress before the next fiscal year begins in June. By that time, the Great Deal Artist may have faced obstacles in the separate and equal legislative branch of government that his private sector bluster can't get past.
He was not specific on what the dangers are, and whether they are real. He has in the past warned of unwanted immigrants pouring into the country -- in his view entering by the thousands, with no one knowing who they are or where they came from.
As for the need to "start winning wars again," that implies that more war is expected. From where, when and why was not mentioned.
But the danger of talking about war, meanwhile lamenting that the nation has in the past lost, only increases the possibility of igniting a military conflict, especially when such talk is coupled with a "massive" increase in spending to rebuild what the president has called "a depleted military."
During the same comments about boosting defense spending, the president said the cost would be covered by cuts in the diplomacy budget of the State Department as well as significant reductions in infrastructure spending for projects like roads, bridges, rail and airport improvements and repairs. "We want to make sure it's done right," he said. Translation: Don't hold your breath waiting for the work to be approved.
In addition, he suggested sharp budget reductions at the Environmental Protection Agency, and smaller contributions to cultural groups like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Finally, critics have maintained that the boost in defense spending -- $54 billion is 10 percent of the total for the agencies involved -- will not be made up by the proposed budget cuts for other federal projects and agencies. The result, they insist, will be severe deficit spending and a major increase in the federal debt, a sharp contrast to the campaign promises made during the recent election campaign.
A slight ray of hope may be that the budget proposal is still being worked on, and must be approved by Congress before the next fiscal year begins in June. By that time, the Great Deal Artist may have faced obstacles in the separate and equal legislative branch of government that his private sector bluster can't get past.
Ouster
There are two ways listed in the Constitution to remove a sitting president from office. One is impeachment by the House of Representatives, then trial and conviction by the Senate of treason, bribery or some other high crime or misdemeanor.
The other is covered in Amendments 20 and 25, which details how a president who is unable to continue to do the job can voluntarily step aside after written notice to Congress and the duties pass to the vice president, who is then named acting president until the president notifies Congress that he is once again up to the task. At that time, the acting president steps back and the elected president returns to the Oval Office. If there is no vice president, the next in line according to Constitutional rules becomes the acting president. This scenario was acted out in "The West Wing" TV series. That, of course, was fiction.
A second possibility, if the president does not ask to be temporarily replaced, is that Congress determines that he is indeed unable to perform the duties of his office, and rules that he must be temporarily replaced.
In either context, a president can challenge the ouster and demand to be allowed back in to the Oval Office, in which case Congress hears the challenge and decides whether to return him to his duties.
That's a simplified explanation of the procedure. Ambitious folk can read the Constitution's two relevant amendments and decide whether this editor is unhinged.
In any case, the ouster plan depends on whether a president is indeed unhinged and should be replaced.
Nothing is said in the Constitution about how or why a president is unable to do the job -- whether for physical health reasons, mental health reasons, emotional health reasons, or any other reason. That's up to Congress to decide and act accordingly.
As a practical matter, since the current Congress is dominated in both the Senate and the House of Representatives by the same party as the current president, unless the Republican majority undergoes a remarkable change of attitude, it's not likely to happen.
Nor are they likely to take the impeachment route.
But they could. And if the crowds of protestors at recent town hall meetings have any influence on elected representatives, they might.
The other is covered in Amendments 20 and 25, which details how a president who is unable to continue to do the job can voluntarily step aside after written notice to Congress and the duties pass to the vice president, who is then named acting president until the president notifies Congress that he is once again up to the task. At that time, the acting president steps back and the elected president returns to the Oval Office. If there is no vice president, the next in line according to Constitutional rules becomes the acting president. This scenario was acted out in "The West Wing" TV series. That, of course, was fiction.
A second possibility, if the president does not ask to be temporarily replaced, is that Congress determines that he is indeed unable to perform the duties of his office, and rules that he must be temporarily replaced.
In either context, a president can challenge the ouster and demand to be allowed back in to the Oval Office, in which case Congress hears the challenge and decides whether to return him to his duties.
That's a simplified explanation of the procedure. Ambitious folk can read the Constitution's two relevant amendments and decide whether this editor is unhinged.
In any case, the ouster plan depends on whether a president is indeed unhinged and should be replaced.
Nothing is said in the Constitution about how or why a president is unable to do the job -- whether for physical health reasons, mental health reasons, emotional health reasons, or any other reason. That's up to Congress to decide and act accordingly.
As a practical matter, since the current Congress is dominated in both the Senate and the House of Representatives by the same party as the current president, unless the Republican majority undergoes a remarkable change of attitude, it's not likely to happen.
Nor are they likely to take the impeachment route.
But they could. And if the crowds of protestors at recent town hall meetings have any influence on elected representatives, they might.
Saturday, February 25, 2017
Update
Add the BBC to the list of news media barred from Whine House press secretary Sean Spicer's briefing on Friday. Does this mean the president considers the BBC to be another "weak, dishonest, fake" news outlet along with others specifically named by the chief twit in one of his Twitter postings?
These included, according to his posting Feb. 17, "The FAKE NEWS media @NBC News, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN," all labeled "the enemy of the American People."
Later, he tried to walk back his comment, claiming that he did not condemn all news media, but only those that were "fake." And he accused larger, mainstream outlets of deliberately deleting the word "fake." In fact, none did so.
A larger question now becomes whether the British government, which organized, sponsored and supports the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), is to be included in the president's condemnation of "fake news media."
The BBC serves the world through its various divisions, and has an international reputation for neutral, objective reporting.
So does the U.S. president now believe the BBC, and by implication the British Government, is also out to get him?
These included, according to his posting Feb. 17, "The FAKE NEWS media @NBC News, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN," all labeled "the enemy of the American People."
Later, he tried to walk back his comment, claiming that he did not condemn all news media, but only those that were "fake." And he accused larger, mainstream outlets of deliberately deleting the word "fake." In fact, none did so.
A larger question now becomes whether the British government, which organized, sponsored and supports the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), is to be included in the president's condemnation of "fake news media."
The BBC serves the world through its various divisions, and has an international reputation for neutral, objective reporting.
So does the U.S. president now believe the BBC, and by implication the British Government, is also out to get him?
Name Your Sources
"The era of empty talk is over." -- President Donald Trump
Good idea, Mr. President. When will you start? -- Pug Mahoney
The president demands that news media identify their sources, especially in stories that are critical of his statements and actions.
That rule, however, works both ways. His typical claim to support many of his arguments is a variation on statements like, "A lot of people are saying it," or "Everybody knows that."
Seldom, however, does he provide hard evidence for allegations like millions of illegal votes were cast last November, and if not for that "alternative fact," he would have won the popular vote count. Or the claim that busloads of people traveled to New Hampshire from Massachusetts to vote illegally against him.
When challenged, a Whine House aide replied "this is not the venue" to provide evidence, but the reporter should go to New Hampshire and ask there, because everyone there knows it's true. Reporters did just that, and every state official -- even Republicans -- denied it.
Meanwhile, as for the demand that sources be identified, consider this: Police use confidential informants regularly in their quest for evidence. Intelligence agents routinely use anonymous and confidential sources to gather information critical to the national defense. And many states protect the legal right of journalists to use confidential sources in news gathering.
So as for revealing sources, it's appropriate for the president to set an example, supplying evidence and putting names to sources for his claims and allegations. Moreover, laws apply to all citizens, and that includes a president. He is not exempt from the law. He is, after all, a citizen, and subject to the same laws as all other citizens.
Journalists, too, are citizens first and reporters second. First Amendment rights of free speech and free press apply to all citizens, not just to those with the financial resources to own a printing press or a broadcasting facility.
Good idea, Mr. President. When will you start? -- Pug Mahoney
The president demands that news media identify their sources, especially in stories that are critical of his statements and actions.
That rule, however, works both ways. His typical claim to support many of his arguments is a variation on statements like, "A lot of people are saying it," or "Everybody knows that."
Seldom, however, does he provide hard evidence for allegations like millions of illegal votes were cast last November, and if not for that "alternative fact," he would have won the popular vote count. Or the claim that busloads of people traveled to New Hampshire from Massachusetts to vote illegally against him.
When challenged, a Whine House aide replied "this is not the venue" to provide evidence, but the reporter should go to New Hampshire and ask there, because everyone there knows it's true. Reporters did just that, and every state official -- even Republicans -- denied it.
Meanwhile, as for the demand that sources be identified, consider this: Police use confidential informants regularly in their quest for evidence. Intelligence agents routinely use anonymous and confidential sources to gather information critical to the national defense. And many states protect the legal right of journalists to use confidential sources in news gathering.
So as for revealing sources, it's appropriate for the president to set an example, supplying evidence and putting names to sources for his claims and allegations. Moreover, laws apply to all citizens, and that includes a president. He is not exempt from the law. He is, after all, a citizen, and subject to the same laws as all other citizens.
Journalists, too, are citizens first and reporters second. First Amendment rights of free speech and free press apply to all citizens, not just to those with the financial resources to own a printing press or a broadcasting facility.
Friday, February 24, 2017
Media Lockout
The first step on the road to dictatorship is control of a free press.
The White House took another step Friday in its campaign to punish news outlets for running stories the president doesn't like. Or should we say the Whine House?
Using the excuse of insufficient room in press secretary Sean Spicer's office for many reporters, five major news organizations were banned from the small briefing, called a "gaggle." The five were the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, BuzzFeed News and Politico. At the same time, reporters for several other small organizations sympathetic to the president's views, including Breitbart News, One America News Network and The Washington Times, were allowed in.
In protest, pool reporters for The Associated Press and Time magazine refused the invitation to attend.
Earlier in the day, the president spoke to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and mounted another attack on what he call "dishonest" media that carry "fake news" citing anonymous sources. He insisted that sources should be identified in news stories.
The president has attacked in the past major news outlets, and during the election campaign has ejected or sidelined reporters from several organizations.
In his CPAC speech, the president defended his earlier criticism of the press as being "the enemy of the people," claiming the referred only to those organizations that publish what he called "fake news."
He did not define what might be called "truthful news," nor did he identify those in the media who qualified for that category. However, he has been known to praise conservative-leaning outlets that are sympathetic to his views. Generally, his attacks are aimed at major mainstream publications and broadcast channels that are relatively neutral in their coverage, but make a special point of exposing untruths, half-truths, misleading claims and other comments that are egregiously wrong.
The White House took another step Friday in its campaign to punish news outlets for running stories the president doesn't like. Or should we say the Whine House?
Using the excuse of insufficient room in press secretary Sean Spicer's office for many reporters, five major news organizations were banned from the small briefing, called a "gaggle." The five were the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, BuzzFeed News and Politico. At the same time, reporters for several other small organizations sympathetic to the president's views, including Breitbart News, One America News Network and The Washington Times, were allowed in.
In protest, pool reporters for The Associated Press and Time magazine refused the invitation to attend.
Earlier in the day, the president spoke to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and mounted another attack on what he call "dishonest" media that carry "fake news" citing anonymous sources. He insisted that sources should be identified in news stories.
The president has attacked in the past major news outlets, and during the election campaign has ejected or sidelined reporters from several organizations.
In his CPAC speech, the president defended his earlier criticism of the press as being "the enemy of the people," claiming the referred only to those organizations that publish what he called "fake news."
He did not define what might be called "truthful news," nor did he identify those in the media who qualified for that category. However, he has been known to praise conservative-leaning outlets that are sympathetic to his views. Generally, his attacks are aimed at major mainstream publications and broadcast channels that are relatively neutral in their coverage, but make a special point of exposing untruths, half-truths, misleading claims and other comments that are egregiously wrong.
Immigrants and Jobs
"Get 'em the hell out of here," says the new president of the United States of newcomers seeking jobs in America. Send them back to the other countries that are "stealing our jobs," he adds.
But what kinds of jobs are the newcomers stealing?
If you deport all the newcomers, who will muck out the stables in the horse country of the wealthy?
Who will tend to the landscaping?
Who will harvest the crops?
Who will collect the trash?
Perhaps the college graduate offspring of the Radical Righteous will volunteer to work at these minimum wage jobs so essential to their lifestyle.
But what kinds of jobs are the newcomers stealing?
If you deport all the newcomers, who will muck out the stables in the horse country of the wealthy?
Who will tend to the landscaping?
Who will harvest the crops?
Who will collect the trash?
Perhaps the college graduate offspring of the Radical Righteous will volunteer to work at these minimum wage jobs so essential to their lifestyle.
Mercantilism Redux
"Greed is good." -- Gordon Gecko
The buzzword of the week is "economic nationalism," preached by those hoping to lead to U.S. to new dreams of prosperity.
But like mercantilism, the doctrine praised in the colonial era as the best way to prosperity, it is really a one-way street, as resources are drained from a colony to enrich the master country.
In reviving that failed economic strategy but giving it a new name, the new U.S. administration makes an appeal couched in patriotic, free-market terms that mask a strategy of domination of smaller countries by a larger economic power.
The underlying thinking is this: "We get to sell to your country freely but you can sell to our country only on our terms." A corollary to that is, "Whoever has the most gold at the end, wins."
The problem, of course, is what known in Economics 101 as a "beggar thy neighbor" policy, which means the successful country reduces its trade partner to poverty and beggary.
That may work well for a short while, but soon the so-called winning country has nowhere to sell its products because the former customers have no money.
The strategies now being followed in Washington propose high tariffs (import taxes) on goods brought to America, but no taxes on goods exported from America. That way, the thinking goes, U.S. firms have an advantage and can increase their profits even as they offer more jobs and higher wages to American workers.
However, that thinking ignores the likelihood of retaliatory tariffs by competing countries. In addition, high import tariffs only lead to higher prices to consumers, either on goods brought in from other countries or on goods made in America. Or both.
On top of all that, according to a new study from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, higher prices on imports "result in higher domestic prices by both importing and non-importing firms." For example, the Fed study noted, "if there were a tax on imported steel, local steel producers can also increase their prices and stay competitive," further increasing costs for U.S. consumers.
And an unintended consequence of the proposed border tax is that it will depress rather than stimulate exports. Why? Since both imports and exports are priced in U.S. dollars, a tax exemption on exports "will mostly boost exporters' profit margins rather than increase their export sales."
In addition, an appreciation in the value of the U.S. dollar will bring higher prices in foreign currencies, counterbalancing any benefit of an export tax exemption. Trading partners will then take their business elsewhere, resulting in lower U.S. export sales.
The whole strategy may benefit a few companies for a short time, but eventually higher prices to domestic and foreign customers coupled with reduced demand will hurt everyone.
But will the moguls care? Probably not, since they will have pocketed the extra cash and found a way to blame others, claiming they "should have saved for some rainy days."
The buzzword of the week is "economic nationalism," preached by those hoping to lead to U.S. to new dreams of prosperity.
But like mercantilism, the doctrine praised in the colonial era as the best way to prosperity, it is really a one-way street, as resources are drained from a colony to enrich the master country.
In reviving that failed economic strategy but giving it a new name, the new U.S. administration makes an appeal couched in patriotic, free-market terms that mask a strategy of domination of smaller countries by a larger economic power.
The underlying thinking is this: "We get to sell to your country freely but you can sell to our country only on our terms." A corollary to that is, "Whoever has the most gold at the end, wins."
The problem, of course, is what known in Economics 101 as a "beggar thy neighbor" policy, which means the successful country reduces its trade partner to poverty and beggary.
That may work well for a short while, but soon the so-called winning country has nowhere to sell its products because the former customers have no money.
The strategies now being followed in Washington propose high tariffs (import taxes) on goods brought to America, but no taxes on goods exported from America. That way, the thinking goes, U.S. firms have an advantage and can increase their profits even as they offer more jobs and higher wages to American workers.
However, that thinking ignores the likelihood of retaliatory tariffs by competing countries. In addition, high import tariffs only lead to higher prices to consumers, either on goods brought in from other countries or on goods made in America. Or both.
On top of all that, according to a new study from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, higher prices on imports "result in higher domestic prices by both importing and non-importing firms." For example, the Fed study noted, "if there were a tax on imported steel, local steel producers can also increase their prices and stay competitive," further increasing costs for U.S. consumers.
And an unintended consequence of the proposed border tax is that it will depress rather than stimulate exports. Why? Since both imports and exports are priced in U.S. dollars, a tax exemption on exports "will mostly boost exporters' profit margins rather than increase their export sales."
In addition, an appreciation in the value of the U.S. dollar will bring higher prices in foreign currencies, counterbalancing any benefit of an export tax exemption. Trading partners will then take their business elsewhere, resulting in lower U.S. export sales.
The whole strategy may benefit a few companies for a short time, but eventually higher prices to domestic and foreign customers coupled with reduced demand will hurt everyone.
But will the moguls care? Probably not, since they will have pocketed the extra cash and found a way to blame others, claiming they "should have saved for some rainy days."
Thursday, February 23, 2017
Quandary
When a president speaks, it's news.
When a president speaks nonsense, is it still news?
News media are in a quandary over how to cover the comments of the current president of the United States of America.
Many of his comments, suggestions, implications, urgings, demands and proposals about economic policy, immigration and other things are at times so rife with inaccuracies, falsehoods, irrelevant side issues and misleading distractions that avoid the question put to him as to make many listeners wonder, in the words of a Swedish government leader, "What has he been smoking?"
It turns out that the president's comments on an alleged crime wave in Sweden perpetrated by immigrants and supposedly covered up by its government was based on a half-hearing of an interview with a documentary film maker who claimed that the problem had been going on for months.
The interview was broadcast over the Fox News channel on Friday night. And the host, Tucker Carlson, even questioned the veracity of the claim as soon as it was made. The following evening, however, the president said in a speech, "Look at what happened in Sweden last night," suggesting that there was in fact widespread violence that very night.
So the question facing news editors and reporters is this: Should the media ignore nonsense, even that spread by a president, or give it more space because it is nonsense.
In turn, this prompts more questions:
-- Who decides whether it's nonsense?
-- Who decides where to put the story, on Page One or deep inside, assuming the story is used at all?
-- How much space does nonsense deserve?
-- Is it dangerous nonsense or merely harmless hyperbole?
Similar questions face broadcast news editors. They are questions that editors must deal with every hour of every day, and they must be answered quickly, often under deadline pressure. Which in broadcasting is constant.
The deciding factor is this: Whenever the president speaks, it is potentially news. But how important his words are is a decision to be made by editors, not by government.
Many politicians -- especially the current president -- seem to feel that whatever they say and do must be met with favorable and sympathetic coverage by the news media. Otherwise, "the press is the enemy of the people."
Not so. As noted by this editor more than 20 years ago, when covering the real estate industry, many corporate executives believe that if you are not an advocate for their position, you are therefore an adversary. And adversaries are to be treated as enemies.
The current president grew up in the real estate industry, and has carried that same attitude with him into politics and government. And now, more than ever before, journalists are neither advocates nor adversaries. We ask tough questions because they need to be asked, and we do so on behalf of readers and viewers.
That does not make us your enemy. And when reporters realize they are being manipulated, they sharpen their pencils and ask even tougher questions.
But when it comes to nonsense, especially the dangerous kind, that's an important story, and when it's spouted by the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, it belongs on the top of Page One.
And if you don't like it, stop spouting nonsense. The country deserves better.
When a president speaks nonsense, is it still news?
News media are in a quandary over how to cover the comments of the current president of the United States of America.
Many of his comments, suggestions, implications, urgings, demands and proposals about economic policy, immigration and other things are at times so rife with inaccuracies, falsehoods, irrelevant side issues and misleading distractions that avoid the question put to him as to make many listeners wonder, in the words of a Swedish government leader, "What has he been smoking?"
It turns out that the president's comments on an alleged crime wave in Sweden perpetrated by immigrants and supposedly covered up by its government was based on a half-hearing of an interview with a documentary film maker who claimed that the problem had been going on for months.
The interview was broadcast over the Fox News channel on Friday night. And the host, Tucker Carlson, even questioned the veracity of the claim as soon as it was made. The following evening, however, the president said in a speech, "Look at what happened in Sweden last night," suggesting that there was in fact widespread violence that very night.
So the question facing news editors and reporters is this: Should the media ignore nonsense, even that spread by a president, or give it more space because it is nonsense.
In turn, this prompts more questions:
-- Who decides whether it's nonsense?
-- Who decides where to put the story, on Page One or deep inside, assuming the story is used at all?
-- How much space does nonsense deserve?
-- Is it dangerous nonsense or merely harmless hyperbole?
Similar questions face broadcast news editors. They are questions that editors must deal with every hour of every day, and they must be answered quickly, often under deadline pressure. Which in broadcasting is constant.
The deciding factor is this: Whenever the president speaks, it is potentially news. But how important his words are is a decision to be made by editors, not by government.
Many politicians -- especially the current president -- seem to feel that whatever they say and do must be met with favorable and sympathetic coverage by the news media. Otherwise, "the press is the enemy of the people."
Not so. As noted by this editor more than 20 years ago, when covering the real estate industry, many corporate executives believe that if you are not an advocate for their position, you are therefore an adversary. And adversaries are to be treated as enemies.
The current president grew up in the real estate industry, and has carried that same attitude with him into politics and government. And now, more than ever before, journalists are neither advocates nor adversaries. We ask tough questions because they need to be asked, and we do so on behalf of readers and viewers.
That does not make us your enemy. And when reporters realize they are being manipulated, they sharpen their pencils and ask even tougher questions.
But when it comes to nonsense, especially the dangerous kind, that's an important story, and when it's spouted by the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, it belongs on the top of Page One.
And if you don't like it, stop spouting nonsense. The country deserves better.
Wednesday, February 22, 2017
The Titanic Presidency
It's big, flashy and opulent but poorly designed and destined for disaster.
Speaking truth to power is a major responsibility of a free and independent press. When those in power refuse to listen to any who disagree, it becomes journalism's duty to speak louder.
And just as the S.S. Titanic was launched with a fire in the belly of the ship already eroding its superstructure, so the current U.S. presidency does not yet have a strong enough internal structure to fully withstand a collision with reality. The president himself listens only if what he hears conforms to his own truth.
Already, some senior hands have refused to get on board, others have been dismissed, and a few have abandoned Donald Trump's ship of state.
Why? Because they feel they can be more effective in their criticism of the administration when speaking from the outside.
And they may well be correct, because reality seems to have no influence on what those in charge believe. Moreover, the president seems determined to hire only sycophants who can pass a loyalty test. Anyone who has ever in the past been critical of the Vainglorious Leader is passed over for a place among the new crew.
So it is today. The free and independent press must continue to speak truth to power, publishing and broadcasting fact when the denizens of the White House persist in hawking alternative facts, without evidence or any basis in reality.
The president has called news media "the enemy of the people." The reality is that journalism is and should be an adversary of falsehoods, deceit and incompetence.
Danger: Overconfidence and arrogance led the S.S. Titanic to lose its encounter with fire and ice and the ship sank.
This year, fiery rhetoric about ICE is also likely to sink the Trump steamer.
Speaking truth to power is a major responsibility of a free and independent press. When those in power refuse to listen to any who disagree, it becomes journalism's duty to speak louder.
And just as the S.S. Titanic was launched with a fire in the belly of the ship already eroding its superstructure, so the current U.S. presidency does not yet have a strong enough internal structure to fully withstand a collision with reality. The president himself listens only if what he hears conforms to his own truth.
Already, some senior hands have refused to get on board, others have been dismissed, and a few have abandoned Donald Trump's ship of state.
Why? Because they feel they can be more effective in their criticism of the administration when speaking from the outside.
And they may well be correct, because reality seems to have no influence on what those in charge believe. Moreover, the president seems determined to hire only sycophants who can pass a loyalty test. Anyone who has ever in the past been critical of the Vainglorious Leader is passed over for a place among the new crew.
So it is today. The free and independent press must continue to speak truth to power, publishing and broadcasting fact when the denizens of the White House persist in hawking alternative facts, without evidence or any basis in reality.
The president has called news media "the enemy of the people." The reality is that journalism is and should be an adversary of falsehoods, deceit and incompetence.
Danger: Overconfidence and arrogance led the S.S. Titanic to lose its encounter with fire and ice and the ship sank.
This year, fiery rhetoric about ICE is also likely to sink the Trump steamer.
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
History Lesson
The First Amendment freedoms "are a gift from the Founders" who wrote the U.S. Constitution. -- Rep. Francis Rooney, R-Fl.
This is a fairly common refrain among American politicians, but it's not so. The Constitution does not grant any rights. Rather, it guarantees rights we already have. Rights that we all were born with. Or, as the Declaration of Independence puts it, "endowed by the Creator," whatever you perceive that Creator to be.
This is not an endorsement of any particular religion or spiritual path, since the Constitution also specifies that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office." To make that point even stronger, the First Amendment notes that "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
It may well be that a majority of American citizens follow a religious or a spiritual path. But it's also true that many millions do not. As to which spiritual or religious path or organization any citizen may or may not follow, the only way of determining that is to ask, and the Census Bureau cannot do that, so it's up to the various organizations to gather data on their memberships, or for pollsters to survey the population.
Moreover, organizations such as churches, synagogues and mosques keep their membership rolls in different ways. For some, a person born of members is counted as a member for the rest of his or her life, whether or not that person drops out, switches to another affiliation or becomes none of the above.
Nevertheless, many political or church leaders persist in proclaiming that America is at root a religious nation, even though the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution specifically disavow and prohibit any rule that says otherwise.
In addition, a peace treaty signed in 1796 emphasizes that the U.S. "is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." That treaty was unanimously ratified by the U.S. Senate on June 10, 1797.
That document, the Treaty of Tripoli, put an end to the war with the Barbary pirates, with an original copy in Arabic.
So perhaps a brief look at the Constitution and American history might help in settling the current controversy over religious freedom and the demand that Muslims be kept out of America.
They never have been, since many were brought here as slaves in the early years of the nation.
And just to be fully clear, the full text of the relevant passage in the Treaty of Tripoli also notes that "no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of harmony" between Americans and Muslims.
Here's the passage:
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of (Muslims) and as the said States (America) have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Let's hear it for harmony between nations of differing spiritual or religious backgrounds.
This is a fairly common refrain among American politicians, but it's not so. The Constitution does not grant any rights. Rather, it guarantees rights we already have. Rights that we all were born with. Or, as the Declaration of Independence puts it, "endowed by the Creator," whatever you perceive that Creator to be.
This is not an endorsement of any particular religion or spiritual path, since the Constitution also specifies that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office." To make that point even stronger, the First Amendment notes that "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
It may well be that a majority of American citizens follow a religious or a spiritual path. But it's also true that many millions do not. As to which spiritual or religious path or organization any citizen may or may not follow, the only way of determining that is to ask, and the Census Bureau cannot do that, so it's up to the various organizations to gather data on their memberships, or for pollsters to survey the population.
Moreover, organizations such as churches, synagogues and mosques keep their membership rolls in different ways. For some, a person born of members is counted as a member for the rest of his or her life, whether or not that person drops out, switches to another affiliation or becomes none of the above.
Nevertheless, many political or church leaders persist in proclaiming that America is at root a religious nation, even though the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution specifically disavow and prohibit any rule that says otherwise.
In addition, a peace treaty signed in 1796 emphasizes that the U.S. "is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." That treaty was unanimously ratified by the U.S. Senate on June 10, 1797.
That document, the Treaty of Tripoli, put an end to the war with the Barbary pirates, with an original copy in Arabic.
So perhaps a brief look at the Constitution and American history might help in settling the current controversy over religious freedom and the demand that Muslims be kept out of America.
They never have been, since many were brought here as slaves in the early years of the nation.
And just to be fully clear, the full text of the relevant passage in the Treaty of Tripoli also notes that "no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of harmony" between Americans and Muslims.
Here's the passage:
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of (Muslims) and as the said States (America) have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Let's hear it for harmony between nations of differing spiritual or religious backgrounds.
Monday, February 20, 2017
Appeal to Fear
One of the basic fallacies taught in Logic 101 is the Appeal to Fear in support of an argument.
Sometimes a fear may indeed be real and justified. Other times, as used in a fallacious argument, a fear may not be real but is manufactured and touted as a way to gain support for government actions.
We see this today, when politicians warn of danger unless citizens approve, asserting that things are bad and likely to get worse unless drastic action is taken.
Therefore, the argument concludes, we must act first to ensure victory.
The problem with this tactic, especially on a national level, is that it too often leads to war. And that is an incredible waste of resources, both material and human.
An appeal to fear often starts by identifying an enemy, real or imagined, and persuading listeners that this "enemy" must be defeated. To do that, resources must be devoted to national defense, starting with protectionist policies and withdrawing into isolationism. And the definition of "enemy" is expanded to include any and all who disagree with or criticize a political leader's comments, especially those from an independent news media.
The chant "America First" was first heard during the isolationist years of the 1930s, which also saw strong measures to restrict immigration and keep out refugees.
We hear demands for these same strategies today.
In addition, we hear calls for increased military spending, not only in America but also in allied countries, coupled with a warning that unless these other countries spend more on defense. the U.S. may not come to their aid if or when they are attacked.
The warning is phrased as an appeal to fairness, but it's really an appeal to fear. The danger is that this appeal to fear can easily spread, and lead to a reality of war.
And reality is no longer an entertaining TV show.
Sometimes a fear may indeed be real and justified. Other times, as used in a fallacious argument, a fear may not be real but is manufactured and touted as a way to gain support for government actions.
We see this today, when politicians warn of danger unless citizens approve, asserting that things are bad and likely to get worse unless drastic action is taken.
Therefore, the argument concludes, we must act first to ensure victory.
The problem with this tactic, especially on a national level, is that it too often leads to war. And that is an incredible waste of resources, both material and human.
An appeal to fear often starts by identifying an enemy, real or imagined, and persuading listeners that this "enemy" must be defeated. To do that, resources must be devoted to national defense, starting with protectionist policies and withdrawing into isolationism. And the definition of "enemy" is expanded to include any and all who disagree with or criticize a political leader's comments, especially those from an independent news media.
The chant "America First" was first heard during the isolationist years of the 1930s, which also saw strong measures to restrict immigration and keep out refugees.
We hear demands for these same strategies today.
In addition, we hear calls for increased military spending, not only in America but also in allied countries, coupled with a warning that unless these other countries spend more on defense. the U.S. may not come to their aid if or when they are attacked.
The warning is phrased as an appeal to fairness, but it's really an appeal to fear. The danger is that this appeal to fear can easily spread, and lead to a reality of war.
And reality is no longer an entertaining TV show.
Sunday, February 19, 2017
Spell Check
Spelling checkers on computer word processing systems are very useful tools, but like any tool, a spell check program is only as good as the user.
Such a program runs through the text and flags any word it does not recognize. But it does not consider the context of the sentence, which is to say an individual word may be spelled correctly, but be the wrong word.
For example, there are three ways to spell rain/rein/reign. But without knowing the content of the rest of the phrase, there is no way of knowing which word should be used. In addition, the human eye often sees what the brain knows should be there, and that's how typographical errors and misspellings get into print.
Moreover, the program cannot account for missing words that may be essential to conveying the meaning and context of a sentence.
A big fuss was made recently when it was discovered that the poster celebrating the inauguration of Donald Trump as president had an error, mistakenly using "to" when "too" was the appropriate word.
Spell check would not -- and in fact did not -- catch the error, and the poster went on sale by the government.
Another example appeared in a local newspaper when the writer typed the phrase "free reign," referring to someone who has the ability to act freely. It had nothing to do with monarchs. The origin of the phrase comes from riding, where a person gives a horse "free rein" to go where the animal pleases.
So what's the answer? Every writer should proof read his or her own copy, but no one should be the only one to proof read the copy.
In addition, editors and proof readers must focus on each word as well as the context in which it is used, always remembering that the eye sees what the brain knows is supposed to be there.
Moreover, editors and proof readers have different duties. Editors read the text for context, content, approach and meaning as well as accuracy. Proof readers focus more on grammar, punctuation, style and spelling.
Most of these elements of writing and editing have fairly standard goals. One, however, varies according to region and the personal preferences of the editor in charge. And that, fellow ink-stained wretches, is style.
One example would be numbers and percentages. Which is correct, four percent, 4 per cent, 4 pct. or 4%? All are acceptable, but the one to use is the one decided on by the editor in charge. Is there logic to that? Yes, especially when a writer mixes four percent with 4.5% and 4 2/3 per cent. Pick one, and apply it to all sets. A good practice with percentages is to use numerals and decimals in every instance, if only for the sake of consistency of usage.
Another example would be whether spellcheck and proofread should be one word or two.
As four spill cheque, these sent while pass though a spiel chick pogrom, since each weird wood be recognize by the computer. Yet, a dozen words in that sentence are inappropriately spelled. In fact, the program on this machine flagged one of the words that is indeed correctly spelled. It just happens to be the wrong word.
Find the dozen inappropriate words, and you qualify to bee an editor.
If you don't get stung first.
Such a program runs through the text and flags any word it does not recognize. But it does not consider the context of the sentence, which is to say an individual word may be spelled correctly, but be the wrong word.
For example, there are three ways to spell rain/rein/reign. But without knowing the content of the rest of the phrase, there is no way of knowing which word should be used. In addition, the human eye often sees what the brain knows should be there, and that's how typographical errors and misspellings get into print.
Moreover, the program cannot account for missing words that may be essential to conveying the meaning and context of a sentence.
A big fuss was made recently when it was discovered that the poster celebrating the inauguration of Donald Trump as president had an error, mistakenly using "to" when "too" was the appropriate word.
Spell check would not -- and in fact did not -- catch the error, and the poster went on sale by the government.
Another example appeared in a local newspaper when the writer typed the phrase "free reign," referring to someone who has the ability to act freely. It had nothing to do with monarchs. The origin of the phrase comes from riding, where a person gives a horse "free rein" to go where the animal pleases.
So what's the answer? Every writer should proof read his or her own copy, but no one should be the only one to proof read the copy.
In addition, editors and proof readers must focus on each word as well as the context in which it is used, always remembering that the eye sees what the brain knows is supposed to be there.
Moreover, editors and proof readers have different duties. Editors read the text for context, content, approach and meaning as well as accuracy. Proof readers focus more on grammar, punctuation, style and spelling.
Most of these elements of writing and editing have fairly standard goals. One, however, varies according to region and the personal preferences of the editor in charge. And that, fellow ink-stained wretches, is style.
One example would be numbers and percentages. Which is correct, four percent, 4 per cent, 4 pct. or 4%? All are acceptable, but the one to use is the one decided on by the editor in charge. Is there logic to that? Yes, especially when a writer mixes four percent with 4.5% and 4 2/3 per cent. Pick one, and apply it to all sets. A good practice with percentages is to use numerals and decimals in every instance, if only for the sake of consistency of usage.
Another example would be whether spellcheck and proofread should be one word or two.
As four spill cheque, these sent while pass though a spiel chick pogrom, since each weird wood be recognize by the computer. Yet, a dozen words in that sentence are inappropriately spelled. In fact, the program on this machine flagged one of the words that is indeed correctly spelled. It just happens to be the wrong word.
Find the dozen inappropriate words, and you qualify to bee an editor.
If you don't get stung first.
Saturday, February 18, 2017
Campaign 2020
President Donald Trump opened his re-election campaign with an implied threat of war during a rally in Florida Saturday. Supporters behind the lectern help up signs reading "Trump 2020." Already, his campaign registered filings on January 20 enabling it to continue to collect donations.
He made no direct mention during his speech of re-election plans, but he has in the past referred to his upcoming "eight years" in office. Presidential terms are for four years.
Just two days shy of a full month since his inauguration, Trump began his speech to supporters with a fresh attack on the "dishonest media," insisting he wanted to talk directly to his fans "without the filter of fake news" where journalists cite "made up sources" in news stories.
But he soon returned to his earlier promise of "peace through strength," which will bring "a new day in America" where fewer immigrants will be allowed in unless they can prove they can love this country as other Americans do.
More importantly, he cautioned that other wars were settled for "politically correct" reasons, which allowed other nations to "take advantage of us" through the "stupidity of politicians."
That won't happen anymore, he promised, because "we will start winning again."
To do that, Trump said, his administration will rebuild the nation's military. Meanwhile, he has asked Secretary of Defense James Mattis to devise "a plan to totally destroy ISIS," with the U.S. setting up "safe zones" in Syria to protect civilians while other Mideast nations fight to defeat rebel forces.
How that will happen without American troops getting directly involved in the fighting to protect refugees was not mentioned.
He made no direct mention during his speech of re-election plans, but he has in the past referred to his upcoming "eight years" in office. Presidential terms are for four years.
Just two days shy of a full month since his inauguration, Trump began his speech to supporters with a fresh attack on the "dishonest media," insisting he wanted to talk directly to his fans "without the filter of fake news" where journalists cite "made up sources" in news stories.
But he soon returned to his earlier promise of "peace through strength," which will bring "a new day in America" where fewer immigrants will be allowed in unless they can prove they can love this country as other Americans do.
More importantly, he cautioned that other wars were settled for "politically correct" reasons, which allowed other nations to "take advantage of us" through the "stupidity of politicians."
That won't happen anymore, he promised, because "we will start winning again."
To do that, Trump said, his administration will rebuild the nation's military. Meanwhile, he has asked Secretary of Defense James Mattis to devise "a plan to totally destroy ISIS," with the U.S. setting up "safe zones" in Syria to protect civilians while other Mideast nations fight to defeat rebel forces.
How that will happen without American troops getting directly involved in the fighting to protect refugees was not mentioned.
True Words and Fake Meanings
"All negative polls are fake news." -- Donald Trump
"My words mean just what I choose them to mean." -- Humpty Dumpty
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- Author unclear
"Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?" -- Chico Marx
The current White House resident crew has added several memorable phrases to the language in its attempts to control its message by manipulating truth.
Lawyers have long been fond of using the phrase "true facts" when submitting documents to a court, which prompted journalist Edwin Newman decades ago to point out that the corollary term "false facts" is of little use.
Nevertheless, presidential advisor Kellyanne Conway persisted in the administration's attempt to manipulate reality by using the term "alternative facts."
By repeatedly emphasizing certain phrases that reflect their view of reality despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the Trumpians continue to display either ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of truth.
Why? That's where journalism comes in, pursuing the last and most important of the classic Five Ws -- Who, What, Where, When and Why.
When the president of the United States, or any major figure in the news, always accentuates false positives and tries to eliminate true negatives, it's up to journalists to become Mr. In Between and persist in asking questions that the president deems embarrassing.
Moreover, it's important to remember that the questions are posed not in anger or hatred, as the current president seems to believe, but only as part of the journalistic job.
Words have meanings, and harsh or false words have consequences. Attempts to manipulate truth by using words that mean only what he chooses them to mean will put Trumpty Dumpty atop a wall with no foundation, and inevitably the wall will collapse and he will fall.
Perhaps it's time for reporters to adopt a slogan for their off-duty buttons and T shirts:
Nevertheless, we shall persist, and truth will overcome.
"My words mean just what I choose them to mean." -- Humpty Dumpty
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- Author unclear
"Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?" -- Chico Marx
The current White House resident crew has added several memorable phrases to the language in its attempts to control its message by manipulating truth.
Lawyers have long been fond of using the phrase "true facts" when submitting documents to a court, which prompted journalist Edwin Newman decades ago to point out that the corollary term "false facts" is of little use.
Nevertheless, presidential advisor Kellyanne Conway persisted in the administration's attempt to manipulate reality by using the term "alternative facts."
By repeatedly emphasizing certain phrases that reflect their view of reality despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the Trumpians continue to display either ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of truth.
Why? That's where journalism comes in, pursuing the last and most important of the classic Five Ws -- Who, What, Where, When and Why.
When the president of the United States, or any major figure in the news, always accentuates false positives and tries to eliminate true negatives, it's up to journalists to become Mr. In Between and persist in asking questions that the president deems embarrassing.
Moreover, it's important to remember that the questions are posed not in anger or hatred, as the current president seems to believe, but only as part of the journalistic job.
Words have meanings, and harsh or false words have consequences. Attempts to manipulate truth by using words that mean only what he chooses them to mean will put Trumpty Dumpty atop a wall with no foundation, and inevitably the wall will collapse and he will fall.
Perhaps it's time for reporters to adopt a slogan for their off-duty buttons and T shirts:
Nevertheless, we shall persist, and truth will overcome.
Friday, February 17, 2017
Courtesy and Respect
"I don't hate you, but neither am I your friend," is a good motto for reporters to keep in mind when dealing with those in the news. In that sense, apathy in a reporter is a virtue, says resident cynic Pug Mahoney.
A good reporter's strongest feeling is the urge to get the story.
The current president of the United States fails to understand that reporters may be friendly, but this is a professional friendliness -- they cannot and should not be friends with those they cover on their news beats.
President Donald Trump went on at some length during his news conference about the "hatred" and "anger" coming from the media.
Here's a reality: Reporters ask tough questions because they need to be asked. They do this as part of the job to get at the truth underlying the story. Lawyers actually do the same thing when prosecuting a case. One difference is that prosecutors want the truthful information in order to convict someone of a crime. Journalists do it solely to provide knowledge to the public.
Journalists should be courteous and respectful when asking questions of politicians and government leaders. Lawyers are often far more aggressive when prosecuting a case.
But some are resentful of those who question their comments, and conclude that any disagreement is equal to opposition bordering on and sometimes going into the realm of anger and hatred.
This seems to be the president's problem.
A good reporter's strongest feeling is the urge to get the story.
The current president of the United States fails to understand that reporters may be friendly, but this is a professional friendliness -- they cannot and should not be friends with those they cover on their news beats.
President Donald Trump went on at some length during his news conference about the "hatred" and "anger" coming from the media.
Here's a reality: Reporters ask tough questions because they need to be asked. They do this as part of the job to get at the truth underlying the story. Lawyers actually do the same thing when prosecuting a case. One difference is that prosecutors want the truthful information in order to convict someone of a crime. Journalists do it solely to provide knowledge to the public.
Journalists should be courteous and respectful when asking questions of politicians and government leaders. Lawyers are often far more aggressive when prosecuting a case.
But some are resentful of those who question their comments, and conclude that any disagreement is equal to opposition bordering on and sometimes going into the realm of anger and hatred.
This seems to be the president's problem.
Ignorance is no Excuse
A major reason why tough questions are put to the president so often is that many of his comments are ill informed, misinformed, misleading and just plain wrong.
These are some of the more charitable terms used to describe his claims. A less charitable term is ignorance, as he continues to say things that are clearly false to anyone who reads or has a decent memory about current and recent events.
And someone with even less sympathy would say he lies.
But the difference would be in whether the perpetrator of a falsehood is aware of the truth but speaks the contrary anyway. That would be a conscious decision, and therefore a lie.
At root, the word "ignorant" simply means "not knowing," and that can explain or even excuse many things among the uneducated. Here too a knowledge of word derivations is useful -- "educate" means "to lead out" of "ignorance" (not knowing).
There are some circumstances, however, when ignorance is no excuse. Such a claim doesn't work when caught driving 80 miles per hour on a city street.
Nor does it work when defending comments made by a president of the United States of America. He should know, and he should be clever enough to gather into his circle of advisors experts who do know, and he should listen to and heed their expert advice.
This guy seems to do none of the above.
These are some of the more charitable terms used to describe his claims. A less charitable term is ignorance, as he continues to say things that are clearly false to anyone who reads or has a decent memory about current and recent events.
And someone with even less sympathy would say he lies.
But the difference would be in whether the perpetrator of a falsehood is aware of the truth but speaks the contrary anyway. That would be a conscious decision, and therefore a lie.
At root, the word "ignorant" simply means "not knowing," and that can explain or even excuse many things among the uneducated. Here too a knowledge of word derivations is useful -- "educate" means "to lead out" of "ignorance" (not knowing).
There are some circumstances, however, when ignorance is no excuse. Such a claim doesn't work when caught driving 80 miles per hour on a city street.
Nor does it work when defending comments made by a president of the United States of America. He should know, and he should be clever enough to gather into his circle of advisors experts who do know, and he should listen to and heed their expert advice.
This guy seems to do none of the above.
Thursday, February 16, 2017
Beware of Absolutes
The president tried to claim "the biggest electoral college win since Ronald Reagan." This came during an open press conference Thursday at the White House. In December, he claimed he had scored "one of the largest electoral vote margins in history" during a television interview.
It didn't take long for fact-checkers to point out that all but one of the other presidential winners since Reagan had larger margins than Donald Trump's 74 vote win over Hillary Clinton. Reagan defeated Walter Mondale by a margin of 512 electoral votes.
That one victor with a smaller margin was George W. Bush who won by a five-vote margin over Al Gore, and by a 35-vote margin over John Kerry. Even by total electoral vote count, the rankings don't change.
Other winners with larger margins were George H.W. Bush of Michael Dukakis, by 315 votes; Bill Clinton over Bush by 212 electoral votes; Clinton over Bob Dole by 220 votes; Barack Obama over John McCain by 192 electoral votes; and Obama over Mitt Romney by 126 electoral votes.
Nevertheless, Trump resorts to superlative adjectives to describe nearly everything he does. Some of his favorites are wonderful, beautiful, marvelous, very very important, incredible, tremendous, outstanding, terrific, and absolutely catastrophic. Other negative adjectives common in his speech include sad, disgraceful, shameful, stupid, weak, disgusting, dishonest, horrible, sad, disaster and very very unfair.
The problem is that despite all the adjectives, there are seldom any specifics as to why or how some person or thing is what it is.
And often, numbers are thrown out that have little or no basis in fact or reality and are defended as something "a lot of people are talking about," or "just a number I've heard." This last description was applied to the federal circuit court that rejected his executive order banning or limiting immigration, especially by Muslims. That court, Trump claimed, "is in chaos and turmoil," and "its decisions are overturned 80 percent of the time," adding, "That's just a number I've heard."
As if passing something off as gossip excuses the president of the United States of America from offering evidence or proof of an accusation.
When it comes to his claim that "I inherited a mess" in everything from national economics to global affairs when he took office, a quick look a hard data shows that the stock market is at an all-time high, the unemployment rate is half what it was and output has been rising steadily since the Great Recession of eight years ago.
Beware of absolutes. When someone promises that "things are gonna be great," it's up to others to ask how that will be done.
But the most dangerous signal to come out of the president's news conference today was his warning that ISIS, the militant extremist groups, "has spread like cancer," coupled with his plan for "a massive rebuilding of the military" along with the "hope we never have to use it."
And while he pushes for major increases in military spending, he also wants to cut taxes and inaugurate major regulatory reform to benefit big corporations.
Then the question becomes, who's going to pay for all this, if the economy is in the dire straits that he warns of?
It didn't take long for fact-checkers to point out that all but one of the other presidential winners since Reagan had larger margins than Donald Trump's 74 vote win over Hillary Clinton. Reagan defeated Walter Mondale by a margin of 512 electoral votes.
That one victor with a smaller margin was George W. Bush who won by a five-vote margin over Al Gore, and by a 35-vote margin over John Kerry. Even by total electoral vote count, the rankings don't change.
Other winners with larger margins were George H.W. Bush of Michael Dukakis, by 315 votes; Bill Clinton over Bush by 212 electoral votes; Clinton over Bob Dole by 220 votes; Barack Obama over John McCain by 192 electoral votes; and Obama over Mitt Romney by 126 electoral votes.
Nevertheless, Trump resorts to superlative adjectives to describe nearly everything he does. Some of his favorites are wonderful, beautiful, marvelous, very very important, incredible, tremendous, outstanding, terrific, and absolutely catastrophic. Other negative adjectives common in his speech include sad, disgraceful, shameful, stupid, weak, disgusting, dishonest, horrible, sad, disaster and very very unfair.
The problem is that despite all the adjectives, there are seldom any specifics as to why or how some person or thing is what it is.
And often, numbers are thrown out that have little or no basis in fact or reality and are defended as something "a lot of people are talking about," or "just a number I've heard." This last description was applied to the federal circuit court that rejected his executive order banning or limiting immigration, especially by Muslims. That court, Trump claimed, "is in chaos and turmoil," and "its decisions are overturned 80 percent of the time," adding, "That's just a number I've heard."
As if passing something off as gossip excuses the president of the United States of America from offering evidence or proof of an accusation.
When it comes to his claim that "I inherited a mess" in everything from national economics to global affairs when he took office, a quick look a hard data shows that the stock market is at an all-time high, the unemployment rate is half what it was and output has been rising steadily since the Great Recession of eight years ago.
Beware of absolutes. When someone promises that "things are gonna be great," it's up to others to ask how that will be done.
But the most dangerous signal to come out of the president's news conference today was his warning that ISIS, the militant extremist groups, "has spread like cancer," coupled with his plan for "a massive rebuilding of the military" along with the "hope we never have to use it."
And while he pushes for major increases in military spending, he also wants to cut taxes and inaugurate major regulatory reform to benefit big corporations.
Then the question becomes, who's going to pay for all this, if the economy is in the dire straits that he warns of?
Wednesday, February 15, 2017
Collapse
"This is bigger than Watergate." -- Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY)
Less than a month into the presidential term of Donald Trump, there are signs pointing to a failure of his administration to get its act together and move toward some form of efficiency in governing.
So far, two major appointees have withdrawn their nominations, another was fired, a third needed the tie-breaking vote of the vice president to get Senate consent, a fourth with no related experience barely squeaked through the approval process for secretary of education, and another has a history of suing the very agency he is expected to lead.
In response, the president has defended the man he fired, blaming "fake media" for publishing "illegal leaks" of information that led to Michael Flynn resigning, at the president's request, from his post as director of national security after just 24 days on the job.
Behind this is the Logan Act, a 1799 law that prohibits private citizens from contacting foreign officials about U.S. diplomatic relations. Flynn reportedly talked to the Russian ambassador about government sanctions before taking starting his new government job.
Whether he did this on his own or with Trump's encouragement and approval is an open question. But it does focus on international relations and private citizens' activity, since the conversation took place before the inauguration.
The president has made much of the importance of vetting immigrants before they are allowed to come to America. Perhaps he should vet his choices for major government posts more thoroughly, given their poor performance in getting approved by the Senate because of their lack of related experience.
Meanwhile, the president complains of "unfair" treatment when journalists reveal his shortcomings, faults and falsehoods.
How much more childish can a 70-year-old man get when he cries "That's not fair!" every time he gets caught in a lie?
His approval rating has already gone negative after just eight days in office. What are the odds that his entire political project will collapse like a house of cards in a bankrupt Atlantic City casino?
Less than a month into the presidential term of Donald Trump, there are signs pointing to a failure of his administration to get its act together and move toward some form of efficiency in governing.
So far, two major appointees have withdrawn their nominations, another was fired, a third needed the tie-breaking vote of the vice president to get Senate consent, a fourth with no related experience barely squeaked through the approval process for secretary of education, and another has a history of suing the very agency he is expected to lead.
In response, the president has defended the man he fired, blaming "fake media" for publishing "illegal leaks" of information that led to Michael Flynn resigning, at the president's request, from his post as director of national security after just 24 days on the job.
Behind this is the Logan Act, a 1799 law that prohibits private citizens from contacting foreign officials about U.S. diplomatic relations. Flynn reportedly talked to the Russian ambassador about government sanctions before taking starting his new government job.
Whether he did this on his own or with Trump's encouragement and approval is an open question. But it does focus on international relations and private citizens' activity, since the conversation took place before the inauguration.
The president has made much of the importance of vetting immigrants before they are allowed to come to America. Perhaps he should vet his choices for major government posts more thoroughly, given their poor performance in getting approved by the Senate because of their lack of related experience.
Meanwhile, the president complains of "unfair" treatment when journalists reveal his shortcomings, faults and falsehoods.
How much more childish can a 70-year-old man get when he cries "That's not fair!" every time he gets caught in a lie?
His approval rating has already gone negative after just eight days in office. What are the odds that his entire political project will collapse like a house of cards in a bankrupt Atlantic City casino?
Making a Living
The consumer price index saw its biggest monthly jump in four years last month, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, while average earnings fell.
The changes weren't much. The CPI rose by 0.6 percent in January, and weekly wages dipped by 0.4 percent.
Meanwhile, the Department of Commerce reported total business inventories at the end of December were $1.8 trillion, up 0.4 percent, and total business sales were $1.4 trillion, up 2 percent.
On balance, the average American worker is working just as hard for less money as the cost of living goes up.
Progress.
The changes weren't much. The CPI rose by 0.6 percent in January, and weekly wages dipped by 0.4 percent.
Meanwhile, the Department of Commerce reported total business inventories at the end of December were $1.8 trillion, up 0.4 percent, and total business sales were $1.4 trillion, up 2 percent.
On balance, the average American worker is working just as hard for less money as the cost of living goes up.
Progress.
Wakeup Journalism
News media are getting back to their core mission of keeping the public informed of important issues, after months of being distracted by colorful antics of celebrity candidates.
Television hosts are more forceful in pressing interview guests to answer the question posed and to offer evidence to support their claims, some of which are so blatantly false and outrageous that they would be laughable if not for potentially serious consequences.
It was one thing to take such claims lightly during a campaign, but no longer. For example:
-- Busloads of illegal voters invaded New Hampshire on election day.
-- Millions of illegal votes were all cast for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, thus costing Donald Trump a popular vote victory, even though he won the electoral vote and became president.
-- Perhaps the most egregious claim was that thousands of people danced in the streets of Jersey City on 9/11 as the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center came tumbling down.
There is no evidence for any of these claims. Now, rather than play along with such outrageous antics for the sake of better ratings, TV interviewers see the danger of entertaining demagogues, and are returning to aggressive journalism, pushing for evidence to support claims clearly false and outrageous, if not ludicrous.
To reply that "this is not the venue" to give evidence, as a Trump advisor did when asked for proof about the New Hampshire busload story, is not acceptable.
When you accuse, you must offer evidence to prove your claim. Otherwise, you are using the same Big Lie technique so popular in another dictatorship some 80 years ago.
Television hosts are more forceful in pressing interview guests to answer the question posed and to offer evidence to support their claims, some of which are so blatantly false and outrageous that they would be laughable if not for potentially serious consequences.
It was one thing to take such claims lightly during a campaign, but no longer. For example:
-- Busloads of illegal voters invaded New Hampshire on election day.
-- Millions of illegal votes were all cast for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, thus costing Donald Trump a popular vote victory, even though he won the electoral vote and became president.
-- Perhaps the most egregious claim was that thousands of people danced in the streets of Jersey City on 9/11 as the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center came tumbling down.
There is no evidence for any of these claims. Now, rather than play along with such outrageous antics for the sake of better ratings, TV interviewers see the danger of entertaining demagogues, and are returning to aggressive journalism, pushing for evidence to support claims clearly false and outrageous, if not ludicrous.
To reply that "this is not the venue" to give evidence, as a Trump advisor did when asked for proof about the New Hampshire busload story, is not acceptable.
When you accuse, you must offer evidence to prove your claim. Otherwise, you are using the same Big Lie technique so popular in another dictatorship some 80 years ago.
Presidential Support
"Support the president because he's the president," goes the demand.
That, however, is circular reasoning, and it's not enough.
Better to say, "Support the president because he deserves support."
But then you must explain why he deserves support. Simply being there is not enough.
Another chant is, "Never criticize the president, because he is the president."
Typically, this comes from the Radical Righteous as they demand support for a Republican in the Oval Office.
Oddly, such comments were not heard when a Democrat occupied the White House.
Can you say, "Hypocrisy"?
That, however, is circular reasoning, and it's not enough.
Better to say, "Support the president because he deserves support."
But then you must explain why he deserves support. Simply being there is not enough.
Another chant is, "Never criticize the president, because he is the president."
Typically, this comes from the Radical Righteous as they demand support for a Republican in the Oval Office.
Oddly, such comments were not heard when a Democrat occupied the White House.
Can you say, "Hypocrisy"?
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
Amateur Night at Mar A Lago
North Korea flipped a ballistic bird at the U.S. and Japan as President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe were dining in Florida.
We know this because other diners at the restaurant took pictures of government staffers poring over their computers and the president spoke on the telephone between bytes as the news broke of the missile test.
So why stay in a public place working by flashlight as a potential international crisis looms?
This administration says it wants to break records, but they seem to be stumbling over each other as they shatter the wrong kind. The president's approval rating plunged into negative territory only eight days into the term, and a Cabinet appointee -- National Security Advisor Michael Flynn -- was fired after just 24 days.
The given reason for the bust was that Flynn spoke with the Russian ambassador about sanctions the same day then-President Barack Obama imposed same on Russia. Flynn then "misled" Mike Pence, the vice president, about the content of the call.
There have also been reports that the Kremlin was trying to blackmail Flynn. This suggests that there was some exchange that led to the Kremlin backing away from imposing counter-sanctions.
Speculation: Did the president encourage or direct Flynn to work with the Russians to clear up the sanctions issue in exchange for some other favor, like not revealing the supposedly embarrassing information?
Question: Is this tantamount to bribery?
The president has in the past praised Vladimir Putin, the Russian premier, and during the election campaign called on the Kremlin to find and release emails supposedly missing from Hillary Clinton's account.
Meanwhile, intelligence agencies tried to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with Russians who hacked into Democratic National Committee systems to disrupt the election, according to a new report in the New York Times.
Speculation: Is the president working to ease relations with Russia, or is he looking to help them in some way?
Question: If Putin knows stuff about Flynn, what does he know about Trump?
All things considered, the issue become whether there is an exchange of diplomatic favors, or whether there will be personal favors in return for some sort of aid and comfort.
By definition, the issues involved smack of bribery and treason. Already, there is talk of filing criminal charges against Flynn. And if the president is involved, directly or indirectly, there are clear grounds for impeachment.
The Constitution specifies that a president can be impeached for "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors." And treason is defined as giving aid and comfort to an enemy.
Two out of three ain't bad. But there may well be more, considering how ethically challenged the new White House team seems to be.
We know this because other diners at the restaurant took pictures of government staffers poring over their computers and the president spoke on the telephone between bytes as the news broke of the missile test.
So why stay in a public place working by flashlight as a potential international crisis looms?
This administration says it wants to break records, but they seem to be stumbling over each other as they shatter the wrong kind. The president's approval rating plunged into negative territory only eight days into the term, and a Cabinet appointee -- National Security Advisor Michael Flynn -- was fired after just 24 days.
The given reason for the bust was that Flynn spoke with the Russian ambassador about sanctions the same day then-President Barack Obama imposed same on Russia. Flynn then "misled" Mike Pence, the vice president, about the content of the call.
There have also been reports that the Kremlin was trying to blackmail Flynn. This suggests that there was some exchange that led to the Kremlin backing away from imposing counter-sanctions.
Speculation: Did the president encourage or direct Flynn to work with the Russians to clear up the sanctions issue in exchange for some other favor, like not revealing the supposedly embarrassing information?
Question: Is this tantamount to bribery?
The president has in the past praised Vladimir Putin, the Russian premier, and during the election campaign called on the Kremlin to find and release emails supposedly missing from Hillary Clinton's account.
Meanwhile, intelligence agencies tried to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with Russians who hacked into Democratic National Committee systems to disrupt the election, according to a new report in the New York Times.
Speculation: Is the president working to ease relations with Russia, or is he looking to help them in some way?
Question: If Putin knows stuff about Flynn, what does he know about Trump?
All things considered, the issue become whether there is an exchange of diplomatic favors, or whether there will be personal favors in return for some sort of aid and comfort.
By definition, the issues involved smack of bribery and treason. Already, there is talk of filing criminal charges against Flynn. And if the president is involved, directly or indirectly, there are clear grounds for impeachment.
The Constitution specifies that a president can be impeached for "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors." And treason is defined as giving aid and comfort to an enemy.
Two out of three ain't bad. But there may well be more, considering how ethically challenged the new White House team seems to be.
Monday, February 13, 2017
In Your Dreams
"Absolute power" and "not to be questioned" are two of the phrases bandied about by presidential aides in defending actions by the current occupant of the Oval Office, who calls judicial decisions overturning his executive order regarding immigration "shameful."
Sorry, guys, the new guy does not have absolute power, and every citizen of America has the right to question and disagree with his actions.
Moreover, the judiciary has the constitutional obligation to review his actions and overturn them when they clash with the law and the rights of the people. To claim otherwise is the first step on the road to dictatorship.
Meanwhile, questioning the actions and motivations of government officials is the duty and responsibility of journalists, who do so on behalf of all the people. Limiting their ability to ask questions is the first step toward media control, another goal of dictators.
In recent days, we have seen that in the White House briefing room, where the press secretary fails to take questions from reporters representing major news outlets, instead calling on those who are less likely to ask tough questions.
That tactic was evident again today during a news conference held after Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau met with U.S. President Donald Trump. The only reporters recognized were those who asked soft questions, which prevented any discussion of hard news topics such as the legally challenged immigration ban.
Refusing to acknowledge controversial topics, much less failing to respond to questions posed by citizens on behalf of other citizens smacks of a blatant attempt at news control, especially when combined with repeated falsehoods, easily disproven "alternative facts" and outlandish statements that flout the rules of ethics.
It's no accident that sales of George Orwell's book "1984" have soared.
Sorry, guys, the new guy does not have absolute power, and every citizen of America has the right to question and disagree with his actions.
Moreover, the judiciary has the constitutional obligation to review his actions and overturn them when they clash with the law and the rights of the people. To claim otherwise is the first step on the road to dictatorship.
Meanwhile, questioning the actions and motivations of government officials is the duty and responsibility of journalists, who do so on behalf of all the people. Limiting their ability to ask questions is the first step toward media control, another goal of dictators.
In recent days, we have seen that in the White House briefing room, where the press secretary fails to take questions from reporters representing major news outlets, instead calling on those who are less likely to ask tough questions.
That tactic was evident again today during a news conference held after Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau met with U.S. President Donald Trump. The only reporters recognized were those who asked soft questions, which prevented any discussion of hard news topics such as the legally challenged immigration ban.
Refusing to acknowledge controversial topics, much less failing to respond to questions posed by citizens on behalf of other citizens smacks of a blatant attempt at news control, especially when combined with repeated falsehoods, easily disproven "alternative facts" and outlandish statements that flout the rules of ethics.
It's no accident that sales of George Orwell's book "1984" have soared.
And the Loser Is ...
The Diss Train went off the rails only eight days into the presidential term.
Most presidents enjoy a honeymoon of sorts when they take office, and months go by before their approval rating goes negative.
The Gallup Organization, which tracks such things, said the approval rating of President George W. Bush lasted 1,205 days until it went below 50 percent. It took 1,136 days until his father's rating, that of George H.W. Bush, went negative. For President Barack Obama, the disapproval rating had to wait 936 days. President Ronald Reagan rank of approval waited 727 days until it went negative. And the approval rating of President Bill Clinton remained positive for 573 days.
This year, however, it took just a week until more Americans disapproved of Donald Trump's presidency than approved.
Count 'em. Eight days.
Most presidents enjoy a honeymoon of sorts when they take office, and months go by before their approval rating goes negative.
The Gallup Organization, which tracks such things, said the approval rating of President George W. Bush lasted 1,205 days until it went below 50 percent. It took 1,136 days until his father's rating, that of George H.W. Bush, went negative. For President Barack Obama, the disapproval rating had to wait 936 days. President Ronald Reagan rank of approval waited 727 days until it went negative. And the approval rating of President Bill Clinton remained positive for 573 days.
This year, however, it took just a week until more Americans disapproved of Donald Trump's presidency than approved.
Count 'em. Eight days.
Sunday, February 12, 2017
The ICE Man Cometh
Help wanted: NINA (No Immigrants Need Apply).
Newcomers do jobs that American-born citizens do not want and will not take. Yet many folks demand that Americans have priority for all jobs, even as they insist that the newcomers who are willing to do the scut work be deported.
Ignored in all this is the reality that discrimination in hiring is illegal, and that chasing out newcomers leads to labor shortages and higher prices, especially for produce, which depends on manual labor to gather the crops.
Meanwhile, those who are here without documents proving their legal status are hunted down, arrested and deported.
But too often, those caught in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement net are the ones who are easy to catch, thus enabling the ICE men to fill a quota.
Granted, hardened criminals who are a danger to society should be caught and removed. But recent days have seen hundreds of folks arrested and deported for minor offenses, including those who were brought here as children and who know no other home but America.
And there is the report of a woman in Texas, a legal resident, who mistakenly believed she was eligible to vote and did so in two consecutive elections, but was found out and judged a felon. Result: She was arrested and sentenced to prison, after which she is likely to be deported because she was a "felon."
Such harsh policies and practices may satisfy an adamant base of arch-conservative supporters, but it only sends other undocumented residents further underground to avoid any contact with officialdom. And this exposes them to further abuse by unscrupulous employers.
Meanwhile, the so-called "real Americans" have the opportunity to take such jobs as housekeeping staff at luxury hotels, transient workers to harvest crops, and trash collectors in cities.
Will they take these jobs?
In 19th Century cities, employers often published ads reading "Help Wanted: NINA," which was shorthand for "No Irish Need Apply." Now such practices are unspoken, but underlie the widespread policy that no immigrants, especially Hispanics, need apply.
Newcomers do jobs that American-born citizens do not want and will not take. Yet many folks demand that Americans have priority for all jobs, even as they insist that the newcomers who are willing to do the scut work be deported.
Ignored in all this is the reality that discrimination in hiring is illegal, and that chasing out newcomers leads to labor shortages and higher prices, especially for produce, which depends on manual labor to gather the crops.
Meanwhile, those who are here without documents proving their legal status are hunted down, arrested and deported.
But too often, those caught in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement net are the ones who are easy to catch, thus enabling the ICE men to fill a quota.
Granted, hardened criminals who are a danger to society should be caught and removed. But recent days have seen hundreds of folks arrested and deported for minor offenses, including those who were brought here as children and who know no other home but America.
And there is the report of a woman in Texas, a legal resident, who mistakenly believed she was eligible to vote and did so in two consecutive elections, but was found out and judged a felon. Result: She was arrested and sentenced to prison, after which she is likely to be deported because she was a "felon."
Such harsh policies and practices may satisfy an adamant base of arch-conservative supporters, but it only sends other undocumented residents further underground to avoid any contact with officialdom. And this exposes them to further abuse by unscrupulous employers.
Meanwhile, the so-called "real Americans" have the opportunity to take such jobs as housekeeping staff at luxury hotels, transient workers to harvest crops, and trash collectors in cities.
Will they take these jobs?
In 19th Century cities, employers often published ads reading "Help Wanted: NINA," which was shorthand for "No Irish Need Apply." Now such practices are unspoken, but underlie the widespread policy that no immigrants, especially Hispanics, need apply.
Saturday, February 11, 2017
Free Market Fallacy
Dismantling government dismantles society
Conservative devotees of capitalism give lip service to free competition, but what they really want is a system that favors them and limits market access by others.
Dismantling government while touting more choice for consumers is a sales pitch to cover the reality of more opportunities by private enterprise firms, which then charge whatever exorbitant fees they can. And if the needy few cannot afford the high prices, the rationale is, "They should have saved for such rainy days."
But these few are needy largely because their wages are not high enough to enable savings, and without government help in providing public education, for instance, they would remain uneducated.
The same is true for health care. Without adequate income, the poor suffer more from untreated illness than well educated, higher income families.
So should employers pay higher wages? No, they cry, because that too is government interference in private enterprise. Society cannot survive without a stable government to limit abuses. Health care insurance, for example, is too important to be left entirely to a free market.
Open competition, where the best care at the best price goes to those with the best negotiating skills, may work well when bidding for janitorial service at a hotel, but illness in a person does not compare with a cluttered bedroom.
Similarly, in education, giving vouchers to families and telling them to shop around for the best bargain in schooling in the name of "freedom of choice" only benefits families with good negotiating skills.
At advanced levels, there is room in education for a competitive system, as colleges, engineering schools and other specialized facilities compete to attract the best students.
But for basic skills such as reading, writing and arithmetic, universal education open to all is a better goal, as it has been since the days of the early settlers in America.
Negotiating the 3Rs is not a viable option.
Conservative devotees of capitalism give lip service to free competition, but what they really want is a system that favors them and limits market access by others.
Dismantling government while touting more choice for consumers is a sales pitch to cover the reality of more opportunities by private enterprise firms, which then charge whatever exorbitant fees they can. And if the needy few cannot afford the high prices, the rationale is, "They should have saved for such rainy days."
But these few are needy largely because their wages are not high enough to enable savings, and without government help in providing public education, for instance, they would remain uneducated.
The same is true for health care. Without adequate income, the poor suffer more from untreated illness than well educated, higher income families.
So should employers pay higher wages? No, they cry, because that too is government interference in private enterprise. Society cannot survive without a stable government to limit abuses. Health care insurance, for example, is too important to be left entirely to a free market.
Open competition, where the best care at the best price goes to those with the best negotiating skills, may work well when bidding for janitorial service at a hotel, but illness in a person does not compare with a cluttered bedroom.
Similarly, in education, giving vouchers to families and telling them to shop around for the best bargain in schooling in the name of "freedom of choice" only benefits families with good negotiating skills.
At advanced levels, there is room in education for a competitive system, as colleges, engineering schools and other specialized facilities compete to attract the best students.
But for basic skills such as reading, writing and arithmetic, universal education open to all is a better goal, as it has been since the days of the early settlers in America.
Negotiating the 3Rs is not a viable option.
Thursday, February 9, 2017
Staying on the Job
There were just 15 major work stoppages last year, as Americans continued the downward trend of labor action in disputes with employers. In the past 10 years, there was a total of 143 major incidents, some 10 percent of the total three decades earlier, according to data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In the 10 years from 1977 to 1986, there was a total of 1,446 major work stoppages throughout the country.
The BLS has been collecting such data for 70 years. In the first 10 years, from 1947 to 1956, employees staged 3,438 work stoppages. That number dropped by more than half during the 1977-1986 period, to 1,446, and continued to fall over the next three decades to the most recent period, 2007-2016, when just 143 major stoppages occurred.
One conclusion could be that workers are increasingly satisfied with wages and working conditions, so firm action against employers is not as essential as a negotiating tactic. Another could be that firms are more amenable to negotiating with unions.
Still another could be that the nature of America's economy and its workforce has changed from predominantly manufacturing as it was after World War II to one that emphasizes services, information and marketing.
In that context, talk by politicians to bring back manufacturing and its high paying jobs is just that -- talk, since the nation's economy has changed.
Even in the manufacturing sector, technology has advanced sharply, so fewer workers can produce more stuff, even as those fewer workers are paid more for their higher skills than the previous generation of workers.
Here's one result of American workers and their increased value: The international trade deficit faded again in December, to $44.3 million, according to Census Bureau, a drop of 3.2 percent. Exports in December totaled $190.7 billion in value, some $5 billion more than in November. Imports also rose, to a total value of $235 billion in December, some $3.6 billion more than in November.
Meanwhile, here's a concept to keep in mind whenever political candidates lament trade deficits: Over time, international trade, always balances. Why? For the same reason that a family incurs a negative balance when buying a house or a car. A worker gets a positive balance by receiving a paycheck, and spends money when buying groceries. Over time, things balance out.
The BLS has been collecting such data for 70 years. In the first 10 years, from 1947 to 1956, employees staged 3,438 work stoppages. That number dropped by more than half during the 1977-1986 period, to 1,446, and continued to fall over the next three decades to the most recent period, 2007-2016, when just 143 major stoppages occurred.
One conclusion could be that workers are increasingly satisfied with wages and working conditions, so firm action against employers is not as essential as a negotiating tactic. Another could be that firms are more amenable to negotiating with unions.
Still another could be that the nature of America's economy and its workforce has changed from predominantly manufacturing as it was after World War II to one that emphasizes services, information and marketing.
In that context, talk by politicians to bring back manufacturing and its high paying jobs is just that -- talk, since the nation's economy has changed.
Even in the manufacturing sector, technology has advanced sharply, so fewer workers can produce more stuff, even as those fewer workers are paid more for their higher skills than the previous generation of workers.
Here's one result of American workers and their increased value: The international trade deficit faded again in December, to $44.3 million, according to Census Bureau, a drop of 3.2 percent. Exports in December totaled $190.7 billion in value, some $5 billion more than in November. Imports also rose, to a total value of $235 billion in December, some $3.6 billion more than in November.
Meanwhile, here's a concept to keep in mind whenever political candidates lament trade deficits: Over time, international trade, always balances. Why? For the same reason that a family incurs a negative balance when buying a house or a car. A worker gets a positive balance by receiving a paycheck, and spends money when buying groceries. Over time, things balance out.
Trump Tantrum
Those who expected a switch from campaign rhetoric to presidential behavior are increasingly disappointed.
Just 21 days into his presidency, the new guy continues to throw a tantrum whenever a decision goes against him. Currently, his target is the federal judiciary, which is considering challenges to his executive order banning travel by certain groups of people, regardless of their status, and relying partly on religious affiliation.
More than a dozen challenges have been filed against his order, the most significant one in Washington State, where a federal judge stopped the ban. An appeal to a federal district court upheld that injunction pending a full hearing. Along the way, one of the appellate judges asked the government lawyer whether an executive order by the president was "unreviewable," raising another constitutional issue over the independence of the judiciary as a separate and equal branch of government.
The president called the appellate court's ruling "a political decision," adding that "we will win."
"See you in court," he added.
That's likely to be the U.S. Supreme Court, which has not been known to bend to a president's whim.
Just 21 days into his presidency, the new guy continues to throw a tantrum whenever a decision goes against him. Currently, his target is the federal judiciary, which is considering challenges to his executive order banning travel by certain groups of people, regardless of their status, and relying partly on religious affiliation.
More than a dozen challenges have been filed against his order, the most significant one in Washington State, where a federal judge stopped the ban. An appeal to a federal district court upheld that injunction pending a full hearing. Along the way, one of the appellate judges asked the government lawyer whether an executive order by the president was "unreviewable," raising another constitutional issue over the independence of the judiciary as a separate and equal branch of government.
The president called the appellate court's ruling "a political decision," adding that "we will win."
"See you in court," he added.
That's likely to be the U.S. Supreme Court, which has not been known to bend to a president's whim.
Wednesday, February 8, 2017
Satire
From Chaucer to Shakespeare to Jonathan Swift to Mel Brooks to "Saturday Night Live," satire has been a quick, effective and powerful way of making political statements.
Satire can bite, gently or severely. Its targets can either laugh or take deep offense, depending partly on their own sense of security and self worth. And when combined with snide, sarcastic humor, whether written or performed, occasionally with a bit of a snarl, the term "snarky" is born.
Sometimes, satire uses allegory and fiction to disguise, however slightly, its criticism of authority figures.
Examples of powerful satirical works include "Animal Farm," by George Orwell; "A Modest Proposal," by Jonathan Swift; "The Producers," a film by Mel Brooks, and the "Saturday Night Live" television show with its takedowns of President Donald Trump and his press secretary Sean Spicer.
Particularly sharp snippets from these works are "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others," from the book, "Animal Farm," and the song "Springtime for Hitler," from "The Producers."
Political leaders and politicians are often major targets of satire, and many do not take kindly to negative comments of any kind, much less broad satire, on what they say and do. In fact, some countries have even made criticism of government and its leaders a criminal offense.
Monarchs and dictators especially try to make criticism illegal, and satirists in such regimes must tread lightly, masking their comments as humor, or disguising them by using animal characters.
Fortunately, humorists, comedians and satirists in America have the constitutional guarantee to be able to speak freely, limited only by the laws of libel. But even here, celebrities and others in the public eye are more open to strong criticism and snarky comments than private citizens.
So as President Harry Truman famously said, "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."
Satire can bite, gently or severely. Its targets can either laugh or take deep offense, depending partly on their own sense of security and self worth. And when combined with snide, sarcastic humor, whether written or performed, occasionally with a bit of a snarl, the term "snarky" is born.
Sometimes, satire uses allegory and fiction to disguise, however slightly, its criticism of authority figures.
Examples of powerful satirical works include "Animal Farm," by George Orwell; "A Modest Proposal," by Jonathan Swift; "The Producers," a film by Mel Brooks, and the "Saturday Night Live" television show with its takedowns of President Donald Trump and his press secretary Sean Spicer.
Particularly sharp snippets from these works are "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others," from the book, "Animal Farm," and the song "Springtime for Hitler," from "The Producers."
Political leaders and politicians are often major targets of satire, and many do not take kindly to negative comments of any kind, much less broad satire, on what they say and do. In fact, some countries have even made criticism of government and its leaders a criminal offense.
Monarchs and dictators especially try to make criticism illegal, and satirists in such regimes must tread lightly, masking their comments as humor, or disguising them by using animal characters.
Fortunately, humorists, comedians and satirists in America have the constitutional guarantee to be able to speak freely, limited only by the laws of libel. But even here, celebrities and others in the public eye are more open to strong criticism and snarky comments than private citizens.
So as President Harry Truman famously said, "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."
Tuesday, February 7, 2017
Power Play
Who's in charge here?
In 1789, America's founders wrote a Constitution forming a government with a balance of powers designed to guarantee liberty and justice for all.
Now the nation is engaged in what some call a constitutional crisis, testing whether this nation, or any nation, conceived and dedicated to the proposition that all three branches of its government are equal and independent, can long endure.
This war of uncivil words will determine how the nation moves to the future, and whether the separate, equal and independent judicial branch of the American government faces up to the challenges of an autocratic president and rules against him.
A second battle looms in Congress, where laws are written and funds are authorized to help carry them out. The issue in this branch of government is whether its members submit to the demands of the chief executive or asserts its independence and equality, returning a balance to the nation's capital.
Finally, citizens will raise their voices and votes, either to affirm the attitudes and actions of the current president, thus enabling him to keep Congress under his thumb, or to change the political makeup of the legislative branch and bring peace and progress to the nation.
Meanwhile, federal judges in the judicial branch, who are appointed for life, come to the forefront as guardians of a responsible and democratic social system, charged with the duty to oversee and maintain the balance of power envisioned by those who wrote the U.S. Constitution.
In 1789, America's founders wrote a Constitution forming a government with a balance of powers designed to guarantee liberty and justice for all.
Now the nation is engaged in what some call a constitutional crisis, testing whether this nation, or any nation, conceived and dedicated to the proposition that all three branches of its government are equal and independent, can long endure.
This war of uncivil words will determine how the nation moves to the future, and whether the separate, equal and independent judicial branch of the American government faces up to the challenges of an autocratic president and rules against him.
A second battle looms in Congress, where laws are written and funds are authorized to help carry them out. The issue in this branch of government is whether its members submit to the demands of the chief executive or asserts its independence and equality, returning a balance to the nation's capital.
Finally, citizens will raise their voices and votes, either to affirm the attitudes and actions of the current president, thus enabling him to keep Congress under his thumb, or to change the political makeup of the legislative branch and bring peace and progress to the nation.
Meanwhile, federal judges in the judicial branch, who are appointed for life, come to the forefront as guardians of a responsible and democratic social system, charged with the duty to oversee and maintain the balance of power envisioned by those who wrote the U.S. Constitution.
Monday, February 6, 2017
Presidential Folly
"Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." -- Thomas Gray
There is no law against stupidity, quoth resident cynic Pug Mahoney, but presidential decisions must not be made in blissful ignorance of potential consequences.
Meanwhile, in just two weeks, the White House has become a theater of the absurd. It turns out that, according to a report in the New York Times, the executive order rearranging the National Security Council to demote the military chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Security and to name political advisor Stephen Bannon to full membership was written largely by Bannon himself, with little input from the president.
Along with the many other executive orders flooding out of the Oval Office in the past few days, one wonders how much the man supposedly in charge actually had a hand in composing them. Or was he reading them for the first time as he put his alleged signature on them?
And as one TV pundit phrased it, he doesn't know what he doesn't know.
So simple ignorance -- the lack of knowledge -- is one thing. Stupidity is quite another. When ignorance rises to the level of appalling, and is wallowed in by one of the most powerful men in the world, it becomes a matter of national and international importance.
Ignorance and stupidity are not impeachable offenses. Criminality is, however, in the category of treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors.
So the legal question becomes, which of the many examples of odd behavior indulged in by America's president qualify as illegal, unconstitutional, treasonous, related to giving or receiving a bribe, criminal or simply stupid.
Stupid behavior, however, often leads to high crimes and misdemeanors, which are impeachable offenses. At worst, moreover, they can incite a shooting war.
The current so-called president has already referred to his "war with the news media" over the barrage of reports documenting his talk and behavior. The latest attempt at manipulating truth is saying that "Any negative polls are fake news."
Don't be surprised if the new guy sets up a Cabinet level Department of Truth and Alternative Facts.
There is no law against stupidity, quoth resident cynic Pug Mahoney, but presidential decisions must not be made in blissful ignorance of potential consequences.
Meanwhile, in just two weeks, the White House has become a theater of the absurd. It turns out that, according to a report in the New York Times, the executive order rearranging the National Security Council to demote the military chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Security and to name political advisor Stephen Bannon to full membership was written largely by Bannon himself, with little input from the president.
Along with the many other executive orders flooding out of the Oval Office in the past few days, one wonders how much the man supposedly in charge actually had a hand in composing them. Or was he reading them for the first time as he put his alleged signature on them?
And as one TV pundit phrased it, he doesn't know what he doesn't know.
So simple ignorance -- the lack of knowledge -- is one thing. Stupidity is quite another. When ignorance rises to the level of appalling, and is wallowed in by one of the most powerful men in the world, it becomes a matter of national and international importance.
Ignorance and stupidity are not impeachable offenses. Criminality is, however, in the category of treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors.
So the legal question becomes, which of the many examples of odd behavior indulged in by America's president qualify as illegal, unconstitutional, treasonous, related to giving or receiving a bribe, criminal or simply stupid.
Stupid behavior, however, often leads to high crimes and misdemeanors, which are impeachable offenses. At worst, moreover, they can incite a shooting war.
The current so-called president has already referred to his "war with the news media" over the barrage of reports documenting his talk and behavior. The latest attempt at manipulating truth is saying that "Any negative polls are fake news."
Don't be surprised if the new guy sets up a Cabinet level Department of Truth and Alternative Facts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)