Don't Fix Blame, Fix the Problem
The continuing conflict between the president and the press now is over who's to blame for the miscue of naming former Gen. Mike Flynn to a Cabinet post, only to see him resign after just a few weeks on the job.
Whenever something doesn't go his way, the new guy in the Whine House blames someone else, adding an attack on the news media for good measure, just to please his adoring supporters.
This time, he blames his predecessor, Barack Obama, for not properly vetting Flynn before giving him security clearance. But after all the earlier attacks on Obama for everything that's a problem in America, the new guy tries a copout for his own failure by blaming his predecessor.
Question: If everything Obama did was so bad, why accept the Flynn security clearance without doing your own?
Over the weekend, President Donald Trump went on the campaign trail, to a rally in Harrisburg PA where he again trashed the news media. In doing so, he deliberately avoided the annual dinner of the White House Correspondents Association, traditionally attended by sitting presidents and marked by comedy take-downs of politicians and journalists alike.
The last time Trump attended, however, he clearly could not take the heat, so it was no surprise that he avoided this year's event.
That didn't stop him from setting up his own event at a competing time where he was the dominant speaker and could attack his critics and bask in the adulation of his supporters.
Tough talk, however, may win a brief encounter, even at a long distance, but constant insult plants a seed of resentment that grows to subtle retaliation. And unlike the current president, journalists have thick skins and are used to disagreement and criticism. Even so, reporters remain human, and constant attack eventually gets under the thickest skin. And at some level, no matter hard they try to remain neutral and objective, there are ways to get back at those who diminish their value as people, as citizens, and as professionals who have an important job to do.
This retaliation may be subconscious or it may be deliberate. Either way, it can happen as journalists pursue their duty of speaking truth to power.
To paraphrase what Jeff Mason of Reuters, president of the association, said at Saturday night's dinner, reporters are not going away.
"It is our job to report on facts and to hold leaders accountable," Mason said. "We are not the enemy of the American people."
"Speak softly but carry a big stick," advised Theodore Roosevelt. Some, however, speak loudly to overcome the reality of their own small stick.
Sunday, April 30, 2017
Saturday, April 29, 2017
Ponderosity
If you sound like you know what you're talking about, people will assume you do. -- Pug Mahoney
Garbled sentence structure betrays a lack of thought and knowledge. No matter how vivid the image of confidence and competence may be, it is easily shattered by verbal stumbling.
And no matter how brilliant the presentation, listeners quickly realize that ponderosity does not evoke visions of the Cartwright family ranch, nor will it bring a bonanza of political support.
In fact, incomplete sentences imply incomplete thought and incomplete knowledge, and a rambling presentation tells the audience that the speaker doesn't really know what he's talking about and is trying to cover his ignorance with bluster.
If all this sounds like it would apply to people generally and politicians in particular, you'd be right. And if it brings to mind one individual who is more flagrant in his lack of organized thought, sentence structure, grammar, presentation and inconsistent ideas that contradict each other daily, suggesting that not only does he not know what he's talking about generally but emphasizes easily disproven falsehoods as if they were or should be common knowledge, you'd be right again.
And therein lies the danger, because many listeners mistake confidence for competence. A master salesman can project confidence with extensive use of meaningless superlatives and "truthful hyperbole" aimed at overcoming caution and enhancing believability.
Once the seed of believability is planted, it can be nurtured by attacking those who present contrary evidence as fake, and emphasizing the need to accept "alternative facts," as if his facts are more believable than those offered by competitors or by that most unreliable of all sources of information, the news media.
So as Chico Marx wisely put it, "Who you gonna believe, me or your eyes?"
Garbled sentence structure betrays a lack of thought and knowledge. No matter how vivid the image of confidence and competence may be, it is easily shattered by verbal stumbling.
And no matter how brilliant the presentation, listeners quickly realize that ponderosity does not evoke visions of the Cartwright family ranch, nor will it bring a bonanza of political support.
In fact, incomplete sentences imply incomplete thought and incomplete knowledge, and a rambling presentation tells the audience that the speaker doesn't really know what he's talking about and is trying to cover his ignorance with bluster.
If all this sounds like it would apply to people generally and politicians in particular, you'd be right. And if it brings to mind one individual who is more flagrant in his lack of organized thought, sentence structure, grammar, presentation and inconsistent ideas that contradict each other daily, suggesting that not only does he not know what he's talking about generally but emphasizes easily disproven falsehoods as if they were or should be common knowledge, you'd be right again.
And therein lies the danger, because many listeners mistake confidence for competence. A master salesman can project confidence with extensive use of meaningless superlatives and "truthful hyperbole" aimed at overcoming caution and enhancing believability.
Once the seed of believability is planted, it can be nurtured by attacking those who present contrary evidence as fake, and emphasizing the need to accept "alternative facts," as if his facts are more believable than those offered by competitors or by that most unreliable of all sources of information, the news media.
So as Chico Marx wisely put it, "Who you gonna believe, me or your eyes?"
Friday, April 28, 2017
Slowdown
If it's good news, politicians claim credit. If not, they blame a predecessor.
Economic growth faded to an annualized rate of just 0.7 percent in the first quarter of this year, according to a first estimate by the Commerce Department. The fourth quarter of 2016 posted a rate of 2.1 percent.
Expect the Whine House to proclaim this as proof that the economy is a mess, and that "only I can fix it" to "make America great again."
Reality check: The slowdown is happening on your watch, and the evidence was posted just as you mark the first hundred days of your presidency.
Recent years saw steady -- albeit slow -- growth and recovery from the Great Recession.
So now a slowdown is the other guy's fault?
Economic growth faded to an annualized rate of just 0.7 percent in the first quarter of this year, according to a first estimate by the Commerce Department. The fourth quarter of 2016 posted a rate of 2.1 percent.
Expect the Whine House to proclaim this as proof that the economy is a mess, and that "only I can fix it" to "make America great again."
Reality check: The slowdown is happening on your watch, and the evidence was posted just as you mark the first hundred days of your presidency.
Recent years saw steady -- albeit slow -- growth and recovery from the Great Recession.
So now a slowdown is the other guy's fault?
Thursday, April 27, 2017
Who's He Kidding?
On instructions from the president, the Commerce Department will investigate the dangers of aluminum imports to U.S. national security and military preparedness.
"Today is an historic step in our efforts to restore America's depleted manufacturing and defense industrial base," according to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross.
He noted that "eight U.S. based smelters have either closed or curbed production since 2015," and there is "only one North American smelter capable of producing high purity aluminum needed for national security applications."
However, there is only one major U.S. company producing aluminum -- Alcoa -- and it is doing quite well, thank you. The company reported first quarter earnings of $225 million on revenue of $2.75 billion. But it has four smelters in the U.S. So where is the North American smelter that Ross deems so important to U.S. national security -- Canada?
Moreover, the source material for aluminum is bauxite, most of which is found in Australia, which produces 81,000 metric tons of the ore annually. Second is China, with annual production of 47,000 tons, but increased world demand has meant China is importing bauxite.
Alcoa's biggest competitor is Kaiser Aluminum Corp., based in California, which reported first quarter net income of $36 million, on revenue of $355 million.
Kaiser said it has been focusing on high quality aluminum products for aerospace, automotive, and engineering markets.
So if there are only two major aluminum manufacturers in America, both doing well, why does it take a federal investigation to protect these two major American corporations from foreign competition?
Unless the foil maker of Reynolds Wrap wants protection, but that company focuses on the consumer market, not military aircraft parts.
The only other possibility that comes to mind is a payoff by the business-friendly administration for corporate support during the election season.
"Today is an historic step in our efforts to restore America's depleted manufacturing and defense industrial base," according to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross.
He noted that "eight U.S. based smelters have either closed or curbed production since 2015," and there is "only one North American smelter capable of producing high purity aluminum needed for national security applications."
However, there is only one major U.S. company producing aluminum -- Alcoa -- and it is doing quite well, thank you. The company reported first quarter earnings of $225 million on revenue of $2.75 billion. But it has four smelters in the U.S. So where is the North American smelter that Ross deems so important to U.S. national security -- Canada?
Moreover, the source material for aluminum is bauxite, most of which is found in Australia, which produces 81,000 metric tons of the ore annually. Second is China, with annual production of 47,000 tons, but increased world demand has meant China is importing bauxite.
Alcoa's biggest competitor is Kaiser Aluminum Corp., based in California, which reported first quarter net income of $36 million, on revenue of $355 million.
Kaiser said it has been focusing on high quality aluminum products for aerospace, automotive, and engineering markets.
So if there are only two major aluminum manufacturers in America, both doing well, why does it take a federal investigation to protect these two major American corporations from foreign competition?
Unless the foil maker of Reynolds Wrap wants protection, but that company focuses on the consumer market, not military aircraft parts.
The only other possibility that comes to mind is a payoff by the business-friendly administration for corporate support during the election season.
Wednesday, April 26, 2017
Laffer Curve Ball
It's baaa-aack!
Remember supply side economics, the idea that if you make it, they will buy?
Remember the Laffer Curve, the principle set forth by economist Arthur Laffer that if you cut taxes, producers will reinvest the money and make so much more stuff that prices will come down, people will buy more and the economy will surge?
Remember the label "voodoo economics," put on the plan by the elder George Bush back in the Reagan era?
It's back, now resurrected by the zombie in chief and his minions, who insist that the tax reform plan outlined Wednesday will bring prosperity to everyone and push national output (GDP) easily above a 3 percent growth rate, as promised by the candidate during the campaign, and perhaps even double that rate.
One of the big advantages cited at the announcement was that under this "massive" tax cut proposal, families with an annual income of $24,000 a year or less will pay no income tax.
Big deal. That's true now, and for a family of four, that's barely above the poverty level.
As for a surge in the growth rate of Gross Domestic Product to more than 3 percent, that's dangerous and unsustainable. The U.S. is already a mature economy, and a higher growth rate will only lead to labor shortages, inflation and eventual recession, if not collapse.
Yes, it's true that some nations -- China, for example -- are currently enjoying a growth rate of as much as 7 percent, but considering where its economy was, that's understandable. There was plenty of room to grow as the nation moved from a largely agricultural, if not medieval, status, to a modern industrial economy.
The U.S. and other advanced economies had already gone through that process, so expansion must be tempered with caution.
And that's where the Federal Reserve comes in.
The American economy has been recovering from the Great Recession for several years, and the Fed has been monitoring its progress with an eye to tapping the inflation brakes to prevent a too-rapid expansion.
But the nation may well face a conflict between a central bank that cherishes its independence and an administration that wants to bring the Fed under its control as it pushes for lower taxes, less regulation and surging economic growth.
As for supply side economics, so warmly embraced by conservatives and corporate mavens and encapsulated by the slogan "If you make it, they will buy," remember this: Without jobs and adequate wages, "they" won't be able to buy anything, no matter how much is produced.
Better to focus on demand side economics.
The Laffer Curve Ball misses the strike zone, since it assumes supply side beneficiaries will use the money to expand production and reduce prices. More likely, they will stash the money in corporate bank accounts, boost investor dividends, increase executive bonuses, and buy back stock to "increase shareholder value."
As the railroad executive William Henry Vanderbilt said many years ago, "The public be damned, I'm working for my stockholders."
Remember supply side economics, the idea that if you make it, they will buy?
Remember the Laffer Curve, the principle set forth by economist Arthur Laffer that if you cut taxes, producers will reinvest the money and make so much more stuff that prices will come down, people will buy more and the economy will surge?
Remember the label "voodoo economics," put on the plan by the elder George Bush back in the Reagan era?
It's back, now resurrected by the zombie in chief and his minions, who insist that the tax reform plan outlined Wednesday will bring prosperity to everyone and push national output (GDP) easily above a 3 percent growth rate, as promised by the candidate during the campaign, and perhaps even double that rate.
One of the big advantages cited at the announcement was that under this "massive" tax cut proposal, families with an annual income of $24,000 a year or less will pay no income tax.
Big deal. That's true now, and for a family of four, that's barely above the poverty level.
As for a surge in the growth rate of Gross Domestic Product to more than 3 percent, that's dangerous and unsustainable. The U.S. is already a mature economy, and a higher growth rate will only lead to labor shortages, inflation and eventual recession, if not collapse.
Yes, it's true that some nations -- China, for example -- are currently enjoying a growth rate of as much as 7 percent, but considering where its economy was, that's understandable. There was plenty of room to grow as the nation moved from a largely agricultural, if not medieval, status, to a modern industrial economy.
The U.S. and other advanced economies had already gone through that process, so expansion must be tempered with caution.
And that's where the Federal Reserve comes in.
The American economy has been recovering from the Great Recession for several years, and the Fed has been monitoring its progress with an eye to tapping the inflation brakes to prevent a too-rapid expansion.
But the nation may well face a conflict between a central bank that cherishes its independence and an administration that wants to bring the Fed under its control as it pushes for lower taxes, less regulation and surging economic growth.
As for supply side economics, so warmly embraced by conservatives and corporate mavens and encapsulated by the slogan "If you make it, they will buy," remember this: Without jobs and adequate wages, "they" won't be able to buy anything, no matter how much is produced.
Better to focus on demand side economics.
The Laffer Curve Ball misses the strike zone, since it assumes supply side beneficiaries will use the money to expand production and reduce prices. More likely, they will stash the money in corporate bank accounts, boost investor dividends, increase executive bonuses, and buy back stock to "increase shareholder value."
As the railroad executive William Henry Vanderbilt said many years ago, "The public be damned, I'm working for my stockholders."
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
The News Noose Tightens
Back fence gossip goes viral, and computers never forget
Words matter, and often come back to haunt.
In this day of ubiquitous recording devices, both pocket size and professional video units can preserve everything someone says or does for the world to see.
This applies not only to politicians and other celebrities in the public eye, but also to police, flight attendants, and anyone else in the middle of any incident that attracts the attention of bystanders.
Except that bystanders in this digital age no longer simply stand by and watch. They take out their devices and record the fuss.
Next, they transmit the cellphone video to their Facebook page and to their local TV station, which passes it on to a news network, and within minutes, the whole world is watching.
Soon, public outrage dominates the news cycle, embarrassing the perpetrators of what is perceived as mistreatment, and reaction sets in.
Result: Employees are fired, police officers are suspended, corporate executives resign, and politicians demand new laws to deal with what not long ago would have been forgotten within hours or passed off as gossip.
But the truth is no longer out there somewhere in a netherworld of unprovable speculation, but glares at viewers from computer and television screens worldwide.
No longer can politicians claim they were misquoted, or their comments were "taken out of context," insisting that "what I really meant was ... "
The response from broadcast journalists now is this: "Roll the video. This is what you said and how you said it. If you meant something else, you should have said something else."
Print journalists have the same documentary evidence to back up their coverage, and can post it on their newspaper's Internet page, with referrals to the more extensive story in the print edition.
Many corporate types are so used to getting their own way, demanding that underlings do as they're told or lose their jobs, that when the business types go into politics they forget -- if they ever knew -- that journalists, especially the independent investigative reporter types, are not on the candidate's payroll.
Indeed, some never learn that the quickest way to get a story in the paper is to try to keep it out.
Moreover, the bullying chant of "fake news" sets up an answering chorus of "show me the evidence."
Of the famous five W's of journalism -- Who, What, Where, When and Why -- the most important is the last one: Why.
And to the charge of "fake news," the questions become, Why is it fake? Who says it's fake? What's fake about it? When did it become fake? Where is the evidence to prove its fakeness?
Until the allegations can be supported by evidence, the burden of proof is on the allegators.
Words matter, and often come back to haunt.
In this day of ubiquitous recording devices, both pocket size and professional video units can preserve everything someone says or does for the world to see.
This applies not only to politicians and other celebrities in the public eye, but also to police, flight attendants, and anyone else in the middle of any incident that attracts the attention of bystanders.
Except that bystanders in this digital age no longer simply stand by and watch. They take out their devices and record the fuss.
Next, they transmit the cellphone video to their Facebook page and to their local TV station, which passes it on to a news network, and within minutes, the whole world is watching.
Soon, public outrage dominates the news cycle, embarrassing the perpetrators of what is perceived as mistreatment, and reaction sets in.
Result: Employees are fired, police officers are suspended, corporate executives resign, and politicians demand new laws to deal with what not long ago would have been forgotten within hours or passed off as gossip.
But the truth is no longer out there somewhere in a netherworld of unprovable speculation, but glares at viewers from computer and television screens worldwide.
No longer can politicians claim they were misquoted, or their comments were "taken out of context," insisting that "what I really meant was ... "
The response from broadcast journalists now is this: "Roll the video. This is what you said and how you said it. If you meant something else, you should have said something else."
Print journalists have the same documentary evidence to back up their coverage, and can post it on their newspaper's Internet page, with referrals to the more extensive story in the print edition.
Many corporate types are so used to getting their own way, demanding that underlings do as they're told or lose their jobs, that when the business types go into politics they forget -- if they ever knew -- that journalists, especially the independent investigative reporter types, are not on the candidate's payroll.
Indeed, some never learn that the quickest way to get a story in the paper is to try to keep it out.
Moreover, the bullying chant of "fake news" sets up an answering chorus of "show me the evidence."
Of the famous five W's of journalism -- Who, What, Where, When and Why -- the most important is the last one: Why.
And to the charge of "fake news," the questions become, Why is it fake? Who says it's fake? What's fake about it? When did it become fake? Where is the evidence to prove its fakeness?
Until the allegations can be supported by evidence, the burden of proof is on the allegators.
Monday, April 24, 2017
Naval Gazing
During the election campaign, the man who would be president promised to rebuild the U.S. military.
The Navy, seeing an opportunity, announced just a few weeks after the election that it would like to expand its fleet to 355 ships from its current number of 275, and larger than its previously stated goal of 308 ships.
The Congressional Budget Office dutifully set about estimating the cost of such a project, and its report released today said it would cost an average of $26.6 billion per year over the next 30 years, "60 percent more than what the Navy has spent on average over the past 30 years."
And that's in current dollars, without accounting for inflation or cost overruns.
Moreover, "the cost to build and operate a 355-ship fleet would average $102 billion per year (in 2017 dollars) through 2047," the CBO said. That would be one-third greater than the amount appropriated for today's fleet of 275 ships.
First question: Where's the money?
Next question: Who will pay the construction and operating bills?
Perhaps the government can dun NATO countries for membership dues, just as the president wants to make Mexico pay for his wall -- another estimated $70 billion.
Meanwhile, the so-called tax reform plan to be revealed this week is likely to be a rerun of the highly touted but ill fated supply-side, trickle-down policy also known as voodoo economics.
If that's the plan -- tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations to kick start growth even as government revenue plummets -- dream on, genius.
Hasn't happened before. Ain't gonna happen now.
Ship builders and sailors, even the most patriotic, want to get paid for their work.
The Navy, seeing an opportunity, announced just a few weeks after the election that it would like to expand its fleet to 355 ships from its current number of 275, and larger than its previously stated goal of 308 ships.
The Congressional Budget Office dutifully set about estimating the cost of such a project, and its report released today said it would cost an average of $26.6 billion per year over the next 30 years, "60 percent more than what the Navy has spent on average over the past 30 years."
And that's in current dollars, without accounting for inflation or cost overruns.
Moreover, "the cost to build and operate a 355-ship fleet would average $102 billion per year (in 2017 dollars) through 2047," the CBO said. That would be one-third greater than the amount appropriated for today's fleet of 275 ships.
First question: Where's the money?
Next question: Who will pay the construction and operating bills?
Perhaps the government can dun NATO countries for membership dues, just as the president wants to make Mexico pay for his wall -- another estimated $70 billion.
Meanwhile, the so-called tax reform plan to be revealed this week is likely to be a rerun of the highly touted but ill fated supply-side, trickle-down policy also known as voodoo economics.
If that's the plan -- tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations to kick start growth even as government revenue plummets -- dream on, genius.
Hasn't happened before. Ain't gonna happen now.
Ship builders and sailors, even the most patriotic, want to get paid for their work.
Grammar Gulch
Grammarians write the rules of what people do. Teachers instruct others that this is what you must do -- follow these rules, no matter how arbitrary and contrary to what the students hear at home or on the street.
Linguists, however, point out that all dialects are equal, and the only thing that gives one dialect more prestige than another is that its speakers have more prestige. But this is a social judgement, not linguistic.
Nevertheless, if an ambitious person wants to advance in society, he or she will adopt the dialect and speech patterns of those whose support he or she seeks.
It's not uncommon, therefore, for politicians to speak one way in the halls of Congress, and quite another on the stump among the home folks.
Even so, a knowledge and practice of the rules and definitions of grammar and words is the mark of an educated and intelligent person, and public figures, including politicians, ignore these rules at their peril.
It has become a common practice among those who perpetrate information on news sites to put a question mark at the end of every sentence containing one of the five Ws or journalism -- who, what, where, when, and why.
That is an error, both grammatically and linguistically.
Why is that? This is why.
Is this a question? This is a question.
The difference is in word order. In what grammarians call an interrogatory -- a question -- the verb comes first. Otherwise, it's a statement.
Politicians set themselves up as examples of what citizens should be, and ask others to follow their lead. But when they persist in using grammar in ways that diminish the language, they succeed in diminishing their own status.
One example is the use of the word "that" in place of "who" when speaking of people. An easy way to remember the difference is to keep in mind that the pronoun "who" refers to people, and the term "that" refers to things.
And finally, there are standard definitions -- general agreement -- on what certain words mean, and to mix them up marks the misuser as less educated than he claims to be.
The current president of the United States regularly predicts that the Affordable Care Act, which he derisively calls Obamacare, "will explode."
The appropriate word is "implode," which means the system will collapse in upon itself from its own problems.
Whether it actually will or not is another issue, but at least the chief executive of all government laws and programs should use correct terminology.
Finally, uptight teachers insist that the word "but" should always be followed by a comma.
No so.
Consider these two sentences:
1/ But that's not true.
2/ But, according to experts, that's not true.
In the second example, the phrase, "according to experts," is independent of where it's placed. Commas usually come in pairs, which enable the editor to lift a phrase or clause and move it elsewhere in the sentence.
Linguists, however, point out that all dialects are equal, and the only thing that gives one dialect more prestige than another is that its speakers have more prestige. But this is a social judgement, not linguistic.
Nevertheless, if an ambitious person wants to advance in society, he or she will adopt the dialect and speech patterns of those whose support he or she seeks.
It's not uncommon, therefore, for politicians to speak one way in the halls of Congress, and quite another on the stump among the home folks.
Even so, a knowledge and practice of the rules and definitions of grammar and words is the mark of an educated and intelligent person, and public figures, including politicians, ignore these rules at their peril.
It has become a common practice among those who perpetrate information on news sites to put a question mark at the end of every sentence containing one of the five Ws or journalism -- who, what, where, when, and why.
That is an error, both grammatically and linguistically.
Why is that? This is why.
Is this a question? This is a question.
The difference is in word order. In what grammarians call an interrogatory -- a question -- the verb comes first. Otherwise, it's a statement.
Politicians set themselves up as examples of what citizens should be, and ask others to follow their lead. But when they persist in using grammar in ways that diminish the language, they succeed in diminishing their own status.
One example is the use of the word "that" in place of "who" when speaking of people. An easy way to remember the difference is to keep in mind that the pronoun "who" refers to people, and the term "that" refers to things.
And finally, there are standard definitions -- general agreement -- on what certain words mean, and to mix them up marks the misuser as less educated than he claims to be.
The current president of the United States regularly predicts that the Affordable Care Act, which he derisively calls Obamacare, "will explode."
The appropriate word is "implode," which means the system will collapse in upon itself from its own problems.
Whether it actually will or not is another issue, but at least the chief executive of all government laws and programs should use correct terminology.
Finally, uptight teachers insist that the word "but" should always be followed by a comma.
No so.
Consider these two sentences:
1/ But that's not true.
2/ But, according to experts, that's not true.
In the second example, the phrase, "according to experts," is independent of where it's placed. Commas usually come in pairs, which enable the editor to lift a phrase or clause and move it elsewhere in the sentence.
Sunday, April 23, 2017
Beware of Absolutes
Time was, an auto racetrack in New Jersey advertised itself as "the fastest high-banked, quarter-mile, macadam speedway in the East."
Note that there are four qualifiers to the term "fastest," so this particular track may well be the only speedway in the Eastern United States that meets all four criteria. Therefore, it must be the fastest.
With enough qualifying adjectives, a sales pitch can accurately describe anything as the best, longest, largest, fastest, only one of its kind.
So too with politicians. Except that they claim their actions or proposals or programs are the best, finest, most productive, etc. in the history of the nation.
The new guy in the Whine House claimed this week that his administration has been more productive in its first 90 days than any other administration in history.
Except that anyone who pays the least attention can count his number of successes on the finger of one hand. That would be the approval of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. That approval, however, was by the U.S. Senate, not by the president, who can only nominate.
The number of failures, on the other hand, can also be counted, beginning with the campaign promise to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act on Day One. Didn't happen.
Nor have many of the other promises, including construction of a southern border wall and tax reform. Sunday morning, a senior Whine House official, Reince Priebus, claimed credit for the 70 percent drop in illegal immigration from Mexico. Fact: That figure dropped on its own, as fewer people tried to cross the border. Moreover, more people have been returning southward than have been attempting to cross into America.
Meanwhile, the estimated cost of a border wall has been soaring, and now approaches $70 billion.
So where will the money come from? "Mexico will pay for it," said the candidate, prompting laughter from the president of Mexico.
In other events to come this week, the new guy says he will introduce a tax reform plan on Wednesday, even as he offers a revised version of the already defeated health care bill. On top of that, Congress will have to approve a budget, or the government will shut down by the end of the week.
So much for the highly touted success of the First Hundred Days, which will be marked on May 1.
Note that there are four qualifiers to the term "fastest," so this particular track may well be the only speedway in the Eastern United States that meets all four criteria. Therefore, it must be the fastest.
With enough qualifying adjectives, a sales pitch can accurately describe anything as the best, longest, largest, fastest, only one of its kind.
So too with politicians. Except that they claim their actions or proposals or programs are the best, finest, most productive, etc. in the history of the nation.
The new guy in the Whine House claimed this week that his administration has been more productive in its first 90 days than any other administration in history.
Except that anyone who pays the least attention can count his number of successes on the finger of one hand. That would be the approval of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. That approval, however, was by the U.S. Senate, not by the president, who can only nominate.
The number of failures, on the other hand, can also be counted, beginning with the campaign promise to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act on Day One. Didn't happen.
Nor have many of the other promises, including construction of a southern border wall and tax reform. Sunday morning, a senior Whine House official, Reince Priebus, claimed credit for the 70 percent drop in illegal immigration from Mexico. Fact: That figure dropped on its own, as fewer people tried to cross the border. Moreover, more people have been returning southward than have been attempting to cross into America.
Meanwhile, the estimated cost of a border wall has been soaring, and now approaches $70 billion.
So where will the money come from? "Mexico will pay for it," said the candidate, prompting laughter from the president of Mexico.
In other events to come this week, the new guy says he will introduce a tax reform plan on Wednesday, even as he offers a revised version of the already defeated health care bill. On top of that, Congress will have to approve a budget, or the government will shut down by the end of the week.
So much for the highly touted success of the First Hundred Days, which will be marked on May 1.
Friday, April 21, 2017
Canadian Conundrum
The Yankees are coming! The Yankees are coming!
"A disgrace," says the president about Canada's alleged mistreatment of U.S. daily farmers.
Ho hum.
Excess use of insults and superlatives drains the words of whatever power they once had, and people soon stop listening, especially when the issue has relatively little importance to begin with.
The price of milk is important, of course, to dairy farmers in Wisconsin, where the president visited last week. But milk has a short shelf life and is primarily dependent on local and regional markets. It's not a major player in international trade.
Unless you're a cheese eater.
But given the emphasis put on the allegation that the Canadian government is treating U.S. dairy farmers in a disgraceful manner, since the president mentioned it in the same speech in which he attacked steel imports from China, one would think he equates the two.
What, then, should Parliament in Toronto do to combat this colossal threat to international relations, since it comes directly and publicly from the president?
One reaction would be to close the border to protect Canadian dairy farmers from unfair trade practices by Americans. Or worse, the intermingling of the herds as refugee American bulls wander among Canadian cows. On a human level, imagine the horrors perpetrated by illegal migrants from Detroit as they flood across the border into Windsor, Ontario.
Or the terror inflicted on the righteous citizens of Niagara Falls on the northern side of the river as they fend off the abusive habits and practices of those honeymooners trying to escape to Canada from New York State.
Judging from the tone of the president's attack, the danger to Wisconsin daily farmers must be at least as serious as that faced by Texas ranchers.
There seems to be only one answer. Canada must build a wall to protect its dairy farmers and, indeed, all its other citizens from the desperate predations of the milk men from the disreputable southern side of the longest undefended international border in the world.
Either that, or the Canadian government can ignore the loudmouth rantings of a president with a questionable amount of common sense who regularly shows he doesn't know international trade from shoe polish.
"A disgrace," says the president about Canada's alleged mistreatment of U.S. daily farmers.
Ho hum.
Excess use of insults and superlatives drains the words of whatever power they once had, and people soon stop listening, especially when the issue has relatively little importance to begin with.
The price of milk is important, of course, to dairy farmers in Wisconsin, where the president visited last week. But milk has a short shelf life and is primarily dependent on local and regional markets. It's not a major player in international trade.
Unless you're a cheese eater.
But given the emphasis put on the allegation that the Canadian government is treating U.S. dairy farmers in a disgraceful manner, since the president mentioned it in the same speech in which he attacked steel imports from China, one would think he equates the two.
What, then, should Parliament in Toronto do to combat this colossal threat to international relations, since it comes directly and publicly from the president?
One reaction would be to close the border to protect Canadian dairy farmers from unfair trade practices by Americans. Or worse, the intermingling of the herds as refugee American bulls wander among Canadian cows. On a human level, imagine the horrors perpetrated by illegal migrants from Detroit as they flood across the border into Windsor, Ontario.
Or the terror inflicted on the righteous citizens of Niagara Falls on the northern side of the river as they fend off the abusive habits and practices of those honeymooners trying to escape to Canada from New York State.
Judging from the tone of the president's attack, the danger to Wisconsin daily farmers must be at least as serious as that faced by Texas ranchers.
There seems to be only one answer. Canada must build a wall to protect its dairy farmers and, indeed, all its other citizens from the desperate predations of the milk men from the disreputable southern side of the longest undefended international border in the world.
Either that, or the Canadian government can ignore the loudmouth rantings of a president with a questionable amount of common sense who regularly shows he doesn't know international trade from shoe polish.
Thursday, April 20, 2017
Free Speech and Violence
No one is above the law
On the same day that Fox News fired Bill O'Reilly over sexual harassment issues, the University of California at Berkeley cancelled a planned speech by conservative author Ann Coulter, citing security issues.
The right of free speech goes both ways. Everyone has the right to speak freely on his or her opinions, and the rest of us have the right not to listen. No one, however, has the right to threaten or beat up on those with whom they disagree.
Bill O'Reilly lost his platform as the host of a nightly TV talk show, brought on by his own misbehavior with women at the company, as well as the loss of advertising revenue as companies withdrew their financial support of his program. Fox News apparently decided that the cost of settling lawsuits brought by women who were harassed on the job, as well as the loss of advertising revenue that some 50 sponsors would otherwise have spent, was not worth keeping O'Reilly on the job.
Nevertheless, he has not lost his right of free speech. He can speak at other places, and write as many books as he pleases. Others have an equal right not to listen, and not to buy any of his books.
They do not, however, have the right to force him off the speaking platform with threats of violence or to burn his books.
In effect, that is what happened to Ann Coulter, whose planned appearance at Berkeley, otherwise a liberal bastion, was cancelled after supposedly liberal activists protested, with some instances of threats and violence.
There is a double standard here. Liberals are often the first to insist on the right of peaceable assembly and free speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but they too often do so for themselves and violently oppose similar gatherings and speeches by conservatives.
Equally, conservatives have been known to attack liberal protesters at political campaign rallies. Currently, several protesters are suing President Donald Trump, alleging that he encouraged and incited violence against those who protested, with comments like, "Get him out of here," and "Maybe he should be roughed up."
Trump's defense is that as president, he cannot be sued.
But the Declaration of Independence stipulates that all are created equal, so a president is therefore subject to the same laws and behavioral standards as anyone else.
Moreover, a legal precedent has already upheld that principle, as former President Bill Clinton was subpoenaed and forced to testify in a civil case brought by Paula Jones.
Granted, incitement to riot or assault someone may be a criminal case, but the principle is the same. No one in America is immune from legal action. There may be some exceptions, but this is not one of them.
A president may be impeached, convicted and removed from office, but that's not necessarily the end of things. The president can then be charged and face prosecution in the court system after removal from office.
That's why Gerald Ford issued a pardon to Richard Nixon after Nixon resigned the presidency, even though no charges had been brought. The belief here is that it was a preemptive pardon to persuade Nixon to leave.
On the same day that Fox News fired Bill O'Reilly over sexual harassment issues, the University of California at Berkeley cancelled a planned speech by conservative author Ann Coulter, citing security issues.
The right of free speech goes both ways. Everyone has the right to speak freely on his or her opinions, and the rest of us have the right not to listen. No one, however, has the right to threaten or beat up on those with whom they disagree.
Bill O'Reilly lost his platform as the host of a nightly TV talk show, brought on by his own misbehavior with women at the company, as well as the loss of advertising revenue as companies withdrew their financial support of his program. Fox News apparently decided that the cost of settling lawsuits brought by women who were harassed on the job, as well as the loss of advertising revenue that some 50 sponsors would otherwise have spent, was not worth keeping O'Reilly on the job.
Nevertheless, he has not lost his right of free speech. He can speak at other places, and write as many books as he pleases. Others have an equal right not to listen, and not to buy any of his books.
They do not, however, have the right to force him off the speaking platform with threats of violence or to burn his books.
In effect, that is what happened to Ann Coulter, whose planned appearance at Berkeley, otherwise a liberal bastion, was cancelled after supposedly liberal activists protested, with some instances of threats and violence.
There is a double standard here. Liberals are often the first to insist on the right of peaceable assembly and free speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but they too often do so for themselves and violently oppose similar gatherings and speeches by conservatives.
Equally, conservatives have been known to attack liberal protesters at political campaign rallies. Currently, several protesters are suing President Donald Trump, alleging that he encouraged and incited violence against those who protested, with comments like, "Get him out of here," and "Maybe he should be roughed up."
Trump's defense is that as president, he cannot be sued.
But the Declaration of Independence stipulates that all are created equal, so a president is therefore subject to the same laws and behavioral standards as anyone else.
Moreover, a legal precedent has already upheld that principle, as former President Bill Clinton was subpoenaed and forced to testify in a civil case brought by Paula Jones.
Granted, incitement to riot or assault someone may be a criminal case, but the principle is the same. No one in America is immune from legal action. There may be some exceptions, but this is not one of them.
A president may be impeached, convicted and removed from office, but that's not necessarily the end of things. The president can then be charged and face prosecution in the court system after removal from office.
That's why Gerald Ford issued a pardon to Richard Nixon after Nixon resigned the presidency, even though no charges had been brought. The belief here is that it was a preemptive pardon to persuade Nixon to leave.
Oops!
Did he think nobody would notice?
The president let loose a warning to North Korea that an "armada" was heading its way complete with submarines -- "very powerful" -- after the Pyongyang regime paraded its military might and threatened to fire missiles at America and its allies.
Problem: The "armada" was sailing in the opposite direction, toward previously planned exercises in the Indian Ocean with the Australian Navy. Moreover, a single aircraft carrier and its support vessels do not an "armada" make.
The word is from the Spanish, and refers to an entire armed fleet -- una fuerza armada -- and historically refers to the Spanish armada of several hundred years ago that was the nation's major way of dealing with opponents.
The supposedly invincible fleet of 130 ships was defeated by the British under the command of Sir Francis Drake on July 29, 1588. Perhaps the current U.S. president might want to review his high school history courses.
The president let loose a warning to North Korea that an "armada" was heading its way complete with submarines -- "very powerful" -- after the Pyongyang regime paraded its military might and threatened to fire missiles at America and its allies.
Problem: The "armada" was sailing in the opposite direction, toward previously planned exercises in the Indian Ocean with the Australian Navy. Moreover, a single aircraft carrier and its support vessels do not an "armada" make.
The word is from the Spanish, and refers to an entire armed fleet -- una fuerza armada -- and historically refers to the Spanish armada of several hundred years ago that was the nation's major way of dealing with opponents.
The supposedly invincible fleet of 130 ships was defeated by the British under the command of Sir Francis Drake on July 29, 1588. Perhaps the current U.S. president might want to review his high school history courses.
Wednesday, April 19, 2017
Auditing the Fed
Team Trump has started its move to take control of the Federal Reserve Board with a bill introduced in the House of Representatives (H.R. 24) that would have the General Accountability Office (GAO) audit the Fed and its 12 member banks.
The bill would also repeal bans under current law that prevent the GAO from auditing the Fed's monetary policy and other financial transactions.
Removing these prohibitions would bring further requests from members of Congress for additional oversight and analysis of the Fed, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.
The Fed is already monitored by Congress, which regularly hears reports from the nation's central bank on its activities.
The Fed cherishes its independence, but eroding that independence would put more of its fiscal policy decisions and actions under tighter review and endanger its ability to rein in inflation and encourage full employment.
The bill would also repeal bans under current law that prevent the GAO from auditing the Fed's monetary policy and other financial transactions.
Removing these prohibitions would bring further requests from members of Congress for additional oversight and analysis of the Fed, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.
The Fed is already monitored by Congress, which regularly hears reports from the nation's central bank on its activities.
The Fed cherishes its independence, but eroding that independence would put more of its fiscal policy decisions and actions under tighter review and endanger its ability to rein in inflation and encourage full employment.
Playground Danger
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case brought by a Lutheran church that wants in on a local government program that provides funding for schoolyard recreational improvements.
The church says it should be entitled to the money because it is to be used for non-religious purposes, and to be refused is discriminatory. And it points out that church buildings already get municipal assistance in the form of police and fire department protection.
That argument aside, here comes the big but ...
The sought after funding is for ground-up automobile tires, and would be used on playgrounds in place of sand or ordinary dirt.
Professional sports teams have banned the use of such artificial turf because it is toxic to players who breathe the granules after they are tossed in the air by those who come close to the ground.
Question: Has nobody noticed the potential danger to children, who are already close to the ground and often roll around on the surface?
The church says it should be entitled to the money because it is to be used for non-religious purposes, and to be refused is discriminatory. And it points out that church buildings already get municipal assistance in the form of police and fire department protection.
That argument aside, here comes the big but ...
The sought after funding is for ground-up automobile tires, and would be used on playgrounds in place of sand or ordinary dirt.
Professional sports teams have banned the use of such artificial turf because it is toxic to players who breathe the granules after they are tossed in the air by those who come close to the ground.
Question: Has nobody noticed the potential danger to children, who are already close to the ground and often roll around on the surface?
Money Talks, O'Reilly Walks
After numerous allegations of sexual harassment and payouts of $13 million to the five women who brought them, followed by dozens of advertisers cancelling their plans to run commercial announcements on his television show, Bill O'Reilly has been fired by the Fox News Network.
This follows the ouster of Roger Ailes as chairman of the network for similar reasons.
In a statement, the company said, "After a thorough and careful review of the allegations," which O'Reilly called "unfounded," the two sides agreed that the commentator "will not be returning to the Fox News Channel."
Several weeks ago, the New York Times published details of the arrangement where the company continued to support O'Reilly even as allegations against him increased.
Oddly, the scandal seemed to have little effect on viewership of the show. But as with many other aspects of life, money talks louder than loudmouths, and the loss of advertiser revenue must have played a significant role in the company's decision.
Since the published report, women's rights groups demanded O'Reilly be fired, and charged that top executives at the network failed to live up to their promise to improve conditions for women staffers at the company after the Ailes scandal.
The O'Reilly ouster story immediately became headline news on other TV and print news outlets worldwide.
This follows the ouster of Roger Ailes as chairman of the network for similar reasons.
In a statement, the company said, "After a thorough and careful review of the allegations," which O'Reilly called "unfounded," the two sides agreed that the commentator "will not be returning to the Fox News Channel."
Several weeks ago, the New York Times published details of the arrangement where the company continued to support O'Reilly even as allegations against him increased.
Oddly, the scandal seemed to have little effect on viewership of the show. But as with many other aspects of life, money talks louder than loudmouths, and the loss of advertiser revenue must have played a significant role in the company's decision.
Since the published report, women's rights groups demanded O'Reilly be fired, and charged that top executives at the network failed to live up to their promise to improve conditions for women staffers at the company after the Ailes scandal.
The O'Reilly ouster story immediately became headline news on other TV and print news outlets worldwide.
Prosperity Looms
Threads of data are weaving a tapestry that shows prosperity looming not only in America but around the world.
Both the Federal Reserve and the International Monetary Fund released reports this week showing increased economic activity, and other reports backed that up with details on construction and wage gains in the U.S.
In its quarterly Beige Book report, the Fed noted gains in each of the twelve Federal Reserve districts. Labor markets "remained tight," the report said, and "employers had more difficulty filling low skilled positions," even as demand was stronger for higher skilled workers.
In response, wages were rising.
Globally, "economic activity is picking up with a long awaited cyclical recovery, the IMF said. The pace of growth is likely to rise from 3.1 percent in 2016 to 3.5 percent this year and 3.6 percent in 2018.
Nevertheless, there are challenges, the IMF said, such as low productivity growth and high income inequality, especially in advanced economies.
Separately, the U.S. Census Bureau said residential construction showed signs of improvement, with the number of building permits issued in March up by 3.6 percent from February and 17 percent from a year ago. Housing starts, however, were down 6.8 percent from the month earlier, but up 9.2 percent from a year ago.
And the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a decline in the Consumer Price Index in March -- 0.3 percent -- after rising 0.1 percent in February. But average earnings -- both hourly and weekly -- rose by 0.5 percent over the month.
All this suggests the U.S. economy is continuing its recovery, and that the Federal Reserve Board will carry through on its hinting that interests rates will be boosted to prevent a too rapid growth. The latest report on total output won't be due for another week or so, however, but if the pattern holds, total Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will show an annualized rate of more than 2 percent for the January to March fiscal quarter.
Both the Federal Reserve and the International Monetary Fund released reports this week showing increased economic activity, and other reports backed that up with details on construction and wage gains in the U.S.
In its quarterly Beige Book report, the Fed noted gains in each of the twelve Federal Reserve districts. Labor markets "remained tight," the report said, and "employers had more difficulty filling low skilled positions," even as demand was stronger for higher skilled workers.
In response, wages were rising.
Globally, "economic activity is picking up with a long awaited cyclical recovery, the IMF said. The pace of growth is likely to rise from 3.1 percent in 2016 to 3.5 percent this year and 3.6 percent in 2018.
Nevertheless, there are challenges, the IMF said, such as low productivity growth and high income inequality, especially in advanced economies.
Separately, the U.S. Census Bureau said residential construction showed signs of improvement, with the number of building permits issued in March up by 3.6 percent from February and 17 percent from a year ago. Housing starts, however, were down 6.8 percent from the month earlier, but up 9.2 percent from a year ago.
And the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a decline in the Consumer Price Index in March -- 0.3 percent -- after rising 0.1 percent in February. But average earnings -- both hourly and weekly -- rose by 0.5 percent over the month.
All this suggests the U.S. economy is continuing its recovery, and that the Federal Reserve Board will carry through on its hinting that interests rates will be boosted to prevent a too rapid growth. The latest report on total output won't be due for another week or so, however, but if the pattern holds, total Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will show an annualized rate of more than 2 percent for the January to March fiscal quarter.
Monday, April 17, 2017
Internet Privacy is an Oxymoron
There is no privacy on the Internet.
Building physical walls to control the movement of people is bad enough. Building information walls to control communication is much harder, and far more dangerous.
But which is more dangerous, stifling communication entirely or monitoring all communication so that people lose their privacy? Is one the first step toward the other?
Internet service providers routinely monitor the browsing habits of computer uses so they can tailor advertising to match customers interests. Normally, this done "in house," and companies cannot sell that browsing history to others without your permission.
However, there is a move afoot in Washington to overturn that ruling. Sen. Bob Casey, D-PA, in a message to constituents, noted that "Americans have a reasonable expectation that their online browsing history will stay private."
Telephone conversations cannot be monitored unless investigators first obtain permission from a court. Likewise, letters sent through the U.S. Postal Service should not be tracked, much less opened and read, without a legal warrant.
Internet browsing patterns are typically tracked by corporate computers, so that providers can tailor advertising to computer users' interests.
But just as Internet providers can monitor key phrases in browsing patterns, it's just as easy to monitor email messages.
In turn, if corporations can monitor what you write so they can send advertising your way, it's equally possible for government monitors or law enforcement to read those same messages, if they buy them from Internet providers.
Big Brother would be pleased.
Building physical walls to control the movement of people is bad enough. Building information walls to control communication is much harder, and far more dangerous.
But which is more dangerous, stifling communication entirely or monitoring all communication so that people lose their privacy? Is one the first step toward the other?
Internet service providers routinely monitor the browsing habits of computer uses so they can tailor advertising to match customers interests. Normally, this done "in house," and companies cannot sell that browsing history to others without your permission.
However, there is a move afoot in Washington to overturn that ruling. Sen. Bob Casey, D-PA, in a message to constituents, noted that "Americans have a reasonable expectation that their online browsing history will stay private."
Telephone conversations cannot be monitored unless investigators first obtain permission from a court. Likewise, letters sent through the U.S. Postal Service should not be tracked, much less opened and read, without a legal warrant.
Internet browsing patterns are typically tracked by corporate computers, so that providers can tailor advertising to computer users' interests.
But just as Internet providers can monitor key phrases in browsing patterns, it's just as easy to monitor email messages.
In turn, if corporations can monitor what you write so they can send advertising your way, it's equally possible for government monitors or law enforcement to read those same messages, if they buy them from Internet providers.
Big Brother would be pleased.
Sunday, April 16, 2017
Crossroad to Chaos
"That government is best that governs least." -- Henry David Thoreau
Take Thoreau's comment one step further, and you have the idea that the best government is one that governs not at all.
This may fit well with the arch-conservative goal of a totally free market economy, which would find its own balance in its own time, unfettered and unencumbered by bothersome regulations that interfere with maximizing profits, but in the real world, someone must orchestrate some control.
America is now approaching a fork in the economic road. One route leads to government dismantling virtually all regulations that interfere with profit making, and to some this is good. However, a total lack of control leads eventually to chaos and anarchy.
The other, according to conservative fearmongers, is the road to the evils of socialism and dictatorship, where government exercises full control over the lives of all its citizens.
All this, however, assumes only two choices. There is a third choice, one that was made in America decades ago, and was solidified around the time of the Great Depression. That choice is called a mixed economy, where government exercises limited control over some things, in order to ensure the most benefit for the most people. This includes legislation such as the Pure Food and Drug Act, the Environmental Protection Agency, minimum wage laws, old age pensions (Social Security), and, yes, health care programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act.
Companies also benefit from these government programs, since they help ensure the health and productivity of workers. In addition, companies enjoy patent protection, subsidies for new product development in fields such as pharmaceuticals, maintenance of the transportation system and licensing of professionals to ensure competence in critical fields.
Most people will agree that anarchy -- rule by none -- is not a good plan. Americans threw off a monarchy -- rule by one -- more than 200 years ago. A third form, oligarchy -- rule by a few -- can quickly become a problem as a different few attempt to displace the ruling few.
To avoid all this, the founders of America set up a democratic republic, based on the twin concepts of a democracy -- direct government by the many -- balanced by the practice of a republic -- government by a few representatives selected by the many.
Along the way, America evolved to a system that set up social welfare programs to benefit all, including those who do not have the advantage of great wealth to pay for much beyond the bare minimums of food, clothing and shelter.
To dismantle government programs, as some in Washington now propose to do, would inevitably send the nation down the road to ruinous chaos, anarchy, and eventually dictatorship.
But consider this: Perhaps that is their goal.
Meanwhile, elections are coming soon to replace the representatives who have left their seats in Congress to take jobs in the new administration.
The voices of the people in a free democratic republic can speak quite loudly, not just during street protests, but also during town hall meetings and especially on election days.
Take Thoreau's comment one step further, and you have the idea that the best government is one that governs not at all.
This may fit well with the arch-conservative goal of a totally free market economy, which would find its own balance in its own time, unfettered and unencumbered by bothersome regulations that interfere with maximizing profits, but in the real world, someone must orchestrate some control.
America is now approaching a fork in the economic road. One route leads to government dismantling virtually all regulations that interfere with profit making, and to some this is good. However, a total lack of control leads eventually to chaos and anarchy.
The other, according to conservative fearmongers, is the road to the evils of socialism and dictatorship, where government exercises full control over the lives of all its citizens.
All this, however, assumes only two choices. There is a third choice, one that was made in America decades ago, and was solidified around the time of the Great Depression. That choice is called a mixed economy, where government exercises limited control over some things, in order to ensure the most benefit for the most people. This includes legislation such as the Pure Food and Drug Act, the Environmental Protection Agency, minimum wage laws, old age pensions (Social Security), and, yes, health care programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act.
Companies also benefit from these government programs, since they help ensure the health and productivity of workers. In addition, companies enjoy patent protection, subsidies for new product development in fields such as pharmaceuticals, maintenance of the transportation system and licensing of professionals to ensure competence in critical fields.
Most people will agree that anarchy -- rule by none -- is not a good plan. Americans threw off a monarchy -- rule by one -- more than 200 years ago. A third form, oligarchy -- rule by a few -- can quickly become a problem as a different few attempt to displace the ruling few.
To avoid all this, the founders of America set up a democratic republic, based on the twin concepts of a democracy -- direct government by the many -- balanced by the practice of a republic -- government by a few representatives selected by the many.
Along the way, America evolved to a system that set up social welfare programs to benefit all, including those who do not have the advantage of great wealth to pay for much beyond the bare minimums of food, clothing and shelter.
To dismantle government programs, as some in Washington now propose to do, would inevitably send the nation down the road to ruinous chaos, anarchy, and eventually dictatorship.
But consider this: Perhaps that is their goal.
Meanwhile, elections are coming soon to replace the representatives who have left their seats in Congress to take jobs in the new administration.
The voices of the people in a free democratic republic can speak quite loudly, not just during street protests, but also during town hall meetings and especially on election days.
Saturday, April 15, 2017
Log Jam
The People's House has been closed to the public.
In the name of "national security," the White House has withdrawn from public view its daily log of visitors to government officials. This, however, masks a move to secrecy, putting all talks and negotiations behind locked fences and closed doors, so that no one knows who is talking to whom in the White House, much less what they might be talking about.
Time was, the home of the president of the United States was known as the People's House, and it was open to tours by students and other members of the public.
Granted, security in these days of terrorism is important, but hiding the list of visitors to senior government officials, including the president, draws a curtain of secrecy around what clearly is a matter of public interest.
The topics and details of these discussions may well deserve to remain private, at least until some decisions are made, but to refuse to acknowledge that such visits even exist smacks of another move toward full control of information.
It seems clear that this tactic results from the recent disclosure of the late night visit by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and his "revelation" of supposedly secret reports relating to election shenanigans.
For all the talk of plugging leaks of information, the president has a long history of doing just the opposite, leaking information to reporters and disguising himself as a staffer to control the story.
The important thing to remember is that control of information and stifling the news media are the first steps on the road to dictatorship.
Currently, the government of Uganda is jailing those who dare to criticize that country's president and his government. Any attempt at information control in America clashes directly with the Constitution, making the call for vigilance to protect liberty more important than ever.
In the name of "national security," the White House has withdrawn from public view its daily log of visitors to government officials. This, however, masks a move to secrecy, putting all talks and negotiations behind locked fences and closed doors, so that no one knows who is talking to whom in the White House, much less what they might be talking about.
Time was, the home of the president of the United States was known as the People's House, and it was open to tours by students and other members of the public.
Granted, security in these days of terrorism is important, but hiding the list of visitors to senior government officials, including the president, draws a curtain of secrecy around what clearly is a matter of public interest.
The topics and details of these discussions may well deserve to remain private, at least until some decisions are made, but to refuse to acknowledge that such visits even exist smacks of another move toward full control of information.
It seems clear that this tactic results from the recent disclosure of the late night visit by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and his "revelation" of supposedly secret reports relating to election shenanigans.
For all the talk of plugging leaks of information, the president has a long history of doing just the opposite, leaking information to reporters and disguising himself as a staffer to control the story.
The important thing to remember is that control of information and stifling the news media are the first steps on the road to dictatorship.
Currently, the government of Uganda is jailing those who dare to criticize that country's president and his government. Any attempt at information control in America clashes directly with the Constitution, making the call for vigilance to protect liberty more important than ever.
The Uber Prez
"The buck stops here." -- President Harry S. Truman
Constant use of superlatives may be the mark of a successful salesman, but in politics and government it's usually an attempt to evade or avoid specifics, if not a vague move to cover up ignorance.
To claim a plan is wonderful, magnificent, outstanding and marvelous is one thing. But to add, "I'll provide details at the appropriate time," really means there is no plan at all. Moreover, the "appropriate time" never comes.
"Only I can fix it," the president has said. "Believe me," he says. "Nobody knew health care could be so complex," he later admits.
First question: Why should we believe him? Because he says so, is not a good enough reason. As for the comment that "nobody knew" something was so complex, that's an admission of ignorance, that Himself didn't know the issue was complicated. Everyone else knew.
"I know more about ISIS than the generals, believe me," Super Prez declaimed. Yet one of the first things he did, less than three months into his term, was to delegate attack authority to the generals, giving his duty as commander in chief to the military.
If he knows so much, how come he can't get anything done?
And by passing the buck, he thinks he's evading responsibility if things go awry. If things go well, however, he can take the credit.
One can Blow Smoke for just so long. Eventually, people become aware that the BS artist doesn't really know what he's talking about.
Constant use of superlatives may be the mark of a successful salesman, but in politics and government it's usually an attempt to evade or avoid specifics, if not a vague move to cover up ignorance.
To claim a plan is wonderful, magnificent, outstanding and marvelous is one thing. But to add, "I'll provide details at the appropriate time," really means there is no plan at all. Moreover, the "appropriate time" never comes.
"Only I can fix it," the president has said. "Believe me," he says. "Nobody knew health care could be so complex," he later admits.
First question: Why should we believe him? Because he says so, is not a good enough reason. As for the comment that "nobody knew" something was so complex, that's an admission of ignorance, that Himself didn't know the issue was complicated. Everyone else knew.
"I know more about ISIS than the generals, believe me," Super Prez declaimed. Yet one of the first things he did, less than three months into his term, was to delegate attack authority to the generals, giving his duty as commander in chief to the military.
If he knows so much, how come he can't get anything done?
And by passing the buck, he thinks he's evading responsibility if things go awry. If things go well, however, he can take the credit.
One can Blow Smoke for just so long. Eventually, people become aware that the BS artist doesn't really know what he's talking about.
Friday, April 14, 2017
May Day Celebration
The first hundred days has become a benchmark of sorts to measure the initial success of a new presidential administration.
Whether the current president has accomplished anything so far remains an open question, and can easily become a parlor game to list successes and failures as the nation nears the day.
May 1, a Monday, will mark 100 days in the Oval Office. It is also May Day, when people around the world celebrate the beauty of Nature and how people honor that beauty.
In addition, May Day is a time to honor workers, especially in the several countries that have socialist or communist leaning governments.
Oddly, the use of May Day to honor workers began in America in the 19th Century, following a nationwide strike that began May 1, 1886 as part of an effort to demand an eight-hour work day. That effort was led by a labor union known as the International Workers of the World (IWW), also called the Wobblies, which had strong socialist leanings.
Several states and the federal government had already settled on Sept. 1 as America's Labor Day, so that leaves historians the opportunity to debate how and why socialist and communist regimes in Europe and Asia opted for May Day.
In any case, May Day has become a show-off day for Russia and other countries to launch massive parades demonstrating their military might.
This year, the current show-off in the White House will likely be looking for an excuse to display his accomplishments as he marks 100 days as president.
And as North Korea this year rattles its nuclear sabers in efforts to bully other nations into giving in to its demands and threats, the Whine House Bully in Chief faces a dilemma. How does he maintain his self-image as the strongest leader the world has ever known without seeming to yield to the practicality of negotiating a peaceful settlement to whatever passes for disagreement these days.
The world is facing a confrontation of two bullies determined to get their own way by threatening to throw bombs at each other.
Throwing insults is one thing. That's what politicians and diplomats do all the time. Often, the only difference between trading insults in a schoolyard or in Congress or the United Nations is the vocabulary. But when verbal bombs are upgraded to nuclear bombs, the entire world is in danger.
Whether the current president has accomplished anything so far remains an open question, and can easily become a parlor game to list successes and failures as the nation nears the day.
May 1, a Monday, will mark 100 days in the Oval Office. It is also May Day, when people around the world celebrate the beauty of Nature and how people honor that beauty.
In addition, May Day is a time to honor workers, especially in the several countries that have socialist or communist leaning governments.
Oddly, the use of May Day to honor workers began in America in the 19th Century, following a nationwide strike that began May 1, 1886 as part of an effort to demand an eight-hour work day. That effort was led by a labor union known as the International Workers of the World (IWW), also called the Wobblies, which had strong socialist leanings.
Several states and the federal government had already settled on Sept. 1 as America's Labor Day, so that leaves historians the opportunity to debate how and why socialist and communist regimes in Europe and Asia opted for May Day.
In any case, May Day has become a show-off day for Russia and other countries to launch massive parades demonstrating their military might.
This year, the current show-off in the White House will likely be looking for an excuse to display his accomplishments as he marks 100 days as president.
And as North Korea this year rattles its nuclear sabers in efforts to bully other nations into giving in to its demands and threats, the Whine House Bully in Chief faces a dilemma. How does he maintain his self-image as the strongest leader the world has ever known without seeming to yield to the practicality of negotiating a peaceful settlement to whatever passes for disagreement these days.
The world is facing a confrontation of two bullies determined to get their own way by threatening to throw bombs at each other.
Throwing insults is one thing. That's what politicians and diplomats do all the time. Often, the only difference between trading insults in a schoolyard or in Congress or the United Nations is the vocabulary. But when verbal bombs are upgraded to nuclear bombs, the entire world is in danger.
Thursday, April 13, 2017
Unfriendly Skies
It doesn't take much to spark a firestorm of criticism flaring against a corporation, thanks to the proliferation of hand held, pocket size video devices and their ability to post violent incidents on the Internet.
In addition to local police being caught mistreating jaywalkers and drivers over routine traffic stops, major corporations are also caught when those connected to the firm's operations mistreat customers.
Now United Airlines faces worldwide criticism over an incident in which three airport security men, falsely wearing jackets with "Police" imprinted on the back, dragged a passenger off an airplane after he refused to yield his paid seat so an airline crew member could take it.
Some now say the passenger deserved the rough treatment of being hauled off the airplane, because "He had it coming. He should have done what he was told."
This was after early reports that the passenger, a doctor, had a past record of a drug offense in his home state of Kentucky. But that episode was several years earlier, and the wannabe cops could not have known that when they beat up on the doctor and dragged him off the aircraft.
They also could not have known that he was in fact a doctor who was concerned about keeping appointments with his patients the following day. And when the passenger told them he was a doctor, they likely ignored his claim. Moreover, since the passenger was Asian, one glance at his face could well have fueled potential racist tendencies that many power-hungry police wannabes have.
Nor could they have known that the doctor had fled Saigon in his youth as the Vietnam War was ending. He is now 69.
No matter.
No passenger, regardless of ethnicity or past behavior -- known or unknown -- should be a target for self-appointed racist enforcers.
Meanwhile, these questions remain:
Where was the captain in all this? Did he stay in the cockpit, unaware of what was going on aboard his ship?
Did other crew members speak up to stop the violence, even as they heard numerous other passengers cry out in horror over the episode?
Overbooking flights is a common practice for airlines, as they hope to maximize revenue, hoping they can persuade some passengers to give up their seats in exchange for some other benefit. This particular flight was fully booked, but the extra seats were needed so four United crew members to travel to another airport where they were needed for another flight. Why not send them by bus or another aircraft?
In short, violently beating up an elderly doctor who happened to be Asian for refusing to yield his seat for the convenience of the airline created one of the biggest corporate PR disasters in years.
And what of the trauma caused to the doctor's wife, who was sitting next to him on the plane, watching as thuggish quasi-cops beat up and dragged away her husband of many years?
Not to mention the trauma to the other passengers, who can now only wonder how they would be treated if they insisted on their rights as paying passengers.
Meanwhile, the doctor has hired a lawyer, a lawsuit is planned, and there will likely be federal regulations about the practice of deliberately overbooking flights as a way to increase revenue.
In addition to local police being caught mistreating jaywalkers and drivers over routine traffic stops, major corporations are also caught when those connected to the firm's operations mistreat customers.
Now United Airlines faces worldwide criticism over an incident in which three airport security men, falsely wearing jackets with "Police" imprinted on the back, dragged a passenger off an airplane after he refused to yield his paid seat so an airline crew member could take it.
Some now say the passenger deserved the rough treatment of being hauled off the airplane, because "He had it coming. He should have done what he was told."
This was after early reports that the passenger, a doctor, had a past record of a drug offense in his home state of Kentucky. But that episode was several years earlier, and the wannabe cops could not have known that when they beat up on the doctor and dragged him off the aircraft.
They also could not have known that he was in fact a doctor who was concerned about keeping appointments with his patients the following day. And when the passenger told them he was a doctor, they likely ignored his claim. Moreover, since the passenger was Asian, one glance at his face could well have fueled potential racist tendencies that many power-hungry police wannabes have.
Nor could they have known that the doctor had fled Saigon in his youth as the Vietnam War was ending. He is now 69.
No matter.
No passenger, regardless of ethnicity or past behavior -- known or unknown -- should be a target for self-appointed racist enforcers.
Meanwhile, these questions remain:
Where was the captain in all this? Did he stay in the cockpit, unaware of what was going on aboard his ship?
Did other crew members speak up to stop the violence, even as they heard numerous other passengers cry out in horror over the episode?
Overbooking flights is a common practice for airlines, as they hope to maximize revenue, hoping they can persuade some passengers to give up their seats in exchange for some other benefit. This particular flight was fully booked, but the extra seats were needed so four United crew members to travel to another airport where they were needed for another flight. Why not send them by bus or another aircraft?
In short, violently beating up an elderly doctor who happened to be Asian for refusing to yield his seat for the convenience of the airline created one of the biggest corporate PR disasters in years.
And what of the trauma caused to the doctor's wife, who was sitting next to him on the plane, watching as thuggish quasi-cops beat up and dragged away her husband of many years?
Not to mention the trauma to the other passengers, who can now only wonder how they would be treated if they insisted on their rights as paying passengers.
Meanwhile, the doctor has hired a lawyer, a lawsuit is planned, and there will likely be federal regulations about the practice of deliberately overbooking flights as a way to increase revenue.
Torpedoed
What did people do before there was health insurance?
They died a lot.
The president warned that he would stop government payments to insurance companies as subsidies for low income folk who can't afford health coverage, unless Democrats bow to his wishes and join his "repeal and replace" effort to overturn the Affordable Care Act.
This kind of threat is the same "get with the program or go away" strategy that the administration has used before, and continues the bullying tactics that may work during real estate negotiations, but can only backfire on those who use it in politics and government.
The president may be within his legal right to stop the subsidies, but the social impact on those who now have coverage because of the Affordable Care Act will be catastrophic. They stand to lose it, and many others who would otherwise sign up for health care insurance through the program will be unable to do so.
Result: Millions of Americans without adequate health care. That will mean an increase in the death rate from untreated or inadequately treated illness or injury.
Many American will remember the days when health care insurance was available only to those who could afford the premiums, or were wealthy enough so that it didn't matter.
Then came the wage and price freeze imposed during and after World War II, which meant companies could not attract employees by offering higher pay. Instead, they offered side benefits, including pension plans and health insurance. Incidentally, these additional benefits also provided tax deductions for the employer, so both worker and company gained.
Still, part-time workers do not typically get such benefits, and low wage workers can't afford the expense.
The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare and modeled on the Republican program begun in Massachusetts under then Gov. Mitch Romney, resolved that issue.
Oddly, there are many folk who praise the Affordable Care Act, but recoil in anger when asked about Obamacare.
After years of condemning Obamacare and threatening to repeal and replace it as their first priority in their new administration, the attempt to do so crashed.
Now, the Republican president is using bullying tactics to get his way and force Democrats to bend to what he wants.
Question: Why should they? Millions of Americans now have health care insurance they did not have before, which they would lose if the Bully in Chief gets his way.
Like trying to get a mule to move, if you want to tell him something, you have to get his attention first.
New elections are coming up for those who vacated seats in Congress to take jobs in the Republican administration.
Be warned.
They died a lot.
The president warned that he would stop government payments to insurance companies as subsidies for low income folk who can't afford health coverage, unless Democrats bow to his wishes and join his "repeal and replace" effort to overturn the Affordable Care Act.
This kind of threat is the same "get with the program or go away" strategy that the administration has used before, and continues the bullying tactics that may work during real estate negotiations, but can only backfire on those who use it in politics and government.
The president may be within his legal right to stop the subsidies, but the social impact on those who now have coverage because of the Affordable Care Act will be catastrophic. They stand to lose it, and many others who would otherwise sign up for health care insurance through the program will be unable to do so.
Result: Millions of Americans without adequate health care. That will mean an increase in the death rate from untreated or inadequately treated illness or injury.
Many American will remember the days when health care insurance was available only to those who could afford the premiums, or were wealthy enough so that it didn't matter.
Then came the wage and price freeze imposed during and after World War II, which meant companies could not attract employees by offering higher pay. Instead, they offered side benefits, including pension plans and health insurance. Incidentally, these additional benefits also provided tax deductions for the employer, so both worker and company gained.
Still, part-time workers do not typically get such benefits, and low wage workers can't afford the expense.
The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare and modeled on the Republican program begun in Massachusetts under then Gov. Mitch Romney, resolved that issue.
Oddly, there are many folk who praise the Affordable Care Act, but recoil in anger when asked about Obamacare.
After years of condemning Obamacare and threatening to repeal and replace it as their first priority in their new administration, the attempt to do so crashed.
Now, the Republican president is using bullying tactics to get his way and force Democrats to bend to what he wants.
Question: Why should they? Millions of Americans now have health care insurance they did not have before, which they would lose if the Bully in Chief gets his way.
Like trying to get a mule to move, if you want to tell him something, you have to get his attention first.
New elections are coming up for those who vacated seats in Congress to take jobs in the Republican administration.
Be warned.
Wednesday, April 12, 2017
Arrogance Plus Ignorance Equals High Danger
When staffers show incompetence or ignorance about things relevant to their jobs, one wonders what that says about the boss, the person who hired the ignoramus in the first place.
First guess is that the boss was impressed about the staffer's knowledge and ability. In turn, that suggests that the boss is just as ignorant and incompetent as the staffer.
So what are we to make of Sean Spicer, the new president's press secretary, who has shown many times his level of knowledge about world events -- current and past -- and his ability to answer adequately questions put to him by the White House press corps?
The latest episode involves Spicer's defense of the government's ability to deal with chemical weapon attacks by Syria against its own people.
He mentioned America's use of poison gas by the military during World War I, and Nazi Germany's use of gas during World War II, equating them with Syria's use of chemical weapons recently.
But gas attacks a hundred years ago were used only against military targets, and were quickly outlawed, partly because the wind could change and blow the gas into civilian territory, or back upon the attackers.
And in Nazi Germany, poison gas was not used for military purposes, but against civilians, primarily Jewish, in specially constructed chambers in concentration camps, as part of what became known as the Holocaust.
Both the Holocaust and the Syrian bombing of civilians are indeed horrific acts, but to explain or excuse the one by comparing it to the other shows ignorance and incompetence that rises to a level of -- dare we say it? -- stupidity.
All of which is to wonder whether and how America can remain a great nation when its leaders prove themselves to be arrogant in their ignorance, incompetence -- and stupidity.
First guess is that the boss was impressed about the staffer's knowledge and ability. In turn, that suggests that the boss is just as ignorant and incompetent as the staffer.
So what are we to make of Sean Spicer, the new president's press secretary, who has shown many times his level of knowledge about world events -- current and past -- and his ability to answer adequately questions put to him by the White House press corps?
The latest episode involves Spicer's defense of the government's ability to deal with chemical weapon attacks by Syria against its own people.
He mentioned America's use of poison gas by the military during World War I, and Nazi Germany's use of gas during World War II, equating them with Syria's use of chemical weapons recently.
But gas attacks a hundred years ago were used only against military targets, and were quickly outlawed, partly because the wind could change and blow the gas into civilian territory, or back upon the attackers.
And in Nazi Germany, poison gas was not used for military purposes, but against civilians, primarily Jewish, in specially constructed chambers in concentration camps, as part of what became known as the Holocaust.
Both the Holocaust and the Syrian bombing of civilians are indeed horrific acts, but to explain or excuse the one by comparing it to the other shows ignorance and incompetence that rises to a level of -- dare we say it? -- stupidity.
All of which is to wonder whether and how America can remain a great nation when its leaders prove themselves to be arrogant in their ignorance, incompetence -- and stupidity.
Tuesday, April 11, 2017
Shambles in Europe
Make Britain Great Again
Look for that slogan to come up as the London government moves to leave the European Union and rebuild its status as the topmost reigning power in the world.
The reality that those days have been gone for nearly a hundred years will have little effect on the nationalist push for power.
There was indeed a time when the United Kingdom of Great Britain and its various colonies, territories, protectorates, etc. blanketed the world and the Union Jack was flown proudly in all these places.
The flag is still flown in these countries, and the portrait of the monarch still shows on the currency. But that's a recognition of the status of the monarch as the titular head of state, even though the actual government is done locally as the former colonies, protectorates and territories gained independence.
But what will happen to many of these smaller entities close to Europe as Brexit, as the EU leaving is called, nears reality?
Many of these smaller units are not part of the United Kingdom, but they do enjoy the protection of the London government. Gibraltar may well be the most seriously affected, since Spain has long wanted to reclaim that rock at the Atlantic entrance to the Mediterranean.
The people of Gibraltar have been just as determined in their desire to remain part of Britain, and they voted overwhelmingly to stay with the EU. But if the UK leaves the trading partnership and Spain stays in the EU, what will happen to Gibraltar?
The Scots are reconsidering their options, one of which is whether to go for independence from London and stay with the EU. The people of Northern Ireland will have similar options -- full independence or joining the Irish Republic.
If Gibraltar goes for independence, the temptation for Spain to forcibly take back the Big Rock is great. So far, the British have protected Gibraltar. Will they continue?
The Isle of Man may not face as many geographic challenges, since it sits between the main island comprising Scotland and England to the East, and the island to the West that is home to the fully independent Republic of Ireland and the several counties of Northern Ireland that remain part of the UK.
Then there are the Channel Islands of Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney and Sark.
They all benefit from the UK membership in the European Union, but if Brexit happens, they will have to choose between following London's lead and breaking off to form new relationships.
Spain wants Gibraltar. Does France want the Channel Islands? The Scots and the people of Northern Ireland voted against Brexit, but were outvoted by the English and the Welsh. What do the Manx people want? Has anyone asked?
Or do the English even care?
Look for that slogan to come up as the London government moves to leave the European Union and rebuild its status as the topmost reigning power in the world.
The reality that those days have been gone for nearly a hundred years will have little effect on the nationalist push for power.
There was indeed a time when the United Kingdom of Great Britain and its various colonies, territories, protectorates, etc. blanketed the world and the Union Jack was flown proudly in all these places.
The flag is still flown in these countries, and the portrait of the monarch still shows on the currency. But that's a recognition of the status of the monarch as the titular head of state, even though the actual government is done locally as the former colonies, protectorates and territories gained independence.
But what will happen to many of these smaller entities close to Europe as Brexit, as the EU leaving is called, nears reality?
Many of these smaller units are not part of the United Kingdom, but they do enjoy the protection of the London government. Gibraltar may well be the most seriously affected, since Spain has long wanted to reclaim that rock at the Atlantic entrance to the Mediterranean.
The people of Gibraltar have been just as determined in their desire to remain part of Britain, and they voted overwhelmingly to stay with the EU. But if the UK leaves the trading partnership and Spain stays in the EU, what will happen to Gibraltar?
The Scots are reconsidering their options, one of which is whether to go for independence from London and stay with the EU. The people of Northern Ireland will have similar options -- full independence or joining the Irish Republic.
If Gibraltar goes for independence, the temptation for Spain to forcibly take back the Big Rock is great. So far, the British have protected Gibraltar. Will they continue?
The Isle of Man may not face as many geographic challenges, since it sits between the main island comprising Scotland and England to the East, and the island to the West that is home to the fully independent Republic of Ireland and the several counties of Northern Ireland that remain part of the UK.
Then there are the Channel Islands of Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney and Sark.
They all benefit from the UK membership in the European Union, but if Brexit happens, they will have to choose between following London's lead and breaking off to form new relationships.
Spain wants Gibraltar. Does France want the Channel Islands? The Scots and the people of Northern Ireland voted against Brexit, but were outvoted by the English and the Welsh. What do the Manx people want? Has anyone asked?
Or do the English even care?
Saturday, April 8, 2017
Help Wanted
More than 500 senior government positions -- those that must be approved with the advice and consent of the Senate -- become available for a new president to fill soon after taking office.
It is now nearly three months since inauguration day, and so far just 22 of these jobs have been filled.
One wonders why.
Perhaps the new president wants to leave them empty. But if they are important enough to require approval by the Senate, they are likely relatively important jobs.
Perhaps he is unable to find people competent enough to take these positions.
Perhaps many have been asked, but are unwilling.
Perhaps he feels these jobs are not important enough to warrant his time.
Perhaps he is too busy playing golf, or tweeting his anger at the latest perceived slights by critics, or negative coverage by the news media.
Perhaps his minions are too busy with other work, or they are not up to the task.
Or perhaps many are called but few are chosen because they don't answer the call.
One wonders why.
It is now nearly three months since inauguration day, and so far just 22 of these jobs have been filled.
One wonders why.
Perhaps the new president wants to leave them empty. But if they are important enough to require approval by the Senate, they are likely relatively important jobs.
Perhaps he is unable to find people competent enough to take these positions.
Perhaps many have been asked, but are unwilling.
Perhaps he feels these jobs are not important enough to warrant his time.
Perhaps he is too busy playing golf, or tweeting his anger at the latest perceived slights by critics, or negative coverage by the news media.
Perhaps his minions are too busy with other work, or they are not up to the task.
Or perhaps many are called but few are chosen because they don't answer the call.
One wonders why.
Privacy and Free Speech
Anyone can criticize the government. And that includes government employees.
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- Attributed in several forms to various speakers, including John Philpot Curran, Dublin, 1790; Thomas Paine, 1777; abolitionist Wendell Phillips, 1852; Andrew Jackson, 1837, and others.
The U.S. government last week demanded that Twitter reveal the names of those posting anti-Trump remarks on the social media site.
Prosecutors served a subpoena on Twitter, noting that operators of the site claimed to be government employees, and the government needed to know who was posting remarks in order to stop leaks of potentially important information.
Twitter, however, refused to honor the subpoena and filed suit against the government, citing privacy rights and the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.
The next day, the government withdrew the subpoena, and Twitter dropped the lawsuit.
Whether the Tweeters actually were government employees is an open question. Nonetheless, the right of free speech belongs to all. If the administration is so paranoid that it cannot abide criticism or disagreement, then the problem is theirs, not the American public.
And because of this paranoia, a free press must sometimes depend on reliable but anonymous sources for information that the public needs to know.
At the same time, there is something to be said for the idea that if you want to comment or criticize someone or something, you should have the courage to attach your name to your opinions. Even so, government or corporate employees may sometimes need the protection of anonymity to avoid retribution.
So until and unless government and company officials abandon their efforts to stifle dissent, the First Amendment right of free speech may occasionally need the protection of anonymity.
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- Attributed in several forms to various speakers, including John Philpot Curran, Dublin, 1790; Thomas Paine, 1777; abolitionist Wendell Phillips, 1852; Andrew Jackson, 1837, and others.
The U.S. government last week demanded that Twitter reveal the names of those posting anti-Trump remarks on the social media site.
Prosecutors served a subpoena on Twitter, noting that operators of the site claimed to be government employees, and the government needed to know who was posting remarks in order to stop leaks of potentially important information.
Twitter, however, refused to honor the subpoena and filed suit against the government, citing privacy rights and the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.
The next day, the government withdrew the subpoena, and Twitter dropped the lawsuit.
Whether the Tweeters actually were government employees is an open question. Nonetheless, the right of free speech belongs to all. If the administration is so paranoid that it cannot abide criticism or disagreement, then the problem is theirs, not the American public.
And because of this paranoia, a free press must sometimes depend on reliable but anonymous sources for information that the public needs to know.
At the same time, there is something to be said for the idea that if you want to comment or criticize someone or something, you should have the courage to attach your name to your opinions. Even so, government or corporate employees may sometimes need the protection of anonymity to avoid retribution.
So until and unless government and company officials abandon their efforts to stifle dissent, the First Amendment right of free speech may occasionally need the protection of anonymity.
Friday, April 7, 2017
Dam Good Jobs
No fewer than eight pieces of legislation dealing with hydroelectric projects and dams in the Far West and Alaska have passed muster by the Congressional Budget Office and returned to the Senate for further action.
If approved by Congress and signed by the president, the bills could boost government spending as part of the much talked about infrastructure plan to boost the economy.
Some of the projects have already been approved and either seek to expand or face delays.
This, however, could clash with an economy already nearing full employment, and the private sector would have to compete with government when hiring workers. In times of an economic downturn, government sponsored jobs are a good thing, supplying wages to those who otherwise would be out of work.
But when times are good and government pulls people from the general work force, companies are unable to hire and may be forced out of business.
It's a narrow path to walk, and government must balance the need for infrastructure improvement with the private sector's need for workers. And when the economy improves, the government must know when to pull back from stimulus programs and let companies continue to prosper.
Likewise, the Federal Reserve Board works toward its goal of making money available at low interest rates to induce companies to borrow for investment and expansion, thus building toward full employment.
Basically, that's where the Fed is now. It is reconsidering its stimulus package as the economy improves, and is likely to raise interest rates again at its next meeting.
If approved by Congress and signed by the president, the bills could boost government spending as part of the much talked about infrastructure plan to boost the economy.
Some of the projects have already been approved and either seek to expand or face delays.
This, however, could clash with an economy already nearing full employment, and the private sector would have to compete with government when hiring workers. In times of an economic downturn, government sponsored jobs are a good thing, supplying wages to those who otherwise would be out of work.
But when times are good and government pulls people from the general work force, companies are unable to hire and may be forced out of business.
It's a narrow path to walk, and government must balance the need for infrastructure improvement with the private sector's need for workers. And when the economy improves, the government must know when to pull back from stimulus programs and let companies continue to prosper.
Likewise, the Federal Reserve Board works toward its goal of making money available at low interest rates to induce companies to borrow for investment and expansion, thus building toward full employment.
Basically, that's where the Fed is now. It is reconsidering its stimulus package as the economy improves, and is likely to raise interest rates again at its next meeting.
The Land of Opportunity
Fewer American workers found jobs in March compared to January and February, but the unemployment rate declined anyway, to a national average of 4.5 percent. And the number of unemployed people declined, according to the latest report from the U.S. Labor Department.
Put together, the data suggest more people are working and the economy is edging further toward the goal of full employment. When this happens, the labor force needs replenishing.
Specifically, the unemployment rate faded to 4.5 percent, and the number of people out of work declined by 326,000 to a nationwide total of 7.2 million.
Total nonfarm employment increased by 98,000 in March, the report said. This was down sharply from the gain of 219,000 in February and the increase of 215,000 in January.
So does mean trouble is brewing? Not necessarily. It means that those who are ready, willing and able to work have been increasingly successful in finding jobs.
What it can mean in a larger sense is that the overall economy is doing better because companies are hiring as business improves. This can lead to upward pressure on wages and a potential labor shortage.
In turn, with more jobs available at good pay and fewer people available to take them, workers from other regions will move to where the jobs are.
Welcome to the Land of Opportunity.
Put together, the data suggest more people are working and the economy is edging further toward the goal of full employment. When this happens, the labor force needs replenishing.
Specifically, the unemployment rate faded to 4.5 percent, and the number of people out of work declined by 326,000 to a nationwide total of 7.2 million.
Total nonfarm employment increased by 98,000 in March, the report said. This was down sharply from the gain of 219,000 in February and the increase of 215,000 in January.
So does mean trouble is brewing? Not necessarily. It means that those who are ready, willing and able to work have been increasingly successful in finding jobs.
What it can mean in a larger sense is that the overall economy is doing better because companies are hiring as business improves. This can lead to upward pressure on wages and a potential labor shortage.
In turn, with more jobs available at good pay and fewer people available to take them, workers from other regions will move to where the jobs are.
Welcome to the Land of Opportunity.
Thursday, April 6, 2017
Grammar Grump
The pen is mightier than the sword.
It has long been a custom that the chief of state in any nation is an examplar of good usage in the language of that country.
Courtesy, also, is a set of customs and practices that people expect their leaders to follow, thus setting an example for everyone in the nation.
Rudeness, in the form of interrupting others, is frowned on in a civil society.
Combine these -- poor grammar, scattered speech patterns and rudeness -- and you have a sound portrait of the current president of the United States.
Journalists have long ignored lapses in grammar and sentence structure by interview subjects, editing and selecting phrases to improve the flow of a news report. Part of that is also courtesy. Few people always speak in grammatically perfect sentences when speaking informally.
But when a politician habitually insults and attacks the news media, showing rudeness and interrupting reporters even as he mauls standards of generally accepted language usage, it's hard to overcome the courtesy that reporters habitually give to their interview subjects.
However, there are ways.
One is to record and report exactly what is said, exactly as it is said, without editing for clarity or cleaning up the grammar.
Another is to print a full, unedited transcript of the interview, including all the interruptions and scattered thoughts, the rambling sentences and the ungrammatical usage.
If you want fair treatment, be fair. Journalists will report what you say, and they may well report exactly how you say it.
Be careful what you wish for, and always remember where the real power lies.
It has long been a custom that the chief of state in any nation is an examplar of good usage in the language of that country.
Courtesy, also, is a set of customs and practices that people expect their leaders to follow, thus setting an example for everyone in the nation.
Rudeness, in the form of interrupting others, is frowned on in a civil society.
Combine these -- poor grammar, scattered speech patterns and rudeness -- and you have a sound portrait of the current president of the United States.
Journalists have long ignored lapses in grammar and sentence structure by interview subjects, editing and selecting phrases to improve the flow of a news report. Part of that is also courtesy. Few people always speak in grammatically perfect sentences when speaking informally.
But when a politician habitually insults and attacks the news media, showing rudeness and interrupting reporters even as he mauls standards of generally accepted language usage, it's hard to overcome the courtesy that reporters habitually give to their interview subjects.
However, there are ways.
One is to record and report exactly what is said, exactly as it is said, without editing for clarity or cleaning up the grammar.
Another is to print a full, unedited transcript of the interview, including all the interruptions and scattered thoughts, the rambling sentences and the ungrammatical usage.
If you want fair treatment, be fair. Journalists will report what you say, and they may well report exactly how you say it.
Be careful what you wish for, and always remember where the real power lies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)