When does gossip become an official statement?
When the perpetrator is the president of the United States of America.
An offhand wisecrack said to friends is one thing. The same remark sent worldwide to millions of avid followers instantly becomes an official policy statement by the chief executive of a nation.
Recently, many broadcast journalists have stopped referring to social media tirades by Donald Trump as tweets, which suggests they are little more than gossip.
When a comment is made by a president and sent around the world, it is not merely "just a tweet," some idle gossip transmitted via Twitter or some other social medium.
When a president comments publicly, it becomes news, and can be read as an official statement of government policy.
By that definition, insults and disparaging, demeaning wisecracks about a person's intelligence, mental status, competence and appearance reflect official government policy, and set an example for others to follow.
So, given the past and present performance, attitudes and comments made by the president and sent out via Twitter, is this the example Americans should follow, or encourage their children to imitate?
If so, the nation faces a sorry future.
White House spokeswoman Sandra Huckabee Sanders defended Trump's remarks about TV host Mika Brzezinski as an appropriate response to an attack, that the president is entitled to hit back ten-fold.
But if he can't take disagreement or criticism, he should not be in public office.
People in government are there to serve the public interest, not their own, and certainly not to dominate.
Friday, June 30, 2017
Thursday, June 29, 2017
Cash Flow
Disaster awaits the unwary and unwilling
The U.S. economy is still perking along, posting a rise in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of 1.4 percent in the first quarter, according to the latest estimate from the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis. This is down from the 2.1 percent rise in the fourth quarter of 2016, but still not a portent of disaster.
Perhaps more relevant, though, is a separate report from the Congressional Budget Office that the federal debt will rise over the next decade, even as economic growth remains modest at about 2.0 percent through next year.
Meanwhile, the CBO noted that unless the federal debt ceiling is changed, the U.S. Treasury will run out of cash in October of this year, which will lead to payment delays in government programs, a default on debt obligations, or both.
So what does this all mean to the average American? First, that the Federal Reserve Board will keep a close eye on whether to raise interest rates again to prevent the economy from overheating. Higher interest rates, however, can bring higher prices for consumers, even as savings account interest rates hold at their current levels, enabling financial institutions to fatten their bottom line profits.
Second, when the Treasury runs out of cash, the government will be unable to pay out pensions and other benefits it owes to citizens under various programs designed to help the needy.
Third, if the government defaults on its debt obligations, its borrowing costs will rise as investors demand a higher payout to cover risk.
Fourth, this set of losses will stagger the general economy, causing a downward spiral.
Finally, the administration could call for more and deeper cuts in government expenses to make up for tax revenue losses, or it could raise taxes, or both. And as government spending -- a major contributor to economic well-being -- is reduced, the downward spiral accelerates.
So unless the folks in Washington make use of principles outlined in Economics 101, a national and even worldwide disaster awaits, as happened during the Great Depression of the 1930s and the Great Recession of ten years ago.
Those who refuse to learn from history ...
The U.S. economy is still perking along, posting a rise in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of 1.4 percent in the first quarter, according to the latest estimate from the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis. This is down from the 2.1 percent rise in the fourth quarter of 2016, but still not a portent of disaster.
Perhaps more relevant, though, is a separate report from the Congressional Budget Office that the federal debt will rise over the next decade, even as economic growth remains modest at about 2.0 percent through next year.
Meanwhile, the CBO noted that unless the federal debt ceiling is changed, the U.S. Treasury will run out of cash in October of this year, which will lead to payment delays in government programs, a default on debt obligations, or both.
So what does this all mean to the average American? First, that the Federal Reserve Board will keep a close eye on whether to raise interest rates again to prevent the economy from overheating. Higher interest rates, however, can bring higher prices for consumers, even as savings account interest rates hold at their current levels, enabling financial institutions to fatten their bottom line profits.
Second, when the Treasury runs out of cash, the government will be unable to pay out pensions and other benefits it owes to citizens under various programs designed to help the needy.
Third, if the government defaults on its debt obligations, its borrowing costs will rise as investors demand a higher payout to cover risk.
Fourth, this set of losses will stagger the general economy, causing a downward spiral.
Finally, the administration could call for more and deeper cuts in government expenses to make up for tax revenue losses, or it could raise taxes, or both. And as government spending -- a major contributor to economic well-being -- is reduced, the downward spiral accelerates.
So unless the folks in Washington make use of principles outlined in Economics 101, a national and even worldwide disaster awaits, as happened during the Great Depression of the 1930s and the Great Recession of ten years ago.
Those who refuse to learn from history ...
Out, Liar
Stupid
That's a word I rarely use, yet it seems the only appropriate term to describe the actions and attitudes of He Who Should Not be Named, even as he sits in the Oval Office in Washington DC.
As the twitter in chief, also known as Chief Twit, he ignores ordinary civil, moral and even legal conventions of a modern society as he attacks those who annoy him in the smallest way.
This is especially stupid when launching insult, abuse and vilification against those who buy ink by the barrel and newsprint by the ton, as well as those who host their own network TV shows.
His latest attack came just this morning, against Mika Brzezinski, co-host with Joe Scarborough of a news and talk show on MSNBC, referring to them as "low IQ Crazy Mika, along with Crazy Joe," using other vulgar terms about her and claiming he saw her "bleeding badly from a facelift."
This followed criticism of debate moderator Megyn Kelly, who was the target of his claim that she did a poor job because she was "bleeding from her wherever, " a clear reference to her menstrual cycle.
Are such tactics the mark of a civilized, courteous person at any level of society, much less the president of the United States of America?
His lies have been tracked and documented, so much so the that New York Times devoted an entire page listing each of them, beginning the day he was inaugurated. Moreover, the newspaper left out any untruths that could have been mistakes, a result of misspeaking or from a lack of full knowledge.
This left only full-blown, flat-out lies, and the list still filled a full page.
He has come under daily criticism from journalists and others for his tactics as he stretches the boundaries of acceptable claims and gone beyond the pale of veracity.
The term "beyond the pale," by the way, goes back centuries to the days when foreigners invaded Ireland and built a wall, or palisade, to keep out the native Irish from their settlement in what is now Dublin.
Add that to list of walls that don't work, including Hadrian's Wall and the Antonine Wall that the Romans built in Britain to keep out the Scots, the Berlin Wall the Soviets built to keep unhappy Germans from leaving, and the partial fence and wall in America intended to keep out Hispanic migrants seeking a better life.
The lesson here is that the more he assails as "fake news" any report that shows his policies are not working, or that disagrees with him in any way, the more the opposition builds and the sharper journalists' pencils get as they continue their criticism.
Or as The Economist newspaper puts it in their upcoming July 4th issue, "He promised to fix America's politics, but it is more broken than ever. Badly needed reforms are failing. America's institutions are under attack and its political culture is poisonous. Sooner or later the harm will spread beyond the beltway and into the economy."
Smart politicians know better than to attack reporters, even those who are clearly biased against them. Yet this new guy does so often, and praises those who are biased in his favor.
A free press has a duty to hold government officials accountable for what they say and do. The appropriate response to criticism is for a politician to provide additional information to uphold and explain what he or she says and does.
Like walls intended to keep out those you don't like, personal attacks and insults don't work, especially on journalists who, unlike some politicians, are very thick-skinned. They just sharpen their pencils, extend their vocabularies and hit the keyboards and airwaves even more.
You can't fire them, Mr. President. They don't work for you. They work for the American people and a free society.
But if you insist on a continuing barrage of insult and abuse in a weak attempt to get your own way ... bring it on. We have a large supply of pencils.
That's a word I rarely use, yet it seems the only appropriate term to describe the actions and attitudes of He Who Should Not be Named, even as he sits in the Oval Office in Washington DC.
As the twitter in chief, also known as Chief Twit, he ignores ordinary civil, moral and even legal conventions of a modern society as he attacks those who annoy him in the smallest way.
This is especially stupid when launching insult, abuse and vilification against those who buy ink by the barrel and newsprint by the ton, as well as those who host their own network TV shows.
His latest attack came just this morning, against Mika Brzezinski, co-host with Joe Scarborough of a news and talk show on MSNBC, referring to them as "low IQ Crazy Mika, along with Crazy Joe," using other vulgar terms about her and claiming he saw her "bleeding badly from a facelift."
This followed criticism of debate moderator Megyn Kelly, who was the target of his claim that she did a poor job because she was "bleeding from her wherever, " a clear reference to her menstrual cycle.
Are such tactics the mark of a civilized, courteous person at any level of society, much less the president of the United States of America?
His lies have been tracked and documented, so much so the that New York Times devoted an entire page listing each of them, beginning the day he was inaugurated. Moreover, the newspaper left out any untruths that could have been mistakes, a result of misspeaking or from a lack of full knowledge.
This left only full-blown, flat-out lies, and the list still filled a full page.
He has come under daily criticism from journalists and others for his tactics as he stretches the boundaries of acceptable claims and gone beyond the pale of veracity.
The term "beyond the pale," by the way, goes back centuries to the days when foreigners invaded Ireland and built a wall, or palisade, to keep out the native Irish from their settlement in what is now Dublin.
Add that to list of walls that don't work, including Hadrian's Wall and the Antonine Wall that the Romans built in Britain to keep out the Scots, the Berlin Wall the Soviets built to keep unhappy Germans from leaving, and the partial fence and wall in America intended to keep out Hispanic migrants seeking a better life.
The lesson here is that the more he assails as "fake news" any report that shows his policies are not working, or that disagrees with him in any way, the more the opposition builds and the sharper journalists' pencils get as they continue their criticism.
Or as The Economist newspaper puts it in their upcoming July 4th issue, "He promised to fix America's politics, but it is more broken than ever. Badly needed reforms are failing. America's institutions are under attack and its political culture is poisonous. Sooner or later the harm will spread beyond the beltway and into the economy."
Smart politicians know better than to attack reporters, even those who are clearly biased against them. Yet this new guy does so often, and praises those who are biased in his favor.
A free press has a duty to hold government officials accountable for what they say and do. The appropriate response to criticism is for a politician to provide additional information to uphold and explain what he or she says and does.
Like walls intended to keep out those you don't like, personal attacks and insults don't work, especially on journalists who, unlike some politicians, are very thick-skinned. They just sharpen their pencils, extend their vocabularies and hit the keyboards and airwaves even more.
You can't fire them, Mr. President. They don't work for you. They work for the American people and a free society.
But if you insist on a continuing barrage of insult and abuse in a weak attempt to get your own way ... bring it on. We have a large supply of pencils.
Tuesday, June 27, 2017
Pillory Post
You can't make this stuff up.
This blog doesn't have the space or the desire to document all the daily rantings and the loose relationship to fact -- alternative or otherwise -- coming out of the White House.
The term "revisionist history" has taken on towering new dimensions in comments made by the current president. Whenever something goes amiss, his attack mode is to transfer blame to others, especially Democrats and his predecessor in the Oval Office.
The most recent example is his attack on his predecessor for not doing something about the alleged Russian hacking of the U.S. election process, now that it has become a threat to his own presidency.
Moreover, his evaluations of projects such as the new health care bill are bipolar daily, from high praise for the House version passed recently, to its meanness compared to the Senate attempt.
Next will be an attack on the Congressional Budget Office, whose analysis of the Senate bill notes that an additional 22 million people will lose health insurance, bringing the total of uninsured Americans to 49 million in ten years.
And rather than mandate that everyone get health insurance, with a subsidy to those who can't afford it, the Senate bill would "punish" those who don't sign up by banning them from the market for six months.
Where's the sense in that? Those who are young and healthy often don't sign up anyway, figuring they don't need it, so why spend the money. Or is the new rule a threat -- sign up now or else we won't let you sign up later, and if you get sick in the meantime, that's just your tough luck.
And after his repeated campaign promise that there will be no reduction in Medicaid, the health care assistance plan for those who need help, the proposed new plan would make sharp cuts in government subsidies to Medicaid, all the better to enable massive tax reductions for the wealthy.
This blog doesn't have the space or the desire to document all the daily rantings and the loose relationship to fact -- alternative or otherwise -- coming out of the White House.
The term "revisionist history" has taken on towering new dimensions in comments made by the current president. Whenever something goes amiss, his attack mode is to transfer blame to others, especially Democrats and his predecessor in the Oval Office.
The most recent example is his attack on his predecessor for not doing something about the alleged Russian hacking of the U.S. election process, now that it has become a threat to his own presidency.
Moreover, his evaluations of projects such as the new health care bill are bipolar daily, from high praise for the House version passed recently, to its meanness compared to the Senate attempt.
Next will be an attack on the Congressional Budget Office, whose analysis of the Senate bill notes that an additional 22 million people will lose health insurance, bringing the total of uninsured Americans to 49 million in ten years.
And rather than mandate that everyone get health insurance, with a subsidy to those who can't afford it, the Senate bill would "punish" those who don't sign up by banning them from the market for six months.
Where's the sense in that? Those who are young and healthy often don't sign up anyway, figuring they don't need it, so why spend the money. Or is the new rule a threat -- sign up now or else we won't let you sign up later, and if you get sick in the meantime, that's just your tough luck.
And after his repeated campaign promise that there will be no reduction in Medicaid, the health care assistance plan for those who need help, the proposed new plan would make sharp cuts in government subsidies to Medicaid, all the better to enable massive tax reductions for the wealthy.
Media Shutout
May the Farce Be With You
Ignoring reporters does not mean the questions go away. Neither do the reporters. Instead, they keeping posing the same questions, in print and broadcast forums, noting that administration officials either waffle in their answers, insult the questioner, refuse to even consider the issue, or all of the above.
Nevertheless, the question stands.
Currently, the White House has been reducing the number of press briefings, disallowing cameras at some, as well as threatening to take only written questions submitted in advance. This would enable them to select which questions to answer, trash the others, and disallow any follow-up questions.
None of this, however, will stop reporters from pursuing information valuable to the general public.
As if the Washington press corps would meekly accept such treatment and surrender to the arrogant demands of any government official who tries to control his message.
The current occupant of the Oval Office has resumed his barrage of Twitter postings attacking any who oppose him, and blaming others for any difficulties related to anything he says or does.
Since journalists don't have direct access to the president to ask for more detail and to question the background of his assertions, they dutifully pass on to their TV audience and print readership the content of his tweets, adding their questions, comments and interpretations.
So who really gets the last word?
Meanwhile, congressional representatives are about to take their summer break, but many will forgo public meetings with their constituents rather than face a barrage of questions and opposition from voters.
Ultimately, however, they will face re-election. So who really gets the last word?
Ignoring reporters does not mean the questions go away. Neither do the reporters. Instead, they keeping posing the same questions, in print and broadcast forums, noting that administration officials either waffle in their answers, insult the questioner, refuse to even consider the issue, or all of the above.
Nevertheless, the question stands.
Currently, the White House has been reducing the number of press briefings, disallowing cameras at some, as well as threatening to take only written questions submitted in advance. This would enable them to select which questions to answer, trash the others, and disallow any follow-up questions.
None of this, however, will stop reporters from pursuing information valuable to the general public.
As if the Washington press corps would meekly accept such treatment and surrender to the arrogant demands of any government official who tries to control his message.
The current occupant of the Oval Office has resumed his barrage of Twitter postings attacking any who oppose him, and blaming others for any difficulties related to anything he says or does.
Since journalists don't have direct access to the president to ask for more detail and to question the background of his assertions, they dutifully pass on to their TV audience and print readership the content of his tweets, adding their questions, comments and interpretations.
So who really gets the last word?
Meanwhile, congressional representatives are about to take their summer break, but many will forgo public meetings with their constituents rather than face a barrage of questions and opposition from voters.
Ultimately, however, they will face re-election. So who really gets the last word?
Sunday, June 25, 2017
Deregulation Disaster
"When will they ever learn?" -- Pete Seeger, 1955
Fire resistant panels are too expensive.
Sprinkler systems are costly to maintain.
Alarm systems soon break down, so why bother?
A single stairway exit is sufficient.
The chances of something bad happening are low.
These are some of the explanations and excuses made by developers of the London apartment tower destroyed by fire recently, at the cost of 79 lives and counting.
Compare that with the cost of adequate safety measures that could have prevented the total destruction of Grenfell Tower.
What's a single life worth?
Do we count it in dollars, pounds or euros so we can compare it to construction, installation and the maintenance cost of fire prevention materials and equipment?
It can indeed be done, but should it?
Meanwhile, developers trust to luck that there will be no problem, so they can pocket a few extra coins and share some of that bounty with stockholders and perhaps even with government regulators who looked the other way and let them bypass the rules.
The London fire disaster is the latest and one of the most flagrant examples of what happens when safety rules are ignored, cancelled or not even established.
Yet politicians around the world rush to overturn government regulations of any kind as they insist that the private sector is better equipped and more qualified to decide what standards are needed as well as how and whether they should be enforced.
Government has no role in business, they claim, except as a partner to clear barriers and thus help to increase profits.
However, a primary role of government is to protect and serve all the people, not just a favored few who help finance election campaigns and then expect a return on their investment.
Britain now faces a cleanup from such a shortsighted policy, and America is now watching a new president dismantle many policies and regulations in the name of clearing obstacles for economic expansion -- read, corporate profits -- but the cost ultimately will be measured in human lives.
Society cannot afford such a shortsighted investment policy.
Consider these questions: What happened before government-sponsored social welfare programs came into being? What happened decades ago, before such programs as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and before companies offered health care insurance as part of employment benefits? And what happened before the Affordable Care Act set up under former President Barack Obama enabled millions of low- and moderate-income families to sign up for health care insurance policies?
The answer is that people died a lot.
Regulations of various kinds, enforced by government, are essential to ensure a safe society. To dismantle government programs solely because they are government programs is to invite disaster.
Grenfell Tower is but the latest symptom of that blindness.
Fire resistant panels are too expensive.
Sprinkler systems are costly to maintain.
Alarm systems soon break down, so why bother?
A single stairway exit is sufficient.
The chances of something bad happening are low.
These are some of the explanations and excuses made by developers of the London apartment tower destroyed by fire recently, at the cost of 79 lives and counting.
Compare that with the cost of adequate safety measures that could have prevented the total destruction of Grenfell Tower.
What's a single life worth?
Do we count it in dollars, pounds or euros so we can compare it to construction, installation and the maintenance cost of fire prevention materials and equipment?
It can indeed be done, but should it?
Meanwhile, developers trust to luck that there will be no problem, so they can pocket a few extra coins and share some of that bounty with stockholders and perhaps even with government regulators who looked the other way and let them bypass the rules.
The London fire disaster is the latest and one of the most flagrant examples of what happens when safety rules are ignored, cancelled or not even established.
Yet politicians around the world rush to overturn government regulations of any kind as they insist that the private sector is better equipped and more qualified to decide what standards are needed as well as how and whether they should be enforced.
Government has no role in business, they claim, except as a partner to clear barriers and thus help to increase profits.
However, a primary role of government is to protect and serve all the people, not just a favored few who help finance election campaigns and then expect a return on their investment.
Britain now faces a cleanup from such a shortsighted policy, and America is now watching a new president dismantle many policies and regulations in the name of clearing obstacles for economic expansion -- read, corporate profits -- but the cost ultimately will be measured in human lives.
Society cannot afford such a shortsighted investment policy.
Consider these questions: What happened before government-sponsored social welfare programs came into being? What happened decades ago, before such programs as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and before companies offered health care insurance as part of employment benefits? And what happened before the Affordable Care Act set up under former President Barack Obama enabled millions of low- and moderate-income families to sign up for health care insurance policies?
The answer is that people died a lot.
Regulations of various kinds, enforced by government, are essential to ensure a safe society. To dismantle government programs solely because they are government programs is to invite disaster.
Grenfell Tower is but the latest symptom of that blindness.
Saturday, June 24, 2017
Credit or Debit
"The rich get rich and the poor get children." -- F. Scott Fitzgerald, "The Great Gatsby"
The Senate's health care plan will offer a tax credit to help low-income families purchase Medicare insurance.
Question: What good is a tax credit to families whose income is so low they pay little or no taxes anyway?
Yet the plan to reduce Medicare expenses from government coffers would enable an equivalent reduction in taxes on the wealthy in America, who don't need help in purchasing health insurance on the open market.
The bottom line, then, is that the rich would pocket the difference and the poor would lose whatever opportunity they may have had to acquire health insurance.
As for cancelling all government aid to Planned Parenthood because of its advisory activities for those seeking abortions, this ignores the reality that Planned Parenthood has little, if any, direct role in providing abortions. Most of its activities cover women's health generally, including cancer screening and help in good parenting. Moreover, many men participate in programs offered by the agency.
So who suffers from the massive cuts in tax-supported health programs and Medicaid insurance programs? Not the wealthy, who don't need Medicaid and who often have health insurance provided by their employers. In fact, they would gain additional money from reductions in their taxes.
Instead, low-income families will be offered a tax cut that will be of no value to them even as they lose any opportunity they may have had to obtain health care.
When people without adequate health care become really sick, they go to hospital emergency rooms, where by law and medical ethics they must be treated whether they have money or not. And the cost of treating them is passed on to others in the form of higher fees, which are usually paid by insurance companies.
One would think insurance firms would see the fallacy, and endorse programs that spread the risk -- and costs -- to as wide a population as possible, so that overall, everyone benefits.
One would think that. But one would likely be mistaken.
Instead, without a mandate that everyone acquire health insurance so the overall costs are spread to the entire population, the young and healthy will choose not to spend what little money they have on health insurance, figuring that they're not sick and therefore don't need it.
And if when they do, they can always go to an emergency room, where they expect they will get treatment for free.
Yes, they will be treated. But by then it may be too late. Meanwhile, the reality remains that the cost of emergency treatment is eventually borne by the entire society.
Better to have society as a whole participate in a health program that provides care for everyone.
The Senate's health care plan will offer a tax credit to help low-income families purchase Medicare insurance.
Question: What good is a tax credit to families whose income is so low they pay little or no taxes anyway?
Yet the plan to reduce Medicare expenses from government coffers would enable an equivalent reduction in taxes on the wealthy in America, who don't need help in purchasing health insurance on the open market.
The bottom line, then, is that the rich would pocket the difference and the poor would lose whatever opportunity they may have had to acquire health insurance.
As for cancelling all government aid to Planned Parenthood because of its advisory activities for those seeking abortions, this ignores the reality that Planned Parenthood has little, if any, direct role in providing abortions. Most of its activities cover women's health generally, including cancer screening and help in good parenting. Moreover, many men participate in programs offered by the agency.
So who suffers from the massive cuts in tax-supported health programs and Medicaid insurance programs? Not the wealthy, who don't need Medicaid and who often have health insurance provided by their employers. In fact, they would gain additional money from reductions in their taxes.
Instead, low-income families will be offered a tax cut that will be of no value to them even as they lose any opportunity they may have had to obtain health care.
When people without adequate health care become really sick, they go to hospital emergency rooms, where by law and medical ethics they must be treated whether they have money or not. And the cost of treating them is passed on to others in the form of higher fees, which are usually paid by insurance companies.
One would think insurance firms would see the fallacy, and endorse programs that spread the risk -- and costs -- to as wide a population as possible, so that overall, everyone benefits.
One would think that. But one would likely be mistaken.
Instead, without a mandate that everyone acquire health insurance so the overall costs are spread to the entire population, the young and healthy will choose not to spend what little money they have on health insurance, figuring that they're not sick and therefore don't need it.
And if when they do, they can always go to an emergency room, where they expect they will get treatment for free.
Yes, they will be treated. But by then it may be too late. Meanwhile, the reality remains that the cost of emergency treatment is eventually borne by the entire society.
Better to have society as a whole participate in a health program that provides care for everyone.
Diary of a Cynic
Selective emphasis is what editors do. Selective reality is what politicians would have you believe.
Inevitably, the two will clash, especially when politicians proclaim things that do not conform to fact or reality, and insist that what they announce is indeed consistent with some concept of "alternative reality."
Ignorance may be an acceptable excuse in some areas of society, where a lack of knowledge is the result of an educational level that is lower than it should be. In the judicial system, ignorance of the law is no excuse, as magistrates often say. But in politics and government, ignorance of history and current events is not only appalling but can be dangerous when such an affliction clouds the judgement of a government official.
The higher the position, the more dangerous and appalling the affliction.
When the president of the United States displays almost daily a level of ignorance that is beyond appalling, the danger to the nation becomes nearly incomprehensible.
Here are a few recent examples shown by the current occupant of the Oval Office:
He promised a new law, to prevent illegal immigrants from collecting welfare benefits. Such a law has been in effect for 21 years.
He proclaimed himself the most prolific president ever in passing new legislation during his first 100 days in office. But to be fair, even as he found himself saying this, he modified the claim to say, well maybe Franklin D. Roosevelt, but he had the Great Depression to deal with.
The statements, claims and pronouncements so clearly at odds with reality and history come so often and so quickly as to be hard to follow. Taken together, they show an astounding level of ignorance that is hard to comprehend.
Unless, of course, the statements are not made from lack of knowledge, but are a deliberate falsification of fact and reality.
In that case, it the right and the duty of editors and writers, whether print or broadcast, to expose such comments for what they are: Lies.
This is not done out of meanness or political bias, but from a sense of responsibility to voters and citizens to report not only what a politician, government official or corporate executive says, but also whether there is a contrast with fact and reality.
As to whether the story goes on top of Page One or appears below the fold or is buried on page 17, that is a matter of editorial discretion, deciding on behalf of readers how important the story is.
One harsh reality of newspaper journalism is that only seven to nine stories, at most, can appear on Page One. Similarly, in a news broadcast limited to half an hour, only about 19 minutes can be devoted to hard news and features. The rest of the time is taken up by the introduction, weather report and forecast, sports and commercials.
This is the reality that forces selective emphasis, or editing. And this in turn is based on audience preferences, because print and broadcast outlets do not mold public opinion so much as they reflect it.
When readers and viewers no longer approve of what they see and hear, they switch to other media. It becomes a hard choice, sometimes, for editors to choose which stories to emphasize, balancing their duty and responsibility to bring truthful information to the public, with the danger of antagonizing the public and losing their audience.
The alternative, however, could well be that government assumes control of the news business and dictates that only stories favoring political goals are allowed to reach the public.
George Orwell sounded the warning some 70 years ago, with the publication of his novel, "1984."
It's no accident, then, that the book is once again popular, as well as a successful stage adaptation.
Inevitably, the two will clash, especially when politicians proclaim things that do not conform to fact or reality, and insist that what they announce is indeed consistent with some concept of "alternative reality."
Ignorance may be an acceptable excuse in some areas of society, where a lack of knowledge is the result of an educational level that is lower than it should be. In the judicial system, ignorance of the law is no excuse, as magistrates often say. But in politics and government, ignorance of history and current events is not only appalling but can be dangerous when such an affliction clouds the judgement of a government official.
The higher the position, the more dangerous and appalling the affliction.
When the president of the United States displays almost daily a level of ignorance that is beyond appalling, the danger to the nation becomes nearly incomprehensible.
Here are a few recent examples shown by the current occupant of the Oval Office:
He promised a new law, to prevent illegal immigrants from collecting welfare benefits. Such a law has been in effect for 21 years.
He proclaimed himself the most prolific president ever in passing new legislation during his first 100 days in office. But to be fair, even as he found himself saying this, he modified the claim to say, well maybe Franklin D. Roosevelt, but he had the Great Depression to deal with.
The statements, claims and pronouncements so clearly at odds with reality and history come so often and so quickly as to be hard to follow. Taken together, they show an astounding level of ignorance that is hard to comprehend.
Unless, of course, the statements are not made from lack of knowledge, but are a deliberate falsification of fact and reality.
In that case, it the right and the duty of editors and writers, whether print or broadcast, to expose such comments for what they are: Lies.
This is not done out of meanness or political bias, but from a sense of responsibility to voters and citizens to report not only what a politician, government official or corporate executive says, but also whether there is a contrast with fact and reality.
As to whether the story goes on top of Page One or appears below the fold or is buried on page 17, that is a matter of editorial discretion, deciding on behalf of readers how important the story is.
One harsh reality of newspaper journalism is that only seven to nine stories, at most, can appear on Page One. Similarly, in a news broadcast limited to half an hour, only about 19 minutes can be devoted to hard news and features. The rest of the time is taken up by the introduction, weather report and forecast, sports and commercials.
This is the reality that forces selective emphasis, or editing. And this in turn is based on audience preferences, because print and broadcast outlets do not mold public opinion so much as they reflect it.
When readers and viewers no longer approve of what they see and hear, they switch to other media. It becomes a hard choice, sometimes, for editors to choose which stories to emphasize, balancing their duty and responsibility to bring truthful information to the public, with the danger of antagonizing the public and losing their audience.
The alternative, however, could well be that government assumes control of the news business and dictates that only stories favoring political goals are allowed to reach the public.
George Orwell sounded the warning some 70 years ago, with the publication of his novel, "1984."
It's no accident, then, that the book is once again popular, as well as a successful stage adaptation.
Friday, June 23, 2017
Coal Dustification
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross says the government will give $30 million to help revive the coal industry.
"The Trump Administration is working every day to help America's coal industry, its workers, and their communities," Ross announced., as part of a "government-wide effort" to renew areas "hardest hit by misguided regulations."
Ross praised the Administration for reversing regulations, eliminating rules that "would have shackled" the U.S. economy, and blocking the government's "needless war on coal."
It's good that government enact policies to help miners displace by long declines in the coal industry. But to assume that $30 million will revive the use of coal in America after decades of decline is at best unrealistic and at worst a coverup for a plan to reward political donations by coal barons.
Meanwhile, Trumpsters look to slash many more millions of dollars from social welfare programs that would help not only needy coal miners but also millions more Americans.
Moreover, the $30 million will be available largely to communities, regions, investors, as well as "workforce development and re-employment opportunities." How about helping workers directly, rather than through more government and private sector mavens?
And by the way, the resident copy editor/nitpicker notes that the Commerce Department's news release cites "locally-driven efforts in coal country." But -ly adverbs never take a hyphen. There's no need, because such an adverb is always by its nature connected to the word that follows.
"The Trump Administration is working every day to help America's coal industry, its workers, and their communities," Ross announced., as part of a "government-wide effort" to renew areas "hardest hit by misguided regulations."
Ross praised the Administration for reversing regulations, eliminating rules that "would have shackled" the U.S. economy, and blocking the government's "needless war on coal."
It's good that government enact policies to help miners displace by long declines in the coal industry. But to assume that $30 million will revive the use of coal in America after decades of decline is at best unrealistic and at worst a coverup for a plan to reward political donations by coal barons.
Meanwhile, Trumpsters look to slash many more millions of dollars from social welfare programs that would help not only needy coal miners but also millions more Americans.
Moreover, the $30 million will be available largely to communities, regions, investors, as well as "workforce development and re-employment opportunities." How about helping workers directly, rather than through more government and private sector mavens?
And by the way, the resident copy editor/nitpicker notes that the Commerce Department's news release cites "locally-driven efforts in coal country." But -ly adverbs never take a hyphen. There's no need, because such an adverb is always by its nature connected to the word that follows.
Truth Monitors
The prime role of journalism is to report what is said and done, and to explain any relationship with other events and conditions in society.
That, of course, is a simplistic explanation of journalism's duty as the news media tries to serve the community of readers and viewers. And, of course, there will be opposition from those who perceive themselves to be in power and from their supporters who insist their leaders know what's best for the country and everyone in it.
But what if they're wrong? Who will say so?
That responsibility falls to journalists, who monitor what is said and done and compare that to what was said and done in the past, as well as to verify the truth of what politicians and government officials claim.
One problem, however, is believability. No matter how careful news reporters are in sticking to truth, there are many who refuse to accept journalism reports because they "know" what they believe, they are permanently convinced of their own truths and no amount of persuasive fact can dissuade them.
They insist on holding to "alternative facts" despite mountains of information and supporting evidence that contradicts what they already "know."
One of the arguments they use in rejecting news reports is the use of anonymous sources by reporters.
But police investigators use "confidential informants" regularly, to protect those who supply critical information in a criminal case.
Intelligence agencies such as the CIA also use "undercover agents" to gather information critical to their investigations.
There is really little difference among the three investigative groups in gathering information.
However, journalists make public the information they gather because it is critical in maintaining a free society and upholding democracy.
When criminals are caught lying about their activities, government officials arrest, prosecute, convict and jail them.
And when government officials are caught lying about their illegal activities, journalists research, expose and make public that information, thus embarrassing other government officials to take action.
So without a responsible and active press using confidential sources to expose malfeasance among politicians (and others), a democratic society within a free republic would be in serious danger of falling into the repression of a dictatorship.
Remember that when politicians rant about "fake news" being spread against them, and insist that people consider "alternative facts" that put them in a more favorable light, especially when a politician has been caught in many lies of his own in the past.
America is facing this difficulty now, with a president who is not used to people disagreeing with him, and being unable to fire them. He cannot fire all 435 members of the House of Representatives nor can he summarily dismiss all 100 members of the Senate, much as might want to cancel the contracts that voters signed with those in Congress who now disagree with the president.
Conceivably, he could fire -- albeit indirectly -- the special counsel leading an investigation into the president's activities and whether these activities fit the Constitutional definition of impeachable offenses.
Does he want to? Probably.
Can he? Debatable.
Does he have the cojones to try? Unknown.
In any case, stay tuned. The truth monitors are on duty.
That, of course, is a simplistic explanation of journalism's duty as the news media tries to serve the community of readers and viewers. And, of course, there will be opposition from those who perceive themselves to be in power and from their supporters who insist their leaders know what's best for the country and everyone in it.
But what if they're wrong? Who will say so?
That responsibility falls to journalists, who monitor what is said and done and compare that to what was said and done in the past, as well as to verify the truth of what politicians and government officials claim.
One problem, however, is believability. No matter how careful news reporters are in sticking to truth, there are many who refuse to accept journalism reports because they "know" what they believe, they are permanently convinced of their own truths and no amount of persuasive fact can dissuade them.
They insist on holding to "alternative facts" despite mountains of information and supporting evidence that contradicts what they already "know."
One of the arguments they use in rejecting news reports is the use of anonymous sources by reporters.
But police investigators use "confidential informants" regularly, to protect those who supply critical information in a criminal case.
Intelligence agencies such as the CIA also use "undercover agents" to gather information critical to their investigations.
There is really little difference among the three investigative groups in gathering information.
However, journalists make public the information they gather because it is critical in maintaining a free society and upholding democracy.
When criminals are caught lying about their activities, government officials arrest, prosecute, convict and jail them.
And when government officials are caught lying about their illegal activities, journalists research, expose and make public that information, thus embarrassing other government officials to take action.
So without a responsible and active press using confidential sources to expose malfeasance among politicians (and others), a democratic society within a free republic would be in serious danger of falling into the repression of a dictatorship.
Remember that when politicians rant about "fake news" being spread against them, and insist that people consider "alternative facts" that put them in a more favorable light, especially when a politician has been caught in many lies of his own in the past.
America is facing this difficulty now, with a president who is not used to people disagreeing with him, and being unable to fire them. He cannot fire all 435 members of the House of Representatives nor can he summarily dismiss all 100 members of the Senate, much as might want to cancel the contracts that voters signed with those in Congress who now disagree with the president.
Conceivably, he could fire -- albeit indirectly -- the special counsel leading an investigation into the president's activities and whether these activities fit the Constitutional definition of impeachable offenses.
Does he want to? Probably.
Can he? Debatable.
Does he have the cojones to try? Unknown.
In any case, stay tuned. The truth monitors are on duty.
Thursday, June 22, 2017
Tape Delay
"I did not make, and I do not have, any such recordings." -- President Trump, giving himself dispensation for spreading the idea that his talk with former FBI Director James Comey had been tape recorded during an Oval Office meeting.
So why wait six weeks before saying so, unless you wanted to extend the threat for maximum effect?
Conclusion: You were milking a lie. There never were any recordings and you knew it all along. Just as you knew there was no evidence to support your claims that Barack Obama was not born in the U.S. and therefore was not eligible to be president.
Perhaps even this latest pronouncement is a prevarication. It could well be that you, personally, did not make any recordings, and that you, personally, do not have recordings. That does not mean they don't exist. The conversation may have been taped by others, and these others may still have the recordings. Or they did exist but have been destroyed so you could "honestly" say you don't have them.
This episode is yet another in a long series of claims, assertions, suggestions, hints and accusations that you have made over the years, only to deny you ever made them or to blame what you call the "fake media" for printing exactly what you said.
Advice from a longtime editor: If you don't want to see it in print, don't say it.
Conversely, perhaps you do want to see it in print, broadcast news and social media, because it's part of your strategy to attract attention to yourself and distract the public from other issues.
Warning: Cable news channels work 24/7 and have plenty of time to show every side of major issues, both your assertions, the background and the truth. Moreover, the news business has changed so that print media carry far more detail than ever, even as TV and social media provide brief headlines.
Or as our resident cynic Pug Mahoney often says, "How dumb do they think we are?" And his own immediate answer is, "Very."
And in this, as with so many other things, you would be wrong. The American people are not dumb. Their representatives in journalism are not dumb. Moreover, they resent being treated as if they are.
So why wait six weeks before saying so, unless you wanted to extend the threat for maximum effect?
Conclusion: You were milking a lie. There never were any recordings and you knew it all along. Just as you knew there was no evidence to support your claims that Barack Obama was not born in the U.S. and therefore was not eligible to be president.
Perhaps even this latest pronouncement is a prevarication. It could well be that you, personally, did not make any recordings, and that you, personally, do not have recordings. That does not mean they don't exist. The conversation may have been taped by others, and these others may still have the recordings. Or they did exist but have been destroyed so you could "honestly" say you don't have them.
This episode is yet another in a long series of claims, assertions, suggestions, hints and accusations that you have made over the years, only to deny you ever made them or to blame what you call the "fake media" for printing exactly what you said.
Advice from a longtime editor: If you don't want to see it in print, don't say it.
Conversely, perhaps you do want to see it in print, broadcast news and social media, because it's part of your strategy to attract attention to yourself and distract the public from other issues.
Warning: Cable news channels work 24/7 and have plenty of time to show every side of major issues, both your assertions, the background and the truth. Moreover, the news business has changed so that print media carry far more detail than ever, even as TV and social media provide brief headlines.
Or as our resident cynic Pug Mahoney often says, "How dumb do they think we are?" And his own immediate answer is, "Very."
And in this, as with so many other things, you would be wrong. The American people are not dumb. Their representatives in journalism are not dumb. Moreover, they resent being treated as if they are.
Leader or Didactor
Don't do as I do, do as I say.
Here's a new word for you: Didactor, meaning someone who is didactic, a person who is pedantic or preachy. The term is rooted in the Greek word didaktikos, a teacher.
Politicians who reach a certain level of success on the governmental ladder often forget that they are elected by the people to act for the people because they are of the people.
They are, after all, citizens. And in America all citizens are equal, and entitled to equal treatment in law and in society.
Unfortunately, there are some who presume themselves above that, and demand special treatment on no other basis than their own say-so.
This seems to be more widespread in America these days, as Republicans in the Senate work behind closed doors on a new health care bill, and refuse to let others read anything about it until it goes to the Senate floor for a full vote.
To top it all, the new denizen of the White House acts like everyone in the nation and the world should snap to attention and follow instructions without question. And that would include Congress. As if Senators and Representatives should do as they're told, even when his plans, policies and programs are vague to begin with but nonetheless must be approved because he says so, in the process wringing a thesaurus dry of superlative adjectives but without specifics and details on why the plan is so wonderful.
What America needs is a leader, one who listens to the people and their elected representatives and acts according to what is good for all citizens, not primarily for his favored few ultra-loyal followers.
True leaders attract followers because they offer things that people want and need, and are willing to work together with a leader to get them.
The key here is "to work together," not simply to submit to arbitrary commands and dictates without explanation.
This is an American tradition, encountered early on by Baron von Steuben, who attempted to give orders to the American soldiers in Gen. George Washington's Continental Army but first had to explain the instructions before the citizen-troops would follow them.
This remains an American way, and those who would be leaders ignore that tradition at their political peril.
Here's a new word for you: Didactor, meaning someone who is didactic, a person who is pedantic or preachy. The term is rooted in the Greek word didaktikos, a teacher.
Politicians who reach a certain level of success on the governmental ladder often forget that they are elected by the people to act for the people because they are of the people.
They are, after all, citizens. And in America all citizens are equal, and entitled to equal treatment in law and in society.
Unfortunately, there are some who presume themselves above that, and demand special treatment on no other basis than their own say-so.
This seems to be more widespread in America these days, as Republicans in the Senate work behind closed doors on a new health care bill, and refuse to let others read anything about it until it goes to the Senate floor for a full vote.
To top it all, the new denizen of the White House acts like everyone in the nation and the world should snap to attention and follow instructions without question. And that would include Congress. As if Senators and Representatives should do as they're told, even when his plans, policies and programs are vague to begin with but nonetheless must be approved because he says so, in the process wringing a thesaurus dry of superlative adjectives but without specifics and details on why the plan is so wonderful.
What America needs is a leader, one who listens to the people and their elected representatives and acts according to what is good for all citizens, not primarily for his favored few ultra-loyal followers.
True leaders attract followers because they offer things that people want and need, and are willing to work together with a leader to get them.
The key here is "to work together," not simply to submit to arbitrary commands and dictates without explanation.
This is an American tradition, encountered early on by Baron von Steuben, who attempted to give orders to the American soldiers in Gen. George Washington's Continental Army but first had to explain the instructions before the citizen-troops would follow them.
This remains an American way, and those who would be leaders ignore that tradition at their political peril.
Wednesday, June 21, 2017
Bor-ing
One of the challenges reporters face is maintaining attention when politicians speak. Or to use a more descriptive word, "yammer."
A second challenge is to translate the political gobbledygook into plain language so readers and listeners can readily understand what was said. This is not to say reporters should always explain what the yammerer meant, although that can be part of the job, to list potential consequences of the talk.
Quite often, the news is not in what the yammerer said, but in what was not said.
During a Senate hearing, Jeh Johnson, former secretary of Homeland Security, said there was little evidence that Russia had succeeded in changing ballot results during last November's election. This is not to say, however, that they didn't try. Nor is it to say that they didn't attempt to manipulate public opinion. Every U.S. intelligence agency agreed that they did attempt to influence the election.
Whether they succeeded is another question. But did they try? Absolutely, yes.
Nevertheless, cable news outlets picked up on the brief acknowledgment that there was no evidence of ballot machine tampering. And the conclusion drawn by many conservatives will be that there was no tampering at all, ever, of any kind.
As for ballot machine tampering, consider how many voting districts there are in America. Then consider how many have machine voting, versus paper ballots. Of the machine voting, how many use machines from the same manufacturer. Also, do they all use the same or similar software.
Considering that there are 50 states, plus the District of Columbia, each having numerous election districts, which in turn operate independently and have their own balloting processes, and it becomes clear that manipulating a system that varied and complex is so complicated and difficult as to be nearly impossible. There are 435 congressional districts, one for each member of the House of Representatives. Within each of those districts, there can be several counties and numerous municipalities, each of which may have its own voting system, whether machines or paper balloting.
All of this deals with just the popular vote. The more important count is the electoral vote, and with clever manipulation, a candidate can focus on just a few states where the outcome is a tossup, and thus win the electoral vote for the presidency despite losing the popular vote.
So as for manipulating the presidential election last November, the questions are these:
Did the Russians try? Yes.
Did they succeed? Probably not, since the balloting system nationwide is so complex.
Did they change the vote count? Doubtful, since there's no sure way to tell.
Finally, did their efforts influence public opinion, in turn influencing the voting patterns? Hard to tell, but the answer is probably yes.
Either way, the country has a new president, whose team worked the system successfully. Whether congressional investigators can find ways to get him out of the White House is the really big issue the nation now faces.
A second challenge is to translate the political gobbledygook into plain language so readers and listeners can readily understand what was said. This is not to say reporters should always explain what the yammerer meant, although that can be part of the job, to list potential consequences of the talk.
Quite often, the news is not in what the yammerer said, but in what was not said.
During a Senate hearing, Jeh Johnson, former secretary of Homeland Security, said there was little evidence that Russia had succeeded in changing ballot results during last November's election. This is not to say, however, that they didn't try. Nor is it to say that they didn't attempt to manipulate public opinion. Every U.S. intelligence agency agreed that they did attempt to influence the election.
Whether they succeeded is another question. But did they try? Absolutely, yes.
Nevertheless, cable news outlets picked up on the brief acknowledgment that there was no evidence of ballot machine tampering. And the conclusion drawn by many conservatives will be that there was no tampering at all, ever, of any kind.
As for ballot machine tampering, consider how many voting districts there are in America. Then consider how many have machine voting, versus paper ballots. Of the machine voting, how many use machines from the same manufacturer. Also, do they all use the same or similar software.
Considering that there are 50 states, plus the District of Columbia, each having numerous election districts, which in turn operate independently and have their own balloting processes, and it becomes clear that manipulating a system that varied and complex is so complicated and difficult as to be nearly impossible. There are 435 congressional districts, one for each member of the House of Representatives. Within each of those districts, there can be several counties and numerous municipalities, each of which may have its own voting system, whether machines or paper balloting.
All of this deals with just the popular vote. The more important count is the electoral vote, and with clever manipulation, a candidate can focus on just a few states where the outcome is a tossup, and thus win the electoral vote for the presidency despite losing the popular vote.
So as for manipulating the presidential election last November, the questions are these:
Did the Russians try? Yes.
Did they succeed? Probably not, since the balloting system nationwide is so complex.
Did they change the vote count? Doubtful, since there's no sure way to tell.
Finally, did their efforts influence public opinion, in turn influencing the voting patterns? Hard to tell, but the answer is probably yes.
Either way, the country has a new president, whose team worked the system successfully. Whether congressional investigators can find ways to get him out of the White House is the really big issue the nation now faces.
Monday, June 19, 2017
Trumpty Dumpty
"I am being investigated." -- President Donald Trump
"The president is not being investigated." -- Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow
"My words mean just what I choose them to mean, neither more nor less." -- Humpty Dumpty
"Who ya gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes?" -- Chico Marx
Word Games
"It's our word now." -- Rapper Ice Cube, after chastising TV talk show host Bill Maher for using the N word.
In a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a federal trademark law that banned the use of offensive labels.
Such terms are still in use, but the law forbade the users from getting a trademark for them. The case was brought by an Asian-American rock group calling themselves The Slants. In the past, the Washington Redskins football team tried to get a trademark for their name, but opposition from Native Americans and the law prevented it.
The court's ruling was based on the freedom of speech grounds guaranteed by the First Amendment.
It seems that when others use a word with derogatory intent, it's a bad thing. But when those in the target group use it themselves, it's OK.
Historically, many minority groups have been the target of words with negative, racial, ethnic or other derogatory connotations, and even now many people will not use them. However, many who had been targets of those term have embraced them, and used them to identify themselves. As a result, the terms lost their nastiness and have come into general use.
One example is the set of terms used to refer to Irish-Americans, including mick and paddy. In fact, the term "paddy wagon" was invented to identify the truck police used to haul away Irish-Americans involved in violent urban activities in the 19th Century.
Eventually, the Irish themselves embraced the terms, and the words lost their negative aspects.
Later, other terms were coined to refer to other minority groups, including the K word for Jewish Americans, as well as words beginning with W and D for Italian Americans. In wartime, there was an N word for Japanese and a K word for Germans.
In time, these words faded from general use and have not been heard for years.
Now we see other minority groups embracing previously racist terms and using them proudly. Inevitably, one case reached the Supreme Court, brought by The Slants, who wanted to trademark the name but federal law prevented it. SCOTUS upheld the band's appeal.
One immediate effect will likely be a move by the professional football team in Washington to trademark their name, enabling them to prevent other souvenir makers and sellers to market stuff with the Redskins label.
Socially, however, there remain many terms that are not acceptable to members of minority groups, even as they may use such words themselves.
All words have connotations as well as denotations. They have direct, specific definitions, as well as other attitudes associated with them.
Consequently, as Bill Maher learned the hard way, some words can be used by members of a group but not by others.
Or, as the rapper Ice Cube put it, "It's our word now. You can't use it."
In a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a federal trademark law that banned the use of offensive labels.
Such terms are still in use, but the law forbade the users from getting a trademark for them. The case was brought by an Asian-American rock group calling themselves The Slants. In the past, the Washington Redskins football team tried to get a trademark for their name, but opposition from Native Americans and the law prevented it.
The court's ruling was based on the freedom of speech grounds guaranteed by the First Amendment.
It seems that when others use a word with derogatory intent, it's a bad thing. But when those in the target group use it themselves, it's OK.
Historically, many minority groups have been the target of words with negative, racial, ethnic or other derogatory connotations, and even now many people will not use them. However, many who had been targets of those term have embraced them, and used them to identify themselves. As a result, the terms lost their nastiness and have come into general use.
One example is the set of terms used to refer to Irish-Americans, including mick and paddy. In fact, the term "paddy wagon" was invented to identify the truck police used to haul away Irish-Americans involved in violent urban activities in the 19th Century.
Eventually, the Irish themselves embraced the terms, and the words lost their negative aspects.
Later, other terms were coined to refer to other minority groups, including the K word for Jewish Americans, as well as words beginning with W and D for Italian Americans. In wartime, there was an N word for Japanese and a K word for Germans.
In time, these words faded from general use and have not been heard for years.
Now we see other minority groups embracing previously racist terms and using them proudly. Inevitably, one case reached the Supreme Court, brought by The Slants, who wanted to trademark the name but federal law prevented it. SCOTUS upheld the band's appeal.
One immediate effect will likely be a move by the professional football team in Washington to trademark their name, enabling them to prevent other souvenir makers and sellers to market stuff with the Redskins label.
Socially, however, there remain many terms that are not acceptable to members of minority groups, even as they may use such words themselves.
All words have connotations as well as denotations. They have direct, specific definitions, as well as other attitudes associated with them.
Consequently, as Bill Maher learned the hard way, some words can be used by members of a group but not by others.
Or, as the rapper Ice Cube put it, "It's our word now. You can't use it."
Saturday, June 17, 2017
GOP Collapse
We may be watching the decline and fall of the Republican Party in America.
Some in Washington are beginning to see this also, and the result is a full employment act for lawyers as officials hire lawyers who then hire their own lawyers.
Meanwhile, the probing goes deeper and deeper and the presidential Twitter-sniping gets sharper and sharper as Donald Trump escalates his attacks on those who investigate him and his associates for possible wrongdoing.
The result may be an executive order banning criticism of the presidency, making such negative comment a felony. Taken a few steps further, we could see an embattled president attempt to suspend the Constitution, especially the First Amendment, which guarantees Freedom of Speech and of the Press, as well as the right of the people peaceably to assemble and protest grievances.
Possible? Not on your tintype, Carlos.
But will he try? Given his record of past behavior against those he perceives as opponents, yes, it's quite likely.
The danger is that it's been tried before, through the Alien and Sedition Acts, passed by Congress in 1798 and signed by President John Adams. Among other things, the acts made it a felony to criticize the government, gave the government new powers to deport foreigners, and enabled the government to stifle the ability of newcomers to vote.
Sound familiar?
Specifically, the Sedition Act made it a crime to "print, utter, or publish .. any false, scandalous, and malicious writing" about the government.
Can you hear the accusation, "Fake news!"
The Alien and Sedition Acts were perpetrated by the Federalist Party, and largely aimed at political opponent members of the Democratic-Republican Party, favored by new citizens. Meanwhile, the only journalists prosecuted under the Sedition Act were editors of opposing newspapers, according to historians.
More than 20 editors were arrested. One was also a member of Congress at the time, Rep. Matthew Lyon of Vermont. He was arrested and jailed after writing a letter that criticized the president's "unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and self avarice."
That, too, sounds familiar to today's citizens, especially after the competition the other day among Cabinet members for the title of Chief Toady to President Trump.
In other recent news, Vice President Mike Pence has hired a lawyer to deal with any issues coming from the various investigations involving the administration, and he has started his own political action committee (PAC) to raise funds, presumably to pay the lawyers.
In addition, lawyers heading the investigations have hired their own lawyers.
By the way, Rep. Lyon was re-elected even as he sat in jail, President Adams was defeated, and the Alien and Sedition Acts were overturned after the election of 1800.
Twenty years later, the Federalist Party was defunct.
Republicans and Trumpians take note.
Some in Washington are beginning to see this also, and the result is a full employment act for lawyers as officials hire lawyers who then hire their own lawyers.
Meanwhile, the probing goes deeper and deeper and the presidential Twitter-sniping gets sharper and sharper as Donald Trump escalates his attacks on those who investigate him and his associates for possible wrongdoing.
The result may be an executive order banning criticism of the presidency, making such negative comment a felony. Taken a few steps further, we could see an embattled president attempt to suspend the Constitution, especially the First Amendment, which guarantees Freedom of Speech and of the Press, as well as the right of the people peaceably to assemble and protest grievances.
Possible? Not on your tintype, Carlos.
But will he try? Given his record of past behavior against those he perceives as opponents, yes, it's quite likely.
The danger is that it's been tried before, through the Alien and Sedition Acts, passed by Congress in 1798 and signed by President John Adams. Among other things, the acts made it a felony to criticize the government, gave the government new powers to deport foreigners, and enabled the government to stifle the ability of newcomers to vote.
Sound familiar?
Specifically, the Sedition Act made it a crime to "print, utter, or publish .. any false, scandalous, and malicious writing" about the government.
Can you hear the accusation, "Fake news!"
The Alien and Sedition Acts were perpetrated by the Federalist Party, and largely aimed at political opponent members of the Democratic-Republican Party, favored by new citizens. Meanwhile, the only journalists prosecuted under the Sedition Act were editors of opposing newspapers, according to historians.
More than 20 editors were arrested. One was also a member of Congress at the time, Rep. Matthew Lyon of Vermont. He was arrested and jailed after writing a letter that criticized the president's "unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and self avarice."
That, too, sounds familiar to today's citizens, especially after the competition the other day among Cabinet members for the title of Chief Toady to President Trump.
In other recent news, Vice President Mike Pence has hired a lawyer to deal with any issues coming from the various investigations involving the administration, and he has started his own political action committee (PAC) to raise funds, presumably to pay the lawyers.
In addition, lawyers heading the investigations have hired their own lawyers.
By the way, Rep. Lyon was re-elected even as he sat in jail, President Adams was defeated, and the Alien and Sedition Acts were overturned after the election of 1800.
Twenty years later, the Federalist Party was defunct.
Republicans and Trumpians take note.
Wednesday, June 14, 2017
A New Battleground
As expected, the Federal Reserve Board raised its target rate for its key lending strategy, the Federal Funds Rate, to a range of 1 percent to 1.25 percent, citing a growing economy that still needs a bit of help before a more solid reining in.
In a statement, the Fed said it was watching for "some further strengthening in labor market conditions" before tightening further. Even so, the Fed's Open Market Committee expects to raise interest rates again, but gradually.
In short, the U.S. economy is doing reasonably well, but isn't about to soar. That may be contrary to the hopes of President Donald Trump, who has been campaigning for major tax cuts and loosening of federal regulations to give business free rein to grow.
As to who handles the reins, government and its fiscal policy or the Fed and its monetary policy, that may bring on a dispute between the White House and the Fed on the issue of who's in charge of the economy wagon.
This is not an issue that's likely to generate Page One headlines, considering the conflict between the president and congressional investigations of his business relationships and foreign entanglements.
Nevertheless, it's important. All things considered, it's one more straw added to the pile of problems the president faces.
Whether he can bend the Fed to his will, and dissolve the Board of Governors of the nation's central bank if its members don't do what he wants, remains to be seen.
Does he want to? Probably. Does he have the legal authority? Questionable. Will he vent his rage in 140-character bursts? Quite likely.
Increasingly, though, with lawsuits and impeachment staring at him, one wonders how long and whether he can face them down.
After all, there's little riding on this but fiscal and monetary collapse, and an economic downturn that would make the last seem like a weekend in the country.
In a statement, the Fed said it was watching for "some further strengthening in labor market conditions" before tightening further. Even so, the Fed's Open Market Committee expects to raise interest rates again, but gradually.
In short, the U.S. economy is doing reasonably well, but isn't about to soar. That may be contrary to the hopes of President Donald Trump, who has been campaigning for major tax cuts and loosening of federal regulations to give business free rein to grow.
As to who handles the reins, government and its fiscal policy or the Fed and its monetary policy, that may bring on a dispute between the White House and the Fed on the issue of who's in charge of the economy wagon.
This is not an issue that's likely to generate Page One headlines, considering the conflict between the president and congressional investigations of his business relationships and foreign entanglements.
Nevertheless, it's important. All things considered, it's one more straw added to the pile of problems the president faces.
Whether he can bend the Fed to his will, and dissolve the Board of Governors of the nation's central bank if its members don't do what he wants, remains to be seen.
Does he want to? Probably. Does he have the legal authority? Questionable. Will he vent his rage in 140-character bursts? Quite likely.
Increasingly, though, with lawsuits and impeachment staring at him, one wonders how long and whether he can face them down.
After all, there's little riding on this but fiscal and monetary collapse, and an economic downturn that would make the last seem like a weekend in the country.
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
Conflict Zone
Donald Trump has a habit of firing people he doesn't like, who are not sufficiently loyal, who don't jump when he whistles, or who don't do their jobs in the way he wants.
Never mind that the ethics of their jobs may require that they maintain some semblance of independence and legality.
Now there's talk of the president terminating Bob Mueller, the special counsel appointed to track potential wrongdoing in the 2016 election, possible Russian tampering, and even whether there was collusion between the Trump campaign team and Russian computer hackers.
This week, a meeting called by the president with members of his Cabinet resulted in a praise-a-thon in which the subordinates competed to see who could be more obsequious in pledging their loyalty and praise of the president.
"It's been an honor and a privilege to serve with you," said the lead-off praiser Mike Pence, the vice president. Dutifully, every other member of the cabinet followed in the display of virtual ring-kissing.
To many observers, the display was embarrassing, especially to Americans who believe that all are created equal, as specified in the Declaration of Independence.
But can Trump fire Bob Mueller, as he did James Comey, who had been director of the FBI until he sparked Trump's displeasure over the Trump-Russia collusion issue?
Technically, perhaps not, since Mueller was appointed by the attorney general. But the attorney general, a Trump loyalist, was himself named by the president. Will he follow the president's wish?
Historically, when Richard Nixon ordered his attorney general to fire the special counsel investigating the Watergate scandal, the attorney general refused, and resigned in protest, followed by the deputy attorney general, who also refused and resigned.
As it turned out, Nixon himself resigned, rather than face impeachment, which almost certainly would have resulted in conviction and removal from office.
Nixon was notorious for becoming furious when things didn't go his way. Trump has a similar reputation. The question now is whether the nation is watching a replay of a similar conflict.
Meanwhile, another example of Trump's spin cycle is the report that he may not visit the United Kingdom, after all. His excuse seems to be that he doesn't want to go where he isn't welcome, and unless the Brits display a welcome mat, he'll stay home.
Nyah, nyah.
Actually, the formal invitation hasn't been made yet, and isn't likely after Trump's recent comments about the mayor of London's attempts to reassure people that security forces are determined to maintain the peace after the recent terrorist attack in Manchester.
Another sign of an upcoming clash is the likelihood that the Federal Reserve Board will boost interest rates this week to prevent the U.S. economy from heating up too quickly. The recovery from the Great Recession of the previous decade has been progressing reasonably well, but not at the gangbuster pace the president seems to want.
So will another fit of pique prompt Trump to try to fire Janet Yellen, chair of the Federal Reserve Board?
An extreme view is that Trump is trying to dismantle the entire federal government. As it is, he has failed to fill hundreds of key government positions, and is trying to cancel dozens of educational and health aid programs and dissolve various regulatory agencies.
All this even as opposition builds up in Congress and the courts as representatives and citizens challenge a budding Trump dictatorship.
For starters, the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia have filed lawsuits against the president, alleging he is breaking the law and the Constitution for not disconnecting himself from his business interests.
In the past, America has survived presidential corruption and law-breaking. With luck, hard work and an independent Congress and Judiciary, we will again.
Never mind that the ethics of their jobs may require that they maintain some semblance of independence and legality.
Now there's talk of the president terminating Bob Mueller, the special counsel appointed to track potential wrongdoing in the 2016 election, possible Russian tampering, and even whether there was collusion between the Trump campaign team and Russian computer hackers.
This week, a meeting called by the president with members of his Cabinet resulted in a praise-a-thon in which the subordinates competed to see who could be more obsequious in pledging their loyalty and praise of the president.
"It's been an honor and a privilege to serve with you," said the lead-off praiser Mike Pence, the vice president. Dutifully, every other member of the cabinet followed in the display of virtual ring-kissing.
To many observers, the display was embarrassing, especially to Americans who believe that all are created equal, as specified in the Declaration of Independence.
But can Trump fire Bob Mueller, as he did James Comey, who had been director of the FBI until he sparked Trump's displeasure over the Trump-Russia collusion issue?
Technically, perhaps not, since Mueller was appointed by the attorney general. But the attorney general, a Trump loyalist, was himself named by the president. Will he follow the president's wish?
Historically, when Richard Nixon ordered his attorney general to fire the special counsel investigating the Watergate scandal, the attorney general refused, and resigned in protest, followed by the deputy attorney general, who also refused and resigned.
As it turned out, Nixon himself resigned, rather than face impeachment, which almost certainly would have resulted in conviction and removal from office.
Nixon was notorious for becoming furious when things didn't go his way. Trump has a similar reputation. The question now is whether the nation is watching a replay of a similar conflict.
Meanwhile, another example of Trump's spin cycle is the report that he may not visit the United Kingdom, after all. His excuse seems to be that he doesn't want to go where he isn't welcome, and unless the Brits display a welcome mat, he'll stay home.
Nyah, nyah.
Actually, the formal invitation hasn't been made yet, and isn't likely after Trump's recent comments about the mayor of London's attempts to reassure people that security forces are determined to maintain the peace after the recent terrorist attack in Manchester.
Another sign of an upcoming clash is the likelihood that the Federal Reserve Board will boost interest rates this week to prevent the U.S. economy from heating up too quickly. The recovery from the Great Recession of the previous decade has been progressing reasonably well, but not at the gangbuster pace the president seems to want.
So will another fit of pique prompt Trump to try to fire Janet Yellen, chair of the Federal Reserve Board?
An extreme view is that Trump is trying to dismantle the entire federal government. As it is, he has failed to fill hundreds of key government positions, and is trying to cancel dozens of educational and health aid programs and dissolve various regulatory agencies.
All this even as opposition builds up in Congress and the courts as representatives and citizens challenge a budding Trump dictatorship.
For starters, the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia have filed lawsuits against the president, alleging he is breaking the law and the Constitution for not disconnecting himself from his business interests.
In the past, America has survived presidential corruption and law-breaking. With luck, hard work and an independent Congress and Judiciary, we will again.
Sunday, June 11, 2017
Help Wanted -- NINA
NINA = No Immigrants Need Apply
Picture this ad:
Help Wanted -- NINA. No experience or competence necessary. Absolute loyalty a must. Apply: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington DC. Our motto: "You take the job, you get the blame."
The White House said it would set up a "war room" to combat the barrage of allegations against President Donald Trump.
Apparently there were no volunteers, so the draft plan was abandoned.
There are some 558 high-level government positions that require Senate consent, but only 123 have been nominated, and fewer have been approved. Also, no new U.S. attorneys have been selected. After the inauguration, half the 93 federal prosecutors around the country resigned, and the rest were fired. In addition, there are many hundreds more job openings waiting for presidential nominations that do not require Senate approval.
So for all the campaign talk about the need for jobs, the president has the ability to hire several thousand people for key government jobs, but has not done so. Why?
One can only speculate, and one reason could be that he doesn't care. But one reality is that some of those he has hired have since resigned or have been sacked, some for good cause and some because their loyalty to the president's ever changing wish was not absolute. This includes James Comey, the director of the FBI, who had to choose between pledging loyalty to Trump or doing his duty as a law enforcement officer.
At least, that's part of the story. The president has yet to explain in detail why he fired Comey, except to say that "he wasn't doing a good job."
What a way to run a country.
Meanwhile, for those who don't recognize the acronym at the beginning of this blog posting, the initials NINA originally stood for "No Irish Need Apply," and it was common in mid-19th Century newspapers, along with such phrases as "applicants of all backgrounds considered, except no Irish."
Bigotry and discrimination are no strangers in American culture, but to see and hear a president endorse, proclaim and demand such practices, ranging from building a border wall to preventing newcomers from entering solely because of their religious beliefs, sounds a strong danger signal for the future of this diverse nation.
By the way, the Constitution specifically prohibits any religious test as a requirement for any office or public trust in America (Article VI). Citizenship is a public trust.
It's time this president read the Constitution he took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend."
Instead, he is actively working to dismantle it.
Now it's time for Congress to call him out.
Picture this ad:
Help Wanted -- NINA. No experience or competence necessary. Absolute loyalty a must. Apply: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington DC. Our motto: "You take the job, you get the blame."
The White House said it would set up a "war room" to combat the barrage of allegations against President Donald Trump.
Apparently there were no volunteers, so the draft plan was abandoned.
There are some 558 high-level government positions that require Senate consent, but only 123 have been nominated, and fewer have been approved. Also, no new U.S. attorneys have been selected. After the inauguration, half the 93 federal prosecutors around the country resigned, and the rest were fired. In addition, there are many hundreds more job openings waiting for presidential nominations that do not require Senate approval.
So for all the campaign talk about the need for jobs, the president has the ability to hire several thousand people for key government jobs, but has not done so. Why?
One can only speculate, and one reason could be that he doesn't care. But one reality is that some of those he has hired have since resigned or have been sacked, some for good cause and some because their loyalty to the president's ever changing wish was not absolute. This includes James Comey, the director of the FBI, who had to choose between pledging loyalty to Trump or doing his duty as a law enforcement officer.
At least, that's part of the story. The president has yet to explain in detail why he fired Comey, except to say that "he wasn't doing a good job."
What a way to run a country.
Meanwhile, for those who don't recognize the acronym at the beginning of this blog posting, the initials NINA originally stood for "No Irish Need Apply," and it was common in mid-19th Century newspapers, along with such phrases as "applicants of all backgrounds considered, except no Irish."
Bigotry and discrimination are no strangers in American culture, but to see and hear a president endorse, proclaim and demand such practices, ranging from building a border wall to preventing newcomers from entering solely because of their religious beliefs, sounds a strong danger signal for the future of this diverse nation.
By the way, the Constitution specifically prohibits any religious test as a requirement for any office or public trust in America (Article VI). Citizenship is a public trust.
It's time this president read the Constitution he took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend."
Instead, he is actively working to dismantle it.
Now it's time for Congress to call him out.
Saturday, June 10, 2017
Wordsmanship
Words have meaning and connotation. They can be used to praise, explain, refute, insult, command, request or cloud a term so listeners can't be sure just what is said or meant.
Advertisers do this regularly, as do politicians. Often, the worst offenders in the game of pettifoggery are lawyers, as they debate the many shades of meaning and connotations that the words may convey, depending on stress and the context with other terms and tone of voice.
Then again, they may not. One person's perception may not match the speaker's intent. Or a listener may well expand the speaker's intent far beyond what was intended, even past the bounds of propriety or the law.
And when challenged, supporters and followers claim they were just following the leader request, or suggestion, or even call it a command. In response, the leader then asserts his remarks were none of the above, that he was speaking in the heat of the moment, and never meant that what he said should have been interpreted in the way supporters -- call them perpetrators -- took them to mean.
Thus, no one is guilty. Everyone is innocent. The leader never intended violence. The followers misheard what was said, and were not sophisticated enough to understand the subtleties of the speech. Therefore, they can't be guilty.
Selective emphasis very often is the product of dishonest selectivity, where the speaker chooses from an alternate set of facts to conform to a predetermined conclusion.
Then, when the outcome backfires, the speaker can insist the listeners misheard. "That's not what I said," the speaker claims. "What I really meant was ... "
In the real world, especially the political real world, words matter. Meanings matter. Connotations matter. Subtleties of vocal emphasis matter.
Demagogues know this, and always leave a backdoor opening for themselves to retreat without admitting they were wrong, mistaken, or even that they lied.
It's called Blowing Smoke.
Advertisers do this regularly, as do politicians. Often, the worst offenders in the game of pettifoggery are lawyers, as they debate the many shades of meaning and connotations that the words may convey, depending on stress and the context with other terms and tone of voice.
Then again, they may not. One person's perception may not match the speaker's intent. Or a listener may well expand the speaker's intent far beyond what was intended, even past the bounds of propriety or the law.
And when challenged, supporters and followers claim they were just following the leader request, or suggestion, or even call it a command. In response, the leader then asserts his remarks were none of the above, that he was speaking in the heat of the moment, and never meant that what he said should have been interpreted in the way supporters -- call them perpetrators -- took them to mean.
Thus, no one is guilty. Everyone is innocent. The leader never intended violence. The followers misheard what was said, and were not sophisticated enough to understand the subtleties of the speech. Therefore, they can't be guilty.
Selective emphasis very often is the product of dishonest selectivity, where the speaker chooses from an alternate set of facts to conform to a predetermined conclusion.
Then, when the outcome backfires, the speaker can insist the listeners misheard. "That's not what I said," the speaker claims. "What I really meant was ... "
In the real world, especially the political real world, words matter. Meanings matter. Connotations matter. Subtleties of vocal emphasis matter.
Demagogues know this, and always leave a backdoor opening for themselves to retreat without admitting they were wrong, mistaken, or even that they lied.
It's called Blowing Smoke.
Cultural Destruction
"We had to destroy the village in order to save it." -- Army officer in Vietnam.
"This is no time to be complacent." -- BBC Commentator.
Compare the two statements and apply them to America's dilemma today.
The changes to government and society proposed by the current president in the name of making America "great again" is based on the premise that it's not great now, and a return to a past era is the only way.
However, the changes proposed are beyond the status of modification or improvement, but are tantamount to destruction of what has worked reasonably well for quite some time. Not that the systems don't need improvement, but focusing on destruction rather than making them better is a major mistake.
Privatizing key programs such as air traffic control, which is critical to preventing chaos in air travel, or eliminating support for the arts, or putting maintenance and replacement of public works such as roads, bridges, and water supply systems, will only destroy things that help people, in the guise of putting them in the hands of profit-making private enterprise that supposedly are more efficient.
But the reality is that they are not. If they were, the private sector would have jumped at the opportunities decades ago. Government builds and maintains roads and bridges for the benefit of all, largely because the private can't or won't.
So to destroy something in the name of replacing it with something better is often a dream, and usually becomes a nightmare, since replacement never happens.
The warning signs are clear, and this is no time to be complacent.
"This is no time to be complacent." -- BBC Commentator.
Compare the two statements and apply them to America's dilemma today.
The changes to government and society proposed by the current president in the name of making America "great again" is based on the premise that it's not great now, and a return to a past era is the only way.
However, the changes proposed are beyond the status of modification or improvement, but are tantamount to destruction of what has worked reasonably well for quite some time. Not that the systems don't need improvement, but focusing on destruction rather than making them better is a major mistake.
Privatizing key programs such as air traffic control, which is critical to preventing chaos in air travel, or eliminating support for the arts, or putting maintenance and replacement of public works such as roads, bridges, and water supply systems, will only destroy things that help people, in the guise of putting them in the hands of profit-making private enterprise that supposedly are more efficient.
But the reality is that they are not. If they were, the private sector would have jumped at the opportunities decades ago. Government builds and maintains roads and bridges for the benefit of all, largely because the private can't or won't.
So to destroy something in the name of replacing it with something better is often a dream, and usually becomes a nightmare, since replacement never happens.
The warning signs are clear, and this is no time to be complacent.
Friday, June 9, 2017
Listen Up
"The best interview question is the one based on the previous answer." -- Chris Matthews, MSNBC
People often hear what they're listening for, and reporters are sometimes too focused on their follow-up question to hear the answer to the first question.
Flagrant examples happened today at a presidential press conference, where a reporter posed a question based on what former FBI Director James Comey testified at a Senate hearing. Comey testified under oath that President Donald Trump asked him to drop the investigation of the president's national security adviser, and asked for a pledge of loyalty.
Trump's response at the news conference was, "I didn't say that." But the proper follow-up question should have been, "What did you say?" However, that didn't happen. Instead, news reports ran the president's extended comments on his first answer.
Next, the president was asked if he would testify to his version of the conversation under oath.
Trump replied, "100 percent," but "not under oath," adding, "I would be glad to tell (special counsel Robert Mueller) exactly what I just told you."
In short, Trump evaded the question, making it sound like he would testify under oath, which is what journalists heard and reported. However, many news reports left out the phrase "not under oath." What the president said was that he would say to Mueller "what I just told you." That's not the same as promising to testify under oath.
It remains, therefore, for Mueller to demand an oath for the interview, rather than hold a casual conversation.
Meanwhile, it's important for journalists to listen carefully to what is said -- and not said -- in answer to questions, and to phrase the next question in the context of what may have been unsaid in the first.
Otherwise, they are in danger of being used, misused, misled and manipulated. And those are basic skills for many salesmen.
People often hear what they're listening for, and reporters are sometimes too focused on their follow-up question to hear the answer to the first question.
Flagrant examples happened today at a presidential press conference, where a reporter posed a question based on what former FBI Director James Comey testified at a Senate hearing. Comey testified under oath that President Donald Trump asked him to drop the investigation of the president's national security adviser, and asked for a pledge of loyalty.
Trump's response at the news conference was, "I didn't say that." But the proper follow-up question should have been, "What did you say?" However, that didn't happen. Instead, news reports ran the president's extended comments on his first answer.
Next, the president was asked if he would testify to his version of the conversation under oath.
Trump replied, "100 percent," but "not under oath," adding, "I would be glad to tell (special counsel Robert Mueller) exactly what I just told you."
In short, Trump evaded the question, making it sound like he would testify under oath, which is what journalists heard and reported. However, many news reports left out the phrase "not under oath." What the president said was that he would say to Mueller "what I just told you." That's not the same as promising to testify under oath.
It remains, therefore, for Mueller to demand an oath for the interview, rather than hold a casual conversation.
Meanwhile, it's important for journalists to listen carefully to what is said -- and not said -- in answer to questions, and to phrase the next question in the context of what may have been unsaid in the first.
Otherwise, they are in danger of being used, misused, misled and manipulated. And those are basic skills for many salesmen.
Thursday, June 8, 2017
Word Play
Legal types are fond of saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Now we have political types claiming that the president is not guilty of any wrongdoing by reason of incompetence, ignorance and stupidity.
You're joking, right?
Some folks defend Donald Trump for not knowing the repercussions of his talk or actions, and call for forgiveness of his lack of understanding.
The man is 70 years old, a wealthy (by his claim) businessman, and a political newbie who finagled his way to the presidency of the United States.
So 300 million Americans should accept everything he says and does, and never question his veracity solely because he is the current occupant of the Oval Office?
There is such a thing as a learning curve, and most people in a new position adapt and learn quickly. Not this guy.
Most executives, business and political leaders refer to their staff as partners, associates or even employees. Trump calls them "my satellites," as if he is the center of the universe and everyone and everything else revolves around him.
"We have a naive president," said Andy Card, former chief of staff to President George W. Bush. "Not Machiavellian," Card added, "but naive."
Sen. Diane Feinstein, Democrat of California, said, "We won't have a situation where the president controls the Justice Department."
When the boss says, "Would you do this for me, please?" staffers don't wonder whether that's a request, to be followed if and when the staffer chooses, later to figure out whether it was a suggestion or a command. That's the defense claim put up by Trumpians after the president asked then FBI Director James Comey to "let go" the inquiry into national security adviser Mike Flynn's alleged association with the Russian government.
And when the president supposedly asked whether he himself was under investigation, a surprised Comey waffled, indicating that Trump himself was not the subject of an FBI probe. Not on that particular day, anyway. Which doesn't mean that an investigation of the Trump Organization or of anything else will not eventually lead to the top echelon and to Trump himself. If it hasn't already.
Standard FBI practice for years has been never to discuss ongoing investigations. Traditionally, they don't even acknowledge that there is an investigation.
But when your boss, the president of the United States, inquires about an investigation, with the clear implication that he wants it dropped, any law enforcement official with any ethics will sidestep the question.
As the chief executive of the United States government, the president may well have the legal authority to stop or start any particular investigation. But should he, especially when the probe is about the president's own activities?
Ethics.
America has three separate and equal branches of government. When a president steps beyond the bounds of law and ethics, it becomes the responsibility and duty of Congress to pull him back onto a straight and narrow path.
Either that, or fire him.
You're joking, right?
Some folks defend Donald Trump for not knowing the repercussions of his talk or actions, and call for forgiveness of his lack of understanding.
The man is 70 years old, a wealthy (by his claim) businessman, and a political newbie who finagled his way to the presidency of the United States.
So 300 million Americans should accept everything he says and does, and never question his veracity solely because he is the current occupant of the Oval Office?
There is such a thing as a learning curve, and most people in a new position adapt and learn quickly. Not this guy.
Most executives, business and political leaders refer to their staff as partners, associates or even employees. Trump calls them "my satellites," as if he is the center of the universe and everyone and everything else revolves around him.
"We have a naive president," said Andy Card, former chief of staff to President George W. Bush. "Not Machiavellian," Card added, "but naive."
Sen. Diane Feinstein, Democrat of California, said, "We won't have a situation where the president controls the Justice Department."
When the boss says, "Would you do this for me, please?" staffers don't wonder whether that's a request, to be followed if and when the staffer chooses, later to figure out whether it was a suggestion or a command. That's the defense claim put up by Trumpians after the president asked then FBI Director James Comey to "let go" the inquiry into national security adviser Mike Flynn's alleged association with the Russian government.
And when the president supposedly asked whether he himself was under investigation, a surprised Comey waffled, indicating that Trump himself was not the subject of an FBI probe. Not on that particular day, anyway. Which doesn't mean that an investigation of the Trump Organization or of anything else will not eventually lead to the top echelon and to Trump himself. If it hasn't already.
Standard FBI practice for years has been never to discuss ongoing investigations. Traditionally, they don't even acknowledge that there is an investigation.
But when your boss, the president of the United States, inquires about an investigation, with the clear implication that he wants it dropped, any law enforcement official with any ethics will sidestep the question.
As the chief executive of the United States government, the president may well have the legal authority to stop or start any particular investigation. But should he, especially when the probe is about the president's own activities?
Ethics.
America has three separate and equal branches of government. When a president steps beyond the bounds of law and ethics, it becomes the responsibility and duty of Congress to pull him back onto a straight and narrow path.
Either that, or fire him.
Tuesday, June 6, 2017
Survival Mode
"If I've lost Walter Cronkite, I've lost Middle America." -- President Lyndon Johnson, after the CBS newscaster spoke in opposition to the war in Viet Nam.
"If you lose the Wall Street Journal, you're bleeped." -- MSNBC anchor Nicolle Wallace, a former GOP operative, after the conservative-oriented newspaper opposed Donald Trump's policies.
President Trump's approval rating continues to plummet, yet he carries on blasting those who disagree, and blames others for all his failures.
Most recently, he accused Democratic party leaders of "blocking my people," referring to the dozens of vacant ambassadorships as well as all 93 U.S. attorney openings.
The reality is that he fired half the federal prosecutors soon after inauguration, the other half resigned, and he has yet to nominate any replacements.
So how can Democrats block nominations that have not been made?
Meanwhile, Congress is about to hear testimony from James Comey, the FBI director who was fired after he refused to halt an investigation into the Trump campaign's alleged ties with Russia.
Clearly, Donald Trump is in over his head, and keeps thrashing about, refusing to grab lifesavers from those few who still want to help, and blaming them for his inability to swim.
Will the nation survive this charade of a presidency? Yes, but it may take a while for Congress and voters to agree on a plan to close down the show. Perhaps a comparison to TV ratings will help. When people stop listening and watching, and no longer believe the star of the show is doing anything worthwhile, or that continuing to support the charade will yield any benefits, the star will be replaced.
Either way, the nation will endure, just as producers abandon a flop and move on, auditioning other actors.
"If you lose the Wall Street Journal, you're bleeped." -- MSNBC anchor Nicolle Wallace, a former GOP operative, after the conservative-oriented newspaper opposed Donald Trump's policies.
President Trump's approval rating continues to plummet, yet he carries on blasting those who disagree, and blames others for all his failures.
Most recently, he accused Democratic party leaders of "blocking my people," referring to the dozens of vacant ambassadorships as well as all 93 U.S. attorney openings.
The reality is that he fired half the federal prosecutors soon after inauguration, the other half resigned, and he has yet to nominate any replacements.
So how can Democrats block nominations that have not been made?
Meanwhile, Congress is about to hear testimony from James Comey, the FBI director who was fired after he refused to halt an investigation into the Trump campaign's alleged ties with Russia.
Clearly, Donald Trump is in over his head, and keeps thrashing about, refusing to grab lifesavers from those few who still want to help, and blaming them for his inability to swim.
Will the nation survive this charade of a presidency? Yes, but it may take a while for Congress and voters to agree on a plan to close down the show. Perhaps a comparison to TV ratings will help. When people stop listening and watching, and no longer believe the star of the show is doing anything worthwhile, or that continuing to support the charade will yield any benefits, the star will be replaced.
Either way, the nation will endure, just as producers abandon a flop and move on, auditioning other actors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)