Courtesy, respect and civility are part of a two-way street.
Journalists often defend their pestery questions to politicians as serving the public's right to know.
Equally, politicians -- and some corporate chieftains -- resist such probing because they prefer to work in secret, or at least they cite their need for a confidential negotiating atmosphere. Meanwhile, they note that they will make a public announcement "at the appropriate time."
And when will that time be, asks the pesky reporter.
"We'll let you know," says the politician, hinting at being badgered.
That's another way of saying, "I'll decide that. Meanwhile, it's none of your business."
Actually, it is our business. It may not be the personal business of an individual reporter, but journalists don't ask for themselves alone. Rather, they ask on behalf of the general public, who don't have the time or the opportunity to attend every legislative session of every political body.
So when a government leader talks that way to a reporter, he is really talking to all voters, telling them to butt out and don't be nosy about what he's doing.
Wrong attitude.
Not all government officials, elected or otherwise, have that attitude, of course. Many campaign for office proclaiming their desire to "serve the public interest."
Once in office, however, their interests too often seem to focus on their own needs and desires, which may not match those of voters in their districts.
Granted, there is sometimes a need for confidentiality in negotiations, but a penchant for secrecy does not always apply to all things, every day, to all people.
The public business is just that. The business of, by and for the public. Just as we have a representative form of government, where a few are delegated to do things on behalf of the many, so also does a free nation have a free press, whose representatives gather and distribute information for the many.
An ever vigilant press is the guardian of a free society.
Monday, July 31, 2017
Sunday, July 30, 2017
Citizen Skein
Follow the threads and you soon see a pattern.
The tapestry of ignorance, misperceptions, threats and lies gets larger and clearer every day, weaving more credence to the notion that the current president of the United States will be impeached, convicted and removed from office.
Soon the picture will be as complete as a set of medieval weavings with a story to tell.
Meanwhile, he adds presidential approval to a growing list of behaviors that no civilized society tolerates. This week he told a gathering of police officers in New York, "Don't be too nice" to suspects taken into custody, in effect telling them it's a good idea to routinely beat up people who have not been charged, much less convicted of any crime or misdemeanor.
Earlier, he reminded a gathering of 40,000 Boy Scouts of a friend's crude behavior toward women attending a party aboard the millionaire friend's yacht.
During the campaign, he encouraged supporters to "rough up" protestors, thus inciting violence.
So this president is in the habit of proclaiming that it's OK for police to beat up suspects as they "throw them into the paddy wagon," that it's OK to molest women, that crude behavior aboard a party yacht is acceptable, and that members of the U.S. Senate better do as he says or the state they represent will suffer consequences.
Meanwhile, he threatens and insults federal investigators looking into allegations of crimes and misdemeanors perpetrated before, during and after the election.
All the while, he proudly proclaims, "I can be very presidential."
Good idea. When do you plan to start?
The tapestry of ignorance, misperceptions, threats and lies gets larger and clearer every day, weaving more credence to the notion that the current president of the United States will be impeached, convicted and removed from office.
Soon the picture will be as complete as a set of medieval weavings with a story to tell.
Meanwhile, he adds presidential approval to a growing list of behaviors that no civilized society tolerates. This week he told a gathering of police officers in New York, "Don't be too nice" to suspects taken into custody, in effect telling them it's a good idea to routinely beat up people who have not been charged, much less convicted of any crime or misdemeanor.
Earlier, he reminded a gathering of 40,000 Boy Scouts of a friend's crude behavior toward women attending a party aboard the millionaire friend's yacht.
During the campaign, he encouraged supporters to "rough up" protestors, thus inciting violence.
So this president is in the habit of proclaiming that it's OK for police to beat up suspects as they "throw them into the paddy wagon," that it's OK to molest women, that crude behavior aboard a party yacht is acceptable, and that members of the U.S. Senate better do as he says or the state they represent will suffer consequences.
Meanwhile, he threatens and insults federal investigators looking into allegations of crimes and misdemeanors perpetrated before, during and after the election.
All the while, he proudly proclaims, "I can be very presidential."
Good idea. When do you plan to start?
Friday, July 28, 2017
Econoblast
The U.S. economy continues to show signs of good health, but that's not enough for the Federal Reserve Board to let go the reins and let the pony leave the stable on its own.
The Commerce Department said the economy grew by 2.6 percent in the second quarter, compared to a 1.2 percent pace in the first quarter. The latest figure was an early estimate, however, and will be revised as more data become available.
Earlier, the Fed noted that economic activity "has been rising moderately" so far this year and the unemployment rate has declined, but conditions are not enough to warrant any change in its monetary policy. Therefore, the Fed said, it will keep its federal funds lending target rate in the range of 1 percent to 1.5 percent.
The nationwide unemployment rate was 4.4 percent in June, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, roughly where it has been since spring, but down from 4.9 percent in June of last year.
All in all, however, while things look pretty good economically, political uncertainty could trample on the nation's confidence and cause problems.
President Trump has promised an economic growth rate of as much as 4 percent or even more as the government dismantles many controls and regulations, but the odds of the independent Federal Reserve Board letting that happen are somewhere between slim and none. And unless he finds some way to bring the Fed to heel and follow his orders ... fuhgeddabowdit.
Meanwhile, the government's Bureau of Economic Analysis reported state GDP figures, which lag behind the national estimates by several months. Overall, the economy improved in 43 states and the District of Columbia in the first three months of the year, ranging from a high of 3.9 percent in Texas to -4.0 percent in Nebraska.
The Commerce Department said the economy grew by 2.6 percent in the second quarter, compared to a 1.2 percent pace in the first quarter. The latest figure was an early estimate, however, and will be revised as more data become available.
Earlier, the Fed noted that economic activity "has been rising moderately" so far this year and the unemployment rate has declined, but conditions are not enough to warrant any change in its monetary policy. Therefore, the Fed said, it will keep its federal funds lending target rate in the range of 1 percent to 1.5 percent.
The nationwide unemployment rate was 4.4 percent in June, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, roughly where it has been since spring, but down from 4.9 percent in June of last year.
All in all, however, while things look pretty good economically, political uncertainty could trample on the nation's confidence and cause problems.
President Trump has promised an economic growth rate of as much as 4 percent or even more as the government dismantles many controls and regulations, but the odds of the independent Federal Reserve Board letting that happen are somewhere between slim and none. And unless he finds some way to bring the Fed to heel and follow his orders ... fuhgeddabowdit.
Meanwhile, the government's Bureau of Economic Analysis reported state GDP figures, which lag behind the national estimates by several months. Overall, the economy improved in 43 states and the District of Columbia in the first three months of the year, ranging from a high of 3.9 percent in Texas to -4.0 percent in Nebraska.
Trumpcare Strikes Out
After seven years of complaining and promising to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act that helped to provide health insurance to millions of Americans who otherwise would suffer without it, the Republican Party finally got its chance after its election victory last November.
Suddenly, to the surprise of many, the party controlled not only the House of Representatives and the Senate but the White House also, as Donald Trump became president.
But did they have a fully prepared piece of legislation ready as they took control of all three branches of government?
Oops.
No. And after numerous attempts to push through at least three versions of the repeal and replace bid, some of which were not even seen by most senators, and most scored poorly in analyses by the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the mighty Trump Team struck out and was benched.
Now there is little joy in Trumpville, even as some of the players try to cover their loss with attempts to distract the news media by Blowing Smoke about other issues.
Journalists see through the foggery, however, and can cover several stories at one time. That has been proven every day recently, as a storm of controversies come out of the White House and Trumpian supporters brag about the greatness of the team and its leading pitchman.
One thing they haven't yet caught onto, however, is that journalists are not part of anyone's team. They cover the play by play and report the score.
Suddenly, to the surprise of many, the party controlled not only the House of Representatives and the Senate but the White House also, as Donald Trump became president.
But did they have a fully prepared piece of legislation ready as they took control of all three branches of government?
Oops.
No. And after numerous attempts to push through at least three versions of the repeal and replace bid, some of which were not even seen by most senators, and most scored poorly in analyses by the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the mighty Trump Team struck out and was benched.
Now there is little joy in Trumpville, even as some of the players try to cover their loss with attempts to distract the news media by Blowing Smoke about other issues.
Journalists see through the foggery, however, and can cover several stories at one time. That has been proven every day recently, as a storm of controversies come out of the White House and Trumpian supporters brag about the greatness of the team and its leading pitchman.
One thing they haven't yet caught onto, however, is that journalists are not part of anyone's team. They cover the play by play and report the score.
Thursday, July 27, 2017
Power Play
The Fourth Estate is in full voice against the abuses -- some say thuggery -- of the current president and his senior staffers, and key Republican members of the Senate are joining in the chorus.
This, after the president escalated his shame game attack on his own attorney general, trying to force the resignation of Jeff Sessions, one of his earliest and most ardent supporters, who recused himself from the investigation into possible wrongdoing connected to "the Russia thing."
Sessions' former colleagues in the Senate are nearly unanimous in their defense of the attorney general's integrity, qualifications and ability.
The president, however, has insisted that the attorney general's first loyalty is the him, rather than to the law.
Meanwhile, the game of threats continues. President Trump delegated his Interior secretary to warn the two senators from Alaska that their state may lose federal aid if they fail to support the health care bill currently stumbling its way through the Senate.
And leading Republican senators, including Lindsay Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona, have demanded a guarantee from the House of Representatives that there will be a compromise panel of members from both bodies to iron out wrinkles in any health care bill approved by the Senate before it is forwarded to the president.
But.
What if the Senate does approve a health care bill and the House does not keep its promise?
On another front, the newly named communications director, Anthony Scaramucci, was quoted at great length, including various gross obscenities and vulgarities, talking about his erstwhile supervisor, Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. In the recorded interview with a writer for The New Yorker magazine, Scaramucci vows to get Priebus fired for allegedly "leaking" supposedly private financial information about him, calling it a felony.
Oddly, the information was readily available to anyone asking for it, citing the Freedom of Information Act.
Even more oddly, Scaramucci is not yet officially on his new job in the White House, since he has not yet divested himself of certain investments that would be a conflict of interest.
Time was, journalists would routinely "clean up" the grammar when quoting politicians, and leave out any occasional naughty bits that might slip into casual talk.
But with some political leaders today, their grammar and speaking style so often borders on and even steps over the line of incomprehensibility, and foul language, obscenities and vulgarities so overwhelming as to embarrass an inner city street kid, journalists quote the verbal trespasser in full as they follow their obligation to describe to the public what kind of a person the official is.
And this is best accomplished by quoting the official in full.
This, after the president escalated his shame game attack on his own attorney general, trying to force the resignation of Jeff Sessions, one of his earliest and most ardent supporters, who recused himself from the investigation into possible wrongdoing connected to "the Russia thing."
Sessions' former colleagues in the Senate are nearly unanimous in their defense of the attorney general's integrity, qualifications and ability.
The president, however, has insisted that the attorney general's first loyalty is the him, rather than to the law.
Meanwhile, the game of threats continues. President Trump delegated his Interior secretary to warn the two senators from Alaska that their state may lose federal aid if they fail to support the health care bill currently stumbling its way through the Senate.
And leading Republican senators, including Lindsay Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona, have demanded a guarantee from the House of Representatives that there will be a compromise panel of members from both bodies to iron out wrinkles in any health care bill approved by the Senate before it is forwarded to the president.
But.
What if the Senate does approve a health care bill and the House does not keep its promise?
On another front, the newly named communications director, Anthony Scaramucci, was quoted at great length, including various gross obscenities and vulgarities, talking about his erstwhile supervisor, Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. In the recorded interview with a writer for The New Yorker magazine, Scaramucci vows to get Priebus fired for allegedly "leaking" supposedly private financial information about him, calling it a felony.
Oddly, the information was readily available to anyone asking for it, citing the Freedom of Information Act.
Even more oddly, Scaramucci is not yet officially on his new job in the White House, since he has not yet divested himself of certain investments that would be a conflict of interest.
Time was, journalists would routinely "clean up" the grammar when quoting politicians, and leave out any occasional naughty bits that might slip into casual talk.
But with some political leaders today, their grammar and speaking style so often borders on and even steps over the line of incomprehensibility, and foul language, obscenities and vulgarities so overwhelming as to embarrass an inner city street kid, journalists quote the verbal trespasser in full as they follow their obligation to describe to the public what kind of a person the official is.
And this is best accomplished by quoting the official in full.
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
Free Speech and Fair Comment
The current inmate of the Oval Office spouts regular rants about the "unfair" coverage of "fake news" by the "failing" news media in America.
He is particularly offended by any report that depicts his comments as untruthful and contrary to history or fact, and no amount of evidence is enough to persuade him that he might be mistaken in anything, ever.
More dangerous, however, is the idea that he attempts to control the historically free press in America by cutting back on news briefings by his aides, and refusing to take questions himself directly from reporters assigned to cover his activities.
In effect, he is his own communications director, using his Twitter account to get out his message and opinions directly to the public and attacking any journalist who asks a pointed question on the rare occasion that is possible.
So what's next, as he moves toward full control of any communications medium that carries information of value to citizens and voters?
Consider this: One of the first steps a demagogue takes on the road to complete government control is to muzzle the news media.
That will be hard to do in a country that is guaranteed a free press, but it's not impossible.
One important step could be to shut down broadcast media, and that can be done by cancelling or refusing to renew a TV station's license. Another would be to pressure corporate friends to discontinue advertising in the pages of print media critical of his government.
Another step could be to control sources of information, and that means rewriting history and controlling access to the Internet and its vast variety of data, facts and information.
Major newspapers in America have been hurt by the growth of Internet news outlets, resulting in a loss of revenue for their print editions. Some have built their own digital operations to meet this challenge, but there is still a time of struggle while the news business reorganizes in a new communications world.
But while print and broadcast news media may be struggling, Internet-based firms are growing. In addition, there are millions of individuals able and willing to post their opinions and views to be seen worldwide.
That, however, may not prevent the new guy from attempting to control every aspect of communication. It's simply a different challenge, and a bully will use every weapon he can -- legal or otherwise -- to cement his control.
Demagogues have used these tactics repeatedly in other countries to stifle opposition and tighten their control on their way to a dictatorship. A free press, however, and in a larger sense free communication, is the first bastion in defense of a free society. Moreover, these same communications media -- personal and professional -- comprise the first draft of history.
A dictator's attempt to control the daily message of communication among citizens is therefore the first move to control his status not only in the present but for history also.
Any bid to stifle dissent equals a move to control all aspects of society, including its history.
To prevent that, an ever-watchful team of professional journalists and private citizens using social media is essential in maintaining freedom.
He is particularly offended by any report that depicts his comments as untruthful and contrary to history or fact, and no amount of evidence is enough to persuade him that he might be mistaken in anything, ever.
More dangerous, however, is the idea that he attempts to control the historically free press in America by cutting back on news briefings by his aides, and refusing to take questions himself directly from reporters assigned to cover his activities.
In effect, he is his own communications director, using his Twitter account to get out his message and opinions directly to the public and attacking any journalist who asks a pointed question on the rare occasion that is possible.
So what's next, as he moves toward full control of any communications medium that carries information of value to citizens and voters?
Consider this: One of the first steps a demagogue takes on the road to complete government control is to muzzle the news media.
That will be hard to do in a country that is guaranteed a free press, but it's not impossible.
One important step could be to shut down broadcast media, and that can be done by cancelling or refusing to renew a TV station's license. Another would be to pressure corporate friends to discontinue advertising in the pages of print media critical of his government.
Another step could be to control sources of information, and that means rewriting history and controlling access to the Internet and its vast variety of data, facts and information.
Major newspapers in America have been hurt by the growth of Internet news outlets, resulting in a loss of revenue for their print editions. Some have built their own digital operations to meet this challenge, but there is still a time of struggle while the news business reorganizes in a new communications world.
But while print and broadcast news media may be struggling, Internet-based firms are growing. In addition, there are millions of individuals able and willing to post their opinions and views to be seen worldwide.
That, however, may not prevent the new guy from attempting to control every aspect of communication. It's simply a different challenge, and a bully will use every weapon he can -- legal or otherwise -- to cement his control.
Demagogues have used these tactics repeatedly in other countries to stifle opposition and tighten their control on their way to a dictatorship. A free press, however, and in a larger sense free communication, is the first bastion in defense of a free society. Moreover, these same communications media -- personal and professional -- comprise the first draft of history.
A dictator's attempt to control the daily message of communication among citizens is therefore the first move to control his status not only in the present but for history also.
Any bid to stifle dissent equals a move to control all aspects of society, including its history.
To prevent that, an ever-watchful team of professional journalists and private citizens using social media is essential in maintaining freedom.
Setting an Example
It is a sad day for American values when a president uses an audience of Boy Scouts to brag about his victory, attack his opponents and threaten those who are not sufficiently loyal to him and him alone, rather than to the Constitution.
Those who care can launch a web search and get a more complete accounting of his highly politicized speech and the comments of the many parents who are taking their sons out of the organization.
In any case, the president's appearance at the Boy Scout Jamboree, held only every four years, and this time in West Virginia, was but the latest in a series of events where he uses the cameras and the audience to spout his own greatness and to attack those he perceives as enemies.
For example, he reminded the audience of 35,000 Boy Scouts that his victory last November was "an unbelievable tribute to you and all of the other millions and millions of people that came out and voted for Make America Great Again."
Fact check: Most Boy Scouts are teenagers under 18, and therefore were unable to vote in last year's election. He also noted that he went to Maine four times during the election campaign "because it's one vote, and we won." The state of Maine has four electoral votes, matching the number of senators and members of the House of Representatives the state has.
Last week, at the launching of a new aircraft carrier named after former President Gerald R. Ford, he urged military personnel to back the proposed new health care plan stumbling its way through Congress. By doing this, he ignored the fact that military personnel already have complete health care while on active duty, and veterans have access to health care through the Veterans Administration. And he said nothing about Ford's accomplishments as president.
Incidentally, Ford was himself an Eagle Scout.
These are just the most recent examples of his habit of using a public appearance and TV cameras to preach his own political agenda, while saying nothing about the purpose of the gathering. For example, he said nothing about the value of Boy Scout membership in contributing to American values. To be fair, he did mention the Boy Scout Law, but only got as far as the second term, Loyalty, which he used as a pivot to stress his own need for complete personal loyalty to him from others in government.
Somewhere there is a bottom to this pit of diatribe and vilification from which this president hurls insult and abuse at those who do not show absolute, unquestioning loyalty and devotion to him and him alone, thus ignoring their oath and responsibility to defend and protect the Constitution.
Some example to set for the rest of the nation.
A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent.
-- The Boy Scout Law
How many of these apply to this president?
Those who care can launch a web search and get a more complete accounting of his highly politicized speech and the comments of the many parents who are taking their sons out of the organization.
In any case, the president's appearance at the Boy Scout Jamboree, held only every four years, and this time in West Virginia, was but the latest in a series of events where he uses the cameras and the audience to spout his own greatness and to attack those he perceives as enemies.
For example, he reminded the audience of 35,000 Boy Scouts that his victory last November was "an unbelievable tribute to you and all of the other millions and millions of people that came out and voted for Make America Great Again."
Fact check: Most Boy Scouts are teenagers under 18, and therefore were unable to vote in last year's election. He also noted that he went to Maine four times during the election campaign "because it's one vote, and we won." The state of Maine has four electoral votes, matching the number of senators and members of the House of Representatives the state has.
Last week, at the launching of a new aircraft carrier named after former President Gerald R. Ford, he urged military personnel to back the proposed new health care plan stumbling its way through Congress. By doing this, he ignored the fact that military personnel already have complete health care while on active duty, and veterans have access to health care through the Veterans Administration. And he said nothing about Ford's accomplishments as president.
Incidentally, Ford was himself an Eagle Scout.
These are just the most recent examples of his habit of using a public appearance and TV cameras to preach his own political agenda, while saying nothing about the purpose of the gathering. For example, he said nothing about the value of Boy Scout membership in contributing to American values. To be fair, he did mention the Boy Scout Law, but only got as far as the second term, Loyalty, which he used as a pivot to stress his own need for complete personal loyalty to him from others in government.
Somewhere there is a bottom to this pit of diatribe and vilification from which this president hurls insult and abuse at those who do not show absolute, unquestioning loyalty and devotion to him and him alone, thus ignoring their oath and responsibility to defend and protect the Constitution.
Some example to set for the rest of the nation.
A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent.
-- The Boy Scout Law
How many of these apply to this president?
Sunday, July 23, 2017
Pardon Myself
Can a president be indicted on a criminal charge while in office? That's not clear, since there is no precedent. But there's always a first time.
Consider this premise: No one is above the law, even the chief executive of a nation whose primary task is to carry out laws approved by Congress.
There are some who say the Constitution is vague on this point, and the current inmate of the Oval Office insists the president has absolute power to pardon anyone, for any thing, at any time.
Lawyers, as is their wont, argue definitions of words endlessly, and debate at equal length what the framers of the Constitution really meant when they wrote this, that or the other thing.
As if they didn't really know what they were doing at the time.
Lawyers are fond of pontificating, "I'm a lawyer, so I know what any given word really means."
Here's a response: "I'm a linguist, so I know how people use words and what people mean when they do so."
So here's what the Constitution says about impeachment, in Article 1, Section 3:
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
And the grounds for impeachment of a president are these: "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." (Article 2, Section 4)
Further, there is the so-called "emoluments clause," in Article 1, Section 9: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States; And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
It doesn't take a graduate degree in communication science to understand that if any government or elected official, including the president, takes a bribe or a payment of any kind from a foreign government, or commits treason or some other crime while in office, that official can be impeached, tried, convicted by the Senate and ousted.
Once out of office, however, that same official can be indicted, tried, convicted and jailed.
But can a president be indicted while in office? Lawyers are still debating that, and when the question was raised in the past, the decision was to let Congress do its impeachment thing first, and if that didn't work, then let the criminal court system have a chance.
That's likely the reason Gerald Ford issued a pardon for Richard Nixon, who resigned rather than face impeachment charges written up by the House of Representatives.
But if Nixon did nothing wrong and was innocent, why issue a pardon? Possibly to save the country further hassle; he was out, and that's what really mattered.
So much for criminal offences. As for civil charges, that issue was settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Paula Jones vs. Bill Clinton. And the court ruled that yes, the president could indeed be made to answer the allegations, which were made before he took office, but the court proceedings continued while he was in office.
Now to the issues swirling around the current First Family. Reports are that the president is checking with his legal advisors as to whether he can issue pardons to members of his family, including himself, even before charges are brought. The president has tweeted his belief that his power to issue pardons is absolute.
But as in the Nixon dispute, if he has done nothing illegal or unconstitutional, there would be no need for a pardon.
Aye, but here's the rub: If he pardons a member of the family, that person would not be able to plead the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination when appearing before a grand jury or a congressional investigating committee. That person would then face jail for contempt.
As for pardoning himself, either before or after any charges are filed, that would rank highest on the list of world-class chutzpah.
There might be an alternative, however, and that would be to invoke the 25th Amendment, step down temporarily, let the vice president issue a pardon, and then resume his seat in the Oval Office.
At best, that would rank number two on the chutzpah list.
Consider this premise: No one is above the law, even the chief executive of a nation whose primary task is to carry out laws approved by Congress.
There are some who say the Constitution is vague on this point, and the current inmate of the Oval Office insists the president has absolute power to pardon anyone, for any thing, at any time.
Lawyers, as is their wont, argue definitions of words endlessly, and debate at equal length what the framers of the Constitution really meant when they wrote this, that or the other thing.
As if they didn't really know what they were doing at the time.
Lawyers are fond of pontificating, "I'm a lawyer, so I know what any given word really means."
Here's a response: "I'm a linguist, so I know how people use words and what people mean when they do so."
So here's what the Constitution says about impeachment, in Article 1, Section 3:
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
And the grounds for impeachment of a president are these: "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." (Article 2, Section 4)
Further, there is the so-called "emoluments clause," in Article 1, Section 9: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States; And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
It doesn't take a graduate degree in communication science to understand that if any government or elected official, including the president, takes a bribe or a payment of any kind from a foreign government, or commits treason or some other crime while in office, that official can be impeached, tried, convicted by the Senate and ousted.
Once out of office, however, that same official can be indicted, tried, convicted and jailed.
But can a president be indicted while in office? Lawyers are still debating that, and when the question was raised in the past, the decision was to let Congress do its impeachment thing first, and if that didn't work, then let the criminal court system have a chance.
That's likely the reason Gerald Ford issued a pardon for Richard Nixon, who resigned rather than face impeachment charges written up by the House of Representatives.
But if Nixon did nothing wrong and was innocent, why issue a pardon? Possibly to save the country further hassle; he was out, and that's what really mattered.
So much for criminal offences. As for civil charges, that issue was settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Paula Jones vs. Bill Clinton. And the court ruled that yes, the president could indeed be made to answer the allegations, which were made before he took office, but the court proceedings continued while he was in office.
Now to the issues swirling around the current First Family. Reports are that the president is checking with his legal advisors as to whether he can issue pardons to members of his family, including himself, even before charges are brought. The president has tweeted his belief that his power to issue pardons is absolute.
But as in the Nixon dispute, if he has done nothing illegal or unconstitutional, there would be no need for a pardon.
Aye, but here's the rub: If he pardons a member of the family, that person would not be able to plead the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination when appearing before a grand jury or a congressional investigating committee. That person would then face jail for contempt.
As for pardoning himself, either before or after any charges are filed, that would rank highest on the list of world-class chutzpah.
There might be an alternative, however, and that would be to invoke the 25th Amendment, step down temporarily, let the vice president issue a pardon, and then resume his seat in the Oval Office.
At best, that would rank number two on the chutzpah list.
Friday, July 21, 2017
Abandoning the Ship of State
White House press secretary Sean Spicer is the latest to resign from the crew of the SS Trump, after the president selected one of his Wall Street buddies to be communications director.
This follows news that the president's personal attorney has stepped aside, and the government's ethics chief resigned because his warnings were not being heeded.
Meanwhile, hundreds of positions that require Senate approval remain unfilled, largely because the captain of the current ship of state has not nominated people to take the jobs. It could also be that few are willing to get on board a vessel that's likely to run aground.
The president, it seems, insists on being captain, navigator, pilot, chief engineer and communications director all in one.
So the current administration, just six months after launch, not only does not have a full crew but others are going ashore before the ship of state sinks.
Meanwhile, the next story to watch for could well be titled Ivanka's Choice, as the president's daughter faces a choice of loyalty to her father the president or to her husband, Jared Kushner. As it is, reports are that she was opposed to the choice of Anthony Scaramucci as the new communications director That selection was also part of the reason for Spicer's resignation.
Kushner has been an advisor to the president, but will soon meet with congressional investigators looking into various issues about the president's Russia contacts and financial dealings.
How cooperative and forthcoming Kushner will be to those following the money trail is an open question. But it's possible he might provide information damaging to the president in order to protect himself. In which case, Ivanka Trump will have to choose: Her husband or her father.
This follows news that the president's personal attorney has stepped aside, and the government's ethics chief resigned because his warnings were not being heeded.
Meanwhile, hundreds of positions that require Senate approval remain unfilled, largely because the captain of the current ship of state has not nominated people to take the jobs. It could also be that few are willing to get on board a vessel that's likely to run aground.
The president, it seems, insists on being captain, navigator, pilot, chief engineer and communications director all in one.
So the current administration, just six months after launch, not only does not have a full crew but others are going ashore before the ship of state sinks.
Meanwhile, the next story to watch for could well be titled Ivanka's Choice, as the president's daughter faces a choice of loyalty to her father the president or to her husband, Jared Kushner. As it is, reports are that she was opposed to the choice of Anthony Scaramucci as the new communications director That selection was also part of the reason for Spicer's resignation.
Kushner has been an advisor to the president, but will soon meet with congressional investigators looking into various issues about the president's Russia contacts and financial dealings.
How cooperative and forthcoming Kushner will be to those following the money trail is an open question. But it's possible he might provide information damaging to the president in order to protect himself. In which case, Ivanka Trump will have to choose: Her husband or her father.
Thursday, July 20, 2017
Who's In Charge Here?
The president has demanded that the Senate stay in town until they finish work on a new health care bill, and he has threatened to oust a senator who doesn't go along with his program.
Question: Does he think he's a king, as he demands personal loyalty from leaders of government agencies such as the FBI and the Department of Justice? And where does it say that the president is in charge of what Congress does?
Perhaps it's time he read the Constitution. There are three branches of government, separate and equal. Senators are elected for a six-year term by the citizen voters of their states. They are not appointed by the president, and cannot be removed by him.
It is true that the president can call Congress back for a special session, but that doesn't necessarily mean he can prevent them from taking a break.
Moreover, government officials take an oath to support the Constitution. The oath does not call for individual loyalty to a president.
Meanwhile, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has released its scoring report on the latest version of Trumpcare being dealt with by the Senate.
Among other things, the report says that by 2026, Medicaid spending would be cut by 87 percent as the individual mandate is repealed and federal matching funds is phased out. In addition, the total number of Americans who would lose health care insurance will be 15 million next year and 22 million by 2026.
The art of this dealer is coming from the bottom of the deck.
Question: Does he think he's a king, as he demands personal loyalty from leaders of government agencies such as the FBI and the Department of Justice? And where does it say that the president is in charge of what Congress does?
Perhaps it's time he read the Constitution. There are three branches of government, separate and equal. Senators are elected for a six-year term by the citizen voters of their states. They are not appointed by the president, and cannot be removed by him.
It is true that the president can call Congress back for a special session, but that doesn't necessarily mean he can prevent them from taking a break.
Moreover, government officials take an oath to support the Constitution. The oath does not call for individual loyalty to a president.
Meanwhile, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has released its scoring report on the latest version of Trumpcare being dealt with by the Senate.
Among other things, the report says that by 2026, Medicaid spending would be cut by 87 percent as the individual mandate is repealed and federal matching funds is phased out. In addition, the total number of Americans who would lose health care insurance will be 15 million next year and 22 million by 2026.
The art of this dealer is coming from the bottom of the deck.
Wednesday, July 19, 2017
Kremlin Kozy
What's going on here?
Vladimort discusses a merger with Trumputin.
With at least 50 people in the room, did he think no one would notice the hour-long chit-chat he was having with Vladimir Putin, president of Russia? Or did POTUS not care?
With 18 other leaders of the G20 nations at the dinner, along with their partners, spouses, companions and staff watching, Donald Trump wandered from his assigned seat to the other side of the long table, and sat next to Putin and chatted, with Putin's translator the only other person near enough to hear what was being said.
Trump has praised Putin's "strong leadership" numerous times in the past, and at the G20 dinner in Hamburg, Germany, he spent little time mingling with the host or with other national leaders, opting instead to spend a full hour chatting up Putin.
Or was it merely chit-chat? After all, who among us has the patience or the stamina for a full hour of idle conversation? Trump has shown little or no patience for chit-chat, and is reported to have the attention span of a donut.
So the question remains, what were they talking about? A merger, perhaps? And why spend so much time with the person many would call the leader of the Dark Side?
Or should we say, with Vladimort Trumputin.
Vladimort discusses a merger with Trumputin.
With at least 50 people in the room, did he think no one would notice the hour-long chit-chat he was having with Vladimir Putin, president of Russia? Or did POTUS not care?
With 18 other leaders of the G20 nations at the dinner, along with their partners, spouses, companions and staff watching, Donald Trump wandered from his assigned seat to the other side of the long table, and sat next to Putin and chatted, with Putin's translator the only other person near enough to hear what was being said.
Trump has praised Putin's "strong leadership" numerous times in the past, and at the G20 dinner in Hamburg, Germany, he spent little time mingling with the host or with other national leaders, opting instead to spend a full hour chatting up Putin.
Or was it merely chit-chat? After all, who among us has the patience or the stamina for a full hour of idle conversation? Trump has shown little or no patience for chit-chat, and is reported to have the attention span of a donut.
So the question remains, what were they talking about? A merger, perhaps? And why spend so much time with the person many would call the leader of the Dark Side?
Or should we say, with Vladimort Trumputin.
Sabotage
Sabotage: French origin; to throw a wooden shoe (sabot) into the gears of a machine, thus halting its ability to function.
POTUS warns that the Affordable Care Act is doomed to fail. That can indeed happen if:
1/ By executive order he stops federal reimbursement subsidies to insurers who help Americans buy insurance policies.
2/ He refuses to enforce the ACA mandate that everyone take out a policy, even with government assistance.
3/ He bans advertising that encourages enrollment, thus slowing the process.
These three steps alone will increase the likelihood that fewer people sign up; that fewer young and healthy people will buy policies, in the belief that since they're not sick they don't need health insurance; and as fewer people enroll, premiums will rise.
The president said he wants to repeal the individual mandate, as well as an employer mandate, which would ensure that everyone have health insurance, thereby spreading the risk to include everyone. This is a basic in the insurance industry, the bigger the risk pool, the lower the cost to an individual.
Thus it happens that premiums will soar and the program will collapse -- a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Nonetheless, the president insists "premiums will go down 60 percent." But "nobody talks about that," he adds. That's because it's not true.
Moreover, without some government control over their ability to boost premiums, the ACA will indeed collapse. The only way it can survive is with government support -- without it, the program will die, as will many Americans who no longer have health care because of sabotage from the White House.
The president claimed again that a single payer system "will bankrupt the country."
Really? It seems to work well in many other countries, including Canada and Great Britain.
"States can do a better job," he pronounced.
If that's true, how come they haven't already done so?
Even as the Republican Party campaigned against the ACA for seven years, now that the party controls all three branches of the government, they are unable to launch a viable plan, despite having all that time to draw up a plan.
The one they have come up with -- in three variations, and counting -- is opposed by every major health care professional organization and consumer advocate group, and the government's own nonpartisan analysis group, the Congressional Budget Office, said some 30 million Americans will lose what little health insurance they now have through the existing program.
One wonders what the GOP's real agenda is.
POTUS warns that the Affordable Care Act is doomed to fail. That can indeed happen if:
1/ By executive order he stops federal reimbursement subsidies to insurers who help Americans buy insurance policies.
2/ He refuses to enforce the ACA mandate that everyone take out a policy, even with government assistance.
3/ He bans advertising that encourages enrollment, thus slowing the process.
These three steps alone will increase the likelihood that fewer people sign up; that fewer young and healthy people will buy policies, in the belief that since they're not sick they don't need health insurance; and as fewer people enroll, premiums will rise.
The president said he wants to repeal the individual mandate, as well as an employer mandate, which would ensure that everyone have health insurance, thereby spreading the risk to include everyone. This is a basic in the insurance industry, the bigger the risk pool, the lower the cost to an individual.
Thus it happens that premiums will soar and the program will collapse -- a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Nonetheless, the president insists "premiums will go down 60 percent." But "nobody talks about that," he adds. That's because it's not true.
Moreover, without some government control over their ability to boost premiums, the ACA will indeed collapse. The only way it can survive is with government support -- without it, the program will die, as will many Americans who no longer have health care because of sabotage from the White House.
The president claimed again that a single payer system "will bankrupt the country."
Really? It seems to work well in many other countries, including Canada and Great Britain.
"States can do a better job," he pronounced.
If that's true, how come they haven't already done so?
Even as the Republican Party campaigned against the ACA for seven years, now that the party controls all three branches of the government, they are unable to launch a viable plan, despite having all that time to draw up a plan.
The one they have come up with -- in three variations, and counting -- is opposed by every major health care professional organization and consumer advocate group, and the government's own nonpartisan analysis group, the Congressional Budget Office, said some 30 million Americans will lose what little health insurance they now have through the existing program.
One wonders what the GOP's real agenda is.
Tuesday, July 18, 2017
Diss Loyal
Put the blame on Dem, boys
Put the blame on Dems.
POTUS is blaming Democrats for the failure of the latest version of Trumpcare in the Senate, calling the four Republican senators who oppose the bill as "disloyal." Discounting the bloc of Democratic senators who were on record as opposing the attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act, "the vote was 48 to 4, which is pretty impressive," the president said.
Therefore, he charged, that meant all the Democratic and Independent senators who opposed the plan to dismantle the program that provided health care insurance to millions of American, were "obstructionist."
Reality check: There are 52 Republicans in the U.S. Senate, 46 Democrats and two Independents. Failure to approve moving the bill to the full Senate for discussion and debate, much less for full approval, means Republicans defeated the bill, not Democrats, all of whom were opposed to dismantling the ACA, also known as Obamacare, from the outset.
Certainly the program needs improvements, but cancelling it entirely or making it worse while rewarding high income people who have no need of health care assistance, is on beyond the border of irresponsibility.
Put the blame on Dems.
POTUS is blaming Democrats for the failure of the latest version of Trumpcare in the Senate, calling the four Republican senators who oppose the bill as "disloyal." Discounting the bloc of Democratic senators who were on record as opposing the attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act, "the vote was 48 to 4, which is pretty impressive," the president said.
Therefore, he charged, that meant all the Democratic and Independent senators who opposed the plan to dismantle the program that provided health care insurance to millions of American, were "obstructionist."
Reality check: There are 52 Republicans in the U.S. Senate, 46 Democrats and two Independents. Failure to approve moving the bill to the full Senate for discussion and debate, much less for full approval, means Republicans defeated the bill, not Democrats, all of whom were opposed to dismantling the ACA, also known as Obamacare, from the outset.
Certainly the program needs improvements, but cancelling it entirely or making it worse while rewarding high income people who have no need of health care assistance, is on beyond the border of irresponsibility.
Beware of Absolutes
Touting something as "the most ever" when comparative totals are easily found is an automatic challenge to any reporter worth his or her pencil. Whenever a politician claims an absolute of any kind, especial something that can be counted such as pieces of legislation, the first question is, "How many is that, and how many did others do?"
When POTUS praised his record of accomplishments during his first six months in office as having passed "the most legislation of any president, ever," fact-checkers immediately went to work.
It turns out that not only did he sign fewer pieces of legislation -- 42 in total -- than other recent presidents, but most were routine or had little significance, and some had been in the Congressional work bin since before he took office. None dealt with major issues such as health care or tax reform.
For example, Jimmy Carter signed 79 pieces of legislation in his first six months, and Bill Clinton signed 50. Of the 42 bills signed by Donald Trump, 15 reversed government regulations set by Barack Obama, 14 were ceremonial and routine, five dealt with minor changes in the bureaucracy, four dealt with space and science issues and four covered veterans' affairs, according to a list gathered by the New York Times.
This is not the first time Trump has used superlatives to describe his own actions and behaviors easily refuted and disproven by independent observers.
He claimed an "overwhelming" victory in the presidential election, with 74 electoral votes more than his opponent. Last December, he called that "one of the largest electoral vote margins in history." A quick look in an old copy of the World Almanac and Book of Facts showed that Ronald Reagan defeated Walter Mondale by a margin of 512 electoral votes.
Other winners with larger margins were George H.W. Bush over Michael Dukakis, by 315 votes; Bill Clinton over Bush by 212 electoral votes; Clinton over Bob Dole by 220 votes; Barack Obama over John McCain by 192 electoral votes; and Obama over Mitt Romney by 126 electoral votes.
The biggest ever margin was in 1936, when Franklin Roosevelt garnered 523 electoral votes and his opponent Alf Landon collected just eight.
Trump has a habit of using absolutes to describe what he says and does, typically terms like biggest, most, largest, and to denigrate those who disagree with him by using terms equivalent to small and loser.
He claimed the crowd on the National Mall during his inauguration was enormous, the most ever, despite photographic evidence otherwise. And he alleged that he would have won the popular vote for the presidency if not for some 3 million to 5 million votes cast fraudulently by illegal immigrants. Numerous studies over the years have shown that voter fraud is virtually nonexistent.
Nevertheless, he persists in promoting himself and his accomplishments as "the greatest," despite overwhelming evidence otherwise. Perhaps in the hope that if he says something loud enough, long enough, to enough people, some will believe him.
However, it's up to equally persistent journalists and independent fact-checkers to continue to ask three of the more important of the basic Five W questions basic to reporters: How many is that, and what is the evidence, as well as why is that important and why should we believe you?
Simply on your say-so is not enough.
When POTUS praised his record of accomplishments during his first six months in office as having passed "the most legislation of any president, ever," fact-checkers immediately went to work.
It turns out that not only did he sign fewer pieces of legislation -- 42 in total -- than other recent presidents, but most were routine or had little significance, and some had been in the Congressional work bin since before he took office. None dealt with major issues such as health care or tax reform.
For example, Jimmy Carter signed 79 pieces of legislation in his first six months, and Bill Clinton signed 50. Of the 42 bills signed by Donald Trump, 15 reversed government regulations set by Barack Obama, 14 were ceremonial and routine, five dealt with minor changes in the bureaucracy, four dealt with space and science issues and four covered veterans' affairs, according to a list gathered by the New York Times.
This is not the first time Trump has used superlatives to describe his own actions and behaviors easily refuted and disproven by independent observers.
He claimed an "overwhelming" victory in the presidential election, with 74 electoral votes more than his opponent. Last December, he called that "one of the largest electoral vote margins in history." A quick look in an old copy of the World Almanac and Book of Facts showed that Ronald Reagan defeated Walter Mondale by a margin of 512 electoral votes.
Other winners with larger margins were George H.W. Bush over Michael Dukakis, by 315 votes; Bill Clinton over Bush by 212 electoral votes; Clinton over Bob Dole by 220 votes; Barack Obama over John McCain by 192 electoral votes; and Obama over Mitt Romney by 126 electoral votes.
The biggest ever margin was in 1936, when Franklin Roosevelt garnered 523 electoral votes and his opponent Alf Landon collected just eight.
Trump has a habit of using absolutes to describe what he says and does, typically terms like biggest, most, largest, and to denigrate those who disagree with him by using terms equivalent to small and loser.
He claimed the crowd on the National Mall during his inauguration was enormous, the most ever, despite photographic evidence otherwise. And he alleged that he would have won the popular vote for the presidency if not for some 3 million to 5 million votes cast fraudulently by illegal immigrants. Numerous studies over the years have shown that voter fraud is virtually nonexistent.
Nevertheless, he persists in promoting himself and his accomplishments as "the greatest," despite overwhelming evidence otherwise. Perhaps in the hope that if he says something loud enough, long enough, to enough people, some will believe him.
However, it's up to equally persistent journalists and independent fact-checkers to continue to ask three of the more important of the basic Five W questions basic to reporters: How many is that, and what is the evidence, as well as why is that important and why should we believe you?
Simply on your say-so is not enough.
Monday, July 17, 2017
Leadership and Lucidity
People hear what they're listening for.
"It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." -- Shakespeare, "Macbeth."
The language of politics, like the language of diplomacy, is often uttered with the goal of sounding important and significant. When read carefully, however, a speech often amounts to much sound and fury but little value.
Nevertheless, politicians and diplomats persist in their self-important tales, letting others attach strong meanings to the verbosities as long as the echoes resound well and help build their reputations as lucid leaders.
When the echoes clash, however, and are out of tune with fact or reality, the concertmeister can claim he was misquoted, or misunderstood, that the "fake media" distorted his words and that what he really meant was ...
In short, people hear what they're listening for, and this explains much of the continuing support for die-hard supporters of the current president no matter how much and how often his comments and claims are exposed as untrue or based on faulty assumptions or simple ignorance of history and reality.
In a speech in Paris recently, the president praised France as "America's first and oldest ally. A lot of people don't know that."
Actually, a lot of people do know that, going back to their days in high school history class where they learned of the Marquis de Lafayette and his role as advisor to Gen. George Washington during the War for Independence, as well as French support for the movement.
But perhaps the president was assuming that since he did not know this, many other people were also ignorant of this bit of history.
Or as our resident cynic has said, if you sound like you know what you're talking about, people will assume you do.
Good leadership requires not only confidence in your abilities, but a firm knowledge and understanding of issues and circumstances that affect the group you hope to lead, as well an ability to explain clearly the goals and methods you plan to employ in getting there.
Otherwise, you are simply Blowing Smoke at those you hope to lead. This may work for a time, and many hard-core supporters may refuse to accept anything that contradicts what their Beloved Leader says, no matter any contrary evidence, including past remarks and comments directly opposite to what was most recently said.
Or, as Chester A. Riley, lead character in the "Life of Riley" radio series, was wont to say, "My head's made up. You can't confuse me with the facts."
It is the duty of a free press to provide the public with accurate information about what an elected leader says and does, and whether that conflicts with history and reality.
But when a political leader cannot or will not provide clear and lucid explanations of his plans and policies, it is the responsibility of independent journalists to fill that gap between claims and truth.
Leadership and lucidity often go together, and typically one reinforces the other. But without lucidity, leadership suffers. And when citizens finally realize their leader is not at all lucid -- to put it bluntly, he doesn't know what he's talking about -- the leader himself becomes history.
"It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." -- Shakespeare, "Macbeth."
The language of politics, like the language of diplomacy, is often uttered with the goal of sounding important and significant. When read carefully, however, a speech often amounts to much sound and fury but little value.
Nevertheless, politicians and diplomats persist in their self-important tales, letting others attach strong meanings to the verbosities as long as the echoes resound well and help build their reputations as lucid leaders.
When the echoes clash, however, and are out of tune with fact or reality, the concertmeister can claim he was misquoted, or misunderstood, that the "fake media" distorted his words and that what he really meant was ...
In short, people hear what they're listening for, and this explains much of the continuing support for die-hard supporters of the current president no matter how much and how often his comments and claims are exposed as untrue or based on faulty assumptions or simple ignorance of history and reality.
In a speech in Paris recently, the president praised France as "America's first and oldest ally. A lot of people don't know that."
Actually, a lot of people do know that, going back to their days in high school history class where they learned of the Marquis de Lafayette and his role as advisor to Gen. George Washington during the War for Independence, as well as French support for the movement.
But perhaps the president was assuming that since he did not know this, many other people were also ignorant of this bit of history.
Or as our resident cynic has said, if you sound like you know what you're talking about, people will assume you do.
Good leadership requires not only confidence in your abilities, but a firm knowledge and understanding of issues and circumstances that affect the group you hope to lead, as well an ability to explain clearly the goals and methods you plan to employ in getting there.
Otherwise, you are simply Blowing Smoke at those you hope to lead. This may work for a time, and many hard-core supporters may refuse to accept anything that contradicts what their Beloved Leader says, no matter any contrary evidence, including past remarks and comments directly opposite to what was most recently said.
Or, as Chester A. Riley, lead character in the "Life of Riley" radio series, was wont to say, "My head's made up. You can't confuse me with the facts."
It is the duty of a free press to provide the public with accurate information about what an elected leader says and does, and whether that conflicts with history and reality.
But when a political leader cannot or will not provide clear and lucid explanations of his plans and policies, it is the responsibility of independent journalists to fill that gap between claims and truth.
Leadership and lucidity often go together, and typically one reinforces the other. But without lucidity, leadership suffers. And when citizens finally realize their leader is not at all lucid -- to put it bluntly, he doesn't know what he's talking about -- the leader himself becomes history.
Sunday, July 16, 2017
Semantics
"My words mean just what I choose them to mean, neither more nor less." -- Humpty Dumpty
Lawyers are fond of arguing that a word doesn't mean what you may think it means, but instead means something else entirely, and that means the client is not guilty.
Huh?
According to Trumpty lawyers holding forth on TV talk shows, collusion, cooperation, and coordination have no relationship to each other, and therefore any attempt to use them to describe the campaign team's meetings with Russians for the exchange of information damaging to the opposition candidate either didn't happen, or if they did, nothing was discussed, and even if it turns out that there were meetings and discussions, "anybody would have done the same," so there was nothing illegal about it, and when it's pointed out that such meetings with foreigners and especially agents of foreign powers are in fact illegal, the lawyers insist it wasn't collusion but merely an offer of cooperation or coordination, and that's not illegal.
Huh? Are we clear so far? No? Confused? Then the lawyers have succeeded in blurring the issues, so you should therefore believe them no matter what your common sense and knowledge of words tells you.
Let's start with some definitions, and the prefix co- found on all three words at issue: Collusion, cooperation and coordination.
The prefix co- means "together." To cooperate, then, means to operate together. To coordinate means to arrange things together. And collusion, according to any standard dictionary, means to dream or play together, to cooperate to arrange certain goals. One difference is that the word "collusion" carries a negative implication of fraud, or as my copy of Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary puts it, "a secret agreement and cooperation for fraudulent or deceitful purposes; fraud, deceit." The origin of the word is from the Latin col- plus -ludere, meaning to play together.
Otherwise, all three mean that two sides of an issue are working together toward a mutual goal. In the current political sense, Russian and Trump delegates were cooperating in secret to coordinate efforts to make the opposition candidate, Hillary Clinton, look bad and thus help their favored candidate, Donald Trump, win through to the presidency.
Whether these efforts actually were a successful, determining factor in the outcome of the election is a separate issue. The fact remains that they met together (cooperate, coordinate, collude) with the same goal in mind.
Such a meeting, by its own existence, is unethical, immoral and illegal, according to American law and custom.
The story is getting big play in news media, as it should, because the people have a right to know what the Trumpians were and are up to. If it's something good, that will be reported. If not, that also will be reported.
The big difference between the terms is that collusion implies something nefarious. And once other lawyers gather sufficient evidence to prove the case, the perpetrators will go to jail, they will go directly to jail, they will not pass Go, they will not collect $100 from the Monopoly bank in an Atlantic City casino, and they will forfeit their place in line as the political game continues.
Lawyers are fond of arguing that a word doesn't mean what you may think it means, but instead means something else entirely, and that means the client is not guilty.
Huh?
According to Trumpty lawyers holding forth on TV talk shows, collusion, cooperation, and coordination have no relationship to each other, and therefore any attempt to use them to describe the campaign team's meetings with Russians for the exchange of information damaging to the opposition candidate either didn't happen, or if they did, nothing was discussed, and even if it turns out that there were meetings and discussions, "anybody would have done the same," so there was nothing illegal about it, and when it's pointed out that such meetings with foreigners and especially agents of foreign powers are in fact illegal, the lawyers insist it wasn't collusion but merely an offer of cooperation or coordination, and that's not illegal.
Huh? Are we clear so far? No? Confused? Then the lawyers have succeeded in blurring the issues, so you should therefore believe them no matter what your common sense and knowledge of words tells you.
Let's start with some definitions, and the prefix co- found on all three words at issue: Collusion, cooperation and coordination.
The prefix co- means "together." To cooperate, then, means to operate together. To coordinate means to arrange things together. And collusion, according to any standard dictionary, means to dream or play together, to cooperate to arrange certain goals. One difference is that the word "collusion" carries a negative implication of fraud, or as my copy of Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary puts it, "a secret agreement and cooperation for fraudulent or deceitful purposes; fraud, deceit." The origin of the word is from the Latin col- plus -ludere, meaning to play together.
Otherwise, all three mean that two sides of an issue are working together toward a mutual goal. In the current political sense, Russian and Trump delegates were cooperating in secret to coordinate efforts to make the opposition candidate, Hillary Clinton, look bad and thus help their favored candidate, Donald Trump, win through to the presidency.
Whether these efforts actually were a successful, determining factor in the outcome of the election is a separate issue. The fact remains that they met together (cooperate, coordinate, collude) with the same goal in mind.
Such a meeting, by its own existence, is unethical, immoral and illegal, according to American law and custom.
The story is getting big play in news media, as it should, because the people have a right to know what the Trumpians were and are up to. If it's something good, that will be reported. If not, that also will be reported.
The big difference between the terms is that collusion implies something nefarious. And once other lawyers gather sufficient evidence to prove the case, the perpetrators will go to jail, they will go directly to jail, they will not pass Go, they will not collect $100 from the Monopoly bank in an Atlantic City casino, and they will forfeit their place in line as the political game continues.
Saturday, July 15, 2017
Family Business or Monarchy
"This isn't personal. It's strictly business." -- Michael Corleone
America First does not mean Family First.
Unlike many monarchies, America is not a family business. Historians will be hard pressed to find another presidency with as many close family members so directly involved in the business of government as the U.S. sees this year.
But given the tangle of connections -- business and political -- being revealed about the current president's family, one wonders how they perceive their role in U.S. government.
If monarchy means rule by one, patriarchy means rule by a father, oligarchy means rule by a few, and plutocracy means rule by the rich, it seems that all of these terms may soon apply to America.
More relevant, it may well be that the so-called "First Family" now inhabiting the White House believes these terms already apply.
This family has built its business empire through close involvement of each member of the family in key positions in every operation. Now that same tactic is being used to place family members in key government positions, even as they retain their close connections to the family businesses.
Perhaps the most telling example of this attitude is when the daughter of the president took his seat at a meeting of 20 leaders of major national governments.
Traditionally, most presidents of the United States have not involved family members in the business of government.
There have been several exceptions, of course. When Woodrow Wilson suffered a serious illness, his wife fronted for him and was effectively chief of state until the president recovered. Eleanor Roosevelt toured the country gathering information on behalf of her husband Franklin, who was disabled by polio. And Hillary Clinton was a consistent adviser to husband Bill throughout his long political career.
All three of these examples, however, involved highly intelligent, experienced and competent spouses who had long been involved in politics and government. Moreover, they were the only family members advising the president. Brothers, children, cousins or in-laws were not.
Unfortunately, the new guy in the Oval Office puts personal and family loyalty above any other qualification for public office. Mixing family business with public policy is at best highly questionable and unethical, and at worst illegal and perhaps an impeachable offence.
Meanwhile, the evidence is piling up as investigators in Congress, the FBI and in the free press find and expose the complex entanglements of this family with businesses and governments, both foreign and domestic, many of which border on or even overstep the boundaries of ethical and legal behavior.
America First does not mean Family First.
Unlike many monarchies, America is not a family business. Historians will be hard pressed to find another presidency with as many close family members so directly involved in the business of government as the U.S. sees this year.
But given the tangle of connections -- business and political -- being revealed about the current president's family, one wonders how they perceive their role in U.S. government.
If monarchy means rule by one, patriarchy means rule by a father, oligarchy means rule by a few, and plutocracy means rule by the rich, it seems that all of these terms may soon apply to America.
More relevant, it may well be that the so-called "First Family" now inhabiting the White House believes these terms already apply.
This family has built its business empire through close involvement of each member of the family in key positions in every operation. Now that same tactic is being used to place family members in key government positions, even as they retain their close connections to the family businesses.
Perhaps the most telling example of this attitude is when the daughter of the president took his seat at a meeting of 20 leaders of major national governments.
Traditionally, most presidents of the United States have not involved family members in the business of government.
There have been several exceptions, of course. When Woodrow Wilson suffered a serious illness, his wife fronted for him and was effectively chief of state until the president recovered. Eleanor Roosevelt toured the country gathering information on behalf of her husband Franklin, who was disabled by polio. And Hillary Clinton was a consistent adviser to husband Bill throughout his long political career.
All three of these examples, however, involved highly intelligent, experienced and competent spouses who had long been involved in politics and government. Moreover, they were the only family members advising the president. Brothers, children, cousins or in-laws were not.
Unfortunately, the new guy in the Oval Office puts personal and family loyalty above any other qualification for public office. Mixing family business with public policy is at best highly questionable and unethical, and at worst illegal and perhaps an impeachable offence.
Meanwhile, the evidence is piling up as investigators in Congress, the FBI and in the free press find and expose the complex entanglements of this family with businesses and governments, both foreign and domestic, many of which border on or even overstep the boundaries of ethical and legal behavior.
Wednesday, July 12, 2017
Look Out, World
While political leaders vow to lead their nations to international leadership, economists keep pointing to the benefits of trade as the best way to bring prosperity to all citizens.
"The economic well being of billions of people depends on trade," according to a joint statement by the leaders of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Too many existing trade barriers, they reminded political leaders gathered for the G20 meeting in Germany, as well as other policies that "favor chosen industries," coupled with new barriers, cause a chain reaction as other nations retaliate with similar measures, thus lowering overall growth, reducing output and harming workers.
So what else is new? The importance of international trade to benefit people on every side was first outlined by Adam Smith in 1776. Since then, retaliatory tariffs, protective import laws and other strictures have inevitably led to higher prices, lower wages, unemployment and widespread economic recession, most notably in the 1930s.
Now the world is up against it again, as politicians -- often coming from business leadership -- tout a policy of "us first," and try to lock out others.
Such gamesmanship may work in sports, where the goal is to block advancement by the other team and to bring victory to the home team. In business, however, and in the larger context of international trade, there can quickly come a time when you have all the money and the other guy has nothing.
Win, win, win, is the chant. That may work well briefly, but eventually, after you have won everything, the other guys have nothing, and won't deal with you again even if they wanted to.
At least one prominent real estate developer used a similar strategy when dealing with banks and contractors. He disputed many signed contracts, and yes, he won, and became very wealthy, but many banks and contractors refused to do business with him again rather than constantly fight to collect already agreed-upon payments. So what did he do? He went into politics, where he's trying to follow the same strategy for the country.
That business model led to multiple bankruptcies -- after, of course, the developer took out his cut -- and when taken to a political level is likely to lead to bankruptcy of an entire government and the nation.
Meanwhile, the spirit of economic cooperation means that "the global economic recovery is on track, broad based, and expected to continue into next year," according to Christine Lagarde, managing director of the IMF. In a statement, she warned global leaders about complacency and risks that could bring "low productivity and rising inequality."
Meanwhile, the U.S. economy continues to recover. The Federal Reserve Board noted that the pace of growth in recent months has been "slight to moderate." However, the Fed remains cautious about its plan to boost interest rates as a way to forestall runaway growth, which is expected to remain at about 2 percent yearly through 2018.
Separately, the Commerce Department said there has been a steady increase in the amount of money foreign investors are spending to acquire interests in American businesses. Expenditures to acquire, establish or expand U.S. businesses totaled $373.4 billion in 2016. above the annual average of $350 billion for the previous two years.
So what does all this mean to the average citizen? When a worker does a job for a fair wage, the worker is likely to do a better job. When a company sells a product or service at a fair price, both the buyer and seller benefit, there will be further sales. Whether between individuals, between companies, or among nations, fair trade and reasonable treatment means all sides benefit.
Cheating customers and bleeding competitors only brings resentment and anger, and losses on every side. Competition and cooperation are not always mutually exclusive. Without a balance of the two, the result can be hardship, bankruptcy, unemployment, and at worst, global economic depression.
"The economic well being of billions of people depends on trade," according to a joint statement by the leaders of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Too many existing trade barriers, they reminded political leaders gathered for the G20 meeting in Germany, as well as other policies that "favor chosen industries," coupled with new barriers, cause a chain reaction as other nations retaliate with similar measures, thus lowering overall growth, reducing output and harming workers.
So what else is new? The importance of international trade to benefit people on every side was first outlined by Adam Smith in 1776. Since then, retaliatory tariffs, protective import laws and other strictures have inevitably led to higher prices, lower wages, unemployment and widespread economic recession, most notably in the 1930s.
Now the world is up against it again, as politicians -- often coming from business leadership -- tout a policy of "us first," and try to lock out others.
Such gamesmanship may work in sports, where the goal is to block advancement by the other team and to bring victory to the home team. In business, however, and in the larger context of international trade, there can quickly come a time when you have all the money and the other guy has nothing.
Win, win, win, is the chant. That may work well briefly, but eventually, after you have won everything, the other guys have nothing, and won't deal with you again even if they wanted to.
At least one prominent real estate developer used a similar strategy when dealing with banks and contractors. He disputed many signed contracts, and yes, he won, and became very wealthy, but many banks and contractors refused to do business with him again rather than constantly fight to collect already agreed-upon payments. So what did he do? He went into politics, where he's trying to follow the same strategy for the country.
That business model led to multiple bankruptcies -- after, of course, the developer took out his cut -- and when taken to a political level is likely to lead to bankruptcy of an entire government and the nation.
Meanwhile, the spirit of economic cooperation means that "the global economic recovery is on track, broad based, and expected to continue into next year," according to Christine Lagarde, managing director of the IMF. In a statement, she warned global leaders about complacency and risks that could bring "low productivity and rising inequality."
Meanwhile, the U.S. economy continues to recover. The Federal Reserve Board noted that the pace of growth in recent months has been "slight to moderate." However, the Fed remains cautious about its plan to boost interest rates as a way to forestall runaway growth, which is expected to remain at about 2 percent yearly through 2018.
Separately, the Commerce Department said there has been a steady increase in the amount of money foreign investors are spending to acquire interests in American businesses. Expenditures to acquire, establish or expand U.S. businesses totaled $373.4 billion in 2016. above the annual average of $350 billion for the previous two years.
So what does all this mean to the average citizen? When a worker does a job for a fair wage, the worker is likely to do a better job. When a company sells a product or service at a fair price, both the buyer and seller benefit, there will be further sales. Whether between individuals, between companies, or among nations, fair trade and reasonable treatment means all sides benefit.
Cheating customers and bleeding competitors only brings resentment and anger, and losses on every side. Competition and cooperation are not always mutually exclusive. Without a balance of the two, the result can be hardship, bankruptcy, unemployment, and at worst, global economic depression.
Tuesday, July 11, 2017
GOP Now Means "Greed Over Poverty"
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates national GDP economic growth of about 2 percent for the coming year, then 1.9 percent for the rest of the decade. Annual deficits will rise, however, driving up the total federal debt. Unless things change, "the federal budget deficits and debt will steadily increase over the next 30 years, reaching the highest level of debt relative to GDP ever experienced in this country," the CBO report said.
Meanwhile, the administration continues its war on spending, ordering budget cutbacks on federal agency spending. For example, the budget for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will be cut by $2 million for fiscal year 2020, and will accelerate every year thereafter until the total drop will be $60 million over ten years.
Question: With federal deficits increasing in the face of spending cuts, inflation rising and agency budgets falling, what will happen to critical agencies like the FDA, which is responsible for monitoring and approving critical, life-saving drugs and medications?
That's just one agency. The pattern is repeated on almost every federal group, with the exception of the military.
How can budget deficits and total government debt rise even as spending falls? One possible answer is inflation versus income, where prices rise as revenue falls. The likely result is bankruptcy.
So why is revenue falling, you ask? Tax cuts for the super-wealthy, that's why.
Perhaps the letters GOP no longer stand for "Grand Old Party," as denizens of the Republican base once called it, but now the letters stand for "Greed Over Poverty."
As this pattern continues, with rising prices and stagnant wages, coupled with soaring isolationism and discrimination against certain "other" groups, as well as corporate greed feeding on the delusion that military supremacy is more important than cooperation and mutually beneficial international trade, the danger becomes clear.
Violence.
Meanwhile, the administration continues its war on spending, ordering budget cutbacks on federal agency spending. For example, the budget for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will be cut by $2 million for fiscal year 2020, and will accelerate every year thereafter until the total drop will be $60 million over ten years.
Question: With federal deficits increasing in the face of spending cuts, inflation rising and agency budgets falling, what will happen to critical agencies like the FDA, which is responsible for monitoring and approving critical, life-saving drugs and medications?
That's just one agency. The pattern is repeated on almost every federal group, with the exception of the military.
How can budget deficits and total government debt rise even as spending falls? One possible answer is inflation versus income, where prices rise as revenue falls. The likely result is bankruptcy.
So why is revenue falling, you ask? Tax cuts for the super-wealthy, that's why.
Perhaps the letters GOP no longer stand for "Grand Old Party," as denizens of the Republican base once called it, but now the letters stand for "Greed Over Poverty."
As this pattern continues, with rising prices and stagnant wages, coupled with soaring isolationism and discrimination against certain "other" groups, as well as corporate greed feeding on the delusion that military supremacy is more important than cooperation and mutually beneficial international trade, the danger becomes clear.
Violence.
Monday, July 10, 2017
Middle Finger Diplomacy
"I inherited a mess." -- President Donald Trump
You asked for the job. You got the job. Now do the job. The safety of the world may depend on it.
Don't fix blame. Fix the problem.
Taking an attitude that says, "Do things my way, or else" often brings this response: "Or else what? You gonna beat me up?" Among juveniles, such threats sometimes work. Then again, sometimes they don't, and the result is violence.
But in international political affairs, the art of this kind of deal can easily prompt middle finger diplomacy, since leaders of other, independent nations serve the needs and wishes of their own constituents, not those of an arrogant, incompetent leader of another country who is so naive as to think his high-pressure sales pitches work on other nations as well as on subcontractors for building projects.
That, however, is one partial definition of the term "naive." The word is borrowed from the French, and describes a person who does not know or is unaware. As with many terms that the English language borrows from French, it takes some of the sting off the description.
An equivalent term rooted in Anglo-Saxon would be "ignorant." Alternatively, an even stronger term would be "stupid."
So someone familiar with French terms might well refer to an innocent, uneducated, unsophisticated person unfamiliar with some of the more delicate connotations of words and deeds as a naïf, or a naive person. Another might well choose more blunt, plain English terms, especially when dealing with someone in high elective office who claims to an expert and knowledgeable in all things but repeatedly proves himself otherwise.
In any case, the U.S. now has a president who has claimed that he "knows more about ISIS than the generals." Or who has said, "Who knew health care could be so complicated?" Or who spends much of his off-time broadcasting 140-character insults at those who disagree with him. Or, perhaps most important, when he doesn't get his way immediately on anything, blames others, especially his predecessor in the Oval Office.
Yes, Mr. President, perhaps you did inherit a mess, as you put it. But a harsh reality is that every newcomer to the Oval Office faces a harsh learning experience, and things often are a mess.
Nevertheless, you asked for the job, and now you have it. It is what it is, as a favorite New York saying puts it. So rather than spend your time fixing blame, how about you fix the problem?
And as you whiz around the world demanding that leaders of other, independent nations do as you say, don't be surprised when the response you get is best described as middle finger diplomacy.
You asked for the job. You got the job. Now do the job. The safety of the world may depend on it.
Don't fix blame. Fix the problem.
Taking an attitude that says, "Do things my way, or else" often brings this response: "Or else what? You gonna beat me up?" Among juveniles, such threats sometimes work. Then again, sometimes they don't, and the result is violence.
But in international political affairs, the art of this kind of deal can easily prompt middle finger diplomacy, since leaders of other, independent nations serve the needs and wishes of their own constituents, not those of an arrogant, incompetent leader of another country who is so naive as to think his high-pressure sales pitches work on other nations as well as on subcontractors for building projects.
That, however, is one partial definition of the term "naive." The word is borrowed from the French, and describes a person who does not know or is unaware. As with many terms that the English language borrows from French, it takes some of the sting off the description.
An equivalent term rooted in Anglo-Saxon would be "ignorant." Alternatively, an even stronger term would be "stupid."
So someone familiar with French terms might well refer to an innocent, uneducated, unsophisticated person unfamiliar with some of the more delicate connotations of words and deeds as a naïf, or a naive person. Another might well choose more blunt, plain English terms, especially when dealing with someone in high elective office who claims to an expert and knowledgeable in all things but repeatedly proves himself otherwise.
In any case, the U.S. now has a president who has claimed that he "knows more about ISIS than the generals." Or who has said, "Who knew health care could be so complicated?" Or who spends much of his off-time broadcasting 140-character insults at those who disagree with him. Or, perhaps most important, when he doesn't get his way immediately on anything, blames others, especially his predecessor in the Oval Office.
Yes, Mr. President, perhaps you did inherit a mess, as you put it. But a harsh reality is that every newcomer to the Oval Office faces a harsh learning experience, and things often are a mess.
Nevertheless, you asked for the job, and now you have it. It is what it is, as a favorite New York saying puts it. So rather than spend your time fixing blame, how about you fix the problem?
And as you whiz around the world demanding that leaders of other, independent nations do as you say, don't be surprised when the response you get is best described as middle finger diplomacy.
Sunday, July 9, 2017
The Politics of Malice
"With malice toward none, with charity for all." -- Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address, 1865.
When did we lose sight of that line?
Now we are engaged in a great war of incivility, to paraphrase Lincoln, testing whether this nation, founded on principles of equality and liberty, will endure.
Today we are engulfed by a great flood of malice toward many and tax charity for the wealthy few.
The malice is directed at those who look different, or who speak differently, or who follow a different spiritual path, or all of the above.
Many who practice such malice forget that at one time their forebears were themselves victims of similar malice, who came to this country to escape such treatment only to face it again, even though such bigotry and discrimination was banned by the American tradition and its founding documents.
Was Lincoln a dreamer, and unrealistic? Perhaps. But America has long been a haven for dreamers knocking at the Golden Door of opportunity. In January 1941, Franklin Roosevelt listed Four Freedoms essential to the American way -- Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship, Freedom from Want and Freedom from Fear. Today, however, these Four Freedoms are under siege.
Current political leaders, including the president, try to prevent disagreement and insist that no one question their policies. These same officials ignore those who need food, clothing and shelter, claiming those who want and need help somehow don't deserve it.
The result of all this is that many in need live in fear they will be punished simply because of their religious beliefs, because they speak out in protest, or because they suffer hunger and illness.
Thus, the American goal of charity for all has been replaced by a practice of malice for all who are somehow "different."
However, on the inside, none are "different." We are all created equal. Yet many today deny that, and act as if some are more equal than others, that those "others" should submit to the dictates of their "betters."
They have taken to themselves the right to decide who is "better," and that others are their "lessers," who must do as they're told or face dire consequences.
But this can only happen if we the people allow it.
When did we lose sight of that line?
Now we are engaged in a great war of incivility, to paraphrase Lincoln, testing whether this nation, founded on principles of equality and liberty, will endure.
Today we are engulfed by a great flood of malice toward many and tax charity for the wealthy few.
The malice is directed at those who look different, or who speak differently, or who follow a different spiritual path, or all of the above.
Many who practice such malice forget that at one time their forebears were themselves victims of similar malice, who came to this country to escape such treatment only to face it again, even though such bigotry and discrimination was banned by the American tradition and its founding documents.
Was Lincoln a dreamer, and unrealistic? Perhaps. But America has long been a haven for dreamers knocking at the Golden Door of opportunity. In January 1941, Franklin Roosevelt listed Four Freedoms essential to the American way -- Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship, Freedom from Want and Freedom from Fear. Today, however, these Four Freedoms are under siege.
Current political leaders, including the president, try to prevent disagreement and insist that no one question their policies. These same officials ignore those who need food, clothing and shelter, claiming those who want and need help somehow don't deserve it.
The result of all this is that many in need live in fear they will be punished simply because of their religious beliefs, because they speak out in protest, or because they suffer hunger and illness.
Thus, the American goal of charity for all has been replaced by a practice of malice for all who are somehow "different."
However, on the inside, none are "different." We are all created equal. Yet many today deny that, and act as if some are more equal than others, that those "others" should submit to the dictates of their "betters."
They have taken to themselves the right to decide who is "better," and that others are their "lessers," who must do as they're told or face dire consequences.
But this can only happen if we the people allow it.
Friday, July 7, 2017
Existential vs Real
What's all this fascination with the word "existential," bandied about by political observers and commentators? And how does an "existential threat" differ from a "real" threat?
Is an "existential" threat more threatening or have any greater existence than a "real" threat?
Often, a four-syllable, Latin-based word is deemed to be stronger or more powerful than a one-syllable English word derived from Anglo-Saxon. The custom is likely similar to that found in the medical profession or in academia, where polysyllabic Latin- or Greek-based words are more "sophisticated" than the language spoken by us ordinarians.
Clearly, "existential" is derived from the same Latin root that gives us "existence," but a threat is a threat is a threat. Unless you want to say something is a "severe threat," or a "moderate threat" or an "ominous threat" or something else. If you do, say so, and don't try to prove your self-assigned authority by using a four-syllable word when a single syllable will do the job just as well, if not better.
Keep in mind that the word "sophist" is used to mark someone who thinks he's wise, but really isn't. And the term "sophomore" has two roots, meaning "wise," and "fool," or "moron."
Good writers go for quick understanding of their message, and the fewer syllables you use in doing that, the more efficient and readable your message will be.
Is an "existential" threat more threatening or have any greater existence than a "real" threat?
Often, a four-syllable, Latin-based word is deemed to be stronger or more powerful than a one-syllable English word derived from Anglo-Saxon. The custom is likely similar to that found in the medical profession or in academia, where polysyllabic Latin- or Greek-based words are more "sophisticated" than the language spoken by us ordinarians.
Clearly, "existential" is derived from the same Latin root that gives us "existence," but a threat is a threat is a threat. Unless you want to say something is a "severe threat," or a "moderate threat" or an "ominous threat" or something else. If you do, say so, and don't try to prove your self-assigned authority by using a four-syllable word when a single syllable will do the job just as well, if not better.
Keep in mind that the word "sophist" is used to mark someone who thinks he's wise, but really isn't. And the term "sophomore" has two roots, meaning "wise," and "fool," or "moron."
Good writers go for quick understanding of their message, and the fewer syllables you use in doing that, the more efficient and readable your message will be.
Wednesday, July 5, 2017
Stunning Ignorance
Trumpies went ballistic this week at what they perceived as a direct attack on their Fearful Leader, claiming it was a call for revolution and rebellion against their Beloved Don-Don.
It seems the NPR public broadcasting network presented a line-by-line Twitter feed of the Declaration of Independence as their stations broadcast a reading of the document, as it has every July 4 for nearly thirty years.
Those who saw only the Twitter feed immediately interpreted the presentation as an attack on the current occupant of the Oval Office. The responses included this accusation: "Where is the part about the right to keep and bear arms? Why did NPR delete the part about guns?"
That, of course, is the Second Amendment to the Constitution, written more than a dozen years after the Declaration of Independence in 1776.
The Declaration does, indeed, compile a long list of abuses perpetrated at the time by King George III. But many modern Twitter followers saw only "propaganda" by NPR against the current president.
"This is why you're going to get defunded," said one twit to NPR. Another called the NPR feed "spam," and said he would stop following NPR postings.
And according to a Washington Post analysis, "the blowback increased when the tweets reached the portion of the Declaration that outlined, in unsparing detail, all the ways Britain's George III had wronged the then-Colonies."
These included lines that the ruler "has obstructed the administration of justice," and that "A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."
Such lines prompted many Trumpies to assume a reference to the current president.
And as for the Declaration line that "it is the Right of the People to abolish" such an abusive government "and to institute new Government," this prompted another Trumpie to accuse NPR of "calling for revolution," and that its action was out to "condone violence while trying to sound 'patriotic.'"
So how is it that so many Americans fail to recognize the words of one of the founding documents of the republic, and react so defensively to a perceived assault on their Ignoramus in Chief? It's not as if copies of the Declaration of Independence and of the Constitution are hard to find. Every year, newspapers around the country reprint the text of the Declaration on July 4, Independence Day. And this year, the television network HBO presented a documentary of prominent Americans, including all living presidents, reading the entire texts of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Could it be a fault in the American education system, that school children are not exposed to the words and sentiments that helped to found the nation? If that's true, then how to rationalize drastic cuts in federal funding for the public schools of America?
Finally, here's another question, which has been posted several times on this blog: How dumb do the politicians think we the people are? One possible answer has been, "Very."
Sadly, that answer may be correct.
It's time for Americans to prove the politicians wrong.
It seems the NPR public broadcasting network presented a line-by-line Twitter feed of the Declaration of Independence as their stations broadcast a reading of the document, as it has every July 4 for nearly thirty years.
Those who saw only the Twitter feed immediately interpreted the presentation as an attack on the current occupant of the Oval Office. The responses included this accusation: "Where is the part about the right to keep and bear arms? Why did NPR delete the part about guns?"
That, of course, is the Second Amendment to the Constitution, written more than a dozen years after the Declaration of Independence in 1776.
The Declaration does, indeed, compile a long list of abuses perpetrated at the time by King George III. But many modern Twitter followers saw only "propaganda" by NPR against the current president.
"This is why you're going to get defunded," said one twit to NPR. Another called the NPR feed "spam," and said he would stop following NPR postings.
And according to a Washington Post analysis, "the blowback increased when the tweets reached the portion of the Declaration that outlined, in unsparing detail, all the ways Britain's George III had wronged the then-Colonies."
These included lines that the ruler "has obstructed the administration of justice," and that "A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."
Such lines prompted many Trumpies to assume a reference to the current president.
And as for the Declaration line that "it is the Right of the People to abolish" such an abusive government "and to institute new Government," this prompted another Trumpie to accuse NPR of "calling for revolution," and that its action was out to "condone violence while trying to sound 'patriotic.'"
So how is it that so many Americans fail to recognize the words of one of the founding documents of the republic, and react so defensively to a perceived assault on their Ignoramus in Chief? It's not as if copies of the Declaration of Independence and of the Constitution are hard to find. Every year, newspapers around the country reprint the text of the Declaration on July 4, Independence Day. And this year, the television network HBO presented a documentary of prominent Americans, including all living presidents, reading the entire texts of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Could it be a fault in the American education system, that school children are not exposed to the words and sentiments that helped to found the nation? If that's true, then how to rationalize drastic cuts in federal funding for the public schools of America?
Finally, here's another question, which has been posted several times on this blog: How dumb do the politicians think we the people are? One possible answer has been, "Very."
Sadly, that answer may be correct.
It's time for Americans to prove the politicians wrong.
Tuesday, July 4, 2017
Pause to Reflect
Patriotism is not measured by who wears the gaudiest flag display theme nor by who makes the loudest and longest speechifying pronouncement of his or her level of loyalty.
Rather, it is shown on the 364 days other than the one marking a national day, whether that day be July 3 in Canada, July 4 in the U.S., July 14 in France or any other day celebrated by any other nation.
Many veterans refuse to wear a lapel flag pin to "prove" their patriotism, since they believe they have already done so through their military service. In fact, most combat veterans do not talk about their experiences at all, no matter how severe. They feel no need to "prove" their patriotism.They do, however, feel a need to meet occasionally with others, perhaps to share their experiences and relieve leftover trauma, but more likely simply to be with others who have "been there, done that" and who find some comfort in a social gathering with others with similar experience.
Often, it is those who have not "been there" and who have not "done that" who have the most need to prove their own worth and patriotism by wearing the biggest flag pin or the loudest tie or the gaudiest shirt of national colors.
It's good to honor the fallen and the survivors, as well as those now serving in the military. And "it is altogether fitting and proper that we do this," as President Abraham Lincoln said at Gettysburg in 1863.
"But in a larger sense," Lincoln added, "we cannot dedicate -- we cannot consecrate -- we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract."
Those who have been through the worst are often the first to shuck off the loud and flagrant praise from those who have not "been there" and who have not "done that," especially from those who try to take advantage of a patriotic occasion to advance their own political agendas and careers.
So let us all remember and honor those who have struggled -- quietly or though military combat -- to keep the nation strong and confident in citizens' campaign to maintain the freedoms Americans enjoy today.
And may the current occupant of the Oval Office take note of this day and act as though he deserves the title of president of the United States of America.
Rather, it is shown on the 364 days other than the one marking a national day, whether that day be July 3 in Canada, July 4 in the U.S., July 14 in France or any other day celebrated by any other nation.
Many veterans refuse to wear a lapel flag pin to "prove" their patriotism, since they believe they have already done so through their military service. In fact, most combat veterans do not talk about their experiences at all, no matter how severe. They feel no need to "prove" their patriotism.They do, however, feel a need to meet occasionally with others, perhaps to share their experiences and relieve leftover trauma, but more likely simply to be with others who have "been there, done that" and who find some comfort in a social gathering with others with similar experience.
Often, it is those who have not "been there" and who have not "done that" who have the most need to prove their own worth and patriotism by wearing the biggest flag pin or the loudest tie or the gaudiest shirt of national colors.
It's good to honor the fallen and the survivors, as well as those now serving in the military. And "it is altogether fitting and proper that we do this," as President Abraham Lincoln said at Gettysburg in 1863.
"But in a larger sense," Lincoln added, "we cannot dedicate -- we cannot consecrate -- we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract."
Those who have been through the worst are often the first to shuck off the loud and flagrant praise from those who have not "been there" and who have not "done that," especially from those who try to take advantage of a patriotic occasion to advance their own political agendas and careers.
So let us all remember and honor those who have struggled -- quietly or though military combat -- to keep the nation strong and confident in citizens' campaign to maintain the freedoms Americans enjoy today.
And may the current occupant of the Oval Office take note of this day and act as though he deserves the title of president of the United States of America.
Monday, July 3, 2017
War of Words
The president of the United States has declared war on the free and independent American press.
By his words and actions, he has repeatedly attempted to stifle disagreement and criticism, stooping to venal personal attacks bordering on the obscene against those who hold him accountable for his behavior and policies.
News flash to the Oval Office: You cannot fire them, and any attempt to stop journalists from doing their jobs will only bring increased focus on your own misdeeds.
On this Independence Day, let this also be Free Press Day, celebrating the First Amendment of the Constitution as American journalism reaffirms its right and its duty to keep the public informed of what government leaders are doing and saying.
The potential consequence of the continuing verbal assault and abusive behavior of the current president, in which he often suggests violence against opponents ("I'd like to punch him in the face." ... "He should be roughed up." ... "I could shoot somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes.") can easily lead to violence. In fact, it already has, as his supporters beat up on protestors and others who disagree with him at rallies.
Therefore, a case can be made for a charge of inciting to riot.
This is not appropriate behavior for an elected leader of a free society, but this leader's behavior borders on that and has actually crossed the line several times.
Few presidents in the past have enjoyed negative reports from journalists, but most have acknowledged that reporters have a job to do, and that is to provide truthful information to the public. In doing that, they strive to maintain neutrality, and to keep themselves out of the story.
This president, however, regularly makes them part of the story, with his vehement, vile vituperation against journalists who present negative views and reports on his actions and behavior.
Suppressing a free press is the first step on the road to a dictatorship, and the evidence is growing that this is the goal of the current occupant of the Oval Office.
So to prevent this, journalists have an obligation to continue their efforts. With that in mind, consider these quotes from American history:
"Be watchful in your states as well as in the federal government." -- Andrew Jackson.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -- Thomas Paine.
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- Wendell Phillips, 19th Century activist.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither." -- Benjamin Franklin.
"It is weakness rather than wickedness which renders men unfit to be trusted with unlimited power." -- John Adams.
Where does Donald Trump fit in that equation?
By his words and actions, he has repeatedly attempted to stifle disagreement and criticism, stooping to venal personal attacks bordering on the obscene against those who hold him accountable for his behavior and policies.
News flash to the Oval Office: You cannot fire them, and any attempt to stop journalists from doing their jobs will only bring increased focus on your own misdeeds.
On this Independence Day, let this also be Free Press Day, celebrating the First Amendment of the Constitution as American journalism reaffirms its right and its duty to keep the public informed of what government leaders are doing and saying.
The potential consequence of the continuing verbal assault and abusive behavior of the current president, in which he often suggests violence against opponents ("I'd like to punch him in the face." ... "He should be roughed up." ... "I could shoot somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes.") can easily lead to violence. In fact, it already has, as his supporters beat up on protestors and others who disagree with him at rallies.
Therefore, a case can be made for a charge of inciting to riot.
This is not appropriate behavior for an elected leader of a free society, but this leader's behavior borders on that and has actually crossed the line several times.
Few presidents in the past have enjoyed negative reports from journalists, but most have acknowledged that reporters have a job to do, and that is to provide truthful information to the public. In doing that, they strive to maintain neutrality, and to keep themselves out of the story.
This president, however, regularly makes them part of the story, with his vehement, vile vituperation against journalists who present negative views and reports on his actions and behavior.
Suppressing a free press is the first step on the road to a dictatorship, and the evidence is growing that this is the goal of the current occupant of the Oval Office.
So to prevent this, journalists have an obligation to continue their efforts. With that in mind, consider these quotes from American history:
"Be watchful in your states as well as in the federal government." -- Andrew Jackson.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -- Thomas Paine.
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- Wendell Phillips, 19th Century activist.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither." -- Benjamin Franklin.
"It is weakness rather than wickedness which renders men unfit to be trusted with unlimited power." -- John Adams.
Where does Donald Trump fit in that equation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)