Unemployment is down, output is up, and consumer spending is rising as people become more confident in their economic health.
Meanwhile, the administration issued a one-page outline of its proposed tax reform plan, which analysts said would give a major tax break to the top 1 percent of American households but much less, if any, to lower and middle income workers.
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, however, praised the plan as a way to "put more money in every working family's pocket, bring back cash that is trapped overseas," as well as "unshackle American businesses, which are hobbled by an oppressive tax rate that is the highest in the developed world."
Another analysis documented the results of previous corporate tax breaks and concluded that they did not, as proponents claimed, lead to more jobs. Instead, it led to increased stock prices, more profit to the company and higher salaries to senior executives.
Moreover, experts disputed the notion that profits are "trapped overseas," calling the delay in bringing back the cash an accounting gimmick that enables firms to avoid taxes even as they are able to use the money as guarantees for loans, the interest on which is deductible.
Generally, the American economy continued its recovery in the second quarter, as output rose at an annual rate of 3.0 percent, up from 1.2 percent in the first quarter, but still shy of the president's announced goal of a 4 percent growth rate.
Complicating this otherwise rosy picture is the storm disaster in Texas, where many of the nation's oil resources are located. Offshore drilling rigs have shut down, as well as refineries on the mainland. Already, gasoline prices are rising as supplies are suddenly reduced because of the storm damage and facility shutdown.
The result could quickly impact production and boost prices nationwide on a wide variety of products and services.
Separately, the Labor Department said unemployment rates were lower in July in 340 of the 388 metro areas around the U.S. The agency said 31 regions had jobless rates of less than 3 percent, only three had rates of 10 percent or more.
So while things look good for now, the proposed tax reform plan may well widen the wealth gap between the many working households and favored few in the president's crony corner.
Wednesday, August 30, 2017
Tuesday, August 29, 2017
UN Warns the U.S.
A UN committee has demanded that the U.S. "reject and condemn racist hate speech and crimes in Charlottesville and throughout the country."
The statement was issued August 23 from UN headquarters in Geneva, and called on the government "as well as high-level politicians and officials" to speak out, noting that "there should be no place in the world for racist white supremacist ideas or any similar ideologies that reject the core human rights principles of human dignity and equality."
That was a week ago, but there has been little, if any, response from Washington, nor has the UN complaint received much exposure in the American news media.
It could be, of course, that journalists were more focused on Hurricane Harvey and the president's pardon of ex-sheriff Joe Arpaio, but the UN warning could easily have been inserted in the Arpaio story, whose past record of discrimination led to a federal court order to stop (which he ignored), as well as followup stories about the violence in Charlottesville.
The UN protest was immediately picked up by news media in Europe, which pointed out that similar warnings have been issued to countries like Burundi, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan and Nigeria.
The principles of equality and human rights are specified and guaranteed in the founding documents of America, and the U.S. ratified the UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1994.
The statement was issued August 23 from UN headquarters in Geneva, and called on the government "as well as high-level politicians and officials" to speak out, noting that "there should be no place in the world for racist white supremacist ideas or any similar ideologies that reject the core human rights principles of human dignity and equality."
That was a week ago, but there has been little, if any, response from Washington, nor has the UN complaint received much exposure in the American news media.
It could be, of course, that journalists were more focused on Hurricane Harvey and the president's pardon of ex-sheriff Joe Arpaio, but the UN warning could easily have been inserted in the Arpaio story, whose past record of discrimination led to a federal court order to stop (which he ignored), as well as followup stories about the violence in Charlottesville.
The UN protest was immediately picked up by news media in Europe, which pointed out that similar warnings have been issued to countries like Burundi, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan and Nigeria.
The principles of equality and human rights are specified and guaranteed in the founding documents of America, and the U.S. ratified the UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1994.
Monday, August 28, 2017
Fiscal vs Monetary Policy
Which is the better choice to encourage economic growth and forestall calamity? Is it fiscal or monetary policy?
That's not a question for a course in Economics 101, but one that citizens should consider as they wonder about their jobs and their futures, because what government does can seriously affect a nation's economic health.
A related question is whether it's better for government to do nothing while the economy reaches a balance on its own, or to intervene with spending projects to kick-start a stalled economy.
In just a few brief sentences, that's the key difference between totally free market capitalism at one extreme and an economy fully controlled by government at the other.
The reality is that neither works well. America and other leading Western nations operate somewhere in the middle, in a mixed economy.
Before the rise of government intervention to inject spending and create jobs in government-sponsored projects, as well as the rise of central banks to control the money supply, which in turn moderates extremes in inflation (rising prices) and unemployment, businesses and banks were free to take whatever risks management wanted to. The result was a series of wild fluctuations, resulting in a boom and bust cycle that left millions of workers and their families hungry and homeless.
The Federal Reserve was founded in December 1913 to help end that cycle of runaway inflation and high unemployment by controlling the supply of money available. That's called monetary policy.
Fiscal policy, on the other hand, is what government does in its spending activities. This reached a critical high point in the 1930s, as the federal government sponsored many thousands of projects so workers would have jobs, earning money for food, clothing and shelter. In turn, this rippled through the rest of society as the cash flow increased and others benefited from more economic activity.
Before the Great Depression, standard economic theory stipulated that left alone, every aspect of an economic system would eventually, over time, in the long run, find a balance of all the elements of the system and everything would be hunky-dory.
Government, the traditionalists believed, should focus on a balanced budget and not intervene. In the long run, everything will work out. But in the words of economist John Maynard Keynes, "In the long run run we are all dead."
In the worldwide economic disaster of the 1920s and 1930s, it was a burst of government spending that helped America recover from the Great Depression. Assisted, of course, by the Second World War, when government spending on armaments and military uniforms boosted the manufacturing sector and provided employment for millions of workers who otherwise would be hungry and homeless. In addition, there were the many millions in military service -- another form of employment. Unfortunately, that particular type of employment carried the risk of being shot. Conclusion: War is a terrible waste of resources, both material and human.
Even so, there are still many conservatives who hold to the belief that government regulation of any kind is harmful, and the private sector should be left alone to work out any problems that might arise, based on the conviction that free and open competition is the best way to ensure the survival of the fittest in every aspect of society.
A return to that kind of economic system, however, would require canceling Social Security pensions, unemployment benefits for those out of work, Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act and other social benefit programs, as well as government regulation of air pollution standards, preservation of national parks that prohibit mining, government inspection and approval of potentially harmful drugs, and finally, the elimination of the
Federal Reserve, the nation's central bank, which is charged with moderating the money supply to prevent inflation and unemployment.
To those who read newspaper headlines and listen to television news programs, much of this will sound familiar, as free-market conservatives move toward minimizing government involvement in the economy.
But reality has an unsettling way of stepping in to block some of the best laid plans. In this case, the fiscal spending plans of a central government are often at odds with the monetary policy goals of a central bank.
America now has a mixed economy, somewhere between an uncontrolled capitalist system and an economy fully controlled by government. The danger of an unfettered economy is wild inflation, soaring joblessness, hunger, starvation and violence. The danger of full government control is an autocratic despotism.
Meanwhile, any attempt by government to take control of an otherwise independent central bank can only increase the likelihood of a dictatorship.
This has already happened in other countries, and the casualty has been the death of freedom for both business and workers.
That's not a question for a course in Economics 101, but one that citizens should consider as they wonder about their jobs and their futures, because what government does can seriously affect a nation's economic health.
A related question is whether it's better for government to do nothing while the economy reaches a balance on its own, or to intervene with spending projects to kick-start a stalled economy.
In just a few brief sentences, that's the key difference between totally free market capitalism at one extreme and an economy fully controlled by government at the other.
The reality is that neither works well. America and other leading Western nations operate somewhere in the middle, in a mixed economy.
Before the rise of government intervention to inject spending and create jobs in government-sponsored projects, as well as the rise of central banks to control the money supply, which in turn moderates extremes in inflation (rising prices) and unemployment, businesses and banks were free to take whatever risks management wanted to. The result was a series of wild fluctuations, resulting in a boom and bust cycle that left millions of workers and their families hungry and homeless.
The Federal Reserve was founded in December 1913 to help end that cycle of runaway inflation and high unemployment by controlling the supply of money available. That's called monetary policy.
Fiscal policy, on the other hand, is what government does in its spending activities. This reached a critical high point in the 1930s, as the federal government sponsored many thousands of projects so workers would have jobs, earning money for food, clothing and shelter. In turn, this rippled through the rest of society as the cash flow increased and others benefited from more economic activity.
Before the Great Depression, standard economic theory stipulated that left alone, every aspect of an economic system would eventually, over time, in the long run, find a balance of all the elements of the system and everything would be hunky-dory.
Government, the traditionalists believed, should focus on a balanced budget and not intervene. In the long run, everything will work out. But in the words of economist John Maynard Keynes, "In the long run run we are all dead."
In the worldwide economic disaster of the 1920s and 1930s, it was a burst of government spending that helped America recover from the Great Depression. Assisted, of course, by the Second World War, when government spending on armaments and military uniforms boosted the manufacturing sector and provided employment for millions of workers who otherwise would be hungry and homeless. In addition, there were the many millions in military service -- another form of employment. Unfortunately, that particular type of employment carried the risk of being shot. Conclusion: War is a terrible waste of resources, both material and human.
Even so, there are still many conservatives who hold to the belief that government regulation of any kind is harmful, and the private sector should be left alone to work out any problems that might arise, based on the conviction that free and open competition is the best way to ensure the survival of the fittest in every aspect of society.
A return to that kind of economic system, however, would require canceling Social Security pensions, unemployment benefits for those out of work, Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act and other social benefit programs, as well as government regulation of air pollution standards, preservation of national parks that prohibit mining, government inspection and approval of potentially harmful drugs, and finally, the elimination of the
Federal Reserve, the nation's central bank, which is charged with moderating the money supply to prevent inflation and unemployment.
To those who read newspaper headlines and listen to television news programs, much of this will sound familiar, as free-market conservatives move toward minimizing government involvement in the economy.
But reality has an unsettling way of stepping in to block some of the best laid plans. In this case, the fiscal spending plans of a central government are often at odds with the monetary policy goals of a central bank.
America now has a mixed economy, somewhere between an uncontrolled capitalist system and an economy fully controlled by government. The danger of an unfettered economy is wild inflation, soaring joblessness, hunger, starvation and violence. The danger of full government control is an autocratic despotism.
Meanwhile, any attempt by government to take control of an otherwise independent central bank can only increase the likelihood of a dictatorship.
This has already happened in other countries, and the casualty has been the death of freedom for both business and workers.
Sunday, August 27, 2017
Media Matters
"I don't believe in leprechauns at all," said the old woman from County Kerry. "But they're there, all the same."
An informed citizenry is the best defense for a free society.
You may choose not to believe what you read in the papers or hear on the news broadcast, but that doesn't mean it's not true. You have the right to ignore information given you by mainstream news outlets, and you may choose to focus on sources that reinforce your own predetermined views and opinions, and refuse to pay attention to any information that contradicts what your favorite politician preaches.
But you do so at peril.
News media will report what politicians say and do. When politicians deny having said or done something, broadcast news outlets can simply roll the video. And as many times as the politician denies it, that's the number of times TV replays the video.
As public relations professionals routinely advise their clients, sometimes it's better to say nothing and let the story slide slowly away. Similarly, sometimes it's better not to strike back at an opponent's jibe. Such a tactic shows you have a thick skin and are able to take criticism if constructive and to ignore it when it's not.
The insistence on striking back at any and every negative comment shows an obsession with message control, and a petty need to be always right, about everything, in every detail, all the time.
No human is capable of that.
Journalists are human, They try hard to report accurately what is newsworthy, and when they miss, they issue corrections or clarifications to explain the context.
The very act of choosing what is newsworthy is subjective, as is deciding how to handle a story, which aspect to emphasize and which to leave out. This leaves reporters and editors open to the potential for incompleteness and criticism from those who disagree with the choices.
Nevertheless, they try.
There are, of course, some publications and broadcast outlets that lean strongly one way or another to certain political or economic views, and typically will emphasize different aspects of any given news event. Or they will ignore the event entirely, on the theory that their readers or viewers may not be interested in alternate viewpoints.
But there is no such thing as an alternative fact. There may well be different opinions as to its importance, relative to other sets of facts, but either something is true or it is not.
When a public figure insists on proclaiming something true, it is the duty of news media either to publish additional information to provide context, or to provide contrary information to show its falsehood.
Media matters, and responsible journalism is essential to maintaining a free society. That's why the founders of the American republic saw fit to guarantee that freedom. We allow government leaders to undermine that freedom at the peril of losing other freedoms along the way.
An informed citizenry is the best defense for a free society.
You may choose not to believe what you read in the papers or hear on the news broadcast, but that doesn't mean it's not true. You have the right to ignore information given you by mainstream news outlets, and you may choose to focus on sources that reinforce your own predetermined views and opinions, and refuse to pay attention to any information that contradicts what your favorite politician preaches.
But you do so at peril.
News media will report what politicians say and do. When politicians deny having said or done something, broadcast news outlets can simply roll the video. And as many times as the politician denies it, that's the number of times TV replays the video.
As public relations professionals routinely advise their clients, sometimes it's better to say nothing and let the story slide slowly away. Similarly, sometimes it's better not to strike back at an opponent's jibe. Such a tactic shows you have a thick skin and are able to take criticism if constructive and to ignore it when it's not.
The insistence on striking back at any and every negative comment shows an obsession with message control, and a petty need to be always right, about everything, in every detail, all the time.
No human is capable of that.
Journalists are human, They try hard to report accurately what is newsworthy, and when they miss, they issue corrections or clarifications to explain the context.
The very act of choosing what is newsworthy is subjective, as is deciding how to handle a story, which aspect to emphasize and which to leave out. This leaves reporters and editors open to the potential for incompleteness and criticism from those who disagree with the choices.
Nevertheless, they try.
There are, of course, some publications and broadcast outlets that lean strongly one way or another to certain political or economic views, and typically will emphasize different aspects of any given news event. Or they will ignore the event entirely, on the theory that their readers or viewers may not be interested in alternate viewpoints.
But there is no such thing as an alternative fact. There may well be different opinions as to its importance, relative to other sets of facts, but either something is true or it is not.
When a public figure insists on proclaiming something true, it is the duty of news media either to publish additional information to provide context, or to provide contrary information to show its falsehood.
Media matters, and responsible journalism is essential to maintaining a free society. That's why the founders of the American republic saw fit to guarantee that freedom. We allow government leaders to undermine that freedom at the peril of losing other freedoms along the way.
Saturday, August 26, 2017
Reaganomics Redux
Look for the president to attempt remaking the Federal Reserve Board in his own anti-regulation ideology.
He has repeatedly shown his preference for trickle-down economics and less government regulation, based on the theory that tax breaks for the wealthy and major corporations will trickle down to workers and lead to stronger economic growth.
Eventually. In the long run. Assuming the beneficiaries of the tax cuts actually spend the money and don't just sock it away to increase their own net worth.
Soon the president may have an opportunity to widen his assault on regulation from his current efforts on the fiscal side of government to include fresh faces on the monetary side at the Federal Reserve, the nation's central bank.
The current chair, Janet Yellen, has warned that easing government regulations will endanger the economic recovery the nation has enjoyed since the Great Recession nearly ten years ago.
It's rare for members of the Fed to speak out on political matters, but Yellen did just that at a meeting of the world's major central bankers in Jackson Hole, Wyo. She noted that memories of the financial crisis of 2007-2009 may be fading, but to succumb to that and dismantle recent financial reforms could be disastrous to the economy.
The president has been vocal in urging a loosening of government regulations on business, and generally endorses free-market capitalism and its theoretical tendency to find its own balance.
For many decades, however, economists have insisted that some regulation is essential to help prevent crises or at least encourage a faster recovery.
Yellen's term on the Federal Reserve Board expires in February, and she told the gathering of bankers that she would not change her opinion on financial reforms that Republicans want to cancel.
She insisted that stronger financial regulations have helped the economy recover, and should be maintained.
But such a position is contrary to the president's tendency to favor less regulation, and that could well mean he will choose someone else when Yellen's term expires.
Couple that with all the other recent government moves to ease or cancel government regulations and controls in virtually every aspect of the American economy, and the question becomes whether this freedom will lead to rapid growth or an equally fast stumble and fall into a serious depression even worse than that of the early 1930s.
He has repeatedly shown his preference for trickle-down economics and less government regulation, based on the theory that tax breaks for the wealthy and major corporations will trickle down to workers and lead to stronger economic growth.
Eventually. In the long run. Assuming the beneficiaries of the tax cuts actually spend the money and don't just sock it away to increase their own net worth.
Soon the president may have an opportunity to widen his assault on regulation from his current efforts on the fiscal side of government to include fresh faces on the monetary side at the Federal Reserve, the nation's central bank.
The current chair, Janet Yellen, has warned that easing government regulations will endanger the economic recovery the nation has enjoyed since the Great Recession nearly ten years ago.
It's rare for members of the Fed to speak out on political matters, but Yellen did just that at a meeting of the world's major central bankers in Jackson Hole, Wyo. She noted that memories of the financial crisis of 2007-2009 may be fading, but to succumb to that and dismantle recent financial reforms could be disastrous to the economy.
The president has been vocal in urging a loosening of government regulations on business, and generally endorses free-market capitalism and its theoretical tendency to find its own balance.
For many decades, however, economists have insisted that some regulation is essential to help prevent crises or at least encourage a faster recovery.
Yellen's term on the Federal Reserve Board expires in February, and she told the gathering of bankers that she would not change her opinion on financial reforms that Republicans want to cancel.
She insisted that stronger financial regulations have helped the economy recover, and should be maintained.
But such a position is contrary to the president's tendency to favor less regulation, and that could well mean he will choose someone else when Yellen's term expires.
Couple that with all the other recent government moves to ease or cancel government regulations and controls in virtually every aspect of the American economy, and the question becomes whether this freedom will lead to rapid growth or an equally fast stumble and fall into a serious depression even worse than that of the early 1930s.
Friday, August 25, 2017
The Lawless President
Call it a Friday night news dump, a strategy long used by organizations when they attempt to bury controversial news by waiting until late Friday until announcing it, in the hope it will be buried by other stories.
The president tried a hat trick by taking three actions as news outlets were covering the landfall of a major hurricane hitting the coast of Texas.
First, he issued an executive order barring transgender people from military service. This raises a constitutional issue of gender discrimination, which conflicts with previously settled questions of whether gay people can serve in the military, and whether women can serve equally with men, including in combat units.
Then, at 8 p.m. Friday evening, he issued a presidential pardon to ex-sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona, praising the former law officer for his career, despite his conviction for defying a federal court order that he stop discriminating against Latinos in Maricopa County.
In pardoning the former sheriff, who was defeated in a re-election bid last November, the president did so on his own, without consulting the Department of Justice, which has traditionally been standard practice for presidents considering pardons.
Legally, a president can pardon anyone, for any reason, at any time. But this time, he pardoned a law enforcement officer who has a long record of illegal actions against Latinos in his district, but who has also been a fervent supporter of this president.
And in issuing the pardon, the president apparently flipped a middle finger to the New York Times, which had strongly opposed such a maneuver in its lead editorial Friday morning.
Moreover, commentators pointed out that this president's action sent a strong signal to other renegade police officers that if they were a close and strong enough supporter of the president, they could ignore the law with impunity, confident that they would soon be pardoned for their offenses.
All this happened on a Friday in the midst of extensive coverage of a major disaster hitting the coast of Texas. Typically, Friday has been a slow news day, and Saturday's editions are usually smaller than other days. Some smaller daily newspapers, in fact, do not publish at all on Saturday.
The flaw in that approach, however, is that broadcast journalism works a 24-hour news cycle, so there is plenty of time to cover all the stories, even splitting the screen to cover several at once.
And newspapers, while they might not have as much space for complete coverage in their Saturday editions, actually gain an extra day to prepare even more coverage for the Sunday paper.
Nice try, Mr. President. But if you keep throwing bad pitches, the journalistic umpires will call you out every time.
The president tried a hat trick by taking three actions as news outlets were covering the landfall of a major hurricane hitting the coast of Texas.
First, he issued an executive order barring transgender people from military service. This raises a constitutional issue of gender discrimination, which conflicts with previously settled questions of whether gay people can serve in the military, and whether women can serve equally with men, including in combat units.
Then, at 8 p.m. Friday evening, he issued a presidential pardon to ex-sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona, praising the former law officer for his career, despite his conviction for defying a federal court order that he stop discriminating against Latinos in Maricopa County.
In pardoning the former sheriff, who was defeated in a re-election bid last November, the president did so on his own, without consulting the Department of Justice, which has traditionally been standard practice for presidents considering pardons.
Legally, a president can pardon anyone, for any reason, at any time. But this time, he pardoned a law enforcement officer who has a long record of illegal actions against Latinos in his district, but who has also been a fervent supporter of this president.
And in issuing the pardon, the president apparently flipped a middle finger to the New York Times, which had strongly opposed such a maneuver in its lead editorial Friday morning.
Moreover, commentators pointed out that this president's action sent a strong signal to other renegade police officers that if they were a close and strong enough supporter of the president, they could ignore the law with impunity, confident that they would soon be pardoned for their offenses.
All this happened on a Friday in the midst of extensive coverage of a major disaster hitting the coast of Texas. Typically, Friday has been a slow news day, and Saturday's editions are usually smaller than other days. Some smaller daily newspapers, in fact, do not publish at all on Saturday.
The flaw in that approach, however, is that broadcast journalism works a 24-hour news cycle, so there is plenty of time to cover all the stories, even splitting the screen to cover several at once.
And newspapers, while they might not have as much space for complete coverage in their Saturday editions, actually gain an extra day to prepare even more coverage for the Sunday paper.
Nice try, Mr. President. But if you keep throwing bad pitches, the journalistic umpires will call you out every time.
Choices
There is always a choice.
"My head's made up. You can't confuse me with the facts." -- Chester A. Riley
Administration officials are facing what for many is a tough decision -- whether to stay on the job and accept or tolerate the racist rantings of the nation's chief executive, attempt to change his mind and persuade him to speak for all Americans rather than focus on his base of rabid supporters, or resign and walk away, thus leaving an opening for the Bigot in Chief to add more True Believers to his corps of advisor/supporters.
In addition to the pressure brought by the president's comments on the violence in Charlottesville, there is the report that the government will cut back on protection of federal parks in favor of mining and other commercial use of forest land.
The latest is a move by the administration to recast the terms used to describe global warming, to dull the edge of the realities and make it seem like there is no danger to what is happening. That all the scientists are wrong. That the report that permafrost in Alaska is no longer permanent is untrue. That the historic record of increases in temperatures over time is false.
As it is, an increasing number of experts and advisors are heeding their moral principles, Constitutional and legal obligations, and are resigning.
All 17 members of an advisory committee on the arts and humanities resigned, and the first letter of each paragraph of their resignation document spelled out the word "RESIST."
Several members of the council on manufacturing resigned, prompting the president to disband the council before the tide of resignations was complete.
On Friday, the science envoy to the State Department resigned, citing the president's comments on the violence in Charlottesville. The letter by Daniel Kammen followed the pattern set by the Arts and Humanities Council, with the first letter of each Kammen paragraph spelling out the word IMPEACH.
Several members of the president's infrastructure advisory council have also resigned.
Gary Cohn, the White House economic advisor, openly criticized the president's anti-Semitic and racist equivocations about the Charlottesville incidents, and reportedly drafted a resignation letter because of the president's comments.
In every difficult situation, people have to decide whether to change it, learn to live with it, or leave it.
Wisdom is in knowing the difference.
"My head's made up. You can't confuse me with the facts." -- Chester A. Riley
Administration officials are facing what for many is a tough decision -- whether to stay on the job and accept or tolerate the racist rantings of the nation's chief executive, attempt to change his mind and persuade him to speak for all Americans rather than focus on his base of rabid supporters, or resign and walk away, thus leaving an opening for the Bigot in Chief to add more True Believers to his corps of advisor/supporters.
In addition to the pressure brought by the president's comments on the violence in Charlottesville, there is the report that the government will cut back on protection of federal parks in favor of mining and other commercial use of forest land.
The latest is a move by the administration to recast the terms used to describe global warming, to dull the edge of the realities and make it seem like there is no danger to what is happening. That all the scientists are wrong. That the report that permafrost in Alaska is no longer permanent is untrue. That the historic record of increases in temperatures over time is false.
As it is, an increasing number of experts and advisors are heeding their moral principles, Constitutional and legal obligations, and are resigning.
All 17 members of an advisory committee on the arts and humanities resigned, and the first letter of each paragraph of their resignation document spelled out the word "RESIST."
Several members of the council on manufacturing resigned, prompting the president to disband the council before the tide of resignations was complete.
On Friday, the science envoy to the State Department resigned, citing the president's comments on the violence in Charlottesville. The letter by Daniel Kammen followed the pattern set by the Arts and Humanities Council, with the first letter of each Kammen paragraph spelling out the word IMPEACH.
Several members of the president's infrastructure advisory council have also resigned.
Gary Cohn, the White House economic advisor, openly criticized the president's anti-Semitic and racist equivocations about the Charlottesville incidents, and reportedly drafted a resignation letter because of the president's comments.
In every difficult situation, people have to decide whether to change it, learn to live with it, or leave it.
Wisdom is in knowing the difference.
Thursday, August 24, 2017
The Great American Fallacy
Lurking behind a debate opponent and staying in camera range as a way to emphasize his height, mocking another as "Little Marco," and styling a TV news anchor as "Little George" Stephanopoulos, as well as rejecting a suggestion that he has "little hands" while emphasizing that there is "no problem there" with the size of another portion of his anatomy, all show a fixation on size, demonstrating a clear obsession with The Great American Fallacy, that bigger equals better.
According to this line of thinking, a larger physical size means more importance, and the current president of the United States seems to be obsessed with the notion that since he is taller that others, he is therefore better, more powerful and perhaps even more intelligent.
And it shows in his claim of a "landslide" election victory, the "greatest margin in American history," when a quick look in any book of facts easily falsifies that claim, especially regarding his loss in the popular vote.
There's nothing new in this pattern of behavior. He has defended it in his book, "The Art of the Deal" as "harmless exaggeration," or "truthful hyperbole."
That may be a useful tactic for a salesman's pitch, but when it comes to government policy, it quickly crosses the line that separates truth from fiction.
More important, the constant reference to size, that bigger equals better, becomes an effort to cover up a basic sense of personal insecurity, a strong inner lack of confidence in one's own ability, whether physical, intellectual, political or moral.
Every country needs leaders who are confident in themselves and their abilities, but feel no need for constant bragging to make up for their incompetence. And in a political world, falling victim to the fallacy that bigger equals better can quickly lead to violence on an international scale.
It's called war.
And if you really care about such things, consider this: Harry Truman was 5'8", Winston Churchill, 5'6", John Adams, 5'7", Benjamin Harrison, 5'6", and James Madison, 5'4". Abraham Lincoln was the tallest of American presidents, at 6'4", followed by Lyndon Johnson at 6'3". Donald Trump is 6'2", along with five others.
Hillary Clinton stands 5'5" tall, about average for an American woman.
And regardless of what Hollywood shows about the size of troopers in the U.S. Cavalry, the maximum height allowed was 5'7". Bigger than that was too hard on the horses.
George Stephanopoulos, by the way, stands 5'5" tall. Now why is that important?
According to this line of thinking, a larger physical size means more importance, and the current president of the United States seems to be obsessed with the notion that since he is taller that others, he is therefore better, more powerful and perhaps even more intelligent.
And it shows in his claim of a "landslide" election victory, the "greatest margin in American history," when a quick look in any book of facts easily falsifies that claim, especially regarding his loss in the popular vote.
There's nothing new in this pattern of behavior. He has defended it in his book, "The Art of the Deal" as "harmless exaggeration," or "truthful hyperbole."
That may be a useful tactic for a salesman's pitch, but when it comes to government policy, it quickly crosses the line that separates truth from fiction.
More important, the constant reference to size, that bigger equals better, becomes an effort to cover up a basic sense of personal insecurity, a strong inner lack of confidence in one's own ability, whether physical, intellectual, political or moral.
Every country needs leaders who are confident in themselves and their abilities, but feel no need for constant bragging to make up for their incompetence. And in a political world, falling victim to the fallacy that bigger equals better can quickly lead to violence on an international scale.
It's called war.
And if you really care about such things, consider this: Harry Truman was 5'8", Winston Churchill, 5'6", John Adams, 5'7", Benjamin Harrison, 5'6", and James Madison, 5'4". Abraham Lincoln was the tallest of American presidents, at 6'4", followed by Lyndon Johnson at 6'3". Donald Trump is 6'2", along with five others.
Hillary Clinton stands 5'5" tall, about average for an American woman.
And regardless of what Hollywood shows about the size of troopers in the U.S. Cavalry, the maximum height allowed was 5'7". Bigger than that was too hard on the horses.
George Stephanopoulos, by the way, stands 5'5" tall. Now why is that important?
Wednesday, August 23, 2017
Control Freak
The president said he wants government intervention to prevent terrorists from using the Internet as a recruiting tool.
At least, that's what he told military veterans gathered in Reno for the annual convention of the American Legion. On the surface, that may sound like a fine idea. But if the government can control or censor one communications medium, it's not a big step to an effort to intervene in other media.
The result could well be government control and censorship of all communications media, from local newspapers and radio stations to magazines, major metropolitan newspapers and television networks.
The First Amendment to the Constitution has not (yet) been repealed, and any effort to control communications media would violate the presidential oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The president also warned that America's school children are "trapped in government schools." But where would America be without universal basic education for all, in government operated schools at the local level?
The tradition of free basic education for all children goes back to the days of the first colonists -- the Pilgrims who arrived in Massachusetts in 1620.
Their initial goal was to teach reading, especially of the Bible, but the importance of basic education quickly spread, so it became a critical part of the American tradition, regardless of religious affiliation -- or none at all.
Granted, there may be problems with some school systems, especially in communities that lack the funding for adequate facilities and salaries for teachers.
But the solution is not to privatize the school system, as promoted by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, but increased funding to improve local school systems nationwide.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post has tracked the number of lies, falsehoods and untruths perpetrated by the president since inauguration. By their count, that number has surpassed the 1,000 mark. That's 214 days since inauguration Jan. 20, or an average of 4.67 lies per day.
So considering that track record of false speech, why should the public believe anything he says?
A larger question is whether this pattern of prevarication is a deliberate effort to control the flow of information, both in the press and in the school system, the better to control the activities of American citizens.
At least, that's what he told military veterans gathered in Reno for the annual convention of the American Legion. On the surface, that may sound like a fine idea. But if the government can control or censor one communications medium, it's not a big step to an effort to intervene in other media.
The result could well be government control and censorship of all communications media, from local newspapers and radio stations to magazines, major metropolitan newspapers and television networks.
The First Amendment to the Constitution has not (yet) been repealed, and any effort to control communications media would violate the presidential oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The president also warned that America's school children are "trapped in government schools." But where would America be without universal basic education for all, in government operated schools at the local level?
The tradition of free basic education for all children goes back to the days of the first colonists -- the Pilgrims who arrived in Massachusetts in 1620.
Their initial goal was to teach reading, especially of the Bible, but the importance of basic education quickly spread, so it became a critical part of the American tradition, regardless of religious affiliation -- or none at all.
Granted, there may be problems with some school systems, especially in communities that lack the funding for adequate facilities and salaries for teachers.
But the solution is not to privatize the school system, as promoted by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, but increased funding to improve local school systems nationwide.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post has tracked the number of lies, falsehoods and untruths perpetrated by the president since inauguration. By their count, that number has surpassed the 1,000 mark. That's 214 days since inauguration Jan. 20, or an average of 4.67 lies per day.
So considering that track record of false speech, why should the public believe anything he says?
A larger question is whether this pattern of prevarication is a deliberate effort to control the flow of information, both in the press and in the school system, the better to control the activities of American citizens.
Vintage Whine
After just 214 days of his first term, the president is already well into his re-election campaign.
In Phoenix, AZ, on Tuesday, he wallowed in the adoration of his hard-right base of supporters, attacking one of his favorite targets, "the fake news media," for supposedly not covering his speeches fairly and accurately.
Specifically, he insisted that the news media did not quote accurately his criticism of the demonstrators in Charlottesville, VA, last week. To prove that, he said, he read from a copy of his prepared remarks, in which he condemned "in the strongest possible terms," the bigotry and bias shown during the disturbance.
Reality check: TV and print media did report exactly what he said, including the part where he denounced bigotry and bias "on many sides," a phrase that he used twice in his original speech. However, he left out that phrase at the rally in Phoenix.
News anchors were quick to pick up that sin of omission, and played clips of the relevant portions of each talk, both the original in which he ad libbed the phrase "on many sides," as well as the Phoenix appearance where he read the prepared text without the blaming phrase.
The rally in Phoenix was promoted and paid for by his re-election committee, which was organized and registered soon after his inauguration Jan. 20.
There had been reports that he would issue a presidential pardon for ex-sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was found guilty of disobeying a federal court order to stop harassing Latinos in Maricopa County, the area around Phoenix.
But he did say, "but not tonight," and suggested that Arpaio, who was defeated in his bid for re-election, "has nothing to worry about," a clear suggestion that a presidential pardon would indeed come soon.
At no time during his speech did he mention the name of the woman who was killed in Charlottesville when an automobile was deliberately driven into a crowd of demonstrators.
At previous campaign rallies, he has said that protestors and demonstrators "should be roughed up." And he has claimed that his popularity is so strong that "I could shoot somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes."
Also at the Phoenix re-election campaign rally, he repeated his promise to build a wall on the southern border of the country to keep out immigrants, "even if I have to shut down the government to pay for it."
This is a real danger, since the federal government must soon introduce a new budget for the upcoming fiscal year, at the same time acting to increase the government's debt limit. Otherwise, the federal government will be unable to continue borrowing to pay for existing programs.
Other news reports indicated that the president and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky have not spoken to each other in weeks, since their last interaction ended in a shouting match in which the president assailed McConnell for not protecting him from a Senate probe into allegations of Russian interference in last year's election.
In Phoenix, AZ, on Tuesday, he wallowed in the adoration of his hard-right base of supporters, attacking one of his favorite targets, "the fake news media," for supposedly not covering his speeches fairly and accurately.
Specifically, he insisted that the news media did not quote accurately his criticism of the demonstrators in Charlottesville, VA, last week. To prove that, he said, he read from a copy of his prepared remarks, in which he condemned "in the strongest possible terms," the bigotry and bias shown during the disturbance.
Reality check: TV and print media did report exactly what he said, including the part where he denounced bigotry and bias "on many sides," a phrase that he used twice in his original speech. However, he left out that phrase at the rally in Phoenix.
News anchors were quick to pick up that sin of omission, and played clips of the relevant portions of each talk, both the original in which he ad libbed the phrase "on many sides," as well as the Phoenix appearance where he read the prepared text without the blaming phrase.
The rally in Phoenix was promoted and paid for by his re-election committee, which was organized and registered soon after his inauguration Jan. 20.
There had been reports that he would issue a presidential pardon for ex-sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was found guilty of disobeying a federal court order to stop harassing Latinos in Maricopa County, the area around Phoenix.
But he did say, "but not tonight," and suggested that Arpaio, who was defeated in his bid for re-election, "has nothing to worry about," a clear suggestion that a presidential pardon would indeed come soon.
At no time during his speech did he mention the name of the woman who was killed in Charlottesville when an automobile was deliberately driven into a crowd of demonstrators.
At previous campaign rallies, he has said that protestors and demonstrators "should be roughed up." And he has claimed that his popularity is so strong that "I could shoot somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes."
Also at the Phoenix re-election campaign rally, he repeated his promise to build a wall on the southern border of the country to keep out immigrants, "even if I have to shut down the government to pay for it."
This is a real danger, since the federal government must soon introduce a new budget for the upcoming fiscal year, at the same time acting to increase the government's debt limit. Otherwise, the federal government will be unable to continue borrowing to pay for existing programs.
Other news reports indicated that the president and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky have not spoken to each other in weeks, since their last interaction ended in a shouting match in which the president assailed McConnell for not protecting him from a Senate probe into allegations of Russian interference in last year's election.
Tuesday, August 22, 2017
The Whither War
What's the next step for the war in Afghanistan?
The president wasn't clear as he announced his strategy for American involvement in the strife that has dragged on for nearly 17 years. But he was clear on one thing: He was not going to be clear on what his next step would be.
There was no time frame, and no mention of the number of troops -- either an increase or a decrease -- spoken of in his address to the nation Monday evening.
He did say that "My original instinct was to pull out," but he acknowledged that when he succeeded to the Oval Office, that issue was far more complicated than he expected.
However, he outlined three conclusions after long discussions and strategy sessions with military leaders and other advisers:
1/ The U.S. will seek "an honorable solution."
2/ The consequences of a rapid exit "are unacceptable," and America "cannot repeat the mistakes" of Iraq, when it disengaged from its intervention in that country. Leaving Afghanistan before the job is complete "would leave a power vacuum," which would be filled by other extremists.
3/ Finally, the president warned Pakistan that continuing to offer shelter to terrorists groups active in Afghanistan will not be tolerated. Also, he said he would seek help from India in resolving the Afghanistan war.
That last issue will be problematic, since India and Pakistan are arch-rivals, and both have nuclear weaponry.
The president gave few details on his new strategy for settling the Afghanistan issue, since he is reluctant to telegraph his intentions or plans.
"But in the end, we will win," he said.
How long that will be is anyone's guess.
The president wasn't clear as he announced his strategy for American involvement in the strife that has dragged on for nearly 17 years. But he was clear on one thing: He was not going to be clear on what his next step would be.
There was no time frame, and no mention of the number of troops -- either an increase or a decrease -- spoken of in his address to the nation Monday evening.
He did say that "My original instinct was to pull out," but he acknowledged that when he succeeded to the Oval Office, that issue was far more complicated than he expected.
However, he outlined three conclusions after long discussions and strategy sessions with military leaders and other advisers:
1/ The U.S. will seek "an honorable solution."
2/ The consequences of a rapid exit "are unacceptable," and America "cannot repeat the mistakes" of Iraq, when it disengaged from its intervention in that country. Leaving Afghanistan before the job is complete "would leave a power vacuum," which would be filled by other extremists.
3/ Finally, the president warned Pakistan that continuing to offer shelter to terrorists groups active in Afghanistan will not be tolerated. Also, he said he would seek help from India in resolving the Afghanistan war.
That last issue will be problematic, since India and Pakistan are arch-rivals, and both have nuclear weaponry.
The president gave few details on his new strategy for settling the Afghanistan issue, since he is reluctant to telegraph his intentions or plans.
"But in the end, we will win," he said.
How long that will be is anyone's guess.
Sunday, August 20, 2017
Pulling the Afghan Rug
What to do about Afghanistan has been a burning question for Western powers nearly 150 years. Britain could not pacify the country in the 19th Century, the Russians could not do it in the 20th Century, and the U.S. has been trying for the past 17 years to get the warring tribes to settle down.
Now the president will tell the nation on Monday evening what he plans to do about American involvement in that country.
Several policy options come to mind.
-- Maintain troop strength as it is, and hope Afghan allies can bring peace to that country.
-- Increase U.S. forces and risk rising opposition from local tribes.
-- Withdraw entirely.
-- Reassign the task of pacifying Afghanistan to mercenaries.
None of the above options seem politically or diplomatically palatable, and each would result in more waste of resources, both fiscal and human.
The U.S. military has been unable to bring about a victory or even a settlement, so that makes option one risky.
Option two would likely be unpopular at home.
Option three would be, to the current president, an admission of failure.
That leaves option four, which has been discussed at the White House and was touched on in this space several days ago. But would contracting the job to mercenaries, especially to a group headed by a close friend and ally of the president, be acceptable to the American public?
On Saturday, we speculated that privatizing the war in Afghanistan would involve awarding the contract to Eric Prince, who had been head of the Blackwater firm, which supplied mercenaries to assist U.S. troops in Iraq. Prince is the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.
Meanwhile, the president faces other pressing issues, such as preparing and submitting a new national budget for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. At the same time, the nation faces a potential crisis as government spending nears the debt ceiling of $19.8 trillion. Shrewd maneuvering by government monitors has forestalled that problem for several months, but if the debt ceiling is not raised, and soon, the government may be forced to shut down, for either or both of those reasons.
In addition, there is the raft of problems this president faces domestically, as violent extremists take to the streets and the president finds excuses for their behavior.
Finally, could it be that the president is choosing Monday night to distract the nation from the experience of a solar eclipse and refocus its attention to himself?
Now the president will tell the nation on Monday evening what he plans to do about American involvement in that country.
Several policy options come to mind.
-- Maintain troop strength as it is, and hope Afghan allies can bring peace to that country.
-- Increase U.S. forces and risk rising opposition from local tribes.
-- Withdraw entirely.
-- Reassign the task of pacifying Afghanistan to mercenaries.
None of the above options seem politically or diplomatically palatable, and each would result in more waste of resources, both fiscal and human.
The U.S. military has been unable to bring about a victory or even a settlement, so that makes option one risky.
Option two would likely be unpopular at home.
Option three would be, to the current president, an admission of failure.
That leaves option four, which has been discussed at the White House and was touched on in this space several days ago. But would contracting the job to mercenaries, especially to a group headed by a close friend and ally of the president, be acceptable to the American public?
On Saturday, we speculated that privatizing the war in Afghanistan would involve awarding the contract to Eric Prince, who had been head of the Blackwater firm, which supplied mercenaries to assist U.S. troops in Iraq. Prince is the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.
Meanwhile, the president faces other pressing issues, such as preparing and submitting a new national budget for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. At the same time, the nation faces a potential crisis as government spending nears the debt ceiling of $19.8 trillion. Shrewd maneuvering by government monitors has forestalled that problem for several months, but if the debt ceiling is not raised, and soon, the government may be forced to shut down, for either or both of those reasons.
In addition, there is the raft of problems this president faces domestically, as violent extremists take to the streets and the president finds excuses for their behavior.
Finally, could it be that the president is choosing Monday night to distract the nation from the experience of a solar eclipse and refocus its attention to himself?
Saturday, August 19, 2017
Militants and Free Speech
Waving a loaded gun in someone's face is not free speech. It is a threat.
A mob is not a well regulated militia, but bigots on parade.
Protestors insist they have a Second Amendment right to carry loaded weapons as they exercise their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble and praise white supremacy.
They do indeed have a right to express their opinions, ludicrous though they be, but they do not have a right to threaten violence against those who disagree.
This is not a clash between two rights guaranteed by the Constitution, since the two amendments deal with separate rights. You may not use one to support a threat against the rights of others.
Gun advocates conveniently ignore the first phrase of the Second Amendment, which refers to a "a well regulated militia." Instead, they focus entirely on the bit about the right to keep and bear arms.
It is true that "a well regulated militia" is essential to "the security of a free state," but that does not mean that a mob of protestors can use weapons to threaten opponents. It means that each state must regulate its own militia. These days, it's known as the National Guard.
It is true that protestors have a right to peaceably assemble and voice their agreement or disagreement with political leaders, government policy or anything else.
However, as with any right, there is responsibility. This includes an obligation to assemble peaceably as they protest their cause. They cannot use their Second Amendment right as a weapon to threaten those who have an equal First Amendment right to assemble peaceably and voice their opposition.
Maintaining order is government's duty and responsibility. Or, as the Constitution puts it, to "ensure domestic tranquility."
As for statues and monuments honoring soldiers and politicians of the Confederacy, consider this: They were put up more than 40 years after the Civil War ended, at a time when bigotry against those whose families had been slaves was extremely high. The question then becomes whether those monuments were erected to commemorate history or to threaten former slaves with a subtle reminder to "keep in their place."
When the War Between the States ended, the leader of the Confederate Army, Gen. Robert E. Lee, was not charged with treason, although he could have been. And the leader of the Union Army, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, did not require Gen. Lee to surrender his sword, which would have been a standard demand.
Instead, all the soldiers of the Confederate Army were released, free to return to their homes and resume their places as U.S. citizens. Some, however, harbored and nursed resentment against the victors, and misguided policies during the Reconstruction Era stoked that resentment further.
Many elements of the era live on in the bias among those who still believe in white domination and anti-Semitism, which has expanded to include hatred of immigrants and Muslims.
For a time, it seemed, these attitudes went away. But they didn't. They only went underground. In recent weeks, however, there has been a resurgence.
And now we see bigots on parade.
A mob is not a well regulated militia, but bigots on parade.
Protestors insist they have a Second Amendment right to carry loaded weapons as they exercise their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble and praise white supremacy.
They do indeed have a right to express their opinions, ludicrous though they be, but they do not have a right to threaten violence against those who disagree.
This is not a clash between two rights guaranteed by the Constitution, since the two amendments deal with separate rights. You may not use one to support a threat against the rights of others.
Gun advocates conveniently ignore the first phrase of the Second Amendment, which refers to a "a well regulated militia." Instead, they focus entirely on the bit about the right to keep and bear arms.
It is true that "a well regulated militia" is essential to "the security of a free state," but that does not mean that a mob of protestors can use weapons to threaten opponents. It means that each state must regulate its own militia. These days, it's known as the National Guard.
It is true that protestors have a right to peaceably assemble and voice their agreement or disagreement with political leaders, government policy or anything else.
However, as with any right, there is responsibility. This includes an obligation to assemble peaceably as they protest their cause. They cannot use their Second Amendment right as a weapon to threaten those who have an equal First Amendment right to assemble peaceably and voice their opposition.
Maintaining order is government's duty and responsibility. Or, as the Constitution puts it, to "ensure domestic tranquility."
As for statues and monuments honoring soldiers and politicians of the Confederacy, consider this: They were put up more than 40 years after the Civil War ended, at a time when bigotry against those whose families had been slaves was extremely high. The question then becomes whether those monuments were erected to commemorate history or to threaten former slaves with a subtle reminder to "keep in their place."
When the War Between the States ended, the leader of the Confederate Army, Gen. Robert E. Lee, was not charged with treason, although he could have been. And the leader of the Union Army, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, did not require Gen. Lee to surrender his sword, which would have been a standard demand.
Instead, all the soldiers of the Confederate Army were released, free to return to their homes and resume their places as U.S. citizens. Some, however, harbored and nursed resentment against the victors, and misguided policies during the Reconstruction Era stoked that resentment further.
Many elements of the era live on in the bias among those who still believe in white domination and anti-Semitism, which has expanded to include hatred of immigrants and Muslims.
For a time, it seemed, these attitudes went away. But they didn't. They only went underground. In recent weeks, however, there has been a resurgence.
And now we see bigots on parade.
Friday, August 18, 2017
Kelly's Dilemma
Not only is he ignorant, incompetent, arrogant and stupid, he's certifiable.
John Kelly, the four-star Marine general who now serves as chief of staff at the White House, soon must decide whether to stay and try to rescue a failing presidency, or to walk away from a building government crisis.
If he stays, he faces the problem of corralling his boss, the president of the United States, and reining in his more dangerous impulses without being fired.
If he leaves, he may well be replaced by someone completely devoted to this president's beliefs and strategies.
Neither choice is easy. But Marines have always faced difficult choices and rarely lose.
Likewise, other Cabinet officers and White House staffers will also have to decide whether to stay and try to maintain order in a chaotic government, or to resign and be replaced by others more willing to follow this president's wishes.
Meanwhile, there is talk of privatizing the war in Afghanistan, contracting American military involvement to what is called the Blackwater Option. That is, giving the job to Eric Prince, the founder of the quasi-military force known as Blackwater.
Prince is the brother of Betsy DeVos, who now serves as education secretary in the president's cabinet of advisors, and who has been criticized as having no experience in public education. Rather, she is an advocate of privatized education systems.
Could the appointment of Prince be the first step toward a private army in America, mentioned in this blog earlier this week, that could be used to support a rogue president facing censure, impeachment and forced removal from office?
Rather than send this private army to Afghanistan on the pretense of saving the lives of traditional American soldiers in a war that has dragged on for 17 years, the Prince army could be kept in America to support this beleaguered president and prevent his removal from office.
Impossible, you say? It can't happen here, you insist. But it can, and very nearly did. Twice. The book titled "It Can't Happen Here" is fiction, but it was based on real events of the 1930s.
The safety barrier today, however, is based on comments by the five chiefs who head the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and National Guard, who have repudiated the president's comments endorsing the activities of the radical fringe responsible for the violence in Charlottesville, VA, and other incidents.
Military commanders generally avoid politics, and they are obligated to follow orders issued by the president as commander in chief. Not, however, if an order is illegal.
This president has effectively been warned that any illegal or unconstitutional order he comes up with will not be followed by America's military.
The problem, however, will be if the president raises his own private army and attempts to suspend the Constitution.
The first hint of a step in that direction would be the naming of the Prince army, made up of the same extremists who fomented the riots in Charlottesville.
There lies Kelly's dilemma. Will he follow orders as the president's chief of staff, or will he stand on principle and side with the military joint chiefs and resist?
John Kelly, the four-star Marine general who now serves as chief of staff at the White House, soon must decide whether to stay and try to rescue a failing presidency, or to walk away from a building government crisis.
If he stays, he faces the problem of corralling his boss, the president of the United States, and reining in his more dangerous impulses without being fired.
If he leaves, he may well be replaced by someone completely devoted to this president's beliefs and strategies.
Neither choice is easy. But Marines have always faced difficult choices and rarely lose.
Likewise, other Cabinet officers and White House staffers will also have to decide whether to stay and try to maintain order in a chaotic government, or to resign and be replaced by others more willing to follow this president's wishes.
Meanwhile, there is talk of privatizing the war in Afghanistan, contracting American military involvement to what is called the Blackwater Option. That is, giving the job to Eric Prince, the founder of the quasi-military force known as Blackwater.
Prince is the brother of Betsy DeVos, who now serves as education secretary in the president's cabinet of advisors, and who has been criticized as having no experience in public education. Rather, she is an advocate of privatized education systems.
Could the appointment of Prince be the first step toward a private army in America, mentioned in this blog earlier this week, that could be used to support a rogue president facing censure, impeachment and forced removal from office?
Rather than send this private army to Afghanistan on the pretense of saving the lives of traditional American soldiers in a war that has dragged on for 17 years, the Prince army could be kept in America to support this beleaguered president and prevent his removal from office.
Impossible, you say? It can't happen here, you insist. But it can, and very nearly did. Twice. The book titled "It Can't Happen Here" is fiction, but it was based on real events of the 1930s.
The safety barrier today, however, is based on comments by the five chiefs who head the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and National Guard, who have repudiated the president's comments endorsing the activities of the radical fringe responsible for the violence in Charlottesville, VA, and other incidents.
Military commanders generally avoid politics, and they are obligated to follow orders issued by the president as commander in chief. Not, however, if an order is illegal.
This president has effectively been warned that any illegal or unconstitutional order he comes up with will not be followed by America's military.
The problem, however, will be if the president raises his own private army and attempts to suspend the Constitution.
The first hint of a step in that direction would be the naming of the Prince army, made up of the same extremists who fomented the riots in Charlottesville.
There lies Kelly's dilemma. Will he follow orders as the president's chief of staff, or will he stand on principle and side with the military joint chiefs and resist?
Thursday, August 17, 2017
Taking a Stand
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for enough good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke.
Evil in America has raised its ugly head from a long sleep and has sent its devotees on the march, waving the flags of bigotry, prejudice, racism and violence.
The current president of the country has defended them, claiming they have an equal right to express their views and their opponents are equally responsible for the violent confrontations at Charlottesville, Virginia.
An equal right to have and express an opinion is one thing. Violence is quite another, and is not protected by the Constitution or by any other law or moral code.
But when certain opinions are so vile and evil that they not only condone violence but openly encourage it, then society must take a stand against them and those who promote them, and to combat their evil results.
It has been said that there is always a choice when faced with a problem: Change it, learn to live with it, or leave it. Citizens of America have decided that ignoring the existence of evil will not make it go away.
It has festered in the America body politic for many years, and has recently broken out, spilling its infectious venom on the public. Now, however, key leaders in politics, government and the military are taking a stand against it, joining with the general public in opposing bigotry and violence.
Members of Congress have repudiated the president's remarks that defended and excused the violence in Charlottesville, blaming "both sides." Others are preparing a Congressional censure of the president's talk and action.
All five members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have said they will not follow the president's tweeted suggestion that transgender people not be allowed to serve in the U.S. military. They also disavowed the commander in chief's comments on racism, emphasizing that such attitudes are not tolerated in any branch of the American military.
Next week, the president plans to attend a rally in Phoenix, Arizona, and there are reports he will use the event to issue a presidential pardon to former Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was convicted of defying a federal court order to stop harassing Latinos -- including U.S. citizens -- he suspected of possibly being illegal immigrants.
The mayor of Phoenix has asked the president not to come, citing the recent violence in Charlottesville.
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has already repudiated the president's recent words and actions, and is not likely to attend the scheduled rally.
Whether the rally and the potential pardon of the rogue sheriff actually happen is still an open question, as are the consequences of opponents and counter-demonstrators confronting those at the rally.
Stay tuned.
Evil in America has raised its ugly head from a long sleep and has sent its devotees on the march, waving the flags of bigotry, prejudice, racism and violence.
The current president of the country has defended them, claiming they have an equal right to express their views and their opponents are equally responsible for the violent confrontations at Charlottesville, Virginia.
An equal right to have and express an opinion is one thing. Violence is quite another, and is not protected by the Constitution or by any other law or moral code.
But when certain opinions are so vile and evil that they not only condone violence but openly encourage it, then society must take a stand against them and those who promote them, and to combat their evil results.
It has been said that there is always a choice when faced with a problem: Change it, learn to live with it, or leave it. Citizens of America have decided that ignoring the existence of evil will not make it go away.
It has festered in the America body politic for many years, and has recently broken out, spilling its infectious venom on the public. Now, however, key leaders in politics, government and the military are taking a stand against it, joining with the general public in opposing bigotry and violence.
Members of Congress have repudiated the president's remarks that defended and excused the violence in Charlottesville, blaming "both sides." Others are preparing a Congressional censure of the president's talk and action.
All five members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have said they will not follow the president's tweeted suggestion that transgender people not be allowed to serve in the U.S. military. They also disavowed the commander in chief's comments on racism, emphasizing that such attitudes are not tolerated in any branch of the American military.
Next week, the president plans to attend a rally in Phoenix, Arizona, and there are reports he will use the event to issue a presidential pardon to former Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was convicted of defying a federal court order to stop harassing Latinos -- including U.S. citizens -- he suspected of possibly being illegal immigrants.
The mayor of Phoenix has asked the president not to come, citing the recent violence in Charlottesville.
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has already repudiated the president's recent words and actions, and is not likely to attend the scheduled rally.
Whether the rally and the potential pardon of the rogue sheriff actually happen is still an open question, as are the consequences of opponents and counter-demonstrators confronting those at the rally.
Stay tuned.
Wednesday, August 16, 2017
Chaos, Power and Hypocrisy
One way to achieve power is to create chaos and then step into the breach and announce, "Elect me and your troubles will be over."
History is filled with examples of political figures surreptitiously stirring up trouble between two or more factions while quietly building and organizing their own factions to step in and suppress others in the name of peace, prosperity and victory for the favored few who support the Beloved Leader.
It has happened in other times and in other countries. The one who holds himself out to be the leader identifies others as a danger to the nation's security and values, promising to stop them by whatever means necessary, thereby rescuing the nation and returning it to greatness.
Such a leader demands absolute and unquestioning loyalty from his followers, verbally attacks those who disagree with him and quietly encourages violence against opponents, even as he makes a show of disavowing violence.
A passing familiarity with the history of other countries that have passed from a free democracy to a cruel dictatorship will bring up several examples, many in the 20th Century. Typically, its leader will have manipulated the election system to win through to the top position.
America now faces a similar danger. The president reached that office despite losing the popular vote, and investigators are questioning whether the electoral system was manipulated in such a way as to give him his victory.
That situation, too, has happened in the past, in other countries and at other times.
The current American president is now creating more chaos by continuing to encourage -- or at least not really condemn -- violence against those who oppose him.
This rapidly escalating disruption could easily lead to enough chaos throughout the nation to justify an executive order to suspend the Constitution and, with the support of a virtual private army of supporters, solidify his power.
Can this scenario be prevented, or stopped once it gets under way? Yes, but it will take awareness and a concerted effort by Congress and even the military to do so.
Meanwhile, an alert and watchful press must continue to monitor and publicize any actions or words that endanger this democratic republic.
Military commanders are expected to obey all lawful orders from the commander in chief. But what if such an order, for example, one that would suspend the Constitution, is not lawful? The military is morally and legally bound to refuse such an order, even to the extent of acting to stop quasi-military action by a gang of ruffians and hoods posing as a private army.
Secondly, Congress has the authority and the duty to challenge the legitimacy of a president's actions, even to the extent of impeachment and removal from office.
And if he does not go willingly?
That would mean a crisis in America such that the nation has never before seen. But with luck and devotion to its principles, America will survive and remain great.
History is filled with examples of political figures surreptitiously stirring up trouble between two or more factions while quietly building and organizing their own factions to step in and suppress others in the name of peace, prosperity and victory for the favored few who support the Beloved Leader.
It has happened in other times and in other countries. The one who holds himself out to be the leader identifies others as a danger to the nation's security and values, promising to stop them by whatever means necessary, thereby rescuing the nation and returning it to greatness.
Such a leader demands absolute and unquestioning loyalty from his followers, verbally attacks those who disagree with him and quietly encourages violence against opponents, even as he makes a show of disavowing violence.
A passing familiarity with the history of other countries that have passed from a free democracy to a cruel dictatorship will bring up several examples, many in the 20th Century. Typically, its leader will have manipulated the election system to win through to the top position.
America now faces a similar danger. The president reached that office despite losing the popular vote, and investigators are questioning whether the electoral system was manipulated in such a way as to give him his victory.
That situation, too, has happened in the past, in other countries and at other times.
The current American president is now creating more chaos by continuing to encourage -- or at least not really condemn -- violence against those who oppose him.
This rapidly escalating disruption could easily lead to enough chaos throughout the nation to justify an executive order to suspend the Constitution and, with the support of a virtual private army of supporters, solidify his power.
Can this scenario be prevented, or stopped once it gets under way? Yes, but it will take awareness and a concerted effort by Congress and even the military to do so.
Meanwhile, an alert and watchful press must continue to monitor and publicize any actions or words that endanger this democratic republic.
Military commanders are expected to obey all lawful orders from the commander in chief. But what if such an order, for example, one that would suspend the Constitution, is not lawful? The military is morally and legally bound to refuse such an order, even to the extent of acting to stop quasi-military action by a gang of ruffians and hoods posing as a private army.
Secondly, Congress has the authority and the duty to challenge the legitimacy of a president's actions, even to the extent of impeachment and removal from office.
And if he does not go willingly?
That would mean a crisis in America such that the nation has never before seen. But with luck and devotion to its principles, America will survive and remain great.
The Fake President
"I inherited a mess. Only I can fix it."
Good idea, Mr. President. When do you plan on starting?
The tirades of this fake president are getting tiresome.
"Before I make a statement, I like to know the facts." That has never stopped him before, so why start now, when speaking of the confrontations in Charlottesville, Va.?
"Many sides" are to blame, he said. There is, of course, something to be said for the argument that if fringe demonstrators are ignored, they will somehow go away. Sometimes, that may be true. But it does not address the reality that ignoring a problem does not make it go away, and confronting evil is essential to defeating it.
Defending racists and bigots and accusing counter protestors of fomenting violence only encourages the radical extremists to believe they have the support of the president of the United States of America.
Unfortunately, they're right. This president does indeed support them. The question now becomes why.
Is it through ignorance of history? Is it through ignorance of the true aims of the demonstrators? The answer to both questions could be yes, since he has displayed ignorance of many things in recent months.
More frightening, however, is the idea that he is not unaware of the consequences of what he says and does. That, in fact, he knows very well the consequences of what he says and does in explaining, forgiving or even endorsing the activities of extremists, whether they be individuals who beat up on protestors at political conventions or gangs of neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klan followers and other extremists who call for an all-white domination of American society and the ouster of all others.
The president's soft criticism of the events in Virginia and his attempt to put equal blame on the counter-protestors actually brought a "thank you" from David Duke, a former leader of the KKK who was at the Charlottesville rioting and who has promised more demonstrations.
This president also put a lot of blame on what he calls the "fake news media" for not reporting accurately the events and consequences of recent events.
On the contrary, the news media have indeed been reporting accurately on events. One can attack the supposedly liberal print media for allegedly being selective in its reporting, thereby slanting the story, but the same criticism can be made of right-leaning conservative news outlets.
The reality is that members of the public have a choice of media outlets. There are some that are indeed slanted in their coverage, but most general interest newspapers, magazines and TV news operations are neutral in their coverage of events. Radicals on each side, however, don't want neutrality in news coverage; they want coverage favorable to their views.
This is especially true for the president, who has a long history of vehemently attacking anyone and everyone who disagrees with him on anything. Even neutral coverage is not enough. He wants and demands total, obsequious agreement on everything.
News flash: Not gonna happen.
In any case, cameras don't lie. When rioters carry flags advertising their racist, anti-Semitic bigotry as they beat up on those who disagree, there is no way to excuse that behavior.
And trying to explain it away only puts you on their side.
Good idea, Mr. President. When do you plan on starting?
The tirades of this fake president are getting tiresome.
"Before I make a statement, I like to know the facts." That has never stopped him before, so why start now, when speaking of the confrontations in Charlottesville, Va.?
"Many sides" are to blame, he said. There is, of course, something to be said for the argument that if fringe demonstrators are ignored, they will somehow go away. Sometimes, that may be true. But it does not address the reality that ignoring a problem does not make it go away, and confronting evil is essential to defeating it.
Defending racists and bigots and accusing counter protestors of fomenting violence only encourages the radical extremists to believe they have the support of the president of the United States of America.
Unfortunately, they're right. This president does indeed support them. The question now becomes why.
Is it through ignorance of history? Is it through ignorance of the true aims of the demonstrators? The answer to both questions could be yes, since he has displayed ignorance of many things in recent months.
More frightening, however, is the idea that he is not unaware of the consequences of what he says and does. That, in fact, he knows very well the consequences of what he says and does in explaining, forgiving or even endorsing the activities of extremists, whether they be individuals who beat up on protestors at political conventions or gangs of neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klan followers and other extremists who call for an all-white domination of American society and the ouster of all others.
The president's soft criticism of the events in Virginia and his attempt to put equal blame on the counter-protestors actually brought a "thank you" from David Duke, a former leader of the KKK who was at the Charlottesville rioting and who has promised more demonstrations.
This president also put a lot of blame on what he calls the "fake news media" for not reporting accurately the events and consequences of recent events.
On the contrary, the news media have indeed been reporting accurately on events. One can attack the supposedly liberal print media for allegedly being selective in its reporting, thereby slanting the story, but the same criticism can be made of right-leaning conservative news outlets.
The reality is that members of the public have a choice of media outlets. There are some that are indeed slanted in their coverage, but most general interest newspapers, magazines and TV news operations are neutral in their coverage of events. Radicals on each side, however, don't want neutrality in news coverage; they want coverage favorable to their views.
This is especially true for the president, who has a long history of vehemently attacking anyone and everyone who disagrees with him on anything. Even neutral coverage is not enough. He wants and demands total, obsequious agreement on everything.
News flash: Not gonna happen.
In any case, cameras don't lie. When rioters carry flags advertising their racist, anti-Semitic bigotry as they beat up on those who disagree, there is no way to excuse that behavior.
And trying to explain it away only puts you on their side.
Monday, August 14, 2017
Flagging Feelings
Unity suffers when bigotry waves its bloody shirt.
Demonstrators show their true colors when they display flags at their rallies.
For all the "America First" chanting at recent protest affairs, the flags carried at Charlottesville, Va., over the weekend displayed the swastika of Nazi Germany and the battle flag of the breakaway slave states during the Civil War, rather than the Stars and Stripes of the United States of America.
Rather than emphasize their loyalty to a united America where all are created equal, the flags carried into the violent confrontations symbolized racism, bigotry and hatred for those who do not look like, sound like, think like or worship like the flag wavers.
So instead of rallying people around the flag of a united country, with all its diversity of race, color and religion, the adherents of neo-Nazism, the Ku Klux Klan and other extremist groups showed their true colors by the use of flags emphasizing things that are anathema to the American way.
"Make America grate again" would seem to be a more true slogan for them.
It is a new low in iconic hypocrisy to use symbols of disunity and hatred even as they demand a new form of unity -- their beliefs and their beliefs alone, which exclude the feelings or beliefs of those who don't agree.
They represent a dangerously divided country, not a United States of America.
Demonstrators show their true colors when they display flags at their rallies.
For all the "America First" chanting at recent protest affairs, the flags carried at Charlottesville, Va., over the weekend displayed the swastika of Nazi Germany and the battle flag of the breakaway slave states during the Civil War, rather than the Stars and Stripes of the United States of America.
Rather than emphasize their loyalty to a united America where all are created equal, the flags carried into the violent confrontations symbolized racism, bigotry and hatred for those who do not look like, sound like, think like or worship like the flag wavers.
So instead of rallying people around the flag of a united country, with all its diversity of race, color and religion, the adherents of neo-Nazism, the Ku Klux Klan and other extremist groups showed their true colors by the use of flags emphasizing things that are anathema to the American way.
"Make America grate again" would seem to be a more true slogan for them.
It is a new low in iconic hypocrisy to use symbols of disunity and hatred even as they demand a new form of unity -- their beliefs and their beliefs alone, which exclude the feelings or beliefs of those who don't agree.
They represent a dangerously divided country, not a United States of America.
Sunday, August 13, 2017
Tough Questions and Non-Answers
Reporter's question: "Mr. President, are we going to war?"
Answer: "I think you know the answer to that."
No, Mr. President, we don't know the answer to that. If we did, we wouldn't ask the question. Besides, our answers are not relevant. We get paid to ask the questions, not to know the answers.
Journalism's job is to gather information and pass it on to readers and viewers, voters and the general public who then decide whether they approve of what government officials are doing in their name.
When they begin their jobs, elected officials promise to honor the law and protect the Constitution. In general, their goal is to serve the public. In a democratic republic such as the United States of America, the goal has not (yet) been reversed, wherein the public serves government officials. That's called a dictatorship.
The first step on the road to dictatorship is often control of the press, which means controlling the flow of information that the public receives about what the government is doing,
The only way to know what the government is doing is to watch and to ask questions. That is the responsibility and duty of journalists, and that function is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Twisting questions around to avoid answering, or putting the responsibility for answering to reporters, is not the way the system is designed.
Does America have an adversarial press? Absolutely, that's the way it should be, to keep elected officials honest and to make sure they continue to honor the public interest and not their own.
We now have a situation in America where a president puts his own business, family and personal interests above those of the nation and its people.
In the face of this, the press corps has intensified its probing and questioning into what the president says and does, and investigating all the potential repercussions of what he says and does.
Judging from his responses, and his attacks and retaliations against those who ask tough questions, he either has a thin skin or he's hiding something, or both.
If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen, as former President Harry Truman put it. And if you're hiding something that is illegal, unconstitutional or both, all the more reason to get out of the kitchen.
Before you get thrown out.
Answer: "I think you know the answer to that."
No, Mr. President, we don't know the answer to that. If we did, we wouldn't ask the question. Besides, our answers are not relevant. We get paid to ask the questions, not to know the answers.
Journalism's job is to gather information and pass it on to readers and viewers, voters and the general public who then decide whether they approve of what government officials are doing in their name.
When they begin their jobs, elected officials promise to honor the law and protect the Constitution. In general, their goal is to serve the public. In a democratic republic such as the United States of America, the goal has not (yet) been reversed, wherein the public serves government officials. That's called a dictatorship.
The first step on the road to dictatorship is often control of the press, which means controlling the flow of information that the public receives about what the government is doing,
The only way to know what the government is doing is to watch and to ask questions. That is the responsibility and duty of journalists, and that function is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Twisting questions around to avoid answering, or putting the responsibility for answering to reporters, is not the way the system is designed.
Does America have an adversarial press? Absolutely, that's the way it should be, to keep elected officials honest and to make sure they continue to honor the public interest and not their own.
We now have a situation in America where a president puts his own business, family and personal interests above those of the nation and its people.
In the face of this, the press corps has intensified its probing and questioning into what the president says and does, and investigating all the potential repercussions of what he says and does.
Judging from his responses, and his attacks and retaliations against those who ask tough questions, he either has a thin skin or he's hiding something, or both.
If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen, as former President Harry Truman put it. And if you're hiding something that is illegal, unconstitutional or both, all the more reason to get out of the kitchen.
Before you get thrown out.
Dog Whistle
The buzzword of the week is "dog whistle," a term that has been bandied about by commentators for some time now, but none have bothered to explain what it means.
It seems to suggest something that incites others, but how and why is not clear. And why the term "dog whistle" anyway?
There is a type of whistle that emits a sound of such a high frequency that it cannot be heard by people but can be heard by dogs, and is used by some to attract the attention of their canine friends without disrupting people nearby.
But in discussions among broadcast commentators, the term is often used, leaving one to wonder whether the pundits are comparing politicians to canines, or comparing people in general to creatures who get excited over things that only they can hear, or perhaps they cannot hear at all, but they somehow know that this is something they should get excited about.
So does that clear things up, so that now everyone understands what pundits mean when they refer to some comment as a "dog whistle"?
No?
I didn't think so. Maybe the frequency is so high that people can't hear it. If that's the case, then the commentators have failed to communicate their message.
Try getting another lower-frequency whistle, or perhaps a trumpet. But don't blare.
Better yet, find words and phrases that people understand. After all, one hopes that is the purpose of your talking.
Comprehension is a wonderful thing.
It seems to suggest something that incites others, but how and why is not clear. And why the term "dog whistle" anyway?
There is a type of whistle that emits a sound of such a high frequency that it cannot be heard by people but can be heard by dogs, and is used by some to attract the attention of their canine friends without disrupting people nearby.
But in discussions among broadcast commentators, the term is often used, leaving one to wonder whether the pundits are comparing politicians to canines, or comparing people in general to creatures who get excited over things that only they can hear, or perhaps they cannot hear at all, but they somehow know that this is something they should get excited about.
So does that clear things up, so that now everyone understands what pundits mean when they refer to some comment as a "dog whistle"?
No?
I didn't think so. Maybe the frequency is so high that people can't hear it. If that's the case, then the commentators have failed to communicate their message.
Try getting another lower-frequency whistle, or perhaps a trumpet. But don't blare.
Better yet, find words and phrases that people understand. After all, one hopes that is the purpose of your talking.
Comprehension is a wonderful thing.
Wednesday, August 9, 2017
Threats, Empty Threats and Dangerous Hyperbole
Stop worrying and love the bomb.
"Fire and fury like the world has never seen."
Thus spake the president of the United States on the anniversary of the bombing of Nagasaki, in warning North Korea to halt its testing of intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads.
Does he really mean to threaten a nuclear bombing of North Korea, or is this another example of extreme exaggeration by an ignorant bully?
Words lose some of their traditional meaning when "truthful hyperbole" goes beyond harmless exaggeration and becomes war mongering threats. Instead, they take on new and more dangerous meanings, especially when launched against another country's regime led by a despot who spends a third of his country's resources on weapons instead of food for the people.
Consider this question: What could be more fiery and furious than a nuclear bomb dropped on a city of civilians?
It's not like the world has never seen this before. It has, twice, when the U.S. military dropped atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to force a Japanese surrender and end World War II.
Let's acknowledge that the current president of the U.S. is a bully, something that he has proven many times in the past. Let's also concede that as commander in chief of the most powerful military force in the world, he is capable of igniting World War III with the stroke of a pen or an early morning tweet.
Next question: Why would you want to do that, and what would it prove?
More important, who would remain after you push the Final Button?
Calling Dr. Strangelove.
"Fire and fury like the world has never seen."
Thus spake the president of the United States on the anniversary of the bombing of Nagasaki, in warning North Korea to halt its testing of intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads.
Does he really mean to threaten a nuclear bombing of North Korea, or is this another example of extreme exaggeration by an ignorant bully?
Words lose some of their traditional meaning when "truthful hyperbole" goes beyond harmless exaggeration and becomes war mongering threats. Instead, they take on new and more dangerous meanings, especially when launched against another country's regime led by a despot who spends a third of his country's resources on weapons instead of food for the people.
Consider this question: What could be more fiery and furious than a nuclear bomb dropped on a city of civilians?
It's not like the world has never seen this before. It has, twice, when the U.S. military dropped atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to force a Japanese surrender and end World War II.
Let's acknowledge that the current president of the U.S. is a bully, something that he has proven many times in the past. Let's also concede that as commander in chief of the most powerful military force in the world, he is capable of igniting World War III with the stroke of a pen or an early morning tweet.
Next question: Why would you want to do that, and what would it prove?
More important, who would remain after you push the Final Button?
Calling Dr. Strangelove.
Tuesday, August 8, 2017
Futility Farce
Newcomers to America routinely show up at ICE offices as part of their continuing effort to resolve their residency status, but are met with handcuffs, jailed and deported.
Neighbors call police to report criminal activity, but instead are questioned about their own immigration status, jailed and deported.
The federal government announces a severe crackdown on drug abuse, and those caught are imprisoned rather than hospitalized and treated for their health issue.
It's not hard to figure the results of these severe actions. Newcomers will stop going to immigration offices to resolve their status. This includes young people who were brought here as children and have no connection to another country or its language and culture.
Neighbors stop calling the cops lest they be deported, so criminals go uncaught and unpunished, and the crime rate rises.
Prisons are filled with victims of drug abuse who get no treatment for their illness. Meanwhile, there is little effort to control the supply of narcotics infecting America. Instead, the crackdown focuses on the users.
Economics 101: Without demand, there will be no supply. That principle applies to any product or service, whether it be a ham sandwich at a local diner, Muenster cheese or marijuana, heroin or hamburgers.
Banning alcohol not only failed to stop Americans from drinking, but it also led to a rise in crime, as suppliers bypassed the law to fill a strong demand.
Drug abuse has become a serious problem in America, but instead of attempting to curtail demand, government efforts are focused more strongly on stopping the supply.
As a result, policing expenses soar, border walls are built higher, and violence increases. Meanwhile, victims of drug abuse are imprisoned rather than treated.
Why does this happen? One reason could be that catching the victims is an easier way to fill a quota of arrests.
At the same time, suppliers go further underground and their prices rise, thus causing more harm to users, who then turn to theft for the cash to feed their habit.
All things considered, a misplaced emphasis on controlling supply rather than limiting demand means that the neighbors who could help law enforcement deal with drug traffickers and other criminals refuse to offer their help, and remain silent rather than run the risk of being busted themselves on allegations of undocumented residency.
People who struggle to come to America in search of jobs, opportunity and safety may be lacking in skills and education, but stupid they ain't.
Neighbors call police to report criminal activity, but instead are questioned about their own immigration status, jailed and deported.
The federal government announces a severe crackdown on drug abuse, and those caught are imprisoned rather than hospitalized and treated for their health issue.
It's not hard to figure the results of these severe actions. Newcomers will stop going to immigration offices to resolve their status. This includes young people who were brought here as children and have no connection to another country or its language and culture.
Neighbors stop calling the cops lest they be deported, so criminals go uncaught and unpunished, and the crime rate rises.
Prisons are filled with victims of drug abuse who get no treatment for their illness. Meanwhile, there is little effort to control the supply of narcotics infecting America. Instead, the crackdown focuses on the users.
Economics 101: Without demand, there will be no supply. That principle applies to any product or service, whether it be a ham sandwich at a local diner, Muenster cheese or marijuana, heroin or hamburgers.
Banning alcohol not only failed to stop Americans from drinking, but it also led to a rise in crime, as suppliers bypassed the law to fill a strong demand.
Drug abuse has become a serious problem in America, but instead of attempting to curtail demand, government efforts are focused more strongly on stopping the supply.
As a result, policing expenses soar, border walls are built higher, and violence increases. Meanwhile, victims of drug abuse are imprisoned rather than treated.
Why does this happen? One reason could be that catching the victims is an easier way to fill a quota of arrests.
At the same time, suppliers go further underground and their prices rise, thus causing more harm to users, who then turn to theft for the cash to feed their habit.
All things considered, a misplaced emphasis on controlling supply rather than limiting demand means that the neighbors who could help law enforcement deal with drug traffickers and other criminals refuse to offer their help, and remain silent rather than run the risk of being busted themselves on allegations of undocumented residency.
People who struggle to come to America in search of jobs, opportunity and safety may be lacking in skills and education, but stupid they ain't.
Warning signals
If he knows better, it's a lie.
If he does not know better, he's ignorant.
Neither is acceptable for a major political leader
But an ignorant liar compounds the danger.
Sunday, August 6, 2017
Market Barometer
The stock market has as much influence on my daily life as baseball. -- Pug Mahoney
When things go well, politicians take credit for it. When things falter, they blame the other guy.
As for the stock market being a barometer of the economy, it's more like a thermometer, measuring a current fever and irrational exuberance for higher stock prices.
A reality is that very few people actually own stock. The rest of the workers in America are more concerned with having a job and whether their next wage increase will come through as expected.
None of that, however, changes the practice of politicians claiming credit for economic progress, even when it started long before they took office and momentum continued well into their first few months.
It's as if the entire economy turned on a dime at noon on January 20, when the oath of office was taken. At least, that's what they would like people to think.
The reality is that the American economy began its recovery trend nine years ago. Economic data markers are released quarterly for Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the key measure of national performance, and monthly for things like job growth and unemployment ratios.
So a GDP measure would cover a three-month period ending December 31, and an early estimate would not be released until mid-January, before a presidential inauguration. Likewise with employment figures; there is a delay, and the numbers reflect performance before a political change takes place.
In addition, the federal government's fiscal year begins October 1, so a new president is stuck with a budget set up by a predecessor, and is therefore one that he cannot take credit for.
Those realities, however, seldom stop a politician from claiming credit for improvements, and blaming someone else for failures.
Then there is the candidate who complains about a poorly performing economy, and proclaims, "Only I can fix it." Soon after taking office, however, he laments that he "inherited a mess," and blames his predecessor rather than trying to fulfill his promise to fix things.
In addition, there is the kind of guy who says, "Who knew that this stuff could be so complicated?"
Actually, many people, ranging from economic professors to auto mechanics, actually did know.
And if you didn't know, you should not have run for office, claiming that you did.
Here are a few numbers: U.S. employers added 209,000 jobs in June, as the national economy entered its ninth year of recovery. The unemployment rate ticked down to 4.3 percent. Separately, the nation's international trade deficit declined in June, as exports rose and imports decreased.
Overall, the economy grew by 2.6 percent in the second quarter, up from 1.2 percent in the first three months of the year. All these numbers are part of a trend that been on the upswing for many months.
So how complicated can it be? The numbers are readily available online from government agencies who have been tracking economic performance for decades, and whose professional employees are immune to political influence.
No matter how you try, there is no way a new president can truthfully claim credit for a rising economy in his first few months in office (even Franklin Roosevelt's efforts took a year to show some progress), especially if there has been no emergency spending to stimulate construction and employment. But with an unemployment rate of 4.3 percent, the lowest in years, that means there's a shortage of workers.
A new president can, however, wreck economic progress, and one way to do that is to cut immigration in half and prevent workers from coming to America in search of jobs.
But the numbers will not show that until the next fiscal quarter or later, and by then a downward spiral toward economic recession may well have started.
When things go well, politicians take credit for it. When things falter, they blame the other guy.
As for the stock market being a barometer of the economy, it's more like a thermometer, measuring a current fever and irrational exuberance for higher stock prices.
A reality is that very few people actually own stock. The rest of the workers in America are more concerned with having a job and whether their next wage increase will come through as expected.
None of that, however, changes the practice of politicians claiming credit for economic progress, even when it started long before they took office and momentum continued well into their first few months.
It's as if the entire economy turned on a dime at noon on January 20, when the oath of office was taken. At least, that's what they would like people to think.
The reality is that the American economy began its recovery trend nine years ago. Economic data markers are released quarterly for Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the key measure of national performance, and monthly for things like job growth and unemployment ratios.
So a GDP measure would cover a three-month period ending December 31, and an early estimate would not be released until mid-January, before a presidential inauguration. Likewise with employment figures; there is a delay, and the numbers reflect performance before a political change takes place.
In addition, the federal government's fiscal year begins October 1, so a new president is stuck with a budget set up by a predecessor, and is therefore one that he cannot take credit for.
Those realities, however, seldom stop a politician from claiming credit for improvements, and blaming someone else for failures.
Then there is the candidate who complains about a poorly performing economy, and proclaims, "Only I can fix it." Soon after taking office, however, he laments that he "inherited a mess," and blames his predecessor rather than trying to fulfill his promise to fix things.
In addition, there is the kind of guy who says, "Who knew that this stuff could be so complicated?"
Actually, many people, ranging from economic professors to auto mechanics, actually did know.
And if you didn't know, you should not have run for office, claiming that you did.
Here are a few numbers: U.S. employers added 209,000 jobs in June, as the national economy entered its ninth year of recovery. The unemployment rate ticked down to 4.3 percent. Separately, the nation's international trade deficit declined in June, as exports rose and imports decreased.
Overall, the economy grew by 2.6 percent in the second quarter, up from 1.2 percent in the first three months of the year. All these numbers are part of a trend that been on the upswing for many months.
So how complicated can it be? The numbers are readily available online from government agencies who have been tracking economic performance for decades, and whose professional employees are immune to political influence.
No matter how you try, there is no way a new president can truthfully claim credit for a rising economy in his first few months in office (even Franklin Roosevelt's efforts took a year to show some progress), especially if there has been no emergency spending to stimulate construction and employment. But with an unemployment rate of 4.3 percent, the lowest in years, that means there's a shortage of workers.
A new president can, however, wreck economic progress, and one way to do that is to cut immigration in half and prevent workers from coming to America in search of jobs.
But the numbers will not show that until the next fiscal quarter or later, and by then a downward spiral toward economic recession may well have started.
Saturday, August 5, 2017
Teaching Grammar
Writing is a skill, like music or art or carpentry or plumbing or cooking. Anyone can be taught the basics, like playing the piano, but few people have the talent to rise to the level of Dave Brubeck.
Similarly, everyone can and should be taught the basics of grammar, punctuation, spelling and sentence structure as a means of clear communication in writing.
Few become as good at writing as Ernest Hemingway. Even there, however, Hemingway was notoriously poor at spelling. That's what editors are for.
In an earlier time, newspapers employed reporters, who were on their beats and called in information to rewriters, who composed the story. Many reporters, good as they were at the job of gathering information, were terrible writers. And many writers were and are poor at grammar, punctuation, style and spelling. That's what copy editors were and are for.
Times have changed, and many journalists have become skilled at several of the various steps of gathering, reporting, writing and editing stories. But these are all separate skills. And as with many other fields, some have the talent needed to be competent in more than one skill.
Whether they become masters at the craft is another issue, and this principle applies to many other professions, including those mentioned above.
Even so, those who wish to succeed in their chosen fields need to become at least competent in the basics.
For journalists -- indeed for nearly everyone working today -- the ability to communicate well, especially in writing, is an important ingredient for success.
There are, of course, various dialects within any language, and that includes English as spoken in America. Linguistically, all dialects are equal. Each enables its speakers to communicate with others within the same dialect with full understanding.
A conflict, however, often arises when those speaking or writing in one dialect attempt to communicate with those who favor another dialect. Some dialects have more prestige than another, but that is a social judgment, not linguistic.
Therefore, success in society can often depend on whether one speaks or writes well in the prestige dialect. This does not mean abandoning entirely the regional or social dialect that is home to the speaker or writer. Indeed, politicians are especially adept at switching back and forth from the home dialect when campaigning to a different dialect when in the confines of a government or legislative office.
The ruling factor is communication, and within that there are standards. It's important, then, that educators teach students to write and speak according to the standards of the society in which they function.
This is not to say, however, that a 12-year-old should always speak in the same manner as an academic philosopher. Try that on the street and see how fast the kid gets ignored at least, or beaten up at worst.
Nor should football players attempt to use locker-room talk in a philosophy class. Both situations result in judgments by those who feel they occupy a more socially prestigious position.
Nonetheless, there are standards. The skill is in knowing the standards and using them to enable communication and easy understanding.
This is why the rules of grammar are taught in schools, and why the early grades are called "grammar schools."
To a grammarian, rules are what you must do. To a linguist, rules are what speakers and writers actually do when forming sentences and communicating.
Grammarians are judgmental. Linguists merely describe. Successful communication depends on knowing the difference.
Similarly, everyone can and should be taught the basics of grammar, punctuation, spelling and sentence structure as a means of clear communication in writing.
Few become as good at writing as Ernest Hemingway. Even there, however, Hemingway was notoriously poor at spelling. That's what editors are for.
In an earlier time, newspapers employed reporters, who were on their beats and called in information to rewriters, who composed the story. Many reporters, good as they were at the job of gathering information, were terrible writers. And many writers were and are poor at grammar, punctuation, style and spelling. That's what copy editors were and are for.
Times have changed, and many journalists have become skilled at several of the various steps of gathering, reporting, writing and editing stories. But these are all separate skills. And as with many other fields, some have the talent needed to be competent in more than one skill.
Whether they become masters at the craft is another issue, and this principle applies to many other professions, including those mentioned above.
Even so, those who wish to succeed in their chosen fields need to become at least competent in the basics.
For journalists -- indeed for nearly everyone working today -- the ability to communicate well, especially in writing, is an important ingredient for success.
There are, of course, various dialects within any language, and that includes English as spoken in America. Linguistically, all dialects are equal. Each enables its speakers to communicate with others within the same dialect with full understanding.
A conflict, however, often arises when those speaking or writing in one dialect attempt to communicate with those who favor another dialect. Some dialects have more prestige than another, but that is a social judgment, not linguistic.
Therefore, success in society can often depend on whether one speaks or writes well in the prestige dialect. This does not mean abandoning entirely the regional or social dialect that is home to the speaker or writer. Indeed, politicians are especially adept at switching back and forth from the home dialect when campaigning to a different dialect when in the confines of a government or legislative office.
The ruling factor is communication, and within that there are standards. It's important, then, that educators teach students to write and speak according to the standards of the society in which they function.
This is not to say, however, that a 12-year-old should always speak in the same manner as an academic philosopher. Try that on the street and see how fast the kid gets ignored at least, or beaten up at worst.
Nor should football players attempt to use locker-room talk in a philosophy class. Both situations result in judgments by those who feel they occupy a more socially prestigious position.
Nonetheless, there are standards. The skill is in knowing the standards and using them to enable communication and easy understanding.
This is why the rules of grammar are taught in schools, and why the early grades are called "grammar schools."
To a grammarian, rules are what you must do. To a linguist, rules are what speakers and writers actually do when forming sentences and communicating.
Grammarians are judgmental. Linguists merely describe. Successful communication depends on knowing the difference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)