It's time to call out this president for what he is -- a bigot.
Today, he said "big decisions" will have to be made about the cost of rebuilding Puerto Rico and helping to save the lives of the 3.5 million American citizens living there.
In a desperate plea for help, the mayor of San Juan said publicly, "We are dying." But the president waited nearly a week after Hurricane Maria devastated the island before agreeing to send federal help, and has yet to ask Congress to appropriate more funding for disaster relief.
And when he finally did, he hinted it was the island's own fault, because the Puerto Rican government was nearly bankrupt. Now he says there are "big decisions" to be made about sending aid.
Don't hold your breath waiting for such "big decisions." Typically, when a government official uses phrasing like that, it means he opposed to doing anything.
Meanwhile, there is little food or water, no communications, and most hospitals have been destroyed.
Given his history of keeping out immigrants, building a wall to keep out Mexicans, and barring members of a certain religious faith from entering the country, there is only one conclusion to be drawn: The current president of the United States of America is a bigot.
True, Puerto Rico is "an island in the middle of a big ocean, surrounded by lots of water," as the president put it. (Who knew? Any American with an adequate elementary education, that's who.)
It's also true that there are no roads leading directly to the island, so it's difficult to get trucks there, as the president also noted. (Again, who knew? Clearly, he did not.)
That, however, is no excuse for not sending relief. Haiti is also on an island, surrounded by an ocean, but that did not prevent the U.S. government from immediately sending relief when an earthquake struck.
Perhaps it has not yet sunk in to the president's thinking that Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory, and its people are American citizens. But the people there are predominantly Hispanic, and considering the president's past attitudes toward people of Hispanic heritage, this only reinforces the conclusion that this president is guilty of anti-Hispanic bias, in addition to the bigotry he has shown to other groups.
The island of Puerto Rico is essentially destroyed, and it will take years to recover and rebuild. Meanwhile, its people face the difficult choice of attempting to survive even as they seek help in rebuilding a nearly destroyed commonwealth, or to leave.
But where will they go?
That's an easy one to answer. They can go the mainland U.S., since they are American citizens and many have family already established throughout the country.
Moreover, while residents of the island cannot vote in federal elections, once they establish residency in any one of the 50 states, they can register and vote. And many members of their extended families, friends and relatives already here will remember the attitudes of the president, and will vote accordingly.
Word travels quickly, and victims of discrimination have long memories.
Friday, September 29, 2017
Thursday, September 28, 2017
Republican Name Change
The nerve of the working class makes the idlers blush.
It's time the Republican Party dropped the alternative appellation of GOP (Grand Old Party) and became known by a new one -- the Grand Acquisitive Party.
Its continuing plea to workers for support belies their actions, as shown again with their most recent attempt to "reform" the tax code, claiming it will benefit workers and middle income families more than the ultra-wealthy who are historically the base of the GAP.
By preaching such "alternative facts" and not revealing any details of its latest attempt to switch more of the tax burden to workers and away from the wealthy, the GAP once again embraces the theory of "trickle down economics." This theory, which suggests that tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy will eventually trickle down to workers as companies expand their operations and hire more workers, has been proven false many times. Tax breaks do not, in fact, result in investment in more productive capacity and additional workers, but instead the money is used for stock buybacks and executive bonuses, which "increase shareholder value" and give senior management more cash, thus widening the gap between average workers and idle rich.
Workers, however, have become aware of this alternative claim of reality and have spoken out, much to the embarrassment of the few super-rich with a semblance of conscience.
Trickle down economics was discredited decades ago, but the Grand Acquisitive Party still pushes it as a magical cure all for economic woes.
As if the American economy was still woefully unhealthy. The latest report from the Commerce Department said the U.S. enjoyed a growth rate of 3.1 percent in the second quarter, up from 1.2 percent in the first three months of 2017.
In addition, industry profits rose by $14.4 billion in the second quarter, in contrast to a drop of $46.2 billion in the first quarter.
Nevertheless, Republican Party money mavens insist more help (to them) is needed.
Reality check: The economy is not sick, despite their self-serving claims. U.S. GDP has been healthy and grown for some seven years, perhaps the longest period of expansion since the Great Depression.
Will it continue? With careful management by responsible, conscientious government officials, probably yes. But if radical changes in the tax system shovel more cash to the already rich at the expense of the struggling middle class, the result will be an even wider gap between those who work because they must and those who care only for their wallets.
And that includes the new guy in the Oval Office.
The working class is building its nerve to demand accountability from the idlers.
It's time the Republican Party dropped the alternative appellation of GOP (Grand Old Party) and became known by a new one -- the Grand Acquisitive Party.
Its continuing plea to workers for support belies their actions, as shown again with their most recent attempt to "reform" the tax code, claiming it will benefit workers and middle income families more than the ultra-wealthy who are historically the base of the GAP.
By preaching such "alternative facts" and not revealing any details of its latest attempt to switch more of the tax burden to workers and away from the wealthy, the GAP once again embraces the theory of "trickle down economics." This theory, which suggests that tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy will eventually trickle down to workers as companies expand their operations and hire more workers, has been proven false many times. Tax breaks do not, in fact, result in investment in more productive capacity and additional workers, but instead the money is used for stock buybacks and executive bonuses, which "increase shareholder value" and give senior management more cash, thus widening the gap between average workers and idle rich.
Workers, however, have become aware of this alternative claim of reality and have spoken out, much to the embarrassment of the few super-rich with a semblance of conscience.
Trickle down economics was discredited decades ago, but the Grand Acquisitive Party still pushes it as a magical cure all for economic woes.
As if the American economy was still woefully unhealthy. The latest report from the Commerce Department said the U.S. enjoyed a growth rate of 3.1 percent in the second quarter, up from 1.2 percent in the first three months of 2017.
In addition, industry profits rose by $14.4 billion in the second quarter, in contrast to a drop of $46.2 billion in the first quarter.
Nevertheless, Republican Party money mavens insist more help (to them) is needed.
Reality check: The economy is not sick, despite their self-serving claims. U.S. GDP has been healthy and grown for some seven years, perhaps the longest period of expansion since the Great Depression.
Will it continue? With careful management by responsible, conscientious government officials, probably yes. But if radical changes in the tax system shovel more cash to the already rich at the expense of the struggling middle class, the result will be an even wider gap between those who work because they must and those who care only for their wallets.
And that includes the new guy in the Oval Office.
The working class is building its nerve to demand accountability from the idlers.
Wednesday, September 27, 2017
Puerto Rico Citizenship
"Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." -- Thomas Gray, 1742
Surprise! The president seems to have become aware that the people of Puerto Rico are American citizens -- all 3.5 million of them. And now he is taking credit for the "wonderful, magnificent, outstanding job" that U.S. aid agencies and the military are doing to help the people of that U.S. territory recover from hurricane damage -- two storms in as many weeks.
Perhaps it was the repeated phrasing by television newscasters referring to Puerto Rico as a U.S. territory and its people as Americans, plus an Internet posting by Hillary Clinton calling for a U.S. hospital ship to be dispatched to the island to help. Or maybe he listened to some of his advisors, or the governor of Puerto Rico, or the mayor of San Juan, or the Puerto Rico delegate to the House of Representatives (non-voting) to convince him that Puerto Ricans are as equal in citizenship status as the people of Houston, or Florida, or Alabama, or even New Jersey, all of which were hard hit by hurricanes and immediately got federal aid to help in the recovery effort.
Do you suppose he just didn't know that Puerto Rico is part of America, and has been since shortly after the Spanish-American War of 1898? Or maybe he didn't care. He did know this, however: Puerto Rico "is an island, in the middle of the ocean, and it's hard to get trucks to drive there."
Duh!
Or maybe he read a report in the New York Times citing a survey that showed only 37 percent of American adults age 18 to 29 knew that Puerto Rico is part of the U.S. Not likely, since he doesn't read "failing, fake news" publications that don't agree with everything he says and does.
In any case, he seems to have recovered from this bout of ignorance enough to order a U.S. Navy hospital ship to go to the island to help. It only took three or four days after the hurricane hit to get around to this, and it will take another four or five days for the ship to get there.
Perhaps he felt it wouldn't matter, since they could not have voted for him anyway. News flash! If they had a residency in one of the 50 states, they could have. Puerto Rico is not (yet) a state, but its voters do send delegates to national party conventions where presidential candidates are selected. Many do have families on the mainland. And since the island is now virtually destroyed, many of its people -- American citizens all -- will move to one of the 50 states, establish residency, and vote in coming elections.
Word gets around.
All of which raises these two questions: Was the president's delay in mentioning the tragedy and ordering government assistance a lack of knowledge of Puerto Rico's political connection to the United States, or a product of anti-Hispanic bias, or both?
Surprise! The president seems to have become aware that the people of Puerto Rico are American citizens -- all 3.5 million of them. And now he is taking credit for the "wonderful, magnificent, outstanding job" that U.S. aid agencies and the military are doing to help the people of that U.S. territory recover from hurricane damage -- two storms in as many weeks.
Perhaps it was the repeated phrasing by television newscasters referring to Puerto Rico as a U.S. territory and its people as Americans, plus an Internet posting by Hillary Clinton calling for a U.S. hospital ship to be dispatched to the island to help. Or maybe he listened to some of his advisors, or the governor of Puerto Rico, or the mayor of San Juan, or the Puerto Rico delegate to the House of Representatives (non-voting) to convince him that Puerto Ricans are as equal in citizenship status as the people of Houston, or Florida, or Alabama, or even New Jersey, all of which were hard hit by hurricanes and immediately got federal aid to help in the recovery effort.
Do you suppose he just didn't know that Puerto Rico is part of America, and has been since shortly after the Spanish-American War of 1898? Or maybe he didn't care. He did know this, however: Puerto Rico "is an island, in the middle of the ocean, and it's hard to get trucks to drive there."
Duh!
Or maybe he read a report in the New York Times citing a survey that showed only 37 percent of American adults age 18 to 29 knew that Puerto Rico is part of the U.S. Not likely, since he doesn't read "failing, fake news" publications that don't agree with everything he says and does.
In any case, he seems to have recovered from this bout of ignorance enough to order a U.S. Navy hospital ship to go to the island to help. It only took three or four days after the hurricane hit to get around to this, and it will take another four or five days for the ship to get there.
Perhaps he felt it wouldn't matter, since they could not have voted for him anyway. News flash! If they had a residency in one of the 50 states, they could have. Puerto Rico is not (yet) a state, but its voters do send delegates to national party conventions where presidential candidates are selected. Many do have families on the mainland. And since the island is now virtually destroyed, many of its people -- American citizens all -- will move to one of the 50 states, establish residency, and vote in coming elections.
Word gets around.
All of which raises these two questions: Was the president's delay in mentioning the tragedy and ordering government assistance a lack of knowledge of Puerto Rico's political connection to the United States, or a product of anti-Hispanic bias, or both?
Tuesday, September 26, 2017
Flagging
For all the current noise from the president about respect for the U.S. flag, it's time to consider some of the ways Americans fail to follow the guidelines for doing just that.
One prominent way is leaving the Star-Spangled Banner waving from the flagpole of a school, home or government building 24/7 until it is ragged, dirty, faded and generally so weather-worn as to sorely need replacement.
But does that happen? No.
Or small flags are handed out during parades for people to carry and wave, but when the parade is over the 4 x 6 inch banners are simply dropped in the nearest trash can or left on the sidewalk.
Or someone sticks several of these small banners in the grass along their front yard during special occasions to show their "patriotism," but then leaves the flags to be rained on and blown over into the dirt.
A momentary display of "patriotism" satisfies some inner need, but respect is soon forgotten.
Or a flag is sewn onto the seat of a pair of jeans, ostensibly to "prove" the wearer's "patriotism." How patriotic it is to sit on the flag then becomes an open question.
Or a Stars and Stripes motif is woven into or printed on some fabric that is then made into a garment of some sort. How this shows respect for the national emblem and the many people who have died defending the principles it represents is a puzzle.
Several decades ago there was a major flap in America when demonstrators burned flags as their way of protesting the Vietnam War. Conservatives objected, claiming this showed disrespect for the flag. But every guidebook on the appropriate way to dispose of an old banner is to burn it. Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that burning the flag during a protest was a constitutionally protected right of free speech.
Similarly, professionally athletes these days who kneel during the National Anthem are showing solidarity with minority groups who have been abused, in violation of the principles for which this republic stands, as represented by the flag.
Those who disagree with the kneelers call this disrespect for the National Anthem and the National Emblem. But the reality is that by kneeling they show more respect, not less.
The critics, led by the president, confuse disagreement over one issue with disrespect for another.
One wonders how it came about that one side shows such monumental concern over how others treat the flag, yet they themselves show such apathy and ignorance over appropriate treatment of the national emblem.
The guidelines are not hard to find, in print or on line.
One prominent way is leaving the Star-Spangled Banner waving from the flagpole of a school, home or government building 24/7 until it is ragged, dirty, faded and generally so weather-worn as to sorely need replacement.
But does that happen? No.
Or small flags are handed out during parades for people to carry and wave, but when the parade is over the 4 x 6 inch banners are simply dropped in the nearest trash can or left on the sidewalk.
Or someone sticks several of these small banners in the grass along their front yard during special occasions to show their "patriotism," but then leaves the flags to be rained on and blown over into the dirt.
A momentary display of "patriotism" satisfies some inner need, but respect is soon forgotten.
Or a flag is sewn onto the seat of a pair of jeans, ostensibly to "prove" the wearer's "patriotism." How patriotic it is to sit on the flag then becomes an open question.
Or a Stars and Stripes motif is woven into or printed on some fabric that is then made into a garment of some sort. How this shows respect for the national emblem and the many people who have died defending the principles it represents is a puzzle.
Several decades ago there was a major flap in America when demonstrators burned flags as their way of protesting the Vietnam War. Conservatives objected, claiming this showed disrespect for the flag. But every guidebook on the appropriate way to dispose of an old banner is to burn it. Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that burning the flag during a protest was a constitutionally protected right of free speech.
Similarly, professionally athletes these days who kneel during the National Anthem are showing solidarity with minority groups who have been abused, in violation of the principles for which this republic stands, as represented by the flag.
Those who disagree with the kneelers call this disrespect for the National Anthem and the National Emblem. But the reality is that by kneeling they show more respect, not less.
The critics, led by the president, confuse disagreement over one issue with disrespect for another.
One wonders how it came about that one side shows such monumental concern over how others treat the flag, yet they themselves show such apathy and ignorance over appropriate treatment of the national emblem.
The guidelines are not hard to find, in print or on line.
Sunday, September 24, 2017
Free Speech Works Both Ways
Die Gedanken sind frei. (Thoughts are free.)
If athletes must refrain from commenting on politics, then politicians must refrain from commenting about sports.
If liberal students prevent conservatives from speaking their minds, then conservatives can do the same to liberal students.
These thoughts came forward this week after the president urged professional football team owners to fire those who kneel, rather than stand, when the national anthem is played.
Several players went to one knee on Saturday during opening ceremonies to protest the president's comments after the racist incidents in Charlottesville, Virginia, recently. In reaction, the president said kneeling, rather than standing, showed a disrespect for the U.S. flag, and the National Football League owners and managers, should prohibit it and fire those who knelt.
But is kneeling less of a show of respect than standing? In other situations, kneeling is a demonstration of more respect, not less. In fact, many feel that standing shows equality as well as respect, while kneeling indicates subordination.
At several college campuses recently, student demonstrators became so raucous as to threaten violence against conservatives who had been invited to speak at the campus. This led to several of the speeches being cancelled.
But what if students at a conservative college did something similar when a liberal was invited to speak on the campus? Would that also be acceptable?
The rationale is that hate speech must not be allowed. But not all speech is hate speech. And unless a speaker is likely to incite violence or is libelous, American principles allow any kind of speech.
As for speech that incites violence, recent episodes during the presidential campaign show that the successful candidate himself said things that incited violence. Moreover, he seems to be continuing that practice.
As for the first couple of incidents over the weekend where NFL players knelt during the opening ceremonies, they made it clear that the act was a protest of the president's remarks that in Charlottesville, both sides were at fault. In addition, there is the reaction from the White House after an African-American woman sportscaster wrote on social media that in her opinion, the president is a "white supremacist."
The reaction from the White House was that she should be fired for expressing such an opinion. Just as the president claimed players should be fired for expressing their opinions.
Where does it say that Americans should lose their jobs because of their opinions? Who decides that?
Many employers do, in fact, discourage the expression of opinions on company time. Others encourage it. In journalism, there are many who are paid quite well for that reason alone -- their opinions.
And regardless of one's job status, we are free to express our own opinion on our own time in any fashion we choose.
As for the NFL incidents, the view from here is that kneeling while the National Anthem is played shows more, not less, respect for the American flag and the equality and justice for all that it represents.
And in doing so, locking arms and kneeling shows solidarity with those who have suffered from racism and bigotry, as well as a protest against an alleged political leader who refuses who find fault in bigots.
Taken together, the NFL players', coaches' and owners' actions over the weekend are showing more respect for American principles, not less.
If athletes must refrain from commenting on politics, then politicians must refrain from commenting about sports.
If liberal students prevent conservatives from speaking their minds, then conservatives can do the same to liberal students.
These thoughts came forward this week after the president urged professional football team owners to fire those who kneel, rather than stand, when the national anthem is played.
Several players went to one knee on Saturday during opening ceremonies to protest the president's comments after the racist incidents in Charlottesville, Virginia, recently. In reaction, the president said kneeling, rather than standing, showed a disrespect for the U.S. flag, and the National Football League owners and managers, should prohibit it and fire those who knelt.
But is kneeling less of a show of respect than standing? In other situations, kneeling is a demonstration of more respect, not less. In fact, many feel that standing shows equality as well as respect, while kneeling indicates subordination.
At several college campuses recently, student demonstrators became so raucous as to threaten violence against conservatives who had been invited to speak at the campus. This led to several of the speeches being cancelled.
But what if students at a conservative college did something similar when a liberal was invited to speak on the campus? Would that also be acceptable?
The rationale is that hate speech must not be allowed. But not all speech is hate speech. And unless a speaker is likely to incite violence or is libelous, American principles allow any kind of speech.
As for speech that incites violence, recent episodes during the presidential campaign show that the successful candidate himself said things that incited violence. Moreover, he seems to be continuing that practice.
As for the first couple of incidents over the weekend where NFL players knelt during the opening ceremonies, they made it clear that the act was a protest of the president's remarks that in Charlottesville, both sides were at fault. In addition, there is the reaction from the White House after an African-American woman sportscaster wrote on social media that in her opinion, the president is a "white supremacist."
The reaction from the White House was that she should be fired for expressing such an opinion. Just as the president claimed players should be fired for expressing their opinions.
Where does it say that Americans should lose their jobs because of their opinions? Who decides that?
Many employers do, in fact, discourage the expression of opinions on company time. Others encourage it. In journalism, there are many who are paid quite well for that reason alone -- their opinions.
And regardless of one's job status, we are free to express our own opinion on our own time in any fashion we choose.
As for the NFL incidents, the view from here is that kneeling while the National Anthem is played shows more, not less, respect for the American flag and the equality and justice for all that it represents.
And in doing so, locking arms and kneeling shows solidarity with those who have suffered from racism and bigotry, as well as a protest against an alleged political leader who refuses who find fault in bigots.
Taken together, the NFL players', coaches' and owners' actions over the weekend are showing more respect for American principles, not less.
Saturday, September 23, 2017
Civil Servants or Servile Subjects
Americans who take jobs in government are known as civil servants. They are not servile subjects of whoever sits in the Oval Office.
Yet that seems to be what the current president demands -- absolute loyalty to Himself, and those who are not sufficiently servile are soon fired.
A consequence of such an attitude is that many people -- highly qualified, with principles to match -- will not take jobs with this chief executive even if they were asked.
That's a likely reason why so many key positions, including ambassadorships to important U.S. allies, have not been filled. In addition, there are hundreds of other federal job openings still available, but many candidates have not even been nominated, much less confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
Why? Here are two possible reasons: The presdent has not gotten around to asking people to take the jobs, or those he has asked have refused.
There's plenty of evidence to suggest that the new guy expects loyalty to the point of servility, even from journalists.
It's possible to fire civil servants he has appointed when he deems them not sufficiently servile, but word quickly spreads and many decide they cannot work for someone like that.
As for expecting unquestioning personal loyalty from journalists ... Ain't gonna happen.
Journalists ask tough questions because they need to be asked.
Yet that seems to be what the current president demands -- absolute loyalty to Himself, and those who are not sufficiently servile are soon fired.
A consequence of such an attitude is that many people -- highly qualified, with principles to match -- will not take jobs with this chief executive even if they were asked.
That's a likely reason why so many key positions, including ambassadorships to important U.S. allies, have not been filled. In addition, there are hundreds of other federal job openings still available, but many candidates have not even been nominated, much less confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
Why? Here are two possible reasons: The presdent has not gotten around to asking people to take the jobs, or those he has asked have refused.
There's plenty of evidence to suggest that the new guy expects loyalty to the point of servility, even from journalists.
It's possible to fire civil servants he has appointed when he deems them not sufficiently servile, but word quickly spreads and many decide they cannot work for someone like that.
As for expecting unquestioning personal loyalty from journalists ... Ain't gonna happen.
Journalists ask tough questions because they need to be asked.
Friday, September 22, 2017
Facebook and Censorship
There is no privacy on the Internet
Technology always brings with it a need for new definitions as society adjusts to the wonders of new capabilities.
Now, it's the Facebook company that must deal with the issue of whether it's an information company, where First Amendment principles apply, or a service company, which only provides a platform for users and is not responsible for the content, whether information, gossip or advertising.
Newspapers, magazines and broadcast outlets can publish virtually anything, but even they are subject to editorial decisions and discretion, as well as to libel laws. And the content of advertising is controlled by a separate department of the company, not by the editors.
People can also send information to each other through the postal service or via telephone, and those exchanges cannot be monitored by government except through a warrant issued by a court of law.
Or people can peaceably assemble, demonstrate and express their opinions through printed posters and chanting.
News media are subject to the laws of libel as well as their moral obligation to print truth, and people can display their views individually or in groups as long as they do so peaceably.
But what about Facebook and other social media platforms, where people can sign on anonymously and write whatever they please, regardless of truth or potential for harm?
Does Facebook have a legal or moral obligation to monitor all postings by individuals, or to clear the messages of advertisers for truth and accuracy? Should Facebook censor everything that appears on its website? Likewise, does that principle apply to all the other operations that travel on the Internet, including email systems?
The next question becomes, who should monitor all these companies to make sure they are living up to the obligation to keep their websites "clean"?
Government censors, perhaps?
But government and law enforcement cannot open your (print) mail or listen to your telephone calls unless permitted through a court warrant.
It has not yet been established whether email is equal to regular mail, which cannot be intercepted or read unless approved by a judge. Nor has it been established that the content on a Facebook page -- or any other social media site -- should be monitored or controlled by the host company or anyone else. That's censorship.
Meanwhile, users must remember that there is no privacy on the Internet, and you can't believe everything you read there.
Know your sources. It's the price we pay for Free Speech and Freedom of the Press.
Technology always brings with it a need for new definitions as society adjusts to the wonders of new capabilities.
Now, it's the Facebook company that must deal with the issue of whether it's an information company, where First Amendment principles apply, or a service company, which only provides a platform for users and is not responsible for the content, whether information, gossip or advertising.
Newspapers, magazines and broadcast outlets can publish virtually anything, but even they are subject to editorial decisions and discretion, as well as to libel laws. And the content of advertising is controlled by a separate department of the company, not by the editors.
People can also send information to each other through the postal service or via telephone, and those exchanges cannot be monitored by government except through a warrant issued by a court of law.
Or people can peaceably assemble, demonstrate and express their opinions through printed posters and chanting.
News media are subject to the laws of libel as well as their moral obligation to print truth, and people can display their views individually or in groups as long as they do so peaceably.
But what about Facebook and other social media platforms, where people can sign on anonymously and write whatever they please, regardless of truth or potential for harm?
Does Facebook have a legal or moral obligation to monitor all postings by individuals, or to clear the messages of advertisers for truth and accuracy? Should Facebook censor everything that appears on its website? Likewise, does that principle apply to all the other operations that travel on the Internet, including email systems?
The next question becomes, who should monitor all these companies to make sure they are living up to the obligation to keep their websites "clean"?
Government censors, perhaps?
But government and law enforcement cannot open your (print) mail or listen to your telephone calls unless permitted through a court warrant.
It has not yet been established whether email is equal to regular mail, which cannot be intercepted or read unless approved by a judge. Nor has it been established that the content on a Facebook page -- or any other social media site -- should be monitored or controlled by the host company or anyone else. That's censorship.
Meanwhile, users must remember that there is no privacy on the Internet, and you can't believe everything you read there.
Know your sources. It's the price we pay for Free Speech and Freedom of the Press.
Thursday, September 21, 2017
Perspectives
Speak truth to power, comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
In these days of anti-Hispanic bias, it's noteworthy that TV news anchors specify in their reports on hurricane damage that Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory and its people are American citizens.
"All news is local," says the old newsroom saying, and that's borne out when we hear reports of fatalities numbering in dozens or a few hundred from hurricanes hitting America and the islands of the Caribbean, but very little news about monsoons in India and nearby countries, where deaths have numbered in the thousands.
For many years, celebrities were criticized when they commented on political events, as if they were not qualified enough or educated enough to have cogent opinions on such important things as government. Now we have a president whose primary claim to fame is from a TV reality show and his activities as a real estate developer and casino owner. When he, in turn, is criticized by TV entertainers who comment on his political decisions, he attacks, insisting that celebrities should not talk about politics and government.
Go figure.
In all, it's a very exciting time for journalists, as events range from the banal becoming so outrageous as to become banal.
Nevertheless, journalists will continue to do their jobs of reporting exactly, clearly and succinctly just what politicians say, comparing it to what they do, and offering analysis and comment on what it means, quoting recognized experts both pro and con.
Why? Because it's their job to keep people informed on what government types are up to, and it's a constitutionally guaranteed duty.
Besides, it's fun.
In these days of anti-Hispanic bias, it's noteworthy that TV news anchors specify in their reports on hurricane damage that Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory and its people are American citizens.
"All news is local," says the old newsroom saying, and that's borne out when we hear reports of fatalities numbering in dozens or a few hundred from hurricanes hitting America and the islands of the Caribbean, but very little news about monsoons in India and nearby countries, where deaths have numbered in the thousands.
For many years, celebrities were criticized when they commented on political events, as if they were not qualified enough or educated enough to have cogent opinions on such important things as government. Now we have a president whose primary claim to fame is from a TV reality show and his activities as a real estate developer and casino owner. When he, in turn, is criticized by TV entertainers who comment on his political decisions, he attacks, insisting that celebrities should not talk about politics and government.
Go figure.
In all, it's a very exciting time for journalists, as events range from the banal becoming so outrageous as to become banal.
Nevertheless, journalists will continue to do their jobs of reporting exactly, clearly and succinctly just what politicians say, comparing it to what they do, and offering analysis and comment on what it means, quoting recognized experts both pro and con.
Why? Because it's their job to keep people informed on what government types are up to, and it's a constitutionally guaranteed duty.
Besides, it's fun.
Wednesday, September 20, 2017
Going Steady
The guardians of the nation's economy may have found a steady path for the next four years, with inflation at approximately the target rate of 2 percent, unemployment at less than 5 percent, even as overall economic growth fades a bit but nevertheless in the range of 2 percent yearly, according to a new projection by the Federal Reserve Board.
Separately, the Fed said it would keep its target interest rate for its key federal funds lending program at its current range of 1 percent to 1.25 percent.
Recent hurricanes are affecting economic activity, the Fed noted, but overall the nation will continue its path of moderate growth in employment and production.
The Fed's projection is for Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will expand at 2.4 percent this year, and fade to 2.1 percent next year and slide a bit further to 1.8 percent in 2020.
Unemployment, however, will remain below 5 percent, according to the Fed's projection, at 4.3 percent this year, then 4.1 percent the next two years and hold at 4.2 percent in the year 2020.
Whether the projected growth rate will satisfy politicians, however, is another issue, but the Fed has routinely acted independently of political pressure.
That could change, however, since the Fed's Board of Governors has several vacant seats, and the president could move to fill them with nominees who would push for a more rapid economic growth rate of 3 percent or even 4 percent.
Historically, the Fed has resisted any trend to a fast growth rate because of the risk of a sudden fall.
Separately, the Fed said it would keep its target interest rate for its key federal funds lending program at its current range of 1 percent to 1.25 percent.
Recent hurricanes are affecting economic activity, the Fed noted, but overall the nation will continue its path of moderate growth in employment and production.
The Fed's projection is for Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will expand at 2.4 percent this year, and fade to 2.1 percent next year and slide a bit further to 1.8 percent in 2020.
Unemployment, however, will remain below 5 percent, according to the Fed's projection, at 4.3 percent this year, then 4.1 percent the next two years and hold at 4.2 percent in the year 2020.
Whether the projected growth rate will satisfy politicians, however, is another issue, but the Fed has routinely acted independently of political pressure.
That could change, however, since the Fed's Board of Governors has several vacant seats, and the president could move to fill them with nominees who would push for a more rapid economic growth rate of 3 percent or even 4 percent.
Historically, the Fed has resisted any trend to a fast growth rate because of the risk of a sudden fall.
Tuesday, September 19, 2017
War Talk
The whole world is watching.
The president of the United States threatened to "totally destroy North Korea" unless that country backs off its recent behavior.
In a speech to the United Nations General Assembly, Donald Trump referred to the leader of North Korea as "Rocket Man" as he warned that nation to stop launching missiles in the direction of Japan and the U.S. territory of Guam.
The North Korea delegation left the hall before Trump began his speech.
The president cautioned Iran and Venezuela that those countries also would face American intervention unless they changed their ways.
Such talk may play well with the president's ultra-conservative base as he continues his "America First" campaign rhetoric. But in his speech to the UN, Trump urged other countries to employ a similar approach, putting their own countries' interests above all others.
How these three points -- self interest, intervention, and total destruction of foes -- will lead to world peace is an open question.
The president of the United States threatened to "totally destroy North Korea" unless that country backs off its recent behavior.
In a speech to the United Nations General Assembly, Donald Trump referred to the leader of North Korea as "Rocket Man" as he warned that nation to stop launching missiles in the direction of Japan and the U.S. territory of Guam.
The North Korea delegation left the hall before Trump began his speech.
The president cautioned Iran and Venezuela that those countries also would face American intervention unless they changed their ways.
Such talk may play well with the president's ultra-conservative base as he continues his "America First" campaign rhetoric. But in his speech to the UN, Trump urged other countries to employ a similar approach, putting their own countries' interests above all others.
How these three points -- self interest, intervention, and total destruction of foes -- will lead to world peace is an open question.
Friday, September 15, 2017
Headlines and Horsewhips
The days when an angry reader would horsewhip an editor for publishing a story the reader didn't like are gone. But that hasn't stopped some folks from inciting violence against journalists who report things they don't like, or when they present facts counter to their preconceived notions of The Real Truth.
For many years, reporters kept their opinions to themselves, following the principle that their opinions were not relevant to what they do. Moreover, many news organizations had a policy reinforcing that general rule, partly because an individual journalist's opinions, if expressed in a public forum, could be construed as reflecting the opinion of management.
However, that never stopped reporters from having opinions, or of expressing them privately.
Technology has changed many things, including the ability of private individuals to have a worldwide public forum to express their opinions.
So it is that a sports news anchor for ESPN wrote on social media her opinion that the current president of the United States is "a white supremacist."
This might have faded fairly soon, but when the White House called it a
"fireable offense," suggesting that the ESPN host, Jemele Hill, should lose her job for criticizing the president, even though it was on her own time and on her own media platform, the furor quickly spread.
This put management in a tough position. If she be fired, it would appear that the company was buckling under to the president.
(First Amendment be damned, you can't criticize the president.)
But we can, and we should. In fact, if democracy is to be preserved, we must.
In addition, a Connecticut state law offers additional protection, thus making it illegal for a firm to punish an employee in such a situation. ESPN is based in Connecticut.
So much for the other argument that ESPN should discipline the sportscaster for "inappropriate" comments that did not reflect the views of the company.
But the comments were made on her own time and on her own social media page. And besides, since when did it become illegal or a "fireable offense" to criticize a president, or anyone else, for that matter?
There are, of course, libel laws that prohibit speech or writing stuff that is false and that damages a person's reputation. But comments about public figures can go to far different extremes.
Besides, what if the comment is true? If so, it's not libel.
It's entirely possible that the current president is, in fact, a white supremacist. Moreover, this particular president has said far worse things about others that are not only false, but provably false and often said with malice. All three conditions meet the legal standard for libel.
Comments about public figures, however, are measured by a different standard. That's what enables one political figure to call his opponents crooked, or born in another country and therefore not eligible to run for office, or many other insulting and demeaning things.
Now the shoe is on the other foot, as the saying goes.
ESPN could say to an employee, "Don't bring it in the building," and would be well within its legal right to do so. But the sports channel has reportedly been encouraging its staffers to indulge in controversy while on their air, including non-sports issues.
The flap over Jemele Hill's online postings about the president likely would have blown over, but when the White House and the president himself entered the fray and urged ESPN to fire Hill, that raised the stakes to a constitutional level.
No president is above criticism, and no president can expect a news outlet to follow his instructions and disallow criticism.
That way madness lies.
For many years, reporters kept their opinions to themselves, following the principle that their opinions were not relevant to what they do. Moreover, many news organizations had a policy reinforcing that general rule, partly because an individual journalist's opinions, if expressed in a public forum, could be construed as reflecting the opinion of management.
However, that never stopped reporters from having opinions, or of expressing them privately.
Technology has changed many things, including the ability of private individuals to have a worldwide public forum to express their opinions.
So it is that a sports news anchor for ESPN wrote on social media her opinion that the current president of the United States is "a white supremacist."
This might have faded fairly soon, but when the White House called it a
"fireable offense," suggesting that the ESPN host, Jemele Hill, should lose her job for criticizing the president, even though it was on her own time and on her own media platform, the furor quickly spread.
This put management in a tough position. If she be fired, it would appear that the company was buckling under to the president.
(First Amendment be damned, you can't criticize the president.)
But we can, and we should. In fact, if democracy is to be preserved, we must.
In addition, a Connecticut state law offers additional protection, thus making it illegal for a firm to punish an employee in such a situation. ESPN is based in Connecticut.
So much for the other argument that ESPN should discipline the sportscaster for "inappropriate" comments that did not reflect the views of the company.
But the comments were made on her own time and on her own social media page. And besides, since when did it become illegal or a "fireable offense" to criticize a president, or anyone else, for that matter?
There are, of course, libel laws that prohibit speech or writing stuff that is false and that damages a person's reputation. But comments about public figures can go to far different extremes.
Besides, what if the comment is true? If so, it's not libel.
It's entirely possible that the current president is, in fact, a white supremacist. Moreover, this particular president has said far worse things about others that are not only false, but provably false and often said with malice. All three conditions meet the legal standard for libel.
Comments about public figures, however, are measured by a different standard. That's what enables one political figure to call his opponents crooked, or born in another country and therefore not eligible to run for office, or many other insulting and demeaning things.
Now the shoe is on the other foot, as the saying goes.
ESPN could say to an employee, "Don't bring it in the building," and would be well within its legal right to do so. But the sports channel has reportedly been encouraging its staffers to indulge in controversy while on their air, including non-sports issues.
The flap over Jemele Hill's online postings about the president likely would have blown over, but when the White House and the president himself entered the fray and urged ESPN to fire Hill, that raised the stakes to a constitutional level.
No president is above criticism, and no president can expect a news outlet to follow his instructions and disallow criticism.
That way madness lies.
Wednesday, September 13, 2017
Wall Nut
Remember the wall that the Golfer in Chief wanted to build so the Atlantic tide would not mess with his golf course in the west of Ireland?
It seems that not only were local officials opposed, but an engineer from Cork objected to the idea of planting 200,000 tons of rock as a sea wall to protect the investment. The Big Name Golfer, now president of the United States, changed his plans to allow for a much smaller barrier. He withdrew the Tidal Wall plan and is now waiting for approval of the small wall.
Meanwhile, a court awarded the engineer 14,095 euros for his trouble and ordered the golfer in chief to pay up. Didn't happen, so the engineer filed suit. In response, big name golfer sent his squadron of lawyers to have the award cancelled, and the case has been adjourned until December.
Until then, the engineer joins the many dozens, if not hundreds, of others who have won judgements against the self-proclaimed billionaire but are holding their collective breath waiting for payment.
It seems that not only were local officials opposed, but an engineer from Cork objected to the idea of planting 200,000 tons of rock as a sea wall to protect the investment. The Big Name Golfer, now president of the United States, changed his plans to allow for a much smaller barrier. He withdrew the Tidal Wall plan and is now waiting for approval of the small wall.
Meanwhile, a court awarded the engineer 14,095 euros for his trouble and ordered the golfer in chief to pay up. Didn't happen, so the engineer filed suit. In response, big name golfer sent his squadron of lawyers to have the award cancelled, and the case has been adjourned until December.
Until then, the engineer joins the many dozens, if not hundreds, of others who have won judgements against the self-proclaimed billionaire but are holding their collective breath waiting for payment.
Universal Health Care
Don't fix blame. Fix the problem.
Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced legislation to extend the Medicare health care program to cover every American.
Republicans immediately came out against it, claiming that similar programs in other nations have problems, so the U.S. should not go there. One big problem, they note, is that people needing surgery sometimes have to wait a long time before a facility is available to do the operation. Consequently, some folks go elsewhere rather than wait. For example, a Canadian resident may seek the necessary surgery in Idaho.
Therefore, the reasoning goes, don't adopt universal health care because of such problems. Yes, there are problems in the systems of other countries, and there are problems with the Affordable Care Act system now in place in America. But how about we fix the problems rather than spend so much time and effort fixing blame?
But similar problems exist in other countries that already have universal health care. Folks with money are able to buy additional health care and to seek help privately, beyond the help offered by a government-sponsored universal health care program.
In support of his Medicare For All proposal, Sen. Sanders noted in an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times today that the U.S. remains "the only major country on earth that allows chief executives and stockholders in the health care industry to get incredibly rich, while tens of millions of people suffer because they can't get the health care they need."
The current system in America, Sanders wrote, "is enormously expensive, wasteful and bureaucratic, and designed to maximize profits for big insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry, Wall Street and medical equipment suppliers."
Other major nations, he added, spend less than half what the U.S. spends per person for health care, even as they guarantee health care for all.
Republicans, however, seem more focused on problems that systems in other countries face, using that as a warning that the U.S. should not go down that road.
It's a similar tactic used in their opposition to the current Affordable Care Act. There are problems, so let's trash the system, repeal it and replace it later. Perhaps. Eventually. After a while. When the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies agree to forgo profits and act solely in the interest of public welfare.
Don't hold your breath until that happens.
Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced legislation to extend the Medicare health care program to cover every American.
Republicans immediately came out against it, claiming that similar programs in other nations have problems, so the U.S. should not go there. One big problem, they note, is that people needing surgery sometimes have to wait a long time before a facility is available to do the operation. Consequently, some folks go elsewhere rather than wait. For example, a Canadian resident may seek the necessary surgery in Idaho.
Therefore, the reasoning goes, don't adopt universal health care because of such problems. Yes, there are problems in the systems of other countries, and there are problems with the Affordable Care Act system now in place in America. But how about we fix the problems rather than spend so much time and effort fixing blame?
But similar problems exist in other countries that already have universal health care. Folks with money are able to buy additional health care and to seek help privately, beyond the help offered by a government-sponsored universal health care program.
In support of his Medicare For All proposal, Sen. Sanders noted in an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times today that the U.S. remains "the only major country on earth that allows chief executives and stockholders in the health care industry to get incredibly rich, while tens of millions of people suffer because they can't get the health care they need."
The current system in America, Sanders wrote, "is enormously expensive, wasteful and bureaucratic, and designed to maximize profits for big insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry, Wall Street and medical equipment suppliers."
Other major nations, he added, spend less than half what the U.S. spends per person for health care, even as they guarantee health care for all.
Republicans, however, seem more focused on problems that systems in other countries face, using that as a warning that the U.S. should not go down that road.
It's a similar tactic used in their opposition to the current Affordable Care Act. There are problems, so let's trash the system, repeal it and replace it later. Perhaps. Eventually. After a while. When the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies agree to forgo profits and act solely in the interest of public welfare.
Don't hold your breath until that happens.
Tuesday, September 12, 2017
Propaganda
Defining the difference between news and propaganda depends on who's responsible for writing and distributing the information. When a private organization does it, it's news, but when a central government tells an information agency which stories to broadcast and how to handle them, it becomes propaganda.
There's a move under way in the U.S. to have RT (Russian Television) and Sputnik, an Internet news operation, register as foreign agents because they are owned by the Russian government.
But should that definition also apply to the BBC, which is owned by the British government; to CBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp.; or even to the Voice of America, which is owned and operated by the U.S. government and spreads information reflecting American views?
Now consider the origin of the term, propaganda. It comes from the same root that gives us "propagate," to spread. So propaganda originally referred to an operation that spreads a message. The term got a negative rating in the 1930s when a propaganda operation spread negative, bigoted and biased messages stipulated by a certain government.
So if RT and Sputnik are to be labeled propaganda outlets and handle stories from angles dictated to it by the Kremlin, and therefore must register as agents of a foreign government, why not apply the same label to the BBC, the CBC and the Voice of America, which are also owned and operated by their respective governments?
The difference seems to be whether the British, Canadian and U.S. governments tell the several broadcast operations how to handle their news and information broadcasts.
Similar standards could just as easily be applied to any other broadcast operations owned and operated by any other government around the world.
The fuss over Sputnik and RT came to light after an American reporter employed by Sputnik refused to use questions and instructions allegedly forwarded to him by the Kremlin. He was promptly fired. Since then, he has been interviewed by the FBI and has gone public. Consequently, there are demands that Sputnik and RT register as foreign agents.
Now here's a complication: The U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and of the press, which means that anyone can write, publish or broadcast information and opinions contrary to the official views of government, whether federal, state or local.
Any move to limit or prohibit that, such as requiring a person or news outlet to register as an agent of a foreign government, or to penalize those who spread information that the American government doesn't like, would be a clear violation of the Constitution.
Not that it hasn't been tried before. The Alien and Sedition Acts, passed in 1798, made it a crime to criticize the federal government. These laws authorized the president to deport aliens, permitted their arrest and imprisonment during wartime and made it a crime for even American citizens to "print, utter or publish any false, scandalous and malicious writing" about the government.
Sound familiar, like it's about to be attempted again?
At the time, the only journalists prosecuted under the new laws were editors of opposition newspapers. Fortunately, the political party that pushed for the laws was roundly defeated in 1800, and the Alien and Sedition Acts were overturned.
The right to disagree is basic to a civil society. Any attempt to limit or cancel that right can only lead to an autocratic dictatorship.
Fair warning: There are increasing signs that the new guy in Washington is moving to suppress disagreement of any kind, from anyone.
That way dictatorship lies.
There's a move under way in the U.S. to have RT (Russian Television) and Sputnik, an Internet news operation, register as foreign agents because they are owned by the Russian government.
But should that definition also apply to the BBC, which is owned by the British government; to CBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp.; or even to the Voice of America, which is owned and operated by the U.S. government and spreads information reflecting American views?
Now consider the origin of the term, propaganda. It comes from the same root that gives us "propagate," to spread. So propaganda originally referred to an operation that spreads a message. The term got a negative rating in the 1930s when a propaganda operation spread negative, bigoted and biased messages stipulated by a certain government.
So if RT and Sputnik are to be labeled propaganda outlets and handle stories from angles dictated to it by the Kremlin, and therefore must register as agents of a foreign government, why not apply the same label to the BBC, the CBC and the Voice of America, which are also owned and operated by their respective governments?
The difference seems to be whether the British, Canadian and U.S. governments tell the several broadcast operations how to handle their news and information broadcasts.
Similar standards could just as easily be applied to any other broadcast operations owned and operated by any other government around the world.
The fuss over Sputnik and RT came to light after an American reporter employed by Sputnik refused to use questions and instructions allegedly forwarded to him by the Kremlin. He was promptly fired. Since then, he has been interviewed by the FBI and has gone public. Consequently, there are demands that Sputnik and RT register as foreign agents.
Now here's a complication: The U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and of the press, which means that anyone can write, publish or broadcast information and opinions contrary to the official views of government, whether federal, state or local.
Any move to limit or prohibit that, such as requiring a person or news outlet to register as an agent of a foreign government, or to penalize those who spread information that the American government doesn't like, would be a clear violation of the Constitution.
Not that it hasn't been tried before. The Alien and Sedition Acts, passed in 1798, made it a crime to criticize the federal government. These laws authorized the president to deport aliens, permitted their arrest and imprisonment during wartime and made it a crime for even American citizens to "print, utter or publish any false, scandalous and malicious writing" about the government.
Sound familiar, like it's about to be attempted again?
At the time, the only journalists prosecuted under the new laws were editors of opposition newspapers. Fortunately, the political party that pushed for the laws was roundly defeated in 1800, and the Alien and Sedition Acts were overturned.
The right to disagree is basic to a civil society. Any attempt to limit or cancel that right can only lead to an autocratic dictatorship.
Fair warning: There are increasing signs that the new guy in Washington is moving to suppress disagreement of any kind, from anyone.
That way dictatorship lies.
Monday, September 11, 2017
Name Changers
Changing the name does not change reality.
Clean coal is an oxymoron.
First, it was called Global Warming.
Then, the preferred term was Climate Change.
Now, the label used by international groups is Climate Challenge.
Still, that's not enough to satisfy those who insist there's no such thing, so they have come up with the term Weather Extremes, in their latest effort to void the description that scientists agree is a direct result of man's use of fossil fuels worldwide.
It works this way: If you don't like the report, change the name and claim that A is no longer A, but is really B, an alternative fact that eliminates any danger associated with A. Along with that, you insist that A never really existed in the first place, and those who say otherwise are part of a grand conspiracy to foist their fake news on the rest of the world for their own greedy reasons.
Then you keep pounding the table, talk longer, louder and faster and don't let anyone else get a contrary word in, so that you are the only one talking and therefore you must be right.
And beside, those in the irresponsible fake news media have an agenda of their own that is nothing more than to make others look bad. They're not really out to reporting the truth at all, but only want to make us Real Folk look bad.
Yammer, yammer, yammer.
Eventually, if you're lucky enough, people will begin to believe you and elect you to high office, where you will have an even better opportunity to broadcast your version of the Real Truth to counteract the Fake Truth spouted by those who disagree and think they know something that the rest of us Real Folk don't.
Once you're in high office, you can appoint your acolyte Name Changers to take charge of federal agencies that deal with such nonsense, cut their operating budgets and order them to stop studying air and water pollution and its effect on weather, dump all previous data gathered by scientists and insist that there is no reliable data to prove such silly things happen.
Of course there's no data. You just threw it out, because government is not in the weather or climate change business, and if there is no data, the so-called problem doesn't exist. Moreover, everybody knows that the alleged researchers at all those radical leftist universities are a bunch of whackos anyway, and are not to be believed.
Besides, we need coal and oil to power our wonderful industries that generate profits for the investors who own the corporations.
So while the rest of the world takes action to deal with pollution issues that cause serious environmental problems, the U.S. government wants to drop out of the Paris agreement on climate challenges, reduce the budgets of various federal agencies, tells the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to stop monitoring or studying changes in the weather and generally denies that the world's climate is in fact changing. Meanwhile, the world's six largest development banks, including the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, have been increasing their financing to tackle the challenge of a changing worldwide climate.
Last year, the banks devoted $27.4 billion to finance climate mitigation issues and how to deal with changes, up from $25 billion in 2015.
But the president of the United States says there's no problem, so don't spend any money it.
Note to the White House: Weather and climate are not the same thing. Ask any grade school student.
Besides, changing the name doesn't change the problem, nor does it make the problem go away.
Clean coal is an oxymoron.
First, it was called Global Warming.
Then, the preferred term was Climate Change.
Now, the label used by international groups is Climate Challenge.
Still, that's not enough to satisfy those who insist there's no such thing, so they have come up with the term Weather Extremes, in their latest effort to void the description that scientists agree is a direct result of man's use of fossil fuels worldwide.
It works this way: If you don't like the report, change the name and claim that A is no longer A, but is really B, an alternative fact that eliminates any danger associated with A. Along with that, you insist that A never really existed in the first place, and those who say otherwise are part of a grand conspiracy to foist their fake news on the rest of the world for their own greedy reasons.
Then you keep pounding the table, talk longer, louder and faster and don't let anyone else get a contrary word in, so that you are the only one talking and therefore you must be right.
And beside, those in the irresponsible fake news media have an agenda of their own that is nothing more than to make others look bad. They're not really out to reporting the truth at all, but only want to make us Real Folk look bad.
Yammer, yammer, yammer.
Eventually, if you're lucky enough, people will begin to believe you and elect you to high office, where you will have an even better opportunity to broadcast your version of the Real Truth to counteract the Fake Truth spouted by those who disagree and think they know something that the rest of us Real Folk don't.
Once you're in high office, you can appoint your acolyte Name Changers to take charge of federal agencies that deal with such nonsense, cut their operating budgets and order them to stop studying air and water pollution and its effect on weather, dump all previous data gathered by scientists and insist that there is no reliable data to prove such silly things happen.
Of course there's no data. You just threw it out, because government is not in the weather or climate change business, and if there is no data, the so-called problem doesn't exist. Moreover, everybody knows that the alleged researchers at all those radical leftist universities are a bunch of whackos anyway, and are not to be believed.
Besides, we need coal and oil to power our wonderful industries that generate profits for the investors who own the corporations.
So while the rest of the world takes action to deal with pollution issues that cause serious environmental problems, the U.S. government wants to drop out of the Paris agreement on climate challenges, reduce the budgets of various federal agencies, tells the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to stop monitoring or studying changes in the weather and generally denies that the world's climate is in fact changing. Meanwhile, the world's six largest development banks, including the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, have been increasing their financing to tackle the challenge of a changing worldwide climate.
Last year, the banks devoted $27.4 billion to finance climate mitigation issues and how to deal with changes, up from $25 billion in 2015.
But the president of the United States says there's no problem, so don't spend any money it.
Note to the White House: Weather and climate are not the same thing. Ask any grade school student.
Besides, changing the name doesn't change the problem, nor does it make the problem go away.
Thursday, September 7, 2017
Flunking the Fed
Watch for the current president to follow the example of his hero Andrew Jackson and try to shut down the nation's central bank.
In addition to closing the Second Bank of the United States, Jackson deported the Cherokee Nation from the only home they ever knew, in Georgia, sending them to follow a Trail of Tears to Oklahoma. In doing so, he ignored a Supreme Court order against it.
Exactly 184 years ago, on September 10, 1833, President Jackson withdrew all federal funds from the Second Bank of the United States, which had been formed in 1816 as a place to stash federal funds. It replaced a national bank set up by George Washington and Alexander Hamilton in 1791, but its charter expired in 1811.
Jackson's excuse for shutting down the Second Bank was that it was biased toward northern states because its board of directors had substantial ties to industry and manufacturing, and ignored the needs of agricultural and frontier regions. Jackson had already vetoed a congressional effort to grant a new charter for the bank.
Earlier, the people of the Cherokee Nation challenged a move by the government of Georgia that refused to recognize their autonomy and threatened to seize their land, according to a report on the web site ushistory.org. The Cherokee won a ruling by the Supreme Court, written by Chief Justice John Marshall, that the state of Georgia had no jurisdiction over the tribe and no claim to their lands.
Georgia, however, ignored the decision and Jackson refused to enforce it, saying, "Mr. Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it."
Soon thereafter, Jackson authorized federal troops to round up the Cherokee as well as other Native Americans and deport them to Oklahoma. Some 20,000 were driven westward on the Trail of Tears, and nearly one-fourth of them died along the way.
Jacksonian followers were opposed to control of the nation's economy by financial elites, and fought to improve conditions for others. This concern for others, however, did not include Native Americans or African American slaves.
Much of this will sound familiar to those who follow the actions of the current president of the United States, and while he may talk much about preserving conditions for ordinary Americans, this does not include those in minority groups and children brought here by parents who were not legal entrants, nor does that sympathy extend to newcomers in general.
Meanwhile, lost to the headlines over storm damage and the DACA controversy, the president is quietly moving to disable the Federal Reserve or at least replace the members of its Board of Governors with acolytes of his own free-market, trickle-down economic attitudes.
Economists have long opposed any suggestion that the Fed be limited in its discretion in manipulating the money supply as a way of preventing wild swings in the nation's economy, much less that the central bank be abolished.
From the time the Second Bank of the United States was killed off by Andrew Jackson until the Federal Reserve was formed in 1913, the nation was periodically paralyzed by uncontrolled spurts in economic growth, quickly followed by sudden plunges into depression.
Since then, there have certainly been other swings in the nation's economic health, including the Great Depression of the 1930s and the Great Recession of more recent years. But the prime goal of the Fed is to try to even out this cycle of alternating growth and slowdown to minimize the harm to Americans of every wealth segment.
The Fed may not have succeeded, but conditions may well have been far worse without the counterbalancing work of the central bank. In addition, it serves as a check on potential extremes by the government. Ideally, the two can work together to enable an easier supply of money when needed and to help finance spending by government as ways to help an economy stabilize its growth curve.
But when government sets out to disable or destroy the central bank's independence, thus creating more wealth-building opportunities for the few at the expense of the many, then the entire nation is at risk.
In addition to closing the Second Bank of the United States, Jackson deported the Cherokee Nation from the only home they ever knew, in Georgia, sending them to follow a Trail of Tears to Oklahoma. In doing so, he ignored a Supreme Court order against it.
Exactly 184 years ago, on September 10, 1833, President Jackson withdrew all federal funds from the Second Bank of the United States, which had been formed in 1816 as a place to stash federal funds. It replaced a national bank set up by George Washington and Alexander Hamilton in 1791, but its charter expired in 1811.
Jackson's excuse for shutting down the Second Bank was that it was biased toward northern states because its board of directors had substantial ties to industry and manufacturing, and ignored the needs of agricultural and frontier regions. Jackson had already vetoed a congressional effort to grant a new charter for the bank.
Earlier, the people of the Cherokee Nation challenged a move by the government of Georgia that refused to recognize their autonomy and threatened to seize their land, according to a report on the web site ushistory.org. The Cherokee won a ruling by the Supreme Court, written by Chief Justice John Marshall, that the state of Georgia had no jurisdiction over the tribe and no claim to their lands.
Georgia, however, ignored the decision and Jackson refused to enforce it, saying, "Mr. Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it."
Soon thereafter, Jackson authorized federal troops to round up the Cherokee as well as other Native Americans and deport them to Oklahoma. Some 20,000 were driven westward on the Trail of Tears, and nearly one-fourth of them died along the way.
Jacksonian followers were opposed to control of the nation's economy by financial elites, and fought to improve conditions for others. This concern for others, however, did not include Native Americans or African American slaves.
Much of this will sound familiar to those who follow the actions of the current president of the United States, and while he may talk much about preserving conditions for ordinary Americans, this does not include those in minority groups and children brought here by parents who were not legal entrants, nor does that sympathy extend to newcomers in general.
Meanwhile, lost to the headlines over storm damage and the DACA controversy, the president is quietly moving to disable the Federal Reserve or at least replace the members of its Board of Governors with acolytes of his own free-market, trickle-down economic attitudes.
Economists have long opposed any suggestion that the Fed be limited in its discretion in manipulating the money supply as a way of preventing wild swings in the nation's economy, much less that the central bank be abolished.
From the time the Second Bank of the United States was killed off by Andrew Jackson until the Federal Reserve was formed in 1913, the nation was periodically paralyzed by uncontrolled spurts in economic growth, quickly followed by sudden plunges into depression.
Since then, there have certainly been other swings in the nation's economic health, including the Great Depression of the 1930s and the Great Recession of more recent years. But the prime goal of the Fed is to try to even out this cycle of alternating growth and slowdown to minimize the harm to Americans of every wealth segment.
The Fed may not have succeeded, but conditions may well have been far worse without the counterbalancing work of the central bank. In addition, it serves as a check on potential extremes by the government. Ideally, the two can work together to enable an easier supply of money when needed and to help finance spending by government as ways to help an economy stabilize its growth curve.
But when government sets out to disable or destroy the central bank's independence, thus creating more wealth-building opportunities for the few at the expense of the many, then the entire nation is at risk.
Wednesday, September 6, 2017
Central Bank Casting Call
Another member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors is leaving. This will leave the central bank's leaders four short of its full cast, and gives the president an even better opportunity to reshape the independent agency to his own economic views.
Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer submitted his letter of resignation to the president, effective Oct. 1. Three other members have already left the seven-member Fed board, and the president has not nominated anyone to fill those vacancies.
The Fed's prime directive is to control interest rates and unemployment. It does this by manipulating the supply of money available, which in turn affects interest rates and the willingness of firms to invest in production and expansion. This encourages hiring, thus keeping down the jobless rate and leading to a stable, growing economy.
In the past, however, the Fed has countered administration expansion plans by raising interest rates in order to prevent a too-rapid expansion and its attendant runaway inflation.
The current president has pushed for economic expansion of at least 3 percent and perhaps as much as 4 percent, but the Fed has insisted on maintaining a growth rate of about 2 percent.
By replacing Fed governors with members more loyal to him, the president could weaken the Fed's independence and encourage more rapid economic growth, as measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the total value of all goods and services produced in the country.
But pushing for a rapid expansion often creates an economic bubble that quickly and suddenly bursts, sending the economy crashing into a severe depression, dragging the rest of the world down with it.
The Federal Reserve is already three members short of its complement of seven, and Janet Yellen's term as chair of the Board of Governors expires next February. But even if the president does not nominate her for another term as chair, she would remain as a member of the board until 2024.
Meanwhile, in the seven months since inauguration, the president has not nominated anyone to fill the current vacancies. All nominations to the board, including the chair, require Senate approval.
Separately, the Fed released its latest Beige Book summary of the nation's economy, based on information collected primarily before Hurricane Harvey struck the Gulf Coast.
Overall, economic activity nationwide expanded at "a modest to moderate pace" across the country in July and August. The summary did not account for shutdowns in the energy and natural resources sector because of the hurricane. The storm "created broad disruptions to economic activity," the reported noted, but it's "too soon to tell the full extent of the impact."
Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer submitted his letter of resignation to the president, effective Oct. 1. Three other members have already left the seven-member Fed board, and the president has not nominated anyone to fill those vacancies.
The Fed's prime directive is to control interest rates and unemployment. It does this by manipulating the supply of money available, which in turn affects interest rates and the willingness of firms to invest in production and expansion. This encourages hiring, thus keeping down the jobless rate and leading to a stable, growing economy.
In the past, however, the Fed has countered administration expansion plans by raising interest rates in order to prevent a too-rapid expansion and its attendant runaway inflation.
The current president has pushed for economic expansion of at least 3 percent and perhaps as much as 4 percent, but the Fed has insisted on maintaining a growth rate of about 2 percent.
By replacing Fed governors with members more loyal to him, the president could weaken the Fed's independence and encourage more rapid economic growth, as measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the total value of all goods and services produced in the country.
But pushing for a rapid expansion often creates an economic bubble that quickly and suddenly bursts, sending the economy crashing into a severe depression, dragging the rest of the world down with it.
The Federal Reserve is already three members short of its complement of seven, and Janet Yellen's term as chair of the Board of Governors expires next February. But even if the president does not nominate her for another term as chair, she would remain as a member of the board until 2024.
Meanwhile, in the seven months since inauguration, the president has not nominated anyone to fill the current vacancies. All nominations to the board, including the chair, require Senate approval.
Separately, the Fed released its latest Beige Book summary of the nation's economy, based on information collected primarily before Hurricane Harvey struck the Gulf Coast.
Overall, economic activity nationwide expanded at "a modest to moderate pace" across the country in July and August. The summary did not account for shutdowns in the energy and natural resources sector because of the hurricane. The storm "created broad disruptions to economic activity," the reported noted, but it's "too soon to tell the full extent of the impact."
Tuesday, September 5, 2017
DACA Desaparecidos
The president copped out of his threat to cancel the Dreamer program immediately and deport all undocumented people who came to America as children and have grown up to be responsible, law-abiding workers and students.
Instead, he suspended the program for six months and told Congress to fix it. Now, of course, if a divided Congress fails to resolve the issue, the president can claim another victory, or at least blame someone else for not fixing the problem.
After five years of following the rules and conscientiously registering with the federal government to legalize their presence in America, many thousands of workers and students will now disappear from the prying eyes of government agents to avoid deportation to a land they have never known.
Rather than deal with a complex problem, the president has passed the buck to Congress, suspending the DACA program for six months. The policy is officially known as Delayed Action for Childhood Arrivals, was initiated by former President Barack Obama to help resolve the status of those who were brought to America by their parents and have grown up in this country.
As a presidential candidate, the man who now occupies the Oval Office first promised to cancel the Dreamer program on Day One of his term in office, and deport all undocumented newcomers, at the same time keeping families together, including children who were born here and are therefore citizens.
Now he has abandoned both those promises, tossing the problem to Congress with instructions that the issue be resolved in six months.
Some 97 percent of those who have registered for the DACA program are either working, in school or in the military, and have no criminal record.
Clearly, those who are here illegally, have no job and have a criminal record are not likely to register for the DACA program, since if they do they will immediately be deported. They have already gone to ground are even less likely to surface than before.
With cancellation of the DACA program, they will be joined by many thousands more who have tried to legalize their status. By registering with the program, these folk -- Americans in all but legal status -- have provided government agents with their names, addresses, places of employment or school attendance, plenty of information to find them easily and deport them.
Now they will simply leave home, quit their jobs or schools and disappear lest they be ousted from the only country they have ever known.
Strictly speaking, they may not be legal residents, but neither are they stupid.
Instead, he suspended the program for six months and told Congress to fix it. Now, of course, if a divided Congress fails to resolve the issue, the president can claim another victory, or at least blame someone else for not fixing the problem.
After five years of following the rules and conscientiously registering with the federal government to legalize their presence in America, many thousands of workers and students will now disappear from the prying eyes of government agents to avoid deportation to a land they have never known.
Rather than deal with a complex problem, the president has passed the buck to Congress, suspending the DACA program for six months. The policy is officially known as Delayed Action for Childhood Arrivals, was initiated by former President Barack Obama to help resolve the status of those who were brought to America by their parents and have grown up in this country.
As a presidential candidate, the man who now occupies the Oval Office first promised to cancel the Dreamer program on Day One of his term in office, and deport all undocumented newcomers, at the same time keeping families together, including children who were born here and are therefore citizens.
Now he has abandoned both those promises, tossing the problem to Congress with instructions that the issue be resolved in six months.
Some 97 percent of those who have registered for the DACA program are either working, in school or in the military, and have no criminal record.
Clearly, those who are here illegally, have no job and have a criminal record are not likely to register for the DACA program, since if they do they will immediately be deported. They have already gone to ground are even less likely to surface than before.
With cancellation of the DACA program, they will be joined by many thousands more who have tried to legalize their status. By registering with the program, these folk -- Americans in all but legal status -- have provided government agents with their names, addresses, places of employment or school attendance, plenty of information to find them easily and deport them.
Now they will simply leave home, quit their jobs or schools and disappear lest they be ousted from the only country they have ever known.
Strictly speaking, they may not be legal residents, but neither are they stupid.
Monday, September 4, 2017
Litany of Lies
What can this president do to regain the trust of the American people?
For starters, he can get off his high horse and stop lying. As part of that, he can stop acting like he's a king.
If he thinks or expects everyone in Congress to kneel, kiss his ring and be grateful for the privilege of doing it, he's got another think coming.
Saying things like, "Because I'm the president and you're not," is no way to build confidence from the people, nor to inspire a belief in his competence to lead the nation as trouble looms, both economically and internationally.
This is America, where nobody can walk all over you unless you lie down and let 'em.
Increasingly, truth monitors throughout America and around the world are documenting this president's litany of lies. But rather than admit a mistake or correct an error, this guy only doubles down in his attacks on those who call him out.
But why are we surprised? This has been a pattern in his behavior for decades.
In his previous lives as a real estate developer, casino mogul and marketer of an artificially famous name, his manipulation of truth, weaseling out of contracts and serial bankruptcies -- after stuffing his own wallet before a project goes belly up -- have all been noted by bemused observers who were not directly affected by the many business failures.
To be clear, he has never declared personal bankruptcy, though he has come close as various firms with his name on them have gone under, along with many subcontractors who were not paid for work done -- most on the excuse that they did not do a good enough job. That's the same excuse he used for firing FBI Director James Comey, and it demonstrated an arbitrary decision, at best.
Such behavior may have been watched with bemusement by others in the business world, and perhaps with a bit of jealousy that he was getting away with such shenanigans while others suffered legal and financial injury.
But while such behavior may have been, and often is, tolerated in the private sector, government policy decisions that involve the entire nation is a different matter.
This president, however, remains locked in to a private sector world mindset of his own, which treats government and the public as adjuncts, subsidiary to the wishes of a self-designated Supreme Leader who demands absolute obsequious loyalty to he Who Must Be Obeyed, the Master of All he Surveys (or so he thinks).
Any who disagree or point to contradictory evidence are by his arbitrary definition weak, failing, fake and any other negative adjective that comes to mind at the moment of defensive denial and detraction.
And that too is in itself a set of lies.
All of which makes it easy to collect and document the pace of prevarification, which has averaged nearly six lies every day since Inauguration Day, last January 20.
Yet the beatdown goes on.
There are no so blind as those who will not see, and none so deaf as those who will not hear.
Worse, there are none so self-centered as those who will not acknowledge the pain and suffering of those left hungry, hurt and homeless by a catastrophic storm like Hurricane Harvey.
It took several days of reminders before the current occupant of the Oval Office made a second trip to Texas and met directly with families in hard-hit areas, rather than a brief contact with local, state and federal officials far from the most severely flooded region.
Meanwhile, be not surprised if he relegates storm relief to a secondary position behind his other demands for tax cuts for the wealthy, approval of a poorly written health care reform plan, delay in a federal debt limit increase until a budget is submitted, and until Mexico agrees to pay for a Grande Wall, after he cancels a program that helps undocumented youths gain legal residency, and punishes allies for doing business with American consumers.
What's that? You want logical behavior from this guy? In his native Brooklyn vernacular, Fuhgeddabowdit.
For starters, he can get off his high horse and stop lying. As part of that, he can stop acting like he's a king.
If he thinks or expects everyone in Congress to kneel, kiss his ring and be grateful for the privilege of doing it, he's got another think coming.
Saying things like, "Because I'm the president and you're not," is no way to build confidence from the people, nor to inspire a belief in his competence to lead the nation as trouble looms, both economically and internationally.
This is America, where nobody can walk all over you unless you lie down and let 'em.
Increasingly, truth monitors throughout America and around the world are documenting this president's litany of lies. But rather than admit a mistake or correct an error, this guy only doubles down in his attacks on those who call him out.
But why are we surprised? This has been a pattern in his behavior for decades.
In his previous lives as a real estate developer, casino mogul and marketer of an artificially famous name, his manipulation of truth, weaseling out of contracts and serial bankruptcies -- after stuffing his own wallet before a project goes belly up -- have all been noted by bemused observers who were not directly affected by the many business failures.
To be clear, he has never declared personal bankruptcy, though he has come close as various firms with his name on them have gone under, along with many subcontractors who were not paid for work done -- most on the excuse that they did not do a good enough job. That's the same excuse he used for firing FBI Director James Comey, and it demonstrated an arbitrary decision, at best.
Such behavior may have been watched with bemusement by others in the business world, and perhaps with a bit of jealousy that he was getting away with such shenanigans while others suffered legal and financial injury.
But while such behavior may have been, and often is, tolerated in the private sector, government policy decisions that involve the entire nation is a different matter.
This president, however, remains locked in to a private sector world mindset of his own, which treats government and the public as adjuncts, subsidiary to the wishes of a self-designated Supreme Leader who demands absolute obsequious loyalty to he Who Must Be Obeyed, the Master of All he Surveys (or so he thinks).
Any who disagree or point to contradictory evidence are by his arbitrary definition weak, failing, fake and any other negative adjective that comes to mind at the moment of defensive denial and detraction.
And that too is in itself a set of lies.
All of which makes it easy to collect and document the pace of prevarification, which has averaged nearly six lies every day since Inauguration Day, last January 20.
Yet the beatdown goes on.
There are no so blind as those who will not see, and none so deaf as those who will not hear.
Worse, there are none so self-centered as those who will not acknowledge the pain and suffering of those left hungry, hurt and homeless by a catastrophic storm like Hurricane Harvey.
It took several days of reminders before the current occupant of the Oval Office made a second trip to Texas and met directly with families in hard-hit areas, rather than a brief contact with local, state and federal officials far from the most severely flooded region.
Meanwhile, be not surprised if he relegates storm relief to a secondary position behind his other demands for tax cuts for the wealthy, approval of a poorly written health care reform plan, delay in a federal debt limit increase until a budget is submitted, and until Mexico agrees to pay for a Grande Wall, after he cancels a program that helps undocumented youths gain legal residency, and punishes allies for doing business with American consumers.
What's that? You want logical behavior from this guy? In his native Brooklyn vernacular, Fuhgeddabowdit.
Sunday, September 3, 2017
Privatizing NASA
One would think he'd learn by this time.
Using a Friday night news dump to minimize the impact of potentially controversial or negative coverage doesn't work, since it gives media folk so much more time to prepare a long analytical piece for Sunday's print and broadcast editions.
This time, the president used the tactic to announce his nominee to take charge of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), even as journalists were busy covering the storm disaster in Texas as well as the likelihood of shattering the futures of 800,000 Dreamers -- those who were brought to America as children and hope to remain here when their citizenship status is resolved. In addition, he wants NASA to stop studying climate change.
So who's the nominee to be the new administrator of NASA? a Republican congressman from Oklahoma who favors privatizing the nation's efforts in space exploration.
His name is Jim Bridenstine, and his qualifications to head NASA are that he was a Navy pilot, served as executive director of the Tulsa Air and Space Museum and Planetarium, and on a congressional committee dealing with space and technology issues.
He defended his interest in space by noting that his Oklahoma constituents "get killed in tornadoes. I care about space," according to published reports.
The nomination must be approved by the Senate. If approved, Bridenstine would be the first elected official to head NASA.
Using a Friday night news dump to minimize the impact of potentially controversial or negative coverage doesn't work, since it gives media folk so much more time to prepare a long analytical piece for Sunday's print and broadcast editions.
This time, the president used the tactic to announce his nominee to take charge of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), even as journalists were busy covering the storm disaster in Texas as well as the likelihood of shattering the futures of 800,000 Dreamers -- those who were brought to America as children and hope to remain here when their citizenship status is resolved. In addition, he wants NASA to stop studying climate change.
So who's the nominee to be the new administrator of NASA? a Republican congressman from Oklahoma who favors privatizing the nation's efforts in space exploration.
His name is Jim Bridenstine, and his qualifications to head NASA are that he was a Navy pilot, served as executive director of the Tulsa Air and Space Museum and Planetarium, and on a congressional committee dealing with space and technology issues.
He defended his interest in space by noting that his Oklahoma constituents "get killed in tornadoes. I care about space," according to published reports.
The nomination must be approved by the Senate. If approved, Bridenstine would be the first elected official to head NASA.
Friday, September 1, 2017
Dreamer Dragnet
The dream is becoming a nightmare for at least 800,000 people who signed up to have their status as Americans clarified, only to find that registering has given the government a list of names and addresses, making it easy for them to be found and deported.
The president has said he will announce by Tuesday whether he will cancel the government's policy of not deporting those who were brought to America as children by parents who came illegally.
America is the only country most of them have ever known, and government policy has been to encourage them to register while their residency and citizenship status is clarified. The policy is known as DACA, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, and was begun through an executive order issued by former President Barack Obama in 2012.
Now, President Donald Trump wants to dismantle the program, as part of his announced crackdown on undocumented people in America.
This comes as many thousands of people suffer the effects of Hurricane Harvey, making them homeless, out of work and dependent on assistance for survival.
One problem, of course, is that many who have regularly and conscientiously shown up at government offices as they try to get permission to remain in America will now disappear rather than face deportation to countries they do not know and a culture that is literally foreign to them.
Moreover, many skilled and unskilled workers in Texas will not show up for their jobs as the region tries to recover from storm damage.
In short, they too will disappear and attempt to blend in at other areas of the nation, leaving the disaster area without enough workers to help clean up from the storm.
As it is, Houston, Galveston, Beaumont and other cities in Texas and Louisiana will need all the help they can get. Chasing thousands of residents away from their homes when every hand is needed for the recovery effort is not only un-American, it is stupid.
The president has said he will announce by Tuesday whether he will cancel the government's policy of not deporting those who were brought to America as children by parents who came illegally.
America is the only country most of them have ever known, and government policy has been to encourage them to register while their residency and citizenship status is clarified. The policy is known as DACA, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, and was begun through an executive order issued by former President Barack Obama in 2012.
Now, President Donald Trump wants to dismantle the program, as part of his announced crackdown on undocumented people in America.
This comes as many thousands of people suffer the effects of Hurricane Harvey, making them homeless, out of work and dependent on assistance for survival.
One problem, of course, is that many who have regularly and conscientiously shown up at government offices as they try to get permission to remain in America will now disappear rather than face deportation to countries they do not know and a culture that is literally foreign to them.
Moreover, many skilled and unskilled workers in Texas will not show up for their jobs as the region tries to recover from storm damage.
In short, they too will disappear and attempt to blend in at other areas of the nation, leaving the disaster area without enough workers to help clean up from the storm.
As it is, Houston, Galveston, Beaumont and other cities in Texas and Louisiana will need all the help they can get. Chasing thousands of residents away from their homes when every hand is needed for the recovery effort is not only un-American, it is stupid.
FEMA Falls Short
Flood insurance claims will wash away the government's premium income by $1.4 billion, according to a report by the independent Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
That estimate was made before Harvey hit Houston, and was based on policies that were in effect in August of last year.
Moreover, the National Flood Insurance Program will expire at the end of this month, unless Congress agrees to let the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which administers the program, continue the disaster relief effort.
Lawmakers had asked the CBO to calculate the financial soundness of the flood insurance program before acting to renew the plan.
That estimate was made before Harvey hit Houston, and was based on policies that were in effect in August of last year.
Moreover, the National Flood Insurance Program will expire at the end of this month, unless Congress agrees to let the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which administers the program, continue the disaster relief effort.
Lawmakers had asked the CBO to calculate the financial soundness of the flood insurance program before acting to renew the plan.
Jobs and Harvey
U.S. employers added 156,000 jobs in August, and the unemployment rate held relatively steady at 4.4 percent, according to the government's latest jobs report.
However, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) noted that the survey was completed before Hurricane Harvey struck the coast of Texas and its many millions of people. Houston alone, the nation's fourth largest city, has a population of more than 2 million.
That catastrophe will affect regional employment, since so many businesses have shut down because of the storm. That may be partially offset by additional hiring during cleanup efforts, but whether many smaller businesses survive remains an open question.
Meanwhile, there are reports of additional migrants crossing the border seeking employment in the recovery programs, but whether these technically illegal workers are eventually counted is an open question.
However, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) noted that the survey was completed before Hurricane Harvey struck the coast of Texas and its many millions of people. Houston alone, the nation's fourth largest city, has a population of more than 2 million.
That catastrophe will affect regional employment, since so many businesses have shut down because of the storm. That may be partially offset by additional hiring during cleanup efforts, but whether many smaller businesses survive remains an open question.
Meanwhile, there are reports of additional migrants crossing the border seeking employment in the recovery programs, but whether these technically illegal workers are eventually counted is an open question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)