Once is an accident. Twice is a coincidence. Three times or more is a pattern.
There are:
12 inches in a foot
12 months in a year
12 grades in the American school system
12 signs of the zodiac
12 items in a dozen
12 dozen make up one gross
12 pence to a shilling
12 people on a jury
12 channels on early television sets -- 2 through 13
12 districts in the U.S. Federal Reserve bank system
12 tribes of Israel
12 apostles in Christianity, which borrowed the idea from
12 apostles in Mithraism
12 labors of Hercules, imposed as punishment
12 days to the Christmas season, from Yule to Epiphany
12 steps to humility, (St. Benedict, 520 A.D.)
12 steps of pride (St. Bernard of Clairvaux, 1130 A.D.)
12 steps to sobriety (Bill Miller founder of AA, 1937)
12 parts to the Boy Scout Law (Trustworthy, Loyal, etc.)
12 tones in the chromatic musical scale
12 bars in standard blues music
12 animals in the Chinese cycle of years (rat, ox, tiger, etc.)
12 points to a pica, the standard printer's measuring system
12 times 6 picas = 72, the number of points to an inch
12 times 3 = 36, the number of inches in a yard
12 times 2 = 24 hours in a day
12 times 5 = 60 minutes in an hour
12 times 30 = 360 degrees in a circle
12 times 10 = 120 beats per minute, the standard military marching pace
12 times 10 = 120, the optimum systolic blood pressure
12 volts in automobile electrical systems
12 was the base for early mathematics
12 Chairs in the Mel Brooks movie based on a Russian folk tale
12 Monkeys, another movie, by Terry Gilliam
12 Years a Slave, a book and a movie
12 strands in a DNA sequence
Finally, the atomic weight of carbon, the base of all life forms on earth, is 12.01
And consider this: 12 states sent delegates to Philadelphia for the Constitutional Convention of 1787, during the 12th year of U.S. independence. (Rhode Island did not attend.)
Along with the new Constitution, the delegates submitted a package of 12 proposed amendments, the first two of which were not promptly ratified. Proposed Amendments Three through Twelve were approved by the several states by 1791, and became known as the Bill of Rights.
Proposed Amendment One, dealing with apportionment for the House of Representatives, was never approved, but was superseded when the House itself limited its membership to 435. The Constitution initially specified one representative per 30,000 population, but that soon became unwieldy, leading to the limit of 435.
Proposed Amendment Two, dealing with salaries for members of Congress, was ratified in 1992, as Amendment 27.
Taken together, what do they all mean?
Perhaps nothing; they are just coincidences.
Or are they?
Wednesday, December 19, 2018
Tuesday, December 18, 2018
Empty Threats
"If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen." -- Harry Truman
Few things are more foolish than empty threats made in total ignorance of the subject or topic threatened, unless the threatener does, in fact, know the background and assumes listeners will accept what he says. That, however, is a major threat to democracy.
The current president of the United States has threatened litigation against the TV satire show "Saturday Night Live" because he does not like being mocked.
And he has called on the Federal Communications Commission to cancel the licenses of CNN and MSNBC because he does not like their coverage of what he says and does.
The only problem with these threats is that they both clash with the right of free speech and the free press, guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
Moreover, CNN and MSNBC, as cable-based networks, do not have broadcast licenses so there is nothing to cancel. Individual broadcast stations do have licenses, but networks do not. Neither do cable operations, so the FCC has little, if any, jurisdiction over their operations. The FCC does allocate broadcast frequencies and assign operations to specific places on the span of frequencies, but controlling what is said and done by the companies would amount to government censorship, which is forbidden by the Constitution.
Likewise, satire has been a highly protected weapon of writers, commentators and entertainers for centuries. To threaten to shut down a news or entertainment operation simply because a government entity or official does not like what is being said is a tactic used by dictatorship to suppress opposition.
So either the current president does not know the law, traditions or constitutional guarantees or he assumes the rest of the general public is ignorant of American values and will do what he says simply because he says it.
Therefore, we are dealing with a president who is either ignorant, or chooses to treat the American citizenry as if we are.
Meanwhile, the American news and entertainment media watch and report on what the senior political leader says and does, putting them into the context of law, reality, and constitutional guarantees.
Few things are more foolish than empty threats made in total ignorance of the subject or topic threatened, unless the threatener does, in fact, know the background and assumes listeners will accept what he says. That, however, is a major threat to democracy.
The current president of the United States has threatened litigation against the TV satire show "Saturday Night Live" because he does not like being mocked.
And he has called on the Federal Communications Commission to cancel the licenses of CNN and MSNBC because he does not like their coverage of what he says and does.
The only problem with these threats is that they both clash with the right of free speech and the free press, guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
Moreover, CNN and MSNBC, as cable-based networks, do not have broadcast licenses so there is nothing to cancel. Individual broadcast stations do have licenses, but networks do not. Neither do cable operations, so the FCC has little, if any, jurisdiction over their operations. The FCC does allocate broadcast frequencies and assign operations to specific places on the span of frequencies, but controlling what is said and done by the companies would amount to government censorship, which is forbidden by the Constitution.
Likewise, satire has been a highly protected weapon of writers, commentators and entertainers for centuries. To threaten to shut down a news or entertainment operation simply because a government entity or official does not like what is being said is a tactic used by dictatorship to suppress opposition.
So either the current president does not know the law, traditions or constitutional guarantees or he assumes the rest of the general public is ignorant of American values and will do what he says simply because he says it.
Therefore, we are dealing with a president who is either ignorant, or chooses to treat the American citizenry as if we are.
Meanwhile, the American news and entertainment media watch and report on what the senior political leader says and does, putting them into the context of law, reality, and constitutional guarantees.
Tuesday, December 11, 2018
Pride and Arrogance
"If we don't get what we want, I will shut down the government."
That's the explicit threat made by the president of the United States, pronounced on national television, live from the Oval Office.
Moreover, he added that he would be "proud" to do it, accepting full responsibility for a complete shutdown of the U.S. government if he does not get his way.
The president made this threat while talking to Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, the leaders of Democratic members of Congress.
He also addressed the two senior political leaders by their first names, while they used the term "Mr. President." Whether they deserve the same courtesy is another issue. Respect is one thing, but insisting on deference is another.
We are, as the founding document of the American republic clearly states, "all created equal." There is also the matter of regularly interrupting others to dominate every conversation.
But I digress. These are tactics that illustrate the character of the person who uses them.
It has been long been said that pride goeth before a fall. Whether the amount of pride -- bordering on arrogance -- exhibited by the current president portends an incipient fall from power remains a future event.
Stay tuned.
That's the explicit threat made by the president of the United States, pronounced on national television, live from the Oval Office.
Moreover, he added that he would be "proud" to do it, accepting full responsibility for a complete shutdown of the U.S. government if he does not get his way.
The president made this threat while talking to Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, the leaders of Democratic members of Congress.
He also addressed the two senior political leaders by their first names, while they used the term "Mr. President." Whether they deserve the same courtesy is another issue. Respect is one thing, but insisting on deference is another.
We are, as the founding document of the American republic clearly states, "all created equal." There is also the matter of regularly interrupting others to dominate every conversation.
But I digress. These are tactics that illustrate the character of the person who uses them.
It has been long been said that pride goeth before a fall. Whether the amount of pride -- bordering on arrogance -- exhibited by the current president portends an incipient fall from power remains a future event.
Stay tuned.
Monday, December 10, 2018
Circular Logic
"I am the law." -- Judge Dredd, a fictional character.
There has been increasing talk among pundits as to whether a sitting president can be indicted. Some point out that it has never happened before, and therefore cannot happen now.
Others note that it has been Department of Justice policy not to try, and therefore that policy should not, cannot or must not be changed.
Meanwhile, what's to stop state officials from filing charges? They are not bound by federal DOJ policy. Moreover, that policy can change.
Evidence is piling up that the current president of the United States was involved in illegal activities before, during and after his election. While no charges have yet been filed, if the allegations and implications are true, there were multiple violations of law -- civil, criminal and constitutional.
Some defenders claim that the president cannot be indicted because he is the president. Others, however, point out that no one is above the law, and to assert such a claim is circular logic.
One of the reasons the American colonies declared independence from Britain was to establish that the head of state -- at that time King George III -- could not arbitrarily dictate policy. That precedent was established centuries before, when the Great Charter of 1066 set limits on the powers of the monarch.
Currently, America is faced with a similar difficulty, as its president tries to impose his will on the rest of the nation and its government agencies, including Congress and the Supreme Court.
So there is a legal and constitutional fight brewing, based on whether a president can be indicted while in office. Alternatively, must opponents wait until a president's term ends or he is impeached by the House of Representatives, convicted by the Senate and removed from office, as the Constitution provides.
The Constitution stipulates that the person convicted "shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law." (Article I, Section Three, Paragraph Seven)
So the debate is whether the current president should face legal charges now, or must prosecutors wait until he is out of office. Meanwhile, there is the possibility that a president could continue illegal activities while in office, unless Congress ousts him first.
In effect, this would put a sitting president above the laws he has vowed to preserve, protect and defend.
Federal laws, that is. The president has no jurisdiction over state laws.
There has been increasing talk among pundits as to whether a sitting president can be indicted. Some point out that it has never happened before, and therefore cannot happen now.
Others note that it has been Department of Justice policy not to try, and therefore that policy should not, cannot or must not be changed.
Meanwhile, what's to stop state officials from filing charges? They are not bound by federal DOJ policy. Moreover, that policy can change.
Evidence is piling up that the current president of the United States was involved in illegal activities before, during and after his election. While no charges have yet been filed, if the allegations and implications are true, there were multiple violations of law -- civil, criminal and constitutional.
Some defenders claim that the president cannot be indicted because he is the president. Others, however, point out that no one is above the law, and to assert such a claim is circular logic.
One of the reasons the American colonies declared independence from Britain was to establish that the head of state -- at that time King George III -- could not arbitrarily dictate policy. That precedent was established centuries before, when the Great Charter of 1066 set limits on the powers of the monarch.
Currently, America is faced with a similar difficulty, as its president tries to impose his will on the rest of the nation and its government agencies, including Congress and the Supreme Court.
So there is a legal and constitutional fight brewing, based on whether a president can be indicted while in office. Alternatively, must opponents wait until a president's term ends or he is impeached by the House of Representatives, convicted by the Senate and removed from office, as the Constitution provides.
The Constitution stipulates that the person convicted "shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law." (Article I, Section Three, Paragraph Seven)
So the debate is whether the current president should face legal charges now, or must prosecutors wait until he is out of office. Meanwhile, there is the possibility that a president could continue illegal activities while in office, unless Congress ousts him first.
In effect, this would put a sitting president above the laws he has vowed to preserve, protect and defend.
Federal laws, that is. The president has no jurisdiction over state laws.
Sunday, December 9, 2018
Donald in Wonderland
"Truth isn't truth." -- Rudy Giuliani
Humpty Dumpty was a lawyer.
Who else would say, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
Likewise, the current president of the United States says one thing and a day or so later denies having said it, that he was misquoted by the "fake news" media, and insists, "I never said that." Which prompts the TV producers to respond with video recordings of the president saying precisely what he denies ever saying.
Then the video documenting his comment brings more vituperation from the Twitter in Chief.
Reporters, however, ignore the attacks and continue to list the conflicting comments and to put them into context with reality.
This only angers the Chief Twit even more, as reporters refuse to react to the criticism.
Colleagues at the networks and newspapers who are paid for their comments and opinions, however, do react to the verbal assaults. That's what they get paid for.
Perhaps it's time the president became aware that there's a difference between reporting and editorializing. Reporting facts that contradict what a politician claims is not editorializing, but balanced and straight reporting.
Journalism's duty is to report all sides of an issue, whether the subject of the report likes it or not. Many politicians mislike negative reports of what they say and do -- few people in the public eye enjoy negative publicity.
But The Donald seems to live in a Wonderland of Snow Jobs, where he expects others to believe everything he says whether it comports to reality or not.
This is why we see presentations of video clips showing the president saying one thing at a certain time and place, followed by another clip showing him saying the opposite.
And when Humpty Dumpty insisted we cannot know what his words mean until he explains what he says, the curious Alice asked "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
To which the lawyer on the wall said, "the question is, which is to be master -- that's all."
But before you get egg on your face, Mister Lawyer, remember that words have meanings generally accepted by the public, and to claim that listeners cannot really understand what you say until and unless you explain to them is to insult all those who are proficient with words and language.
Especially news reporters.
Humpty Dumpty was a lawyer.
Who else would say, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
Likewise, the current president of the United States says one thing and a day or so later denies having said it, that he was misquoted by the "fake news" media, and insists, "I never said that." Which prompts the TV producers to respond with video recordings of the president saying precisely what he denies ever saying.
Then the video documenting his comment brings more vituperation from the Twitter in Chief.
Reporters, however, ignore the attacks and continue to list the conflicting comments and to put them into context with reality.
This only angers the Chief Twit even more, as reporters refuse to react to the criticism.
Colleagues at the networks and newspapers who are paid for their comments and opinions, however, do react to the verbal assaults. That's what they get paid for.
Perhaps it's time the president became aware that there's a difference between reporting and editorializing. Reporting facts that contradict what a politician claims is not editorializing, but balanced and straight reporting.
Journalism's duty is to report all sides of an issue, whether the subject of the report likes it or not. Many politicians mislike negative reports of what they say and do -- few people in the public eye enjoy negative publicity.
But The Donald seems to live in a Wonderland of Snow Jobs, where he expects others to believe everything he says whether it comports to reality or not.
This is why we see presentations of video clips showing the president saying one thing at a certain time and place, followed by another clip showing him saying the opposite.
And when Humpty Dumpty insisted we cannot know what his words mean until he explains what he says, the curious Alice asked "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
To which the lawyer on the wall said, "the question is, which is to be master -- that's all."
But before you get egg on your face, Mister Lawyer, remember that words have meanings generally accepted by the public, and to claim that listeners cannot really understand what you say until and unless you explain to them is to insult all those who are proficient with words and language.
Especially news reporters.
Saturday, December 8, 2018
Quo Vadis?
Where are you going?
In recent months, there have been suggestions that the Federal Reserve would likely raise interest rates to prevent the economy from growing too much, too quickly.
Now, however, it seems the Fed may not have to, because the economy is showing signs of slowing, not only in the U.S. but in other major world economies.
At least that's what many investors expect, assuming one accepts the idea that Wall Street holds a barometer of the nation's economy.
While it may reflect long-term trends, the stock market is also subject to panic attacks in the short term. That is, so short as to be during a week, a day or even hourly.
This partially explains the gyrations of major averages that track stock market activities. As with any average, however, it number -- whether it be up or down -- includes the rise or fall of a wide range of components. In the case of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, one of the most widely followed averages, there are just 30 components -- a list of 30 major corporations.
So an average is just that, an average, and it says nothing about the performance of individual stocks that are components of that list. An investor may well hold shares of one of the components that are above the average, and doing well. Or below average, not doing well, and it may be time to dump that stock for individual performance reasons, not the overall economy.
In any case, the American economy has been doing well for years, with 98 months of job gains, and the unemployment rate holding at 3.7 percent, according to the latest figures from the government.
Nonetheless, as J.P. Morgan once said when asked what the market will do, "It will fluctuate."
This is true of the overall economy also. It does and it will fluctuate. And this is what underlies the present feeling for the near future of the national and the world economy. We are now in a period of what has been called the longest period of economic growth in American history.
It has also been said that all good things come to an end, but whether the current economic good thing ends with a bang or a whimper is something no human can predict.
The Fed does its best to even out the ups and downs of the economy, and its weapon of choice is interest rates. It trims rates to stimulate growth and hikes rates when growth is too strong.
Many argue, debate and protest the Fed's strategies, but the reality is that the nation's central bank is an independent agency, largely immune to political pressure.
So now the questions are whether the economy will slow down on its own, and by how much, or whether the Fed will step in to stabilize the growth rate, put the brakes on to prevent a too rapid acceleration, or stimulate growth as the economy -- both national and world -- risks a stumble.
Your guess is likely better than mine
In recent months, there have been suggestions that the Federal Reserve would likely raise interest rates to prevent the economy from growing too much, too quickly.
Now, however, it seems the Fed may not have to, because the economy is showing signs of slowing, not only in the U.S. but in other major world economies.
At least that's what many investors expect, assuming one accepts the idea that Wall Street holds a barometer of the nation's economy.
While it may reflect long-term trends, the stock market is also subject to panic attacks in the short term. That is, so short as to be during a week, a day or even hourly.
This partially explains the gyrations of major averages that track stock market activities. As with any average, however, it number -- whether it be up or down -- includes the rise or fall of a wide range of components. In the case of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, one of the most widely followed averages, there are just 30 components -- a list of 30 major corporations.
So an average is just that, an average, and it says nothing about the performance of individual stocks that are components of that list. An investor may well hold shares of one of the components that are above the average, and doing well. Or below average, not doing well, and it may be time to dump that stock for individual performance reasons, not the overall economy.
In any case, the American economy has been doing well for years, with 98 months of job gains, and the unemployment rate holding at 3.7 percent, according to the latest figures from the government.
Nonetheless, as J.P. Morgan once said when asked what the market will do, "It will fluctuate."
This is true of the overall economy also. It does and it will fluctuate. And this is what underlies the present feeling for the near future of the national and the world economy. We are now in a period of what has been called the longest period of economic growth in American history.
It has also been said that all good things come to an end, but whether the current economic good thing ends with a bang or a whimper is something no human can predict.
The Fed does its best to even out the ups and downs of the economy, and its weapon of choice is interest rates. It trims rates to stimulate growth and hikes rates when growth is too strong.
Many argue, debate and protest the Fed's strategies, but the reality is that the nation's central bank is an independent agency, largely immune to political pressure.
So now the questions are whether the economy will slow down on its own, and by how much, or whether the Fed will step in to stabilize the growth rate, put the brakes on to prevent a too rapid acceleration, or stimulate growth as the economy -- both national and world -- risks a stumble.
Your guess is likely better than mine
Friday, December 7, 2018
Oops!
"Where ignorance is bliss,
''Tis folly to be wise." -- Thomas Gray
"What you don't know can cost you in politics." -- Pug Mahoney
The latest candidate for the post of ambassador to the United Nations said that D-Day is an example of America's "strong relationship" with Germany.
This from Heather Neuart, a former Fox News host and more recently a spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of State.
She was quoted as saying this last June, during a ceremony marking the invasion of Normandy by Allied troops intent on defeating the Nazi regime in Germany.
Now she is being considered for what is one of the most important positions for American international relationships.
Yet another example of the folly of choices and decisions made by the current president of the United States in his campaign to ...
But that's another question. Just what is he up to, anyway? Are his choices and decisions made out of ignorance, or is there a plan? If so, what is it?
All this comes the same day as news of still more departures from senior government positions: The military chief of staff and the chairman of the joint chiefs are the latest to head for the exit door of this administration.
Meanwhile, Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson, a long-time supporter of the president, has now said, "I don't think he's capable."
So the list of political and government supporters who are abandoning the S.S. Trump keeps growing, even as the president adds his most ardent supporters -- despite their ignorance -- to key government posts.
Or is it because of their ignorance, as they blissfully take on key government jobs, led by near blind loyalty to this president?
So the question now becomes, will the current American two-party system survive? There seem to be two possible courses the ship of state may take. One would lead to the domination of American politics and government by a group of radical conservatives, ignorant of key issues and history. The other would see the sinking of the Republican Party, long a bastion of conservative economic and political thinking, yet also conscious of the history and reality of America and its allies.
''Tis folly to be wise." -- Thomas Gray
"What you don't know can cost you in politics." -- Pug Mahoney
The latest candidate for the post of ambassador to the United Nations said that D-Day is an example of America's "strong relationship" with Germany.
This from Heather Neuart, a former Fox News host and more recently a spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of State.
She was quoted as saying this last June, during a ceremony marking the invasion of Normandy by Allied troops intent on defeating the Nazi regime in Germany.
Now she is being considered for what is one of the most important positions for American international relationships.
Yet another example of the folly of choices and decisions made by the current president of the United States in his campaign to ...
But that's another question. Just what is he up to, anyway? Are his choices and decisions made out of ignorance, or is there a plan? If so, what is it?
All this comes the same day as news of still more departures from senior government positions: The military chief of staff and the chairman of the joint chiefs are the latest to head for the exit door of this administration.
Meanwhile, Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson, a long-time supporter of the president, has now said, "I don't think he's capable."
So the list of political and government supporters who are abandoning the S.S. Trump keeps growing, even as the president adds his most ardent supporters -- despite their ignorance -- to key government posts.
Or is it because of their ignorance, as they blissfully take on key government jobs, led by near blind loyalty to this president?
So the question now becomes, will the current American two-party system survive? There seem to be two possible courses the ship of state may take. One would lead to the domination of American politics and government by a group of radical conservatives, ignorant of key issues and history. The other would see the sinking of the Republican Party, long a bastion of conservative economic and political thinking, yet also conscious of the history and reality of America and its allies.
Monday, December 3, 2018
Recluse Economy
"No man is an island, entire of itself." -- John Donne
Like it or not, we live in the world, and an isolationist economy is an oxymoron; its terms are mutually contradictory.
A global economic slowdown is on the way, according to some experts, ending the longest growth in American history. A downturn is inevitable, says standard theory, and any move to withdraw from the world is economic suicide. It happened after World War I, and led to the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Isolationism is an attractive concept to many, and is based on the group-think that "we are the best, and everyone else should do as we say." In the real world, however, with independent nations and thinkers who prefer to go their own way -- in cooperation with others -- regardless of any arrogant demands from those who see themselves as inherently better than others.
In economic and international trade terms, such arrogance usually leads to taxes on imports, intended to keep out and stifle competition from others and protect what is perceived to be "the national interest."
The problem with that, however, is that other nations also have a "national interest," and this leads to other tariffs in retaliation for the first country's self-interested import tax policy.
So the international economy is then caught in a tariff-imposed whirlpool, so down and down go both national economies. Both lose.
The economic warning bells are ringing, with alert stock market investors hearing the first chimes of approaching disaster.
And as the poet adds, "Therefore send not to ask for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee."
Like it or not, we live in the world, and an isolationist economy is an oxymoron; its terms are mutually contradictory.
A global economic slowdown is on the way, according to some experts, ending the longest growth in American history. A downturn is inevitable, says standard theory, and any move to withdraw from the world is economic suicide. It happened after World War I, and led to the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Isolationism is an attractive concept to many, and is based on the group-think that "we are the best, and everyone else should do as we say." In the real world, however, with independent nations and thinkers who prefer to go their own way -- in cooperation with others -- regardless of any arrogant demands from those who see themselves as inherently better than others.
In economic and international trade terms, such arrogance usually leads to taxes on imports, intended to keep out and stifle competition from others and protect what is perceived to be "the national interest."
The problem with that, however, is that other nations also have a "national interest," and this leads to other tariffs in retaliation for the first country's self-interested import tax policy.
So the international economy is then caught in a tariff-imposed whirlpool, so down and down go both national economies. Both lose.
The economic warning bells are ringing, with alert stock market investors hearing the first chimes of approaching disaster.
And as the poet adds, "Therefore send not to ask for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee."
Sunday, December 2, 2018
A League of His Own
"He was a man, take him for all in all.
I shall not look upon his like again."
-- William Shakespeare, "Hamlet."
The death of George H.W. Bush at the age of 94 brought many reflections on the life and career of the 41st president of the United States, all of them praising his patriotism, integrity and political accomplishments even as they acknowledged his mistakes.
No surprise, since the man himself was the first to admit he made errors during his lifetime. But he was also the first to pass credit to others who assisted him in his accomplishments.
Would that we all could play in this same Bush League.
I shall not look upon his like again."
-- William Shakespeare, "Hamlet."
The death of George H.W. Bush at the age of 94 brought many reflections on the life and career of the 41st president of the United States, all of them praising his patriotism, integrity and political accomplishments even as they acknowledged his mistakes.
No surprise, since the man himself was the first to admit he made errors during his lifetime. But he was also the first to pass credit to others who assisted him in his accomplishments.
Would that we all could play in this same Bush League.
Tuesday, November 27, 2018
The Imperial Presidency
"My Senate ... " -- Donald Trump
"In your dreams, pal." -- Pug Mahoney
The term "imperial presidency" was first used against Franklin D. Roosevelt, when opponents believed he was accumulating too much power for himself as the nation struggled to recover from the Great Depression and then to fight World War II.
These days, many Americans believe the current president acts as if he believes himself to be the monarch of all he surveys, especially when it comes to the southern border and international relations.
Keep in mind that at one point in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly, his remarks were interrupted by laughter from the international delegates. However, it was not because he made a joke, but because of his attitude.
Now, as refugees from Central America try to reach the United States in search of a better life, the president warns that he may "close the border permanently" to keep out what he seems to consider riff-raff.
But consider the implications of a total border shutdown. The first question becomes, Against whom? This leads to other questions, such as, Everyone, or just those seeking refuge and opportunity?
And would the proposed wall be like the one in Berlin, which closed off all contact of every kind, including commerce and tourism?
A permanent border shutdown would stop all imports and exports from manufacturing and assembly lines, for example, putting many thousands of people out of work, as well as closing off the vacation and tourist businesses.
Or would the shutdown be only a one-way halt, where Americans would be able to cross the border whenever and however they wished, while tourists from Mexico as well as refugees from Central America would be blocked out?
How would the government of Mexico react to that?
Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.
"In your dreams, pal." -- Pug Mahoney
The term "imperial presidency" was first used against Franklin D. Roosevelt, when opponents believed he was accumulating too much power for himself as the nation struggled to recover from the Great Depression and then to fight World War II.
These days, many Americans believe the current president acts as if he believes himself to be the monarch of all he surveys, especially when it comes to the southern border and international relations.
Keep in mind that at one point in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly, his remarks were interrupted by laughter from the international delegates. However, it was not because he made a joke, but because of his attitude.
Now, as refugees from Central America try to reach the United States in search of a better life, the president warns that he may "close the border permanently" to keep out what he seems to consider riff-raff.
But consider the implications of a total border shutdown. The first question becomes, Against whom? This leads to other questions, such as, Everyone, or just those seeking refuge and opportunity?
And would the proposed wall be like the one in Berlin, which closed off all contact of every kind, including commerce and tourism?
A permanent border shutdown would stop all imports and exports from manufacturing and assembly lines, for example, putting many thousands of people out of work, as well as closing off the vacation and tourist businesses.
Or would the shutdown be only a one-way halt, where Americans would be able to cross the border whenever and however they wished, while tourists from Mexico as well as refugees from Central America would be blocked out?
How would the government of Mexico react to that?
Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.
Monday, November 26, 2018
Tempest Tossed
"They're coming to America ...
"There's nothing like America ...
"Land of opportunity ..." -- Neil Diamond, 1980
For those who haven't read the Constitution lately, it does not require that a presidential candidate be born in the USA.
Specifically, there are just three qualifications listed in the Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5) for a candidate for the presidency.
1/ The person must be at least 35 years of age.
2/ The candidate must be a "natural born citizen." The document does not specify "native born," and here's why:
3/ The candidate must have been a resident of the United States for 14 years.
Clearly, a candidate could be born to at least one U.S. citizen anywhere in the world and spend his or her first 20 years in some other country before taking up residency in the U.S. Then, some 14 years later, on reaching the age of 35, the citizen can run for president.
Take note that Republican candidate Ted Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father before moving to the U.S. as a child with his parents.
Note also that John McCain, who twice was a candidate for president, was born in Panama when his father, a Navy officer, was stationed in the Canal Zone, a territory leased from the nation of Panama.
George Romney -- father of Mitt Romney and also a Republican presidential candidate -- was born in Mexico when his parents were assigned there as Mormon missionaries.
Yet there were no major challenges to the citizenship status or presidential qualifications of any of these three Republican candidates.
It was only after Barack Obama, a Democrat, became president that a big fuss was made of his citizenship, with the false claim that he was born in Kenya and therefore was not eligible.
But he was eligible, on all three counts. Even if he had been born elsewhere, it would not have mattered, because his mother was born in Kansas. Moreover, young Barack was born in Hawaii, so he holds U.S. citizenship on that basis alone, unlike some Republican candidates, who actually were born outside the U.S.
By the way, who remembers the campaign to nominate weight lifter, movie actor, and California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to be president?
It would have taken a constitutional amendment to make that happen, since he was neither a native born nor a natural born citizen of the U.S. He did, however, acquire U.S. citizenship the same way millions of other immigrants did. And as a citizen, he was eligible to hold any public office in America -- except the presidency.
So put all this in the context of the current flap over immigrants, and remember that some of the greatest of American citizens were immigrants, and their offspring carried on the tradition of loyalty and citizenship.
Contrast that with the attitude of the current occupant of the Oval Office, who actually married an immigrant -- twice. Moreover, his mother was an immigrant, from Scotland, and his grandparents were immigrants from Germany.
Consider also that his son-in-law's grandparents were immigrant survivors of the Holocaust.
One wonders, then, why this president is so wound up with opposition to those attempting to come to America from across the nation's southern border, and why he treats Puerto Rico and its citizens as somehow not part of America. It is, and has been for more than 100 years, when the U.S. took the island after defeating Spain in a war.
A one-word answer comes to mind:
Racism.
"There's nothing like America ...
"Land of opportunity ..." -- Neil Diamond, 1980
For those who haven't read the Constitution lately, it does not require that a presidential candidate be born in the USA.
Specifically, there are just three qualifications listed in the Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5) for a candidate for the presidency.
1/ The person must be at least 35 years of age.
2/ The candidate must be a "natural born citizen." The document does not specify "native born," and here's why:
3/ The candidate must have been a resident of the United States for 14 years.
Clearly, a candidate could be born to at least one U.S. citizen anywhere in the world and spend his or her first 20 years in some other country before taking up residency in the U.S. Then, some 14 years later, on reaching the age of 35, the citizen can run for president.
Take note that Republican candidate Ted Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father before moving to the U.S. as a child with his parents.
Note also that John McCain, who twice was a candidate for president, was born in Panama when his father, a Navy officer, was stationed in the Canal Zone, a territory leased from the nation of Panama.
George Romney -- father of Mitt Romney and also a Republican presidential candidate -- was born in Mexico when his parents were assigned there as Mormon missionaries.
Yet there were no major challenges to the citizenship status or presidential qualifications of any of these three Republican candidates.
It was only after Barack Obama, a Democrat, became president that a big fuss was made of his citizenship, with the false claim that he was born in Kenya and therefore was not eligible.
But he was eligible, on all three counts. Even if he had been born elsewhere, it would not have mattered, because his mother was born in Kansas. Moreover, young Barack was born in Hawaii, so he holds U.S. citizenship on that basis alone, unlike some Republican candidates, who actually were born outside the U.S.
By the way, who remembers the campaign to nominate weight lifter, movie actor, and California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to be president?
It would have taken a constitutional amendment to make that happen, since he was neither a native born nor a natural born citizen of the U.S. He did, however, acquire U.S. citizenship the same way millions of other immigrants did. And as a citizen, he was eligible to hold any public office in America -- except the presidency.
So put all this in the context of the current flap over immigrants, and remember that some of the greatest of American citizens were immigrants, and their offspring carried on the tradition of loyalty and citizenship.
Contrast that with the attitude of the current occupant of the Oval Office, who actually married an immigrant -- twice. Moreover, his mother was an immigrant, from Scotland, and his grandparents were immigrants from Germany.
Consider also that his son-in-law's grandparents were immigrant survivors of the Holocaust.
One wonders, then, why this president is so wound up with opposition to those attempting to come to America from across the nation's southern border, and why he treats Puerto Rico and its citizens as somehow not part of America. It is, and has been for more than 100 years, when the U.S. took the island after defeating Spain in a war.
A one-word answer comes to mind:
Racism.
Saturday, November 24, 2018
Weather and Climate
"Whatever happened to global warming?" -- Mocker in Chief Donald Trump, commenting on a cold snap in America.
Regardless of what some people may claim, weather and climate are not the same.
They are not interchangeable terms because they refer to different time frames. Weather deals with daily changes, while climate refers to seasonal or yearly weather conditions.
For example, temperatures in Florida rarely dip below freezing, while in Maine, that level is common in winter months. For that matter, Florida does not have a winter, while most parts of the North have four seasons. Other parts of the world have just two -- rainy and dry -- and some have only one climate, when it is hot and dry all year.
Meanwhile, there are many folks alive today who can remember when temperatures of zero degrees Fahrenheit or below were common. Now, the average temperature in many regions of America is well above what it was 50 years ago.
And that is the point of climate change. The average seasonal temperature has reason substantially over the years, as documented by those who monitor such things.
They're called scientists, and they document things that many of us already know -- in this case, the reality that average temperatures over time have risen, that there are differences in rain and snow levels, and that this means the climate is changing.
In Northern New Jersey in 1960, for example, there were about seven days when the temperature reached 90 degrees or above. Now, the region experiences some eleven days yearly of such not weather.
So the issue is not whether climates worldwide are changing, but why. Climate is a yearly pattern, that pattern is changing, and the evidence points to the activities of "civilized" man.
Regardless of what some people may claim, weather and climate are not the same.
They are not interchangeable terms because they refer to different time frames. Weather deals with daily changes, while climate refers to seasonal or yearly weather conditions.
For example, temperatures in Florida rarely dip below freezing, while in Maine, that level is common in winter months. For that matter, Florida does not have a winter, while most parts of the North have four seasons. Other parts of the world have just two -- rainy and dry -- and some have only one climate, when it is hot and dry all year.
Meanwhile, there are many folks alive today who can remember when temperatures of zero degrees Fahrenheit or below were common. Now, the average temperature in many regions of America is well above what it was 50 years ago.
And that is the point of climate change. The average seasonal temperature has reason substantially over the years, as documented by those who monitor such things.
They're called scientists, and they document things that many of us already know -- in this case, the reality that average temperatures over time have risen, that there are differences in rain and snow levels, and that this means the climate is changing.
In Northern New Jersey in 1960, for example, there were about seven days when the temperature reached 90 degrees or above. Now, the region experiences some eleven days yearly of such not weather.
So the issue is not whether climates worldwide are changing, but why. Climate is a yearly pattern, that pattern is changing, and the evidence points to the activities of "civilized" man.
Wednesday, November 21, 2018
Media Message
That's a stupid question. -- Donald Trump to a reporter
For a journalist, there are no stupid questions. There are only stupid answers. -- Pug Mahoney
CNN has won its challenge to the president's ouster of its senior White House reporter, on the grounds that canceling his press pass was arbitrary and capricious, in effect done only because the president didn't like the questions.
Granted, CNN correspondent Jim Acosta can be aggressive and persistent in confronting the president, but the president does not get to choose who is assigned to cover which story and which news beat. That's up to the editors.
Nor does the president get to decide how a particular question is phrased, much less that they be submitted in advance.
The practice of lawyers providing written questions during an investigation, as is the case with the probe of possible Russian interference in an American election, is a separate issue. That's what lawyers do. Journalists are not bound by the same rules.
It comes down to this: The more the president tries to control the news media, the more resistant they become and resentful of his abusive rantings.
Not that the resentment shows, but it's there nonetheless. And the more he attacks as "fake news" any report that displeases him, the sharper the pencils become as reporters research and expose the misinformation, misleading claims, half truths and outright lies perpetrated by this president and his minions.
One of the more egregious claims he has put forth recently was the disavowal of his own intelligence agency's report on the murder of a prominent journalist.
The CIA said the Saudi Arabia crown prince not only knew about the killing but specifically authorized it beforehand.
But the president said, "Well, maybe he did and maybe he didn't."
Either way, he noted, the government's alliance with Saudi Arabia as well as American business contracts to supply weapons to the Mideast nation was more important than the loss of a single life.
Especially if that single life was that of a journalist, said resident cynic Pug Mahoney.
So the president's message to the news media is this: My way or the highway. Do things the way I want or I won't defend your human rights or your constitutional right of free speech and freedom of the press.
Message for the president: You do not -- repeat not -- have the authority to dictate who covers which news stories and how they do it, and neither do you have the right to specify that a business deal is more important than a human life.
Clarification: You have the right to say that, but when you do, you're wrong.
Update: As for telling the president he's wrong, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, in an unprecedented move, weighed in to remind the president that America has an independent judiciary, and there is no such person as an "Obama judge," nor a Trump judge, a Bush judge or a Clinton judge.
The president had publicly criticized a federal judge who ruled against the administration's policy on people seeking asylum. This was one of many attacks from the president against judges who ruled against him.
For a journalist, there are no stupid questions. There are only stupid answers. -- Pug Mahoney
CNN has won its challenge to the president's ouster of its senior White House reporter, on the grounds that canceling his press pass was arbitrary and capricious, in effect done only because the president didn't like the questions.
Granted, CNN correspondent Jim Acosta can be aggressive and persistent in confronting the president, but the president does not get to choose who is assigned to cover which story and which news beat. That's up to the editors.
Nor does the president get to decide how a particular question is phrased, much less that they be submitted in advance.
The practice of lawyers providing written questions during an investigation, as is the case with the probe of possible Russian interference in an American election, is a separate issue. That's what lawyers do. Journalists are not bound by the same rules.
It comes down to this: The more the president tries to control the news media, the more resistant they become and resentful of his abusive rantings.
Not that the resentment shows, but it's there nonetheless. And the more he attacks as "fake news" any report that displeases him, the sharper the pencils become as reporters research and expose the misinformation, misleading claims, half truths and outright lies perpetrated by this president and his minions.
One of the more egregious claims he has put forth recently was the disavowal of his own intelligence agency's report on the murder of a prominent journalist.
The CIA said the Saudi Arabia crown prince not only knew about the killing but specifically authorized it beforehand.
But the president said, "Well, maybe he did and maybe he didn't."
Either way, he noted, the government's alliance with Saudi Arabia as well as American business contracts to supply weapons to the Mideast nation was more important than the loss of a single life.
Especially if that single life was that of a journalist, said resident cynic Pug Mahoney.
So the president's message to the news media is this: My way or the highway. Do things the way I want or I won't defend your human rights or your constitutional right of free speech and freedom of the press.
Message for the president: You do not -- repeat not -- have the authority to dictate who covers which news stories and how they do it, and neither do you have the right to specify that a business deal is more important than a human life.
Clarification: You have the right to say that, but when you do, you're wrong.
Update: As for telling the president he's wrong, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, in an unprecedented move, weighed in to remind the president that America has an independent judiciary, and there is no such person as an "Obama judge," nor a Trump judge, a Bush judge or a Clinton judge.
The president had publicly criticized a federal judge who ruled against the administration's policy on people seeking asylum. This was one of many attacks from the president against judges who ruled against him.
Thursday, November 15, 2018
Respect vs Obedience
Respect cannot be commanded. It must be earned. -- Pug Mahoney
Message to the president: You can't fire reporters. They don't work for you.
Note: A federal judge is expected to rule today on whether the president can control the White House press corps.
Time was, journalists covering a presidential news conference submitted questions in writing in advance, and the president chose which reporters he would call on, knowing the question even before it was asked.
That changed with the advent and the election of John F. Kennedy.
Now, the current president ousts any journalist who asks a tough question or one that the president doesn't like, and cancels that reporter's credentials and White House press pass.
But who gets to choose which reporters get press passes to cover the White House? Does the president have the right to select only those journalists who are sympathetic to his views, and those who will help to spread his message?
Granted, there is a limited amount of space in the White House briefing room, and a limited number of people who can fit in the available space. But controlling who gets in and controlling which questions are asked, and in what manner, amounts to controlling the news media, and is on its face unconstitutional.
Courtesy, civility and respect, yes. But that works both ways. Or as President Harry Truman once put it, "If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen."
Clearly, the current president can't take the heat of tough questions posed by reporters. But that's their job. They ask tough questions because they need to be asked, and they do so on behalf of the American people.
So why is the current president attacking those who ask tough questions, and going to the extreme of banning them from the White House? If he wants a press corps of only reporters who agree with him and ask only soft questions, he's not going to get it, regardless of how much he demands obedience.
He cannot fire every White House reporter, and that's because they don't work for him. They work for private enterprise news organizations, and pose tough questions on behalf of readers and viewers.
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," says the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Attempting to control the news media by banning reporters you don't like or those who ask questions you don't like is a clear violation of the Constitution. And the more you try, the more they sharpen their pencils.
Message to the president: You can't fire reporters. They don't work for you.
Note: A federal judge is expected to rule today on whether the president can control the White House press corps.
Time was, journalists covering a presidential news conference submitted questions in writing in advance, and the president chose which reporters he would call on, knowing the question even before it was asked.
That changed with the advent and the election of John F. Kennedy.
Now, the current president ousts any journalist who asks a tough question or one that the president doesn't like, and cancels that reporter's credentials and White House press pass.
But who gets to choose which reporters get press passes to cover the White House? Does the president have the right to select only those journalists who are sympathetic to his views, and those who will help to spread his message?
Granted, there is a limited amount of space in the White House briefing room, and a limited number of people who can fit in the available space. But controlling who gets in and controlling which questions are asked, and in what manner, amounts to controlling the news media, and is on its face unconstitutional.
Courtesy, civility and respect, yes. But that works both ways. Or as President Harry Truman once put it, "If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen."
Clearly, the current president can't take the heat of tough questions posed by reporters. But that's their job. They ask tough questions because they need to be asked, and they do so on behalf of the American people.
So why is the current president attacking those who ask tough questions, and going to the extreme of banning them from the White House? If he wants a press corps of only reporters who agree with him and ask only soft questions, he's not going to get it, regardless of how much he demands obedience.
He cannot fire every White House reporter, and that's because they don't work for him. They work for private enterprise news organizations, and pose tough questions on behalf of readers and viewers.
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," says the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Attempting to control the news media by banning reporters you don't like or those who ask questions you don't like is a clear violation of the Constitution. And the more you try, the more they sharpen their pencils.
Wednesday, November 14, 2018
Figure It Out
It's the economy, stupid! -- Campaign manager James Carville during the Bill Clinton presidential drive in 1992.
Wages are down and prices are up, according to the latest government statistics, which means a net loss for workers of 0.1 percent. Yet the overall economy is doing well, with the unemployment rate down and the number of people working on the rise.
More than 250,000 jobs were added in October, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 3.7 percent. Total output, as measured by Gross Domestic Product, increased by 3.5 percent in the third quarter.
So if things are so great, according to political leaders, how come the average American worker isn't able to set some money aside for retirement, much less pay the monthly rent and grocery bills?
As is often the case, the numbers tell the story.
It's true that more people are working, and production is increasing. But if prices rise faster than wages, simple arithmetic says workers are losing. All this while tax breaks for corporations and the ultra-wealthy put more cash in their bank accounts -- CDs and investment accounts -- while savings accounts offer interest rates of 1 percent or less. Effectively, if inflation is 2 percent and wage increases are 1 percent, simple arithmetic says you lose. Meanwhile, credit card interest rates are as much as 15 percent or even 25 percent.
Do the math, and don't bother saving anything. Instead, try to pay down the credit cards. If you can, since prices are rising faster than your income.
Meanwhile, in the face of all the problematic issues, many people still work hard to come to this country. Why? Two reasons: This is where the jobs are, and as much as we complain about politics, things are far worse in some other countries.
Wages are down and prices are up, according to the latest government statistics, which means a net loss for workers of 0.1 percent. Yet the overall economy is doing well, with the unemployment rate down and the number of people working on the rise.
More than 250,000 jobs were added in October, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 3.7 percent. Total output, as measured by Gross Domestic Product, increased by 3.5 percent in the third quarter.
So if things are so great, according to political leaders, how come the average American worker isn't able to set some money aside for retirement, much less pay the monthly rent and grocery bills?
As is often the case, the numbers tell the story.
It's true that more people are working, and production is increasing. But if prices rise faster than wages, simple arithmetic says workers are losing. All this while tax breaks for corporations and the ultra-wealthy put more cash in their bank accounts -- CDs and investment accounts -- while savings accounts offer interest rates of 1 percent or less. Effectively, if inflation is 2 percent and wage increases are 1 percent, simple arithmetic says you lose. Meanwhile, credit card interest rates are as much as 15 percent or even 25 percent.
Do the math, and don't bother saving anything. Instead, try to pay down the credit cards. If you can, since prices are rising faster than your income.
Meanwhile, in the face of all the problematic issues, many people still work hard to come to this country. Why? Two reasons: This is where the jobs are, and as much as we complain about politics, things are far worse in some other countries.
Sunday, November 11, 2018
Mong the Mindless
Who ya
gonna believe, the cameras or a politician? -- Pug Mahoney
The pattern of fear mongering based on
proven falsehoods seems to be working among the base of extreme right-wing
supporters in the American electorate, who believe without question whatever
the politician says no matter how silly, outrageous or blatantly false.
So now that Election Day is past, how soon
will this president recall the regular military troops from the southern border
and return them to their real duties, and not use them to mong fear among
voters?
Some 7,000 people, many of them women and
children, were on foot nearly 1,000 miles from the border, yet the president saw fit
to deploy active duty troops to the border just two days before Election Day,
warning of an "invasion."
Some invasion. Women and children a thousand
miles away, and walking.
Was that sufficient cause to call out the
Army -- as many soldiers who are in Afghanistan -- to stop an
"invasion" of the U.S. from Central America, by civilians walking the length of
Mexico? No mention was made of whether the troops are there to repulse the
Mexican army, nor was it noted that the American troops, by law, can only be
allowed to serve in a supporting role for Border Patrol agents and state
police.
Yet they were there, on the president's
orders, just two days before Election Day. Now that Election Day is past, he's
likely to pronounce that the "invasion crisis" is over and the
professional military will return to their regular duties at their home bases.
Coincidence? More likely a fear mongering
ploy to excite the radical rightwing supporters. And the ploy will now be
canceled, now that it has served its electioneering purpose.
Saturday, November 3, 2018
President Sully (?)
For many years working in journalism, I almost never made predictions of any kind, especially about politics.
Now, however, it's time to consider the likelihood of a President Chesley Sullenberger.
Who?
Many will remember the incident where a passenger plane took off from a New York City airport and almost immediately collided with a flock of geese, resulting in the loss of power in both engines.
The pilot took control, circled back and carefully set the aircraft down on the Hudson River.
No one was seriously hurt, and all were rescued as they stood on the airplane's wings or waited in the water for small boats to take them ashore.
The pilot was the last to leave the airplane, making sure that all the passengers and crew were first to be rescued.
Yes, that Chesley Sullenberger (Sully to his friends).
Saturday evening, on an MSNBC television interview about a book Capt. Sullenberger has written, the host asked a final question about the pilot's political plans, if any, since the book is partly about politics and the state of American culture.
Sullenberger noted that he had spent many years as a Republican, but recently left the party, and as for his own political future, his response was to ask again after Tuesday, Election Day.
How much of a jump, then, is it to predict that Sullenberger has plans to get into political activity in a big way?
He is well known, extremely well spoken, knowledgeable, and works well under pressure. (That may be the understatement of the decade, if not longer.)
Now the question becomes whether the current occupant of the Oval Office will have the cojones to criticize and attack the pilot of what was called The Miracle on the Hudson.
Now, however, it's time to consider the likelihood of a President Chesley Sullenberger.
Who?
Many will remember the incident where a passenger plane took off from a New York City airport and almost immediately collided with a flock of geese, resulting in the loss of power in both engines.
The pilot took control, circled back and carefully set the aircraft down on the Hudson River.
No one was seriously hurt, and all were rescued as they stood on the airplane's wings or waited in the water for small boats to take them ashore.
The pilot was the last to leave the airplane, making sure that all the passengers and crew were first to be rescued.
Yes, that Chesley Sullenberger (Sully to his friends).
Saturday evening, on an MSNBC television interview about a book Capt. Sullenberger has written, the host asked a final question about the pilot's political plans, if any, since the book is partly about politics and the state of American culture.
Sullenberger noted that he had spent many years as a Republican, but recently left the party, and as for his own political future, his response was to ask again after Tuesday, Election Day.
How much of a jump, then, is it to predict that Sullenberger has plans to get into political activity in a big way?
He is well known, extremely well spoken, knowledgeable, and works well under pressure. (That may be the understatement of the decade, if not longer.)
Now the question becomes whether the current occupant of the Oval Office will have the cojones to criticize and attack the pilot of what was called The Miracle on the Hudson.
Tuesday, October 23, 2018
The L Word
"That's a word I take from no man! Put up your fists!" -- Victor McLaglen as Will Danaher in "The Quiet Man," (1952).
Time was, using the L word would bring that kind of response, even if metaphorical. And until last year, the L word rarely appeared in mainstream news media.
Now, an entire half-hour segment can list and document the number of times as well as the specific details and background to the falsehoods the current president of the United States has uttered.
Roll the video.
Recently, he was asked about his promise to personally donate $1 million to charity if Sen. Elizabeth Warren took a DNA test to prove her claim of Native American ancestry.
So she did, and the results were positive. But when the president was asked when he would fulfill his promise, his answer was, "I never said that."
So TV stations rolled the video of the president saying exactly that, at a public campaign rally before thousands in the crowd and many more watching on news channels.
Not too long ago, calling someone a liar was too harsh a term to be used in otherwise civil discourse. Mainstream print media rarely, if ever, used the word and broadcast news anchors and commentators apologized up front before showing a video or repeating a quote.
Now the infamy is gone and the word is commonplace.
Language changes over time, of course, with new words entering the national vocabulary and others seeing more widespread use in public discourse.
Whether the use of a particular word is acceptable in public, civil discourse, is a social judgment, not linguistic. But words have power, and overuse can quickly diminish that power. Nevertheless, there are some words whose power deserves respect, and should not be used unless warranted.
The L word is one of them.
Time was, using the L word would bring that kind of response, even if metaphorical. And until last year, the L word rarely appeared in mainstream news media.
Now, an entire half-hour segment can list and document the number of times as well as the specific details and background to the falsehoods the current president of the United States has uttered.
Roll the video.
Recently, he was asked about his promise to personally donate $1 million to charity if Sen. Elizabeth Warren took a DNA test to prove her claim of Native American ancestry.
So she did, and the results were positive. But when the president was asked when he would fulfill his promise, his answer was, "I never said that."
So TV stations rolled the video of the president saying exactly that, at a public campaign rally before thousands in the crowd and many more watching on news channels.
Not too long ago, calling someone a liar was too harsh a term to be used in otherwise civil discourse. Mainstream print media rarely, if ever, used the word and broadcast news anchors and commentators apologized up front before showing a video or repeating a quote.
Now the infamy is gone and the word is commonplace.
Language changes over time, of course, with new words entering the national vocabulary and others seeing more widespread use in public discourse.
Whether the use of a particular word is acceptable in public, civil discourse, is a social judgment, not linguistic. But words have power, and overuse can quickly diminish that power. Nevertheless, there are some words whose power deserves respect, and should not be used unless warranted.
The L word is one of them.
Saturday, October 20, 2018
Breaking the Demand-Supply Law
Once you understand the Law of Demand and Supply, you master Economics 101.
When consumers want something and it's not available nearby at a reasonable price, they go elsewhere.
This principle applies whether it's about one person looking for a cup of coffee or it's about an entire retail chain searching for a new supply of beans.
If, for example, the U.S. government imposes a tariff on coffee beans from Honduras to protect growers in America, the cost of Honduran beans will go up to cover the tariff, and U.S. growers will either maintain their price level as the competition lessens, or they will raise their prices to boost profits, for the same reason -- less competition.
Say what? There are few, if any, coffee bean growers in America?
All the more reason, then, to impose the import tax as a way to encourage a new domestic business activity.
But it takes years to plant, grow, harvest and distribute a new crop, you object.
That's OK, the government replies. We have to protect those who invest in the new industry from unfair competition.
Our resident cynic, Pug Mahoney, notes that to such as these, "unfair competition" is when the other guy sometimes wins. The underlying attitude is that "fair" competition means that they win everything all the time and the other guy always loses.
Besides, they point out, "those other guys are only ____ anyway, so they don't matter."
Those who suspect a touch of bigotry or racism behind such an attitude are likely correct, and could easily recite numerous examples in American history when attitudes like that were widespread, and applied to earlier groups of newcomers. Moreover, similar examples show up in the history of other nations.
Now consider the current flap to keep out stuff made in China in order to "protect" American makers. The result will be that less stuff will come from China or it will be more expensive. Meanwhile, Chinese firms will look to other markets, so consumers in other countries will benefit from the availability of lower priced stuff from China. Once again, the Law of Demand and Supply is enforced, as suppliers look to other markets and consumers seek new suppliers.
When consumers want something and it's not available nearby at a reasonable price, they go elsewhere.
This principle applies whether it's about one person looking for a cup of coffee or it's about an entire retail chain searching for a new supply of beans.
If, for example, the U.S. government imposes a tariff on coffee beans from Honduras to protect growers in America, the cost of Honduran beans will go up to cover the tariff, and U.S. growers will either maintain their price level as the competition lessens, or they will raise their prices to boost profits, for the same reason -- less competition.
Say what? There are few, if any, coffee bean growers in America?
All the more reason, then, to impose the import tax as a way to encourage a new domestic business activity.
But it takes years to plant, grow, harvest and distribute a new crop, you object.
That's OK, the government replies. We have to protect those who invest in the new industry from unfair competition.
Our resident cynic, Pug Mahoney, notes that to such as these, "unfair competition" is when the other guy sometimes wins. The underlying attitude is that "fair" competition means that they win everything all the time and the other guy always loses.
Besides, they point out, "those other guys are only ____ anyway, so they don't matter."
Those who suspect a touch of bigotry or racism behind such an attitude are likely correct, and could easily recite numerous examples in American history when attitudes like that were widespread, and applied to earlier groups of newcomers. Moreover, similar examples show up in the history of other nations.
Now consider the current flap to keep out stuff made in China in order to "protect" American makers. The result will be that less stuff will come from China or it will be more expensive. Meanwhile, Chinese firms will look to other markets, so consumers in other countries will benefit from the availability of lower priced stuff from China. Once again, the Law of Demand and Supply is enforced, as suppliers look to other markets and consumers seek new suppliers.
Thursday, October 18, 2018
Political Fakers
Political types often masquerade as being devoted to the public good, even as they rely on corporate money to finance their campaigns.
In addition, they are fond of attempting to humiliate those who disagree with them -- other candidates -- as well as those who disclose information embarrassing to them -- journalists.
It matters not whether the report is true. The point is that it tarnishes their Golden Image.
Lost in the tirade of verbal venom against the news media, for example, is the idea that reporters really don't care about the politician's Golden Image. Their concern is about getting a good story, and it doesn't matter whether the subject is a Democrat, a Republican, a liberal, a conservative, or anything else. If the report tarnishes the carefully polished Golden Image, so much more the fun for the reporters.
Perhaps it's time that the general public remember that's what reporters do. It's part of the job to expose the corruption, malice, petty behavior, and the fakery so common among political types.
If some are more adept at camouflaging their fakery, that just means it's more of a challenge for reporters. And the more politicians attack the news media as they try to cover up their shenanigans, the harder and the deeper reporters dig.
In addition, they are fond of attempting to humiliate those who disagree with them -- other candidates -- as well as those who disclose information embarrassing to them -- journalists.
It matters not whether the report is true. The point is that it tarnishes their Golden Image.
Lost in the tirade of verbal venom against the news media, for example, is the idea that reporters really don't care about the politician's Golden Image. Their concern is about getting a good story, and it doesn't matter whether the subject is a Democrat, a Republican, a liberal, a conservative, or anything else. If the report tarnishes the carefully polished Golden Image, so much more the fun for the reporters.
Perhaps it's time that the general public remember that's what reporters do. It's part of the job to expose the corruption, malice, petty behavior, and the fakery so common among political types.
If some are more adept at camouflaging their fakery, that just means it's more of a challenge for reporters. And the more politicians attack the news media as they try to cover up their shenanigans, the harder and the deeper reporters dig.
Wednesday, October 17, 2018
Do Deficits Matter?
"Deficits don't matter." -- Dick Cheney
Many folks claim difficulty understanding economics, but that's partly the fault of teachers who rely heavily on abstract numbers to explain arcane theories. Except that the theories are neither abstract nor arcane. They deal with the study of what people do with the resources available to them.
Granted, some resources are not as readily available as others, but that too is part of the study.
Consider the concept of deficit spending by government. For a long time, conservative politicians touted the notion that balanced budgets are the only way to run a government. Now we hear that any loss from that strategy can be made up by tax reductions, which will increase production, which will boost purchasing, which will hike tax revenue, and as the change trickles down through the economy, everyone is better off.
Say what?
It sounds wonderful, except when reality steps in and points out that things don't work that way.
The government just reported that the budget deficit for the fiscal year just ended was $779 billion, a 17 percent increase from the year before. Experts attributed that change to tax cuts that ate into government revenue.
But it doesn't matter, Republicans are fond of saying now, and that's a major turnaround from their historical position that insisted on a balanced budget.
However, consider this: When you decrease revenue and increase spending, eventually you go broke.
Granted, it's harder for a nation to go bankrupt, since it can stall the problem by printing more money. But inflating the amount of cash in the economy only leads to higher costs, as prices rise to absorb the amount of money available.
And if wages don't keep pace with prices, the result is poverty.
Eventually, the problem catches up to society as inflation soars to uncontrollable levels.
A nation's central bank, however -- in America that's the Federal Reserve -- tries to keep inflation under control. That is, to keep it within a acceptable level. But what is an "acceptable" level?
That is the question that puzzles the experts almost daily. The Fed has settled on approximately 2 percent, and the agency tries to reach this target by controlling the supply of money in circulation. With less money available, prices cannot rise as fast, and wages are more likely to enable workers to stay within reach of buying stuff.
However, when business feels free to boost prices to increase profits, even as they trim expenses by stifling wage growth, soon enough, someone will suffer.
And on a government level, cutting taxes to encourage corporate profit really amounts to reducing government revenue. But if government increases spending -- on the military, for instance, while it cuts social welfare expenditures -- soon enough, there will be problems.
Rationalizing that policy by endorsing the "trickle down" theory may sound good, but that's what rationalizing often does.
Reality, however, has a way stepping in when you least expect it. It may take a while, but it will happen.
Many folks claim difficulty understanding economics, but that's partly the fault of teachers who rely heavily on abstract numbers to explain arcane theories. Except that the theories are neither abstract nor arcane. They deal with the study of what people do with the resources available to them.
Granted, some resources are not as readily available as others, but that too is part of the study.
Consider the concept of deficit spending by government. For a long time, conservative politicians touted the notion that balanced budgets are the only way to run a government. Now we hear that any loss from that strategy can be made up by tax reductions, which will increase production, which will boost purchasing, which will hike tax revenue, and as the change trickles down through the economy, everyone is better off.
Say what?
It sounds wonderful, except when reality steps in and points out that things don't work that way.
The government just reported that the budget deficit for the fiscal year just ended was $779 billion, a 17 percent increase from the year before. Experts attributed that change to tax cuts that ate into government revenue.
But it doesn't matter, Republicans are fond of saying now, and that's a major turnaround from their historical position that insisted on a balanced budget.
However, consider this: When you decrease revenue and increase spending, eventually you go broke.
Granted, it's harder for a nation to go bankrupt, since it can stall the problem by printing more money. But inflating the amount of cash in the economy only leads to higher costs, as prices rise to absorb the amount of money available.
And if wages don't keep pace with prices, the result is poverty.
Eventually, the problem catches up to society as inflation soars to uncontrollable levels.
A nation's central bank, however -- in America that's the Federal Reserve -- tries to keep inflation under control. That is, to keep it within a acceptable level. But what is an "acceptable" level?
That is the question that puzzles the experts almost daily. The Fed has settled on approximately 2 percent, and the agency tries to reach this target by controlling the supply of money in circulation. With less money available, prices cannot rise as fast, and wages are more likely to enable workers to stay within reach of buying stuff.
However, when business feels free to boost prices to increase profits, even as they trim expenses by stifling wage growth, soon enough, someone will suffer.
And on a government level, cutting taxes to encourage corporate profit really amounts to reducing government revenue. But if government increases spending -- on the military, for instance, while it cuts social welfare expenditures -- soon enough, there will be problems.
Rationalizing that policy by endorsing the "trickle down" theory may sound good, but that's what rationalizing often does.
Reality, however, has a way stepping in when you least expect it. It may take a while, but it will happen.
Sunday, October 14, 2018
Economic Politics
Not to decide is to decide. -- Pug Mahoney
When economics and politics mix, the result can be prosperity or chaos, partly depending on the strategy and goals of the political manipulators.
Liberals and conservatives both try to manipulate an economy for the benefit of their supporters, each with varying degrees of success. And depending on your own political, social and economic views, these attempts may or may not be admirable or even appropriate goals.
In any case, an economy -- national or regional -- has a life of its own, and the political views of the society where it functions determines and reflects that life.
So which comes first, politics or economics? Or are they both equal, even as politicians try to influence economic welfare and as economists insist what people do with what's available is independent of political manipulation?
Part of the problem is that for years, economists tried to remove their academic specialty from the real world and apply abstract mathematical principles to the study.
They called it econometrics.
A useful tool, to be sure, but any tool is only as good is its user, and when the academics removed their subject from the real world, they lost some touch with reality.
The subject was originally known as political economics, stressing the notion that the study dealt with what people do with what's available, and differentiating this larger field from what was known as home economics. What a family does and what a community, industry or a nation does are to be studied separately.
To be overly simplistic, that's the difference between micro and macro economics.
Either way, it's a matter of who decides what to use, how and when to use the resources available.
And if the choice is none of the above, that also is a decision.
When economics and politics mix, the result can be prosperity or chaos, partly depending on the strategy and goals of the political manipulators.
Liberals and conservatives both try to manipulate an economy for the benefit of their supporters, each with varying degrees of success. And depending on your own political, social and economic views, these attempts may or may not be admirable or even appropriate goals.
In any case, an economy -- national or regional -- has a life of its own, and the political views of the society where it functions determines and reflects that life.
So which comes first, politics or economics? Or are they both equal, even as politicians try to influence economic welfare and as economists insist what people do with what's available is independent of political manipulation?
Part of the problem is that for years, economists tried to remove their academic specialty from the real world and apply abstract mathematical principles to the study.
They called it econometrics.
A useful tool, to be sure, but any tool is only as good is its user, and when the academics removed their subject from the real world, they lost some touch with reality.
The subject was originally known as political economics, stressing the notion that the study dealt with what people do with what's available, and differentiating this larger field from what was known as home economics. What a family does and what a community, industry or a nation does are to be studied separately.
To be overly simplistic, that's the difference between micro and macro economics.
Either way, it's a matter of who decides what to use, how and when to use the resources available.
And if the choice is none of the above, that also is a decision.
Saturday, October 13, 2018
It Can't Happen Here
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Sometimes attributed to Voltaire or Patrick Henry, but actually written by Evelyn Hall in 1906.
When people of a free society lose their right to speak freely and disagree with others, that society itself is in danger of no longer being a democracy.
When a political candidate urges violence against protestors and those who disagree, he hastens the nation's decline toward tyranny or dictatorship.
"Get him outta here" and "I'd like to punch him in the face" are some of the things a current American official has said publicly, as he encouraged chants of "Lock her up!" among his crowds of supporters.
This same politician spent a lifetime in business demanding unquestioning loyalty from everyone he dealt with, but when that same attitude is carried into a government position, especially at a high level, the danger of that nation's democracy collapsing into autocracy rises sharply.
It may well be a natural tendency among some people to expect loyalty and agreement from everyone in all things, but when that attitude is carried forward into government positions and opposition is forcibly repressed, freedom and democracy are imperiled.
It doesn't take much knowledge of history to list several examples of that phenomenon causing serious problems, even war, in other countries. Moreover, that issue can be found in news reports even today.
"It can't happen here," you say.
But it can, and very nearly did, several times, and several books have been written documenting that very real possibility.
When people of a free society lose their right to speak freely and disagree with others, that society itself is in danger of no longer being a democracy.
When a political candidate urges violence against protestors and those who disagree, he hastens the nation's decline toward tyranny or dictatorship.
"Get him outta here" and "I'd like to punch him in the face" are some of the things a current American official has said publicly, as he encouraged chants of "Lock her up!" among his crowds of supporters.
This same politician spent a lifetime in business demanding unquestioning loyalty from everyone he dealt with, but when that same attitude is carried into a government position, especially at a high level, the danger of that nation's democracy collapsing into autocracy rises sharply.
It may well be a natural tendency among some people to expect loyalty and agreement from everyone in all things, but when that attitude is carried forward into government positions and opposition is forcibly repressed, freedom and democracy are imperiled.
It doesn't take much knowledge of history to list several examples of that phenomenon causing serious problems, even war, in other countries. Moreover, that issue can be found in news reports even today.
"It can't happen here," you say.
But it can, and very nearly did, several times, and several books have been written documenting that very real possibility.
Friday, October 12, 2018
In Loco Parenthesis
The president now says the Federal Reserve Board is "loco," and "out of control." Moreover, he adds, "I know more than they do."
News flash: The White House does not control the Federal Reserve, whose responsibility is to monitor the economy and try to prevent extreme swings that would endanger the national welfare.
But this president seems to want totally free business and financial markets, with no government influence or interference of any kind. Ever.
Been there, done that, and the result was chaos, rampant in the 19th and early 20th Centuries, with economic crashes that spread poverty and distress not only around the country but around the world.
It was not until 1917 that the Federal Reserve was founded, and not until the Great Depression of the 1930s that government took a more firm hand in regulating business and financial activities.
Before that, big business management showed a penchant for full control of what they do, with no government interference. This included wages and salaries, and treatment of workers. Management preferred government cooperation in controlling things that might interfere with profits, and that included labor costs as well as foreign competition.
If management had treated workers fairly and humanely, there would have no need for labor unions. Taken to extremes, the reaction to unfair treatment leads to widespread strikes and violence. Even worse, this leads to a dictatorship of either a political group favorable to management or another group favorable to workers. In some countries, that's called the proletariat.
At one extreme, then, is suppression of workers by governments supported by corporate management, and at the other extreme, suppression of management.
Somewhere in the middle may be a better system, which would satisfy both sides in the social hierarchy. Put simply, that's what happened in America and in some other countries, avoiding both extremes.
After much conflict, labor and management compromised. Moreover, that spirit of joint effort for the common good of all still prevails, despite occasional eruptions.
One of these eruptions is a move to impose high taxes on goods imported from other nations. These are called tariffs, and are levied as a way to protect domestic producers.
The problem with that, however, is that other countries retaliate, so consumers on both sides suffer as management raises prices to maintain profits. That doesn't last, because soon enough people stop buying.
Result: Economic crash.
It happened after the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was signed into law on June 17, 1930, raising U.S. import taxes on more than 20,000 goods.
Along with the stock market crash of the previous October, the combination of higher prices to consumers already suffering from lower wages and fewer jobs led to a worsening of an already harsh economic environment.
If any of this sounds familiar to what's happening now, perhaps it's time to be afraid. Be very afraid.
October 1929 saw a stock market crash. October 1987 saw another Wall Street debacle. This week, the stock market stumbled by more than 800 points on the widely followed Dow Jones Industrial Average.
Is this a harbinger of things to come? Perhaps. Or not.
Such a warning assumes that the stock market is directly related to the economy and is, as some put it, a barometer of economic growth. Others disagree, noting that very few Americans actually own stock, and many of those who do invest their money in mutual funds, rather than in individual companies.
That, however, doesn't stop politicians from blaming others for things that they don't like.
So why is the president criticizing the Fed for its efforts to smooth out radical changes in the economy even though activities on Wall Street stock markets have little directly to do with overall economic growth? Could it be that he wants full control of this, too, overturning nearly one hundred years of efforts to stabilize financial whiplash?
News flash: The White House does not control the Federal Reserve, whose responsibility is to monitor the economy and try to prevent extreme swings that would endanger the national welfare.
But this president seems to want totally free business and financial markets, with no government influence or interference of any kind. Ever.
Been there, done that, and the result was chaos, rampant in the 19th and early 20th Centuries, with economic crashes that spread poverty and distress not only around the country but around the world.
It was not until 1917 that the Federal Reserve was founded, and not until the Great Depression of the 1930s that government took a more firm hand in regulating business and financial activities.
Before that, big business management showed a penchant for full control of what they do, with no government interference. This included wages and salaries, and treatment of workers. Management preferred government cooperation in controlling things that might interfere with profits, and that included labor costs as well as foreign competition.
If management had treated workers fairly and humanely, there would have no need for labor unions. Taken to extremes, the reaction to unfair treatment leads to widespread strikes and violence. Even worse, this leads to a dictatorship of either a political group favorable to management or another group favorable to workers. In some countries, that's called the proletariat.
At one extreme, then, is suppression of workers by governments supported by corporate management, and at the other extreme, suppression of management.
Somewhere in the middle may be a better system, which would satisfy both sides in the social hierarchy. Put simply, that's what happened in America and in some other countries, avoiding both extremes.
After much conflict, labor and management compromised. Moreover, that spirit of joint effort for the common good of all still prevails, despite occasional eruptions.
One of these eruptions is a move to impose high taxes on goods imported from other nations. These are called tariffs, and are levied as a way to protect domestic producers.
The problem with that, however, is that other countries retaliate, so consumers on both sides suffer as management raises prices to maintain profits. That doesn't last, because soon enough people stop buying.
Result: Economic crash.
It happened after the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was signed into law on June 17, 1930, raising U.S. import taxes on more than 20,000 goods.
Along with the stock market crash of the previous October, the combination of higher prices to consumers already suffering from lower wages and fewer jobs led to a worsening of an already harsh economic environment.
If any of this sounds familiar to what's happening now, perhaps it's time to be afraid. Be very afraid.
October 1929 saw a stock market crash. October 1987 saw another Wall Street debacle. This week, the stock market stumbled by more than 800 points on the widely followed Dow Jones Industrial Average.
Is this a harbinger of things to come? Perhaps. Or not.
Such a warning assumes that the stock market is directly related to the economy and is, as some put it, a barometer of economic growth. Others disagree, noting that very few Americans actually own stock, and many of those who do invest their money in mutual funds, rather than in individual companies.
That, however, doesn't stop politicians from blaming others for things that they don't like.
So why is the president criticizing the Fed for its efforts to smooth out radical changes in the economy even though activities on Wall Street stock markets have little directly to do with overall economic growth? Could it be that he wants full control of this, too, overturning nearly one hundred years of efforts to stabilize financial whiplash?
Monday, October 8, 2018
Time and Temperament
If SCOTUS is the media catchword for Supreme Court of the United States, and POTUS stands for President of the United States, would SPOTUS be used for Supreme President of the United States?
A more crucial question then becomes, is that where the nation is heading, and if so, how worried should we be?
But the historic reality is that warnings like this have been sounded before, and the nation has survived.
For example, Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, was accused of trying to expand and stack the Supreme Court to stop it from overturning many of his economic recovery programs on constitutional grounds.
And Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, was accused of trying to become a dictator.
Between and since, other presidents have been accused of these and many other things, ranging from incompetence to insanity, partly depending on how angry the opposition party was at the time.
The current president is facing many similar criticisms, but whether any are true and whether he will face impeachment and removal from office as well as criminal or civil charges while in office or after he leaves is something that only history can record.
It's no secret that government leaders try to appoint federal judges -- up to and including justices on the Supreme Court -- who will follow the conservative or liberal guidelines preferred by their political parties. But it's also true that members of the Supreme Court, while they may show certain political leanings while on lower court benches, often go in directions unexpected and unanticipated by those who nominate and confirm them.
It's an odd thing to consider, but it seems that once they reach the pinnacle of success in the legal world -- a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court -- they adhere to the ethics of their profession and follow the best principles of the law.
This is not always true, of course, but there have been occasions when a conservative nominated to the Supreme Court by a conservative president moved in a direction unexpected by the president who chose the justice. This reflects a presidential attitude that the chosen nominee will follow the directions indicated by the occupant of the Oval Office.
So far, it has not happened that SCOTUS appointees have bent themselves to the will of POTUS.
It's enough of a problem that members of Congress have played follow the POTUS leader, and have forgotten their constitutional mandate to remain a separate and co-equal branch of government.
However, if SCOTUS falls into the POTUS line, then we may well have a SPOTUS governmental system.
And that smacks too much of a dictatorship.
A more crucial question then becomes, is that where the nation is heading, and if so, how worried should we be?
But the historic reality is that warnings like this have been sounded before, and the nation has survived.
For example, Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, was accused of trying to expand and stack the Supreme Court to stop it from overturning many of his economic recovery programs on constitutional grounds.
And Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, was accused of trying to become a dictator.
Between and since, other presidents have been accused of these and many other things, ranging from incompetence to insanity, partly depending on how angry the opposition party was at the time.
The current president is facing many similar criticisms, but whether any are true and whether he will face impeachment and removal from office as well as criminal or civil charges while in office or after he leaves is something that only history can record.
It's no secret that government leaders try to appoint federal judges -- up to and including justices on the Supreme Court -- who will follow the conservative or liberal guidelines preferred by their political parties. But it's also true that members of the Supreme Court, while they may show certain political leanings while on lower court benches, often go in directions unexpected and unanticipated by those who nominate and confirm them.
It's an odd thing to consider, but it seems that once they reach the pinnacle of success in the legal world -- a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court -- they adhere to the ethics of their profession and follow the best principles of the law.
This is not always true, of course, but there have been occasions when a conservative nominated to the Supreme Court by a conservative president moved in a direction unexpected by the president who chose the justice. This reflects a presidential attitude that the chosen nominee will follow the directions indicated by the occupant of the Oval Office.
So far, it has not happened that SCOTUS appointees have bent themselves to the will of POTUS.
It's enough of a problem that members of Congress have played follow the POTUS leader, and have forgotten their constitutional mandate to remain a separate and co-equal branch of government.
However, if SCOTUS falls into the POTUS line, then we may well have a SPOTUS governmental system.
And that smacks too much of a dictatorship.
Saturday, October 6, 2018
Capitalism vs Socialism
There are some things that government can and should do, such as road and bridge construction and repair, law enforcement, fire protection, and environmental and pollution control.
This is largely because private enterprise cannot or will not do these things on their own. Why? Because the profit motive is not there. And when it is, the cost to consumers is so outrageous that government steps in to ensure benefits for the population as a whole, not just for the rich.
Otherwise, when the profit motive is strong enough and there is a market for a product or service, private enterprise typically jumps at the opportunity to make a buck. It is free to do so. Or not.
But since the underlying, basic feature of a capitalist system is greed, investors will take advantage and act.
That's one end of the economic spectrum -- unfettered, capitalist free enterprise. At the other end is an economy fully controlled by government with the goal of providing a range of goods and services to all members of society, at minimal cost to them.
So which is better -- totally free enterprise controlled solely by a profit motive with no government interference?
Or an economic system tightly controlled by government, which tells producers what to make, how much to make and for whom to make it?
Or should a society strive for something in the middle, where those with money to invest seek the best return on their capital, but are limited by government rules that prevent them from taking all they can with no concern for the general welfare?
History shows that systems at each extreme don't work for the benefit of all citizens, even though each has some good concepts to contribute to the general welfare. Therefore, a better system would be one that fits somewhere in the middle, borrowing from each system and striving to provide the most benefit for the most people.
Ah, but there's the rub. Where, on what location on the economic spectrum, is the better place to be?
That decision is made often, especially in societies that elect political leaders who follow the wishes of the majority of the electorate and use political influence to nudge an economy in a direction that will benefit all.
This is largely because private enterprise cannot or will not do these things on their own. Why? Because the profit motive is not there. And when it is, the cost to consumers is so outrageous that government steps in to ensure benefits for the population as a whole, not just for the rich.
Otherwise, when the profit motive is strong enough and there is a market for a product or service, private enterprise typically jumps at the opportunity to make a buck. It is free to do so. Or not.
But since the underlying, basic feature of a capitalist system is greed, investors will take advantage and act.
That's one end of the economic spectrum -- unfettered, capitalist free enterprise. At the other end is an economy fully controlled by government with the goal of providing a range of goods and services to all members of society, at minimal cost to them.
So which is better -- totally free enterprise controlled solely by a profit motive with no government interference?
Or an economic system tightly controlled by government, which tells producers what to make, how much to make and for whom to make it?
Or should a society strive for something in the middle, where those with money to invest seek the best return on their capital, but are limited by government rules that prevent them from taking all they can with no concern for the general welfare?
History shows that systems at each extreme don't work for the benefit of all citizens, even though each has some good concepts to contribute to the general welfare. Therefore, a better system would be one that fits somewhere in the middle, borrowing from each system and striving to provide the most benefit for the most people.
Ah, but there's the rub. Where, on what location on the economic spectrum, is the better place to be?
That decision is made often, especially in societies that elect political leaders who follow the wishes of the majority of the electorate and use political influence to nudge an economy in a direction that will benefit all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)