"It can't happen here." -- Sinclair Lewis
Ain't technology wunnerful. -- Pug Mahoney
These days, it's not Big Brother watching citizens through government-installed devices that see where people are, what they're doing, buying and selling, as well as listen to what they say to each other.
Rather, corporations and hackers collect, monitor and resell to advertisers much personal information about those who use modern communication devices, which people themselves buy and on which they willingly post their sometimes intimate musings.
How big a leap is it, then, for government agencies to tap into this trove of information about its citizens? Or, for that matter, to do the same about people of opposing nations?
Such technology was not available in 1948, when George Orwell's novel, "1984," was published.
But it is now.
Recent news reports detailed the way wrist devices that track distance and pace of runners also track their location, and these devices transmit the information to a central computer, where it can be viewed and downloaded by the runners.
But some of the runners were military, assigned to bases in the Middle East. It turns out that the central computer was tapped by hackers working for a foreign government, thus revealing the location of U.S. military bases.
Similarly, consumers can connect to devices that respond to voice commands to show an array of used cars for sale, or to help select potential home repair contractors.
Also, cell phones have evolved to become hand-held computers, video recorders and location trackers, which enable the communications company to spot where you are and who you're with, even when you have turned off the device.
It seems the gadget remains connected to its corporate home even after its "owner" hits the "off" button.
These "services" are then marketed to consumers as valuable convenience systems that provide instant access to the internet, no matter where the consumer is.
But while it's good that the gadget can help prevent a user from getting lost while traveling, or to turn on the lights and photograph an intruder when a person is not at home, it also tells corporate America where users are, where they are going, and what they are doing when they get there.
It's also good that the device can alert emergency service personnel with specific location information when needed.
All of that is okay, so long as the information stays within the corporate memory bank. But when the corporation shares that data with government, thus enabling official watchers to track citizens as they go about their normal activities, that may not be okay.
Big Brother may already be watching and listening.
Wednesday, January 31, 2018
Monday, January 29, 2018
Election Year Blues
All news is local.
Media pundits are already speculating on the results of the election later this year, which means we face nine more months of yadda-yadda before voters decide the makeup of the next Congress. And even that won't bear fruit until next January. That's when the fun really starts.
No wonder many Americans tune out or turn off when the nightly news comes on the tube. Others don't bother reading a major metropolitan newspaper, preferring a local daily or weekly that focuses on what's happening nearby.
For these folks, the antics of delegates at the state capitol, in Washington or even at the UN have little or no relevance to what they have to cope with in their daily lives.
Depending on your outlook, then, all news is local. For those with an international perspective, it's important to know what's happening in Washington, London, Paris, Moscow, Tehran, Jerusalem, Tokyo, Beijing or other world capitals and how those events relate to the U.S. For them, the world is a locality.
For others, their focus is on a national or a state level. And for many more, they care only about what's going on in their nearby region -- county, town, school district or their neighborhood.
The word "neighbor," by the way, is derived from the same root that becomes "nigh," or "near" in English, and the Dutch "boer," or "farmer," and the English "boor," an old word for farmer that has acquired connotations of "rustic" and "uneducated."
News junkies, however, now face months of yammering by politicians and commentators about the doings and the potential undoings of prominent people, be they government officials, entertainment personalities or sports-affiliated folk.
Even those who are not news junkies will face the challenge of trying to ignore an almost constant barrage of reporting on what senior government officials are up to.
These days, given the amount of controversy generated by the current president, the barrage is bigger, louder and longer than ever.
Whether this much time and print space should be devoted to these goings-on is a point that conservative supporters argue against.
"You cannot and should not criticize the president, because he is the president," they say. Oddly, they did not apply this same standard to Barack Obama, attacking anything and everything he said and did, even to questioning his place of birth and whether that disqualified him from the presidency.
(Note: The Constitution specifies that a presidential candidate be a "natural born citizen." It does not say "native born." And since Obama's mother was from Kansas, it would not have mattered where young Barack was born. In any case, he was in fact born in Hawaii, one of the 50 United States. Therefore, his citizenship qualifies him on either count -- both natural born and native born.
(Similarly, Republican candidate Ted Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father, yet there was hardly any fuss made about his qualification. He did, however, make a show of "renouncing" Canadian citizenship, but since he was brought back to the U.S. as a child, there is some doubt as to whether he ever claimed it.)
As for the amount of time and space news media devote to presidential actions and sayings, they will continue to report both, and commentators will continue to opine about what he means and what the effects might be.
This is the right and responsibility of a free press, a right guaranteed by the Constitution and exercised by commentators ranging from Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh on the conservative wing as well as liberal writers and commentators on print outlets.
The public now faces the issue of how much coverage and commentary is too much. There is, of course, the option that many have already taken: They click the "off" button, switch channels or turn the page. However, that does not make the story go away.
Reality has a way of intruding on everyday life.
Media pundits are already speculating on the results of the election later this year, which means we face nine more months of yadda-yadda before voters decide the makeup of the next Congress. And even that won't bear fruit until next January. That's when the fun really starts.
No wonder many Americans tune out or turn off when the nightly news comes on the tube. Others don't bother reading a major metropolitan newspaper, preferring a local daily or weekly that focuses on what's happening nearby.
For these folks, the antics of delegates at the state capitol, in Washington or even at the UN have little or no relevance to what they have to cope with in their daily lives.
Depending on your outlook, then, all news is local. For those with an international perspective, it's important to know what's happening in Washington, London, Paris, Moscow, Tehran, Jerusalem, Tokyo, Beijing or other world capitals and how those events relate to the U.S. For them, the world is a locality.
For others, their focus is on a national or a state level. And for many more, they care only about what's going on in their nearby region -- county, town, school district or their neighborhood.
The word "neighbor," by the way, is derived from the same root that becomes "nigh," or "near" in English, and the Dutch "boer," or "farmer," and the English "boor," an old word for farmer that has acquired connotations of "rustic" and "uneducated."
News junkies, however, now face months of yammering by politicians and commentators about the doings and the potential undoings of prominent people, be they government officials, entertainment personalities or sports-affiliated folk.
Even those who are not news junkies will face the challenge of trying to ignore an almost constant barrage of reporting on what senior government officials are up to.
These days, given the amount of controversy generated by the current president, the barrage is bigger, louder and longer than ever.
Whether this much time and print space should be devoted to these goings-on is a point that conservative supporters argue against.
"You cannot and should not criticize the president, because he is the president," they say. Oddly, they did not apply this same standard to Barack Obama, attacking anything and everything he said and did, even to questioning his place of birth and whether that disqualified him from the presidency.
(Note: The Constitution specifies that a presidential candidate be a "natural born citizen." It does not say "native born." And since Obama's mother was from Kansas, it would not have mattered where young Barack was born. In any case, he was in fact born in Hawaii, one of the 50 United States. Therefore, his citizenship qualifies him on either count -- both natural born and native born.
(Similarly, Republican candidate Ted Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father, yet there was hardly any fuss made about his qualification. He did, however, make a show of "renouncing" Canadian citizenship, but since he was brought back to the U.S. as a child, there is some doubt as to whether he ever claimed it.)
As for the amount of time and space news media devote to presidential actions and sayings, they will continue to report both, and commentators will continue to opine about what he means and what the effects might be.
This is the right and responsibility of a free press, a right guaranteed by the Constitution and exercised by commentators ranging from Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh on the conservative wing as well as liberal writers and commentators on print outlets.
The public now faces the issue of how much coverage and commentary is too much. There is, of course, the option that many have already taken: They click the "off" button, switch channels or turn the page. However, that does not make the story go away.
Reality has a way of intruding on everyday life.
Saturday, January 27, 2018
Due Credit
When something good happens, politicians claim credit. When something ungood happens, they blame someone else, typically a predecessor.
While it is true that the U.S. economy has steadily improved in the past 14 months since Donald Trump was elected, as he himself has noted, it is also true that the growth streak began eight years ago, and the 14 month period he claimed as a credit for himself included three months between his election and his inauguration, a time in which Democratic President Barack Obama was still in office.
So realistically, how much of the growth streak can be attributed to Trump, and how much was due to the momentum of an improving prosperity that began long before his nomination, much less his election and inauguration?
As a practical matter, how much influence can a new president have on a national economy during his first year in office?
Politicians would have you believe they have an economic magic wand that they can wave and instantly spark prosperity. This ignores the reality that a national economy has a life of its own, and is often vulnerable to the fickle winds of emotional over-confidence unsupported by rational expectations.
So while prosperity can be driven by self-fulfilling prophecies of success, it can also be tripped up and tumbled by similar emotionally driven forecasts.
Meanwhile, apart from stock market data that reflect investor attitudes more than economic performance, there are statistics that show continuing growth.
As the year ended, the U.S. economy grew at an annualized rate of 2.6 percent during the fourth quarter, compared to 3.2 percent in the third quarter, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
That's a preliminary estimate, of course, and is likely to be changed as more information becomes available to the government agency.
Nonetheless, it's lower than the third quarter number, and a lot lower than the Trumpian hope of as much as 4 percent.
The Federal Reserve Board, which monitors the economy and has indicated a preference for a growth rate of around 2 percent, will soon welcome a new chairman -- a Trump appointee.
But whether the new chairman follows the desires of the president who appointed him or adopts the independent attitude traditional for Fed members remains to be seen.
Already, several close allies have jumped the Trump ship, and the investigation into possible presidential wrongdoing has been collecting evidence despite Trump's attempts to shut down the investigation and dismiss the special counsel leading the probe.
So the questions become this: Whose rules will be followed, and who's in charge? Will America follow the rule of law, or the Trumpian code of "Me First and everyone else do as I say, not as I do"?
While it is true that the U.S. economy has steadily improved in the past 14 months since Donald Trump was elected, as he himself has noted, it is also true that the growth streak began eight years ago, and the 14 month period he claimed as a credit for himself included three months between his election and his inauguration, a time in which Democratic President Barack Obama was still in office.
So realistically, how much of the growth streak can be attributed to Trump, and how much was due to the momentum of an improving prosperity that began long before his nomination, much less his election and inauguration?
As a practical matter, how much influence can a new president have on a national economy during his first year in office?
Politicians would have you believe they have an economic magic wand that they can wave and instantly spark prosperity. This ignores the reality that a national economy has a life of its own, and is often vulnerable to the fickle winds of emotional over-confidence unsupported by rational expectations.
So while prosperity can be driven by self-fulfilling prophecies of success, it can also be tripped up and tumbled by similar emotionally driven forecasts.
Meanwhile, apart from stock market data that reflect investor attitudes more than economic performance, there are statistics that show continuing growth.
As the year ended, the U.S. economy grew at an annualized rate of 2.6 percent during the fourth quarter, compared to 3.2 percent in the third quarter, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
That's a preliminary estimate, of course, and is likely to be changed as more information becomes available to the government agency.
Nonetheless, it's lower than the third quarter number, and a lot lower than the Trumpian hope of as much as 4 percent.
The Federal Reserve Board, which monitors the economy and has indicated a preference for a growth rate of around 2 percent, will soon welcome a new chairman -- a Trump appointee.
But whether the new chairman follows the desires of the president who appointed him or adopts the independent attitude traditional for Fed members remains to be seen.
Already, several close allies have jumped the Trump ship, and the investigation into possible presidential wrongdoing has been collecting evidence despite Trump's attempts to shut down the investigation and dismiss the special counsel leading the probe.
So the questions become this: Whose rules will be followed, and who's in charge? Will America follow the rule of law, or the Trumpian code of "Me First and everyone else do as I say, not as I do"?
Friday, January 26, 2018
Famous Last Words
"You're fired!" -- Donald Trump as reality show host.
That's easy to say when you're hosting a fake business on television. But when a government official under investigation in the real world wants to fire the investigator, there is no script that would pass even a brief look by a lawyer editing such a potential conversation.
The government of the United States is not a TV show. It is not fake. The people in major and supporting roles do not get to write their own laws and follow their own rules on what is appropriate behavior.
In short, no one is above the law, not even the president.
Yet that seems to be the attitude of the current occupant of the Oval Office, who demands loyalty, if not adulation, from everyone else in government and law enforcement.
He fired James Comey, the head of the FBI, because the agency was getting too close to pinning down a presidential aide on legal charges. The Department of Justice then appointed a special counsel to investigate allegations of foreign interference in a national election and possible collusion with American officials.
He then tried to order the firing of that same special counsel, but was prevented when his aide threatened to quit instead.
The scenario is reminiscent of the brouhaha when President Richard Nixon ordered the firing of an investigator probing the president's behavior. Instead, two senior Justice Department officials resigned rather then carry out such an order.
Eventually, the investigation detailed so much illegal activity that Nixon resigned the presidency rather than face almost certain impeachment, conviction and removal from office. And rather than see an ex-president be indicted and taken to criminal court, the new president issued a pardon for any crimes that Nixon may have committed.
A similar drama is taking place in America today. So far, no charges have been made against Donald Trump for illegal activity. But evidence is being gathered, and the special counsel wants to question Trump about recent events.
Trump's lawyers, however, are trying to negotiate the terms of the interview or even delay it or terminate it. Since the president cannot fire the investigator who is investigating him, the next best strategy might be to control the investigation.
Prosecutors in criminal case are not known to talk over in advance of a questioning just what questions they will ask the subject of the investigation.
That's not what they do. And if the target of the probe refuses to cooperate, he is subject to a subpoena to appear before a grand jury.
No one is above the law.
Not even a president of the United States.
Not even, and especially, if he tries to shut down an entire federal law enforcement agency in an effort to save his own skin.
That's easy to say when you're hosting a fake business on television. But when a government official under investigation in the real world wants to fire the investigator, there is no script that would pass even a brief look by a lawyer editing such a potential conversation.
The government of the United States is not a TV show. It is not fake. The people in major and supporting roles do not get to write their own laws and follow their own rules on what is appropriate behavior.
In short, no one is above the law, not even the president.
Yet that seems to be the attitude of the current occupant of the Oval Office, who demands loyalty, if not adulation, from everyone else in government and law enforcement.
He fired James Comey, the head of the FBI, because the agency was getting too close to pinning down a presidential aide on legal charges. The Department of Justice then appointed a special counsel to investigate allegations of foreign interference in a national election and possible collusion with American officials.
He then tried to order the firing of that same special counsel, but was prevented when his aide threatened to quit instead.
The scenario is reminiscent of the brouhaha when President Richard Nixon ordered the firing of an investigator probing the president's behavior. Instead, two senior Justice Department officials resigned rather then carry out such an order.
Eventually, the investigation detailed so much illegal activity that Nixon resigned the presidency rather than face almost certain impeachment, conviction and removal from office. And rather than see an ex-president be indicted and taken to criminal court, the new president issued a pardon for any crimes that Nixon may have committed.
A similar drama is taking place in America today. So far, no charges have been made against Donald Trump for illegal activity. But evidence is being gathered, and the special counsel wants to question Trump about recent events.
Trump's lawyers, however, are trying to negotiate the terms of the interview or even delay it or terminate it. Since the president cannot fire the investigator who is investigating him, the next best strategy might be to control the investigation.
Prosecutors in criminal case are not known to talk over in advance of a questioning just what questions they will ask the subject of the investigation.
That's not what they do. And if the target of the probe refuses to cooperate, he is subject to a subpoena to appear before a grand jury.
No one is above the law.
Not even a president of the United States.
Not even, and especially, if he tries to shut down an entire federal law enforcement agency in an effort to save his own skin.
Thursday, January 25, 2018
Isolationism
Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.
The "America First" doctrine being preached these days may well come to mean "America Alone" in international trade. Many other nations are ignoring the U.S. as they sign agreements to increase trade among nations for their mutual benefit.
The U.S. dropped out of the Trans Pacific trade agreement and is threatening to cancel the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Result: Canada has just announced a new pact with ten other nations around the Pacific, and the new trade agreement excludes the U.S.
So for all the bluff and bluster stemming from the isolationist "America First" talk, it's coming down to just that. Talk.
Realistically, can America survive on its own, without importing or exporting any stuff to neighboring nations or those overseas? Take a look at the tags in the garments you buy, or for that matter the fruits and vegetables to pick up at a grocery store. In winter, a lot of food is imported from places with opposite climates.
That aside, consider the politicians' demand that there must be more mining and manufacturing jobs in America, and fewer immigrants willing and able to take jobs that American college grads don't want.
Of course, if the demand for such products rises high enough, and the supply of workers low enough, companies would have to offer higher wages to attract and keep Americans who would otherwise turn down such jobs.
Result: Higher prices for consumers. The Law of Supply and Demand has not been repealed.
The anti-immigrant and isolationist cries of "America for the Americans," and "America First" have only led to problems in the past, and will again if narrow minded and short sighted bigots have their way.
The "America First" doctrine being preached these days may well come to mean "America Alone" in international trade. Many other nations are ignoring the U.S. as they sign agreements to increase trade among nations for their mutual benefit.
The U.S. dropped out of the Trans Pacific trade agreement and is threatening to cancel the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Result: Canada has just announced a new pact with ten other nations around the Pacific, and the new trade agreement excludes the U.S.
So for all the bluff and bluster stemming from the isolationist "America First" talk, it's coming down to just that. Talk.
Realistically, can America survive on its own, without importing or exporting any stuff to neighboring nations or those overseas? Take a look at the tags in the garments you buy, or for that matter the fruits and vegetables to pick up at a grocery store. In winter, a lot of food is imported from places with opposite climates.
That aside, consider the politicians' demand that there must be more mining and manufacturing jobs in America, and fewer immigrants willing and able to take jobs that American college grads don't want.
Of course, if the demand for such products rises high enough, and the supply of workers low enough, companies would have to offer higher wages to attract and keep Americans who would otherwise turn down such jobs.
Result: Higher prices for consumers. The Law of Supply and Demand has not been repealed.
The anti-immigrant and isolationist cries of "America for the Americans," and "America First" have only led to problems in the past, and will again if narrow minded and short sighted bigots have their way.
Wednesday, January 24, 2018
FBI Shutdown
It's clear that the White House has been trying to close off the investigation into allegations of collusion with Kremlin hacks and fixing last year's presidential election. But don't be surprised if the attacks escalate into an effort to shut down the FBI entirely.
Couple the president's verbosity over the nation's premier investigative agency, relying on his apparent belief that the FBI is his personal police force, with the cooperation of other Republicans who are now claiming to have unearthed a "secret society" within the agency that is determined to overturn the current president.
But amid all the outrage propounded by the GOP in support of a memo that Republicans themselves wrote, the propounders so far refuse to divulge the contents of said memo, even to other Republicans on various intelligence committees or to other investigative agencies such as the Secret Service and, yes, the FBI itself.
The strategy seems to be focused on forcing the firing or resignation of top FBI officials, one of whose primary sins is that .... (his wife is a Democrat). And perhaps more critical is the report that when the president himself asked the official who he had voted for in the presidential election, the senior FBI chief did not say that he had voted for The Don. Rather, in what is a tradition among many senior level law enforcement officials, he did not vote at all.
Nevertheless, the fact that his wife not only was a Democrat, but was also a candidate in a state election (she lost) and had received a campaign contribution from a group connected to Hillary Clinton. (Horrors!)
All that apparently was enough to persuade the president and his GOP allies that the FBI guy was a serious enough threat to the nation's chief law enforcement executive to warrant ousting him.
So far, though, top leaders of the FBI are still on the job, as are the career rank and file agents of the bureau.
But whether the current director and the current assistant director can be fired by Attorney General Jeff Session (who recused himself from the investigation into the Russia probe), or by the president himself, who is increasingly closer to the probers' curiosity, is an open question.
The president has agreed to be interviewed by team led by special counsel Robert Mueller, but that also promise may be broken if the president doesn't get his way on how the interview is to be conducted. For example, whether the questions should be submitted in advance and the answers be returned at his convenience.
And if the president does not get agreement to his terms, the probers could then subpoena him to appear before a grand jury, where he would be questioned without being accompanied by his own lawyers.
That, of course, could mean a citation for contempt.
So who's really in charge of a legal investigation? The duly appointed investigators and the courts, or the president, even if he happens to be the target of the investigation?
It is a puzzlement.
Unless, of course, the president tries to shut down the investigation as well as the FBI itself.
Can he unilaterally fire the special counsel leading the investigation? President Richard Nixon tried that, in what became known as the Saturday Night Massacre. Nixon tried to order the attorney general to do it, but the AG resigned instead, as did his deputy.
It seems we're looking at the potential for a similar confrontation now. And we know how the last one turned out. Nixon resigned the presidency rather than be impeached, when it became clear that he would face trial in the Senate, convicted and removed from office.
By the way, while it may not be possible to indict a president on criminal charges while in office, it is possible to do that after impeachment and removal from office. At least, that's what the Constitution says.
Unless the new guy somehow arranges for the Constitution to be suspended.
Couple the president's verbosity over the nation's premier investigative agency, relying on his apparent belief that the FBI is his personal police force, with the cooperation of other Republicans who are now claiming to have unearthed a "secret society" within the agency that is determined to overturn the current president.
But amid all the outrage propounded by the GOP in support of a memo that Republicans themselves wrote, the propounders so far refuse to divulge the contents of said memo, even to other Republicans on various intelligence committees or to other investigative agencies such as the Secret Service and, yes, the FBI itself.
The strategy seems to be focused on forcing the firing or resignation of top FBI officials, one of whose primary sins is that .... (his wife is a Democrat). And perhaps more critical is the report that when the president himself asked the official who he had voted for in the presidential election, the senior FBI chief did not say that he had voted for The Don. Rather, in what is a tradition among many senior level law enforcement officials, he did not vote at all.
Nevertheless, the fact that his wife not only was a Democrat, but was also a candidate in a state election (she lost) and had received a campaign contribution from a group connected to Hillary Clinton. (Horrors!)
All that apparently was enough to persuade the president and his GOP allies that the FBI guy was a serious enough threat to the nation's chief law enforcement executive to warrant ousting him.
So far, though, top leaders of the FBI are still on the job, as are the career rank and file agents of the bureau.
But whether the current director and the current assistant director can be fired by Attorney General Jeff Session (who recused himself from the investigation into the Russia probe), or by the president himself, who is increasingly closer to the probers' curiosity, is an open question.
The president has agreed to be interviewed by team led by special counsel Robert Mueller, but that also promise may be broken if the president doesn't get his way on how the interview is to be conducted. For example, whether the questions should be submitted in advance and the answers be returned at his convenience.
And if the president does not get agreement to his terms, the probers could then subpoena him to appear before a grand jury, where he would be questioned without being accompanied by his own lawyers.
That, of course, could mean a citation for contempt.
So who's really in charge of a legal investigation? The duly appointed investigators and the courts, or the president, even if he happens to be the target of the investigation?
It is a puzzlement.
Unless, of course, the president tries to shut down the investigation as well as the FBI itself.
Can he unilaterally fire the special counsel leading the investigation? President Richard Nixon tried that, in what became known as the Saturday Night Massacre. Nixon tried to order the attorney general to do it, but the AG resigned instead, as did his deputy.
It seems we're looking at the potential for a similar confrontation now. And we know how the last one turned out. Nixon resigned the presidency rather than be impeached, when it became clear that he would face trial in the Senate, convicted and removed from office.
By the way, while it may not be possible to indict a president on criminal charges while in office, it is possible to do that after impeachment and removal from office. At least, that's what the Constitution says.
Unless the new guy somehow arranges for the Constitution to be suspended.
Tuesday, January 23, 2018
Davos Irony
The president of the United States announces steep new tariffs, then goes to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where most of the members prefer open borders and international free trade.
The Davos folk are typically the elite of the elite in international business, and sessions at the forum are aimed at finding ways to boost business by removing barriers.
Yet Donald Trump campaigned on a promise of bigger barriers, not only higher tariffs on imports but also physical walls to keep out people.
So what will be the sales pitch in Davos? Will he try to convert all the world's business, economic and political leaders to his "America First" view and persuade them all to vow total loyalty to him and him alone?
Lotsa luck with that one.
The president's latest move is to boost import taxes on washing machines and solar energy cells, along with a promise to do the same to many other products, all in the name of protecting American business.
One wonders why, since many products are already made overseas -- including much clothing bearing the Trump label -- and higher tariffs will only be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. And that can easily mean more profit to the companies.
So who will benefit, really? Will the higher import taxes mean U.S. manufacturers will increase their output and hire more workers as political leaders claim? Or will they raise prices of the stuff they already make in the U.S. to match the retail price of the imported goods, with the result of higher profits?
Or, as cynics suggest, is the tariff increase a cover to pay back corporate donors to a political campaign?
The Davos folk are typically the elite of the elite in international business, and sessions at the forum are aimed at finding ways to boost business by removing barriers.
Yet Donald Trump campaigned on a promise of bigger barriers, not only higher tariffs on imports but also physical walls to keep out people.
So what will be the sales pitch in Davos? Will he try to convert all the world's business, economic and political leaders to his "America First" view and persuade them all to vow total loyalty to him and him alone?
Lotsa luck with that one.
The president's latest move is to boost import taxes on washing machines and solar energy cells, along with a promise to do the same to many other products, all in the name of protecting American business.
One wonders why, since many products are already made overseas -- including much clothing bearing the Trump label -- and higher tariffs will only be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. And that can easily mean more profit to the companies.
So who will benefit, really? Will the higher import taxes mean U.S. manufacturers will increase their output and hire more workers as political leaders claim? Or will they raise prices of the stuff they already make in the U.S. to match the retail price of the imported goods, with the result of higher profits?
Or, as cynics suggest, is the tariff increase a cover to pay back corporate donors to a political campaign?
Monday, January 22, 2018
Fake Awards
For all the advance ranting, the highly touted "fake news" awards never did come from the Oval Office.
Instead, the president tweeted a link to a list made by the Republican Party. Most were minor errors that were quickly corrected by news media editors, or were opinion pieces.
The "winner" of the presidential "fake news" award list was a column by Nobel Prize economist Paul Krugman that ran a year ago, the day after inauguration, predicting an economic collapse from which the country would "never recover."
That prediction, of course, did not pan out. The U.S. economy has not collapsed.
Yet.
Your guess is probably as good as anyone else's, but as the stock market continues to reach new highs, there is increasing speculation on when, whether and how strongly a "correction" will hit stock markets and possibly the overall economy as well. Moreover, there is wide disagreement as to whether Wall Street statistics are a barometer of the economy, or merely a reflection of investor enthusiasm or panic.
In any case, Krugman is not a reporter, and an opinion piece is not "news." Therefore, it cannot be considered "fake," no matter how strong the disagreement.
Instead, the president tweeted a link to a list made by the Republican Party. Most were minor errors that were quickly corrected by news media editors, or were opinion pieces.
The "winner" of the presidential "fake news" award list was a column by Nobel Prize economist Paul Krugman that ran a year ago, the day after inauguration, predicting an economic collapse from which the country would "never recover."
That prediction, of course, did not pan out. The U.S. economy has not collapsed.
Yet.
Your guess is probably as good as anyone else's, but as the stock market continues to reach new highs, there is increasing speculation on when, whether and how strongly a "correction" will hit stock markets and possibly the overall economy as well. Moreover, there is wide disagreement as to whether Wall Street statistics are a barometer of the economy, or merely a reflection of investor enthusiasm or panic.
In any case, Krugman is not a reporter, and an opinion piece is not "news." Therefore, it cannot be considered "fake," no matter how strong the disagreement.
Language and Labels
A rose by any other name would still stink.
Language changes outlook just as outlook changes language.
Some believe that when you change the name of a person or thing, you also change its character and quality.
As with a rose, by changing the word "smell" to the word "stink," we change the quality of its odor, from pleasant to unpleasant. In fact, the word "smell" itself can be positive or negative, depending on the context. The only thing that really changes is the perception.
This tactical name-changing has been common in advertising for decades, and for longer than that in politics.
This strategy is also known as name-calling. By applying a negative to an opponent, the name-caller tries to dehumanize the opponent. By doing that, the accuser enables destruction of the enemy -- at first figurative, then literal.
We see this name-calling strategy currently in the shutdown blame game being played in Washington, as Republicans and Democrats accuse each other of manipulating the federal budget process for political ends. But both sides actually are responsible. The fiscal year ended last November 1, so for more than two months the U.S. government has been operating in a sort of limbo, as a series of temporary measures are taken to enable continuing operations while the politicians grumble at each other.
Finally, when the Grumbler in Chief could not lead negotiators to a compromise deal, the government found itself without a budget and shut down many of its operations and stopped salaries for many in government.
Except members of Congress, who continue to collect their salaries even as they grumble over who's at fault for the government shutdown.
So for all the rosy outlook that some congressional leaders claim for themselves as they blame members of the opposition party for all the problems, the attitude on each side stinks.
Language changes outlook just as outlook changes language.
Some believe that when you change the name of a person or thing, you also change its character and quality.
As with a rose, by changing the word "smell" to the word "stink," we change the quality of its odor, from pleasant to unpleasant. In fact, the word "smell" itself can be positive or negative, depending on the context. The only thing that really changes is the perception.
This tactical name-changing has been common in advertising for decades, and for longer than that in politics.
This strategy is also known as name-calling. By applying a negative to an opponent, the name-caller tries to dehumanize the opponent. By doing that, the accuser enables destruction of the enemy -- at first figurative, then literal.
We see this name-calling strategy currently in the shutdown blame game being played in Washington, as Republicans and Democrats accuse each other of manipulating the federal budget process for political ends. But both sides actually are responsible. The fiscal year ended last November 1, so for more than two months the U.S. government has been operating in a sort of limbo, as a series of temporary measures are taken to enable continuing operations while the politicians grumble at each other.
Finally, when the Grumbler in Chief could not lead negotiators to a compromise deal, the government found itself without a budget and shut down many of its operations and stopped salaries for many in government.
Except members of Congress, who continue to collect their salaries even as they grumble over who's at fault for the government shutdown.
So for all the rosy outlook that some congressional leaders claim for themselves as they blame members of the opposition party for all the problems, the attitude on each side stinks.
Friday, January 19, 2018
Fandemic
Here's a new word -- fandemic -- and let's define it as an epidemic of adulation. The reason for this outbreak of widespread, unquestioning support could be emotional, as in the popularity of a singer, actor or politician. It could also be rational, which can explain the success of an author of well written books.
But widespread emotional support can also be non-rational, when crowds are caught up in a fever of support for a person or policy that defies logic and morality.
Here we can define morality as how one deals with other people, compared to religion, which can be defined as how one deals with an entity in the spirit world. One of the teachings of religion is morality, but there are many non-religious people -- agnostics and atheists, for example -- who are quite moral.
To mix the two, and to insist that there is no morality without religion, even as those who preach this are guilty of the very immoral practices that they so vehemently condemn, is hypocrisy of the first order.
No person, of course, is perfect. At one time or another, everyone does something that violates his or her own moral beliefs. The best people can do is to formulate a moral code, try to live up to it, and be aware of their actions when they break their own rules.
This is especially true in business, politics and government. The founders of the American republic deliberately kept religion out of the formative documents for the country's governing system, and specified that no religious system be established as official, that all citizens must conform to.
Nonetheless, there have been and are many who believe that a specific church, religion or hallowed document be the source of guidelines and practices the political and government officials should follow in their public lives.
Certainly they have the right to follow any spiritual system they choose in their private lives, and they are free to exhibit their practices in their public lives. But they may not impose their religious principles and beliefs on others.
To do so is not only unconstitutional, it is immoral.
In terms of a physical disease, an epidemic is a sudden outbreak, compared to endemic, which means a disease in a given area is long-term, and a pandemic, which is when an outbreak spreads worldwide.
Historically, various countries have been infected with a fandemic disease, as when a politician spreads hatred of a target group and uses that to fuel his own popularity and support a rise to power.
America is now facing an outbreak of a fandemic disease. Whether the citizenry recognizes this soon and vaccinates itself against it is something for free press physicians to recognize and publicize.
But widespread emotional support can also be non-rational, when crowds are caught up in a fever of support for a person or policy that defies logic and morality.
Here we can define morality as how one deals with other people, compared to religion, which can be defined as how one deals with an entity in the spirit world. One of the teachings of religion is morality, but there are many non-religious people -- agnostics and atheists, for example -- who are quite moral.
To mix the two, and to insist that there is no morality without religion, even as those who preach this are guilty of the very immoral practices that they so vehemently condemn, is hypocrisy of the first order.
No person, of course, is perfect. At one time or another, everyone does something that violates his or her own moral beliefs. The best people can do is to formulate a moral code, try to live up to it, and be aware of their actions when they break their own rules.
This is especially true in business, politics and government. The founders of the American republic deliberately kept religion out of the formative documents for the country's governing system, and specified that no religious system be established as official, that all citizens must conform to.
Nonetheless, there have been and are many who believe that a specific church, religion or hallowed document be the source of guidelines and practices the political and government officials should follow in their public lives.
Certainly they have the right to follow any spiritual system they choose in their private lives, and they are free to exhibit their practices in their public lives. But they may not impose their religious principles and beliefs on others.
To do so is not only unconstitutional, it is immoral.
In terms of a physical disease, an epidemic is a sudden outbreak, compared to endemic, which means a disease in a given area is long-term, and a pandemic, which is when an outbreak spreads worldwide.
Historically, various countries have been infected with a fandemic disease, as when a politician spreads hatred of a target group and uses that to fuel his own popularity and support a rise to power.
America is now facing an outbreak of a fandemic disease. Whether the citizenry recognizes this soon and vaccinates itself against it is something for free press physicians to recognize and publicize.
Thursday, January 18, 2018
Know Nothingism
Trumpty Dumpty brags of a wall
And says it will be much better than all.
But amid all the BS and clamorous squawk
Voters forget that it's only just talk.
Many in the support base of True Believers go along with the electioneering patter as if the talk is more than that, and constitutes realistic, worthwhile, achievable goals that will benefit native-born Americans. (Read: White people of northern European heritage whose families have been here for three generations or more.)
Part of this strategy is to send back or keep out those who do not meet this "standard" of what constitutes worthwhile people.
As for those of African heritage whose ancestors were brought to America as slaves 300 years ago, there may be some who will advocate a repeat of the early 19th Century episode when freed slaves were transported back to Africa to the new nation dubbed Liberia (place of freedom), with its capital of Monrovia, named after U.S. President James Monroe.
The current bias against certain groups of newcomers is reminiscent of the Know Nothing Party of the mid-19th Century, notorious for its nativist, anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic sentiments.
It started as the Native American Party in the 1840s, but was renamed the American Party in 1855. It's an easy guess why the first word in the name of the party was dropped. In any case, the movement was strongly opposed to immigration, especially of people from Ireland, where famine and poverty were widespread, and from Germany, whose people were fleeing political and social upheaval.
One of those was a 16-year-old named Friedrich Trump. After making his fortune in America, he returned to Germany but was deported because he had not fulfilled his military obligation. Friedrich returned to America and settled in New York, where his son Fred was born. To complete the story of an immigrant's family and the American Dream, Fred's son Donald grew up to become president of the United States.
Now the country faces a revival of the Know Nothing movement, with its aim of preventing immigration from certain countries and its bigotry against people of certain religious beliefs.
Oddly, there are many in America today who insist that the president should heed the teachings of the Bible and base his policies on that, notwithstanding the Constitutional ban on establishing an official religion.
There is a supreme irony in the fact that the only reason the Trump family remains in America is because its founder, Friedrich Trump, was deported from Germany.
Now the grandson wants to deport all those who do not match his preferred color, ethnicity and religious standards. Clearly, he has forgotten, if he ever knew, the history of immigration to America in the 19th Century, when many who were already here wanted to close the Golden Door of Opportunity on those who were deemed somehow "different."
And says it will be much better than all.
But amid all the BS and clamorous squawk
Voters forget that it's only just talk.
Many in the support base of True Believers go along with the electioneering patter as if the talk is more than that, and constitutes realistic, worthwhile, achievable goals that will benefit native-born Americans. (Read: White people of northern European heritage whose families have been here for three generations or more.)
Part of this strategy is to send back or keep out those who do not meet this "standard" of what constitutes worthwhile people.
As for those of African heritage whose ancestors were brought to America as slaves 300 years ago, there may be some who will advocate a repeat of the early 19th Century episode when freed slaves were transported back to Africa to the new nation dubbed Liberia (place of freedom), with its capital of Monrovia, named after U.S. President James Monroe.
The current bias against certain groups of newcomers is reminiscent of the Know Nothing Party of the mid-19th Century, notorious for its nativist, anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic sentiments.
It started as the Native American Party in the 1840s, but was renamed the American Party in 1855. It's an easy guess why the first word in the name of the party was dropped. In any case, the movement was strongly opposed to immigration, especially of people from Ireland, where famine and poverty were widespread, and from Germany, whose people were fleeing political and social upheaval.
One of those was a 16-year-old named Friedrich Trump. After making his fortune in America, he returned to Germany but was deported because he had not fulfilled his military obligation. Friedrich returned to America and settled in New York, where his son Fred was born. To complete the story of an immigrant's family and the American Dream, Fred's son Donald grew up to become president of the United States.
Now the country faces a revival of the Know Nothing movement, with its aim of preventing immigration from certain countries and its bigotry against people of certain religious beliefs.
Oddly, there are many in America today who insist that the president should heed the teachings of the Bible and base his policies on that, notwithstanding the Constitutional ban on establishing an official religion.
There is a supreme irony in the fact that the only reason the Trump family remains in America is because its founder, Friedrich Trump, was deported from Germany.
Now the grandson wants to deport all those who do not match his preferred color, ethnicity and religious standards. Clearly, he has forgotten, if he ever knew, the history of immigration to America in the 19th Century, when many who were already here wanted to close the Golden Door of Opportunity on those who were deemed somehow "different."
Wednesday, January 17, 2018
Press for Freedom
The day has come and gone without the president making his highly touted "awards" for the worst journalism in America, according to his judgements.
Instead, Sen. Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, took to the Senate floor to assail the president for attacking the press, and noted that calling the press "the enemy of the people," as Donald Trump has done numerous times, is the same phrase used by Josef Stalin. Moreover, the term "fake news," another term Trump uses often, has been picked up and repeated by dictators around the world.
"We do not pay obeisance to the powerful," Flake said, and "no politician can tell us what the truth is." Moreover, the senator added, "A president who cannot take criticism is charting a very dangerous path." And he called on Congress to fight back against the dangers to the free press and free speech in America.
Flake's speech was carried live on television, and portions were used throughout the day by news programs.
The president himself did not send out messages on Twitter responding to the senator's speech. Instead, White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders claimed the reason for Flake's speech was that he was losing in the polls and therefore was not seeking re-election.
As Flake pointed out, "the destructive effect" of the president's attack on the press "cannot be overstated."
One can only speculate as to why the president did not announce his "fake news" awards today. Perhaps the mockery by comedians and commentators had something to do with it, or the pre-emptive strike by Flake defending the free press caused him to rethink his plans.
Then again, perhaps he just forgot. Not likely. On the other hand, forgetting inconvenient facts is not uncommon among politicians of his ilk.
For example, the current chief of the Department of Homeland Security, when asked about the president's apparent bias against immigrants from Africa, and his preference for newcomers from Norway, the Cabinet-level chief told a congressional panel, "I don't know for sure that Norway is predominantly white."
Sure. Why would anyone with the name Kirsjten Nielsen know anything about someplace like Norway?
Then again, Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska and a one-time Republican candidate for vice president, claimed that her foreign policy credentials included this: "I can see Russia from my house."
Ignorance of geography and demographics seems to be no barrier to qualification for high office, especially among Republicans in America.
Instead, Sen. Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, took to the Senate floor to assail the president for attacking the press, and noted that calling the press "the enemy of the people," as Donald Trump has done numerous times, is the same phrase used by Josef Stalin. Moreover, the term "fake news," another term Trump uses often, has been picked up and repeated by dictators around the world.
"We do not pay obeisance to the powerful," Flake said, and "no politician can tell us what the truth is." Moreover, the senator added, "A president who cannot take criticism is charting a very dangerous path." And he called on Congress to fight back against the dangers to the free press and free speech in America.
Flake's speech was carried live on television, and portions were used throughout the day by news programs.
The president himself did not send out messages on Twitter responding to the senator's speech. Instead, White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders claimed the reason for Flake's speech was that he was losing in the polls and therefore was not seeking re-election.
As Flake pointed out, "the destructive effect" of the president's attack on the press "cannot be overstated."
One can only speculate as to why the president did not announce his "fake news" awards today. Perhaps the mockery by comedians and commentators had something to do with it, or the pre-emptive strike by Flake defending the free press caused him to rethink his plans.
Then again, perhaps he just forgot. Not likely. On the other hand, forgetting inconvenient facts is not uncommon among politicians of his ilk.
For example, the current chief of the Department of Homeland Security, when asked about the president's apparent bias against immigrants from Africa, and his preference for newcomers from Norway, the Cabinet-level chief told a congressional panel, "I don't know for sure that Norway is predominantly white."
Sure. Why would anyone with the name Kirsjten Nielsen know anything about someplace like Norway?
Then again, Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska and a one-time Republican candidate for vice president, claimed that her foreign policy credentials included this: "I can see Russia from my house."
Ignorance of geography and demographics seems to be no barrier to qualification for high office, especially among Republicans in America.
Tuesday, January 16, 2018
Loudmouth Lament
The more he prattles, the more exposure he gets.
There are more important things happening in the world than the latest Trump tirade against whatever perceived journalistic slight ticked him off.
But the man is the current president of the United States, and whatever he says and does is taken as having worldwide impact.
The problem is, much of what he said is about petty grievances against news coverage. That in itself makes the comments newsworthy.
One, because he attacks the news media so often.
Two, because he ignores major national and international issues.
Everything a president says or does is news, and it will be reported. The degree of emphasis each comment gets will vary, of course, and veteran tough-skinned journalists will ignore occasional personal attacks because the story is more important.
But when the attack is the story, it cannot and should not be ignored.
Meanwhile, don't hold your breath waiting for this president to keep his promises, most recently his planned announcement of his "awards" for the most fake news coverage of his tenure.
It was first promised for Monday, January 8, then postponed until Wednesday, January 17. Comedians and commentators welcomed the early announcement with glee, and promptly dubbed the incipient pronouncements Trumpies.
But until and unless the "awards" are actually made, they can be called Trumpie Tirade Teasers.
There are more important things happening in the world than the latest Trump tirade against whatever perceived journalistic slight ticked him off.
But the man is the current president of the United States, and whatever he says and does is taken as having worldwide impact.
The problem is, much of what he said is about petty grievances against news coverage. That in itself makes the comments newsworthy.
One, because he attacks the news media so often.
Two, because he ignores major national and international issues.
Everything a president says or does is news, and it will be reported. The degree of emphasis each comment gets will vary, of course, and veteran tough-skinned journalists will ignore occasional personal attacks because the story is more important.
But when the attack is the story, it cannot and should not be ignored.
Meanwhile, don't hold your breath waiting for this president to keep his promises, most recently his planned announcement of his "awards" for the most fake news coverage of his tenure.
It was first promised for Monday, January 8, then postponed until Wednesday, January 17. Comedians and commentators welcomed the early announcement with glee, and promptly dubbed the incipient pronouncements Trumpies.
But until and unless the "awards" are actually made, they can be called Trumpie Tirade Teasers.
Sunday, January 14, 2018
Presidential Language
Syntax is not a fee for immoral behavior.
Like it or not, the leader of a nation's government sets examples for what is considered standard or acceptable behavior, both moral and legal, for the rest of the nation to follow.
There was a time when reporters would "clean up" the language and grammar of a political leader or anyone in the news. For good or ill, those times are long gone.
Now we are faced with the speech and the antics of a president whose sentences are garbled and whose syntax is such as to drive a grammarian bonkers trying to diagram his sentences. In addition, vulgarity is common in the president's speech, presenting still another problem for journalists who try to report accurately what he says and does.
All day today, television news presenters faced the challenge of how to quote the president as he refers to certain countries whose people immigrate to America in search of better lives.
For a time, the presenters would say "s-hole countries" and the accompanying text would use "s***hole countries." Eventually, when online postings by the Washington Post and the New York Times spelled out the full term, TV text would use "shithole countries," but the anchors still would not speak the term.
Whether journalism should report exactly what the president says is not entirely a separate issue. It becomes relevant when the terms he uses accurately describe his feelings and attitudes toward the people of the countries mentioned.
Today, Donald Trump referred to Haiti, El Salvador and African nations as "shit-hole countries," and he expressed a preference for immigrants to America to come from Norway.
Clearly, this shows racism and bigotry, especially when added to his history of anti-immigrant comments in general.
This is especially curious, considering that there are several immigrants in his own immediate family. Donald Trump's grandparents were immigrants, his mother was an immigrant, and two of his three wives were immigrants.
So to show a preference for newcomers from European countries and to denounce those from Latin American and African nations displays a clear bias.
Similar anti-immigrant bigotry was shown by former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio over his treatment of Mexicans in Arizona. Again, that bias is peculiar considering that both Arpaio's parents came to America from Italy. And it seems likely that the sheriff is of an age to remember stories his parents could tell about what they had to deal with, including half a dozen disparaging slang terms used to describe people of Italian heritage.
Like it or not, the leader of a nation's government sets examples for what is considered standard or acceptable behavior, both moral and legal, for the rest of the nation to follow.
There was a time when reporters would "clean up" the language and grammar of a political leader or anyone in the news. For good or ill, those times are long gone.
Now we are faced with the speech and the antics of a president whose sentences are garbled and whose syntax is such as to drive a grammarian bonkers trying to diagram his sentences. In addition, vulgarity is common in the president's speech, presenting still another problem for journalists who try to report accurately what he says and does.
All day today, television news presenters faced the challenge of how to quote the president as he refers to certain countries whose people immigrate to America in search of better lives.
For a time, the presenters would say "s-hole countries" and the accompanying text would use "s***hole countries." Eventually, when online postings by the Washington Post and the New York Times spelled out the full term, TV text would use "shithole countries," but the anchors still would not speak the term.
Whether journalism should report exactly what the president says is not entirely a separate issue. It becomes relevant when the terms he uses accurately describe his feelings and attitudes toward the people of the countries mentioned.
Today, Donald Trump referred to Haiti, El Salvador and African nations as "shit-hole countries," and he expressed a preference for immigrants to America to come from Norway.
Clearly, this shows racism and bigotry, especially when added to his history of anti-immigrant comments in general.
This is especially curious, considering that there are several immigrants in his own immediate family. Donald Trump's grandparents were immigrants, his mother was an immigrant, and two of his three wives were immigrants.
So to show a preference for newcomers from European countries and to denounce those from Latin American and African nations displays a clear bias.
Similar anti-immigrant bigotry was shown by former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio over his treatment of Mexicans in Arizona. Again, that bias is peculiar considering that both Arpaio's parents came to America from Italy. And it seems likely that the sheriff is of an age to remember stories his parents could tell about what they had to deal with, including half a dozen disparaging slang terms used to describe people of Italian heritage.
Language Amplifies the Mind
"As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he." -- Proverbs 23:7
We cannot really know what a person thinks, even a president of the United States. We can only know what he says. Moreover, we can also know when he lies.
And as our colleague Pug Mahoney often says, "I'm not a psychiatrist, but I know a looney when I see one."
There has been much talk in recent days about this president's comments and how they do not fit with fact or reality, as well as whether he is a racist. Whether he believes in his heart the truth of what he says, we cannot know. But we do know that what he says, repeatedly, is racist.
Professional societies years ago set what became known as the Goldwater Rule, after numerous psychologists and psychiatrists criticized the mental health status of Barry Goldwater, the Republican senator from Arizona and candidate for president.
The rule prohibited professional analysts from setting a diagnosis on someone they had not personally met and treated. In any case, it's also unprofessional to reveal any diagnosis of someone the therapist had met.
In principle, that's a good rule. But when a person in the public eye, especially as high as the presidency of the United States, repeatedly says things that are plainly untrue, based on false premises and display a massive ignorance or misuse of readily available information, it becomes clear to observers that there is something amiss with the person who speaks this way.
It does not take a mental health care professional to discern this. Moreover, it may not even be a matter of a textbook mental health issue. It could well be simply a matter of incompetence, ignorance, or stupidity.
The current president of the United States may well be, in his words, "a very stable genius." Others, however, can conclude from his actions, behavior and language that he is neither stable nor a genius.
There is no requirement that only licensed health care professionals can form and express opinions on his intelligence, competence and stability. His "genius," if any, is in making himself the center of attention.
We cannot really know what a person thinks, even a president of the United States. We can only know what he says. Moreover, we can also know when he lies.
And as our colleague Pug Mahoney often says, "I'm not a psychiatrist, but I know a looney when I see one."
There has been much talk in recent days about this president's comments and how they do not fit with fact or reality, as well as whether he is a racist. Whether he believes in his heart the truth of what he says, we cannot know. But we do know that what he says, repeatedly, is racist.
Professional societies years ago set what became known as the Goldwater Rule, after numerous psychologists and psychiatrists criticized the mental health status of Barry Goldwater, the Republican senator from Arizona and candidate for president.
The rule prohibited professional analysts from setting a diagnosis on someone they had not personally met and treated. In any case, it's also unprofessional to reveal any diagnosis of someone the therapist had met.
In principle, that's a good rule. But when a person in the public eye, especially as high as the presidency of the United States, repeatedly says things that are plainly untrue, based on false premises and display a massive ignorance or misuse of readily available information, it becomes clear to observers that there is something amiss with the person who speaks this way.
It does not take a mental health care professional to discern this. Moreover, it may not even be a matter of a textbook mental health issue. It could well be simply a matter of incompetence, ignorance, or stupidity.
The current president of the United States may well be, in his words, "a very stable genius." Others, however, can conclude from his actions, behavior and language that he is neither stable nor a genius.
There is no requirement that only licensed health care professionals can form and express opinions on his intelligence, competence and stability. His "genius," if any, is in making himself the center of attention.
Friday, January 12, 2018
Tripping Out
The president has found a way to cancel a trip to London, saving the British from the problem of not inviting him to meet Queen Elizabeth II while there.
The plan was to have him attend a ribbon-cutting ceremony for the new U.S. embassy building in London, but the president opted out, blaming former President Barack Obama for his decision.
He criticized the Obama administration for selling "perhaps the best located and finest embassy in London for 'peanuts,' only to build a new one in an off location for $1.2 billion." He called it a "bad deal," and therefore he would not attend the opening ceremony.
Reality check: The new building cost $200 million less than that, and was not financed through taxpayer dollars but through a property swap after the old embassy became too run down, according to an NPR report, and could not longer provide adequate security. Moreover, the trade was negotiated by the administration of Republican President George W. Bush, not by Obama.
In any case, President Donald Trump will not go to London and visit the Queen. In any case, he was not formally invited, and the Brits don't even want him.
The plan was to have him attend a ribbon-cutting ceremony for the new U.S. embassy building in London, but the president opted out, blaming former President Barack Obama for his decision.
He criticized the Obama administration for selling "perhaps the best located and finest embassy in London for 'peanuts,' only to build a new one in an off location for $1.2 billion." He called it a "bad deal," and therefore he would not attend the opening ceremony.
Reality check: The new building cost $200 million less than that, and was not financed through taxpayer dollars but through a property swap after the old embassy became too run down, according to an NPR report, and could not longer provide adequate security. Moreover, the trade was negotiated by the administration of Republican President George W. Bush, not by Obama.
In any case, President Donald Trump will not go to London and visit the Queen. In any case, he was not formally invited, and the Brits don't even want him.
Words Matter
Words matter, not only in what they mean, but also in what they represent or imply. That's the difference between definition and connotation, or what can be called secondary meaning.
The worldwide backlash from the U.S. president's negative comments about Latino and African countries, while praising the people from northern European countries, portrays not only ignorance of American values but his own racism as well.
There's no other word for it. His words betray his racism.
Moreover, it's not the first time his speech and attitudes have displayed his racism, his ignorance and his contempt for the values that form the base for the American way of life.
News organizations around the world have picked up on the president's recent remarks about immigrants, and compared them to other things he has said, not only since he became president, but also during the campaign and in the years before that.
Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, and many more than three times is a pattern.
Now his pattern of racism has become so blatant that government officials around the world have openly condemned him for that.
The U.S. ambassador to Panama has resigned because of it. The United Nations High Commission on Human Rights has criticized his remarks as "racist," saying, "There is no other word for it."
Words matter.
The worldwide backlash from the U.S. president's negative comments about Latino and African countries, while praising the people from northern European countries, portrays not only ignorance of American values but his own racism as well.
There's no other word for it. His words betray his racism.
Moreover, it's not the first time his speech and attitudes have displayed his racism, his ignorance and his contempt for the values that form the base for the American way of life.
News organizations around the world have picked up on the president's recent remarks about immigrants, and compared them to other things he has said, not only since he became president, but also during the campaign and in the years before that.
Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, and many more than three times is a pattern.
Now his pattern of racism has become so blatant that government officials around the world have openly condemned him for that.
The U.S. ambassador to Panama has resigned because of it. The United Nations High Commission on Human Rights has criticized his remarks as "racist," saying, "There is no other word for it."
Words matter.
Wednesday, January 10, 2018
Davos Dilemma
"America First" nationalism is a direct clash with the stated goals of the World Economic Forum, which will meet in Davos, Switzerland, beginning January 20.
The meeting is a gathering of major international business executives and government officials, and is dedicated to lowering trade barriers between countries.
Yet the "America First" sales pitch is what the U.S. president plans to make at the Davos gathering when he attends the meeting. Unless, of course, he changes his mind.
The Davos folk traditionally work to tear down trade obstacles. But the current isolationist movement in America, led by the president, is intent on erecting higher trade walls -- and an actual physical wall on America's southern border.
So does Donald Trump hope to persuade the rest of the world to abide by his rules and his alone, and forget the decades of work Davos delegates have expended removing trade restrictions?
Apparently so.
The World's Greatest Salesman may want to talk the rest of the world into doing things his way. But will they listen? That's another issue. And if they don't, what recourse does he have?
Or will he abandon his repeated promises to put America First and go along with the Big Business tradition of putting profit first and the Davos goal of lowering international trade restrictions?
If past behavior is any guide, Trump may unilaterally declare victory, and blame others for failing to perceive the wisdom of his ways. Also, he may resort to name-calling and insult to the Davos world business leaders as he has in the past against other national leaders when they don't jump to his whistle.
Conversely, he may change course and move on to a new project, making believe any failure at Davos did not exist.
Not knowing what this guy will say or do next is the challenge facing journalism these days. But reporting on what he says and does, and outlining the dangers of these words and actions to the safety of society is also part of the challenge to journalism.
And as long as the rights of free speech and a free press remain in place, this is what journalists will do.
The meeting is a gathering of major international business executives and government officials, and is dedicated to lowering trade barriers between countries.
Yet the "America First" sales pitch is what the U.S. president plans to make at the Davos gathering when he attends the meeting. Unless, of course, he changes his mind.
The Davos folk traditionally work to tear down trade obstacles. But the current isolationist movement in America, led by the president, is intent on erecting higher trade walls -- and an actual physical wall on America's southern border.
So does Donald Trump hope to persuade the rest of the world to abide by his rules and his alone, and forget the decades of work Davos delegates have expended removing trade restrictions?
Apparently so.
The World's Greatest Salesman may want to talk the rest of the world into doing things his way. But will they listen? That's another issue. And if they don't, what recourse does he have?
Or will he abandon his repeated promises to put America First and go along with the Big Business tradition of putting profit first and the Davos goal of lowering international trade restrictions?
If past behavior is any guide, Trump may unilaterally declare victory, and blame others for failing to perceive the wisdom of his ways. Also, he may resort to name-calling and insult to the Davos world business leaders as he has in the past against other national leaders when they don't jump to his whistle.
Conversely, he may change course and move on to a new project, making believe any failure at Davos did not exist.
Not knowing what this guy will say or do next is the challenge facing journalism these days. But reporting on what he says and does, and outlining the dangers of these words and actions to the safety of society is also part of the challenge to journalism.
And as long as the rights of free speech and a free press remain in place, this is what journalists will do.
Libel Liability
The president has repeatedly called for a loosening of libel laws in America so that those offended by news reports "can sue and collect lots of money," as he put it during the election campaign.
He said it again today. "Current libel laws are a sham and a disgrace," Trump said, as he continued his attack on reports that, according to him, are "false and defamatory."
News flash: There is no federal libel law. Each of the 50 states, and the District of Columbia, have their own sets of law regarding libel, which is defined as false and defamatory statements made with a reckless disregard for whether the information is true or not.
Second news flash: If it's true, it's not libel.
Third news flash: Public figures are not immune from criticism, and must endure comments that may well be false.
With that in mind, consider the number of things Donald Trump has said about others that were false, defamatory, and spoken with malice. At last count, the Washington Post list of presidential lies and falsehoods he has made since taking office has crossed the 2,000 mark.
So if anyone in America is guilty of fomenting libelous and defamatory statements, spoken with malice against others, it would be the current president of the United States.
Moreover, in addition to 51 sets of libel laws and a lack of a federal libel law, there is the Constitutional First Amendment guarantee of free speech and a free press, which enables people and journalists to comment on and criticize actions and comments of others, especially public figures, without punishment.
No figure is more public than the president of the United States.
And as Harry Truman said, "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."
He said it again today. "Current libel laws are a sham and a disgrace," Trump said, as he continued his attack on reports that, according to him, are "false and defamatory."
News flash: There is no federal libel law. Each of the 50 states, and the District of Columbia, have their own sets of law regarding libel, which is defined as false and defamatory statements made with a reckless disregard for whether the information is true or not.
Second news flash: If it's true, it's not libel.
Third news flash: Public figures are not immune from criticism, and must endure comments that may well be false.
With that in mind, consider the number of things Donald Trump has said about others that were false, defamatory, and spoken with malice. At last count, the Washington Post list of presidential lies and falsehoods he has made since taking office has crossed the 2,000 mark.
So if anyone in America is guilty of fomenting libelous and defamatory statements, spoken with malice against others, it would be the current president of the United States.
Moreover, in addition to 51 sets of libel laws and a lack of a federal libel law, there is the Constitutional First Amendment guarantee of free speech and a free press, which enables people and journalists to comment on and criticize actions and comments of others, especially public figures, without punishment.
No figure is more public than the president of the United States.
And as Harry Truman said, "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."
The Trumpies
Don't be surprised if the highly touted awards for the fakest news operation, scheduled to be announced by the president January 17, goes by silently.
The event was scheduled to happen last Monday, January 8, but was postponed after a deluge of hilarious mockery by the intended targets of the president's ire and fire.
The event was scheduled to happen last Monday, January 8, but was postponed after a deluge of hilarious mockery by the intended targets of the president's ire and fire.
Tuesday, January 9, 2018
Voting Rights
Much is made of voter turnout statistics, but what do the data really mean?
Depending on which group of numbers you select and how you frame the set, a clever cruncher can use the chosen numbers to "prove" almost anything.
The task for readers, then, is to know the source and the relationship of the question and the answers.
For example, to cite a voter turnout rate of 61.4 percent in the presidential election of 2016 is to calculate the number of votes cast and compare that to the total voting age population.
Problem: Not everyone in that age group is registered, or even eligible. Some choose not to register, even though they are eligible. Others -- convicted felons -- for example, cannot vote even if they want to. And still others, such as long-term visitors or employees of international corporations or foreign governments, may be residents of voting age but are not citizens and therefore ineligible to register or vote in the U.S.
A better data set to consider may be the one gathered by the Pew Research Center for the 2016 election. Pew calculates the turnout rate to be 55.7 percent of the total voting age population, but a rate of 86.6 percent of all registered voters.
So to use the lower number -- 55.7 percent of the voting age population -- is to portray a serious problem of apathy among Americans when it comes to voting.
But to cite the higher number -- 86.6 percent of citizens registered to vote who actually did so -- shows a far better picture of voter activity.
So which is the more useful number to emphasize if you want to encourage more citizens to vote? The lower one, of course.
In addition, this is an overall number for the entire nation. There are separate data sets for regions and for people according to race, ethnicity and gender.
Moreover, to compare that overall number to similar data for other countries enables activists to prove a lower voter participation rate for Americans than for many other nations.
There is no doubt, then, that Americans do not exercise their right to vote at a rate strong enough to guarantee survival of a democratic republic.
In short, voting in America is not done at a satisfactory rate. The more that people vote, the stronger will the democratic republic of the United States of America be.
Consider some average voter participation rates:
With a turnout rate of 60 percent, this means that a candidate can win an election with a simple majority of half that, or 31 percent of the people.
Therefore, a government of the people is selected by less than one-third of all the people.
So much for majority rule.
Moreover, for the fourth time in America's history, a candidate for president won through to the Oval Office without a majority of the popular votes cast by citizens. Rather, he became president by winning a majority of the votes in the electoral college, a complicated system devised by the founders because they feared a demagogue could manipulate the popular vote.
Perhaps those days are gone, and it's time to consider electing a president with the popular vote alone.
As noted on this blog previously, we get the kind of government we deserve, not necessarily the kind we need.
Depending on which group of numbers you select and how you frame the set, a clever cruncher can use the chosen numbers to "prove" almost anything.
The task for readers, then, is to know the source and the relationship of the question and the answers.
For example, to cite a voter turnout rate of 61.4 percent in the presidential election of 2016 is to calculate the number of votes cast and compare that to the total voting age population.
Problem: Not everyone in that age group is registered, or even eligible. Some choose not to register, even though they are eligible. Others -- convicted felons -- for example, cannot vote even if they want to. And still others, such as long-term visitors or employees of international corporations or foreign governments, may be residents of voting age but are not citizens and therefore ineligible to register or vote in the U.S.
A better data set to consider may be the one gathered by the Pew Research Center for the 2016 election. Pew calculates the turnout rate to be 55.7 percent of the total voting age population, but a rate of 86.6 percent of all registered voters.
So to use the lower number -- 55.7 percent of the voting age population -- is to portray a serious problem of apathy among Americans when it comes to voting.
But to cite the higher number -- 86.6 percent of citizens registered to vote who actually did so -- shows a far better picture of voter activity.
So which is the more useful number to emphasize if you want to encourage more citizens to vote? The lower one, of course.
In addition, this is an overall number for the entire nation. There are separate data sets for regions and for people according to race, ethnicity and gender.
Moreover, to compare that overall number to similar data for other countries enables activists to prove a lower voter participation rate for Americans than for many other nations.
There is no doubt, then, that Americans do not exercise their right to vote at a rate strong enough to guarantee survival of a democratic republic.
In short, voting in America is not done at a satisfactory rate. The more that people vote, the stronger will the democratic republic of the United States of America be.
Consider some average voter participation rates:
With a turnout rate of 60 percent, this means that a candidate can win an election with a simple majority of half that, or 31 percent of the people.
Therefore, a government of the people is selected by less than one-third of all the people.
So much for majority rule.
Moreover, for the fourth time in America's history, a candidate for president won through to the Oval Office without a majority of the popular votes cast by citizens. Rather, he became president by winning a majority of the votes in the electoral college, a complicated system devised by the founders because they feared a demagogue could manipulate the popular vote.
Perhaps those days are gone, and it's time to consider electing a president with the popular vote alone.
As noted on this blog previously, we get the kind of government we deserve, not necessarily the kind we need.
Monday, January 8, 2018
Thoughts from Snark Central
Politicians often treat voters as if they are of equal intelligence. Therein lies the problem. Do they really think we are that stupid?
Too often, we get the kind of government we deserve. Not the kind we need, but the kind we deserve.
Too often, we get the kind of government we deserve. Not the kind we need, but the kind we deserve.
Sunday, January 7, 2018
Third Estate Triumph
In pre-revolutionary France, there were three sets of people, or estates, in society: The aristocracy, the clergy and the merchant class. The rest of the people, as commoners, didn't count for much.
The invention of the printing press then gave rise to a new group of people who were considered neither merchants nor laborers, but writers.
Journalism, then, became known as the Fourth Estate, and its members took on the responsibility of monitoring what the others were doing and passing that information on to the rest of the people.
The year 1776 brought major changes in America, which was formalized in the Constitution of 1789. These changes included the elimination of the first estate -- the aristocracy -- and minimizing the influence of the second estate -- the clergy -- who lost whatever official role they may have had in government.
Unofficially, however, religion retained a major influence on American life, both politically and socially, even though the Constitution bans an official religion established by the government.
Eliminating the aristocracy and minimizing influence of the clergy thus left the merchant class as the dominant class in American life. The rise of labor unions, however, gave the so-called working class a major role in American political and social life.
Even so, the politically conservative merchant estate -- now known as Big Business -- dominated government until workers and their liberal allies grew strong enough to challenge that dominance. Since then, the two have periodically alternated in controlling the government.
Now we are engaged in a great political dispute over which group shall control the economy and the American way of life.
Shall it be the Third Estate, the conservative merchant, Big Business class, or will it be what may be called the Fifth Estate, the workers and their liberal allies?
Meanwhile, the journalistic Fourth Estate of news media reporters and writers, including television as well as print journalists of newspapers, magazines and books, will continue their role as monitors -- to some they are guardians -- of the way of life that guarantees fair and equal treatment and justice for all.
The invention of the printing press then gave rise to a new group of people who were considered neither merchants nor laborers, but writers.
Journalism, then, became known as the Fourth Estate, and its members took on the responsibility of monitoring what the others were doing and passing that information on to the rest of the people.
The year 1776 brought major changes in America, which was formalized in the Constitution of 1789. These changes included the elimination of the first estate -- the aristocracy -- and minimizing the influence of the second estate -- the clergy -- who lost whatever official role they may have had in government.
Unofficially, however, religion retained a major influence on American life, both politically and socially, even though the Constitution bans an official religion established by the government.
Eliminating the aristocracy and minimizing influence of the clergy thus left the merchant class as the dominant class in American life. The rise of labor unions, however, gave the so-called working class a major role in American political and social life.
Even so, the politically conservative merchant estate -- now known as Big Business -- dominated government until workers and their liberal allies grew strong enough to challenge that dominance. Since then, the two have periodically alternated in controlling the government.
Now we are engaged in a great political dispute over which group shall control the economy and the American way of life.
Shall it be the Third Estate, the conservative merchant, Big Business class, or will it be what may be called the Fifth Estate, the workers and their liberal allies?
Meanwhile, the journalistic Fourth Estate of news media reporters and writers, including television as well as print journalists of newspapers, magazines and books, will continue their role as monitors -- to some they are guardians -- of the way of life that guarantees fair and equal treatment and justice for all.
Alpha Male
There are three characteristics of the alpha male: Size, threats and intelligence. At the White House, two out of three ain't bad.
Saturday, January 6, 2018
Worldwide Free Speech
With freedom comes responsibility
Social media have expanded the boundaries of free speech so much that political and government efforts to control what people post on internet web sites are often pointless.
Nevertheless, they keep trying.
Time was, it was easy enough for officials to shut down a newspaper critical of what government was doing. They could simply send police, the military or even a mob to invade a building, arrest the staff and destroy the presses. And in some parts of the world, that's still possible.
In other regions, however, anyone with a computer can post anything at any time from anywhere.
Individuals don't even need a landline to connect to the internet. Messages and opinions of any kind can be posted by anyone, ranging from a young student to a religious leader or a political leader of a major nation.
For many, the only limit on what they post is good taste. There is no bureaucracy to set standards. Given the quality of some of the material posted by a few, the question become this: Should there be limits, and who should impose them?
This raises issues of editorial judgment and censorship, as well as who can or should appoint those censors.
Major social media firms defend their roles as simply offering a platform for people to share their views and opinions, as well as a way to provide information and to make contact with others with similar views.
Anything more than that, service providers say, is editing and censoring, and inappropriate for what they do.
Meanwhile, the issue of what constitutes good behavior and acceptable speech depends largely on the norms of a particular society. A comment that is thoughtful and insightful to one person or group may well be obscene or sacrilegious to another.
The best an individual internet user can do is to adhere to the norms of his own social group, bearing in mind that there are some norms of morality, politeness and courtesy that are universal.
Inciting violence would seem to be one of these universal norms, but even that can depend partially on the goals and ideals of the sender as well as the listener.
Currently, there is a debate over things that the president of the United States has been posting on his Twitter feed, and whether they violate the company's code of appropriate usage.
At last report, the company has decided that editing, censoring or deleting postings made by the leader of a major nation are not within Twitter's purview. But does that mean that they will continue to delete the accounts of so-called "ordinary people" who say similar things?
Where is it written that the president is not subject to the same standards of behavior as anyone else?
Social media have expanded the boundaries of free speech so much that political and government efforts to control what people post on internet web sites are often pointless.
Nevertheless, they keep trying.
Time was, it was easy enough for officials to shut down a newspaper critical of what government was doing. They could simply send police, the military or even a mob to invade a building, arrest the staff and destroy the presses. And in some parts of the world, that's still possible.
In other regions, however, anyone with a computer can post anything at any time from anywhere.
Individuals don't even need a landline to connect to the internet. Messages and opinions of any kind can be posted by anyone, ranging from a young student to a religious leader or a political leader of a major nation.
For many, the only limit on what they post is good taste. There is no bureaucracy to set standards. Given the quality of some of the material posted by a few, the question become this: Should there be limits, and who should impose them?
This raises issues of editorial judgment and censorship, as well as who can or should appoint those censors.
Major social media firms defend their roles as simply offering a platform for people to share their views and opinions, as well as a way to provide information and to make contact with others with similar views.
Anything more than that, service providers say, is editing and censoring, and inappropriate for what they do.
Meanwhile, the issue of what constitutes good behavior and acceptable speech depends largely on the norms of a particular society. A comment that is thoughtful and insightful to one person or group may well be obscene or sacrilegious to another.
The best an individual internet user can do is to adhere to the norms of his own social group, bearing in mind that there are some norms of morality, politeness and courtesy that are universal.
Inciting violence would seem to be one of these universal norms, but even that can depend partially on the goals and ideals of the sender as well as the listener.
Currently, there is a debate over things that the president of the United States has been posting on his Twitter feed, and whether they violate the company's code of appropriate usage.
At last report, the company has decided that editing, censoring or deleting postings made by the leader of a major nation are not within Twitter's purview. But does that mean that they will continue to delete the accounts of so-called "ordinary people" who say similar things?
Where is it written that the president is not subject to the same standards of behavior as anyone else?
The Power of Threats
Don't mess with the press.
This week will go down in history as the time a president of the United States demanded that a publisher stop publication of a book that the president didn't like.
In response, the publisher released the book immediately, and crowds lined up at bookstores hours before opening.
Retailers across the country said their stock sold out within minutes, and the online bookseller Amazon said the book soared to first place on its sales list.
Moreover, the topic was prime fodder on TV news and talk shows for days, not only in the U.S. but also on news channels around the world.
Compare this fuss to President Richard Nixon's attempt to stop the New York Times from running its series on the Pentagon Papers, which exposed the government's activities during the Viet Nam War. At the time, the president got a court order suspending further publication at the Times, but the Washington Post immediately took up the task, followed by dozens of other newspapers nationwide, along with coverage on television news shows.
Coincidentally, the current dispute over a new book critical of Donald Trump is flapping at the same time as a book, a TV documentary and a movie about Daniel Ellsberg, the Pentagon Papers and the Washington Post's role in exposing the issue are being released.
In seems the current president's belief in the power of threats is being tested. While this power may have worked for him in the past, this time it's failing. There are more important things at stake here than real estate construction contracts.
Newspapers such as the New York Times and the Washington Post have faced down such threats before, and they have the resources to do it again.
In any case, the threat of a libel suit against the author and the publisher of the new book, amounts to prior restraint. You can't file a libel lawsuit against someone for something that has not been published.
If anything, the threat backfired.
Bullying threats may have worked for Donald Trump as a real estate developer in the past, but this time he's up against folk with an even bigger resource than he has.
It's called the Constitution.
By the way, the book that has the president so wound up is "Fire and Fury. Inside the Trump White House," by Michael Wolff.
This week will go down in history as the time a president of the United States demanded that a publisher stop publication of a book that the president didn't like.
In response, the publisher released the book immediately, and crowds lined up at bookstores hours before opening.
Retailers across the country said their stock sold out within minutes, and the online bookseller Amazon said the book soared to first place on its sales list.
Moreover, the topic was prime fodder on TV news and talk shows for days, not only in the U.S. but also on news channels around the world.
Compare this fuss to President Richard Nixon's attempt to stop the New York Times from running its series on the Pentagon Papers, which exposed the government's activities during the Viet Nam War. At the time, the president got a court order suspending further publication at the Times, but the Washington Post immediately took up the task, followed by dozens of other newspapers nationwide, along with coverage on television news shows.
Coincidentally, the current dispute over a new book critical of Donald Trump is flapping at the same time as a book, a TV documentary and a movie about Daniel Ellsberg, the Pentagon Papers and the Washington Post's role in exposing the issue are being released.
In seems the current president's belief in the power of threats is being tested. While this power may have worked for him in the past, this time it's failing. There are more important things at stake here than real estate construction contracts.
Newspapers such as the New York Times and the Washington Post have faced down such threats before, and they have the resources to do it again.
In any case, the threat of a libel suit against the author and the publisher of the new book, amounts to prior restraint. You can't file a libel lawsuit against someone for something that has not been published.
If anything, the threat backfired.
Bullying threats may have worked for Donald Trump as a real estate developer in the past, but this time he's up against folk with an even bigger resource than he has.
It's called the Constitution.
By the way, the book that has the president so wound up is "Fire and Fury. Inside the Trump White House," by Michael Wolff.
Friday, January 5, 2018
Open for Business
The government is removing restrictions on offshore drilling, cancelling limits on mining and drilling in formerly protected national parks and eliminating various other regulations that control what business can do.
All in the name of "jobs, jobs, jobs," as the campaign slogan went.
That's nice to hear, but the nation has been at what experts call a full employment level for more than a year, and the stock market has continued to rise -- the Dow Jones Industrial Average is now above 25,000.
The latest jobs data from the Labor Department put the nationwide unemployment level at 4.1 percent in December, as the total nonfarm number of jobs increased by 148,000. The total number of unemployed people was 6.4 million.
Among the major worker groups, the only group showing a jobless rate above 10 percent was teenagers, at 13.6 percent, and that was a drop from November's rate. For other groups, the jobless rates were: adult men, 3.8 percent, adult women, 3.7 percent, whites, 3.7 percent, Asians, 2.5 percent, Asians, 2.5 percent, Hispanics, 4.9 percent, and blacks, 6.8 percent. All of these figures were little changed from the previous month, the report said.
And in a larger sense, the labor force participation rate -- the number of people in the work force who actually have jobs -- was 62.7 percent, unchanged from a year ago.
In all, the economy is doing well. A danger, however, is that over-enthusiastic or over-confident investors have driven stock averages to an unsustainable level, prompting some economist to warn of a "correction." Read: A drop in stock prices that could be sudden and sharp.
That, of course, means little to average workers, since few of them have any money invested in the stock market anyway.
A larger danger is that as the government removes restrictions on mining and oil drilling, those companies will want to hire more people to work on new projects. But if the nation is already at a full employment level, companies will have to pay higher wages to attract the workers. That's good, from the worker's viewpoint, but in order to pay higher wages, companies will have to charge higher prices, and that means inflation for workers in the rest of the country, whose wages have not risen.
Realistically, however, investors and corporate management typically care more about stock values and profits than about worker wages.
Meanwhile, the White House will point to the additional hiring as proof of the president's efforts to make the U.S. economy take off like a rocket. The problem with rockets, however, is that too often they fall back to earth suddenly and sharply.
As for the stock market being a barometer of the national economy, it's more often a sign of irrational exuberance, as former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan put it.
All in the name of "jobs, jobs, jobs," as the campaign slogan went.
That's nice to hear, but the nation has been at what experts call a full employment level for more than a year, and the stock market has continued to rise -- the Dow Jones Industrial Average is now above 25,000.
The latest jobs data from the Labor Department put the nationwide unemployment level at 4.1 percent in December, as the total nonfarm number of jobs increased by 148,000. The total number of unemployed people was 6.4 million.
Among the major worker groups, the only group showing a jobless rate above 10 percent was teenagers, at 13.6 percent, and that was a drop from November's rate. For other groups, the jobless rates were: adult men, 3.8 percent, adult women, 3.7 percent, whites, 3.7 percent, Asians, 2.5 percent, Asians, 2.5 percent, Hispanics, 4.9 percent, and blacks, 6.8 percent. All of these figures were little changed from the previous month, the report said.
And in a larger sense, the labor force participation rate -- the number of people in the work force who actually have jobs -- was 62.7 percent, unchanged from a year ago.
In all, the economy is doing well. A danger, however, is that over-enthusiastic or over-confident investors have driven stock averages to an unsustainable level, prompting some economist to warn of a "correction." Read: A drop in stock prices that could be sudden and sharp.
That, of course, means little to average workers, since few of them have any money invested in the stock market anyway.
A larger danger is that as the government removes restrictions on mining and oil drilling, those companies will want to hire more people to work on new projects. But if the nation is already at a full employment level, companies will have to pay higher wages to attract the workers. That's good, from the worker's viewpoint, but in order to pay higher wages, companies will have to charge higher prices, and that means inflation for workers in the rest of the country, whose wages have not risen.
Realistically, however, investors and corporate management typically care more about stock values and profits than about worker wages.
Meanwhile, the White House will point to the additional hiring as proof of the president's efforts to make the U.S. economy take off like a rocket. The problem with rockets, however, is that too often they fall back to earth suddenly and sharply.
As for the stock market being a barometer of the national economy, it's more often a sign of irrational exuberance, as former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan put it.
Thursday, January 4, 2018
Trump Law
Cease and desist what?
The fastest way to get your name in a newspaper or news broadcast is to try to keep it out.
Lawyers for Donald Trump have sent letters to the author and the publisher of a new book critical of the president demanding that they cease and desist publication, stop talking about it, apologize and retract what's in the book or face a libel suit for compensatory and punitive damages.
Good luck with that one.
For one thing, if something is true, it's not libel.
For another, comment and criticism of public figures is not necessarily libelous or defamatory, since they face different legal standards.
Otherwise, actors would sue theater critics over negative reviews.
As for public figures, there are only a handful of people in the world with greater exposure and influence than the president of the United States.
In any case, if Trump can sue over what is said about him, then others can sue him for false, defamatory or even negative things he has said about them. Example: Trump's continued insistence that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and therefore was not eligible to be president.
Fact: Obama was born in Hawaii, not in Kenya. And even if he were to have been born outside the U.S., he inherited his citizenship from his mother, a native of Nebraska.
Oddly, Trump and other GOP politicians said nothing about the citizenship and eligibility of Sen. Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada; or Sen. John McCain, who was born in Panama; or Mitt Romney's father George Romney, another presidential candidate, who was born in Mexico when his Mormon parents were on a missionary trip. The father of Ted Cruz was Cuban, but his mother was a native-born American. John McCain is the son of a U.S. Navy officer stationed in the Canal Zone at the time.
As for the current threat of a libel suit over perceived negative information about Trump, the question becomes why a responsible lawyer would file such a groundless, frivolous lawsuit?
But for now, this is only a threat, and news media are reporting it as such. At a local level, editors typically respond to such threats with this: When the lawsuit is filed, then we'll run the story.
Such a threat by the president against an author and publisher, however, is not a local story. It is of national and international interest, especially when much of the information in the book is true, provably true, and printed in the public interest.
And even if some of the stuff in the book is not true, the president is not immune from criticism. Any threat to stifle criticism endangers society.
So why is the threat of a libel suit made? One can only speculate as to the president's motives. Here are several:
-- He cannot abide disagreement or criticism.
-- He believes that threats are enough to force compliance.
-- He needs the publicity, even if it's negative.
-- The lawyer needs the publicity, even though he knows the lawsuit is pointless.
As for whether the threats are having an effect, consider this: Amazon says prepublication orders for the book have already sent it to number one on its best seller list, even though it won't be published until next week.
But a much larger issue is this: What happens to American values when a president, or anyone, can prevent publication of a book simply because he doesn't like what's in it?
The fastest way to get your name in a newspaper or news broadcast is to try to keep it out.
Lawyers for Donald Trump have sent letters to the author and the publisher of a new book critical of the president demanding that they cease and desist publication, stop talking about it, apologize and retract what's in the book or face a libel suit for compensatory and punitive damages.
Good luck with that one.
For one thing, if something is true, it's not libel.
For another, comment and criticism of public figures is not necessarily libelous or defamatory, since they face different legal standards.
Otherwise, actors would sue theater critics over negative reviews.
As for public figures, there are only a handful of people in the world with greater exposure and influence than the president of the United States.
In any case, if Trump can sue over what is said about him, then others can sue him for false, defamatory or even negative things he has said about them. Example: Trump's continued insistence that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and therefore was not eligible to be president.
Fact: Obama was born in Hawaii, not in Kenya. And even if he were to have been born outside the U.S., he inherited his citizenship from his mother, a native of Nebraska.
Oddly, Trump and other GOP politicians said nothing about the citizenship and eligibility of Sen. Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada; or Sen. John McCain, who was born in Panama; or Mitt Romney's father George Romney, another presidential candidate, who was born in Mexico when his Mormon parents were on a missionary trip. The father of Ted Cruz was Cuban, but his mother was a native-born American. John McCain is the son of a U.S. Navy officer stationed in the Canal Zone at the time.
As for the current threat of a libel suit over perceived negative information about Trump, the question becomes why a responsible lawyer would file such a groundless, frivolous lawsuit?
But for now, this is only a threat, and news media are reporting it as such. At a local level, editors typically respond to such threats with this: When the lawsuit is filed, then we'll run the story.
Such a threat by the president against an author and publisher, however, is not a local story. It is of national and international interest, especially when much of the information in the book is true, provably true, and printed in the public interest.
And even if some of the stuff in the book is not true, the president is not immune from criticism. Any threat to stifle criticism endangers society.
So why is the threat of a libel suit made? One can only speculate as to the president's motives. Here are several:
-- He cannot abide disagreement or criticism.
-- He believes that threats are enough to force compliance.
-- He needs the publicity, even if it's negative.
-- The lawyer needs the publicity, even though he knows the lawsuit is pointless.
As for whether the threats are having an effect, consider this: Amazon says prepublication orders for the book have already sent it to number one on its best seller list, even though it won't be published until next week.
But a much larger issue is this: What happens to American values when a president, or anyone, can prevent publication of a book simply because he doesn't like what's in it?
Wednesday, January 3, 2018
Nyah, nyah
My button is bigger than your button.
So much for courtesy and civility in international relations. The chief twit in the Oval Office has escalated (or is it stooped?) to an increasingly childish level in his taunting of those who disagree with anything he says or does.
Now he's challenging the leader of North Korea over the size of the nuclear arsenals that each one has, even resorting to the size of his nuclear button.
Size seems to be important to him, and that's a common issue for men who are basically insecure.
The right of free speech enables anyone to say pretty much anything, but there are limits. The laws of libel provide consequences against someone who spreads false and malicious material against another, or to say things that endanger the peace.
Perhaps it's time political leaders applied the same principle to what they say about leaders of other nations.
It's one thing to start a fist fight on a street corner, but it's quite another to foment a war that kills many thousands or millions of others.
So much for courtesy and civility in international relations. The chief twit in the Oval Office has escalated (or is it stooped?) to an increasingly childish level in his taunting of those who disagree with anything he says or does.
Now he's challenging the leader of North Korea over the size of the nuclear arsenals that each one has, even resorting to the size of his nuclear button.
Size seems to be important to him, and that's a common issue for men who are basically insecure.
The right of free speech enables anyone to say pretty much anything, but there are limits. The laws of libel provide consequences against someone who spreads false and malicious material against another, or to say things that endanger the peace.
Perhaps it's time political leaders applied the same principle to what they say about leaders of other nations.
It's one thing to start a fist fight on a street corner, but it's quite another to foment a war that kills many thousands or millions of others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)