Many grammarians -- and copy editors -- are grumpy, since they expect writers to adhere to standards of usage in preparing text, including spelling, punctuation, sentence structure and, for broadcast folk, pronunciation.
There are, of course, standards, and they vary by dialect, which can be either regional or social level. But the only thing that gives one dialect more prestige than another is a social judgment, not linguistic.
To a linguist, all dialects are equal; each enables its speakers to communicate thoughts and ideas with precision and accuracy. To self-appointed grammarians and guardians of what they call "proper usage," the "right way" to speak and write is their way. Others are, by their definition, "incorrect."
Nonetheless, political and social success can often depend on how well a writer or speaker masters the standards of usage established by the dominant social group.
Meanwhile, readers expect writers, especially in journalism, to follow the standards of usage that used to be taught in schools. There was a reason they were called "grammar schools."
For instance, some writers have not learned the difference between "who" and "whom," and they use "that" when referring to people, when it should be "who."
Or they become so enamored of what they are doing that they keep rambling on in increasingly complex sentences, so that the subject of a sentence is separated from its relevant verb by four or more lines of type.
Too often, by the time the reader gets to the verb and the concluding part of the sentence, he or she has forgotten what the beginning of the sentence was about.
It's true that a reader can go back and read the beginning of the sentence again, but good writers don't make them do that. Writers for radio and television, moreover, know that they get only one chance to get their message across to the listener.
Copy editors know what the standards are and how they affect reader and listener comprehension, even as readers themselves may be unaware of the mechanics involved. They do know, however, when something is difficult to read and comprehend.
Communication is the goal of writers and broadcasters. Don't make the task of reading and listening difficult by failing to follow the generally accepted standard rules of grammar, punctuation, style and spelling.
Or, if you must break the rules to establish the character of a person or issue, know that you're doing it and be careful. Use non-standard usage only when absolutely necessary.
Tuesday, February 27, 2018
Nepotism
There's nothing wrong with nepotism as long as you keep it in the family. -- Pug Mahoney
Can the president of the United State bypass the rules of security clearance and continue to keep his son-in-law in the top secret loop? For that matter, will the president's daughter, also a top advisor in this administration, be able to continue attending high-security sessions even after her husband has lost his security clearance?
These are key questions after Jared Kushner failed to get full security clearance, more than a year after Inauguration Day when his father-in-law Donald Trump became president. For all that time, he had been acting as the president's top advisor, reading daily intelligence briefings and attending top secret strategy sessions. Then he lost that clearance.
So now the president may have to decide whether he can, or should, override the recommendation of federal intelligence agencies and keep his daughter's husband at his elbow as he plans national strategy.
And if he decides to go along with Jared's flunking the security test and expel him from the Oval Office, what will be daughter Ivanka's reaction? Will she have to choose between her husband and her father?
Stay tuned.
Can the president of the United State bypass the rules of security clearance and continue to keep his son-in-law in the top secret loop? For that matter, will the president's daughter, also a top advisor in this administration, be able to continue attending high-security sessions even after her husband has lost his security clearance?
These are key questions after Jared Kushner failed to get full security clearance, more than a year after Inauguration Day when his father-in-law Donald Trump became president. For all that time, he had been acting as the president's top advisor, reading daily intelligence briefings and attending top secret strategy sessions. Then he lost that clearance.
So now the president may have to decide whether he can, or should, override the recommendation of federal intelligence agencies and keep his daughter's husband at his elbow as he plans national strategy.
And if he decides to go along with Jared's flunking the security test and expel him from the Oval Office, what will be daughter Ivanka's reaction? Will she have to choose between her husband and her father?
Stay tuned.
Monday, February 26, 2018
Liars and Fools
Anyone who guarantees what he would do at a time of severe stress is either a liar or a fool, and more likely both. -- Pug Mahoney
"I would have run into the school (in Florida), even without a weapon."-- Donald J. Trump.
This from a man who invented bone spurs to avoid military draft.
Teachers are not SWAT teams.
Schools must not be prisons.
Prisons can be schools, where inmates become students who learn socially acceptable behavior.
"I would have run into the school (in Florida), even without a weapon."-- Donald J. Trump.
This from a man who invented bone spurs to avoid military draft.
Teachers are not SWAT teams.
Schools must not be prisons.
Prisons can be schools, where inmates become students who learn socially acceptable behavior.
Words Lose Power
Enough already with the icons.
All icons are images, but not all images are iconic.
Originally, an icon was a sacred image, with enormous sacred meaning and power. With more widespread use, however, the power of the word was degraded, and the term was used to refer to any important image.
The more widespread the use, however, the less power the word carried. Now, "iconic" is used to lend importance to nearly anything. If something is at all familiar, it becomes "iconic."
The problem is that overuse of any word diminishes its importance, and eventually, an overused and often misused word loses any meaning at all.
A familiar photograph becomes "iconic." A popular automobile becomes "iconic." A well-known motorcycle brand becomes "iconic." Even the White House is referred to as "an iconic building."
Important, yes. Well known, yes. Even popular, yes. But sacred? Hardly.
Journalists and TV commentators far too often hear a word or phrase and are impressed with its appropriateness and strength. Unfortunately, through repetition ad nauseam, when they pick up and reuse the term every day and in nearly every setting, the word loses what power it may have had.
So it is with iconic. Get thee to a thesaurus.
All icons are images, but not all images are iconic.
Originally, an icon was a sacred image, with enormous sacred meaning and power. With more widespread use, however, the power of the word was degraded, and the term was used to refer to any important image.
The more widespread the use, however, the less power the word carried. Now, "iconic" is used to lend importance to nearly anything. If something is at all familiar, it becomes "iconic."
The problem is that overuse of any word diminishes its importance, and eventually, an overused and often misused word loses any meaning at all.
A familiar photograph becomes "iconic." A popular automobile becomes "iconic." A well-known motorcycle brand becomes "iconic." Even the White House is referred to as "an iconic building."
Important, yes. Well known, yes. Even popular, yes. But sacred? Hardly.
Journalists and TV commentators far too often hear a word or phrase and are impressed with its appropriateness and strength. Unfortunately, through repetition ad nauseam, when they pick up and reuse the term every day and in nearly every setting, the word loses what power it may have had.
So it is with iconic. Get thee to a thesaurus.
Sunday, February 25, 2018
Artificial Eloquence
Rhetoric: Skillful use of words to persuade.
If you sound like you know what you're talking about, people will assume you do. -- Pug Mahoney
The word rhetoric has acquired a negative connotation, as in the dismissive phrase, "That's just so much rhetoric." In many ways, that reputation is appropriate, because rhetorical skills were used to persuade listeners and readers to agree with positions that were inherently dangerous.
Meanwhile, the word oratory -- derived from the same root as rhetoric -- retains its positive reputation.
This artificial eloquence is used by debaters and politicians to advance their agendas regardless of the dangers they may pose to the traditions of a nation's culture and way of life.
It may even be true that the orators have convinced themselves that the causes they espouse are beneficial to a democratic way of life, even when the reality is that the goal is only to bring victory to the self-appointed leaders, at the expense of everyone else.
Originally, the skills of rhetoric dealt with the way thoughts and ideas are presented. Some debaters, however, became so skillful in this art of persuasion that they could, and did, induce agreement through their eloquence and speechifying.
Advertising writers know this well. Listen closely to TV commercials, with pleasant sounding voices and beautiful images accompanying the message and you will soon realize that while it sounds good and looks good, it doesn't really mean much of anything.
The same applies to political speeches, whether on the campaign trail, in the halls of Congress, or from the Oval Office.
One difference these days, however, is that while lawyer-speak is well organized and sounds good, much of what comes from the guy in the Oval Office is neither.
Listen closely, and ask a grammar teacher to diagram one of his sentences.
The conclusion will often be that the talk is what high school students in Florida have come to recognize as B.S.
And that's what has given rhetoric a bad name.
If you sound like you know what you're talking about, people will assume you do. -- Pug Mahoney
The word rhetoric has acquired a negative connotation, as in the dismissive phrase, "That's just so much rhetoric." In many ways, that reputation is appropriate, because rhetorical skills were used to persuade listeners and readers to agree with positions that were inherently dangerous.
Meanwhile, the word oratory -- derived from the same root as rhetoric -- retains its positive reputation.
This artificial eloquence is used by debaters and politicians to advance their agendas regardless of the dangers they may pose to the traditions of a nation's culture and way of life.
It may even be true that the orators have convinced themselves that the causes they espouse are beneficial to a democratic way of life, even when the reality is that the goal is only to bring victory to the self-appointed leaders, at the expense of everyone else.
Originally, the skills of rhetoric dealt with the way thoughts and ideas are presented. Some debaters, however, became so skillful in this art of persuasion that they could, and did, induce agreement through their eloquence and speechifying.
Advertising writers know this well. Listen closely to TV commercials, with pleasant sounding voices and beautiful images accompanying the message and you will soon realize that while it sounds good and looks good, it doesn't really mean much of anything.
The same applies to political speeches, whether on the campaign trail, in the halls of Congress, or from the Oval Office.
One difference these days, however, is that while lawyer-speak is well organized and sounds good, much of what comes from the guy in the Oval Office is neither.
Listen closely, and ask a grammar teacher to diagram one of his sentences.
The conclusion will often be that the talk is what high school students in Florida have come to recognize as B.S.
And that's what has given rhetoric a bad name.
Friday, February 23, 2018
Media Bias
Speak truth to power
We hear many complaints these days about media bias and "fake news," especially from politicians who are unhappy about critical reports on what they're saying and doing, as well as fact checking that points out false and misleading things they try to foist on the public.
'Twas ever thus.
Government leaders typically want -- and sometimes demand -- agreement on whatever issue they claim is relevant. Any disagreement, or any critical and negative report, is too often branded treason.
But the country was founded on disagreement, and as Patrick Henry said, "If this be treason, let us make the most of it." At the time, he was commenting on the English king's objection to American requests for self determination.
These days, much of what politicians say is false. Demonstrably and obviously false. Provably false. Counter to common sense and contrary to mountains of evidence.
Yet some politicians attack such reports criticizing their talk and actions as fake, phony, dishonest, biased and many other things.
Nevertheless, the news media dutifully report not only what the politicians claim, and the evidence that contradicts such claims, but they report the attacks as well.
It would be easy enough, if news media were really biased, to ignore the denials, counter-claims and other nonsense the politicians perpetrate.
But they don't, because the public has a right to know both sides -- what politicians claim as well as what is true. And as long as the First Amendment to the Constitution is in effect, that's what journalists will do. The danger lies in any attempt to repeal the First Amendment.
One wonders why the new guy in the Oval Office focuses his attacks on the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN and NBC, but not on other major daily newspapers, magazines and TV networks.
Certainly he embraces programs on the Fox network, where its commentators are blatantly biased. Could it be because they are biased in his favor?
"Speak truth to power" is a basic tenet of journalism in a free society. Since the president of the United States is arguably the most powerful individual in the world, it follows that the voices of truth be the loudest in the world.
But if this be disallowed, the U.S. would no longer be a free society. If the First Amendment, with its guarantees of freedom of religion, free speech and a free press were to be repealed, that would be the first domino to fall in the collapse of a free society.
We hear many complaints these days about media bias and "fake news," especially from politicians who are unhappy about critical reports on what they're saying and doing, as well as fact checking that points out false and misleading things they try to foist on the public.
'Twas ever thus.
Government leaders typically want -- and sometimes demand -- agreement on whatever issue they claim is relevant. Any disagreement, or any critical and negative report, is too often branded treason.
But the country was founded on disagreement, and as Patrick Henry said, "If this be treason, let us make the most of it." At the time, he was commenting on the English king's objection to American requests for self determination.
These days, much of what politicians say is false. Demonstrably and obviously false. Provably false. Counter to common sense and contrary to mountains of evidence.
Yet some politicians attack such reports criticizing their talk and actions as fake, phony, dishonest, biased and many other things.
Nevertheless, the news media dutifully report not only what the politicians claim, and the evidence that contradicts such claims, but they report the attacks as well.
It would be easy enough, if news media were really biased, to ignore the denials, counter-claims and other nonsense the politicians perpetrate.
But they don't, because the public has a right to know both sides -- what politicians claim as well as what is true. And as long as the First Amendment to the Constitution is in effect, that's what journalists will do. The danger lies in any attempt to repeal the First Amendment.
One wonders why the new guy in the Oval Office focuses his attacks on the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN and NBC, but not on other major daily newspapers, magazines and TV networks.
Certainly he embraces programs on the Fox network, where its commentators are blatantly biased. Could it be because they are biased in his favor?
"Speak truth to power" is a basic tenet of journalism in a free society. Since the president of the United States is arguably the most powerful individual in the world, it follows that the voices of truth be the loudest in the world.
But if this be disallowed, the U.S. would no longer be a free society. If the First Amendment, with its guarantees of freedom of religion, free speech and a free press were to be repealed, that would be the first domino to fall in the collapse of a free society.
Thursday, February 22, 2018
Fear Factory
If ifs and ans were pots and pans,
We'd have no use for tinkers. -- Old Irish proverb
What might have been, could have been, should have been
or would have been, if, if, if and if, wasn't. Deal with it.
The National Rifle Association opened its argument against gun control with a fallacy basic to Logic 101: the appeal to fear.
Whether a fear has merit and is rooted in reality doesn't matter to those who foist this fallacy onto their arguments. The goal is to promote fear as a way to persuade agreement.
The sales pitch is that more guns in the hands of more people increases self defense and thereby reduces violence.
But evidence from around the world puts the lie to that claim.
Fact: More guns means more violence.
Solution: Fewer guns.
Wayne LaPierre, chief of the NRA, referred to the Second Amendment guarantee of "an individual's right" to keep and bear arms,
Read the Constitution again: The entire sentence of the Second Amendment is rooted in the plural, "people," and begins with the premise of "A well organized militia, being essential to the security of a free state ..."
A militia is, by definition, plural membership. What state militia was the school shooter in Florida last week a member of? Or the other school shooters, or those with assault weapons who mowed down people in public places in recent years?
"Guns don't work in preventing these types of crimes," said Jay Fant, an elected state representative in Florida. And the president of the United States supports arming teachers as a way to strike at disturbed individuals who invade schools with AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifles.
Pistols against assault rifles?
That would only result in more bullets flying around more crowded rooms and hallways, resulting in more people dead and injured.
As for the NRA and their political lackeys who insist that more guns is the answer to everything, the students' response is this:
B.S.
We'd have no use for tinkers. -- Old Irish proverb
What might have been, could have been, should have been
or would have been, if, if, if and if, wasn't. Deal with it.
The National Rifle Association opened its argument against gun control with a fallacy basic to Logic 101: the appeal to fear.
Whether a fear has merit and is rooted in reality doesn't matter to those who foist this fallacy onto their arguments. The goal is to promote fear as a way to persuade agreement.
The sales pitch is that more guns in the hands of more people increases self defense and thereby reduces violence.
But evidence from around the world puts the lie to that claim.
Fact: More guns means more violence.
Solution: Fewer guns.
Wayne LaPierre, chief of the NRA, referred to the Second Amendment guarantee of "an individual's right" to keep and bear arms,
Read the Constitution again: The entire sentence of the Second Amendment is rooted in the plural, "people," and begins with the premise of "A well organized militia, being essential to the security of a free state ..."
A militia is, by definition, plural membership. What state militia was the school shooter in Florida last week a member of? Or the other school shooters, or those with assault weapons who mowed down people in public places in recent years?
"Guns don't work in preventing these types of crimes," said Jay Fant, an elected state representative in Florida. And the president of the United States supports arming teachers as a way to strike at disturbed individuals who invade schools with AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifles.
Pistols against assault rifles?
That would only result in more bullets flying around more crowded rooms and hallways, resulting in more people dead and injured.
As for the NRA and their political lackeys who insist that more guns is the answer to everything, the students' response is this:
B.S.
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
Taking Stock
The economy has been rising steadily for months, so much so that investors have begun to worry whether it's time for a "correction" -- read: A substantial, if temporary, downturn, or even a recession, which is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative GDP.
They have been watching the Federal Reserve Board closely to see whether the Fed will boost interest rates to slow the growth rate.
Today, they got the news that the Fed will not boost interest interest rates. So is that good news or not?
It could mean that the nation's central bank believes the economy still has some growth potential left, so there's no need to hit the monetary brakes. Or it could mean that the Fed is taking some cues from the president, who has been calling for a growth rate of as much as 4 percent. Currently, GDP has been growing at about 2 percent, and unemployment has been steady at some 4 percent.
However.
The minutes of the most recent Fed meeting, released today, were for a meeting that was held three weeks ago. Meanwhile, Britain's jobless rate jumped to 4.4 percent, while average pay level did not change.
So will the U.S. economy remain strong and growing, or will it stall and fall?
Aye, that is the question.
If the economy grows and unemployment is low, that means jobs are available. But when jobs are not available in other countries -- unemployment rates rise -- that means workers will go to where the jobs are. And if that means moving to other regions within a country or emigrating to another country, that's what people do.
Historically, that's what has driven immigration to America for many decades -- this is where the jobs are.
But the president wants to increase jobs for Americans while keeping out others.
Economics 101 and common sense says things don't work that way. Wages rise to compensate for a labor shortage, which causes higher consumer prices and also attracts more migrants.
You can't build a wall to keep out workers while expecting those already here to accept low pay for high skill jobs.
They have been watching the Federal Reserve Board closely to see whether the Fed will boost interest rates to slow the growth rate.
Today, they got the news that the Fed will not boost interest interest rates. So is that good news or not?
It could mean that the nation's central bank believes the economy still has some growth potential left, so there's no need to hit the monetary brakes. Or it could mean that the Fed is taking some cues from the president, who has been calling for a growth rate of as much as 4 percent. Currently, GDP has been growing at about 2 percent, and unemployment has been steady at some 4 percent.
However.
The minutes of the most recent Fed meeting, released today, were for a meeting that was held three weeks ago. Meanwhile, Britain's jobless rate jumped to 4.4 percent, while average pay level did not change.
So will the U.S. economy remain strong and growing, or will it stall and fall?
Aye, that is the question.
If the economy grows and unemployment is low, that means jobs are available. But when jobs are not available in other countries -- unemployment rates rise -- that means workers will go to where the jobs are. And if that means moving to other regions within a country or emigrating to another country, that's what people do.
Historically, that's what has driven immigration to America for many decades -- this is where the jobs are.
But the president wants to increase jobs for Americans while keeping out others.
Economics 101 and common sense says things don't work that way. Wages rise to compensate for a labor shortage, which causes higher consumer prices and also attracts more migrants.
You can't build a wall to keep out workers while expecting those already here to accept low pay for high skill jobs.
Vote Them Out
"They won't be able to ignore us when they don't get re-elected."
-- David Hogg, a Florida high school senior
"Never again" is the cry going up from young people in Florida and in Washington as high school students protest lax gun laws and demand change.
And the students, unlike many politicians, have read the Second Amendment to the Constitution and its reference to "a well regulated militia."
Meanwhile, these young people know that they will soon be able to vote, once they reach 18. And for many, that could well be this year, in time for the next election of congressional representatives in November, and certainly in time for the next presidential election in 2020.
Separately, it has been reported that the National Rifle Association spent $55 million to influence the results of the 2016 election, and garnered the support of Donald Trump.
In addition, others have compiled a list of congressional members who have taken campaign donations from the NRA, taking a two-page ad in the New York Times to show all the names.
The list includes the names of eight U.S. senators who have collected $1 million or more from the NRA in recent years.
They are Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, $1.97 million; Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado, $1.23 million; Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, $1.06 million; Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, $1.48 million; Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, $1.4 million; Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina; $1.97 million; Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, $1.5 million, and Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, $1.02 million.
So what's more important to politicians, the lives of children or money from the NRA?
-- David Hogg, a Florida high school senior
"Never again" is the cry going up from young people in Florida and in Washington as high school students protest lax gun laws and demand change.
And the students, unlike many politicians, have read the Second Amendment to the Constitution and its reference to "a well regulated militia."
Meanwhile, these young people know that they will soon be able to vote, once they reach 18. And for many, that could well be this year, in time for the next election of congressional representatives in November, and certainly in time for the next presidential election in 2020.
Separately, it has been reported that the National Rifle Association spent $55 million to influence the results of the 2016 election, and garnered the support of Donald Trump.
In addition, others have compiled a list of congressional members who have taken campaign donations from the NRA, taking a two-page ad in the New York Times to show all the names.
The list includes the names of eight U.S. senators who have collected $1 million or more from the NRA in recent years.
They are Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, $1.97 million; Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado, $1.23 million; Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, $1.06 million; Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, $1.48 million; Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, $1.4 million; Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina; $1.97 million; Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, $1.5 million, and Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, $1.02 million.
So what's more important to politicians, the lives of children or money from the NRA?
Tuesday, February 20, 2018
Bigotry in History
Bias against minorities has been an American tradition since colonial days. Throughout the Americas, from Spanish treatment of Aztecs and Incas to English treatment of native tribes, then the import of Africans as slaves, discrimination continued after independence and through the Civil War, then forcing native tribes to reservations so the dominant group could get at the oil, gold, silver and farmland occupied by the tribes.
Even in the East, discrimination against immigrants was common through the 19th and early 20th centuries, especially against Jews, Irish, and Eastern European newcomers.
Now we see "keep out" demands registered against Hispanics and Muslims, led by the president of this supposedly democratic republic.
When will we ever learn?
Even in the East, discrimination against immigrants was common through the 19th and early 20th centuries, especially against Jews, Irish, and Eastern European newcomers.
Now we see "keep out" demands registered against Hispanics and Muslims, led by the president of this supposedly democratic republic.
When will we ever learn?
Rifle Recoil
The president has asked the attorney general to look into ways of perhaps amending federal law to maybe outlawing so-called "bump stocks," the attachments that convert semi-automatic rifles to fully automatic weapons.
This after the incident last year in which a gunman used such a weapon to commit mass murder in Las Vegas. The president did not mention any action that he might propose to limit other firearms, such as AR-15 weapons, one of which was used to kill 17 students and teachers in Florida last week.
But it's a start. The attorney general will investigate and propose possible new regulations to slow the spread of fully automatic weapons.
Note the qualifiers. Don't hold your breath until something happens.
Meanwhile, the Florida state legislature voted down a proposed bill to ban assault rifles. In fact, the vote of 36 for and 71 against meant they won't even hear it.
This happened Tuesday, less than a week after the school shooting.
This after the incident last year in which a gunman used such a weapon to commit mass murder in Las Vegas. The president did not mention any action that he might propose to limit other firearms, such as AR-15 weapons, one of which was used to kill 17 students and teachers in Florida last week.
But it's a start. The attorney general will investigate and propose possible new regulations to slow the spread of fully automatic weapons.
Note the qualifiers. Don't hold your breath until something happens.
Meanwhile, the Florida state legislature voted down a proposed bill to ban assault rifles. In fact, the vote of 36 for and 71 against meant they won't even hear it.
This happened Tuesday, less than a week after the school shooting.
Monday, February 19, 2018
Mine Safety
The government wants to repeal a law that requires mining companies to report safety information.
The repeal bill is called H.R. 4289, and it would delete the part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that requires coal and other mining companies to tell the government how they comply with federal health and safety standards.
Existing law says the companies must report to the Securities and Exchange Commission how they do that or be penalized if they don't. If the bill passes, coal companies would no longer be fined for not reporting safety information.
The bill was introduced in the House several months ago, and the Congressional Budget Office submitted its analysis last week, and said that while H.R. 4289 would decrease the amount of money the SEC would collect in civil penalties for non-disclosure, the reduction "would be insignificant."
But the report did not deal with any other consequences mining companies might suffer for not disclosing safety information.
The repeal bill is called H.R. 4289, and it would delete the part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that requires coal and other mining companies to tell the government how they comply with federal health and safety standards.
Existing law says the companies must report to the Securities and Exchange Commission how they do that or be penalized if they don't. If the bill passes, coal companies would no longer be fined for not reporting safety information.
The bill was introduced in the House several months ago, and the Congressional Budget Office submitted its analysis last week, and said that while H.R. 4289 would decrease the amount of money the SEC would collect in civil penalties for non-disclosure, the reduction "would be insignificant."
But the report did not deal with any other consequences mining companies might suffer for not disclosing safety information.
Saturday, February 17, 2018
Teen Power
Watch for mass protest demonstrations by young people demanding that politicians finally do something about gun control in America.
Already, government leaders are trying to change the focus of the debate, saying things like stricter laws would not have prevented the most recent massacre in Florida that took the lives of 14 high school students and three of their teachers, and that the real issue is one of mental health, not gun control.
So why is it so easy for someone with a documented history of emotional issues -- there were multiple reports to authorities about the suspect in Florida -- to buy an assault rifle?
The FBI has admitted that it missed its chance to intervene. And it may be true that a person cannot be arrested for something he has not done. Yet the act of talking about shooting people, and posting similar ideas on the internet, brought the suspect to the attention of authorities. But nothing happened.
There is also talk about arming teachers, adding to security precautions at schools. Not all teachers, of course, only those who volunteer and go through extensive training. Already, many schools have trained security guards on patrol at school buildings. But they can't be everywhere all the time. Besides, what's so smart about multiple guns and a shootout in a crowded building?
Better that fewer guns be available. And that will be the focus of demonstrations by students and others concerned about the multiple mass homicides in schools, theaters, churches and other public places in America.
The National Rifle Association insists that the answer is more guns in the hands of more people, regardless of the proven history in many societies that more guns equals more violence and death, not fewer.
Politicians, meanwhile, from the president on down, try to change the subject, focusing on talk about thoughts, sympathy, condolences and some effort to help those who have clear mental and emotional issues and discourage them from acquiring firearms.
The shooter this week in Florida had clear mental and emotional issues, and authorities knew about them. But that did not stop him from acquiring and using an AR-15 military style assault rifle and multiple ammunition magazines to kill 17 people.
But politicians and their NRA backers insist that guns are not the problem.
They insist that "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."
Can you say "stupid"?
People use guns to kill people. Therefore, the answer is fewer guns. Meanwhile, we wind up with fewer people.
Now the torch is being passed to a new generation, as President John F. Kennedy, himself the victim of gun violence, said in his inaugural address.
Fifty years ago, his brother Robert Kennedy also died at the hands of a gun wielder. That same year, 1968, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated by a rifle shot.
News media this week have been illustrating their reports on the Florida school shooting with numbers of the slain throughout America.
How many more deaths will it take to persuade lawmakers that children's lives are more important than campaign contributions from the gun lobby?
Teenage students have no money to send to political candidates. But soon they will reach voting age.
And they will remember.
Already, government leaders are trying to change the focus of the debate, saying things like stricter laws would not have prevented the most recent massacre in Florida that took the lives of 14 high school students and three of their teachers, and that the real issue is one of mental health, not gun control.
So why is it so easy for someone with a documented history of emotional issues -- there were multiple reports to authorities about the suspect in Florida -- to buy an assault rifle?
The FBI has admitted that it missed its chance to intervene. And it may be true that a person cannot be arrested for something he has not done. Yet the act of talking about shooting people, and posting similar ideas on the internet, brought the suspect to the attention of authorities. But nothing happened.
There is also talk about arming teachers, adding to security precautions at schools. Not all teachers, of course, only those who volunteer and go through extensive training. Already, many schools have trained security guards on patrol at school buildings. But they can't be everywhere all the time. Besides, what's so smart about multiple guns and a shootout in a crowded building?
Better that fewer guns be available. And that will be the focus of demonstrations by students and others concerned about the multiple mass homicides in schools, theaters, churches and other public places in America.
The National Rifle Association insists that the answer is more guns in the hands of more people, regardless of the proven history in many societies that more guns equals more violence and death, not fewer.
Politicians, meanwhile, from the president on down, try to change the subject, focusing on talk about thoughts, sympathy, condolences and some effort to help those who have clear mental and emotional issues and discourage them from acquiring firearms.
The shooter this week in Florida had clear mental and emotional issues, and authorities knew about them. But that did not stop him from acquiring and using an AR-15 military style assault rifle and multiple ammunition magazines to kill 17 people.
But politicians and their NRA backers insist that guns are not the problem.
They insist that "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."
Can you say "stupid"?
People use guns to kill people. Therefore, the answer is fewer guns. Meanwhile, we wind up with fewer people.
Now the torch is being passed to a new generation, as President John F. Kennedy, himself the victim of gun violence, said in his inaugural address.
Fifty years ago, his brother Robert Kennedy also died at the hands of a gun wielder. That same year, 1968, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated by a rifle shot.
News media this week have been illustrating their reports on the Florida school shooting with numbers of the slain throughout America.
How many more deaths will it take to persuade lawmakers that children's lives are more important than campaign contributions from the gun lobby?
Teenage students have no money to send to political candidates. But soon they will reach voting age.
And they will remember.
Thursday, February 15, 2018
Stormy Whether
Of the Five W's routinely taught in Journalism 101 -- Who, What, Where, When and Why -- the most important is the last: Why.
The president's lawyer has admitted he paid a strip-tease dancer $130,000 to keep silent about an affair she allegedly had with the president. But the lawyer insisted the money was his, out of his own account, and he merely "facilitated the transfer" of the money to the dancer -- Stormy Daniels is her professional name.
It's still hush money, but the lawyer said it did not come from election campaign funds.
As if that makes it okay.
And whether the cash came directly from the lawyer, who happens to be a close friend of the president as well as his attorney, or was rerouted by the lawyer to the stripper from some other source, that may not be relevant.
Then again, maybe it is relevant. It's still hush money, and several questions remain: Was there another source, and if there was, who was it? More important, why pay the hush money at all?
If there was no sexual impropriety, why buy her silence?
Whether paying someone to keep quiet about some extra-marital affair is legal or not is a question for lawyers to debate. And the issue isn't really about whether this president has been fooling around with other women. Many others have, and while that may be true and the new guy's past behavior explains this latest expose, it does not excuse it.
Why pay someone to keep quiet about something that didn't happen?
The president's lawyer has admitted he paid a strip-tease dancer $130,000 to keep silent about an affair she allegedly had with the president. But the lawyer insisted the money was his, out of his own account, and he merely "facilitated the transfer" of the money to the dancer -- Stormy Daniels is her professional name.
It's still hush money, but the lawyer said it did not come from election campaign funds.
As if that makes it okay.
And whether the cash came directly from the lawyer, who happens to be a close friend of the president as well as his attorney, or was rerouted by the lawyer to the stripper from some other source, that may not be relevant.
Then again, maybe it is relevant. It's still hush money, and several questions remain: Was there another source, and if there was, who was it? More important, why pay the hush money at all?
If there was no sexual impropriety, why buy her silence?
Whether paying someone to keep quiet about some extra-marital affair is legal or not is a question for lawyers to debate. And the issue isn't really about whether this president has been fooling around with other women. Many others have, and while that may be true and the new guy's past behavior explains this latest expose, it does not excuse it.
Why pay someone to keep quiet about something that didn't happen?
Prices Up, Wages Flat
The economy is doing well and investors are happy, as benefits go largely to stockholders and corporations.
For average Americans who have to work for a living, however, there's a different story. The Consumer Price Index (CPI), as measured by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, was up 2.1 percent for the 12 months ended in January, while wages rose a bare 0.1 percent. On net, then, worker income was down.
So while politicians gloat about how they are responsible for how great things are, emphasizing the good while ignoring the not so great, and predicting economic growth of 3 percent or more for the nation as a whole, the price of a cup of espresso at Starbucks goes up by 30 cents but average consumer income does not.
Yes, Gross Domestic Product is measured by the prices of goods and services sold, which is really the only semi-reliable way to do it, and soaring stock values on Wall Street measure investor confidence that share prices will continue to rise, but what about the folks waiting for a pay increase?
Washington politicos are bragging about the benefits of the tax reform package they just enacted, but closer looks by those who read past the gobbledygook see that the supposed pay hikes announced by a few major corporations are really one-time bonuses paid to a few, while the company benefits more from additional tax reductions.
For average Americans who have to work for a living, however, there's a different story. The Consumer Price Index (CPI), as measured by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, was up 2.1 percent for the 12 months ended in January, while wages rose a bare 0.1 percent. On net, then, worker income was down.
So while politicians gloat about how they are responsible for how great things are, emphasizing the good while ignoring the not so great, and predicting economic growth of 3 percent or more for the nation as a whole, the price of a cup of espresso at Starbucks goes up by 30 cents but average consumer income does not.
Yes, Gross Domestic Product is measured by the prices of goods and services sold, which is really the only semi-reliable way to do it, and soaring stock values on Wall Street measure investor confidence that share prices will continue to rise, but what about the folks waiting for a pay increase?
Washington politicos are bragging about the benefits of the tax reform package they just enacted, but closer looks by those who read past the gobbledygook see that the supposed pay hikes announced by a few major corporations are really one-time bonuses paid to a few, while the company benefits more from additional tax reductions.
Words
If not now, when? If not me, who?
"Now is not the time" to talk about stricter gun control, the president said last November, after a school shooting in California that left four children dead.
When is the time?
Another 17 people died in a mass shooting at a high school in Florida this week. It was the 18th time this year that saw a gunman open fire at a school in America, killing people.
Since 2012, there have been 239 school shootings nationwide, with 438 people shot, 138 of them fatally.
How many more people must die before politicians decide it's time to stop the carnage?
The day after the latest school shooting, the president spoke nationwide with words of compassion and sympathy for the victims.
This is, of course, important, that the president of the United States speak words of support for those affected by the tragedy. But there were no words or promises of action to stop the carnage. And no mention of gun control.
During his inaugural address, the president spoke of the need to end the violence, and pledged, "This American carnage stops right here and stops right now."
Words.
He promised in August 2016 to make inner cities safer, so that "Your child isn't gonna be shot."
He made similar promises many times during the campaign, but in the 13 months since he took office, gun violence has continued to plague the nation, with many of them children attending school.
In the past 50 years, since 1968, more American civilians have died from gun-related violence than have been killed in military conflict since the founding of the nation in 1776.
Yet the gunfire death toll continues to mount.
What happened to the promise to end the carnage?
It's time to stop with the words and start with some action.
"Now is not the time" to talk about stricter gun control, the president said last November, after a school shooting in California that left four children dead.
When is the time?
Another 17 people died in a mass shooting at a high school in Florida this week. It was the 18th time this year that saw a gunman open fire at a school in America, killing people.
Since 2012, there have been 239 school shootings nationwide, with 438 people shot, 138 of them fatally.
How many more people must die before politicians decide it's time to stop the carnage?
The day after the latest school shooting, the president spoke nationwide with words of compassion and sympathy for the victims.
This is, of course, important, that the president of the United States speak words of support for those affected by the tragedy. But there were no words or promises of action to stop the carnage. And no mention of gun control.
During his inaugural address, the president spoke of the need to end the violence, and pledged, "This American carnage stops right here and stops right now."
Words.
He promised in August 2016 to make inner cities safer, so that "Your child isn't gonna be shot."
He made similar promises many times during the campaign, but in the 13 months since he took office, gun violence has continued to plague the nation, with many of them children attending school.
In the past 50 years, since 1968, more American civilians have died from gun-related violence than have been killed in military conflict since the founding of the nation in 1776.
Yet the gunfire death toll continues to mount.
What happened to the promise to end the carnage?
It's time to stop with the words and start with some action.
Wednesday, February 14, 2018
Guns Kill
That's the purpose. That's why guns were invented. To kill. Target shooting as a sport came later, but it remains practice for accuracy in killing.
So far this year, just six weeks into 2018, there have been 18 mass shootings at schools in America, the latest today in Florida, where some 17 people died from gunshot wounds -- fired from an AR15 military style semiautomatic long rifle. And the death toll could well rise.
The bigger tragedy is how common gun homicides are in the U.S. In 2014, for example, 8,124 people were shot to death in America, according to FBI statistics.
In 2016, that number rose to about 11,000, up from 9,600 in 2015, according to FBI data.
In 2017, at least 15,549 people -- including self-inflicted shootings -- were killed by guns in the U.S., according to data collected by the Gun Violence Archive, a nonprofit organization. And in January alone of this year, there were 1,260 gun deaths, including 57 children, 245 teenagers, and 25 police officers.
Nationwide, the death rate was 31 per million, or an average or 27 homicides daily, based on data from 2014. In Poland and England, the rate is one per million, and in Japan, one in 10 million. About the same as being struck by lightning.
There are hunters, of course, who go out into the woods after deer and other animals that could be a food source. But they don't use military assault weapons. And there is no comparing a school filled with thousands of children at the heart of a major city to a wilderness.
So how can people claim a need for assault rifles? For self defense in a neighborhood of homes near a major highway? In case of an invasion by a foreign power, says the NRA. As if the U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force are not to be trusted, or they are too small or incompetent.
Yeah, right.
And that total of 18 mass shootings in just six weeks into the year counts only school incidents. There have been others.
Yet the National Rifle Association wants reciprocity in gun laws, allowing a person with a license to carry a gun issued by one state to carry that firearm across state lines to any other state.
Why? To repel an invasion?
There are people with proven needs for self protection from others who have threatened them with grievous bodily harm. But the answer to that threat is to keep guns away from the threatener, not to arm all those who feel threatened.
The NRA is swift to react whenever a change to gun laws is mentioned, and their favorite defense is to cite the Second Amendment guarantee of the people of a state to keep and bear arms. In doing so, they conveniently "forget" the first phrase of that Constitutional provision that specifies the need for "a well regulated militia."
Question: What militia, regulated or otherwise, was this week's Florida shooter a member of?
As for expressions of sympathy for the families of the dead teenage school children, their teachers, staff and those wounded, there has been no word from the NRA.
And when will we hear from the president, with words of sympathy and compassion?
Or is he, like many other politicians, too busy counting campaign donations from the NRA?
Silence.
So far this year, just six weeks into 2018, there have been 18 mass shootings at schools in America, the latest today in Florida, where some 17 people died from gunshot wounds -- fired from an AR15 military style semiautomatic long rifle. And the death toll could well rise.
The bigger tragedy is how common gun homicides are in the U.S. In 2014, for example, 8,124 people were shot to death in America, according to FBI statistics.
In 2016, that number rose to about 11,000, up from 9,600 in 2015, according to FBI data.
In 2017, at least 15,549 people -- including self-inflicted shootings -- were killed by guns in the U.S., according to data collected by the Gun Violence Archive, a nonprofit organization. And in January alone of this year, there were 1,260 gun deaths, including 57 children, 245 teenagers, and 25 police officers.
Nationwide, the death rate was 31 per million, or an average or 27 homicides daily, based on data from 2014. In Poland and England, the rate is one per million, and in Japan, one in 10 million. About the same as being struck by lightning.
There are hunters, of course, who go out into the woods after deer and other animals that could be a food source. But they don't use military assault weapons. And there is no comparing a school filled with thousands of children at the heart of a major city to a wilderness.
So how can people claim a need for assault rifles? For self defense in a neighborhood of homes near a major highway? In case of an invasion by a foreign power, says the NRA. As if the U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force are not to be trusted, or they are too small or incompetent.
Yeah, right.
And that total of 18 mass shootings in just six weeks into the year counts only school incidents. There have been others.
Yet the National Rifle Association wants reciprocity in gun laws, allowing a person with a license to carry a gun issued by one state to carry that firearm across state lines to any other state.
Why? To repel an invasion?
There are people with proven needs for self protection from others who have threatened them with grievous bodily harm. But the answer to that threat is to keep guns away from the threatener, not to arm all those who feel threatened.
The NRA is swift to react whenever a change to gun laws is mentioned, and their favorite defense is to cite the Second Amendment guarantee of the people of a state to keep and bear arms. In doing so, they conveniently "forget" the first phrase of that Constitutional provision that specifies the need for "a well regulated militia."
Question: What militia, regulated or otherwise, was this week's Florida shooter a member of?
As for expressions of sympathy for the families of the dead teenage school children, their teachers, staff and those wounded, there has been no word from the NRA.
And when will we hear from the president, with words of sympathy and compassion?
Or is he, like many other politicians, too busy counting campaign donations from the NRA?
Silence.
Tuesday, February 13, 2018
Hypocritic Oaf
" ... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" -- Presidential Oath of Office ( ... but only if I feel like it.)
Can the president pass a background check for top secret security clearance?
The derivation of the word "hypocrite" is from the Greek "hypo-" meaning "less than" and "-kreinen," meaning "believable." It was first applied to actors, then to people generally, when they pretended to be other than what they really were. And that is the sense of the word as used today.
Hypocrisy is particularly rampant among politicians, and has been for many decades. We now face a herd of political figures who bring the meaning of hypocrisy to new heights.
This brings us to the topic for today -- the demand from some in government that those on the opposing side of the political divide be forced out of office for some types of misbehavior but those on the "in" side be excused and the allegations be ignored.
The most noise is being made about allegations of sexual misbehavior and harassment of women. Similarly, a lot of noise is made about national security background checks and clearances to handle top secret material compiled by the nation's intelligence agencies.
Sometimes, the two go together, so the question becomes whether men who routinely harass women can be trusted to keep secret confidential material given them by the FBI, the CIA and other agencies. Often, the issue is whether those charged with misbehavior will succumb to blackmail and release top secret information to those who should not have it.
Recently, many in the current administration have been forced to resign because of sexual misbehavior allegations and therefore could not pass security background checks.
Others, however, have been kept on the job by the current president despite these reports, despite having gained only "interim" security clearance. And this, more than a year on the job.
It seems the president feels at liberty to keep some folks on the job handling top secret documents many months after investigative agencies warned to potential problems.
One wonders whether members of Congressional intelligence committees have been cleared to handle top secret files.
(Congressional intelligence -- now there's an oxymoron for you.)
For that matter, does the president face similar vetting? Or are we to just take him at his word, which he insists we do in all other things? Next he may propagate a doctrine of presidential infallibility.
Scary thought.
Can the president pass a background check for top secret security clearance?
The derivation of the word "hypocrite" is from the Greek "hypo-" meaning "less than" and "-kreinen," meaning "believable." It was first applied to actors, then to people generally, when they pretended to be other than what they really were. And that is the sense of the word as used today.
Hypocrisy is particularly rampant among politicians, and has been for many decades. We now face a herd of political figures who bring the meaning of hypocrisy to new heights.
This brings us to the topic for today -- the demand from some in government that those on the opposing side of the political divide be forced out of office for some types of misbehavior but those on the "in" side be excused and the allegations be ignored.
The most noise is being made about allegations of sexual misbehavior and harassment of women. Similarly, a lot of noise is made about national security background checks and clearances to handle top secret material compiled by the nation's intelligence agencies.
Sometimes, the two go together, so the question becomes whether men who routinely harass women can be trusted to keep secret confidential material given them by the FBI, the CIA and other agencies. Often, the issue is whether those charged with misbehavior will succumb to blackmail and release top secret information to those who should not have it.
Recently, many in the current administration have been forced to resign because of sexual misbehavior allegations and therefore could not pass security background checks.
Others, however, have been kept on the job by the current president despite these reports, despite having gained only "interim" security clearance. And this, more than a year on the job.
It seems the president feels at liberty to keep some folks on the job handling top secret documents many months after investigative agencies warned to potential problems.
One wonders whether members of Congressional intelligence committees have been cleared to handle top secret files.
(Congressional intelligence -- now there's an oxymoron for you.)
For that matter, does the president face similar vetting? Or are we to just take him at his word, which he insists we do in all other things? Next he may propagate a doctrine of presidential infallibility.
Scary thought.
Sunday, February 11, 2018
Say What?
"I have a driver's license issued by my home state that enables me to drive my car in any other state. I also have a gun permit issued by my home state that enables me to carry a concealed weapon. Therefore, I should be able to carry my gun in any other state, just as I can drive a car in any other state."
That's the rationale being used by the National Rifle Association in pushing for a federal law allowing reciprocity for concealed weapons, just as driver licenses are reciprocally recognized by other states.
And as part of that rationale, the NRA quotes the part of Second Amendment that says "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Once again, the gun lobby ignores the first phrase of the Second Amendment, which specifies that this right belongs only to states with "A well regulated militia ..."
More important, however, is the failure of news interviewers to bring up the "well regulated militia" phrase and question NRA activists why they ignore this, and focus only on the supposed need for every individual to have as many weapons as he or she pleases, as well as the "right" to carry a handgun across state lines, comparing a concealed carry permit to a driver's license.
Say what?
There may indeed be valid reasons for an individual -- who is not a member of a well regulated militia -- to have a rifle or a pistol when that person lives in a rural area far away from the nearest police officer.
But that's not true for people who live in major cities, where emergency first responders are quickly available with a telephone call.
As for the argument that "the best defense against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," that works only when all the "bad guys" wear black hats and the "good guys" wear white hats, like they did in Grade B movies about the Old West. These days, many folks don't wear hats at all, so how is one to know?
Meanwhile, statistics kept by law enforcement agencies nationwide show that more guns equal more violence, injury and death.
And in densely populated cities, allowing travelers to carry their guns is sure to bring more violence.
Speaking of reciprocity, if gun laws nationwide be equated with the full freedom allowed in rural Western states, how about marijuana laws also being reciprocal? Or zoning laws, or medical licensing laws, or any other set of laws that are appropriate for one state, but not necessarily for another?
Oops. So much for states rights.
That's the rationale being used by the National Rifle Association in pushing for a federal law allowing reciprocity for concealed weapons, just as driver licenses are reciprocally recognized by other states.
And as part of that rationale, the NRA quotes the part of Second Amendment that says "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Once again, the gun lobby ignores the first phrase of the Second Amendment, which specifies that this right belongs only to states with "A well regulated militia ..."
More important, however, is the failure of news interviewers to bring up the "well regulated militia" phrase and question NRA activists why they ignore this, and focus only on the supposed need for every individual to have as many weapons as he or she pleases, as well as the "right" to carry a handgun across state lines, comparing a concealed carry permit to a driver's license.
Say what?
There may indeed be valid reasons for an individual -- who is not a member of a well regulated militia -- to have a rifle or a pistol when that person lives in a rural area far away from the nearest police officer.
But that's not true for people who live in major cities, where emergency first responders are quickly available with a telephone call.
As for the argument that "the best defense against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," that works only when all the "bad guys" wear black hats and the "good guys" wear white hats, like they did in Grade B movies about the Old West. These days, many folks don't wear hats at all, so how is one to know?
Meanwhile, statistics kept by law enforcement agencies nationwide show that more guns equal more violence, injury and death.
And in densely populated cities, allowing travelers to carry their guns is sure to bring more violence.
Speaking of reciprocity, if gun laws nationwide be equated with the full freedom allowed in rural Western states, how about marijuana laws also being reciprocal? Or zoning laws, or medical licensing laws, or any other set of laws that are appropriate for one state, but not necessarily for another?
Oops. So much for states rights.
Double Standards
If Kelly can't do it, nobody can.
Many folks had high hopes that a Marine Corps general would bring discipline as well as dignity and honor to the White House. But unless the troops listen, and especially the commander, who sets an example and issues the top orders, the second in command is wasting his time.
It may well be that a man is experienced and competent in his job, and treats other men in government with dignity and honor, but if that same man beats his wife, can it still be said that he is a person of integrity?
Okay, he beats his wife. But other than that, he's a nice guy, say the rationalizers.
And if the top guy in the office also indulges in questionable extra-marital activities, that sets an example for all others in the administration.
So what's a fella to do?
He could resign, and that's the plan that John F. Kelly is considering, according to news reports. But Marines don't readily admit defeat, and in effect that's what faces Kelly. He left the Marine Corps to take the chief of staff job at the White House. But as second in command, his actions can be overturned or even ignored by the president.
And what kind of an example is that for the rest of the folk working at the White House and other government agencies?
Turnover in this administration has meant the departure of many top officials in just the first year of this presidency. Not to mention the dozens -- nay, hundreds -- of other posts that have not been filled.
Which leads to this question: Where is the dignity, honor, respect and integrity that a presidential administration shows to its members as well as to the public, and in turn deserves from the public?
Not there.
Many folks had high hopes that a Marine Corps general would bring discipline as well as dignity and honor to the White House. But unless the troops listen, and especially the commander, who sets an example and issues the top orders, the second in command is wasting his time.
It may well be that a man is experienced and competent in his job, and treats other men in government with dignity and honor, but if that same man beats his wife, can it still be said that he is a person of integrity?
Okay, he beats his wife. But other than that, he's a nice guy, say the rationalizers.
And if the top guy in the office also indulges in questionable extra-marital activities, that sets an example for all others in the administration.
So what's a fella to do?
He could resign, and that's the plan that John F. Kelly is considering, according to news reports. But Marines don't readily admit defeat, and in effect that's what faces Kelly. He left the Marine Corps to take the chief of staff job at the White House. But as second in command, his actions can be overturned or even ignored by the president.
And what kind of an example is that for the rest of the folk working at the White House and other government agencies?
Turnover in this administration has meant the departure of many top officials in just the first year of this presidency. Not to mention the dozens -- nay, hundreds -- of other posts that have not been filled.
Which leads to this question: Where is the dignity, honor, respect and integrity that a presidential administration shows to its members as well as to the public, and in turn deserves from the public?
Not there.
Saturday, February 10, 2018
Bundle of Sticks
In unity there is strength.
A tightly bound set of wooden rods holding an axe head has been a symbol of unity and power since the years of the Roman Empire, and was used in America on the reverse side of the 10-cent coin from 1916 to 1945.
While the symbol itself was accepted, the Latin word that accompanied it was appropriated by European political movements for its implied idea of strength in unity.
Unfortunately, unity for some meant exclusion of those who disagreed. In extreme form, this led to violence against those who did not conform to some "preferred" set of beliefs.
So while the Latin-based word for unity and strength began its modern life as a worthwhile symbol, in practice its meaning became corrupted by political groups that converted an otherwise democratic system to a dictatorship.
It's called fascism.
A tightly bound set of wooden rods holding an axe head has been a symbol of unity and power since the years of the Roman Empire, and was used in America on the reverse side of the 10-cent coin from 1916 to 1945.
While the symbol itself was accepted, the Latin word that accompanied it was appropriated by European political movements for its implied idea of strength in unity.
Unfortunately, unity for some meant exclusion of those who disagreed. In extreme form, this led to violence against those who did not conform to some "preferred" set of beliefs.
So while the Latin-based word for unity and strength began its modern life as a worthwhile symbol, in practice its meaning became corrupted by political groups that converted an otherwise democratic system to a dictatorship.
It's called fascism.
Friday, February 9, 2018
Treason Reins
"Treason doth never prosper. What's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason." -- John Harrington
"Greed is good." -- Gordon Gekko
"What shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world but lose his own soul?" -- Mark, 8:36
"Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell, and George the Third ... might well profit from their example," said Patrick Henry.
Just as Richard Nixon had his Leon Jaworski, the special prosecutor investigating the Watergate affair, the current administration might well profit from this example.
What price success?
For some folks, material wealth is the only form of prosperity worth pursuing. For others, financial wealth is immaterial.
So which is better, financial wealth at the cost of morality, or moral wealth at the cost of materiality?
Or is it possible to have both?
Americans face a choice of accepting the leadership of one who chooses personal material and financial wealth over any thought of what may benefit others in a nation of 350 million people.
Abject personal loyalty seems to matter more to Him Who Shall Not Be Named than loyalty to a social ideal or a principle of a considerate society.
But there is always a choice, even as some choices are easier than others. And as Patrick Henry pointed out, "If this be treason, make the most of it."
Ambition can be a good thing, for it encourages effort in search of material well being, but without a sense of morality and concern for the well being of others, reckless ambition can be hazardous to the health of others as well.
Somehow, then, in a socially responsible world, it should be possible for the general population to impose some semblance of morality on those who cross the boundaries of acceptable behavior.
That, then, is the choice facing members of the Congress of the United States, whose responsibility it is to rein in a president who would be the master of all he surveys.
Otherwise, America is on the road to oblivion rather than a high road to social success.
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason." -- John Harrington
"Greed is good." -- Gordon Gekko
"What shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world but lose his own soul?" -- Mark, 8:36
"Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell, and George the Third ... might well profit from their example," said Patrick Henry.
Just as Richard Nixon had his Leon Jaworski, the special prosecutor investigating the Watergate affair, the current administration might well profit from this example.
What price success?
For some folks, material wealth is the only form of prosperity worth pursuing. For others, financial wealth is immaterial.
So which is better, financial wealth at the cost of morality, or moral wealth at the cost of materiality?
Or is it possible to have both?
Americans face a choice of accepting the leadership of one who chooses personal material and financial wealth over any thought of what may benefit others in a nation of 350 million people.
Abject personal loyalty seems to matter more to Him Who Shall Not Be Named than loyalty to a social ideal or a principle of a considerate society.
But there is always a choice, even as some choices are easier than others. And as Patrick Henry pointed out, "If this be treason, make the most of it."
Ambition can be a good thing, for it encourages effort in search of material well being, but without a sense of morality and concern for the well being of others, reckless ambition can be hazardous to the health of others as well.
Somehow, then, in a socially responsible world, it should be possible for the general population to impose some semblance of morality on those who cross the boundaries of acceptable behavior.
That, then, is the choice facing members of the Congress of the United States, whose responsibility it is to rein in a president who would be the master of all he surveys.
Otherwise, America is on the road to oblivion rather than a high road to social success.
Wednesday, February 7, 2018
Ego Parade
My nuclear button is bigger than your nuclear button, and my army is stronger than yours.
After traveling to Paris and watching a Bastille Day parade, America's president decided that it would be a good idea for the U.S. to launch something similar, only bigger, as a way to "prove" military might and, he says, to show gratitude to veterans and those still in service.
But typically, most heroes don't want or need spectacles to praise what they did. Most don't even want to talk about their ventures. There was a job to be done, they did it, and just want to move on with their lives, quietly and without fanfare.
Some, however, who have never been in battle or have even done any military service, often are greedy for praise, whether deserved or not.
Commentators have pointed out that dictators in other countries are fond of putting on massive shows of military might, including displays of artillery, tanks, missiles and aircraft, as well as battalions of infantry, all marching in precision steps.
The U.S. military certainly has all of those elements of warfare potential, and is capable of putting on impressive parades when and where appropriate.
That, however, is the crucial question: When and where is it appropriate?
To do it just because a political leader was impressed with a military parade in another country and wants to indulge in one-upmanship under the guise of showing gratitude for those who serve is not a good enough reason, since most people, especially those who have fought heroically for American values, are embarrassed by such displays.
Besides, there is the issue of expense. How much would a massive military parade down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington cost, and why spend all that money in the face of multiple cries for cutbacks in so many other areas of government spending?
Meanwhile, despite the demands for cost reductions, the current White House leadership also wants major increases in military spending even as it enacts huge tax reductions that primarily benefit the wealthy.
And speaking of cost, what will be the cost of repairing damage to the pavement along the streets of the nation's capital inflicted by the enormous weight of tanks rumbling along just to satisfy a draft-dodging politician's ego?
Better to spend taxpayer money on welfare programs for injured veterans and their families. That's a much better show of gratitude for military service.
After traveling to Paris and watching a Bastille Day parade, America's president decided that it would be a good idea for the U.S. to launch something similar, only bigger, as a way to "prove" military might and, he says, to show gratitude to veterans and those still in service.
But typically, most heroes don't want or need spectacles to praise what they did. Most don't even want to talk about their ventures. There was a job to be done, they did it, and just want to move on with their lives, quietly and without fanfare.
Some, however, who have never been in battle or have even done any military service, often are greedy for praise, whether deserved or not.
Commentators have pointed out that dictators in other countries are fond of putting on massive shows of military might, including displays of artillery, tanks, missiles and aircraft, as well as battalions of infantry, all marching in precision steps.
The U.S. military certainly has all of those elements of warfare potential, and is capable of putting on impressive parades when and where appropriate.
That, however, is the crucial question: When and where is it appropriate?
To do it just because a political leader was impressed with a military parade in another country and wants to indulge in one-upmanship under the guise of showing gratitude for those who serve is not a good enough reason, since most people, especially those who have fought heroically for American values, are embarrassed by such displays.
Besides, there is the issue of expense. How much would a massive military parade down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington cost, and why spend all that money in the face of multiple cries for cutbacks in so many other areas of government spending?
Meanwhile, despite the demands for cost reductions, the current White House leadership also wants major increases in military spending even as it enacts huge tax reductions that primarily benefit the wealthy.
And speaking of cost, what will be the cost of repairing damage to the pavement along the streets of the nation's capital inflicted by the enormous weight of tanks rumbling along just to satisfy a draft-dodging politician's ego?
Better to spend taxpayer money on welfare programs for injured veterans and their families. That's a much better show of gratitude for military service.
Tuesday, February 6, 2018
Winner Take All
You may be the grand prize winner of 41 different firearms and 7,200 rounds of ammunition!
(Then again, you may not. And even if you are, federal, state and local laws will prevent you from collecting the grand prize.)
The first claim by the National Rifle Association leads its "exciting sweepstakes" mailing, complete with pictures of all the weapons -- military style as well as hunting, target and sidearm guns available to the single person who wins the grand prize.
The second, buried in smaller type somewhere in the full color mailing, notes that "All firearm transfers will be conducted in strict compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws."
So what are the odds of some resident of Manhattan, Center City Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco or Los Angeles a/ being named the grand prize winner and b/ collecting all 41 firearms and 7,200 rounds of ammunition?
Somewhere between slim and none.
Meanwhile, the NRA has collected a new mailing list of potential supporters, dues money from new members, and financial savings from not having to hand out that arsenal of combat weapons.
There are, of course, alternative prizes for the winners. First prize is a collection of "12 world class firearms," or a choice of a hunting trip or an all terrain vehicle.
Second prize, instead of nine guns, is another choice of a hunting trip or an ATV.
Third prize is a set of seven long guns and pistols, or yet another choice of a trip or a camper.
And so on, listing fourth through seventh prize winners of long rifles and pistols.
The full-color brochure and its glowing sales pitch is stupendous, concluding with a guilt trip for those who decide to enter the sweepstakes but not sign up for NRA membership.
"No -- I'm not joining NRA to help defend the Second Amendment," the sentence reads.
Nowhere in the sales pitch for new members does the literature actually cite the first phrase of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which specifies that "A well regulated militia, being essential to the security of a free state ..."
The Constitution says nothing about individuals having their own arsenals of fully automatic weapons, unregulated by anyone.
(Then again, you may not. And even if you are, federal, state and local laws will prevent you from collecting the grand prize.)
The first claim by the National Rifle Association leads its "exciting sweepstakes" mailing, complete with pictures of all the weapons -- military style as well as hunting, target and sidearm guns available to the single person who wins the grand prize.
The second, buried in smaller type somewhere in the full color mailing, notes that "All firearm transfers will be conducted in strict compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws."
So what are the odds of some resident of Manhattan, Center City Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco or Los Angeles a/ being named the grand prize winner and b/ collecting all 41 firearms and 7,200 rounds of ammunition?
Somewhere between slim and none.
Meanwhile, the NRA has collected a new mailing list of potential supporters, dues money from new members, and financial savings from not having to hand out that arsenal of combat weapons.
There are, of course, alternative prizes for the winners. First prize is a collection of "12 world class firearms," or a choice of a hunting trip or an all terrain vehicle.
Second prize, instead of nine guns, is another choice of a hunting trip or an ATV.
Third prize is a set of seven long guns and pistols, or yet another choice of a trip or a camper.
And so on, listing fourth through seventh prize winners of long rifles and pistols.
The full-color brochure and its glowing sales pitch is stupendous, concluding with a guilt trip for those who decide to enter the sweepstakes but not sign up for NRA membership.
"No -- I'm not joining NRA to help defend the Second Amendment," the sentence reads.
Nowhere in the sales pitch for new members does the literature actually cite the first phrase of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which specifies that "A well regulated militia, being essential to the security of a free state ..."
The Constitution says nothing about individuals having their own arsenals of fully automatic weapons, unregulated by anyone.
Monday, February 5, 2018
Disagreement Does Not Equal Treason
Diss Traction -- To gain advantage by insulting or disrespecting an opponent rather than deal with the issue in dispute.
"Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi or Red Saunders, football coaches.
In politics, the aim is not necessarily to accomplish anything; rather, the goal is to defeat an opponent, and the easiest way to do this is through insult, abuse and vilification.
That tactic can be entertaining, of course, especially to devoted followers, but it does nothing to serve the public interest, improve society and advance a social improvement agenda. It does, however, help to win elections. And that, to many politicians, is the only thing that matters.
Government service is not a game.
The new guy in the Oval Office seems to approach his new career as a game, and the only thing that matters is winning. To do that, moreover, any tactic that advances that play is useful, up to and including alleging treason by those who disagree with his actions, comments and policies.
Example: He said that Democrats who did not applaud during his State of the Union speech to Congress were "treasonous."
That's his latest tactic. Add it to the list of things he has said to denigrate those who disagree with him, and balance it with his demands for personal loyalty from all those he deems to be part of his "team."
The penalty against those who fail to pledge loyalty, or who do not follow his directions, is to be fired from the team and to be the target of continued insult, vilification and abuse until and unless they come around to his side, even if it means groveling to His Mastership.
Respect for the office of the presidency is one thing. Abject submission when a president demands total, unquestioning loyalty and obedience to his whims is quite another.
One wonders, then, what has happened to the Congress. supposedly a co-equal and independent branch of government in the United States. Have Republicans lost what little intestinal fortitude they had, submitting to the leader of the other branch of government solely in the name of "party loyalty," if not personal loyalty?
Since when has it become essential that more than 500 elected officials in Congress, as well as the many other public servants in the FBI, the Justice Department and all the other government agencies do what the coach says, regardless of legality or even good sense?
Disagreement is essential for the life of a free society. When the right to disagree is lost, a nation becomes a dictatorship.
"Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi or Red Saunders, football coaches.
In politics, the aim is not necessarily to accomplish anything; rather, the goal is to defeat an opponent, and the easiest way to do this is through insult, abuse and vilification.
That tactic can be entertaining, of course, especially to devoted followers, but it does nothing to serve the public interest, improve society and advance a social improvement agenda. It does, however, help to win elections. And that, to many politicians, is the only thing that matters.
Government service is not a game.
The new guy in the Oval Office seems to approach his new career as a game, and the only thing that matters is winning. To do that, moreover, any tactic that advances that play is useful, up to and including alleging treason by those who disagree with his actions, comments and policies.
Example: He said that Democrats who did not applaud during his State of the Union speech to Congress were "treasonous."
That's his latest tactic. Add it to the list of things he has said to denigrate those who disagree with him, and balance it with his demands for personal loyalty from all those he deems to be part of his "team."
The penalty against those who fail to pledge loyalty, or who do not follow his directions, is to be fired from the team and to be the target of continued insult, vilification and abuse until and unless they come around to his side, even if it means groveling to His Mastership.
Respect for the office of the presidency is one thing. Abject submission when a president demands total, unquestioning loyalty and obedience to his whims is quite another.
One wonders, then, what has happened to the Congress. supposedly a co-equal and independent branch of government in the United States. Have Republicans lost what little intestinal fortitude they had, submitting to the leader of the other branch of government solely in the name of "party loyalty," if not personal loyalty?
Since when has it become essential that more than 500 elected officials in Congress, as well as the many other public servants in the FBI, the Justice Department and all the other government agencies do what the coach says, regardless of legality or even good sense?
Disagreement is essential for the life of a free society. When the right to disagree is lost, a nation becomes a dictatorship.
Sunday, February 4, 2018
Critical Mass
"Next to the right to create, the right to criticize is the richest gift that liberty of thought and speech can offer." -- Vladimir Nabokov
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ... " -- U.S. Constitution, First Amendment
"If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen." -- President Harry Truman
The sudden barrage of negative comment aimed at current government actions can be very annoying to someone who has spent a lifetime getting his own way.
The problem, of course, is that this certain someone is no longer a private citizen accustomed to success in bullying others to conform to his wishes or be fired.
"My way or the highway" may work well in a monolithic corporate boardroom, but a newcomer to the White House Oval Office has a term limit as well as an outside, independent group of overseers -- Congress -- whose duty it is to monitor the chief executive and remove him for cause when appropriate.
Many in the current Congress have decided to follow the leader, go where he goes and do what he says no matter what.
Others, however, have decided not to go along with what the bully demands. Couple that with the likelihood of losing a re-election bid, and several dozen Republicans are "retiring" from government service.
But a bigger problem arises when the Bully in Chief attacks anyone who expresses any disagreement, no matter how small, with what he says and does.
America was founded on the right to criticize. Disagreement with the policies of a faraway monarch and his parliamentary partners led to an independence movement more than 200 years ago.
Since then, Americans have cherished the right to criticize, and have exercised that right against government and its leaders ever since.
May it always be so.
Recent events in Washington, however, lead to the conclusion that this president and his cronies in Congress would stifle any and all criticism in the name of "national unity." This is ironic, since much of the disunity is fomented by those same few who demand personal allegiance and are unable to cope with the idea that criticism and disagreement is a basic human right, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
Therefore, the louder the demand for obedience in the name of loyalty, even louder must be the chorus of protest in the name of freedom.
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ... " -- U.S. Constitution, First Amendment
"If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen." -- President Harry Truman
The sudden barrage of negative comment aimed at current government actions can be very annoying to someone who has spent a lifetime getting his own way.
The problem, of course, is that this certain someone is no longer a private citizen accustomed to success in bullying others to conform to his wishes or be fired.
"My way or the highway" may work well in a monolithic corporate boardroom, but a newcomer to the White House Oval Office has a term limit as well as an outside, independent group of overseers -- Congress -- whose duty it is to monitor the chief executive and remove him for cause when appropriate.
Many in the current Congress have decided to follow the leader, go where he goes and do what he says no matter what.
Others, however, have decided not to go along with what the bully demands. Couple that with the likelihood of losing a re-election bid, and several dozen Republicans are "retiring" from government service.
But a bigger problem arises when the Bully in Chief attacks anyone who expresses any disagreement, no matter how small, with what he says and does.
America was founded on the right to criticize. Disagreement with the policies of a faraway monarch and his parliamentary partners led to an independence movement more than 200 years ago.
Since then, Americans have cherished the right to criticize, and have exercised that right against government and its leaders ever since.
May it always be so.
Recent events in Washington, however, lead to the conclusion that this president and his cronies in Congress would stifle any and all criticism in the name of "national unity." This is ironic, since much of the disunity is fomented by those same few who demand personal allegiance and are unable to cope with the idea that criticism and disagreement is a basic human right, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
Therefore, the louder the demand for obedience in the name of loyalty, even louder must be the chorus of protest in the name of freedom.
Saturday, February 3, 2018
Go Figure
The U.S. economy is in good shape. More people are working, unemployment is down, and wages are rising.
So if everything is looking good, one would think that the stock market would reflect all that good data and show rising values.
That is, if action on Wall Street is indeed a barometer of American economic health. Instead, the stock market has plummeted the past few days.
Why? One would think that when things look good, the market would reflect that. If so, one would be mistaken.
Reality check: Higher wages mean higher costs for a company, and that can mean lower profits. Investors are now happy about lower profits, however, because that means fewer dividends and a dip in stock value.
A low jobless rate and rising wages often indicates a labor shortage, which can attract more workers from other areas. In this case, immigration. But the current government seems intent on closing the door to newcomers, in the name of "protecting" American jobs.
The Law of Supply and Demand has not been repealed, and when there is a demand for more workers, people will answer the call. Meanwhile, wages rise as an incentive to attract more workers.
But as wage costs rise, profits decline, prompting investors to put their money elsewhere, and stock market indicators suffer.
Meanwhile, more workers have jobs in a healthy economy even as Wall Street complains.
Go figure.
So if everything is looking good, one would think that the stock market would reflect all that good data and show rising values.
That is, if action on Wall Street is indeed a barometer of American economic health. Instead, the stock market has plummeted the past few days.
Why? One would think that when things look good, the market would reflect that. If so, one would be mistaken.
Reality check: Higher wages mean higher costs for a company, and that can mean lower profits. Investors are now happy about lower profits, however, because that means fewer dividends and a dip in stock value.
A low jobless rate and rising wages often indicates a labor shortage, which can attract more workers from other areas. In this case, immigration. But the current government seems intent on closing the door to newcomers, in the name of "protecting" American jobs.
The Law of Supply and Demand has not been repealed, and when there is a demand for more workers, people will answer the call. Meanwhile, wages rise as an incentive to attract more workers.
But as wage costs rise, profits decline, prompting investors to put their money elsewhere, and stock market indicators suffer.
Meanwhile, more workers have jobs in a healthy economy even as Wall Street complains.
Go figure.
Putin's Pawn
Question: If Devin Nunes is a stooge to Donald Trump, is Trump in turn a pawn to Vladimir Putin?
There is danger enough if the U.S. president is unaware he is being used, but far more if he does know, and is knowingly cooperating with the Kremlin. Why this should be is a compelling question, and for now a very wide speculative jump, but considering past Trumpian performance and business dealings, as well as comments (or lack thereof) on the issue of Russian interference in U.S. elections, it is certainly a question worth talking about.
Trump's visits to Moscow, his business dealings in Russia, his meetings in New York City with Russian executives, and his many loans from Russian banks, have all been documented.
Further, his refusal to criticize Putin, together with his penchant to praise his "strongman" leadership, all lead to the question of how close the two presidents are, politically, and whether there is some form of agreement on who's to be in charge of a new world order.
Trump's deep-seated need for loyalty and praise shows itself almost daily as he steadily prunes government agencies, including the FBI and the Department of Justice, of those who have a conscientious belief that their duty is to the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law rather than unquestioning loyalty to Himself.
One wonders why Rep. Nunes (R-CA) has become a White House errand boy leading the charge against the FBI probe of potential wrongdoing by the president's men, unless he hopes for a job in a coming government takeover by Trumpians.
Meanwhile, what is the relationship of Trump to Putin? The lack of criticism and the constant praise, coupled with the unrequested denial of any "collusion," plants a seed of wondering what kind of fruit may come from this "Russia thing."
There is danger enough if the U.S. president is unaware he is being used, but far more if he does know, and is knowingly cooperating with the Kremlin. Why this should be is a compelling question, and for now a very wide speculative jump, but considering past Trumpian performance and business dealings, as well as comments (or lack thereof) on the issue of Russian interference in U.S. elections, it is certainly a question worth talking about.
Trump's visits to Moscow, his business dealings in Russia, his meetings in New York City with Russian executives, and his many loans from Russian banks, have all been documented.
Further, his refusal to criticize Putin, together with his penchant to praise his "strongman" leadership, all lead to the question of how close the two presidents are, politically, and whether there is some form of agreement on who's to be in charge of a new world order.
Trump's deep-seated need for loyalty and praise shows itself almost daily as he steadily prunes government agencies, including the FBI and the Department of Justice, of those who have a conscientious belief that their duty is to the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law rather than unquestioning loyalty to Himself.
One wonders why Rep. Nunes (R-CA) has become a White House errand boy leading the charge against the FBI probe of potential wrongdoing by the president's men, unless he hopes for a job in a coming government takeover by Trumpians.
Meanwhile, what is the relationship of Trump to Putin? The lack of criticism and the constant praise, coupled with the unrequested denial of any "collusion," plants a seed of wondering what kind of fruit may come from this "Russia thing."
Friday, February 2, 2018
Sound and Fury
"It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." -- Macbeth, by William Shakespeare.
"There's no there there." -- Gertrude Stein
For all the ranting and bloviating by White House stooges led by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) about the alleged "shameful" revelations in the highly touted memorandum prepared by Nunes' staff -- which they refused to show to their colleagues on the House intelligence committee nor to members of the Senate intelligence committee -- once a reader muddles through the legalese the conclusion can only be that the memo is much ado about nothing.
In fact, even the president's own counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, in a cover letter accompanying the release of the notorious four-page document, noted that the memo "reflects the judgments of its congressional authors."
It's an opinion piece, prepared by Republicans for Republicans and without the approval of the FBI or the Department of Justice. Neither did the Nunes crew allow any input from Democrats on the committee, nor did they permit their Democrat colleagues to release a separate memo amplifying and contradicting what few allegations there are in the memo itself.
For those curious enough about what's in the memo, it can be tracked online and printed out. That's what news media have done, since the memo is now public.
And if there's any consternation from the GOP about the widespread pooh-poohing of the allegations perpetrated therein, that's likely to come out for a journalistic second-day lead on followup stories.
Meanwhile, we join the widespread pooh-poohing conclusion that the memo itself is just so much pooh-pooh.
"There's no there there." -- Gertrude Stein
For all the ranting and bloviating by White House stooges led by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) about the alleged "shameful" revelations in the highly touted memorandum prepared by Nunes' staff -- which they refused to show to their colleagues on the House intelligence committee nor to members of the Senate intelligence committee -- once a reader muddles through the legalese the conclusion can only be that the memo is much ado about nothing.
In fact, even the president's own counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, in a cover letter accompanying the release of the notorious four-page document, noted that the memo "reflects the judgments of its congressional authors."
It's an opinion piece, prepared by Republicans for Republicans and without the approval of the FBI or the Department of Justice. Neither did the Nunes crew allow any input from Democrats on the committee, nor did they permit their Democrat colleagues to release a separate memo amplifying and contradicting what few allegations there are in the memo itself.
For those curious enough about what's in the memo, it can be tracked online and printed out. That's what news media have done, since the memo is now public.
And if there's any consternation from the GOP about the widespread pooh-poohing of the allegations perpetrated therein, that's likely to come out for a journalistic second-day lead on followup stories.
Meanwhile, we join the widespread pooh-poohing conclusion that the memo itself is just so much pooh-pooh.
Thursday, February 1, 2018
Abandon Ship
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
The captain is piloting the ship of state to a titanic disaster, as key members of the Republican crew abandon their congressional posts rather than pledge personal allegiance to the self-thought-of Glorious Leader.
Nearly every day, there are new reports about this president's demands that agency chiefs and key legislators vow their loyalty to him and prove they are part of his team, many of these long-time Republicans resign or decide not to seek re-election.
It seems they are being told they must choose between their oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, or pledge personal loyalty and reassure the president they are on his side, and his alone.
Their alternatives, then, are to grovel to the commander in chief or resign their government posts lest they be summarily fired.
Elected officials -- members of the House of Representatives and the Senate -- cannot be fired, but they can become targets of constant insult and abuse of themselves and their families.
Result: Many say to themselves, "I don't need this," and decide to retire from their careers in public service.
There are many good people active in government. However, it takes a strong will and devotion to the Constitution and the rule of law to stand up to those who would destroy the principles of American society for their own benefit.
Perhaps by abandoning a sinking ship -- e.g. the Republican Party -- and signing on to a new organization devoted to preserving American values even among disagreement on how to do it, they will show their allegiance to the nation and the Constitution rather than to a demagogue who demands personal loyalty as the price of staying on board a sinking ship.
p.s. Standing ovations lose their value when they are rendered at the end of every sentence, as happened during the president's State of the Union speech to Congress.
The captain is piloting the ship of state to a titanic disaster, as key members of the Republican crew abandon their congressional posts rather than pledge personal allegiance to the self-thought-of Glorious Leader.
Nearly every day, there are new reports about this president's demands that agency chiefs and key legislators vow their loyalty to him and prove they are part of his team, many of these long-time Republicans resign or decide not to seek re-election.
It seems they are being told they must choose between their oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, or pledge personal loyalty and reassure the president they are on his side, and his alone.
Their alternatives, then, are to grovel to the commander in chief or resign their government posts lest they be summarily fired.
Elected officials -- members of the House of Representatives and the Senate -- cannot be fired, but they can become targets of constant insult and abuse of themselves and their families.
Result: Many say to themselves, "I don't need this," and decide to retire from their careers in public service.
There are many good people active in government. However, it takes a strong will and devotion to the Constitution and the rule of law to stand up to those who would destroy the principles of American society for their own benefit.
Perhaps by abandoning a sinking ship -- e.g. the Republican Party -- and signing on to a new organization devoted to preserving American values even among disagreement on how to do it, they will show their allegiance to the nation and the Constitution rather than to a demagogue who demands personal loyalty as the price of staying on board a sinking ship.
p.s. Standing ovations lose their value when they are rendered at the end of every sentence, as happened during the president's State of the Union speech to Congress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)