The president is complaining that Amazon doesn't pay taxes.
Neither does he.
This is the pot-kettle syndrome at a high level, as he attacks others for doing what he himself does but won't admit to.
In a way, it's an attempt to transfer feelings of guilt.
Friday, March 30, 2018
Wednesday, March 28, 2018
Second Amendment Repeal
The thirteen "free and independent states" that declared independence from Britain in 1776 were so worried about domination by a national army that they amended their Constitution a few years later to guarantee "a well regulated militia" because it was "necessary to the security of a free state."
It said nothing about individuals carrying their own arsenals around wherever they pleased. Rather, the Second Amendment specified the plural, "people," and their right to "keep and bear arms" as part of a state militia.
Or, as retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens put it in an op-ed piece in the New York Times, "Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment."
At the time, there was no federal army that amounted to much, and that's the way things stood until after the Civil War.
In fact, when the Civil War started, the North Carolina militia was larger than the federal army. Moreover, what there was of a federal army was busy on the frontier trying to keep Native American tribes from causing trouble for settlers.
As it is, the various state militias have become part of the National Guard, initially under state control but they can also be nationalized and taken under federal control. That happened during the Civil Rights era when some states used their militia/National Guard to put down demonstrations. The federal government then took charge of the state military to put an end to its violence against protestors.
Now there is talk of repealing the Second Amendment entirely, but there has been little talk of a replacement or a revision.
So what would be the consequences of repeal? First, the last phrase of the Second Amendment, that the right to have guns "shall not be infringed" would be eliminated, giving the federal government the ability to do just that: Impose national gun control measures. As it is, each state does impose gun controls, which realistically amount to infringement on individuals and their ability to buy guns.
Moreover, these laws vary from state to state, despite challenges by the National Rifle Association to allow those with concealed carry permits issued by one state to travel to any other state, taking their guns with them, in effect violating the laws of the second state.
Repealing the Second Amendment would indeed bring chaos to those already owning multiple weapons of mass killing, but it would also enable the federal government to enact nationwide regulations as to who could buy a gun or guns.
As for the NRA argument that more guns means more protection, the counter to that is the reality that while there are more guns in America than there are people -- more than 350 million -- America also suffers more gun-related violence and death than any other nation.
Therefore, more guns means more violence and death.
Further, as to the NRA challenge that federal regulation of firearms clashes with Second Amendment rights, the answer to that can be to repeal the Second Amendment. Therefore, there would be no clash, and federal regulation of firearms would become constitutionally valid.
Will it happen? The Constitution has already been amended 26 times, including one that repealed an earlier amendment that prohibited alcoholic beverages. The 18th Amendment, which began the Prohibition Era, lasted just 13 years, until it was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933.
Rather than eliminating problems associated with alcoholic drink, Prohibition only increased other problems of crime, violence and illegal consumption.
Similarly, allowing more guns as a way of reducing gun violence contradicts logic and experience, and amounts to what Chief Justice Warren Burger called "one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups (the NRA) that I have ever seen in my lifetime."
On balance, it may well be that repealing the Second Amendment, thus enabling stricter, national gun control laws, would be a good idea. Meanwhile, it will be up to each state to limit gun ownership and to stand up to the NRA.
It said nothing about individuals carrying their own arsenals around wherever they pleased. Rather, the Second Amendment specified the plural, "people," and their right to "keep and bear arms" as part of a state militia.
Or, as retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens put it in an op-ed piece in the New York Times, "Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment."
At the time, there was no federal army that amounted to much, and that's the way things stood until after the Civil War.
In fact, when the Civil War started, the North Carolina militia was larger than the federal army. Moreover, what there was of a federal army was busy on the frontier trying to keep Native American tribes from causing trouble for settlers.
As it is, the various state militias have become part of the National Guard, initially under state control but they can also be nationalized and taken under federal control. That happened during the Civil Rights era when some states used their militia/National Guard to put down demonstrations. The federal government then took charge of the state military to put an end to its violence against protestors.
Now there is talk of repealing the Second Amendment entirely, but there has been little talk of a replacement or a revision.
So what would be the consequences of repeal? First, the last phrase of the Second Amendment, that the right to have guns "shall not be infringed" would be eliminated, giving the federal government the ability to do just that: Impose national gun control measures. As it is, each state does impose gun controls, which realistically amount to infringement on individuals and their ability to buy guns.
Moreover, these laws vary from state to state, despite challenges by the National Rifle Association to allow those with concealed carry permits issued by one state to travel to any other state, taking their guns with them, in effect violating the laws of the second state.
Repealing the Second Amendment would indeed bring chaos to those already owning multiple weapons of mass killing, but it would also enable the federal government to enact nationwide regulations as to who could buy a gun or guns.
As for the NRA argument that more guns means more protection, the counter to that is the reality that while there are more guns in America than there are people -- more than 350 million -- America also suffers more gun-related violence and death than any other nation.
Therefore, more guns means more violence and death.
Further, as to the NRA challenge that federal regulation of firearms clashes with Second Amendment rights, the answer to that can be to repeal the Second Amendment. Therefore, there would be no clash, and federal regulation of firearms would become constitutionally valid.
Will it happen? The Constitution has already been amended 26 times, including one that repealed an earlier amendment that prohibited alcoholic beverages. The 18th Amendment, which began the Prohibition Era, lasted just 13 years, until it was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933.
Rather than eliminating problems associated with alcoholic drink, Prohibition only increased other problems of crime, violence and illegal consumption.
Similarly, allowing more guns as a way of reducing gun violence contradicts logic and experience, and amounts to what Chief Justice Warren Burger called "one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups (the NRA) that I have ever seen in my lifetime."
On balance, it may well be that repealing the Second Amendment, thus enabling stricter, national gun control laws, would be a good idea. Meanwhile, it will be up to each state to limit gun ownership and to stand up to the NRA.
Tuesday, March 27, 2018
Census Catch 22
Some 68 years ago, the U.S. Census stopped asking citizenship status in its detailed count of the population of the country. Now suddenly the government wants to reinstate that question, arguing that it's needed to guarantee an accurate count for voting rights.
The suddenness of that decision by the Commerce Department, after repeated warnings by the government to track down and deport people in the country illegally, sent warning flags waving and brought instant legal challenges by several states.
The challengers point out that if residents identify themselves as non-citizens, that information will be immediately forwarded to immigration authorities, and lead to rapid deportation.
An accurate census of the population is important for many reasons, including legislative districting, health and education policies, police protection and other reasons.
However, if non-citizens -- legal or otherwise -- face deportation if they answer the question truthfully, they will either ignore the questionnaire entirely or they will lie.
Separately, local police rely on the cooperation of all residents in reporting and finding criminals. If the Census Bureau forwards information identifying non-citizens -- legal or otherwise -- to the immigration cops, many law abiding people will not only lose police protection but will face deportation.
Meanwhile, there is an economic issue to be dealt with. The current administration has been making a lot of noise about deporting illegals, and limiting newcomers to those with high education and high skills. But many newcomers to America take jobs that skilled, highly educated citizens don't want and won't take.
If immigration is limited to highly skilled folk, the shortage of health care aides will worsen, as well as a shortage of unskilled jobs in agriculture, building maintenance, construction, road work and many other fields.
Rudimentary economics stipulates that a shortage of workers means higher wages, which not only raises costs to consumers but also attracts more workers. In this case, it's not likely that college graduates will take jobs as janitors or health care aides in nursing homes unless no other jobs are available. And when no skilled jobs are available, that's a symptom of economic recession.
Nonetheless, health care workers are always needed, and if highly educated, skilled citizens won't take them, newcomers will.
So rather than resolve a so-called immigration "problem," such keep-out tactics will only worsen problems for those needing workers in nursing homes, building maintenance and other essential jobs that many won't take.
The suddenness of that decision by the Commerce Department, after repeated warnings by the government to track down and deport people in the country illegally, sent warning flags waving and brought instant legal challenges by several states.
The challengers point out that if residents identify themselves as non-citizens, that information will be immediately forwarded to immigration authorities, and lead to rapid deportation.
An accurate census of the population is important for many reasons, including legislative districting, health and education policies, police protection and other reasons.
However, if non-citizens -- legal or otherwise -- face deportation if they answer the question truthfully, they will either ignore the questionnaire entirely or they will lie.
Separately, local police rely on the cooperation of all residents in reporting and finding criminals. If the Census Bureau forwards information identifying non-citizens -- legal or otherwise -- to the immigration cops, many law abiding people will not only lose police protection but will face deportation.
Meanwhile, there is an economic issue to be dealt with. The current administration has been making a lot of noise about deporting illegals, and limiting newcomers to those with high education and high skills. But many newcomers to America take jobs that skilled, highly educated citizens don't want and won't take.
If immigration is limited to highly skilled folk, the shortage of health care aides will worsen, as well as a shortage of unskilled jobs in agriculture, building maintenance, construction, road work and many other fields.
Rudimentary economics stipulates that a shortage of workers means higher wages, which not only raises costs to consumers but also attracts more workers. In this case, it's not likely that college graduates will take jobs as janitors or health care aides in nursing homes unless no other jobs are available. And when no skilled jobs are available, that's a symptom of economic recession.
Nonetheless, health care workers are always needed, and if highly educated, skilled citizens won't take them, newcomers will.
So rather than resolve a so-called immigration "problem," such keep-out tactics will only worsen problems for those needing workers in nursing homes, building maintenance and other essential jobs that many won't take.
Saturday, March 24, 2018
Vote Them Out
Warning to politicians who fail to act on gun control: "Get your resumes ready." -- David Hogg.
The president of the United States today tweeted his "thoughts and prayers" to the people of France in the wake of a terrorist shooting in that country.
This is good. He said nothing, however, about the million or more people gathered in his front yard, Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, led by American people who will soon be able to vote. Nor was there any mention of the dozens of other rallies held throughout the nation and around the world in support of those demanding change.
The organizers of the Washington rally against gun violence were survivors of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, where 17 people were shot to death in six minutes and 20 seconds by a former student armed with an AR-15 assault rifle. The shooting happened Feb. 14, otherwise known as Valentine's Day, a day of love.
Today, however, was a day of warning to politicians, as speakers -- many of them student survivors of mass shootings -- noted that they will soon be of voting age, and together with their parents and other adults sympathetic to the cause of gun control, will vote them out of office if they ignore the issue.
Meanwhile, volunteers along the line of march at the Washington gathering offered voter registration for most of the 50 states.
David Hogg, a survivor of the Florida shooting and one of the organizers of the rally, pointed out that gun control is going to a voting issue, and warned politicians that "inaction is no longer safe."
"Let's put the U.S.A. over the NRA," he said, as the crowd chanted, "Vote them out!"
Another student speaker called for teachers to be "armed with pencils and a living wage, not with guns."
And an 11-year old girl reminded listeners that while she was not old enough to vote, she would be in another seven years.
Meanwhile, one wonders why the rally was limited to Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington and not held on the National Mall, where other major rallies have been held. Is it possible there was White House pressure to keep it off the Mall, so the crowd would not be compared to the one on Inauguration Day?
The president of the United States today tweeted his "thoughts and prayers" to the people of France in the wake of a terrorist shooting in that country.
This is good. He said nothing, however, about the million or more people gathered in his front yard, Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, led by American people who will soon be able to vote. Nor was there any mention of the dozens of other rallies held throughout the nation and around the world in support of those demanding change.
The organizers of the Washington rally against gun violence were survivors of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, where 17 people were shot to death in six minutes and 20 seconds by a former student armed with an AR-15 assault rifle. The shooting happened Feb. 14, otherwise known as Valentine's Day, a day of love.
Today, however, was a day of warning to politicians, as speakers -- many of them student survivors of mass shootings -- noted that they will soon be of voting age, and together with their parents and other adults sympathetic to the cause of gun control, will vote them out of office if they ignore the issue.
Meanwhile, volunteers along the line of march at the Washington gathering offered voter registration for most of the 50 states.
David Hogg, a survivor of the Florida shooting and one of the organizers of the rally, pointed out that gun control is going to a voting issue, and warned politicians that "inaction is no longer safe."
"Let's put the U.S.A. over the NRA," he said, as the crowd chanted, "Vote them out!"
Another student speaker called for teachers to be "armed with pencils and a living wage, not with guns."
And an 11-year old girl reminded listeners that while she was not old enough to vote, she would be in another seven years.
Meanwhile, one wonders why the rally was limited to Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington and not held on the National Mall, where other major rallies have been held. Is it possible there was White House pressure to keep it off the Mall, so the crowd would not be compared to the one on Inauguration Day?
Runaway Strategy
If the president had vetoed the spending bill as he threatened to do, he and Congress would have had to stay in Washington to cope with a government shutdown and face the many thousands (if not millions) of people gathered in the nation's capital to protest gun violence.
Instead, the president signed the bill, thus enabling him and congressional representatives to adopt this strategy:
RUN AWAY!
Instead, the president signed the bill, thus enabling him and congressional representatives to adopt this strategy:
RUN AWAY!
Friday, March 23, 2018
Control Freak
"Only I can fix it." -- Donald Trump
Get with the program and be part of the team. That's a favorite slogan among business and political leaders. They forget, if they ever knew, that journalists are not team players, except in their own newsrooms, and certainly not team players with politicians.
At the rate things are going, President Trump will be the only person running the Executive Branch of the U.S. government. Already, several dozen senior aides have resigned or been fired, and in some cases no replacements have been named.
A daily press briefing scheduled for Friday was cancelled, and the president himself called a news conference to make a major announcement, that he was signing an emergency spending bill that he had threatened to veto only hours earlier. However, after talking for about 20 minutes, he left the room without taking any questions from reporters in the room.
The strategy seems to be part of an attempt to control the Washington press corps.
All politicians try that, but few succeed, at least in America. This administration, however, is more blatant about the attempt than others, resorting to insult, abuse and vilification, labeling as "false news" perpetrated by the "fake media" any and all reports that are even remotely negative or that disagree with the president in any way.
It's enough to send heads spinning among the fact checkers.
The American press has often been called "adversarial," and to a large extent that's true. It's journalism's duty to report not only what happened and what government officials say about it, but also to dig out and present opposing viewpoints and especially the truth, when perhaps both sides are mistaken or are flat wrong.
A free press is always adversarial, and these days American journalists have more to be adversarial about.
Business administration colleges teach that good managers know to give guidance to staffers, then step back and let them do their jobs, rather than leaving them to guess what the boss wants.
A similar strategy should also be followed in government, as the strategist in chief listens to advisors detail every side of an issue and the president then decides on an appropriate course.
Currently, however, the current occupant of the Oval Office seems to hear only what he is listening for, and he listens only to those who agree with him, even as his opinions -- based on what he calls his instinct -- vary from day to day, and often reflect what he hears his friends at Fox News say.
So to bring them even closer, he has taken to hiring commentators away from the Fox network to replace those he has fired as his close advisors -- especially those whose opinions already match his previously established "gut feelings."
His most recent hiring was that of John Bolton as his national security advisor. Bolton at one time was ambassador to the United Nations, but that was a temporary, recess appointment by President George W. Bush because the Senate refused to consent to a permanent appointment.
And as the president increasingly moves to take full charge of all Executive Branch operations himself, including sending out announcements via Twitter rather than have senior aides hold press briefings and take questions, that raises the issue of whether the president will be his own press spokesman.
Not likely, since he has held only one full-scale news conference in his 14 months in office. Besides, even if he does, he cannot control the questions, much as he might like to.
Now here's an interesting thought: Suppose the current press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, leaves and is replaced by Sean Hannity, the president's favorite Fox News commentator?
And in yet another sign of his attempt to control everything, Trump demanded that the Senate end its filibuster rule, and that he be allowed a line item veto on future spending bills.
Imagine the U.S. Senate bending its traditions to fit the demands of any president. As for a line item veto, where the president gets to cut out bits and pieces from spending bills he doesn't like, that was banned by the Supreme Court years ago.
Which makes one wonder whether this president has ever read any history of presidential obligations, duties, responsibilities and limitations. For that matter, has he even read the Constitution?
Get with the program and be part of the team. That's a favorite slogan among business and political leaders. They forget, if they ever knew, that journalists are not team players, except in their own newsrooms, and certainly not team players with politicians.
At the rate things are going, President Trump will be the only person running the Executive Branch of the U.S. government. Already, several dozen senior aides have resigned or been fired, and in some cases no replacements have been named.
A daily press briefing scheduled for Friday was cancelled, and the president himself called a news conference to make a major announcement, that he was signing an emergency spending bill that he had threatened to veto only hours earlier. However, after talking for about 20 minutes, he left the room without taking any questions from reporters in the room.
The strategy seems to be part of an attempt to control the Washington press corps.
All politicians try that, but few succeed, at least in America. This administration, however, is more blatant about the attempt than others, resorting to insult, abuse and vilification, labeling as "false news" perpetrated by the "fake media" any and all reports that are even remotely negative or that disagree with the president in any way.
It's enough to send heads spinning among the fact checkers.
The American press has often been called "adversarial," and to a large extent that's true. It's journalism's duty to report not only what happened and what government officials say about it, but also to dig out and present opposing viewpoints and especially the truth, when perhaps both sides are mistaken or are flat wrong.
A free press is always adversarial, and these days American journalists have more to be adversarial about.
Business administration colleges teach that good managers know to give guidance to staffers, then step back and let them do their jobs, rather than leaving them to guess what the boss wants.
A similar strategy should also be followed in government, as the strategist in chief listens to advisors detail every side of an issue and the president then decides on an appropriate course.
Currently, however, the current occupant of the Oval Office seems to hear only what he is listening for, and he listens only to those who agree with him, even as his opinions -- based on what he calls his instinct -- vary from day to day, and often reflect what he hears his friends at Fox News say.
So to bring them even closer, he has taken to hiring commentators away from the Fox network to replace those he has fired as his close advisors -- especially those whose opinions already match his previously established "gut feelings."
His most recent hiring was that of John Bolton as his national security advisor. Bolton at one time was ambassador to the United Nations, but that was a temporary, recess appointment by President George W. Bush because the Senate refused to consent to a permanent appointment.
And as the president increasingly moves to take full charge of all Executive Branch operations himself, including sending out announcements via Twitter rather than have senior aides hold press briefings and take questions, that raises the issue of whether the president will be his own press spokesman.
Not likely, since he has held only one full-scale news conference in his 14 months in office. Besides, even if he does, he cannot control the questions, much as he might like to.
Now here's an interesting thought: Suppose the current press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, leaves and is replaced by Sean Hannity, the president's favorite Fox News commentator?
And in yet another sign of his attempt to control everything, Trump demanded that the Senate end its filibuster rule, and that he be allowed a line item veto on future spending bills.
Imagine the U.S. Senate bending its traditions to fit the demands of any president. As for a line item veto, where the president gets to cut out bits and pieces from spending bills he doesn't like, that was banned by the Supreme Court years ago.
Which makes one wonder whether this president has ever read any history of presidential obligations, duties, responsibilities and limitations. For that matter, has he even read the Constitution?
Thursday, March 22, 2018
Something of Value
When a government official accepts something of value from a foreign power, especially in exchange for something the official can do for the giver, the act is at best questionable and unethical, and at worst illegal and unconstitutional.
It's called an emolument, and is specifically prohibited by the Constitution. No penalty is mentioned by the clause, Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, which specifies that no federal government official can accept "any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever" from any foreign power, without the consent of Congress.
Presidents have in the past accepted gifts from foreign governments, but these gifts typically have been given over to the Library of Congress. Otherwise, it could be considered bribery or treason, which are impeachable offenses.
Whether the current occupant of the Oval Office faces such a predicament remains to be seen, but indications are that special counsel Robert Mueller is heading in that direction.
Meanwhile, the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia have reportedly issued summonses to President Donald Trump alleging that he is violating the emoluments clause as foreign groups rent space in Trump-owned properties in the hopes of currying favor with the president.
The Constitution says grounds for impeachment of a president are "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Whether and how the president benefits from foreign groups staying at Trump-owned properties and whether that influences the president's decisions and is tantamount to bribery is up to investigators to prove.
If so, the case would not only be a civil or criminal matter but also grounds for impeachment for the same offenses.
And that's not double jeopardy, because impeachment is neither a civil nor a criminal offense. In fact, the Constitution specifies that after impeachment, trial and removal from office, a president could still face court action.
It's called an emolument, and is specifically prohibited by the Constitution. No penalty is mentioned by the clause, Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, which specifies that no federal government official can accept "any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever" from any foreign power, without the consent of Congress.
Presidents have in the past accepted gifts from foreign governments, but these gifts typically have been given over to the Library of Congress. Otherwise, it could be considered bribery or treason, which are impeachable offenses.
Whether the current occupant of the Oval Office faces such a predicament remains to be seen, but indications are that special counsel Robert Mueller is heading in that direction.
Meanwhile, the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia have reportedly issued summonses to President Donald Trump alleging that he is violating the emoluments clause as foreign groups rent space in Trump-owned properties in the hopes of currying favor with the president.
The Constitution says grounds for impeachment of a president are "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Whether and how the president benefits from foreign groups staying at Trump-owned properties and whether that influences the president's decisions and is tantamount to bribery is up to investigators to prove.
If so, the case would not only be a civil or criminal matter but also grounds for impeachment for the same offenses.
And that's not double jeopardy, because impeachment is neither a civil nor a criminal offense. In fact, the Constitution specifies that after impeachment, trial and removal from office, a president could still face court action.
Wednesday, March 21, 2018
Spring Brake
The U.S. economy has been strong enough that the Federal Reserve Board saw fit to raise its key interest rate a quarter-point to prevent an excessive growth spurt as the season changes.
Just as the spring equinox signals a resurging Nature, the Fed signalled its belief that the national economy is strong enough to continue growing and no longer needs easy access to borrowing through low interest rates to fertilize its roots.
After its meeting this month, the Fed's Open Market Committee noted that the economy "has strengthened in recent months," and with "further gradual adjustments in monetary policy, economic activity will expand at a moderate pace in the medium term." Moreover, the committee expects economic conditions "will warrant further increases."
Translation: Look for more hikes in interest rates this year as economic recovery continues. The Fed said it would boost its target interest rate for federal funds to a range of 1.5 percent to 1.75 percent.
Just as the spring equinox signals a resurging Nature, the Fed signalled its belief that the national economy is strong enough to continue growing and no longer needs easy access to borrowing through low interest rates to fertilize its roots.
After its meeting this month, the Fed's Open Market Committee noted that the economy "has strengthened in recent months," and with "further gradual adjustments in monetary policy, economic activity will expand at a moderate pace in the medium term." Moreover, the committee expects economic conditions "will warrant further increases."
Translation: Look for more hikes in interest rates this year as economic recovery continues. The Fed said it would boost its target interest rate for federal funds to a range of 1.5 percent to 1.75 percent.
Tuesday, March 20, 2018
Trolling
Blaming trolls for internet thievery gives trolls a bad name. -- Pug Mahoney
Some of my best friends are trolls. -- Liam the Leprechaun
As Mrs. Mahoney used to say, never tell the neighbors anything about what goes on in the family. Her son Pug learned that lesson well, and applies it to modern technology, knowing there is no privacy on the internet. Even major corporations and financial institutions can be hacked into and personal data stolen.
That, however, doesn't stop many folks from posting details about what they do and where they have been, posting photos of family activities, assuming that they will be seen only by relatives and friends.
And despite the assurances of Facebook, it turns out that a company affiliated with the Trump presidential campaign harvested personal and private data from 50 million Facebook users, using that information to help their clients formulate strategy.
Couple that with the reports that other tricksters post propaganda masquerading as news, and wise users of the internet don't put anything in their computers that they don't want the world to see.
The concept of sharing information with family and friends who live far away, posting pictures and stories is a wonderful convenience, and millions of people enjoy it.
However, it also turns out that some people are looking over the internet fence, monitoring what the family and friends are doing, and using that supposedly "private" correspondence with marketers and political campaigners to shape their strategy and mold public opinion.
So as Mother Mahoney might say, if you don't mind sharing family gossip with the world, go right ahead, but include me out.
Some of my best friends are trolls. -- Liam the Leprechaun
As Mrs. Mahoney used to say, never tell the neighbors anything about what goes on in the family. Her son Pug learned that lesson well, and applies it to modern technology, knowing there is no privacy on the internet. Even major corporations and financial institutions can be hacked into and personal data stolen.
That, however, doesn't stop many folks from posting details about what they do and where they have been, posting photos of family activities, assuming that they will be seen only by relatives and friends.
And despite the assurances of Facebook, it turns out that a company affiliated with the Trump presidential campaign harvested personal and private data from 50 million Facebook users, using that information to help their clients formulate strategy.
Couple that with the reports that other tricksters post propaganda masquerading as news, and wise users of the internet don't put anything in their computers that they don't want the world to see.
The concept of sharing information with family and friends who live far away, posting pictures and stories is a wonderful convenience, and millions of people enjoy it.
However, it also turns out that some people are looking over the internet fence, monitoring what the family and friends are doing, and using that supposedly "private" correspondence with marketers and political campaigners to shape their strategy and mold public opinion.
So as Mother Mahoney might say, if you don't mind sharing family gossip with the world, go right ahead, but include me out.
Saturday, March 17, 2018
Profane Politics
Polite politics is an oxymoron -- Pug Mahoney
There was a time when news media almost never printed or broadcast profanity, or used the L-word in reference to politicians.
Now we have a president who regularly uses, in public, at campaign rallies and on live television terms that used to be deemed not usable in polite society, much less printable in daily newspapers.
But "polite" no longer seems to be an apt term to describe the current president of the United States of America.
He routinely insults, disparages, demeans and dismisses as unworthy of polite treatment anyone who disagrees with him on anything, in any detail, ever.
Yet he objects when journalists report accurately what he says and does, especially when it conflicts with truth, reality and the American way.
As if presidential threats -- even real, physical threats -- will stop reporters from doing the job guaranteed them by the Constitution.
He routinely threatens reporters with lawsuits alleging libel, and demanding huge sums of money in compensation.
Oddly, these threats are often empty, since such libel suits are seldom filed. As if threats are enough for a bully to get his way.
While that may work with contractors in the private sector, it does not work with journalists whose typical reaction is, "Bring it on."
In any case, the laws of libel vary by state, and in general are far more loose when it comes to public figures. There is also the principle of fair comment.
No figure is more public than the president of the United States, and more open to comment on what he says and does. Moreover, when the reporting is true and accurate, and the commentary is based on verifiable fact, no one has a supportable base for a libel suit.
As for the $20 million lawsuit filed against actress-porn star Stormy Daniels in an attempt to prevent her from talking publicly about what she says is an affair she had with Trump, that opens a major legal can of worms.
For one thing, unless it goes to arbitration, which is not likely, the president will be subject to discovery questions by lawyers as to who paid Ms Daniels $130,000 in hush money, and why. For another, that information could detail and support allegations of conspiracy to cover up the issue and to obstruct the judicial process.
And there is also the question of whether CBS News can broadcast its interview with Ms Daniels on the 60 Minutes television interview program. In turn, that raises a First Amendment freedom of the press issue.
The days of a woman's allegations being dismissed simply because she is a woman, beautiful, and an actress, are long gone.
There was a time when news media almost never printed or broadcast profanity, or used the L-word in reference to politicians.
Now we have a president who regularly uses, in public, at campaign rallies and on live television terms that used to be deemed not usable in polite society, much less printable in daily newspapers.
But "polite" no longer seems to be an apt term to describe the current president of the United States of America.
He routinely insults, disparages, demeans and dismisses as unworthy of polite treatment anyone who disagrees with him on anything, in any detail, ever.
Yet he objects when journalists report accurately what he says and does, especially when it conflicts with truth, reality and the American way.
As if presidential threats -- even real, physical threats -- will stop reporters from doing the job guaranteed them by the Constitution.
He routinely threatens reporters with lawsuits alleging libel, and demanding huge sums of money in compensation.
Oddly, these threats are often empty, since such libel suits are seldom filed. As if threats are enough for a bully to get his way.
While that may work with contractors in the private sector, it does not work with journalists whose typical reaction is, "Bring it on."
In any case, the laws of libel vary by state, and in general are far more loose when it comes to public figures. There is also the principle of fair comment.
No figure is more public than the president of the United States, and more open to comment on what he says and does. Moreover, when the reporting is true and accurate, and the commentary is based on verifiable fact, no one has a supportable base for a libel suit.
As for the $20 million lawsuit filed against actress-porn star Stormy Daniels in an attempt to prevent her from talking publicly about what she says is an affair she had with Trump, that opens a major legal can of worms.
For one thing, unless it goes to arbitration, which is not likely, the president will be subject to discovery questions by lawyers as to who paid Ms Daniels $130,000 in hush money, and why. For another, that information could detail and support allegations of conspiracy to cover up the issue and to obstruct the judicial process.
And there is also the question of whether CBS News can broadcast its interview with Ms Daniels on the 60 Minutes television interview program. In turn, that raises a First Amendment freedom of the press issue.
The days of a woman's allegations being dismissed simply because she is a woman, beautiful, and an actress, are long gone.
Breaking the News
"Well you see, it's like this ... " -- How to explain a soap opera
You can't make this stuff up.
News manipulators long ago learned that to bury a story, release it late on Friday, so it would be too late for Saturday editions and would be off the Front Page and distract editors from an even more negative story that the manipulators want buried.
That was before 24-hour news operations on television. Now, while it may take a story off Saturday newspapers, the story can play all day on Saturday TV news operations, and it gives Sunday editors a full day to research and prepare in-depth stories for the Sunday edition.
Moreover, internet news sites can splash the story immediately on Friday evening and provide updates and expanded versions all day Saturday.
As for the attempt to push the story off Page One, that often fails also, as editors put both the scandal story, the coverup and the distraction on the Front Page.
So it is this weekend, as the White House tries to break the news cycle with a flurry of maneuvers intended to control what is covered and how. It's enough to give some editors a headache trying to decide where to play the various stories emanating from Washington.
Some editors. Most, however, wallow in the challenge and delight in the idea of so much hard news so quickly breaking.
Examples: Friday at about 10 p.m., the government fired Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, two days before he was due to retire, The move would deprive McCabe of his pension after 21 years at the agency.
Meanwhile, the president filed a lawsuit against actress-porn star Stormy Daniels, claiming $20 million in damages.
Then the president's lawyer said the FBI and special counsel Robert Mueller should halt the probe into allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election. At first, attorney John Dowd acknowledged that he was speaking for his client, Donald Trump, but soon backtracked to insist he was speaking only for himself. But then that also changed to his first position that he spoke for his client.
In all, the plot thickens faster than a 15-minute soap opera, leaving readers and TV watchers in need of a program to keep track of who's doing what to whom, where, when, why and how.
That's an excellent example of the journalistic Five W's at work.
What a fun time to be a journalist.
You can't make this stuff up.
News manipulators long ago learned that to bury a story, release it late on Friday, so it would be too late for Saturday editions and would be off the Front Page and distract editors from an even more negative story that the manipulators want buried.
That was before 24-hour news operations on television. Now, while it may take a story off Saturday newspapers, the story can play all day on Saturday TV news operations, and it gives Sunday editors a full day to research and prepare in-depth stories for the Sunday edition.
Moreover, internet news sites can splash the story immediately on Friday evening and provide updates and expanded versions all day Saturday.
As for the attempt to push the story off Page One, that often fails also, as editors put both the scandal story, the coverup and the distraction on the Front Page.
So it is this weekend, as the White House tries to break the news cycle with a flurry of maneuvers intended to control what is covered and how. It's enough to give some editors a headache trying to decide where to play the various stories emanating from Washington.
Some editors. Most, however, wallow in the challenge and delight in the idea of so much hard news so quickly breaking.
Examples: Friday at about 10 p.m., the government fired Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, two days before he was due to retire, The move would deprive McCabe of his pension after 21 years at the agency.
Meanwhile, the president filed a lawsuit against actress-porn star Stormy Daniels, claiming $20 million in damages.
Then the president's lawyer said the FBI and special counsel Robert Mueller should halt the probe into allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election. At first, attorney John Dowd acknowledged that he was speaking for his client, Donald Trump, but soon backtracked to insist he was speaking only for himself. But then that also changed to his first position that he spoke for his client.
In all, the plot thickens faster than a 15-minute soap opera, leaving readers and TV watchers in need of a program to keep track of who's doing what to whom, where, when, why and how.
That's an excellent example of the journalistic Five W's at work.
What a fun time to be a journalist.
Thursday, March 15, 2018
Beware the Ides of March
Today, March 15, is the date Shakespeare's soothsayer warned the Roman emperor to beware of.
Today, the Ides of March, in the year 2018, is the day the news broke that special counsel Robert Mueller has subpoenaed the Trump Organization for "business documents related to Russia, and other topics."
Two weeks ago, we noted the rate of staffers fired or resigned from the troubled ship of state, and wondered whether it soon will face even more stormy days to come. It may be coincidence, but reports are that subpoenas were served several weeks ago.
This time there is no choice as to whether to surrender the documents. The word "subpoena" stems from the Latin for "under penalty." If the White House does not hand over the documents, they can be held in contempt.
To borrow again from the history of Rome, the legal team probing the Trump presidency crossed a metaphorical Rubicon, defying the president's warning not to cross his "red line" and start probing his personal business.
Moreover, it's likely that the Mueller team has already seen Internal Revenue Service tax filings, and wants to compare and confirm what was told to the IRS and what the Trump Organization tells itself.
Already, Trump world may be in deep water over business dealings with Russia, despite the president's repeated denials that there are no connections, much less collusion. But the more interesting phrase in the subpoena is this: the demand for documents relating to "other topics."
Today, the Ides of March, in the year 2018, is the day the news broke that special counsel Robert Mueller has subpoenaed the Trump Organization for "business documents related to Russia, and other topics."
Two weeks ago, we noted the rate of staffers fired or resigned from the troubled ship of state, and wondered whether it soon will face even more stormy days to come. It may be coincidence, but reports are that subpoenas were served several weeks ago.
This time there is no choice as to whether to surrender the documents. The word "subpoena" stems from the Latin for "under penalty." If the White House does not hand over the documents, they can be held in contempt.
To borrow again from the history of Rome, the legal team probing the Trump presidency crossed a metaphorical Rubicon, defying the president's warning not to cross his "red line" and start probing his personal business.
Moreover, it's likely that the Mueller team has already seen Internal Revenue Service tax filings, and wants to compare and confirm what was told to the IRS and what the Trump Organization tells itself.
Already, Trump world may be in deep water over business dealings with Russia, despite the president's repeated denials that there are no connections, much less collusion. But the more interesting phrase in the subpoena is this: the demand for documents relating to "other topics."
Never Assume
Never assume, lest you put an ass before u and me. -- Pug Mahoney
Our nominee for the most heroic assumption of the century is the current president, who speaks regularly of his eight years in the Oval Office. That is, of course, if he is re-elected to a second term.
At the annual St. Patrick's Day luncheon in Washington, he said, "I'm looking forward to having this lunch six more times."
He filed for re-election the same day he was inaugurated more than a year ago.
His personal aide, who was unceremoniously escorted out of the White House after his security clearance failed to be approved, immediately joined the re-election campaign.
He praised China for enabling its leader to become president for life, and said, "Maybe we should give it a shot."
This defies the convention set by George Washington, America's first president, and made part of the Constitution in 1951 as Amendment 22. This amendment specifically limits a president to two elected terms, plus a maximum of two years of the unexpired term of a predecessor who leaves early. In no case can a president serve more than ten years.
This president does not read much, relying largely on his "instinct" for nearly every issue. It would be of little use, then, to send him a copy of the Constitution, since he likely would not read it, nor would he listen to advisors who have.
Meanwhile, the exodus of senior, experienced Cabinet officials and advisors from the administration continues. And the reaction from international news media to his actions and comments is increasingly negative.
For example, a report on France 24 noted that the president appeared "reluctant to criticize" Russian president Vladimir Putin, and he showed a "lukewarm reaction" to Britain's sanctions against Russia after the poisoning of a former spy living in England. Instead, the latest U.S. sanctions imposed on Russia related to the Kremlin's meddling in last year's election.
In fact, the president had no direct comment on Britain's accusations of Russian culpability in the poisoning incident, instead leaving that to aides.
Separately, special counsel Robert Mueller has reportedly subpoenaed business records of the Trump Organization that deal with Russia, thus crossing the "red line" that the president warned against.
So much for threatening a senior government lawyer heading an independent investigation.
Our nominee for the most heroic assumption of the century is the current president, who speaks regularly of his eight years in the Oval Office. That is, of course, if he is re-elected to a second term.
At the annual St. Patrick's Day luncheon in Washington, he said, "I'm looking forward to having this lunch six more times."
He filed for re-election the same day he was inaugurated more than a year ago.
His personal aide, who was unceremoniously escorted out of the White House after his security clearance failed to be approved, immediately joined the re-election campaign.
He praised China for enabling its leader to become president for life, and said, "Maybe we should give it a shot."
This defies the convention set by George Washington, America's first president, and made part of the Constitution in 1951 as Amendment 22. This amendment specifically limits a president to two elected terms, plus a maximum of two years of the unexpired term of a predecessor who leaves early. In no case can a president serve more than ten years.
This president does not read much, relying largely on his "instinct" for nearly every issue. It would be of little use, then, to send him a copy of the Constitution, since he likely would not read it, nor would he listen to advisors who have.
Meanwhile, the exodus of senior, experienced Cabinet officials and advisors from the administration continues. And the reaction from international news media to his actions and comments is increasingly negative.
For example, a report on France 24 noted that the president appeared "reluctant to criticize" Russian president Vladimir Putin, and he showed a "lukewarm reaction" to Britain's sanctions against Russia after the poisoning of a former spy living in England. Instead, the latest U.S. sanctions imposed on Russia related to the Kremlin's meddling in last year's election.
In fact, the president had no direct comment on Britain's accusations of Russian culpability in the poisoning incident, instead leaving that to aides.
Separately, special counsel Robert Mueller has reportedly subpoenaed business records of the Trump Organization that deal with Russia, thus crossing the "red line" that the president warned against.
So much for threatening a senior government lawyer heading an independent investigation.
Wednesday, March 14, 2018
Name Calling
The man who would be king in America might want to consider names, not only his own but also those on his staff.
The don, of course, refers to an important boss-type person among the Mafiosi, but it was borrowed from the Italian and Spanish. And while a don is someone to be respected and perhaps feared, he is not a king.
That honor, if only linguistic, goes to the deputy press secretary named Raj, whose name translates from the Hindi for king and is related to the Latin "rex," which means king. Moreover, the aide's last name, Shah, also refers to a monarch.
But if the name Rex comes from the Latin for king, that may be the underlying reason Mr. Tillerson was fired from his job as secretary of state.
Perhaps any women on the White House staff named Regina may want to update their resumes.
And what chance, if any, do Hispanic men named Cesar have?
The don, of course, refers to an important boss-type person among the Mafiosi, but it was borrowed from the Italian and Spanish. And while a don is someone to be respected and perhaps feared, he is not a king.
That honor, if only linguistic, goes to the deputy press secretary named Raj, whose name translates from the Hindi for king and is related to the Latin "rex," which means king. Moreover, the aide's last name, Shah, also refers to a monarch.
But if the name Rex comes from the Latin for king, that may be the underlying reason Mr. Tillerson was fired from his job as secretary of state.
Perhaps any women on the White House staff named Regina may want to update their resumes.
And what chance, if any, do Hispanic men named Cesar have?
Tuesday, March 13, 2018
Sycophant Platoon
"You guess what I shall want," said the king to Anna.
"Only I can fix it." -- Donald Trump
A successful leader delegates authority to decide details to subordinates while he supervises overall policy.
The current president of the United States does neither, leaving a platoon of sycophants to guess what he shall want. While that may have worked for the fictional king of Siam in dealing with Anna, a real democracy suffers.
Perhaps that's the goal for this president, to become president for life, if not a king. As things stumble forward now, only he makes decisions. All others are gone. And his decisions, such as they are, change daily, if not hourly.
Meanwhile, the parade of senior aides abandoning or being tossed off the ship of state continues. Others have tracked the total of officials who have resigned or been sacked. The latest is Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who was notified of the presidential decision via Twitter.
As we say in Spanish, it seems the president did not have the cojones to personally fire Tillerson.
Also, the president's personal assistant, John McEntee, was escorted from the White House because his security clearance was revoked. He immediately took up duties as senior advisor to the Trump re-election campaign.
Now that's confidence.
"Only I can fix it." -- Donald Trump
A successful leader delegates authority to decide details to subordinates while he supervises overall policy.
The current president of the United States does neither, leaving a platoon of sycophants to guess what he shall want. While that may have worked for the fictional king of Siam in dealing with Anna, a real democracy suffers.
Perhaps that's the goal for this president, to become president for life, if not a king. As things stumble forward now, only he makes decisions. All others are gone. And his decisions, such as they are, change daily, if not hourly.
Meanwhile, the parade of senior aides abandoning or being tossed off the ship of state continues. Others have tracked the total of officials who have resigned or been sacked. The latest is Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who was notified of the presidential decision via Twitter.
As we say in Spanish, it seems the president did not have the cojones to personally fire Tillerson.
Also, the president's personal assistant, John McEntee, was escorted from the White House because his security clearance was revoked. He immediately took up duties as senior advisor to the Trump re-election campaign.
Now that's confidence.
Sunday, March 11, 2018
The Un-American President
You can't demand respect. It must be earned. -- Pug Mahoney
Verbal sticks and stones are common weapons of folks so insecure of their own stature that they must take others down to build themselves up. The problem is that in doing so, they become even smaller in the eyes of others in society.
The list of those targeted by the clearly insecure person who maneuvered his way to the Oval Office grows longer every day, but his lexicon of insulting words remains as short as his attention span.
In recent decades, comedians have enjoyed successful careers hurling insults at prominent people, and perhaps that's why the would-be entertainer turned politician continues that tradition as his way of cultivating approval that salves his fragile ego.
In Pennsylvania, he changed a rally for a congressional candidate into a re-election campaign for himself. This just over a year into his own term as president. In his rambling speech, he mocked presidential behavior, preferring to be an entertainer.
The prime function of a president, however, is not to entertain but to govern. This one is more interested in entertaining his supporters and gratifying his deep need for approval than in governing.
Political campaigns are often marked by insulting speeches and mockery of opponents, but once in office, elected officials get down to business and try to work with others to accomplish things that will improve society.
There is a time for competition and a time for cooperation, when courtesy and civility take the lead even as disagreement continues. The nation was founded on that principle.
The current president, however, seems to have no interest in compromise, instead focusing on his demand for loyalty and support, even as his positions change daily, if not hourly. Anyone who disagrees is then a target of his anger and derision.
As for news media that report anything that he perceives to be negative, they too are targets. Reporters, however, consider it an honor to be thought enough of a threat as to be called out by name and insulted on national television. When that happens, journalists consider it proof that they're doing their jobs right.
Verbal sticks and stones are common weapons of folks so insecure of their own stature that they must take others down to build themselves up. The problem is that in doing so, they become even smaller in the eyes of others in society.
The list of those targeted by the clearly insecure person who maneuvered his way to the Oval Office grows longer every day, but his lexicon of insulting words remains as short as his attention span.
In recent decades, comedians have enjoyed successful careers hurling insults at prominent people, and perhaps that's why the would-be entertainer turned politician continues that tradition as his way of cultivating approval that salves his fragile ego.
In Pennsylvania, he changed a rally for a congressional candidate into a re-election campaign for himself. This just over a year into his own term as president. In his rambling speech, he mocked presidential behavior, preferring to be an entertainer.
The prime function of a president, however, is not to entertain but to govern. This one is more interested in entertaining his supporters and gratifying his deep need for approval than in governing.
Political campaigns are often marked by insulting speeches and mockery of opponents, but once in office, elected officials get down to business and try to work with others to accomplish things that will improve society.
There is a time for competition and a time for cooperation, when courtesy and civility take the lead even as disagreement continues. The nation was founded on that principle.
The current president, however, seems to have no interest in compromise, instead focusing on his demand for loyalty and support, even as his positions change daily, if not hourly. Anyone who disagrees is then a target of his anger and derision.
As for news media that report anything that he perceives to be negative, they too are targets. Reporters, however, consider it an honor to be thought enough of a threat as to be called out by name and insulted on national television. When that happens, journalists consider it proof that they're doing their jobs right.
Friday, March 9, 2018
Smoot Point
Nobody wins a trade war. -- Pug Mahoney
The president claims a degree in economics from the University of Pennsylvania. He also brags that he didn't attend classes or read a book. So how is it that he graduated?
His current rantings about winning a trade war ignore basic principles of Economics 101 and show he never read the paragraph about the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1933, which not only incited a trade war, but also worsened an already disastrous Great Depression and contributed to the causes of World War II.
He claims credit for the national economic recovery now under way, which actually started eight years ago, long before he even considered running for president. It's true that more people have jobs and the unemployment rate is low, but wages are barely rising.
The Labor Department reported that the economy added 313,000 jobs last month, and the unemployment rate held steady at 4.1 percent. But wages barely rose at all, a measly 0.1 percent, the government said.
So if the demand for labor is rising and the supply of workers is not, why aren't wages rising to attract more people to the work force? Has the Law of Supply and Demand been repealed?
Not really. When demand for workers rises, more people enter the field and take up what jobs are available. And when there's shortage of labor where the jobs are, people move in from elsewhere. In turn, that "elsewhere" can be a different county, a different state, or another country.
America has long been called the Land of Opportunity. For many, this is where the jobs are.
The current president, however, wants to build walls to keep out people looking for jobs, claiming that those jobs should go to those workers already here. But there are not enough workers already here, and companies are not boosting wages to make up for the shortage.
Economics 101: When demand rises and supply falls, the result is higher cost. In this case, wages. Unless employers take advantage of the competition for jobs to keep wages down, on the attitude that if a worker doesn't like it, he or she can go elsewhere, and the boss will hire someone else who is willing to take lower pay.
Meanwhile, the president talks up what he insists is a "trade war" and that "winning is easy."
Perhaps, if you put the screws to firms in other countries that want to export products to the U.S. The problem, however, is retaliation. If the U.S. builds a tariff wall to keep out foreign products, then other nations will build a bigger wall to keep out American products.
Result: Higher prices to consumers on both sides of the walls, people stop buying stuff, production falls, and an economic recession happens in both countries.
It happened in the mid-1930s, and is quite likely to happen again. Back then, what started as a trade war soon became a real war.
Perhaps the president, instead of attending class, listened to Vince Lombardi, who said, "Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing."
Tell that to your hungry children when they ask what's for dinner.
The president claims a degree in economics from the University of Pennsylvania. He also brags that he didn't attend classes or read a book. So how is it that he graduated?
His current rantings about winning a trade war ignore basic principles of Economics 101 and show he never read the paragraph about the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1933, which not only incited a trade war, but also worsened an already disastrous Great Depression and contributed to the causes of World War II.
He claims credit for the national economic recovery now under way, which actually started eight years ago, long before he even considered running for president. It's true that more people have jobs and the unemployment rate is low, but wages are barely rising.
The Labor Department reported that the economy added 313,000 jobs last month, and the unemployment rate held steady at 4.1 percent. But wages barely rose at all, a measly 0.1 percent, the government said.
So if the demand for labor is rising and the supply of workers is not, why aren't wages rising to attract more people to the work force? Has the Law of Supply and Demand been repealed?
Not really. When demand for workers rises, more people enter the field and take up what jobs are available. And when there's shortage of labor where the jobs are, people move in from elsewhere. In turn, that "elsewhere" can be a different county, a different state, or another country.
America has long been called the Land of Opportunity. For many, this is where the jobs are.
The current president, however, wants to build walls to keep out people looking for jobs, claiming that those jobs should go to those workers already here. But there are not enough workers already here, and companies are not boosting wages to make up for the shortage.
Economics 101: When demand rises and supply falls, the result is higher cost. In this case, wages. Unless employers take advantage of the competition for jobs to keep wages down, on the attitude that if a worker doesn't like it, he or she can go elsewhere, and the boss will hire someone else who is willing to take lower pay.
Meanwhile, the president talks up what he insists is a "trade war" and that "winning is easy."
Perhaps, if you put the screws to firms in other countries that want to export products to the U.S. The problem, however, is retaliation. If the U.S. builds a tariff wall to keep out foreign products, then other nations will build a bigger wall to keep out American products.
Result: Higher prices to consumers on both sides of the walls, people stop buying stuff, production falls, and an economic recession happens in both countries.
It happened in the mid-1930s, and is quite likely to happen again. Back then, what started as a trade war soon became a real war.
Perhaps the president, instead of attending class, listened to Vince Lombardi, who said, "Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing."
Tell that to your hungry children when they ask what's for dinner.
Wednesday, March 7, 2018
Skillful Writing
Some people just can't tell a joke. -- Pug Mahoney
Writing is a skill. And, like any other skill, it can be taught and its techniques learned.
Most people struggle through their early years of schooling being forced to memorize the labels -- usually Latin-based terms -- for things they already know.
For example, children internalize the structural rules of their native language by the age of six. They just don't know the grammarian's formal names for these rules.
Consider the time and effort spent trying to teach children the case system for nouns -- nominative, genitive, dative and accusative. The problem teachers face in trying to foist this onto unsuspecting children is that the case system, where a word changes its form according to its function in a sentence, does not exist in modern English. There is, however, one small exception: pronouns.
In some other languages, such as German, Russian and Latin, a noun must change its form depending on whether it is the subject of a sentence, the object of a verb, or to show possession.
So what's the point of teaching little kids something they will never use? An argument could be made that knowledge of any kind is never wasted. In addition, when the kids reach secondary school, an introduction to the case system might be useful when and if they take up the study of a foreign language that does use the case system.
However, many high school students opt to take Spanish or French, neither of which uses a case system. Moreover, many other students go to a trade school or a non-academic curriculum that does not require a second language.
In any case, as with other skills and talents, some folks are more adept than others. Anyone can be taught to play piano, but few rise to the level of Dave Brubeck.
Likewise, basic education teaches everyone to write, but few are able to put words together as well as J.K. Rowling. And many folks read aloud, but few do it as well as Lester Holt, the NBC TV news anchor. In fact, many people, when they read aloud, do it in a monotone.
Reading aloud is a skill, just as some people can tell a joke and provoke laughter, while others can't.
Anyway, the advice to students is to learn as much as you can about as many subjects as you can, then focus on those that you can do well.
Writing is a skill. And, like any other skill, it can be taught and its techniques learned.
Most people struggle through their early years of schooling being forced to memorize the labels -- usually Latin-based terms -- for things they already know.
For example, children internalize the structural rules of their native language by the age of six. They just don't know the grammarian's formal names for these rules.
Consider the time and effort spent trying to teach children the case system for nouns -- nominative, genitive, dative and accusative. The problem teachers face in trying to foist this onto unsuspecting children is that the case system, where a word changes its form according to its function in a sentence, does not exist in modern English. There is, however, one small exception: pronouns.
In some other languages, such as German, Russian and Latin, a noun must change its form depending on whether it is the subject of a sentence, the object of a verb, or to show possession.
So what's the point of teaching little kids something they will never use? An argument could be made that knowledge of any kind is never wasted. In addition, when the kids reach secondary school, an introduction to the case system might be useful when and if they take up the study of a foreign language that does use the case system.
However, many high school students opt to take Spanish or French, neither of which uses a case system. Moreover, many other students go to a trade school or a non-academic curriculum that does not require a second language.
In any case, as with other skills and talents, some folks are more adept than others. Anyone can be taught to play piano, but few rise to the level of Dave Brubeck.
Likewise, basic education teaches everyone to write, but few are able to put words together as well as J.K. Rowling. And many folks read aloud, but few do it as well as Lester Holt, the NBC TV news anchor. In fact, many people, when they read aloud, do it in a monotone.
Reading aloud is a skill, just as some people can tell a joke and provoke laughter, while others can't.
Anyway, the advice to students is to learn as much as you can about as many subjects as you can, then focus on those that you can do well.
Deficit Dilemma
Inflation is when prices rise to absorb the money available.
Some 15 years ago, Dick Cheney said deficits don't matter. Donald Trump agreed a year ago when he said government never has to default because it can simply print more money.
Now, as the current president, he is attacking international trade deficits because, according to him, that means America loses. And to him, winning is everything.
But while Cheney was talking about the national budget deficit, and the current flap is about international trade, economists point out that in either case, deficits don't matter.
For one thing, over time, international trade always balances. It has to, because when one side runs out of money, trade stops. For another, while the U.S. may have a defect in the export of goods, it runs a surplus in services. No surprise here, since America is largely a service economy and other countries have lower labor costs so they can produce and export more stuff at lower prices.
Also, Republican deficit hawks often abandon that principle when it's time to grant favors to big business supporters. In case you hadn't noticed, that's what's happening now. Washington bigwigs are touting tax cuts to boost the economy (which by the way doesn't need boosting at the moment) but the chief beneficiaries are corporations and investors, not workers.
At the same time, defense spending is being increased, and most of that money will go to suppliers of stuff. It's not like enlisted personnel will be getting pay hikes.
Meanwhile, the president plans to increase tariffs as a way to, in his mind, protect American industry and jobs. The reality is that the main beneficiaries will be corporations, while the added costs are passed on to consumers, who pay higher prices at retail.
It's true that Democrats are more likely to indulge in deficit spending to jumpstart an economy when it needs some stimulus. And who better to do it than the federal government, because by doing so, the government simply owes the money to itself. But Republicans also do it when it's politically expedient.
Over time, however, when the economy is doing well, government can and should pull back on some spending, since its support is not sorely needed and a healthy economy can rebuild the government treasury.
That part is relatively simple. More sales mean more income and profit, thus more tax revenue to the government.
Unless, of course, government cuts taxes so companies can keep more profit, even though that lower revenue puts the government deeper in the hole.
So for all the ranting from deficit hawks when they're on the sidelines, when they find themselves calling the plays, "deficits don't matter."
By the way, simply printing more money may be an easy way for government to pay off its debt, but more money in circulation only inflates prices.
Some 15 years ago, Dick Cheney said deficits don't matter. Donald Trump agreed a year ago when he said government never has to default because it can simply print more money.
Now, as the current president, he is attacking international trade deficits because, according to him, that means America loses. And to him, winning is everything.
But while Cheney was talking about the national budget deficit, and the current flap is about international trade, economists point out that in either case, deficits don't matter.
For one thing, over time, international trade always balances. It has to, because when one side runs out of money, trade stops. For another, while the U.S. may have a defect in the export of goods, it runs a surplus in services. No surprise here, since America is largely a service economy and other countries have lower labor costs so they can produce and export more stuff at lower prices.
Also, Republican deficit hawks often abandon that principle when it's time to grant favors to big business supporters. In case you hadn't noticed, that's what's happening now. Washington bigwigs are touting tax cuts to boost the economy (which by the way doesn't need boosting at the moment) but the chief beneficiaries are corporations and investors, not workers.
At the same time, defense spending is being increased, and most of that money will go to suppliers of stuff. It's not like enlisted personnel will be getting pay hikes.
Meanwhile, the president plans to increase tariffs as a way to, in his mind, protect American industry and jobs. The reality is that the main beneficiaries will be corporations, while the added costs are passed on to consumers, who pay higher prices at retail.
It's true that Democrats are more likely to indulge in deficit spending to jumpstart an economy when it needs some stimulus. And who better to do it than the federal government, because by doing so, the government simply owes the money to itself. But Republicans also do it when it's politically expedient.
Over time, however, when the economy is doing well, government can and should pull back on some spending, since its support is not sorely needed and a healthy economy can rebuild the government treasury.
That part is relatively simple. More sales mean more income and profit, thus more tax revenue to the government.
Unless, of course, government cuts taxes so companies can keep more profit, even though that lower revenue puts the government deeper in the hole.
So for all the ranting from deficit hawks when they're on the sidelines, when they find themselves calling the plays, "deficits don't matter."
By the way, simply printing more money may be an easy way for government to pay off its debt, but more money in circulation only inflates prices.
Monday, March 5, 2018
Media Defense
If you don't want to see it in print, don't say it in public. -- Pug Mahoney
Donald Trump gets angry over perceived slights by the news media. But it's journalism's job to report what public officials say and do, and to put that report in context.
Like it or not, nearly everything a president says and does is grist for the news media mill. It's newsworthy if only because he (and eventually she) is president of the United States.
Moreover, it's journalism's duty to put a president's remarks in context, and to explain why and how certain remarks are not true.
And if the president doesn't like it -- and the current one clearly doesn't -- the response is, as we say in New Jersey, tough tacos.
The more this president complains that he is offended, especially when his complaints are publicly posted on his personal internet account, the more the news media will report his complaints.
So he can't complain about negative reports when journalists merely repeat what the president himself says and writes publicly.
Donald Trump gets angry over perceived slights by the news media. But it's journalism's job to report what public officials say and do, and to put that report in context.
Like it or not, nearly everything a president says and does is grist for the news media mill. It's newsworthy if only because he (and eventually she) is president of the United States.
Moreover, it's journalism's duty to put a president's remarks in context, and to explain why and how certain remarks are not true.
And if the president doesn't like it -- and the current one clearly doesn't -- the response is, as we say in New Jersey, tough tacos.
The more this president complains that he is offended, especially when his complaints are publicly posted on his personal internet account, the more the news media will report his complaints.
So he can't complain about negative reports when journalists merely repeat what the president himself says and writes publicly.
President for Life?
Donald Trump congratulated China for removing term limits for its president, and suggested that the U.S. do the same.
"Maybe we should give it a shot," he said at a fundraiser in Florida.
You're joking, right?
Meanwhile, special counsel Robert Mueller is widening his investigatory net even as it draws closer to the Oval Office, which raises the question of whether a sitting president can be indicted for crimes and misdemeanors.
The Constitution says a president can be impeached for "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors," then face trial in the Senate and be removed from office after conviction.
Even so, he could still face charges in a court of law for the same offences, since the only penalty for impeachment is removal from office. That's not double jeopardy.
But can he be indicted on criminal or civil charges while in office and before impeachment?
The president is the chief law enforcement officer in America, but only for federal laws. So can he be charged under a state law? And as chief executive of federal law, is he exempt from prosecution?
Does that put him above the law?
And can he pardon himself?
We live in interesting times.
As to becoming president for life, that would require deleting a constitutional amendment that limits a president to two terms. The Chinese did something similar after the death of Mao Zedong, who had been president for life. The Chinese recently overturned that rule so the current president, Xi Jinping, can remain as president.
The American rule was put in place in 1947, in an effort led by Republicans after Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected four times. The move came back to bite them when it stopped the popular Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower from running for a third term.
Now Trump wants to overturn that Constitutional amendment so he can be president for life.
A joke?
Yeah, it certainly is.
Or as Molly said, "Tain't funny, McGee."
"Maybe we should give it a shot," he said at a fundraiser in Florida.
You're joking, right?
Meanwhile, special counsel Robert Mueller is widening his investigatory net even as it draws closer to the Oval Office, which raises the question of whether a sitting president can be indicted for crimes and misdemeanors.
The Constitution says a president can be impeached for "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors," then face trial in the Senate and be removed from office after conviction.
Even so, he could still face charges in a court of law for the same offences, since the only penalty for impeachment is removal from office. That's not double jeopardy.
But can he be indicted on criminal or civil charges while in office and before impeachment?
The president is the chief law enforcement officer in America, but only for federal laws. So can he be charged under a state law? And as chief executive of federal law, is he exempt from prosecution?
Does that put him above the law?
And can he pardon himself?
We live in interesting times.
As to becoming president for life, that would require deleting a constitutional amendment that limits a president to two terms. The Chinese did something similar after the death of Mao Zedong, who had been president for life. The Chinese recently overturned that rule so the current president, Xi Jinping, can remain as president.
The American rule was put in place in 1947, in an effort led by Republicans after Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected four times. The move came back to bite them when it stopped the popular Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower from running for a third term.
Now Trump wants to overturn that Constitutional amendment so he can be president for life.
A joke?
Yeah, it certainly is.
Or as Molly said, "Tain't funny, McGee."
Sunday, March 4, 2018
Changing Presidents
There has been a lot of talk recently about removing the current president, either through impeachment or by invoking the 25th Amendment to the Constitution.
But what is the likelihood of either happening?
Not good, actually, given the current makeup of the Cabinet and the Congress. And unless that changes, he will probably remain in office for at least another year.
Here's why: The 25th Amendment calls for the president to send a written declaration to Congress that he is unable to do the job, and until he sends another letter saying that is again able, the vice president becomes acting president and steps aside so the president can take over again.
Don't make any bets that this president will voluntarily leave.
Alternatively, if the vice president and members of the Cabinet (or some other group that Congress sets up) write to Congress that the president can no longer do his job, the vice president can take over. Again, however, the president can reclaim his office by writing to Congress that his inability no longer exists.
But that claim can be challenged by the vice president and allies in the Cabinet, and they have four days to do so. In turn, Congress has 48 hours to decide the issue. If Congress is not in session, they have 21 days to get together and choose by a two-thirds vote of both houses that the president can't do his job.
If that happens, the vice president stays on the job as acting president. If the vote fails, the president moves back in to the Oval Office.
Given the current make up of the Cabinet -- all president appointees, and the Congress, dominated by Republicans in both houses -- the odds of them saying "You're fired" to one of their own are slim.
Likewise, the odds of an impeachment process being initiated are slim, since impeachment charges must be brought by the House, and then put to trial in the Senate.
Unless the makeup of the House and the Senate changes later this year in the 2018 elections. Even so, if Democrats are very successful, they won't take their seats in Congress until January 2019. Then the impeachment process can start.
There is, of course, the possibility that the Republican-dominated Congress will bring impeachment charges before that, and there is the possibility that the Cabinet, or such other body that the Congress designates for the job, will invoke the 25th Amendment and declare the president incompetent and unable to do the job.
He will reject the accusations, of course, and then the fun begins.
Either way, don't hold your breath. The way things stand now, it's likely that he'll stay in office until voted out in November 2020. Even then, his term won't end until January 20, 2021.
Unless the Cabinet and Congress decide to push him out via the 25th Amendment or impeachment. Until then, the news media will stay on the story.
But what is the likelihood of either happening?
Not good, actually, given the current makeup of the Cabinet and the Congress. And unless that changes, he will probably remain in office for at least another year.
Here's why: The 25th Amendment calls for the president to send a written declaration to Congress that he is unable to do the job, and until he sends another letter saying that is again able, the vice president becomes acting president and steps aside so the president can take over again.
Don't make any bets that this president will voluntarily leave.
Alternatively, if the vice president and members of the Cabinet (or some other group that Congress sets up) write to Congress that the president can no longer do his job, the vice president can take over. Again, however, the president can reclaim his office by writing to Congress that his inability no longer exists.
But that claim can be challenged by the vice president and allies in the Cabinet, and they have four days to do so. In turn, Congress has 48 hours to decide the issue. If Congress is not in session, they have 21 days to get together and choose by a two-thirds vote of both houses that the president can't do his job.
If that happens, the vice president stays on the job as acting president. If the vote fails, the president moves back in to the Oval Office.
Given the current make up of the Cabinet -- all president appointees, and the Congress, dominated by Republicans in both houses -- the odds of them saying "You're fired" to one of their own are slim.
Likewise, the odds of an impeachment process being initiated are slim, since impeachment charges must be brought by the House, and then put to trial in the Senate.
Unless the makeup of the House and the Senate changes later this year in the 2018 elections. Even so, if Democrats are very successful, they won't take their seats in Congress until January 2019. Then the impeachment process can start.
There is, of course, the possibility that the Republican-dominated Congress will bring impeachment charges before that, and there is the possibility that the Cabinet, or such other body that the Congress designates for the job, will invoke the 25th Amendment and declare the president incompetent and unable to do the job.
He will reject the accusations, of course, and then the fun begins.
Either way, don't hold your breath. The way things stand now, it's likely that he'll stay in office until voted out in November 2020. Even then, his term won't end until January 20, 2021.
Unless the Cabinet and Congress decide to push him out via the 25th Amendment or impeachment. Until then, the news media will stay on the story.
Friday, March 2, 2018
Policy Profiteering
Secret of success on Wall Street: Buy low, sell high.
One way to do this is through what's called short selling. For example, you agree to sell 1,000 shares of stock at $100 per share in two weeks time, but you don't have the stock yet.
Instead, you hope that soon before the due date the market price of the stock will drop to, say, $80 per share. So just before the due date, you buy or borrow the stock at $80 and immediately deliver it, as promised, for $100 per share.
You then get to pocket the difference -- $20 per share -- for a total of $20,000. Pretty good profit, especially if you did the whole deal on borrowed cash or borrowed stock.
Now consider that you're in a position to influence the market and stock prices. For example, a senior government official announces a plan to impose tariffs on certain building materials, such as steel and aluminum.
Instantly, the stock market in general plummets. Now suppose that some folks knew about the plan ahead of time and arranged for a short sale, expecting that stock prices will drop before delivery time.
In a few days, the senior government official abandons the threat to raise import taxes (tariffs) and as a result the market recovers.
Insiders then deliver the stock they sold "short," having acquired it at the lower price during the market downturn.
Coincidence?
Market manipulation?
Sheer luck?
Hmmm.
Or it could just be incompetence and ignorance about how the market works, meaning coincidence and luck enabled the short sellers to profit.
Or it could be deliberate market manipulation, which is illegal.
One way to do this is through what's called short selling. For example, you agree to sell 1,000 shares of stock at $100 per share in two weeks time, but you don't have the stock yet.
Instead, you hope that soon before the due date the market price of the stock will drop to, say, $80 per share. So just before the due date, you buy or borrow the stock at $80 and immediately deliver it, as promised, for $100 per share.
You then get to pocket the difference -- $20 per share -- for a total of $20,000. Pretty good profit, especially if you did the whole deal on borrowed cash or borrowed stock.
Now consider that you're in a position to influence the market and stock prices. For example, a senior government official announces a plan to impose tariffs on certain building materials, such as steel and aluminum.
Instantly, the stock market in general plummets. Now suppose that some folks knew about the plan ahead of time and arranged for a short sale, expecting that stock prices will drop before delivery time.
In a few days, the senior government official abandons the threat to raise import taxes (tariffs) and as a result the market recovers.
Insiders then deliver the stock they sold "short," having acquired it at the lower price during the market downturn.
Coincidence?
Market manipulation?
Sheer luck?
Hmmm.
Or it could just be incompetence and ignorance about how the market works, meaning coincidence and luck enabled the short sellers to profit.
Or it could be deliberate market manipulation, which is illegal.
Thursday, March 1, 2018
Days of Whine and Rousting
Abandon Hope, All Ye Who Enter Here. -- Inferno, by Dante
Beware the Ides of March. -- Julius Caesar, by Shakespeare
At the rate staffers are leaving, the Trump administration will soon have no one left. Already, dozens of White House aides have either resigned, been fired, indicted or face serious charges by congressional investigators and the special counsel looking into whether there was Russian meddling in last year's presidential election.
Dozens have already left, the latest being Hope Hicks, the longest serving and possibly the closest aide to the president since before the inauguration a bit more than 13 months ago.
Shakespeare's soothsayer warned about that date, which comes on the 15th of the month.
Beware the Ides of March. -- Julius Caesar, by Shakespeare
At the rate staffers are leaving, the Trump administration will soon have no one left. Already, dozens of White House aides have either resigned, been fired, indicted or face serious charges by congressional investigators and the special counsel looking into whether there was Russian meddling in last year's presidential election.
Dozens have already left, the latest being Hope Hicks, the longest serving and possibly the closest aide to the president since before the inauguration a bit more than 13 months ago.
Shakespeare's soothsayer warned about that date, which comes on the 15th of the month.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)