Donald J. Trump will not be awarded the Nobel Peace Price for 2018.
Reason: The nomination deadline expired months ago, on January 31.
So despite all the chanting and ranting by supporters at the campaign-style rally in Michigan over the weekend and the subsequent speculation by columnists as to whether he deserves it for his role in bringing about peace talks between North Korea and South Korea, unless the committee changes the rules, it's not going to happen.
Whether it happens next year, even assuming the talks are successful and Trump is still in office, is anyone's guess.
Meanwhile, the Nobel committee began its deliberations February 1, and the prizes won't be awarded until October.
The fuss started Saturday evening at the re-election campaign rally, when supporters in the cheering section began chanting Nobel! Nobel! during the president's speech.
Whether the chanting was primed and set up by Team Trump is, of course, open to speculation, but it's common at rallies for a politician's supporters to start chanting on cue.
Sunday, April 29, 2018
Loyalty Oaf
What do Americans want?
Too often, societies fall back to an "us against them" attitude when dealing with people who don't fully agree with their views on life and the way they "should" behave.
As one world leader famously said, however, "Who am I to judge?" Sadly, many people answer that question easily, quickly, personally and affirmatively. They take it upon themselves to be judgmental.
But as kids used to say when one of the gang got pushy, "Who died and left you boss?"
One route to promotion and success in some areas of business, and now in politics, too often is to show loyalty to the boss, even to the extent of saying you'd be willing to take a bullet for him.
For some, that's easy to say. For others, being willing to accept a constant barrage of insult, abuse and vilification is the price they're willing to pay to inflate the boss's ego and thereby keep a job.
But for the conscientious few, that's too high a price to pay.
So do Americans want loyalty to one person regardless of any proven flaws that person may have, or do they want a person who not only claims belief in traditional American values, but acts in ways that show belief in those values?
The first reflects the attitudes of a subject people toward a dictator, and the second shows a preference for an elected leader who puts the nation's needs before his own wants.
Did someone say greed for power?
Too often, societies fall back to an "us against them" attitude when dealing with people who don't fully agree with their views on life and the way they "should" behave.
As one world leader famously said, however, "Who am I to judge?" Sadly, many people answer that question easily, quickly, personally and affirmatively. They take it upon themselves to be judgmental.
But as kids used to say when one of the gang got pushy, "Who died and left you boss?"
One route to promotion and success in some areas of business, and now in politics, too often is to show loyalty to the boss, even to the extent of saying you'd be willing to take a bullet for him.
For some, that's easy to say. For others, being willing to accept a constant barrage of insult, abuse and vilification is the price they're willing to pay to inflate the boss's ego and thereby keep a job.
But for the conscientious few, that's too high a price to pay.
So do Americans want loyalty to one person regardless of any proven flaws that person may have, or do they want a person who not only claims belief in traditional American values, but acts in ways that show belief in those values?
The first reflects the attitudes of a subject people toward a dictator, and the second shows a preference for an elected leader who puts the nation's needs before his own wants.
Did someone say greed for power?
Saturday, April 28, 2018
The Great Himself
Ego is a poor substitute for self confidence. -- Pug Mahoney
Loyalty seems to be a one-way street for the current president. Not to the Constitution, but focused on personal, total, absolute, unquestioning and obsequious devotion to Himself.
And since he does not get that from the press corps, for the second year in a row he has declined an invitation to the White House Correspondents Association annual dinner.
Instead, he showed up at a re-election campaign rally in a small town in Michigan -- not coincidentally named Washington -- with a huge Trump 2020 banner at the entrance.
He has a history of rewarding those who kiss his ring (metaphorically, of course) by granting them a Cabinet position despite a lack of experience or competence in any field related to the new job.
But journalists don't work that way, a lesson that The Great Himself has yet to learn. Reporter loyalty is to the Constitution and to the people, whether they be citizens or newcomers, a duty guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
He has attacked journalism as "the enemy of the people." On the contrary, news media's duty is to the people, not to any political or government leader. Another distinction that this champion of one-way personal loyalty has not learned.
Journalists cannot and will not pledge personal loyalty to this president, or to any other, regardless of the ranting and threatening and insults that come in a steady stream.
It's no coincidence that a campaign-style rally was scheduled for the same hour as the correspondents' dinner in the nation's capital. It's worth noting, moreover, that the rally is based on the assumption that Himself will be available for a second term. There is no guarantee of that, much less that he will be re-elected.
Loyalty seems to be a one-way street for the current president. Not to the Constitution, but focused on personal, total, absolute, unquestioning and obsequious devotion to Himself.
And since he does not get that from the press corps, for the second year in a row he has declined an invitation to the White House Correspondents Association annual dinner.
Instead, he showed up at a re-election campaign rally in a small town in Michigan -- not coincidentally named Washington -- with a huge Trump 2020 banner at the entrance.
He has a history of rewarding those who kiss his ring (metaphorically, of course) by granting them a Cabinet position despite a lack of experience or competence in any field related to the new job.
But journalists don't work that way, a lesson that The Great Himself has yet to learn. Reporter loyalty is to the Constitution and to the people, whether they be citizens or newcomers, a duty guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
He has attacked journalism as "the enemy of the people." On the contrary, news media's duty is to the people, not to any political or government leader. Another distinction that this champion of one-way personal loyalty has not learned.
Journalists cannot and will not pledge personal loyalty to this president, or to any other, regardless of the ranting and threatening and insults that come in a steady stream.
It's no coincidence that a campaign-style rally was scheduled for the same hour as the correspondents' dinner in the nation's capital. It's worth noting, moreover, that the rally is based on the assumption that Himself will be available for a second term. There is no guarantee of that, much less that he will be re-elected.
Friday, April 27, 2018
Going for Brokaw
Retired NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw has been accused of inappropriate sexual behavior by a former journalist with the network. The incidents -- two of them, a year apart -- were alleged to have occurred in the 1990s, according to several reports.
The accuser, Linda Vester, was a correspondent for NBC News at the time, and later joined Fox News.
After the allegations appeared, Brokaw withdrew as commencement speaker at a Connecticut university, and was replaced by Linda McMahon, a member of President Trump's Cabinet and wife of wrestling promoter Vince McMahon.
Coincidence? Perhaps.
Or it could be a coordinated effort by those in the Trump camp to distract attention from White House shenanigans and strike at NBC News.
Major news outlets are all over this story, as Brokaw has denied all the allegations in detail, describing the two meetings with Vester as happening at her request, brief and cordial, with "no romantic overtures towards her at that time or any other." In a email to colleagues, according to an NPR report, Brokaw expressed anger at being "ambushed and then perp walked ... as an avatar of male misogyny."
Brokaw had been the anchor for NBC Nightly News before retiring, but still appears as a commentator on current events.
The accuser, Linda Vester, was a correspondent for NBC News at the time, and later joined Fox News.
After the allegations appeared, Brokaw withdrew as commencement speaker at a Connecticut university, and was replaced by Linda McMahon, a member of President Trump's Cabinet and wife of wrestling promoter Vince McMahon.
Coincidence? Perhaps.
Or it could be a coordinated effort by those in the Trump camp to distract attention from White House shenanigans and strike at NBC News.
Major news outlets are all over this story, as Brokaw has denied all the allegations in detail, describing the two meetings with Vester as happening at her request, brief and cordial, with "no romantic overtures towards her at that time or any other." In a email to colleagues, according to an NPR report, Brokaw expressed anger at being "ambushed and then perp walked ... as an avatar of male misogyny."
Brokaw had been the anchor for NBC Nightly News before retiring, but still appears as a commentator on current events.
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
Soundalikes
No one is immune from misspelling words, especially those that sound alike but are spelled differently and have different meanings.
But when the president of the United States fails to pass a spelling check that even a neophyte copy editor or high schooler should know, it's time for comment.
Note to the Oval Office: The investigation probing allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election is led by a special "counsel," not "council." The first refers to a lawyer, and the second refers to an advisory group.
Some soundalike words have even more than two forms, each with a distinctive meaning.
Here are some examples:
Carat, karat, carrot, caret.
To, too, two.
Vane, vain, vein.
Rain, rein, reign.
Typographical errors are one thing, and can often be blamed on "muscle memory" as fingers follow a keyboard pattern as they anticipate what the brain may want.
A similar phenomenon is found in computer word processing programs as the machine offers choices to the writer. The important thing is that the writer must know the appropriate choice.
Moreover, spellcheck programs don't know meanings. If a word is spelled correctly, the program passes by it, even though it be the wrong word -- a soundalike, also known as a homonym.
In addition, a particular word may not even be in the spellcheck lexicon, so the computer will flag it and offer other, totally wrong choices.
Spellcheck is an important tool, and every writer should use it. But it's important to remember that a tool is only as good as the person who uses it.
But when the president of the United States fails to pass a spelling check that even a neophyte copy editor or high schooler should know, it's time for comment.
Note to the Oval Office: The investigation probing allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election is led by a special "counsel," not "council." The first refers to a lawyer, and the second refers to an advisory group.
Some soundalike words have even more than two forms, each with a distinctive meaning.
Here are some examples:
Carat, karat, carrot, caret.
To, too, two.
Vane, vain, vein.
Rain, rein, reign.
Typographical errors are one thing, and can often be blamed on "muscle memory" as fingers follow a keyboard pattern as they anticipate what the brain may want.
A similar phenomenon is found in computer word processing programs as the machine offers choices to the writer. The important thing is that the writer must know the appropriate choice.
Moreover, spellcheck programs don't know meanings. If a word is spelled correctly, the program passes by it, even though it be the wrong word -- a soundalike, also known as a homonym.
In addition, a particular word may not even be in the spellcheck lexicon, so the computer will flag it and offer other, totally wrong choices.
Spellcheck is an important tool, and every writer should use it. But it's important to remember that a tool is only as good as the person who uses it.
Loaded Polls
Many organizations tout the results of surveys they sponsor in order to "prove" they were right all along.
The problem here is that the questions are phrased in such a way as to prompt answers that the pollsters need to support their predetermined results.
Moreover, the questions are based on unproven, incomplete and sometimes biased or even false premises calculated to induce anger and encourage the answer that the poll writers want.
Example: "Do you believe non-U.S. citizens should be allowed to vote in American elections?"
Clearly, the answer would be No, since non-citizens cannot now vote anyway. But the question plants the seed-thought that many non-citizens already do vote in large numbers and must be stopped.
Reality check: There is no evidence that millions of non-citizens and illegal aliens voted in the 2016 presidential election, despite what some -- including the current president -- allege.
Here's another phrase pre-loaded to bring a desired response: "I have every reason to believe that significant numbers of non-citizens and others are voting illegally in U.S. elections."
The "reasons" for this belief are never specified in the seven-page memo accompanying the survey, nor is the term "significant numbers" quantified.
How many constitute a "significant" number? Where? When? Who were they? For whom did they vote? It's a good guess that if this "significant" number of non-citizens voted for the organization's preferred candidate, the question would not be on the survey.
The memo, titled the "2018 Illegal Alien Election Survey Impact Survey," also cites an academic survey that estimated there are "about 20 million non-citizen adults living in the U.S.," and even if "a very low rate" of them registered to vote, that would yield "hundreds of thousands" of people voting illegally.
But here's a question: How many of these 20 million are living here legally, as members of the diplomatic corps, or as employees of international corporations and their families, or are newcomers awaiting full citizenship?
No answer.
It turns out that even the academic who conducted the survey protested the selective picking and choosing of portions of the data in order to slant the results to support some predetermined position.
The bottom line is that many so-called surveys are rigged to catch certain responses to support some propaganda, in this case the idea that many millions of illegal, non-citizen aliens vote in U.S. elections and in other ways corrupt American society.
The examples cited here came from a mailing by a group calling itself Judicial Watch.
Meanwhile, there are many other surveys, conducted by reputable pollsters, that show there is little evidence to support the claim that millions of people vote illegally in American elections.
A better conclusion, from reading the background memos and the phrasing of the survey questions, is that the pollsters themselves are biased, and are only seeking numbers to bolster their prejudices.
The problem here is that the questions are phrased in such a way as to prompt answers that the pollsters need to support their predetermined results.
Moreover, the questions are based on unproven, incomplete and sometimes biased or even false premises calculated to induce anger and encourage the answer that the poll writers want.
Example: "Do you believe non-U.S. citizens should be allowed to vote in American elections?"
Clearly, the answer would be No, since non-citizens cannot now vote anyway. But the question plants the seed-thought that many non-citizens already do vote in large numbers and must be stopped.
Reality check: There is no evidence that millions of non-citizens and illegal aliens voted in the 2016 presidential election, despite what some -- including the current president -- allege.
Here's another phrase pre-loaded to bring a desired response: "I have every reason to believe that significant numbers of non-citizens and others are voting illegally in U.S. elections."
The "reasons" for this belief are never specified in the seven-page memo accompanying the survey, nor is the term "significant numbers" quantified.
How many constitute a "significant" number? Where? When? Who were they? For whom did they vote? It's a good guess that if this "significant" number of non-citizens voted for the organization's preferred candidate, the question would not be on the survey.
The memo, titled the "2018 Illegal Alien Election Survey Impact Survey," also cites an academic survey that estimated there are "about 20 million non-citizen adults living in the U.S.," and even if "a very low rate" of them registered to vote, that would yield "hundreds of thousands" of people voting illegally.
But here's a question: How many of these 20 million are living here legally, as members of the diplomatic corps, or as employees of international corporations and their families, or are newcomers awaiting full citizenship?
No answer.
It turns out that even the academic who conducted the survey protested the selective picking and choosing of portions of the data in order to slant the results to support some predetermined position.
The bottom line is that many so-called surveys are rigged to catch certain responses to support some propaganda, in this case the idea that many millions of illegal, non-citizen aliens vote in U.S. elections and in other ways corrupt American society.
The examples cited here came from a mailing by a group calling itself Judicial Watch.
Meanwhile, there are many other surveys, conducted by reputable pollsters, that show there is little evidence to support the claim that millions of people vote illegally in American elections.
A better conclusion, from reading the background memos and the phrasing of the survey questions, is that the pollsters themselves are biased, and are only seeking numbers to bolster their prejudices.
Tuesday, April 24, 2018
"Stupid Question"
There are no stupid questions. There are only stupid answers. -- Pug Mahoney
Reporters ask many questions, many of them obvious, some subtle. But regardless whether a government official believes a question to be intrusive or insubordinate, a generally appropriate response is to answer the question or, as many politicians often do, give an evasive response or switch to another topic.
Political folk with some grains of sense are aware that reporters ask questions because that's their duty. Sometimes the questions have little or nothing to do with what the politician perceives as important, but the reality is that he does not get to decide what questions journalists get to ask.
And more important, to insult and demean the folks with sharp pencils, access to a keyboard and printing presses or broadcast facilities can only backfire.
Journalists have thick skins, and insults slide off. But they also have long memories, and how they handle a news story is for reporters and editors to decide, not for politicians.
Unfortunately, some in government (and corporate offices also) have not learned that, and regularly insult and abuse journalists and their news outlets when they don't like the coverage.
For all his years dealing with news media, in business, in politics and in government, the current president of the United States has yet to learn this lesson: You do not control what reporters write, what TV anchors say, and certainly not what questions they put to you in a public forum.
Perhaps the most egregious example recently was when a reporter with ABC News asked the president whether he was considering a pardon for his attorney Michael Cohen, who is currently the focus of an investigation by the special counsel investigating various aspects of the recent presidential campaign and whether there was interference from Russia.
The response from the president, live on national television, was a glare toward the journalist and two words: "Stupid question."
It can be debated whether the question was in fact stupid, but the background is that several pardons have already been issued by this president, including one to a man whose sentence had already been commuted. So a pardon had little practical effect, except as a possible signal to others to remain loyal to him, and if convicted they would be pardoned.
All things considered, it was a valid question about a continuing news story. The question, therefore, was not stupid.
What was stupid was to insult a reporter on national television.
But given the attitudes, utterances and tweets of recent months against those who displease him, he's not likely to change.
What is likely to change, however, is that coverage of the insults will become more intense and more focused.
Reporters ask many questions, many of them obvious, some subtle. But regardless whether a government official believes a question to be intrusive or insubordinate, a generally appropriate response is to answer the question or, as many politicians often do, give an evasive response or switch to another topic.
Political folk with some grains of sense are aware that reporters ask questions because that's their duty. Sometimes the questions have little or nothing to do with what the politician perceives as important, but the reality is that he does not get to decide what questions journalists get to ask.
And more important, to insult and demean the folks with sharp pencils, access to a keyboard and printing presses or broadcast facilities can only backfire.
Journalists have thick skins, and insults slide off. But they also have long memories, and how they handle a news story is for reporters and editors to decide, not for politicians.
Unfortunately, some in government (and corporate offices also) have not learned that, and regularly insult and abuse journalists and their news outlets when they don't like the coverage.
For all his years dealing with news media, in business, in politics and in government, the current president of the United States has yet to learn this lesson: You do not control what reporters write, what TV anchors say, and certainly not what questions they put to you in a public forum.
Perhaps the most egregious example recently was when a reporter with ABC News asked the president whether he was considering a pardon for his attorney Michael Cohen, who is currently the focus of an investigation by the special counsel investigating various aspects of the recent presidential campaign and whether there was interference from Russia.
The response from the president, live on national television, was a glare toward the journalist and two words: "Stupid question."
It can be debated whether the question was in fact stupid, but the background is that several pardons have already been issued by this president, including one to a man whose sentence had already been commuted. So a pardon had little practical effect, except as a possible signal to others to remain loyal to him, and if convicted they would be pardoned.
All things considered, it was a valid question about a continuing news story. The question, therefore, was not stupid.
What was stupid was to insult a reporter on national television.
But given the attitudes, utterances and tweets of recent months against those who displease him, he's not likely to change.
What is likely to change, however, is that coverage of the insults will become more intense and more focused.
Monday, April 23, 2018
Insult and Injury
Sticks and stones may break my bones
But names will never hurt me.
-- Childhood jingle
The childish habit of hurling insults is something that most people grow out of as they mature to adulthood. Unfortunately, some people never grow up enough so that they can put away childish things and deal with issues on the more practical level of compromise and accomplishment.
That seems to be a habit among politicians, more prevalent these days than ever before. Calling other people nasty names may be emotionally satisfying to the hurler, but its only practical effect is to widen the gap between two sides, making it more difficult to compromise and accomplish anything of benefit to the nation.
Journalists are obligated to speak truth to power, and the more untruthful the speech of the powerful, the stronger must be the critiques from journalists. However, the response from prominent politicians and government officials currently is to blame the messenger who points out discrepancies from accuracy -- read, lies -- perpetrated by political types.
Some government officials can't take the heat of disagreement from those who are not totally loyal, devoted acolytes. Perhaps the provincialism of their business background and experience tells them that such behavior succeeds. And while this strategy may work for them in business, clearly government and politics is a bigger league.
The worst offender in America is the current president, who resorts to name-calling and personal insult to attack journalists who report not only what the president says and does, but also how those words and action diverge from fact and reality.
It's not personal on their part; they're doing their jobs as impartial, neutral reporters. OK, some are not impartial and neutral, but these are more properly labelled commentators or pundits expressing opinions. Even so, they too are entitled to their opinions, ludicrous though they may be, and their right to express them is guaranteed by the First Amendment, just as the rights of neutral journalists are equally guaranteed.
Politicians don't get to pick and choose the reporters, journalists, commentators and pundits who write and speak about the issues of the day. Certainly, a president can select which TV pundits he listens to and which newspapers he reads, preferring only those that agree with him, but he cannot and must not dictate that only those news outlets that agree with him be allowed to publish.
And no amount of name calling and personal abuse can change that. Besides, unlike the president, journalists have thicker skins, so they either ignore the insults or they report them to their readers, viewers and listeners as they would any other newsworthy event or comment made by the one who is allegedly the leader of the free world, charged with upholding the principles of the Constitution's guarantee of free speech, and a free press.
But names will never hurt me.
-- Childhood jingle
The childish habit of hurling insults is something that most people grow out of as they mature to adulthood. Unfortunately, some people never grow up enough so that they can put away childish things and deal with issues on the more practical level of compromise and accomplishment.
That seems to be a habit among politicians, more prevalent these days than ever before. Calling other people nasty names may be emotionally satisfying to the hurler, but its only practical effect is to widen the gap between two sides, making it more difficult to compromise and accomplish anything of benefit to the nation.
Journalists are obligated to speak truth to power, and the more untruthful the speech of the powerful, the stronger must be the critiques from journalists. However, the response from prominent politicians and government officials currently is to blame the messenger who points out discrepancies from accuracy -- read, lies -- perpetrated by political types.
Some government officials can't take the heat of disagreement from those who are not totally loyal, devoted acolytes. Perhaps the provincialism of their business background and experience tells them that such behavior succeeds. And while this strategy may work for them in business, clearly government and politics is a bigger league.
The worst offender in America is the current president, who resorts to name-calling and personal insult to attack journalists who report not only what the president says and does, but also how those words and action diverge from fact and reality.
It's not personal on their part; they're doing their jobs as impartial, neutral reporters. OK, some are not impartial and neutral, but these are more properly labelled commentators or pundits expressing opinions. Even so, they too are entitled to their opinions, ludicrous though they may be, and their right to express them is guaranteed by the First Amendment, just as the rights of neutral journalists are equally guaranteed.
Politicians don't get to pick and choose the reporters, journalists, commentators and pundits who write and speak about the issues of the day. Certainly, a president can select which TV pundits he listens to and which newspapers he reads, preferring only those that agree with him, but he cannot and must not dictate that only those news outlets that agree with him be allowed to publish.
And no amount of name calling and personal abuse can change that. Besides, unlike the president, journalists have thicker skins, so they either ignore the insults or they report them to their readers, viewers and listeners as they would any other newsworthy event or comment made by the one who is allegedly the leader of the free world, charged with upholding the principles of the Constitution's guarantee of free speech, and a free press.
Sunday, April 22, 2018
First Partner
One measure of a person's importance in society is funeral coverage. By that measure, Barbara Bush was a very important person, since all major broadcast and cable television networks carried the event in her honor.
She was the wife -- life partner is perhaps a better term -- of the 41st president of the United States and the mother of the 43rd president, as well as the mother of a governor of Florida.
Yet for all her experiences at the highest levels of government and of society, she never lost her ability to deal with people on a basic, human, every day level.
Only one other woman can be listed as wife and mother of two president -- Abigail Adams, wife to the second president and mother of the sixth president. However, she died before her son became president. This leaves Barbara Bush as the only woman in American history to see her husband and a son serve as president.
A basic tenet of journalism is to beware of absolutes. In this case, Barbara Pierce Bush was absolutely deserving of full news media coverage as her life ended at the age of 93, which included more than 70 years of marriage to the same man.
She was the wife -- life partner is perhaps a better term -- of the 41st president of the United States and the mother of the 43rd president, as well as the mother of a governor of Florida.
Yet for all her experiences at the highest levels of government and of society, she never lost her ability to deal with people on a basic, human, every day level.
Only one other woman can be listed as wife and mother of two president -- Abigail Adams, wife to the second president and mother of the sixth president. However, she died before her son became president. This leaves Barbara Bush as the only woman in American history to see her husband and a son serve as president.
A basic tenet of journalism is to beware of absolutes. In this case, Barbara Pierce Bush was absolutely deserving of full news media coverage as her life ended at the age of 93, which included more than 70 years of marriage to the same man.
Wednesday, April 18, 2018
Watchdog Warnings
Respect cannot be demanded. It must be earned.
The journalistic watchdogs are warning daily -- sometimes hourly -- of new threats to American traditions perpetrated by the Trumpistas. And on the opinion pages, the pencils are getting sharper as editorial writers detail the machinations of Administration officials.
The revolving door of Cabinet offices has been spinning so fast it's hard to keep track of who's in and who's out. The only thing that seems to spin faster is the president's changing mind.
It's up to the free press to monitor and report fully whatever government officials say and do -- especially the president. And when his comments and claims conflict with fact or reality, it is journalism's duty to report that, also.
Meanwhile, there is a difference between what appears on Page One and what appears on the lead editorial page and the facing page -- also known as the op-ed page -- where opinions of columnists and guest contributors are printed. Moreover, it's important to remember that the editors of the news pages seldom, if ever, consult with or coordinate with the opinion page writers. The only newspaper department that is even more separate is the advertising department.
These days, we see and hear daily reports of attacks from the Oval Office on those the president claims are disseminators of "fake news" -- read, reports that reflect unkindly on whatever the president feels is his right to say and do whatever he pleases at any given moment, even when that conflicts with what he said the previous moment.
The attacks are so harsh and so often that editorial writers feel justified in responding with criticisms that are sometimes equally harsh.
Respect is a two-way street, and disagreement does not equal disrespect.
The journalistic watchdogs are warning daily -- sometimes hourly -- of new threats to American traditions perpetrated by the Trumpistas. And on the opinion pages, the pencils are getting sharper as editorial writers detail the machinations of Administration officials.
The revolving door of Cabinet offices has been spinning so fast it's hard to keep track of who's in and who's out. The only thing that seems to spin faster is the president's changing mind.
It's up to the free press to monitor and report fully whatever government officials say and do -- especially the president. And when his comments and claims conflict with fact or reality, it is journalism's duty to report that, also.
Meanwhile, there is a difference between what appears on Page One and what appears on the lead editorial page and the facing page -- also known as the op-ed page -- where opinions of columnists and guest contributors are printed. Moreover, it's important to remember that the editors of the news pages seldom, if ever, consult with or coordinate with the opinion page writers. The only newspaper department that is even more separate is the advertising department.
These days, we see and hear daily reports of attacks from the Oval Office on those the president claims are disseminators of "fake news" -- read, reports that reflect unkindly on whatever the president feels is his right to say and do whatever he pleases at any given moment, even when that conflicts with what he said the previous moment.
The attacks are so harsh and so often that editorial writers feel justified in responding with criticisms that are sometimes equally harsh.
Respect is a two-way street, and disagreement does not equal disrespect.
Friday, April 13, 2018
Polly Tics
Squawking 'No collusion! No collusion!" many times daily is the mark of a political parrot making noise without knowing or understanding what is said.
Either that, or the parrot is using the Big Lie technique made infamous by a dictatorial regime 80 years ago on the premise that if you say something loud enough, long enough and to enough people, some will begin to believe it.
Meanwhile, sending troops to the southern border under the guise of "protecting" the nation from an "invasion" of refugees seeking jobs and opportunity as they try to escape poverty contradicts the American tradition of welcoming the tired and the poor to the Golden Door of opportunity.
Instead, militarizing a peaceful border to keep out those deemed "undesirable" solely on the basis of their ethnicity is an invitation to war with a neighboring ally.
Another example of racial bias, even to fellow citizens of the U.S., is the refusal to send help to the battered island of Puerto Rico, an American commonwealth for more than 100 years. The island was struck again this week as another incident of nature put many thousands of citizens without the benefit of electricity.
Either that, or the parrot is using the Big Lie technique made infamous by a dictatorial regime 80 years ago on the premise that if you say something loud enough, long enough and to enough people, some will begin to believe it.
Meanwhile, sending troops to the southern border under the guise of "protecting" the nation from an "invasion" of refugees seeking jobs and opportunity as they try to escape poverty contradicts the American tradition of welcoming the tired and the poor to the Golden Door of opportunity.
Instead, militarizing a peaceful border to keep out those deemed "undesirable" solely on the basis of their ethnicity is an invitation to war with a neighboring ally.
Another example of racial bias, even to fellow citizens of the U.S., is the refusal to send help to the battered island of Puerto Rico, an American commonwealth for more than 100 years. The island was struck again this week as another incident of nature put many thousands of citizens without the benefit of electricity.
Wednesday, April 11, 2018
Fascism
In unity there is strength.
The Latin word for a bundle of rods tied together is fasces, and it symbolizes strength, especially in the Roman era when an axe head was tied into one end of the bundle of rods and the entire tool was carried in ceremonial processions.
The symbol was also used on the obverse of the U.S. dime until 1945, when the profile of President Franklin W. Roosevelt replaced the head of the god Mercury and the flip side showed a torch instead of an axe inserted into a bundle of rods.
The word was adopted in Italy in the 1920s by the political movement led by Benito Mussolini to emphasize the power of unity, even as it focused on nationalism and social welfare. Similar political objectives were set in Germany by its National Socialist Party led by Adolf Hitler. (The term "Nazi" is an abbreviation of the German word for "nationalist.")
So what are the primary characteristics of the political movement known as fascism? In one sense, if capitalism is at one end of the economic-political spectrum and socialism is at the other extreme, fascism is neither fully anti-capitalist nor entirely anti-socialist, but lies somewhere in the middle.
If socialism-communism be defined as complete government control of all means or production and distribution, and pure capitalism gives full control to private enterprise and investors with no voice or input by labor, then neither can be found in the real world, although many have tried.
The reality, then, is that most socio-political-economic systems are elsewhere on the scale. At one time in America, labor had no significant voice in how workers were paid and how a company was run. The rise of organized labor and unions changed that as management adjusted.
In Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union tried full control by a labor-government coalition, but that didn't work either. Nonetheless, these two histories don't stop some from trying, usually appealing to a sense of unity based on nationalism, ethnicity, race or some other theme, all of which emphasize a fear of "the others" who are out to destroy "our way of life."
Scholar Kevin Passmore (Cardiff University) lists 15 characteristics of the system in his book titled "Fascism: A Very Short Introduction" (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed. 2014, pg 5).
These characteristics include Ultranationalism, Charismatic leadership, Dictatorship, Racism, Antisemitism, a Single Party, Paramilitarism, Violence (actual or threatened), Corporatism, a Totalitarian Ideology, and several others.
Not all 20th Century movements known as fascist displayed all 15 of the characteristics listed. For example, antisemitism was strong in Germany version, but not in Italy.
The same is true today, but nonetheless, there are fascist trends to be found in several countries around the world, including America. Bias against certain racial and ethnic groups is strong among some socio-political movements that are building strength in the mainstream of society. Antisemitism is virulent among some, but this time the religious bias is against Islam, not Judaism.
Several times in recent years, this column has run several essays on the book "It Can't Happen Here," and two other books dealing with a radical takeover of the U.S. government. The first book was fiction, but the warning was that it can indeed happen here, and very nearly did -- twice.
Comes now a book by Madeleine Albright, who came to America as a young woman to escape fascism in her native Czechoslovakia and rose to become a secretary of state.
The book is titled "Fascism: A Warning," in which she argues that several world leaders are using the same tactics as those of Mussolini and Hitler. Moreover, she describes the current occupant of the Oval Office as "the most undemocratic president" in U.S. history.
The headline over Albright's op-ed essay in the New York Times April 6 posed the question "Will We Stop Trump / Before It's Too Late?"
She lists many of the countries around the world where its leaders are encouraged by the "volatile presidency of Donald Trump." And by "what he has said, done, and failed to do," Trump has "diminished America's positive clout" in the world, and his actions have increased the possibility that "fascism will be accorded a fresh chance to strut around the world stage."
It might even gain a chance to strut in America, led by someone who struts in his own self-importance much as other fascist leaders have in past years.
The Latin word for a bundle of rods tied together is fasces, and it symbolizes strength, especially in the Roman era when an axe head was tied into one end of the bundle of rods and the entire tool was carried in ceremonial processions.
The symbol was also used on the obverse of the U.S. dime until 1945, when the profile of President Franklin W. Roosevelt replaced the head of the god Mercury and the flip side showed a torch instead of an axe inserted into a bundle of rods.
The word was adopted in Italy in the 1920s by the political movement led by Benito Mussolini to emphasize the power of unity, even as it focused on nationalism and social welfare. Similar political objectives were set in Germany by its National Socialist Party led by Adolf Hitler. (The term "Nazi" is an abbreviation of the German word for "nationalist.")
So what are the primary characteristics of the political movement known as fascism? In one sense, if capitalism is at one end of the economic-political spectrum and socialism is at the other extreme, fascism is neither fully anti-capitalist nor entirely anti-socialist, but lies somewhere in the middle.
If socialism-communism be defined as complete government control of all means or production and distribution, and pure capitalism gives full control to private enterprise and investors with no voice or input by labor, then neither can be found in the real world, although many have tried.
The reality, then, is that most socio-political-economic systems are elsewhere on the scale. At one time in America, labor had no significant voice in how workers were paid and how a company was run. The rise of organized labor and unions changed that as management adjusted.
In Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union tried full control by a labor-government coalition, but that didn't work either. Nonetheless, these two histories don't stop some from trying, usually appealing to a sense of unity based on nationalism, ethnicity, race or some other theme, all of which emphasize a fear of "the others" who are out to destroy "our way of life."
Scholar Kevin Passmore (Cardiff University) lists 15 characteristics of the system in his book titled "Fascism: A Very Short Introduction" (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed. 2014, pg 5).
These characteristics include Ultranationalism, Charismatic leadership, Dictatorship, Racism, Antisemitism, a Single Party, Paramilitarism, Violence (actual or threatened), Corporatism, a Totalitarian Ideology, and several others.
Not all 20th Century movements known as fascist displayed all 15 of the characteristics listed. For example, antisemitism was strong in Germany version, but not in Italy.
The same is true today, but nonetheless, there are fascist trends to be found in several countries around the world, including America. Bias against certain racial and ethnic groups is strong among some socio-political movements that are building strength in the mainstream of society. Antisemitism is virulent among some, but this time the religious bias is against Islam, not Judaism.
Several times in recent years, this column has run several essays on the book "It Can't Happen Here," and two other books dealing with a radical takeover of the U.S. government. The first book was fiction, but the warning was that it can indeed happen here, and very nearly did -- twice.
Comes now a book by Madeleine Albright, who came to America as a young woman to escape fascism in her native Czechoslovakia and rose to become a secretary of state.
The book is titled "Fascism: A Warning," in which she argues that several world leaders are using the same tactics as those of Mussolini and Hitler. Moreover, she describes the current occupant of the Oval Office as "the most undemocratic president" in U.S. history.
The headline over Albright's op-ed essay in the New York Times April 6 posed the question "Will We Stop Trump / Before It's Too Late?"
She lists many of the countries around the world where its leaders are encouraged by the "volatile presidency of Donald Trump." And by "what he has said, done, and failed to do," Trump has "diminished America's positive clout" in the world, and his actions have increased the possibility that "fascism will be accorded a fresh chance to strut around the world stage."
It might even gain a chance to strut in America, led by someone who struts in his own self-importance much as other fascist leaders have in past years.
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
Add 'Em Up
It's not hard to figure, folks. When you reduce revenue and increase spending, you go broke.
Whether that matters on a national level is something that economists have been debating for years. As former Vice President Dick Cheney once said, "Deficits don't matter."
But do they?
It may be true that government bonds are one of the safest of all investments, and most are held by citizens of the country that issues the bonds, so in a sense you owe the money to yourself.
It's also true that when a government is really up against a financial wall, it can simply print more money, and hope that things settle down relatively soon. But putting more money into circulation -- inflating the supply of money -- only means more cost to the consumer, since prices rise to absorb the amount of money available.
Fortunately, major nations have a central bank to help control the supply of money and thus keep inflation in check. That's one of the major goals of the U.S. Federal Reserve. The Fed does not, however, have direct influence on the U.S. Treasury, which controls the printing presses for cash money.
And for all the talk from conservatives about the horrors of deficit spending and the desperate need for budget control and debt reduction, the historic reality is that there have been more years of national budget deficits under Republican administrations than under Democratic presidents.
For example, President Bill Clinton inherited a budget in the hole by some $255 billion, but turned things around so the government operated with a surplus of income over expenses for four years. When he left office, his successor George W. Bush inherited a budget surplus of $128 billion. Within a year, however, that surplus was gone and government budgets have posted deficits ever since.
Now the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reports that the federal deficit -- the difference between income and expenses -- is likely to soar to more than $1 trillion in two years. That's a thousand times bigger than the $1.5 billion deficit posted in 2010. Since then, the federal deficit retreated, so the anticipated deficit for the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, will be about $984 billion, according to the U.S. Treasury. This as the Trump administration implements huge tax cuts, especially for corporations, and greater spending for the military as social welfare budgets are slashed.
Like the man said, when you reduce income and increase spending, you go broke.
So is the U.S. government likely to go broke? That's something for academics to argue, but as the national debt rises to match the level of economic output, there's likely to be a problem, especially if the economy lapses into a recession, where the total value of goods and services produced in a given year declines.
Whether that matters on a national level is something that economists have been debating for years. As former Vice President Dick Cheney once said, "Deficits don't matter."
But do they?
It may be true that government bonds are one of the safest of all investments, and most are held by citizens of the country that issues the bonds, so in a sense you owe the money to yourself.
It's also true that when a government is really up against a financial wall, it can simply print more money, and hope that things settle down relatively soon. But putting more money into circulation -- inflating the supply of money -- only means more cost to the consumer, since prices rise to absorb the amount of money available.
Fortunately, major nations have a central bank to help control the supply of money and thus keep inflation in check. That's one of the major goals of the U.S. Federal Reserve. The Fed does not, however, have direct influence on the U.S. Treasury, which controls the printing presses for cash money.
And for all the talk from conservatives about the horrors of deficit spending and the desperate need for budget control and debt reduction, the historic reality is that there have been more years of national budget deficits under Republican administrations than under Democratic presidents.
For example, President Bill Clinton inherited a budget in the hole by some $255 billion, but turned things around so the government operated with a surplus of income over expenses for four years. When he left office, his successor George W. Bush inherited a budget surplus of $128 billion. Within a year, however, that surplus was gone and government budgets have posted deficits ever since.
Now the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reports that the federal deficit -- the difference between income and expenses -- is likely to soar to more than $1 trillion in two years. That's a thousand times bigger than the $1.5 billion deficit posted in 2010. Since then, the federal deficit retreated, so the anticipated deficit for the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, will be about $984 billion, according to the U.S. Treasury. This as the Trump administration implements huge tax cuts, especially for corporations, and greater spending for the military as social welfare budgets are slashed.
Like the man said, when you reduce income and increase spending, you go broke.
So is the U.S. government likely to go broke? That's something for academics to argue, but as the national debt rises to match the level of economic output, there's likely to be a problem, especially if the economy lapses into a recession, where the total value of goods and services produced in a given year declines.
Monday, April 9, 2018
Impeach, Indict, or Both
For all the rhetorical noise and talk show banter about what's going to happen to the president, there are two questions at the root of the issue:
-- Will Donald J. Trump be impeached, convicted and removed from office?
-- Can a president be indicted on a criminal charge while in office?
Only two presidents have been impeached, but neither was convicted. The charge against Andrew Johnson was that he fired a Cabinet secretary without consulting Congress. The argument was that since the Senate had approved the nomination, the Senate also had the right to approve his dismissal.
The main charge against Bill Clinton was that he lied to Congress about having an extra-marital affair. Whether that rose to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor was likely the deciding factor in the failure to convict.
The Constitution specifies that a president can be impeached for "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors." After that, the president would face trial in the Senate, presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, and if convicted, removed from office.
Richard Nixon was not impeached. He resigned before the articles of impeachment approved by a House committee could be voted on by the full House of Representatives. Subsequently, President Gerald Ford issued a full pardon for any crimes and misdemeanors Nixon may have committed. Therefore, since he was not convicted, we must presume innocence. Moreover, the pardon precluded the possibility that Nixon could face any charges in a criminal court after leaving office.
The impeachment provision in the Constitution specifies that the only penalty for conviction is removal from office, and adds that a president would still be liable for prosecution in a criminal court.
Which brings us to the puzzle of what the current president faces.
No president has been indicted on any criminal charge while in office. Yet.
Can a sitting president be indicted? Or, as chief executive officer, is a president above the law? A counter argument to that is that no one is above the law.
So where is the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller's team going, and what are they looking for?
There has been much speculation reported in the news media as to the possible directions taken by the Mueller team, and whether what the team finds rises to the level of "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors" as specified by the Constitution.
But is Mueller conducting a criminal probe, an impeachment probe, or both?
What began as a probe into possible election interference has apparently expanded to include questions about collusion with a foreign power, and other matters.
As is typical with major investigations, it's the phrase, "other matters" that opens the door to the unexpected.
Separately, there is the emoluments clause of the Constitution, which says that no federal office holder can receive any gift or present or any thing of value "of any kind whatever," from any foreign power.
The president could face legal action claiming he has done just that because of his business involvement. In fact, a summons was issued to President Donald Trump March 22 by the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia alleging that the president is violating that clause because foreign groups choose to stay at Trump-owned properties as a way of gaining favor with the president.
If that is upheld and proven, it could be ruled tantamount to bribery or treason, which are impeachable offenses.
Meanwhile, impeachment is not likely to happen this year, unless the GOP-controlled House of Representatives and the Senate changes its attitude of loyalty to a president who happens to be a Republican.
Even if there is a major turnover in November and Democrats win big, they won't dominate Congress until January. And even then they would need some Republican support for impeachment, trial and removal from office, or even invoking the 25th Amendment provision that allows for removal due to inability to perform the duties of the office. That's harder to prove than impeachment charges.
All this leaves the question of whether the president is likely to be indicted soon -- in the next few months.
Or will the special counsel be fired and his investigative team be disbanded? And if so, will someone else take up the challenge?
-- Will Donald J. Trump be impeached, convicted and removed from office?
-- Can a president be indicted on a criminal charge while in office?
Only two presidents have been impeached, but neither was convicted. The charge against Andrew Johnson was that he fired a Cabinet secretary without consulting Congress. The argument was that since the Senate had approved the nomination, the Senate also had the right to approve his dismissal.
The main charge against Bill Clinton was that he lied to Congress about having an extra-marital affair. Whether that rose to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor was likely the deciding factor in the failure to convict.
The Constitution specifies that a president can be impeached for "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors." After that, the president would face trial in the Senate, presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, and if convicted, removed from office.
Richard Nixon was not impeached. He resigned before the articles of impeachment approved by a House committee could be voted on by the full House of Representatives. Subsequently, President Gerald Ford issued a full pardon for any crimes and misdemeanors Nixon may have committed. Therefore, since he was not convicted, we must presume innocence. Moreover, the pardon precluded the possibility that Nixon could face any charges in a criminal court after leaving office.
The impeachment provision in the Constitution specifies that the only penalty for conviction is removal from office, and adds that a president would still be liable for prosecution in a criminal court.
Which brings us to the puzzle of what the current president faces.
No president has been indicted on any criminal charge while in office. Yet.
Can a sitting president be indicted? Or, as chief executive officer, is a president above the law? A counter argument to that is that no one is above the law.
So where is the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller's team going, and what are they looking for?
There has been much speculation reported in the news media as to the possible directions taken by the Mueller team, and whether what the team finds rises to the level of "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors" as specified by the Constitution.
But is Mueller conducting a criminal probe, an impeachment probe, or both?
What began as a probe into possible election interference has apparently expanded to include questions about collusion with a foreign power, and other matters.
As is typical with major investigations, it's the phrase, "other matters" that opens the door to the unexpected.
Separately, there is the emoluments clause of the Constitution, which says that no federal office holder can receive any gift or present or any thing of value "of any kind whatever," from any foreign power.
The president could face legal action claiming he has done just that because of his business involvement. In fact, a summons was issued to President Donald Trump March 22 by the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia alleging that the president is violating that clause because foreign groups choose to stay at Trump-owned properties as a way of gaining favor with the president.
If that is upheld and proven, it could be ruled tantamount to bribery or treason, which are impeachable offenses.
Meanwhile, impeachment is not likely to happen this year, unless the GOP-controlled House of Representatives and the Senate changes its attitude of loyalty to a president who happens to be a Republican.
Even if there is a major turnover in November and Democrats win big, they won't dominate Congress until January. And even then they would need some Republican support for impeachment, trial and removal from office, or even invoking the 25th Amendment provision that allows for removal due to inability to perform the duties of the office. That's harder to prove than impeachment charges.
All this leaves the question of whether the president is likely to be indicted soon -- in the next few months.
Or will the special counsel be fired and his investigative team be disbanded? And if so, will someone else take up the challenge?
Friday, April 6, 2018
Go Figure
The U.S. added 103,000 jobs last month, the unemployment rate held at 4.1 percent, and average earnings rose a bit. The economy has added jobs for 90 months straight, the jobless rate has been steady since October, and wages are higher. But for all these signs of strength, the stock market dropped nearly 600 points.
What's going on? Whatever happened to the idea that the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the most widely followed stock market number, is allegedly a barometer of the economy?
If it is, then America may be in trouble. If it's not, then why do investors sell in the face of such continuing economic good news?
It could be that Wall Street statistics are not an indicator of future performance, but a reflection of investor emotions.
One thing is sure about the stock market: It will fluctuate. In any case, few Americans own stock, so they are not directly affected by market performance as measured by the averages. For those who do own stock, they would be more interested in that individual stock's rise or fall, rather than an overall average. For those who don't own stock, the Dow averages, or any other data figure, doesn't matter.
Unless high rollers on Wall Street know something that the rest of us don't know, and are working on insider information.
But isn't that illegal? Yes, but that doesn't mean it's not there.
Either that, or the investor world is a culture unto itself, and has little to do with the rest of the world of workers and managers.
In any case, the U.S. economy has been growing steadily for nearly eight years, and it may be time to take a breath.
Or not.
What's going on? Whatever happened to the idea that the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the most widely followed stock market number, is allegedly a barometer of the economy?
If it is, then America may be in trouble. If it's not, then why do investors sell in the face of such continuing economic good news?
It could be that Wall Street statistics are not an indicator of future performance, but a reflection of investor emotions.
One thing is sure about the stock market: It will fluctuate. In any case, few Americans own stock, so they are not directly affected by market performance as measured by the averages. For those who do own stock, they would be more interested in that individual stock's rise or fall, rather than an overall average. For those who don't own stock, the Dow averages, or any other data figure, doesn't matter.
Unless high rollers on Wall Street know something that the rest of us don't know, and are working on insider information.
But isn't that illegal? Yes, but that doesn't mean it's not there.
Either that, or the investor world is a culture unto itself, and has little to do with the rest of the world of workers and managers.
In any case, the U.S. economy has been growing steadily for nearly eight years, and it may be time to take a breath.
Or not.
Wednesday, April 4, 2018
Libel and Opinion
"If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen." -- Harry Truman
Yours is only an opinion; mine is a true fact, said the politician.
False facts are of no use to anyone. -- Pug Mahoney
Libel and opinion are not always the same thing. An opinion may defame someone and therefore be libelous, but not all opinions are libelous.
For example, a theater critic may write that a performance was dull and boring, but that remains one person's opinion and is not libelous even though others may believe the performance was magnificent.
Similarly, to say that a politician is arrogant, ignorant and incompetent starts as an opinion, but it may also be true, and therefore fails the libel test on both counts.
And to write that a politician is a liar and a hypocrite may start life as an opinion but can bring accusations of libel. This leads to the point that the best defense against libel is that whatever was said or written was true, provably true, and done without malice and with reckless disregard for whether true or not.
Moreover, the standards of libel differ for people in the public eye who engage in strenuous, open debate.
So just as singers, actors, performers and politicians open themselves to strong criticism of what they say and do, this is not libelous, not matter how much the performer or politician doesn't like it.
Suing an editor for writing that a politician is an arrogant, ignorant, incompetent liar and hypocrite is pointless for two reasons:
First, it's known as fair comment of a person in the public eye, and second, it may well be true that the subject of the criticism really is an arrogant, ignorant, incompetent liar and hypocrite, which can be proven by citing the politician's public record of what he has said and done.
Yours is only an opinion; mine is a true fact, said the politician.
False facts are of no use to anyone. -- Pug Mahoney
Libel and opinion are not always the same thing. An opinion may defame someone and therefore be libelous, but not all opinions are libelous.
For example, a theater critic may write that a performance was dull and boring, but that remains one person's opinion and is not libelous even though others may believe the performance was magnificent.
Similarly, to say that a politician is arrogant, ignorant and incompetent starts as an opinion, but it may also be true, and therefore fails the libel test on both counts.
And to write that a politician is a liar and a hypocrite may start life as an opinion but can bring accusations of libel. This leads to the point that the best defense against libel is that whatever was said or written was true, provably true, and done without malice and with reckless disregard for whether true or not.
Moreover, the standards of libel differ for people in the public eye who engage in strenuous, open debate.
So just as singers, actors, performers and politicians open themselves to strong criticism of what they say and do, this is not libelous, not matter how much the performer or politician doesn't like it.
Suing an editor for writing that a politician is an arrogant, ignorant, incompetent liar and hypocrite is pointless for two reasons:
First, it's known as fair comment of a person in the public eye, and second, it may well be true that the subject of the criticism really is an arrogant, ignorant, incompetent liar and hypocrite, which can be proven by citing the politician's public record of what he has said and done.
Monday, April 2, 2018
A Nation of Immigrants
"There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware.
"It's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down." -- Buffalo Springfield
"All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others."
-- George Orwell, "Animal Farm"
Literature is filled with warnings about government takeovers by demagogues who claim they support equal treatment for all but really want full control for themselves.
The collapse of democracy varies in its causes, but the pattern is similar, often based on economic distress combined with fear of "the other."
In America in the 1930s, it was fear of rising labor unions during the Great Depression.
Fear of immigrants has been a recurring issue throughout U.S. history, which is ironic, since the country is itself a nation of immigrants.
The Pilgrims were refugees from religious persecution.
Spanish invaders were opportunists searching for gold and silver.
In the mid-19th Century, Irish immigrants fled famine, but faced religious bias when they arrived.
Late 19th Century German immigrants sought to escape political persecution.
Refugees from Eastern Europe, including Poland and Ukraine, sought economic opportunity.
A steady stream of Jewish refugees from several countries came to America to escape religious persecution.
People from Asia wanted to leave warfare behind and find economic opportunity.
Others from Central and South America come to the U.S. for reasons similar to those that attracted other groups here for many years.
All can be summarized in the Four Freedoms cited by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in his State of the Union address in January 1941:
Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship, Freedom from Want, and Freedom from Fear.
The Freedom from Want is resolved by having a job, a big reason many come to America, taking even low-paying, low-skill jobs that others don't want and won't take.
Freedom of Speech and Worship are guaranteed to all by the Constitution, but many who were here first deny these freedoms to newcomers.
Likewise, Freedom from Fear is not only denied to newcomers, but fear is inflicted on them by some whose ancestors came to America for similar reasons.
Organized labor had as its first goal a living wage, so workers would achieve Freedom from Want, as well as protection from irresponsible, even cruel, management -- Freedom from Fear. Even so, the disparity between worker income and the very wealthy is widening.
Many who worship in predominantly European fashions no longer face harassment as they did earlier in American history, but recently there has been strong antipathy toward a religion that originated in the Middle East, even led by a president who called for a complete and total ban on all Muslims. Ironically, Christianity and Judaism also originated in the Middle East.
So much for the president's oath to preserve and protect the Constitution, which guarantees Freedom of Worship.
This president has also said that those who disagree with him should be locked up. So much for Freedom of Speech.
And he has demanded that those who come to America in desperation, seeking opportunity amid the Four Freedoms, be deported. So much for Freedom from Fear.
Oddly, many of those who come in desperation take low paying, low skill jobs that others already here don't want and won't take. So much for the Land of Opportunity.
One more irony: The current president of the United States is himself the descendant of immigrants. His grandfather came from Germany to America seeking opportunity and succeeded, but was deported after he returned to his homeland because he failed to perform military service.
Must be a family tradition, since the grandson avoided military service by claiming he had a bone spur in his heel. Except he forgot which heel.
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware.
"It's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down." -- Buffalo Springfield
"All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others."
-- George Orwell, "Animal Farm"
Literature is filled with warnings about government takeovers by demagogues who claim they support equal treatment for all but really want full control for themselves.
The collapse of democracy varies in its causes, but the pattern is similar, often based on economic distress combined with fear of "the other."
In America in the 1930s, it was fear of rising labor unions during the Great Depression.
Fear of immigrants has been a recurring issue throughout U.S. history, which is ironic, since the country is itself a nation of immigrants.
The Pilgrims were refugees from religious persecution.
Spanish invaders were opportunists searching for gold and silver.
In the mid-19th Century, Irish immigrants fled famine, but faced religious bias when they arrived.
Late 19th Century German immigrants sought to escape political persecution.
Refugees from Eastern Europe, including Poland and Ukraine, sought economic opportunity.
A steady stream of Jewish refugees from several countries came to America to escape religious persecution.
People from Asia wanted to leave warfare behind and find economic opportunity.
Others from Central and South America come to the U.S. for reasons similar to those that attracted other groups here for many years.
All can be summarized in the Four Freedoms cited by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in his State of the Union address in January 1941:
Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship, Freedom from Want, and Freedom from Fear.
The Freedom from Want is resolved by having a job, a big reason many come to America, taking even low-paying, low-skill jobs that others don't want and won't take.
Freedom of Speech and Worship are guaranteed to all by the Constitution, but many who were here first deny these freedoms to newcomers.
Likewise, Freedom from Fear is not only denied to newcomers, but fear is inflicted on them by some whose ancestors came to America for similar reasons.
Organized labor had as its first goal a living wage, so workers would achieve Freedom from Want, as well as protection from irresponsible, even cruel, management -- Freedom from Fear. Even so, the disparity between worker income and the very wealthy is widening.
Many who worship in predominantly European fashions no longer face harassment as they did earlier in American history, but recently there has been strong antipathy toward a religion that originated in the Middle East, even led by a president who called for a complete and total ban on all Muslims. Ironically, Christianity and Judaism also originated in the Middle East.
So much for the president's oath to preserve and protect the Constitution, which guarantees Freedom of Worship.
This president has also said that those who disagree with him should be locked up. So much for Freedom of Speech.
And he has demanded that those who come to America in desperation, seeking opportunity amid the Four Freedoms, be deported. So much for Freedom from Fear.
Oddly, many of those who come in desperation take low paying, low skill jobs that others already here don't want and won't take. So much for the Land of Opportunity.
One more irony: The current president of the United States is himself the descendant of immigrants. His grandfather came from Germany to America seeking opportunity and succeeded, but was deported after he returned to his homeland because he failed to perform military service.
Must be a family tradition, since the grandson avoided military service by claiming he had a bone spur in his heel. Except he forgot which heel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)