Speak Truth to Chaos

"No person ... shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law .." -- U.S. Constitution, Fifth Amendment.

   It is the duty and responsibility of journalists to speak truth to power, especially when those in power depend on chaos to advance whatever they perceive is an agenda.
   To call for the immediate deportation of refugees without due process of law offends not only morality, but violates the Constitution, which the president is sworn to uphold, protect and defend.
   Of course, if he has never read the Constitution, he can hardly be expected to do any of that.
   Instead, the president wallows in the chaos that he concocts, and has admitted that he enjoys such chaos, perhaps because it feeds his delusion that "I alone can fix it."
   In his latest effort to spread chaos and advance bigotry and racism against mothers and children seeking asylum along America's southern border, the president insists he wants more judges to hear their cases, and better yet, just send them back to where they came from without bothering with legal process.
   There are two problems with that position: First, the federal court system in America is an independent body, and not under the control of the president. And second, no person can be deprived of liberty with the due process of law.
   The Constitution does not specify that this applies only to citizens, to white men only, and excludes women, children or refugees, whether they be black, Hispanic or Asian. The Constitutional call for "due process of law" applies to all, and this has been upheld repeatedly by court decisions.
   Moreover, the policy of detaining refugees and separating them from their children -- which is done only along the nation's southern border and against Hispanic people fleeing violence, and not along the northern border -- can only be described as racist.
   To be consistent, perhaps the government should also close off the United States boundary with Canada. That would be consistent with the president's isolationist and nationalist talking points.

Appeal to Fear

   Logic 101 teaches that one of the basic fallacies in reasoning is the Appeal to Fear.
   Often, of course, there is good reason to be afraid. But demagogues use this fallacy to incite fear of the unknown as a way of advancing their own racist agenda.
   Moreover, while the rhetoric may sound good and appeals to those who are not familiar with facts and falsehoods behind the rhetoric, the strategy becomes part of the Big Lie technique. Say something often enough, loud enough and long enough, then some will begin to believe it.
   Recently, a high school student was chastised for writing in his yearbook about the Big Lie technique, as some folks complained to the school principal that the student was advocating the strategy used by Joseph Goebbels during the Nazi era in Germany.
   But the student could well have been noting that a similar technique was being used in America today.
   Usually, the target of the fallacy is a minority group, whose members are blamed by the demagogue for what he claims is a sharp rise in crime and that the target group is plotting a threat to the national culture and its way of life.
   The reality may be that the minority folk are only seeking refuge from violence and hope for opportunity in America.
   This reality, however, does not fit with the demagogue's plan, which is to enhance his own power at the expense of the minority. And the most effective recipients of this racist demagoguery often are members of a social group who have no knowledge or familiarity with the newcomers.
   That seems to be the case in America today. Those most afraid of newcomers crossing the nation's southern border are those who know least about the newcomers and the reasons why they risk so much to come to America, whether legally or not.
   There's nothing new here. In the past, newcomers to America have faced similar bigotry from those who were already here and want to shut the gate to freedom against those who seek it.
   It's happening again, as demagogues rant against the alleged danger to America brought by what they claim are millions of bad people streaming across an undefended, totally open border.
   As a result, this "zero tolerance" policy results in thousands of children taken from their refugee parents and sent far across the country with no provision, plan or effort to reunite them.
   Unfortunately, many of the "true believers" in the demagogue's support group endorse this radical, racist policy regardless of whether it is based on fact or reality.
   Rather, it is based on the fallacy of unreasoning, baseless fear.

NINA Returns

Help wanted: NINA (No Immigrants Need Apply)

   The president is closing the Golden Door of opportunity to newcomers to America. Currently, it's about the southern border, where people from Central America seek refuge from violence in their home countries and opportunities and safety in the U.S.
   But already there are suspicions that the plan to shut down immigration will spread to affect all other nations.
   Before the presidential election, candidate Donald Trump called for "a complete shutdown of all Muslims entering the country."
   What began in the 19th Century as an employer's bid to exclude some newcomers to America from applying for jobs by posting a sign reading "Help Wanted -- NINA," an abbreviation meaning "No Irish need apply," is now reflected in the government's attitude of keeping out all immigrants.
   Anyone watching TV news programs sees pictures of children being taken from their parents and shipped to military camps thousands of miles from the southern border as their mothers and fathers are deported back to their homelands. At the same time, no provision is made for opportunities to reunite the broken families.
   Why?

   An easy explanation might be incompetence. Another would be racism, bias and bigotry. Or all of the above.
   Either way, the practice mirrors the attitudes of 19th and early 20th Century America, when companies advertised for employers with the caveat that "applicants of all races and nationalities considered -- except no Irish."
 Through the years, there was equal discrimination against Jews, Italians, Poles, Chinese and many others. When World War II broke out, people of Japanese heritage were rounded up and sent to internment camps, even though many were native-born American citizens. Currently, the bias is against Muslims and those of Middle Eastern heritage.
   Most obvious in recent weeks has been a closing of the southern border to keep out Hispanics seeking asylum and opportunity, as well as imprisonment of refugees and separating little children from their mothers. In doing so, the government operates "tender age" facilities for infants and toddlers.
   The latest news is that while more than 2,000 children have been taken into custody and separated from their parents, the government is setting up facilities at military bases to take in 20,000 children.
   
   These are the latest and most flagrant signs of the isolationist tactics of the Trump administration. It's not a big leap to extend this strategy to shut down all immigration from every other country.
   It's been tried before. But the lure of freedom and opportunity has always been so strong a part of America that newcomers kept arriving, working  hard and succeeding.
   The list of those who have succeeded in America includes the president himself, whose grandfather was ousted from Germany. It includes his current wife, Melania, who came from Slovenia. The list also includes his Kushner in-laws, whose family were refugees from the Holocaust.
   In addition, there are many members of Congress who were born in other countries and came to America seeking, and finding, success.
   
   So if the Trump administration wants to slam shut the Golden Door, spitefully ignoring the famous words of welcome on the Statue of Liberty, does that mean that all immigrants, as well as their descendants, will have to go back to their countries of origin?
   Odds are the Mohawk, Iroquois, Arapaho, Apache, Sioux and millions of other Native American tribes people might well agree with that.

Ignorance and Arrogance

   Trump proposes a new military unit to operate in outer space. Perhaps he will nominate Tom Corbett to lead a battalion of Space Cadets as the U.S. forms this new Space Force, on a par with the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and the Air Force.
   Problem: In 1967, major powers on the planet agreed that outer space should not be used for military advantage, and this treaty was eventually agreed to by more than 160 nations, including the U.S.
   Issue: Trump either does not know of this treaty, which means he is ignorant, or he does not care, which means he is arrogant.
   Or both.

   Add this to the list of things he ignores or violates as he lies his way to impeachment and/or indictment.

Racist Policy

Send me your tired, your poor.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
-- Verse on the Statue of Liberty

   There is no other word for it. The policy of the Trump administration in breaking up families as they seek asylum on America's southern border is racist.
   Mothers are arrested  and deported, while their children -- including infants and toddlers -- are placed in government facilities. Moreover, no one knows how or if the children will be able to contact their parents. In fact, the senior federal official in charge of the operation doesn't even know where the children are. But reporters know, and cameras show it.
    Meanwhile, the Republican president insists that he is only following a law, and blames Democrats for having perpetrated said law. This is particularly odd, as experts point out that no such law exists that requires the breakup of families at border crossings. It is this administration's policy, and can be changed instantly by a telephone call from the president.
   And even if there were such a law, Republicans control both houses of Congress and could easily approve a change that the Republican president could quickly sign.
   But no. The administration continues to break up families under the guise of "protecting national security." From whom? Weeping children locked in cages after they are snatched from their mothers' arms?
   Oh, wait. They're not in "cages," goes the defense. They are in "fenced enclosures."
   Meanwhile, television news displays pictures of children weeping, separated from their mothers and locked in "fenced enclosures" as their mothers are sent to other states or deported.
   There is a law against illegal border crossings. But when women and children walk up to border facilities and ask for help in reaching safety, that is not illegal, nor is it a border crossing, nor are they threats to national security.
   To arrest the mothers and deport them while keeping the children is unconscionable, outrageous, unconstitutional, illegal, vicious and, yes, racist.
   Trump has slammed shut the Golden Door.

Word Play

Question: How dumb do politicians think voters are?
Answer: Very, says Pug Mahoney

   It's discouraging to hear supposedly intelligent government officials say things repeatedly that are false, provably false, and ludicrous to anyone who hears the words.
   But the more discouraging thing is that they keep talking longer, louder and with less sense every day. Moreover, many people continue to believe them.
   So maybe Pug Mahoney is right.
   The problem is that a politician will shoot off his mouth before his brain is loaded.

   The Washington Post, one of America's premier daily newspapers, "should be a registered lobbyist," said the president.
   Hello? Are there any adults in the Oval Office? Someone who went to high school and read the Constitution, where the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and of the press?
   The president also praised Kim Jong-un for taking charge of the North Korean government at the age of 26. He must have forgotten, if he ever knew, that Queen Elizabeth II has been chief of state of the United Kingdom, one of America's closest allies, since the age of 25.

   And when Kim speaks, the president noted, "his people sit up at attention. I want my people to do the same." That sort of demand for obsequiousness may work in real estate management, but not for citizens of a free nation.
   When challenged on that remark by reporters, the president insisted that he was being "sarcastic." But he is not known for that quality of speech. Nasty, vicious and demanding of total loyalty, yes. But sarcasm, no.
   Politicians are fond of defending themselves when challenged by using variations of "You didn't understand. What I really meant was ..."
   Citizens and voters have a right to expect government officials to be clear in what they say. We are not mind-readers. We only know what you say, and it remains the duty of journalists to record and report what a politician says, as well as how it may affect government policy and the public welfare.

World Cup Conundrum

   Three countries will host the World Cup soccer tournament in 2026 -- the U.S., Canada and Mexico. This is a clear vote for open borders and a clear smackdown of President Donald Trump's isolationist policies.
   Granted, Trump won't be president in 2026, even if he is re-elected to a second term in 2020. Unless he tries to suspend presidential elections and the Constitutional two-term limit in a bid to remain in power, as some have suggested he might attempt.
   Trump has already begun to build a wall to keep out Mexicans, and he has threatened punitive tariffs against Canadian firms in the name of "national security."
   Huh?

   The U.S.-Canada frontier is the longest undefended international border in the world, and any attempt to close it or limit access would cause chaos among the many people who live along the border and travel daily to and from the two countries.
   But if Trump tightens border restrictions and they are still in place at World Cup time, that will mean thousands of team supporters will face long delays in traveling to other nations for games.
   Traditionally, the host country automatically qualifies for the tournament, but it's not clear whether all three of the North America host nations will gain a berth in the tourney.
   Typically, the World Cup begins with teams from 32 nations competing in a round-robin opening segment, and over time a total of 80 games are played during the tournament. In the 2026 competition, some 60 games will be played in the U.S., and 10 each in Canada and Mexico.
   This is the first time three nations will host the World Cup. Earlier, Japan and South Korea jointly hosted the competition, but unlike the three North America nations, there is no land border linking them.
   So now the issue for U.S. Border Patrol officers will be how to cope with the many thousands of visitors from other countries visiting to support their home teams as they travel between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.
   There are numerous towns on the U.S.-Canada border where the international line splits the town in two, and in some cases goes through a single building, emphasizing the close relationship of the people in each country. Why that easy-going relationship does not happen along the border with Mexico is another question, with some saying the reason is racist.
   But whether the U.S.-Canada border will still be as open in eight years as it is now will depend largely on how and whether Trump's current isolationist, protectionist, "America First" policies cause an "America alone" situation.
   And, of course, there is the ultimate problem feared by some that Trump's avid base will support an attempt to bypass the constitutional two-term limit in the name of "national security" and name him "president for life."
   Don't laugh. It has happened in other countries before.

Taking Notes

There is no privacy on the internet.

   Keeping notes and records of conversations with sources is what journalists do. Historically, this stuff has not been available to legal beagles sniffing around for information that may be relevant to whatever it is they're investigating.
   In the past, reporters' notes and records of whom they contacted, when, and what was said could not be sifted through by investigators for two main reasons: a/ they are protected by law -- the legal doctrine of journalistic privilege -- and b/ they no longer existed, since many reporters destroyed them after a story was in print.
   In the rare event of a subpoena, reporters' responses would be that they stand by the report as it appeared in print, and the notes and source material no longer exist. And as for a prober's question as for why one bit of information was used or emphasized over another, the answer could be, "I don't recall."
   In addition to constitutional protection provided by the First Amendment, many states have legal protection for reporters under the doctrine of journalistic privilege, wherein reporters keep secret the identity of confidential sources.
   On the federal level, however, that doctrine does not always apply, so investigators periodically threaten reporters with arrest and jail time unless they reveal their sources. Some reporters have, in fact, gone to jail rather than comply with such a demand.
   Now we have the age of computers. Probers no longer need confront reporters to demand notes, records and the identity of sources. They can do it remotely, accessing computer files, email and telephone records, and then notify the reporter that they have the data.
   It became known this week that in their search for a leaker of government information, probers tapped into a journalist's email and phone records, and then, after they had done so, notified the reporter that they had picked up several years worth of data.
   Whether they were legally or constitutionally entitled to do so is now a debate and a court challenge.
   But a case can be made they the reporter should not have kept those records anyway.
   Granted, in this computer age it's very easy to keep every snippet of information, based on the chance that you may have need of it sometime, somehow, somewhere, maybe.
   But if it's easy for a journalist to save and have easy access to that trove of data, it's also easy for detectives to do the same, regardless of the journalistic privilege to protect a confidential source.
   It was easy enough for Woodward and Bernstein to keep their notes as they tracked down information for their long-running series of stories about the Watergate break-in and its connection to the Nixon White House. They didn't have computers, and the notes were physical pieces of paper that could be locked away in a desk drawer.
   That's not true in the computer age of electronic notes. There is no secrecy or privacy on the internet. The best a reporter can do is to send email notes and electronic drafts to the "delete" file. But that's not the same as destroying the text entirely, because a hacker can simply open the "delete" file and retrieve the documents. Even if the user "empties" the "delete" file, the computer simply transfers the data to another space in its memory -- call it the "empty delete" file. Next the information can be transferred to "clear empty delete" file, and so on.
   Computers never forget.
   Unless you follow the suggestion by Fox commentator Sean Hannity that you break up the machine, take out the memory chips, toss them into an acid bath and then smash them into tiny bits.
   Comes now a report that indicates the president has a habit of tearing up and shredding documents that he doesn't like, despite a law that says all White House documents that a president handles are public property and must be preserved for history.
   Meanwhile, does that mean that reporters must keep and divulge their notes despite constitutional protection of journalistic privilege, while the president is exempt from a federal law that says he must preserve and protect research and draft documents?
   By the way, several White House staffers spend several hours every day retrieving the shreds and carefully reassembling them into readable form.

Spite Fencing

Yankee stay home!

   "Canada will not be pushed around," said Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in response to taunts from U.S. President Donald Trump.
   Who would have guessed that a spat between neighbors could have such international consequences, that one bully could so swiftly destroy a calm relationship of more than 200 years?
   Yet that seems to be happening as the president arrived late for a meeting of his peers -- all American allies -- in Quebec City and left early. All so he could be two days early for a meeting in Singapore with the leader of North Korea.

   The friendly ties between the U.S. and Canada go back two centuries, and the business, economic and social relationships are so interconnected as to be highly dangerous if tampered with.
   Yet the president has threatened punishing tariffs as a way of dominating talks with other national leaders at the G7 conference last week. Moreover, one can doubt that he even listens to what his governmental peers are saying. Look, for example, at the body language shown in group photos of the G7 leaders. The pictures show Trump leaning back, arms crossed, and eyes staring off into space rather than looking at German Chancellor Angela Merkel, for example, as she speaks to him.
   In addition, he has called Trudeau "weak."

   Is that any way to deal with friends? Especially those who can close an international border and not allow U.S. citizens to visit or firms to trade?

   Meanwhile, here's a partial list of Canadians who have achieved prominence after crossing the border to a new home:
   Ted Cruz, now a senator from Texas, and Sean Patrick Maloney, a congressman from New York.
   Michael J. Fox, Paul Anka, Pamela Anderson, Dan Akroyd, Guy Lombardo, Leslie Nielsen, Hank Snow, Alex Trebek and Lorne Greene, all in the entertainment field.
   Morley Safer, Ali Velshi and Peter Jennings, television news hosts.
   And John Kenneth Galbraith, a prominent economist.

   One wonders, then, why the president of the United States insults, demeans and criticizes traditional American allies even as he courts cozy relationships with demagogues and dictators of the nation's adversaries.

Economic Dominos

   Tariff = Import tax
   Goal = To protect national production by keeping out foreign-made stuff.
   Result = Higher prices to consumers.
   Reality = Prices on both domestic and foreign goods go up, rewarding national producers, but foreign producers are also rewarded as they pass on higher costs to consumers as profit margins remain the same.
   Ultimate losers =  1/ Consumers, who pay higher prices; 2/ Firms, who trim costs and profits to remain competitive; and 3/ Workers, who lose jobs.
   Reaction = Retaliatory tariffs imposed by other countries.
   Consequence = International recession, an economic downturn as prices rise, production slows, and workers lose jobs.
   Implication = What starts as a trade war soon becomes a real military war.

   Note to politicians: Do you really want to go there?

The Great American Movie

"Can't we all just get along?" --  Rodney King

   There is no single "great American movie" because the nation is too diverse.
   There are many fine cinematic and literary works that shine brightly in the galaxy of artistic output, but because there are so many differing cultures flourishing in the country,  it is not possible to establish a single work that defines everyone in America.
   It may be true in other countries, where language, dialect and social groupings are similar enough so that a single production can speak to all segments of society.
   That is not true, however, for America.
   And this is what makes America great. Diversity, and the ability of the various groups to get along. For the most part, and in many parts of the nation, we can answer yes to Rodney King's question, which he posed while being arrested during the Los Angeles civil disturbances in 1992.
   Moreover, that hope that we all can get along is being undermined by national politicians these days for reasons that are likely known only to them.
   Meanwhile, the rest of us can enjoy the variety and diversity of cultures in the country by watching such movies as "Gone With The Wind," which deals with the American South around the time of the Civil War, or "The Godfather," which deals with Italian-Americans in New York City in the mid-20th Century.
   Both are excellent, award-winning productions, each depicting a portion of American society at a particular time in the nation's history.
   There are many others also, of course, dealing with differing cultural and social groups and the times in which they live.
   So to search for a single production to provide an in-depth look at all of American society is pointless. There are simply too many groups and circumstances that society must deal with.
   The beauty of America is that for the most part, we can and do get along with each other.
   The sad part is that some deliberately try to foment dissension as a way of feeding their own desire for power.
   The cure, then, is to remember that what really makes America great is its diversity.

Short Sighted

   The president's plan to impose tariffs on imports from Canada in the name of "national security" and the idea that America suffers from a trade imbalance is not only mistaken, it is ignorant.
   The balance of trade with America's northern neighbor shows that Canadians buy more stuff from the U.S., so there is a trade surplus in favor of the U.S.
   According to official U.S. government figures, exports to Canada rose to a total value of $341,7 billion in 2017, up 6.4 percent from the year before. And the total value of goods and services imported from Canada amounted to $338.9 billion, an 8.1 percent increase.
   That comes down to a net surplus benefiting American companies of $2.8 billion. That amounts to roughly a balance of trade, a pattern that has been true for years.
   So why the fuss about imposing a tax on stuff coming from Canada, unless it's a bid to benefit American companies that contributed campaign funding to the presidential election campaign?
   The reality is that the result will be higher prices to be paid by American consumers. There are many things that can be produced in Canada at far lower cost than in the U.S., so both nations benefit. The proposed tariffs (import taxes) will be imposed primarily on steel and aluminum, and the result, among other things, will be higher prices for automobiles, building construction and bridges.
   Also potential targets for higher tariffs are lumber and newsprint. And that will mean higher prices for houses and for newspapers. Canada has far more space available for growing trees than the U.S., and that's not likely to change for a very long time.
   So why stick it to America's good neighbor to the north unless it's a short sighted bid to reward political supporters on this side of the border?
   The real losers will be consumers on both sides.
   Moreover, if relations deteriorate really badly, could there be a wall going up to prevent travel? Imagine people in Detroit unable to commute to their jobs in Windsor, Ontario, just across the river. Or honeymooners being stuck on the U.S. side of Niagara Falls.
   And how would authorities stop people from boating across any of the five Great Lakes, either for business or pleasure?
   If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Munchkin Memo

   Sad news. The last surviving member of the Lollipop Guild and Munchkin in chief of the Lullaby League has gone somewhere over the rainbow to join the Wizard of Oz and his other companion stars from the movie.
   His obit was in today's NY Times. He was 98. 

Grudge Hollow

   The address formerly known as 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in Washington D.C. may now be known as Grudge Hollow, a place where people contract a condition where they forget everything but their grudges.
   When a president suffers from this condition, the result can be a hollowing out of the government he leads, so chaos will reign over what should be a smoothly running system that benefits all the people and not just the few cloistering for the president's favors.
   Moreover, the number of high level government officials who have been fired and not replaced, plus the many others who have rejected offers of positions in the Trump administration now exceeds one hundred. This decimates the management of the nation's actions and responsibilities, leaving a hollow shell dominated by a single person who insists the system is broken and "Only I can fix it."
   The reality is that he broke it, and has shown no ability to repair what he himself has broken. Unless he has some longer term plan to run the government by himself, with the help of a few devoted flunkies.
   As for holding grudges, whether real or imagined, here are some recent examples:
   Some 30 years ago, the National Football League foiled a bid by Donald Trump to buy a team franchise after his own startup league went under. This may explain why he has criticized players for kneeling during the National Anthem. As a result of this criticism, most of the players on the championship Philadelphia Eagles team turned down an invitation to visit the White House. It turns out that none of the Philly players took a kneel all season. And those players on other NFL teams did so as protest against police bias and mistreatment of minority people. Patriotism, or a lack of it,  had nothing to do with the protest movement.
   And in a telephone conversation with the prime minister of Canada, the president defended his tariffs on Canadian steel by saying, "Didn't you burn down the White House in 1812?" Those with a little knowledge of history know that it was troops of the British army that burned the building, not Canadians. In fact, Canada did not exist as a separate country until 1867. Incidentally, the burning was in 1814.
   Finally, Donald Trump's attacks on Amazon, with his threat to order the U.S. Postal Service to sharply increase the company's shipping costs, can be traced to the idea that Amazon founder Jeff Bezos now owns the Washington Post, a frequent critic of the president's policies.
   Ignorance may be bliss in some circumstances, but when the leader of a powerful nation regularly shows a monumental ignorance of history, politics, economics and many other issues, it's time to question his competence and fitness for office.

Cops and Teachers

   Which profession is more important to society, teaching or law enforcement?
   If both are equally important, it follows that teachers and cops should be paid equally.
   That, however, does not fit with reality.
   In general, a newly hired police officer is paid some $20,000 a year more than a beginning teacher.
   Both are important professions and each requires advanced training to do the job well. And yes, it can be argued that cops may be called on to risk their lives while on duty. But teachers have also been killed in their classrooms while on duty.
   So for all the reports about teachers mounting statewide walkouts in their quest for higher pay, it's important to keep in mind the influence and contributions they make to students and society, both in the classroom and for many years thereafter.
   Both professions are vital to society, and members of each deserve at least a living wage. The issue, then, is whether salaries paid to teachers are adequate. One way to measure that is to check the pay levels for each profession.
   Pay levels vary, of course, and that partly explains why teachers have gone on strike in several states recently in their quest for a living wage. Strikes by police officers, on the other hand, are rare.
   Meanwhile, in some parts of the country, local officials are recruiting teachers from overseas because they can't attract Americans to take the jobs.    
   The New York Times reported May 2 that low pay is forcing school districts to hire newcomers to the U.S., who take special visas to enable them to work here. In Arizona, for example, teacher pay is more than $10,000 below the national average of $59,000 yearly, the Times reported. In total, some 2,800 foreign teachers came to America last year, compared to 1,200 in 2010.
   So why do foreigners come to America seeking work? For the same reasons immigrants have always come to the U.S. -- this is where the jobs are, at higher pay than in their home countries.
   Moreover, the newcomers take the jobs that Americans don't want or won't take because the pay is too low. And that includes the teaching profession, which requires a college degree and specialized training.
   Teachers, however, are fighting back, going on strike to demand better pay and working conditions, including the need for adequate supplies for students.
   Is safety also an issue? Yes, but that's a task better done by police than teachers, whose students need pencils more than their teachers need guns. Teachers need salaries high enough to live on. And if their contributions to society are as important as those of police officers, then the salaries should match.

Word Warriors

I'm not a lawyer, but I do know words. -- Pug Mahoney

   Lawyers argue at great length over what words may or may not mean as they defend their clients. That's what they do, and some are more adept at the game of word play than others.
   For journalists, however, the goal is not to score points but to inform. For them, truth is not variable but straightforward.
  Even so, there is room for analysis and interpretation of what an event or action may mean and what its effect may be. Typically, these stories are labeled as analysis or commentary. Moreover, the type is set with ragged right margins, so readers can tell at a glance that it's not a straight news report, which would be set in what's called "justified" type.
   Practitioners of both professions can be called word warriors, since their mission is to bring information to the general public (journalists) or to persuade a judge or jury of what they perceive as truth and to either prosecute or defend whoever is charged (lawyers).
   For journalists, however, truth is not variable. Lawyers are like Humpty Dumpty, who famously said, "My words mean just what I choose them to mean, neither more nor less."
   News reporters are more like Alice, struggling through a Wonderland of debaters insisting, like Humpty Dumpty, that they are the linguistic masters of what they say.
   Too many lawyers seem to believe that because they are lawyers, they know what words mean, or were intended to mean, or should mean, or will mean once the lawyer explains what the words really mean.
   As if readers and listeners can't know what is meant until the lawyer tells them what is meant. But different lawyers might have different explanations of what a word means. Or, as Rudy Giuliani put it, "Truth is variable."
   As if the rest of us can't understand the Constitution until a lawyer translates it.
   Reality check: Most of those who wrote the Constitution were not lawyers. Benjamin Franklin was a printer and a writer. George Washington was a surveyor, soldier and a farmer. Most of the rest were merchants or plantation owners. All told, just 32 of the 55 men who framed the Constitution were lawyers.
   The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written for clarity, to carry a message easily understandable to all.
   Many lawyers today still strive for clarity and understandability in what they write. Unfortunately, too many also go into politics, where the goal is to persuade and to win.
   It's up to journalists to report the true meaning of what they say and do, and to expose their linguistic machinations for what they are -- attempts to mislead for their own benefit, not for the benefit of the society they claim to serve.

Fetters

Greed beats altruism every time -- Pug Mahoney

"Greed is good." -- Gordon Gekko, lead character in the movie, "Wall Street" (1987).

   The government is cutting out many restrictions on Big Business in the name of Making America Great Again.
   But the inevitable consequence of unfettered corporate operations is a wildly swinging economy, bouncing from rapid growth to sudden crashes.
   Somewhere between the two extremes of a fully controlled, tightly managed economy and the unfettered freedom of corporations to do whatever they want in the name of profits for shareholders lies a workable combination of ambition and concern that will benefit all of society.
   Freedom, of course, is a wonderful thing, but reality has a way of intruding on the lives of a nation's people and their politicians.
   Recent reports about the actions of the federal government show a preference for minimal control of what corporate America does in the name of profit. Here are a few:

-- Scott Pruitt, chief of the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA), wants to remove limits on automobile emissions.
-- The White House has suggested it wants to shut down the EPA entirely.
-- The president talks of "clean coal" as he moves to liberate coal-fired power plants from pollution controls.
-- The Department of Education under Betsy DeVos favors private schools over public schools operated by local governments.
-- The Federal Reserve Board wants to free big banks from lending rules intended to protect them from over-extending their exposure to risky loans.

   These and other actions favoring free market capitalism and corporate America will enable companies to race ahead to soaring profits as sales boom and international competition is limited.
   And, of course, all the profits that big companies reap will trickle down to workers as higher wages, and to consumers as lower prices.
   Eventually. In the long run. As time goes by. Sometime in the future, after management and shareholders get the lion's share.
   But here's something to consider about that metaphor.
   Lions don't share.

   All this is led by the belief that corporate generosity and management concern for the well being of others will ensure that  all things will be for the best in this best of all possible worlds, as Voltaire had one of his characters say in the satirical novel, "Candide."
   Meanwhile, the American economy continues to do well, as the nation added 223,000 jobs in May and the unemployment rate dipped again to an 18-year low of 3.8 percent.
   Economists, however, point out that a better overall measure of a nation's health is the labor force participation rate, which measures the percent of workers actually able to find and hold jobs. That figure, currently at 62.7 percent, has not moved significantly in many years. Likewise the employment-population ratio, now at 60.4 percent.
   
   Freedom is a wonderful thing, but reality has a way of intruding on wishful thinking.
   Conservative politicians and business leaders may prefer minimal regulations over what happens, but without some efforts to rein in over-optimistic stallions in the corporate race to profits, economic disaster can trip up the fastest, most enthusiastic jockeys.
   At the other extreme are those who would put stiff controls on what business folk do, and this can easily stifle ambition and innovation.
   Somewhere in the middle, between the extremes of full control and total lack of control lies a healthy, growing and rewarding economic system for everyone, both capital and labor.
   Moreover, building a tariff wall to keep out goods and services from other countries in the name of stimulating U.S. production, is short sighted. The U.S. economy is already doing well, but to cut off neighbors and friends is not only politically but economically foolish.
   Nobody wins a tariff war.