Word Games and Hypocrisy

   If collusion is not a crime, as the Trumpians insist, how come the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) can file charges against a Texas firm for "colluding" with other firms to limit wages?
   The FTC said a therapist company and two owners have settled charges that they "colluded on rates paid to physical therapists in the Dallas/Fort Worth area."
   “Just as it is illegal for competitors to agree to fix prices on the products they sell in order to drive prices up, it is illegal for competitors to agree to fix wages or fees paid to workers in order to drive wages down,” said Bruce Hoffman, Director of the Bureau of Competition.
   The company involved, Your Therapy Source, as well as its owner and the previous owner of a competing firm, were charged with colluding to reduce pay rates for therapists and that they invited other companies also to collude on the rates.
   The term "collusion" was used regularly in the announcement, but the word "conspiracy" was not.
   Those named in the case have agreed to settle the charges, the FTC said.

   This news comes just a day after Trump supporters, led by lawyer Rudy Giuliani, proclaimed to any news outlet they could reach that "collusion is not a crime."
   So how come when a local company does it the feds jump on the case as illegal collusion, but when the president and his allies agree to do something deceptive and fraudulent there's no problem?
   Can you say "hypocrisy"?

Semantic Antics

   "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

   "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

   "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."

   -- Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking Glass."

   Lawyers are word warriors. They will argue definitions and connotations all day, to convince others that an action is or is not legal, acceptable or appropriate.

   It's a prosecutor's job to frame his or her argument in such a way as to persuade the court of someone's guilt.

   A defense attorney, on the other hand, will use the same information and the same or similar words to persuade the court that the client is innocent, or at least to plant sufficient doubt that an offense was committed.

   In their lawyer training academies, they will switch sides in their practice sessions to gain experience in arguing whatever case they are assigned.

   In doing this, they often play semantic games, arguing that a word does not really mean what you may think it means, but means something else entirely.

   For example, what's the difference  between collusion and conspiracy, or compared to conniving, corruption, complicity, plotting, scheming, collaborating, coordinating, or planning to deceive, mislead or defraud?

   To most people, all of these terms imply actions that are at least immoral and potentially illegal. But legally, according to federal law, collusion is not a crime, while conspiracy is.

   What's the difference? Collusion is a secret agreement to do something illegal, such as to deceive, mislead or defraud.  But until and unless that agreement is carried out, it's not a crime. When it is carried out, it's a conspiracy. The agreement is not a crime, but the act is.

   Go figure.

   For most people, the terms are practically synonymous. But politicians currently are using the word "collusion" every day, while avoiding the term "conspiracy."

   Ask two lawyers for definitions of a term, and you're likely to get three meanings, depending on whether he or she is a prosecutor, defense attorney or a disinterested judge.

   Recently, we have also heard politicians insist that investigators "broke in" to an office to seize "secret" recordings of conversations between a lawyer and his client, in this instance the president of the United States.

   Except that investigators politely knocking on a door and showing a search warrant approved by a federal judge is not a "break-in." And when one party to a conversation records the chat, it's not secret and therefore not illegal, even if the other party does not know of the recording.

   Nevertheless, that does not stop the president's supporters from continuing their insistence that their words mean just what they choose them to mean, and that you can't know what the words mean until they tell you.

Double Negatives

   "Don't use double negatives," said the grammar teacher, "because two negatives make a positive."
   "But that's only true in algebra," said the math teacher.
   "And some languages require double negatives," said the French teacher.
   "Sometimes repetition for emphasis is useful," the editor pointed out.

   All this comes to mind as the president of the United States tried to walk back his rejection of the charge that Russia meddled in the 2016 election.
   Recordings of the comment have the president clearly saying, "I don't see why it would be," as he accepted Vladimir Putin's denial that Russia interfered in the election process, overruling the unanimous agreement of U.S. intelligence agencies that it did.
   But after a torrent of outrage from Americans that Donald Trump appeared to be in Putin's pocket, Trump insisted he had inadvertently left out the ending "-n't" from the word "would," so the sentence really should have been "I don't see why it wouldn't be," adding that it was "sort of a double negative."
   Except that in the context of the rest of the statement, this particular sentence makes no sense, and to suggest that the two negatives somehow make a positive makes even less sense.
   Double negatives are common in many dialects of English, and to condemn their use is only to say that some dialects have more prestige than others. But that is a social judgment. Linguistically, all dialects are equal, because they enable their speakers to communicate easily.
   Finally, all this is an example of the standard complaint by politicians, when caught saying something egregiously wrong, of insisting, "What I really meant was ..."
   Doesn't work. Video machines record what you say, and journalists report what you say. If you meant something else, you should have said something else.

The Party's Over

   Watch for signs that the Republican Party in America is falling apart and may soon disappear.
   Already, many GOP officeholders have decided to abandon any bid for re-election, and some incumbents are increasingly saying they oppose many of the actions of their party leader, President Donald Trump. In addition, government officials, including those appointed by Trump, are resigning their positions rather than continue to serve their volatile leader.
   The catch in the problem, however, is the strong loyalty shown by Trump's ever-loyal base of support.
   As he proclaimed during the election campaign, "I could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and not lose any voters."
   This high confidence in the loyalty of his supporters, combined with a deep-seated sense of his own invincibility, combine to reinforce his conviction that he can do what he likes without consequences.
   Complicating the issue is the possibility that he is somehow beholden to the Russian government and to Vladimir Putin, perhaps related to his financial dealings with government owned and controlled Russian banks. There have been solid reports that many Western banks stopped doing business with the Trump Organization after numerous defaults on construction loans. As a result, the company began taking out loans from other banks, allegedly benefitting from Moscow's need to find a way to launder money it acquired in other ways.
   It has been suggested that this is one of the things that Putin is using to keep Trump in his pocket, forcing the American president to bend to the Russian leader's wishes.
   In turn, this would explain why the normally boisterous Trump is overwhelmingly courteous in his comments about Putin, even as he boots his criticism of America's allies in Canada, Britain, France and Germany.
   Details of Trump's financial dealings and allegations of money laundering won't fully be known until the president releases his tax returns, something he has steadfastly refused to do.
   It remains possible, moreover, that investigators led by special counsel Robert Mueller will subpoena Trump's tax returns, thus harvesting the evidence to prove the president's involvement with foreign entities.
   In turn, this could lead to criminal and/or impeachment proceedings, based on the constitutional ban on elected officials benefiting in any way from doing business with foreign companies or governments.
   It's called the emoluments clause in the Constitution.
   In addition, there is the Constitutional ban on "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors," which is grounds for impeachment.
   Already, numerous publications in America are using the T-word in their headlines about Trump's dealings with Putin.
   Meanwhile, the Mueller probe obtained indictments of a dozen Russian intelligence officers charging them with working to invade the American voting system to help elect Trump.
   The next question is, what American citizens did they work with in attempting to push the election to Trump's advantage?
   Stay tuned.
   While waiting, try reading "The Plot to Seize the White House," by Jules Archer; "The Plot Against America," by Philip Roth; and a new volume titled "The Plot to Destroy America," by Malcolm Vance.
   Not to worry, some may say, because such a thing can't happen here.
   Oh, right, that's another book title: "It Can't Happen Here," by Sinclair Lewis.
   The reality is that it very nearly did, and if Americans are not vigilant, it may just happen.
   Fortunately, the nation still has a vigilant and free press to continue warning of the danger, regardless of anyone's bombastic rantings about "fake news" perpetrated by journalists and news media that are labeled "the enemy of the people."

Witch Hunt

He may have a big mouth, but I've got a pencil. -- Pug Mahoney

   The president and his henchmen continue to dismiss the investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election as a "witch hunt."
   So far, more than two dozen people have been indicted, copped a plea or agreed to cooperate with the special counsel's probe.
   That's a lot of witches.

  The latest pronouncement from the White House is that no Americans on the president's campaign were listed in the indictment of a dozen Russian intelligence agents.
   This is true. No Americans were indicted. This week. Yet. There were, however, others who have been indicted on other charges.
   The question now is, who worked with the indicted Russians in the alleged meddling?
   
   Meanwhile, the president continues to bash America's friends, allies and journalists who do their job of asking tough questions and reporting what the president says and does, especially when his talk and actions conflict with fact and reality.
   When the so-called "witch hunt" finds many witches, it's no longer "fake news." In a free society, the pen is mightier than the sword, and a loud mouth is just that.
   Loud

Geography Lesson

Don't shoot off your mouth before your brain is loaded. -- Pug Mahoney

   During his tour of England, Donald Trump noted today that "I have property in the UK -- Scotland, Ireland."
   That will be news to the people of Ireland, which is an independent nation and has been for nearly 100 years. Moreover, one can argue that technically, Ireland has never been part of the United Kingdom, even though it was controlled by the British government.
   Historically, the UK was formed after the death of Queen Elizabeth I, when her cousin King James VI of Scotland united the two kingdoms, becoming King James I of England as well as retaining his Scottish crown.
   The nation then became known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain. This solved the potential problem of which country would come first in the new name, whether the country would be known as the United Kingdom of England and Scotland, or as Scotland and England. Either way, the Scots or the English would not be happy. So they settled on "Great Britain."
   In any case, Trump does indeed own a golf course in the west of Ireland, where he has been arguing with local zoning officials over whether he can build a wall to keep out the tide.
   But this property is in the Republic of Ireland, which gained its independence after the Easter Rising of 1916.
   Perhaps the current president of the United States should review a little history before going on an official visit to another country.

Civility

Respect cannot be demanded. It must be earned. -- Pug Mahoney

   Courtesy is a two-way street, and the only way it works is when people on the street observe both sides.
   You cannot demand it of others and not return it in kind. Otherwise, you show yourself to be a rude, crude, overbearing bully who does not deserve the civility, much less the loyalty, you expect from others.
   That may sound like someone you know personally as well as a prominent politician who has been in the news lately.
   Interrupting others is always rude, especially in a public forum of major political leaders.
   So if you want civil treatment, be civil. And remember that we are all created equal. In case you have forgotten, that's in one of the founding documents of the American republic.

   When you berate others with a barrage of insults, mockery, abuse and vilification, be prepared for such tactics to be returned. Either that, or you will be ignored as someone not worth responding to, much less dealing with, no matter your rank in government.
   Moreover, you will lose what few friends you may have had, all the way up to the international level.
   For an arrogant, uncivil egoist, to be ignored is a fate worse than defeat.

Mockery

Mock not, lest ye be mocked upon. -- Pug Mahoney

    Of his many (?) talents, Donald Trump is very good at mocking others. So good, in fact, that most of his American competitors quickly fail in their attempts to match him in mockery. This is especially true of politicians.
   Comes now his planned visit to Britain, as part of a tour of Europe -- which will include, of course, a side trip to one of his golf resorts in Scotland. But along the way, the Brits will greet him with a soaring balloon of a baby in diapers, picking up on his reported fuming at an associate for allegedly treating him "like a baby."
   And when it comes to mockery, who's better than the Brits, the same folk who brought the world Monty Python's Flying Circus?
   On his trip to London, will the president visit the Ministry of Silly Walks? Or will he seek out the Lady of the Lake, looking for her to launch a scimitar in his general direction as a hint that he be successful in his effort to form a new system of government?
   He can dish out mockery, but can he take it?
   Stay tuned.

Short-Sighted Economics

   The U.S.  economy is doing well, but the president continues to push protectionist politics onto an economy that does not need protection.
  Exports are increasing and imports are decreasing, which means the international trade deficit is less. The Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that the goods and services deficit was $43.1 billion in May, down $3 billion from April. Exports, meanwhile, rose by $4.1 billion, while imports increased by just $1.1 billion.
   All this in an $18 trillion economy.
   Separately, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said the nation added 213,000 jobs in June, while the unemployment rate edged up slightly to $.0 percent, an indication that more people returned to the workforce and were looking for jobs. Some 600,000 people joined the workforce and began looking for jobs in June, the Labor Department said. Most of the job increases were in professional and business services, manufacturing, and health care, while the retail trade sector lost jobs.
   Overall, the U.S. economy, as measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP), expanded by 2 percent in the first three months of the year.
   All this, however, does not stop the president from complaining about competition from other nations, and building economic walls to protect American business from what he calls unfair trade practices.
   He ordered some $34 billion in tariffs to be levied against goods coming from China, and promised more to come, even as China moved to impose an equal sum of import taxes on American goods.
   As noted in an earlier post, a tariff is nothing more than a tax on imports, and only sparks a trade war with the target nation.
   A long time ago, a poet noted that "no man is an island," and the same goes for a nation. An economy in isolation faces only stunted growth, because growth comes only from mutual trade, and the wider the trade, the more opportunity for growth.
   This is a basic principle as taught in Economics 101, something the president, who claims to have a degree in economics, should know. Unless, of course, he was absent from class and never read the textbook, something he has admitted to in the past.

Tariff Wars

   A tariff is nothing more than a tax on imports. Done selectively and judiciously, it may work. But typically, any set of tariffs imposed on goods from one country invites retaliation by the target country, imposing punishing fees on exports from the first country.
   Retaliation then brings on counter-retaliation by the first country, imposing still higher costs on yet more products.
   Punch brings counter punch.

   And so it goes, with the higher costs passed on to consumers on each side.
   So who wins? Possibly the producers, manufacturers and distributors, who gain revenue as they pass on the higher fees to consumers. And, of course, the government that levies the import tax.
   Until, that is, consumers can no longer afford to pay, so they stop buying stuff.
   Result: Everyone loses, and the economies of both countries recede.

Media Malevolence

   The days of taking a horsewhip to an editor when a reader doesn't like news coverage are long gone, only to be replaced by an angry reader with a shotgun.
   Worse, the retaliation against "fake news" in what the president has called "the enemy of people" may well have played a part in encouraging the recent newsroom attack on a daily newspaper in Annapolis.
   It seems one man nursed a grudge against the newspaper for years after it published a story about him that he didn't like, and even sued the paper for defamation.
   The suit was dismissed, largely because he had admitted to the charges filed against him in court. In any case, the best defense against a libel or defamation charge is that the information published is true, and therefore not libel.
   Nonetheless, the grudge-carrier blasted his way into the newsroom recently and killed five journalists.
   Every journalist can talk about being threatened over a story that was published. That's why reporters and editors develop a thick skin. Now, it seems they may also have to wear body armor.
   The Capital Gazette in Annapolis is not a major newspaper, and you won't find it among the top 100 dailies in America, since its circulation is less than 40,000 copies daily. That's about the size of many community daily newspapers in America. Papers this size typically emphasize local coverage of municipal and county news, as well as crime reports and courthouse activity.
   They do not publish "fake news." And rather than being "the enemy of the people," newspapers -- especially at this level, both daily and weekly -- are the friends of the people.
   The duty and responsibility of newspapers is to keep readers informed of developments in their communities, so they can make appropriate decisions  about their government.
   In a sense, all news is local, and this applies to news media that serve readers at the local, county and state levels, as well as national and international.
   Many readers don't like the idea of their names being in the paper, especially if they've been caught being naughty. But children outgrow that anger over being caught doing things they shouldn't.
   Unfortunately, some adults -- especially politicians -- never outgrow that, and instead attack those who expose their wrongdoing.
   No surprise, then, that some who hear these virulent verbal attacks on news media take that as permission to go to physical attacks.
   We've seen it at political rallies, as supporters verbally abuse reporters for doing their jobs. Now we see it in newsrooms, as disgruntled readers substitute shotguns for verbal abuse.