A single day of listening to cable TV news yielded the following crop of cliches, mixed metaphors and nonsense phrasings:
Yeah, well, um, y'know, at the end of the day, when we look at the situation as a whole, we really only see the tip of the iceberg, so we need to step back and remember that the proof is in the pudding, and it's time to put our ducks in a row, stand up and be counted and avoid the tipping point that leads to a bunker mentality.
The fact of the matter is that we're in a different ball game, and we have a window of opportunity to look for the smoking gun that will point to a tectonic shift.
It's an existential threat, to say the least, so we must follow the bouncing ball in a multiple carom shot and let the chips fall where they may.
Meanwhile, they've got him over a barrel as the witch hunt continues to bear fruit.
Editor's note: If you must use a cliche, at least get it right. The proof of any pudding is in the eating, not in the pudding itself. A bouncing ball in a multiple carom shot mixes two unrelated techniques; a video guiding a singalong with a billiards maneuver. And witch hunts can never produce apples or any other fruit.
Modern geology has given us the phrase "tectonic shift," which refers to plates which make up the earth's surface touch each other (tectonic) and over time increased pressure causes them to move. Result: An earthquake. So a tectonic shift is a major event, but not every change in politics and society rises to that level of importance.
Finally, how is an "existential threat" different from any other kind of threat? Is it because it threatens the very existence of someone or something?
Metaphors are useful phrases, but excess use deprives them of any value they might have once had in conveying information. They then become cliches.
Friday, August 31, 2018
Tuesday, August 28, 2018
Full of Snit
Body language can be a very revealing form of communication, especially when the communicator is angry or defiant about something and has not learned the technique and strategy of concealing his true feelings. This is a tactic that politicians, especially, adopt early in their careers.
Sometimes, however, a candidate succeeds because his base of support wants someone who shows anger, defiance and strong opposition to perceived wrongness and is willing to lead the country in a new direction.
In this situation, the candidate may tap into this perceived ocean of anger and repeatedly display his anger, both in speech and appearance.
The supporting voters may well be in a snit themselves, and eagerly follow a leader who is really full of snit, and who regularly displays it by showing his snit face.
Sometimes, however, a candidate succeeds because his base of support wants someone who shows anger, defiance and strong opposition to perceived wrongness and is willing to lead the country in a new direction.
In this situation, the candidate may tap into this perceived ocean of anger and repeatedly display his anger, both in speech and appearance.
The supporting voters may well be in a snit themselves, and eagerly follow a leader who is really full of snit, and who regularly displays it by showing his snit face.
Saturday, August 25, 2018
Language and Logic
Logic uses language, but language itself is not logical.
Pronunciation and spelling vary by region and social level, and the only thing that gives one dialect more prestige than another is the prestige of its speakers.
In that context, "dialect" has acquired some negativity, leading speakers of the prestige group to insist that their speech is "correct," while others are dismissed as "only a dialect."
That said, however, there is a standardized system of spelling, punctuation, grammar and speaking which has acquired the label of "preferred." The advantage of a standard dialect is that it enables those of various other speech and reading patterns to understand each other. This is not to say that the so-called "standard" dialect is inherently better, but only that it facilitates communication.
Dialects, in both spelling and speech patterns, vary by region as well as social groups. Along the East Coast of America, for example, and even with some major cities, there are many variations. People in the Boston area are identifiable by their speech patterns, as are people in New York City, Philadelphia, Virginia, Alabama and Mississippi. Yet they all use a standard system of spelling, even as pronunciation varies so much as to make communication difficult between a Brooklyn cab driver and an Alabama farmer.
Meanwhile, those who seek careers in broadcasting, show business or politics often abandon their native dialects in favor of what has become a "standard." However, they remain capable of return to their "home" dialect when needed. This is especially true of politicians, who may speak one way in the halls of Congress, but quite another when stumping for re-election back home.
Every trade or profession has its own set of words, phrases and pronunciations to set it apart from others, as well as to keep out non-members of the self-imposed inner circle.
This is known as jargon.
Some of the so-called higher professions, such as law and medicine, use a Latin-based vocabulary as their jargon. This is another way of adding even more prestige to themselves and their professions, while keeping out others. In addition, it gives them the opportunity of translating the academic jargon into plainer language, as if they were doing their clients a favor.
Journalists, meanwhile, have a habit of translating the polysyllabic Latin and Greek-based legal and medical terms into plainer, single syllable Anglo-Saxon based English terms for faster, easier understanding by readers.
May it always be so.
In fairness, however, it must be acknowledged that using Latin and Greek terms, especially in medicine, enables health care professionals in different countries with different languages to have a common set of terms.
But that means it's really just another jargon, albeit one with more prestige. And there's no logic to that. It just is.
Pronunciation and spelling vary by region and social level, and the only thing that gives one dialect more prestige than another is the prestige of its speakers.
In that context, "dialect" has acquired some negativity, leading speakers of the prestige group to insist that their speech is "correct," while others are dismissed as "only a dialect."
That said, however, there is a standardized system of spelling, punctuation, grammar and speaking which has acquired the label of "preferred." The advantage of a standard dialect is that it enables those of various other speech and reading patterns to understand each other. This is not to say that the so-called "standard" dialect is inherently better, but only that it facilitates communication.
Dialects, in both spelling and speech patterns, vary by region as well as social groups. Along the East Coast of America, for example, and even with some major cities, there are many variations. People in the Boston area are identifiable by their speech patterns, as are people in New York City, Philadelphia, Virginia, Alabama and Mississippi. Yet they all use a standard system of spelling, even as pronunciation varies so much as to make communication difficult between a Brooklyn cab driver and an Alabama farmer.
Meanwhile, those who seek careers in broadcasting, show business or politics often abandon their native dialects in favor of what has become a "standard." However, they remain capable of return to their "home" dialect when needed. This is especially true of politicians, who may speak one way in the halls of Congress, but quite another when stumping for re-election back home.
Every trade or profession has its own set of words, phrases and pronunciations to set it apart from others, as well as to keep out non-members of the self-imposed inner circle.
This is known as jargon.
Some of the so-called higher professions, such as law and medicine, use a Latin-based vocabulary as their jargon. This is another way of adding even more prestige to themselves and their professions, while keeping out others. In addition, it gives them the opportunity of translating the academic jargon into plainer language, as if they were doing their clients a favor.
Journalists, meanwhile, have a habit of translating the polysyllabic Latin and Greek-based legal and medical terms into plainer, single syllable Anglo-Saxon based English terms for faster, easier understanding by readers.
May it always be so.
In fairness, however, it must be acknowledged that using Latin and Greek terms, especially in medicine, enables health care professionals in different countries with different languages to have a common set of terms.
But that means it's really just another jargon, albeit one with more prestige. And there's no logic to that. It just is.
Thursday, August 23, 2018
Impeach or Indict
Can a federal official be indicted while in office, or must he or she be impeached first?
Spiro Agnew, vice president under Richard Nixon, argued that he could not be indicted while in office, but that any potential charges should be held until after impeachment and removal from office, or until after his term of office expires.
Solicitor General Robert Bork disagreed, so Agnew resigned as vice president and pleaded no contest to the charges filed against him.
Federal judges and members of Congress have been indicted while in office, so why not the president?
Justice Department policy has been that the agency does not try to indict a sitting president. That, however, only means that they don't. It doesn't mean they can't.
In recent days, the discussion has been raging in print and on TV talk shows as to whether Donald Trump should be indicted on a variety of allegations made against him, or whether the Department of Justice should wait until after he leaves office.
That argument did not work for Spiro Agnew as vice president, so why should it work for Trump?
As for Nixon, who resigned rather than face certain impeachment, his successor Gerald Ford issued a pardon soon after Nixon left, so the issue became moot -- even before any criminal charges were filed against Nixon.
Meanwhile, the evidence is piling up that Trump was indeed involved in various activities that violated several laws, increasing the odds that he could well be impeached, and that criminal charges could be filed against him even as he occupies the office of the presidency.
Now the question is whether an indictment should be sought now, or should legal officials wait until he is ousted through impeachment, resigns or leaves office after his term expires.
Lawyers argue the constitutionality of whether a sitting president can be indicted. Some say yes, others say no. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice is holding to its policy that they won't try.
It is clear, however, that many other federal officials have been indicted, tried and convicted of criminal or civil offenses while they were in office.
Up to and including the vice president. So is the president above the law?
Spiro Agnew, vice president under Richard Nixon, argued that he could not be indicted while in office, but that any potential charges should be held until after impeachment and removal from office, or until after his term of office expires.
Solicitor General Robert Bork disagreed, so Agnew resigned as vice president and pleaded no contest to the charges filed against him.
Federal judges and members of Congress have been indicted while in office, so why not the president?
Justice Department policy has been that the agency does not try to indict a sitting president. That, however, only means that they don't. It doesn't mean they can't.
In recent days, the discussion has been raging in print and on TV talk shows as to whether Donald Trump should be indicted on a variety of allegations made against him, or whether the Department of Justice should wait until after he leaves office.
That argument did not work for Spiro Agnew as vice president, so why should it work for Trump?
As for Nixon, who resigned rather than face certain impeachment, his successor Gerald Ford issued a pardon soon after Nixon left, so the issue became moot -- even before any criminal charges were filed against Nixon.
Meanwhile, the evidence is piling up that Trump was indeed involved in various activities that violated several laws, increasing the odds that he could well be impeached, and that criminal charges could be filed against him even as he occupies the office of the presidency.
Now the question is whether an indictment should be sought now, or should legal officials wait until he is ousted through impeachment, resigns or leaves office after his term expires.
Lawyers argue the constitutionality of whether a sitting president can be indicted. Some say yes, others say no. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice is holding to its policy that they won't try.
It is clear, however, that many other federal officials have been indicted, tried and convicted of criminal or civil offenses while they were in office.
Up to and including the vice president. So is the president above the law?
Wednesday, August 22, 2018
Gender Jingoism
Jingoism is defined as an attitude of extreme, belligerent patriotism, and is similar to the word chauvinism, which began in France and was named after Nicolas Chauvin, a Napoleonic veteran famous for his dislike of all things non-French.
More recently, those who focused on what they perceived as the innate superiority of men became known as male chauvinists.
These days, there remains a tendency to refer to women by their first names and to men by their last names.
One wonders why that is.
Is it because women are more friendly and outgoing than men, and less concerned with status?
Or is it because women feel the need to preserve some privacy, making it more difficult for men to find them?
Or is it that some men feel superior, and use whatever tactics they can to reinforce that?
In turn, of course, the last two reasons indicate something about men and their need to control others, which is also a reason why men are more likely to participate in extremely competitive sports. And politics, too, for that matter.
Times are changing, however, as more women take part in sports and politics. That could also explain the antipathy many men in politics feel toward women who dare to challenge them.
For a long time, women were relegated to secondary status, and in some societies throughout the world still are. Even in America, there is a pattern of referring to women by their first names and to men by the more formal use of titles and their family names.
One hears this often on political debate stages and, unfortunately, on news programs. A particularly notable example was during the presidential debates in 2016, when the Republican candidate was referred to as Mr. Trump, and the Democratic candidate only by her first name, Hillary, and not by the comparable term Mrs. Clinton.
And currently, a critic of the Oval Office is referred to only by her first name, Omarosa, and not by her full name -- Omarosa Manigault Newman.
Thee was a time in America when newspapers would refer to white men with an honorific title such as "Mister Jones," but members of minority groups by their first names only.
Those days are gone. But in an era of equal rights and responsibilities, perhaps it's time this change accelerated.
More recently, those who focused on what they perceived as the innate superiority of men became known as male chauvinists.
These days, there remains a tendency to refer to women by their first names and to men by their last names.
One wonders why that is.
Is it because women are more friendly and outgoing than men, and less concerned with status?
Or is it because women feel the need to preserve some privacy, making it more difficult for men to find them?
Or is it that some men feel superior, and use whatever tactics they can to reinforce that?
In turn, of course, the last two reasons indicate something about men and their need to control others, which is also a reason why men are more likely to participate in extremely competitive sports. And politics, too, for that matter.
Times are changing, however, as more women take part in sports and politics. That could also explain the antipathy many men in politics feel toward women who dare to challenge them.
For a long time, women were relegated to secondary status, and in some societies throughout the world still are. Even in America, there is a pattern of referring to women by their first names and to men by the more formal use of titles and their family names.
One hears this often on political debate stages and, unfortunately, on news programs. A particularly notable example was during the presidential debates in 2016, when the Republican candidate was referred to as Mr. Trump, and the Democratic candidate only by her first name, Hillary, and not by the comparable term Mrs. Clinton.
And currently, a critic of the Oval Office is referred to only by her first name, Omarosa, and not by her full name -- Omarosa Manigault Newman.
Thee was a time in America when newspapers would refer to white men with an honorific title such as "Mister Jones," but members of minority groups by their first names only.
Those days are gone. But in an era of equal rights and responsibilities, perhaps it's time this change accelerated.
Monday, August 20, 2018
Truth and Opinion
"Just the facts, Ma'am." -- Det. Sgt. Joe Friday in the TV series "Dragnet."
News programs have been going bonkers over Rudy Giuliani's comment that "Truth isn't truth."
For a moment, let's give him a break and consider that what he meant was that an opinion on what something means doesn't agree with what someone else may think it means. He may have been using the terms "truth" and "opinion" interchangeably.
In that scenario, you may choose an alternative set of facts and use them to justify or support a conclusion that you prefer, rather than someone else's conclusion.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys do this regularly, and it's up to a jury to decide which side has the better argument.
Truth is not debatable. What a particular truth means, however, can be and often is debated by lawyers and politicians long after the sun goes down. But at the end of the day, truth is that which conforms to fact or reality, and is not debatable.
Opinion is a conclusion as to what a certain set of facts may mean and how they will affect the world. This enables some to select alternative facts to bolster their preconceived notion of what should be or what they prefer to be.
Others may choose a different set of facts to support an opposing position.
Ideally, both sides should look at all the facts and reach a compromise on what would be the best way to make use of all the information available to best serve society.
All along, however, "truth" is that which conforms to fact or reality.
News programs have been going bonkers over Rudy Giuliani's comment that "Truth isn't truth."
For a moment, let's give him a break and consider that what he meant was that an opinion on what something means doesn't agree with what someone else may think it means. He may have been using the terms "truth" and "opinion" interchangeably.
In that scenario, you may choose an alternative set of facts and use them to justify or support a conclusion that you prefer, rather than someone else's conclusion.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys do this regularly, and it's up to a jury to decide which side has the better argument.
Truth is not debatable. What a particular truth means, however, can be and often is debated by lawyers and politicians long after the sun goes down. But at the end of the day, truth is that which conforms to fact or reality, and is not debatable.
Opinion is a conclusion as to what a certain set of facts may mean and how they will affect the world. This enables some to select alternative facts to bolster their preconceived notion of what should be or what they prefer to be.
Others may choose a different set of facts to support an opposing position.
Ideally, both sides should look at all the facts and reach a compromise on what would be the best way to make use of all the information available to best serve society.
All along, however, "truth" is that which conforms to fact or reality.
Sunday, August 19, 2018
Quotes to Remember
"Truth isn't truth." -- Rudy Giuliani
"What you are seeing and reading is not what's happening." -- Donald Trump
"Don't believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news." -- Donald Trump
"Alternative facts." -- Kellyanne Conway
"Who ya gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes?" -- Chico Marx
"The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears." -- George Orwell, "1984."
"We report, you decide." -- Fox News
Oddly, the most important of the above is the one that the president's allies on Fox News no longer use.
Meanwhile, print and broadcast journalists will continue to report and show what government officials say and do, so that voters can form opinions and vote accordingly.
Assuming they will still have the right to a secret ballot when the time comes.
"What you are seeing and reading is not what's happening." -- Donald Trump
"Don't believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news." -- Donald Trump
"Alternative facts." -- Kellyanne Conway
"Who ya gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes?" -- Chico Marx
"The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears." -- George Orwell, "1984."
"We report, you decide." -- Fox News
Oddly, the most important of the above is the one that the president's allies on Fox News no longer use.
Meanwhile, print and broadcast journalists will continue to report and show what government officials say and do, so that voters can form opinions and vote accordingly.
Assuming they will still have the right to a secret ballot when the time comes.
Friday, August 17, 2018
"Free" Enterprise
"No man is an island, entire of itself." -- John Donne
One of the guidelines of conservative politics is that businesses should be left alone and that "market forces" will restrain them from doing things that are harmful to the country and its population. Over time, and "in the long run," free market forces will rebalance the economy and everything connected to it, so everyone will be better off.
History shows otherwise.
Comes now a report that the federal government is about to relax its environmental protection regulations and leave it up to individual states to decide how and whether coal operations, for example, should minimize their emissions.
This might be okay if whatever comes out of smokestacks went straight up and continued straight up into the stratosphere and never came down. Except that doesn't happen. All prevailing winds and weather systems travel generally from west to east, so that toxic emissions from a coal fired power plant in Philadelphia, for example, will travel eastward and come back to earth in Camden and other parts of southern New Jersey.
Or if detritus dumped into the Mississippi River in Kansas City stayed there, and did not travel downstream to New Orleans. Or if garbage dumped into New York Harbor did not float over to the coast of New Jersey.
In short, environmental protection cannot be solely a local or even a state issue. It must be federal, since what happens in one state can affect the residents of other states.
Moreover, the same principal applies internationally, so cooperation among countries is also essential to deal with environment problems.
Example: Britain generated electricity using coal for many years, but the air pollution and acid rain destroyed forests in Norway. The British defense was that Norway was too far away to be affected. However, once Britain reduced or eliminated the offending polluters, forests in Norway are doing much better.
There are still some folks, of course, who are in denial that environmental pollution exists at all, and whatever issues there are can be dealt with locally.
That seems to be the attitude of the current administration in Washington, as it moves to eliminate whatever environment regulations are in place. "Whatever happens downstream doesn't affect me," goes the thinking, "so I don't care."
Except that we are all "downstream" from someone else, and unless we work together, we will all suffer.
"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.
"If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were.
"Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind.
"And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." -- John Donne
One of the guidelines of conservative politics is that businesses should be left alone and that "market forces" will restrain them from doing things that are harmful to the country and its population. Over time, and "in the long run," free market forces will rebalance the economy and everything connected to it, so everyone will be better off.
History shows otherwise.
Comes now a report that the federal government is about to relax its environmental protection regulations and leave it up to individual states to decide how and whether coal operations, for example, should minimize their emissions.
This might be okay if whatever comes out of smokestacks went straight up and continued straight up into the stratosphere and never came down. Except that doesn't happen. All prevailing winds and weather systems travel generally from west to east, so that toxic emissions from a coal fired power plant in Philadelphia, for example, will travel eastward and come back to earth in Camden and other parts of southern New Jersey.
Or if detritus dumped into the Mississippi River in Kansas City stayed there, and did not travel downstream to New Orleans. Or if garbage dumped into New York Harbor did not float over to the coast of New Jersey.
In short, environmental protection cannot be solely a local or even a state issue. It must be federal, since what happens in one state can affect the residents of other states.
Moreover, the same principal applies internationally, so cooperation among countries is also essential to deal with environment problems.
Example: Britain generated electricity using coal for many years, but the air pollution and acid rain destroyed forests in Norway. The British defense was that Norway was too far away to be affected. However, once Britain reduced or eliminated the offending polluters, forests in Norway are doing much better.
There are still some folks, of course, who are in denial that environmental pollution exists at all, and whatever issues there are can be dealt with locally.
That seems to be the attitude of the current administration in Washington, as it moves to eliminate whatever environment regulations are in place. "Whatever happens downstream doesn't affect me," goes the thinking, "so I don't care."
Except that we are all "downstream" from someone else, and unless we work together, we will all suffer.
"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.
"If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were.
"Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind.
"And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." -- John Donne
Wednesday, August 15, 2018
Free Speech and Loyalty
The president has revoked the security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan, apparently because Brennan has criticized the president's actions and behaviors.
Typically, former government people in key positions retain their security clearances and are kept up to date on major issues, partly as a way to retain their advice and counsel relating to problems the country faces.
But this president seems to believe any disagreement or criticism by anyone, anytime, in any fashion is a mark of disloyalty punishable by whatever means the president feels is appropriate. He has already revoked the security clearances of several other former senior officials -- most of them Democrats, and including some who no longer had security clearance -- but all who were critical of the president's talk and actions.
Moreover, the president's staffers have been required to sign non-disclosure agreements prohibiting them from talking about anything relating to their White House jobs in any fashion, ever. And these documents specify that this include a non-disparagement clause, meaning they cannot say negative things about the president, his staff, the vice president, their families and others connected to the Big Man's operations.
How this president's attitudes conform to the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech is another question.
Clearly, they don't.
It's one thing to be loyal to the nation, a political party, an individual, and to the principles that make America what it is. But it's quite another to sacrifice loyalty to principles on the altar of devotion to one who demands absolute obedience in all things under penalty of whatever that person deems appropriate.
That's called tyranny, not democracy.
By the way, Omarosa Manigault Newman did not sign a non-disclosure agreement with its non-disparagement clause, so presumably she is free to talk about her experiences at the White House, especially considering the right of free speech that is constitutionally guaranteed to everyone in America.
There is also a report that the president issued a "signing statement" along with the military spending bill, listing several dozen parts of the bill that he has chosen not to follow. This under the claim of "executive privilege," despite the Constitution's requirement that the president faithfully execute the laws enacted by Congress.
It's not up to him to choose which laws he will enforce and which he will ignore at whim.
Typically, former government people in key positions retain their security clearances and are kept up to date on major issues, partly as a way to retain their advice and counsel relating to problems the country faces.
But this president seems to believe any disagreement or criticism by anyone, anytime, in any fashion is a mark of disloyalty punishable by whatever means the president feels is appropriate. He has already revoked the security clearances of several other former senior officials -- most of them Democrats, and including some who no longer had security clearance -- but all who were critical of the president's talk and actions.
Moreover, the president's staffers have been required to sign non-disclosure agreements prohibiting them from talking about anything relating to their White House jobs in any fashion, ever. And these documents specify that this include a non-disparagement clause, meaning they cannot say negative things about the president, his staff, the vice president, their families and others connected to the Big Man's operations.
How this president's attitudes conform to the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech is another question.
Clearly, they don't.
It's one thing to be loyal to the nation, a political party, an individual, and to the principles that make America what it is. But it's quite another to sacrifice loyalty to principles on the altar of devotion to one who demands absolute obedience in all things under penalty of whatever that person deems appropriate.
That's called tyranny, not democracy.
By the way, Omarosa Manigault Newman did not sign a non-disclosure agreement with its non-disparagement clause, so presumably she is free to talk about her experiences at the White House, especially considering the right of free speech that is constitutionally guaranteed to everyone in America.
There is also a report that the president issued a "signing statement" along with the military spending bill, listing several dozen parts of the bill that he has chosen not to follow. This under the claim of "executive privilege," despite the Constitution's requirement that the president faithfully execute the laws enacted by Congress.
It's not up to him to choose which laws he will enforce and which he will ignore at whim.
Saturday, August 11, 2018
Mercantilism
Mercantilism is another word for greed. -- Pug Mahoney
To academics, mercantilism went out with the writings of pioneer economist Adam Smith in the 18th Century.
To many capitalists and politicians, however, mercantilism means that whoever has the most money at the end, wins. That seems to be the goal of government leaders in America today, as they try to dominate world trade by trying to arrange for U.S. businesses to sell stuff to other nations but prevent other nations trying to do business in America.
The problem with the mercantile attitude is that when one side has all the money and the other has none, nobody wins, because trade stops.
But trade is not a one-way deal. For a while, a clever dealer may dominate and gather all the profit to himself, but eventually he will run out of customers, either because they have no more money or because they resent the dealer's practices. Or both.
Today's greed meisters, however, don't call what they do mercantilism. Rather, they appeal to patriotism and to the idea that a country's greatness depends entirely on winning. Which, to them, means that others must lose.
Trade, however, be it local or international, means that each side must benefit. And when both sides benefit, trade continues and expands.
But when one side becomes a perennial loser -- which is what some political leaders want -- that quickly leads to resentment and eventually to theft on a local scale and to war between nations.
So which is the better strategy, winning at any cost and depriving others of any thing of value, or of mutual cooperation in trading so that both sides prosper?
America today is being led down a primrose path of promises that prosperity depends on winning everything, and that all other nations must be losers in order for the U.S. to win.
History shows that the consequence of such an attitude is economic depression, international warfare, or both.
To academics, mercantilism went out with the writings of pioneer economist Adam Smith in the 18th Century.
To many capitalists and politicians, however, mercantilism means that whoever has the most money at the end, wins. That seems to be the goal of government leaders in America today, as they try to dominate world trade by trying to arrange for U.S. businesses to sell stuff to other nations but prevent other nations trying to do business in America.
The problem with the mercantile attitude is that when one side has all the money and the other has none, nobody wins, because trade stops.
But trade is not a one-way deal. For a while, a clever dealer may dominate and gather all the profit to himself, but eventually he will run out of customers, either because they have no more money or because they resent the dealer's practices. Or both.
Today's greed meisters, however, don't call what they do mercantilism. Rather, they appeal to patriotism and to the idea that a country's greatness depends entirely on winning. Which, to them, means that others must lose.
Trade, however, be it local or international, means that each side must benefit. And when both sides benefit, trade continues and expands.
But when one side becomes a perennial loser -- which is what some political leaders want -- that quickly leads to resentment and eventually to theft on a local scale and to war between nations.
So which is the better strategy, winning at any cost and depriving others of any thing of value, or of mutual cooperation in trading so that both sides prosper?
America today is being led down a primrose path of promises that prosperity depends on winning everything, and that all other nations must be losers in order for the U.S. to win.
History shows that the consequence of such an attitude is economic depression, international warfare, or both.
Friday, August 10, 2018
Free Speech and Lies
Does free speech include the right to spread lies?
Do social media platforms such as Facebook and Apple have an obligation to monitor and edit stuff posted by their users to prevent malicious material from inciting violence?
If so, who decides which postings should be blocked, and where is the line separating opinion from slander?
These are the questions making the rounds these days, and the answers society comes up with will either strengthen or destroy democracy as we know it.
Do social media platforms such as Facebook and Apple have an obligation to monitor and edit stuff posted by their users to prevent malicious material from inciting violence?
If so, who decides which postings should be blocked, and where is the line separating opinion from slander?
These are the questions making the rounds these days, and the answers society comes up with will either strengthen or destroy democracy as we know it.
Monday, August 6, 2018
Riley Syndrome Pandemic
"My head's made up. You can't confuse me with the facts." -- Chester A. Riley
Stability at the cost of freedom is too high a price to pay. -- Pug Mahoney
"Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety deserve neither." -- Benjamin Franklin
Reality denial and the embrace of "alternative facts" have spread so widely in America today as to reach pandemic status.
It's most evident at political campaign rallies where supporters threaten journalists, following the Beloved Leader's rant of "fake news" spread by "disgusting, horrible" journalists who are "the enemy of the people."
No wonder, then, that some True Believers extend that incitement to violence to include threats and obscenities through anonymous phone calls and social media diatribes against individual reporters.
So is the political leader deliberately inciting violence against what he calls the "enemy of the people," the "fake news media"?
That's a harsh accusation, but the reality is that the constant ranting and virulent criticism of any who disagree with him, or who report accurately what he says and does in ways that warn of the danger to the American tradition, may well lead to a dictatorship.
"Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it," is a phrase attributed in various forms to numerous philosophers and political leaders, including Edmund Burke, George Santayana and Winston Churchill.
Blind and unquestioning loyalty to a single political leader is the first step toward being led down a path to violence against all who disagree, often based on racism and bigotry.
It has happened in other parts of the world in the past, and is happening in some parts of the world today.
Moreover, there are signs and symptoms that America today is falling victim to the same disease, as they forget the words of welcome written by the poet Emma Lazarus and inscribed on the Golden Door in New York Harbor.
Stability at the cost of freedom is too high a price to pay. -- Pug Mahoney
"Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety deserve neither." -- Benjamin Franklin
Reality denial and the embrace of "alternative facts" have spread so widely in America today as to reach pandemic status.
It's most evident at political campaign rallies where supporters threaten journalists, following the Beloved Leader's rant of "fake news" spread by "disgusting, horrible" journalists who are "the enemy of the people."
No wonder, then, that some True Believers extend that incitement to violence to include threats and obscenities through anonymous phone calls and social media diatribes against individual reporters.
So is the political leader deliberately inciting violence against what he calls the "enemy of the people," the "fake news media"?
That's a harsh accusation, but the reality is that the constant ranting and virulent criticism of any who disagree with him, or who report accurately what he says and does in ways that warn of the danger to the American tradition, may well lead to a dictatorship.
"Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it," is a phrase attributed in various forms to numerous philosophers and political leaders, including Edmund Burke, George Santayana and Winston Churchill.
Blind and unquestioning loyalty to a single political leader is the first step toward being led down a path to violence against all who disagree, often based on racism and bigotry.
It has happened in other parts of the world in the past, and is happening in some parts of the world today.
Moreover, there are signs and symptoms that America today is falling victim to the same disease, as they forget the words of welcome written by the poet Emma Lazarus and inscribed on the Golden Door in New York Harbor.
Saturday, August 4, 2018
Loyalty
Loyalty is a wonderful thing, and people thrive on it, in relationships all the way from marriages, families and sports teams to employment, political parties and nations.
But unquestioning loyalty based on obedience to another person or concept can be dangerous if people refuse to consider why they are loyal, and always do what they are told by a self-appointed leader.
Too often, leaders manipulate this concept of loyalty to fuel their ambitions for control. When the goals are noble and wise, this is not necessarily bad. However, demagogues can use the same strategies for their own purposes, hiding their true goals from those they persuade to be unquestioning, totally loyal followers.
History is full of examples of political leaders tapping into potential public unrest or suspicion as a way to gain absolute loyalty, persuading ordinarily thoughtful people to support them in every way.
As they do this, the demagogues select a target for their jibes and insults, encouraging public suspicion and fear of strangers as a way to reinforce their own agenda, which may be hidden from the public.
It is journalism's job, however, to detect and expose this hidden agenda so the public can know the background and potential dangers of supporting overly ambitious political leaders.
In doing so, journalists risk becoming targets themselves of the demagogue's wrath, as he rails against them to his increasingly loyal supporters attacking what he calls "fake media," and labeling journalists "the enemy of the people."
In doing so, the demagogue effectively incites violence against those who are reporting his words, detailing how his speeches conflict with fact and explaining why as well as how his actions can lead to serious problems.
Historians can list many examples in the world on how an ambitious political leader may well start out with noble ambitions to increase the welfare of the people of a nation. But too often, some of these leaders lose sight of their principles, if in fact they had them to begin with, and soon become themselves an "enemy of the people," spreading falsehoods and bigotry to feed their own ambitions.
The issue now facing Americans is whether the nation is being confronted with a new example of demagoguery that leads to tyranny.
Meanwhile, it is journalism's duty to report the comments and actions of any political leader who manipulates truth as a way to bend loyalty to obedience.
This is the concept behind the motto for this writer's musings:
Belief Without Thought Endangers Freedom.
But unquestioning loyalty based on obedience to another person or concept can be dangerous if people refuse to consider why they are loyal, and always do what they are told by a self-appointed leader.
Too often, leaders manipulate this concept of loyalty to fuel their ambitions for control. When the goals are noble and wise, this is not necessarily bad. However, demagogues can use the same strategies for their own purposes, hiding their true goals from those they persuade to be unquestioning, totally loyal followers.
History is full of examples of political leaders tapping into potential public unrest or suspicion as a way to gain absolute loyalty, persuading ordinarily thoughtful people to support them in every way.
As they do this, the demagogues select a target for their jibes and insults, encouraging public suspicion and fear of strangers as a way to reinforce their own agenda, which may be hidden from the public.
It is journalism's job, however, to detect and expose this hidden agenda so the public can know the background and potential dangers of supporting overly ambitious political leaders.
In doing so, journalists risk becoming targets themselves of the demagogue's wrath, as he rails against them to his increasingly loyal supporters attacking what he calls "fake media," and labeling journalists "the enemy of the people."
In doing so, the demagogue effectively incites violence against those who are reporting his words, detailing how his speeches conflict with fact and explaining why as well as how his actions can lead to serious problems.
Historians can list many examples in the world on how an ambitious political leader may well start out with noble ambitions to increase the welfare of the people of a nation. But too often, some of these leaders lose sight of their principles, if in fact they had them to begin with, and soon become themselves an "enemy of the people," spreading falsehoods and bigotry to feed their own ambitions.
The issue now facing Americans is whether the nation is being confronted with a new example of demagoguery that leads to tyranny.
Meanwhile, it is journalism's duty to report the comments and actions of any political leader who manipulates truth as a way to bend loyalty to obedience.
This is the concept behind the motto for this writer's musings:
Belief Without Thought Endangers Freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)