"My Senate ... " -- Donald Trump
"In your dreams, pal." -- Pug Mahoney
The term "imperial presidency" was first used against Franklin D. Roosevelt, when opponents believed he was accumulating too much power for himself as the nation struggled to recover from the Great Depression and then to fight World War II.
These days, many Americans believe the current president acts as if he believes himself to be the monarch of all he surveys, especially when it comes to the southern border and international relations.
Keep in mind that at one point in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly, his remarks were interrupted by laughter from the international delegates. However, it was not because he made a joke, but because of his attitude.
Now, as refugees from Central America try to reach the United States in search of a better life, the president warns that he may "close the border permanently" to keep out what he seems to consider riff-raff.
But consider the implications of a total border shutdown. The first question becomes, Against whom? This leads to other questions, such as, Everyone, or just those seeking refuge and opportunity?
And would the proposed wall be like the one in Berlin, which closed off all contact of every kind, including commerce and tourism?
A permanent border shutdown would stop all imports and exports from manufacturing and assembly lines, for example, putting many thousands of people out of work, as well as closing off the vacation and tourist businesses.
Or would the shutdown be only a one-way halt, where Americans would be able to cross the border whenever and however they wished, while tourists from Mexico as well as refugees from Central America would be blocked out?
How would the government of Mexico react to that?
Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.
Tuesday, November 27, 2018
Monday, November 26, 2018
Tempest Tossed
"They're coming to America ...
"There's nothing like America ...
"Land of opportunity ..." -- Neil Diamond, 1980
For those who haven't read the Constitution lately, it does not require that a presidential candidate be born in the USA.
Specifically, there are just three qualifications listed in the Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5) for a candidate for the presidency.
1/ The person must be at least 35 years of age.
2/ The candidate must be a "natural born citizen." The document does not specify "native born," and here's why:
3/ The candidate must have been a resident of the United States for 14 years.
Clearly, a candidate could be born to at least one U.S. citizen anywhere in the world and spend his or her first 20 years in some other country before taking up residency in the U.S. Then, some 14 years later, on reaching the age of 35, the citizen can run for president.
Take note that Republican candidate Ted Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father before moving to the U.S. as a child with his parents.
Note also that John McCain, who twice was a candidate for president, was born in Panama when his father, a Navy officer, was stationed in the Canal Zone, a territory leased from the nation of Panama.
George Romney -- father of Mitt Romney and also a Republican presidential candidate -- was born in Mexico when his parents were assigned there as Mormon missionaries.
Yet there were no major challenges to the citizenship status or presidential qualifications of any of these three Republican candidates.
It was only after Barack Obama, a Democrat, became president that a big fuss was made of his citizenship, with the false claim that he was born in Kenya and therefore was not eligible.
But he was eligible, on all three counts. Even if he had been born elsewhere, it would not have mattered, because his mother was born in Kansas. Moreover, young Barack was born in Hawaii, so he holds U.S. citizenship on that basis alone, unlike some Republican candidates, who actually were born outside the U.S.
By the way, who remembers the campaign to nominate weight lifter, movie actor, and California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to be president?
It would have taken a constitutional amendment to make that happen, since he was neither a native born nor a natural born citizen of the U.S. He did, however, acquire U.S. citizenship the same way millions of other immigrants did. And as a citizen, he was eligible to hold any public office in America -- except the presidency.
So put all this in the context of the current flap over immigrants, and remember that some of the greatest of American citizens were immigrants, and their offspring carried on the tradition of loyalty and citizenship.
Contrast that with the attitude of the current occupant of the Oval Office, who actually married an immigrant -- twice. Moreover, his mother was an immigrant, from Scotland, and his grandparents were immigrants from Germany.
Consider also that his son-in-law's grandparents were immigrant survivors of the Holocaust.
One wonders, then, why this president is so wound up with opposition to those attempting to come to America from across the nation's southern border, and why he treats Puerto Rico and its citizens as somehow not part of America. It is, and has been for more than 100 years, when the U.S. took the island after defeating Spain in a war.
A one-word answer comes to mind:
Racism.
"There's nothing like America ...
"Land of opportunity ..." -- Neil Diamond, 1980
For those who haven't read the Constitution lately, it does not require that a presidential candidate be born in the USA.
Specifically, there are just three qualifications listed in the Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5) for a candidate for the presidency.
1/ The person must be at least 35 years of age.
2/ The candidate must be a "natural born citizen." The document does not specify "native born," and here's why:
3/ The candidate must have been a resident of the United States for 14 years.
Clearly, a candidate could be born to at least one U.S. citizen anywhere in the world and spend his or her first 20 years in some other country before taking up residency in the U.S. Then, some 14 years later, on reaching the age of 35, the citizen can run for president.
Take note that Republican candidate Ted Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father before moving to the U.S. as a child with his parents.
Note also that John McCain, who twice was a candidate for president, was born in Panama when his father, a Navy officer, was stationed in the Canal Zone, a territory leased from the nation of Panama.
George Romney -- father of Mitt Romney and also a Republican presidential candidate -- was born in Mexico when his parents were assigned there as Mormon missionaries.
Yet there were no major challenges to the citizenship status or presidential qualifications of any of these three Republican candidates.
It was only after Barack Obama, a Democrat, became president that a big fuss was made of his citizenship, with the false claim that he was born in Kenya and therefore was not eligible.
But he was eligible, on all three counts. Even if he had been born elsewhere, it would not have mattered, because his mother was born in Kansas. Moreover, young Barack was born in Hawaii, so he holds U.S. citizenship on that basis alone, unlike some Republican candidates, who actually were born outside the U.S.
By the way, who remembers the campaign to nominate weight lifter, movie actor, and California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to be president?
It would have taken a constitutional amendment to make that happen, since he was neither a native born nor a natural born citizen of the U.S. He did, however, acquire U.S. citizenship the same way millions of other immigrants did. And as a citizen, he was eligible to hold any public office in America -- except the presidency.
So put all this in the context of the current flap over immigrants, and remember that some of the greatest of American citizens were immigrants, and their offspring carried on the tradition of loyalty and citizenship.
Contrast that with the attitude of the current occupant of the Oval Office, who actually married an immigrant -- twice. Moreover, his mother was an immigrant, from Scotland, and his grandparents were immigrants from Germany.
Consider also that his son-in-law's grandparents were immigrant survivors of the Holocaust.
One wonders, then, why this president is so wound up with opposition to those attempting to come to America from across the nation's southern border, and why he treats Puerto Rico and its citizens as somehow not part of America. It is, and has been for more than 100 years, when the U.S. took the island after defeating Spain in a war.
A one-word answer comes to mind:
Racism.
Saturday, November 24, 2018
Weather and Climate
"Whatever happened to global warming?" -- Mocker in Chief Donald Trump, commenting on a cold snap in America.
Regardless of what some people may claim, weather and climate are not the same.
They are not interchangeable terms because they refer to different time frames. Weather deals with daily changes, while climate refers to seasonal or yearly weather conditions.
For example, temperatures in Florida rarely dip below freezing, while in Maine, that level is common in winter months. For that matter, Florida does not have a winter, while most parts of the North have four seasons. Other parts of the world have just two -- rainy and dry -- and some have only one climate, when it is hot and dry all year.
Meanwhile, there are many folks alive today who can remember when temperatures of zero degrees Fahrenheit or below were common. Now, the average temperature in many regions of America is well above what it was 50 years ago.
And that is the point of climate change. The average seasonal temperature has reason substantially over the years, as documented by those who monitor such things.
They're called scientists, and they document things that many of us already know -- in this case, the reality that average temperatures over time have risen, that there are differences in rain and snow levels, and that this means the climate is changing.
In Northern New Jersey in 1960, for example, there were about seven days when the temperature reached 90 degrees or above. Now, the region experiences some eleven days yearly of such not weather.
So the issue is not whether climates worldwide are changing, but why. Climate is a yearly pattern, that pattern is changing, and the evidence points to the activities of "civilized" man.
Regardless of what some people may claim, weather and climate are not the same.
They are not interchangeable terms because they refer to different time frames. Weather deals with daily changes, while climate refers to seasonal or yearly weather conditions.
For example, temperatures in Florida rarely dip below freezing, while in Maine, that level is common in winter months. For that matter, Florida does not have a winter, while most parts of the North have four seasons. Other parts of the world have just two -- rainy and dry -- and some have only one climate, when it is hot and dry all year.
Meanwhile, there are many folks alive today who can remember when temperatures of zero degrees Fahrenheit or below were common. Now, the average temperature in many regions of America is well above what it was 50 years ago.
And that is the point of climate change. The average seasonal temperature has reason substantially over the years, as documented by those who monitor such things.
They're called scientists, and they document things that many of us already know -- in this case, the reality that average temperatures over time have risen, that there are differences in rain and snow levels, and that this means the climate is changing.
In Northern New Jersey in 1960, for example, there were about seven days when the temperature reached 90 degrees or above. Now, the region experiences some eleven days yearly of such not weather.
So the issue is not whether climates worldwide are changing, but why. Climate is a yearly pattern, that pattern is changing, and the evidence points to the activities of "civilized" man.
Wednesday, November 21, 2018
Media Message
That's a stupid question. -- Donald Trump to a reporter
For a journalist, there are no stupid questions. There are only stupid answers. -- Pug Mahoney
CNN has won its challenge to the president's ouster of its senior White House reporter, on the grounds that canceling his press pass was arbitrary and capricious, in effect done only because the president didn't like the questions.
Granted, CNN correspondent Jim Acosta can be aggressive and persistent in confronting the president, but the president does not get to choose who is assigned to cover which story and which news beat. That's up to the editors.
Nor does the president get to decide how a particular question is phrased, much less that they be submitted in advance.
The practice of lawyers providing written questions during an investigation, as is the case with the probe of possible Russian interference in an American election, is a separate issue. That's what lawyers do. Journalists are not bound by the same rules.
It comes down to this: The more the president tries to control the news media, the more resistant they become and resentful of his abusive rantings.
Not that the resentment shows, but it's there nonetheless. And the more he attacks as "fake news" any report that displeases him, the sharper the pencils become as reporters research and expose the misinformation, misleading claims, half truths and outright lies perpetrated by this president and his minions.
One of the more egregious claims he has put forth recently was the disavowal of his own intelligence agency's report on the murder of a prominent journalist.
The CIA said the Saudi Arabia crown prince not only knew about the killing but specifically authorized it beforehand.
But the president said, "Well, maybe he did and maybe he didn't."
Either way, he noted, the government's alliance with Saudi Arabia as well as American business contracts to supply weapons to the Mideast nation was more important than the loss of a single life.
Especially if that single life was that of a journalist, said resident cynic Pug Mahoney.
So the president's message to the news media is this: My way or the highway. Do things the way I want or I won't defend your human rights or your constitutional right of free speech and freedom of the press.
Message for the president: You do not -- repeat not -- have the authority to dictate who covers which news stories and how they do it, and neither do you have the right to specify that a business deal is more important than a human life.
Clarification: You have the right to say that, but when you do, you're wrong.
Update: As for telling the president he's wrong, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, in an unprecedented move, weighed in to remind the president that America has an independent judiciary, and there is no such person as an "Obama judge," nor a Trump judge, a Bush judge or a Clinton judge.
The president had publicly criticized a federal judge who ruled against the administration's policy on people seeking asylum. This was one of many attacks from the president against judges who ruled against him.
For a journalist, there are no stupid questions. There are only stupid answers. -- Pug Mahoney
CNN has won its challenge to the president's ouster of its senior White House reporter, on the grounds that canceling his press pass was arbitrary and capricious, in effect done only because the president didn't like the questions.
Granted, CNN correspondent Jim Acosta can be aggressive and persistent in confronting the president, but the president does not get to choose who is assigned to cover which story and which news beat. That's up to the editors.
Nor does the president get to decide how a particular question is phrased, much less that they be submitted in advance.
The practice of lawyers providing written questions during an investigation, as is the case with the probe of possible Russian interference in an American election, is a separate issue. That's what lawyers do. Journalists are not bound by the same rules.
It comes down to this: The more the president tries to control the news media, the more resistant they become and resentful of his abusive rantings.
Not that the resentment shows, but it's there nonetheless. And the more he attacks as "fake news" any report that displeases him, the sharper the pencils become as reporters research and expose the misinformation, misleading claims, half truths and outright lies perpetrated by this president and his minions.
One of the more egregious claims he has put forth recently was the disavowal of his own intelligence agency's report on the murder of a prominent journalist.
The CIA said the Saudi Arabia crown prince not only knew about the killing but specifically authorized it beforehand.
But the president said, "Well, maybe he did and maybe he didn't."
Either way, he noted, the government's alliance with Saudi Arabia as well as American business contracts to supply weapons to the Mideast nation was more important than the loss of a single life.
Especially if that single life was that of a journalist, said resident cynic Pug Mahoney.
So the president's message to the news media is this: My way or the highway. Do things the way I want or I won't defend your human rights or your constitutional right of free speech and freedom of the press.
Message for the president: You do not -- repeat not -- have the authority to dictate who covers which news stories and how they do it, and neither do you have the right to specify that a business deal is more important than a human life.
Clarification: You have the right to say that, but when you do, you're wrong.
Update: As for telling the president he's wrong, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, in an unprecedented move, weighed in to remind the president that America has an independent judiciary, and there is no such person as an "Obama judge," nor a Trump judge, a Bush judge or a Clinton judge.
The president had publicly criticized a federal judge who ruled against the administration's policy on people seeking asylum. This was one of many attacks from the president against judges who ruled against him.
Thursday, November 15, 2018
Respect vs Obedience
Respect cannot be commanded. It must be earned. -- Pug Mahoney
Message to the president: You can't fire reporters. They don't work for you.
Note: A federal judge is expected to rule today on whether the president can control the White House press corps.
Time was, journalists covering a presidential news conference submitted questions in writing in advance, and the president chose which reporters he would call on, knowing the question even before it was asked.
That changed with the advent and the election of John F. Kennedy.
Now, the current president ousts any journalist who asks a tough question or one that the president doesn't like, and cancels that reporter's credentials and White House press pass.
But who gets to choose which reporters get press passes to cover the White House? Does the president have the right to select only those journalists who are sympathetic to his views, and those who will help to spread his message?
Granted, there is a limited amount of space in the White House briefing room, and a limited number of people who can fit in the available space. But controlling who gets in and controlling which questions are asked, and in what manner, amounts to controlling the news media, and is on its face unconstitutional.
Courtesy, civility and respect, yes. But that works both ways. Or as President Harry Truman once put it, "If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen."
Clearly, the current president can't take the heat of tough questions posed by reporters. But that's their job. They ask tough questions because they need to be asked, and they do so on behalf of the American people.
So why is the current president attacking those who ask tough questions, and going to the extreme of banning them from the White House? If he wants a press corps of only reporters who agree with him and ask only soft questions, he's not going to get it, regardless of how much he demands obedience.
He cannot fire every White House reporter, and that's because they don't work for him. They work for private enterprise news organizations, and pose tough questions on behalf of readers and viewers.
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," says the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Attempting to control the news media by banning reporters you don't like or those who ask questions you don't like is a clear violation of the Constitution. And the more you try, the more they sharpen their pencils.
Message to the president: You can't fire reporters. They don't work for you.
Note: A federal judge is expected to rule today on whether the president can control the White House press corps.
Time was, journalists covering a presidential news conference submitted questions in writing in advance, and the president chose which reporters he would call on, knowing the question even before it was asked.
That changed with the advent and the election of John F. Kennedy.
Now, the current president ousts any journalist who asks a tough question or one that the president doesn't like, and cancels that reporter's credentials and White House press pass.
But who gets to choose which reporters get press passes to cover the White House? Does the president have the right to select only those journalists who are sympathetic to his views, and those who will help to spread his message?
Granted, there is a limited amount of space in the White House briefing room, and a limited number of people who can fit in the available space. But controlling who gets in and controlling which questions are asked, and in what manner, amounts to controlling the news media, and is on its face unconstitutional.
Courtesy, civility and respect, yes. But that works both ways. Or as President Harry Truman once put it, "If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen."
Clearly, the current president can't take the heat of tough questions posed by reporters. But that's their job. They ask tough questions because they need to be asked, and they do so on behalf of the American people.
So why is the current president attacking those who ask tough questions, and going to the extreme of banning them from the White House? If he wants a press corps of only reporters who agree with him and ask only soft questions, he's not going to get it, regardless of how much he demands obedience.
He cannot fire every White House reporter, and that's because they don't work for him. They work for private enterprise news organizations, and pose tough questions on behalf of readers and viewers.
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," says the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Attempting to control the news media by banning reporters you don't like or those who ask questions you don't like is a clear violation of the Constitution. And the more you try, the more they sharpen their pencils.
Wednesday, November 14, 2018
Figure It Out
It's the economy, stupid! -- Campaign manager James Carville during the Bill Clinton presidential drive in 1992.
Wages are down and prices are up, according to the latest government statistics, which means a net loss for workers of 0.1 percent. Yet the overall economy is doing well, with the unemployment rate down and the number of people working on the rise.
More than 250,000 jobs were added in October, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 3.7 percent. Total output, as measured by Gross Domestic Product, increased by 3.5 percent in the third quarter.
So if things are so great, according to political leaders, how come the average American worker isn't able to set some money aside for retirement, much less pay the monthly rent and grocery bills?
As is often the case, the numbers tell the story.
It's true that more people are working, and production is increasing. But if prices rise faster than wages, simple arithmetic says workers are losing. All this while tax breaks for corporations and the ultra-wealthy put more cash in their bank accounts -- CDs and investment accounts -- while savings accounts offer interest rates of 1 percent or less. Effectively, if inflation is 2 percent and wage increases are 1 percent, simple arithmetic says you lose. Meanwhile, credit card interest rates are as much as 15 percent or even 25 percent.
Do the math, and don't bother saving anything. Instead, try to pay down the credit cards. If you can, since prices are rising faster than your income.
Meanwhile, in the face of all the problematic issues, many people still work hard to come to this country. Why? Two reasons: This is where the jobs are, and as much as we complain about politics, things are far worse in some other countries.
Wages are down and prices are up, according to the latest government statistics, which means a net loss for workers of 0.1 percent. Yet the overall economy is doing well, with the unemployment rate down and the number of people working on the rise.
More than 250,000 jobs were added in October, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 3.7 percent. Total output, as measured by Gross Domestic Product, increased by 3.5 percent in the third quarter.
So if things are so great, according to political leaders, how come the average American worker isn't able to set some money aside for retirement, much less pay the monthly rent and grocery bills?
As is often the case, the numbers tell the story.
It's true that more people are working, and production is increasing. But if prices rise faster than wages, simple arithmetic says workers are losing. All this while tax breaks for corporations and the ultra-wealthy put more cash in their bank accounts -- CDs and investment accounts -- while savings accounts offer interest rates of 1 percent or less. Effectively, if inflation is 2 percent and wage increases are 1 percent, simple arithmetic says you lose. Meanwhile, credit card interest rates are as much as 15 percent or even 25 percent.
Do the math, and don't bother saving anything. Instead, try to pay down the credit cards. If you can, since prices are rising faster than your income.
Meanwhile, in the face of all the problematic issues, many people still work hard to come to this country. Why? Two reasons: This is where the jobs are, and as much as we complain about politics, things are far worse in some other countries.
Sunday, November 11, 2018
Mong the Mindless
Who ya
gonna believe, the cameras or a politician? -- Pug Mahoney
The pattern of fear mongering based on
proven falsehoods seems to be working among the base of extreme right-wing
supporters in the American electorate, who believe without question whatever
the politician says no matter how silly, outrageous or blatantly false.
So now that Election Day is past, how soon
will this president recall the regular military troops from the southern border
and return them to their real duties, and not use them to mong fear among
voters?
Some 7,000 people, many of them women and
children, were on foot nearly 1,000 miles from the border, yet the president saw fit
to deploy active duty troops to the border just two days before Election Day,
warning of an "invasion."
Some invasion. Women and children a thousand
miles away, and walking.
Was that sufficient cause to call out the
Army -- as many soldiers who are in Afghanistan -- to stop an
"invasion" of the U.S. from Central America, by civilians walking the length of
Mexico? No mention was made of whether the troops are there to repulse the
Mexican army, nor was it noted that the American troops, by law, can only be
allowed to serve in a supporting role for Border Patrol agents and state
police.
Yet they were there, on the president's
orders, just two days before Election Day. Now that Election Day is past, he's
likely to pronounce that the "invasion crisis" is over and the
professional military will return to their regular duties at their home bases.
Coincidence? More likely a fear mongering
ploy to excite the radical rightwing supporters. And the ploy will now be
canceled, now that it has served its electioneering purpose.
Saturday, November 3, 2018
President Sully (?)
For many years working in journalism, I almost never made predictions of any kind, especially about politics.
Now, however, it's time to consider the likelihood of a President Chesley Sullenberger.
Who?
Many will remember the incident where a passenger plane took off from a New York City airport and almost immediately collided with a flock of geese, resulting in the loss of power in both engines.
The pilot took control, circled back and carefully set the aircraft down on the Hudson River.
No one was seriously hurt, and all were rescued as they stood on the airplane's wings or waited in the water for small boats to take them ashore.
The pilot was the last to leave the airplane, making sure that all the passengers and crew were first to be rescued.
Yes, that Chesley Sullenberger (Sully to his friends).
Saturday evening, on an MSNBC television interview about a book Capt. Sullenberger has written, the host asked a final question about the pilot's political plans, if any, since the book is partly about politics and the state of American culture.
Sullenberger noted that he had spent many years as a Republican, but recently left the party, and as for his own political future, his response was to ask again after Tuesday, Election Day.
How much of a jump, then, is it to predict that Sullenberger has plans to get into political activity in a big way?
He is well known, extremely well spoken, knowledgeable, and works well under pressure. (That may be the understatement of the decade, if not longer.)
Now the question becomes whether the current occupant of the Oval Office will have the cojones to criticize and attack the pilot of what was called The Miracle on the Hudson.
Now, however, it's time to consider the likelihood of a President Chesley Sullenberger.
Who?
Many will remember the incident where a passenger plane took off from a New York City airport and almost immediately collided with a flock of geese, resulting in the loss of power in both engines.
The pilot took control, circled back and carefully set the aircraft down on the Hudson River.
No one was seriously hurt, and all were rescued as they stood on the airplane's wings or waited in the water for small boats to take them ashore.
The pilot was the last to leave the airplane, making sure that all the passengers and crew were first to be rescued.
Yes, that Chesley Sullenberger (Sully to his friends).
Saturday evening, on an MSNBC television interview about a book Capt. Sullenberger has written, the host asked a final question about the pilot's political plans, if any, since the book is partly about politics and the state of American culture.
Sullenberger noted that he had spent many years as a Republican, but recently left the party, and as for his own political future, his response was to ask again after Tuesday, Election Day.
How much of a jump, then, is it to predict that Sullenberger has plans to get into political activity in a big way?
He is well known, extremely well spoken, knowledgeable, and works well under pressure. (That may be the understatement of the decade, if not longer.)
Now the question becomes whether the current occupant of the Oval Office will have the cojones to criticize and attack the pilot of what was called The Miracle on the Hudson.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)