As the year ended, the president joined several of his close companions in publicizing the name of the person they believe is the whistleblower who prompted the investigation that led to impeachment.
Never mind that his or her identity is protected by federal law and the alleged identity has never been supported by solid evidence from named sources, so the identity is not needed. Mainstream media, however, have followed the whistleblower protection law as well as their own policies and have not used the name.
But the president posted the name on his Twitter account, so millions of readers around the world know it. Add to that the not-so-subtle threats and implied suggestions by the Trump clan, and the result is the whistleblower's safety is at risk -- perhaps even endangering his/her life.
That doesn't seem to bother the Trumpistas. In fact, it may even be their plan. As long as someone else does the deed, they can insist on their right of free speech.
As Pug Mahoney would say, however, "Your civil rights end where my toes begin." In any case, retaliation like that is no longer civil. It's criminal.
So now comes in another legal issue: Incitement to violence. If something happens to the alleged whistleblower -- despite there being no solid evidence that he/she is who the Trumpistas say -- those who spread the name could be subject to criminal charges.
This would be even more criminal if the name broadcast is not, in fact, the name of the person who touched off the impeachment investigation.
Oops. Never mind.
That won't work, gang. You guys indirectly cause severe harm -- social at least and physical at worst -- to another human being.
Hiding behind "executive privilege" after causing violence or death won't be enough.
Tuesday, December 31, 2019
Monday, December 30, 2019
Calendar Blues
So how come there are 12 months in the year but the last four carry the Latin names for seven, eight, nine and ten -- September, October, November and December?
Perhaps because the Romans, with their penchant for groups of ten, divided the year into 10 months of 36 days each, with five days left over for a celebration week.
But if you base a month on the number of days in a lunar cycle (28) and divide that into 365, the number of days in a yearly solar cycle, you get 13 months with only one leftover day.
Do you suppose they rejected that plan because 13 is unlucky?
I don't know. But the 10-month plan wasn't working, either, so the Emperor Augustus told his Roman calendar experts to fix it, which they did by adding two months and naming them after the emperor and his predecessor, Julius. That's why we have July and August.
But if we give each of the 12 months 30 days, we still have five days left over, and that doesn't work, either.
Moreover, if we start each month on a Sunday, based on a 28-day lunar month, we get a Friday the 13th every month in the year.
Oops.
So all the calendar proposals also relied on the theological concept of perfect circles, but the real universe doesn't work that way. That's the problem astronomer Copernicus faced in trying to describe how the Earth circled the Sun and not the other way around.
His successor Galileo, however, figured that if the circle was an ellipse and not a perfect circle, things worked out better.
But that theory was based on the idea that that the Sun was the center of the universe, not the Earth, and the Earth revolved around the Sun.
Blasphemy! Heresy! cried Vatican officials, and the astronomer was ordered to recant or be branded a heretic and banished.
He took it back, but is rumored to have muttered on the way out of the room, "Nevertheless, it moves."
So because of the oddity of various days in each month, we're stuck with the grade school chant, "30 days hath September, April, June and November. All the rest have 31, save February, which has 28."
Logical? No, but there is very little perfection in planetary or even human behavior.
And that's one reason why life is so interesting. It's not perfect. Live with it.
By the way, February has 29 days this year, to make up for the imbalance of the elliptical circle the Moon makes around the Earth.
Perhaps because the Romans, with their penchant for groups of ten, divided the year into 10 months of 36 days each, with five days left over for a celebration week.
But if you base a month on the number of days in a lunar cycle (28) and divide that into 365, the number of days in a yearly solar cycle, you get 13 months with only one leftover day.
Do you suppose they rejected that plan because 13 is unlucky?
I don't know. But the 10-month plan wasn't working, either, so the Emperor Augustus told his Roman calendar experts to fix it, which they did by adding two months and naming them after the emperor and his predecessor, Julius. That's why we have July and August.
But if we give each of the 12 months 30 days, we still have five days left over, and that doesn't work, either.
Moreover, if we start each month on a Sunday, based on a 28-day lunar month, we get a Friday the 13th every month in the year.
Oops.
So all the calendar proposals also relied on the theological concept of perfect circles, but the real universe doesn't work that way. That's the problem astronomer Copernicus faced in trying to describe how the Earth circled the Sun and not the other way around.
His successor Galileo, however, figured that if the circle was an ellipse and not a perfect circle, things worked out better.
But that theory was based on the idea that that the Sun was the center of the universe, not the Earth, and the Earth revolved around the Sun.
Blasphemy! Heresy! cried Vatican officials, and the astronomer was ordered to recant or be branded a heretic and banished.
He took it back, but is rumored to have muttered on the way out of the room, "Nevertheless, it moves."
So because of the oddity of various days in each month, we're stuck with the grade school chant, "30 days hath September, April, June and November. All the rest have 31, save February, which has 28."
Logical? No, but there is very little perfection in planetary or even human behavior.
And that's one reason why life is so interesting. It's not perfect. Live with it.
By the way, February has 29 days this year, to make up for the imbalance of the elliptical circle the Moon makes around the Earth.
Holiday Brake
The controversy over presidential impeachment slowed down as the year ended, but it will speed up as the election year leaps in.
Meanwhile, Republicans complained of how fast Democrats pushed the impeachment investigation and vote, leaving journalists to point out that the current process lasted about as long as the GOP took to impeach Bill Clinton -- a few months.
One difference is that Donald Trump was impeached during his first term as president, which prompted his supporters to claim that even if he is convicted by the Senate (highly unlikely as things are now, but that could change) and removed from office, he could still try for elective office again.
No, he couldn't. The Constitution is clear. But that doesn't stop Trumpians from chanting that claim many times.
It's an old strategy. Say something loud enough, long enough, to enough people often enough -- easy in this digital world of instant worldwide social media -- and some will start to believe it, partly because they get tired of hearing, so they start to think maybe it's true.
Doing it this way bypasses the mainstream media, whose job it is to expose misleading information and flat-out lies as soon as they appear.
The downside to this is that repeating a lie in the reporting on the strategy, even when exposing the lie, only gives it more exposure.
Besides, as Mark Twain once wrote, "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." That's a variant on Jonathan Swift, who wrote in 1710, "Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it."
That's the predicament still faced by truth monitors in mainstream media today. Gossipers fly through the World Wide Web faster than journalistic fact checkers can turn on their computers.
Meanwhile, Republicans complained of how fast Democrats pushed the impeachment investigation and vote, leaving journalists to point out that the current process lasted about as long as the GOP took to impeach Bill Clinton -- a few months.
One difference is that Donald Trump was impeached during his first term as president, which prompted his supporters to claim that even if he is convicted by the Senate (highly unlikely as things are now, but that could change) and removed from office, he could still try for elective office again.
No, he couldn't. The Constitution is clear. But that doesn't stop Trumpians from chanting that claim many times.
It's an old strategy. Say something loud enough, long enough, to enough people often enough -- easy in this digital world of instant worldwide social media -- and some will start to believe it, partly because they get tired of hearing, so they start to think maybe it's true.
Doing it this way bypasses the mainstream media, whose job it is to expose misleading information and flat-out lies as soon as they appear.
The downside to this is that repeating a lie in the reporting on the strategy, even when exposing the lie, only gives it more exposure.
Besides, as Mark Twain once wrote, "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." That's a variant on Jonathan Swift, who wrote in 1710, "Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it."
That's the predicament still faced by truth monitors in mainstream media today. Gossipers fly through the World Wide Web faster than journalistic fact checkers can turn on their computers.
Wednesday, December 18, 2019
Impeached
For just the third time in history, a president of the United States of America has been impeached. And within minutes of the vote by the House of Representatives, emails flew across the internet launched by conservative supporters of Donald Trump decrying the vote and seeking funds to help fight the upcoming trial in the Senate.
Meanwhile, even as the House was voting, the president was speaking to thousands of supporters at a campaign rally in Michigan, but said nothing about the voting, either while it was happening or after it was completed and his name was added to the list of impeached presidents. The other two were Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Neither was convicted after a Senate trial, and the odds are that Trump will also survive the ordeal.
That conclusion is supported by statements from Republican leaders in the Senate that they have already decided on their positions, even before the formal impeachment vote was taken.
A more subtle possibility is this: Republicans in the Senate want to continue their strategy of confirming only conservative Republicans as judges in the federal judiciary. This goes back to the years when Democrat Barack Obama was president, and Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell refused to move judicial nominees -- including one to the Supreme Court -- to the full Senate, which has the constitutional responsibility and authority to confirm such appointments.
Now they have the opportunity to reject impeachment and removal of the president from office, and in return continue their plan to add more conservative Republican magistrates to federal courts around the country.
That, of course, assumes they will retain control of the Senate in the nationwide election a year from now, and that Trump will be re-elected. Meanwhile, the GOP still dominates Senate voting, and refusing to convict Trump would mean more opportunities to confirm judges of their preference.
And because America is currently widely divided between conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats, that may be a valid assumption. Unless voter opinions change.
Meanwhile, even as the House was voting, the president was speaking to thousands of supporters at a campaign rally in Michigan, but said nothing about the voting, either while it was happening or after it was completed and his name was added to the list of impeached presidents. The other two were Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Neither was convicted after a Senate trial, and the odds are that Trump will also survive the ordeal.
That conclusion is supported by statements from Republican leaders in the Senate that they have already decided on their positions, even before the formal impeachment vote was taken.
A more subtle possibility is this: Republicans in the Senate want to continue their strategy of confirming only conservative Republicans as judges in the federal judiciary. This goes back to the years when Democrat Barack Obama was president, and Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell refused to move judicial nominees -- including one to the Supreme Court -- to the full Senate, which has the constitutional responsibility and authority to confirm such appointments.
Now they have the opportunity to reject impeachment and removal of the president from office, and in return continue their plan to add more conservative Republican magistrates to federal courts around the country.
That, of course, assumes they will retain control of the Senate in the nationwide election a year from now, and that Trump will be re-elected. Meanwhile, the GOP still dominates Senate voting, and refusing to convict Trump would mean more opportunities to confirm judges of their preference.
And because America is currently widely divided between conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats, that may be a valid assumption. Unless voter opinions change.
Tuesday, December 17, 2019
Who's Defying Whom?
The president launched a scathing six-page criticism of the impeachment process in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in which he insists that he has been "deprived of basic Constitutional Due Process from the beginning of this impeachment scam."
Moreover, the president writes, "I have been denied ... the right to present evidence, to have my own counsel present, to confront accusers, and to call and cross-examine witnesses."
Reality check: He was in fact invited to present evidence and participate in the investigation, but he declined. He was then sent a subpoena for documents, but he defied it.
As for having his own counsel present, he refused to allow it, and ordered his subordinates to ignore requests and subpoenas to cooperate with investigators.
In short, he ignored and defied all efforts in the Congressional inquiry. And now he claims he was "deprived" of basic rights.
Who's defying whom?
Moreover, the president writes, "I have been denied ... the right to present evidence, to have my own counsel present, to confront accusers, and to call and cross-examine witnesses."
Reality check: He was in fact invited to present evidence and participate in the investigation, but he declined. He was then sent a subpoena for documents, but he defied it.
As for having his own counsel present, he refused to allow it, and ordered his subordinates to ignore requests and subpoenas to cooperate with investigators.
In short, he ignored and defied all efforts in the Congressional inquiry. And now he claims he was "deprived" of basic rights.
Who's defying whom?
Block Party
Democrats offered a list of witnesses they want to testify at the president's impeachment trial in the Senate, but the Republican leadership immediately rejected the idea.
This quickly brought the question, if he's innocent, as he claims, why is he hiding witnesses who might help prove that?
But they would appear before Congress and under oath, observers point out, and if they fail to tell the truth, they would be subject to punishment.
So the issue becomes this: If the truth would clear the president of wrongdoing, they should testify, but if the truth incriminates him, he would be convicted and removed from office.
Therefore, what is the truth, and why is he preventing witnesses from his own staff from testifying? Unless, of course, the truth would convict him. And that would be reason enough to prevent them from testifying.
This quickly brought the question, if he's innocent, as he claims, why is he hiding witnesses who might help prove that?
But they would appear before Congress and under oath, observers point out, and if they fail to tell the truth, they would be subject to punishment.
So the issue becomes this: If the truth would clear the president of wrongdoing, they should testify, but if the truth incriminates him, he would be convicted and removed from office.
Therefore, what is the truth, and why is he preventing witnesses from his own staff from testifying? Unless, of course, the truth would convict him. And that would be reason enough to prevent them from testifying.
Monday, December 16, 2019
Timing
Speculation is rampant as TV commentators guess how long the Senate will debate the removal of the president.
The House is expected to impeach him this week, and the Senate will take up the issue as the new year begins.
Already, however, Republican leaders of the Senate say they have decided to clear him, and they are working closely with the White Staff on defense.
So much for the Constitutional idea of a fair and impartial trial by an independent legislative body that would hear evidence from both sides before voting.
Granted, a Senate impeachment trial is not the same as a civil or criminal trial in a court of law. But Senate and White House people have been echoing the president's words, like "sham," for many weeks, ignoring facts and evidence and attacking the process instead.
As for the claim that the president is immune from prosecution, that was settled by the Supreme Court years ago, when Bill Clinton faced impeachment. And rather than obey a subpoena to testify before Congress, Clinton appeared voluntarily, thus eliminating the possibility of setting a precedent.
The current president, however, seems determined to have all things his way all the time, and has refused all requests, demands and subpoenas for stuff related to the impeachment inquiry, and has told his subordinates to do the same.
Now it seems the Senate has subordinated itself to the presidency -- not something the framers of the Constitution had in mind in 1789.
Why the House committees did not challenge the presidential defiance in a court of law can only mean they wanted to avoid a delay of many months, if not years, of appeals and legalistic maneuvering.
This, of course, would in turn mean the president would remain in the White House through the summer, the election season, and even to the end of a second term in office -- assuming he be re-elected. And if not, would he leave.
Meanwhile, we're likely to see a sham trial in the Senate, as Republican defenders block any attempt by Democrats to introduce testimony to help convict the president of the impeachment charges and remove him from office.
Instead, the GOP is likely to find ways to attack former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, even as they block Democratic attempts to introduce witnesses in support of the impeachment charges.
The House is expected to impeach him this week, and the Senate will take up the issue as the new year begins.
Already, however, Republican leaders of the Senate say they have decided to clear him, and they are working closely with the White Staff on defense.
So much for the Constitutional idea of a fair and impartial trial by an independent legislative body that would hear evidence from both sides before voting.
Granted, a Senate impeachment trial is not the same as a civil or criminal trial in a court of law. But Senate and White House people have been echoing the president's words, like "sham," for many weeks, ignoring facts and evidence and attacking the process instead.
As for the claim that the president is immune from prosecution, that was settled by the Supreme Court years ago, when Bill Clinton faced impeachment. And rather than obey a subpoena to testify before Congress, Clinton appeared voluntarily, thus eliminating the possibility of setting a precedent.
The current president, however, seems determined to have all things his way all the time, and has refused all requests, demands and subpoenas for stuff related to the impeachment inquiry, and has told his subordinates to do the same.
Now it seems the Senate has subordinated itself to the presidency -- not something the framers of the Constitution had in mind in 1789.
Why the House committees did not challenge the presidential defiance in a court of law can only mean they wanted to avoid a delay of many months, if not years, of appeals and legalistic maneuvering.
This, of course, would in turn mean the president would remain in the White House through the summer, the election season, and even to the end of a second term in office -- assuming he be re-elected. And if not, would he leave.
Meanwhile, we're likely to see a sham trial in the Senate, as Republican defenders block any attempt by Democrats to introduce testimony to help convict the president of the impeachment charges and remove him from office.
Instead, the GOP is likely to find ways to attack former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, even as they block Democratic attempts to introduce witnesses in support of the impeachment charges.
Friday, December 13, 2019
Law and the White House
The president is immune from prosecution, goes the song from his lawyers, but several courts have already upheld demands that he comply with subpoenas.
Now, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear three cases, including one from New York State and two from Congressional committees demanding to see his financial records.
Previous presidents have routinely released their financial statements, but Donald Trump has steadfastly refused.
The issue is not only whether Congress, in its role as legislative watchdog and formulator of new law, has a right to see the documents, but also whether a private corporation must comply with a state grand jury subpoena to supply them to investigators.
In the latter case, a New York State grand jury wants to see them as it investigates potential tax violations, and it has subpoenaed the president's tax preparers for them. The company said it is willing to comply, but the president intervened and challenged the subpoena. Whether federal courts have jurisdiction over a state legal action is one key to the challenge.
A larger issue, of course, is the president's attitude, as shown in comments like this:
"I'll do what I want."
"I could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes."
"Impeachment shouldn't be allowed."
All of these have drawn an identical response from legislators, prosecutors and academic observers:
"No one is above the law."
Nevertheless, Trump's lawyers continue to insist that the president is immune from prosecution. At least, while he is in office.
The larger issue, then, becomes this: What to do about a president who talks and acts like he really is above the law. And that is what has brought about impeachment proceedings against this president.
He has ignored court orders in the past, or he has appealed them to higher courts, several of which have upheld the rulings. Now the cases will be heard by the highest court in America, and the question becomes this:
Will he also ignore or refuse to comply with an order from the Supreme Court of the United States? Moreover, how can the government enforce the ruling if he does?
Coincidentally, the SCOTUS decision is expected this summer, after a Senate decision on impeachment comes down and just as a re-election campaign goes into high gear.
'Twill be a busy year.
Now, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear three cases, including one from New York State and two from Congressional committees demanding to see his financial records.
Previous presidents have routinely released their financial statements, but Donald Trump has steadfastly refused.
The issue is not only whether Congress, in its role as legislative watchdog and formulator of new law, has a right to see the documents, but also whether a private corporation must comply with a state grand jury subpoena to supply them to investigators.
In the latter case, a New York State grand jury wants to see them as it investigates potential tax violations, and it has subpoenaed the president's tax preparers for them. The company said it is willing to comply, but the president intervened and challenged the subpoena. Whether federal courts have jurisdiction over a state legal action is one key to the challenge.
A larger issue, of course, is the president's attitude, as shown in comments like this:
"I'll do what I want."
"I could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes."
"Impeachment shouldn't be allowed."
All of these have drawn an identical response from legislators, prosecutors and academic observers:
"No one is above the law."
Nevertheless, Trump's lawyers continue to insist that the president is immune from prosecution. At least, while he is in office.
The larger issue, then, becomes this: What to do about a president who talks and acts like he really is above the law. And that is what has brought about impeachment proceedings against this president.
He has ignored court orders in the past, or he has appealed them to higher courts, several of which have upheld the rulings. Now the cases will be heard by the highest court in America, and the question becomes this:
Will he also ignore or refuse to comply with an order from the Supreme Court of the United States? Moreover, how can the government enforce the ruling if he does?
Coincidentally, the SCOTUS decision is expected this summer, after a Senate decision on impeachment comes down and just as a re-election campaign goes into high gear.
'Twill be a busy year.
Kangaroo Court
Sen. Mitch McConnell said he and Republicans in the upper house will "work closely" with the White House to "coordinate" defense in the coming impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.
So much for the idea that the Senate is an independent body whose responsibility under the Constitution is to decide whether a president should be removed from office.
The House Judiciary Committee approved two articles of impeachment after a 14-hour hearing session on Thursday followed by a 30-minute Friday morning session in which the committee forwarded the issue to the full House for a vote, expected next week.
But already, Senate Republicans, led by McConnell, have apparently decided they will not convict the president of the high crimes and misdemeanors detailed in the two articles of impeachment.
Separately, the president's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani was seen entering the White House after returning from Ukraine. That country is the subject of allegations that the president solicited foreign help in the coming election.
Never before has the Senate consulted the White House on how to conduct an impeachment trial of a president. Trump will be the third sitting president to be impeached, and likely will also escape conviction and removal from office, as did Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.
A House committee approved articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon, but he resigned before the full House could vote on the issue.
At the moment, that's the status of the campaign against Trump, but he's not likely to resign, since he has the full support of Republicans, who control the Senate, as well as the cooperation of McConnell in forming a defense.
So much for the idea that the Senate is an independent body whose responsibility under the Constitution is to decide whether a president should be removed from office.
The House Judiciary Committee approved two articles of impeachment after a 14-hour hearing session on Thursday followed by a 30-minute Friday morning session in which the committee forwarded the issue to the full House for a vote, expected next week.
But already, Senate Republicans, led by McConnell, have apparently decided they will not convict the president of the high crimes and misdemeanors detailed in the two articles of impeachment.
Separately, the president's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani was seen entering the White House after returning from Ukraine. That country is the subject of allegations that the president solicited foreign help in the coming election.
Never before has the Senate consulted the White House on how to conduct an impeachment trial of a president. Trump will be the third sitting president to be impeached, and likely will also escape conviction and removal from office, as did Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.
A House committee approved articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon, but he resigned before the full House could vote on the issue.
At the moment, that's the status of the campaign against Trump, but he's not likely to resign, since he has the full support of Republicans, who control the Senate, as well as the cooperation of McConnell in forming a defense.
Thursday, December 12, 2019
Economy Watch
The Federal Reserve is taking a wait and see stance after raising interest rates three times last year to stave off inflation and stabilize the economy.
This could be related to other signs around the world and in America that the economy may be on the verge of a downturn -- not right now in the midst of the holiday buying season, but sometime in the coming year.
Normally, the Fed raises interest rates when the economy faces a growth rate that is too high, and lowers rates as a way to boost investment and increase growth.
The U.S. economy has enjoyed continuous growth for the past decade, the longest in its history. But whether that can continue, even as other nations edge closer to the brink of recession, is cause for concern among economists in the private sector and likely also at the Fed.
The agency's target rate for healthy and stable GDP growth is about 2 percent yearly, but pressure from the White House for a 3 percent growth rate or higher has been ignored by the Fed, which is fully independent.
All this while the nation is focused on impeachment proceedings in Washington that would, if successful, oust the president from office and prohibit him from ever having any other office of public trust.
Democrats have presented factual information accusing the president of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and therefore should be impeached and removed from office. Republican supporters, however, dismiss such information -- true or not -- as irrelevant, and instead they attack the process.
Meanwhile, the possibility of an economic downturn looms and may hit the nation in the spring or summer, at the height of the election season, and perhaps even at the same time as a presidential impeachment trial in the Senate.
The House of Representatives is about to approve impeachment articles, and the issue then will go to the Senate for trial. But the Senate is not likely to start that until after the holiday season.
So the nation is facing the possibility of an impeachment trial and an economic downturn at the same time.
Meanwhile, the Fed is always careful in the phrasing of its announcements, lest its warnings of a possible downturn become a self-fulfilling prophecy, causing the very thing it wants to prevent.
That's why many of its statements seem vague to the point of being incomprehensible. Perhaps that's just as well, since its job is to monitor and try to guide the nation's economy, not to control it fully.
This could be related to other signs around the world and in America that the economy may be on the verge of a downturn -- not right now in the midst of the holiday buying season, but sometime in the coming year.
Normally, the Fed raises interest rates when the economy faces a growth rate that is too high, and lowers rates as a way to boost investment and increase growth.
The U.S. economy has enjoyed continuous growth for the past decade, the longest in its history. But whether that can continue, even as other nations edge closer to the brink of recession, is cause for concern among economists in the private sector and likely also at the Fed.
The agency's target rate for healthy and stable GDP growth is about 2 percent yearly, but pressure from the White House for a 3 percent growth rate or higher has been ignored by the Fed, which is fully independent.
All this while the nation is focused on impeachment proceedings in Washington that would, if successful, oust the president from office and prohibit him from ever having any other office of public trust.
Democrats have presented factual information accusing the president of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and therefore should be impeached and removed from office. Republican supporters, however, dismiss such information -- true or not -- as irrelevant, and instead they attack the process.
Meanwhile, the possibility of an economic downturn looms and may hit the nation in the spring or summer, at the height of the election season, and perhaps even at the same time as a presidential impeachment trial in the Senate.
The House of Representatives is about to approve impeachment articles, and the issue then will go to the Senate for trial. But the Senate is not likely to start that until after the holiday season.
So the nation is facing the possibility of an impeachment trial and an economic downturn at the same time.
Meanwhile, the Fed is always careful in the phrasing of its announcements, lest its warnings of a possible downturn become a self-fulfilling prophecy, causing the very thing it wants to prevent.
That's why many of its statements seem vague to the point of being incomprehensible. Perhaps that's just as well, since its job is to monitor and try to guide the nation's economy, not to control it fully.
Wednesday, December 11, 2019
Busy News Days
"Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus." -- Frank Church, 1897
The news cycle is now 24 hours, compared to less than half that in the days when print dominated journalism.
At the time, it took that long for a reporter to gather a breaking news story, write it and submit it to an editor, who would then revise and edit it and decide where in the newspaper it would go.
The next step would be for printers to set it in type and make up a page, which would then be formed into a plate for printers to install with other plates onto a press to produce copies of the newspaper.
The papers were then loaded onto trucks for delivery to distributors, who carried them to stores and homes.
The deadline for reporters was typically 9:30 p.m. for a morning newspaper, and the production process lasted until the papers were delivered to homes by 7 a.m.
However, then came radio, television and finally computers, which now enable consumers to watch news events live or to read about them within minutes as reporters write their stories on portable computers and post them immediately on the internet.
So while unions lament the loss of jobs for typesetters, printers and others in the formerly labor intensive production process, there has been a greater surge of jobs in newsrooms for reporters and writers.
In addition, there are many more journalism jobs for reporters, writers, editors and production personnel at radio, television, computer and internet operations.
Result: Consumers get more news in greater detail, faster and sooner with less effort. At the same time, newspapers have adapted to the changes, forming new relationships with broadcast facilities as well as setting up their own computer systems for consumers to get information via the internet.
In short, people are better served by the new technology, giving them more and better news and information sooner.
The downside is that politicians and corporate marketers have also learned how to use the new technology to transmit their messages, enabling them to bypass journalists.
At one time, people would say you can't believe everything you read in the newspaper. That was at a time when some print media were neutral and objective, and some were not.
The same is true today, and that includes television and internet outlets. And because of the greater volume of information available, the responsibility to judge reliability of news sources is far greater for readers, TV watchers and internet cruisers. At the same time, journalists have a greater obligation for increased competence to meet the higher responsibility borne by consumers.
However, the highest responsibility remains with the people who read newspapers, watch television and cruise the internet.
You still can't believe everything you read, leaving editors and reporters with more responsibility than ever to be truthful.
But the tradition of printing truth in this day of constant attacks on "fake news media" lives on, it's just as strong now as it was in the 19th Century.
That was when eight-year-old Virginia O'Hanlon asked her father whether Santa Claus really existed. His response was, "If you see it in The Sun, it's so."
And as the New York City newspaper editorial writer Frank Church put it in his reply, "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus."
Too many people, Church wrote, "have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age."
We remain in a skeptical age, when cynicism over the doings of senior politicians is the inevitable result of their hypocrisy. Yet it remains the duty of journalists to continue to print truth despite the barrage of insults hurled at them.
May it ever be so. Freedom and democracy depend on it.
The news cycle is now 24 hours, compared to less than half that in the days when print dominated journalism.
At the time, it took that long for a reporter to gather a breaking news story, write it and submit it to an editor, who would then revise and edit it and decide where in the newspaper it would go.
The next step would be for printers to set it in type and make up a page, which would then be formed into a plate for printers to install with other plates onto a press to produce copies of the newspaper.
The papers were then loaded onto trucks for delivery to distributors, who carried them to stores and homes.
The deadline for reporters was typically 9:30 p.m. for a morning newspaper, and the production process lasted until the papers were delivered to homes by 7 a.m.
However, then came radio, television and finally computers, which now enable consumers to watch news events live or to read about them within minutes as reporters write their stories on portable computers and post them immediately on the internet.
So while unions lament the loss of jobs for typesetters, printers and others in the formerly labor intensive production process, there has been a greater surge of jobs in newsrooms for reporters and writers.
In addition, there are many more journalism jobs for reporters, writers, editors and production personnel at radio, television, computer and internet operations.
Result: Consumers get more news in greater detail, faster and sooner with less effort. At the same time, newspapers have adapted to the changes, forming new relationships with broadcast facilities as well as setting up their own computer systems for consumers to get information via the internet.
In short, people are better served by the new technology, giving them more and better news and information sooner.
The downside is that politicians and corporate marketers have also learned how to use the new technology to transmit their messages, enabling them to bypass journalists.
At one time, people would say you can't believe everything you read in the newspaper. That was at a time when some print media were neutral and objective, and some were not.
The same is true today, and that includes television and internet outlets. And because of the greater volume of information available, the responsibility to judge reliability of news sources is far greater for readers, TV watchers and internet cruisers. At the same time, journalists have a greater obligation for increased competence to meet the higher responsibility borne by consumers.
However, the highest responsibility remains with the people who read newspapers, watch television and cruise the internet.
You still can't believe everything you read, leaving editors and reporters with more responsibility than ever to be truthful.
But the tradition of printing truth in this day of constant attacks on "fake news media" lives on, it's just as strong now as it was in the 19th Century.
That was when eight-year-old Virginia O'Hanlon asked her father whether Santa Claus really existed. His response was, "If you see it in The Sun, it's so."
And as the New York City newspaper editorial writer Frank Church put it in his reply, "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus."
Too many people, Church wrote, "have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age."
We remain in a skeptical age, when cynicism over the doings of senior politicians is the inevitable result of their hypocrisy. Yet it remains the duty of journalists to continue to print truth despite the barrage of insults hurled at them.
May it ever be so. Freedom and democracy depend on it.
Tuesday, December 10, 2019
Historic Vote
Donald Trump is now officially the fourth president in American history to face a formal impeachment vote in the House of Representatives.
The House Judiciary Committee approved two articles of impeachment, and the issue will now go to the full House for final action. If approved, it will go to the Senate for trial, and if convicted there he will be removed from office.
Whether that happens, of course, remains to be seen. Of the four presidents who have faced impeachment charges, two -- Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton -- were not convicted by the Senate, and a third -- Richard Nixon -- resigned after the Judiciary Committee approved impeachment but before the issue could be taken up by the full House. Therefore, it cannot be said that Nixon was impeached.
It's not likely that Trump will follow Nixon's example and resign, and for now it's not likely that the Senate will convict Trump, forcing him out of office.
The two articles of impeachment that would indict Trump are about abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. There were other issues that the House committee considered, but the panel chose these two as the most likely to be approved. Others, however, still dominate the news cycle will no doubt continue to be debated as the controversy continues.
Meanwhile, the Russian foreign minister is set to meet the president and the secretary of state, the Justice Department said the FBI's probe of the 2016 presidential campaign and possible Russian interference was flawed, and Trump's personal lawyer Rudolph Giuliani is in Ukraine for more talks with political leadership there.
Hmmm. What does it all mean?
The House Judiciary Committee approved two articles of impeachment, and the issue will now go to the full House for final action. If approved, it will go to the Senate for trial, and if convicted there he will be removed from office.
Whether that happens, of course, remains to be seen. Of the four presidents who have faced impeachment charges, two -- Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton -- were not convicted by the Senate, and a third -- Richard Nixon -- resigned after the Judiciary Committee approved impeachment but before the issue could be taken up by the full House. Therefore, it cannot be said that Nixon was impeached.
It's not likely that Trump will follow Nixon's example and resign, and for now it's not likely that the Senate will convict Trump, forcing him out of office.
The two articles of impeachment that would indict Trump are about abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. There were other issues that the House committee considered, but the panel chose these two as the most likely to be approved. Others, however, still dominate the news cycle will no doubt continue to be debated as the controversy continues.
Meanwhile, the Russian foreign minister is set to meet the president and the secretary of state, the Justice Department said the FBI's probe of the 2016 presidential campaign and possible Russian interference was flawed, and Trump's personal lawyer Rudolph Giuliani is in Ukraine for more talks with political leadership there.
Hmmm. What does it all mean?
Saturday, December 7, 2019
Wrangling Bothers
The political circus is in town and members of Congress juggle law and morality as they look for ways to impeach the president and still keep their seats.
Experts note that an official can break a law and not be impeached, or he can be impeached without having broken any law. It's like being fired from your job for bad behavior but you haven't stolen any of the merchandise.
For example, one of the reasons for impeaching Bill Clinton was that he had an affair with a woman who was not his wife, and then lied about it. But the activity was consensual, which means no law was broken. As for lying to Congress, it's not nice but it's not a crime that warrants impeachment.
In contrast, there is evidence that Donald Trump, among other things, broke the law in asking the president of Ukraine for a personal favor in exchange for government military aid.
That amounts to bribery and extortion, say his accusers, and attempted bribery is a crime even if it's not successful. But his supporters insist that even if true, it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense, since in politics "it happens all the time."
Confusing? Yes, but the Constitution is clear that an official can be impeached and removed from office and still face charges in a court of law.
Even that, however, applies only to federal charges. State and local jurisdictions can file charges against a president while still in office. See Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution, which states that punishment "shall not extend further than to removal from office," but nevertheless the official can still face indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.
Already, state jurisdictions have legal cases pending against the president, but it seems they are waiting until he leaves office before pursuing them. They were filed now so the cases would not run afoul of any statute of limitations.
It all amounts to a three ring circus of performances: Congress, White House and State House, leaving observers without a program to keep track of who's doing what to whom.
But that's what journalism is for.
Experts note that an official can break a law and not be impeached, or he can be impeached without having broken any law. It's like being fired from your job for bad behavior but you haven't stolen any of the merchandise.
For example, one of the reasons for impeaching Bill Clinton was that he had an affair with a woman who was not his wife, and then lied about it. But the activity was consensual, which means no law was broken. As for lying to Congress, it's not nice but it's not a crime that warrants impeachment.
In contrast, there is evidence that Donald Trump, among other things, broke the law in asking the president of Ukraine for a personal favor in exchange for government military aid.
That amounts to bribery and extortion, say his accusers, and attempted bribery is a crime even if it's not successful. But his supporters insist that even if true, it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense, since in politics "it happens all the time."
Confusing? Yes, but the Constitution is clear that an official can be impeached and removed from office and still face charges in a court of law.
Even that, however, applies only to federal charges. State and local jurisdictions can file charges against a president while still in office. See Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution, which states that punishment "shall not extend further than to removal from office," but nevertheless the official can still face indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.
Already, state jurisdictions have legal cases pending against the president, but it seems they are waiting until he leaves office before pursuing them. They were filed now so the cases would not run afoul of any statute of limitations.
It all amounts to a three ring circus of performances: Congress, White House and State House, leaving observers without a program to keep track of who's doing what to whom.
But that's what journalism is for.
Friday, December 6, 2019
Patterns and Politics
Once is an accident. Twice is a coincidence. Three times or more is a pattern. -- Pug Mahoney
All of the economic downturns of the past century began during a Republican administration.
Moreover, each recession was preceded by an inversion in the financial yield curve, when short-term returns were higher than long-term bond yields.
Now, the nation has seen an inverted curve since last May, and a Republican occupies the White House.
Taken together, this means the American economy is likely to go into recession soon.
When? That's impossible to say, but if history is any guide, look for it to happen within the coming year -- in the middle of the presidential election campaign.
Meanwhile, the good news is that employment rose in November and the jobless rate was relatively steady at 3.5 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Economists define recession as two consecutive fiscal quarters of negative economic growth. That is, a dip below zero in the growth rate of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the total value of all goods and services produced in the nation.
The U.S. economy has been enjoying the longest expansion in its history, as recovery from the last downturn began in the first year of the Obama administration, some ten years ago.
GDP has risen in every fiscal quarter since then, though the growth rate has faded recently, and is now at about 2 percent, right in the target range eyed by the Federal Reserve, which is charged with monitoring the economy.
Specifically, GDP was 3 percent in the first three months of this year, 2.0 percent in the second quarter, and 2.1 percent in the quarter ended September. The first estimate for the fourth quarter of 2019 will be published January 30, and that would be the first official evidence of a possible problem.
Even so, it would take several more months to accurately quantify the extent of a downturn, and an additional three months to meet the standard definition of a recession.
That means that if GDP growth goes negative in the fourth quarter of 2019, it would require another dip in the first three months of 2020 to qualify as a recession. We won't know for sure until nearly summer that the U.S. economy has declined after a decade of growth.
That news would come just when political campaigning goes into high gear, as primary elections and national conventions are held to choose presidential candidates for next November.
Historically, here's the pattern of Republican presidents and the onset of economic downturns:
Herbert Hoover, 1929; Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953; Richard Nixon, 1970; Gerald Ford, 1975; Ronald Reagan, 1982; George H.W. Bush, 1990; and George W. Bush, 2001 and 2008.
Data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York shows a correlation of negative yield curve to every recession since 1960, and using data through July 2019, anticipates the probability of a downturn in the coming year to be more than 30 percent.
Sharpen all your pencils, journalists. You've got a busy year ahead.
All of the economic downturns of the past century began during a Republican administration.
Moreover, each recession was preceded by an inversion in the financial yield curve, when short-term returns were higher than long-term bond yields.
Now, the nation has seen an inverted curve since last May, and a Republican occupies the White House.
Taken together, this means the American economy is likely to go into recession soon.
When? That's impossible to say, but if history is any guide, look for it to happen within the coming year -- in the middle of the presidential election campaign.
Meanwhile, the good news is that employment rose in November and the jobless rate was relatively steady at 3.5 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Economists define recession as two consecutive fiscal quarters of negative economic growth. That is, a dip below zero in the growth rate of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the total value of all goods and services produced in the nation.
The U.S. economy has been enjoying the longest expansion in its history, as recovery from the last downturn began in the first year of the Obama administration, some ten years ago.
GDP has risen in every fiscal quarter since then, though the growth rate has faded recently, and is now at about 2 percent, right in the target range eyed by the Federal Reserve, which is charged with monitoring the economy.
Specifically, GDP was 3 percent in the first three months of this year, 2.0 percent in the second quarter, and 2.1 percent in the quarter ended September. The first estimate for the fourth quarter of 2019 will be published January 30, and that would be the first official evidence of a possible problem.
Even so, it would take several more months to accurately quantify the extent of a downturn, and an additional three months to meet the standard definition of a recession.
That means that if GDP growth goes negative in the fourth quarter of 2019, it would require another dip in the first three months of 2020 to qualify as a recession. We won't know for sure until nearly summer that the U.S. economy has declined after a decade of growth.
That news would come just when political campaigning goes into high gear, as primary elections and national conventions are held to choose presidential candidates for next November.
Historically, here's the pattern of Republican presidents and the onset of economic downturns:
Herbert Hoover, 1929; Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953; Richard Nixon, 1970; Gerald Ford, 1975; Ronald Reagan, 1982; George H.W. Bush, 1990; and George W. Bush, 2001 and 2008.
Data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York shows a correlation of negative yield curve to every recession since 1960, and using data through July 2019, anticipates the probability of a downturn in the coming year to be more than 30 percent.
Sharpen all your pencils, journalists. You've got a busy year ahead.
Wednesday, December 4, 2019
Piling On
The evidence is piling up, as the House Judiciary Committee begins its hearings on the proposed impeachment of the president.
But the question is whether Congress will listen to its own investigators and move forward on the path to impeachment, or will its members -- especially senators -- be so afraid of losing a bid for re-election that they will not act?
The House Judiciary Committee began hearing testimony from experts on the validity of the House Intelligence Committee's report, and the first day's session was marked by stalling and delaying tactics at every turn by Republican members of the committee. Yet none seemed able to poke holes in the testimony of the witnesses from academia. Instead, it seemed more like table-pounding than debate over fact or law.
Separately, there are reports that the Senate is indeed getting ready to receive an impeachment by the full House of Representatives. And there was a claim by supporters of the president that the impeachment vote must be approved by the Supreme Court before the Senate can take up the issue.
Not so.
No more so than the claim that the president's term in office should be extended because of the time spent on impeachment investigations and proceedings.
In short, we are in the middle of a major moment in American history. Only four presidents have faced impeachment proceedings. One -- Richard Nixon -- resigned rather than face a vote by the full House of Representatives. Therefore, it must be said that Nixon was not impeached. Of the others, neither Andrew Johnson nor Bill Clinton was convicted.
Moreover, all three cooperated with House investigators and provided evidence they hoped would clear them of any charges.
Donald Trump, however, has ignored all requests and subpoenas sent to him and his associates, and has told his subordinates not to talk to House investigators.
Meanwhile, the evidence supporting charges of "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors" seems to be overwhelming.
Nevertheless, rather than present evidence supporting the claim of presidential innocence, his backers metaphorically pound the table, attacking the process.
So the drama continues, and a formal vote to impeach the current president is likely within days. He will then be the third president to be impeached.
But will he be tried in the Senate, convicted and removed from office?
Stay tuned as the national drama continues.
But the question is whether Congress will listen to its own investigators and move forward on the path to impeachment, or will its members -- especially senators -- be so afraid of losing a bid for re-election that they will not act?
The House Judiciary Committee began hearing testimony from experts on the validity of the House Intelligence Committee's report, and the first day's session was marked by stalling and delaying tactics at every turn by Republican members of the committee. Yet none seemed able to poke holes in the testimony of the witnesses from academia. Instead, it seemed more like table-pounding than debate over fact or law.
Separately, there are reports that the Senate is indeed getting ready to receive an impeachment by the full House of Representatives. And there was a claim by supporters of the president that the impeachment vote must be approved by the Supreme Court before the Senate can take up the issue.
Not so.
No more so than the claim that the president's term in office should be extended because of the time spent on impeachment investigations and proceedings.
In short, we are in the middle of a major moment in American history. Only four presidents have faced impeachment proceedings. One -- Richard Nixon -- resigned rather than face a vote by the full House of Representatives. Therefore, it must be said that Nixon was not impeached. Of the others, neither Andrew Johnson nor Bill Clinton was convicted.
Moreover, all three cooperated with House investigators and provided evidence they hoped would clear them of any charges.
Donald Trump, however, has ignored all requests and subpoenas sent to him and his associates, and has told his subordinates not to talk to House investigators.
Meanwhile, the evidence supporting charges of "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors" seems to be overwhelming.
Nevertheless, rather than present evidence supporting the claim of presidential innocence, his backers metaphorically pound the table, attacking the process.
So the drama continues, and a formal vote to impeach the current president is likely within days. He will then be the third president to be impeached.
But will he be tried in the Senate, convicted and removed from office?
Stay tuned as the national drama continues.
Pressing Issues
For all the talk about the press being "the enemy of the people," only three news outlets are regularly attacked by the president: CNN, the New York Times and the Washington Post.
Fox, on the other hand, is regularly praised, but all of that praise goes to commentators who are avid supporters of the president, and not to the few news anchors who are what can only be called journalists, neutral in their presentations.
Never mentioned are the three major TV networks -- ABC, CBS and NBC -- as well as other major newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times, the Atlanta Constitution, the Miami Herald, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Dallas Morning News and the Philadelphia Inquirer, plus the independent news services like the Associated Press and others that have their own staff of reporters covering politics and government. These latter provide neutral coverage because they serve a wide variety of geopolitical areas.
Also never mentioned is the BBC, which provides news coverage to the world. Neither is the CBC mentioned, even though it serves all of Canada and many of America's northernmost states. And don't forget the cable news operations sponsored by friendly nations such as France and Germany, whose news programs are readily available to Americans.
But according to the president and his supporters, all news operations lie, as if they all get together to plan and coordinate their news operations before broadcast.
As if they had time for that in a 24-hour news cycle.
Also not mentioned is the fact that the BBC has a long history of being neutral in its news coverage, even critical of the British government.
But according to the Trumpistas, the only true facts (as opposed to false facts) come from the president himself. All the others dispense "fake news" as part of a "witch hunt" and a "hoax."
As if the only reliable source of information is the president himself, who is always right about everything in every detail all the time.
Or so he claims.
Fox, on the other hand, is regularly praised, but all of that praise goes to commentators who are avid supporters of the president, and not to the few news anchors who are what can only be called journalists, neutral in their presentations.
Never mentioned are the three major TV networks -- ABC, CBS and NBC -- as well as other major newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times, the Atlanta Constitution, the Miami Herald, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Dallas Morning News and the Philadelphia Inquirer, plus the independent news services like the Associated Press and others that have their own staff of reporters covering politics and government. These latter provide neutral coverage because they serve a wide variety of geopolitical areas.
Also never mentioned is the BBC, which provides news coverage to the world. Neither is the CBC mentioned, even though it serves all of Canada and many of America's northernmost states. And don't forget the cable news operations sponsored by friendly nations such as France and Germany, whose news programs are readily available to Americans.
But according to the president and his supporters, all news operations lie, as if they all get together to plan and coordinate their news operations before broadcast.
As if they had time for that in a 24-hour news cycle.
Also not mentioned is the fact that the BBC has a long history of being neutral in its news coverage, even critical of the British government.
But according to the Trumpistas, the only true facts (as opposed to false facts) come from the president himself. All the others dispense "fake news" as part of a "witch hunt" and a "hoax."
As if the only reliable source of information is the president himself, who is always right about everything in every detail all the time.
Or so he claims.
Tuesday, December 3, 2019
Presidential Pique
Much as he wants to, the president cannot control the press. Nevertheless, he tries.
Banning reporters from rallies doesn't work. Several times he has refused press credentials that give reporters access to designated press facilities at public rallies. But journalists are first and foremost members of the public, so any reporters "banned" from the press gallery simply enter the main auditorium with everyone else.
The latest target of the presidential pique is Bloomberg News, on the pretext of biased coverage because the owner, Michael Bloomberg, is now a candidate.
The company said it will not publish investigative pieces on Bloomberg or any other Democratic candidate, but will write on President Trump.
Whether that constitutes bias is a valid question, since candidate Bloomberg is not the Democratic nominee and a full opponent of the current president. For that matter, Trump is not yet the official nominee for re-election.
As for bias against journalists, the president in the past has banned the New York Times, Washington Post, BuzzFeed, Politico, Huffington Post, the Daily Beast, the Des Moines Register as well as several individuals with CNN and other media outlets from contacts with the White House.
Not that it made any difference. Journalists can either enter rally auditoriums with the general public or watch the event on television, including CSPAN, the nonprofit set of networks that send out government and political events commercial free and without comment.
Separately today, the House Intelligence Committee released its report on the impeachment inquiry, spelling out how, when and where the president went beyond constitutional guidelines in performing the duties of his office.
More to the point, the report lists some of the ways he may be guilty of violating the constitutional ban on "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors," and therefore should be impeached, convicted and removed from office.
Specifically, the report details evidence that he abused his power by pressuring Ukraine to help him get re-elected, and then tried to stop Congress from investigating the allegations.
Also today, a federal appeals court ordered that the president's financial documents must be provided to Congress by the bank holding them.
The case will very likely be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Banning reporters from rallies doesn't work. Several times he has refused press credentials that give reporters access to designated press facilities at public rallies. But journalists are first and foremost members of the public, so any reporters "banned" from the press gallery simply enter the main auditorium with everyone else.
The latest target of the presidential pique is Bloomberg News, on the pretext of biased coverage because the owner, Michael Bloomberg, is now a candidate.
The company said it will not publish investigative pieces on Bloomberg or any other Democratic candidate, but will write on President Trump.
Whether that constitutes bias is a valid question, since candidate Bloomberg is not the Democratic nominee and a full opponent of the current president. For that matter, Trump is not yet the official nominee for re-election.
As for bias against journalists, the president in the past has banned the New York Times, Washington Post, BuzzFeed, Politico, Huffington Post, the Daily Beast, the Des Moines Register as well as several individuals with CNN and other media outlets from contacts with the White House.
Not that it made any difference. Journalists can either enter rally auditoriums with the general public or watch the event on television, including CSPAN, the nonprofit set of networks that send out government and political events commercial free and without comment.
Separately today, the House Intelligence Committee released its report on the impeachment inquiry, spelling out how, when and where the president went beyond constitutional guidelines in performing the duties of his office.
More to the point, the report lists some of the ways he may be guilty of violating the constitutional ban on "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors," and therefore should be impeached, convicted and removed from office.
Specifically, the report details evidence that he abused his power by pressuring Ukraine to help him get re-elected, and then tried to stop Congress from investigating the allegations.
Also today, a federal appeals court ordered that the president's financial documents must be provided to Congress by the bank holding them.
The case will very likely be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Sunday, December 1, 2019
Circular Stalling
Hypocrisy gains power when morality sleeps.
Here's how to avoid congressional questions. For an example, we translated the talk from political palaver to plain speaking.
Complaint: The process is bad because we're not part of it.
Response: Okay, you're invited. Come be part of the process.
Complaint: The process isn't fair. We won't go.
Response: Here's a subpoena. You have to come.
Complaint: Your subpoena's not fair. We won't go.
Response: You said you would if we asked. We did, but you refused. Then we issued a subpoena, and you still refused.
Complaint: Because you didn't ask me if you could issue a subpoena. That's not fair.
Response: You claim you've got nothing to hide. Why, then, won't you answer our questions?
Complaint: Because you're not supposed to ask. It's not fair. You shouldn't be allowed to ask.
Response: Whose permission do we need to ask how to do our job?
Complaint: Mine. You need to ask me how to do your job and whether it's okay to ask me questions.
Response: And why is that, please?
Complaint: Because I said so, that's why.
If all of the above sounds childish, that's because it is. Even high level politicians can be guilty of childish behavior.
Here's how to avoid congressional questions. For an example, we translated the talk from political palaver to plain speaking.
Complaint: The process is bad because we're not part of it.
Response: Okay, you're invited. Come be part of the process.
Complaint: The process isn't fair. We won't go.
Response: Here's a subpoena. You have to come.
Complaint: Your subpoena's not fair. We won't go.
Response: You said you would if we asked. We did, but you refused. Then we issued a subpoena, and you still refused.
Complaint: Because you didn't ask me if you could issue a subpoena. That's not fair.
Response: You claim you've got nothing to hide. Why, then, won't you answer our questions?
Complaint: Because you're not supposed to ask. It's not fair. You shouldn't be allowed to ask.
Response: Whose permission do we need to ask how to do our job?
Complaint: Mine. You need to ask me how to do your job and whether it's okay to ask me questions.
Response: And why is that, please?
Complaint: Because I said so, that's why.
If all of the above sounds childish, that's because it is. Even high level politicians can be guilty of childish behavior.
Friday, November 29, 2019
Literary Competition
Publishers and book stores are right in complaining about competition from Amazon and its book sales division. There are indeed many examples of literary works pirated and republished via Amazon, bypassing the obligation to pay royalties to authors and fees to the original publisher.
But the latest report on the problem, printed in the New York Times, deals only with one aspect of the issue -- that of traditional publishers and book store owners. There is no mention of the predicament faced by writers.
Publishers and book stores want to deal with authors with a proven record of success in writing books that sell well. New writers, even those with a long history of success in journalism, are rejected because they have no record of success in book sales.
But how can they sell books if no one will publish them?
There, then, is the business opportunity that Amazon recognized and exploited through its Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) division, and the company is well ahead of traditional publishers.
Publishers and retailers now want to prevent Amazon from continuing to publish and sell books. But they are likely to have the same amount of success other retailers have had in fighting the competition from Amazon.
None.
Meanwhile, authors -- even beginners -- can set up and publish their work via KDP at no cost and can start collecting royalties within two or three months, compared to nearly two years with a traditional publisher. Assuming the author's work is accepted and published at all.
The downside, of course, is that promotion, advertising and marketing must be done by authors themselves rather by a corporate publishing division.
But the upside is that a book becomes available worldwide immediately, and if an author is able to do marketing and promotion, so much the better. Even more so if knowledge of the book goes viral on the Internet.
But the latest report on the problem, printed in the New York Times, deals only with one aspect of the issue -- that of traditional publishers and book store owners. There is no mention of the predicament faced by writers.
Publishers and book stores want to deal with authors with a proven record of success in writing books that sell well. New writers, even those with a long history of success in journalism, are rejected because they have no record of success in book sales.
But how can they sell books if no one will publish them?
There, then, is the business opportunity that Amazon recognized and exploited through its Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) division, and the company is well ahead of traditional publishers.
Publishers and retailers now want to prevent Amazon from continuing to publish and sell books. But they are likely to have the same amount of success other retailers have had in fighting the competition from Amazon.
None.
Meanwhile, authors -- even beginners -- can set up and publish their work via KDP at no cost and can start collecting royalties within two or three months, compared to nearly two years with a traditional publisher. Assuming the author's work is accepted and published at all.
The downside, of course, is that promotion, advertising and marketing must be done by authors themselves rather by a corporate publishing division.
But the upside is that a book becomes available worldwide immediately, and if an author is able to do marketing and promotion, so much the better. Even more so if knowledge of the book goes viral on the Internet.
Fake News and the Enemy
Freedom of speech works both ways.
Some demand allegiance from everyone, on the principle that whoever is not with them is against them and therefore is an enemy.
But this ignores the idea of neutrality and independence. A political leader does just that when he attacks journalism as "fake news" and "the enemy of the people."
An independent news outlet is neither friend nor enemy, but is neutral, reporting accurately what a politician says and does, as well as whether it conforms to fact or reality. Crying "that's not fair" is a child's way of objecting to disagreement.
Much as he might want to, a politician or government leader cannot and must not be able to control the press. Many try, however, on the idea that there is no in-between. People generally, and news media especially, are either supporters or they are the enemy. For them neutrality and independence don't exist.
There are, of course, news outlets that are not neutral even as they are independent. Also, there are some that masquerade as neutral, independent news outlets but are really public relations (read: propaganda) operations affiliated with a political party or official.
They too are protected by the Constitution, and it is the people's responsibility to know this and to recognize which is which.
Meanwhile, politicians manipulate this lack of responsibility to spread their own message of an "enemy" press that spreads "fake news," even as news outlets report accurately what the politician says and does, along with comments from opponents.
This means that it's up to the public to decide who's lying. And an easy way to decide that is to look to history and reputation.
If a politician has a long and proven history of being an arrogant, ignorant, vindictive, foul-mouthed liar, a cheat and a fraud, it's up to news outlets to point out examples of that behavior. And if readers choose to ignore that and accept the politician's version of "alternative facts," on the premise that "truth isn't truth," that too is their right.
But neither the politician nor the public has a right to suppress any and all reports of information that disagrees with them. That's called dictatorship.
Freedom of speech works both ways.
Some demand allegiance from everyone, on the principle that whoever is not with them is against them and therefore is an enemy.
But this ignores the idea of neutrality and independence. A political leader does just that when he attacks journalism as "fake news" and "the enemy of the people."
An independent news outlet is neither friend nor enemy, but is neutral, reporting accurately what a politician says and does, as well as whether it conforms to fact or reality. Crying "that's not fair" is a child's way of objecting to disagreement.
Much as he might want to, a politician or government leader cannot and must not be able to control the press. Many try, however, on the idea that there is no in-between. People generally, and news media especially, are either supporters or they are the enemy. For them neutrality and independence don't exist.
There are, of course, news outlets that are not neutral even as they are independent. Also, there are some that masquerade as neutral, independent news outlets but are really public relations (read: propaganda) operations affiliated with a political party or official.
They too are protected by the Constitution, and it is the people's responsibility to know this and to recognize which is which.
Meanwhile, politicians manipulate this lack of responsibility to spread their own message of an "enemy" press that spreads "fake news," even as news outlets report accurately what the politician says and does, along with comments from opponents.
This means that it's up to the public to decide who's lying. And an easy way to decide that is to look to history and reputation.
If a politician has a long and proven history of being an arrogant, ignorant, vindictive, foul-mouthed liar, a cheat and a fraud, it's up to news outlets to point out examples of that behavior. And if readers choose to ignore that and accept the politician's version of "alternative facts," on the premise that "truth isn't truth," that too is their right.
But neither the politician nor the public has a right to suppress any and all reports of information that disagrees with them. That's called dictatorship.
Freedom of speech works both ways.
Wednesday, November 27, 2019
Giving Thanks
Unemployment is down, payroll jobs are up, the economy is steady and wages, salaries and personal income are holding.
That's the good news from the government's Bureau of Economic Analysis as Americans get ready for their homecoming holiday this year.
The not so good news, of course, is that the impeachment process against the current president continues to gather evidence supporting the idea of booting him from the White House. But that depends on whether you support him or you want him out, and current polls suggest an increasing number of Americans want him out.
Meanwhile, families and friends are gathering to give thanks for what they have and to express hope that things will get better.
Economically, things look good. Jobless rates were lower in October than a year ago in 240 of the 389 metro areas in America, according to government statistics, and nonfarm payroll employment was up in 49 metro ares and unchanged in 340.
Personal income was "virtually unchanged" in October after rising 0.3 percent in September, while wages and salaries, the largest component of the data, rose 0.4 percent.
Overall, Gross Domestic Product, or total output of goods and services, increased 2.1 percent in the third quarter, according to the second estimate by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, compared to 2 percent in the second quarter.
That's the good news from the government's Bureau of Economic Analysis as Americans get ready for their homecoming holiday this year.
The not so good news, of course, is that the impeachment process against the current president continues to gather evidence supporting the idea of booting him from the White House. But that depends on whether you support him or you want him out, and current polls suggest an increasing number of Americans want him out.
Meanwhile, families and friends are gathering to give thanks for what they have and to express hope that things will get better.
Economically, things look good. Jobless rates were lower in October than a year ago in 240 of the 389 metro areas in America, according to government statistics, and nonfarm payroll employment was up in 49 metro ares and unchanged in 340.
Personal income was "virtually unchanged" in October after rising 0.3 percent in September, while wages and salaries, the largest component of the data, rose 0.4 percent.
Overall, Gross Domestic Product, or total output of goods and services, increased 2.1 percent in the third quarter, according to the second estimate by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, compared to 2 percent in the second quarter.
Tuesday, November 26, 2019
Immunity Fiction
"Presidents are not kings," wrote the federal judge, and "absolute immunity does not exist."
And with that ruling, a U.S. District Court judge in Washington made it official what many have been saying for months. Specifically, the ruling applies to members of the president's staff, who claimed immunity from congressional investigation because they are or were members of the president's staff.
Lawyers for the president have claimed that not only is the president immune from prosecution but so also are members of his staff, whether still on the job or after they leave. But this raises the question of where that immunity might end, if ever. The ruling, by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the U.S. District Court in Washington, calls this "a fiction that has been fastidiously maintained over time through the force of repetition" by administration lawyers.
The ruling is likely to be appealed, and the issue of presidential immunity eventually will make its way to the Supreme Court. This could take months, but whether the case is settled before Election Day next November is a wide open question.
Meanwhile, members of the public face the continuing argument between the White House and Congress over who's in charge.
Attorney General William Barr has said the Constitution supports presidential authority over other government branches. Others, including Judge Jackson, stress the concept of three co-equal branches of government. In her ruling, Judge Jackson wrote that the Constitution "vests the legislature with the power to investigate abuses of official authority when necessary to hold government officials, up to and including the president, accountable."
Or as many observers have pointed out, no one is above the law. And that includes the president.
And with that ruling, a U.S. District Court judge in Washington made it official what many have been saying for months. Specifically, the ruling applies to members of the president's staff, who claimed immunity from congressional investigation because they are or were members of the president's staff.
Lawyers for the president have claimed that not only is the president immune from prosecution but so also are members of his staff, whether still on the job or after they leave. But this raises the question of where that immunity might end, if ever. The ruling, by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the U.S. District Court in Washington, calls this "a fiction that has been fastidiously maintained over time through the force of repetition" by administration lawyers.
The ruling is likely to be appealed, and the issue of presidential immunity eventually will make its way to the Supreme Court. This could take months, but whether the case is settled before Election Day next November is a wide open question.
Meanwhile, members of the public face the continuing argument between the White House and Congress over who's in charge.
Attorney General William Barr has said the Constitution supports presidential authority over other government branches. Others, including Judge Jackson, stress the concept of three co-equal branches of government. In her ruling, Judge Jackson wrote that the Constitution "vests the legislature with the power to investigate abuses of official authority when necessary to hold government officials, up to and including the president, accountable."
Or as many observers have pointed out, no one is above the law. And that includes the president.
Adversarial Journalism
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
Guidelines from the Pug Mahoney school of journalism:
1. We ask the tough questions because they need to be asked.
2. My opinion is not relevant to what I do.
3. The press is not the enemy.
4. Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.
Politicians may not like the questions, and any attempt to quash them by attacking reporters and media as "fake news" can only lead to more aggressive questioning and reporting.
Reporters will keep their cool and continue to ask questions. It's what they do, and they do it on behalf of the public, thereby providing information to voters.
Nevertheless, continuing to mock, insult and vilify reporters because they do not bow to a politician's every wish and command is itself a mockery of the tradition of a free and independent press, as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Reporters have thick hides, and it's very difficult if not impossible to control what they do, what questions they ask and in what form the questions are asked. Contrary to what a politician or government official might believe or want, journalists do not work for them. They are paid by their media employers, but in a larger sense they work for the public.
Any attempt to control the information provided to the public is therefore by definition propaganda -- or, to be kind, it is public relations and advertising.
In short, the press is not the enemy. Adversaries, yes, and an adversarial press is one of the foundations of a free society. But treating reporters as somehow less than human and deserving of whatever insult you can throw at them will usually be ignored. In a larger sense, however, journalists are human (notwithstanding what a politician may believe).
A smart politician, therefore, will remember that repeatedly insulting and mocking reporters and what they do eventually will have negative consequences.
Or, as noted in this space a year ago, there are no stupid questions, but only stupid answers.
For a journalist, there are no stupid questions. There are only stupid answers. -- Pug Mahoney
Guidelines from the Pug Mahoney school of journalism:
1. We ask the tough questions because they need to be asked.
2. My opinion is not relevant to what I do.
3. The press is not the enemy.
4. Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.
Politicians may not like the questions, and any attempt to quash them by attacking reporters and media as "fake news" can only lead to more aggressive questioning and reporting.
Reporters will keep their cool and continue to ask questions. It's what they do, and they do it on behalf of the public, thereby providing information to voters.
Nevertheless, continuing to mock, insult and vilify reporters because they do not bow to a politician's every wish and command is itself a mockery of the tradition of a free and independent press, as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Reporters have thick hides, and it's very difficult if not impossible to control what they do, what questions they ask and in what form the questions are asked. Contrary to what a politician or government official might believe or want, journalists do not work for them. They are paid by their media employers, but in a larger sense they work for the public.
Any attempt to control the information provided to the public is therefore by definition propaganda -- or, to be kind, it is public relations and advertising.
In short, the press is not the enemy. Adversaries, yes, and an adversarial press is one of the foundations of a free society. But treating reporters as somehow less than human and deserving of whatever insult you can throw at them will usually be ignored. In a larger sense, however, journalists are human (notwithstanding what a politician may believe).
A smart politician, therefore, will remember that repeatedly insulting and mocking reporters and what they do eventually will have negative consequences.
Or, as noted in this space a year ago, there are no stupid questions, but only stupid answers.
Sunday, November 24, 2019
Conscience
Now is the time for all good senators to come to the aid of their conscience.
The question before them is whether the current president is guilty of "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors," as outlined in the Constitution, and if so should he be removed from office.
The first two sins are easily defined, and evidence has been gathered to support allegations. The others are not specifically defined, so it is up to Congress and its investigators to set up a definition and gather evidence.
Likewise, it is up to supporters to refute any evidence related to the charges. The case has not yet been presented to the Senate. First, it must be formally presented to the full House of Representatives in the form of impeachment allegations gathered by the House Intelligence Committee and approved by the Judiciary Committee.
Even so, it is time for senators to prepare for the likelihood of an impeachment trial. But they must also consider the amount of support for them by voters back home. Realistically, they must balance the need to follow the wishes of the electorate with the need to follow Constitutional and legal principles, as well as their conscience.
For many, that may be a tough balancing act. Already, some members of Congress have decided to leave office rather than follow the demands of ardent supporters of the president and ignore their conscience.
That, however, according to the resident cynic Pug Mahoney, is a copout. They should follow their conscience and the Constitution, and not cower to the whims of a fickle electorate.
That way danger lies.
The question before them is whether the current president is guilty of "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors," as outlined in the Constitution, and if so should he be removed from office.
The first two sins are easily defined, and evidence has been gathered to support allegations. The others are not specifically defined, so it is up to Congress and its investigators to set up a definition and gather evidence.
Likewise, it is up to supporters to refute any evidence related to the charges. The case has not yet been presented to the Senate. First, it must be formally presented to the full House of Representatives in the form of impeachment allegations gathered by the House Intelligence Committee and approved by the Judiciary Committee.
Even so, it is time for senators to prepare for the likelihood of an impeachment trial. But they must also consider the amount of support for them by voters back home. Realistically, they must balance the need to follow the wishes of the electorate with the need to follow Constitutional and legal principles, as well as their conscience.
For many, that may be a tough balancing act. Already, some members of Congress have decided to leave office rather than follow the demands of ardent supporters of the president and ignore their conscience.
That, however, according to the resident cynic Pug Mahoney, is a copout. They should follow their conscience and the Constitution, and not cower to the whims of a fickle electorate.
That way danger lies.
Friday, November 22, 2019
Talkathon
Big news stories mean that TV networks don't pause their coverage for commercial breaks, either while vital Congressional hearings are under way or when the president is giving an important speech.
Sometimes, however, the president puts in a call to his favorite news operation and talks for nearly an hour and there are no commercial interruptions there, either.
Granted, the Fox network executives may consider it a public service to carry the president's message even as he avoids calling the other major networks, or they may wallow in the delight that he calls them and not the others, especially since he gets more sympathetic interviews.
Other news operations, moreover, don't carry presidential ramblings for the hour or more that he takes up with his chats on Fox. In a way, the others don't have the problem of deciding when or whether to interrupt the chat for a commercial break.
In any case, suspending all regular programming in favor of live, uninterrupted coverage of important news events is part of what they do, and TV operations -- both local and network -- lose a lot of advertising revenue when they do.
Moreover, it is their journalistic duty to do it, without fear of government retribution if the news is harmful to any administration's reputation. It is also a news outlet's choice to stress elements of the news that are favorable to a particular party.
That's one choice. Another is to be neutral, and many media outlets manage to do both, with news coverage that is neutral and commentary that is not.
Viewers and readers, then, are also free to choose which news and commentary outlet to read or watch.
That's part of the notion of a free press and of free speech. This is a right we are all born with, and is guaranteed to us by the U.S. Constitution.
Sometimes, however, the president puts in a call to his favorite news operation and talks for nearly an hour and there are no commercial interruptions there, either.
Granted, the Fox network executives may consider it a public service to carry the president's message even as he avoids calling the other major networks, or they may wallow in the delight that he calls them and not the others, especially since he gets more sympathetic interviews.
Other news operations, moreover, don't carry presidential ramblings for the hour or more that he takes up with his chats on Fox. In a way, the others don't have the problem of deciding when or whether to interrupt the chat for a commercial break.
In any case, suspending all regular programming in favor of live, uninterrupted coverage of important news events is part of what they do, and TV operations -- both local and network -- lose a lot of advertising revenue when they do.
Moreover, it is their journalistic duty to do it, without fear of government retribution if the news is harmful to any administration's reputation. It is also a news outlet's choice to stress elements of the news that are favorable to a particular party.
That's one choice. Another is to be neutral, and many media outlets manage to do both, with news coverage that is neutral and commentary that is not.
Viewers and readers, then, are also free to choose which news and commentary outlet to read or watch.
That's part of the notion of a free press and of free speech. This is a right we are all born with, and is guaranteed to us by the U.S. Constitution.
All the President's Cries
Congress "should never, ever impeach," said President Donald Trump on Friday. Two days earlier, he said impeachment "shouldn't be allowed."
Left unanswered is the question, by whom?
Where does it say that this president is above the law, and is not subject to investigation over potential violations of Constitutional bans on "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors"?
It is the duty of Congress, a co-equal branch of the U.S. government, to inquire into such allegations and, if sufficient evidence turns up, to take the action specified in the Constitution: Impeachment by the House of Representatives, trial by the Senate and removal from office if convicted.
Perhaps it's too much to expect this current president to actually read the Constitution he swore to "preserve, protect and defend."
Left unanswered is the question, by whom?
Where does it say that this president is above the law, and is not subject to investigation over potential violations of Constitutional bans on "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors"?
It is the duty of Congress, a co-equal branch of the U.S. government, to inquire into such allegations and, if sufficient evidence turns up, to take the action specified in the Constitution: Impeachment by the House of Representatives, trial by the Senate and removal from office if convicted.
Perhaps it's too much to expect this current president to actually read the Constitution he swore to "preserve, protect and defend."
Thursday, November 21, 2019
Family Ties
The news that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was indicted on charges of fraud and bribery in alleged attempts to buy favorable media coverage reminded us of the close family triumvirate of Netanyahu, Trump and Kushner.
Netanyahu has a close relationship with the Kushner family, and on visits to America often stayed at the Kushner home in New Jersey. In his younger years, young Jared Kushner had to give up his room to the family guest.
Eventually, Jared married Ivanka Trump, the daughter of the current president.
Separately, Jared's father Charles was jailed by Chris Christie, a federal prosecutor at the time, who later became governor of New Jersey and then an associate of Donald Trump. The elder Kushner was charged with illegal campaign contributions and witness tampering.
However, a decade later, when Christie was being considered for a high post in the Trump administration, young Jared likely objected to the president and the nomination was withdrawn.
Sound complicated, like a plot in a second-rate soap opera?
Hey, it's New Jersey, why the surprise?
Meanwhile, there is the question whether Netanyahu can be removed as prime minister of Israel because of the indictment for alleged misdeeds.
That, too, sounds familiar.
Netanyahu has a close relationship with the Kushner family, and on visits to America often stayed at the Kushner home in New Jersey. In his younger years, young Jared Kushner had to give up his room to the family guest.
Eventually, Jared married Ivanka Trump, the daughter of the current president.
Separately, Jared's father Charles was jailed by Chris Christie, a federal prosecutor at the time, who later became governor of New Jersey and then an associate of Donald Trump. The elder Kushner was charged with illegal campaign contributions and witness tampering.
However, a decade later, when Christie was being considered for a high post in the Trump administration, young Jared likely objected to the president and the nomination was withdrawn.
Sound complicated, like a plot in a second-rate soap opera?
Hey, it's New Jersey, why the surprise?
Meanwhile, there is the question whether Netanyahu can be removed as prime minister of Israel because of the indictment for alleged misdeeds.
That, too, sounds familiar.
Wednesday, November 20, 2019
Immigrant Bias
"Dad, do not worry. You did the right thing. I will be fine for telling the truth." -- Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman to his father via live TV impeachment hearing.
For all the ranting about immigrants and the supposed danger they bring to America, it's useful to compare the comments and the groups they refer to.
A quick -- and very easy -- glance at some representative examples brings the conclusion that the ranting is bigoted and racist.
For example, to call for a ban on all Muslims entering the country ignores the reality that Muslims have been part of American society and culture for several hundred years.
Some were brought from Africa as slaves. Others came willingly as they sought refuge from harsh regimes elsewhere in the world. Still others are native Americans who converted to Islam, or are the children of immigrants who brought their faith with them.
Moreover, all are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
To call for a ban on all Muslims is therefore a clear violation of a right people are born with and is guaranteed by the Constitution.
Secondly, building a wall to keep out those of a certain ethnicity while encouraging immigration from other regions of the world is racist.
Finally, continuing to demand such restrictions even as your own family benefits from the American goal of religious and ethnic freedom is hypocrisy. And while hypocrisy may not be illegal, racism and bigotry are, and at the Constitutional level.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." -- First Amendment.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude ... shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." -- Thirteenth Amendment.
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged ... on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." -- Fifteenth Amendment.
These thoughts came to mind as witnesses at House impeachment hearings spoke of their own success in America, whether as immigrants themselves or as children of newcomers.
Example: Gordon Sondland, now ambassador to the European Union, is the son of refugees from the Holocaust and a successful businessman.
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was brought to America at the age of three by his father, who sought to free his family from the Soviet domination of Ukraine.
In closing remarks to the House committee gathering evidence to support impeachment of the president, Col. Vindman publicly thanked his father for bringing him to America.
"Dad, do not worry. You did the right thing. I will be fine for telling the truth."
For all the ranting about immigrants and the supposed danger they bring to America, it's useful to compare the comments and the groups they refer to.
A quick -- and very easy -- glance at some representative examples brings the conclusion that the ranting is bigoted and racist.
For example, to call for a ban on all Muslims entering the country ignores the reality that Muslims have been part of American society and culture for several hundred years.
Some were brought from Africa as slaves. Others came willingly as they sought refuge from harsh regimes elsewhere in the world. Still others are native Americans who converted to Islam, or are the children of immigrants who brought their faith with them.
Moreover, all are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
To call for a ban on all Muslims is therefore a clear violation of a right people are born with and is guaranteed by the Constitution.
Secondly, building a wall to keep out those of a certain ethnicity while encouraging immigration from other regions of the world is racist.
Finally, continuing to demand such restrictions even as your own family benefits from the American goal of religious and ethnic freedom is hypocrisy. And while hypocrisy may not be illegal, racism and bigotry are, and at the Constitutional level.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." -- First Amendment.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude ... shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." -- Thirteenth Amendment.
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged ... on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." -- Fifteenth Amendment.
These thoughts came to mind as witnesses at House impeachment hearings spoke of their own success in America, whether as immigrants themselves or as children of newcomers.
Example: Gordon Sondland, now ambassador to the European Union, is the son of refugees from the Holocaust and a successful businessman.
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was brought to America at the age of three by his father, who sought to free his family from the Soviet domination of Ukraine.
In closing remarks to the House committee gathering evidence to support impeachment of the president, Col. Vindman publicly thanked his father for bringing him to America.
"Dad, do not worry. You did the right thing. I will be fine for telling the truth."
Tuesday, November 19, 2019
Political Pastime
Is there a question in there someplace? -- Pug Mahoney
Holding forth on national television knowing that the gavel man is not likely to demand an end to the tirade is a widespread pastime among politicians. It was especially noticeable this week at the impeachment hearings in Washington.
Then again, "hearings" is a misnomer. The congressional investigators can't hear anything if they use their time slot talking rather than asking questions.
In any case, information does indeed come out of the sessions despite the efforts of some to drown it with a torrent of verbiage which, as Shakespeare put it, is often "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Currently, defenders of the GOP faith are verbally pounding the table and attacking the impeachment process. Any attempt to refute the facts fails against the fusillade of information from a squadron of reliable witnesses whose reputations cannot easily be assailed.
Granted, it is the function of partisan politicians to fight any move by members of an opposing party to gain any advantage. But there comes a time when truth, justice and the American way are on the line, and that's when there should be unity in the search for solid information.
Otherwise, the competition is about as reliable as a professional wrestling match. The difference is that an impeachment hearing is not meant to be entertaining.
A musical comedy it ain't.
Holding forth on national television knowing that the gavel man is not likely to demand an end to the tirade is a widespread pastime among politicians. It was especially noticeable this week at the impeachment hearings in Washington.
Then again, "hearings" is a misnomer. The congressional investigators can't hear anything if they use their time slot talking rather than asking questions.
In any case, information does indeed come out of the sessions despite the efforts of some to drown it with a torrent of verbiage which, as Shakespeare put it, is often "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Currently, defenders of the GOP faith are verbally pounding the table and attacking the impeachment process. Any attempt to refute the facts fails against the fusillade of information from a squadron of reliable witnesses whose reputations cannot easily be assailed.
Granted, it is the function of partisan politicians to fight any move by members of an opposing party to gain any advantage. But there comes a time when truth, justice and the American way are on the line, and that's when there should be unity in the search for solid information.
Otherwise, the competition is about as reliable as a professional wrestling match. The difference is that an impeachment hearing is not meant to be entertaining.
A musical comedy it ain't.
Monday, November 18, 2019
Independent Fed
The president apparently failed in an attempt to persuade Fed Chair Jerome Powell to change its monetary policy. The president has often demanded that the nation's central bank ease its monetary restrictions so the economy can grow faster, but the Fed has just as consistently refused to listen to the president's demands.
At the White House Monday, called by the president, Powell met with the president and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to "to discuss the economy, growth, employment and inflation," according to a Fed statement.
But the statement added that Powell "did not discuss his expectations for monetary policy, except to stress that the path of policy will depend entirely on incoming information."
Moreover, Powell pointed out that the Fed will make its decisions "solely on careful, objective and non-political analysis."
No word yet on what the president and his Treasury chief asked of the Fed chair.
At the White House Monday, called by the president, Powell met with the president and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to "to discuss the economy, growth, employment and inflation," according to a Fed statement.
But the statement added that Powell "did not discuss his expectations for monetary policy, except to stress that the path of policy will depend entirely on incoming information."
Moreover, Powell pointed out that the Fed will make its decisions "solely on careful, objective and non-political analysis."
No word yet on what the president and his Treasury chief asked of the Fed chair.
Sunday, November 17, 2019
Cuss Words
Time was, reporters and editors would routinely clean up grammar and delete cuss words when quoting government officials or anyone else. This was partly out of respect for political office and partly to improve communication.
But when a government official repeatedly mocks, criticizes and otherwise attacks the news media and working reporters as "the enemy of the people," deliberately antagonizing those whose job it is to keep the public informed of both good and bad news, rather than blindly supporting said government official in spreading propaganda, there comes a time when reporters and editors stop cleaning up the grammar and deleting the cuss words.
Besides, they can't do it when the politician regularly and repeatedly spouts foul language on live national television broadcasts even as he bad-mouths the media.
So if he doesn't care about using cuss words in public, why should we? say the reporters. Journalism's job is to describe and report what politicians do and say, even and especially when what the politician says is false and provably false.
That's called lying.
And it's even more important to the survival of a free society that a lying leader be exposed as just that -- a lying, foul-mouthed, incompetent fraud.
Reporters around the world have paid the ultimate price for exposing a high official's misdeeds and lies.
We now see examples of threats made against those who criticize the current president. These threats are made via social media -- usually Twitter and often by the president himself -- unedited and unfiltered by anyone, just as he has publicly urged that protestors at political rallies be beaten up, promising that he would pay the bail for those who beat up the protestors.
The pen remains mightier than the sword, but it's hard to wield a pencil when your fingers are broken.
Fortunately, we haven't come to that stage in America.
Yet.
But when a government official repeatedly mocks, criticizes and otherwise attacks the news media and working reporters as "the enemy of the people," deliberately antagonizing those whose job it is to keep the public informed of both good and bad news, rather than blindly supporting said government official in spreading propaganda, there comes a time when reporters and editors stop cleaning up the grammar and deleting the cuss words.
Besides, they can't do it when the politician regularly and repeatedly spouts foul language on live national television broadcasts even as he bad-mouths the media.
So if he doesn't care about using cuss words in public, why should we? say the reporters. Journalism's job is to describe and report what politicians do and say, even and especially when what the politician says is false and provably false.
That's called lying.
And it's even more important to the survival of a free society that a lying leader be exposed as just that -- a lying, foul-mouthed, incompetent fraud.
Reporters around the world have paid the ultimate price for exposing a high official's misdeeds and lies.
We now see examples of threats made against those who criticize the current president. These threats are made via social media -- usually Twitter and often by the president himself -- unedited and unfiltered by anyone, just as he has publicly urged that protestors at political rallies be beaten up, promising that he would pay the bail for those who beat up the protestors.
The pen remains mightier than the sword, but it's hard to wield a pencil when your fingers are broken.
Fortunately, we haven't come to that stage in America.
Yet.
Saturday, November 16, 2019
All News Is Local
The big story this week for the U.S. news media has been the accelerating move to impeach the current president.
But that intense focus on the nation's capital means events in other parts of the nation and the world are relegated to smaller time slots in news programs, if they are carried at all.
Forest fires in California get some coverage, but fires in Australia -- some bigger and more dangerous than those in California -- are ignored.
Likewise, the political hassle over the prime minister of the United Kingdom is briefly mentioned, but political events in neighboring Canada are not considered disturbing enough to be mentioned on American networks.
As for political events in other nations where English remains an important language, such as India, Pakistan and several nations in Africa, there is little or no coverage at all.
Moreover, events in the rest of the world are ignored completely by network TV news programs. Major print media such as newspapers and magazines do cover newsworthy events in other countries, but they too are selective in their choice of stories.
That's what editors do.
Similarly, newspapers and TV stations in U.S. cities cover local events -- politics, police reports, fires and feature stories -- that are not dramatic enough to make it to Page One or to national news media.
All news is local.
That's an easy concept to grasp when dealing with weekly newspapers or even daily newspapers and broadcasters in cities. But this is also true on a national level, as TV networks and large-circulation publications focus on events in their own countries and less so on what's happening in the rest of the world.
All news is local.
But that intense focus on the nation's capital means events in other parts of the nation and the world are relegated to smaller time slots in news programs, if they are carried at all.
Forest fires in California get some coverage, but fires in Australia -- some bigger and more dangerous than those in California -- are ignored.
Likewise, the political hassle over the prime minister of the United Kingdom is briefly mentioned, but political events in neighboring Canada are not considered disturbing enough to be mentioned on American networks.
As for political events in other nations where English remains an important language, such as India, Pakistan and several nations in Africa, there is little or no coverage at all.
Moreover, events in the rest of the world are ignored completely by network TV news programs. Major print media such as newspapers and magazines do cover newsworthy events in other countries, but they too are selective in their choice of stories.
That's what editors do.
Similarly, newspapers and TV stations in U.S. cities cover local events -- politics, police reports, fires and feature stories -- that are not dramatic enough to make it to Page One or to national news media.
All news is local.
That's an easy concept to grasp when dealing with weekly newspapers or even daily newspapers and broadcasters in cities. But this is also true on a national level, as TV networks and large-circulation publications focus on events in their own countries and less so on what's happening in the rest of the world.
All news is local.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)