"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean." -- Humpty Dumpty
"I never said that." -- Donald in Wonderland
Implied threats and suggestions to potential violence against political opponents is a common tactic used by the current president.
He leaves just enough semantic wiggle room so he can claim he didn't really say any such thing, and if someone did hear such an inference, he can say it was just a joke, and he's not responsible for the actions of others who can't take a joke or don't know sarcasm when they hear it.
As if that alone is enough to excuse what to most listeners is incitement to violence -- a criminal offense.
Example: Labeling a source of a whistleblower's warning on presidential behavior "next to a spy," adding that we all know what was done to spies "in the old days."
Inference: Spies were shot.
Implied suggestion: Someone should shoot the person who contributed to the whistleblower's report, and probably also the whistleblower.
By using such inferences, hints, suggestions, or "jokes," the president can claim he never said someone should shoot the whistleblower.
Technically, no, he didn't. But many listeners won't see the difference, just as other listeners will take references to shooting a traitor as a suggestion or a recommendation, or even presidential permission.
Similarly, at a campaign rally, the candidate said a protestor should be beaten up, and that he would post bail.
References and comments like that, although technically innocent, are often heard and interpreted as instructions to do the very thing referenced.
To avid listeners and supporters, subtle references like that are taken to be direct instructions, and are phrased that way only as protection.
Another tactic, of course, is to deny having said what is clearly recorded and heard by bystanders and replayed on television repeatedly.
Call it semantic word games, or polymantics, insisting that a word or word doesn't really mean what historically it has meant for decades or longer, but now means what the user says it means, and listeners can't know what a word means until and unless the user explains it.
And if listeners point out that a word already has a certain meaning, the user insists, "I never said that," or "What I really meant was ... "
In Wonderland, Alice responded that "The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."
So in the Washington Wonderland that we see today, words have many different meanings, and members of Congress must now choose whether to accept the sudden new meaning, or to rely on the meaning they have known and accepted for many years.
Or as the president's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani said, "Truth isn't truth." And the White House relies on what presidential counselor Kellyanne Conway called "alternative facts."
There is always a choice.
Monday, September 30, 2019
Thursday, September 26, 2019
Avoiding the T Word
The Constitution specifies three grounds for impeachment of a government official: "Treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
But for all the talk about impeaching the current president of the United States, almost no one is using the T word in reference to the president's words and actions.
Consider this definition of treason: Soliciting help from a foreign government in a domestic election. And offering to give to or threatening to withhold money from a foreign government in exchange for aid in a domestic election campaign can be tantamount to bribery or extortion.
Recent revelations suggest two potential counts of treason and one count of bribery.
Now consider this as evidence: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you can find the 30,000 emails that are missing" from the files of his opponent.
And this: Asking the president of Ukraine for help in connecting the family of his political opponent to corruption, and in return he would release financial aid to the Ukraine military.
As for "high crimes and misdemeanors," there is a long list of potential offences, as indicated in published reports.
Is there truth and evidence to support any of these allegations?
That's up to the House of Representatives to determine, as it undertakes a formal impeachment inquiry about the actions of the current president of the United States.
Only four times in American history has there been a move toward impeaching a sitting president. Two -- Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton -- were impeached but not convicted after a trial in the Senate. Articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon were approved by a House committee but he resigned before the full House could vote on it. Therefore, we must say that he was not impeached.
Nixon's successor issued a presidential pardon soon after the resignation for any federal crimes that Nixon may have committed, so he would not have to face court charges after leaving office. (Cynic's note: If he was innocent, why issue a pardon?)
Now the nation faces another potential impeachment of a sitting president, and the question arises as to whether -- if he is impeached -- will he be convicted after a Senate trial and removed from office?
And if so, will his successor issue a pardon for any federal crimes he may have committed while in office?
Even so, a president would still be liable for state charges -- either civil or criminal -- at any time.
The speculation here is that the current president is likely to be impeached by the House of Representatives, but whether he will be convicted by the Senate and removed from office is too soon to say.
And, considering the historic attitudes of the man currently in the Oval Office, would he refuse to leave, claiming the entire episode was a charade and a fake?
We live in interesting times.
But for all the talk about impeaching the current president of the United States, almost no one is using the T word in reference to the president's words and actions.
Consider this definition of treason: Soliciting help from a foreign government in a domestic election. And offering to give to or threatening to withhold money from a foreign government in exchange for aid in a domestic election campaign can be tantamount to bribery or extortion.
Recent revelations suggest two potential counts of treason and one count of bribery.
Now consider this as evidence: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you can find the 30,000 emails that are missing" from the files of his opponent.
And this: Asking the president of Ukraine for help in connecting the family of his political opponent to corruption, and in return he would release financial aid to the Ukraine military.
As for "high crimes and misdemeanors," there is a long list of potential offences, as indicated in published reports.
Is there truth and evidence to support any of these allegations?
That's up to the House of Representatives to determine, as it undertakes a formal impeachment inquiry about the actions of the current president of the United States.
Only four times in American history has there been a move toward impeaching a sitting president. Two -- Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton -- were impeached but not convicted after a trial in the Senate. Articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon were approved by a House committee but he resigned before the full House could vote on it. Therefore, we must say that he was not impeached.
Nixon's successor issued a presidential pardon soon after the resignation for any federal crimes that Nixon may have committed, so he would not have to face court charges after leaving office. (Cynic's note: If he was innocent, why issue a pardon?)
Now the nation faces another potential impeachment of a sitting president, and the question arises as to whether -- if he is impeached -- will he be convicted after a Senate trial and removed from office?
And if so, will his successor issue a pardon for any federal crimes he may have committed while in office?
Even so, a president would still be liable for state charges -- either civil or criminal -- at any time.
The speculation here is that the current president is likely to be impeached by the House of Representatives, but whether he will be convicted by the Senate and removed from office is too soon to say.
And, considering the historic attitudes of the man currently in the Oval Office, would he refuse to leave, claiming the entire episode was a charade and a fake?
We live in interesting times.
Thursday, September 5, 2019
Free Press vs News Control
Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. -- Pug Mahoney
To believe, or not to believe, that is the question. There is always a choice. You can choose to believe anything and everything a politician says, or you can read what independent monitors report on what he says and does, as well as what the effects may be, then make up your own mind about what it means.
If you still approve, despite evidence that the politician may be mistaken, that too is your right.
Nevertheless, the news media will continue to report negative as well as supporting evidence on the politician's words and actions.
No amount of protests demanding support for the politician, or even threats if journalists fail to show what protestors deem adequate support, will change that.
If it ever does, America's free society will be in serious trouble.
Even so, corporate advisors and political campaign managers do their best to control the message conveyed to the public. And that's okay. That's the way the system works in a free society. Some call it adversarial journalism, but to acknowledge that members of the news media are adversaries is not to say they are the enemy. To treat them as such is to encourage violence.
Sadly, we have seen examples of violent action against reporters at campaign rallies, often encouraged by the political speaker.
That will not stop journalists from reporting what the politician says and does. In fact, continuing to insult the news media only means sharper pencils and more diligent pursuit of opposing evidence to what a politician claims.
The pen is mightier than the sword.
To believe, or not to believe, that is the question. There is always a choice. You can choose to believe anything and everything a politician says, or you can read what independent monitors report on what he says and does, as well as what the effects may be, then make up your own mind about what it means.
If you still approve, despite evidence that the politician may be mistaken, that too is your right.
Nevertheless, the news media will continue to report negative as well as supporting evidence on the politician's words and actions.
No amount of protests demanding support for the politician, or even threats if journalists fail to show what protestors deem adequate support, will change that.
If it ever does, America's free society will be in serious trouble.
Even so, corporate advisors and political campaign managers do their best to control the message conveyed to the public. And that's okay. That's the way the system works in a free society. Some call it adversarial journalism, but to acknowledge that members of the news media are adversaries is not to say they are the enemy. To treat them as such is to encourage violence.
Sadly, we have seen examples of violent action against reporters at campaign rallies, often encouraged by the political speaker.
That will not stop journalists from reporting what the politician says and does. In fact, continuing to insult the news media only means sharper pencils and more diligent pursuit of opposing evidence to what a politician claims.
The pen is mightier than the sword.
Tuesday, September 3, 2019
If not now, when ...
In the past five years, nearly 300 Americans have died in mass shooting incidents throughout the country.
Yet, when still another incident happens and the death toll rises, politicians and lobbyists say, "Now is not the time" to talk about gun control.
They cite the power of raw emotion and its ability to diminish logical thinking, therefore we should wait. We should delay working on gun legislation until we calm down and are ready to listen to opposing opinions.
But there is nothing opinionated about 300 dead bodies. The harsh fact of violent death is not an opinion. Thoughts and prayers don't bring back loved ones.
As for defining "mass shooting," those who track gun violence start their count at four deaths in a single incident. It's not as if the first three don't matter, but a definition, however arbitrary, must start somewhere.
So let's start with this year's count, using five as the minimum death count per incident, and going backwards in time:
Aug. 31 -- Odessa, Texas, 8 shot dead.
Aug. 4 -- Dayton, Ohio, 9 slain.
Aug. 3 -- El Paso, Texas, 22 killed by gunfire.
May 31 -- Virginia Beach, Virginia, 12 dead.
Feb. 15 -- Aurora, Illinois, 5 fatally shot.
Jan. 23 -- Sebring, Florida, 5 shot dead during a bank robbery.
Total so far this year: 61.
For the year 2018:
Nov. 7 -- Thousand Oaks, California, 12 slain at a tavern.
Oct. 27 -- Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 11 killed at a synagogue.
June 28 -- Annapolis, Maryland, 5 shot in a newspaper office.
May 18 -- Santa Fe, Texas, 10 killed at a high school.
Feb. 14 -- Parkland, Florida, 17 slain at a high school.
Total for the year: 55.
For the year 2017:
Nov. 5 -- Sutherland Springs, Texas, 26 killed at a church.
Oct. 1 -- Las Vegas, Nevada, 58 shot at a music festival.
June 5 -- Orlando, Florida, 5 slain.
Jan. 6 -- Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 5 killed at the airport.
Total for the year: 84
In the year 2016:
Sept. 23 -- Burlington, Washington, 5 shot at a movie theater.
Jan. 12 -- Orlando, Florida, 49 slain at a dance hall.
Total: 54
In the year 2015:
Dec. 2 --- San Bernardino, California, 14 shot and killed.
Oct. 1 -- Roseburg, Oregon, 9 slain at a college.
July 16 -- Chattanooga, Tennessee, 5 gunshot victims.
June 18 -- Charleston, South Carolina, 9 deaths at a church.
Total for the five year period so far: 286 victims of mass shooting incidents of five victims or more. There are others, of course, who died in other incidents as well as individual shootings.
Going back in time, there are other well known mass shooting incidents, including the massacre at a high school in Columbine, Colorado, where 15 people, including the two shooters, died in 1999.
In Newtown, Connecticut, at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, some 27 people -- most of them children -- died in perhaps the deadliest mass shooting at a school in U.S. history. That was in 2012.
Sadly, that list is not complete. There are other shootings with multiple victims over many years throughout America. Anyone with a need to research the total should find it easy, since there are many groups that track gun violence.
Question: Does the Second Amendment to the Constitution protect the rights of all the individual shooters to have and to use as many weapons as they choose, in any manner they choose?
I'm fully in favor of the Second Amendment, because I believe that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, and therefore the federal government should not interfere with the right of each state to have its own security forces -- well regulated -- and that includes state, county and local police units. This prevents any federal domination bordering on dictatorship of the several free and independent states.
The Constitution does not say that every individual can have as many weapons of whatever capacity he may like with no regulation at all.
So can the federal government limit the use of automatic weapons? Yes. The National Firearms Act of 1934 required registration of the Thompson submachine gun (Tommy gun) and other "gangster weapons" as well as sawed-off shotguns.
Why, then, the hesitation to limit access to military style weapons such as the AR 15 and other automatic guns?
It was done for the Tommy gun. Ownership may be legal in a few states, but only if the gun was made before 1986 or is a replica designed for collectors. Cost: $30,000 or more.
AR 15 assault style rifles are easily available for far less money. Civilians don't need them.
Yet, when still another incident happens and the death toll rises, politicians and lobbyists say, "Now is not the time" to talk about gun control.
They cite the power of raw emotion and its ability to diminish logical thinking, therefore we should wait. We should delay working on gun legislation until we calm down and are ready to listen to opposing opinions.
But there is nothing opinionated about 300 dead bodies. The harsh fact of violent death is not an opinion. Thoughts and prayers don't bring back loved ones.
As for defining "mass shooting," those who track gun violence start their count at four deaths in a single incident. It's not as if the first three don't matter, but a definition, however arbitrary, must start somewhere.
So let's start with this year's count, using five as the minimum death count per incident, and going backwards in time:
Aug. 31 -- Odessa, Texas, 8 shot dead.
Aug. 4 -- Dayton, Ohio, 9 slain.
Aug. 3 -- El Paso, Texas, 22 killed by gunfire.
May 31 -- Virginia Beach, Virginia, 12 dead.
Feb. 15 -- Aurora, Illinois, 5 fatally shot.
Jan. 23 -- Sebring, Florida, 5 shot dead during a bank robbery.
Total so far this year: 61.
For the year 2018:
Nov. 7 -- Thousand Oaks, California, 12 slain at a tavern.
Oct. 27 -- Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 11 killed at a synagogue.
June 28 -- Annapolis, Maryland, 5 shot in a newspaper office.
May 18 -- Santa Fe, Texas, 10 killed at a high school.
Feb. 14 -- Parkland, Florida, 17 slain at a high school.
Total for the year: 55.
For the year 2017:
Nov. 5 -- Sutherland Springs, Texas, 26 killed at a church.
Oct. 1 -- Las Vegas, Nevada, 58 shot at a music festival.
June 5 -- Orlando, Florida, 5 slain.
Jan. 6 -- Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 5 killed at the airport.
Total for the year: 84
In the year 2016:
Sept. 23 -- Burlington, Washington, 5 shot at a movie theater.
Jan. 12 -- Orlando, Florida, 49 slain at a dance hall.
Total: 54
In the year 2015:
Dec. 2 --- San Bernardino, California, 14 shot and killed.
Oct. 1 -- Roseburg, Oregon, 9 slain at a college.
July 16 -- Chattanooga, Tennessee, 5 gunshot victims.
June 18 -- Charleston, South Carolina, 9 deaths at a church.
Total for the five year period so far: 286 victims of mass shooting incidents of five victims or more. There are others, of course, who died in other incidents as well as individual shootings.
Going back in time, there are other well known mass shooting incidents, including the massacre at a high school in Columbine, Colorado, where 15 people, including the two shooters, died in 1999.
In Newtown, Connecticut, at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, some 27 people -- most of them children -- died in perhaps the deadliest mass shooting at a school in U.S. history. That was in 2012.
Sadly, that list is not complete. There are other shootings with multiple victims over many years throughout America. Anyone with a need to research the total should find it easy, since there are many groups that track gun violence.
Question: Does the Second Amendment to the Constitution protect the rights of all the individual shooters to have and to use as many weapons as they choose, in any manner they choose?
I'm fully in favor of the Second Amendment, because I believe that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, and therefore the federal government should not interfere with the right of each state to have its own security forces -- well regulated -- and that includes state, county and local police units. This prevents any federal domination bordering on dictatorship of the several free and independent states.
The Constitution does not say that every individual can have as many weapons of whatever capacity he may like with no regulation at all.
So can the federal government limit the use of automatic weapons? Yes. The National Firearms Act of 1934 required registration of the Thompson submachine gun (Tommy gun) and other "gangster weapons" as well as sawed-off shotguns.
Why, then, the hesitation to limit access to military style weapons such as the AR 15 and other automatic guns?
It was done for the Tommy gun. Ownership may be legal in a few states, but only if the gun was made before 1986 or is a replica designed for collectors. Cost: $30,000 or more.
AR 15 assault style rifles are easily available for far less money. Civilians don't need them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)