Debate Debacle

   News media worldwide went bonkers over the childish behavior of the president during the televised debate Tuesday evening.
   As expected, the debate quickly degenerated into a swamp of interruptions, name-calling, insults and lies, largely made by the Donald Trump.
   Eventually, however, former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic candidate, said, "Will you shut up, man?" and referred to Trump as a "clown."
   Moderator Chris Wallace of Fox News was unable to persuade the president to avoid interrupting, reminding him that both sides had agreed that the debaters would not interrupt.
   Trump's response was, "He did it too!" a defense normally used by children who are caught misbehaving.
   In all, the debacle led the organizers of the debate to say there would be changes in the way future debates are conducted.
   Some of the suggestions included attaching an "off" switch on each debater's microphones so the moderator could turn them off. That, however, would not stop someone from talking. And there is the possibility that future debates would be cancelled.

Taking Debate

   Speculation is high as to whether Joe Biden will yield to temptation and respond to Donald Trump's taunts during the first debate of the current presidential campaign, set for Tuesday evening.
   Also, what will he do about the many interruptions that Trump typically launches while others are speaking, replete with insults?
   There is also the question whether either candidate will actually answer any of the questions posed by the moderator.
   Especially of interest will be whether Trump says anything about his financial doings, as documented in a major expose printed in the New York Times. His only comment so far has been to assert that the report is "fake" and the information in it was obtained illegally.
   But if the data is "fake," what does it matter how it was acquired? If it was only "made up," as Trump alleges, then it was not obtained illegally. On the other hand, if the tax return data was gotten legally, then the president has an obligation to respond.
   He has claimed that because his returns are under audit, he cannot release them publicly. But there is nothing in IRS regulations that stipulates that an individual cannot disclose his personal financial information.
   Other presidents and candidates have done that, so the question now becomes, what is Trump hiding?

The bell tolls for thee

   The death toll from the corona virus in the United States just passed 200,000. At this rate, a quarter-million Americans will have died from this disease by Election Day. 

   Yet the man up for re-election as president downplays the danger of the virus, mocks his opponent for wearing a face mask and holds massive campaign rallies where few of his followers take any of the precautions urged by science.

    Question: Why is he risking the lives of his own voters?

RIP RBG

   "Let the people speak,''  said  GOP Sen. Mitch McConnell in 2016, nearly a year before a presidential election when a vacancy appeared on the Supreme Court. McConnell stalled Senate action until after the election, so the new Republican president could choose a replacement.
   That was then. Now, Republicans want a replacement nomination for the deceased Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg before she is even in the ground, and the next presidential election is mere weeks away.
   Justice Ginsburg died Thursday, Sept. 17, the day before Rosh Hashanah, but will not be buried until Monday, Sept. 28, the day after Yom Kippur.
   Yet the president says he will announce a replacement nomination this weekend, two days before the burial.
   So much for respect and tradition when power is at stake.

Social Welfare

   Democracy in America is in danger of falling victim to greed and power.
   "Radical left-wing liberal socialist" have all become foul words, but that has always been said of those who endorse programs that might benefit all members of society, and not just the wealthy, privileged few.
   It was true in the late 19th Century when labor unions were being formed. Later, the income tax was opposed as a "punishment" of the wealthy and a gift to the "undeserving poor." As if there were large numbers of people who deserved to be poor.
   Then came the social welfare programs of the Great Depression era. Minimum wage laws and other laws that prevented employers from reducing pay when business declined. Unemployment compensation for those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Social Security pensions to encourage retirement by the elderly, thus making jobs available for younger workers.
   Then came a health care program for the elderly (Medicare), and a rule prohibiting insurance companies from refusing coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, thus putting the full burden of health care costs on those with low income or inability to work. Then came a health care program for the poor (Medicaid).
   All these and more are government-sponsored programs to benefit all members of society -- to ensure the social welfare of all.
   But by demonizing these programs as "socialist," implying that they are all symptoms of a cruel dictatorship, some politicians and their followers want to dismantle all these programs, leaving many Americans to fend for themselves regardless of their abilities.
   This strategy would conserve wealth and power to the few members of the republic who inherited their status, rather than having to work their way up through the ranks of society.
  Soon it will up to voters to decide whether they want government to continue on its path of eliminating programs designed to assist those in need, or to return to its function of ensuring the welfare of all members of society.
   If that be socialism, let us make the most of it, even as we avoid a dictatorial government bent on ensuring the prosperity of the few at the expense of the many.

Ballot Bingo

The problem with voting early is that you provide more paper ballots for the GOP to challenge and delay final results of the election. Despite what the prez claims, results are not final on Election Day because absentee and mailed ballots are not counted until after the polls close, and the choice for any president is not final until the Electoral College meets in early December. And it's not fully official until Congress opens and reads the Electoral College results in early January. Meanwhile, the GOP can mount legal challenges each step of the way, forcing the final choice into the House of Representatives.
  Remember Bush v Gore and the so-called "hanging chads," which led to many votes being discarded.

Wolfpack Journalism

The caribou feeds the wolf, but the wolf keeps the caribou strong -- Inuit proverb.

   Just as the wolf strengthens the herd by removing the weak and the sick, journalism strengthens democracy by exposing politicians who are a danger to society.
   Popular politicians often attack journalists who criticize their work, since their supporters will believe them before they believe news reports, especially if a politician warns of "a danger to society." This was evident some 70 years ago as Sen. Joseph McCarthy spoke repeatedly of a "Communist menace."

   As long as a politician keeps his popularity, he can increase his rhetoric. But when that rhetoric loses its believability, a politician's popularity diminishes, and journalists increase their exposures of his half-truths, misinformation and sometimes outright lies, just as a wolf pack moves in on a weak or sick member of a caribou herd.

   This is not to denigrate wolves or journalism, but only to describe the phenomenon. By thinning the herd of its weakest or sickest members, the wolf pack makes the caribou herd strong.

   So also, by exposing a weak or phony government official, journalism makes democracy stronger.

Sully Trashes Trump

   The big news this week is that Capt. Chesley Sullenberger, pilot of the airliner that he brought down on the Hudson River and who was last to leave the plane after all passengers and crew were rescued, has sharply criticized the prez for remarks on military casualties. 
   Also, prez demanded that a Fox news reporter be fired after she accurately described the story that he called military casualties "losers." This from Fox, usually an avid backer of all that prez does. But that applies mostly to the evening commentators. During the day, the news folk are closer to neutral. 
   Meanwhile, many are waiting to hear a comment from John Kelly, a retired Marine Corps general who was also prez chief of staff and whose son was killed in Afghanistan. The report is that prez was with Kelly at the son's grave at Arlington National Cemetery when the prez mused, "why would anyone do that?" or words like that. 
   Prez has also criticized Kelly as washed up, someone who couldn't take the pressure of the White House job. 
   The New Yorker magazine is calling for Kelly to speak up. But others cite the military tradition of staying out of politics. That applies generally to those on active duty. Several retirees are trashing the prez. That includes commentators on news channels as well as Sullenberger. 
   I expect prez has crossed the ultimate line, and Kelly will speak. The journalist in me suggests he may wait a few days and a long essay will appear in next Sunday's newspapers. 

First Amendment Challenge

Who gets to decide which stories to publish? The editor, not the politician -- Pug Mahoney

   "It's a totally fake story, and a disgrace that they're allowed to do it," said the president about a report that quoted him as calling war victims "losers" and "suckers."
   Note to the president: You don't get to decide what is published and what is not. But the more important issue is this: Who is to "allow" publication of a story, especially one that is critical of a president? Is the current president claiming authority to decide which news stories can be published, allowing only those that support his government?
   Perhaps it's time he read the First Amendment to the Constitution.
   The current issue of the Atlantic magazine described in detail the president's attitude toward military personnel in general and particularly those killed or captured during wartime, citing numerous examples of his comments about war victims.
   During the presidential election campaign, he referred to Sen. John McCain, a former Navy pilot who was shot down and held prisoner in North Vietnam for nearly ten years, as only being a war hero "because he was captured. I like people who weren't captured."
   And the report described several example of his reluctance to visit cemeteries, including one in France that honored U.S. Marine casualties of battles in the First World War.

Perspectives

   Americans are dying from the corona virus at the rate of about 1,000 each day, and at that rate, the total will reach nearly a quarter of a million deaths by Election Day.
  That's twice the size of the entire population of New Haven, Connecticut, and roughly the same as the population of Birmingham, Alabama; Anchorage, Alaska; Scottsdale, Arizona; Fort Wayne, Indiana; or Jersey City, New Jersey.
   Yet some real estate salesman turned politician would have you consider that the total is only a minuscule portion of the entire national population. And this is true. With a U.S. population of more than 300 million, a death rate of 300,000 is only 0.001 percent.
   No big deal, his supporters say. Besides, that will help build up "herd immunity" for the rest of us. Assuming "the rest of us" are numbered among the survivors. 
   Granted, those numbers are rounded off and simplified to make a point. Those who are more talented at math will take the total population of 328.2 million, the U.S. Census Bureau's 2019 estimate, and compare that to the latest death count of 186,000 as of today, Sept. 3. Add to that the current death rate of 1,000 or more Americans daily for the next 70 days until Election Day, Nov. 3, and you get 256,000. That's a quarter of a million.
   Those who want a more precise number can go to their calculators and crunch the numbers. The rest of us will accept that a quarter of a million Americans dead of a virus that could have been brought under control long since, as was done in other countries, is far too high a number.
   So why do so many otherwise intelligent people insist that covering your nose and mouth, avoiding crowds, and washing your hands is a violation of their civil rights?
   Unless they believe that being stupid is acceptable behavior in the face of danger. Or as H.L. Mencken is reported to have said, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
   Our resident cynic Pug Mahoney would point to the election of the current president as another example.