Forecast Lookback

Here's a look back at a filing from mid-November 2016, soon after Election Day. How much came true?

The Apprentice President

Will America become a Trump family business?

Naming his children to his transition team and planning to leave them in charge of his many business ventures, without the assurance of a blind trust, Donald Trump as President will effectively treat the United States government as a family business. 

The world has a name for that. It's called a monarchy.

For the second time in five presidential election cycles, the candidate who collected the most votes failed to win through to the Oval Office.

What a weird system.

But unless the Constitution is changed, that's the system we're stuck with.

Meanwhile, like a seaman apprentice new to a sailing ship, the newbie must rely on seasoned hands to show him the ropes among the sails, until he knows the rigging and can easily work the system.

There are many old hands in Congress, and it remains to be seen how well the apprentice President learns the ropes on Capitol Hill so he can guide the ship of state toward his preferred destination.

That assumes that all the Republican hands in Congress follow the new captain's orders and there is no mutiny from Democrats.

Trump has been used to getting his own way throughout his business career. When his ventures fail and go bankrupt, he has already paid himself well, draining wealth from the projects before letting them sink.

Now, however, it is not just one or several business ventures that could fall apart, but the entire country. And if he carries out his threats to cancel international trade agreements, anti-pollution efforts, health care programs, defense pacts, economic assistance plans and other government ventures, especially anti-pollution efforts to deal with climate change, the entire world may suffer.

But not the family business. As members of the transition team, his children will have access to top secret information about all the nation's activities even as they continue to operate all the aspects of the Trump business empire.

What's to stop them from using that information to pressure competitors -- both business and political -- into yielding to Trump interests at the expense of their own? And if Donald Trump as President continues even a semi-active part in the family business, that creates a conflict of interest dangerous to government and consumer interests as well as international relationships with other sovereign nations, both friendly and otherwise.

So unless the new President backs away from his family business ventures and sets up a truly blind trust -- one in which his family members have no part and he, at minimum, never participates in business discussions -- there will remain the suspicion and the very real danger that the United States of America is becoming a Trump family business.

America once was part of such an arrangement, but declared its independence from the family business in 1776.

Lunar Science

   When people can't explain something, whether it's erratic behavior or physical illness, they often blame the moon. Scientists have tried for centuries to dismiss this as only coincidence, but the popular view remains and has brought dozens of songs -- whether they be in pop music, folk, country & western and rock, all the way up the musical scale to opera and formal orchestral concerts -- to eager audiences.
   By some estimates, the number of songs referencing the moon goes to nearly 200,000.
   Examples include "Blue Moon," immensely popular in the 1950s, "Moonlight Serenade," recorded by Glenn Miller, "Moon River," sung by Andy Williams, "Fly Me to the Moon," offered by Frank Sinatra, or "It's Only a Paper Moon," noted by Ella Fitzgerald, as well as many hundreds of others.
   As for whether the moon really does influence behavior, people start by noting wolves howl more often when the moon is full, and ocean tides run higher. Police and health care workers also point to changes in people's behavior when the moon is full. Another consequence of that belief is the naming of mental health facilities as "lunatic asylums."
   Fair? Undoubtedly not, but that reflected the thinking at the time.
   Scientists reject those behavior claims as only coincidence, and insist there is not sufficient evidence to support them.
   Lunar advocates, however, cite this guideline: Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, and three times is interesting, but when the so-called "coincidence" happens dozens of times over the course of many years, it is evidence of a pattern.
   Moreover, scientifically oriented health experts have leaned on this "coincidence" to explain something they could not. That's how the illness known as the flu came about. It was originally known by the Italian phrase "influenza della luna" -- which literally means "influence of the moon."

Moon Talk

Twelve is good, but thirteen is ungood

    A full moon will appear 13 times during the coming year -- twice in August. This raises the question of why the calendar lists only 12 months if each month is meant to honor the lunar time period.
   Here are some things to consider:
   Society considers 12 to be good, but 13 is not. Therefore, society chose a 12 month year, even though that does not fit easily into a 365 day year. Rather, based on a 30-day month, that totals a 12-month year of 360 days. That's five days short of a full solar year of 365 days.
   To resolve that, children are taught to chant this:
   "30 days hath September, April, June and November. All the rest have 31, save February, which has 28, unless it's Leap Year, when it has 29."
   So that's four months of 30 days, seven months of 31 days, and one of 28, but even that's not enough.
   Consider this: The lunar cycle has 28 days, and if you divide that into the solar cycle of 365, one gets 13 months, with just one day short of a full solar year. That's a closer match than a five-day shortage in the traditional calendar. And society can devote one day each year to celebrate whatever they choose.
   But 13 is ungood, so society opted for the more complicated method for the calendar year, to avoid having to deal with the perceived ungood number.
   The downside of this method is the risk of having an occasional Friday the 13th, an especially ungood day. This happens if each week begins on a Sunday, despite the popular habit of referring to Monday as the beginning of each week.
   This can be resolved by starting each calendar week on Monday, and using the more accurate yearly calendar described above, there will never be a Friday the 13th.
   Consider all this as you watch the full moon this week.

Cancel the Constitution?

   The latest challenge to history came with Donald Trump's suggestion that the Constitution be canceled so he could return to the presidency.
   Say what?
   Here's a copy of what he posted on the web a few days ago:
   
   "So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech companies, the DNC & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election results out and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION?
   "A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our 'Great Founder' did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!"

   This allegation that the nationwide election of 2020 was riddled with fraud is the latest bid by Trump to spread his anger and return to the White House. He does not indicate why the term "Great Founder" was capitalized and put in quotation marks. We are left to guess who he means.
   The problem, then, is that the message can be taken as a bid for his followers to prepare for another attempt to overturn the government and return him to office.
   To urge a "termination" of rules, even those in the Constitution, in a move to declare him the "rightful winner" of the election, borders on a call for a rebellion.
  

Check, Mate

   The attorney general has named a special counsel to head the continuing investigation of Donald Trump and his activities before and after the presidential election of 2020.
   This is largely a way around any claim that the Biden administration is trying to stop Trump's re-election ambitions, as well as a move to shift the probe to an independent investigator who is not part of the current government's Justice Department.
   This way, the probe becomes separate from any effort to claim it is part of an election year plot to interfere with Trump's political campaign. The new investigator was named just days after Trump announced he will again seek the White House in the next election year, 2024.
   Some have noted that announcing his candidacy is a way of blocking any investigation, on the theory that presidents, former presidents and candidates for the presidency are immune from investigations.
   But by forming an independent investigation unit, this moves to block such a claim.
   Not that the claim had any legitimacy, but observer Pug Mahoney called it a CYA move.

Stalling

   As expected, Donald Trump said he is a candidate for the next presidential election, which is two years away.
   As suspected, this is a tactic to stall any investigation of possible illegal activities, the theory being that a president, a former president, or a candidate for president is immune from prosecution.
   That did not work when he was a resident of the White House, it did not work after he left, and it cannot work now.
   No one is above the law. Not even the top law enforcement officer in the nation, current or former. Not before holding office, not while in office, not after leaving office, and not as a candidate for some future office, however high that office may be.
   At best, this is yet another tactic to stall the various continuing investigations into his activities before, during and after he occupied the White House.
   Will these tactics work? Sadly, some of them do but only to the extent that they delay legal and congressional proceedings. And that is because other officials are very careful about setting a precedent about prosecuting a high federal official.
   And that is the main reason why he escaped two (count 'em, two) efforts to impeach and convict him while he was president. He was in fact impeached, twice, while he was president, but his Republican colleagues in the Senate  were reluctant to be the first to actually convict a sitting president.
   Should they have done so, which would have avoided the current conflict? That is an argument that will occupy the time and thinking of academics and politicians for decades.
   Meanwhile, the rest of the world will continue to wonder if the adage, "L'etat, c'est moi" (I am the state) as uttered by the last king of France, applies to a democratically elected president of a republic.
   Check that. Technically, Donald Trump was never elected president. He lost the popular vote in both campaigns, and only took office in his first attempt because he was able to persuade several states to modify their electoral vote counts, thus putting him in office.
   As for qualifications, before he won the presidency in 2016, he had no (none, zero) experience in government. His opponent, however, had been a U.S. senator, ambassador to the United Nations, and decades of experience as a lawyer as well as the spouse of a governor and president who also was a trained lawyer.
   Donald Trump's education amounted to bachelor's degree in business. He has refused to reveal his grade level.
   All of that is by the way, however. What matters now is whether he can skillfully manage the national affairs of one of the world's wealthiest nations.
   Before he gets prosecuted on a variety of charges, both criminal and civil. If he is prosecuted and convicted before the next presidential election, in November 2024, he will be ineligible to hold any office.
   Don't believe me? It's in the Constitution. You could look it up.

Loser

   People don't like to lose.
   Anything.
   Ever.
   Americans seem to be more upset about losing than people in other cultures. Especially when Americans lose to people of other cultures.
   But what is "American culture," and how does it differ from others, especially about not being victorious in everything?
   One way to avoid losing, of course, is to not play.
   Either that, or if one must play, be better than the competition.
  Alternatively, if one is not better than the competition, the player can cheat.
   That's the issue American political candidates face when they deal with an opponent who is, by any neutral measure, better qualified.
   But qualifications don't always matter in American politics. Perception does, and that can be an issue of salesmanship. And that differs from management skills.
   Ask any senior business executive. Sales agents are good at persuading others to buy a product or service. But managing a production department and persuading workers to do a better job is a different skill.
   The big difference is in who pays whom.
   The customer pays the sales agent. Indirectly, of course, but that's what it comes down to. Compare that to the production department, where management must pay workers.
   There is, of course, one overall similarity. If sales agents are not courteous to the customer, there is no sale. And if management is not courteous to workers, production suffers.
   That conflict is what led to the formation of labor unions, which forced management to be courteous to workers and to pay them a decent wage. Even today, when management is courteous to workers and pays them well, there is no need for a labor union to intervene and force management to respond.
   One would think that after many years in business, a manager would learn that success follows fair treatment of staff and customers, and similar behavior would lead to success in politics.
   But if a manager has behaved otherwise throughout his career and found that bullying others brought long-term personal success, and was able to simply hire others to replace those who would not tolerate abusive behavior, that manager would see no need to change, since personal success was his paramount and only goal.
   But such behavior, while it may be successful in business, does not succeed long term in politics. And just as customers who have been cheated stop doing business with the cheater, so also do citizens who have been similarly abused stop voting for the abuser.
   Perhaps a political candidate with such a background might or could learn something from that example.
   But if that candidate does not listen to those who cite potential problems, then that candidate will also become that which is most abysmal.
   A loser.

Greed

    Q: Who's responsible for inflation, Democrats or Republicans?
   A: Neither of the above.
   Real answer: Corporate greed.

   Widespread opinion among conservatives blames liberal government for rising prices, even as these same claimants insist government has no role in price control.
   But if government must not, should not, and cannot intervene, how is it that government is at fault?
   Historical data show that inflation happens more often when Republicans dominate in government, and Democratic administrations work to slow the pace of rising prices.
   Reality check: If any government agency has any influence on price control, it is the Federal Reserve, which controls the amount of money in circulation.

   That's the definition of inflation: The amount of money is inflated, and prices rise to absorb the increase.
   Here's where the Law of Supply and Demand comes in. Prices rise to absorb the amount of money available, and when the cash supply falls, so do prices.
   Simplistic example: During an economic downturn and people are out of work and have less cash, prices decline. When more people have jobs, they have more money to spend, so prices rise to absorb the greater supply.
   Conclusion: Politicians have little to do with price control. When they succeed in government, they can increase or decrease spending, and over time, eventually, prices may (or may not) change to reflect the amount of cash available.
   Similarly, the Federal Reserve can increase or limit the amount of cash available, and eventually, over time, prices will change accordingly.
   When an economy grows, politicians take credit. When it declines, they blame the other guy.
   The Law of Supply and Demand has not been repealed.
   Meanwhile, government can increase spending (boost demand) as a way of causing a rise in production (supply). In turn, this can rescue an economy.
   So much for Economics 101. Class dismissed.

Bigotry and the Right to Choose

   Bigotry is infectious. In its extreme, it causes death. Not to those who are infected, but the targets of their bigotry.
   For many centuries, spiritual leaders have tried to spread peace and minimize violence and hatred. Others, however, have preached the opposite, and joined with political leaders to build a power structure and convert non-believers to their way of honoring the Otherworld.
   Or face death.
   That's the real problem. Not the difference in beliefs about the Otherworld, however they perceive it and the nature of the spirits there, but about who controls any organized belief system.
   Then there is the right to choose a belief system that reflects a differing culture.
   Some cultures were and are based on equality, in contrast to others that insist women are subservient to men. But there are some that face a conflict, as they try to honor their cultural tradition of equality with the newer insistence that  women are by nature lesser creatures and should do as they are told.
   In a way, this reflects the human impulse that someone must be in charge, and in many cultures, men have a stronger need to control than women.
   Therein is the modern problem in Western cultures.
   For many centuries, women were blamed for the sins of men. This is basic to the religious belief that Eve was at fault for the sin of Adam. Whether this is a true story matters not. It serves as the base for the notion in many cultures that men are the dominant creatures and women should do as they are told.
   This was reinforced and given more detail in the Fourth Century by the theologian Augustine, whose philosophy formed the base for modern Christianity.
   Even today, despite the growing acceptance of women's equality, many still insist that women do not have full control over their bodily functions, and should follow the rules set by men.
   "But we were created that way," some men insist.
   "That's what many men say," a woman replies. "Where does it say they're right?"
  "It's in all the sacred books," the man claimed.
  "Which were written by men," she noted.

Electoral Gamesmanship

   The election season is over, but the election season has just begun.
   The Republican Party did not do as well this year as hoped, but to some it was better than expected. Either way, the party ain't over, and devotees say they foresee a revival as delegates do what they can to block Democrats from getting anything substantial past Congress in the next two years.
   Midterm elections typically see a turnover in Congress, as a president's fellow delegates are stalled in the voting process.
   That, however, is yet another reflection of the political game that says it's not about getting done; it's about winning.
   Government, good or otherwise, has little to do with political strategy.
   Meanwhile, Donald Trump has once again delayed his formal announcement of his candidacy for the presidency. It seems he had planned on saying so on Election Day -- clearly an effort to grab more attention to his activities rather than the nation's government -- but he was apparently talked out of that, and persuaded to delay the word until a week after the big day.

  Then, one of the Southern states failed to give a Senate candidate a firm majority, so there will be a runoff. That caused yet another delay.

   Taken together, all the Election Day reports are likely to cause major changes in American politics for the next two years, when another presidential election happens.

   So will Donald Trump be eased out of political power and any desire to retake the White House?

   Stay tuned.

Lunar Vote

   There will be a full moon on Election Day.
   Many will insist it's only a coincidence, that a full moon has no effect on behavior.
   But an equal number of cops, bartenders, nursing home staff, emergency room personnel, journalism beat reporters, zoologists and others will say otherwise.
   Once is accidental, twice is a coincidence, and three times somewhat interesting, but 12 times every year is a pattern.
   It's no coincidence that the term "lunacy" is related to the word "lunar," meaning the moon, and that the medical diagnosis of "influenza" is derived from the Italian phrase "influenza della luna," which translates literally as "influence of the moon." At the time the term was coined, medical personnel did not know the cause of the disease, so they blamed it on the moon.
   Consider all that background, and don't be surprised in the coming days when human behavior becomes strange.

Name Change

   The party's over, veteran Republicans are saying. The Grand Old Party (GOP) is now the Trumpian Party, as support for the former President remains high and he talks about running for a "third term."
   Never mind that the Constitution limits a president to two. Donald Trump insists that he won both elections, despite the reality that he lost the popular vote both times, and gained the presidency in 2016 by manipulating the Electoral College vote. In 2020, however, he lost both counts, followed by losses in 60 court challenges.
   Nevertheless, Trumpians maintain that voter polling is "fixed" against him, and they try to send their own monitors to polling places to guarantee his victory.
   Threats of violence are part of the strategy.
   Whether this marks the beginning of the end of the political party formed in the age of Abraham Lincoln is now the question.
   The party of Lincoln may soon become the party of Trump. How soon that will be depends on the vote pattern on Tuesday, November 8.
 

Electioneering

   Voting day comes soon, and candidates are swamping the public with warnings of the danger if their opponents win, coupled with promises that life will be better on their watch.
   The odd thing is to hear these promises of nationwide improvement coming from local candidates. As if a small town mayor or a county official or even a statewide official can change national economics and national government behavior.
   On a national level, Republican candidates, including former president Donald Trump, warn of demagoguery on the other side, even as he hints that he may run again for the Oval Office.
   (Then again, he may not.)
   His recent speeches have been full of hints that he may, possibly, perhaps, if things look good, try again to take back the office that he continues to insist was stolen from him.
   One wonders how many counts, recounts, reviews, tabulations, investigations, probes, etc., etc., etc. will be needed to persuade him and his True Believers that he lost.
   Perhaps the various investigations in state and federal courts, as well as Congressional committees and Federal Justice Department probes will gather enough evidence of fraud to convince legal offices that there was, in fact, some activities that were not legal.
   The issue then becomes whether the Glorious Leader will accept the reality that he has been caught.
   Not likely.
   Meanwhile, when both sides warn of demagoguery, voters must decide which side is truthful, even as they consider that both are guilty of telling lies.
   The issue then becomes which side is telling the lesser damaging falsehoods.

Sophistry

   By definition, a sophist is someone who is skilled at arguing either side of a debate, whether the sophist believes it not. Or, as Pug Mahoney would phrase it, "If you sound like you know what you're talking about, people will assume you do."
   The term originated in ancient Greece, where debaters would take turns arguing for or against a topic, and whoever made the better presentation won the contest. This art is still emphasized at law schools, and is carried forward in the profession.
   In practice, many sound impressive and the speakers convey the impression that they really know what they are talking about. But with careful listening, the talk is just that.
   Just talk, and really not worth much.
   Broadcasters have an urge to make something sound important, both in advertising and in news presentations. Everything must be made to sound like it's really important, worth listening to and that it's worth believing.
   Politicians are also skilled at this.
  And this is what gives oratory and sophistry a smudge in their reputations.
  Both terms are of Greek origin. Oratory refers to speaking, and soph- is the preliminary to many words meaning "wise."
   Originally, a sophist meant a wise person who was a teacher. But philosophers challenged the use of the word to refer to wise teachers, because the so-called wise guys were sometimes phony when they argued in favor of something they did not believe.
   Thus we have the word "sophomoric," which has come to mean not really wise or believable. Even the word sophomore combines two terms, the first portion meaning "wise," and the second attaching the term "moron."
   Can there really be a "wise moron," and is that what we hear from political candidates?

Reality Question

   Politicians and news announcers are fond of using the phrase "existential threat" when speaking of potential violence.
   Does this mean other threats don't exist, that they are imaginary, and only brought up as something to talk about?
   Perhaps this is a way of emphasizing that an imminent threat is real. But this, too, raises the question that other threats are not real, that they don't really have any existence.
   Be that so, perhaps we should ignore this supposed threat, because it's not real.

   Not really real.

   Maybe it's fake news real.

Spell Check

   Spelling is arbitrary now, but at one time it reflected the speech patterns of those who used the language.

   When the prominent dialect and its speech patterns changed, however, spelling did not, and people felt required to continue using the standardized spellings. Written content is permanent, while speech is not. As a result, people continued their writing patterns even as their speech changed. 

  Sometimes, however, spelling also changes to match speech patterns, despite efforts by academics to maintain spelling and pronunciation. 

   One example is the use of the word "ain't." The apostrophe indicates that something is missing. In this example, the original phrase was "am not," and despite efforts by teachers and upper class speakers to stop it, the new word stayed and expanded. 

  Two current examples are the words "gonna" and "wanna." Both have been common in speech for a long time, but the first, "gonna," is now making its way into print. 

   The first, "going to," as in "going to," is leading its companion into print acceptability. Soon, we will see "wanna" appearing as a replacement for "want to." 

   Already, news announcers on local TV stations are using these and other terms critical teachers would call "corruptions," but that's not likely to change the pattern. 

   Language changes. Spelling lags. 

   Meanwhile, computer spell check programs are wonderfully useful gadgets, but they often check individual words that do not match their lists.

   The single word may be properly spelled, but would be the wrong word. For example, the words carat, karat, caret and carrot are all spelled correctly, but to use carat in reference to gold and karat for a diamond would not be correct. And caret is a proof-reader's mark indicating "insert here." 

  All are pronounced the same, but each has a different meaning.

Cycles

    News reports lament the idea that home mortgage rates are climbing above 7 percent for the traditional 30-year, fixed rate home loan.
   Not mentioned is the reality that some years ago a 7 percent rate was considered a bargain, since shortly before that home loans were set at double-digit rates. Above 10 percent.
   Also not mentioned are the many families who already have home loans below that mark, and will likely stay in their homes for at least the next 20 years. And in that time, the rate will not change. That's why it's called a fixed-rate mortgage.
   But rising loan rates make for a solemn news story. Also not mentioned is that rising interest rates include savings accounts, so those who have paid off their mortgages and are setting money aside for retirement are happy.

News Conscience

   Politics is dominating America's conscience -- if there be such a thing -- and news outlets are jammed with stories about efforts by right-wingers to return Donald Trump to power.
   That's the attitude, anyway. But methinks the term "power" may be the wrong word to use in a democracy. Authoritative, perhaps, but not authoritarian.
   This is not a kingdom.
   Not yet, anyway.
   Meanwhile, court decisions are going against those who are trying to block state efforts to investigate allegations that Trumpians attempted to manipulate election results in favor of their incumbent leader.
   The issue will soon become whether they will listen and obey court rulings.
 

Belief vs Reality

   Political lies have a major advantage over neighborhood gossip. They speak to a larger audience, whose members are more likely to accept and believe whatever their leader says.
   This sort of favoritism is what leads to government dictatorship, where those who disagree are arrested, tormented, imprisoned and even killed only because they think differently.
   But the way one thinks is not the crime. It is the conclusion a person draws that portrays any opposition as evil.
  This has happened many times in the past, in other nations. The issue today is whether this conflict is happening in America, a nation founded on equality.
   Increasingly, observers are exposing examples that show the trend. But rather than be taken seriously, these warnings are mocked by ultra-conservative "true believers." They refuse to listen to any evidence that indicates fault in their beloved leader, and they dismiss such evidence as "fake news."
   But what if it's not fake?
   What if it's true, and provably true?
   The problem then becomes one of trust.
   Or to quote the Marx Brothers, "Who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?"
   America is  nearing the end of an election season, and voters will soon choose which set of would-be leaders to endorse.
   International observers have been saying for many weeks that the nation may be nearing the end of its democratic republic.
   Note: The nation's founders used the two words interchangeably, and could just as easily have used the term republican democracy. Originally, democracy meant everyone participates in government decisions. That was possible in ancient Greece cities, but is not possible in larger populations, so the term "republic" is used, indicating that a few are elected to represent the general public. In earlier years, one of America's major political parties used both terms in its label.
   Whether American citizens vote for leaders to represent all or for those who represent a chosen few -- and they get to choose which few -- will be known soon. More important to America's future is which path its leaders choose.

Candidates Lie

   TV news programs have gone beyond simply reporting what candidates say. They now add analyses of their truthfulness.
   Time was, broadcasters repeated the words of Candidate A and added contrasting statements from Candidate B. This left judgment of the veracity of either to listeners.
   Recently, however, candidates use video clips of violence in another state as evidence of their claim of violence in their home city.
   Another tactic is to call any problem in a state legislature the direct responsibility of a federal official from another state.
   Historically, dictators have succeeded in dominating their nations when the news media fail to expose their lies and succumb to government control of what to print.
   But.
   A free press is an imperative key to a free society.
   This is true even when some news outlets are little more than propaganda machines for their preferred political group. However, as long as other news outlets are free to offer contrary information, the nation will stall any attempt at dictatorial control.
   The U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom for every side. It is up to readers and listeners to decide whether the information offered is true, misleading or false.
   This is where education and responsibility become intensely important. Without responsibility among readers and viewers, the nation's voters become victims of propaganda tactics from politicians, and the nation succumbs to a dictatorial regime.
   It's useful to remember that the term "regime" comes from the same root as the term "rex." And that means "king."

Signals

Time writes its own pace.

Others push, but grammar holds

Until language changes.

Then people listen.

 

Clan power raids

The silent majority

And minority rule

Becomes a danger.

 

People care

Until they don't.

Symptoms speak

But no one listens 

Truth Tellers

  The arrogant leader has followers who use violence against truth tellers.

   So said a Druid advisor to Merlin and his student Arthur in a short story I wrote, titled "Pelagius the Druid,"  available on Amazon.
   Today's truth tellers in America have Constitutional protection for freedom of speech and of the press, but that does not prevent followers of a man who would be king from threatening those who disagree and speak truth.
   Some people don't like hearing truth, so they accuse the truth teller of being arrogant, said the advisor to Merlin and Arthur. After that, the truth tellers stay quiet in fear of retaliation.
   That must not happen in America today.

Snark Attack

   If you sound like you know what you're talking about, people will assume you do. -- Pug Mahoney

   Political debating is a challenge, a contest, a game to see who can respond more persuasively to the question posed by the moderator.

   Answering the question is not politically essential. Rather, a good impression is more important, so candidates use the question as an excuse to talk and persuade voters to support them. 

  Compare it to advertising. It's an opportunity to make a sales pitch to customers -- voters -- and to gain their support. In return, the successful candidate -- the salesman -- promises to deliver favors to the people.

   But what will that be? When and how will the politician deliver on his or her promises?

   Candidates are good at making promises, but delivering is another matter. A promise is like an IOU. It means "I owe you." But fulfilling ... ?

   To avoid making promises that cannot or will not be filled, candidates resort to attacks on their opponents, and ignore pleas by the moderator to actually answer any questions.

   Talk soup may sound good, but it has no taste or substance.

True Rigging

The louder the mouth, the less likely the truth. -- Pug Mahoney

   Politicians face a decision.
   If Trump loyalists win in the coming election and gain control of Congress, investigation of the former president's activities before and after the previous election will likely end. If they do not win control, the probe will continue.
   Meanwhile, the Justice Department must decide whether to continue its probe. Separately, there are state investigations under way. Will they continue, despite Trump's domination at the federal level? Will the Supreme Court assert its independence, and will its Trump-appointed justices rule against his appeals?
   Some of these issues could be settled -- or at least voters will give some indication of their preference -- on Election Day.
   The next question follows that indication. Will Congress adopt voter suggestions and reinstall Trumpian policies and thus forgive him of all accusations of wrongdoing? Or not?
   But will prosecutors follow that lead?
   Time was, the word "liar" was never used by news broadcasters or print journalists. Now, that word is used routinely, every day, by both commentators and by neutral reporters.
   Reason: The perpetrators of untruths became so blatant, so obvious, so uncaring, and his followers so loyal that journalists had to follow their basic principles and report what was happening, including the fact that so many lies are being told.
   The problem then becomes how to overcome the total loyalty of his followers -- his true believers -- and convince them of the truth.
   Election Day will bring a clue as to what will happen in America in the coming months. If Trumpians lose, they will keep insisting that the vote count was "rigged" against them, and that they really did  win, despite all evidence to the contrary.
   But if they do win, how will the public know they did not do the rigging, as a way to guarantee results in their favor?
   Evidence is building and being publicized that's what happened in 2016. Trump lost the popular vote, but became president as his followers manipulated (rigged) the electoral college vote to enable him to take office.
   Four years later, the chant of "rigging" began long before Election Day, despite the historic reality that many incumbents are often re-elected easily.
   What if he had been re-elected? Would that have been proof that he did the rigging? His managers have been recorded before Election Day as saying how they would arrange the vote count to guarantee his re-election.
   If this is not "rigging," what is?
   It's an interesting play on words, to accuse the opposition of cheating, even as they themselves cheat.

Subpoena

   Under penalty of what?
   That's the first question posed by editor Pug Mahoney when he heard that a Congressional committee would issue a subpoena for Donald Trump to appear and answer questions about his alleged role in encouraging the march on the nation's Capitol on Jan. 6 last year.
   Second question: What if he refuses?
   Third question: How will the panel try to force the ex-president to appear?
   Fourth question: Will he plead Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination? And does a Congressional hearing amount to a legal trial of some sort?
   Refusing to answer questions because any response might be incriminating suggests the refuser is hiding something.
   Potential guilt, perhaps?
   There is also the likelihood of a strategy to delay any further hearings until after Election Day, in the hope that members of the investigating committee will not be re-elected, and the panel will be dismantled.
   That would mean any outstanding summonses would be moot, and the investigation of the events of that fateful day would end.
   At least, the probe by this Congressional panel would stop. Any probe by the Justice Department seeking to expose criminal activity could continue. So also would investigations by other agencies, both criminal and civil probes, done by federal or state officials.
   We live in interesting times.
   Already, there have been several convictions of those who participated in the Jan. 6 unrest, and evidence is piling up that the ex-president knew about and may have participated in the planning.
   If convicted of a criminal offense, especially one that amounted to treason, the perpetrator would not be able to serve in any government office, federal or state. That is specified in the Constitution's 14th Amendment.
   Final question: If Donald Trump is convicted of plotting to overthrow the government, as is suggested by the events before, during and after the events of Jan. 6, will he ignore the Constitution, Congress and the courts, run for office again and more openly lead another insurrection?
   If that happens, America would have to rely on its traditionally non-political military and police forces to quell such an insurrection.
   Assuming the military and police remain non-political.

Theft

   It doesn't matter how long you've had it. You stole it to begin with. The issue is theft, not possession. -- Pug Mahoney

   More evidence is being made public that Donald Trump took with him many boxes of government information when he left the White House, and is danger of being indicted for theft.
   Whether this is the biggest story in the nation's history depends on how you define "big story." It certainly is major, but whether it is part of a move toward ending the American system of government remains to be seen. If that happens, it would indeed be the biggest story in the nation's history.
   However, there are symptoms of a national sickness that would indeed cause the death of democracy, just as Julius Caesar led a change from the Roman Republic to a dictatorship.
   As it is, many GOP candidates echo the Trump claim that the presidency was stolen from him by false vote counting. The odd thing is that he was making that identical claim long before Election Day 2016, which he won. Not the popular vote; he gained the White House by scoring a larger count in the electoral vote, a maneuver that many observers say he manipulated.
   So much for the allegations of "stealing" the election. The question then becomes: Who did the stealing?
   Now, similar claims are being made in advance of the upcoming midterm election, scheduled for Nov. 8.
   "It's rigged," is the claim already being chanted, and this leads to threats of violence against poll workers and opposition candidates.
   One wonders whether similar rampaging discontent led to Julius Caesar's rise to power in ancient Rome, or to that of Adolf Hitler in modern Germany.
   Will we see a similar change in America in the next few years?
   One of the changes already under way is that many poll workers, typically neutral citizens who have been volunteering for the job every election season for years, are now abandoning the task because of repeated threats against them and their children.
   This enables Trumpists to move in to the job so they can more easily manipulate the vote count, the same trick they accuse others of doing, and they use such false premises to trash ballots that are cast for the opposition.
   That is tantamount to stealing the election.

Bawl Street Blues

   It has long been said that the Wall Street stock market is a barometer of the national economy. This was based on the idea that when stocks go up or down, the general economy follows, and the Dow Jones data reflects this.
   The most frequently cited DJ figure is the industrial average, which reports the prices of just 30 firms.
   But what of all the other public held manufacturing firms, plus those that are not publicly held, whose stock is not traded on the Wall Street market? Or anywhere else?
   Perhaps that particular set of data got its reputation back in the day when manufacturing played a more dominant role in the U.S. economy, before the rise of the many service industries, especially those that rely on computer systems and information networks.
   Currently, observers look to the monthly jobs reports issued by the government as a way to measure economic health. However, there are several problems with the idea of using those numbers to measure overall economic health.
   One: The unemployment rate comes from a telephone survey of a relatively few households. The information is then expanded to apply to the entire population.
   In addition, it counts only those in each household who are eligible for work and are actively looking for work. It does not count housewives who stay home to care for children. Nevertheless, that is a full-time job. Unpaid.
   It also does not count students while school is in session, but it does count students during the summer, when students are available for work and are actively seeking work.
   Remember that phrase.
   Two: The employed figure is based on a solid number, drawn from payrolls kept by employers and reported to government agencies that collect income tax information.
   Three: Stock holders rely on the price their shares will bring on the open market, and this can reflect panic buying or selling, totally irrelevant to actual economic conditions.
   So what is a good measure of economic health, if not the stock market or monthly jobs numbers?
   Try consumer purchases. This reflects both employment statistics and available income. The problem, of course, is that these data are harder to come by, and cannot be measured as often.
   Monthly telephone surveys are easier, as well as recording monthly payroll and income reports that are filed with the government. And it's important to remember that these are industry totals, and not always from individual firms. Except, of course, publicly held corporations that report these data to stock holders regularly.
   The bottom line, then, from a news perspective, is that the monthly reports are summaries of various hints.
   The problem arises when marketers use whatever excuse they can find to raise prices and thus increase profits.
   This becomes obvious when gasoline prices jump at the retail pump the same day that political unrest surges at oil producing regions on the other side of the world.
   Some economic analysts call this the interaction of market forces.
   I call it greed.
   And yes, I do have an advanced college degree in economics, as well as 20 years writing on economics for a major daily newspaper.

Headlines

1/ GOP Blames Dems for High Prices

 

2/ GOP Rejects Dem Bid for Price Control

 

3/ Comment:  You can't have it both ways.

Alternative Truth

When you have the law on your side, argue the law.
When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts.
When you have neither, pound the table.

                                        -- Law school gossip

"I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that ... "

                                                          -- Pug Mahoney

   Lawyers argue the meanings of words, so whoever has the better argument wins the debate. That doesn't mean what the lawyer says is more truthful; only that it's a more skilled argument.
   Words can have many definitions, or variations of meaning. That doesn't mean one is good and all others are bad. It only means that one lawyer had a better presentation. Sometimes a "better argument" wins support for a bad idea.
   Example: The Dred Scott case, in which a man escaped slavery and ran to a state where he could be free. But lawyers for the former slave owner argued that escaping was bad and therefore the escapee should be returned. They did not claim that slavery was good.
   Just as lawyers argue the meanings of words, politicians present "alternative facts." They cannot debate truth, although lawyers often use the term "true facts," which makes a linguist wonder if there are such things as "false facts."
   Lawyers can and do argue about the implications -- a fact implies this or that -- but they cannot argue truth.
   Or can they?
   All this comes to mind as lawyers try to defend those who were seen on international television forcing their way into the U.S. Capitol building, damaging House and Senate chambers and threatening the lives of senior government officials.
   Or was it only an act, set up by the "fake news media" as a way of damaging the otherwise standup reputation of a president who by all counts lost his bid for re-election?
   Oh, sorry. That too was "fake news."  All the American TV networks and several European networks, as well as the many print reporters and photographers present in Washington that day, all got together weeks earlier to present an alternative view of reality in a conspiratorial way to discredit the "Glorious Leader" who really did win re-election.
   Don't believe me? Ask him. He was there. Others only know what they saw on television that day and every day since, as well as what they read in published accounts.
   But as the leader's devotees insist, it was and remains an international conspiracy to block the "alternative truth."

Fiction Reflects Reality

Civil unrest is a contradiction in terms.

   People gather to support those they believe know the "correct" view or strategy on any issue, as well as how government officials should act to preserve unity and peace.
   However, any conflict of views on what "should" be often results in un-civil conflict over what actually is.
    Here's an adapted excerpt from one of my recent novels describing a public figure's reaction to press coverage. It's intended to remind readers of current events in America. The story deals with a preacher's attempts to combine his religious beliefs with political and government policy.

   A candidate is entitled to follow his own conscience when dealing with issues, no matter how he chooses to name them. That right is absolute, and is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. He does not, however, have a right to forcefully impose his views on others. He can encourage others to join his mission and subscribe to his view, but he cannot in any way force others to do that.
   Journalists tried to get a comment from the preacher as a candidate, but repeated attempts failed, so the various news organizations ran the story on its own, with a notation that the preacher did not respond.
   This led the preacher/candidate to demand equal time and space for a response, but only if he got it without being reviewed or edited by the news outlets.
   They all refused, and ran another story reporting his demand and the media's refusal. This heightened the preacher/candidate's anger, and led to picketing and demonstrations by his supporters at news outlets.
   In turn, journalists documented the protests and balanced their reports with comments by editors, publishers and TV executives detailing why they refused to comply with the preacher/candidate's demand for full control of how they covered his campaign.
   This refusal to cover only one side of the candidate's actions and comments angered him even more, and led to violence at protest sites and at news media facilities.
   Soon, the evidence piled up enough so authorities considered arresting the candidate on charges of inciting violence, but they hesitated because his popularity could lead to more protest demonstrations and increased violence.
   Privately, lawyers suggested that the candidate's actions and comments bordered on treason, in that it encouraged -- if only by inference -- a violent overthrow of the current government.

   The novel from which the above is adapted is entitled "The Druid Dream," and describes efforts by followers of Druidic philosophy to deal with attempts by a missionary to control both spiritual and political actions. The book, one in a series of events in a fictional town in Pennsylvania, is available through Amazon.

Whither the Weather

Whether it's cold, or whether it's hot,
We're going to have weather, whether or not.
                                             -- Pug Mahoney

   When cold air systems meet hot air systems, the clash raises a storm. Just as this can cause conflict in the atmosphere that can affect the general population, so also does conflict in how to handle hot air generated by politicians -- people who believe their way is the proper way for people to behave. This can result in civil conflict among voters.
   Curiously, each side criticizes the other for generating "hot air," as if that makes their comments less believable. It is this clash of belief systems that causes a verbal tornado among voters and destruction in an otherwise civilized society.
   Result: People are no longer civil.
   This is the danger now facing American society. People of varying political beliefs try to work out their differences without resorting to violence.
   At least, that is the ideal for a civilized society. It has not always been true, and in America differences like this have led to violent confrontations. That was the case in the 19th and early 20th Centuries, as workers united and demanded better treatment from employers.
   One example was wages. At one time, when business went down, so also did wages. This led workers to unite in the cause of steady income.
   Eventually, government steps in to settle such conflicts. At first, government sided with employers. Later, when the Great Depression hit both employers and workers, government stepped in to stabilize the economy and to help workers.
   One such helping step was the minimum wage law, which prohibited companies from reducing salaries when business declined. Employers were free to pay more, to attract workers of higher skills, but they could not pay less.
   Government action such as this kept a balance of power between workers and employers, and prevented major social change such as the rise of dictatorial communism.
   It's useful to remember the origin of the words socialism and communism. Both were concerned with the social welfare of all members of the community, seeking a balance between the needs of workers and the desires of employers.

   One attempt to resolve this issue was the rise of communes in America. However, these communities focused more on the needs of workers than on the benefits due to management.
   The problem arose in other countries when those in upper levels of the community resisted attempts by workers to achieve better living conditions. That happened in America also, but was resolved when government officials more concerned with the health and welfare of all members of the community stepped in and passed laws forcing employers to be more considerate of workers.
   This included minimum wage laws, pension plans (Social Security), and other social welfare requirements to help stabilize conditions for all members of the community, and not just the wealthy.
   However, there are still many who believe workers should be subject to the needs of employers. This ultra-conservative movement remains as part of politics, and periodically there are attempts to revert to earlier social welfare and economic values.
   We see it taking place in Great Britain, as government moves to the political right as a way to conserve earlier systems. Hence the party label Conservative. Likewise, those more concerned with the economic health of workers are members of the Labor Party.
   America also has two major political parties with similar economic attitudes. The difference is only in labels: Republican and Democratic.
   (Sidebar:  It's interesting to note that Republican politicians refer to their opponents as the "Democrat" party, as a way of implying they are not "democratic.")

   Will it change? That's for the future to decide.

Repeating History

    News media often compare some government administrations to others, either in the same nation or that of other countries.
   Currently, historians compare the Trumpian goals to those of others, and topping the list is mid-20th Century Germany and early 19th Century America.
   Was treason involved? That is the question. Some 200 years ago, Aaron Burr was the target of that accusation, and the issue was fought at court levels all the way to the Supreme Court. But the question of jurisdiction stalled any action there, and it may be the same now.
   Historians go into great detail when writing about Burr and his activities, and some are reluctant to give an answer to the treason question, just as some others stress his guilt, even though he was not convicted.
   Now, the issue of treason is at the root of debates on the episode of January 6, 2021, especially whether it was spontaneous or planned by allies of the president at the time, Donald Trump.
   As governments in other countries swerve to the political right wing, scholars and journalists ask whether the U.S. is participating in this movement.
   Next month, Americans will choose a new set of representatives for Congress -- all members of the House and a third of those in the Senate.
   Other nations are also experiencing a shift to the political right, and victorious conservatives act quickly to reduce or eliminate government welfare programs that tax the wealthy for funds to assist those who are not.
   It's certainly understandable that many of the wealthy want to keep as much as they can without crossing the border into greed. Many others, however, have already crossed that border and resist any program that would trim their wealth in any way. Not all the rich are that way, of course, but many are.
   That's why they are called conservatives. They want to conserve as much of their wealthy as they can. An acceptable goal, but part of this belief is the idea that the poor are poor because they deserve it, and therefore the rich are not obliged to help them in any way.
   Circular reasoning.
   Complicating this is the reality that the economy is taking a growth break, and the non-wealthy are having a more difficult time than before. That's called a recession, because buying and selling activity recedes from its previous levels.
   Another part of the worry is caused by news media that play up any change, so that it sounds worse than it really is.
   For example, broadcasters lament that 30-year mortgage rates have "soared" to 7 percent, compared to its substantially lower rates a year ago, causing substantial financial harm to home buyers.
   Not mentioned is the fact that the lower interest rate holds at that level for 30 years. That's why it's called a 30-year mortgage. (The term "mortgage," by the way, comes from the French, and it means that the loan dies after a specified period of time, typically 30 years.) Therefore, a family that bought a home a year ago is not affected by the current rise in rates.
   Also not mention is history that a mortgage rate of 7 percent was common a few decades ago, and was considered a bargain because not long before that the typical rate was above 10 percent.
   At that time, a home priced at $1 million was exceedingly rare, well past the status of a luxury mansion affordable to only a rare few. Now, finding a home in a good suburb below that price is a major accomplishment -- depending, of course, on what part of the country a home buyer is looking.
   One reason for the high price is that more people can afford it, especially in prominent suburbs near major cities.
   Income levels also play a part in home prices. Some years ago, a job that paid more than $400 weekly was available only to highly skilled professionals.
   Now, with minimum wages set at $15 an hour in some regions -- well above state requirements -- that pay level goes to part-timers at unskilled jobs.
   But prices have also soared, so that leaves many workers in the same predicament. Their income does not cover monthly living expenses.
   So who's responsible for the disparity in income versus expenses? Political candidates typically blame their opposition for the problem, even when a reality check reveals that the problem began when their side was dominant in government.
   Neutral economists point out that government has limited influence on the economy as a whole, and should resort to high spending only when needed to stimulate economic health. Otherwise, government intervention becomes interference.
   Somewhere there is a middle ground between major government control and total industrial freedom. And that is the inherent difference between full socialism and absolute capitalism.
   Historically, America has sought that middle path ever since the rise of the labor movement and its challenge to what was sometimes despotic industrial control.
   The challenge now is to stay on the middle path.

Stormy Sees

   Showing the documentary of a former Trump aide talking up the plan to control voting dominated  news coverage even before the entire film was formally shown to a Congressional committee.
   The full documentary was scheduled to be shown to the House panel Wednesday, September 28, 2022 but was postponed because of hurricane activity. What  influence the documentary will have on devoted supporters of the former president remains an open question, especially if they refuse to watch it, or if they claim it is a fraud, deliberately made after the reputed action as a way to attack Trump's credibility.
   But claiming that the action on January 6, 2021, was a gathering by Trump opponents masquerading as supporters remains part of the scheme to manipulate history. And insisting that showing a fraudulent film makes the committee guilty of lying to America is another tactic.
   Can history be manipulated?
   Certainly. It happens in every country regularly as part of an effort to make one group look good and help it rise to or stay in power, as well as to keep a minority subordinate.
   But when members of that smaller group protest and seek to gain the same rights as the majority dominant group, they are called troublemakers, arrested and prosecuted for disturbing the peace.
   However, if that peace results in wrongful attacks on members of the minority, the supposed "peace" deserves to be disturbed until equality is gained.
   All this does not justify manipulating a major election to insure a victory for someone whose history shows a pattern of focusing on his own benefit and not that of the general public.
   So what will today's hearing show, and how will it affect the coming election as people try to resolve conflicts that may lead to major changes in American life?
   More importantly, how will voters react to the mounting evidence of misconduct -- if not fraud -- by senior government officials before and after the election that put Donald Trump in the White House for four years?
   Will they accept the evidence?
   Will they accept the allegations?
   Will they deny both?
   Will they seek a new leader, one who promises to take America to a major new role in the world?
   Are we seeing a repeat of what happened a century ago, as economic problems led to ultra-conservative government systems in Europe and to a world war within a few years?

Closing the Circle

   Legal beagles are barking louder and louder these days as they close in on Trumpians for questionable activities, which they allege have been happening for decades.
   Why they waited is another question. Perhaps the answer is that prosecutors were not sure of public support for a very costly investigation.
   Cynics will say that's one reason law enforcement focuses on perpetrators who cannot afford squadrons of lawyers to drag a case through multiple court levels for years.
   Unless, of course, they can utilize news media exposure to help build public support.
   Should it be this way?
   Certainly not. Prosecutors will deny they do this, and insist that wealthy suspects are treated just as strongly as anyone else.
   Nevertheless, that perception is hard to erase, especially when wealthy perpetrators can hire extremely talented lawyers and get more media exposure for both their legal and suspect activities.
   This leads to a discussion of the current media prominence of the Trump family. They are high on the list of families of wealth and prominence, both social and political.
   So why have prosecutors waited so long to close the ring of law enforcement?
   News media report that New York State law enforcement did not start investigating possible violations until after they were revealed during congressional hearings in Washington.
   Really? Were they not watching, or were the alleged perpetrators too powerful locally to be challenged?
   Law enforcement will deny this, but the question remains.
   Corruption in government is common. We just don't hear about it until it becomes too flagrant to ignore, and that's when news media and prosecutors do their thing.
   Sadly, this phenomenon is worldwide. Nevertheless, America still has news media and law enforcement ready and willing to expose wrongdoing.
   Whether they are able is another question.
   If some folks are able to manipulate and control government and law enforcement as well as muzzle news media, then the Constitution and the nation are facing deep problems.
   So the question now becomes this: Are we already in deep doo-doo?