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.