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.