Rampant Bigotry

   Many Americans complain of immigrants, and many members of the Republican Party insist that some of their Democratic foes do not meet the Constitutional rule that says a presidential candidate must be a "native born" citizen.
   (Not so. It says "natural born." More later.)
   But GOP partisans don't complain if a Republican does not meet that rule. For example, many Republicans urge Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for President. But he rejected that proposal, knowing that he was born and raised in Austria and became a U.S. citizen after coming to America and succeeding in Hollywood roles.
   In contrast, GOP partisans insist that Democrat Kamala Harris, the current vice president, is not eligible for that office because she is the daughter of two immigrants. But her parents became U.S. citizens and she was born in California, thus meeting the qualification "natural born" citizen for two reasons -- parental citizenship and place of birth.
   But partisans said nothing about candidate Ted Cruz, currently a senator from Texas, who was born in Canada to a Cuban father. His mother, however, was an American citizen, so he qualified for "natural born" citizenship for that reason.
   Now to explain the difference between "natural born" and "native born."
   "Native born" means born in the United States or one of its territories, regardless of parental citizenship.
   "Natural born" means at least one parent was an American citizen, so place of birth was not relevant. That's why children born in another country to an American parent inherit American citizenship. Example: Children of American military personnel or some other kind of visitor.
   Also, many Japanese women come to California late in their pregnancies so their new child will be born in America, and thus hold U.S. citizenship.
   Many prominent business and political leaders are themselves immigrants, such as Andrew Carnegie, who was born and raised in Scotland, and came to America as an adult, where he made his fortune.
   Or consider Donald Trump, whose grandfather came to America from Germany. And the former vice president married an immigrant -- twice.
   Or consider former President John F. Kennedy and current President Joe Biden, both of whose ancestors came from Ireland.
   As for former President Barack Obama, he was born in Hawaii and his mother was a native of Kansas. You don't get more American than that.
   And consider this: Every President was descended from immigrants, beginning with George Washington.
   So what's to stop an American citizen born of Iroquois or Mohawk ancestry from becoming President?
   Nothing. Such a candidate would qualify on both counts. Natural born and native born.
   Conclusion: The only ones who complain about ancestry as a qualification for the highest office in America are typically members of the Republican Party.
   What does that tell you about bigotry?
   By the way, the people of Puerto Rico hold American citizenship for the same two reasons as those born in Kansas, Guam or the Virgin Islands. Puerto Rico is part of the United States of America, and has been since the end of the Spanish-American War more than  a hundred years ago.

Political Hypocrisy

   Hypocrisy is rampant in the American political system.
   So what else is new?
   Republicans complain loudly about what they say is illegal and immoral activity among Democrats and especially the Biden family.
   They talk at length about allegations of drug use and gun possession by the President's son. Not by the President himself, but by his only remaining son, Hunter. The older son, a former military officer, died of cancer.
   But that's not relevant.
   As for drug use and gun possession, millions of other Americans die yearly of illegal drug use and illegal gun possession is rampant nationwide. Hunter Biden acquired his weapon legally, but as soon as it was determined that he also had a narcotics issue and it was made public, he got rid of the gun only a few days after he acquired it.
   As for other allegedly illegal business activities, no evidence has been presented that his father, the current President, was a participant in any way.
   That seems to be the worst that GOP opponents have to launch against Joe Biden.
   On the other hand, it's useful to compare these allegations against those formally filed against Donald Trump, the ex-president and hero of many Republicans.
   Trump was impeached twice while in office (but not convicted) and indicted four times in both federal and state jurisdictions, for a total of 91 charges.
   His lawyers now ask the Supreme Court of the United States to decide whether a President -- current or former -- is above the law.
   Or so also said Richard Nixon.
   The Supreme Court disagreed, and Nixon resigned. Within days, his duly appointed successor issued a pardon. But that only covered federal offenses, not state.
   Donald Trump now faces multiple allegations in several states as well as two federal charges.
   The question to SCOTUS is now whether a President -- present or former -- is above the law.
   If so, that would also apply to four former Presidents still with us -- Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George Bush Jr. and Barack Obama -- three of them Democrats.
   That means they also could ignore the law. Or does it apply only to former Democrat presidents?
   Finally, that leaves unanswered the issue of whether state laws can also be ignored.
   We live in interesting times.

Outlandish

   Some two dozen major regions have "land" as part of their names -- half of them in Europe. Others include regions in Asia and America as well as the Pacific.
   Beginning with Scotland, Ireland and England, whose names reflect their populations, there are others named after their climate or geography,
   These are, of course, the Scots, the Irish and the Anglo-Saxons. Then there are the Jutes of Jutland, the Germans of Deutschland, and those who live in the Highlands (Hochland or Holland) and the Netherlands (Lowlands) of the nearby nation.
   Also in Europe, there are Finland, Lapland, Switzerland and Poland, plus Greenland, Iceland and Newfoundland as people crossed the Atlantic Ocean.
   In addition, there is Maryland in America, Thailand and Swaziland in Asia and Africa, as well as Baffin Island and others that likewise separate their names. These include Long Island, the Mariana Islands, Solomon Islands and the Marshall Islands.
   And we must not forget Zealand in Scandinavia, whose ancestors gave their name to New Zealand in the South Pacific.

Twelve Mandrakes

   In 1812, Gov. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts mandated that Essex County divide itself into 12 districts for his party's electoral advantage.
   Boston Gazette cartoonist Elkand Tisdale then drew a map of the 12 new districts, adding wings so it looked like a mandrake.
   Thus began the term "Gerrymander."
   The power of 12 lives on.   

Perspective

   The State of Israel is about the size of the State of New Jersey. Population size is similar.

   The Gaza Strip is about half the size of New Jersey's Camden County, just across the Delaware River from Philadelphia. But Camden County has triple the population of Gaza. At least, it did before the war started and Palestinians either left the region or died from bombing.

   Here are the numbers:

   Israel has a population of 7.4 million people in a area of 8,522 square miles. New Jersey houses 8.7 million people in 8,721 square miles.

   The Gaza Strip sits on 139 square miles, with a population of 1.5 million when last counted. That was before war started.

   That compares to 227 square miles in Camden County, which has a population of 525,000 people, one-third that of Gaza.

   All of which leads an observer to ask why American news media have lessened coverage of the war in Ukraine, and devoted much of their time to the conflict in the Middle East.

   What of the wars in Africa? Or the poverty and violence in Venezuela, which sends people to seek refuge and opportunity in America?

   So the question becomes, why do news media focus on one or a few issues and ignore others?

   One answer is that all news is local, and journalism media carry reports of interest to their viewers and readers.

   Example: Toronto news media seldom carry many reports of what the Philadelphia city council is doing. And vice versa.

   All news is local.

 

Winners and Losers

   "When I use a word, I means just what I choose it to mean." -- Humpty Dumpty.
   "How can you make a word mean so many different things?" -- Alice.
   "The question is, who is to be master." -- Humpty Dumpty.

   What do words mean?
   As Humpty Dumpty insisted, his words mean what he says they mean, so you can't know what they mean until he explains what they mean.
   Say what?
   Why not say up front what you mean? That will save you the trouble of explaining what you could have said the first time.
   Unless you don't know what you're going to say until you say it. Politicians do that often, which leaves them the opportunity of "explaining" what they "really meant" to those they claim are "ignorant reporters" and blame them for any negative reaction from voters.
   Lawyers argue over the meanings of words, and they try to bend a meaning until it supports their client's behavior.
   For lawyers, the goal is to win. Doing what's right is a separate issue, and not relevant to their goal.
   Politicians have a similar goal. Their task is to win. To defeat the opposition and thereby gain for themselves.
   Sometimes, it matters not that both sides have the same goal. Their task is to defeat the other side so they can claim credit for any accomplishment, even if the results would be the same no matter who arranged them.

The King's English

   Who speaks better English, a rich man in London originally named Charlie Battenberg or a left-handed guitar player from a Liverpool slum with an Irish background?
   You decide.
   The point is, one dialect is no better linguistically than any other dialect. One manner of speaking differs from another just as the language as spoken in Liverpool or Brooklyn differs.
   But to say one is "better" than another is a social judgment, not linguistic.
   Compare the London dialect to that in Dublin or Glasgow. Or Boston and New Orleans. Or Memphis and Los Angeles. Or Manitoba and the island of Jamaica. Or Australia and New Zealand.
   With each of these regions there are social dialects, based on people's status in society, their gender, their family traditions and other factors.
   One can also compare Spanish as spoken in Madrid or Barcelona, Cuba or Mexico. The Castilian dialect is considered "better" because it was spoken by Queen Isabella in the 15th Century.
   Or compare French as spoken in Paris or Montreal.
   Or Dutch as spoken in Amsterdam or in South Africa, where it's known as Afrikaans.
   Which is "better"?
   The answer is that all or equal, linguistically. They all enable people to communicate. The only thing that specifies one as "superior" to another is a social judgment, not linguistic.
   However, speakers of some dialects believe that because their social status is higher, therefore their manner of speaking is "better," and it follows that they are better people.
   Compare that with the American Constitution, which states that we are all created equal. Our financial or social status does not matter.
   Sadly, many people do not accept that, either.
   As for the two people mentioned in the first paragraph, one became king of Great Britain, known as Charles, and the other became world famous as Paul McCartney.
   Each speaks a different dialect. Does that make one "better" than the other?

Listen Up

   Several so-called "experts" have said on TV talk shows that a candidate for president of the U.S. must be "a native born citizen" to qualify for the office.
   Not so.
   The Constitution specifies that a candidate must be a "natural born citizen," which means he or she can be born anywhere in the world but at least one of the parents must be an American citizen.
   "Native born" means that he or she must be born in the United States. Those who are born elsewhere are not citizens, no matter the citizenship of their parents. Unless one of the parents is a citizen, the newborn inherits American citizenship from him or her.
   Thus, a child born to military personnel inherit American citizenship because they are "natural born."
   Those who are born elsewhere and later come to America, where they apply for citizenship, become American citizens under the term "naturalized."
   Thus, Barack Obama is a "natural born" citizen for two reasons: He was born in Hawaii, an American state, to a mother who was a native of Kansas.
   Likewise, his Republican opponent, John McCain, was born in Panama where his father was active with the U.S. Navy. In addition, he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which is technically part of the nation of Panama for was leased by the U.S. Both his mother and father were U.S. citizens.
   At one time, there was a movement to urge California Governor Arnold Schwarzeneger to run for president. He rejected the bid, knowing that he was ineligible because he was born in Austria and became an American citizen after he came to the U.S. as an adult.
   All of which makes one wonder why current spokesmen are using the term "native born" rather than the correct term of "natural born."
   Is it ignorance, or is there a long term plan to have a naturalized citizen candidate run for the White House?

Say What?

"He's not king. I didn't vote for him." -- Monte Python

   Donald Trump cannot be  eliminated from an election ballot because he is exempt from the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
   So say some lawyers who support the former president.
   If that be true, then he is also exempt from the laws of libel, and perhaps also other laws dealing with financial behavior.
   Granted, the two are different, but the strategy is the same, to decide which has priority: State laws or federal.
   Opinion: This is a move by the judge to boot the case to the appeals process and ultimately to the Supreme Court.

Titanic

   For those who deny the relevance of the number 12 in world history, consider this:
   The ill-fated ship Titanic was named after the 12 Titans of ancient Greek mythology. It left Ireland on its maiden voyage on April 12, 1912, and a few days later it was struck by an iceberg shortly before 12 midnight and sank less than three hours later.
   Add this to the list of "coincidences" that show the appearance of the number 12 throughout the world and its history. That list runs to three pages and continues to grow.
   Here's a reminder.
   There are:

12 inches in a foot
12 months in a year
12 grades in the American school system
12 signs of the zodiac
12 items in a dozen
12 dots on a pair of dice
12 units in a hypodermic syringe
12 dozen make up one gross
12 pencils in box
12 checkout lanes in a local supermarket
12 pence to a shilling
12 stars in the flag of the European Union
12 primary colors in the color wheel formulated by Isaac Newton
12 troy ounces in a troy pound, used to measure gold and silver
12 people on a jury
12 bronze tablets held an attempt to codify Roman laws, done by
12 men in 450 B.C.
12 soldiers in an Army squad
12 channels on early television sets -- 2 through 13
12 districts in the U.S. Federal Reserve bank system
12 tribes of Israel
12 apostles in Christianity, which borrowed the idea from
12 apostles in Mithraism
12 imams in the Shiite Islamic spiritual tradition
12 Hindu temples dedicated to the Lord Shiva
12 labors of Hercules, imposed as punishment
12 major Olympian gods in the ancient Greek pantheon led by Zeus
12 gods in Valhalla, honored by Vikings. (Odin, Thor, etc.)
12 major gods in the Celtic pantheon
12 gods honored by the Sami people of northern Scandinavia
12 knights seated at King Arthur's Round Table
12 days to the Christmas season, borrowed from
12 days of Yuletide, the celebration of the Winter Solstice
12 steps to humility, (St. Benedict, 520 A.D.)
12 steps of pride (St. Bernard of Clairvaux, 1130 A.D.)
12 steps to sobriety (Bill Wilson founder of AA, 1937)
12 parts to the Boy Scout Law (Trustworthy, Loyal, etc.)
12 tones in the chromatic musical scale
12 bars in standard blues music
12 animals in the Chinese cycle of years (rat, ox, tiger, etc.)
12 points to a pica, the standard printer's measuring system
12 times 6 picas = 72, the number of points to an inch
12 times 3 = 36, the number of inches in a yard
12 times 2 = 24 cans in a case of beer
12 times 2 = 24 hours in a day
12 times 4 = 48 cards in a pinochle deck
12 times 5 = 60 minutes in an hour
12 times 5 = 60, the number of watts in the most popular light bulb
12 times 5 = 60 miles per hour, a widely used speed limit
12 times 30 = 360 degrees in a circle
12 times 10 = 120 beats per minute, the standard marching pace
12 times 10 = 120, the optimum systolic blood pressure
12 volts in automobile electrical systems
12 cylinders in early, expensive automobiles
12 gallons in a tank of gasoline for smaller cars
12 gauge shotgun, a popular firearm
12 furlongs is the maximum length for American horse racing
12 was the base for early mathematics
12 hour relief is the promise made for over-the-counter medications
12 inch square is the size of many floor tiles
12 Chairs in the Mel Brooks movie based on a Russian folk tale
12 Monkeys, another movie, by Terry Gilliam
12 Years a Slave, the title of a book and a movie
12 vertebrae in the human chest,
12 pairs of ribs
12 pairs of cranial nerves
12 pairs of thoracic nerves
12 strands in a DNA sequence

   Finally, the atomic weight of carbon, the base of all life forms on earth, is 12.01.

Word Play

   Some scholars claim the word "barbarian" began in ancient Rome when visitors from other regions did not speak Latin, so Romans who could not understand them insisted that their talk only amounted to noise, like "bar-bar-bar."
   These scholars  ignore the reality that the current word for "beard" in Italian and other languages is "barba," and someone who trims facial hair is called a "barber."
   Therefore, the thinking goes, a political or military opponent with facial hair is called a "barbarian," not because he has facial hair but because he talks funny.
   These so-scholars either have not done their homework or they choose to remain ignorant.
   A brief dictionary search shows nearly identical words for "beard" or "barba" in Italian, Bosnian, Catalan, Corsican, Croatian, Dutch, French, Frisian, Galician, German, Latvian, Lithuanian, Macedonian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Serbian, Slovenian, Spanish, Ukrainian and Yiddish.
   It follows that if the scholars are right about the babble, then all the languages just mentioned are only noises made by ignorant talkers.
   Either that or the so-called scholars are just plain stupid.
   By the way, the current English word "bizarre" is borrowed from the Basque language, and "skag" from the Danish.
   Our language is a blend of many others, beginning with Anglo-Saxon, and includes Norman French, Brythonic, Gaelic, Latin, Greek, German, Italian, Spanish and many others, including Native American languages, Oriental and Middle East. Moreover, new words and usages are invented regularly. Ask anyone politician or advertising agent.
   The job of a linguist is to describe what is, not to make rules on what should be. We leave that to the self-appointed grammarians.

Gaza Go Away

   1/ This land is mine. God gave this land to me. All you other guys have to leave.

   2/ But we've been here for thousands of years. This is our home.

   1/ I don't care. You guys haven't done anything to make the land prosperous so you have to leave and we'll make things better.

   3/ That's the same argument Andrew Jackson used when he told the Cherokee to leave their homes and go to Oklahoma.

  4/ Why can't we all just get along?

Spiritual Unity

We are all climbing the same mountain.

How we see the top depends on where we come from.

The Druid Way

  1/  You are a worthwhile person.

  2/  Believe in yourself.

  3/  Think for yourself.

  4/  Follow your bliss.

  5/  Seek beauty in life, in Nature, in other creatures.

  6/  Enjoy beauty in music and art as you perceive it.

      Don't let others tell you what you "must" enjoy.

  7/  Read. Anything and everything that pleases you.

  8/  Do all things in moderation.

  9/  Say please and thank you.

10/  Find someone to love. Tell them so.

11/  Seek balance in all things.

12/  If it harm none, do what you will.

Responsibilty

To say, "The Devil made me do it," is to clear you of any blame.

To say, "I am nothing without God," is to deny you any credit.

You are responsible for your actions and behavior, whether  good or ill.

Dialect Dilemma

   Which is correct: Speak well or talk good?
   Or is it the reverse: Talk well or speak good?
   Someone can be  a good speaker or a good talker. Or someone can be well spoken. Why not the reverse of all of the above?
   Many folks will say it's not logical. And they would be right, because language is not logical. It is what it is.
   Many Americans are told to never split an infinitive, and to never use no double negatives.
   (There, I just did both. Sue me.)
   But in French, double negatives are required, as in "ne ... pas." Or in Spanish: "No tengo nada," which translates to "I ain't got nothin.'"
   As for the term "ain't," teachers insist that isn't good English. But we can shorten "is not" to "isn't" and we can reduce "are not" to "aren't" and some folks shorten "am not" to "amn't."
   So it's only a short linguistic step from "amn't" to "ain't."
   All those examples delete the vowel  from the word "not" and combine it with the relevant form of the verb "to be."
   Here they are again: "Is not" becomes "isn't" and "are not" becomes "aren't."
   Also, "were not" becomes "weren't" and "would not" becomes "wouldn't" or even "won't." Or maybe it should be "will not" becomes "won't." Maybe  "willn't" would be a better alternative. Perhaps the earlier form was "woll," which became "will."
   I hear you insisting that statement isn't logical. And you're  right, because language isn't logical.
   (There, I just used an apostrophe to substitute for a vowel that was abandoned.)
   Also, there are people who say "amn't" rather than "am not." Is that poor grammar? Try telling that to the Irish who use that term that it's not good English and it shows that the user doesn't talk good. See how far you get insisting that the Irish are not good with language.
   Conclusion: All dialects are equal. They all enable  their users to communicate with others. To say that some dialects are superior to others is a social judgment, not linguistic.

Prime Time Mug Shot

   Donald Trump chose 7:30 p.m. Eastern Time to "surrender" to Georgia police over accusations of election interference.

   That's 6:30 p.m. in Chicago and 4:30 p.m. in Los Angeles, just in time to dominate evening television newscasts throughout the country.

   Good timing.

   But whether he used that time slot to expound his message to the world  is a separate issue, since the court forbade him from threatening in any way other individuals in the case against him.

   That did not stop hundreds of his followers from gathering at the jail house to show their support to national TV cameras.

   The resident cynic, however, wondered how many of the demonstrators were paid to be there. Next question: Who offered to pay them, and will they actually get paid.

   Cynicism is its own reward.

   The subject of the allegations has a long history of not paying bills. That's a big reason why he had  to go to foreign banks for corporate financing. It's also why many law firms refuse to represent him.

   Within hours of the arrest and public release of a photo of the alleged perpetrator, a T-shirt with his frowning face was on the national market.

   That's a good way to raise funds to pay the bail bondsman and to pocket the difference, if he does indeed pay the bondsman.

   Either way, it's a good way to reap some cash while avoiding a major payout for full bail.

   Some folks wondered why the accuse millionaire didn't pay the full bail himself.

   Here's a good reason: It's a good opportunity to raise cash.

   As for not paying the bondsman ... There are legal penalties for that, including jail time.

History

Treason doth never prosper; what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
               -- Sir John Harington, 1560-1612

   We live in interesting times.
    No president of the United States has ever been indicted
   So far this year, Donald Trump -- a former president -- has been indicted four times; twice by a federal grand jury as well as by grand juries in Georgia and New York State.
   Unlike most other states, the names of grand jurors in Georgia are publicly listed, so their home addresses became known and threats against them have been made.
   Will the subject of the indictment urge his followers to let the legal process continue peacefully?
   Stay tuned.

   Meanwhile, consider this definition of treason: An attempt to control or overthrow a government by force or by illegal, unconstitutional means.
   Question: Why have none of the participants in the January 2021 uprising -- including their leader -- been charged with treason?
  

Pobrecito

   Defense lawyers warn that Donald Trump faces "reputational harm" from the investigation of possible election interference, and therefore the probe must stop.
   His reputation may be sullied.
   Pobrecito.
   Evidence is piling up that the man and his friends may well have done just that, tried to interfere with election results. But the attitude seems to be that because he is who he is, he is therefore immune from prosecution for anything, of any kind, under any circumstance, ever.
   Money can enable the wealthy to stall and try to maneuver legal proceedings until the government has trouble paying for it, or eventually just give up.
   That may be part of the reason prosecutors sometimes focus more on low income law breakers, especially those who cannot afford high ticket lawyers.
   But this time the stakes are higher, and prosecutors have the opportunity to make a big name for themselves.
   Besides, there is the issue of doing what's right.

Censorship vs News Judgment

   Robert F. Kennedy Junior is suing the Associated Press, the Washington Post, Reuters and the BBC, claiming they all refuse to carry reports of what he says. Censorship, he alleges.
   Oddly,  I know this from a report on the NPR web site, where it also lists several examples of falsehoods he regularly proclaims in his campaign speeches.
   News media are not obliged to carry detailed accounts of everything every candidate says every day. That's not censorship, it's news judgment. If every news media outlet were required to carry full details of every thing a politician says and does -- but only the positive stuff -- that would be media control.
   Media can decide to carry only the negative stuff, but that also would be bias. Indeed, there are some news outlets that do just that, and the First Amendment says they can.
   By the same token, readers and listeners can ignore them, and subscribe only to neutral media. Or they can choose to subscribe only to those outlets that share their biases.
   There is always a choice.
   The NPR report also writes that claims of censorship are "a core grievance of many conservatives and liberals who see social media policies to combat misinformation, conspiracy theories and election information as infringing on their free speech rights."
   But are we they free to spread lies, and force others to expand the spread?
   Yes and no.
   They are free to lie, but there is punishment if the lie harms others. And no, we cannot force others to spread lies for us. They too have free speech, and with that freedom comes the right to be silent. Others also have the right to call out the liar.
   

Equal Rights

   The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a web designer can refuse to supply services to a gay couple who wanted to celebrate their marriage.
   Curiously, no one had asked the designer to do so. Presumably, other married gay couples have already gone elsewhere. That means, the issue was moot. So why did the court take up the issue in the first place?
   The court apparently based its ruling on the Constitutional First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech and of the press, and not on the issue of freedom of religion.
   Commentators have talked all day about the problems this ruling will cause, alleging that gay couples lose their right to celebrate their marriage through internet publication, and the ruling clashes with the American tradition of press freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
   Defenders insist that the ruling is about freedom of speech, not about religion.
   But if businesses cannot refuse service to people based on their race, why is this different? Why is it permissible to refuse service based on gender preference?
   Following the reasoning in the current ruling, it will be legal to deny a hotel room to a gay couple. But it's already illegal to deny a hotel room to a Black couple.
   If a web designer can refuse to set up a page for a gay couple because it's against her spiritual beliefs, could she also refuse to do so for a Black couple?
   Take the reasoning further, and we get the issue of whether a newspaper can refuse to accept an ad from an anti-government firm. Should a printer be required to do work for a propagandist? Can a newspaper be required to run a 500-word story on Page One, rather than two paragraphs on Page 17?
   All these issues relate to the First Amendment of the Constitution. Freedom of speech and of the press, as well as freedom of religion, specify that government cannot force a publisher or a preacher to conform to any specific view.
   All things considered, both sides are right in their thinking of how to handle wedding publicity.
   But the larger question remains, can a business refuse to serve a person or a couple, and for what reason?

Race Abate

   The U.S. Supreme Court ruled out extra points for students of a given race when applying for college. But the court stressed that an applicant must be otherwise fully qualified for admission.
   In effect, this bans extra credit based simply on color.
   The practice may have been useful to end a perceived racial prejudice in the nation's top schools, and the issue became whether that procedure is still needed.
   In effect, the Supreme Court said no.
   Meanwhile, a color imbalance remains in many of the nation's local school districts, both primary and secondary. This reflects the populations of cities and towns throughout America.
   Some would say the solution would be to force integration of cities and towns. Already, busing of kindergarten and elementary school students has been done for several decades as a way to integrate local schools.
But many families left towns and cities, or transferred their students to private schools, using the excuse that they wanted a better education for their children.
   Do they get it? Sometimes. But local students are left behind to attend the traditional local schools, which again reflect the population of their districts.
   One solution would be to enlarge the school districts and bus the students even farther from home so they would attend integrated schools. But how large can a district be, for kindergarten students to ride their buses several miles every day, just so the municipality can abide by some legal requirement that schools have a mixed population of students?
   All of which raises another question:
   "Can't we all get along?" -- Rodney King

Bidenomics vs Reaganomics

   In an earlier presidency, "trickle down economics" was the term used by Ronald Reagan to describe his plan for national wealth.
   Cut taxes for the rich, and eventually, over time, after a while (we don't know how long), the benefits will trickle down to lower income groups and everyone will benefit in the long run.
   How long that might be is anyone's guess. As economist Maynard Keynes put it, "In the long run, we are all dead."
   But if the wealthy put their savings into bank accounts, do the poor benefit? The Reaganomic theory was yes, they would. Eventually.
   Not directly, but over time, and in the long run.
   Meanwhile, the rich would benefit from interest rates paid on their funds, banks would benefit by making more loans, borrowers would benefit from available funds at reasonable interest rates, and the poor and the economic middle income folk would benefit from lower food prices.
   Eventually.
   Perhaps.
   Over time.
   If they have jobs and paychecks.
   And if food prices remain steady and don't rise to absorb the available money.
   
   On the other hand, Bidenomics says government should cut taxes now for middle and lower income groups so they will benefit immediately, rather than having to wait for benefits to trickle down to their level.
   Also, the plan says to cut taxes now for employers, so they will hire more workers so they will be able to pay their rent and buy food.
   So the question becomes, who will benefit in the short term -- call it the next few weeks -- compared to those who will benefit in the long term -- call that next year's tax return.
   You decide who gets your vote.

"Woke" is a Shibboleth

   The term "woke" as used by Republican commentators and politicians is a shibboleth. It has no meaning, and is used only to test the loyalty of listeners.
   The term shibboleth originated in ancient Israel, and was used to test the loyalty of its speaker. Those of friendly tribes were able to make the sh- sound, while enemy speakers could not. When they tried to make the test word, it came out "sibboleth," instead. Those who failed the test were killed.
   Otherwise, the term had no value.
   Today, the term "woke" in the GOP vocabulary has no meaning. Its only value is to identify those who are not loyal to Republican politics.
   Forgotten -- or not known by these orators -- is the reality that the new definition of the term "woke" originated in Harlem in the 1930s, and was used to identify those who sought jobs in other parts of Manhattan but in doing so "woke" to the reality of bias in the job market.
   It's time GOP politicians "woke" to a similar reality and used a word with real meaning.

True Believers

   Belief without thought endangers freedom.
   That has been the opening motto of these essays for several years. But when we apply that guideline to current events in America and the devoted followers of Donald Trump, the motto becomes a warning.
   His followers believe everything he says, regardless of any repeated contradictions and continuing exposure of his falsehoods in the mainstream media. That's easy enough to explain, since many of his devoted followers ignore any outlets that carry information contradicting what their hero proclaims.
   (News media today reported that former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson "deliberately misled" Parliament about parties he held at 10 Downing Street during the COVID crisis. Or, in plain language, he lied.)
   In America, devoted followers of Donald Trump believe him and only him, without listening to anything said by neutral news media, much less anything said by his opponents. And as to the collection of contradictory explanations of his activities about documents found at his private home after he left office, it's one thing to claim he inadvertently misspoke, and quite another to cite evidence that he lied.
   Meanwhile, as lawsuits against him grow in number, so do his efforts to raise funds from his loyal supporters to fight the allegations and court challenges.
   This raises a question from our resident cynic: Where does that money go? Into the legal campaign or into his pocket? Already, there is a documented history of him using campaign donations for personal expenses, and not accurately documenting income and expenses.
   So the question comes down to this: Do you trust a proven liar or independent news media that base its reputation of reporting provable facts?

First Step

   Few people showed up to protest or support the arraignment of Donald Trump in Miami this week.
   Police were ready to deal with a massive protest rally, as happened at other Trump events. But because of numerous arrests and convictions after these other events, fewer supporters were willing to risk jail and heavy fines for their disturbing behavior.
   Result: A peaceful rally.
   The court appearance itself was quiet, presided over by a magistrate and not the regional judge who had been appointed by Trump and who is expected to preside over his trial, if and when it comes.
   There's nothing to be read into that, since the bail hearing was a routine first step in the legal process. The significance remained that it was the first step in a federal criminal procedure against a man who just happened to be a former president of the nation.
   News outlets, however, devoted a large amount of time and space to the story.
   In turn, this publicity helps Trump raise money for his defense fund, and provides multiple opportunities for him tell his side of the story.
   The downside of that, however, is that he regularly says things that are false. On top of that, he has already been fined for saying falsehoods, and despite the fines, he repeats them, so the target gets the court to repeat and increase the fines against him.
   Also, news recordings of what he says become evidence for new charges as well further admission of his continuing illegal behavior.
   When will he ever learn? Perhaps after all the flowers have gone. But that will be a long time in passing.

"Not Guilty"

    "Not guilty."
   That was the attorney's answer in Miami when Donald Trump was officially asked in court about his behavior. Now it's up to the federal lawyers who brought the 37 charges against the former president to prove their accusations.
   Whether the case proceeds in a "timely and expeditious" fashion, as lawyers would phrase it, is another issue.
   Define "timely and expeditious."
   That's yet another thing lawyers can and likely will argue about.
   Many legal commentators have said the evidence strongly supports the charges filed against the former president, but many of his supporters insist the evidence is fake and was planted by his political opposition, while these same opponents are themselves guilty of similar misbehaviors, and therefore "it ain't fair" to pick on one alleged perpetrator and not the others.
   This claim ignores the reality of similar probes against the opponents. One difference is that charges have not been filed against the opponents.
   Yet.
   Will they?
   That depends on when, whether and if prosecutors gather enough evidence to support their allegations.
   In turn, that raises the issue of trust in the American legal system. Or are political leaders immune from prosecution because they are above the law?
   If so, does that apply to all political leaders or just the ones you like?
   Is a puzzlement.
   Meanwhile, the hope for trust in the American legal system is on the line.

Gathering Storm

   Supporters of  Donald Trump have gathered in Florida as he prepares to answer a summons to appear before a federal judge. Whether the gathering will stay peaceful or erupt in violence -- for whatever excuse -- is an open question.
   The real problem is whether that issue should even be a question. Underlying that supposition is whether political leaders lie.
   What a concept.
   Politicians fib.
   Who knew?
   We all know this, but the real issue is that one side believes that only the other side lies.
   Maybe they both do.
   Some are more proficient at it than others.
   It's hard to ignore a prominent political leader who is a poor liar, especially when his followers are so devoted that they will believe everything he says, no matter how foolish or blatantly false.
   Presiding judges in major court units do not typically countenance liars who appear before them. It's one thing to lie to news media and political supporters, but it's not okay to lie to a judge in court.
   Unless you believe you can because the judge owes his or her job to you and therefore will rule in your favor no matter what.
   Believe it or not is a choice.
   That, some say, is an issue for a court proceeding in Florida as to whether and how Donald Trump must face a series of criminal accusations.
   The judge in this case was appointed by Trump himself, so another part of the issue is whether she will go forward and hear the charges against him or excuse herself from the case so it will be heard by another judge who would be viewed as neutral.
    But judges at this level are appointed by a president, so the question stands: Will any federal judge, of the same political party or a different one, rule objectively?
   Another neutrality issue.
   Can judges be neutral?
   Can they? Yes.
   Are they? Usually.
   Therein lies the problem, said our resident cynic. Sometimes they are not. But that's when the appeals process kicks in.
   The core issue in this case is whether Donald Trump expects "his judge" to rule in his favor, no matter the evidence.
   Federal prosecutors are most likely hoping this judge will follow the law and the evidence, and not bend to Trump's wishes.
   That may be part of the reason the feds transferred the case from a Democrat-leaning region to Miami, home of many Republicans and Trump supporters.
   They hope court officials and jurors will follow the facts and not the ex-president's wishes.

Primary Battle

   Violence is coming to America.
   Again.
   This is not just talk. Already, there are hints -- sometimes clear statements -- that supporters of a political leader are planning to take over the government no matter what a vote calculation says.
   That's because they believe the vote count will be accurate only if they win. To them, a purported loss is clear evidence that the other side cheated.
   The premise that they themselves may have manipulated the vote count is vehemently denied.
   Some question whether essays in this blog are not written for high income readers with college degrees, but for lower income workers with less education, and that explains the regular use of short words rather than polysyllabic terminology.
   Answer: The essays are written for both. Short words mean the same, and are easier to read and understand. That is the secret of good writing: to be understood.
   Or as some folks say, "He must be intelligent. I didn't understand a word he said." Others suggest he was just Blowing Smoke. The challenge is to prove your intelligence by being clearly understood.
   Speaking of speakers Blowing Smoke, the political season in America is under way early, and the danger this year is whether political rhetoric will cross the line from aggressive talk to a level that encourages violence.
   Candidates will likely deny that's their plan, but whether their followers accept that explanation or they call it a CYA reply is for the general public to decide.
   Meanwhile, the hints of approaching violence continue to drop. Whether they explode when they hit remains a question.
   The real issue is whether such hints should be part of political speech.

Childish Politicians

"He did it too!"
"She did it first!"

   That's what Trumpians are saying to defend their hero's taking of government documents after leaving office.
   A big difference is that when government material was found, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton immediately returned them, saying they were taken to their homes by mistake, and they didn't know they had been taken.
   Whether you believe them is another issue, but the documents were immediately returned. Contrast that with Donald Trump's insistence that he did not have any such documents, even as he told his staff to move them so searchers wouldn't find them. When that excuse didn't work, he claimed he had mentally changed the documents'  security clearance, so it didn't matter where they were or who had them.
   Now that a federal grand jury has indicted the ex-president on criminal charges, his defenders are increasing their attack on his Democratic opponents, and attempting to ignore their hero's alleged crimes.
   News media have also noted that Richard Nixon was referred to as an "unindicted co-conspirator" who was later pardoned by his presidential successor, fellow Republican Gerald Ford.
   Donald Trump does not have that advantage. Besides, Nixon's pardon was only for any federal offenses that he may have committed, while Trump also faces several state level offenses, so a presidential pardon would have no effect on them.

Spectacular Speculation

"If ifs and ans were pots and pans,

 we'd have no use for tinkers." -- Pug Mahoney

   What if Donald Trump wins the GOP nomination for president and is convicted of a federal crime during the election season?
   As our resident scholar understands the Constitution, it won't matter, at least temporarily. It would only become an issue if he should win election. Then the question would be whether a convicted criminal could serve as President of the United States.
   The Constitution says no, he cannot. Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is clear: "No person shall ... hold any office, under the United States, or under any State, ... who shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against them, or who has given aid or comfort to those who have.
   His support of the Jan. 6 rebels is a clear violation of that part of the Constitution. In addition, there is plentiful evidence that he himself has committed various crimes while in office, and in stashing security documents and refusing to give them back after leaving office.
   There are currently four legal actions against him on both the state and the federal level. The most recent development has been a criminal indictment in Florida. Eventually, this case will go to trial, most likely at the same time as the election season next year.
   The current verbal noise made by ultra-right Trump backers blames Democrats for any and all legal procedures filed against him, insisting that all complaints are entirely, completely and in every detail solely political and have no legal value at all, under any circumstances.
   That's what they say. But what if there is some truth to the allegations?
   We won't know until the trial begins -- unless he cops a plea and ducks out, or finds a way to delay it until after the election.
   But that is clearly the problem. Can a convicted criminal serve as a government official, on any level?

Out Foxing the Law

   Within hours of the earlier essay on presumption of innocence, Donald Trump posted information that he had been indicted on seven counts, on allegations of illegally keeping top secret documents, conspiracy, and other issues.
   Soon, his supporting TV network was blaming the special counsel for indicting the former president.
   Headline on the Fox network: "Biden DA Indicts Political Adversary."
   Correction: Prosecutors do not and cannot indict anyone. That's done by a grand jury of a dozen or more members whose duty is to hear the evidence and then vote on whether there is enough evidence to continue the case.
   They did, and now Trump has joined history as the only U.S. president indicted for a criminal offense, specifically by allegedly hiding evidence of illegal behavior.
   This is a major news story. However, the Fox network today focused their coverage on legal issues being faced by Hunter Biden, son of the current president.
   Can you say "priorities"?
   The news focus now will be on how the federal judge in Florida, who was appointed by Donald Trump, handles the allegations.

Presumptive

   Our legal system presumes a person  innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
   Sometimes, that's quite a presumption.
   But for a basic assumption to be fair, it is essential to assume some things be true until proven otherwise.
   Currently, several legal systems in the United States of America face that principle as prosecutors gather evidence about the doings of a former national president.
   Another assumption: A high ranking government official is no different, legally, than any other citizen and is not immune from prosecution when and if that person breaks a law -- civil or criminal, federal or state.
   Some people, however, believe their wealth and status make them immune from prosecution.
   They are wrong.
   But their wealth does enable them to hire others to argue for him, if only to delay the process.
   Argue, argue, argue.
   Talk, talk, talk.
   Debate, debate, debate.
   Delay, delay, delay.
   Stall, stall, stall.
   And sometimes, that strategy encourages them to lie, lie, lie.
   In a court of law, however, that last strategy is disallowed, even as each contestant hires skilled debaters to argue for them, and a presiding official judges which side has the better argument.
   That doesn't always mean the winning side is right. Sometimes, it only means they were more skillful at arguing.
   One way to get around that problem is to have a jury of otherwise ordinary citizens decide who has the better argument for guilt or innocence.
   Again, that doesn't always mean the prosecution is right; only that they are more skilled at presenting a better argument.
   There is also the issue of bias, racial or otherwise. That, however, is a separate argument. Bias -- racial or otherwise -- should not exist.
   Even so, it does. But that, however, is yet another social issue.
   Currently, American courts are hearing accusations that a former president broke several laws on several occasions in several states on several levels.
   Presume innocent until proven guilty.
   He is not, however, exempt from prosecution and cannot change any law on his own say-so, just as he cannot declassify any top-secret documents simply by thinking about it.
   And as much as he might like to have as much power as a king might have over national affairs, as people in New Jersey often say, "Ain't gonna happen."
   It is now up to the court system to abide by the founding principles of the nation and decide his guilt or innocence.
   As prosecutors are fond of saying, no one is above the law. And as much as this former president might like to be, he ain't.

Anger in America

   Political disagreement is common, but when it fosters violence, it loses value. This has been true for many centuries, because many people insist that what works for them is also the best way of life for everyone else, even those of different spiritual beliefs who had not heard of the new way.
   The preaching was that all non-believers would face eternal damnation, even those whose lifetimes were spent centuries before the coming of a redeemer.
   Similar  rationales are common in the political world, and when would-be leaders blend politics with religion, the consequence often is violence.
   It is long past time that Americans follow the principles spelled out in the founding documents, especially the phrase stipulating that we are all created equal.
   Failure to follow this principle causes the violence that has plagued America since its early days.
   The question for today is whether this tradition of violence against those who disagree will so damage society as to cause it to collapse.
   The easy answer is Yes, perhaps it will.
   The hard answer is to seek a way to stop it.
   Not the disagreement, but the violence.
   Disagreement can be good.
   Violence is not.

Legal Beagles

   Lawyers keep sniffing out examples of violations that jeopardize the reputation of Donald Trump.
   Not that his reputation was super great to begin with, and there are many supporters who insist all the fuss is "a witch hunt."
   But what if there really are witches, also known as practitioners of Wicca, and Trump is blaming them for his problems. In doing so, is he trampling on the reputations of good witches, those who follow the traditional values of ancient Wicca?
   For those who don't know the difference, Wicca is the spiritual practice of many in ancient Europe before the days when practitioners of a newer tradition insisted witchcraft was evil, and only those who did things the new way were good.
   Our resident Druid is keeping his fingers crossed for his Wiccan friends.
 

Fake Belief

"News will not replace us." -- False Chanters

   These are the times that try men's souls, when lies carry more power than truth.
   But that is temporary. Truth will outlive any lie. The challenge is to wait, even as the biggest lie loses its strength and dies while truth lives on.
   Meanwhile, truth seekers must wait, even as they fight off the lies.
   Always remember that the words and music to "America the Beautiful" were written by a Jewish immigrant named Irving Berlin.
 

Bible Ban

   In the wake of protests over books in school libraries that have questionable texts, such as stories about sex and violence, some counter-protestors say that also includes the Bible.

   Therefore, these protestors insist, the Bible should also be banned from school libraries. The proposed ban would not apply to high schools, but only to intermediate and elementary schools. One proposed ban has been made in Utah, but it's not clear whether the proposal also applies to the Book of Mormon.

   All of this raises the question of how many students actually read  the Bible, either in school or on their own. If they read it in a classroom setting, why does it not raise the question of church-state separation?

   And if the Bible is to be banned -- for whatever reason -- what about the Book of Mormon, or the Koran? Or any other spiritual writing? Also, which version of the Bible? The King James version, long praised for its literary excellence as well as its religious significance? Or the Douay version, prepared by the Roman Catholic church? Or any of the many other versions, in the English language or in any other language?

   In my early years of teaching introduction to literature for college people, a student protested assigning a portion of the King James version of the Bible.

   My response was to note its value as literature, not its spiritual or religious significance. Also listed as required reading for the course were writings from early Greece and Rome and portions of the Koran, as well as writings from the Norse Viking era and Celtic stories about the spirit world, plus Native American stories about the Creation.

   None were stressed for their spiritual views. Only for their historical and literary value.

   However, there are still some folks who insist their tradition is the only correct version of creation and spirituality, and all others are evil, regardless of any historical or literary value.

   America is a nation of many cultures, but to insist only one has value and therefore must dominate while others are banned, can only lead to violence.

   By the way, don't forget the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It still applies.

Bible Babble

   "My spiritual preferences are my own. I am not obliged to conform to others' beliefs, nor do I expect others to conform to mine." -- Pug Mahoney

   A problem throughout history is the conflict generated when one group insists that their spiritual beliefs be held by everyone, no matter their ethnic, cultural or historic background.
   Lost in the conflict is the idea that differing societies perceive of the Otherworld in differing ways.
  Just as some languages give a different name to a Boss Deity (Lord God), they also offer respect to that Deity in different ways. That does not mean that the Ultimate Power is actually different; only that human reality perceives that Power differently.
   Various cultures honor a single Deity as being in charge of other supernatural entities, and do so by giving that Boss God various names and genders.
   Conflict arises when people of one culture insist that their way is the only right way, and therefore all other ways are wrong, and therefore evil.
   Some cultures further insist not only that there is just one Boss Deity, but also that He is the only Deity. To them, the term Lord God is redundant.
   It becomes a challenge when they are asked to explain references to other supernatural beings such as angels.
   And, if there be only one, how does one explain the reference to "other gods" in the first of the Ten Commandments?
   "I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not put other gods before Me." (Sometimes that sentence appears in translation as "foreign gods," or as "different gods.")
   The problem is sidestepped when the phrasing is read as spoken by the one deity in charge of all other deities, and the readers are ordered not to honor other deities as being in control.
   The concept of a single deity being in charge also explains the banishment of the angel Lucifer to the Lower World because he dared to challenge the Boss God.
   The name Lucifer, by the way, can be translated as "bearer of light," which further explains his challenge and banishment.
   Consider also the term archangel, meaning one who is in charge. The difference, according to some theologians, is that Michael did not challenge the Boss.
   FYI, the word "boss" is borrowed from the Dutch language, and refers to a person in control, while the term "lord" is an Anglo-Saxon term with the same meaning, and "master" derives from the Germanic "meister," also meaning "man in charge." Similarly, the term "mistress," in its primary meaning, mean "woman in charge."
   It is likely that in colonial America, citizens with their strong sense of independence disliked using the term "master," so they changed the pronunciation to "mister," or they used the alternate term "boss."
  In short, many human societies honor an Otherworld and the beings that inhabit that world, each society using differing terms.
   A comparison of belief systems shows many similarities, even as the names differ. Some use the term "gods," with one deity superior to all the others, who are then referred to with differing labels, such as angels or saints.
   Other societies use different names. One example is the name Zeus, the one deity in charge in the ancient Greek conception of the Otherworld.
   Note the similarity to the Latin "Deus," the Spanish "Dios," and the French "Dieux."
   In closing, note that the English term "god" is borrowed from the Germanic or Anglo-Saxon word "gott."
   The spelling and pronunciation may change, but the concept is the same.

   Final note: The English word "bible" is borrowed from Latin, and simply means "book," as in "bibliography," a list of books, or "bibliophile," a love of books.
  

Moving On

   Now that politicians have proudly announced they have compromised on a way to keep government operating -- as if there was a choice, since canceling government is neither feasible nor realistic -- it's time to move on.
   But first let's consider the root of the disagreement over how government should function.
   There are two extremes: At one end is the idea that government governs best when it governs least. That's only a short step away from no government at all, and there are some who hold that belief.
   Another word for that is anarchy -- government by none. The next step is monarchy -- government by one. After that comes plutocracy -- government by a few.
   And no, that does not refer to the cartoon dog character, nor the planet, nor the ancient supernatural figure.
   The extreme in that list is anarchy, no government at all. That, however, is not practical. So the best of the available options is government by a few.
   But which few?
  There's the rub, and that social rubbing causes conflicts over which should be chosen to lead.
   But chosen by whom?
   More conflict.
   If the chosen few can run government, those who do the choosing will benefit, while the unchosen many will not.
   That has been the core of the American problem since the early years of the nation's independence. Only the chosen few could vote, and their support went to those who vowed to uphold the chosen system.
   Then came change.
   In the yearly years of the republic, only white male property owners could vote. Consequently, they voted for others of that ilk, who promised no change.
   Then came protests by workers, who united to force change by management to bring fair treatment. That, of course, led to conflict over what constituted fair treatment.
   Often, the reply was, "My way is fair, because I say it's fair. Besides, I pay your wages, so therefore what I say is more important."
   Circular reasoning. Compromise was not in their vocabulary.
   Sadly, much of that opinionating remains, as does the basic problem. How to keep government operating for the benefit of the many without punishment or excess cost to the few.
   That, of course, requires acknowledging that the purpose of government is to work for the benefit of the many, not just the few supporters of a partisan political party.
   Will it change?
   That will depend on whether each side learns to compromise.
  

Word Play

Liberal Bias vs Conservative Bigotry

   Bias equals slant or angle, and defines a way of looking at things. Tailors use all three terms to describe how they do their work. To say some cloth is "cut on the bias" simply means it was trimmed at an angle to its pattern.
   No judgment is involved. Nor is it relevant.
   Bigotry, in contrast, is very judgmental.
   Political liberals are not as judgmental. They accept an opponent's views as  an expression of their opinions, whether they agree with those comments or not. This is not always true, of course, but it's worth setting up as a starting point for comparing the two political sides.
   Conservatives are often very judgmental about their opponent's viewpoints, and do not accept them as having any legitimacy.
   That's an extreme, of course, since not all conservatives subscribe to that attitude.
   However, many of their supporters -- the narrow minded ones -- do, and they resort to violence against those who disagree.
   In sum, all bigots are biased, but not all those who have biases are bigots.
   All this comes to mind after hearing Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis say he wants to "destroy leftism," as if anyone who disagrees with him should be severely punished. Some followers will take his comments to mean physical punishment.
   Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.

Surprise! (Not)

   Late Saturday evening, Congress and the President said they agreed on a budget for the new fiscal year, just in time to avoid defaulting on payments for health benefits, government salaries and pensions for millions of Americans.
   Now they can brag about how hard they all worked on holiday weekend nights to prevent a government shutdown.
   Never mind that this could have been resolved many weeks ago. But that would prevent politicians from bragging about their hard work in the final few hours.
   Heaven forfend.
   What would society be without its quota of bragging politicians?

Democracy in Danger

   "What kind of government have you given us, Mister Franklin? A  republic or a monarchy?" the lady asked.

   "A republic, if you can keep it," Benjamin replied.

   Today, America has a problem.
   Those who consider themselves the chosen few believe it is their duty to control government for the many.
   Chosen by whom is unclear. Nonetheless, they claim that obligation.
   Historically, a democracy was a society where all citizens had a direct role in government. That may have worked reasonably well in a very small nation -- ancient Athens, for example -- but size quickly led to a system where voters chose a few to run the government while most other citizens worked their farms or other trades.
   The problem comes when those few are far outnumbered by other citizens but they refuse to accept any disagreement, and insist their way is the right way, claiming an endorsement by some higher spiritual power as proof.
   Call it righteousness.
   There are in America today a righteous few who insist they are entitled to run the government a certain way that they claim is explained to them by some Higher Power.
   Except that many others, with equal rights to vote for representatives in government, maintain that the Higher Power cited said nothing to them, or in any case it is not relevant whether or if said Higher Power intervened in current society.
   Either way, the United States Constitution stipulates that religion is not relevant to choosing elected representatives, and especially that Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
   Anybody who claims they can ignore that phrase and establish a specific way to honor such Higher Power is violating the Constitution.
   As the Marx Brothers might have phrased it, "Who are you going to believe, the Constitution or some Higher Power?"
   The two cannot be mixed.
   The republic, as established in 1789, seems to be working reasonably well. Changing it threatens to cancel the unity of American states.

Budget Bigots

   Every day, members of Congress talk about the importance of finalizing the national budget.
   Talk, talk, talk.
   Each day gets closer to the time when the current budget will expire and government programs will run out of money to support military pay, civilian income, and many other financial programs that people rely on to survive.
   Except members of Congress.
   Their pay continues, even as their staff salaries do not.
   Along the way, politicians talk about how hard they're working to organize and approve a budget.
   Talk, talk, talk.
   Meanwhile, their paychecks remain steady, even as they say they must eliminate or reduce programs meant to help ordinary Americans.
   Clearly, that means members of Congress are "extra-ordinary." Which can also mean "beyond reality." This may explain why they feel entitled to ignore laws, especially those about their own personal income.
   Will this change? It might. But that depends partly on the ballot box, and whether voters decide they want someone to change the system.
   On the other hand, candidates who are elected on their promise to change the system ... usually don't.

Racist Wokism

   Denial is a dangerous disease, and wokism has come to mean blind racism.
   Wokists mock those who warn of racism in American society. But many of these mockers also support policies that contribute to the spread of racism.
   This enables bigotry to spread, since those who could minimize its spread fail in their humanitarian duty. By maximizing its mockery of the word "woke," they encourage its existence and growth.
   Simplistic? Yes, but a major goal of these essays is to translate political gobbledygook to everyday language.
   Or as someone once said, "He must be brilliant; I didn't understand a word he said."
   This is the purpose of the guideline, "If you sound like you know what you're talking about, people will assume you do."
   Politicians are notorious for following this guideline, and a major purpose of this blog is to translate incomprehensible polysyllabic verbosity into easily understandable short words.
   There, I said it twice.
   Many academics and politicians, however, prefer to use long words borrowed from Latin, Greek or French rather than plain Anglo-Saxon. In turn, this is why people urge others to "say that again, only this time in plain English."
   Back to the point of this essay: By borrowing a word and mocking its relevance -- in this case, the word is "woke" -- critics deny racism exists.
   Denial is a dangerous disease.

Social Welfare

   The Great Depression struck America nearly a century ago, putting millions of people out of work without the benefit of government-funded social assistance.
   Private organizations did what they could to help those in need after families were abandoned to the hazards of trying to survive without employment. But that was not enough.
   Moreover, the collapse of the economy struck worldwide, but since people in some other countries had even fewer opportunities for employment and survival, they moved to America and took whatever jobs might be available.
   Even so, that was before the stock market crash of 1929 and the greater collapse that followed in the early 1930s.
   As a result, the federal government set up agencies and programs to help workers and reduce the problems that caused economic downturns. For decades, those policies helped.
   Nevertheless, many business leaders and their political allies want to eliminate government intervention, citing the doctrine of "free enterprise," based on the argument that an economy can only be fully when there is no government intervention, including programs that help those in need of help at the expense of corporate profit.
   We now see efforts in Congress to reduce or eliminate government sponsored programs such as those that provide aid for those out of work, old age pensions and health benefits for the sick and those unable to work.
   All these on the premise that socialism is evil. But is social welfare evil? That is the question.
   Amid all this, health care has become an industry, with private companies minimizing hospital staff and reducing wage output as a way to increase profit.
   As a result of being overworked and underpaid, many nurses and other health care professionals leave.
   Among the corporate owners, profits are more important than health care.
   In short, private enterprise is important. Greed is not.

Socialite vs Socialist

All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.  -- "Animal Farm," by George Orwell.

   Society, social, socialite, socialist, socialism, Social Security.
   Socialites are good; socialists are ungood.
   Why is one to be honored by society, and the others condemned?
   Socialites insist on their right to profit from their investments, business or social, at the expense of those they deem "lower" on the social scale.
  Socialists say all are created equal, and should be treated fairly by those who have more money, whether earned or inherited.
   The above is not true of all members of either social class, but it's a good place to start, along with the reality that both terms come from the same root. Even so, many believe socialites are good because they support themselves, while those who cannot are somehow inferior creatures because they need help.
   The labor movement began because workers were not being treated fairly by management, those who believed they were higher on the social scale and therefore should be obeyed by those they deemed their lessers.
   Never mind that America was founded on the principle that all men are created equal. For some, however, that did not include certain others who were not really men, but of some other species. Nor did it include women.
   Are we making progress? Some, but there are still many who believe certain groups are less deserving of fair treatment because they are not really equal.

Hypocrisy

   Republicans have criticized Hunter Biden, son of the President, for earning profit by doing business with a "foreign entity."
   They don't identify what kind of "entity" is relevant, or which foreign country. That could range from a bookshop in Montreal to a public relations firm in London, both of which could be promoting a book written by Hunter about his business interests and have nothing to do with his father's activities.
   But as is typical of many political attacks, vague accusations are made with little or no detail, leaving it up to those whose minds are already made up, so there's no way they could be confused with the facts.

Woke Up Call

   Mockery does not change reality.

 

   Not all the time, anyway, but it can reinforce bigotry and bias that's already there.

   That's what is happening as conservatives apply a different, albeit very loose, meaning to the term "woke."

   Linguists say the term originated as the past tense of the verb "wake." By extension, it also refers to people who became aware of a reality. That is, they finally "woke up."

   The current usage of the word began in Harlem in the mid-20th Century, when it came to mean a youth who left his or her neighborhood  to seek a job elsewhere in Manhattan, but in doing so became aware of bias in hiring.

   They woke.

   Currently, the same word is used to mock those who warn of the dangers of such a bias.

   As if no such danger or bias exists.

   But it does, and no amount of denial or mockery can change that. Continued denial, however, only reinforces the bigotry.

  Mockery can help prevent  bigots from gaining political power. When it succeeds, society is the better, as differing groups learn to get along.

   When it fails, however, power hungry bigots inflict their prejudged opinions on those who are not part of their group, and use that mockery to prevent them from pursuing their goals.

   Sometimes they also use more radical means, and this can encourage violence. There have been numerous examples of such violence against minority groups in America recently, resulting in thousands of deaths.

   Some folks compare what is happening here to what has happened in other countries in the past.

   Does the Holocaust come to mind? Adolph Hitler was very adept at arousing his followers as a way to build on his political ambitions.    So also does a current American political figure with ambitions to achieve national power.

   Again. 

   Be careful what you with for. You may get it.

Real Time Lies

   Major TV networks are rethinking the way they present political interviews after the fiasco that saw Donald Trump lie repeatedly despite the CNN moderator's corrections and  attempts to stop him.
   The program ran live before an audience of Trump supporters in New Hampshire. There were no opposing candidates for him to interrupt, but he did interrupt the moderator and ignored her admonition to stop telling lies, especially his claim that he really did win re-election, and that victory was stolen from him.
   Fact check: He lost the popular vote, twice. He took the presidency the first time by manipulating the electoral count, even after losting the popular vote. The second time, he lost both, despite his attempts to manipulate the vote count. These futile efforts -- a dozen of them -- went all the way to the Supreme Court.
  In earlier election appearances featuring Trump and opposing candidates, Trump repeatedly interrupted or upstaged his opponents either by talking over them or by walking behind them to distract viewer attention.
   Example 1: Hillary Clinton, when he interrupted her answers to the moderator's questions or he walked around the stage behind her while she was talking.
   Example 2: An exasperated Joe Biden finally said, "Will you shut up, man?" after repeated interruptions to Biden's comments.
   As a result of Trump's domineering behavior, TV news units are likely to stop carrying his activities live. Instead, they will record his speeches, edit out excess or rambling comments, and add corrections to false or misleading claims.
   That's called Journalism 101: Present both sides of an issue, including corrections to false or misleading allegations.
   While it remains true that members of a live audience will hear only one side of an issue, since TV operations are not carrying his speech live, the wider broadcast audience will hear not only the essence of his claims, but also corrections from independent fact-checkers. In addition, news operations will be able to provide comments from opponents.
   Trump has been able to dominate news outlets because they have not resisted his efforts to control their operations. A free press is not obligated to behave according to a politician's wants, needs or desires.
   As for Trump's claim that as president he can take away licenses ...
   1/ Print media don't have licenses, so there's nothing to take away.
   2/ Local radio and TV stations do have licenses, but broadcast networks and cable television operations do not.
   3/ Either way, the U.S.    Constitution prohibits any attempt control the press.
   As for interrupting the moderator and applying the term "stupid" to her or to her questions, it's time to remember the traditional guideline in the public relations industry:
   Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.
   A journalist's duty is to report accurately what a politician says or does, and not to take offense at any insult.
   But there are ways. One of which is to report accurately, completely and repeatedly any and all insults he hurls at anyone, including the circumstances and the reactions from others who hear them.
   Candidates often say they want journalists to report accurately what they say and do.
   Be careful what you wish for.