Trump Indicted

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

   That was Donald Trump's reaction today when a New York grand jury indicted him. He pounded the table. In a long statement, he made various accusations against others, but nothing substantial about the indictment.
   News of the indictment led all news outlets when it was released in late afternoon. Details have not yet been released.
   This makes Trump the only president ever to have been indicted in America.

"A Well Regulated Militia ..."

There are more guns in America than there are people.

   The security of a free state depends on a "well regulated militia," says the opening line of the American Constitution's Second Amendment.
   But we already have local, county and state police, state militia (now known as the National Guard), as well as Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard and Air Force units, all of which are "well regulated" and have tight controls over when and how weapons are taken out of secure locked facilities and carried out to public places.
   Where does it say that every individual can have as many firearms as that person wants, and can carry them anywhere at any time and use them however that person wishes?
   It doesn't.
   There are state and local laws supposedly limiting who can carry what, where and when.
   So why do so many people believe they have a Constitutional right to do whatever they want, whenever they want and however they want with as many firearms as they want, thus ignoring the Second Amendment?
   This is a selective misreading of the nation's founding document. It ignores the opening phrase of the Second Amendment, which refers to "A well regulated militia."
   Certainly this "well regulated militia" is indeed "essential to the security of a free state," but that does not mean every individual can have as many firearms as they want, with very little enforcement of their so-called right to self-protection.
   As if the local, county and state police are unwilling or unable to provide protection.
   Gun advocates are fond of insisting that more guns means more protection.
   Reality check: In America, more guns means more killings of children and teachers in church-sponsored schools.
   How many children must die before legislators submit to reality and tighten enforcement of the Constitution?
   "A  well regulated militia, being essential to the security of a free state ... " the right of the people of each and every individual state to limit the number of weapons its citizens may have and under what circumstances "shall not be infringed."
   But if a state chooses to allow every individual to have as many high capacity, military style firearms as that individual wants, then the price to be paid will be the shooting deaths of children, teachers and other people quietly going about their private business.
    Be careful what you wish for.
   You may get it.

Personal Government

   Journalists do their best to warn people of the danger foisted on them by politicians. The bigger damage to a free society, however, is when voters don't listen, but prefer the rhetoric propounded by a candidate whose only goal is to win.
   True believers stir up big arguments in politics. They insist that their way is the right way, and all others are corrupt and bordering on evil.
   Compromise is out.
   Suspending the Constitution is not likely, but it's also not impossible if such radicals succeed. It has been done before, in other free nations and during wartime, but in most cases it was temporary and limited.
   Recently, however, a presidential candidate and his followers challenged vote results in several states, and the issue went all the way to the Supreme Court. They lost every step.
   Politics and government often dominate the news cycle, exceeded only by war and crime. But all four provide important material for news reports, and on an important news day they combine.
   No wonder reporters tend to be cynical.
   Commentators, however, try to avoid cynicism, even at the risk of offending readers and listeners who expect editorials to reflect their own opinions views.
   Elections give the voting public an opportunity to choose those who reflect their views, even as they work to provide benefit to all members of the public, not just those who contribute financially to the election campaigns, but to all.
   At least, that's what they claim.
   American has long faced the reality that elected officials work for the benefit of a few, and not always the many. These few  argue otherwise, but performance is a better judge than verbosity.
   And whether people listen and pay attention is another issue, and whether they devote serious thought to resolving problems is still another.
   Talk? Yes. Real action? Maybe.
   The issue is complicated, since candidates and their supporters, as well as their opponents, all cite the First Amendment to the Constitution to guarantee their right of free speech and to disagree with any candidate.
   The problem arises when one side wants to withdraw that right from the other side, even to the extent of threatening and even committing violence against their opponents.
   There are symptoms in America today that this disease is threatening the health of society. And some of the more radical followers sent threats to those who follow the law and bring formal charges against their leader.
   Warning. America is a nation of law, and any attempt to bypass law and order threatens the political health of all who live and love what tradition has brought them.

Strategic Delays

   Donald Trump's lawyers keep losing their attempts to block the several legal probes into his activities, claiming the privilege of secrecy on two grounds.
   One is the claim of "executive privilege" because of his presidency. But judges have ruled that does not apply because he is no longer president.
   Second is the claim of lawyer/client privilege. But if a lawyer participated in some wrongdoing, that does not apply.
   Meanwhile, the Manhattan district attorney keeps delaying the filing of charges.
   Why?
   Possibly to gather yet more evidence, or as a way to wait until the public storm is over. But the former president himself keeps storming about the district attorney's allegations -- which have not yet been formally filed -- and the prosecutor may feel this makes things worse for Trump.
   It has also been suggested that the district attorney believes the case is not as strong as he would like, hence the delay. That has already happened, and perhaps is now happening again.
   The good side is that this gives him more time to gather evidence, and the negative publicity -- much of it propounded by Trump himself -- justifies the delay even more, even as the alleged perpetrator generates more publicity about the issue.
   All this while other prosecutors proceed with their cases in other jurisdictions.
   We live in interesting times.

Mendacity

   Mendacity has long been widespread among politicians, but courtesy prevented news media from emphasizing that reality lest it detract from focusing on issues.
   But when a government official becomes so mendacious so often about so many things, it becomes appropriate to switch from polysyllabic Latin-derived terminology to short, plain English.
   With that in mind, the term "mendacious personality" is no longer applied and is replaced by the single word "liar."
   Time was, that word was not used in broadcasting or in print news media. But when a politician is so blatant, so often and so uncaring -- if not unaware -- about falsehoods, coupled with regular personal attacks and insults on journalists, they have an alternative: They will continue to report accurately and concisely just what the politician says and does.
   Journalists are always selective in the quotes they use, usually as a way to convey the politician's message in a fair and accurate manner. But even when personal attacks are common, journalists will continue to report accurately what the politician says.
   Be careful what you wish for.
   You may get it.

Felony President

   Can a convicted criminal serve as president of the United States of America?
   Easy answer:
   No.
   How about someone who helped or encouraged others to commit offenses against the federal government?
   Same answer:
   No.
   Who said so?
   The Constitution, both in the main body of the document and in an amendment.
   Evidence: Section 4 of Article II in the Constitution says all civil offices are off limits to anyone with such a record.
   "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
   And Amendment XIV, Section 3, says, No person shall hold any office if that person has engaged in insurrection or given aid or comfort to those who have. Unless Congress removes the disability, by a vote of two-thirds in each House.
   Donald Trump is now facing a series of allegations, both state and federal, on several of those charges.
   He has not yet been convicted on any of those allegations, so he is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. But even so, his political believability is suffering as the cases proceed.
   This loss of believability, however much it has been in the past, will adversely affect his candidacy for any future political office. And this is no doubt why he is disputing all the allegations. In addition to his innate tendency to never admit wrong about anything under any circumstances ever.

Rate Hike

   The move by the U.S. Federal Reserve Board to raise interest rates is bad news for people with credit cards, but it's good news for those with savings accounts.
   News media focus on the former, and how a rise in borrowing costs have a negative effect on the economy. But rising prices are also bad for the economy, so the puzzle is how to balance the two.
   The Fed today boosted its target rate for loans made to major institutional borrowers to nearly 5 percent. This means they can borrow from the Fed at that rate and lend to customers at less than 4 percent, and the difference is profit. And, of course, if retail banks pay only 1 percent on their savings accounts, that's an even bigger profit.
   But if financial institutions boost their savings rates to 3 percent, as many already have for longer-term certificates of deposit, customers will save their money rather than pay soaring prices to retailers.
   The rise in the cost of borrowing will hurt those planning to buy a house or a car, but for those who already have those things, it won't matter, especially if they are already paid for. Nor will it affect homeowners with fixed-rate mortgages. Why? Because the fixed interest rate they pay is just that -- fixed for the term of the loan. It won't change.
   What will change, however, is retail sales in general. They will drop, for two reasons: First, prices overall have been soaring. Second, savings rate have risen. Given the two factors, people will reduce spending and save more.
   The consequence, of course, is that as sales decline, the overall economy declines, increasing the danger of an economic recession. That is the problem the Federal Reserve faces whenever it changes interest rates.
   It can lower interest rates to stimulate economic growth, which it did several years ago and its key rate was near zero. But when inflation threatens economic health, the Fed raises its key interest rate as a way to bring inflation under control and encourage a more healthy economy.
   The trick is to balance the two.
   It does not always succeed.

Danger Talk

   Donald Trump escalated his rhetoric, complaining he will be "arrested" on Tuesday for covering up his alleged hush payments to a New York model.
   But that's not the most serious of the charges he may face. There is the issue of an attempt to sway the presidential election results by asking a governor to fix a vote count in his favor.
  That's the second of two state offences. There is also a federal investigation, but no charges have been filed on that level.
   Yet.
   Meanwhile, to distract his followers' attention from the details of the more serious legal issues he is facing, Trump is urging his fans to demonstrate their support in New York City. This raises the issue of a major event in midtown Manhattan, with its crowded streets clogged even more by Trump demonstrators, especially by those who in the past have been violent to extremes.
   Remember January 6? That's the basis for the federal investigation, which is attempting to fix blame for that day's riot on Trump, citing what he said to his followers well before the day of the riot.
   Whether demonstrations in New York become violent is the question bothering officials, even as Trump supporters insist on people's right to show support in public gatherings.
   They admit there have been problems in the past, even as they say there won't be any on Tuesday,
   What partisan leaders say, however, is often different from what followers do. But it can be established that political leaders say one thing even as they know that their followers will hear a different message.
   That's called interpretation, and leaders rely on it as a way to deny fault for any negative results.
   And that is what's known as a copout.

Talk Is Cheap

"King, eh? I didn't vote for him." -- Monty Python

   Sunday morning talk shows are just that.
   Talk.
   This week, the airwaves were full of chatter about Donald Trump's posting that he was being subpoenaed by a Manhattan prosecutor as a way of getting him to talk to a grand jury.
   But neither the prosecutor's office nor Trump's own  representatives would confirm that a subpoena would be or had been given, or even that one was planned.
   So why all the fuss?
   Two possible reasons:
   First, the potential reality that he was being called officially for a grand jury appearance.
   Second, that he was using this as a fund raiser.
   And this suggests  something that is basic to many things he has done in the past to raise money for whatever cause on his mind at the time. Or for himself. Same thing.
   Another demonstration of greed.
   Whether he is indeed called to talk to investigators about the relationship is not an issue. He was invited, but declined the invitation. The next step would be, of course, a subpoena.
   Not a surprise.
   The difference, of course, is that of a subpoena being issued to a president. This is unusual, but not illegal or unconstitutional.
   A president, present or former, is a citizen and subject to law.
   He is not a king, much as he might want to be one.

Mouth Mayhem

   Donald Trump warned that officials would be met with "protests" if they attempted to serve a warrant for him to appear in a New York court over his dispute with an ex-model.
   What would  usually be a routine matter for ordinary citizens may lead to major protests bordering on the criminal -- if not passing that boundary for civil behavior.
   The ex-president's lawyers said he would obey any warrant for him to talk about any hush money allegedly made to the actress.
   Publicly, Trump has denied that charge.
   That's what this case is about. But Trump is making a bigger noise about it, following his habit of denying any and all accusations made against him, legal or otherwise.
   The big danger now is his call to followers that they gather to support him.
   Does this remind you of January 6 events in Washington?
   The question now becomes whether he will obey any court subpena, and what he might say about it at a campaign rally in Texas in the coming week.
   Will New York state officials be able to serve a subpena if the person is in another state?
   If not, will this prevent the person from going to New York, lest he be served with a subpena?
   Suppose he gets the subpena, and then refuses to obey it?
   What will be the reaction of his Secret Service guardians? Will they be forced to choose between their mission to protect a president or to follow the law?
   So many questions.
   But that is an American right. To have questions and to post them against anyone, regardless of any position of power the other person may have.
   A former president may not enjoy being questioned about his actions, and this one clearly does not, but he cannot prevent others from opposing what he does or says, and questioning his motives.
   He can try, of course, and his supporters can resort to violence to ensure his demands are met.
   That's where the law comes in.
   Unless the Constitution and the rule of law is canceled, that's how this group will fail -- again -- in taking over the U.S. government.

Irish Stock Market

If it wasn't for bad luck, we'd have no luck at all - Pug Mahoney

   March 17 is the day to remember the missionary who converted many of the Irish to the new religion spreading in Europe. At the time, however, Patrick was not affiliated with church leaders in Rome, but with a different set of leaders in Britain.
   It was centuries later that Vatican leaders stopped condemning Patrick as unworthy. The people in Ireland had adopted him as a spiritual leader, and efforts to dissuade them had no effect, so the Vatican awarded his spirit sainthood as a way to bring the Irish back into the Roman fold.
   It worked.
   Today's question is about how to get investors back into the fold of true believers in the health of the world economy.
   Is the economy healthy, or will an infection of a few major banks spread throughout the world like a virus and sicken entire national economies?
   After a hectic week of trading, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost nearly 400 points. Whether this selloff continues next week is the big worry among investors.
   But the larger question remains whether the problems faced by a handful of financial institutions are serious enough to endanger the rest of the world.
   Many believe they are. In its  way, economics as interpreted by financiers has become a symptom of business health for a nation and world.
   Similarly, faith in just one religious system is taken as a symptom that will guarantee good spiritual health in an everlasting Otherworld.
   For one thing, true believers insist their way of conducting business is the cure for everlasting economic good health.
   They are sometimes mistaken.
   Likewise, true believers in a single spiritual system have faith that their way is the cure for everlasting life in the Afterworld.
   Where is the Real Truth?
   Maybe we should ask Patrick.

Taking Stock

   Investors around the world are selling stocks in financial companies, amid fears that what happened to a major California-based firm may also happen to other companies and thus spread throughout the entire economy of every industry in every country around the world.
   Sound logical and reasonable?
   At root, that is the thinking -- or is it unthinking fear -- that is driving the selloff in recent days.
   But does Wall Street drive the entire national economy?
   And what does fear -- or the alternate, enthusiasm -- have to do with how people behave?
   The short answer is yes, it does. But does the fear of a few people in a minor sector of society infect the confidence of the entire population?
   Another short answer is yes, it does.
   A better question is this: Does rational thinking always foster the behavior of everyone in the population?
   The short answer to that is no, it does not. People do not always behave rationally, nor do they always think rationally.
   That brings up the question of how to define "rational." And the related word, "rationalize."
   People devise explanations of their behavior to make it sound like they know what they're doing and have good reasons for doing what they do.
   All this comes to mind as investors in relatively small sectors act as if the world depends on their views of what may happen in the world in the near future.
   Or it may not happen.
   Here's a reality check: The number of people directly involved in stock markets around the world is exceedingly small, compared to the total population. Yet this tiny group believes the entire world depends on their opinions -- rational or not -- on how the rest of their nation and the world will behave in the near future.
   Rationalize, rationalize, rationalize.

Thanks But No Thanks

   Donald Trump rejected a New York grand jury invitation to visit and talk about a case local officials were investigating.
   In his view, however, this was just another witch hunt and not worth his time or cooperation. Next step: New York prosecutors will finish presenting their case and the grand jury will decide whether charges are appropriate and, if so, against whom.
   The questions then become:
   Will charges be filed against the ex-president?
   Or against an associate?
   Or both?
   That's the Who question.
   The What has to do with relationships.
   Where is clear: Somewhere in New York.
   When is fuzzy. Probably before he became president, and possibly during his term. Or maybe later.
   Why? Legal  prosecutors are like journalists in this area, since they may never know the answer.

   No matter. The story is there, and the public will soon have an answer, even as we keep in mind that sometimes the answer is No.

Invitation

    A grand jury invited Donald Trump to chat about an issue New York prosecutors are investigating.
   Whether he will accept the invitation is another issue.
   It's not a requirement, which is what a subpena is, so he doesn't have to accept the invitation, but it does mean the probe is about something he may know something about, possibly even something related to his own doings.
   If he rejects the invitation, the grand jury will proceed with its probe, and when ready, the jury will recommend action.
   Or not.
   Or the New York law staff will take action.
   Or not.
   The term subpena, by the way, translates from the Latinized legalistic jargon "under penalty," so it differs from "invitation," a very different term.
   So what's it all about, Alfie?
   Lawyers often pressure people with such jargon as, "If you don't talk, that means you have something to hide." But whether that person is indeed hiding something is for prosecutors to prove, since the person is "presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law," as the saying goes.
   In short, the grand jury invited Trump to visit and to talk about something. It's a valid assumption to say it is somehow related to something Trump knows about.
   It's not completely fair to say it has something to do with something he said or did.
   How's that for a vague copout?
   Maybe it has nothing to do with his activities.
   Then again, maybe it does.
   Stay tuned.

Freedom From the Press

   The Fox company has become a propaganda network for the Republican Party.
   Or should the name be the Repo Potty? That's only fair, since its members use the term Democrat (not Democratic) Party for their opposition. No matter. It's legal in America to make jokes about your opposition. Unless you cross the line into libel.
   In a free society, journalists watch what people do and listen to what they say, and report their observations to the general public.
  Government, however, monitors these reports and tries to persuade journalists to bend their coverage in government's favor. Political parties do the same.
   Public officials do this quietly, and sometimes succeed, becoming "anonymous sources," especially when they deal with controversial issues. This can be beneficial for both sides. Reporters get the story, and officials remain anonymous.
   If they choose.
   But they cannot prevent a reporter from talking to the opposition and writing about each side.
   Nevertheless, they try.
   If they cannot do it legally or even forcibly, they try through friendship and political alliance. And if political alliance can block journalists from accurate reporting of an issue, that becomes the goal.
   However, that quickly crosses the line into propaganda, and cannot be considered journalistic reporting.
   In effect, that is what has happened at the Fox company, so much so that it can no longer be legitimately be called a "news" network.
   And this explains why so many of their top-rated journalists have left the company.