Ethnic Bias

   "Us versus them" has long been a source of conflict among people. Romans dismissed the language of their opponents as merely babble, spoken by people they called barbarians. Even today, some scholars claim the source of the word was because Romans heard the speech as "bar-bar-bar," ignoring or not knowing the word was used because the men had beards. From that, we get the modern word "barber," someone who trims facial hair. The Latin and modern Italian word for beard is barba, so by that "logic," those who trim facial hair are barbarians.
   When the Normans invaded Britain and suppressed the Anglo-Saxons after the year 1066, their language was used only by those the conquerors called the "lower class." The royal court and the legal system used Latin-derived French terms, since they were in charge, leaving plain Anglo-Saxon to those they labeled the "common people."
   And when the conquerors gathered to formulate laws, they met in a place they called Parliament, which in French means "talking place."
   The tradition of using French or Latin derived terms for legal issues and for medical terminology remains in America, and the use of Anglo-Saxon terms is criticized, especially when referring to basic bodily functions.
   Describing human waste requires the use of a French or Latin word -- feces -- not the plain English term that begins with the letter s. And bisexual love activity is referred to using the Latin-derived term "conjugal," which simply means "join together." Using the Anglo-Saxon f-word is deemed impolite.
   So if you want to sound highly educated and intellectual, use as many French or Latin derived polysyllabic terminology (long words) as you can. But if being easily understood is more important, use plain English words. They're shorter and easier to pronounce.

   Even so, politeness dictates that some words are not (yet) acceptable in social groups.

Gender Bias

   Masculinity seems more important to many Americans than experience, and this applies to activities ranging from sports to business and politics.
   Things are better than they were a hundred years ago, when women in many states could not vote and many jobs were not open to them. Similar biases applied to many ethnic groups.
   Change began around that time, when a Constitutional amendment prohibited bias against women as voters, but bias continued against many other groups.
   Perhaps equally important in bringing change was economics. Telephone companies initially hired only young men as operators to assist customers in making calls, but three factors led them to hire women instead.
   One was the reality that women were -- and are -- more courteous. Second, their voices tend to be of a higher pitch, and were more easily understandable via the frequencies used. And the third was wages, which were -- and often still are -- lower for women.
   Is all of this changing? Yes, but a more important issue is whether they are changing as quickly as they should.
   America now has a woman vice president, and half the justices of the Supreme Court are women. Increasingly, women now serve in many state and federal elective and administrative offices, compared to the few in the years before the Second World War.
   Many historians say that was when and why things changed. Men went into the military, which meant women filled the jobs they left behind. When the men returned home, they expected to take their jobs back and the women would go back to their household and child-raising duties.
   But women had come to enjoy their independence and responsibilities, and resisted the demand that they simply do as they were told. Times have changed, but whether attitudes have changed sufficiently is another issue.
   All this has to do with gender bias. Ethnic and color biases have also changed somewhat, but they remain problems that society must deal with.

Age vs Maturity

   You're only young once,
   But you can be immature forever. -- Pug Mahoney

   For all the talk about President Joe Biden's age and whether that diminishes his ability to function, it's helpful to consider the maturity of other government officials.
   Ronald Reagan served two terms as president, and at the time was the oldest to have served in the White House. Near the end of his term in office, he began to show symptoms of what would later be called early signs of Alzheimer's disease, and there were suggestions that his mental capacity had diminished.
   Reagan was 69 years of age when he took office in 1981. By comparison, Donald Trump was 70 when he took office. Joe Biden was 78 when he began his presidency.
   In the Senate, there are eight elected officials who have reached and passed the age of 80. In the House, there are 12 Representatives above the 80 year mark, including one at 86 and three at the age of 85.
   On the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas is the oldest justice at 74, and Samuel Alito is 72. Sonia Sotomayor is 68, and Chief Justice John Roberts is 67. Elena Kagan is 62, Brett Kavanaugh, 57, Neil Gorsuch, 54, Ketanji Brown Jackson, 51, and Amy Coney Barrett, 50.
   Other members have served on the court while being in their 80s. There is no mandatory retirement age, and many have remained on judicial duty until their deaths.
   The argument now being spread by opponents of President Biden is that he is no longer suited to be in that office because of his age. They ignore the reality that Trump, his possible opponent, is also on that mark.
   The only other major element to consider when voting for a political candidate is his or her experience in government.
   Before being elected president, Donald Trump had none. By comparison, Joe Biden had served in the House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, and as vice president under Barack Obama.
   Whether either was good at the job is for voters to consider.
 

Veep Beep

   Watch for Tucker Carlson to be Donald Trump's partner in the coming election cycle, perhaps even as his choice to be his vice presidential partner.
   Evidence? None.
   But Carlson's sudden departure from the Fox "News" network as the company faces a series of financial penalties for his miscalling of the former president's activities may well have played a major role in the decision to fire Carlson.
   The Fox company lost a major court decision last week, and is likely to lose several more before the summer is out. Carlson has been a major supporter of Trump, and his nightly talk show had a very large following of Trumpistas.
   In addition, the Fox company's stock value tumbled on Wall Street as the news spread that Carlson would no longer be affiliated with the company.
   Effective immediately.
   The report of Carlson leaving Fox made news broadcasts on other news networks, including the BBC's international news program.
   Bottom line: Fox may well modify its approach to handling news commentaries because of the multiple financial penalties for its severe negativity against those who do not support Donald Trump.
   In its court hearing, the network tried to claim the journalistic defense of covering both sides of any news story. The court denied that defense, largely because Fox repeatedly broadcast aspects of the Trump controversy that it knew were false, but it continued to publicize those aspects as true despite knowing they were false.
   So when will Trump officially adopt Carlson as his political partner?
   Stay tuned.

King of Denial

   The  term "woke" has become widely popular among conservatives in America to criticize those who refer to racism as a problem that must be dealt with. Liberals insist that the subject be taught in schools so young people become aware of the problem and look for ways to deal with it.
   However, many conservatives deny that such bias exists. Left unsaid is the notion that the word may be appropriate, and therefore they attack use of the word "woke" without bothering to explain its meaning.
   Here's a bit of background:
   The term was coined in Harlem during the Depression Era when young people went to find jobs in other areas of New York City. Many were not fully aware of the bias they were likely to encounter, so when they returned home they "woke" to the reality.
   Recently, conservative commentators and political leaders began using the word to attack those who want to end such bias. In effect, they deny that bias exists.
   This leads commentator Pug Mahoney to call it the "pharaoh syndrome" -- king of denial.   

News Blitz

   World news organizations are covering in depth the Fox admission that it reported stories about the 2020 presidential election results that were false.
   Fox itself, however, did not carry any commentary or analysis of its own fault in the controversy. Other than to say that an agreement had been reached to settle the lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems.
   Meanwhile, other challenges are moving through the courts in several states, and if they are as successful as the Dominion case, the result could be a bankruptcy filing.
   Will that happen? Court decisions over time will tell. While we wait, other news outlets fill their pages and time slots with reports on the issues.
   So why aren't the other news outlets being sued, some ask, because they too are carrying the false allegations.
   Good question. The answer is because these news outlets are carrying both sides of the issue, and emphasizing that the allegations are false. That policy is unlike the Fox folks, who talk only one side -- the fake side.
   The bigger problem, however, remains that of responsibility for reporting truth. It's one thing to report allegations, but doing so requires reporting the opposing side of any issue, and reporting a balance of fact and opinion.
   Broadcasting only one side of an issue and letting advertisers and their customers dictate how to handle a news story is poor journalism.
   And that becomes propaganda.

Reckless Disregard

   One of the most important challenges to independent journalism was settled when the Fox Corp. agreed to pay Dominion Voting Systems more than $750 million for its consistent allegations that the voting machine company tampered with poll results to help Joe Biden win the 2020 presidential election.
   Key to the legal dispute was not that Fox News merely made a mistake in reporting the allegation that voting results were tampered with. Rather, that Fox commentators repeatedly said the election was rigged, when they knew there was virtually no evidence that it was.
   This was the first of a dozen cases challenging Fox for saying the election was rigged. The settlement is as important in journalism law as the case of New York Times vs. Sullivan, wherein a Southern politician sued the newspaper for printing what he claimed was an error.
   The defense responded that the error was in an ad, and therefore the news department was not responsible for it. Moreover, the ad was designed and produced by the ad buyer, and not by New York Times staff.
   The ruling standard set by the Supreme Court was that the allegation be not only false, but that it be printed with "reckless disregard" for truth.
   In the current case, emails sent by Fox executives and talk show hosts showed that they knew the allegations were false, and that reporting that falsity meant that their revenues declined.
   Money became more important than truth.
   Similar issues are at play in a dozen more legal cases against Fox.
   Meanwhile, the network is not reporting on the case or its repercussions, even as other broadcasters continue to explain the issues and the upcoming challenges.
  In doing so, they detail not only the problem, but the views of each side. This is their right -- and their obligation -- under the Constitutional guarantee of press freedom.

Gun Logic

   "We don't need  gun control. We need crime control," according to Mike Pence, former vice president.
   Tell that to the families of the family of the young woman who was killed for the "crime" of being lost on a rural highway in New York State.
   "Guns don't kill people. People kill people," says the National Rifle Association.
   Tell that to the mothers who sent their children to a first grade classroom and died when a gun carrier broke into the school building.
   Or to the teenager who made the mistake of being two blocks away from his destination and knocked on the door of a home with a similar address.
   This is what happens when an honest mistake becomes a fatal mistake.
   A common excuse is that the shooter "thought they were robbers or thieves or invaders." But what can excuse the gun carrier who shoots open a school door and kills children?
   For years, the National Rifle Association has pushed the claim that guns are not the problem, but that people are the problem.
   By that logic, perhaps there should be fewer people. That way, there would be fewer gun deaths. Evidence could be cited that there are fewer people in Canada, and since there are fewer gun deaths, that proves that guns are not the problem.
   But that argument topples in the reality that the number of guns per thousand people in Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand is far lower than a similar statistic for the U.S. Put another way, there are more guns in America than there are people.
   So while it may be a true statement that guns don't kill people; people kill people, that leaves out the reality that people use guns to kill other people.
   Guns on their own cannot kill anybody.
   As for those who have long claimed that American individuals need guns for protection in case of a foreign invasion, one must ask: From where, Canada?
   Clearly these gun advocates do not trust local police, county police, state police, or military members of the U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Air Force, and the state supervised National Guard.
   Individual whackos with AR-15 style machine guns are not typically members of a "well regulated militia," and therefore are not necessary to the security of a free state. But each state does have the right to have its "well regulated militia" keep and bear arms.
   Those who kill multiples of innocent children with automatic weapons are not members of a well regulated militia.
   As for Amendment IV, which guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their homes, this make no mention of guns. Rather, it requires that legal warrants be issued on probable cause.

Blame Game

   Donald Trump's backers blame the Manhattan prosecutor for indicting the ex-president over the issue of his alleged affair.

   Fact check: Prosecutors don't indict anyone.

   They present evidence to a grand jury of more than 20 members, who then vote as to whether there is enough evidence to bring formal charges. That takes 12 votes authorizing the prosecutor to proceed.

   In short, the grand jury indicts, not the prosecutor.

   But Republicans claim in TV interviews that the prosecutor indicted Trump. This includes Mike Pence, a trained lawyer and former vice president. He was corrected by CNN's Wolf Blitzer, anchor for a daily network news program.

   One could say it was an oversight. But when the same claim is made repeatedly by others on the same political team, this is evidence that it is not an oversight, but a plan. Attack the prosecutor. In this case, the prosecutor happens to be a Democrat.

   Meanwhile, the accused perpetrator himself has repeatedly criticized the judge who will hear the case.

   Ask any legal practitioner, and the reply will be that this is not smart. And if it is done in the courtroom during a hearing on the issue, it borders on the downright stupid.

   Observers will say this would not be the first time the border has been crossed.