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.

Speech Matters

   Proper pronunciation is a social judgment, not linguistic.
   Dictionaries began as a way for people to learn diction, not definitions. The practice began when wealthy Scottish merchants moved to London  and wanted to fit in with members of the less wealthy but more prestigious society groups known as the upper class.
   So books were published listing not only the meanings of words, but the pronunciations favored by the dominant social group.
   That attitude continues today, as a dominant social group maintains that the pronunciation they favor is "better" that any other.
   On an international scale, consider this: Which is better, Spanish as spoken in Madrid or in Barcelona? (That dispute began in the days of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella. Each spoke a different dialect, but the queen's manner of speaking became standard. An arbitrary judgment.)

  Which is better, the dialect spoken in Mexico or the one most popular in Puerto Rico? Is the Portuguese spoken in Brazil better than the dialect spoken in Portugal?
   Is the dialect of English spoken in London better than that spoken in Chicago or New York? If so, which part of London, or which part of New York? Or Australia, or New Zealand? Or Glasgow or Dublin? By a president or a monarch?
   In short, all dialects are equal. They all enable their speakers to communicate which each other effectively. To say that some dialects are "better" than others is a social judgment, not linguistic.
   Similarly, the term "upper class" is a social judgment, not linguistic. The goal is to be understood, not to prove the speaker is a "better person."

Gun Logic

Premise:  Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
Anti-premise: People use guns to kill people.
Conclusion: Fewer guns means fewer killings.

   Some politicians say, "Our thoughts and prayers are with you."
   Families of victims respond, "Thoughts and prayers are no defense against automatic rifles."

   Other politicians say: "In this time of grieving, now is not the time to talk about gun control."
   Survivors answer: "When will it be time? How many children must die before the laws are changed?"

   In a year when there is a mass shooting with multiple deaths every day -- more than 200 so far this year -- if we must wait until the crisis is over, the time to talk about gun control will never come.
   Advocates of the Second Amendment to the American Constitution ignore the first phrase of that amendment, which cites "A well regulated militia" as being "essential to the security of a free state."
   They also ignore the existence of local police, county sheriffs, state police, National Guard units (read: militia), Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard and Air Force personnel when they claim the need for a home arsenal of automatic weapons.
   "We need guns to protect against invasion," they insist.
   From where, Canada? Do farmers in Iowa need guns for protection against newcomers seeking jobs because there is no work in their home countries, as well as corrupt governments and constant war with criminal gangs?
   In populated areas, police respond within minutes to warnings of active shooters at schools and shopping centers. But some folks claim that if teachers and store clerks also had weapons, they could protect students and shoppers from invaders.
   But if these so-called invaders did not have an arsenal of numerous weapons -- semi-automatic rifles as well as pistols -- there would be no need for armed security forces to protect teachers and children.
   In short, more guns means more killing. Conversely, fewer guns will mean fewer deaths.
   That is the reality in other nations with a similar English-speaking cultural history -- Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain and Ireland. They all have strict gun control laws, and therefore there are fewer mass shootings and killings.
   This is true both numerically and in terms of guns and killings per capita.
   In America, there are more guns than there are people.
   Fewer guns will mean fewer killings.
   This year alone, there have been more than 200 mass shootings in America, and it's only the middle of May. That includes two in Texas in a single week recently. In one incident, five people were slain at a private home, and in another, eight in a shopping mall. By definition, a mass shooting is an incident in which four or more people are killed or wounded.
   There are an estimated 390 million guns in private hands in America. That number is larger than the total population. In other words, there are more guns in America than there are people.
   And people wonder why there are so many gun-related deaths in America.

Rate Hikes

   Good news and bad news.
   News media filled their time slots and print space with negative reports about the dangers and problems of interest rate hikes as the Federal Reserve boosted its target rate for the tenth time in a year.
   So while it's true that spenders using credit cards will pay more, it's also true that savers will earn more. The Fed announced that its target rate for money it lends to major financial institutions will now be 5 percent, that means bank borrowers will now pay more. Already, credit card users pay as much as 20 percent yearly on their unpaid bills.
   A year ago, savings account interest rates were near zero. That meant it was not worthwhile to save money. Better to spend it and enjoy stuff so you would not have to pay double-digit interest rates on your credit card billing.
   Now, however, savings account rates are above 3 percent, and the new change will mean savers will soon see interest rates of 4 percent or more. Compare that to the rate of zero a year or so ago, and it's clear that people will spend less and save more.
   As people spend less, the overall economy will recede. And because it has been so overly active recently, it's time for the economy to take a break.
   Whether that break period will be overly harmful is another issue.
   Every economy moves in cycles. That's a fancy word for ups and down. Moving up too fast can be harmful, as rising prices outpace people's ability to pay them. Fall down too fast is also harmful, because it puts people out of work and they cannot afford to buy food or pay rent.
   Home owners escape some of that, because with a fixed rate mortgage, the monthly payment cannot change. And if the house is fully paid for, a rise in mortgage interest rates is not relevant.
   By the way, the home ownership rate in America is now about 66 percent, and that has not changed substantially in years. The current mortgage rate applies only to new buyers. A bigger concern is the soaring price of buying a home.
   Bottom line for consumers: Interest rates for buyers is rising, and that hurts. But interest rates for savers is also rising, and that helps.

Beltane

Summer is a-comin' in,
Loudly sing cu-cu.

   So sing the birds as warm weather becomes daily, flowers and trees show their signs of rebirth, and people dance around their Maypoles  to celebrate the new season of growth, partnership and fertility.
   Celebration of the new season goes back many centuries, and is  remembered in different ways by many cultures.
   Druids remember this day as Beltane, the festival of spring, one of eight special days of the year, and one of the few that were not adopted and transformed by the spiritual tradition that spread to Europe nearly two thousand years ago. Beltane is still honored, however, only now the celebration is called May Day.
   Labor unions in Europe also observe this day as important to the movement to protect worker rights. This was true in America also, until after the Haymarket Riots in Chicago in 1886. This led the federal government to shift Labor Day to September. However, 66 other countries still celebrate Labor Day on May 1.
   As for using "Mayday" as a call for help, that began in 1923, when an aeronautical expert in London was asked to devise a term that pilots in both England and France could use.
   Engineer Fred Mockford offered the French phrase "M'aidez" (pronounced "Mayday") which means "help me."

   By the way, the verse cited in the opening is from an Old English song, one of the few melodies from those times still known to scholars.

   This is the original: Sumer is icumin in, llude sing cucu.