Danger to Freedom

   It's odd that the word "liberal" is construed as "dangerous" by many political types. It's especially odd because the word is derived from the Latin term "liber," meaning "free." That's the same source that gives us the term "liberty."
   Maybe that's the reason. Many in the opposite political range perceive free people as a danger to their control of society.
   And that, at the bottom line, is the issue: Control.
   Another term widely used these days is the word "radical." Simply put, it means "out of the ordinary."
   The good side, however, is that commentators on each side of any political issue can actually talk about it. But if one side becomes so dominant that they can criminalize and imprison anyone who disagrees, this free nation has a problem.
   That has happened in other nations, and unless we are careful, it will complete its happening here.
   Meanwhile, it's useful to consider the origin of the words "liberal" and "conservative," especially when talking about politicians.
   "Liberal" is derived from the Latin base and it means "free," while "conservative" means "conserve," or "don't change."
   It comes down to current attitudes toward the definitions. To the newbies, "conservative" means "we're right," and therefore "liberal" means "they're wrong." Along with that is the political and economic policy that says "don't change" because "we benefit from the system."
   But what of others who do not benefit from the dominant system? (By the way, the word "dominant" comes from the same Latin root "domine," which translates as "lord.")
   "That's just the way things are," is the reply from conservatives. "That's no reason to change."
   In a larger sense, that's why labor unions formed. By their definition, workers were being misused and abused because of greed among the owners.
   By that perception, if owners had treated workers fairly and paid them reasonably, there would have been no need for labor to unite and demand fair treatment as well as reasonable pay. By definition, that means getting paid enough to live on.
   Now we see a return to those days when those in prominent positions -- government and business -- insist that their way is the "right way" and all other should do as they're told.
   Obey their betters.
   That went out in the previous century.
   Or did it? Some corporate and political types want a return to those days, when a few controlled the many.
   Royalty was banished from America in 1789
   At least, nominally. The attitude, however, remains among many.

Foreign Trade 101

    The Republican candidate for president wants to raise taxes on imports as a way to protect American business and manufacturing.
   But.
   Basic principle of business is that when costs go up, retail prices go up to cover the increase. That applies equally to foreign trade, the only difference being that the hike is called a tariff, not a sales tax. And like any other boost, the increase is passed on to customers in the form of a higher price.
   So Donald Trump's insistence that boosting tariffs will protect American business shows ignorance of the basic economic principle that when costs rise, so do prices as the boost is passed on to retail customers.
   The reality is that raising import taxes will not protect domestic manufacturers, but only boost prices for consumers.
   Besides, what of products that are not made in the U.S., such as cocoa beans, the main ingredient of chocolate?
   Or any number of other products made in other countries where costs are lower and the difference is passed on to consumers in the form of lower retail prices.
   Clearly, any boost in tariffs (import taxes) is carried forward to a hike in the retail price to consumers, just as a higher minimum wage is incorporated into a boost in the final sales price.
   Be careful what you wish for. You may get it. That's especially true for politicians who call for higher tariffs as a way to reduce imports.
   It doesn't happen. What does happen is that the increase is passed on to consumers.
   Economics 101.

Heritage Surprise

    Christopher Columbus was not Italian, according to recent research. Rather, he was of the Sephardic Jewish tradition in Spain, and traveled westward to find a new route to the homeland of his people as well as for Spanish Muslims.
   So says a new study by Spanish researchers.
   The goal was to evade the Spanish Inquisition, which was at its height in 1492, under the leadership of Ferdinand and Isabella, the new royalty in Spain.
   (Didn't expect that, did you? But nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.)
   The plan formulated was to transfer Jews and Muslims out of Spain and back to their traditional homeland in the Middle East. That was backed up by the knowledge that the world was round, and taking the westward route would bypass territory controlled by Roman Catholics in Italy. This was supported by the belief that the planet was small enough to enable a roundabout route to the homeland.
   This belief supported the explorer's belief that India as part of his voyage, and that's why the people in the Americas are called "Indians."
   The Spanish government plan, led by Ferdinand and Isabella, was to persuade all Jewish and Muslim people in Spain at the time to either convert to Christianity or face deportation. But rather than send the deportees across the Mediterranean to their traditional homeland in the Middle East, the suggestion was to ship them westward and around the globe. It was known at the time that the world was indeed round, but that it was much smaller. That's why, when Columbus arrived in the Americas, he thought had arrived in India, and called the people he encountered "Indians."
   Columbus himself was not Italian, as many now believe, but of the Sephardic Jewish tradition. His goal was to evade the Spanish Inquisition, which was at its height in 1492, under the leadership of Ferdinand and Isabella.
   The tradition of Italian-Americans to honor Columbus as the explorer who discovered America dates back only to the late 19th Century in New York City, when Italian-Americans were under severe discrimination, and a priest came up with the suggestion that the explorer was Italian, and therefore newcomers to America would honor him and celebrate their right to be here.
   At the time, bias against those of Italian heritage was as strong as earlier bias against Irish newcomers. Similar bigotry existed in America later against Japanese American citizens as World War II began, and even now against those of the Hispanic tradition who come the U.S. seeking jobs and security.
   Oddly, those who are the loudest in their condemnation of newcomers are themselves first-generation descendants of those who come to America seeking opportunity.
   "Send me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

Licentious

   Donald Trump now claims the FCC should take away CBS Television's license for broadcasting an interview with Kamala Harris on its weekly program, "60 Minutes."
   Point one: He rejected an interview request from the same program executives.
   Point two: Such a suspension would violate the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment guarantee of a free press. (The FCC has refuted the demand.)
   Point three: If a candidate can succeed in such a demand, so also could a President.
   Point four: If government can control TV media, it could also control print media.
   Point five: If this happens, then the U.S. is no longer a democracy, but a dictatorship.
   Point six: Perhaps this is just what this political leader wants.

   Such a thing has already happened in other countries.

Warning

   Commentators talk often about politicians. But does anyone listen?
   Therein lies the question. Whether 'tis wiser in the mind to suffer the verbal slings and arrows of outrageous politicians or to ignore them.
   Traditionally, many folks say violence is not the answer. But others say yes, it is, citing the need to get the attention of small-minded politicians. (There's another kind?)
   Still others deny that, insisting that such a tactic only leads to pain and injury, both physical and emotional.
   Where's the answer? Where's the game? If we don't play the game, do we suffer shame?
   But like someone once said, if you want to tell 'em something, you gotta get their attention first.
   However, aggressive talking is one thing. Violence is something else, and is not civil.
 

PR Guideline

"Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel."

   Back in the day, that warning applied to editors and publishers of print media. Today, it adds broadcasting to the list.
   Donald Trump once threatened to take away the broadcast license of any TV network that criticized him.
   Problem: TV networks, especially cable affiliated units, don't have broadcast licenses. Why? Because they don't broadcast. Cable transmission is not broadcasting.
   Secondly, shutting down a news operation for its negative reports violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
   Perhaps a president could get around that by claiming the Constitution specifies that Congress "shall make no law abridging freedom of the press."
   That means it does not apply to a President, they insist. However, that implies that a President is a firm ruler who dictates who can do what.
   Note the term "dictate."
   An extreme warning? Yes, but the last time we had a ruler bent on dictating who can do what, the consequence was a rebellion.
   The year was 1776.