"It happened during his reign." -- Donald J. Trump
"Let my father rule." -- Tricia Nixon
Presidents do not reign. Neither do they rule.
Words convey messages. Sometimes these messages are intended, and sometimes they reveal what the speaker really thinks.
Republican candidate Donald J. Trump may not have intended to portray the White House as a royal palace, and he may not have consciously intended to equate the presidency with a monarchy.
Nonetheless, when he said during a televised interview that the 9/11 attack happened while George W. Bush was President, implying that Bush was somehow responsible for it, Trump did say that the disaster "happened during his reign."
And when President Richard Nixon was being severely criticized, daughter Tricia did say that the critics should leave him alone and let him "rule."
For Trump to use a verb like "reign" shows a deep-seated belief that as President, he would hold absolute power, and no one should dare to contradict or disagree with him in any way, about any thing, in any detail, ever.
Such an attitude may work in his corporate world, where as chief executive he holds all power. It does not, cannot, and should not operate in the political and governmental setting that is America. Trump has shown an intolerance for criticism before, most notably when it comes from journalists who ask penetrating questions, as well as from opposing candidates who criticize him. And instead of responding to the question or criticism, he resorts to abuse, insult and vilification. That's no way to run a campaign or a government. To believe otherwise is a delusion.
To accept the delusions of such a candidate endangers the values of a free society.
To blame the problems of a nation on members of a minority group is a strategy that has been used before. Inevitably, it led to disaster and tyranny.
It can't happen here, you say?
Oh, but it can, and very nearly did. Twice. And not the fictional account in the book by Sinclair Lewis.
It happened first in the 1930s, while Franklin D. Roosevelt was President, and a cabal of corporate titans plotted a military coup. See "The Plot To Seize The White House," by Jules Archer.
A similar action nearly happened when Richard M. Nixon was President and he wanted to activate the military to strengthen his hold on power. Fortunately, presidential advisor Henry Kissinger intervened to stop the move.
So despite the politicians' standard defense of "What I really meant was ..." it remains true that we know what was said, and words carry the true meanings of what the speaker believes.
Sunday, October 18, 2015
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Days of Whine and Poseurs
The economic recovery is muddling, the nation's fiscal year has started with no final budget in place, and the U.S. Treasury is about to run out of cash.
Result: Government payments -- including retirement and health benefits, among other things -- will stop in mid-November, lack of a budget will shut down the government in mid-December, and a hesitant economy will stumble and fall, if not crash entirely.
Or, as a Republican President once said, "We're in deep doo-doo."
Consider these elements of a coming crisis:
-- Congress failed to approve a new federal budget as the new fiscal year began October 1, and instead passed a temporary measure to keep the government operating until mid-December.
-- The Congressional Budget Office said the Treasury's cash balance will be depleted by mid-November unless the debt ceiling is raised, thus enabling it to issue more securities, borrowing additional cash. Otherwise, there will be payment delays, "a default on the government's debt obligations, or both."
-- The Federal Reserve Board's survey of conditions nationwide noted "modest expansion" in economic activity from mid-August through early October, manufacturing "turned in a mixed but generally weaker performance" with some districts "noting adverse effects from the energy sector." However, the Fed noted in its Beige Book summary report, "manufacturing conditions were generally sluggish." In addition, wage growth was subdued, despite some reports of labor shortages. Prices were "contained," the Fed noted, which would mean little inflation. That's a sort of good news, knowing that prices are not rising faster than wages. That's no consolation, however, to those without a job.
And for those receiving pension benefits, there's a potential halt to those payments. The Treasury typically forwards money to trust funds that administer programs like the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund and the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund on June 30 and December 31. In the past year, the CBO noted, "payments due on each of those dates has amounted to about $70 billion." But because of a continuing impasse over the debt ceiling, those payments were not made last June, CBO said. And unless the ceiling is lifted again, no payments to these programs will be made in December.
Also in danger will be funding for other government-sponsored benefits programs, such as Social Security retirement benefits, military retiree payments as well as current salaries for the military and other government employees. If the Treasury runs out of cash and is unable to meet its financial obligations, the threat of a government shutdown becomes increasingly real, and could well happen just as the holiday season begins.
Can the crisis be stopped? Yes, but only if a recalcitrant Congress passes a permanent budget and raises the debt ceiling, enabling the government to pay its bills.
Otherwise, the government must close up shop (again), leaving millions out of work, security and transportation networks without safety supervision, health and pension benefits suspended, and a general economic decline, if not disaster.
Who can avert the crisis? Congress. Will it? One can only hope. Brinksmanship has failed in the past, as political radicals in Congress try to blame everything on the Administration for its own failure to act.
Happy Holidays.
Result: Government payments -- including retirement and health benefits, among other things -- will stop in mid-November, lack of a budget will shut down the government in mid-December, and a hesitant economy will stumble and fall, if not crash entirely.
Or, as a Republican President once said, "We're in deep doo-doo."
Consider these elements of a coming crisis:
-- Congress failed to approve a new federal budget as the new fiscal year began October 1, and instead passed a temporary measure to keep the government operating until mid-December.
-- The Congressional Budget Office said the Treasury's cash balance will be depleted by mid-November unless the debt ceiling is raised, thus enabling it to issue more securities, borrowing additional cash. Otherwise, there will be payment delays, "a default on the government's debt obligations, or both."
-- The Federal Reserve Board's survey of conditions nationwide noted "modest expansion" in economic activity from mid-August through early October, manufacturing "turned in a mixed but generally weaker performance" with some districts "noting adverse effects from the energy sector." However, the Fed noted in its Beige Book summary report, "manufacturing conditions were generally sluggish." In addition, wage growth was subdued, despite some reports of labor shortages. Prices were "contained," the Fed noted, which would mean little inflation. That's a sort of good news, knowing that prices are not rising faster than wages. That's no consolation, however, to those without a job.
And for those receiving pension benefits, there's a potential halt to those payments. The Treasury typically forwards money to trust funds that administer programs like the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund and the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund on June 30 and December 31. In the past year, the CBO noted, "payments due on each of those dates has amounted to about $70 billion." But because of a continuing impasse over the debt ceiling, those payments were not made last June, CBO said. And unless the ceiling is lifted again, no payments to these programs will be made in December.
Also in danger will be funding for other government-sponsored benefits programs, such as Social Security retirement benefits, military retiree payments as well as current salaries for the military and other government employees. If the Treasury runs out of cash and is unable to meet its financial obligations, the threat of a government shutdown becomes increasingly real, and could well happen just as the holiday season begins.
Can the crisis be stopped? Yes, but only if a recalcitrant Congress passes a permanent budget and raises the debt ceiling, enabling the government to pay its bills.
Otherwise, the government must close up shop (again), leaving millions out of work, security and transportation networks without safety supervision, health and pension benefits suspended, and a general economic decline, if not disaster.
Who can avert the crisis? Congress. Will it? One can only hope. Brinksmanship has failed in the past, as political radicals in Congress try to blame everything on the Administration for its own failure to act.
Happy Holidays.
Friday, October 9, 2015
Global Warning
"No man is an island." -- John Milton
"No country can go it alone" in a time of international economic challenges. -- Christine Lagarde, IMF Managing Director
The U.S. economy may be healthy now and may help support other nations in the Americas, but globally, growth is "modest and uneven," and these "uncertain conditions" could stunt U.S. economic growth. That's a summary forecast put out by both the International Monetary Fund and the Federal Reserve Board this week.
The IMF Friday echoed a report by the Fed's Open Market Committee Thursday, noting that IMF member nations are facing "a rapidly changing and uncertain world."
The forecast on growth in the Western Hemisphere comes just one day after the U.S. Fed shelved its plan to end its stimulus program, citing "uncertain conditions" around the world that likely would impact the U.S.
In Latin America and the Caribbean, the region is dealing with "a protracted slowdown" and the Canadian economy is losing momentum, the IMF said.
Moreover, China's expected slowdown as it moves to rebalance its growth is creating "spillovers," according to the IMF, and all these changes "pose challenges, particularly for emerging and low-income developing countries," whose prospects have dwindled most.
In a press briefing, IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde emphasized that nations must "watch out for spillovers," as their central banks consider their policy decisions. The world economy is in transition, she added, and these changes must be managed carefully.
Moreover, "international cooperation is key," Lagarde said, whether the challenges are economic spillovers, the refugee crisis, international development or climate change, "no country can go it alone."
"No country can go it alone" in a time of international economic challenges. -- Christine Lagarde, IMF Managing Director
The U.S. economy may be healthy now and may help support other nations in the Americas, but globally, growth is "modest and uneven," and these "uncertain conditions" could stunt U.S. economic growth. That's a summary forecast put out by both the International Monetary Fund and the Federal Reserve Board this week.
The IMF Friday echoed a report by the Fed's Open Market Committee Thursday, noting that IMF member nations are facing "a rapidly changing and uncertain world."
The forecast on growth in the Western Hemisphere comes just one day after the U.S. Fed shelved its plan to end its stimulus program, citing "uncertain conditions" around the world that likely would impact the U.S.
In Latin America and the Caribbean, the region is dealing with "a protracted slowdown" and the Canadian economy is losing momentum, the IMF said.
Moreover, China's expected slowdown as it moves to rebalance its growth is creating "spillovers," according to the IMF, and all these changes "pose challenges, particularly for emerging and low-income developing countries," whose prospects have dwindled most.
In a press briefing, IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde emphasized that nations must "watch out for spillovers," as their central banks consider their policy decisions. The world economy is in transition, she added, and these changes must be managed carefully.
Moreover, "international cooperation is key," Lagarde said, whether the challenges are economic spillovers, the refugee crisis, international development or climate change, "no country can go it alone."
Thursday, October 8, 2015
Waiting for Better News
Citing "greater uncertainty" in the global economy, the U.S. Federal Reserve shelved once again any plan to boost interest rates, with the "probabilities" for any action little changed through next January.
Moreover, the economic forecast prepared for the mid-September meeting was "a little weaker" than the staff's forecast in July, and economic downturns elsewhere, especially in China, were likely to affect U.S. growth potential. Nonetheless, members of the Fed's Open Market Committee agreed that risks to the U.S. are "nearly balanced," and the economy would "most likely continue to expand at a moderate pace."
Bottom line: The Fed will maintain its target interest range for federal funds at zero to 1/4 percent. How long? Even after conditions improve to their desired level, the Fed "may, for some time," keep interest rates low.
All things considered, don't look for a boost until spring.
Moreover, the economic forecast prepared for the mid-September meeting was "a little weaker" than the staff's forecast in July, and economic downturns elsewhere, especially in China, were likely to affect U.S. growth potential. Nonetheless, members of the Fed's Open Market Committee agreed that risks to the U.S. are "nearly balanced," and the economy would "most likely continue to expand at a moderate pace."
Bottom line: The Fed will maintain its target interest range for federal funds at zero to 1/4 percent. How long? Even after conditions improve to their desired level, the Fed "may, for some time," keep interest rates low.
All things considered, don't look for a boost until spring.
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
Big Brother is Here
Internet Privacy is an Oxymoron
Join our cognitive infrastructure, says IBM, and you will know every transaction, piece of data and interaction of computer users worldwide, the better to know your potential customers and target your advertising,
In a four-page, full-color newspaper advertising spread, the computer colossus welcomes business to what it calls the "Cognitive Era," where its technology "takes in data in all forms," from all sources, including Facebook and Twitter as well as its business partners, customers and "data available to all," stores it for you in what is conveniently known as "the cloud," and sets its team of 2,000 specialists to work analyzing what a client may want to know about potential customers and how to reach them.
These clients could easily include governments that want to monitor the activities of Internet users, on the excuse that they are looking for potential terrorists. In fact, the IBM ad brags that the company has 6,200 specialists "monitoring 133 countries and 20 billion events per day," ostensibly in the name of security.
But there is no privacy on the Internet, as Edward Snowden proved when he released the tons of data gathered by the U.S. government.
Meanwhile, a backlash has begun, as the European Court of Justice ruled illegal the practice of gathering, storing and transferring web search histories, social media updates and other data between the U.S. and Europe. The court said leaks by Snowden already showed that American government agencies had full access to user data, interfering with citizens' rights to privacy.
The court said an agreement among international companies to transfer data files on user patterns between the U.S. and Europe was flawed because American officials could thereby peruse European individuals' files.
The case was brought by a citizen of Austria, who has been a Facebook user since 2008, according to the European Court of Justice. His Facebook postings were stored on computers in Ireland, and then transferred to computer servers in the U.S. But, the court noted, "the law and practice of the United States do not offer sufficient protection against surveillance by public authorities."
Join our cognitive infrastructure, says IBM, and you will know every transaction, piece of data and interaction of computer users worldwide, the better to know your potential customers and target your advertising,
In a four-page, full-color newspaper advertising spread, the computer colossus welcomes business to what it calls the "Cognitive Era," where its technology "takes in data in all forms," from all sources, including Facebook and Twitter as well as its business partners, customers and "data available to all," stores it for you in what is conveniently known as "the cloud," and sets its team of 2,000 specialists to work analyzing what a client may want to know about potential customers and how to reach them.
These clients could easily include governments that want to monitor the activities of Internet users, on the excuse that they are looking for potential terrorists. In fact, the IBM ad brags that the company has 6,200 specialists "monitoring 133 countries and 20 billion events per day," ostensibly in the name of security.
But there is no privacy on the Internet, as Edward Snowden proved when he released the tons of data gathered by the U.S. government.
Meanwhile, a backlash has begun, as the European Court of Justice ruled illegal the practice of gathering, storing and transferring web search histories, social media updates and other data between the U.S. and Europe. The court said leaks by Snowden already showed that American government agencies had full access to user data, interfering with citizens' rights to privacy.
The court said an agreement among international companies to transfer data files on user patterns between the U.S. and Europe was flawed because American officials could thereby peruse European individuals' files.
The case was brought by a citizen of Austria, who has been a Facebook user since 2008, according to the European Court of Justice. His Facebook postings were stored on computers in Ireland, and then transferred to computer servers in the U.S. But, the court noted, "the law and practice of the United States do not offer sufficient protection against surveillance by public authorities."
Shooting Irony
Five Presidents have been shot while in office. Four were Republicans, shot at close range with handguns wielded by private citizens. Two assassination attempts were made against a sixth President, another Republican.
Yet Republicans lead the campaign for more guns in the hands of private citizens, without the restrictions imposed by the Second Amendment, which calls for a "well regulated militia."
Of the four Republican Presidents shot while in office, three -- Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley and James A. Garfield -- died of their injuries. The fourth, Ronald Reagan, was seriously wounded. One Democratic President, John F. Kennedy, was assassinated by a rifleman at long range. All five presidential shootings took place in public. Two assassination attempts were made against Republican President Gerald R. Ford, again with handguns, but the shooters missed and Ford was uninjured.
Of the shooters, all can be said to have mental health issues. GOP candidate Ben Carson passes off the mass killings in schools as being done by "the crazies," and no reason to restrict gun ownership. But that's all the more reason to impose prescreening of gun sales, and to treat those individuals who are mentally unstable.
Opponents of gun control cite the Constitutional guarantee of the "right of the people to bear arms" and Supreme Court decisions endorsing unlimited gun ownership. However, lobbyists ignore the Second Amendment's call for a "well regulated militia." Moreover, the Supreme Court has been known to make mistakes. Justice Stephen Breyer, for example, cited the Court's decision that upheld the detention of Japanese-Americans, as well as American citizens of German and Italian descent, during World War II. And Justice John Paul Stephens has written that historically, the Court has treated the Second Amendment as requiring a "well regulated militia" functioning under state governments. In addition, Stephens called for a slight modification of the Second Amendment to reinforce that concept. The change would insert the words "while serving in a militia" in order to increase gun control in America.
Meanwhile, Republican presidential candidates continue their chant for more guns in the hands of more people, even though Republican Presidents have been victims of gun violence.
Yet Republicans lead the campaign for more guns in the hands of private citizens, without the restrictions imposed by the Second Amendment, which calls for a "well regulated militia."
Of the four Republican Presidents shot while in office, three -- Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley and James A. Garfield -- died of their injuries. The fourth, Ronald Reagan, was seriously wounded. One Democratic President, John F. Kennedy, was assassinated by a rifleman at long range. All five presidential shootings took place in public. Two assassination attempts were made against Republican President Gerald R. Ford, again with handguns, but the shooters missed and Ford was uninjured.
Of the shooters, all can be said to have mental health issues. GOP candidate Ben Carson passes off the mass killings in schools as being done by "the crazies," and no reason to restrict gun ownership. But that's all the more reason to impose prescreening of gun sales, and to treat those individuals who are mentally unstable.
Opponents of gun control cite the Constitutional guarantee of the "right of the people to bear arms" and Supreme Court decisions endorsing unlimited gun ownership. However, lobbyists ignore the Second Amendment's call for a "well regulated militia." Moreover, the Supreme Court has been known to make mistakes. Justice Stephen Breyer, for example, cited the Court's decision that upheld the detention of Japanese-Americans, as well as American citizens of German and Italian descent, during World War II. And Justice John Paul Stephens has written that historically, the Court has treated the Second Amendment as requiring a "well regulated militia" functioning under state governments. In addition, Stephens called for a slight modification of the Second Amendment to reinforce that concept. The change would insert the words "while serving in a militia" in order to increase gun control in America.
Meanwhile, Republican presidential candidates continue their chant for more guns in the hands of more people, even though Republican Presidents have been victims of gun violence.
Sunday, October 4, 2015
Stuff Happens
"A well regulated militia ... " -- U.S. Constitution, Second Amendment
"Stuff happens." So said GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush, shrugging off the latest mass murder of students and faculty at a college in Oregon.
Others chimed in with variations on the theme that nothing can be done to prevent or even reduce gun violence in America. And the leading Republican candidate trumpeted the standard lobby line that more guns means more safety. If faculty and/or students had guns in the classroom, lives would have been saved as the target victims fought back against the attacker.
To make such a claim is preposterous. Calling for more guns in the hands of more people is ludicrous on its face, and can only result in more deaths. In a time of stress, who can tell the good guys with guns from the bad guys with guns? It's not like they wear special hats, as they did in old Hollywood movie Westerns. When bullets start flying, a person with a gun will be a target. There will be no Q & A session or classroom quiz beforehand.
During the theater shooting incident in Aurora, Colorado, in July, 2012, there was an off-duty police officer in the audience when the shooting started. But, as a well trained policeman, he knew better than to draw his weapon in a crowded theater.
Shooters responsible for the mass killings in America recently were not members of any militia, well regulated or otherwise. In fact, the shooter in last week's incident in Colorado was rejected by the military within weeks of beginning his service.
Firm believers in the gun lobby claim their weapons are needed for self protection, and are opposed to registration, warning that their guns would be needed to fight an enemy invasion, and a hostile government could easily locate and confiscate their registered weapons.
Do they really distrust their freely elected American government or the American military that much? Do they really believe the American military is incompetent?
Many, if not most, gun owners are responsible, conscientious citizens who use their pistols, rifles and shotguns for sport and for hunting. and support legislation that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable. Weapons like the AK47 and similar military-style assault rifles are designed to be used for just one thing -- to kill people. They cannot be used for hunting. In fact, in some highly populated states, only shotgun and bow-and-arrow hunting is allowed. No rifles.
All the while, whenever the issue of gun control comes up, supporters led by the National Rifle Association (NRA), raise the chant that the Second Amendment guarantees the "right of the people to bear arms." But in doing so, they ignore the first four words of that Amendment, which cites the need for "A well regulated militia ..." The Constitution does not guarantee or endorse an individual's right to build a personal arsenal. In fact, a counter-argument is that the Second Amendment, far from banning gun control, actually demands it, through the formation of well regulated militias, organized and operated by local governments -- that is to say, "the people," not by individuals.
So to shrug off mass killing sprees by individuals, claiming they are done only by "the crazies," as candidate Ben Carson said, is to admit a failure to even consider any attempt to resolve a problem. And if the massacres are indeed largely done by those who are mentally unstable, that's even more reason to reach out and help them.
Meanwhile, massacres by individuals armed with high-capacity weapons and assault rifles become "routine," as President Barack Obama angrily put it, and nothing is done to resolve the problem.
To deny that a problem exists is moral blindness. To refuse to take a single step to deal with it is foolish. Every journey begins with a single step.
"Stuff happens." So said GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush, shrugging off the latest mass murder of students and faculty at a college in Oregon.
Others chimed in with variations on the theme that nothing can be done to prevent or even reduce gun violence in America. And the leading Republican candidate trumpeted the standard lobby line that more guns means more safety. If faculty and/or students had guns in the classroom, lives would have been saved as the target victims fought back against the attacker.
To make such a claim is preposterous. Calling for more guns in the hands of more people is ludicrous on its face, and can only result in more deaths. In a time of stress, who can tell the good guys with guns from the bad guys with guns? It's not like they wear special hats, as they did in old Hollywood movie Westerns. When bullets start flying, a person with a gun will be a target. There will be no Q & A session or classroom quiz beforehand.
During the theater shooting incident in Aurora, Colorado, in July, 2012, there was an off-duty police officer in the audience when the shooting started. But, as a well trained policeman, he knew better than to draw his weapon in a crowded theater.
Shooters responsible for the mass killings in America recently were not members of any militia, well regulated or otherwise. In fact, the shooter in last week's incident in Colorado was rejected by the military within weeks of beginning his service.
Firm believers in the gun lobby claim their weapons are needed for self protection, and are opposed to registration, warning that their guns would be needed to fight an enemy invasion, and a hostile government could easily locate and confiscate their registered weapons.
Do they really distrust their freely elected American government or the American military that much? Do they really believe the American military is incompetent?
Many, if not most, gun owners are responsible, conscientious citizens who use their pistols, rifles and shotguns for sport and for hunting. and support legislation that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable. Weapons like the AK47 and similar military-style assault rifles are designed to be used for just one thing -- to kill people. They cannot be used for hunting. In fact, in some highly populated states, only shotgun and bow-and-arrow hunting is allowed. No rifles.
All the while, whenever the issue of gun control comes up, supporters led by the National Rifle Association (NRA), raise the chant that the Second Amendment guarantees the "right of the people to bear arms." But in doing so, they ignore the first four words of that Amendment, which cites the need for "A well regulated militia ..." The Constitution does not guarantee or endorse an individual's right to build a personal arsenal. In fact, a counter-argument is that the Second Amendment, far from banning gun control, actually demands it, through the formation of well regulated militias, organized and operated by local governments -- that is to say, "the people," not by individuals.
So to shrug off mass killing sprees by individuals, claiming they are done only by "the crazies," as candidate Ben Carson said, is to admit a failure to even consider any attempt to resolve a problem. And if the massacres are indeed largely done by those who are mentally unstable, that's even more reason to reach out and help them.
Meanwhile, massacres by individuals armed with high-capacity weapons and assault rifles become "routine," as President Barack Obama angrily put it, and nothing is done to resolve the problem.
To deny that a problem exists is moral blindness. To refuse to take a single step to deal with it is foolish. Every journey begins with a single step.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)