Who's On First?

   Candidate Ted Cruz said the reason the constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion, of speech and of the press were embodied in the First Amendment was because the founders thought them the most important.
   However, one would think that a graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School who clerked for a Supreme Court justice, served as attorney general for the state of Texas, became a U.S. senator and now aspires to be President of the United States would know well the Constitution and its Amendments.
   In fact, the initial proposed amendments were twelve in number, of which the first two were not promptly ratified. Thus, the proposed Amendment Three, guaranteeing religious rights as well as speech and press rights, became the First Amendment.
   The original lead amendment had to do with apportionment of representatives but was never ratified, and the second proposed amendment related to compensation for members of Congress. It was not ratified until 1992, becoming Amendment 27.
   James Madison proposed all twelve of the initial amendments. The first one was intended to prevent the House of Representatives from becoming too small to matter. It went nowhere, since the Constitution itself mandates that each state shall have at least one representative, regardless of population size.
   Originally, the Constitution stipulated one representative for every 30,000 people, but clearly that would eventually become unwieldy, so in 1911 Congress approved a statute limiting the House to 435 members. It was legally entitled to do  this.
   The second of Madison's proposals would have prohibited Congress from giving itself a pay increase. It could, but the boost would not take effect until the beginning of the next Congress. Again, that didn't happen until nearly the 21st Century.
  So why did candidate Cruz claim the First Amendment was first because the founders thought its guarantees were the most important in the Bill of Rights?
   One can only speculate. Either he didn't know the history of the Constitution -- unlikely for someone of his academic and political background -- or he was using this claim as a ploy to appeal to a certain segment of the electorate, based on the idea that voters were ignorant of the Constitution.

Declaration of Journalistic Independence

   When in the course of political events, it becomes necessary for journalists to declare their independence from the bullying of an abusive candidate, a decent respect for the opinions of the public and of voters requires that they declare the causes which impel them to this declaration.
   We hold this Truth to be self-evident, that all are endowed with the Right of Free Speech and of a Free Press. Moreover, this Right is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, and whenever any form of political movement becomes destructive of this Right, it is the duty of a Free Press to expose the abuses of any candidate who threatens to limit this Right.
   Prudence and responsibility have shown that journalists are disposed to ignore such insults and vilification while they can. But when a long train of Abuses, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a desire to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to oppose such a candidate. The History of the present leading candidate for the Republican nomination for the presidency is a History of repeated insults, abuses, vilifications, forced removals, encouraging of beatings, threats to change laws, and attempts to control news coverage, all having a direct object -- to establish an absolute tyranny over Free Speech and a Free Press. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
   The candidate has a policy of insulting anyone and everyone who disagrees with him, but there is a special venom for journalists. He has called them "scum" among many other things. He has confined them to a pen as they attended rallies, and his staff has threatened them if they try to do their jobs. He has encouraged his staff to forcibly eject reporters from press conferences, notably Jorge Ramos of Univision. 
   He has mocked and mimicked a New York Times reporter with a physical disability. He has barred a BuzzFeed reporter from attending a news event. He has denied press credential to reporters from the Des Moines Register. He has said of hecklers, "Maybe he should be roughed up," and "I would like to punch him in the face." He has claimed that he could "shoot someone'' on the streets of New York City "and not lose any votes." He has implied that a woman debate moderator asked tough questions because she was menstruating. He has labeled opposing news outlets as weak, or failing, or dishonest, "a total disgrace," run by incompetents, and has promised to "open up libel laws," so when news media publish negative reports he can "sue them and win lots of money."
   Therefore, it is the duty and responsibility of news organizations to remind the candidate that they are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent; that they have no duty of any allegiance to any candidate who demands submission to his arbitrary, unconstitutional and illegal wishes. That they have full power to report the news freely, and to express opinions on the competence and abilities of any candidate for any office.

   Here's a partial list of newspapers and magazines opposing Trump:
   The National Review, The Federalist, New York Times, Boston Globe,  the Christian Post, Manchester (NH) Union Leader, New York Daily News, Philadelphia Daily News, Los Angeles Times, Des Moines Register, and others.
   All have been dismissed by the candidate as weak, failing, dishonest and other derisive terms.
   For months, such insults have been ignored by journalists as they continue to do their constitutionally protected duty of reporting the news without fear or favor. In fact, journalists seldom, if ever, take these abusive tactics personally, instead taking notes and reporting them to readers and viewers as part of their duty.
   However, there comes a time when bullying can backfire, as readers and viewers recognize such tactics for what they are -- over-compensating by a basically insecure person who only finds strength by belittling others.
   The candidate makes much of his own success in business. But as for labeling others incompetent failures, here's a partial list of the candidate's own record of business failures:
   Four hotel-casinos in Atlantic City. Bankrupt.
   Plaza Hotel in New York City. Bankrupt.
   Trump University. Challenged by New York State as an unlicensed educational institution. Name changed. Now being prosecuted as an alleged scam.
   Trump Mortgage. Failed in just six months.
   Trump Steak. Trump Vodka. Trump Airlines. All failures.
   Investment in a Broadway play, insisting that his name get top billing. The play flopped, and he never again tried to be a producer. 
   And finally, if he is as great a success as he claims to be, and as rich as he claims to be, let him release tax returns, especially those no longer under audit, to prove it.

Dr. Frankenstein's Media Marvel

   With all the hand-wringing among the pundits over the roaring popularity of Donald Trump, one wonders whether the news media still have the influence on public opinion they used to have. If they ever did.
   Increasingly, columnists are bemoaning the concept that the GOP front-runner is a product of the party's own subtle bigotry, shown over more than a decade, of weaving danger signals through its tapestry of policies and programs. The difference now, of course, is that Trump is not subtle about it, which is embarrassing to the party establishment because he's not one of them and can't be controlled. He's not part of their program. He's running his own show, and that's what appeals to many voters in his base.
   Meanwhile, television and print media were a prime showcase, theater and stage for the message that so many Trumpsters find appealing. It was entertaining, of course, until the message became increasingly vitriolic and both the party establishment and journalists recognized the danger, comparing the candidate to demagogues and dictators of the past.
   But the question is this: Do party leaders and media folk now recognize their role in enabling the rise of the media marvel, and are now unable to take him down?
   The Republican establishment dealt the race and xenophobia cards from below the deck, burying them in the hands of someone skilled at dealing. Now the wheeler-dealer is playing those cards openly, and winning the game, to the embarrassment of those who thought they had stacked the deck in their own favor.
   All the while, the media covered the game, watching and hoping that the sharpie they had helped create would soon lose.
   It hasn't happened, and now they worry that the joker they helped create holds all the aces.

   However, it is also true that news media have a responsibility to report on the progress of the game, even from the beginning, no matter how they may feel about any of the players.
   When a candidate for the nation's top public office attracts thousands to his rallies and wins many preliminary voting contests, journalism has a responsibility to report that, even at the risk of enabling the rise to continue.
   This is what happens when a master media manipulator deals himself in. And it's not that he's stacking the deck, either. Casino owners have long known that there are some who are skilled at playing the game, so they try to ban them from the playing floor.
   This didn't happen in the casino that is American politics today. The Republican Party invented the Fear of Foreigners game, as long ago as the mid-19th Century and the Know-Nothing Party's ploy against Irish Catholic immigrants.
   Now that game is being played again, and a master deal-maker is winning.
   Is it possible to stack the deck against him? That question will be answered come convention time in Cleveland next summer.
   Meanwhile, the news media have a responsibility to keep the public informed.

Libel and Libido

If it's true, it's not libel.

  The first and best defense against a libel allegation is truth.
  That legal precedent was established in America in 1760, when a New York City newspaper publisher, John Peter Zenger, was charged with printing a "false libel" about the colonial governor. The defense lawyer, however, argued that the report -- that the governor had a mistress -- was true, and therefore not libelous.
   The jury agreed.
   There are other defenses, but the three main bulwarks are these: The report is true, it is provably true, and it was printed without malice.
   Meanwhile, there is the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, guaranteeing a free press as well as free speech. In addition, there are legal protections covering other circumstances, including comments made by lawyers in open court, and things said by politicians during open, public meetings of Congress.
   Moreover, there is the doctrine of fair comment, which covers negative things said about public figures.
   Nonetheless, a leading presidential candidate this year wants to weaken libel laws so that he can more easily sue publications that criticize what he says and does, or otherwise prints negative things about him.
   Sorry, Donald, that's not enough. For one thing, there is no federal libel law, so you would have to sue each publication in each state. Meanwhile, you would also have to sue every columnist in every newspaper or magazine that criticizes you, as well as every TV and radio commentator.
   Big Brother you ain't.
   The colonial governor of New York didn't like it that Zenger printed "news" of the governor's mistress. But it was true, and many people already knew that the governor had a mistress.
   The current candidate may not like negative or critical coverage, but that doesn't make it unfair. Nor does your dislike of negative coverage make it untrue.
   Your insistence that everyone treat you "fairly" betrays an expectation that fair equals agreement.
   However, it is the duty of journalists to report truth. You may not like the question, but that's not going to stop journalists as representatives of the general public from asking tough questions. They ask the tough questions because they need to be asked.
   An informed electorate is essential for a functioning democracy, and journalism is crucial to an informed electorate.
   Moreover, threatening to change libel laws to stop unfavorable treatment of what you say and do betrays an arrogance bred by insecurity and a weak libido.
   But that's true for all bullies. They are insecure in their own sense of self and compensate for that basic personal weakness by beating up on others, either physically or verbally.
   Note that the leading Republican candidate has taken to referring to a major challenger as "Little Marco." That phrase was used at least six times during a televised debate this week. This is a typical manifestation of the Great American Fallacy, that bigger is better. And it is evidence of the candidate's deep-seated sense of insecurity.
 He may be taller, but that does not make him better.

Willy Loman Economics

   The U.S. economy isn't dead yet, or even dying, despite what some presidential candidates are claiming, but the Federal Reserve is pushing to stress the positive in its latest summary of current economic conditions.
   In its latest Beige Book summary, released today, increases in various districts were termed moderate, slight or mixed, with one district "flat," and another showing a "modest decline."
   Manufacturing activity overall was flat, the report said, "although conditions varied considerably." Agricultural conditions were "flat to down moderately," according to the Fed summary, and although labor market conditions "continued to improve," showing "modest gains," wage growth "varied considerably."
   The Fed almost never acknowledges strongly negative conditions, probably for fear of making things worse. In a way, this can be called the Willy Loman School of Economics. According to Willy, the lead character in the Arthur Miller play, "Death of a Salesman," things are always great. But the tragedy of Willy Loman was his inability or refusal to recognize a market downturn. Finally, in a graveside eulogy, Willy Loman was called "a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine." But when people stop smiling back, it's a tragedy.
   Perhaps the Fed deliberately accentuates the positive, holding its moves in reserve as it works quietly to support the economy when things begin to slow, and pull back the financial reins to prevent a runaway.
   Will they admit this? In a vague way, yes, but without being specific. Having a Willy Loman as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board would indeed be a tragedy for the American economy.
   Sometimes things are in reality not great.

Walking Dead Mercantilism

Zombie politics leads to a walking dead economy.

Envy is a powerful force.

   "Whoever has the most gold at the end, wins," summarizes mercantile economics, popular in the 18th Century but still followed today by those who adhere to free-market economics unfettered by any government regulation, notwithstanding the reality that markets cannot exist without some form of regulation.
   But the problem with mercantile thinking is this: If the winner has all the money, the loser has none and therefore cannot buy anything from the winner. Thus, there is no market at all.
   And so goes the cycle, until one nation dominates the world, since it has all the money. It produces nothing and it makes nothing, but it has won and that's all that matters.
   Inevitably, however, the losers soon become resentful, hungry and poor. Envy is a powerful economic force, just as hunger and poverty are powerful political forces.
   Soon enough, then, the losers get desperate and a leader arises, encouraging people to organize and fight for what they need to survive.
   Sound familiar?
   It happened to the Roman Empire two thousand years ago, it happened to Spain in the 18th Century, and it happened to the British Empire soon after.
   On a different level, it happened in America in the 19th and 20th Centuries as workers formed unions to push for fair treatment by industrial tyrants.  And unless attitudes change as some U.S. political leaders and candidates call for dominance over American trading partners, the result will be an attempt to form an economic empire that will eventually collapse behind its own walls.
   
   Walls do not make for good trading partners, whether those barriers be physical blockades or high import tariffs. Eventually, the wall and its sponsoring government both collapse.
   Over time, the Great Wall of China failed., the Roman walls in Britain failed, the Berlin Wall failed, the Iron Curtain failed, and the proposed Mexican wall will fail.
   
   Some call these variations on mercantilism supply-side economics. "If you make it, they will buy," is the article of faith guiding the cause.
   But the question soon becomes, "With what? The people have no money."
   Some call it Voodoo Economics, the idea that if you cut taxes at the top, in the long run the benefits will trickle down and energize everyone.
   However, as economist John Maynard Keynes pointed out, "In the long run we are all dead."
   But mercantilistic supply siders don't care about the long run. They want all the money now, so they and they alone can eat drink and be merry, with no cares for those not part of their own self-perceived elite.

Balls and Walls

   Late news from Ireland notes that another golf course may have put the Donald in his cups. It seems he bought one in County Clare two years ago, spent big bucks in upgrades and now wants to build a wall some two miles long so the nearby ocean doesn't erode his investment.
   Authorities are reluctant, so the golf mogul has threatened to close the resort.
   Can you say, "Nyah, nyah, do things my way or I'll go home."
   A similar threat was made in Scotland, prompting the Scots to respond, "Good. Go home. We don't want you anyway."
   Moreover, many of the best golf courses have been laid out by the seaside, so trying to keep out the sea is reminiscent of the legendary king trying to turn back the tide.
   As the king found out, Nature doesn't listen to such talk.
  When last I noticed, the Irish and the Scots, like Nature herself, don't like being threatened. And since there are many in America of that same tradition (children of immigrants, by the way, who came here looking for jobs, as newcomers often do), that is likely to show up at the ballot box.
   Meanwhile, the candidate has repeatedly threatened to leave the Republican Party if he doesn't get his way. Or as he puts it, if the party doesn't treat him "fairly."
   The problem with that is equating "fair" with agreement, and not asking any questions. But it's the responsibility of journalists, as representatives of the general public, to ask questions, to get responsible answers, and to inform the voting electorate of what a candidate proposes and especially how he plans to pay for these proposals.
   So far, responses have not been adequate, if the candidate answers the questions at all. Instead, he resorts to insult and abuse and then changes the subject, demanding that he be treated "fairly."
  Like all bullies, he cannot tolerate disagreement.