"I don't want to play your stupid game anyway," said the child when passed over for a place on the baseball team.
The president says he rejected an invitation from Time Magazine to be on the cover as Person of the Year in its annual special edition.
He claimed it would have meant sitting for an interview and a portrait for the edition, and he doesn't have the time.
Cautionary note: Since when did the magazine's editors ask permission ahead of time when making their choice for the person -- man or woman -- who was most influential, for good or ill, in the world over the past year?
Next question: Should they be required to ask permission before running any story about anyone?
Traditionally, journalists have believed that the fastest way to get your name in the newspaper is to try to keep it out.
It's not that the president has never appeared on the cover of Time Magazine. He was, a year ago, as Person of the Year in January when he took office. And there have been other times when a cartoon likeness appeared to illustrate coverage that was not entirely complimentary.
And, of course, there was the fake cover that he had made up himself and posted at his golf resorts.
So much for fake news.
In any case, Time magazine had no comment on the president's claim that he was invited but turned down the offer.
One wonders whether he was in fact contacted at all about his likeness appearing anywhere in any issue.
When the journalistic profession reaches a point where editors must request clearance and permission before running a story, then the First Amendment is pointless.
Tuesday, November 28, 2017
Privatizing the Internet
In the beginning was the abacus, a mechanical gadget that enabled faster arithmetic calculations.
Then came numerals, developed in the Arab world for faster and easier addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. It was so useful that it was adopted by speakers of many other languages around the world.
Soon enough came mechanical adding machines and electronic calculators, which eventually became computers.
But the problem was that while computers were and are wonderful devices by themselves, they could not always communicate with other computer systems at other facilities.
Government-sponsored research groups scattered around the country and at various universities were unable to share the results of their work, so the government's Defense Department sponsored a network system the allowed them to do so. It was called ARPANET or DARPANET, from Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency network.
This system was so successful that it moved to the civilian world, and the Internet -- Interconnected Network -- of computer systems was born, using a programming system called "hypertext transfer protocol," or https, which is still in use.
However, even this was not enough, so a programming expert developed and sponsored what he called the Worldwide Web (www), enabling any computer anywhere to tap into the Internet and communicate with other computers. Moreover, this expert -- Tim Burners-Lee of Britain -- refused to patent or claim ownership of the system because he felt it was too important to remain controlled by a single person or group.
Now there is a move afoot in Washington to privatize operation and control of the Internet, giving corporations the ability to pick and choose who gets priority access to the system, what fees to charge, and what content can be posted on a system that was developed and paid for by government agencies using taxpayer funds and perfected by a scientist who refused to take money for his work.
What does it all mean? It means that a communications system developed for the free exchange of information and opinion, open to everyone worldwide at little or no cost except for a low access fee will be controlled by corporations or government agencies more concerned with profit and propaganda than with freedom of information sharing, freedom of speech and freedom of the press as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.
Then came numerals, developed in the Arab world for faster and easier addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. It was so useful that it was adopted by speakers of many other languages around the world.
Soon enough came mechanical adding machines and electronic calculators, which eventually became computers.
But the problem was that while computers were and are wonderful devices by themselves, they could not always communicate with other computer systems at other facilities.
Government-sponsored research groups scattered around the country and at various universities were unable to share the results of their work, so the government's Defense Department sponsored a network system the allowed them to do so. It was called ARPANET or DARPANET, from Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency network.
This system was so successful that it moved to the civilian world, and the Internet -- Interconnected Network -- of computer systems was born, using a programming system called "hypertext transfer protocol," or https, which is still in use.
However, even this was not enough, so a programming expert developed and sponsored what he called the Worldwide Web (www), enabling any computer anywhere to tap into the Internet and communicate with other computers. Moreover, this expert -- Tim Burners-Lee of Britain -- refused to patent or claim ownership of the system because he felt it was too important to remain controlled by a single person or group.
Now there is a move afoot in Washington to privatize operation and control of the Internet, giving corporations the ability to pick and choose who gets priority access to the system, what fees to charge, and what content can be posted on a system that was developed and paid for by government agencies using taxpayer funds and perfected by a scientist who refused to take money for his work.
What does it all mean? It means that a communications system developed for the free exchange of information and opinion, open to everyone worldwide at little or no cost except for a low access fee will be controlled by corporations or government agencies more concerned with profit and propaganda than with freedom of information sharing, freedom of speech and freedom of the press as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.
Monday, November 27, 2017
Internet Interference
Should the Internet be neutral as to who gets to post what and who gets to see what, how soon and how often?
Or should an Internet Service Provider (ISP) be able to charge higher fees to some so they have faster, more complete access to potential readers and viewers?
That's what the government is looking to do, overturning the Federal Communications Commission's policy of Net Neutrality.
Compare this plan to your home telephone, another technology that the FCC regulates, along with broadcasting and telecommunications generally. Suppose the phone company wants to offer faster dial tones to telemarketers (for a price) and to limit the time available to teenagers to gossip with friends so the marketers can call at dinnertime to make their sales pitch?
Historically, the phone company has been neutral in providing service to customers, with rates varying according to volume and distance. Access, however, has been equal to all. Having to wait for a dial tone is anathema.
Suppose, however, that did not apply to Internet service providers? They could then offer faster, better access to the network and to its users who pay a higher fee, and perhaps even monitor the content of stuff that users post on their blog sites.
So much for Freedom of Speech.
Or should an Internet Service Provider (ISP) be able to charge higher fees to some so they have faster, more complete access to potential readers and viewers?
That's what the government is looking to do, overturning the Federal Communications Commission's policy of Net Neutrality.
Compare this plan to your home telephone, another technology that the FCC regulates, along with broadcasting and telecommunications generally. Suppose the phone company wants to offer faster dial tones to telemarketers (for a price) and to limit the time available to teenagers to gossip with friends so the marketers can call at dinnertime to make their sales pitch?
Historically, the phone company has been neutral in providing service to customers, with rates varying according to volume and distance. Access, however, has been equal to all. Having to wait for a dial tone is anathema.
Suppose, however, that did not apply to Internet service providers? They could then offer faster, better access to the network and to its users who pay a higher fee, and perhaps even monitor the content of stuff that users post on their blog sites.
So much for Freedom of Speech.
Media Muddle
The independent -- and often liberal -- voices heard and seen in American journalism may be in danger of being silenced as conservative corporate and political interests move to acquire news outlets that don't always agree with their agendas.
Last week it was the president speaking out against AT&T's proposed acquisition of Time-Warner unless CNN is dropped from the deal.
Today, the report is that the Koch brothers are behind a plan for their Meredith Corp. to buy Time Inc., which still owns many magazines after selling off its film and television units.
One clear implication is that the Koch empire will revamp the Time perspective to more closely reflect conservative views and polices, and away from its traditional independent journalism practices.
Couple these developments with the president's assertion that the licenses of such outlets as CNN and NBC should be reviewed and perhaps cancelled because of the way they cover the president's comments and activities.
There's only one problem with that demand.
CNN and NBC don't have licenses. They are not broadcast entities. Only local stations that use the broadcast spectrum need licenses from the Federal Communications Commission, a practice that goes back to the early days of radio, when the government stepped in to regulate who could operate on what frequency and in which city. This was necessary to eliminate the chaos of competing broadcasters operating on the same radio frequency or too close to another city.
That's why, for example, New York City television stations broadcast on channels 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13, while Philadelphia outlets are on 3, 6, 8 and 12.
Networks, however, don't have licenses. Nor do cable operations, so the government can't take away what doesn't exist, no matter how loud and long the president may complain.
As for arch-conservative rich folk buying independent and objective news operations and changing their neutral coverage to emphasize corporate and right-wing plans and objectives, that's a danger that America may now be facing.
Meanwhile, there are still many news outlets that rely on the First Amendment guarantee of free speech and free press to criticize the government when appropriate.
And, of course, there is the Internet, which enables every citizen to vent opinions and criticism of government when appropriate.
Last week it was the president speaking out against AT&T's proposed acquisition of Time-Warner unless CNN is dropped from the deal.
Today, the report is that the Koch brothers are behind a plan for their Meredith Corp. to buy Time Inc., which still owns many magazines after selling off its film and television units.
One clear implication is that the Koch empire will revamp the Time perspective to more closely reflect conservative views and polices, and away from its traditional independent journalism practices.
Couple these developments with the president's assertion that the licenses of such outlets as CNN and NBC should be reviewed and perhaps cancelled because of the way they cover the president's comments and activities.
There's only one problem with that demand.
CNN and NBC don't have licenses. They are not broadcast entities. Only local stations that use the broadcast spectrum need licenses from the Federal Communications Commission, a practice that goes back to the early days of radio, when the government stepped in to regulate who could operate on what frequency and in which city. This was necessary to eliminate the chaos of competing broadcasters operating on the same radio frequency or too close to another city.
That's why, for example, New York City television stations broadcast on channels 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13, while Philadelphia outlets are on 3, 6, 8 and 12.
Networks, however, don't have licenses. Nor do cable operations, so the government can't take away what doesn't exist, no matter how loud and long the president may complain.
As for arch-conservative rich folk buying independent and objective news operations and changing their neutral coverage to emphasize corporate and right-wing plans and objectives, that's a danger that America may now be facing.
Meanwhile, there are still many news outlets that rely on the First Amendment guarantee of free speech and free press to criticize the government when appropriate.
And, of course, there is the Internet, which enables every citizen to vent opinions and criticism of government when appropriate.
Radical Righteous
Politics and religion don't mix.
Conservative religionists are happy that the proposed federal tax reform bill would end the ban on churches and non-profit groups from political activity.
Sounds like a good idea if you want to spread your ideas and make them part of the law of the land.
But if the radical righteous can foist their stringent views of morality on the general public, then so can other religious groups and church-affiliated organizations.
The Vatican, for instance.
Granted, the Pope cannot get directly involved in U.S. politics. But indirectly, through messages from archbishops, bishops and parish priests speaking to the congregations, perhaps he can.
Already, many ordained ministers push the envelope by speaking out on political issues and even running for political office.
Rarely, however, do clergy connected even remotely to the Vatican make political recommendations from the pulpit or anywhere else.
Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.
Conservative religionists are happy that the proposed federal tax reform bill would end the ban on churches and non-profit groups from political activity.
Sounds like a good idea if you want to spread your ideas and make them part of the law of the land.
But if the radical righteous can foist their stringent views of morality on the general public, then so can other religious groups and church-affiliated organizations.
The Vatican, for instance.
Granted, the Pope cannot get directly involved in U.S. politics. But indirectly, through messages from archbishops, bishops and parish priests speaking to the congregations, perhaps he can.
Already, many ordained ministers push the envelope by speaking out on political issues and even running for political office.
Rarely, however, do clergy connected even remotely to the Vatican make political recommendations from the pulpit or anywhere else.
Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.
Saturday, November 25, 2017
Dismantling Government
Pruitt and Zinke are not a vaudeville comedy team, and their act toward America's national resources is no joke.
They are, in effect, part of the Trump Administration's effort to dismantle government in the name of free enterprise, thus enabling private enterprise to exploit formerly protected national forests and monuments for corporate profits.
Scott Pruitt, the new head of the Environmental Protection Agency, is not protecting the environment, but just the opposite, as he has admitted his opposition to the EPA's "activist agenda." During his political campaign for the post of Oklahoma attorney general, Pruitt got financial support from the fossil fuel industry.
As the state's attorney general, he sued the EPA fourteen times over the federal agency's actions. Now he's in charge, and has barred scientists from advising the agency on environmental issues, instead preferring to appoint industry executives.
Ryan Zinke, the new chief of the Interior Department, wants to remove regulations that protect wildlife from hunters and trappers in National Park Service preserves in Alaska.
And he wants a "review" of federal policies that protect some 27 national monuments nationwide, to allow mining, drilling and tree harvesting, as well as fishing rules in parts of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.
The Wilderness Society has called this "a sellout" of lands and waters "to drilling, mining and logging interests."
And the National Parks Conservation Association was outraged at Zinke's recommendations to the president, charging that the president "has no legal authority" to make the proposed, and that only Congress has that authority.
So unless there is a rebellion in Congress against the president's plans and policies, it looks like corporate America -- with the approval of one of its own now in the Oval Office -- will get its wish to freely develop and profit from natural resources now protected by federal law.
They are, in effect, part of the Trump Administration's effort to dismantle government in the name of free enterprise, thus enabling private enterprise to exploit formerly protected national forests and monuments for corporate profits.
Scott Pruitt, the new head of the Environmental Protection Agency, is not protecting the environment, but just the opposite, as he has admitted his opposition to the EPA's "activist agenda." During his political campaign for the post of Oklahoma attorney general, Pruitt got financial support from the fossil fuel industry.
As the state's attorney general, he sued the EPA fourteen times over the federal agency's actions. Now he's in charge, and has barred scientists from advising the agency on environmental issues, instead preferring to appoint industry executives.
Ryan Zinke, the new chief of the Interior Department, wants to remove regulations that protect wildlife from hunters and trappers in National Park Service preserves in Alaska.
And he wants a "review" of federal policies that protect some 27 national monuments nationwide, to allow mining, drilling and tree harvesting, as well as fishing rules in parts of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.
The Wilderness Society has called this "a sellout" of lands and waters "to drilling, mining and logging interests."
And the National Parks Conservation Association was outraged at Zinke's recommendations to the president, charging that the president "has no legal authority" to make the proposed, and that only Congress has that authority.
So unless there is a rebellion in Congress against the president's plans and policies, it looks like corporate America -- with the approval of one of its own now in the Oval Office -- will get its wish to freely develop and profit from natural resources now protected by federal law.
Thursday, November 23, 2017
Fallacies
"It ain't necessarily so." -- from "Porgy and Bess."
Logic 101 teaches several basic fallacies common to human thinking, one of which is known as the "propter hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy. Translated from the Latin, it means, "after this, therefore because of this."
An example is when people see the sun rise in the east, they assume that the earth stands still and the sun revolves around the earth. It took a while, but science proved that the reality is the other way 'round.
So it is with politicians, who claim credit when things go well and blame others when they don't. A recent example is the claim by the current resident of the Oval Office that he is responsible for the "all time high" in stock market averages.
The reality is that "all time high" numbers are a regular occurrence on stock markets and have little to do with politicians' claims. Put another way, Wall Street is less a barometer of national economic performance than it is of investor exuberance, hopes and expectations for corporate sales and profits.
Just because stock market averages have gone up since the new president took office is not necessarily because of the new guy.
Meanwhile, this president is claiming that his plan to cut corporate taxes will cause the economy to "take off like a rocket," while economists point out that this is not likely to happen. Put another way, "trickle down economics" does not work.
On top of that, the Federal Reserve Board has been watching economic performance carefully, and plans to boost interest rates to stabilize the U.S. economy, take some heat out of the growth rate and prevent a "rocketing" takeoff.
In a very long summary of its most recent meeting -- more than a dozen pages of minutes from the meeting -- the Fed in effect declared its independence from political posturing and stressed its traditional goals of full employment and low inflation, which it endeavors to reach by controlling interest rates.
This declaration came soon after the president refused to renominate the Board of Governors chair for a second term and instead named one of his own favorites, in the expectation that the new guy will lead the board down the Trumpian path of less control so business and the economy can cruise its own merry way to ...
Separately, watch for the president to choose several more of his kind to fill vacancies on the Fed Board of Governors, as well as numerous vacancies for federal judgeships around the nation, all as part of his overall plan to move government further to the political right and away from guardianship and oversight of corporate and public behavior.
Many of these nominations require Senate approval, and that also is something to watch for.
So the question becomes whether the nation is ready for, or even should, shift its political, social, and economic attitudes further and further toward less and less regulation of how corporations behave in their search for increased profits and higher share prices, with little or no concern for how their corporate goals affect the rest of the nation and its people.
Logic 101 teaches several basic fallacies common to human thinking, one of which is known as the "propter hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy. Translated from the Latin, it means, "after this, therefore because of this."
An example is when people see the sun rise in the east, they assume that the earth stands still and the sun revolves around the earth. It took a while, but science proved that the reality is the other way 'round.
So it is with politicians, who claim credit when things go well and blame others when they don't. A recent example is the claim by the current resident of the Oval Office that he is responsible for the "all time high" in stock market averages.
The reality is that "all time high" numbers are a regular occurrence on stock markets and have little to do with politicians' claims. Put another way, Wall Street is less a barometer of national economic performance than it is of investor exuberance, hopes and expectations for corporate sales and profits.
Just because stock market averages have gone up since the new president took office is not necessarily because of the new guy.
Meanwhile, this president is claiming that his plan to cut corporate taxes will cause the economy to "take off like a rocket," while economists point out that this is not likely to happen. Put another way, "trickle down economics" does not work.
On top of that, the Federal Reserve Board has been watching economic performance carefully, and plans to boost interest rates to stabilize the U.S. economy, take some heat out of the growth rate and prevent a "rocketing" takeoff.
In a very long summary of its most recent meeting -- more than a dozen pages of minutes from the meeting -- the Fed in effect declared its independence from political posturing and stressed its traditional goals of full employment and low inflation, which it endeavors to reach by controlling interest rates.
This declaration came soon after the president refused to renominate the Board of Governors chair for a second term and instead named one of his own favorites, in the expectation that the new guy will lead the board down the Trumpian path of less control so business and the economy can cruise its own merry way to ...
Separately, watch for the president to choose several more of his kind to fill vacancies on the Fed Board of Governors, as well as numerous vacancies for federal judgeships around the nation, all as part of his overall plan to move government further to the political right and away from guardianship and oversight of corporate and public behavior.
Many of these nominations require Senate approval, and that also is something to watch for.
So the question becomes whether the nation is ready for, or even should, shift its political, social, and economic attitudes further and further toward less and less regulation of how corporations behave in their search for increased profits and higher share prices, with little or no concern for how their corporate goals affect the rest of the nation and its people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)