This is not to suggest that women in Congress today use a similar tactic that Lysistrata used to persuade men in ancient Athens to change their ways.
According to the play by Aristophanes, the women of Athens withheld their sexual favors until and unless the men stopped warfare. The issue today is, of course, somewhat different.
Women today can and do vote. They can withhold their support for male colleagues in Congress, and women voters in the several states can withhold their support for candidates who do not conform to moral and ethical behavior.
This is, in effect, what happened in Washington when several dozen woman senators led the demand that Democratic Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota resign. Meanwhile, there is no such similar move among Republicans to persuade the president to step down because of similar accusations.
Some of the complaints, of course, are valid and should not be ignored, while others are as phony as a three-dollar bill. The clue lies in believability and evidence, knowing that some accusations are little more than ploys engineered by political foes designed solely to discredit someone of the opposite party, regardless of any connection to fact or reality.
Suppose, however, that complaints of inappropriate sexual behavior ranging from unwanted advances up to and including assault are true. Fairness dictates that if Democrats accused of such misbehavior should resign, so also should Republicans, those in office as well as candidates.
Otherwise, those who insist on punishment for men on one side of the political divide, but remain quiet about colleagues in the same party who do the same or worse, are guilty of hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy among politicians? Good grief! Who would think such a thing?
Thursday, December 7, 2017
Irony
Al Franken says he will resign from the U.S. Senate in the face of allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior against him. Even as he did so, the Minnesota Democrat noted the "irony" that he is forced to leave office while the man in the Oval Office -- recorded as bragging about his sexual prowess -- endorses a candidate in Alabama who has been charged with molesting minor girls.
So what are the rules? Why is such behavior "acceptable" for Republican men to indulge in but not for Democrats?
So what are the rules? Why is such behavior "acceptable" for Republican men to indulge in but not for Democrats?
Wednesday, December 6, 2017
Fame and Nationality
Fame in one country does not automatically bring citizenship in another. That, however, does not stop some in the news media from claiming citizenship for a famous person who is really from another country, and is not part of the national heritage of those who refer to the star as one of their own.
This happened recently when newspapers in Britain said Wimbledon tennis champion Andy Murray is English. Not so. While it may be technically acceptable to refer to him as British, since Scotland is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Scotland remains a separate country. It has its own currency. And fellow Scots vehemently resent losing their nationality in any way.
Scotland has been part of the United Kingdom since Queen Elizabeth I was succeeded in 1603 by her cousin James, who had been king of Scotland for several years until he added the English crown to his attire. And while the English refer to him as James I, to Scots he is James VI, since he is the sixth of that name to wear the crown of Scotland.
Moreover, the formal name of the monarchy did not become official until 1707, when the Act of Union was approved and the king became the ruler of Great Britain. That solved the problem of which came first in the official name, England or Scotland.
In addition, Ireland lost its independent Parliament around the same time, and the monarch became king of Great Britain and Ireland.
And, of course, the Irish rebelled in 1916 and the island was split by a peace treaty that gave 26 of the counties semi-independent status while six of the counties in the north remained part of the UK. Then, in 1947, the southern part declared its full independence and became the Republic of Ireland.
Even so, there were and are some who continue to refer to both islands as the United Kingdom, and its people as British.
For example, the actress Saoise Ronan starred in the film "Lady Bird," got rave reviews for her performance and was nominated for an Oscar in the film "Brooklyn." The British media are claiming her as British, as they have with Colin Farrell, Ruth Negga, Michael Fassbender and the boxer Katie Taylor. They use the argument that they are from the British Isles.
This supposed compliment ignores their nationality of being Irish -- not from the six counties of Northern Ireland that remain subject to the British crown, but they are from the fully independent Republic of Ireland. This may geographically be one of the British Isles, but that does not make its people British.
They may have achieved fame in England, but that does not make them English.
Similarly, when Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, its people strongly resented being called Russian.
And undoubtedly, Canadians who achieve fame in the United States would dislike being referred to as Americans, since their country is part of the continent of North America.
While it may be difficult to discern from speech patterns whether a person is from Canada or the U.S., that's not the case with Ukrainians, who have their own language that is not at all related to Russian.
Here's a brief list of a few people who achieved fame in the United States, but were actually from Canada: William Shatner (Capt. Kirk of the "Star Wars" series), Ali Velshi, an MSNBC News anchor, Lorne Greene (star of the "Bonanza" TV series), Morley Safer (CBS News), actor Michael J. Fox, Justin Bieber, and Raymond Burr.
This happened recently when newspapers in Britain said Wimbledon tennis champion Andy Murray is English. Not so. While it may be technically acceptable to refer to him as British, since Scotland is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Scotland remains a separate country. It has its own currency. And fellow Scots vehemently resent losing their nationality in any way.
Scotland has been part of the United Kingdom since Queen Elizabeth I was succeeded in 1603 by her cousin James, who had been king of Scotland for several years until he added the English crown to his attire. And while the English refer to him as James I, to Scots he is James VI, since he is the sixth of that name to wear the crown of Scotland.
Moreover, the formal name of the monarchy did not become official until 1707, when the Act of Union was approved and the king became the ruler of Great Britain. That solved the problem of which came first in the official name, England or Scotland.
In addition, Ireland lost its independent Parliament around the same time, and the monarch became king of Great Britain and Ireland.
And, of course, the Irish rebelled in 1916 and the island was split by a peace treaty that gave 26 of the counties semi-independent status while six of the counties in the north remained part of the UK. Then, in 1947, the southern part declared its full independence and became the Republic of Ireland.
Even so, there were and are some who continue to refer to both islands as the United Kingdom, and its people as British.
For example, the actress Saoise Ronan starred in the film "Lady Bird," got rave reviews for her performance and was nominated for an Oscar in the film "Brooklyn." The British media are claiming her as British, as they have with Colin Farrell, Ruth Negga, Michael Fassbender and the boxer Katie Taylor. They use the argument that they are from the British Isles.
This supposed compliment ignores their nationality of being Irish -- not from the six counties of Northern Ireland that remain subject to the British crown, but they are from the fully independent Republic of Ireland. This may geographically be one of the British Isles, but that does not make its people British.
They may have achieved fame in England, but that does not make them English.
Similarly, when Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, its people strongly resented being called Russian.
And undoubtedly, Canadians who achieve fame in the United States would dislike being referred to as Americans, since their country is part of the continent of North America.
While it may be difficult to discern from speech patterns whether a person is from Canada or the U.S., that's not the case with Ukrainians, who have their own language that is not at all related to Russian.
Here's a brief list of a few people who achieved fame in the United States, but were actually from Canada: William Shatner (Capt. Kirk of the "Star Wars" series), Ali Velshi, an MSNBC News anchor, Lorne Greene (star of the "Bonanza" TV series), Morley Safer (CBS News), actor Michael J. Fox, Justin Bieber, and Raymond Burr.
Global Economy
Regardless of what the current president says, we live in a global economy. And a major beneficiary of that globalization is himself, with his extensive investments in real estate worldwide, as well as his clothing lines made elsewhere and brought to the U.S. for sale for his profit.
On its face, closing borders and shutting out others is a disastrous strategy, since it assumes that one nation can have a self-sustaining economy and stand alone, supplying all the needs and wants of its citizens, with well paying jobs and reasonable prices.
It doesn't happen.
Technology, automation and machines increase productivity, with the same number or fewer workers, even at higher pay for each. Total expense for labor and production is therefore lower. Also, greater output enables lower per-unit price, so the company still makes a profit -- even a higher profit.
Meanwhile, workers let go in the process of increased efficiency move on to other fields, learning new skills with more education. Result: Higher pay, better hours and working conditions, less physical labor and more satisfaction for a challenging job well done.
And because of this increased production at lower cost, the market for the product expands beyond a nation's borders. At the same time, each nation discovers what it is most efficient at producing, and focuses on that. By definition, this means a global economy, a situation outlined more than 200 years ago by Adam Smith in his book, "The Wealth of Nations."
Moreover, this force, guided by what Smith called the "invisible hand" of a free market, operated in a global economy.
So to close a nation's borders to protect its markets, even as these protectionists praise the virtues of a free market, is contradictory at best and downright silly at worst.
You can't have it both ways. Yet that seems to be what many politicians in Washington seem to be aiming for: A fully free market economy, entire of itself, with tight borders to keep out others producers even as it aims to keep its export markets.
Ain't gonna happen. It will only mean other nations will also raise tariff barriers to protect their producers, and everybody loses.
On its face, closing borders and shutting out others is a disastrous strategy, since it assumes that one nation can have a self-sustaining economy and stand alone, supplying all the needs and wants of its citizens, with well paying jobs and reasonable prices.
It doesn't happen.
Technology, automation and machines increase productivity, with the same number or fewer workers, even at higher pay for each. Total expense for labor and production is therefore lower. Also, greater output enables lower per-unit price, so the company still makes a profit -- even a higher profit.
Meanwhile, workers let go in the process of increased efficiency move on to other fields, learning new skills with more education. Result: Higher pay, better hours and working conditions, less physical labor and more satisfaction for a challenging job well done.
And because of this increased production at lower cost, the market for the product expands beyond a nation's borders. At the same time, each nation discovers what it is most efficient at producing, and focuses on that. By definition, this means a global economy, a situation outlined more than 200 years ago by Adam Smith in his book, "The Wealth of Nations."
Moreover, this force, guided by what Smith called the "invisible hand" of a free market, operated in a global economy.
So to close a nation's borders to protect its markets, even as these protectionists praise the virtues of a free market, is contradictory at best and downright silly at worst.
You can't have it both ways. Yet that seems to be what many politicians in Washington seem to be aiming for: A fully free market economy, entire of itself, with tight borders to keep out others producers even as it aims to keep its export markets.
Ain't gonna happen. It will only mean other nations will also raise tariff barriers to protect their producers, and everybody loses.
Double Standard
No one is above the law, or exempt from moral behavior.
More than two dozen Democratic colleagues of Sen. Al Franken now say that he should resign because of the allegations of sexual misbehavior lodged against him.
But if Sen. Franken should step aside because of this issue, so also should Roy Moore, the Alabama Republican who is likely to be elected to the Senate next week, as well as President Donald Trump, who also has been accused of multiple examples of unwanted and inappropriate behavior toward women for many years.
Moral and ethical standards do not have varying levels depending on political affiliation or elective office.
Claims are being made that the president is exempt from prosecution because he is the chief executive office of the nation's laws, and is therefore exempt from that standard because he sets the standard.
But if the president's behavior is acceptable, excusable or "legal," then so also is similar behavior by others, whether they be Republicans or Democrats, elected officials and candidates, or any other ordinary citizen.
What is inappropriate behavior for one man applies also to every man -- including the president of the United States.
More than two dozen Democratic colleagues of Sen. Al Franken now say that he should resign because of the allegations of sexual misbehavior lodged against him.
But if Sen. Franken should step aside because of this issue, so also should Roy Moore, the Alabama Republican who is likely to be elected to the Senate next week, as well as President Donald Trump, who also has been accused of multiple examples of unwanted and inappropriate behavior toward women for many years.
Moral and ethical standards do not have varying levels depending on political affiliation or elective office.
Claims are being made that the president is exempt from prosecution because he is the chief executive office of the nation's laws, and is therefore exempt from that standard because he sets the standard.
But if the president's behavior is acceptable, excusable or "legal," then so also is similar behavior by others, whether they be Republicans or Democrats, elected officials and candidates, or any other ordinary citizen.
What is inappropriate behavior for one man applies also to every man -- including the president of the United States.
Tuesday, December 5, 2017
Revisionist History
"You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." -- Abraham Lincoln.
"If the president does it, it's not illegal." -- Richard Nixon
"The president cannot obstruct justice, because he is the chief executive." -- John Dowd, lawyer for Donald Trump
"L'etat, c'est moi." (I am the state.) -- Louis XIV, king of France.
Truth cannot be cornered. -- Pug Mahoney
The circus now playing in Washington has a ringmaster determined to fool all the people of America all the time, and is trying to back Truth into a corner.
It seems to have escaped his attention that in the public and political ring there are no corners, and a free press is always on the perimeter watching, monitoring, tracking and reporting what he says and does, as well as whether it conforms to fact and reality, and how it compares to what he has said and done in the past.
But thanks go to past associates who have developed an attack of conscience, and an active news media ready to report his emphasis on "alternative facts" as well as how these claims conflict with past history and fact.
The president's lawyer, John Dowd, now claims it was he, not the president, who used the president's Twitter account to attack former aide Mike Flynn for having pled guilty to a charge that he lied to the FBI.
Grammarians, linguists and especially other lawyers quickly pointed out that no competent lawyer would use "pled" as the past tense form of the verb "plead." The preferred form is "pleaded."
Granted, many people do indeed use the form "pled," but they are not lawyers, linguists or editors.
And this gives impetus to the suspicion that the president himself tweeted that particular message, since it's another example of his pattern of language usage evident in his many other tweets. Besides, since when does this president allow others to use his Twitter account? Especially when access requires a password?
So it would seem that lawyer Dowd is taking a fall on behalf of his client the president. And that in itself raises these questions: Why would he do that? Why would he risk his own career and possibly be disbarred for doing stuff that runs counter to law and ethics?
As for the argument that a president cannot obstruct justice because he is the president, that's a ploy that's known to any student of Logic 101 as circular logic. Moreover, while the president is indeed the chief executive of federal law in America, that does not raise his status above the other two branches of government.
Try using that argument to the Supreme Court and see how far you get.
The president's constitutional obligation is to enforce all laws, not just those that serve his own purposes while he ignores others.
As for revising history, the president now claims the "Access Hollywood" recording in which he bragged about his sexual prowess and his ability to grab women by their private parts because he was a celebrity and therefore "can do anything," is a fake. It was not his voice, and not his image on the recording, the president alleges.
In response, the host of the "Access Hollywood" show wrote in the New York Times that it was indeed Donald Trump who said (and later admitted to saying) exactly what he was quoted as saying. Moreover, there were seven other people on the bus who heard him.
As another president once said, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."
Thanks to the First Amendment of the Constitution, we have some people who cannot be fooled and are ready and able to expose foolishness to all the people, at any time.
"If the president does it, it's not illegal." -- Richard Nixon
"The president cannot obstruct justice, because he is the chief executive." -- John Dowd, lawyer for Donald Trump
"L'etat, c'est moi." (I am the state.) -- Louis XIV, king of France.
Truth cannot be cornered. -- Pug Mahoney
The circus now playing in Washington has a ringmaster determined to fool all the people of America all the time, and is trying to back Truth into a corner.
It seems to have escaped his attention that in the public and political ring there are no corners, and a free press is always on the perimeter watching, monitoring, tracking and reporting what he says and does, as well as whether it conforms to fact and reality, and how it compares to what he has said and done in the past.
But thanks go to past associates who have developed an attack of conscience, and an active news media ready to report his emphasis on "alternative facts" as well as how these claims conflict with past history and fact.
The president's lawyer, John Dowd, now claims it was he, not the president, who used the president's Twitter account to attack former aide Mike Flynn for having pled guilty to a charge that he lied to the FBI.
Grammarians, linguists and especially other lawyers quickly pointed out that no competent lawyer would use "pled" as the past tense form of the verb "plead." The preferred form is "pleaded."
Granted, many people do indeed use the form "pled," but they are not lawyers, linguists or editors.
And this gives impetus to the suspicion that the president himself tweeted that particular message, since it's another example of his pattern of language usage evident in his many other tweets. Besides, since when does this president allow others to use his Twitter account? Especially when access requires a password?
So it would seem that lawyer Dowd is taking a fall on behalf of his client the president. And that in itself raises these questions: Why would he do that? Why would he risk his own career and possibly be disbarred for doing stuff that runs counter to law and ethics?
As for the argument that a president cannot obstruct justice because he is the president, that's a ploy that's known to any student of Logic 101 as circular logic. Moreover, while the president is indeed the chief executive of federal law in America, that does not raise his status above the other two branches of government.
Try using that argument to the Supreme Court and see how far you get.
The president's constitutional obligation is to enforce all laws, not just those that serve his own purposes while he ignores others.
As for revising history, the president now claims the "Access Hollywood" recording in which he bragged about his sexual prowess and his ability to grab women by their private parts because he was a celebrity and therefore "can do anything," is a fake. It was not his voice, and not his image on the recording, the president alleges.
In response, the host of the "Access Hollywood" show wrote in the New York Times that it was indeed Donald Trump who said (and later admitted to saying) exactly what he was quoted as saying. Moreover, there were seven other people on the bus who heard him.
As another president once said, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."
Thanks to the First Amendment of the Constitution, we have some people who cannot be fooled and are ready and able to expose foolishness to all the people, at any time.
Friday, December 1, 2017
Trumponomics
We are watching the rapid return of an economic doctrine that was abandoned by many political and economic experts many years ago.
Call it Trumponomics. It's a return to a fully free market with no government intervention, regulation or control of any sort.
In the latest incarnation of the 19th Century practice of "laissez-faire" economics (from the French for "leave it alone"), the U.S. government is dismantling a series of social welfare programs, canceling tax benefits for low and middle income Americans while adding assistance for those at the highest income levels, abandoning protections for national parks to enable corporate access to natural resources, and more.
The next target could be the federal minimum wage law, either by actively lowering it or by passively refusing to enforce it. Fortunately for many workers, most state minimum wage laws are already higher than the federal level. But don't be surprised if some states follow the conservative lead and refuse to enforce their own levels, or by not adjusting the minimum for inflation.
It may well be true that government intervention in the private sector should be minimal, following the premise that "the government that governs best is the one that governs least." But it's also true that government can and should act where the private sector does not.
Not mentioned yet in news reports is the possibility that the new administration will move to loosen labor laws in an effort to stifle unions that protect the interests of workers. Historically, an argument could be made that if companies treated workers fairly and paid them reasonably well, there would have no need for unions, organizing workers to demand fair treatment and reasonable wages.
The term "regime" is sometimes used to describe a president's government and his administration. But "regime" is rooted in the Latin for for king.
The behavior of the current occupant of the Oval Office is such that he fancies himself so important that no one should question him about anything, ever, and those who do not pledge total loyalty to him are soon fired.
There have been several instances of that recently, and unless this self-delusional "king" is deposed, or persuaded to change his ways, American ideals are tarnished and the nation's goal of equal treatment for all is in trouble.
Call it Trumponomics. It's a return to a fully free market with no government intervention, regulation or control of any sort.
In the latest incarnation of the 19th Century practice of "laissez-faire" economics (from the French for "leave it alone"), the U.S. government is dismantling a series of social welfare programs, canceling tax benefits for low and middle income Americans while adding assistance for those at the highest income levels, abandoning protections for national parks to enable corporate access to natural resources, and more.
The next target could be the federal minimum wage law, either by actively lowering it or by passively refusing to enforce it. Fortunately for many workers, most state minimum wage laws are already higher than the federal level. But don't be surprised if some states follow the conservative lead and refuse to enforce their own levels, or by not adjusting the minimum for inflation.
It may well be true that government intervention in the private sector should be minimal, following the premise that "the government that governs best is the one that governs least." But it's also true that government can and should act where the private sector does not.
Not mentioned yet in news reports is the possibility that the new administration will move to loosen labor laws in an effort to stifle unions that protect the interests of workers. Historically, an argument could be made that if companies treated workers fairly and paid them reasonably well, there would have no need for unions, organizing workers to demand fair treatment and reasonable wages.
The term "regime" is sometimes used to describe a president's government and his administration. But "regime" is rooted in the Latin for for king.
The behavior of the current occupant of the Oval Office is such that he fancies himself so important that no one should question him about anything, ever, and those who do not pledge total loyalty to him are soon fired.
There have been several instances of that recently, and unless this self-delusional "king" is deposed, or persuaded to change his ways, American ideals are tarnished and the nation's goal of equal treatment for all is in trouble.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)