Danger

   Americans would rebel if Donald Trump were indicted, said the ex-president.
   "If it happened, I think you'd have problems in this country the likes of which perhaps we've never seen before," he said in a radio interview. "I don't think the people of the United States would stand for it."
   Radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt then asked how Trump would answer if the news media said such comments would incite violence.
   "That's not inciting," Trump answered. "I'm just saying what my opinion is. I don't think the people of this country would stand for it."
   Listen up.
   When a major public figure offers an opinion, it is heard as ... pick a word: suggesting, encouraging, inciting, warning, threatening -- or any of several others.
   The danger is real. Claiming it is not only increases the danger.

Unity

   The change in monarchy dominates the news this week, raising the question of how long and whether the British association of nations will continue as it has for so many years.
   Already, there has been talk of some countries changing its association with Britain, and that talk has increased in recent days as the new king moves in.
   Britain has shown unity for several hundred years, since the death of the first Queen Elizabeth enabled her cousin, King James VI of Scotland, to add the English crown to his collection. A few years later, to satisfy the peoples of each nation, the two kingdoms were formally united, and adopted its current name. By calling itself "Great Britain," the kingdom avoided the hassle of having to choose which nation came first: Was it to be the United Kingdom of Scotland and England, or the United Kingdom of England and Scotland?
   The problem was solved when the phrase Great Britain was adopted. Even now, some broadcast journalists refer to the combined nations only by the one where the monarch spends most of her/his time -- England.
   This, of course, annoys the Scots greatly, plus the Welsh and the people of Northern Ireland. The rest of Ireland broke away and became a fully independent nation a hundred years ago.
   Meanwhile, the use of the term "united" was adopted by several of its colonies when they declared independence in 1776 and became the United States.
   Eventually, a similar rationale led to the formation of the United Nations in 1945, even as the union was less political but more brotherly.
   This brotherly attitude remained part of the United Kingdom even as its former colonies became more self-governing. But they retained the image of the monarch on their coins, and acknowledged the monarch as the chief of state.
   Head of government, however, was another issue. Even today, many nations, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand and several dozen others retain the monarch as their head of state even as they name a prime minister to lead their governments.
   Now many of those nations are considering again whether it is time to break that tie with the British monarchy and become fully independent even as they retain close ties with Great Britain.
   The American colonies declared their independence in 1776, but there remains a great sense of loyalty to Britain.
   Is it largely because many nations share the same language? Perhaps. Or is it a matter of maintaining an association to benefit the common weal?
   No, that's not a typo. The phrase is the root from which the term commonwealth is taken.
   This union is likely to remain, on a social and linguistic level, even as the political and governmental association is separated.

Behavior Rules

When we do it, it's education.
When they do it, it's indoctrination.

  There are four sets of rules for human behavior, and they differ by culture. The four sets are legal, moral, spiritual and religious.
   Some cultures combine the legal and moral, leaving the other two to personal preference. America is one example.
   Others combine the legal and religious, enabling its leaders to impose laws and punish those who do not conform to specific religious beliefs.
   Still others say spiritual behavior is an individual choice, and no group -- government or social -- can tell others how to approach or honor an Otherworld, or even to acknowledge that an Otherworld exists.
   A major problem arises, however, when one society imposes its guidelines and rules of religious behavior on other groups within that society.
   In some countries around the world, such a conflict leads to violence. And much as some would deny it, that same disagreement over how to behave and honor an Otherworld is becoming more common in America, resulting in violence, despite the Constitutional and legal prohibition on such behavior.
   It is long past time that those who support violence toward minority groups actually read the Constitution.
   "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." -- Article VI
   "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." -- Amendment I.
   

Capitalists vs Socialists

    Define your terms. One is good, and the other is not. But capitalists are often greedy, and greed is ungood. Does that mean capitalism is ungood?
   Or consider the terms socialism and social welfare. Socialists are often opposed to capitalists because greed can be harmful to others. Meanwhile, capitalists brand socialism evil. But if those concerned with social welfare oppose capitalist greed, they are branded socialist and therefore evil.
   But is concern for the welfare of others evil?
   If you brand socialism "evil," therefore those who need social aid are incompetent and therefore evil.
   Logical?
   Only if you have already defined those in need of social help as evil. Unless you are a member of the same social group. Otherwise, you can say non-members are evil and don't deserve assistance.
   Logical?  No. But it is a common attitude throughout history and still common.

   So which term is evil and which is good?

   Answer: Neither. Evil can infest each, just as good can improve each.
   The ethnic groups may differ but the bigotry is the same.

Time of Change

   September in America brings a return to education, as young people return to school and Congress returns to work after a brief vacation.
   Journalism, however, never gets time off from its duty of monitoring and researching the behavior of government and political leaders who try to manipulate policy to increase personal control.
   In that sense, journalism has a constant duty to keep readers aware of the dangers America faces from power hungry politicians. Meanwhile, leaves are ready to change, but dedicated followers of Donald Trump are not.
   Yet.
   
   The political climate is about to change, however, and the first signs are in the legal system. Local grand juries and congressional committees are increasing their pressure on Trumpians and their charges are being answered with increasing volatility.
   But shouting them down doesn't make them go away. This only makes for increasing news coverage. (Note: Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.)
   The season started with a report gathered by the Washington Post that among the documents seized in the search of the Trump resort at Mar-a-Lago was an analysis of nuclear weapons held by another country.
   This report got major coverage by news networks -- except Fox, which focused instead on President Joe Biden's handling of student loan forgiveness.
   Response from the Trump team criticized the news media for leaking a confidential top secret report. This ignored the reality that the report should not have been in the possession of the ex-president in the first place, much less on the premises of his vacation home.
   All things considered, it's time for more education in America, to lead voters out of the propaganda that claims Trump should still be in the White House, and therefore he has the right to keep classified top secret material as if he were still America's leader in chief.
  Problem: A Trump appointed judge has called for a "special master" to review documents taken from Trump's home by government law enforcement, and to decide which, if any, of those documents can be used in legal proceedings against him.
   But many law agents have already seen the documents. If the judge's ruling holds and the reviewer says the agents should not have seen them, that would mean a new set of investigators would have to be selected to review the remaining documents.
   All this despite Trump's initial claim that he didn't have any documents, then his insistence that he had already given back all of them, followed by his claim that investigators had no right to them in the first place, even though we was present at one of the visits and welcomed the FBI agents.
   Confusing? Yes. Time consuming? Yes. Law breaking? Yes. Largely an effort to delay the investigation? Probably.
   All this happening while talk of criminal charges increases.
   Already, a Trump supporter who assaulted Capitol police during the January 6 incident has been removed from his local government office because he violated the Constitutional ban on insurrectionists holding office.
   The same Constitutional ban applies to those who support insurrectionists. This raises the question of how a judge would rule if Trump tries again to gain a government office, given his support of January 6 insurrectionists.
   And what of other supporters campaigning for government positions in the next election day, just two months away?

Oh what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive.
-- Sir Walter Scott

Mumble Jumble

   The Trump team keeps arguing to courts that the ex-president still has the executive privilege to take home and keep top secret classified documents provided to him because he was president.
   But he is no longer president.
   Taking classified documents home does not automatically mean they are kept secret.
   Only a current president can have access to classified top secret documents.
   Donald Trump is no longer president, despite his ranting that he was cheated out of the job. Dozens of courts have ruled that claims of cheating were fake and had no merit.
   So when will the ranting finally stop and the loser finally admits he lost?
   That's anyone's guess.
   The danger is that his many believers will hold fast to their faith and try again.
   And again.
   And again.
   To regain power.
   The have tried already using force.
   Now they're trying to manipulate nationwide ballot boxes by disallowing non-supporters from voting.
   Will they succeed?
   Will the American system survive?
   Stay tuned.

Say What?

   "An overdue library book" is what ex-president Donald Trump's lawyers called the top-secret documents found by government officials in his Mar-a-Lago home.
   And in a posting on his computer network site, Trump made repeated references to the documents as if he did, in fact, have them in his possession after he left the presidency. In the past he has denied having them.
   This despite federal law that stipulates government documents remain government property and do not belong to a president, either in or out of office.
   But comparing top secret government documents to an "overdue library book" has only drawn angry laughs from Americans who hear that defense.