Boring Hecklers

    One difference about President Joe Biden's State of the Union speech to Congress Tuesday evening was that the President was heckled by Republicans in the audience.
   And while the President's speech may have been boring, the heckling gave the news media something interesting to report. Such activity may be routine in the British Parliament, but it's rare in Congress.
   It wasn't until television became widespread in America that the annual comment on how the nation is doing became a major media event. Initially, the report was given in written version to Congress, and attracted little media attention.
   Television, however, gave politicians the opportunity to present themselves to the nation in a well rehearsed effort to offer a glowing report on how well they are governing the country.
   For many years, the speech was carried live on network television, followed by some opposing commentary by a representative of the other political party.
  That in itself is odd, since the other side does not have a copy of the presidential speech before it is delivered. But the broadcast media felt obliged to carry it anyway, to satisfy the demand for "fair and equal coverage."
   As for what President Biden said during his speech, that was widely carried by many news media around the world. I got bored after the first 15 minutes and decided to read about it the next day.

Banning History

Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

   Banning books stifles history.
   The odd thing about the latest effort to control what books are assigned to Advanced Placement classes in American schools is that the information in those books -- on Black history in America -- is part of American history.
   Blacks in America were in fact treated badly for centuries, beginning in the settlement era, through the slave era and continuing today. To ban books dealing with the treatment of Blacks in American is to stifle part of American history.
   How about a course on the treatment of Irish immigrants and Italian newcomers in the 19th Century and the early years of the 20th Century, as well as the treatment of Jews, then and now? Or the treatment of Chinese immigrants, supported by federal legislation in the 19th Century?
  And, of course, there was the treatment of the people who were already here and had been in America for centuries before the first Europeans arrived in the 17th Century. These native peoples were treated as somehow less than human. Which was a way of rationalizing the foul treatment of them.
   Now we see efforts by so-called government leaders to ban from their schools books that teach Black history. This is nothing less than censorship, a way of limiting which books are available.
   Proponents claim it is a way of protecting innocent young people from propaganda that will undermine their loyalty to the American way. But that in itself is propaganda, a way of foisting a preferred view of history onto innocent children who are not capable of seeing the fallacies promoted. Also forgotten is the reality that this teaching is designed for Advanced Placement classes, with high-level students who are bound for college. One could argue that this information should be taught to all students. Perhaps not in kindergarten classes, but certainly at the high school level.
   But what if the information is not fallacious, but true?
   There was, and remains, widespread ill treatment of minority groups in America, both those who were brought here against their will as well as those who today coming here on their own seeking a better way.
   Forgotten amid all the political noise is the reality of history.
   Meanwhile, hypocrisy thrives.

"Send me your tired, your poor,
Your huddle masses yearning to breathe free.
I lift my lamp beside the Golden Door."

Greed Endangers Democracy

    Democracy stabilizes greed.

   The danger is that when one becomes powerful enough to dominate the other, society suffers.

   When greed takes on the socially acceptable moniker of capitalism, one group dominates, and workers suffer. But when workers organize their efforts to get what they feel is a fair share of a nation's wealth, it's called communism or socialism.

   Oddly, both words are based on their social roots in their society or their community, when members join a united effort to improve the welfare of all.

   Historically, however, one side was so afraid of losing their dominance that they called their foes evil. Thus, socialism and communism are designated "evil," while capitalism is praised as the natural way to improve things for society's "betters."

   Sadly, that implies that others in society are "lessers."

   In the late 19th Century and the first half of the 20th Century, workers organized to strike back at the unfair conditions imposed on them by their overseers -- a word translated from the Latin "supervisor."

   That was when the wealthy insisted that the greed of labor unions would destroy the American way of life.

   In a way, it did.

   But was it greed or a desire for a fair share?

   That "way of life" benefited the few at the expense of the many.

   Fortunately for the American way of life, business management and employers recognized the unfairness as well as the danger of a radical shift in control such as happened in Russia when it became a union of socialist republics, emphasizing social welfare for all rather than mostly for a dominant few based on birth instead of skill.

   However, some other nations and their governments recognized the danger of power being held by only one social group, so they recognized the rights of labor and modified their systems to prevent an insurrection similar to what happened in Russia in 1917.

   Will it happen again? Where? When?

   Answer to the first question is yes, it happens regularly in countries where the few unfairly dominate the many. Then, the dominated group reaches a limit to its tolerance for maltreatment and suffering, and a revolution occurs. That's what happened in Russia in the early 20th Century.

   And it's likely to happen in other countries when the few are unfair to the many. An additional, longer term danger is that the formerly subordinate group takes the power structure to its opposite extreme and a new form of domination takes over.

   Is this a simplified, if not simplistic, version of national political and economic trends? Yes. But it's useful.

   Lesson: All things in moderation.

   Moral: Be careful what you wish for.

Democracy in Danger

    Just published the latest in the Jack McHarg series on journalism vs politicians, this one dealing with the continuing attempt by a preacher to take over the government and convert everyone to his views.

   The title is "Democracy In Danger," and is available worldwide in print or ebook form.

   If all this sounds familiar to present (and past) events, that's the intention. A difference is that Druids and their helping spirits work together to stymie those who want the nation to do all things their way and stifle all other views.

Greed

High prices mean high profits

   Major oil companies reported massive earnings in the most recent fiscal quarter, and they blamed their high prices on the war in Ukraine.
   Food prices also soared, as the agricultural industry claimed a similar consequence.
  Considering that it takes months for crude oil to be carried from Arab nations halfway around the world to refineries in America, then many more weeks to local gasoline filling stations, it's a guess as to why the price hike was almost instantaneous.
   Likewise, farmers in America don't ship all their crops across the world, so why did market prices leap so quickly?
   Answer: Greed.
   We're off to a new era as economists try to match theory with reality. Or is it the other way around?
   Either way, observers try to dissect human behavior as they match it with scientific theory.
   Good luck with that.
   The theory started as academics used the name business economics, to differentiate it from home economics. That was back in the day when girls in high school took cooking classes and boys were limited to auto shop or carpentry.
   Times have changed. Now, students follow their skills, no matter their gender.
  One problem remains, however. That of matching human behavior with rational principles, based on the principle that people are rational.
   If they were, there wouldn't be so much rationalizing. By definition, this means they go to great lengths to explain their behavior as good, even as it has bad results.
   But I digress.
   The point is that corporate managers take advantage of changes in human behavior on any level to increase their profits.
   And that is greed.

I'm Baa-aack!

   Donald Trump has made it official. He is is a candidate for the presidential election come November of next year.
   He picked a Saturday afternoon to make the announcement. But none of the major TV networks -- including Fox, his favorite -- carried the event live. They ran the report on their late afternoon and evening news broadcasts, since it was by any measure a major news event. But carrying it live? Didn't happen.

   Nor did any of the nation's major newspapers devote major space to the announcement. A three-paragraph item was printed on the lower half of an inside page.

   So much for making a big splash.
   The networks were more concerned with carrying reports on the arrest of five police officers who were charged with the beating death of Kyre Nichols after he ran away from a traffic stop in Memphis, Tenn.
  The five officers were suspended from the force and face murder charges. It's also worth noting that all five officers are Black, as was their victim. The police chief is also Black.
   These are noteworthy facts, indicating that America is changing.

Forecast and Reality

 

 

In October 2016, this column considered possible future events if the candidate loses. He ignored the possibility. Nevertheless, as the title said:

 

The Question Stands

 

Will you accept defeat?

   If dominating the news cycle is the measure of success in this year's presidential campaign, Donald Trump is the undisputed winner.

   During Wednesday evening's debate, moderator Chris Wallace asked if the candidate would accept the election results. His response evaded the question: "I'll let you know when the time comes."

   A second attempt by Wallace failed to get a definitive answer, defying a long tradition of presidential candidates conceding when vote results made clear the victory.

   But Trump would have none of that, insisting that he's not thinking about that now, that he wants to "keep you in suspense."

   Considering the many times the candidate has claimed that "the system is rigged" against him, such a refusal to accept even the idea of a possible defeat only encourages mob action and violence in November. This follows his more direct encouragement of violence at campaign events, going back many months.

   So by giving evasive answers, the candidate implies that he will not accept defeat. That, of course, would make him a loser. And in his lexicon, that is the worst thing that be said about anyone.

   More dangerous, however, is the implicit threat of a violent overthrow of the system that he calls "rigged," by his followers who hear his hints and suggestions as instructions.

   By phrasing his comments as he does, he can claim that he has never encouraged, and does not now, encourage violence. That, however, is disproven by the many times he has said such things, as recorded on video at his campaign rallies. And claims that he is not responsible for things that supporters do simply don't work. Even when his comments and insults are slightly vague, his more rabid followers typically take them a small step further, and resort to violence to "get him out of here," and to "punch him in the face."

   In short, these unsaid threats quickly become open violence.

   But this time, the future of the American system of government is at stake.

   After the blowback from comments made during the debate, he tried to soften the problem by assuring supporters at a rally that he would "absolutely support the election results ... if I win."

      So after all the rhetoric and self-serving defensiveness, the question stands: Will you accept defeat?

   Judging from past behavior over many decades as well as recent comments, the answer is likely to be No. Instead, as with so many other events in his life, his defeat will be labeled someone else's fault.

   We are seeing what may well be the most dangerous threat ever made to the American system, suggesting mob violence to overturn a duly elected President and install a dictator.