"I'm gonna pick up my marbles and go home," said the spoiled brat who couldn't get his own way.
Donald Trump has decided he won't attend the next debate among Republican presidential candidates, because Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly will be one of the moderators.
During an earlier session, Kelly challenged Trump on various disparaging remarks he had made about women. This prompted a next-day remark from Trump that Kelly must have been menstruating at the time, and that's why she wasn't being "fair" to him.
Curiously, for several weeks before the earlier debate, the candidate sent numerous complimentary messages to Kelly, praising her abilities. Kelly's response was to point out that he was trying to get on her good side so she would ask only easy questions.
It didn't work.
To the network's credit, Fox News said that Trump should know that he does not get to pick the journalists or the questions.
Not that he doesn't try.
Many reporters have pointed out that at campaign events, journalists are penned in at one side of the venue so they cannot get near the candidate or those who attend the rally.
Recently, after the British Parliament debated whether Trump should be banned from the United Kingdom for his anti-Muslim remarks, the developer-candidate threatened to withdraw his investments in Scottish golf courses. He would pick up his golf balls and go home.
Common among real estate agents and developers is the attitude that if someone -- especially a journalist -- is not an advocate for their position, that reporter is therefore an adversary, and to be treated as such.
Reporters are neither. They ask tough questions because they need to be asked. Megyn Kelly -- a news anchor at a major American TV network -- asks tough questions.
Claiming that anyone who does that or disagrees with anything he says is "unfair," only shows a bully's propensity to attempt to control everything.
That is not the attitude of an American presidential candidate, but that of a third-rate dictator.
And the more this particular candidate tries to control the media as well as the message, the tougher the questions from journalists will be.
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Spell Check
Word processing programs on computers are wonderful things, and a great additional to the tools available to writers. It may be one of the grater inventions since the addition of erasers to pencils.
However. The spell chick tool, as with any other tool, is only as good as it's user. Why? Because it does not recognize context. Spell check looks over each work individually, and flag words it does not recognize. The word may indeed be spelled correctly and is used appropriately, but if it is not in the computer's lexicon, or word bank, the machine will flag it somehow.
More importantly, a word may be spelt correctly, and the computer will pass on it, but it may be quit the wrong word.
Want proof? This brief assay was submitted to spell check, and was approved. Nonetheless, there are twelve misused words in this fore brief paragraphs.
Can you find them? The computer didn't.
Moral: Use spell check, and always proofread your own copy. But you should never be the only one to proofread you copy.
However. The spell chick tool, as with any other tool, is only as good as it's user. Why? Because it does not recognize context. Spell check looks over each work individually, and flag words it does not recognize. The word may indeed be spelled correctly and is used appropriately, but if it is not in the computer's lexicon, or word bank, the machine will flag it somehow.
More importantly, a word may be spelt correctly, and the computer will pass on it, but it may be quit the wrong word.
Want proof? This brief assay was submitted to spell check, and was approved. Nonetheless, there are twelve misused words in this fore brief paragraphs.
Can you find them? The computer didn't.
Moral: Use spell check, and always proofread your own copy. But you should never be the only one to proofread you copy.
Sunday, January 24, 2016
Econolanguage and Linguinomics
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with balderdash.
Economic prophecies can be self-fulfilling, and that's why growth predictions are almost always positive. At worst, government forecasters use words like "moderate," or perhaps "slow," with "some downside risk."
Besides, those in the private sector who see a decline as sure to come hedge their bets (investments) by selling short. That is, they will sell stock they don't have and their broker credits their account, in the expectation that the stock will be delivered later. Then, when delivery time comes, they can actually buy the stock at the lower price, give them to the broker and pocket the difference. And, of course, the steeper the decline, the more the profit.
Government forecasters, however, are usually vague if not obtuse when they see a strong likelihood of a downturn or recession, lest they be accused of being doomsayers or worse, and then be blamed for causing the recession.
Economists in the private sector, on the other hand, are not obliged or encouraged to speak openly of their negative views, since their job is to advise their employers. If they bet wrong and the boss loses money, advisors lose their jobs. Even if they're right, and the firm's business suffers, forecasters can lose their jobs in corporate downsizing.
Tenured academics, however, can warn of impending disaster as long as they want, but few people really want to hear that the sky is falling.
Economic prophecies can be self-fulfilling, and that's why growth predictions are almost always positive. At worst, government forecasters use words like "moderate," or perhaps "slow," with "some downside risk."
Besides, those in the private sector who see a decline as sure to come hedge their bets (investments) by selling short. That is, they will sell stock they don't have and their broker credits their account, in the expectation that the stock will be delivered later. Then, when delivery time comes, they can actually buy the stock at the lower price, give them to the broker and pocket the difference. And, of course, the steeper the decline, the more the profit.
Government forecasters, however, are usually vague if not obtuse when they see a strong likelihood of a downturn or recession, lest they be accused of being doomsayers or worse, and then be blamed for causing the recession.
Economists in the private sector, on the other hand, are not obliged or encouraged to speak openly of their negative views, since their job is to advise their employers. If they bet wrong and the boss loses money, advisors lose their jobs. Even if they're right, and the firm's business suffers, forecasters can lose their jobs in corporate downsizing.
Tenured academics, however, can warn of impending disaster as long as they want, but few people really want to hear that the sky is falling.
Story Telling
There's more than one way to tell a story.
Good story tellers know their audience, so they shape the story so it has more appeal to the target audience.
Comedians do this. Playwrights do it. Sports writers do it, slanting their phrasing to feature the home team. Political candidates do it, stressing certain policy points according to where they are and who they're talking to.
In the corporate world, that's called marketing and public relations, shaping the message for the most favorable appeal.
Journalists resent terms like bias and prejudice, which have negative connotations, but instead use words like angle, slant and perspective, which they perceive as neutral.
The reality, however, is that every story, whether fiction, drama, history, comedy or journalistic, is written from a perspective or angle, and is aimed at satisfying the emotional or intellectual needs and desires of an audience or readership.
Those who disagree with the treatment of a story are quick to dismiss it by labeling it as biased, prejudiced or simply wrong.
Disagreement doesn't always mean the other side is wrong and therefore evil.
Don't say "You're wrong." Instead, say "I disagree." For journalists, moreover, it's better to quote Speaker One, then provide evidence and information from Source Two, and readers decide who's wrong.
Good story tellers know their audience, so they shape the story so it has more appeal to the target audience.
Comedians do this. Playwrights do it. Sports writers do it, slanting their phrasing to feature the home team. Political candidates do it, stressing certain policy points according to where they are and who they're talking to.
In the corporate world, that's called marketing and public relations, shaping the message for the most favorable appeal.
Journalists resent terms like bias and prejudice, which have negative connotations, but instead use words like angle, slant and perspective, which they perceive as neutral.
The reality, however, is that every story, whether fiction, drama, history, comedy or journalistic, is written from a perspective or angle, and is aimed at satisfying the emotional or intellectual needs and desires of an audience or readership.
Those who disagree with the treatment of a story are quick to dismiss it by labeling it as biased, prejudiced or simply wrong.
Disagreement doesn't always mean the other side is wrong and therefore evil.
Don't say "You're wrong." Instead, say "I disagree." For journalists, moreover, it's better to quote Speaker One, then provide evidence and information from Source Two, and readers decide who's wrong.
Fill Words and Overtalk
How to prevent interruptions. Keep talking.
Yammer, yammer, yammer.
Courteous conversationalists wait for a pause before responding to another's comment. Courtesy, however, is often lacking, especially when some feel what they have to say is infinitely more important than whatever anyone else may have to say, so they jump in at the vaguest pause. Or they don't even wait for a pause. Meanwhile, as they rattle on, they rely on "fill words" to keep a sound level in their favor, so there isn't really a pause that might enable others to leap in to the conversation.
Here are some fill words that prattlers use to maintain some level of sound, indicating that they really are still talking: I mean, really, it's like, sort of, y'know, um, uh, that is, what I'm trying to say is ...
All these enable such speakers to keep their turns while trying to think of what they want to say next. Often, they don't really know what they want to say, but they're reluctant to yield their control of the talk session. That's not a conversation, but competitive yammering.
From our Dublin correspondent:
It has been reported that Bill O'Reilly of Fox News said if Bernie Sanders is elected President he (O'Reilly) will move to Ireland. Others have misgivings about Donald Trump supported by Sarah Palin and may also seek asylum.
I think it is time for Ireland to review its policy concerning political refugees and asylum seekers.
Yammer, yammer, yammer.
Courteous conversationalists wait for a pause before responding to another's comment. Courtesy, however, is often lacking, especially when some feel what they have to say is infinitely more important than whatever anyone else may have to say, so they jump in at the vaguest pause. Or they don't even wait for a pause. Meanwhile, as they rattle on, they rely on "fill words" to keep a sound level in their favor, so there isn't really a pause that might enable others to leap in to the conversation.
Here are some fill words that prattlers use to maintain some level of sound, indicating that they really are still talking: I mean, really, it's like, sort of, y'know, um, uh, that is, what I'm trying to say is ...
All these enable such speakers to keep their turns while trying to think of what they want to say next. Often, they don't really know what they want to say, but they're reluctant to yield their control of the talk session. That's not a conversation, but competitive yammering.
From our Dublin correspondent:
It has been reported that Bill O'Reilly of Fox News said if Bernie Sanders is elected President he (O'Reilly) will move to Ireland. Others have misgivings about Donald Trump supported by Sarah Palin and may also seek asylum.
I think it is time for Ireland to review its policy concerning political refugees and asylum seekers.
Saturday, January 23, 2016
Media Message
Increasingly, mainstream media outlets are warning that economic weakness in other nations likely will drag down recovery in the U.S.
But because newsroom types believe economics is "too hard" for them to write about, the message is often slow to get out. This is not helped by the sputtering invective of presidential candidates, more interested in insulting opponents and media outlets than in stating understandable policies.
Granted, it's easier to report a fight than to describe a serious discussion, but that's a reason, not an excuse.
Meanwhile, conservatives continue their drumbeat of demands to reduce the size of government, assailing the rising government deficit. True, the Congressional Budget Office says the size of the federal deficit will increase next year as the economy recovers, from $439 billion in 2015 to $479 billion in 2016. But relative to the size of the economy, that's a rise of barely one-tenth of one percent, from 2.4 percent to 2.5 percent.
As the new century began, federal deficits declined as the nation climbed out of the 2000-02 recession, according to the web site usgovernmentspending.com, down to 1.1 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2007. "But the recession that started late in 2006 drove deficits higher," the group noted, to "nearly 10 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2009, driven mainly by bank bailouts under the TARP program."
Then, after the 2008 crash, the web site pointed out, "federal deficits started decreasing, getting to 4 percent of GDP in FY 2013 and 2.4 percent of GDP " last year.
It's interesting to note that deficits tend to rise when a Republican occupies the White House, and fall when a Democrat is President. There was a "five-year bulge in deficits" due to tax cuts and a defense buildup during the administration of Republican President Ronald Reagan, usgovspending said, and deficits "consistently declined year on year" when Democrat Bill Clinton was in office, from a deficit of 3.9 percent inherited from the Reagan Administration to a surplus of 2.3 percent in Clinton's final budget.
Tax cuts and recession, plus the Iraq war when Republican George W. Bush was President sent deficits up again, to 3.4 percent in FY 2004, followed by the Great Recession when deficits ballooned to 9.8 percent of GDP in the fiscal year ended in the summer of 2009.
Since then, Democratic President Barack Obama has presided over a decline in deficits to 2.4 percent.
Is total government spending on the rise? Yes. Is the deficit soaring again, as GOP candidates complain again? Total spending is indeed rising, but as a percent of total output, the deficit is barely moving.
GDP, by the way, the total value of all goods and services produced in America, is now more than $18 trillion, up from $17.5 trillion a year ago.
Writing about economic policy is not that hard to do. It takes a bit more thought -- perhaps one-tenth of one percent, similar to the forecast rise in the federal deficit this year -- but it can be done, partly by ignoring the invective spewed by some candidates and focusing instead on reality.
For more detail on the relationship of federal deficits as a percent of total output, visit http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_percent_gdp.
But because newsroom types believe economics is "too hard" for them to write about, the message is often slow to get out. This is not helped by the sputtering invective of presidential candidates, more interested in insulting opponents and media outlets than in stating understandable policies.
Granted, it's easier to report a fight than to describe a serious discussion, but that's a reason, not an excuse.
Meanwhile, conservatives continue their drumbeat of demands to reduce the size of government, assailing the rising government deficit. True, the Congressional Budget Office says the size of the federal deficit will increase next year as the economy recovers, from $439 billion in 2015 to $479 billion in 2016. But relative to the size of the economy, that's a rise of barely one-tenth of one percent, from 2.4 percent to 2.5 percent.
As the new century began, federal deficits declined as the nation climbed out of the 2000-02 recession, according to the web site usgovernmentspending.com, down to 1.1 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2007. "But the recession that started late in 2006 drove deficits higher," the group noted, to "nearly 10 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2009, driven mainly by bank bailouts under the TARP program."
Then, after the 2008 crash, the web site pointed out, "federal deficits started decreasing, getting to 4 percent of GDP in FY 2013 and 2.4 percent of GDP " last year.
It's interesting to note that deficits tend to rise when a Republican occupies the White House, and fall when a Democrat is President. There was a "five-year bulge in deficits" due to tax cuts and a defense buildup during the administration of Republican President Ronald Reagan, usgovspending said, and deficits "consistently declined year on year" when Democrat Bill Clinton was in office, from a deficit of 3.9 percent inherited from the Reagan Administration to a surplus of 2.3 percent in Clinton's final budget.
Tax cuts and recession, plus the Iraq war when Republican George W. Bush was President sent deficits up again, to 3.4 percent in FY 2004, followed by the Great Recession when deficits ballooned to 9.8 percent of GDP in the fiscal year ended in the summer of 2009.
Since then, Democratic President Barack Obama has presided over a decline in deficits to 2.4 percent.
Is total government spending on the rise? Yes. Is the deficit soaring again, as GOP candidates complain again? Total spending is indeed rising, but as a percent of total output, the deficit is barely moving.
GDP, by the way, the total value of all goods and services produced in America, is now more than $18 trillion, up from $17.5 trillion a year ago.
Writing about economic policy is not that hard to do. It takes a bit more thought -- perhaps one-tenth of one percent, similar to the forecast rise in the federal deficit this year -- but it can be done, partly by ignoring the invective spewed by some candidates and focusing instead on reality.
For more detail on the relationship of federal deficits as a percent of total output, visit http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_percent_gdp.
Friday, January 22, 2016
Progressivism
Hypocrisy is rampant.
Whatever happened to the sense of moral responsibility to help the needy that marked so many and led to the Progressive Party, led by Theodore Roosevelt?
It's ironic that the Republican Party, with its huge base of so-called evangelicals, has come so far from those days and now cares so little about social welfare.
Or maybe it's just the knee-jerk political reactionism that requires opponents to campaign against something that they themselves may have proposed in the past but now object to because someone else might get a small amount of credit for putting the program in place. Remember Mitt Romney's assault on the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) set up by Democrats, even though the format was identical to the one arranged by Republican Romney as governor of Massachusetts?
Perhaps it's time for those who advocate social welfare to label themselves Progressives rather than Socialists. Then again, the Progressive Party was an offshoot of the Republican Party in the early 20th Century, and Democrats today are not likely to use a label that was once applied to renegade Republicans.
Whatever happened to the sense of moral responsibility to help the needy that marked so many and led to the Progressive Party, led by Theodore Roosevelt?
It's ironic that the Republican Party, with its huge base of so-called evangelicals, has come so far from those days and now cares so little about social welfare.
Or maybe it's just the knee-jerk political reactionism that requires opponents to campaign against something that they themselves may have proposed in the past but now object to because someone else might get a small amount of credit for putting the program in place. Remember Mitt Romney's assault on the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) set up by Democrats, even though the format was identical to the one arranged by Republican Romney as governor of Massachusetts?
Perhaps it's time for those who advocate social welfare to label themselves Progressives rather than Socialists. Then again, the Progressive Party was an offshoot of the Republican Party in the early 20th Century, and Democrats today are not likely to use a label that was once applied to renegade Republicans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)