Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. -- Constitution of the United States of America, First Amendment.
Despite the clear language of the Constitution, political candidates regularly warn that their opponents will unilaterally abolish portions of the American founding document, as if it could be easily done by executive fiat.
No, it can't. That only happens in dictatorships. And unless America becomes a dictatorship, it can never happen.
Even so, candidates and groups keep sounding an alarm that it might, as a way of furthering their own agenda at the expense of those who may disagree.
For example, a group calling itself the Faith and Freedom Coalition charges that Hillary Clinton, if elected President, "will use government force to make you reject your Christian faith." As evidence, the group quotes part of a speech by Clinton in April 2015 in which she reportedly said, "Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated religious beliefs have to be changed."
However, there was no context to the quote, which dealt with the treatment of women and their reproductive rights, among other legal rights. Yet fundamentalists immediately extended that statement to mean Clinton was calling for Christians to abandon their religious beliefs. Fact checkers soon pointed out the fallacy. Yet once made to the base of True Believers, no amount of factual evidence will change their minds.
In addition to the false connection, another reality is that the Constitution specifically prohibits an official state-sponsored religion as well as banning any restrictions on the free exercise of religion.
To a large extent, the First Amendment was written to prevent a situation that was common in Great Britain at the time, which had a state-sponsored church (Episcopalian), and only members of that church could serve in government offices or attend the major universities in England.
As for the allegation that a Clinton Administration would force Christians to abandon their faith, what would take its place? That would mean overturning the First Amendment. In addition, that would mean cancelling Article VI of the Constitution itself, which says "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
And if Christianity is prohibited, what of the other spiritual practices common in America? Which one would replace Christianity: Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Hindu, Wicca, Druidry, Native American tribal practices, or would Atheist, or Agnostic, or None of the Above, be among the "acceptable" choices? Or if Christianity be mandated for all, which of the many variations would be allowed?
The reality is that no such action is possible, unless the Constitution be suspended.
So any suggestion that such a move would be attempted is fear-mongering. Nowhere in the Constitution is Christianity mentioned. In fact, the only times religion is mentioned at all is to prohibit restrictions or preferences of any kind. It's called the separation of church and state.
But if, by some remote chance, a politician were to succeed in an attempt to establish an official church or to limit the free exercise of any other religion, the move would immediately crash into Constitutional prohibitions. Unless that politician succeeded in suspending the Constitution.
Likewise, some candidates insist that an opponent would trash the Second Amendment, which deals with gun control. Any such attempt to do that would also clash with Constitutional rights as well as Supreme Court rulings.
The United States Constitution established three distinct, separate and equal branches of government: Congress, the Executive, and the Supreme Court. If one person were to attempt to control all three, then America would no longer be what it has been for more than two centuries.
Instead, it would be a dictatorship. So when a candidate loudly proclaims what that person would do as President, the claim is based on a premise that the Executive Branch is the sole repository of all power in these United States.
'Tain't so.
Tuesday, October 11, 2016
Morality and Legality
There are three primary types of obligations people face when dealing with other people: moral, legal and ethical. There are also, for many believers, religious obligations, but the topic for today is political -- the real world of presidential politics.
Lawyers for NBC and its "Access Hollywood" show argued for days over whether the company could legally release a recording of Donald Trump saying lewd and vulgar things about women. The issues were these:
-- Was there an expectation of privacy on the bus carrying Trump to the studio for an episode of a TV show?
-- Was the company legally constrained by its contract and therefore obliged to keep the video private?
-- Did the larger issue of the public's right to know about a presidential candidate's background and past behavior override any legal or contractual obligation. The incident was recorded 11 years ago, before Trump became a presidential candidate.
It seems NBC and the "Access Hollywood" producers knew about the tapes and were preparing their own news report, but were still debating the legal and ethical issues, as well as who would break the story first, the news division or the entertainment division.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post got hold of the videotape, and since the newspaper had no contractual ties, its only concern was news value. Moreover, the newspaper could depend on reporter shield laws to protect the source that supplied the video to the Post, and would not be entangled in a dispute over contract law. In addition, a major newspaper such as the Washington Post has a greater impact than a TV gossip show, or a network facing a contract puzzle.
So while the lawyers shilly-shalleyed and voted to hold the story until Monday, the day after the Sunday debate between the two presidential candidates, the Post broke the story online at 4 p.m. Friday, starting an avalanche of news coverage through the weekend, onto the debate stage, and for days afterward.
It's possible, then, that those involved in the production and recording of the video used a CYA tactic, leaking the material and enabling a major newspaper to break the story. NBC could then say they had no choice but to cover a major news story that was already public.
Meanwhile, producers of "The Apprentice" show, which starred Trump, have acknowledged the existence of outtakes containing more lewd remarks by Trump about women appearing on the program. But they claim they are contractually prohibited from releasing them.
Nevertheless, the question remains as to the higher obligation: Legal or moral.
It may be legal to withhold information about a presidential candidate's attitudes and behavior, but is it moral or ethical? The voting public has a right to know what kind of person it is who wants to be President of the United States of America.
Lawyers for NBC and its "Access Hollywood" show argued for days over whether the company could legally release a recording of Donald Trump saying lewd and vulgar things about women. The issues were these:
-- Was there an expectation of privacy on the bus carrying Trump to the studio for an episode of a TV show?
-- Was the company legally constrained by its contract and therefore obliged to keep the video private?
-- Did the larger issue of the public's right to know about a presidential candidate's background and past behavior override any legal or contractual obligation. The incident was recorded 11 years ago, before Trump became a presidential candidate.
It seems NBC and the "Access Hollywood" producers knew about the tapes and were preparing their own news report, but were still debating the legal and ethical issues, as well as who would break the story first, the news division or the entertainment division.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post got hold of the videotape, and since the newspaper had no contractual ties, its only concern was news value. Moreover, the newspaper could depend on reporter shield laws to protect the source that supplied the video to the Post, and would not be entangled in a dispute over contract law. In addition, a major newspaper such as the Washington Post has a greater impact than a TV gossip show, or a network facing a contract puzzle.
So while the lawyers shilly-shalleyed and voted to hold the story until Monday, the day after the Sunday debate between the two presidential candidates, the Post broke the story online at 4 p.m. Friday, starting an avalanche of news coverage through the weekend, onto the debate stage, and for days afterward.
It's possible, then, that those involved in the production and recording of the video used a CYA tactic, leaking the material and enabling a major newspaper to break the story. NBC could then say they had no choice but to cover a major news story that was already public.
Meanwhile, producers of "The Apprentice" show, which starred Trump, have acknowledged the existence of outtakes containing more lewd remarks by Trump about women appearing on the program. But they claim they are contractually prohibited from releasing them.
Nevertheless, the question remains as to the higher obligation: Legal or moral.
It may be legal to withhold information about a presidential candidate's attitudes and behavior, but is it moral or ethical? The voting public has a right to know what kind of person it is who wants to be President of the United States of America.
Monday, October 10, 2016
The Loser
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
The storm warnings are there, and have been for many months, but it seems only now are Republican Party leaders acting on a pending disaster.
Increasingly, senior Republicans are saying they no longer can support their own nominee, claiming that his rantings about women, minorities, immigrants, the handicapped, religious groups and others do not represent what their party is about.
Really? The record shows otherwise. The difference is that Donald Trump has taken those positions to their natural extreme, and in the process has antagonized more people, more blatantly and in a shorter time than prior positions of other Republicans.
But perhaps the most dangerous political statement was the warning during Sunday's debate that as President he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate his opponent's activities and see to it that she goes to jail. This reminded listeners of the "Lock her up!" chant heard at Trump campaign rallies.
That's the kind of political retaliation common to dictatorships around the world, but not found in America.
Yet.
Can it happen here? Is it possible, or even probable, that a demagogue can somehow take the low road to the White House and then wreak vengeance on his opponents?
Readers of this blog will remember that such a warning was posted four times since Trump became a national figure in presidential politics, most recently on 9 March of this year. Earlier comments were posted 20 October 2015, 21 September 2013, and 15 December 2012. Each posting cited two novels, one factual book and one true episode.
The novels are "It Can't Happen Here" (1935) by Sinclair Lewis, and "The Plot Against America" (2004) by Philip Roth. A third book, "The Plot to Seize the White House," written by Jules Archer and published in 1973, documented a real conspiracy by isolationist radicals of the 1930s who wanted to close all borders and build a Fortress America.
The Jules Archer book dealt with a plan by ultra-conservative corporate moguls to oust President Franklin D. Roosevelt and install their own leader.
A second attempt to subvert democratic channels and initiate full control by the White House was planned during the presidency of Richard M. Nixon, but it was foiled by close aides, led by senior advisor Henry Kissinger.
All three of the books mentioned were based on events of the 1930s, when isolationist thinking and metaphorical wall-building in the form of high tariffs were riding high. At the time, the Smoot-Hawley tariff act imposed high fees on imports in a vain attempt to protect American products. But retaliation by other trading nations only raised prices for consumers everywhere, and all sides suffered.
We now face an "America First" candidate who has borrowed that slogan from the isolationists of the 1930s and wants to build a real wall along the nation's southern border with Mexico and to expel millions of immigrants.
During Sunday evening's debate, Trump said that as President he would appoint a special prosecutor to pursue allegations of criminal behavior by the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton.
He made no mention, however, of the numerous formal legal charges pending against him about criminal behavior related to his business ventures. And despite much talk alleging criminal behavior by Mrs. Clinton, Congressional and FBI investigations have not found evidence enough to warrant formal charges.
Does this mean they don't exist? No, it only means they have not been found. On the other hand, plenty of evidence of Trump's questionable behavior -- both criminal and moral -- has been found.
But the final storm warning that caught the attention of GOP leaders was the release of recorded comments by Trump in which he bragged about his success in sexually assaulting women. "When you're a star, you can do anything," he boasted.
That was the last straw for many Republican leaders, who are now abandoning their own candidate, with some even calling for him to quit.
The term "quitter," however, does not seem to be in the Trump lexicon. Neither is "loser." But that, however, is what he is. Morally and ethically, he is already a loser. And come November, he is quite likely to be a political loser.
Meanwhile, an even bigger danger is that he and his supporters will not recognize the results of a nationwide general election, and will instigate some sort of rebellion. After all, he has already been warning that the election is being "rigged" against him.
What, then, will it take to convince him that he is, in fact, a loser?
The storm warnings are there, and have been for many months, but it seems only now are Republican Party leaders acting on a pending disaster.
Increasingly, senior Republicans are saying they no longer can support their own nominee, claiming that his rantings about women, minorities, immigrants, the handicapped, religious groups and others do not represent what their party is about.
Really? The record shows otherwise. The difference is that Donald Trump has taken those positions to their natural extreme, and in the process has antagonized more people, more blatantly and in a shorter time than prior positions of other Republicans.
But perhaps the most dangerous political statement was the warning during Sunday's debate that as President he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate his opponent's activities and see to it that she goes to jail. This reminded listeners of the "Lock her up!" chant heard at Trump campaign rallies.
That's the kind of political retaliation common to dictatorships around the world, but not found in America.
Yet.
Can it happen here? Is it possible, or even probable, that a demagogue can somehow take the low road to the White House and then wreak vengeance on his opponents?
Readers of this blog will remember that such a warning was posted four times since Trump became a national figure in presidential politics, most recently on 9 March of this year. Earlier comments were posted 20 October 2015, 21 September 2013, and 15 December 2012. Each posting cited two novels, one factual book and one true episode.
The novels are "It Can't Happen Here" (1935) by Sinclair Lewis, and "The Plot Against America" (2004) by Philip Roth. A third book, "The Plot to Seize the White House," written by Jules Archer and published in 1973, documented a real conspiracy by isolationist radicals of the 1930s who wanted to close all borders and build a Fortress America.
The Jules Archer book dealt with a plan by ultra-conservative corporate moguls to oust President Franklin D. Roosevelt and install their own leader.
A second attempt to subvert democratic channels and initiate full control by the White House was planned during the presidency of Richard M. Nixon, but it was foiled by close aides, led by senior advisor Henry Kissinger.
All three of the books mentioned were based on events of the 1930s, when isolationist thinking and metaphorical wall-building in the form of high tariffs were riding high. At the time, the Smoot-Hawley tariff act imposed high fees on imports in a vain attempt to protect American products. But retaliation by other trading nations only raised prices for consumers everywhere, and all sides suffered.
We now face an "America First" candidate who has borrowed that slogan from the isolationists of the 1930s and wants to build a real wall along the nation's southern border with Mexico and to expel millions of immigrants.
During Sunday evening's debate, Trump said that as President he would appoint a special prosecutor to pursue allegations of criminal behavior by the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton.
He made no mention, however, of the numerous formal legal charges pending against him about criminal behavior related to his business ventures. And despite much talk alleging criminal behavior by Mrs. Clinton, Congressional and FBI investigations have not found evidence enough to warrant formal charges.
Does this mean they don't exist? No, it only means they have not been found. On the other hand, plenty of evidence of Trump's questionable behavior -- both criminal and moral -- has been found.
But the final storm warning that caught the attention of GOP leaders was the release of recorded comments by Trump in which he bragged about his success in sexually assaulting women. "When you're a star, you can do anything," he boasted.
That was the last straw for many Republican leaders, who are now abandoning their own candidate, with some even calling for him to quit.
The term "quitter," however, does not seem to be in the Trump lexicon. Neither is "loser." But that, however, is what he is. Morally and ethically, he is already a loser. And come November, he is quite likely to be a political loser.
Meanwhile, an even bigger danger is that he and his supporters will not recognize the results of a nationwide general election, and will instigate some sort of rebellion. After all, he has already been warning that the election is being "rigged" against him.
What, then, will it take to convince him that he is, in fact, a loser?
Sunday, October 9, 2016
Choosing Government
What is the proper function of government? To help and protect people, or to help and protect business?
"That government is best that governs least," wrote Henry David Thoreau. But some government is essential to prevent chaos. The issue, then, is how much government does a society want or need "to ensure domestic tranquility," as stated in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
Anarchy is defined as no government at all.
Monarchy is government by one.
Oligarchy is government by a few.
Scholars have suggested that the best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. But few, if any, dictatorships are benevolent. Some may start out that way, but such benevolence never lasts.
A democracy is where all decisions are made by all citizens by direct involvement. A republic is where decisions are made by representatives of a larger society.
But a pure democracy is not practical for a large society; it worked in ancient Greece, where relatively small city-states, highly dependent on slaves, enabled all citizens to participate in regular meetings for public decisions.
America borrowed from both, so government here can be described as a democratic republic, where all citizens can participate in choosing representatives. These representatives then make decisions on how much government is needed or wanted to help and protect the people.
Therein lies the question, which is how much government involvement is acceptable to the majority of citizens. Put another way, what is government's responsibility to the general public in ensuring domestic tranquility? Is it no involvement at all, reflecting an attitude of everyone to his or her own self interest, and devil take the hindmost, who are branded as losers?
Or does government have a role in ensuring domestic tranquility by helping build social welfare for all citizens?
If, as some have proposed, government has had too strong a role, and it is important therefore to dismantle social welfare programs that have been in place for some 80 years, including the pension program for retired workers known as Social Security, and an insurance program for unemployed workers. More recent government-sponsored programs include health insurance for older or disabled workers, known as Medicare; a similar program for the needy, known as Medicaid; and a universal health care program for all Americans, known as Obamacare.
Those who favor less government involvement call for such programs to be privatized, saying businesses can do it better by investing the program's funds on Wall Street ventures.
But what if Wall Street crashes? It has happened before, and will likely happen again. It's because of the Great Crash of 1929 and the resulting Great Depression that many of the government-sponsored social welfare programs were created in the first place. Government recognized its responsibility to the general public and stepped in to guarantee social welfare. In short, government stepped up to do the job that the business sector could not or would not do.
To dismantle them now on the premise that business can and will do a better job is too risky, and would only return America to those awful days of pre-Depression yesteryear. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
But if it is broken, don't throw it away. Fix it.
"That government is best that governs least," wrote Henry David Thoreau. But some government is essential to prevent chaos. The issue, then, is how much government does a society want or need "to ensure domestic tranquility," as stated in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
Anarchy is defined as no government at all.
Monarchy is government by one.
Oligarchy is government by a few.
Scholars have suggested that the best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. But few, if any, dictatorships are benevolent. Some may start out that way, but such benevolence never lasts.
A democracy is where all decisions are made by all citizens by direct involvement. A republic is where decisions are made by representatives of a larger society.
But a pure democracy is not practical for a large society; it worked in ancient Greece, where relatively small city-states, highly dependent on slaves, enabled all citizens to participate in regular meetings for public decisions.
America borrowed from both, so government here can be described as a democratic republic, where all citizens can participate in choosing representatives. These representatives then make decisions on how much government is needed or wanted to help and protect the people.
Therein lies the question, which is how much government involvement is acceptable to the majority of citizens. Put another way, what is government's responsibility to the general public in ensuring domestic tranquility? Is it no involvement at all, reflecting an attitude of everyone to his or her own self interest, and devil take the hindmost, who are branded as losers?
Or does government have a role in ensuring domestic tranquility by helping build social welfare for all citizens?
If, as some have proposed, government has had too strong a role, and it is important therefore to dismantle social welfare programs that have been in place for some 80 years, including the pension program for retired workers known as Social Security, and an insurance program for unemployed workers. More recent government-sponsored programs include health insurance for older or disabled workers, known as Medicare; a similar program for the needy, known as Medicaid; and a universal health care program for all Americans, known as Obamacare.
Those who favor less government involvement call for such programs to be privatized, saying businesses can do it better by investing the program's funds on Wall Street ventures.
But what if Wall Street crashes? It has happened before, and will likely happen again. It's because of the Great Crash of 1929 and the resulting Great Depression that many of the government-sponsored social welfare programs were created in the first place. Government recognized its responsibility to the general public and stepped in to guarantee social welfare. In short, government stepped up to do the job that the business sector could not or would not do.
To dismantle them now on the premise that business can and will do a better job is too risky, and would only return America to those awful days of pre-Depression yesteryear. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
But if it is broken, don't throw it away. Fix it.
Saturday, October 8, 2016
Crass Class
He did it too! He said it first! -- Juvenile defense of misbehavior.
If there had ever been any doubt, Donald Trump moved to the head of the crass class, prompting many GOP leaders to withdraw their support of the party's nominee for President of the United States, with several urging him to withdraw from the race.
Trump, however, vowed, "I will never drop out."
The current flap is over Trump's behavior toward women, and is based on release of a recording in which he bragged about his attempt to seduce a married woman and generally self-praising his ability to grab women in their private areas.
"When you're a star, they let you do it," Trump said on the recording, obtained and published by the Washington Post on Friday.
His defense is that the incident happened "a long time ago" -- it was 11 years ago -- and was merely "locker room banter" and should be forgotten.
Moreover, Trump pointed out that former President Bill Clinton also talked dirty about women, "and it was worse."
But that alleged conversation supposedly took place on a golf course, outside, and there is no recording of it -- only Trump's report.
Moreover, Trump pointed out that Bill Clinton was engaged in extra-marital affairs, implying that the former President's behavior somehow would excuse his own. However, the Bill Clinton episodes happened 20 years ago, even longer ago than the Trump incident. But if such behavior is inappropriate for a sitting President, it is even less appropriate for a candidate aspiring to that office. Mr. Clinton's actions while in office led to impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial in the Senate, but he was not convicted, nor was he removed from office, which is the sole Constitutional consequence of impeachment and conviction.
More to the point, Bill Clinton is not now a candidate for the presidency, and since he already has served two terms, he is constitutionally prohibited from trying again.
The initial fallout from the Trump revelations included these:
-- Trump was disinvited from a campaign rally in Wisconsin Saturday.
-- Mike Pence, his running mate, opted out of appearing at that rally and condemned the Trump comments.
-- Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican and former presidential candidate, withdrew his support of Trump's candidacy.
-- Republican Condoleezza Rice, a former Secretary of State, condemned the remarks.
-- And a long roster of other Republican Party leaders also condemned the remarks and urged Trump to resign his candidacy.
Meanwhile, Trump supporters continue to insist that news media are overstepping their coverage of Trump, and not giving enough coverage to allegations of misdeeds by Hillary Clinton, the current Democratic nominee and wife of former President Bill Clinton.
This, however, illustrates the issue of "false equivalency," the idea that coverage of various issues should devote the same amount of print space and broadcast time to every issue affecting every candidate.
Too often, however, news media have been guilty of that, seeking out comment from, for example, climate change deniers to balance reports by world scientists who cite reams of data detailing such changes. Typically, deniers point to snowfall in winter as proof that there is no such thing as climate change. But that confuses seasonal weather variations with overall measures of the climate.
Another example would be extensively quoting remarks by an atheist to give "balance" to a report about religious celebrations in December.
The claim that allegations against Hillary Clinton are equal to proven charges against Donald Trump is a false equivalency.
If there had ever been any doubt, Donald Trump moved to the head of the crass class, prompting many GOP leaders to withdraw their support of the party's nominee for President of the United States, with several urging him to withdraw from the race.
Trump, however, vowed, "I will never drop out."
The current flap is over Trump's behavior toward women, and is based on release of a recording in which he bragged about his attempt to seduce a married woman and generally self-praising his ability to grab women in their private areas.
"When you're a star, they let you do it," Trump said on the recording, obtained and published by the Washington Post on Friday.
His defense is that the incident happened "a long time ago" -- it was 11 years ago -- and was merely "locker room banter" and should be forgotten.
Moreover, Trump pointed out that former President Bill Clinton also talked dirty about women, "and it was worse."
But that alleged conversation supposedly took place on a golf course, outside, and there is no recording of it -- only Trump's report.
Moreover, Trump pointed out that Bill Clinton was engaged in extra-marital affairs, implying that the former President's behavior somehow would excuse his own. However, the Bill Clinton episodes happened 20 years ago, even longer ago than the Trump incident. But if such behavior is inappropriate for a sitting President, it is even less appropriate for a candidate aspiring to that office. Mr. Clinton's actions while in office led to impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial in the Senate, but he was not convicted, nor was he removed from office, which is the sole Constitutional consequence of impeachment and conviction.
More to the point, Bill Clinton is not now a candidate for the presidency, and since he already has served two terms, he is constitutionally prohibited from trying again.
The initial fallout from the Trump revelations included these:
-- Trump was disinvited from a campaign rally in Wisconsin Saturday.
-- Mike Pence, his running mate, opted out of appearing at that rally and condemned the Trump comments.
-- Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican and former presidential candidate, withdrew his support of Trump's candidacy.
-- Republican Condoleezza Rice, a former Secretary of State, condemned the remarks.
-- And a long roster of other Republican Party leaders also condemned the remarks and urged Trump to resign his candidacy.
Meanwhile, Trump supporters continue to insist that news media are overstepping their coverage of Trump, and not giving enough coverage to allegations of misdeeds by Hillary Clinton, the current Democratic nominee and wife of former President Bill Clinton.
This, however, illustrates the issue of "false equivalency," the idea that coverage of various issues should devote the same amount of print space and broadcast time to every issue affecting every candidate.
Too often, however, news media have been guilty of that, seeking out comment from, for example, climate change deniers to balance reports by world scientists who cite reams of data detailing such changes. Typically, deniers point to snowfall in winter as proof that there is no such thing as climate change. But that confuses seasonal weather variations with overall measures of the climate.
Another example would be extensively quoting remarks by an atheist to give "balance" to a report about religious celebrations in December.
The claim that allegations against Hillary Clinton are equal to proven charges against Donald Trump is a false equivalency.
Friday, October 7, 2016
Follow the Fold
Preaching to your own political choir of devotees who already believe and need little persuasion because you tell them what they want to hear regardless of fact or reality is a fine way to succeed, temporarily, in guiding and leading a political movement.
But sooner or later, reality has a way of crashing the party and taking away the punch that intoxicates the True Believers.
Truth can be defined as that which conforms to fact or reality. But some Great Truths, while outlining a fine goal, do not always conform to reality. For example, it may be that "we hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all are created equal." But as George Orwell noted in his book, "Animal Farm," some believe they are "more equal than others."
It is a fact that many believe some people are inherently, biologically or culturally "better" than others. Taken to an extreme, this leads to a dogma that stipulates a "master race," thus enabling its members to dominate and even eventually to exterminate those who are not of the same ilk.
History contains numerous examples of this reality, perpetrated by those who believe in a "truth" that some are more equal than others.
America was founded on the principle that all are created equal, but to follow a leader who claims that others are inferior in some way and therefore "don't belong here" is not only contrary to American ideals, but frightening in its consequences.
Don't go there.
But sooner or later, reality has a way of crashing the party and taking away the punch that intoxicates the True Believers.
Truth can be defined as that which conforms to fact or reality. But some Great Truths, while outlining a fine goal, do not always conform to reality. For example, it may be that "we hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all are created equal." But as George Orwell noted in his book, "Animal Farm," some believe they are "more equal than others."
It is a fact that many believe some people are inherently, biologically or culturally "better" than others. Taken to an extreme, this leads to a dogma that stipulates a "master race," thus enabling its members to dominate and even eventually to exterminate those who are not of the same ilk.
History contains numerous examples of this reality, perpetrated by those who believe in a "truth" that some are more equal than others.
America was founded on the principle that all are created equal, but to follow a leader who claims that others are inferior in some way and therefore "don't belong here" is not only contrary to American ideals, but frightening in its consequences.
Don't go there.
Jobs, Jobs, Jobs
More Americans found jobs in September, even as the unemployment rate and the number of people out of work remained steady, according to a government report released today.
That means more people rejoined the work force and successfully found jobs.
Over the past three months, increases in payroll employment averaged 192,000 monthly.
In September, total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 156,000, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said, while the unemployment rate was little changed, at 5 percent, and the total number of unemployed workers held at 7.9 million.
To be counted as unemployed, a person must be available for work and actively looking for work, according to BLS standards. Students, retirees, military personnel, prison inmates and those in hospitals are not included in the civilian workforce.
Separately, the Commerce Department said manufacturing in America "is making a comeback, with more than 800,000 new jobs added" since the economy began to recover from the Great Recession.
In a lengthy announcement to mark national Manufacturing Day, the agency outlined numerous measures taken in recent years to encourage manufacturing in America. Most of the examples were about jobs requiring advanced technology skills and the technological nature of the manufacturing sector.
The two announcements, just a month before Election Day, are sure to be fodder for the presidential campaigns, with one side praising the continuing growth of the U.S. economy under a Democratic President, and the other side insisting that growth is not as strong as it could or should be.
Which side is right? Depending on how you look at the numbers, they both are.
Certainly the American economy, as measured by output, employment and unemployment, has been on an upward path for nearly eight years, but worldwide economic pressures and other issues, including the political consequences of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union (Brexit) and the resulting reshaping of international trade among the U.S., Britain and the rest of Europe, have all led to uncertainty for countries around the world.
And this uncertainty, fueled by fear of "The Others," could lead to a worldwide crash that would make the Great Depression seem like a brief stumble.
Finally, what effect all this will have on the upcoming presidential election will depend on which candidate American voters choose to believe. Is the American economy doing great, doing as well as can be expected, or is it tanking or about to tank?
That means more people rejoined the work force and successfully found jobs.
Over the past three months, increases in payroll employment averaged 192,000 monthly.
In September, total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 156,000, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said, while the unemployment rate was little changed, at 5 percent, and the total number of unemployed workers held at 7.9 million.
To be counted as unemployed, a person must be available for work and actively looking for work, according to BLS standards. Students, retirees, military personnel, prison inmates and those in hospitals are not included in the civilian workforce.
Separately, the Commerce Department said manufacturing in America "is making a comeback, with more than 800,000 new jobs added" since the economy began to recover from the Great Recession.
In a lengthy announcement to mark national Manufacturing Day, the agency outlined numerous measures taken in recent years to encourage manufacturing in America. Most of the examples were about jobs requiring advanced technology skills and the technological nature of the manufacturing sector.
The two announcements, just a month before Election Day, are sure to be fodder for the presidential campaigns, with one side praising the continuing growth of the U.S. economy under a Democratic President, and the other side insisting that growth is not as strong as it could or should be.
Which side is right? Depending on how you look at the numbers, they both are.
Certainly the American economy, as measured by output, employment and unemployment, has been on an upward path for nearly eight years, but worldwide economic pressures and other issues, including the political consequences of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union (Brexit) and the resulting reshaping of international trade among the U.S., Britain and the rest of Europe, have all led to uncertainty for countries around the world.
And this uncertainty, fueled by fear of "The Others," could lead to a worldwide crash that would make the Great Depression seem like a brief stumble.
Finally, what effect all this will have on the upcoming presidential election will depend on which candidate American voters choose to believe. Is the American economy doing great, doing as well as can be expected, or is it tanking or about to tank?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)