Stuff and Nonsense

It's all about stuff.

   To borrow a line from the George Carlin school of economics, as suggested by Pug Mahoney, a large part of life is about stuff.
   I've got stuff, you've got stuff, everybody's got stuff. If I have more stuff than I need, and you have stuff that I want, let's trade. And if the wants and needs don't match, let's invent money to make trading easier.
   That principle works not only on an individual level, but national and international, as well. Technically, economists call money a medium of exchange, or a store of value, among other things. And it doesn't really matter what society uses as money, so long as people accept it and use it.
   That's why, when you go to a grocery store and pick out food, then take it to the checkout counter, somebody adds up some numbers and you show some pieces of paper (dollar bills, remember them?) or a piece of plastic that the clerk zaps through a machine and a computer somewhere deducts that amount from your bank account or adds it to the total of what you owe some other company.
   Did you see any "real money" -- gold or silver -- change hands? No. Quite a concept, when you think about it.

   Meanwhile, on a national level in America, the unemployment is down, total employment is up, total output of goods and services (GDP) is up and the country now has what is likely the longest stretch of economic recovery in its history.
   That means the Federal Reserve, which controls the total supply of money in circulation, is likely to increase interest rates again to prevent the growth rate from zooming too fast and thus threatening a sharp downturn. It's what they do. How do they influence interest rates? By controlling the supply of money available. That's basic to the economic law of supply and demand.
   Does it work? Over the long haul, probably yes.
   Meanwhile, politicians complain that the Fed is holding back further growth. At the same time, they take credit when things are going well, and blame "the other guy" when times are tough.
   Reality check: Politicians have only a limited influence on the overall economy, and that's often short-term, at best. And while it's true that government spending can salvage an economy in ruins when consumer spending on goods and services collapses, that concept applies at best when an economy needs outside stimulation. Otherwise, it's better that government stay on the sidelines.
   Try telling an ambitious politician to be quiet. Or as Pug Mahoney would put it, politics isn't about getting anything done. It's about getting re-elected.

Slander and Candor

If it's true, it's not libel.

   It matters not how much lawyers may rant or politicians may deny, if the information as published is true and provably true, it's not libel. Therefore, the best defense against a charge of libel is truth.
   When a newspaper prints information about tax fraud, for example, and includes documentation supporting the allegations, politicians and their lawyers can complain all they like about "fake news" and "failing" newspapers.
   When the story is backed by fact and evidence, any threat of a lawsuit can be answered with this: "Bring it on, counselor!"
   That means the aggrieved person will face deposition and testimony under oath, by subpoena if need be, and subject to the penalties of perjury.
   It's one thing to brag, bend the truth, exaggerate and even lie during interviews and public appearances, but judges and prosecutors do not take kindly to liars, especially when civil or criminal charges are strongly supported by "true facts," as lawyers call them.
   False facts or even "alternative facts" are of little use in a courtroom. So a politician or any other public figure can deny until daybreak allegations of impropriety, wrongdoing or outright fraud, and the news media will report that too.
   In fact, the longer and stronger the denials, the more exposure they get.
   If a politician denies the allegations and attacks the allegater every day for a week, that's another seven days that the story sees print and gathers air time. Shrewd public relations advisors often tell their clients to ignore a story they don't like -- true or not -- and soon enough the story will go away as the news media chase other stories.
   Journalists run the story as well as the denial. But each time the subject denies the allegation, news media report that, too.
   Each and every time, especially when more details are uncovered to support the original allegation.

Government and Truth

How can you tell when a politician is lying? -- Dinty Ramble
His lips are moving. -- Pug Mahoney

   How little times have changed.

   Young reporter to editor: "Did you ever get the feeling that a politician is lying to you?"
   Editor: "Of course. It happens all the time when you're working two sides of a story and it's clear that one side is lying. Sometimes they both are, but it's not always your job to decide which side is. Your responsibility is to report both sides and let the reader decide who's truthful and who's not."

   Ignoring the questions does not make them go away.
   News outlets continue to provide information to the public.
   It's not a crime to lie to reporters or to the public generally. It is, however, a crime to lie to law enforcement or to Congress.

From the archive, August, 2012

   There has been a noticeable change among TV interviewers when dealing with politicians. They remind the subject that he or she did not answer the question, following up with something like, "Are you, or are you not ... ?" This is a good change.
   Candidates and elected officials from the president on down talk too much and say too little. Answer the question, please. Say what you have to say briefly and concisely, and move on. Otherwise, you give the impression that you don't really know what you're talking about, and you resort to speaking at length in the hope that an idea will come to you while you're prattling.
   Heed the advice of Plato: Do not "return a long-winded harangue to every question, impeding the argument and evading the point, and speaking at such length that most of (your) hearers forget the question." (Protagoras, 336:c-d, Jowett translation)
   The strategy of pettifoggery and gobbledygook mixed with bombast may sound good to the base of devoted followers, but to those who listen for intelligent ideas amid all the sound and fury, it prompts the question: How dumb do they think we are? The cynic's reply: Very.
   Too often, we get the kind of government we deserve, not the kind we need.

   How little times have changed.

Morality and Time

There is no statute of limitations on morality --Pug Mahoney

   Boys will be boys, it is often said, to explain naughty behavior by teenagers. And while it may be true that the expression explains their behavior, it does not necessarily excuse it.
   To use that as an excuse for bad behavior is at best immoral and at worst it enables those with poor self-control to continue abusing others.
   Such behavior is especially unacceptable when perpetrated by those who claim to follow the precepts of a prominent religious organization.
   But then again, morality has little to do with religion. Churches may teach morality, along with their version of spirituality, but the two are different.
   Spirituality is a person's relationship with a Higher Power, whatever you construe that Higher Power to be. Morality deals with your relationships and attitudes toward other people.
   However, this raises the question of whether there is a universal moral code, or does it vary among cultures, just as religion and spirituality vary?
   One very popular moral code stipulates that you should not kill. But many followers of this moral code often deem it acceptable to kill others, especially those of a different culture.
   Suppose that a ban on killing other people is part of a universal moral code. How, then, to explain why some cultures and those of a particular religious belief system, encourage followers to kill non-believers?
   So is this morality or politics? Or neither? Or is this what happens when morality and politics mix, and are rationalized by religion?
   When people mix politics and religion, with the approval of their spiritual leaders, morality is forgotten and all kinds of nasty things happen.

Cliches Come a-Cropper

   A single day of listening to cable TV news yielded the following crop of cliches, mixed metaphors and nonsense phrasings:

   Yeah, well, um, y'know, at the end of the day, when we look at the situation as a whole, we really only see the tip of the iceberg, so we need to step back and remember that the proof is in the pudding, and it's time to put our ducks in a row, stand up and be counted and avoid the tipping point that leads to a bunker mentality.
   The fact of the matter is that we're in a different ball game, and we have a window of opportunity to look for the smoking gun that will point to a tectonic shift.
   It's an existential threat, to say the least, so we must follow the bouncing ball in a multiple carom shot and let the chips fall where they may.
   Meanwhile, they've got him over a barrel as the witch hunt continues to bear fruit.

   Editor's note: If you must use a cliche, at least get it right. The  proof of any pudding is in the eating, not in the pudding itself. A bouncing ball in a multiple carom shot mixes two unrelated techniques; a video guiding a singalong with a billiards maneuver. And witch hunts can never produce apples or any other fruit.
   Modern  geology has given us the phrase "tectonic shift," which refers to plates which make up the earth's surface touch each other (tectonic) and over time increased pressure causes them to move. Result: An earthquake. So a tectonic shift is a major event, but not every change in politics and society rises to that level of importance.
   Finally, how is an "existential threat" different from any other kind of threat? Is it because it threatens the very existence of someone or something?
   Metaphors are useful phrases, but excess use deprives them of any value they might have once had in conveying information. They then become cliches.

Full of Snit

   Body language can be a very revealing form of communication, especially when the communicator is angry or defiant about something and has not learned the technique and strategy of concealing his true feelings. This is a tactic that politicians, especially, adopt early in their careers.
   Sometimes, however, a candidate succeeds because his base of support wants someone who shows anger, defiance and strong opposition to perceived wrongness and is willing to lead the country in a new direction.
   In this situation, the candidate may tap into this perceived ocean of anger and repeatedly display his anger, both in speech and appearance.
   The supporting voters may well be in a snit themselves, and eagerly follow a leader who is really full of snit, and who regularly displays it by showing his snit face.

Language and Logic

   Logic uses language, but language itself is not logical.
   Pronunciation and spelling vary by region and social level, and the only thing that gives one dialect more prestige than another is the prestige of its speakers.
   In that context, "dialect" has acquired some negativity, leading speakers of the prestige group to insist that their speech is "correct," while others are dismissed as "only a dialect."
   That said, however, there is a standardized system of spelling, punctuation, grammar and speaking which has acquired the label of "preferred." The advantage of a standard dialect is that it enables those of various other speech and reading patterns to understand each other. This is not to say that the so-called "standard" dialect is inherently better, but only that it facilitates communication.
   Dialects, in both spelling and speech patterns, vary by region as well as social groups. Along the East Coast of America, for example, and even with some major cities, there are many variations. People in the Boston area are identifiable by their speech patterns, as are people in New York City, Philadelphia, Virginia, Alabama and Mississippi. Yet they all use a standard system of spelling, even as pronunciation varies so much as to make communication difficult between a Brooklyn cab driver and an Alabama farmer.
   Meanwhile, those who seek careers in broadcasting, show business or politics often abandon their native dialects in favor of what has become a "standard." However, they remain capable of return to their "home" dialect when needed. This is especially true of politicians, who may speak one way in the halls of Congress, but quite another when stumping for re-election back home.
   Every trade or profession has its own set of words, phrases and pronunciations to set it apart from others, as well as to keep out non-members of the self-imposed inner circle.
   This is known as jargon.
   Some of the so-called higher professions, such as law and medicine, use a Latin-based vocabulary as their jargon. This is another way of adding even more prestige to themselves and their professions, while keeping out others. In addition, it gives them the opportunity of translating the academic jargon into plainer language, as if they were doing their clients a favor.
   Journalists, meanwhile, have a habit of translating the polysyllabic Latin and Greek-based legal and medical terms into plainer, single syllable Anglo-Saxon based English terms for faster, easier understanding by readers.
   May it always be so.
   In fairness, however, it must be acknowledged that using Latin and Greek terms, especially in medicine, enables health care professionals in different countries with different languages to have a common set of terms.
   But that means it's really just another jargon, albeit one with more prestige. And there's no logic to that. It just is.