As violence continues across America, the president said he will designate Antifa "a terrorist organization," despite lacking any legal authority to do so. It was the latest in a series of vocal power ploys he has used to solidify his right-wing support base.
The name Antifa is a contraction of the term "anti-fascist," and is used to describe any of several groups engaged in political -- sometimes violent -- activities. Antifa has been defined as "a protest movement that strongly opposes neo-Nazis, fascism, white supremacists and racism," according to a BBC web posting. Its members often oppose many policies that the president has enacted.
The president blamed the protests on "radical-left anarchists," and accused the news media of "doing everything in their power to foment hatred and anarchy."
Before the president used the term to fix blame, there have been no reports of involvement by Antifa related groups.
And on a TV interview, the mayor of Atlanta said the president's tweets are making things worse, and "he should just stop talking."
Meanwhile, organizers of groups protesting police mistreatment of minorities maintain that their activities have been peaceful, but have been disrupted by others deliberately causing violence.
As journalists document the disturbances, there have been several instances of police arresting or shooting rubber bullets or tear gas at television news crews, some as the cameras continue to roll, so the nation watches as it happens. Normally, police warn demonstrators before taking such action, but as reported by Ali Velshi of NBC, there was no advance warning, and police were some 200 yards away when they fired tear gas and rubber bullets against the people.
Separately, the president took credit for the successful launch of astronauts to join the space station. Before he took office, he said in speech, "There was grass growing through the cracks" of NASA's launch areas. "With this launch," he added, "the decades of lost years and little action are officially over."
The vice president added that the launch was "the culmination of three and a half years of renewed leadership in space."
But the project of sending astronauts into space on a commercial vehicle began more than ten years ago, long before the current president took office.
As the resident cynic Pug Mahoney often says of political leaders, "If it's good, they claim credit. If not, they blame their predecessor."
Sunday, May 31, 2020
Saturday, May 30, 2020
Warning
"When the looting starts, the shooting starts."
"It was spoken as a fact, not as a statement."
The president made the first comment in reference to the civil unrest in American cities after the death of a man under a police officer's knee. The second was made in an attempt to play down the widespread negative reaction to the first, and after Twitter flagged the first as "glorifying violence."
The president later denied knowing the history of the first quote. It was used by several Deep South segregationist state officials in the 1960s as a warning to civil rights demonstrators. The warning phrase was used by Miami police chief Walter Headley, who reportedly borrowed it from Eugene (Bull) Connor, public safety commissioner in Birmingham, Alabama. The phrase was also used by presidential candidate George Wallace in 1968.
The president's defense doesn't hold up, and for two reasons: He has claimed often in the past of having the world's greatest memory, and the second comment makes no sense. When is a fact not a statement? And when is something that is spoken not a statement? Unless he meant to say it was an opinion, in which case he should have said so.
American voters expect their elected leader to have good communication skills. This one does not.
"It was spoken as a fact, not as a statement."
The president made the first comment in reference to the civil unrest in American cities after the death of a man under a police officer's knee. The second was made in an attempt to play down the widespread negative reaction to the first, and after Twitter flagged the first as "glorifying violence."
The president later denied knowing the history of the first quote. It was used by several Deep South segregationist state officials in the 1960s as a warning to civil rights demonstrators. The warning phrase was used by Miami police chief Walter Headley, who reportedly borrowed it from Eugene (Bull) Connor, public safety commissioner in Birmingham, Alabama. The phrase was also used by presidential candidate George Wallace in 1968.
The president's defense doesn't hold up, and for two reasons: He has claimed often in the past of having the world's greatest memory, and the second comment makes no sense. When is a fact not a statement? And when is something that is spoken not a statement? Unless he meant to say it was an opinion, in which case he should have said so.
American voters expect their elected leader to have good communication skills. This one does not.
Friday, May 29, 2020
Editor's Revenge
Big Brother is ungood.
Donald Trump is a liar
Both phrases would be deleted from social media postings under guidelines in the executive order signed by the president.
In it, he said "a small handful of social media monopolies controls a vast portion of all public and private communications in the United States."
Note the mismatch of subject-verb agreement.
He said the companies "have unchecked power to censor, restrict, edit, shape, hide, alter, virtually any form of communication between private citizens and large public audiences."
Reality: If in fact they have such power, they don't use it. If they did, his flood of lies and misinformation would have been blocked long ago.
Fact: Twitter, Facebook and Google, the largest of the social media firms, call themselves "platforms" for public communication. They do not claim to be publishers, which would make them liable for libel or slander perpetrated on their web sites.
Therefore, the liability for such remarks would be on the perpetrator, and that would include the president of the United States, who is not above the law, according to a Supreme Court ruling made decades ago.
Also, if he wants totally unrestricted comments to be posted on social media platforms, that would apply to anyone and everyone who wants to say things about him. Any system that blocks disparaging remarks about the nation's leader would reflect the dictatorial system described in the book "1984," by George Orwell.
Meanwhile, Twitter has hidden the president's Tweet about recent disturbances in Minneapolis, saying it glorifies violence. This is the third time in two days that the company has flagged his postings as inappropriate. The first two ran the postings, but inserted a short item referring readers to fact checking on other sites. That was what prompted the presidential rant about free speech.
But speech in America is not totally free. There are laws against libel and slander.
Donald Trump is a liar
Both phrases would be deleted from social media postings under guidelines in the executive order signed by the president.
In it, he said "a small handful of social media monopolies controls a vast portion of all public and private communications in the United States."
Note the mismatch of subject-verb agreement.
He said the companies "have unchecked power to censor, restrict, edit, shape, hide, alter, virtually any form of communication between private citizens and large public audiences."
Reality: If in fact they have such power, they don't use it. If they did, his flood of lies and misinformation would have been blocked long ago.
Fact: Twitter, Facebook and Google, the largest of the social media firms, call themselves "platforms" for public communication. They do not claim to be publishers, which would make them liable for libel or slander perpetrated on their web sites.
Therefore, the liability for such remarks would be on the perpetrator, and that would include the president of the United States, who is not above the law, according to a Supreme Court ruling made decades ago.
Also, if he wants totally unrestricted comments to be posted on social media platforms, that would apply to anyone and everyone who wants to say things about him. Any system that blocks disparaging remarks about the nation's leader would reflect the dictatorial system described in the book "1984," by George Orwell.
Meanwhile, Twitter has hidden the president's Tweet about recent disturbances in Minneapolis, saying it glorifies violence. This is the third time in two days that the company has flagged his postings as inappropriate. The first two ran the postings, but inserted a short item referring readers to fact checking on other sites. That was what prompted the presidential rant about free speech.
But speech in America is not totally free. There are laws against libel and slander.
Thursday, May 28, 2020
Priorities
-- One thousand people die each day from the corona virus.
-- The total number of American deaths crossed 100,000 in just four months.
-- The U.S. economy fell by 5 percent in the first quarter of this year.
-- The nation now has a double-digit unemployment rate, which may soon hit 20 percent.
-- Millions of Americans are unemployed.
-- Major companies are going bankrupt.
-- Local retailers are closing permanently because of the virus-induced shutdown.
-- The nation is likely to suffer its worst economic decline since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Meanwhile, the president plays golf.
In his spare time, when not playing golf, he accuses a critic of murder and mocks an opponent as unmanly for wearing a facial covering during the current plague.
He threatens to shut down Twitter for daring to point out factual errors in his diatribes.
Priorities.
-- The total number of American deaths crossed 100,000 in just four months.
-- The U.S. economy fell by 5 percent in the first quarter of this year.
-- The nation now has a double-digit unemployment rate, which may soon hit 20 percent.
-- Millions of Americans are unemployed.
-- Major companies are going bankrupt.
-- Local retailers are closing permanently because of the virus-induced shutdown.
-- The nation is likely to suffer its worst economic decline since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Meanwhile, the president plays golf.
In his spare time, when not playing golf, he accuses a critic of murder and mocks an opponent as unmanly for wearing a facial covering during the current plague.
He threatens to shut down Twitter for daring to point out factual errors in his diatribes.
Priorities.
Wednesday, May 27, 2020
Chief Twit
He's got a big mouth, but I have a pencil. -- Pug Mahoney, editor
The Twitter in Chief has been flagged. For years, the president has been posting misleading information, innuendos and flat-out lies on his Twitter feed, but unlike many other users, his falsehoods have not been interrupted, even as the company has done just that when other people posted defamatory comments, obscenities and lies.
Now, however, after many months of spouting on Twitter about anyone who disagrees with him on anything at any level, the president has a warning notice on one of his postings, urging readers to check the facts.
Others faced nearly instant deletion of comments that were in any way false or obscene. The president's daily tirades, however, continued to take up e-space, and his supporters complained at great length about free speech violations when the company attached a fact check notice to a posting that alleged TV host Joe Scarborough may have been responsible for the death of one of his aides.
In addition, the president threatened to shut down Twitter if they edited or removed any of his postings.
How he might do that is an open question. He has no legal authority to close a company just for doing something he doesn't like. Moreover, it would cancel his own ability to mount a platform and exercise his First Amendment right to free speech.
Even so, while that right applies to all, it is not unlimited. There are laws against libel and slander, and the president himself has threatened libel suits against others who printed things he didn't like.
For the record, the death of Scarborough's aide happened many years ago, and was officially ruled an accident. The widowed husband wrote to Twitter asking that the president's posting be removed.
Meanwhile, the American free press continues to collect and print the president's lies and empty threats, along with details on how and why he's wrong.
The Twitter in Chief has been flagged. For years, the president has been posting misleading information, innuendos and flat-out lies on his Twitter feed, but unlike many other users, his falsehoods have not been interrupted, even as the company has done just that when other people posted defamatory comments, obscenities and lies.
Now, however, after many months of spouting on Twitter about anyone who disagrees with him on anything at any level, the president has a warning notice on one of his postings, urging readers to check the facts.
Others faced nearly instant deletion of comments that were in any way false or obscene. The president's daily tirades, however, continued to take up e-space, and his supporters complained at great length about free speech violations when the company attached a fact check notice to a posting that alleged TV host Joe Scarborough may have been responsible for the death of one of his aides.
In addition, the president threatened to shut down Twitter if they edited or removed any of his postings.
How he might do that is an open question. He has no legal authority to close a company just for doing something he doesn't like. Moreover, it would cancel his own ability to mount a platform and exercise his First Amendment right to free speech.
Even so, while that right applies to all, it is not unlimited. There are laws against libel and slander, and the president himself has threatened libel suits against others who printed things he didn't like.
For the record, the death of Scarborough's aide happened many years ago, and was officially ruled an accident. The widowed husband wrote to Twitter asking that the president's posting be removed.
Meanwhile, the American free press continues to collect and print the president's lies and empty threats, along with details on how and why he's wrong.
Sunday, May 24, 2020
Semantics
Cover your mouth when you cough.
Dominating the news cycle over the weekend was the president's comment that unless states withdraw the guidance that houses of worship stay closed because of the corona virus, "I will override the governors."
But does that mean he will grant permission for them to reopen or that he will order them to reopen? Or that he will order governors to cancel their guidelines?
Scholars point out that he has no authority to do any of the above. That, however, assumes the meaning inherent in "overrule." They pointed to three passages in the Constitution -- Article VI as well as the First and the Tenth Amendment -- which stipulate that the federal government cannot intervene in religious matters, and that any powers now specifically given to the federal government remain with the states.
As for whether he can "override" the states, that can refer to influence over popular opinion, not legal authority.
Moreover, it can be argued that leaders of churches, synagogues and mosques do not answer to a political leader in religious matters. Nor can it be argued that political leaders answer to a religious leader when it comes to civil issues. That issue was first settled in the time of King Henry VIII, and later put in writing when Americans wrote the Constitution.
Nonetheless, the issue still arises occasionally. For example, when John F. Kennedy ran for president, many argued that he would take orders from the Pope, and not do what was appropriate for all Americans regardless of religious affiliation.
This week, Americans face a choice of following the advice of health experts and avoiding close contact with others because of the danger of viral infection, or resuming a practice that is proven to be dangerous to their health, in the name of individual freedom and civil rights.
Parents have long warned their children, "Cover your mouth when you cough," so they don't pass their cold or flu to others. This is no different.
Your civil rights end where my nose begins.
Dominating the news cycle over the weekend was the president's comment that unless states withdraw the guidance that houses of worship stay closed because of the corona virus, "I will override the governors."
But does that mean he will grant permission for them to reopen or that he will order them to reopen? Or that he will order governors to cancel their guidelines?
Scholars point out that he has no authority to do any of the above. That, however, assumes the meaning inherent in "overrule." They pointed to three passages in the Constitution -- Article VI as well as the First and the Tenth Amendment -- which stipulate that the federal government cannot intervene in religious matters, and that any powers now specifically given to the federal government remain with the states.
As for whether he can "override" the states, that can refer to influence over popular opinion, not legal authority.
Moreover, it can be argued that leaders of churches, synagogues and mosques do not answer to a political leader in religious matters. Nor can it be argued that political leaders answer to a religious leader when it comes to civil issues. That issue was first settled in the time of King Henry VIII, and later put in writing when Americans wrote the Constitution.
Nonetheless, the issue still arises occasionally. For example, when John F. Kennedy ran for president, many argued that he would take orders from the Pope, and not do what was appropriate for all Americans regardless of religious affiliation.
This week, Americans face a choice of following the advice of health experts and avoiding close contact with others because of the danger of viral infection, or resuming a practice that is proven to be dangerous to their health, in the name of individual freedom and civil rights.
Parents have long warned their children, "Cover your mouth when you cough," so they don't pass their cold or flu to others. This is no different.
Your civil rights end where my nose begins.
Wednesday, May 20, 2020
Rude Questions
Never assume -- Pug Mahoney
Journalism's duty is to report what government officials say and do. Part of the oath that politicians take when they assume office is to protect and serve the people. Members of the public assume that elected officials will do their best to live up to that oath and not use their positions to benefit themselves at public expense.
Sadly, that is too often a heroic assumption, and things don't always work out that way, so when government officials say and do things that harm others and enrich themselves, journalists step in.
In order to do their job, journalists must ask questions. Pointed questions. Questions designed to elicit answers that are relevant to the issue at hand. It's not being rude. It's doing the job.
But rather than answer a question, no matter how straightforward and courteously it is presented, government officials instead attack the questioner, calling him or her "rude," or "nasty," or other terms in the lexicon of abuse, displaying an attitude that says, "How dare you ask me that question. Anyone who asks me a question that I don't like is a mean, horrible, nasty person."
Implicit in that attitude is the idea that journalists should be team players, and report only things that support and praise whatever the politician says or does in an particular situation.
Get over it, big guy. Reporters ask questions because they need to be asked, based on the classic Five Ws of journalism -- Who, What, Where, When and Why.
Government officials can easily answer the first four, but sometimes the most difficult to deal with is the final W -- Why.
To attack the questioner when you don't have an answer does not make the question go away. Instead, abusive behavior displays insecurity. Too often, insecure people overcompensate for their lack of knowledge or ability by being overly aggressive, sometimes to the point of being obnoxious.
Moreover, obnoxious behavior toward journalists is pointless. Most have heard all those insults before, and learned early in their careers to ignore them. Abusive behavior toward the news media may work well on television when speaking to a crowd of supporters, but that has no effect on how reporters will write the story and how producers will select the footage for broadcast.
They will, of course, be straightforward in their presentation of the story. But they will also cover both sides, and include reaction from the political opposition.
Professional journalists are not propagandists for political leaders or candidates. If that ever comes to be, the American democratic republic will be in deep trouble.
Journalism's duty is to report what government officials say and do. Part of the oath that politicians take when they assume office is to protect and serve the people. Members of the public assume that elected officials will do their best to live up to that oath and not use their positions to benefit themselves at public expense.
Sadly, that is too often a heroic assumption, and things don't always work out that way, so when government officials say and do things that harm others and enrich themselves, journalists step in.
In order to do their job, journalists must ask questions. Pointed questions. Questions designed to elicit answers that are relevant to the issue at hand. It's not being rude. It's doing the job.
But rather than answer a question, no matter how straightforward and courteously it is presented, government officials instead attack the questioner, calling him or her "rude," or "nasty," or other terms in the lexicon of abuse, displaying an attitude that says, "How dare you ask me that question. Anyone who asks me a question that I don't like is a mean, horrible, nasty person."
Implicit in that attitude is the idea that journalists should be team players, and report only things that support and praise whatever the politician says or does in an particular situation.
Get over it, big guy. Reporters ask questions because they need to be asked, based on the classic Five Ws of journalism -- Who, What, Where, When and Why.
Government officials can easily answer the first four, but sometimes the most difficult to deal with is the final W -- Why.
To attack the questioner when you don't have an answer does not make the question go away. Instead, abusive behavior displays insecurity. Too often, insecure people overcompensate for their lack of knowledge or ability by being overly aggressive, sometimes to the point of being obnoxious.
Moreover, obnoxious behavior toward journalists is pointless. Most have heard all those insults before, and learned early in their careers to ignore them. Abusive behavior toward the news media may work well on television when speaking to a crowd of supporters, but that has no effect on how reporters will write the story and how producers will select the footage for broadcast.
They will, of course, be straightforward in their presentation of the story. But they will also cover both sides, and include reaction from the political opposition.
Professional journalists are not propagandists for political leaders or candidates. If that ever comes to be, the American democratic republic will be in deep trouble.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)