The Great Depression

Every day or so I hear another statistic which someone says is the highest or the lowest or the worst since the Great Depression. Each time I hear some such "truth", I am reminded of the famous, if not accurately attributed quotation, "Lies, damned lies and statistics."

Then I remember President Ronald Reagan's quote about the definition of recession, depression and recovery. "The Gipper" said, "If your brother-in-law loses his job it is a recession; if you lose your job it is a depression; if Jimmy Carter loses his job it is a recovery." In other words, President Reagan understood that statistics never describe reality.

I once had a friend who invented statistics, just for fun. Usually ridiculous numbers. I was always amazed at how many people accepted his numbers as truth. Today I am amazed at how people react to statistics from The Great Depression. Also, I am amazed that so many people who were not born until decades after the depression ended, are now telling us these "facts" about the 1930s depression.

Respectfully (always) I submit that if you are younger than 75 years of age, you cannot possibly understand the Depression. Those statistics the youngsters quote may as well be labeled damned lies. They are meaningless.

Consider unemployment numbers. Today, "unemployment" means you do not have a "good" job, paying a high salary, while providing health insurance, unemployment insurance, guaranteed vacations, sick leave, etc., etc., etc.

Flipping hamburgers? That is not a "real" job.

In the 1930s, "unemployment" meant you had nothing to feed your family this day. It meant you could not find even an hour's work, of any description. A job flipping burgers? What a blessing... you might fill your stomach with a few scraps and earn a couple of dollars to purchase a sack of beans to feed your family..

Imagine living in a house with no electricity, no running water, no kitchen sink, no indoor bathroom. Imagine eating only beans, or greens, or some other persons leftover food, and being thankful that you are not hungry. Now, in that scenario, imagine someone trying to describe your life with  statistics. What a waste of breath.

Elect Me President.

I'll solve the nation's problems. Fast. Guaranteed!

Ever since humans first developed a written language and invented the tools for writing: clay tablets, papyrus, paper; chisels, quill pens, word processors, people have observed and recorded events of their lives. So much so that there are tens of thousands of libraries with millions of books. Books that sit on shelves, collecting dust, unread, while governments make the same mistakes over and over.

Forget partisan politics. I wouldn't care who carried water for the elephant, hay for the donkey. My administration would be packed with people who didn't give a damn about politics, but were passionate about history.

In the relatively short two and one-third centuries of our government's existence, we've seen it all. Boom and bust, recession, depression, inflation, war and peace. Civil unrest and periods of tranquility. Natural disasters. Katrina, yes, but how about the Chicago fire, the San Francisco earthquake, the Johnstown flood, the dust bowl. The administrations of our 44 presidents have faced these events in different ways. Sometimes with spectacular success. Often with painful failure.

My administration would study, learn from and follow those successes while avoiding repeat of the failures.

We already have an example of such a form of administration, It is the United states military. At West Point, Annapolis and Colorado Springs, the military academies don't dwell on social welfare BS or on PC fantasies, they teach the facts - the facts of history.

What happened at the battle of Waterloo? How did Washington's rag tag army of volunteers defeat the highly trained, well organized British? Why did Rommel lose in North Africa? Lee at Gettysburg?

The result? The most successful, most powerful military in the history of the world.

All the events have occurred. All the solutions have been tried. It is all written... the big picture "The Rise And Fall Of The Roman Empire", "The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich"...the minute details of every Parliament, every Congress, every dictator. All we have to do is read it.

Sadly, we are governed by politicians, theorists who imagine that their idea is the big one.

I would change that. You like Marxism? How has it worked in the past? You are a fan on Keynesian economics? How has it played out? Big on environmentalism? How many humans have suffered for the welfare of the brown pelican or the spotted owl. How many die annually for an imaginary theory that DDT was wiping out all birds?

I don't need a donation. Just your vote!

Ronald Reagan Said It:

Government IS the problem!

Hasn't that always been true? True of any people, of any era?

Think about the Russian people. Have you ever heard of any reason to fear or to hate a Russian? But the governments there - from the Czars to Stalin to Putin, are another story.

The German people. A highly advanced people in every way. World leaders and innovators. Then there came
Bismarck, Kaiser, Hitler. Bad memories.

Japanese. Remarkable people with much to be admired. Except when Tojo held influence.

Venezuela. Cuba. What's not to love about these beautiful, tropical nations on the Caribbean? Can you say  Hugo Chavez? Fidel Castro?

The vast majority of the world's people want the same thing, a happy, peaceful life. Perhaps because they are concentrated on this goal, evil people muscle there way into power.

The United States has one advantage over other nations. Constitutionally mandated elections. Every two years we have the choice to throw out a Congressman. Every four years, the president. Every six years, a senator.

Happily, in the case of the president, the choice is made for us at the end of eight years. Now, if we can just add term limits to members of Congress, we will have created Utopia!

Worst President

Lately many are saying Jimmy Carter was our worst president, but that Barack Obama is about to steal that title. I disagree.

Forty four men have been President of the United States. Twenty eight served before I was born. I can't honestly speak about those 28. All I know of them is what the history books say, and I do not totally trust the history books. So let's just talk about some presidents who have served in my lifetime.

Jimmy Carter was a bumbling fool. He gave us The Department of Energy, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That department has been an abject failure, yet we continue to spend some $27 billion annually to sustain it.

Jimmy also gave us the Department of Education which now costs between $64 and $77 billion annually, but by every accepted yardstick, our schools have just gotten worse.

Pretty bad performance! But nothing compared to F.D.R. Here is the product of his first term:


Agricultural Adjustment Act    AAA  
Civil Works Administration    CWA  
Civilian Conservation Corps    CCC  
Federal Emergency Relief Act    FERA  
Glass-Steagall Act        FDIC  
National Industrial Recovery Act    NIRA  
National Youth Administration    NYA  
Public Works Administration    PWA  
Rural Electrification Administration    REA  
Securities and Exchange Commission    SEC  
Social Security Act        FICA
Tennessee Valley Authority    TVA  
Wagner Act            NLRB  
Works Progress Administration    WPA
  
Granted, some of these programs were discontinued, but some have lived on to bleed America for over 75 years.

Franklin Roosevelt was the worst president. But he ground on until he died in his fourth term. Obama cannot overtake Roosevelt, but he will surely occupy second place. Jimmy Carter should rank number three.

Good Language

Essentially all birds and all mammals communicate with some sort of sound. A shrill cry of alarm to warn of imminent danger; a signal to scare off a competitor; a signal to declare a territory; a call to attract a mate. Each of these events, in numerous species, has been documented by researchers.

Humans, with their ability to utter a wide variety of sounds, developed language. These languages often consist of thousands of words. Steven Pinker, in his book The Language Instinct, suggests that speaking a language is done instinctively. He counts up the number of words understood and used by the average college age student and feels it would be impossible to learn and remember that many words in their short lifetime... so people must have an instinct to speak a language.While some academics disagree with Pinker's conclusions, his arguments are persuasive.

Early European explorers, who first visited remote regions of the earth, were surprised to find that inhabitants there spoke well-developed languages. Pinker even found that in many languages, common items, such as milk, were often referenced by similar sounding words.

The ancient Romans developed a marvelous language we call Latin. Over distance and time, that language nuanced into what we today know as Italian, Spanish, French and Portuguese. Some native speakers, notably the French, try to maintain the "purity" of the language by discouraging the "bastardization" of traditional French words. The Spanish language, spoken by native speakers in America, is rife with such variations. While the Spanish word for truck may more properly be camion, many American Latinos prefer to use trucka.

English speakers, on the other hand, show no such tendencies toward purity. If another language has a word that fits well, English speakers will happily adopt it.

A French journalist was quoted as having said he wished he wrote for an English language publication because he could then express himself more precisely. But, could he? Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, one of the world's best speakers of the English language, once had a problem explaining her anger at some government for acting unilaterally. She simply dropped the use of unilateral and started saying their behavior was "one-sided". Everyone understood.

If you are writing for a scientific journal about a discipline that employs very specific language, you may require complex, even foreign words to make your point. But if you are making a speech to a general audience, remember that they cannot turn back the page and re-read your last comments. In that setting, it is wise to avoid using words or terms that require even a moment of careful thought to absorb your meaning.

Again paraphrasing Steven Pinker, If I orally express a thought and a listener fully understands my thought, that is good language!

Insults Reversed

Years ago, in southern New Mexico, there was a State Senator named Burton Roach. Sen. Roach was a robust man with a huge paunch. In one campaign, an opponent said the last thing needed in the State Senate was another "pot-bellied politician". Everyone, including Roach, recognized this as an insult to Roach. But, Roach was the smarter politician. He turned the insult around had a large button made with the letters PBP emblazoned, and as if to brag about his big belly, wore the button everywhere he went.

I have no recollection of Roach's ideology, but his general good humor and refusal to engage in name calling appealed to voters, and he was re-elected.

Andrew Jackson so infuriated his opposition that one speaker openly called him a jackass. Jackson apparently liked the comparison to a hard headed donkey and adopted the nickname. The donkey - jackass, if you will - remains the symbol of the Democratic Party to this day.

Margaret Thatcher angered Communists worldwide. Even before she became Great Britains Prime Minister, one called her an "iron lady"... meaning a stubborn, uncompromising person. But Maggie Thatcher liked the label and today, if anyone mentions The Iron Lady, everyone knows they mean former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher!

Politicians and political consultants should think before they write campaign commercials insulting their opponents... you may just be creating a buzz word certain to get him, not you, elected!

What do they mean?

When I was an announcer I was taught the importance of correct pronunciation in the interest of clear communications. We were cautioned against the perils of placing the em-FOSS-us on the wrong syl-LOBB-uhl.

Today, when I hear a spokesman read copy on a well crafted TV commercial while seemingly placing emphasis on the wrong syllable - or word - I wonder if it is on purpose or just a mistake.

On a commercial for Legal Zoom, an outfit that provides self-help for preparing legal documents, the spokesman promises "We put the law on your side", without emphasis on any word, or syllable. Okay, no one wants the law on their back... but, why on your side? Shouldn't he be saying "We put the law on YOUR side"?

Maybe there is a reason. Amazingly, there are all sorts of legal requirements placed on advertising. You have heard an announcer identified as  "a non-attorney spokesman". Really? Who cares if the spokesman is a non-attorney? Or, you have seen commercials for some medical product labeled as a "dramatization". Is that so we won't think someone with a hidden camera is filming in a doctor's office? Only a lawyer would dream up a need for those disclaimers.

I once wrote a commercial in which I said something could be completed in "a few short weeks". I was forced to re-write it by a regulator who demanded "What is a short week?".

Is there a reason why Legal Zoom cannot say "We put the law on YOUR side"? Or is that spokesman, who is a well-known attorney and NOT a well-trained-non-attorney-announcer, just doing a poor job of reading his copy?

Don't face the IRS Alone!

If, that is,  you are a tax cheat!

An outfit called Tax Masters is running a TV commercial in which spokesman Patrick Cox warns, "The IRS will pursue you relentlessly...", to which I say, "They damned well better!" Pursuing tax cheats is what they are paid to do and I find it refreshing that someone in the Federal Government is doing their job... relentlessly, no less!

As politicians are wont to say... let me be perfectly clear:  I deplore the 16th amendment to the Constitution, I hate income tax. But as long as it is the law and millions of us law-abiding citizens are forced to obey, I want everyone to pay up just as we do.

As for the IRS being in relentless pursuit, I will share my personal experience. Having been self-employed most of my adult life, I have paid estimated taxes. There have been a couple of instances when we underestimated and suddenly found we owed more income tax than we could immediately pay. We asked the IRS for help. They worked with us to develop a payment plan we could handle. We followed the plan, paid our taxes and that was that.

And again, I have seen a couple of instances where an individual IRS agent appeared to be a bit unreasonable but, by and large, my IRS experience has been okay.

Repeal the 16th amendment. But until you do, enforce the law evenly and pursue tax cheats, law breakers, relentlessly.

My opinion is that you can save money and time by working directly with the IRS. Let Mr. Cox make his money off someone else.