One more American patriot's voice from January 21

On January 25 I published the personal stories of three people who participated in the January 21 Women's March.  Here is one more, also writing of the experience -- who was there, what it was all about, what went on during the march, and what happens next?

Paula from Oregon -- marched in Portland, OR:

I went alone [to downtown Portland] because my March companion got sick.  Hoped to see someone I knew, but didn’t happen although many of my acquaintances later said they were there.

[I wanted] to let our new President know that all people should be treated equally and respectfully.

It was amazing!  More people than I expected; I’ve read estimates of anywhere from 60,000 to 100,000.  Being Portland, unfortunately there wasn’t much diversity, but there were lots of families and I did see a Native American group.  (I later heard that the NAACP advised to not march.) The police were super friendly – some wore pink knit hats or roses on their lapels.  They waved, took photos with marchers, and told use to have fun.  It was peaceful and friendly, although a bit loud at times with drummers.  Despite the steady rain, I had a great time and felt camaraderie.

What's next? For me – to continue letting the President and elected officials know my views.

Cops and kids at #womensmarchpdx

Equality and respect for others -- that works for me.  I get the same message from the stories in the earlier post on the Women's March.  If we had a hundred of these stories, or a thousand, or a hundred thousand, I am sure we would hear that message from all of them.

Voices of American patriots from Saturday, January 21, 2017 -- Women's March on Washington

No American president -- not even George Washington -- starts the job with universal acclaim.  And no previous president has begun the job with public approval ratings that are as low as the ones that are welcoming Donald Trump into the White House.

Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States, was inaugurated on Friday, January 20, 2017.  Saturday, January 21, saw the Women's March on Washington, which took place not only in Washington, D.C., but also in cities throughout the country and around the world. The Telegraph in the U.K. reported astounding numbers of nearly 700 marches and almost 5 million participants world-wide.  D.C. had 500,000.  New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Miami, Chicago, Philadelphia, Austin -- all had numbers in the hundreds of thousands.  So, too, in London and other foreign cities.  The D.C. march eclipsed the attendance for the inauguration, according to articles in the Los Angeles Times and elsewhere.

I know a few of the participants.  Here is what some of them had to say when I asked about the experience -- who was there, what it was all about, what went on during the march, and what happens next?

Pat (Patricia) from Maine -- marched in Manhattan, New York City:

Where I marched - NYC - we had staggered start times and ours (was with two college friends) was at 1 pm.  Dag Hammerskjold Plaza, at 47th street across from the UN, is a long plaza between 1st & 2nd Avenues.   It took about 2 hours to get to 2nd Avenue where the march started and the crowd was so dense that we didn't march we flowed and usually only moved when we snaked through the crowd.   We cut off at about 44 street and went across to Madison, up to 52nd Street and returned to the crowd to the end of the parade - I believe it was 55 Street.  It was never really walking, but slow movement, completely peaceful with cheering, no kerfuffles.   Then I found out there were - well, they (people in neon jackets looking volunteer-ish or official) said there were 200,000; I think it was more like 400K, largest in NY ever.

Why did I do I?   Well, I didn't feel all that perky, had a bad cold a few days before but felt I had to make my presence known.   I wish that I could believe that calling my senator (Susan Collins, R, ME) daily (even though she either leaves the phone off the hook or the voicemails full (while denying it)) would help.   The only thing that helps is power and money, of which I have none.

But I can't stop trying.

I donate to my important causes, called the Reps and Senators and wonder how much worse it's gonna' get.

 Suzanne from Minnesota -- marched in St. Paul, MN:

I marched with my daughter, her friend, and a friend of mine.  It was about women's rights issues. I feel they are threatened with the new administration. I'm Pro-Choice. I'm also disgusted by the hateful rhetoric that has been expressed by our new President. For the first time in my life, I felt I could not be silent any longer. I had to go. Women have fought for too long to have the rights we enjoy today. People don’t remember what it was like before the 60's.

There is an excellent documentary on Netflix I'd suggest called "She's Beautiful When She's Angry" it reminded me what women endured during my mother's lifetime. I had my own experiences as a young person. Affirmative Action was new when I first graduated college. In my first professional job, my boss came to me and said one of his customers did not want a woman calling on him. I was harassed by my co-workers all the time. I remember in the evening staying in my hotel room during a sales meeting because there was a rumor that our married Regional Manager got drunk and liked [to] hit [on] the female employees.That was 1983! I have never forgotten what that felt like. This was just before sexual harassment laws came in to the workplace. I don’t think there's a woman out there that hasn’t had some form of sexual harassment in their lifetime.

Don’t misunderstand me, I'm not a "man-hater". This is about changing the ingrained social attitudes. There are plenty of women who disagree with me. For me, its about liberty,equality and mutual respect.

It was amazing to see how many people were willing to take their time and do this. It was powerful, peaceful, and uplifting.It was very diverse. Women and men, children, babies…of every color and religion. It was wonderful!

I do believe we must be Americans first. I also think that nothing is as good or as bad as it's perceived to be. I want to give him a chance to do well. Its in all of our best interests that he does well. Who knows? If not I will get more involved in some way. I've never protested before in my life! I felt proud to live in a country where I can do that. I was also amazed at the support received from around the world!

Andy from California -- marched in Los Angeles, CA: 

About 7:30 am my wife Carol and I drove down to the Blue Line Willow St. Terminal in Long Beach.  The multi-level parking structure there is huge so we didn't think it would be a problem parking.  After going all the way to the top and working our way back down, we finally found a spot. That experience should have foretold what the line for the train would be like.

It is about a hundred yard walk from the exit of the parking structure to where you enter the terminal. The line was backed up all the way back to the parking structure.  A hundred yard long line, 4 or 5 people wide.  Mostly women.   So many people that extra trains with extra cars had been added.  So many people that they were no longer selling tickets. The ride to LA and back was free.  We found out later that the crowds were the same at terminals all across the county

On the train, we learned a new word of art. It happened at our first stop. The doors opened just in case someone had to get off. When the waiting crowd tried to get on, there was absolutely no room. The conductor told them, "Sorry folks. You'll have to stand back. We're at ‘crush capacity.’"

The mood on the train was pure joy.  Friendly smiles everywhere.  Hilarious signs.  And the smells, or should I say aromas.  Women, back to back and belly to belly, smelling of a thousand different perfumes, body lotions, shampoos, sprays and whatever else they use to make themselves so delectable.  No brothel ever smelled as sweet.... I'm guessing.

Downtown was a madhouse. Gathering time for the March was at 9am, with the actual march scheduled for 10am. The crowd, estimated several days before, was going to be in the 50,000 to 75,000 range. The original permit estimated only 2,000. Gathering was to take place at Pershing Square where there would be speeches and some entertainment. From there, the march would proceed north on Olive to Grand Park, across from City Hall.

We arrived at the 7th St. Station in downtown LA before 10am. From there to Pershing Square is about 4 or 5 blocks. It took us the better part of an hour to get close enough to even see Pershing Square.  People were jammed every step of the way and coming from every direction.  Every north/south street from Hope to Spring, jammed, everyone pushing north a few steps at a time.

The march began long before we arrived at Pershing Square and by the time we got there everyone was pushing toward Grand Park and City Hall, six blocks away. But we were not moving.

Soon, everyone was seeking out other streets to move north on.  We tried Grand, Hill, Broadway, Spring and Main Streets and finally arrived in the vicinity of the Park a half hour later.

Despite the human congestion, everyone was smiling and having fun, posing for photographs and waving theirs signs. One of my favorites, "After all these years I can't believe we still have to protest this shit."

When we finally got to 1st Street and Grand Park we could see the crowds that were pressing in from the west. To the west is uphill and is where the Civic Center and the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels are located. What a sight. Wall to wall people stretched up to the crest of the hill looking down on us.

There were speeches going on but the sound system was inadequate and the speakers could barely be heard beyond a hundred yard radius of the Park. But no one left. We stood there in a mass of solidarity, talking with each other, exchanging words of amazement at the number of people who were in attendance, trying to listen. Then the helicopters arrived.  First one and then two and then a third.

We laughed and took pictures of the signs that were being waved in the air. Protest signs expressing concern over what was happening to the country, Putin's success in corrupting our democracy, the election of a man who threatened to undo generations of progress, the divide between California progressives and the wide middle of the country, the constant insidious disregard for the truth, his disrespect of women, bragging about groping them. Signs about abortion rights, racism, the environment, inequality.

The next day there were crowd size estimates that ranged from 500,000 to 750,000. I think there were more; enough people to fill the Rose Bowl 10 times over and still have people left over to fill the Coliseum.

When the event started breaking up, we continued north to Philippe's Restaurant on the other side of the 101. The crowds seemed never ending. At Philippe's there were lines out of both doors that seemed a mile long and we were sure they would run out of food long before they got to the end. 

We turned around and walked all the way back to 7th and Flower.  The lines were back. Ten or fifteen feet deep the entire length of the platform.  Pitying those with weak bladders, we eventually made it back onto the train and another crush capacity train ride to Long Beach.

Hard to say whether this peaceful demonstration will make a difference, but the sheer size and enthusiasm of the crowd cannot be ignored. This may be the moment when women step up and wrestle the reins of power into their own hands. That this event was so large and so peaceful and without a single arrest, speaks volumes about the leadership of the women who put it on and hundreds of thousands that made it such a peaceful and heartfelt event. And let’s not forget a word of thanks to the many men who were there supporting their wives and mothers and daughters.

We say that leaders are made, not born.  Much of the making of leadership depends upon respect; respect must be a two-way street and it must be earned.  Donald Trump owes his election as president to a campaign that revolved around disrespectful words about almost anybody who did not agree with him, and to an archaic constitutional electoral provision that is inherently disrespectful of the democratic popular vote.  Apparently not satisfied with that record from 2016, he chose to begin his term in office in 2017 with an inauguration speech full of anger and, once again, an attitude disrespectful of any who disagree with him.  Representatives of his Administration compounded that disrespect by falsely asserting an inauguration attendance of unprecedented size through the use of "alternative facts."  (For a humorous view that comes from a different perspective, read this from The Guardian.)

With this behavior, it cannot come as a surprise that Mr. Trump begins his presidency with general public disapproval.  Opinion polls reveal his approval measurements to be below his second-place popular vote, indicating that some of those who voted for him are losing confidence in him.  This is an "achievement" that is the opposite of his predecessors in office -- between election and inauguration, public opinion has historically improved for the president-elect.

As the statements and reflections presented here make clear, those who participated in the Women's March are patriotic Americans who want and hope for the best.  They know that anybody in a new job deserves a chance to get off to a good start.

They also know that they deserve to be respected.

Don't touch that dial! The broadcast regulatory war will continue after this inauguration!

(This post contributed by guest author Guy Heston, whose professional career started with a broadcast position at a small radio station.  He has long enjoyed finding logical contradictions in the protestations of the rich and powerful.)

The National Association of Broadcasters must be drooling with anticipation. Breaking news—two Democrat appointees to the Federal Communications Commission, including the chairman, have announced their resignation, which will greatly enhance the NAB’s chances of achieving two signature items on its agenda, neither of which would be good for consumers.

The NAB has whined for years that the FCC has refused to adopt regulations that would force smart phone manufacturers to include FM radio reception on all phones, and further refused to relax regulations about media cross-ownership. I know these are not the most interesting topics for cocktail party conversations, but stay with me because they are indicative of what is likely to happen throughout the government with the incoming administration. You get to be for government regulations or against them at the same time, depending on whether or not they help your cause.

First let’s consider the FM radio reception issue. While it complains loudly and frequently about government regulations, the NAB is delighted to support a proposed federal regulation that would require all smartphones include a chip enabling over-the-air FM radio reception like your old transistor radio. The official talking point is that smartphone users should have access to terrestrial radio in the event of a local or national emergency just in case the internet breaks or something.

The FCC hasn’t been buying the talking point. Smartphone users already have reliable internet access to thousands of sources in the event of an emergency, including local radio stations. And if buyers feel strongly about it there are smartphones available for purchase that include the FM chip. Naturally, the chip isn’t free and adds to the cost of producing the phone, so why should consumers be forced to pay for it if they don’t want it? Now, with two new FCC appointees upcoming, consumers may have no choice. Although the law requires no more than three of the five FCC commissioners be from the same party, you can bet your Pandora app the commission will soon be controlled by corporate and NAB-friendly appointees.

I believe what the NAB really wants is to encourage you to listen to FM radio via a handy little icon on your phone. With roughly 30 million subscriptions to satellite radio and millions of others opting for Pandora, Spotify and iTunes, radio station owners are a bit antsy about all the competition. So much so that CBS, a media company founded on radio, has decided to spin off its radio division and let it sink or swim on its own. Lately CBS Radio has been laying off newscasters and reporters to lower costs in preparation for the spinoff.

But the FM chip issue pales in comparison to the FCC’s cross-ownership rules, which the NAB deems draconian regulations. In summary, the rules don’t allow the same company to run the local newspaper, radio and TV stations in any market in the interest of encouraging competition. Certain exceptions were famously made, so for instance Rupert Murdoch’s empire gets to own two New York TV stations, including the local Fox outlet, and the New York Post tabloid. Now there’s a lovely cross-ownership.

Many of the historic FCC rules about media ownership have been tossed over the past 20 years, so whereas we used to limit broadcasters from owning more than seven AM, seven FM and seven TV stations in the interest of media competition and diversity, we now have debt-leveraged conglomerates like iHeart Media owning 850 radio stations. We allow corporations to operate two TV stations in one market and hundreds all over the nation. But that’s not enough for the NAB. It wants the ability for television and radio stations and the local newspaper in your city to be owned and operated by the same company.

Here are some examples of what happens with all of this consolidation. According to the media monitor site FTVLive.com, viewers who tune in to their so-called local newscast on KPTM-TV in Omaha, Nebraska, might be surprised to learn the newscast originates from KMPH-TV, 1678 miles away in Fresno, California. Both stations are owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group, the same company that was recently reported to have laid off much of the news staff at WNWO-TV in Toledo, Ohio, saying the Toledo newscast would instead originate from its station in South Bend, Indiana. Broadcasters call it “hubbing”, which is corporate talk for saying it’s cheaper to do it this way. Why pay all those salaries in Toledo when you can pipe the newscast in from South Bend, 156 miles away? Sinclair owns 173 TV stations across the country, so there are lots of opportunities to pipe in broadcasts from who knows where.

Sometimes the cost reduction efforts verge on comical. So, again according to FTVLive,  viewers of the KCEN-TV newscast in Temple/Waco, TX, might have noticed the “new” set on the station’s newscast. Only it wasn’t new. After being used for nine years at KUSA-TV in Denver, the set was reportedly dismantled and shipped off to Texas. Why pay all those Texas carpenters to build a new set when you can just take an old one and brush it up a little bit? Both stations are owned by Tegna, which was formed when Gannett (owners of the USA Today national newspaper) decided to spin-off their broadcasting division. I guess we can give a little credit to Tegna for recycling at one of its 46 TV stations.

Across the nation, thousands of talented and experienced broadcast anchors, reporters, producers and other staff have lost their jobs in the interest of corporate consolidation and cost reduction. You might be surprised to learn that your local traffic report on your morning radio doesn’t originate from your local radio station, nor the weather forecast nor the news. The Los Angeles CBS all-news radio station was recently reported to have laid off three long-time anchors and reporters from an already dwindling news staff. I’m sure it will make the financial statements look better as the radio division is spun off. 

With the incoming administration, it won’t be just the media cross-ownership rules that will likely run into the ditch. And it might well be your next smartphone has FM radio reception whether you like it or not. Climate change, banking, etc. Pick your concern and we’ll strap ourselves in to see where the regulatory/anti-regulatory ride takes us. As they say in broadcasting, stay tuned!

India -- currency changes and the barter economy

A regular reader -- a person of remarkably persistent inquisitiveness -- inquired recently about India's current program of recalling and replacing the two most commonly-used denominations of its currency.  The reader then asked that I publish our conversation.  And with that, here it is.

The conversation began with this question:

Could this give bartering behavior a boost?

Eliminating Cash – The NEW AGE of Economics | Armstrong Economics

Which prompted this answer:

Interesting question.  I think that in the short run the answer is "yes."

However, the full story behind the Indian government actions is much more complicated than what is described in the article, so I think that the long-run answer to your question is probably "no."

India has a problem with taxes -- as the Armstrong article says -- but what the article does NOT say is that the problem is tax evasion (an illegal act) and not tax avoidance (which is legal).

At the risk of over-simplification:  India's economy has grown enormously over the last 20 years, but an unusually large amount of that growth has been due to the country simply printing cash instead of developing a more mature banking system.  Naturally, a bunch of wealthy people have taken advantage of that situation by doing business outside of a banking system. . .what we in the USA might call "under the table" sorts of transactions.  (I don't know what they would call it in India.)

And so, the government(s) in India is/are not collecting taxes that Indian law says it/they ought to collect.

Unfortunately, from what I have been reading, the process of replacing the physical bank notes seems to be somewhat botched, at least from the perspective of most people in India, so that bartering is being used in some cases where cash is no longer available.  That's not helpful for anybody, whether it's the individual or the government.  It'll be interesting to see how this develops over the next few days.

Since rupee replacement was apparently totally unexpected throughout India, this has to qualify as an extraordinary event.  Now that it has had a couple of month to roll out, the results have to make us wonder how well this was planned by the people in charge, and what else might there be yet to come?

The Indian government's announced plan was to complete the conversion by December 30.  That has not happened.  The "old rupee" is still accepted for payments at hospitals, pharmacies and gas stations.  As part of the government's program of "demonetization," use of digital payment services is being encouraged.  There have been some reports of tremendous growth in their numbers of users.  If there is a great deal of bartering, it is not mentioned in the news reporting. 

As of the date of this writing, the program of replacing the "old" with the "new" remains incomplete, with more success in the biggest cities and much less success in the smaller towns and villages of rural India. There is very little current reporting on how this is affecting the lives of the people who had previously relied on the use of cash for daily necessities and activities.  What little has been reported has focused on significant hardship.

That there would be hardship should not be a surprise, since Bloomberg has reported that 98% of the volume of consumer transactions in India are conducted in cash.  For comparison, that figure is 55% in the U.S., and 48% in the U.K.  (Volume, being different from value, implies that the hardships fall with much greater force on those of poor and modest means since they conduct a larger number of their transactions in cash than do the wealthier citizens who are more likely to have, and to use, credit cards and other forms of "cashless" payments.)

Whatever is the end result of this demonetization event, it has to be looked at as self-induced chaos.  I wouldn't rule out an increased use of bartering for consumer transactions that could persist for some time, but there are probably bigger issues that the Indian government will have to manage.  With the persistent shortage of cash, it seems likely that India's GDP (the measure of its total annual economy) will take a meaningful hit.  If so, it will show up as a decline in the annual GDP growth rate which has been reported as likely to be in the vicinity of one-half of one percent.

Since India's GDP growth rate has been around 7% per year we could guess that the government feels that it can sustain a decline to the 6% to 6.5% range without too much difficulty.    But does the sanitized computation of GDP growth accurately and fully reflect the social and human costs of self-induced chaos?

An answer to that question will come only with the passage of more time.