The Art of Communicating - Why is English the First Language?

Juan Osborne doesn't just create portraits using type, the Spanish artist

only chooses words relevant to that particular subject

If we were really into communicating English would be the last language we would want for the international language although that is not what we are trying to do.  What is it about English other than the fact we learned it to some degree growing up?

Most people consider the root language of all languages to be Latin or Ancient Greek, yet if these are the basis for all languages, how odd that of all languages they have the fewest words.  Here are some of the popular languages and the number of words in each language.

Latin                                   4,000

Ancient Greek                  10,000

Hebrew                             45,000

Spanish                             83,431

French                            100,000

Russian                           150,000

Arabic                            200,000

English                        1,025,109

Now what does that tells us?

I think the Ancient Greeks were the most advanced of all cultures as they laid the foundation for philosophy, religion, mathematics, science, music, medicine, you name it, they did it.  Yet between Latin, which they used, and Ancient Greek, it only took them 14,000 words to lay the foundation for all future languages.

John Bagnall is one of the most viewed writers on the Internet, and he says the following, about the number of words used by English speaking people.

Britain’s Guardian newspaper, in 1986, estimated the size of the average person’s vocabulary as developing from roughly 300 words at two years old, through 5,000 words at five years old, to some 12,000 words at the age of 12 [1].

The Guardian’s research suggested that it stays at around this number of words for the remainder of most (average) people’s lives—adding that this is roughly the same number of words as those drawn on by a popular newspaper in the course of producing its daily editions—while a graduate might have a vocabulary nearly twice as large (23,000 words). Shakespeare, according to Robert McCrum et al (whose estimate of the average vocabulary is 15,000 words), had one of the largest recorded vocabularies of any English writer at around 30,000 words[2].

In point of fact, it’s all but impossible to be sure. Not simply because of the difficulty of estimating the number of words any given individual does use and understand, but because of the difficulty of defining what does or does not represent a discrete “word”. For example, is “hair-dryer” one word or two (“hair dryer”)? Do you include abbreviations and acronyms such as “a.m.” and “p.m.”, “’flu” and “BBC”? Is “haven’t” to be considered the same as “have not”, or is it a separate word? What about proper names, brand names? Do you count slang and regional dialect words? Texting and other online conventions? Different grammatical tenses of the same verb? Are popular idioms and phrases (''see you soon'', ''crash out'', ''lol'') to be counted singularly? And so on.

There's also a distinction to be drawn between the words that people use (their active vocabulary) and those they never use of their own volition but understand should they encounter the word when used by others (their passive vocabulary). Clearly, a person's passive vocabulary is (much) larger than their active one.

If you want to investigate the size of your own vocabulary (active and passive), David Crystal’s invaluable The English Language (2nd ed, Penguin 2002) describes a method you can use.

[1] The Guardian, 12 August 1986, cited in David Crystal, The English Language, 2002, p46
[2] Robert McCrum et al., The Story of English, 1986, p102

Vocabulary size

Lexical facts

May 29th 2013, 16:02 by R.L.G. | NEW YORK

SEVERAL years ago we mentioned TestYourVocab.com here on the blog. Not long ago, the site reached its two millionth test result, and so the researchers have put together some data:

• Most adult native test-takers range from 20,000–35,000 words
• Average native test-takers of age 8 already know 10,000 words
• Average native test-takers of age 4 already know 5,000 words
• Adult native test-takers learn almost 1 new word a day until middle age
• Adult test-taker vocabulary growth basically stops at middle age
• The most common vocabulary size for foreign test-takers is 4,500 words
• Foreign test-takers tend to reach over 10,000 words by living abroad
• Foreign test-takers learn 2.5 new words a day while living in an English-speaking country

In a separate post, though, comes a surprising fact: the reading of fiction specifically is as important as reading generally.  People who read "lots" and fiction "lots" outscore those who read "lots" but fiction only "somewhat" or "not much". This is because a wider range of vocabulary is typically used in fiction than in non-fiction writing. 

And if you're wondering "how accurate can this short test be?" the details of the methodology are quite interesting and clearly explained. So if you haven't tested yourself, do.

Everyone ignored my remark that "bragging in the comments is naff" last time, so go ahead and brag away.

BBC News Magazine 28 April 2009

The words in the mental cupboard

By Caroline Gall
BBC News Magazine

Children are to be offered lessons on how to speak English formally amid fears that many are suffering from "word poverty", it has been reported. But how many words do people tend to know and use?

Do people know more words than they actually use? And is having a large vocabulary something you learn or have a natural ability for?

These are burning issues in the worlds of linguistics and education. On Monday it was reported that children in England will have lessons in formal language amid fears that some are suffering from stunted vocabularies.

US company Global Language Monitor (GLM) believes that the one millionth word will be added to the English language in mid-June.

While there is agreement that a word becomes a word when it is used by one person and understood by another, grammarians and lexicographers stand divided when deciding which to include when calculating a total.

Obamamania, bankster and bloggerati are just some of the "brand new words" GLM has been tracking.

The operation, based in Austin, Texas, says 25,000 citations in the worldwide media, social networking sites and elsewhere are its benchmark for a word to be included in its total.

They estimate a new word is created every 98 minutes.

The English language is likely to contain the most words of all languages, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, and estimates for the number of words range from one to two million.

Agreement will probably never be reached over whether or not to include words used in botany or chemistry, let alone slang, dialects and influences from foreign shores.

Some areas GLM does not include are product names and chemicals and Paul Payack, president and chief word analyst, says the 600,000 species of fungus are not in.

So, can a precise word total ever be known? No, says Professor David Crystal, known chiefly for his research in English language studies and author of around 100 books on the subject.

"It's like asking how many stars are there in the sky. It's impossible to answer," he said.

An easier question to answer, he maintains, is the size of the average person's vocabulary.

He suggests taking a sample of about 20 or 30 pages from a medium-sized dictionary, one which contains about 100,000 entries or 1,000 to 1,500 pages.

Tick off the ones you know and count them. Then multiply that by the number of pages and you will discover how many words you know. Most people vastly underestimate their total.

"Most people know half the words - about 50,000 - easily. A reasonably educated person about 75,000 and a really cool, smart person well, maybe all of them but that is rather unusual.

"An ordinary person, one who has not been to university say, would know about 35,000 quite easily."

The formula can be used to calculate the number of words a person uses, but a person's active language will always be less than their passive, the difference being about a third.

Prof Crystal says exposure to reading will obviously expand a person's vocabulary but the level of a person's education does not necessarily decide things.

"A person with a poor education perhaps may not be able to read or read much, but they will know words and may have a very detailed vocabulary about pop songs or motorbikes.

"I've met children that you could class as having a poor education and they knew hundreds of words about skateboards that you won't find in a dictionary.

"We must avoid cultural elitism."

His research led him to ask people how many different words appeared on average in a copy of

The Sun newspaper. All respondents came back with a low figure.

The Sun v The Bible 

After counting a paper picked from random he found there to be about 8,000.

"That's the same as the King James version of the Bible.

"It is not very varied and names don't count but you see, people see headlines like 'Gotcha!' and make a judgment."

But surely, the perfect outlet for having a vast vocabulary is Scrabble.

Allan Simmons, crowned UK champion last year, says he can recognise around 100,000 of the 160,000 words of nine letters or under included on the Scrabble list.

"I've always liked words, their meanings and dictionaries. Patterns of words are interesting - I see it as an art form.

"I have a good memory and a lot of words I learn just for the game although that is a bit artificial."

And while the language grows, words will fall out of use by being replaced.

Experts predict words like "stab" or "throw", have a language lifetime of about 800 to 1,000 years whereas the words "three", "five", "I" and "who" may last anything up to 20,000 years.

So as new words are created at such a pace will we ever keep track? Worry not, says Prof Crystal.

"Of course words become obsolete when they are not used in everyday speech. Look at Shakespeare's plays. But words never, ever get forgotten."

Facts regarding English in England

Some children start school knowing 6,000 words, others just 500.

DICTIONARY MAN

American Ammon Shea spent a year reading the Oxford English Dictionary

He digested 20 volumes, 21,730 pages and 59 million words

'I'm not against big words per se... but I'm opposed to using them for their own sake,' he said

Susanne M. Glasscock School of Continuing Studies

Spring 2003

The Thirty Million Word Gap

A summary from "The Early Catastrophe: The 30 Million Word Gap by Age 3" by University of Kansas researchers Betty Hart and Todd R. Risley. (2003). American Educator. Spring: 4-9, which was exerpted with permission from B. Hart and T.R. Risley (1995). Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experiences of Young American Children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.

In this groundbreaking study, University of Kansas researchers Betty Hart and Todd Risley entered the homes of 42 families from various socio-economic backgrounds to assess the ways in which daily exchanges between a parent and child shape language and vocabulary development. Their findings were unprecedented, with extraordinary disparities between the sheer number of words spoken as well as the types of messages conveyed. After four years these differences in parent-child interactions produced significant discrepancies in not only children’s knowledge, but also their skills and experiences with children from high-income families being exposed to 30 million more words than children from families on welfare. Follow-up studies showed that these differences in language and interaction experiences have lasting effects on a child’s performance later in life.

The Early Catastrophe
Betty Hart & Todd R. Risley

Mission:

Betty Hart and Todd Risley were at the forefront of educational research during the 1960’s War on Poverty. Frustrated after seeing the effects of their high quality early intervention program aimed at language skill expansion prove unsuccessful in the long-term, they decided to shift their focus. If the proper measures were being taken in the classroom, the only logical conclusion was to take a deeper look at the home. What difference does home-life make in a child’s ability to communicate? Why are the alarming vocabulary gaps between high school students from low and high income environments seemingly foreshadowed by their performance in preschool? Hart and Risley believed that the home housed some of these answers.

Experimental Method:

Hart and Risley recruited 42 families to participate in the study including 13 high-income families, 10 families of middle socio-economic status, 13 of low socio-economic status, and 6 families who were on welfare. Monthly hour-long observations of each family were conducted from the time the child was seven months until age three. Gender and race were also balanced within the sample.

Results:

The results of the study were far more severe than anyone could have anticipated. Observers found that 86% to 98% of the words used by each child by the age of three were derived from their parents’ vocabularies. Furthermore, not only were the words they used nearly identical, but also the average number of words utilized, the duration of their conversations, and the speech patterns were all strikingly similar to those of their caregivers.

After establishing these patterns of learning through imitation, the researchers next analyzed the content of each conversation to garner a better understanding of each child’s experience.  The number of words addressed to children differs across income groups. They found that the sheer number of words heard varied greatly along socio-economic lines. On average, children from families on welfare were provided half as much experience as children from working class families, and less than a third of the experience given to children from high-income families. In other words, children from families on welfare heard about 616 words per hour, while those from working class families heard around 1,251 words per hour, and those from professional families heard roughly 2,153 words per hour. Thus, children from better financial circumstances had far more language exposure to draw from.

In addition to looking at the number of words exchanged, the researchers also looked at what was being said within these conversations. What they found was that higher-income families provided their children with far more words of praise compared to children from low-income families. Children's vocabulary differs greatly across income groups. Conversely, children from low-income families were found to endure far more instances of negative reinforcement compared to their peers from higher-income families. Children from families with professional backgrounds experienced a ratio of six encouragements for every discouragement. For children from working-class families this ratio was two encouragements to one discouragement. Finally, children from families on welfare received on average two discouragements for every encouragement.

To ensure that these findings had long-term implications, 29 of the 42 families were recruited for a follow-up study when the children were in third grade. Researchers found that measures of accomplishment at age three were highly indicative of performance at the ages of nine and ten on various vocabulary, language development, and reading comprehension measures. Thus, the foundation built at age three had a great bearing on their progress many years to come.

Inferences:

Within a child’s early life the caregiver is responsible for most, if not all, social simulation and consequently language and communication development. As a result, how parents interact with their children is of great consequence given it lays a critical foundation impacting the way the children process future information many years down the road. This study displays a clear correlation between the conversation styles of parents and the resulting speech of their children. This connection evidences just how problematic the results of this study may truly be.

The finding that children living in poverty hear fewer than a third of the words heard by children from higher-income families has significant implications in the long run. When extrapolated to the words heard by a child within the first four years of their life these results reveal a 30 million word difference. That is, a child from a high-income family will experience 30 million more words within the first four years of life than a child from a low-income family. This gap does nothing but grow as the years progress, ensuring slow growth for children who are economically disadvantaged and accelerated growth for those from more privileged backgrounds.

In addition to a lack of exposure to these 30 million words, the words a child from a low-income family has typically mastered are often negative directives, meaning words of discouragement. The ratios of encouraging versus discouraging feedback found within the study, when extrapolated, evidences that by age four, the average child from a family on welfare will hear 125,000 more words of discouragement than encouragement. When compared to the 560,000 more words of praise as opposed to discouragement that a child from a high-income family will receive, this disparity is extraordinarily vast.

The established connection between what a parent says and what a child learns has more severe implications than previously anticipated. Though Hart and Risley are quick to indicate that each child received no shortage of love and care, the immense differences in communication styles found along socio-economic lines are of far greater consequence than any parent could have imagined. The resulting disparities in vocabulary growth and language development are of great concern and prove the home does truly hold the key to early childhood success.

Sources Cited:

Hart, B. & Risley, T.R. “The Early Catastrophe:The 30 Million Word Gap by Age 3” (2003, spring). American Educator, pp.4-9.. http://www.aft.org//sites/default/files/periodicals/TheEarlyCatastrophe.pdf

— Prepared by Ashlin Orr, Kinder Institute Intern, 2011-12.

For more information about putting this research into practice, please explore our work at the Rice Oral and Written Language (OWL) Lab.

.

Responsible People Should Question Syrian Refugee Problem - It is about being Muslim - and Immigration to America

President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry, and even former Secretary of State Clinton should not be so quick to condemn those who question the wisdom of mass refugee transfers to the United States.

Of course, the liberal media and progressive advocates will condemn anyone who questions them, especially on such a controversial issue.  Such condemnation is then given the right progressive spin, like what kind of threat are Muslim babies, mothers, and old people.

The intent is to entice well meaning but gullible people into condemning Republicans and Republican presidential candidates directly, and seducing Independents and Democrats who might be genuinely concerned about the cause.

The truth, well so far no one is talking about the truth or historical facts and lessons.  To be honest, they cannot afford to discuss it.

You will not find the truth in the Qur'an (the Muslim holy book), you will find it in the historical battle for dominance within the Muslim world between the bitterest of all enemies, the sects within the Muslim faith.  The truth has been unfolding for 1,400 years but our liberal media either does not want you to know the truth, or is oblivious, which is a much greater concern to us.

There are two dominant sects within Islam or the Muslim religion, the Sunni and the Shi'ite.  For purposes of accuracy, there is confusion in how to spell Shi'ite.  Here are the results of eight different sources on the proper spelling.

Is it Shi'i, Shi'a, Shia, Shi'ite or Shiite?

• Real Arabic is Shi'yan e Ali, a group of fellows of Ali formed in life span of Muhammad pbuh.
  
  
• Commonly called Shia in arabic,
  
  
• Shiite's in English
  
  
• Shi'a in Arabic(شیعه)
  
  
• Shiite in English
  
  
• Shia in YA because it is easier to type it

• Shi'a - a sect in Islam

• Commonly it's spelled Shi'i or Shia

• I believe the best way is shia. Its the easiest and it is spelled how it is said mostly it is used as shi'a.

As you can see, not even the specialists agree.

What you do need to know, and what Obama and company do not tell you, is both sects have rather radical factions and as a result, they have been at war with each other for 1,400 years.  The consequence of the war is stunning.

Reliable estimates of the number of Muslims killed since 1948, is a staggering eleven million. In a 2007 research, Gunnar Heinsohn from the University of Bremen and Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, found out that some 11 million Muslims were violently killed since 1948, of which 35,000, (0.3 percent) died during the six years of Arab war against Israel, or one out of every 315 fatalities.

The truth is, fellow Muslims killed more than 90 percent of the Muslims who perished in Muslim countries from 1948 through 2007.

Remember this does not count 2008-2015, a time when ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were underway, when there were many deaths from the Arab Spring and aftermath (between 2010 to 2012), the civil wars still underway since the Arab spring, most notably in Syria, and violence throughout the other Arab countries.

During the Arab Spring, rulers were forced from power in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen, while civil wars erupted in Bahrain and Syria.  There were major protests in Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, and Sudan and minor protests in Mauritania, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Djibouti, Western Sahara, and Palestine.

Tuareg fighters returning from the Libyan Civil War then joined the ongoing conflict in Mali, where just this past week a terrorist assault on a hotel killed 21.  In just the past month, there are over 300 deaths from terrorist attacks.

The death toll since 2007 could easily be more than one million meaning Muslims killed in conflicts in Arab nations since 1948 could easily be approaching twelve million, with about 10,800,000 killed by fellow Muslims.

Historically, if you look at the record for non-Muslims killed by Muslims over the 1,400 year history of Islam the number is nearly 270 million.  Source articles for the numbers mentioned follow in subsequent articles.

In the past two decades there have been two principal terrorist groups within the Islamic radicals, The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, ISIS or simply the Islamic State), and their predecessor Al-Qaeda, the extremist Islamic group established in 1989 by Osama Bin Laden and responsible for the World Trade Center destruction.

Muslims pledge loyalty to a Caliphate, a territory dominated by Muslims, in which Sharia Law is implemented, the Islamic code of conduct.  From this point on, the differences between terror groups varies.

Just know that both represent the Sunni sect.  From a terrorist point of view, the re-establishment of the Islam Caliphate is necessary and obliterating all other Muslim and non-Muslim people within the Caliphate is required.

With no national loyalty, the radical Muslim fighters are loyal only to the Caliphate and therein lies the core conclusion that accommodation is impossible, they are sworn to kill us as the Demonic force behind the Jewish state and behind the persecution of Islamic followers throughout the world.

What does this have to do with Syrian refugees to America?

It should be nothing but that is not the case.  Syrian refugees want to remain in their homeland which is part of the disputed territory of the Caliphate.  Right now they face death if they stay home.

However, there are two issues with the refugees.  First are they loyal to the core beliefs of the terrorists and most are not.  Second, will they assimilate into the American culture if they come here or do they expect to bring their Islamic culture to America as they did in Europe and other areas.

America is unique in terms of the assimilation of foreign national refugees into our nation.  We are a nation of immigrants, thus we have created a culture that welcomes people of all cultures as long as they become loyal Americans.  Here that also guarantees them the right to have their own religion and cultural ways, but they must respect our basic belief that ALL people are equal and guaranteed equal opportunity.

Where substantial concentrations of Muslim people have gathered over the years, not only do they have to assimilate into the American culture, they also have to deal with Islamic terrorists, and they must overcome the 1,400 year history of the Sunni and Shi'ite struggle for dominance.

That is the perplexing situation facing potential refugees to the USA that the Obama Administration must incorporate into the vetting process.  It must determine if the process is sufficient to protect the citizens of the United States who are more than willing to embrace immigrants.

These are the issues not discussed by the president or the media but only by Paul Ryan, new Speaker of the House, and concerned members of the House and Senate.  Slow down Obama or you will get it all wrong again.

.

Polls and the News Media - the Nastiest Poll of All - SIX Percent

As we sit back and tune in to another polarizing cable news show about the presidential race, we prepare ourselves for a barrage of insults, half-truths, rumors, innuendo, lies, distortions, agitations, and frustrations, and that is just what is coming from the news reporters and commentators, not the candidates.

They say deaths from opiate over-doses in America have tripled in the past four years.  One wonders if the polarizing hatred seen on cable television 24/7 might be a factor.  What bigger source of pain can there be than politicians, especially ones who will say anything to win and make up all kinds of lies about the others.

Right next to the beer and remote control are the bottles.

In the bottles, you will find the legal pain relief opioid drugs including:

• codeine (only available in generic form)
• fentanyl (Actiq, Duragesic, Fentora)
• hydrocodone (Hysingla ER, Zohydro ER) 
• hydrocodone/acetaminophen (Lorcet, Lortab, Norco, Vicodin)
• hydromorphone (Dilaudid, Exalgo)
• meperidine (Demerol)
• methadone (Dolophine, Methadose)
• morphine (Astramorph, Avinza, Kadian, MS Contin, Ora-Morph SR)
• oxycodone (OxyContin, Oxecta, Roxicodone)
• oxycodone and acetaminophen (Percocet, Endocet, Roxicet)
• oxycodone and naloxone (Targiniq ER)

Now you are ready to face the pain of what you are about to hear.

I am pretty certain lying and political campaigns are synonymous, inter-related, Ying and Yang.  Even fact checkers have to be fact checked to see whose side they are protecting.  Instead of saying "Veritas vos liberabit", "The truth is out there," perhaps one should say "Est ex veritate non est," "No truth is out there."

With that in mind we come to a poll that should be the most dreaded news ever reported by the media.  Of course they do not report it.  What they do report is how Trump has the highest unfavorable rating in modern history.

It is the truth they refuse to report that weighs down on them.  Here is the headline they should be reporting.

   

New Polls force Democrats to push Panic Button as Main Street Media attack Trump

Since we know polls in America show journalists covering the presidential campaign are liberal by a 12-1 margin, it should be no surprise that the liberal media is taking up the attack to stop Trump in the general election.

Trump still has not secured the Republican nomination and Clinton continues to battle Bernie Sanders for media coverage, but the media is acting as if Trump is a real threat to beat the media favorite Clinton.

Quite a contrast to earlier in the campaign when the media dismissed Trump yet wanted him to win the GOP nomination since polls showed Hillary winning by a landslide if Trump were the opponent.

A funny thing happened on the way to the conventions and polls confirmed it after Trump's landslide wins in the Northeast and Indiana primaries blew his last two opponents, Cruz and Kasich, out of it.

Trump and Clinton are now in a near dead heat in nationwide polls and the general election has not even begun.  This week when Trump suddenly started winning the support of major GOP party officials and it looks like the Republicans are going to be united more tremors were felt in the Clinton campaign.

The press says very little about the crosstabs in the polls, and for good reason.  You hear Trump has the highest unfavorable score ever recorded at 65%, yet no one says Hillary has the second highest unfavorable ever recorded at 57%.

So the media has mounted a massive campaign to discredit Trump and drag out anything he ever did in his life, say 30 to 50 years ago, as if it will have a direct effect on whether he pushes the nuclear button.  That is about as yellow as journalism can be.

However, I am not defending Trump.  I say, what he says and does today, is far more relevant than what he did three or four decades ago.  I mean people do change over the course of a lifetime. Besides, every time he opens his mouth he is capable of stumbling over his tongue.

To me fair reporting is an issue of credibility.  Now to get to the most dreaded poll results not reported.

The American Press Institute published a survey April 18, 2016, and the real headline was:

"Only 6% of Americans trust the media"

Just 6 percent of people say they have a lot of confidence in the media, putting the news industry about equal to Congress and well below the public’s view of other institutions. In this presidential campaign year, Democrats were more likely to trust the news media than Republicans or independents.

The bottom line is this.  Why is the media trashing Trump as a strategy to defeat him, pointing to his negative ratings in public polls, when 94% of the same public does not trust the media?

To me the 35% of the public trusting Trump today is six times better than the public trusts the media, 6%.  That is truth in reporting.

. 

Morning Joe Meltdown - MSNBC Hosts Choke on own Egos

.

It has been clear lately that the Morning Joe program is suffering from egotistical constipation as the two hosts, Joe and Mika, fight with each other and then shower each other with incredible foresight and honor for being first on the air to call the 2016 election.  This is when they are not hyping the books they have written, the band Joe plays in, or the books by Mika's family.

Well I have been watching since day one and the only person who stretches the truth more than Donald Trump are the MSNBC egos on air.  Their fortunes are dependent on sucking up to Trump to spike ratings for the show and they have consistently upset the Donald with their gratuitous and unsolicited advice, thus jeopardizing their access to the Donald.

Morning Joe, the token Republican on the show, and token may also be an a exaggeration, has taken to pontificating to Donald the few times Trump has called in, when in fact Joe's only interest is self-promotion. His claim to fame was being a congressman in the late 1990's.

His GOP credentials come from being elected to congress in 1994 and winning four consecutive elections, the last in 2000.  Shortly thereafter he mysteriously resigned from congress in 2001.  This was around the time of rumors of infidelity and his sudden divorce.  Then a married staff member was found dead in his District Office.

Scarborough claims credit for balancing the budget in the late 1990's and of championing New Federalism in congress.  In truth the Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich and President Bill Clinton negotiated the budget balancing although the National Deficit continued to increase at the time.

As for the New Federalism claim, I was part of a Presidential New Federalism task force The New York Times called the most extensive reorganization of the federal government since Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal.  We worked in the Nixon White House between 1972 and 1974 and we did pass a massive number of New Federalism initiatives that stand alone to this day as the greatest decentralization of the federal government in history.

Sorry Joe, your claim was an exaggeration as well.

Well after Joe last lectured Donald, Trump has refused to call in to the show thus undermining the ratings for a show long suffering from tepid ratings.  As MSNBC has continued to reorganize the network to be more fair and balanced, the shows have continued their dismal runs in last place in cable news programs and the strain on the Morning Joe hosts is clear.

This week Mika and Joe have gone off the deep end stating over and over how they and they alone called the election, forecast Trump's success,  and are the greatest political pundits on  earth I guess.  The level of insecurity oozing from them was painful to watch.  Everyone knows they are egomaniacs, they tend to constantly overemphasize their importance, knowledge, and status, and that they are firmly in last place in the cable ratings.

Need I say more?
.    

What if Trump is a Stalking Horse for the Clintons?

.

Since this has become the most bizarre campaign in the history of American politics, we still have not had the party conventions to officially nominate Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump,  and we still have five months before the campaign is over, why not inject yet another explanation for what is happening.

Consider this, Trump, by his own claim, was a top student in his Ivy League class at the Pennsylvania Wharton School of Business.  If true it is impressive.  For his entire life Trump has been keeping company with the movers and shakers.  His business empire is dedicated to providing the rich with the best toys possible for this elite class.

In the course of this presidential campaign Trump has defied the experts, befuddled the press, and toyed with the politicians time and again while coming out of nowhere and powering himself to the Republican nomination.  In the process he has left everything involved in politics a shambles.

Now that he locked up the nomination, he seems to have gone way off the deep end in the most self-destructive campaign in history in recent weeks.  Everything he has been saying since locking up the nomination contradicts everything he said would happen when he got the nomination.

For a time the Trump antic of misdirecting the media was fun to watch since the general public distrusts the news media more than congress, Trump, or Clinton. But things have changed.  His actions now seem intent on destroying his chances of ever winning the general election, now that he has won the primary season and clinched the nomination.

The daughters are buddies as well.

If I were a good Glenn Beck type of conspirator I would suspect what is happening was planned all along.  Since we know the Clintons and Trumps were a lot closer than either party wants to admit, what if they long ago plotted to help Trump get the Republican nomination and he, in turn, would deliberately sabotage his chances of getting elected to assure Hillary would be the next president.

Remember, it was well known Hillary had some serious problems with emails and trust and the typical Clinton modis operandi.  Her negatives would reach all time highs or lows, however you look at them, before the campaign was over, so how about get Trump to  seize the GOP nomination as an insurance policy.  His actions to undermine his own success seem to indicate he never wanted to be president, just control the presidency.

If so, this is truly the greatest scam in history in which all American voters have been had, taken for a ride, and had their pockets picked.  Hillary will be the next president whether she is indicted or not and Trump will have unlimited access to the White House without having the overbearing *to him" responsibility of being   president.