It should be a quick read.
Tag Archives: Donald Trump
Voodoo You
“It just isn’t going to work, and it’s very interesting that the man who invented this type of what I call a voodoo economic policy is Art Laffer, a California economist.” – George H.W. Bush, Carnegie Mellon University, April 10, 1980
I’m frightened for the United States, and it’s not just because of my disdain for our faux president, Donald Trump. I’m genuinely concerned about what could happen over the next few years.
In the above quote, George H.W. Bush was referring to the plans of fellow Republican and 1980 presidential candidate Ronald Reagan for revitalizing a stagnant U.S. economy. Then, when Reagan won in most of the primaries, his camp offered Bush the vice-presidential position, and the former Texas congressman shut up about economics. In 1980, the nation was in a bad financial situation. The costs of the Vietnam War, coupled with oil embargoes from OPEC nations, had finally taken their toll. Unemployment stood at nearly 10%; the prime interest rate was 21%; inflation was 14%; home mortgage rates were 17%; and the top marginal tax rate was 70%. In the second quarter of 1980, the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) declined by 8%. By the end of the year, the overall GDP boasted about $3 trillion (in today’s dollars).
With the help of some Democrats in both houses of the U.S. Congress, Reagan was able to generate an agreement that slashed taxes down to 50% on wages, to 48% on corporate income, and to 20% on capital gains. These measures initially jumpstarted the economy. Average citizens had more expendable income, which they poured back into the economy by purchasing many so-called big ticket items, like vehicle and electronics. By 1990, the size of the U.S. economy had grown from $3 trillion to $6 trillion, with roughly 4 million new businesses and 20 million new jobs created. Although the national debt increased from $1 trillion to $4 trillion during the same period, overall revenues doubled.
Reagan’s economic policies were in line with conservative views on taxation: if we give the “investing class” (meaning, the most affluent) generous tax breaks, they will respond by expanding their businesses or starting new ones, which in turn, will create more products and / or services and more jobs. Along with reduced business regulations (“job killers” in conservative lingo), average citizens will have more income, which of course, they will pour back into the economy. Such growth then will expand the tax base; the additional revenue will replace any money lost to the initial tax cuts.
Ask any frustrated project manager and they will tell you that everything always looks great on paper. While Reagan disciples keep championing his financial moves, the reality is that “Reaganomics” didn’t work out as planned. One thing people forget is a little thing called the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982, which rolled back financial regulations that had been established by the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt to prevent further damage caused by the 1929 stock market crash and the ensuing Great Depression. It’s interesting that Bush’s voodoo comment was made at Carnegie Mellon University. Founded by Andrew Carnegie in 1900 as Carnegie Technical School, it merged with the Mellon Institute of Industrial Research in 1967 to become Carnegie Mellon. The Mellon Institute had been established in 1913 by brothers Andrew and Richard B. Mellon who, like Carnegie, were self-made businessmen and titans of early 20th century America. Andrew Mellon served as Secretary of the Treasury from 1921 – 1932, one of the longest tenures for this position. He created the “trickle-down” economic theory by declaring, “Give tax breaks to large corporations, so that money can trickle down to the general public, in the form of extra jobs.”
But Andrew Mellon is also known for a notoriously rotten hands-off policy with the Great Depression. The banks that failed had put themselves in such a precarious financial position, he believed, and thus, they were responsible for extricating themselves from it. It didn’t seem to matter that these bank failures took people’s money with them; therefore, amplifying the effects of the 1929 crash.
Still, President Reagan – like any good fiscal conservative – held onto these beliefs and eagerly signed the Garn-St. Germain bill. That reduced the number of regulations on financial institutions and allowed them to expand and invest more of their customers’ deposits in various ventures, particularly home mortgages. Again, that looks-great-on-paper ideology swung back around to bite everyone when the Savings & Loans Crisis erupted. Between 1986 and 1995, 1,043 out of the 3,234 savings and loan institutions in the U.S. failed; costing $160 billion overall, with taxpayers footing $132 billion of it. It was the worst series of bank collapses since the Great Depression. That led to the 1990-91 Recession, the longest and most wide-spread economic downturn since the late 1940s. I started working for a large bank in Dallas in April of 1990 and saw the S&L crisis unfold in real time.
Nonetheless, trickle-down economics saw a rebirth with George W. Bush, as his administration further deregulated the banking industry and also deregulated housing. Combined with the costs of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. economy almost completely collapsed at the end of 2008. The 2007-08 Recession was the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Unemployment reached double digits for the first time since the start of the Reagan era, as millions of citizens lost their homes and their savings. Had it not been for such programs as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the FDIC, established by Roosevelt), we surely would have plunged into another depression.
Now, with Donald Trump in office, I fear we’re headed for the same morass. On December 22, 2017, Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act; the largest overhaul of the U.S. tax code in 30 years. Financial prognosticators have already forecast the act will raise the federal deficit by hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars over the next 10 years. The law cuts individual taxes temporarily, but cuts corporate tax rates permanently. As suspected, the most affluent citizens will benefit greatly, as they experience a significant reduction in their taxes. The rest of us lowly peons may see a tax increase after those temporary provisions expire in 2025.
You know that classic definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over, while expecting different results. It’s more like, well, if you keep doing stupid shit, stupid shit will keep happening!
Ignore Russia-gate for a moment and the fact Melania’s side of the First Bed is colder than a Chicago winter. This past week Trump visited the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland. This is where the most elite members of the business world meet (conspire) with leaders of developed nations to create economic policies and decide what’s best for us peons. Kind of like evangelical Christians often meet to decide what people should see and read. They’ve set themselves up as the righteous few; the ones who supposedly understand exactly what works and what doesn’t and are divinely compelled to bestow such knowledge upon the rest of us.
Trump ran his presidential campaign on the wave of anti-Washington sentiment; appealing to average citizens about reviving a once-lost “Great America” with a variety of clever ruses: ban Muslims, build a wall along the Mexican border, etc. So many people, of course, bought into it. Like Ronald Reagan, Trump was able to tap into that sensitive nerve of everyday angst; spitting out a slew of quaint buzz words to appeal to average folks. He had said he would never take part in a WEF convention. Yet, there he was; leading a parade of those self-righteous few into another kind of revitalization: the Gilded Age.
I doubt if most Trump voters even know what Davos means and how it could impact their lives. Understand, though, that Switzerland is a place where Hollywood celebrities often went for a retreat or a little vacation – code words for cosmetic surgery; long before Phyllis Diller made it openly acceptable. That’s essentially what Donald Trump did this past week. He flew to Davos to tell the world, “America first is not America alone.”
I’m frightened for the United States.
Filed under Essays
I Sight
Over the past few months the dreaded “I” word has been floating across the nation: impeachment. As in the impeachment of President Donald Trump – which sounds pretty good – because his words and actions have put the U.S. in a precarious global position – because he really wasn’t elected to the office – because he’s an obnoxious bastard. Okay, that last one is more of a personal opinion. And, of course, we all have a right to that!
But talk of impeaching the president of the United States is like warning Americans about visiting North Korea: don’t go there. Forcibly removing the president from office was a rare topic of discussion – even among politicians – until the 1970s. But, after the Watergate left a bitterly angry taste in the mouths of the American populace, impeachment has been tossed around as often as limes at a Mexican barbecue.
Since Watergate, only one sitting U.S. president has faced a concerted attempt at impeachment: Bill Clinton. And that was only because he engaged in an eel-hunting adventure with a perky, overweight intern, which culminated in a blue dress wardrobe malfunction before anyone invented the term.
Yet, as much as I despise Trump and as little as I thought of George W. Bush, I would look at anyone who talks of impeachment with concern. Do you realize how serious that is? Do you understand exactly what it takes to oust such a person from the White House? It’s almost like a military coup; the kind that occurs in third-world nations. Think Cuba or the Philippines. Yes, that kind. It’s nowhere near as bloody and violent; we use pens and roll-call votes here, instead of guns and machetes. But it remains a complex and arduous task.
Keep in mind that, aside from Clinton, only 2 other U.S. presidents have faced impeachment: Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon. The key term here is faced impeachment. To date, no sitting president has actually been removed from office by impeachment. The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching the president, while the U.S. Senate has the sole power of trying impeachments. This all occurs under rules of law established in the Constitution; therefore, no single branch of government possesses omniscient power to remove a sitting president.
The first step, obviously, is to identify what acts performed by the president qualify as “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The House votes on articles of impeachment. If there is just one article, it requires a two-thirds majority of House members. But, if there are two or more articles of impeachment, only one of them needs to garner a majority to induce impeachment. Nixon came very close to actually being removed from office. But he resigned after the House voted in August of 1974.
Second, the proceedings move to the Senate where an actual trial is held. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court oversees the case, as they would any other legal matter. Here, a team of lawmakers from the House serves in a prosecutorial role, while the Senate is technically the jury. The president has his or her own lawyers. Once all sides have presented their arguments, the matter is handed to the Senate. If at least two-thirds of Senators vote in favor of the articles, then the president is removed from office, and the vice-president assumes the presidency.
This isn’t punishment for being tardy. The U.S. likes to present itself as a beacon of democracy for the world; a master of political dignity and fairness. If we are compelled to remove our own national leader from office, what does that say about our voting system? What does it say about the concept of democracy altogether? Is the presidential vetting process so pathetic that we can’t identify someone with a criminal mindset beforehand?
Elizabeth Holtzman is a former U.S. congresswoman from New York. In 1974, she was on the House Judiciary Committee that voted to impeach Nixon. In a 2006 essay entitled “The Impeachment of George W. Bush,” she not only describes the arduous process of removing a sitting president from office, but also the emotional toll it took on everyone in both houses of congress at the time.
“I can still remember the sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach during those proceedings,” she wrote, “when it became clear that the President had so systematically abused the powers of the presidency and so threatened the rule of law that he had to be removed from office. As a Democrat who opposed many of President Nixon’s policies, I still found voting for his impeachment to be one of the most sobering and unpleasant tasks I ever had to undertake. None of the members of the committee took pleasure in voting for impeachment; after all, Democrat or Republican, Nixon was still our President.”
Curiously, she goes on to state, “At the time, I hoped that our committee’s work would send a strong signal to future Presidents that they had to obey the rule of law. I was wrong.”
In this regard, she was discussing the possible impeachment of George W. Bush. I can think of no other Chief Executive in modern times who exhibited such incompetence and corruptness as our 43rd president. That he got into office under dubious circumstances in the first place is enough to question the integrity of our electoral process. That he managed to remain there, despite mounting evidence of war crimes, is anathema to the grander concept of democracy. I’ve always said that, if the Democrats had at least made a concerted attempt to remove Bush from office, they wouldn’t just appear heroic in the eyes of their constituents; they also would have upheld the rule of law governing all institutions.
Remember that congressional Republicans tried to remove Bill Clinton for lying about his sexual dalliances. It was an incredibly one-sided, vindictive assault on democracy – all because the man didn’t want the world to know he’d screwed around on his wife and because right-wing extremists didn’t like him, no matter what he happened. You’re going to impeach him for THAT?! Then-House leader Newt Gingrich – who was married to his third wife with whom he’d cheated on his second wife – had led the cavalcade of self-righteous Republicans. He and his constituents paid for their hypocrisy when they lost their super-majorities in both Houses of Congress in the 1998 elections.
Watching the Trump presidency collapse around the real estate magnate-turned-reality-TV-star is almost laughable. But it’s not that funny. His behavioral quirks and fetish for name-calling are hallmarks of social ineptitude and, perhaps, mental instability. As with George W. Bush, that Trump actually made it into the White House is an insult to the core of the institution of democracy. Growing evidence shows that Russia interfered with the 2016 U.S. elections. Exactly how they did it has yet to be discovered – or revealed. But I honestly believe the Trump presidency is a fluke.
In his novel, “Shibumi,” author Trevanian (Rodney William Whitaker) relays the incredible tale of Nicholai Hel, a Shanghai-born spy of Russian – German heritage who is the world’s most accomplished assassin. After surviving the carnage of the Hiroshima bombing, Hel retreats to a lavish and isolated mountain citadel with his beautiful Eurasian mistress. But he’s coaxed back into the netherworld of international espionage by a young woman. Hel soon learns, however, that he’s being tracked by a mysterious and omnipotent global entity known simply as the “Mother Company.” The “Company” is a composite of corporate giants that installs leaders in key nations – even those in the developed world – manipulates the markets for such necessities as food and oil and incites wars whenever it deems appropriate. The conflict between Hel and the “Mother Company” becomes something akin to a board game, where millions of lives are used as toys for the benefit of a few powerful elitists.
I keep thinking we’re already dealing with that type of set-up; that Bush, Jr., was placed into office, so we could go to war in Iraq and gain access to their oil reserves, and that Trump was planted in the White House for whatever machinations the Russian government has underway.
But I still want everyone to be careful with the “I” word. It really is just a small step from undergoing the lengthy route of impeaching a president to rigging his limousine with explosives – like they do in those unstable third-world societies. Democracy is a difficult political state to establish. It’s even more difficult to maintain. It doesn’t function on its own; it simply can’t.
This mess we’re in may provide great material for standup comics. But it also presents us with an ethical dilemma. Again, I ask, do we truly understand how serious this talk of impeachment is?
Filed under Essays
Telling Donald Trump Not to Tweet Is Like…
The 45th President of the United States has achieved a previously unimaginable goal: reduce the size of the federal government. In this case, it’s the presidency, which has been downgraded to 140 characters. He has left people disoriented and unsettled; rattled and dismayed; flummoxed and constipated. Many of his most devout followers have embraced the lemming ideology of life and started following their magical penis-pied piper to the precipice of a faux utopia. And we thought George W. Bush was mentally-challenged! Well…he was. Yet Trump has taken messianic mendacity to supersonic levels. I keep thinking that someone on his staff should advise him to keep his pre-dawn twittering in the bathroom. But that would be like telling Abraham Lincoln, ‘Don’t go to the theatre! You’ll catch a cold.’ It’s virtually impossible to demand this bombastic, bull-headed businessman behave presidential.
It may be hard to imagine, but there are some logical comparisons to such a feat. But there are plenty. Therefore, telling Donald Trump NOT to Tweet is like…
- …telling the Kardashian girls not to take selfies.
- …telling Bill Clinton to honor his marriage vows.
- …telling Matthew McConaughey to keep on his shirt.
- …telling Ann Coulter to stop being such a bitch.
- …telling Justin Bieber to act like an adult.
- …telling Michael Moore to lay off the doughnuts and eclairs.
- …telling Elton John to tone down his wardrobe.
- …telling Kanye West to stop interrupting people.
- …telling Paris Hilton to get a job.
- …telling Rush Limbaugh to take a deep breath.
- …telling Caitlyn Jenner to grow a pair.
- …telling Willie Nelson to shave and get a trim.
- …telling Barbara Walters to retire once and for all.
- …telling Eminem to act White.
- …telling Pope Francis to stop wearing those designer gowns.
- …telling Bill Maher to shut the hell up.
- …telling Oprah Winfrey no one misses her.
- …telling Brittney Spears she can’t sing worth a shit.
- …telling Snoop Dogg to learn proper English.
- …telling Alec Baldwin to stop making fun of Trump.
Telling Donald Trump Not to Tweet is like… [Readers, please feel free to provide your own response]. The more fun we can have with this, the more likely Trump will get pissed off and Tweet and subsequently provide us all with more joke material. And the more we can all laugh at and ridicule our mentally-unhinged elected officials will bring us closer to that highly-coveted state of national nirvana.
Filed under Essays
Good News With Trump
In my 40-plus years of watching, studying and laughing at American politics, I have NEVER seen the country as divided as it is now. I thought things were bad in the 1990s, when conservatives tried everything they could to bounce Bill Clinton out of office – and only succeeded in proving he has a female fetish (like most straight men do), while making themselves look like incompetent assholes.
Then came these last two decades, and the country became even more divided; first under George W. Bush (the poster child for closet alcoholics) and then under Barack Obama (the poster child for grace under extreme pressure and stupidity; the latter two courtesy of the even more assholish conservatives, if that’s actually possible).
But now, with Donald J. Trump in the White House (and his third wife several miles away in her gilded penthouse loft), I’ve been surprised. Again! The U.S. even more divided than Neapolitan ice cream. If it gets any more divided, opposing sides will fall off into the oceans; thus making global warming look like a bad day at the beach. Then again, if the extremists do fall off into the ocean, that wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing.
Still, amidst the dim-bulb antics of the current presidential administration, I’ve actually found some bright moments. Yes, even with a psychologically unstable, orange-tinted, womanizing twit-master like Trump occupying the highest office in the land, there are a few positives. It’s proof that, indeed, you can make wine from prunes!
- People realize the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is just as important as the Second.
- They’ve learned the names of their local congressional representatives.
- Voting (or not) really does matter.
- Two centuries of civil and human rights progress aren’t 100% safe and untouchable.
- Not everything on Facebook or Wikipedia is true.
- Hispanics aren’t “recent immigrants.” We’ve been here longer than the Trump family.
- Neanderthals didn’t die off; they became Republicans.
- The term “alternative facts” makes less sense than “compassionate conservative.”
- The nation’s infrastructure, like dams and highways, is under greater threat than gun rights.
- The inexpensive (meaning, cheap) food we buy at Wal-Mart doesn’t grow or pick itself.
- Decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court actually do impact our lives.
- Women’s bodies aren’t “hosts.”
- Not all White males are evil.
- The British really can get pissed off.
- The Cold War didn’t end with the collapse of the Soviet Union; it moved into cyberspace.
- Reality TV is dangerous.
- Neo-Nazis remain a threat.
- Politicians who have nothing more important to do than regulate public bathrooms need to be voted out of office.
- People without English surnames often speak better English than people with English surnames.
- Building a wall along the U.S.-México border will put a lot of Mexican immigrants to work.
- Republican politicians have no qualms about eliminating healthcare for poor, sick people; while enjoying their own taxpayer-funded health insurance.
- Coal mining is as obsolete as it is dangerous and dirty.
- We need more female politicians.
- Native Americans have put up with enough shit from the U.S. government.
- The Kardashians aren’t (and never have been) relevant to anything.
- President Obama was too nice to his critics, but I still feel he should have been able to run for a third term. You know…just to piss off the Republicans.
- American was great long before Trump ran for office.
- How soon before we can fly to Mars?
Image: Gary Larson
Thank You, President Obama
“Before I leave my note for our 45th president, I wanted to say one final thank you for the honor of serving as your 44th. Because all that I’ve learned in my time in office, I’ve learned from you. You made me a better President, and you made me a better man.”
– President Barack Obama, January 19, 2017
President Obama, today you officially leave the White House and reenter life as a (somewhat) private citizen. After an incredible, yet curious, eight years, you leave a unique legacy to a nation that challenged you both professionally and personally. From my vantage point as an average citizen, I feel you did as best you could do.
First, you took on the most difficult job anyone could have: proverbial leader of the “Free World.” It’s a position riddled with dichotomies: intensely powerful and emotionally draining; prestigious and notorious; riveting and excruciating; honorific and horrifying. With a glaring tone of schizophrenia, it’s not so much a job as it is a role. Chief Executive of the United States of America stretches across the horizon of humanity. No wonder you leave office looking decades older than when you first arrived!
Second – and perhaps most important – you took on this task at the start of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression; when we straddled two wars that left us enraged and tired; when the richest, most powerful nation on Earth suddenly had to question its future in relation to its past. And you did it with members of the opposition who awoke each day more determined to destroy you than to ensure the nation’s success.
Your life story is fascinating. Here you are – born of a Black immigrant father who abandoned you almost from the start and a White teenage mother who nurtured you as best as her young age would allow, but who would never see your rise to fame – one individual beginning life under such duress. You attended Columbia College where you majored in political science and English literature. You moved on to Harvard University, one of the most prestigious institutions of higher education and one of the most difficult to access. You were then president of the Harvard Law Review. Before that, though, you were a student at Occidental College in Los Angeles where a hint to your political ambition became apparent in a speech calling for the college to sever its investments in South Africa. None of these are small achievements.
As president, you helped to salve the damage of the Great Recession with investments in an economy that created 11 million new jobs; the longest such streak on record. Unemployment is now down to pre-recession levels. With exports up by 28% and a deficit cut by $800 billion, the stock markets have nearly tripled, the auto industry is flourishing again, and our reliance on foreign oil stands at a 40-year low. High school graduation rates increased substantially, and Pell Grants doubled. Your administration instituted new federal student loan payment plans; established a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; put in place a new mortgage refinance program; passed a Patient’s Bill of Rights; extended protection for land and water resources; and placed limits on carbon pollution.
If I have any grievances regarding your record, they are few, but noteworthy. I personally don’t care for the Affordable Care Act, as it presently stands. You and your fellow Democrats seemed to spend too much time designing and implementing this law, instead of focusing even more time and energy on the economy. Americans certainly don’t need another tax, when they’re having trouble finding stable employment! I was also disappointed in your response to threats by your Republican colleagues to withhold benefits for the long-term unemployed at the end of 2010, if you didn’t agree to maintain the Bush-era tax cuts; the very items that shoved the nation into economic jeopardy shortly before you took office. I believe you had the executive power to force the dreaded tax cuts to expire as originally scheduled and further ensure benefits for those hapless citizens – people you rightfully deemed “hostages” – remained in place. There were other down moments: “Operation Fast and Furious” and the Benghazi tragedy, in particular. These episodes may haunt you, but they don’t define you.
You withstood the worst personal attacks on any public official I’ve ever seen. From vicious protests by a band of (all-White) conservative students at Texas A & M University to a South Carolina congressman shouting “You lie!” in the midst of your first State of the Union address (something that had never happened before); the Arizona governor jutting her crooked finger into your face and later claiming you intimidated her; and finally to the asinine “birther” movement propagated by the incoming president, you’ve endured extreme social and political animosity. As someone who began following U.S. politics with the Watergate scandal, I can say with 100% certainty that I’ve never witnessed such levels of verbal barbarity and recalcitrance as what your Republican counterparts slung at you.
It’s obvious you tried to restrain your frustration; fighting through the muck of political swamp water. But I still wish you had simply gotten ugly with these clowns. With each personal assault, I kept wishing you’d strip away your professional comportment momentarily and bring forth the worst parts of your personality (the kind that exists in all of us); the nigger and / or redneck sides of you – all in a concerted effort to try to communicate with your adversaries. They didn’t like you anyway. Nothing you did or said could possibly satisfy their pathetically myopic attitudes. If you tried to negotiate and compromise, they dubbed you weak and ineffective. If you dared to raise your voice and talk back to them, they declared you uppity. You couldn’t win no matter what you did. So, why remain polite and dignified all the time? Yes, I realize that’s not your nature. But, in dealing with arrogance and outright stupidity, you occasionally have to jump into the gutter with those fools, merely so they can understand you. I’ve had to do just that in my own professional life and I always hated it. I despised dumbing down my intellectual capacity just to get my point across. It’s nasty and painful to we intellects who understand the value and necessity of good dialogue. But, like cleaning a dirty toilet in your bathroom, sometimes you just have to behave in such a manner to get things done.
And, despite the blatant, unapologetically crude and juvenile behavior your opponents exhibited, you tightened your lips, held your head high and kept your back straight. You let your emotions show on only a handful of occasions; mainly when yet another deranged gunman rained terror on unsuspecting innocents. In other words, you allowed the true nature of your humanity gush forward when it really mattered.
Your poise and demeanor are unmatched among modern-day public servants. You and your beautiful family are emblematic of grace and class. Mrs. Obama, in particular, displayed personal charm and studious refinement; more so than all four of her predecessors combined.
In 2012, I published an essay on this blog entitled “Barack Obama – The Unintentional Martyr”; where I highlighted that your professional troubles were a predictable, almost unavoidable evil; a grueling necessity to compel America to hold up to its promise of dignity and equality for all citizens. You paved the way for future candidates who won’t fit into the pre-ordained mold of what an American president should look and sound like. I suspect if your father had been born in Europe, Canada or even Australia, no one would have questioned your citizenship or your legitimacy. But he was from Africa – the “Dark Continent” – that massive region of Earth that is the birthplace of humanity and whose indigenous peoples had the audacity to expel a cavalcade of brutal European colonists and – gasp! – demand they be treated with the proper deference naturally due to them as human beings.
I understand the hate that a mixed ethnic background incurs from the cerebrally- challenged. I’m White (mostly Spanish, but also one-quarter German) and Mexican Indian. I tell some people I’m justified in criticizing middle-aged White guys because…well, I’m one of them; while I told others who didn’t care for you to just vote for the “White Obama.” My ancestry in the state of Texas extends back to a time before the Mayflower pilgrims had even begun making travel plans. I celebrate my complex heritage because it ultimately spells A-M-E-R-I-C-A-N.
Unfortunately, future history-making presidents will have to face the same barrage of disquieting irreverence: the first female, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan, atheist, or gay / lesbian Chief Executive. All of them will have their character questioned and their birthright authenticity shredded by those who think America’s sacred promise of opportunity and equality actually applies only to them and their ilk. These prospective White House occupants will be forced to prove their place in this great American society is not defined by other peoples’ ideals.
Sadly, you leave office – and the fate of the nation – in the lap of a maniacal, temperamental, foul-mouthed, proudly bigoted oaf; a cretin who holds no qualms in lambasting anyone who is the least bit different from or disagrees with him, yet seethes about the most diminutive of sleights. He has single-handedly reduced the prominence of the U.S. presidency to 140 character rants.
I’m trying to imagine you entering the White House with a much-younger third wife for whom you left your second wife. My brain cramps as I try to envision you standing before a crowd of thousands demanding they pummel a dissenter into the ground. I can only wonder the reaction you’d get telling a mass of financially-struggling Appalachian Whites, “What do you have to lose?”
I will miss you, Mr. Obama, along with your eloquent words and unimposing determination to make the United States live up to its full potential as a nation for all people. You can rest now, my good man; start building your library; await the days you become a father-in-law and a grandfather; and – above all – get some sleep!
Filed under Essays
Dead Demos
In some paranormal circles, “dead time” refers to the period when otherworldly spirits are most likely to be active. Even though it’s not official – and really, nothing in the paranormal realm is considered official – it’s generally believed to occur between midnight and 5 a.m., with the two to four o’clock hours considered the key time. Nothing in the political arena – especially here in the U.S. – is considered normal either. But, for those who didn’t vote for Donald Trump in last fall’s presidential elections, dead time started materializing just as Tuesday, November 8 was turning into Wednesday, the 9th, and it appeared the bombastic real estate magnate was going to be our nation’s 45th Chief Executive. Trump’s entry into the race nearly two years ago surprised few; his name had arisen more than once since the late 1980s as a potential candidate. But, as he marched forward – taking out one competitor after another – the mainstream Republican Party stood dumbfounded; recoiling as each individual dropped from the race quicker than a Texan would drop a bottle of warm beer.
And, for the second time in sixteen years, Americans found themselves with a president-elect who didn’t win the majority of the popular, but still managed to garner most of the electoral votes. The vast majority of liberals and moderates were shocked – and appalled – that such an event could happen again within so short a period of time. As the Democratic National Party scratched its head, people began to question the validity of the Electoral College system that original framers of the U.S. Constitution had created as a means of spreading the generosity of power.
U.S. intelligence had surmised last summer that Russian hackers were trying to infiltrate our voting system. Now comes proof they actually did manage to sneak their way into it. Exactly how they were able to do that remains uncertain. Were votes eliminated, or were votes added? Was someone in the Electoral College bribed? Even if no one hacked into the system, would Trump have won anyway?
It’s bad enough that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump garnered their respective party’s nominations last summer. But they plowed through the campaigns with the lowest favorability ratings of any presidential candidates in U.S. history. In other words, no one really liked either of those fuckers, but felt compelled to vote nonetheless. Voting is more of a right and a civic duty than it is a privilege or an inconvenience. I have to admit that – for the first time since I began voting in 1992 – I went rogue and selected Green Party candidate Jill Stein. I knew Stein had as much of a chance of getting into the White House as I do of going a month without a mixed drink or a glass of wine. But it’s always the thought that counts, right?
I’ve always liked Bill Clinton, but Hillary never had much appeal to me. Most of my friends and relatives voted for her. A few criticized me for choosing Stein over Clinton; emphasizing that I was inadvertently voting for Trump instead. I don’t care. Opting for the lesser of two evils isn’t much of a choice. I did that in 2004, when I voted for John Kerry. Regardless, I wasn’t going to be swayed by party loyalists this time. While Trump is atrocious, Clinton is as hollow as the empty bottles of hair dye she leaves on the bathroom floor.
Yet, as the world looks at the United States – that self-proclaimed beacon of democracy and freedom – with a mix of horror and amusement, the Democrats are still patching up their emotional scars and sorting through the morass. But let’s pretend for a moment that no one had hacked into our voting system, or that any such attempts were successfully uncovered and squelched months before election day and that Trump still managed to win. The Democratic National Party would still have to undergo some serious soul-searching and understand what they did wrong. I can help and have narrowed the fiasco down to three primary issues.
Affordable Care Act (ACA) – While millions of average Americans were losing their jobs, their homes and their life savings because of the 2008 economic meltdown, the Democrats curiously focused their efforts on one issue: health care. Yes, it’s great if people don’t have to choose between a flu shot and the light bill. But ensuring that citizens will have adequate health care is not nearly as significant as ensuring they have gainful employment. I don’t know why the Democrats went off into an ideological black hole with this issue. That Democrats seemed more concerned with the ACA than boosting the economy was matched only by the Republicans’ determination to destroy the program. Both parties operated within a vacuum. Nothing else – mainly that economic thing – seemed to matter.
Inequality – The “Great Recession” almost completely destroyed the U.S. economy. So many factors contributed to the calamity, but the USD 8 trillion housing bubble burst was the primary culprit. More people than ever before were buying homes, which would normally be a good thing. But, in this case, people were getting into homes with little or sometimes zero money down. How reasonable does it sound for someone earning roughly USD 30,000 a year to buy a USD 500,000 house without making a down payment of even 5% of the structure’s value? Such a practice was inconceivable two decades ago. But that’s exactly what people were doing. And both financial institutions and homebuilders were part of the fiasco.
When I got laid off in the fall of 2010 (in the midst of a fragile recovery), my top concern was the job market; not whether I could afford to get my teeth cleaned. By the end of that year, the “Great Recession” was, from a purely technical standpoint, over. But to those of us trapped in its putrid residue, it was alive and well and sucking up our savings and maxing out our credit cards.
Between the fall of 2008 and the summer of 2009, the U.S. economy lost 8.4 million jobs, or 6.1% of all payroll employment. It was the worst job loss since the Great Depression. When people mention inequality, they’re not referring to racial or gender disparities. They’re talking about the wealth gap; that ever-widening abyss that separates the middle class from the upper class. After-tax income has been shrinking for the past three decades, while the cost of living has been increasing. Sen. Bernie Sanders made this a key point of his own bid for the presidency last year, and it certainly gained a great deal of attention. But the Democrats seemed more intent on denigrating Donald Trump’s character and highlighting his personal foibles. People working two or three jobs just to stay afloat financially don’t really care if the real estate mogul fondled a young woman at a beauty contest. They want to know if they’ll ever be able to stop working so hard for so little.
Illegal immigration – For decades politicians have said, if they want to appeal to Hispanics, they have to devise a comprehensive immigration plan; meaning that illegal immigrants from anywhere in Latin America must be treated better than others. This ideology assumes two things: that most Hispanic-Americans are immigrants and that we only care about providing sanctuary for people who emigrate to the U.S. illegally from Latin America. Immigration – legal or illegal – is NOT the top priority for most Hispanic-Americans. As a group we’re concerned about the same things most other Americans are concerned about: jobs and the economy.
Obama’s demeanor – Barack Obama is one of the smartest and most verbally gifted men ever to ascend to the nation’s highest elected office. He had the right message with the right tone. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. His demeanor is as remarkable as it is unimposing. It’s one of his greatest attributes. But, once in the White House, it became one of his greatest faults. You’d think someone who came of age in the rugged world of Chicago politics would be a little more forceful. But I felt Obama was too conciliatory, too nice, and too willing to compromise. The Republicans made it clear from the moment he won the 2008 contest they were determined to ensure he wouldn’t garner a second term. Their efforts didn’t pay off: Obama won again four years later. And, as Obama himself stated in his 2016 ‘State of the Union’ address, there was never any doubt he actually won. But the level of disrespect and recalcitrance the GOP displayed towards Obama has been unprecedented. From Rep. Joe Wilson shouting “You lie!” at Obama during the 2009 State of the Union address to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer jutting her finger into Obama’s face (later claiming he intimidated her), I can say without a doubt Obama endured more shit than any of his predecessors.
I’m certain race played a major factor in their behavior. A gaggle of (mostly) old, White men just couldn’t fathom that a half-blooded Negro actually won the presidency. So, instead of working on behalf of their constituents (that is, doing their jobs), they opted for the asshole category and tried to stifle Obama at every turn. If he tried to compromise, he’d be viewed as weak; if he talked back, they’d consider him uppity. He just couldn’t win no matter what he did. And I know he could see this. Therefore, he should have responded accordingly.
Politics in any nation is a blood sport, and the United States leads in the sanguinary nature of this. Obama needed to get ugly with those clowns. And not just ugly, but fuck ugly; telling them, ‘Look, I’m president and I run this joint. You either work with me, or I’ll use my executive powers to slaughter your ass.’ That wouldn’t have earned him any fans among the right-wing crowd. But he might have earned their respect. I’ve learned that the hard way; sometimes you just have to stand up and scream at people to get their attention and make them bestow upon you the dignity and deference you deserve. It’ll definitely piss off some people. But in politics, like in business, you have to draw the line somewhere and tell people to shut the hell up and listen. It’s just the nature of both realms. You may not win any friends like that, but you’ll generally get the job done.
Overall, though, I’m satisfied with the Obama years. One person – even the President of the United States – can only do so much. History will be kinder to him than his contemporaries. It’s already treating George W. Bush with more compassion than he deserves. If the Democratic Party intends to remain relevant in the future, they need to be tougher with their opponents. But they also need to be more forward-looking and emphasize that we can’t go back in time when things seemed simpler and calmer. Otherwise, they’ll be digging an early grave for themselves, and only their most devout followers will be in attendance.
Filed under Essays
No Defense Here
At some point in the late 1960s, a Mexican-American guy got arrested in Dallas for a series of robberies. The incident garnered some media attention, but was pretty much a non-event. Until someone at my father’s workplace mentioned it.
An older White man approached my father and said something to the effect that the police had arrested “your brother Rodriguez.” He knew what the old man was talking about. My father promptly reminded the man “my name isn’t Rodriguez, and that guy isn’t my brother. Now shut your ass and leave me alone!”
The old man apparently was offended at my father’s brusque language and complained to the company owner, another old White (albeit Jewish) man who said something to the effect of, ‘What did you expect?’
My father often found himself in such uncomfortable situations; where some Hispanic individual would do something stupid and / or criminal enough to get media attention, and some non-Hispanics would assume my father was guilty by association. It actually still happens. A lot. Just ask Black men when other Black men get arrested. Or Hispanic men. Or Native American men. Even in this second decade of the 21st century, in a post-civil rights America, crime still often bears a Black, Brown or Red face.
That mess stormed into the public conscious last week when Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump dismissed a 2005 conversation with an entertainment journalist as “locker room banter.” With a monster hurricane having just ripped through the Caribbean and the U.S. east coast and the Zika virus still a threat to public health, this is what the American media and much of the American public has focused on: eleven-year-old verbiage from two old men trash-talking on a bus.
The dialogue hasn’t discouraged Trump who is roaring ahead with his campaign – undoubtedly one of the most bizarre in recent memory – even as one woman after another jumps forward to proclaim they’ve fallen victim to the type of actions the business tycoon describes in that brief snippet.
There’s no getting around it: what Trump said in that piece is deplorable, and his attempt at an apology is as sincere as a 13-dollar bill. Even before then, I didn’t like him. But, aside from the rancor bubbling over this mess, it’s amazing the number of men who are also publicly proclaiming their ardent respect for women and disdain for Trump. Athletic coaches at the high school and college levels are gathering their young male acolytes to warn them that such talk about females will not be tolerated.
Personally, I don’t feel the need to refute Trump’s so-called “locker room banter.” I don’t have a guilt complex over it and I’m not hopping up and down trying to convince any female within ten feet of me that I’d never talk that way about them. And neither should any other man.
Since high school, I’ve spent time in men’s locker rooms and can say without wincing that I’ve never heard men talk like that about women. Men say all sorts of stupid shit in locker rooms, but I cannot recall anything of that sort. As a writer, I’m prone to listen in on other people’s conversations. I’ve always wanted my characters to speak and behave as normal as possible, so they’ll be more realistic. Yes, men do talk about sex in locker rooms. (And, in other Earth-shattering news, the sun rises in the east.) I’m certain women engage in similar talk, even though most won’t admit it. Men also talk about body parts. Mainly their own body parts. Usually, though, we talk about work, home, family, cars, sports, our individual exercise routines – but never something so vile as sexually assaulting or molesting women. I know some men have talked openly like that. I’ve just never heard it.
But it’s not enough to point out that most men don’t talk in such a debasing manner about women. It’s more important to realize that most men don’t act that way either. The vast majority of men don’t harass and / or sexually assault women. I know that contradicts feminist ideology, but it’s painfully true. Men are much more likely to assault other men or even themselves than they are women.
Yet, while plenty of people like Trump think their wealth and power make them better than the rest of us, there are others who latch onto the Trumps of the world in the hopes of improving their own station in life. Trump surely has no genuine respect for women overall, but a number of women swoon over men like him daily. This is one thing that upsets most average men. Women often claim they want a man who is honest and fair-minded. But, as some men view it, women really just want a man with lots of money. Even some of the most successful and well-educated women often still expect the men in their lives to earn more than them. Why? Just in case said woman decides she’s tired of working? I don’t know.
Women, on the other hand, often say their lack of opportunities in life put them in a position where they’ve had to find men who have money, or at least a job that pays above minimum wage. On average, women still earn less than men, but women are superseding men on the educational front. If you break that down from a racial viewpoint, the gaps grow even larger. Gender politics, like racial politics, is ugly, and no one wins the argument.
I’ve heard more than a few women engage in “locker room banter” – in public – in front of me and other men. I’ve endured my share of harassment from both women and men. It was never caught on video or audio. And I rarely complained out loud about it. I knew few would believe me, especially because I’m a man. Therefore, I understand how some women feel about life in the work place during years gone by – long before the term “sexual harassment” was ever created.
Former Texas Governor Ann Richards once advised young women to complete their education and not depend on a man to take care of them; “when the Prince is middle aged with a pot belly and a wandering eye, you’ll be glad you have a degree and can support yourself if you have to.” As expected, social and religious conservative across the state and the nation dumped their snarky bile on Richards; denouncing her as anti-family and anti-marriage. Richards shrugged it off, even after losing her 1994 reelection bid.
Trump is in a class all his own – and I don’t mean that in a good way. He’s harking back to those golden years gone by; when people didn’t have to be politically correct, especially White male people. But, as part of that elite and much-reviled 1%, he obviously believes his wealth and power give him license to say and do whatever he wants. Plenty of people in his social class possess such self-righteous haughtiness. Despite all his money, Trump is still little more than a loud-mouthed bum. He’s a disgrace to all men – White or not.
My paternal grandfather once said you can dress a donkey up in silk and satin, like a thoroughbred horse, but eventually it’ll start bucking and kicking like the animal it truly is. Now, I don’t mean to disrespect donkeys by comparing them to Trump. Talk about being disrespectful! But I think you get the idea.
Filed under Essays
Maids, Beauty Queens and Other Stupidities
Recently, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump – trying desperately, yet involuntarily to retain his title as “Asshole of the Year” – defended his previous criticisms of 1996 Miss Universe Alicia Machado. The Venezuelan-born Machado apparently had gained too much weight at the height of her reign for Trump’s taste and subsequently referred to her as “Miss Piggy.” He later also dubbed her “Miss Housekeeping,” an obvious reference to her ethnic heritage. While millions of women across the U.S. (and I’m quite certain, across the globe) resent the “Miss Piggy” sleight, I focused on the “Miss Housekeeping” comment and thought, ‘Here we go again with the racial crap.’ Once more, Hispanic women are being dropped into the narrow categories of maid, housekeeper, etc. by (imagine this!) an old White male.
Trump has made racism and misogyny hallmarks of his campaign. But this latest verbal assault against Machado struck me personally and harder than his previous idiotic statements. As the son of a German-Mexican mother, I’ve heard more than a few stories of bigotry about the American workplace. But, as someone who labored in the corporate world for more than a quarter century, I know that Hispanic women fit into more than the standard housekeeper / maid job role. Regardless of race or ethnicity, women overall comprise roughly 57% of the American workforce; both full-time and part-time. It’s the first time in U.S. labor history that more women than men are working. Such a figure would have been incomprehensible a generation ago.
Not long after I was born in 1963, my father demanded that my mother stay home and raise me; thus becoming a traditional mother and housewife. He was invoking the machismo persona of the average American male. Few women worked after having a child in those days – or at least that’s what the general philosophy held. In reality a number of women entered the workforce after having children, long before it became socially acceptable. Many had no real choice. My mother may have had a choice, but she refused to bow to pre-defined roles. She had already gone against tradition by telling a Catholic priest shortly before my parents married that she didn’t plan to have a child every year, as the Holy Roman Empire dictated. It upset the priest so badly that he told her maternal grandmother, a woman who had raised her and her three siblings after their mother died in 1940. The grandmother, in turn, expressed her frustration to my mother who stood her ground. Unless the Church was willing to finance her progeny, my mother absolutely would not have a child every time my father got an erection. It’s a good thing. My mother had enough trouble with me. She had lost two pregnancies before I was born and another afterwards. Considering some of the financial troubles my parents experienced later, it’s a good thing my mother returned to work in 1965, when I was 18 months old. She retired in 2003 at age 70.
In reviewing contemporary TV shows, I believe there are about as many Hispanic characters now as there were fifty years ago; meaning they could probably all be counted on one hand. Among the most popular today is “Modern Family,” featuring Colombian-born former model Sofia Vergara. (Apparently there weren’t enough Hispanic actresses in Hollywood needing an acting job, so the show’s casting director yanked this nitwit from the gutter of foreign refuse to fill an otherwise blatantly stereotypical role.)
In 2003, NBC presented “Kingpin,” a series about (surprise!) a Mexican drug cartel family caught between the brutal worlds of narcotics trafficking and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency. I guess these conflicts were supposed to induce some sort of dramatic intoxication in the viewer. Entertainment insiders noted the show presented a number of Hispanic performers; folks who normally wouldn’t find much long-term work in Hollywood apart from character clichés. Those of us outside of that insulated fantasy factory – that is, those of us with a firm grip on reality – saw it for what it was: yet more Hispanics in formulaic characters. The cacophony of anger was loud enough for NBC to cancel the series after just six episodes. They claimed it was actually due to poor ratings. As far as I can tell, industry outlets such as “Entertainment Tonight” didn’t spend much time highlighting the glaring racism in the series. But I’m certain if a similar show about Blacks or Jews had come out, protests would be louder than the sound of Donald Trump dropping another wife. Hell, when “Seinfeld” went off the air in 1998, it made national news!
This past June the USA Network premiered a show titled “Queen of the South.” Such a name might make viewers assume it focuses on the antics of a cynically witty granddame-type in Georgia or South Carolina; an old gal who sips mint julips, dons “Gone with the Wind” regalia every December 20 and longs for the old days Negroes had to sit at the back of the bus. That, of course, would be more than enough to get a show bounced of the air. But “Queen of the South” revolves around a woman named Teresa who grew up poor and loveless in a Mexican slum and falls in love with (wait for it) a Mexican drug cartel leader. When he’s killed, she flees to South Texas and becomes involved with someone from her past in an attempt to avenge her boyfriend’s murder. That’s bad enough. Yet it gets worse, as Teresa realizes the narcotics lifestyle is just too good to pass up and subsequently becomes a drug czarina in her own right. It’s a quirky spin on the life and murderous legacy of Griselda Blanco, a.k.a. “The Cocaine Godmother.” In fact, Blanco’s story is currently metamorphosing into a Hollywood biopic starring Jennifer Lopez who – like the late Michael Jackson – is gradually turning Whiter as she gets older.
Once again, though, Hispanics and illegal drugs are linked. Actually Hispanics are still paired up with almost anything illegal: gang members, prostitutes, immigrants sneaking across the border and the like. If going from maids and groundskeepers to drug cartel leaders is supposed to be an improvement, I’ll stick with the maid / groundskeeper type. It’s sort of like this year’s elections: one has to choose between the lesser of two evils.
Looking through production credits for some of these shows, I’ve noticed none had Spanish surnames. It’s obvious, then, from the initial concept down to the actual filming of the program, people of Northern European extraction are in control. A good number of them are Jewish. Therefore, I dare any of them to produce a television show displaying Jews (or any-Hispanic) as crooks. Let’s see if it even gets past its debut episode.
I’m pleased to see plenty of Blacks and Asians (many of them women) in non-traditional roles; business professionals and law enforcement characters who actually speak perfect English. The same doesn’t hold true for Hispanics, or Native Americans for that matter. We’re still the drug dealers, maids, groundskeepers and / or illiterate wetbacks who comprise the much-despised “Other” group of degenerates; people who are too lazy or stupid to get a decent education and find a legitimate career. People Donald Trump wants to wall off and deport.
I don’t want to be around drug dealers or prostitutes either. But that’s simply because I don’t belong to either of those groups. Nor does anyone in my family and nor do most Hispanics.
We’re educated and career-driven. We’re concerned about national security and the economy – just like any other citizen of this country. Race and ethnicity are wedge issues that some people love to exploit. We’re fully aware of the myriad stereotypes that plague us as a group; whether it’s on television or in political discourse. We’re fully aware that Donald Trump is appealing to the traditional Republican base: older White men who watch in dismay as the world they thought only they would inherit slowly slips into the chaos of what the U.S. Constitution promised – freedom and equality for all.
Hispanic and other non-White women (or “women of color” – whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean) are double minorities in this society because of two factors: their gender and their ethnicity. Non-White women with college degrees, for example, often earn as much (or as little) as a White male with only a high school diploma.
Having grown up with a working mother – and seeing other Hispanic women struggling both to get educated and to maintain their jobs – I understand that the American entertainment machine and people like Donald Trump just can’t (or won’t) accept the truth. Old prejudicial concepts are tough to eradicate. But reality is reality. And the reality I know is that beauty queens and housemaids aren’t the only roles where Hispanic women are allowed to exist.
Top image “Sonhos do carnaval” (Carnival dreams, 1955), courtesy Emiliano di Cavalcanti.
Filed under Essays
Quote of the Day
Trump
“Donald, you’re beginning to sound a little ridiculous, I have to tell you.”
— CNN’s Wolf Blitzer to Donald Trump about the discredited right-wing conspiracy theory that President Obama was not born in this country.
Just a little?
Filed under News
Chief Writing Wolf 