Hispanic Fanatic

No doubt you’ve run into those surly Americans who shout, “Both sides are crazy,” when discussing politics, or who insist that liberals are just as bad as conservatives when it comes to reprehensible behavior.

Now, one can definitely criticize the Democratic Party for failing to address the nation’s most egregious problems, and progressives are not flawless individuals.

But saying that the left is as unhinged as the right is like saying that your kooky tia Rosa is as insane as Charles Manson.

Because the truth is that “the American right today has a bigger violence problem than the American left.” For example, “top Republican politicians have encouraged violence in ways no prominent Democrat has,” and have even assaulted people.

And when it comes to homicidal acts, please note that of the 42 politically motivated killings that occurred last year, right-wing extremists committed 38 of them. Going back even further, we see that of 893 politically motivated terrorist incidents in America since 1994, “just one attack that led to a death came from an anti-fascist agitator” (and that single person killed was the anti-fascist agitator himself). But in the same time period, “White supremacists and right-wing extremists have killed at least 329 people.”

With a lopsided tally like this, it is not exactly surprising that 13 members of a right-wing militia were recently arrested and charged in a plot to kidnap Michigan Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer. The alleged scheme “included plans to overthrow several state governments that the suspects believe are violating the US Constitution.”

The last I heard, nobody in the ACLU, MoveOn, or Black Lives Matter was plotting to kidnap people and overthrow the government.

Of course, those neo-fascist militia members are the same loveable types who stormed Michigan’s state capital, with guns drawn, and screamed that their freedom was being taken away because of a mask mandate. They are also the people who take Trump’s command to “liberate Michigan” quite literally.

One could point out the hypocrisy of conservatives who are more furious about face masks and vandalism than they are about people getting murdered in the street. But of course, it is not about consistency or principles.

Because despite all the flowery talk of “freedom” and “liberty,” the fact is that many conservatives are doing nothing more than “defending their America — where white men can rule and brutalize without consequence.”

Ethnic minorities demanding equal rights are, to right-wingers, “the sounds of violent attacks on their supremacy.” And so they morph to Trumpism, which is “the violent defense” of white dominance. They believe they face “a choice between white male supremacy and anarchy.” And you can guess which option they will choose.

This threat of violence from Trump loyalists, and the president himself, is part of a historical pattern that “echoes the strategy of southern Democratic leaders in 1860, when they knew they did not have the numbers to win the upcoming election fairly.” Back then, the Southern leaders threated open warfare, and “promised supporters that if it came to a fight, weak and frightened Northerners would run away.” 

It didn’t quite work out like that, and in the ensuing war, “Confederate soldiers learned the hard way both that Northerners would not run away, and that their leaders cared about protecting the economy, not them.”

The parties have switched roles since 1860, but the philosophy is the same.

So you have Trump “using federal law enforcement officers in unprecedented ways, not to quell protests, but to escalate them.”

You have Trump advisors saying that he should declare martial law and arrest his political enemies. You have right-wing talk show hosts shrieking that Trump “will have to… put down the enemy” after the election, using the Insurrection Act, which permits the president to “use the military against citizens to stop civil disorder and rebellion.” You have administration officials insisting that “there are hit squads being trained all over this country” to stop a second Trump term. And you have the president himself dismissing the idea of a peaceful transition of power if he loses, all while mumbling, “There has to be retribution.”

Yes, the party of law and order could not give a fuck less about either of those concepts. If they did, they might be concerned that a whistleblower alleges that top political appointees in the Department of Homeland Security “repeatedly instructed career officials to modify intelligence assessments to suit President Donald Trump’s agenda by downplaying … the threat posed by White supremacists.” They might also be concerned that the FBI says that threats by right-wing militias “will likely increase in the run-up to the November 3 election.” Hell, they might even offer words of support to Governor Whitmer rather than insult her and complain that she hasn’t been sufficiently grateful.

But Trumpists will do none of those things, because liberty and freedom and democracy are not particularly important to them. What matters is power, and if holding on to it means that the nation collapses “into a state of civil war and widespread political violence,” hey too bad.

Yes, I’m pretty sure that both sides are not equally bad. In fact, the disequilibrium is absolutely murderous.

In the last week, America has endured even more protests (often marred by aggressive cops and/or right-wing lunatics), a surge in Covid-19, and allegations that the president is so corrupt that the House articles of impeachment were penny ante compared to his actual malfeasance.

On a personal note, I’m exhausted from overwork, an old friend abruptly begin spewing Soros conspiracy nonsense, and I think I’m catching a cold.

Yes, there was a major victory for LGBTQ rights, and a narrow win for the Dreamers. So that’s ending the week on a high note. But let’s not push it.

Yeah, I’m taking a break. 

I will be back next week with (hopefully) more astute and coherent points to make.

Until then, I will leave you with this quirky factoid:

A couple of weeks ago, Irene Triplett died at the age of 90 in a North Carolina nursing home. Her father was teenage soldier in the Civil War, and as his only surviving child, Ms. Triplett was the last person to receive a pension from a veteran’s Civil War service.

Every month, the Veterans Administration paid Irene Triplett $73.13. By the time of her death, the family had been collecting the pension for 155 years. One has to wonder about the VA employee tasked with cutting Ms. Triplett’s check each month. He now has a little more free time.

In any case, Irene Triplett was the last living link to the Civil War. Her demise is ironic, considering that it comes at a time when all of us are primed to become living links to the Second Civil War.

So there’s that to consider.

See you next week.

In the same way that liberals somehow forced Republicans to vote for a septuagenarian grifter, the Democrats have somehow forced Trump to withdraw troops from Syria.

The theory behind this has to do with the impeachment process — currently supported by a majority of Americans — and how it provoked Turkey to bomb the Kurds, and Russia to step in, and something and something and something else. Honestly, you have to be slightly delusional to even comprehend the deranged argument, let alone buy it.

Clearly, the usual GOP nonsense is not sticking as well as it used to. Conservatives are going to increasingly absurd, even pathetic lengths to defend an obviously corrupt White House crawling with criminals, fools, and cowards. Hey, even Fox News hosts are mumbling that our bumbling, frothing president is looking shakier each day.

But there is good news for Republicans, and here it is: We have betrayed an ally, destabilized an entire region, and caused the deaths of countless civilians.

Hmm, that certainly doesn’t seem like good news.

But for the GOP, it’s a lifeline. Yes, a grisly, blood-soaked lifeline that’s caked in treachery, but that still counts in political circles.

You see, up until now, the Republican Party has defended Trump regardless of his vile behavior and reckless decisions, even if this meant selling its meager soul, ditching its supposed principles, and endorsing things like, for example, throwing kids into cages.

But Trump’s abrupt, ill-conceived, and arbitrary decision to withdraw U.S. troops from the region “has tested Republican support for Donald Trump more than any of the president’s scandals and allegations of wrongdoing.”

It’s good to know that even craven reactionaries have their limits. 

The latest Trump-sponsored fiasco has “infuriated lawmakers from both parties and Trump’s outside supporters, especially those with a military background who understand the strategic value of the Kurdish alliance, along with evangelicals who fear for Kurdish Christians.”

You know it’s bad when both militaristic right-wingers and evangelicals are balking. And the reason is simple. The withdrawal from Syria offends Republicans far more than, for example, coddling Nazis because it “cuts to the core of U.S. national security, undoing two decades’ worth of efforts to gain the trust of the Kurds and have them fight in the front lines of counter-terrorism efforts so more U.S. troops don’t have to.”

All this just goes to prove the axiom that whoever puts their faith in Trump eventually regrets it.

To be fair, many conservatives who are ditching Trump now are doing so for a very good reason. Abandoning Syria in such a rushed, catastrophic manner is no minor issue. People are getting killed, and America will be less safe for years to come.

However, let’s not kid ourselves. With support for impeachment rising, more shady characters appearing on the scene, and more administration insiders confirming everyone’s worst fears, many Republicans are thinking, “This just isn’t going to get any better.”

As such, the Syria debacle gives the GOP cover. They can now distance themselves from Trump without seeming like the gutless apologists that they have been. They can cloak themselves in principle. They can say they finally stood up to an authoritarian ignoramus, and did so for the good of the nation — indeed, for the good of the world.

I guess we can all thank them now.

No doubt, you’ve heard about Trump’s proposed budget, which includes things like billions for a border wall that will never be constructed and, presumably, a million or two for hush money to porn stars and/or Russian operatives.

But setting aside the minor facts that this budget would completely fuck over poor people and, maybe, destroy the planet, there is something else that caught my attention.

Defense spending would rise by 10 percent.

This is not a huge surprise, of course, as Republicans have a bizarre fascination with warfare, and members of the GOP are constantly threatening to invade one country or another, even while distancing themselves from the last disastrous war (a campaign that was, of course, all their idea in the first place). Hell, Republicans are happy to spend $30 million on a damn parade just to show off our super-awesome military hardware.

But a fair question is whether all this military spending is making us any safer.

After all, we already spend more cash on the military than any other nation on Earth — by far, actually. In fact, we spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined.

So when we will it be enough? Should we spend more than the next ten nations combined, or the next twenty? Should we spend more than the rest of the planet put together?

Because if it’s true — as Republicans have often said — that our military is in disrepair and needs to be rebuilt, I would ask, “Why can’t we get something decent for the 16 percent of our budget that we spend on defense?”

I mean, if the US military still sucks after all the hundreds of billions that have been thrown at it, maybe we should call off this whole defense idea and go the way of Costa Rica, a country that has no army. Incidentally, Costa Rica is never the target of terrorist cells and doesn’t get threatened by nutjobs with nuclear weapons.

Of course, that’s a bit of apples to oranges. But stay with me on this point.

You see, it appears that the more we spend on defense, the more likely we are to go to war. All those tanks and bombers and missiles apparently will themselves to be used.

Perhaps it is the same principle behind the fact that the states with the most firearms have the highest gun-death rates.

Just as having a gun in your house makes you more likely to get shot, maybe having more soldiers makes it more likely for a country to get into a war.

I don’t know whether than is true or not. But I do know this: We are the most fearful and paranoid nation in the industrialized world. No matter how much we spend on bombs and bullets, it will never make us feel safer.

When I was a kid a million years ago, during the 1980s, our president was a doddering simpleton who really, really hated communists.

The Gipper once made a “joke” that the United States was going to nuke the Soviet Union. He didn’t know the mic was on, and the chiste didn’t go over so well. In fact, the comment was “taken seriously by the Soviets who stood on alert for 30 minutes.”

As horrific as this gaffe was, at least Reagan wasn’t serious.

The same cannot be said for the current GOP inhabitant of the White House. Trump wasn’t joking, and he knew full well his microphone was on, as he stood in front of dozens of world leaders and threatened “to totally destroy North Korea.”

As many people have pointed out, the man is no Reagan.

In any case, most of the sane people in the world had a decidedly negative reaction to an ill-tempered buffoon with access to nuclear weapons spouting off about starting a cataclysmic war.

But to the minds of conservatives, well, the United States can never have enough death and destruction.

You see, over half of Republicans “support conducting airstrikes on North Korean nuclear facilities.”

That action would, of course, lead to a full-on war, with disastrous consequences for our allies, South Korea and Japan, and possibly massive casualties for America.

At the very least, it would cost us a lot of money, but then again, those would be special war dollars, and we have an infinite amount of them (as opposed to, say, healthcare dollars or education dollars or infrastructure dollars… but I digress).

Regardless, what’s interesting about this latest manifestation of right-wing warmongering is that it comes immediately after many conservatives had declared this whole North Korean thing over and done with.

Remember way back when North Korea was threatening to attack Guam, and Trump tweeted out some belligerent nonsense, and the entire world was on edge because it looked like two sociopathic narcissists were going to plunge the whole planet into hellish nuclear annihilation?

Yeah, we can all laugh about it now.

Oh, wait, it’s only Republicans who can laugh about it. You see, this all went down mere weeks ago. At the time, many conservatives insisted that Trump’s hostility had paid off, and that North Korea had “blinked,” which seems to have meant, “They haven’t nuked Seattle yet.”

Yeah, I’m not hearing any of that talk now — especially because that supposedly cowed country is threatening to detonate a hydrogen bomb over the ocean, in direct response to be being taunted.

So maybe that wasn’t the best strategy after all.

But according to conservatives, all we really need to do is take out that pudgy guy in Asia. He needs a warhead dropped on him — like now!

Of course, we can talk about the GOP predilection for international violence. They truly seem to believe there is no issue that can’t be solved with a hastily planed, poorly designed invasion.

But for people obsessed with preserving the past — from resurrecting a mythical era to putting up statues of their treacherous ancestors — conservatives have no grasp of history. And I mean recent history, from the last decade.

I would like to ask all those people who are clamoring for war with North Korea the following question: “Weren’t you saying the exact same thing in 2003, but about Iraq?”

Yes, for conservatives with poor memories, it was the GOP who insisted that marching into the Middle East was a great idea, and would make the world safer, and would pay for itself, and that we would never ever regret it.

Well, it’s not even a generation later, and we all pretty much regret it (to the point that we even lie about supporting the war in the first place).

So why would bombing Korea be any different than launching missiles at Iraq? If anything, it would be far worse, with an even more predictable result of massive death and chaos.

Maybe Republicans just like to talk tough and act out their perpetual anger. Or maybe their nostalgia for the 1950s has hit a new low.

After all, from 1950 to 1952, we issued “rain and ruin by the US air force. Pyongyang had been razed to the ground, with the Air Force stating in official documents that the North’s cities suffered greater damage than German and Japanese cities firebombed during World War II.” Oh, and by the way, the Korean War also killed 37,000 American troops.

And yet here we are, over 60 years later, still insisting that we can bomb our way out of this mess. We’re still demanding more blood, and more rah-rah, super-patriotic, can-do American warfare overseas.

Because this time it will solve all our problems, despite all the recent evidence to the contrary in Iraq and the evidence of the actual fucking war in Korea decades ago.

Yes, apparently even God himself wants us to bomb North Korea.

So I’m sure it will all work out just fine.

The cataclysm in Syria has people all over the world concerned about the plight of refugees fleeing for their lives.

Actually, here in America, we’re just a little less concerned, in that a majority of us don’t want to let any refugees — even little kids — into our country because we’re afraid that they’re Isis or Al Qaeda or whoever wants to kill us now.

But for many other Americans, these ghastly images have provoked prayers, donations, and the occasional Google search phrase “How do I adopt a Syrian war orphan?” (Answer: you probably can’t).

This outpouring of support is admirable, but it is also a bit mystifying, in that we have a refugee crisis right outside our door.

I’m referring, of course, to the thousands of women and children fleeing Central America because of that region’s horrific violence. Strangely enough, many Americans don’t view this as a refugee crisis. One reason for this is because, as my friend Hector Luis Alamo wrote in Latino Rebels, “the U.S. government has refused to label them refugees, opting instead to refer to them as ‘migrants,’ a word which implies they’re little more than tourists.”

As Alamo points out, this simple linguistic trick has the effect of convincing many Americans that when it comes to terrified Central American refugees, “under those tattered, dusty clothes lies a lazy loafer or a scheming evildoer.”

In essence, many Americans have taken their hatred of the undocumented and affixed it to this latest disaster. As such, we don’t see that Central Americans have much in common with Syrians. Nor do we believe that they are both humanitarian disasters.

We will, however, have the same response, which is to shut the gates and pull up the drawbridge.

Hey, at least we’re consistent.

It is an axiom that no culture can look upon its sins objectively without flinching. Actually, I just made that up, but it certainly sounds axiomatic to me.

For example, here in the United States, we went decades before admitting that putting Japanese Americans in camps during World War II was a bad idea. And that was positively light speed compared to how long it took us to apologize for slavery or to acknowledge that we weren’t exactly nice to the Native Americans.

Before we beat up too much on the USA, keep in mind that nations such as Germany, Turkey, and China all have trouble acknowledging that at some point in the past, they kind of, sort of, did some unpleasant things.

That’s why it’s fascinating that Guatemala is the first nation “in the Americas to prosecute a former head of state, in its own domestic courts, for the ultimate crime.”

The crime is genocide, and the defendant is former dictator Efraín Ríos Montt, whose forces wiped out whole villages when he was in power during the 1980s.

The outcome of the trail, of course, is of great interest to Guatemalans in the United States, many of whom fled here during Efraín Ríos Montt’s reign of terror.

On a larger scale, however, the trail shows how it’s never too late for a nation to face its past, no matter how unpleasant the process.

Iraq isn’t our problem anymore. Who cares. Good riddance.

—Internet commentator

USA! USA! USA!

—The same guy, nine years ago.

Future generations will never confuse it with VJ Day. This time, there were no jubilant crowds in Times Square or iconic photographs of sailors kissing nurses or a cross-continental outpouring of relief and exuberance.

Instead, there was a collective shrug as a military convoy rolled through the Iraq desert. The war that began with Shock and Awe ended with Confusion and Indifference.

To continue reading this post, please click here.

I’ve written before about my family’s roots in El Salvador. I’ve also written about how I have never been there, but hope to go someday.

Well, it looks like I sure can pick lovely vacation spots. A recent report pegged my family’s homeland as the most dangerous country in the world. The homicide rate is 71 per 100,000 inhabitants — the highest rate on the planet.

For the sake of comparison, such terrifying places as Colombia (35 per 100,000), South Africa (34 per 100,000), and Haiti (22 per 100,000) all register at less than half the homicide rate of El Salvador.

I am less than thrilled to hear this, if for no other reason than Cousin #7 now lives there, and I am naturally concerned about him. But I also don’t like hearing that one of the few countries I really want to visit someday has so many murders that you have to wonder if the babies carry handguns.

The culprit, as it is in much of Latin America, is the out-of-control drug war. El Salvador had actually gotten on the right track after its gruesome civil war ended in the 1990s. But the cartels and their bloody business model have wiped out the nation’s meager improvements.

I suppose I can use this new information to create some kind of tough-guy origin myth. I mean, how many Americans can say that their family emigrated from the most dangerous country in the world? Come on, how badass are we?…

Actually, that’s not very satisfying, and nobody’s impressed anyway — so skip it.

By the way, the United States clocks in at 5 murders per 100,000 inhabitants, which is a pretty good number compared with the rest of the planet. But if you really want to feel safe, go to Iceland, which has the lowest crime rate in the world and a murder rate of zero.

Think about that — nobody gets killed in Reykjavik. The same cannot be said of El Salvador.

For the past year or so, I’ve been critical of Arizona, and with reason. But now is not the time for rehashing SB 1070 or the state’s attempts to whitewash its culture.

Instead, all of us are sending positive thoughts, good karma, and, yes even prayers to Tucson.

The assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords left six people dead and a dozen wounded.

We have no idea if the gunman was, as many pundits presume, motivated by right-wing vitriol or Sarah Palin’s crosshairs or some other conservative fear-mongering tactic.

However, it would be the ultimate elephant-in-the-room moment to avoid bringing up the unsavory connections.

After all, we’re talking about a psycho in a red state who took advantage of lax gun-control laws to carry out an attack on a Democrat. The guy spouted conspiracy theories that are close to right-wing talking points, and he expressed hatred for the government. Let’s face it: It’s unlikely that he’s an Obama man.

Still, we don’t know what this domestic terrorist’s agenda or motives are, and we’ll set aside the hyper-defensiveness of right-wingers who are tripping over themselves to shout, “It wasn’t us, so don’t you dare even bring it up!”

Instead, what interests me is the story of Daniel Hernandez, the young intern who is credited with saving Giffords’ life. Five days into his job, he wound up running toward gunfire, taking action to prevent his boss from choking to death on her own blood in a Safeway parking lot.

The irony, clearly, is that in Arizona, a lunatic can obtain a Glock without question, while a hero named Hernandez may be stopped by cops and asked to present citizenship papers.

It should also be noted that the maniac in question is a native-born American. I mean, I thought undocumented immigrants were causing all our crime. But here this suburban thug raised in comfort has caused more death and destruction than whole neighborhoods of illegal immigrants ever have.

It’s all very depressing, of course. But even this most grotesque of events has its black-comedy moments. For example, the gunman was apparently obsessed with grammar, and he believed that the government controlled people through the manipulation of the English language.

Who knows; maybe he would have been less crazy if he just spoke Spanish.