Dishonest, But A Hustler

You may have heard that first-generation Nicaraguan-American Ana Navarro, a conservative Republican and Trump hater extraordinaire, and Matt Schlapp of  the American Conservative Union quarreled Tuesday morning on CNN's "New Day."

Schlapp defended  President Trump in the face of a new CNN poll which found that respondents asked whether the President is "honest and trustworthy" found 60% answering in the negative with only 36% answering in the positive.

This survey is nearly irrelevant becasue a) the next presidential election is more than three years out; b) impeachment proceedings will not begin until after the mid-term congressional elections; and c) host Chris Cuomo, as is the practice on cable news, did not mention the exact wording of the poll question, which invariably is critical.

There is a fourth reason. Schlapp asserted "I disagree with this whole premise that he's not truthful," which only proves that Schlapp as well as Trump is not truthful. He continued "We have a very polarized country and we're divided on almost every major issue." A great swath of the nation likes Trump, Schlapp argued, because (emphasis his) "he is authentic. He does tell them what he thinks."

Cuomo, a far better journalist than mathematician, asked "how do you square that with three out of four people thinking that he's lying?"







Not surprisingly, Schlapp (citing "coverage" of the President) blamed the media because that's what Republicans do when cornered, or not cornered.  But the "authenticity" angle is credible, if one understands authenticity to be starkly distinct from "honesty."   Inspired by "Freedom Just Around the Corner" by historian Walter McDougall, Neal Gabler compares Donald Trump to P.T. Barnum, who

sold an unsuspecting public on things like seeing George Washington’s 160-year-old nurse, or an “authentic” stuffed mermaid, and then made additional money by exposing his own frauds, realizing that people actually liked being fooled and being debriefed on the foolery. In this, he was merely a progenitor of what would be a long string of knaves, cheats, con artists and rascals who became an American type and who later turned the heist movie into an American staple. Virtuous heroes were dull. These rapscallions weren’t, and it wasn’t lost on most Americans that these con men were subverting those hallowed values David Brooks celebrates.

But as evident as the financial rewards were, it has taken a long time for anyone to see the political implications of the hustle, and now Trump has. He prides himself on not having earned his wealth, on his serial bankruptcies, on stiffing contractors and on gaming the tax system, the last three of which he regards as just clever business. Even his hint of having taped his conversations with former FBI director James Comey was a form of deceit.

Many of us, myself included, wondered why this didn’t bring him public scorn and create not just a credibility gap but a credibility canyon, but that’s because, as political observers, we were working from the traditional values manual and not the subversive one. I suspect, for all that platitudinous op-ed nonsense about the attraction of traditional values, this is a very real source of Trump’s appeal, as it is of the Republicans’.

Working within this other tradition, Trump makes no bones about being a hustler. He is shameless. Some people admire that. The Republicans, for their part, give lip service to virtue and are as self-righteous as they come, but everyone knows they are really about gaming the system, too. This is America the Deceitful. And many Americans like it, I presume because it seems to let them thumb their noses at their supposed social betters, just as Trump has done.

So, while people bemoan the end of moral certitude and a lost halcyon past, Trump the trickster and his Republican henchmen are creating a new America adrift in moral chaos. This, too, has a Barnum antecedent. 

Fittingly, Schlapp abruptly turned his dispute with Navarro towardglobal warming, maintaining "for people like me who are skeptics over the idea that man is putting the globe in a position where it's so warm that human life will not be able to be sustained, I'm a skeptic of that. I'm not a liar on that." (Cuomo pushed back.)

One might as well say "I'm a skeptic of the idea that the earth is round." When several Republicans a couple of years ago took up the banner of "I'm not a scientist" to explain their public skepticism about climate change, the effect- intended or not- was to exploit mistrust over the concept of fact.  If voters could doubt that human behavior, if unchecked, is precipitating a global crisis, alternative facts allow us to believe believe Donald Trump is not necessarily a liar.

Peiople understand that Donald Trump lies. But they understand also that he lies shamefully, which is part of his authenticity. The late author Michael Novak, champion of everything he identified as ethnic Catholic, once remarked that his people recognized "everyone has an angle."  Gabler similarly observes "Everyone knows they (Republicans) are really about gaming the system, too. This is America the Deceitful. And many Americans like it,.

Republicans "are creating a new America adrift in moral chaos" in which people recognize that DonaldTrump is gaming the system, and admire him for doing it as they wish they could. Trump is wealthy as they've always wished they'd be and, if he is thumbing his nose at those snooty teachers, professors, students, writers, and other people who dwell in the world of knowledge and information, all the better.






Share |

Sessions May Be Wrong. Emanuel Is Wrong.

Rahm Emanuel's Chicago has filed against the US Justice Department a lawsuit to block implementation of a policy which would deny to certain sanctuary cities funding for the Department's Public Safety Partnership Program.  Policies of "sanctuary" cities vary but under its "welcoming city" ordinance, Chicago

bars police from providing federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials access to people in local custody unless they are wanted on a criminal warrant or have serious criminal convictions. It also prohibits allowing ICE agents to sue police facilities for interviews or investigations, and bars on-duty officers from responding to ICE questions or talking to ICE officials prior to a person's release from custody.

When Justice on June 20 identified the twelve cities (eight of them in states carried by Donald Trump) eligible to receive the grant for this new initiative, it declared "its efforts to fulfill President Trump’s commitment to reducing violent crime in America"  in order "to fulfill the President’s promise to make America safe again."

It doesn't take a statistician or criminologist to recognize that street crime (as against, say, obstruction of justice by a chief executive) has dropped significantly the past quarter century and that the crime rate within the immigrant community is generally less than within the native-born community.

Emanuel has reasonably argued- as has nearly every other public official supportive of sanctuary cities- that when localities cooperate with federal immigration authorities, immigrants are reluctant to come forward to report crimes or to assist law enforcement in solving them.

But in its August 3 press release announcing that the law enforcement grants would not be made to cities which it believes are refusing to cooperate with its objectives, Justice announced its intention to "ask interested jurisdictions the following questions":

Does your jurisdiction have a statute, rule, regulation, policy, or practice that is designed to ensure that U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) personnel have access to any correctional or detention facility in order to meet with an alien (or an individual believed to be an alien) and inquire as to his or her right to be or to remain in the United States?

Does your jurisdiction have a statute, rule, regulation, policy, or practice that is designed to ensure that your correctional and detention facilities provide at least 48 hours advance notice, where possible, to DHS regarding the scheduled release date and time of an alien in the jurisdiction’s custody when DHS requests such notice in order to take custody of the alien?

Does your jurisdiction have a statute, rule, regulation, policy, or practice that is designed to ensure that your correctional and detention facilities will honor a written request from DHS to hold a foreign national for up to 48 hours beyond the scheduled release date, in order to permit DHS to take custody of the foreign national?

The federal government plans to require the jurisdiction to give the Department of Homeland Security notice that the suspected illegal immigrant is in custody and to honor a written request to hold him/her for DHS.  It is not requiring the municipality to hold the individual for an indefinite period of time but merely for 48 hours. Nor is the municipality required to detain the person upon any request, instead only upon a written request.

These are eminently reasonable criteria, fulfillment of which does not require that the municipality assist the federal government in enforcing immigration policies or law. "Our job is to investigate crime, our job is not to investigate immigration status or documentation," the Chicago police superintendent remarks. However, the Justice Department is not demanding a locality inquire as to immigration status or documentation, only that it not prevent Homeland Security from doing so.

Mayor Emanuel charges "Chicago will not let our police officers become political pawns in a debate," though his city has the option of rejecting the Justice Department's requirements and simply foregoing the federal funds, otherwise expected to be $3.2 million this year.  He might have demanded- more  justifiably- that a warrant be issued in order to hold the "foreign national for up to 48 hours." It might be telling that, unless news reports of the matter are deficient, he has not done so.

Enforcement of immigration policies is a responsibility of the federal government rather than the local government.  Nevertheless, Chicago's welcoming policy actually blocks the federal government from enforcing its own policies. The motives of Jeff Sessions- less so, those of Donald Trump- are not 99.98% pure.

Consider also the motives of Mayor Emanuel, who late last year established in partnership with the National Immigrant Justice Center a $1 million "legal protection fund" to assist immigrants threatened with deportation.  That  would be the same Rahm Emanuel who in 2013 closed 49 predominately black and Latino public schools- while opening 40 charter schools- when faced with a budget deficit.

Those are defective priorities, as are the arguments of the city of  Chicago for anyone who believes a modicum of cooperation among law enforcement agencies is a good thing. Opposition to this particular immigration policy of the U.S. Justice Department is not a hill to die upon.










Share |

Identity Pollitics Rears Its Head

Ryan Cooper believes "we're in for a rather bitter fight for supremacy over the Democratic Party between big money elites on one side and Sanders Democrats on the other."  He criticizes the recent boomlet for Senator Kamala Harris, who is derided for her work while Attorney General of California; New Jersey senator Cory Booker, distrusted because of his connections to Wall Street; and former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick, who is a managing partner of Bain Capital. In turn, there have been dark, even illegitimate, implications that critics of the three are opposed because they are minority. (Booker and Patrick are African-American, Harris the daughter of a Jamaican-bor parent  and an India-born parent).

David Atkins calls for an end to this "civil war," wherein "voices within the Sanders coaliton"

that actively attempt to dismiss social discrimination as less important than class war must be ostracized from within not just because they are wrong, but because they actively hurt the cause of securing economic justice against the .1% in a party whose base has suffeed greatly from that discrimination....

Meanwhile, "establishment figures"

must acknowledge the need for a much more foreceful economic progressivism and accept that economic progressives also have valid litmus tests every bit as reasonable as those of social issue advocacy groups. Individuals who insist on trying to ostracize democratic socialists and treat their anti-corporate concerns as secondary or motivated by bigotry should be gently pushed aside themselves.

He recognizes

Some Sanders supporters eagerly want to see him run again in 2020, and are actively seeking to kneecap every potential challenger to him, especially those who might be able to more easily secure Hillary Clinton's coalition of older and minority voters.

On the other hand, establishment moderates since the early days of the Democratic Leadership Council have sought a marriage of the much-vaunted "Emerging Democratic Majorty" with an educated, upper-middle class, fiscally centrist donor class. This has been to the detriment of the economy as a whole, and to the electoral fortunes of the Democratic Party in general. They have no intention of taking a sharper sand against the predatory financial sector, and actively seek to use ideologically aligned women and minority candidates as a wedge against more readical activists who might threaten to alienate the wealthy donor class they have sought to woo away from the Republican Paty since the Reagan era.

This strategy is superior to disregarding the concerns (including for gun safety legislation or protection of reproductive freedom) of social justice warriors or one in which "anticorporate concerns (are treated) as secondary or motivated by bigory."

Yet Atkins fails to acknowledge that while the Sanders camp is generally favorable to the progressive approach to sexual preference, gender, and racial interests, Establishment Democrats have catered to the interests of the donor class. They have been cool (as in the case of the Clintons and Barack Obama) or downright cold- as with Harris, Booker, and Patrick- toward Wall Street regulation and policies which would impinge upon society's upper crust.

Regrettably, Atkins himself ascribes racial motivation. He argues "making an example of the top three African-American hopefuls in the 2020 field is a terrible mistake regardless of intent. It will backfire, and tarnish the entire movement as motivated by barely-contained bigotry.  "If not racist and sexist in motivation," he adds, "this strategy is racist and sexist in its effects and will attract the worst elements of society."

I have no idea what he means by "attract the worst elements of society." But speaking as someone otherwise not immune to the tactic, contending "if not racist and sexist in motivation" is a passive-aggressive way of charging racism and sexism. And rejecting three individuals- or two or four- for ideological reasons is not racist or sexist even in its effects.

Electing a white person isn't racist. Electing a male isn't sexist. It is, of course, if it is done because the person is white or male- but there are solid reasons of principle that Democrats interested in economic justice would be highly skeptical of Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Deval Patrick. For some of us, including the vast majority of Bernie Sanders supporters, an individual's record and his or her views are more important than characteristics set at birth.

Share |

Seven Days In, A Bad Start

President Trump was in character during phone conversations, transcripts of which were obtained by The Washington Post, he had with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto on January 27.

He was certainly in character talking to Pena Nieto. There was the begging from the man who does not know how to make a deal,: "Okay, Enrique, that is fine and I think it is fair. I do not bring up the wall but when the press brings up the wall, I will say, 'let us see how it is going – let us see how it is working out with Mexico.'" He suggested also "They are going to say, 'who is going to pay for the wall, Mr. President?' to both of us, and we should both say, 'we will work it out.' It will work out in the formula somehow. As opposed to you saying, 'we will not pay' and me saying, 'we will not pay.'"

The obligatory slap at his country or one of its states made an appearance, with New Hampshire being labeled "a drug-infested den,. Nor did he neglect the stereotypical language out of a 1950s movie: "you have some pretty tough hombres."

No Trump speech is complete without misdirection. He said "Israel has a wall and everyone said do not build a wall, walls do not work — 99.9 percent of people trying to come across that wall cannot get across and more. Bibi Netanyahu told me the wall works." However, despite Israel's reputation in some quarters as the enslaver of peaceful, freedom-loving Palestinians since 1948, The Post notes "only one-tenth of the Israeli barrier with the Palestinian territories is a 25-foot-tall concrete wall. The other 90 percent is a  six-foot-high electronic fence."





And there must be at least one flat-out lie, in this case "We lost a lot of factories in Ohio and Michigan and I won these states – some of these states have not been won in 38 years by a Republican and I won them very easily." Given that Ronald Reagan carried 49 states in 1984, a fact of which Trump must have been aware (and the one he lost, Minnesota, was also lost by candidate Trump), that represents not only a lie, but also his obsession with replaying the election.

But more important is what Trump did not mention.  Understandably, the President talked a lot about drugs, remarking

And we have the drug lords in Mexico that are knocking the hell out of our country. They are sending drugs to Chicago, Los Angeles, and to New York. Up in New Hampshire – I won New Hampshire because New Hampshire is a drug-infested den – is coming from the southern border. So we have a lot of problems with Mexico farther than the economic problem. We are becoming a drug-addicted nation and most the drugs are coming from Mexico or certainly from the southern border. But I will say this – you have that problem too. You have some pretty tough hombres in Mexico that you may need help with, and we are willing to help you with that big-league. But they have to be knocked out and you have not done a good job of knocking them out. We have a massive drug problem where kids are becoming addicted to drugs because drugs are being sold for less money than candy because there is so much of it. So we have to work together to knock that out. And I know this is a tough group of people, and maybe your military is afraid of them, but our military is not afraid of them, and we will help you with that 100 percent because it is out of control – totally out of control.

Then he talked about taxes. Moments later he commented

beating us at trade and they are beating us at the border, and they are killing us with drugs. Now I know you are not involved with that, but regardless of who is making all the money, billions and billions and billions – some people say more – is being made on drug trafficking that is coming through Mexico. Some people say that the business of drug trafficking is bigger than the business of taking our factory jobs.

Then he talked about the war, but of course completely ignored findings from a report issued in January 2016 by the US Government Accountability Office, which revealed

the extent to which American firearms are a contributor not just to crime in the United States, but also to violence that happens south of the border. Half of the seized weapons were long guns -- shotguns or rifles. "According to Mexican government officials, high caliber rifles are the preferred weapon used by drug trafficking organizations," the report found. Those rifles include the assault-style weapons that have lately been used in mass shootings in the United States.

The flow of guns from the U.S. to Mexico shares some DNA with the black market drug trade between the two countries. "Firearms that criminal organizations acquire from the United States are primarily transported overland into Mexico using the same routes and methods employed when smuggling bulk cash south and drugs north across the U.S.-Mexico border," the report notes.

Trump criticized Mexico throughout, always referred to President Pena Nieto as "Enrique" while he was called "Mr. President," and whipped ou the tough guy act: "you and I have to knock it out – you and I have to knock the hell out of them."  And he ignored the 600 pound elephant, easy access to guns. All in all, it was a standard Trump disaster.









Share |

Evangelicals Have Found Their Humble President

The Pew Research Center confirmed three months ago what we all suspected and what probably remains the case. An analysis of its data revealed

Trump’s support from evangelicals is strongest among those who attend church regularly. Eight-in-ten white evangelical Protestants who attend church at least once a month approve of the way Trump is handling his job as president, including 67% who strongly approve of his job performance. White evangelical Protestants who attend church more sporadically approve of Trump’s job performance at a nearly comparable rate (71%), but they are significantly less likely than churchgoing evangelicals to strongly approve (54%). 

The President's recent interview with The Wall Street Journal yielded this characteristic exchange:

WSJ: I thought it was an interesting speech in the context of the Boy Scouts.
TRUMP: Right.
WSJ: They seemed to get a lot of feedback from former scouts and –
TRUMP: Did they like it?
WSJ: It seemed mixed.
TRUMP: They loved it. [Laughter.] It wasn't — it was no mix. That was a standing –
WSJ: In the — you got a good — you got a good reaction in –
TRUMP: I mean, you know, he writes mostly negative stuff. But that was a standing ovation –
WSJ: You got a good reaction inside the arena, that's right.
TRUMP: ... from the time I walked out on the stage — because I know. And by the way, I'd be the first to admit mixed. I'm a guy that will tell you mixed. There was no mix there. That was a standing ovation from the time I walked out to the time I left, and for five minutes after I had already gone. There was no mix.
WSJ: Yeah, there was a lot of supporters in the arena.
TRUMP: And I got a call from the head of the Boy Scouts saying it was the greatest speech that was ever made to them, and they were very thankful. So there was — there was no mix.
He didn't get that call, nor did he get a call from Mexican president Pena Nieto praising him for successful border control enforcement.

The lies are de rigueur for Trump, who in "The Art of the Deal" admitted engaging in "truthful hyperbole" for strategic purposes.  The "innocent form of exaggeration," he maintained, is "a very effective form of promotion."

The other form of promotion Trump has elevated, however crudely, to an art form is self-promotion itself.  "They loved it," Trump said of his speech to the Boy Scouts, whom he falsely claimed told him "it was the greatest speech that was ever made to them."

In just one speech in 2014, Trump contended “I happen to be, in my own way, an environmentalist. I’ve won many awards,” boasted "I have great feelings of compassion and helping people" and "the Old Post Office… is going to be spectacular. We are building something that’s going to be amazing. It’s going to be one of the great hotels of the world.

He is, after all, the fellow who once tweeted "my I.Q. is one of the highest"  which is "like super genius stuff. I came out. I built a tremendous company. I had tremendous success." "I have the world's greatest memory" he once bragged and "I'm proud of my net worth. I've done an amazing job."

"Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves," Paul wrote the Phillipians.   To the Romans it was "Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited."

The more liberal James wrote "Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up" and the oft-overrated Peter declared "Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time."   The man Himself told his twelve apostles “Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.”

Yet at the Republican National Convention, to a standing ovation

I am your voice, said Trump. I alone can fix it. I will restore law and order. He did not appeal to prayer, or to God. He did not ask Americans to measure him against their values, or to hold him responsible for living up to them. He did not ask for their help. He asked them to place their faith in him.





Nonetheless, evangelical Christians remain the most loyal fans of Trump and Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, exults “I’ve been to the White House I don’t know how many more times in the first six months this year than I was during the entire Bush administration." "I think evangelicals have found their dream president," Jerry Falwell Jr. has said.

When the history of this period of American psychosis is written, the stance of the Christian evangelical community must be prominent, however ugly it is.






Share |

Defending The Whole Package

It wasn't pre-meditated, so they can't be charged with murder in the first degree. But Ali Velshi and Stephanie Ruhle should be charged with manslaughter following their interview on MSNBC with Representative Lee Zeldin, a Republican from New York.  A Crooks and Liar diarist notes

"I've had an opportunity to spend some quality time with Ivanka and a little bit of time with Jared [Kushner] as well," Zeldin explained. "I am super impressed with Ivanka Trump. She brings a tremendous amount of intellect and class. She cares about certain issues -- child care tax credits, paid family leave."

MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle interrupted: "Can I just say one thing? As much as I appreciate you talking about fine manners and class. As a professional woman and a mother, it's tough for me to stomach someone looking at me and talking about the great class, when you have the most senior woman in the White House saying nothing when her father says vicious things about a news anchor."

"That statement is just tough to swallow," Ruhle said.

"Well, yeah" Zeldin stuttered. "Ivanka obviously loves her father."

"I love mine too," Ruhle shot back.

"Ivanka Trump, she is super smart," Zeldin insisted. "She is highly capable in her own right. She could be a great United States senator."

"What are her credentials?" Ruhle wondered.

"She's got the full package," the congressman declared.

Given that Donald Trump is famous (not infamous, if we can be honest) for once saying of Ivanka "if she weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her," it's not surprising Trump surrogate Zeldin would describe the President's daugher as having "the full package." Still, Ruhle persisted:

"What are her credentials to be a United States senator?" Ruhle repeated.

Zeldin pinned Ivanka Trump's Senate qualifications to the fact that she is a businesswoman who wants lower taxes.

"She makes all of her products overseas," Ruhle observed.

Co-host Ali Velshi agreed: "She does not make a single product in America. Does that not move you at all?"

Zeldin then argued that the interview was unfair.

"All of the sudden, it's one question after another, trying to get me to beat up on Ivanka Trump," he griped. "How is she qualified for United States senator? Making our tax code more competitive."





Zeldin stated "first off, there are six million different ways to becoming a United States senator," though to be fair to him, were Jared's wife not Jewish, Zeldin probably would have said "five million," "four million," or "many." But he was rattled, so we move on to Zeldin contending

But so you can start with someone's experience in business, someone's ability to understand our tax code, and you know what is preventing a business from expanding and creating more jobs.. We're upset when jobs leave our country.

Of course, Ivanka Trump, shipping jobs overseas, is among the reasons jobs are leaving our country. In October, 2016 there was an inspection, conducted by of the factory at which her clothing line is manufactured, by "an industry self-monitoring collective, the Fair Labor Association, which includes companies like Nike" and

Workers at the G-III factory in China were required to work 57 hours a week “on a regular basis” to hit production targets, inspectors found. Though Chinese law sets the limit for overtime at 36 hours per month, workers in all of the factory’s departments exceeded that limit, working up to 82 hours of overtime a month between September 2015 and August 2016. The factory’s workers made between 1,879 and 2,088 yuan a month, or roughly $255 to $283, which would be below minimum wage in some parts of China. The average manufacturing employee in urban China made twice as much money as the factory’s workers, or roughly 4,280 yuan a month, according to national data from 2014.

Fewer than a third of the factory’s workers were offered legally mandated coverage under China’s “social insurance” benefits, including a pension and medical, maternity, unemployment and work-related injury insurance, inspectors found. The factory also did not contribute, as legally required, to a fund designed to help workers afford housing, inspectors said. Workers earned five days of leave a year, though a small fraction of experienced employees were eligible for more …
Inspectors also cited the factory for a number of workplace safety concerns.

Quite the model capitalist, the President's daughter is. But Zeldin argued that Ms. Trump has other important characteristics because "as a great mom, as a great wife, she has great education, she has great ideas on important isues that help families." Zeldin told us neither why this particular "great" mom and wife is any more qualfied to be a trusted adviser to the President of the United States than your next-door neighbor, nor how he knows she is a "great" mom and wife. (Funny, isn't it, how the more prestigious and allegedly demanding professional job an individual has, the more he or she is venerated as a great spouse and parent?)  Further, while Ivanka Trump was allegedly utilizing all her great qualifications

the Trump White House signed an executive order revoking another Obama order, this one requiring that companies with federal contracts comply with labor and civil rights laws. Two gender-protective rules were gutted: paycheck transparency and a ban on forced arbitration clauses in sexual harassment, assault, and discrimination cases. As she was taking a strong public stand for feminism, Ivanka’s dad was taking a strong public stand defending an alleged sexual predator (Bill O'Reilly).





It's not surprising that Ivanka Trump has devoted supporters among conservatives. Her recently-published book "Women Who Work: Rewriting Rules for Success" is both a paean to corporate capitalism and while entitled "Women Who Work," promotes the virtue of women on the fast-track to financial succcess and rests on the assumption that homemakers do not work.  Criticizing the tome, Michelle Goldberg observed

Ivanka contrasts “proactive” people, who are “passionate and productive,” with “negative people,” those who are “swayed by the external and are frequently the victim of circumstance.” Her worldview, it turns out, is not so different from her father’s. Both see society through the lens of quasi-mystical corporate self-help, the sort pioneered by Norman Vincent Peale, author of The Power of Positive Thinking and a major influence on Donald Trump. In their schema, success is proof of virtue and people are to blame for their own misfortune. If Ivanka Trump hasn’t expressed any outrage at the cruelties her father is inflicting on the poor and vulnerable, it may well be because she doesn't feel any.





Share |

A Lecture To Border Control Agents

A little over a week ago

A San Diego teacher and her two children were detained by Border Patrol agents after she refused to tell them her citizenship status, out of protest after learning her her Latino friends are often questioned at checkpoints far from the Mexico border.

San Diego Shane Parmely wanted to bring attention to what she feels is discrimination and profiling on the part of the Border Patrol at inland immigration checkpoints.

“My entire life, everybody just got waved through. There was no stopping,” Parmely said.

Parmely has blonde hair and a light complexion.

So, when she was recently on vacation and driving through New Mexico and had to go through an immigration checkpoint, far from the border, she refused to tell them her citizenship.

Agents detained her and her children for about 90 minutes.

Her video went viral, local television statements picked up the story, and a Border Control spokesperson issued a statement- consistent with interpretation by the ACLU- explaining

At a Border Patrol checkpoint, an agent may question a vehicle’s occupants about their citizenship, place of birth, and request document proof of immigration status, how legal status was obtained and make quick observations of what is in plain view in the interior of the vehicle. 

During the course of the immigration inspection, if an occupant refuses to answer an agent’s questions, the agent may detain the driver for a reasonable amount of time until he or she can make a determination regarding the occupant’s immigration status.

Interviewed by a local television station, Parmely acknowledged the inconvenience when someone questions what he or she views as an abuse of authority but  "when you see something that is clearly racist, you have a choice." At the checkpoint, she had told one of the officers, "the people that we see you actually making show papers are all brown."

Brown?  According to Wikipedia, "brown"

is a metaphor for race based solely on human skin color. In racialist anthropology, the color brown and the term brown people were used to describe a series of hypothesized racial groups that included various populations from North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, North America and South America. 

If Parmely had a clue, by "brown" she was referring to people from various areas, including Southeast Asia, which would suggest the question: is the Border Patrol really stopping ethinic Vietnamese and Indonesians?

Race is an elusive, confusing construct, made no less so because most Latinos probably are white. Presumably, Parmely was referring to Latinos, who may in fact be disproportionately stopped by the Border Patrol. But she didn't complain about discrimination against Latinos or Hispanics, but rather pulled out the New Age term "brown," which is imprecise, inaccurate, and vulnerable to misinterpretation.

This, of course, doesn't make Shane Parmely "racist" or bigoted, though comparing the agents to "brownshirts... in Germany" probably doesn't help.  It does mean that she is taking on a serious issue in a thoughtless, unserious manner.  Better that she research the topic, make a rational case, and by all means- as Officer #2 pointed out- stop blaming the guy or gal stocking shelves at Wal-Mart for the sins of the Walton family.






Share |