Hispanic Fanatic

My first novel, which has never been published, began with the following line:

This was by far the worst he had ever cut himself.

From there, the novel went on for about 200,000 words, mostly about how tortured I was in my twenties and how I felt feelings and had thoughts that none of you mere mortals could possibly understand.

Did I mention that this work has never been published?

Now, there is some good stuff in this ancient manuscript of mine, and I’ve pillaged some of the better sections for other novels and short stories over the years. Plus, I learned a lot about writing from this years-long exercise, so it wasn’t a total waste of time. 

And I still think that was a pretty good opening line. Hey, you know who agrees with me on that point? Artificial intelligence.

Yes, we have all seen articles and think pieces about how AI will foster creativity and allow artists to produce their best work faster, if only humans would get out of the way.

As a writer who has been known to dabble in creating web content, I have been inundated with emails from start-ups that promise their AI product will write my blog for me, redesign my website, and cook a four-course dinner for my wife and me.

These companies are basically saying, “Why write a post that expresses your thoughts on a topic, when you can have AI crank out derivative content in flat prose in mere seconds?”

Why indeed? You’ve got me there, tech bros!

To be clear, I am no Luddite. I’m intrigued with AI, especially its potential to eliminate repetitive tasks and speed up breakthroughs in science.

But I’m mystified why anyone would want a machine to write for you. Aren’t those your ideas? Why would you plaster your name on something that, by its very nature, is a hodgepodge compilation of other writers’ work?

Yes, I have posted the occasional AI-generated picture, like this beauty:

But I am always honest about the source of these images, and while I agree they can be cool, they are mere ornaments. I wouldn’t use one for, say, the cover of my next book (which is coming out later this year). For some things, you need the human touch.

Of course, maybe I am being narrow-minded, and I should buy into the hype that collaborating with AI is the next stage for writers.

So in the spirit of innovation, I asked an AI site for its reaction to the first sentence of my discarded novel. Here is the exchange:

Me — What is your reaction to the following sentence: “This was by far the worst he had ever cut himself”

AI — The sentence “This was by far the worst he had ever cut himself” effectively conveys the severity of an injury by comparing it to previous instances. It suggests that the person has a history of cutting themselves, but this particular incident is significantly more serious than any before. The use of “by far” emphasizes the magnitude of the injury, indicating that it is substantially worse. The sentence is concise and clear, immediately informing the reader about the gravity of the situation.

OK, that is very… analytical. It completely kills the vibe of the story, but it’s insightful. 

So I then asked AI to actively collaborate. Here is that exchange:

Me — Write the next sentence of a story that starts with this line: “This was by far the worst he had ever cut himself.”

AI — “The blood oozed between his fingers as he clutched his arm, the sharp pain a stark reminder of his vulnerability in the vast, unforgiving wilderness.”

I gotta admit, that ain’t bad. It’s a bit adjective-heavy, and my novel took place in New York City, while according to AI, my character should have been lost in the vast, unforgiving wilderness. But maybe there’s some way to reconcile the setting. Perhaps the main character gets lost in Central Park.

In any case, I still don’t see how AI will help me write this blog. No machine can access my combination of Gen X, Latino, Midwestern upbringing, SoCal living, progressive, classic-rock and horror-movie aficionado. Then it would have to filter those influences and churn out a viewpoint that could pass for my sincerely held belief. It just can’t be done.

At least not yet.

I’ll be honest. I had forgotten all about that smug frat-boy entrepreneur whose main claim to fame is dropping out of the GOP primary so that his idol Trump could coast to a nomination. This tech bro made some idiotic pronouncements, tried in vain to own the libs, then got kicked to the curb.

In any case, he recently resurfaced to interview a raging racist who was a big deal back in the 1990s, when GOP men thought she was still hot and mainstream media inexplicably labeled her a serious thinker.

Normally, I wouldn’t even notice what a couple of right-wing lunatics say to one another. But one exchange got my attention. That was when the woman said she would never vote for the frat boy because he is not white.

The guy sat there, stunned and stone-faced, as she merrily went on about America’s core identity, which in her view is strictly white, Anglo-Saxon protestant. By the way, this woman used to offer vague denials of her bigotry, but as her popularity dimmed, she dropped all pretense and more or less yelled, “white power” every chance she got.

So how did the failed presidential candidate react? He stammered through the rest of the interview, then later went on social media to thank her for being “honest.”

Now, there are few things sadder than a person who gets slurred to his face, refuses to stand up for himself, and thanks the person for insulting him.

Among those few sadder things is an ethnic minority who has sold out his principles and bent over backward to gain the approval of white supremacists, who then discovers that they will never (as in never never never) consider him equal. 

Progressives were not surprised at this exchange. We’ve known all along that the hard right is synonymous with racism, and we’ve stated many times that any ethnic minority who votes for Republicans is setting himself up for rejection. A few liberals even said they felt sorry for the frat boy, which is on brand for a bunch of bleeding hearts, right?

Conservatives more or less ignored the racism (they have a lot of practice doing that) and praised the frat boy for not lashing out at the woman. 

Please note that conservatives are big advocates for turning the other cheek, having a sense of humor, or not being hypersensitive when it comes to their right to insult minorities. They are not so fond of those concepts if you, say, criticize organized religion or say trans people are human. Then it’s game on, bitches.

Conservatives believe that progressives must follow the lead of Dr. Martin Luther King, which is to refrain from violence. But they conflate this peaceful tactic with timidity. After all, King never screamed or fought with bigots, but he didn’t smile and say thank you to them either.

In any case, conservatives drop all that peace and love shit if they feel insulted. Then they can issue death threats and punch people out all they want.

As for the frat boy, I’m sure he will wander around the fringes of the GOP for a while, maybe pick up a few fans here and there, and gradually fade away as Republicans move on to another ethnic minority they can hide behind. And when the guy is dismissed and ostracized for the last time, and the Republicans shut the door in his face, he will smile and thank them one more time.

Don’t you hate when you hit “publish” on your post, and then 4.9 seconds later, you think of another point you wanted to make on the topic, but now you will wait a week to write that insight down, and the subsequent article will become sort of a delayed sequel to the first, because not only would editing the post seem odd to subscribers (thanks for subscribing), but you’re still on deadline for the latest draft of your book (shout out to my publishers), and you don’t have time to redo the post, and you have mild OCD that prevents you from screwing up your weekly writing schedule, even though it gets screwed up plenty due to the vagaries of life and haphazard technological issues and the black rage that overtakes you from time to time, so you just wait another week to offer your point in a new article.

We’ve all been there, right?

Yes, I wrote about the campus protests last week, but there is one more insight I want to present on the subject.

Middle-aged conservatives just love calling protesters snowflakes. They send out mocking missives over social media, deliver fiery speeches, and write lengthy op-eds in mainstream publications about those darn kids today.

Yes, right-wing fiftysomethings feel pretty smug in their mental toughness and steely machismo, especially when compared to those granola-chomping Gen Z liberal-arts majors who expect participation trophies.

But here’s the thing. The college students are enduring discomfort, risking expulsion, facing financial penalties, and occasionally getting beaten up. And they will receive no personal benefit from their actions. They are fighting for their principles—well, the vast majority of them are, excluding the vile antisemites, of course.

Meanwhile, their self-righteous critics are risking nothing more damaging than the occasional accusation of Islamophobia, which as we know, is not frowned upon in American culture and can actually be a source of honor in conservative circles.

More importantly, for all the talk about liberal kids being wimps, it is the old conservatives who are passing laws to prevent hurt feelings. Seriously, one of their proudest moments in recent history is when they banned teaching honest and accurate history because it might cause emotional discomfort to their children (who I suppose aren’t as tough as their steel-skinned parents).

The hypocrisy is glaring. It is so blinding, in fact, that I take no credit for pointing it out, because it should be perfectly obvious to anyone who thinks about the scenario for more than two minutes.

And yet, the old men have gotten away with it again. Once more, they have adopted the mantle of manly, strong dude, when they are exactly the opposite: scared, fearful and insecure.

You think we would have caught on to this fakery by now.

At first, I avoided discussing the war in Gaza because I am not well-versed in Middle Eastern history, culture, or politics. But then I realized that 99% of the people spewing cocksure opinions about the war are even less informed than I am.

I still procrastinated on writing about this catastrophe, however, because there have been so many other debacles to analyze, such as the fact that an angry bigot is literally farting his way through the first criminal trial of a former president in US history.

But the recent protests on college campuses around the nation, and even around the world, have cajoled me into addressing the Israel-Palestinian conflict. And the deeply profound, searingly intellectual analysis that I’ve come up with is “Wow, this shit is fucked up.”

No one can deny that Hamas are bloodthirsty lunatics who exist to murder Jews and don’t even care if their own people are killed in the crossfire.

No one can deny that the Israeli government is massacring civilians in zealous, depraved indifference while failing miserably at its stated goals (i.e., freeing the hostages and eliminating Hamas)

On college campuses, it’s inspiring to see young people politically involved and putting themselves at risk for a higher cause. But it’s repulsive that some of the protesters “have cheered on murderous terrorist groups or recast even those who slaughtered innocent civilians as ‘resistance’ fighters.” 

Meanwhile, Jewish students are facing “serious threats of violence” or hearing “their classmates argue they should be killed.” And Muslim students are being harassed or threatened.

Even with all that tension, most of the protests have been peaceful. Well, that is until “the police have been brought in,” in which case “protesters have been arrested with varying degrees of force, with some thrown to the ground, tackled, tear-gassed, fired upon with rubber bullets, or otherwise manhandled by law enforcement called in by the universities.”

Yes, conservatives who claim to be fierce defenders of free speech on campus are delighted if cops billy-club progressives quiet. These same conservatives also insist that they are standing up for Jewish culture, even if they were strangely silent when mobs of torch-wielding Nazis chanted, “Jews will not replace us.” I guess that wasn’t anti-Semitic.

And speaking of mobs, we recently witnessed a crowd of white frat boys threatening a lone black female protester on campus. Conservatives loved the imagery, although I’m unsure if they were more taken with the idea of dozens of men cornering a single woman, white people making monkey noises at a black person, or the combination of both that flashed back to the good ole’ days of Deep South racism and misogyny. Really, conservatives were positively giddy at this grotesquery.

Now, when right-wingers aren’t cheering on violence or bigotry, they are “mocking student protesters” as a “fun and easy pastime.”

Yes, it was all pretty hilarious here in Los Angeles, at least until thugs invaded UCLA and started “beating people with batons and poles and screaming racial epithets.” These zealots “dragged, kicked and pummeled” protesters “while police and campus security stood by for three hours before responding.”

Yeah, not so funny anymore. Is it?

I stand by my original assessment. Wow, this shit is fucked up.

He’s not Hitler. More like Mussolini.

The cult of personality is the same, as is the fetishization of power. But Trump isn’t planning a genocide, at least not yet.

Should that make you feel better?

We all know that Trump is a wannabe fascist. Every journalist, political science professor, and economist knows it. Every progressive knows it. Just about every conservative — at least the honest ones — knows it.

And his base — those most ardent of his fans and followers — absolutely knows it and love him for it.

Consider that a second Trump administration would create an “imperial presidency that would reshape America and its role in the world.”

Among his goals are the following:

A deportation program, including massive detention camps, that would remove 11 million people from the country.

The deployment of the U.S. military on American soil.

The monitoring of women’s pregnancies.

The prosecution of women who violate abortion bans. 

The withholding of congressional funds at his whim.

The politicization of the Justice Department.

The gutting of the U.S. civil service.

The staffing of the executive branch with yes-men. 

A refusal to help ally countries if they are attacked.

The pardoning of every January 6 rioter.

If you look at that list and fail to see the authoritarianism, then I can’t help you.

Keep in mind that the lunacy has infected all three branches of government. Congress is shut down because Trump’s toadies refuse to let it govern. And the Supreme Court is considering “absurdist presidential immunity questions for the first time in centuries because it’s the first time we’ve had a president who was this much of a criminal and such an existential threat to democracy.”

Some will tell you that Trump has fooled millions of voters. They say he has gotten this far because so many Americans are idiotic, delusional, or tuned out. That’s true of course.

But in addition to the feeble-minded and the insane, Trump’s hardcore fans include those who know what he’s proposing and are all for it.

The fact is that “for many Americans, a turn toward authoritarianism isn’t seen as a negative.” Many Americans support the idea.

Political scientists estimate that about one-fifth of Americans are “highly disposed to authoritarianism.” Among Republicans, “support for authoritarian tendencies” is a key indicator of support for Trump. Surveys show that about one out of every seven Americans admits that Trump doesn’t respect the rule of law but still want him to be president.

If you add it all up, “roughly 40 percent of Americans tend to favor authority, obedience, and uniformity over freedom, independence and diversity.”

These numbers have led experts to conclude that “the reason Trump is doing well in the polls … is not simply that people are unfamiliar with his stated authoritarian intentions should he be inaugurated in January 2025.” The reason is that “a lot of people support those intentions.”

Indeed, when asked if his psychotic ideas would turn off voters, and why so “many Americans see such talk of dictatorship as contrary to our most cherished principles,” Trump insists, “I think a lot of people like it.”

Well, he’s finally right about something.