Hispanic Fanatic

Your life is worth $10 million.

Reading that statement, you may have one of the following reactions:

Wow, I am seriously undervalued.

Does that include the black-market price of both kidneys?

Is that how much the hitman wants?

Just give me five minutes to develop a scam involving life insurance.

What the hell are you talking about?

I will now address the last of those statements.

What I am talking about is the fact that “when evaluating the impact of government policies that affect public health, analysts place a statistical value of about $10 million on each human life as a way of measuring the appropriate amount of risk a policy may cause or mitigate.”

That’s right — when it comes to implementing new policies or jettisoning old procedures, we crunch the numbers and assign a cash value to each life.

Makes you feel valuable, doesn’t it? 

Keep in mind, however, that our old assumptions about the value of human life are changing in this hellish new era. Local governments are fretting about economic damage and the possibility of armed lunatics storming their capitals, and they are responding by ending lockdowns even though “in every instance, looser restrictions improve the performance of the economy but also lead to more deaths.”

This means that the value of a life varies from state to state. For example, one analysis found that “relaxing business closures and stay-at-home rules could cost 13,000 lives in Texas and 12,000 lives in Georgia by September 1, [but] it will also preserve $3.4 billion in statewide income in Texas, and $1.7 billion in Georgia.”

Extrapolating those numbers to “determine the income gained per death when comparing moderate and strict measures” means that your life in Texas is worth $254,000. But your life in Georgia is worth just $247,000.

Talk about a loss in value.

The study estimates 116,000 American deaths by the end of June “if tough restrictions remain in place —but 353,000 deaths if those restrictions are partially lifted.” The researchers add that “if fully lifted, with no further restrictions, deaths would spike to 895,000,” before helpfully adding that “that would save jobs, though.”

Now, when we refer to hundreds of thousands of dead Americans, we most certainly are not talking about you. We are talking about someone else — anyone else — and never you or someone you know. It’s always someone else, probably someone poor with darker skin.

Indeed, most of the people who advocate for reopening the economy don’t seriously believe that they or their loved ones will be infected. Oh, they might say they’re willing to die for the economy, but come on. Who would want their epitaph to be, “He heroically died for a microscopic uptick in GDP”?

On some level, perhaps even subconsciously, most of these people believe that they are magically immune to the virus, or that it won’t kill them because they pray to the correct god, or because they are tough Americans, or because they can buy their way to safety (ok, that last one might be true).

In any case, it’s always a numbers game. For example, consider this hypothetical scenario:

“There is contagious disease that will kill 99 Americans if we do not shut down the country.”

It is doubtful, of course, that we would go into full lockdown if fewer than a hundred people were at risk of dying.

But let’s change a key detail:

“There is contagious disease that will kill 99 million Americans if we do not shut down the country.”

I’m pretty sure most of us would say, “Bolt the doors now,” if one-third of Americans could potentially be killed. Hey, even most of the gun-toting, freedom-lovin’ protesters would suddenly abandon their “principled” arguments if they and their families were in an epicenter.

So that’s the problem. Somewhere between 99 and 99 million is our problem.

There are those who argue, of course, that we should never take economic concerns into consideration when we talk about human life.

But we do this all the time, usually in a subtle, easily acceptable manner. We give cash awards in civil trials for wrongful deaths. We value interstate commerce so much that we built a freeway system that kills thousands of Americans each year. And then there is that aforementioned $10 million number (or $247,000 in Georgia).

Yes, we routinely roll the dice with death.

Of course, it’s a lot more fun to gauge the odds of non-lethal matters. For example, the odds of Joe Biden being elected president are pretty good, as of this writing. But they should be even better, considering that he is running against the only president in history to be both impeached and run the country into an economic meltdown. Plus, this president thinks swallowing bleach is a good idea.

Seriously, how is this even close?

But ultimately, we return to the question of our very existence. What are our odds of making it out of this Covid-19 mess alive?

Well, perhaps we can listen to our old friend Chris Hedges, widely regarded as a brilliant writer, insightful thinker, and possibly the most pessimistic man alive.

Hedges recently discussed our terrifying new era, and he encapsulated his thoughts with the following sentence:

“These days are the good times, as compared to what is coming next.”

Well, I feel better now. Don’t you?

If there is one thing that a corrupt president, a neo-fascist political party, and several thousand gun-toting protesters know, it’s that the simple act of saying you can now get a haircut will cause our economy to rebound so quickly that every citizen will get prosperity whiplash. Just like that — no more Great Depression 2!

Oh, and also, the virus has been defeated, and only a few disposable people will die from this point on, so don’t concern yourself with them.

Yes, the same individuals who told you that we would be welcome as liberators, that the glaciers aren’t melting, and that job creators will trickle down their cash are now insisting that opening up restaurants will cure our financial ills — even though a lot of economists agree that many Americans remain too terrified to mingle in crowds, which would thwart any economic improvement, and every serious epidemiologist has said that opening up now only ensures more death and misery from Covid-19.

But who are you going to believe? Esteemed scientists from top institutions with access to the latest data and sophisticated predictive models? Or a guy who says gurgling bleach is good for you? 

I think the answer is obvious.

Now, to be fair, there are coherent arguments for considering a slow, phased-in reopening for some parts of the country. And one can even disagree — to a point — about the lethality of Covid-19, the effectiveness of face masks, and the constitutionality of lockdown orders.

But we’re not hearing the reasonable arguments that conservatives could have made. Instead we are hearing from ferocious right-wingers who insist that 70,000 deaths is no big deal, that social distancing is a myth, and that patriotic behavior consists of screaming obscenities into a cop’s face from one inch away (guess that whole Blue Lives Matter movement is done).

Soon, we will hear Fox News shriek that washing your hands is un-American. After that, it’s just a matter of time before a gang of bellicose conservatives burst into a New York City ICU ward and lick all the ventilators (just to own the libs).

In essence, we can’t have a rational discussion of how to reopen the nation if one side says, “Let’s look at the science,” and the other side says, “It’s all lies! Sacrifice the weak!”

Furthermore, there will be no limit to the madness, no turning point where hardcore Trump supporters will abruptly say, “Enough.”

Yes, imagine the following worst-case scenario: 

Over 2 million Americans die. Unemployment hits record levels. Chaos engulfs the nation. 

Even with all that, 40% of Americans would still vote for Trump and insist that liberals are out to destroy America.

To understand this, keep in mind that just as the virus took years to evolve and mutate in order to spark a pandemic, the GOP took decades to arrive at this moment, when Republicans openly dismiss “scientific merit and expert recommendations and instead award lucrative contracts based on political connections and cronyism.”

You see, the Republican Party has, “dating back to Ronald Reagan, attacked the very ideas of the common good and mutual obligation, equating the idea of success with violent, personal sacrifice.”

For the modern GOP, the noblest thing you can do is die for a corporation, and the most evil concept in the world is the idea of societal benefit.

As a result, there is no conspiracy too insane, no rationalization too idiotic, no pivot too jarring, and no excuse too pathetic that will prevent hardcore conservatives from shouting that progressives are scheming to steal our freedom.

So where does that leave us?

Exactly here, in this nation where millions of citizens honestly believe that doctors and nurses who risk their lives working to save Americans are, in actuality, opportunistic villains or brainwashed stooges.

Personally, I look forward to watching Fox News in October, when their commentators will insist that the reports of our societal collapse are exaggerated. They will tell us to pay no attention to the rampaging hordes outside our bedroom windows, and they will opine that liberals won’t tell you that Lord Humungus is actually a really great guy.

And much of America will believe them.

Look, we all know that the modern conservative movement is so obsessed with money that many of its adherents are willing to kill off huge swaths of Americans just to keep the stock market humming along. They are not shy about these priorities.

Of course, there are other factors motivating the irrational demand to “open America back up,” other than the love of cash. Supporting motivations include the GOP’s desire to hold on to power, the bizarre appeal of American exceptionalism, the prevalence of twisted conspiracy theories, and the quest to avoid further embarrassing the most bumbling, incompetent president in history.

Now, those are all fantastically bad reasons to risk the lives of thousands of Americans.

But at least things can’t get any darker, can they?

Ahem.

Recently, thousands of protesters gathered in cities across the country to demand that their respective governors ignore medical advice, statistical models, scientific evidence, economic fundamentals, common sense, and basic compassion in favor of, I don’t know, the right to get a haircut or something. 

You see, the tree of liberty needed to be watered with the blood of patriots. Or maybe it was the garden of freedom needed the tears of the righteous. Or perhaps it was the creepy-crawly vines of emancipation required the bodily fluids of the overly zealous. Who can remember all those jingoistic slogans, anyway?

The point is that these super-patriots don’t care if they catch Covid-19 (and they really, really don’t care if you catch Covid-19). They don’t care about flattening the curve or keeping old people alive or overwhelming hospitals or that touchy-feely bullshit. 

They are (supposedly) protesting the denial of their civil rights and the crushing of their freedom.

So for this crowd, ethnic minorities being denied the right to vote is no big deal. But keep some suburbanites from hitting the beach or going to their lake cabins, and suddenly it’s all constitutional and shit.

No, I don’t remember any of these people getting upset about black men being arrested just for walking through the park. However, for these protesters, the mere possibility that they might get ticketed for walking in that same park is grounds for a massive demonstration where guys show up with assault rifles.

Of course, if hundreds of black or Latino men showed up at a state capitol brandishing guns, we all know there would be a lot less pontificating through bullhorns and a lot more sprinting through tear gas.

In any case, these highly agitated neo-Tea Partiers aren’t protesting the total failure of our government to deal with this pandemic, or screaming for affordable healthcare, or raging against the myriad injustices that actually exist in this world.

Instead, they are furious that rich people are losing money. They are protesting their inability to go golfing. With the exception of those who have lost their jobs — an apparent minority in these demonstrations — the protesters are shrieking about being inconvenienced for a few weeks.

This isn’t exactly MLK on the National Mall.

The truth is that “none of the people so desperate to re-open the country that they’re going out to protest — possibly infecting themselves and others with the virus — are asking why the United States of America still can’t figure out testing after months.” 

They aren’t asking why other nations have had more success in containing the virus, “and whether the president might have some responsibility” for America’s botched response.

And they aren’t asking why their revered leader says he supports them — to the point of casually endorsing armed revolt — but then says, “Hey, don’t look at me, cuz it’s up the governors.”

Such questions might get in the way of all that Confederate flag waving, and swastika displaying, and gun-toting — all of which are irrelevant to the issue at hand, but which help ascertain what we are really talking about here.

Because these protests are just an excuse for right-wingers to wrap themselves in principle while they bemoan their supposed oppression. It is in their nature to shriek, “Freedom” every time anyone suggests doing something for the common good. And their latest temper tantrum is a “symptom of a nation that has decided that what you want to be true might as well be true, and can become true if you just say it loud enough.”

These demonstrations tap into the delusions of many conservatives, who “imagine themselves as heroic figures in a make-believe drama, as if demanding the right to go to a bowling alley or a nail salon during a pandemic makes them modern-day Thomas Paines.”

At worst, the protests are an opportunity for white supremacists with AR-15s to shout, “Boogaloo,” or “Paparazzi,” or “Taco Tuesday” or whatever random rallying cry they’re employing to call for bloodshed.

It’s fair to ask how these “liberators” would behave if they lived in England during the Blitz? 

We would likely hear, “Yeah, we’re supposed to keep our lights dim and curtains drawn after dark. But that infringes on my freedom! So I’m lighting up my whole house, and if the Nazis bomb my neighbors, too bad!”

Looking at the protesters — primarily middle-aged white men — one gets the impression that they are used to getting whatever they want, and now, without ever being told no, or asked to share. And like full-grown Veruca Salts, they are throwing massive hissy fits whenever their selfishness gets called out.

The protesters “are not distinguishing themselves by making finely calibrated points about epidemiology or offering up more refined social-distancing plans.” A bellicose demand to open everything right now, damn the consequences, is simply “lashing out in frustration and in anger, frustration and anger that is being incited by the president.”

Most Americans are trying to work together, and overwhelmingly support continued lockdowns. But while “health-care workers are risking their lives to save others, the president and many of his most devoted supporters are fomenting chaos, division, and antipathy.”

In essence, they want all the rights, but none of the responsibilities.

Let’s say your kid punches another kid in the face for no reason. According to the GOP understanding of human psychology, you should respond by taking your child out for ice cream and saying, “I hope you’ve learned your lesson.”

Yes, in this post-impeachment era, our favorite man-child of a chief executive has gone from barely hiding his criminality to openly boasting of his ability to do whatever he wants. He is more or less “doing that Joker dance down the courthouse steps.”

We would like to believe that all those Republicans who said Trump would learn a lesson have, in fact, learned a lesson themselves. And this would be that a president who is supposedly repentant does not, in general, threaten his political opponents, retaliate against witnesses, pull strings for his corrupt cronies, and treat the Department of Justice more like it is the Ministry of Information — all within mere days of surviving impeachment. It just shows (as if there were any doubt) that “the only lesson Trump ever learns is that he gets away with everything.”

Still, we haven’t heard any apologies or admissions of serious misjudgment from top Republicans. Presumably, many of them are too damn embarrassed to acknowledge their weak-willed naivety and degrading capitulation to an orange buffoon.

However, maybe some of them are not embarrassed in the least. In fact, maybe this entire political nightmare isn’t just a case of Republicans putting up with kakistocracy in exchange of tax cuts and conservative judges. Oh, that’s no doubt true for many of them, and it remains a pathetic excuse for coddling a wannabe dictator. But at this point, it appears that a lot of conservatives are not only fine with a failed businessman becoming king of America, but are actively rooting for an authoritarian despot to run roughshod over democracy.

Keep in mind that studies show that almost one-third of Americans display at least some support for ending democracy and instilling either a strongman or converting to outright military rule. Furthermore, “the highest level of openness to authoritarianism came from voters who supported Donald Trump.”

If you paid attention in history class, you know that we developed the U.S. Constitution to protect against monarchies. But many conservatives are rethinking the whole point of that old parched document.

Of course, nobody really thinks the Constitution is perfect. We may love it, warts and all, in the same way that we love our crazy uncles who think the moon landing was faked. Yeah, we try to dwell on the Constitution’s good parts, and not the Electoral College or that thing about three-fifths of a person.

But what’s interesting about modern conservatives is that, despite their bellicose grandstanding about how much they revere the Constitution, they really kind of hate it. They hate the separation of the branches of government, the power of the judiciary, and the dominance of the federal government over the states. They hate the 1st Amendment, the 14^thAmendment, the 17^th Amendment, and… well, all them except the 2nd Amendment. They despise most of the principles the Constitution was founded upon, and most of the specifics that it consists of.

They don’t like it — not at all. Nope.

What these anti-Constitutionalists really want is someone to take charge, to wrestle the whole messiness of American life and condense it into a simple, easily understood system.

The fact that this is impossible deters them not at all.

Life, as we know, is inherently messy and complicated. It’s unruly and complex even if you live on an island with dozens of people. So the idea that a nation of 330 million individuals — consisting of hundreds of different races, religions, values, and sports team fandoms — can somehow be squeezed into a pleasing, conflict-free flow of humanity is absurd, even pathetic.

And yet, social conservatives yearn for “a strong sense of social hierarchy (the notion that everyone has their place) [that] can arguably provide a coherent structure that makes the world seem less chaotic — and theoretically more controllable.”

Meanwhile, all of us progressives come dancing along — talking about radical upheavals to healthcare and other discombobulating changes to the old-fashioned way of doing things — and conservatives promptly freak the fuck out.

In addition, all the ideas that “multiculturalists believe will help people appreciate and thrive in democracy — appreciating difference, talking about difference, displaying and applauding difference — are the very conditions that encourage authoritarians not to heights of tolerance, but to their intolerant extremes.”

Trump’s hardcore supporters don’t want to “appreciate difference” or stop using plastic straws or try Ethiopian food or acknowledge any of your crazy commie ideas. Instead, they want things to never change, especially if they reside within an even mildly privileged class of American society. 

More than anything, they want someone to do all their thinking for them. They want the strongman to make it all ok, and to make it simple, and to make all the complexities go away.

Yes, it’s true that this approach has culminated in “an indifference to the health of U.S. political and judicial systems on the part of the president, and a willingness to destroy trust in institutions that could take decades to recover from his power plays.”

But hey, that’s not their problem.

Now that the chaotic carnival ride of impeachment is over, we can all go back to being calm, rational Americans who are united in our values, priorities, and patriotic love for this great nation.

OK, sometimes the cynicism just writes itself.

In any case, this era of disunity is not ending soon, if ever. But rather than wallow in depression or drive up our collective blood pressure by enumerating the hypocrisy, cowardice, and outright idiocy of the modern conservative movement, let’s look at a less contentious subject.

Let’s discuss citizenship.

Oh shit, that’s a hot one too, isn’t it? 

Well, you’ll be happy to know that I am not talking about immigration, undocumented residents, the 14^th Amendment, Border Patrol atrocities, or xenophobia.

Hey, I’ve talked a lot about all of those things, and I will again. Good times!

But right now I want to draw your attention to a recent article written by Seth Godin, marketing guru and philosophical entrepreneur.

Godin writes the following:

“Citizens aren’t profit-seeking agents who are simply constrained by rules. Citizens behave even if there isn’t a rule about it.”

“Citizens aren’t craven partisans, voting for party over fact. Citizens do the right thing because they can, even if the short-term cost is high.”

“Citizens live by the rule of community: If everyone did what I’m about to do, would it lead to a useful outcome?”

Clearly, Godin is not talking about what defines a citizen legally. He’s trying to grasp the concept of good citizenship. It requires more than being born within an arbitrary border. It requires engagement, bravery, and a concern for the future.

Yes, much of what Godin is saying can be applied to congressional Republicans (especially that “craven partisan” part).

However, the main point is that in certain respects, we’ve been asking the wrong question. 

It should not be, “Who gets to be a citizen?” 

It should be, “Who will be a good citizen?”

Godin’s traits of a good citizen are not exclusive of other definitions, nor are they the final word on the concept. However, the list he provides is pretty damn solid.

We can all be good citizens — not just of America but of Earth — if we focus on the long-term health of our community.

This concept applies to climate change, where we must be willing to accept lifestyle changes so that we don’t, you know, bake the planet into oblivion.

This applies to corporate responsibility, where CEOs don’t screw over their workers and cause lasting economic damage just to make their bonus a little bigger.

This applies to racial demographics, where white people have to acknowledge that the country is diversifying and, rather than fight the inevitable, embrace the benefits that different perspectives bring.

And yes, this implies to politics, where certain individuals shouldn’t kowtow to insanity just to preserve their cushy jobs.

Well, I guess it’s a bit late for that last one. But the basic message remains the same:

Don’t be a selfish jerk.

We’ll let Godin summarize this ideal:

“Sometimes we call citizens heroes, which is a shame, because their actions should be commonplace, not rare. Every successful community, every organization, every family has citizens. It’s the citizens who define the future, because their commitment to the long-term matters.”

I’ve been called arrogant a few times in my life.

And it’s not just angry readers or the stray co-worker who have said that I’m bossy. I’ve had friends tell me that I was arrogant (whatever — they’re just jealous because I’m so much better than they are).

In any case, the dangers of arrogance are well-established. Pride goeth before the fall, hubris got us into Iraq, etc.

That’s all true of course. But it’s also true that genuine arrogance does not originate in confidence. Its root cause is its theoretical opposite, which is insecurity. 

Honestly, does anyone believe that our easily agitated president — lashing out over every perceived slight and spewing all-caps threats over Twitter — acts like a confident, secure individual who knows what he is doing? It’s textbook bullying that masks his insecurity.

By the way, if you think Trump actually does know what he’s doing, you are highly delusional.

Now, if we mix the hazards of insecurity with one of our culture’s favorite demons — toxic masculinity — we get a new, 21^st-century problem that absolutely no one was clamoring for. I’m talking about fragile masculinity.

What the hell is that?

Well, fragile masculinity refers to the fact that “many men feel pressure to look and behave in stereotypically masculine ways — or risk losing their status as ‘real men.’” American machismo is a bastard, and this “unforgiving standard of maleness makes some men worry that they’re falling short.” These men are said to experience “fragile masculinity.”

OK, that all makes sense. But what can this disturbing phenomenon tell us about the times that we are living in?

You might be interested to know that politics “provides a way that fragile men can reaffirm their masculinity.” They do this “by supporting tough politicians and policies” that reassure others (and themselves) of “their own manliness.” 

And yes, a recent study has shown that “Trump appeals to men with fragile masculinity.”

Yikes.

Of course, you may be skeptical that researchers could measure something as ambiguous as fragile masculinity. Well, these scientists are way ahead of you.

The researchers didn’t just ask guys, “Hey, are you feeling fragile these days?” Although the responses to such a question would have been a hilarious YouTube video.

Instead, the study analyzed Google searches that indicated “a high level of concern about masculinity.” Specifically, the researchers identified phrases such as “how to get girls,” “penis enlargement,” and “testosterone,” among others. The scientists then looked at this sad grab-bag of phrases and, after accounting for demographic attributes such as education levels and racial composition, they discovered that Republican candidates “drew more support in areas with higher levels of fragile masculinity.”

Or as the researchers put it, support for Trump was higher “in areas that had more searches for topics such as ‘erectile dysfunction.’” 

So now we’re back to this being a fucking hilarious study.

In essence, there are a lot of very insecure guys out there who are motivated to support Trump because his unrepentant bullying and tough-guy talk makes them feel manly. These omega males appreciate a chief executive who boasts about the size of his penis on national television, because they fantasize about doing the same thing themselves (although if the study is accurate, they may not have any real reason to boast… ahem).

By the way, the researchers found that, like so many aspects of American culture, this all snowballed with Trump. The study found that there was no significant relationship between fragile masculinity and voting in previous elections, which suggests that “fragile masculinity has now become a stronger predictor of voting behavior.”

Furthermore, the researchers theorize that Trump’s “re-engineering of the GOP as a party inextricably tied to many Americans’ identity concerns — whether based on race, religion or gender — will ensure that fragile masculinity remains a force in politics.”

So how do we stop this scourge? How do we keep insecure, fragile guys from wrecking the nation as part of a pathetic, futile quest to feel manly?

Well, regardless of the course of action we choose, one thing is certain.

It’s time to man up.

The downside of having 10,000 books that you want to read before you die is that, inevitably, some pretty good titles wind up languishing on your shelves for years. That’s why I only recently got around to reading a bestseller from years ago: The Devil in the White House… Sorry, I meant The Devil in the White City. Ha — I’m sure there’s nothing Freudian about that, nope.

Anyway, The Devil in the White City is a nonfiction book about two overlapping narratives.

First, we have the story of Daniel Burnham, the chief planner of the Chicago World’s Fair of 1893, which was an urban marvel of such grandiosity that its influence is still felt today in the fields of architecture, pop culture, and urban planning. 

Second, we have the tale of H. H. Holmes, notorious for being America’s first serial killer (or at least the first to achieve nationwide infamy).

Both Burnham and Holmes reached the pinnacles of their careers in Chicago at the same time, which is what gives The Devil in the White City its thematic structure. The fact that one designed buildings and the other strangled women is a dissonance that it’s best not to dwell on. 

In any case, one fact about the dual subjects of the book stood out to me.

You see, Burnham’s early life was one of mediocrity, if not outright failure. He sucked at school, bounced around from job to job, and only became successful in architecture after wiping out in other fields.

But he was a white guy who was good looking and charming, and society gave him numerous chances to fulfill his potential.

Holmes was a bald-faced liar who cheated people out of their money and displayed overt sociopathic tendencies.

But he was a white guy who was good looking and charming, and society gave him numerous chances to fulfill his potential.

White City, indeed.

Both architect and murderer benefitted from white privilege, which at that time was so ingrained that it didn’t even have its own name (it was just called “America”). And even though white privilege has been a powerful force in our society for centuries, many people still refuse to believe that it even exists.

Many of these people also refuse to believe that glaciers are melting and that guns are a problem, but I digress.

The point is that Burnham, for all his brilliance, simply never would have had a chance to thrive if he had been black. And he certainly wouldn’t have had the luxury of messing up repeatedly with little consequence. The guy knew that he would be ok, regardless of what he did, and eventually, he created something great.

Holmes was able to con and swindle people all over Chicago, kidnap women and children, and quite literally get away with murder because no one ever considered that this respectable white dude in a suit was anything other than a dignified member of the elite. The guy knew that he would be ok, regardless of what he did, and eventually, he created hell on earth.

Of course, Burnham and Holmes lived in a bygone era, and we have (hopefully) progressed just a little. But we have to wonder how many Latinos and African Americans of towering potential never get even half a chance to make an impact. 

Furthermore, we have to ponder if there are any well-connected white men who drip with incompetence but nevertheless achieve positions of great influence, ultimately doing nothing more than enriching themselves and unleashing misery upon the planet.

No — nobody like that springs to mind…

As we careen full throttle into the holiday season, it’s important to keep your stress level low, avoid getting sick, and maintain a positive attitude.

Of course, if you’re Latina, you can forget about all that, because it’s impossible for you to do any of those things.

You see, a recent study has revealed that “Latinas’ economic worries and anxiety about health costs are more intense than for other women overall.” In fact, Latinas are far more likely than other American women — especially white women — to worry about affording rent or a mortgage, getting decent health insurance for their families, snagging a job with good benefits, or keeping their family safe from mass shootings. And Hispanic women rank second only to black women when it comes to fear of white nationalism.

Wow, that’s a lengthy list of anxieties. And let’s not forget that almost half of Latinas report that they have experienced discrimination this past year, which is an enormous increase from the Obama era.

Of course, that implies that there is some kind of link between the well-being of Hispanics and the person in the White House. And that’s just crazy, really nuts and…

What’s that?

Oh, it seems that “half of Latino citizens and legal residents, as well as three-quarters of undocumented immigrants, feel unsafe because of comments made by the Trump administration.”

Hmm, it’s almost like having a raging xenophobic president target you specifically for all of the nation’s ills — and putting an overt white supremacist in charge of immigration policy — has a negative effect on people.

Well, researchers point out that “statements coming from the administration and the president really do have significant effects on Latino populations.” Specifically, the rhetoric and policies of this gang of bumbling sociopaths have not only “induced fear in undocumented immigrants, but they have also caused a substantial proportion of Latino citizens to have concerns about their safety.”

This refers to all Latinos — whether they are newly arrived, born and raised here, undocumented, or third-generation citizens — all of us.

For one concrete example of this plague, look to the fact that one-quarter “of undocumented immigrants said they were so frightened they delayed going to the emergency room for days,” which I’m sure is just fine with the contingent of Americans who love stuffing kids into cages and advocate for shooting people at the border.

But Trump’s words and actions “can be dangerous, and they can even kill when they create barriers to healthcare access.”

And what about all those ICE raids, and all the Latinos (many of them citizens) who have been arrested on their way to work or school? Well, studies have shown that “Hispanic Americans may experience worsening mental health when immigration arrests spike.” 

This stands to reason, as it can be just a little bit stressful to be walking down the street, minding your own business, and then be abruptly handcuffed by black-jacketed thugs who cart you away toward a waiting van.

Happy holidays indeed!

Researchers point out, in a totally unnecessary aside, that this “anxiety could have a detrimental impact on mental health, particularly among racial/ethnic groups that have been disproportionately targeted for arrest and deportation.”

And again, this psychological assault is not limited to the undocumented. Because these policies and actions have an impact on all Latinos, who “might also experience more discrimination, which worsens mental health.”

OK, now that we’ve established that every Hispanic has solid reasons to get sick and feel overwhelmed, is there anything we can do about it?

Well, medical professionals are actively trying to recruit more Latinos for clinical trials, so that we can better understand how these maladies affect the Hispanic population specifically. You see, Latinos are severely underrepresented in clinical trials, so doctors don’t always know if there are subtle differences in, for example, reactions to drugs that are caused by genetic differences.

As such, doctors really want Latinos to sign up for medical studies.

So the good news is that if you’re going to be sick and stressed as hell, maybe you can get paid for it.

Recently, CNN profiled a former neo-Nazi who now rejects white supremacy. Years ago, the woman (identified only as “Samantha”) inexplicably found something appealing “in the white power activists who presented themselves as intellectuals,” and she soon “became a dues-paying member of a white power fraternity called Identity Evropa.” 

This is a common route to extremism, which is why progressives get just a little annoyed when racist ideology is presented as edgy intellectualism or a valid point of view. 

In any case, Samantha worked for Identity Evropa to test new applicants — of which there were many — to see if the newbies were sufficiently “fluent in white power ideology.” And she focused especially on women, who were told the fascist movement was “a great way to be family-oriented.”

So what eventually drove Samantha out of Identity Evropa? Was it the deranged hatred toward Jews and racial minorities? Was it the violence that often culminates in the actual loss of life?

No, she left because — to absolutely no one’s surprise — angry men who despise blacks and Latinos usually loathe women as well. Apparently, a guy who is willing to attack total strangers based upon the color of their skin may not be the most respectful toward the ladies. Hey, who knew?

Samantha’s male peers in Identity Evropa tried to persuade her to stay, telling her that her body “could hold a lot of Nazi semen and make many Nazi babies.” Despite such smooth talk, she left, and today she receives death threats from her former pals. According to CNN, there are “other women who, like Samantha, spent about a year in the alt-right before quitting, unable to take the abuse anymore and fearing for their safety.”

Indeed, “the alt-right is far more hostile to women than previous iterations of the white supremacy movement,” with many experts insisting that its “not even possible to have an alt-right movement without the underlying misogyny.”

Now, we can all be happy that Samantha is no longer a Nazi. But in reading her story, there is one crucial element missing.

You see, Samantha only left the alt-right because she was being oppressed. In other words, she was fine with dehumanizing ethnic minorities. Hell, she enthusiastically promoted hatred toward non-white people. Only when women became the object of scorn and derision did she say, “Whoa, not cool.”

Samantha, and many right-wingers like her, possess an almost total lack of empathy for anyone who doesn’t share their background. Such individuals will alter their repugnant views only when — or if — it affects them personally.

Science backs this up. Researchers have found that liberals and conservatives display equal levels of empathy. However, liberals are far more likely to have empathy for all people. But conservatives tend to have empathy primarily for their own group. 

In one study, researchers found that Americans who felt more connected to “people like themselves” tended to support Trump’s ban on travelers from Muslim countries. They also displayed “less empathy toward immigrants.” The opposite was true for those Americans who placed less importance on their own group.

One could also look at how the conservative movement still largely views gay people as deviants, sinners, or debauched weirdoes who deserve second-class citizenship at best, and capital punishment at worst. Yes, a few libertarians and younger Republicans aren’t down with the whole virulent homophobia thing. But for the most part, the GOP is just fine with gay Americans having fewer rights than straight citizens.

The exceptions, as you can guess, tend to be those Republicans who have gay family members. Oddly, they often change their minds when it affects their loved ones.

The most infamous example is that loveable war criminal, Dick Cheney, who was “a leading Republican at a time when his party was campaigning on forbidding gay marriage.” During this time, Cheney “voiced support” for his daughter Mary, a lesbian.

How about that? He voiced support for his daughter.

Should we applaud now? 

It is highly unlikely that Cheney would give half a damn about gay Americans if his daughter weren’t a lesbian. And the man clearly didn’t care about, say, Iraqis to the same extent.

An indifference to the rights of others — or in extreme cases, to the very humanity of others — continues to vex the conservative movement. What can one say about people who justify jamming kids into cages, in large part because those kids speak a different language? And why should we celebrate people like Cheney or Samantha, who will definitely, absolutely do the right thing… provided that they have some kind of personal stake in the outcome?

Perhaps it is simply asking too much to consider, even fleetingly, how our actions affect people who don’t look, act, or worship the exact same way that we do.

But is it really that difficult?

Baseball season is over, which is always a little sad for me.

It’s not just that I love baseball, and now have to endure six months without it. The bigger issue is that my hometown Milwaukee Brewers just concluded their 50th season in existence, which means a sold half-century without a single World Series championship.

Damn.

In any case, baseball may be on hiatus for now, but it is perpetually relevant as a metaphor. And I don’t mean in a Ken Burns kind of way, where the death of Joe DiMaggio is the end of the American Dream, or something strained like that.

I’m talking about more concrete analogies.

For example, I’m sure we all enjoyed the sight of Trump attending Game 5 of the World Series and receiving a thunderous, sustained booing that reached “almost 100 decibels, the type of disapproval typically reserved for undocumented immigrants and freshman congresswomen at his rallies.”

I mean, here was the president, taking in the national pastime, in the nation’s capital city, and hearing from the nation’s citizens that he sucks, in a spontaneous display of First Amendment zeal that has not been outlawed despite the country’s right-wing lurch. And in an irony-heavy addendum of the type that Americans are known for, he was also serenaded with chants of “Lock him up!”

I mean, if that doesn’t make you swell with patriotism, nothing will.

However, not every symbolic event from the world of baseball is so positive.

For example, major league umpire Rob Drake recently tweeted his displeasure with the impeachment process. He did so in the calm, respectful manner that we have come to expect from supporters of the president.

Ha, no — he shrieked a caps-heavy boast that he was buying an AR-15 assault rifle, “because if you impeach my president this way, you will have another civil war!!! #MAGA2020.”

Now, you might think that we have enough violence in this country without random umpires threatening to murder people who disagree with their politics, to say nothing of the recurring promise that a civil war is inevitable and, in fact, eagerly anticipated by GOP white men like Rob Drake who have easy access to firearms and no regard for the Constitution. 

Well, yes — but you’re missing the point.

Because once again, in this case, baseball is here to help.

You see, on one side of America’s political divide we have progressives, who want to move the country toward the democratic socialist model that has found great success in Scandinavian countries, but do it with more of a multiethnic focus. The other side — Trumpian conservatives — want to create a white nationalist state built upon pseudo-Christian values where the populace is enthralled with an autocratic oligarch who siphons off the nation’s resources to the super-rich. 

That’s a bit of a philosophical gap.

Fortunately, we have homicidal umpires who are happy to illustrate the difference for us. So again, baseball enlightens us.

Lastly, allow me to recount a recent email exchange that I had with a disgruntled reader. This individual informed me that I was wrong about everything, and at some point in the conversation, he stated that the Electoral College was, in his words, “brilliant” and “perfect.” He stated that a nationwide popular vote for the presidency was like insisting the winner of the World Series be the team that scores the most runs, not the team that wins the most games.

My rebuttal was that the Electoral College is like declaring the winner of a baseball game is the team that scores in the most innings, not the team that actually scores the most runs.

I thought it was a good point. But he wrote back a stream of obscenities and invectives, so I guess he didn’t agree, and that was the end of our little debate.

Yes, the guy may have been an illogical, thin-skinned reactionary. But hey, at least he liked baseball.