Hispanic Fanatic

Here’s an interesting statistic for you: 

When pollsters asked Republicans in April whether someone convicted of a felony should be allowed to be president, just 17% said yes. But when the same pollsters asked Republicans the same question this month, 58% said yes.

That’s a 41-point swing, from fringe idea to majority opinion, in mere weeks. I wonder what happened in the time between the question being asked again. Yeah, that’s a stumper.

I also wonder how anyone can say with a straight face that Republicans are a serious political party with ironclad principles. Maybe next you’ll tell me that they are not in a cult.

In any case, I will be offline next week, but I will resume posting the following week. Until then, make sure that nothing interesting happens because I don’t want to miss it.

Thanks

What more can we say?

We have the first ex-president to be convicted of a felony (or 34 of them, as the case may be).

We have the first convicted criminal to run for president under the banner of a major political party.

We have that political party, which long championed “law and order,” now saying law and order is no big thing, or more likely, doesn’t apply to them.

We have religious conservatives, who want us all to worship Jesus or have our citizenship stripped, lining up to proclaim the holiness of a man who paid a porn star to keep quiet about his infidelity to his third wife.

We have half of Congress insisting that Americans can no longer trust the courts, the electoral process, or any political institution that doesn’t align with the whims of their jabbering, addled messiah.

We have conservatives who told us that “This should be decided at the ballot box” then when the voters decided, changed it to “If he broke any laws, let a jury decide,” then after a jury decided, changed it to “This should be decided at the ballot box” in a circle of mesmerizing gaslighting.

We have people who don’t even know what the charges were screaming that he is innocent of whatever they charged him with, while conservatives who know the law perfectly well proclaim that the law is not what it actually is.

We have a man who “has spent decades on the edge of legal trouble,” whose life goals consist of delaying legal problems for as long as possible in the assumption that he could ride it out, who has finally been judged a criminal.

And we have pollsters telling us that this, like every development under the sun, will inevitably be bad news for Democrats.

We have all this and more.

And we have nine undecided voters in swing states who have actually changed their minds.

Hey, it’s something.

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.

Ok, I am not going to focus on whether the symbol of manly strength to millions of insecure right-wingers is, in fact, nothing more than an old, obese, flatulent moron prone to dozing off in public.

He is all those things, and those descriptors are among his more flattering characteristics.

Trump’s criminal trial may be the only of his myriad legal proceedings that occurs before the election, and it is the least important one. Still, many Americans are going to base their presidential vote on whether a jury believes that paying off a porn star from corporate funds is a bad look. After all the disaster, corruption, and death that the Trump administration instigated, this is the deal breaker for many people.

Hey, whatever works to get you on the right side of history. Many of these indecisive voters are likely the people who insist that “the country was really running smooth” [sic] back when a pandemic killed thousands of us weekly, people were rioting in the streets, and the international community was openly mocking America.

Those who are nostalgic for the Trump years believe that the economy was booming back then. This is despite clear evidence that the economy is doing much better now under Biden, and Trump’s economic record was decent only if you leave off what happened in the last year of his administration.

This is like saying, “My team had a slight lead into the third quarter of the Super Bowl, so ignore the fact they gave up five touchdowns in the last quarter. They won!”

In any case, if this trial sways just a handful of swing-state voters, we can all thank Stormy Daniels for her service to democracy.

But please don’t tell me how you plan to express your appreciation. I can only imagine.

Back in November 2016, when our national nightmare was just beginning, media outlets shouted over each other that racism had absolutely, positively nothing to do with the fact that millions of angry white people had voted for a bigot.

It was just a coincidence.

Well, you’ll be happy to know that media outlets have learned their lesson, accepted reality, and are now reporting the unpleasant veracity that racism is a powerful motivator for Trump supporters.

Ha — no, they are still grasping for excuses, denying the obvious truth that bigotry remains a selling point for the GOP.

You see, the New York Times recently rehashed the 2016 election, and their writers acknowledged the myriad studies that showed Trump supporters were more likely to hold racist views. The Times journalists then stated that they “never found this argument to be persuasive.”

Doubling down on their disdain, the Times stated that the “racial resentment argument doesn’t look merely questionable. It looks wrong.”

So there you have it. The Times is not convinced. 

This is the same paper, of course, that was completely convinced that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. But the implication that much of Trump’s base has an issue with black people and Latinos? How gauche!

The Times rationalizes their bizarre opinion by asserting that liberals insisted that all of Trump’s supporters were racist. In actuality, liberals pointed out that there were other factors for Trump’s victory — including conservatives’ strange love of authoritarianism — and never said bigotry was 100% the reason. 

But the Times sniffs, “Yes, you did,” and goes on to point out that Trump’s popularity has risen among ethnic minorities, so therefore, racism could not possibly be, you know, a real thing.

How does one approach this smug denial? How do we argue with such impervious delusion?

If I said that Led Zeppelin was a hard-rockin’ band, the Times would say, “I’m not convinced that’s true.” They would point out that Led Zep also created ballads and acoustic numbers. Ergo, I’m lying.

I could point to Black Dog or Communication Breakdown or Immigrant Song or Nobody’s Fault But Mine and dozens of other rockers. And the Times would say, “Doesn’t prove a thing.”

Any Zeppelin fan would tell you that analysis of this type is bullshit. And they would also point out that Physical Graffiti is their best album, but I digress.

The Times’ dismissal of data, common sense, and Republicans’ own words has a simple motivation. It is simply too painful to admit that millions of Americans are unabashed bigots. It’s much more comforting to insist, as the Times does, that Trump’s “populism is skeptical of elites, political correctness, high levels of immigration and other forms of globalization.”

Yeah, that skepticism sometimes takes the form of razor wire across the Rio Grande, but are you going to call that racism? Come on, give the right-wing base a break.

The Times kicks around the “old racial-resentment story about Trump’s victory” by telling us that the “working-class group of Americans who have soured on mainstream politics and modern liberalism are not all hateful and ignorant.” According to the Times, these poor souls “are frustrated.”

To which I say, “Who isn’t?” Furthermore, I would like to know why frustration is an excuse to vote for racism. 

But I’m sure the New York Times would say I’m exaggerating.

I’ve referred many times to the book I’m writing. Well, now I can reveal the specifics.

I am writing an analysis of the 1979 film The Amityville Horror for the publishing company DieDie Books. The book will come out later this year.

As part of the writing process, I’m collecting opinions about the movie and the concept of the supernatural. I would appreciate your thoughts. You can express your opinion by taking this short survey I created on Google Docs.

The survey will take about one minute, and your opinion will be part of the book.

Thanks for your help, and I will let you know when the book is published.