Trump Tax Cuts to Big Corporations & Ultra Wealthy Have Benefited - Yup, You Guessed It - Big Corporations & the Ultra Wealthy

A private little economy of elitists, by elitists, and for elitists. 

Who pays for it? 

Why, we do. American taxpayers, that is. Funny, because the average taxpayer was supposed to greatly benefit from all of that, according to Trump and proponents of the bill. But so far, they have not.

At a press conference after the bill was passed, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders stated:

"More than 70 percent of this [tax cut] will be returned to workers."

That simply has not happened, period. Despite boisterous claims like this from the Trump administration and his loyal supporters, there is no evidence to back it up. Yet, it does not prevent them from doing as they have consistently done ever since Trump's campaign picked up steam in 2016, and making false claims anyway, facts be damned.

My girlfriend recently shared a story on this matter, before the latest push for a fresh round of harmful tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of all the rest of the American taxpayers was announced. When asked by a retired senior citizen, and enthusiastic Trump supporter, just how much she appreciated all of the money that she got in her paycheck, told him that she had gotten a grand total of ten bucks.

"Oh." he said.

It is almost as if all of those warnings about how trickle-down economics were right, or something.

This predates Trump, of course, but he is greatly and shamelessly accelerating this process. Who knew that a petty, immature, entitled billionaire who admitted to being "greedy, greedy, greedy" would fleece the country to foster his ego and greed, once again? Complete shocker, huh? Never saw that one coming.

And guess what? Now, apparently, Trump feels that the tax cuts worked for the wealthiest and corporations worked so well (for him and his rich friends, anyway), that he is pushing for more such tax cuts. And here's the real kicker: this time, he wants to do this without the need for approval from Congress!

It sounds like a joke (like so much from the Trump administration, frankly), but it is not. They are deadly serious. In an interview with the New York Times, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said that the administration was prepared to explore every possible avenue to get it's way and force another tax cut for the wealthy if Congress fails to comply with Trump's wishes and act on its own. Here, specifically, is what he said:

“If it can’t get done through a legislation process, we will look at what tools at Treasury we have to do it on our own and we’ll consider that. We are studying that internally, and we are also studying the economic costs and the impact on growth.”

This man, and this whole administration, are a farce. They have no shame, no limits to their greed, no concern regarding the limits on their power as prescribed by the Constitution, and clearly no ability to restrain themselves from pushing the envelope even further, and eroding what is left of our democracy.

This could happen, too. Despite the obvious failure of the first tax round of tax cuts (and let's face it, that is exactly what they were: the first of potentially many Trump tax cuts for the wealthy and powerful), and how it added to the national debt, as well as to the growing inequality within the country, Trump and this administration is determined to keep going with this, full speed ahead. Their greed is winning out, time and time again, just on their sheer persistence and, let's face it, their naked audacity.

Steve Moore, a close personal friend of Director of the United States National Economic Council  Larry Kudlow, has said that there is an active debate within the Treasury Department about whether or not to go ahead with this plan and make changes to policies regarding capital gains. He went on to add:

“The thing is, Trump is so gutsy, he’s doing so many of these things administratively, and he’s the kind of person I could see who would instruct the Treasury to do it. That would be gigantic with the economy. . . . There’s a big robust debate going on within the Treasury Department about whether or not to do this. It’s definitely in the mix.”  

Sheer relentless idiocy, arrogance, and selfishness from the double negative president and his administration, who keep tirelessly making the case as clear as daylight that they are, by now without a doubt, the worst American presidential administration in history. They are doing this with an all-out assault on all fronts, as the horrific news of monumental levels of blindness, of excess and greed and staggering arrogance and aggressiveness, just keep piling on, day after day after day. By the time that we are beginning to digest the latest farce or idiocy, at a point when all other former Presidents would be stumbling on their own words and trying to do as much damage control as possible, this guy, and his team, keep going the opposite way, making even more ridiculous headlines, and backing their moves up with completely false and misleading statements.

The worst is that his merry band of assholes keeps beating their chest and stomping their feet in their raucous support, feeling that their beloved leader can do no wrong. If it was not so damn scary and sad, it would actually be pretty funny. Instead, it is beginning to feel, in all seriousness, like an American tragedy in the making.

If many of his supporters suffer the most from whatever is down the road, the inevitable consequences of irresponsible actions, they most certainly cannot rightly claim that they were not warned.






The quotes used above, as well as much of the specific information, were taken from the following sources (please see the links):

Trump administration considers tax cut for the wealthy by Damian Paletta July 30, 2018:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-administration-considers-tax-cut-for-the-wealthy/2018/07/30/1dbaafbc-9442-11e8-810c-5fa705927d54_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f5fb8cb700a0




Trump Wants To Give the Wealthy Another Tax Cut, With No Vote In Congress By  Jonathan Chait, July 30, 2018:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/trump-wants-to-unilaterally-give-the-rich-another-tax-cut.html?utm_campaign=nym&utm_source=fb&utm_medium=s1






What did corporate America do with that tax break? by Ben Popken / Jun.26.2018

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/what-did-corporate-america-do-tax-break-buy-record-amounts-n886621



TRUMP’S TAX CUTS DIDN’T BENEFIT U.S. WORKERS, MADE RICH COMPANIES RICHER, ANALYSIS FINDS BY NICOLE GOODKIND ON 4/10/18

https://www.newsweek.com/republican-tax-cuts-trump-wage-increases-879800

Revealing a Sinister Side to the Story of Mark Wahlberg

I honestly never knew much about Mark Wahlberg, except the vaguest sketch of how he came into prominence in the first place, and how he became a huge actor, ultimately. He was Markie-Mark, famous for underwear ads. Then he tried his hand at a music career, but that was largely a no go. Then, he made it into acting.

And boy, did he ever make it!

He became one of the most successful actors of the past two decades or so, although he seemed to me often to play the same role. 

Nevertheless, he was successful. He seemed to pop out of nowhere to enjoy an enchanted life of fame and fortune.

Only, of course in real life, nobody really pops out of nowhere, right? This is a man with a past, although most of us knew very little about it. He was from the Boston area, and was brother to Donnie Walhberg, who was in the pop band, New Kids on the Block.

That was about all that I knew and, I am just guessing here, but likely as much as most people knew about him, too. Did you know more?

Well, I recently stumbled onto some more about him, ironically, while actually searching for something else entirely. It was related to something about Trump, that much I remember, and it seemed a bit puzzling at first. Why would Wahlberg come up in a search about Trump and all of the hatred that seems to be prevailing in the United States right now? I mean, Wahlberg is buddies with some well-known actors, many of whom seem actually quite intelligent and insightful, and are no fans of Trump. So, surely, that meant that Wahlberg surely was more enlightened, too, right?

Maybe. But ti turns out that Wahlberg played golf with Trump once, and that he did not see the election of Trump as the surest sign yet of a serious deterioration in national values and standards. It also turns out that Wahlberg himself has quite a dark past in terms of things that he himself did to immigrants back in his more youthful days. We are talking physical violence and threats, here. Serious stuff, in other words.

So, while his seemingly friendly face has become a familiar, and for many a comforting, image in recent years, that warm smile might be hiding a sinister side. Perhaps a long buried one, or perhaps one still just underneath the surface. Who knew?

Read the story for yourself. It is a fascinating one. If you are like me, there is a good chance that you will never see a Wahlberg movie in quite the same way.

The reconciliation of Mark Wahlberg Global Nation PRI's by Phillip Martin, The World PRI's The World,  January 12, 2017:

https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-01-12/reconciliation-mark-wahlberg

The Sad Story of What Might Have Been for an Almost Rock Star

Image courtesy of Leslie Gottlieb's Flickr page - Pete Best: https://www.flickr.com/photos/lesliepear/57743685/in/photolist-66XbM-e6Z13z-bcZiaT-a7PZVQ-57vQFM-81isEG-s22Kkv-8aGNyr-bHfuwp-739oHH-8torat-27Pk1Ev-7xWZ1d-bLed9T-2761J2i-a7PSF3-aJ1oUX-5xwL1p-4yp9p6-9BG9eQ-95aN5-21uqhNq-6Kqsp9-cA1TLd-7Btcnv-8vLz1u-bd1LWn-7BtmFd-L8mfty-acnFFA-8vGM7F-bykzQx-jkvVQ-8mgJaN-7BgKVd-e6z7yn-e6BQr6-4MsrdC-TfypYF-7NAxDb-4aygXY-25uSXC-aJ1p8a-c7UtHo-6RKv9k-aJ1paa-rzP4BE-dAz3RP-bxjB7Y-kMamHD

Creative Commons License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

Imagine going through the difficulties, the trials and tribulations of being in a struggling band desperately trying to break out, to make good on their potential. To break it big. To deal with the bookings for long nights playing endless gigs, playing and replaying the same songs on your limited repertoire, and to go through the difficulties of being overlooked and underpaid.

Through it all, everyone in the band not only feels, but knows, that there will be a breakout. That sooner rather than later, they will reach the top, break it big. Then, all of these struggles will be worth it, and will add to the legend of the band later. It will be a good story to share, of the difficult times, when the band was getting pedestrian results, before breaking it huge.

Then imagine that you are a member of that band, right on the cusp of breaking it big, and you get called in to meet the manager. He is pacing around, clearly nervous. You find out soon enough that he is nervous about this meeting with you. He regrets to inform you that the other members of the band have decided to part ways with you. They have found your replacement, and want that other person. You have worked with these guys virtually every night, yet not one of them approaches you to tell you, or rather warn you, about what is going to happen. Not one of them tries to talk to you afterward, either.

Shortly thereafter, the band finally breaks it big. Well, big is an understatement. They actually become huge, like literally the biggest band in the world. Probably the biggest band in the history of the world, in fact.

This is not fiction, although it might well be classified as a horror story, for how horrendous and despicable it sounds. But this actually happened. 

The man's name is Pete Best, and in many respects, he was the literal "Fifth Beatle."

Indeed, Best had known the members of the band for years, back in the days when they were known as the "Quarrymen." He was asked to join them when they went to Germany, as they worked hard to break it big. By then, they were known as the "Silver Beatles." Eventually, they changed their names, shorted it to what we now know by: "The Beatles." Germany was an era in the band's history that adds to their legend, and Pete Best was there. Yet, he was kicked out of the band shortly after they returned home, and just before the band really, finally broke it big.

Just imagine what that would do to a person. Best returned home, and did not leave his house for two weeks, because he could not face the inevitable questions of what happened, of why he was no longer in the band. Epstein, unlike the members of the Beatles Lee Curtis and the All-Stars, which shortly thereafter became known as Pete Best and the All-Stars. But the band did not enjoy strong commercial success. Before long, Best left music altogether, and for twenty years, he was a civil servant.

Yet, he got little help from the Beatles themselves, although they obviously could have afforded to help him out. Best attempted suicide in the late sixties, and after the members of the Beatles seemed insistent on insulting and even slandering Best, claiming that he had used drugs and was unreliable to even show up for their gigs, which is how Starr eventually came to fill in and, eventually, to be seen as a desirable replacement. Best decided to sue them. He won, but had to settle for significantly less than the $18 million he sued them for.

Still, the insults continued. Lennon went on a tirade on Best, essentially calling him a mediocre drummer, and suggesting that, even though the band had specifically asked Best to join them for their upcoming time in Germany, they had always intended to get rid of him as soon as a better drummer came along. The other Beatles also felt that Best was almost anti-social, choosing to go off on his own instead of spending time with the other band members. Harrison admitted that getting rid of Best was his idea, and that he managed to get the other members of the band to go along with it. There were rumors that McCartney was jealous of Best, because he was considered the best looking member of the band. And Starr, for his part, felt that he did not owe Best any kind of apology, saying "I never felt sorry … I was not involved."

In fact, Starr was obviously involved, as he was the man who replaced Best. He has always maintained that he was the better drummer, which to be fair, most people tend to agree with.

Talk about adding insult to injury. And this was an injury that the members of the band themselves had inflicted on Best! It is not like they did not win out, so why seem so adamant to undermine Best and his credibility? After all, they were millionaires and respected the world over, while Best had to watch it all from the sidelines, the forgotten man. Yet, they each seemed to take a turn in almost lashing out at Best, as if they had been wronged, or clearly felt uncomfortable taking ownership for what they had done, for how poorly they had handled the situation with Best, and how that might have impacted this man's life.

Whatever the truth (and there was a lot of rumors flying around through it all), the members of the Beatles did eventually show some regret in their handling of this unfortunate situation. Here is a description of some of what the Beatles said, as taken from Pete Best's Wikepedia page (see link below):

Lennon admitted that "we were cowards when we sacked him. We made Brian do it." McCartney stated: "I do feel sorry for him, because of what he could have been on to." Harrison said: "We weren't very good at telling Pete he had to go," and "Historically it may look like we did something nasty to Pete and it may have been that we could have handled it better."

Two decades after it happened, Mark Lewisohn wrote about how the sacking of Best was the major dark blemish on the history of the early Beatles:

"Despite his alleged shortcomings, it was still shabby treatment for Pete, who had served the group unstintingly from their hapless, drummerless Silver Beatles days through three lengthy Hamburg seasons and over 200 Cavern Club performances. He had shared in the heartaches and the headaches, had controlled the Beatles' bookings before Epstein took over, and had made his home – the Casbah – their home. The Beatles had had two years in which to dismiss him but hadn't done so, and now – as they were beginning to reap the rewards for their long, hard slog, with money rolling in and an EMI contract secured – he was out. It was the most underhand, unfortunate and unforgivable chapter in the Beatles' rise to monumental power."

I love the Beatles, and generally, always thought of them as very decent guys, each one of them. Yet, they obviously showed some dark sides at times, and this particular chapter was definitely one of them. It took years for Best to open up at all, and that seems rather understandable. It took two decades to overcome his clear reluctance to play the drums again, although his wife and his younger brother finally convinced him to do so after two decades had passed.

In time, though, Best did take up music and began touring, with his Pete Best Band. I actually had the opportunity to see them in the summer of 2004, at Little Steven’s Underground Garage Festival in Randall's Island. For me, it was a thrill, and as a huge Beatles fan, it was like a rare opportunity to see a little bit of Beatles history.

However, the story does linger on, and seems like one of the relatively rare dark points in the history of the Beatles, one in which all of the members of the "Fab Four" - Lennon, Harrison, McCartney, and Starr - showed some undeniable pettiness.

Below are a series of videos which I watched last night. I just happened on one of them - the David Letterman interview - and started getting fascinated. Before long, I was going through numerous videos involving Best and what happened in 1962. It is hard not to imagine how hard it must have been for him, seeing his former friends and bandmates enjoying the limelight very shortly after getting rid of him, and seeming to have the time of their lives, enjoying both incredible fame and fortune. It got me on this topic, and so it seemed like a good idea to share these videos here.

The first video on top was the first ones that I viewed. In it, you will notice that Best seems like a quiet, unassuming guy. He does not joke much, or anything. Yet, while he is answering some of Letterman's questions, you can hear some of the audience members laughing at how Best was removed from the legendary band, which seemed a bit classless to me. Letterman had a reputation for being nasty to some of his celebrity guests back then, during the 1980's, but to his credit, Letterman remains focused, serious, and ultimately sympathetic. But this apparently is not shared by some who were in the audience on that day, who could be heard to laugh at Best's pretty clear pain and discomfort on the subject of his sacking.

The other videos include a couple where Best himself gets to talk about his time with the legendary band, and how they came to split, as well as some other clips of the members of the Beatles talking about Pete Best, and how they feel about what happened. By and large, none of them sounded especially sympathetic or guilty about anything that had transpired.

Take a look, and make up your own mind:

Wikepedia page on Pete Best, where I got the quotes used above from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Best

Here is the official link to the Pete Best Band website:

http://www.petebest.com/

A Second American Civil War? Many Americans Think It Not Only Possible, But Inevitable

Another article here that I tried to stall, refusing to publish a blog entry or even write too much, as I focused on my miniature World Cup vacation on "The Charbor Chronicles."

However, it felt like it was time to publish this, especially since, funnily enough, my mom and I were recently discussing this very thing. We both agreed that something major will happen here in the United States - something bad - before Trump leaves office. Whether it is like this articles suggests, a civil war breaking out, or something else, it cannot be said with certainty. It could indeed be a civil war, or it could be a bigger war that he gets us involved with (probably starts, quite frankly), or perhaps some kind of second great depression, or he finally loses any pretense of civility and establishes an actual dictatorship following some kind of emergency. After all, is this not the man who escalates literally every situation into a crisis?

We both agreed that something will happen before Trump leaves office, one way or the other. There were plenty of presidents who completely turned me off before - Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton, and to some degree, even Obama, who felt more like a poser than anything else to me - but none of them made me fear that he would refuse to leave office without some kind of serious resistance. This guy, though, I do not see peacefully giving up power. He will raise Hell, with a firestorm of ridiculous tweets to raise the ire of his loyal, blind supporters, and he will make news headlines in any way possible, trying to divide the country as much as possible, just like he has done since before he was even ever elected to the White House. He was a very bad omen for the country, and both my mom and I agreed that there will be a price to pay, and a big one, at that.

Apparently, quite a few people agree with that rather dire prognosis, according to a recent poll which USA Today reports on.

There were times when I was younger when some of the things that people suggested could happen in the future seemed really unlikely. Yet somehow, as the years have passed, they seemed downright prophetic. Such was the case, for example, with when Jello Biafra, the former frontman for the punk band Dead Kennedys, suggested that there was not much of a difference between the two major parties, that they agreed with each other far too often, and that they were both very much playing the game of corruption. He also mentioned something else that, I think it is fair to say, has come to pass, predicting that the United States was being made into a dictatorship, essentially, and that this time, the erosion of democracy would be a patient process, over the course of 30 to 40 years. Indeed, our democracy has been corrupted and attacked relentlessly, to the point where some people are already saying that our democracy is no more, and no one is laughing or casually waving them off or dismissing them any longer.

Well, he was hardly the only person making predictions, although a lot of what he predicted, as it turns out, seems remarkably accurate in retrospect. There were other predictions though, and these also seemed a bit out there. The nation seemed unified, albeit now, that unity seems to have been exposed as mostly a superficial kind of national unity.

I remember when I was younger and more impressionable, seeing several references that people had made referring to the possibility that a second American revolution and/or a second civil war might be coming. At the time, it seemed far-fetched, because things appeared decidedly calmer than they do now. 

These days, however, one would have to be willfully stupid or blind not to see the level of division that is tearing the fabric of the nation apart. It seems to be coming from several angles, for that matter. Just take a look at the 2016 presidential election as an example. Of course, you had the two conventional parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. Yet within each, you had rebellions of sorts. Sure, you had the mainstream candidates on each. Hillary Clinton for the Democrats, and Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio for the Republicans. But you had Bernie Sanders ripping Clinton apart on many issues, and seriously cutting into her lead, to the point that Clinton asked for help (illegally) from the Democratic leadership, who should have known better than to take sides. It undermined faith in the party, for both progressives and conservatives, even if mainstream Hillary supporters remained willfully blind to their own hypocrisy. Then, you had the rebels within the Republicans, most obviously Donald Trump, who would go on to win the White House, obviously. But you also had Ted Cruz, who was an unconventional and, in many respects, a rebellious candidate in his own right.

In other words, 2016 was, at least politically, the year of the rebel. I heard somewhere, though, that it wound up being the wrong rebel who won. Indeed, if Bernie Sanders was a rebel with a cause, then Donald Trump was the rebel without a clue. Some had the audacity to suggest that they were very similar when, in fact, they could not have been more different. Sanders focused on issues, while Trump focused on idiocy. What does it say about America in 2018 that the classless idiocy won?

We hear a lot of talk these days about America's cultural wars. Mostly, this is a figure of speech, although we appear to be getting closer to the point when this might no longer be the case anymore.

In a recent poll, one-third of likely American voters apparently believe that we are heading towards a second civil war in this country.

Frankly, can you blame them for believing that? When you see the increasingly violent rhetoric and the divisions being stoked by opportunistic, narcissistic, and excessively selfish politicians with narrow minds and even narrower agendas, and the huge crowds of enthusiastic supporters that they garner (and never mind that these people certainly appear to be voting against their own best interests), it becomes a whole lot easier to believe that, yes, we are indeed heading towards something seriously tragic.

Perhaps that is why a rather stunning number - one-third of Americans - believe that a second civil war will likely happen at some point. Who knows when, although seeing the vehement divisions in this country presently, it might be assumed that it could break out sooner rather than later.

When, specifically? Well, within the next five years. The wording of the poll was whether "it's likely that the United States will experience a second civil war sometime in the next five years."

Of course, maybe this should not be taken too seriously, as a similar poll taken during the Obama years found that roughly 53 percent of voters believed that those opposed to Obama might start a civil war, but that did not happen. But then again, Trump is unique among presidents, including Obama, and I would not argue that this is in any good way. He just has a way of grating on people's nerves, although that same style gives him the loyal, unwavering support of his fans.

Go figure.








Here is the link to the article on how roughly a third of Americans believe that a second civil war is approaching:


Poll: Almost a third of US voters think a second civil war is coming soon Ryan W. Miller, USA TODAY Published 11:09 p.m. ET June 27, 2018

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/06/27/civil-war-likely-voters-say-rasmussen-poll/740731002/

President Snowflake Gets Offended by 20-Foot-Tall Angry-Baby Blimp in London

Donald Trump obviously went on a high profile trip to Britain recently, following another summit meeting with former allies of the United States.

For once, Trump seemed to get a warm reception from the leaders. Prime Minister May rolled out the red carpet, and he got to meet the queen.

However, not all Brits were so welcoming to Trump.

London's mayor, , had approved a request to have a cartoonish likeness of a crying orange baby Trump fly over the London skies during Trump's visit.

And while Trump himself did not get to see the famous balloon, he nonetheless apparently heard about it. Not surprisingly, he did not like it, and even less surprisingly, he clearly considers himself the victim.

Trump responded by saying that he did not feel welcome to visit London.

Ya think, buddy?

Indeed, Trump responded in typical fashion, like the melting, delicate over-sized snowflake we all know him to be. Perhaps it never occurred to him that many people are opposed to his policies, and not just here in the United States, but around the world. When you separate families, and then pretend that this was not something that you ordered, that this was all just an accident or a misunderstanding, even after years of hateful rhetoric and divisive language that had gotten the heated national political divide to grow into a canyon, he still feigns ignorance and pretends to an innocence that al but his loyal supporters see through easily.

Apparently, Trump fans are furious about the baby Trump balloon.

Oh, well.

Since they are always lecturing people who oppose them for being overly sensitive, maybe they should shut up and stop acting like little snowflakes themselves. 

Here is a link to the article that got me on this topic:

Trump says the 20-foot-tall angry-baby blimp flying in London makes him feel 'unwelcome' by David Choi Jul. 12, 2018:

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-baby-blimp-balloon-london-2018-7?utm_content=buffer3fcf7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer-bi

Trevor Noah & Controversy Regarding France's African World Cup Team

So the other day, my father began to rail against some American comedian who had congratulated Africa on France’s World Cup win, suggesting that the French team was so filled with African immigrants, that it was a de facto victory for Africa. He could not remember who the comedian was, but I had visions of not so long ago, when French bashing was all the rage in the United States, during the months and years leading up to the invasion of Iraq, and the months and years following. Perhaps most Americans have forgotten that ugly little chapter, when French wine was publicly spilled in the gutters, and French fries and French toast were renamed, with the word and concept "French" being replaced, irony of all ironies, with "Freedom," in local restaurants as well as very publicly in the cafeteria at Congress, to suit the neocon version of being politically correct at the time. There were calls to boycott all things French and anything from France, even though it hurt the economy of both countries, because that was the flavor of the moment.

Since then, I have always dreaded whenever France makes the news headlines here in the United States, whether it was something good or not. Yes, that was true even during the terrorist attacks, when most of the world would show sympathy, because I was sure that some neocon asshole would point and use these incidents as a prime example of the supposed weakness of France, or the sophisticated European approach to things. Indeed, there were actually examples of some politicians doing this here in the United States, as well, even though major terrorist incidents have also occurred in numerous other countries, including Great Britain, Belgium, Germany, Canada, and, of course, the United States. 

That was why I approached France's World Cup victory with some measure of caution. On the one hand, being a French citizen, it was obviously an event to rejoice in. I had been there with my brother the last time that France won the World Cup, back in 1998. But that was the thing, too: I was in France itself. Everyone was celebrating in the streets, and so we got to experience that magical moment in it's fullness. But here in the United States, which still largely shows indifference to football/soccer, it was obviously different. And yes, I was half-expecting this new attention to France, positive as it may seem, to also be tinged with a new slate of criticisms and French jokes. It does not take much for anti-French sentiment to be stirred in the United States. Truth be told, there are a lot of  harsh and judgmental anti-sentiments that are stirred a little too easily in the United States, as we see quite clearly in recent years. Right now, we have strong anti-immigrant (and more specifically, anti-Latino - especially anti-Mexican - and anti-Muslim) sentiment that seems to be the flavor of the moment for those who identify as being on the right. On the left, rather ironically, there seems to be a lot of anti-Russian sentiment, which not too long ago, was a favorite target of people on the right, who disliked the Russkies something fierce until maybe the early 1990's. Anyone who doubts that can see the wicked portrayals of Russians/Soviets in popular movies (think Rocky IV, for example). Indeed, part of me feared that this attention, and indeed any attention, to France, be it positive or negative, might awaken the narrow-minded who rely heavily upon silly but popular stereotypes to once again sound off about France, as well.

Yet, it did not happen. Or so I thought, until my father went off about this American comedian. He could not remember who it was, but he was a black comedian, and thought that his name began with Chris. I thought of Chris Tucker, who made a few comments against the French in one of those Rush Hour movies (the one in Paris, obviously). But Chris Tucker is not a comedian, exactly. For whatever the reason, I thought of Kevin Hart, but that seemed a bit unlikely, as he never seemed to have noticed the French one way or the other to my knowledge, for better or for worse.

Then, eventually, my father specified that this guy had a television show, and I frowned. The only black comedian with his own talk show that I could think of off the top of my head was Trevor Noah. But that did not make sense. First of all, Trevor Noah is not even fully American. He was from South Africa, although obviously, he lives here in the United States. Also, Noah generally is highly intelligent, and takes a more thoughtful approach to things. Surely, he would not resort to French bashing, would he?

Only I still remembered all too well that whole French bashing thing. True, it seemed to be more of a neocon thing, with people like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh sounding off about France, or with comedians like Dennis Miller joking about chiseling off the armpit hair from the Statue of Liberty as a "favor" to France (maybe giving it back would have been a more charitable consideration from him). But then again, Jay Leno, who seemed to hold some progressive views on certain issues, and who was fairly well-respected by people on the left, seemed to make a good part of his career during those few years with favorite anti-French jokes. So did Howard Stern, who has made clear his general dislike of "the French." And there were some other comedians who were not as explicitly neocon in nature who also made a fair amount of anti-French jokes, as well. 

Okay, so how bad will this be, then? That was my initial thought. Trevor Noah never struck me as someone who would be prejudice or close-minded on that level, but there were some other people that I would have assumed that of in other regards, who have proven to be more limited in their thinking than I expected them to be (not necessarily always related to France, by the way). Plus, we all have our prejudices. Certainly, somebody from South Africa who lived under apartheid would know that. Hell, anyone living in the present day United States should know that. And Noah had done both. Indeed, part of me half expected yet another tiresome anti-French rant, filled with references to how cowardly "the French" are and how their tanks only run in reverse, or how rude and arrogant (as if the very Americans making these claims are not themselves displaying the very traits that they are labeling on others). Or perhaps, how "the French" are supposed to have bad hygiene, or how the women in France (and Europe, more generally) do not shave their armpits. Or any other number of stupid stereotypes that always seem to win out on ratings, and which many Americans (far too many to be ignored or to chalk up as some isolated and insulated group, frankly) seem to know these jokes, and take them a little too literally.

However, I decided not to watch the Youtube video right then and there, with my father present, and seemingly watching to see if I would myself watch those videos. It would be better to watch it on my own time, without the pressure of someone watching me for my own reactions, one way or the other. This I did, and here was my own take on it.

Frankly, it was not anti-French. Not really, anyway. In fact, it reminded me of something that I had learned in college about how France traditionally interpreted being French. It differs than how Americans often identify as being Americans, although there are obviously some similarities. Noah focused on issues that he had with a certain interpretation of what "Frenchness" means to some French people, although he made some good points about it. My father had made me expect this to be a typical anti-French rant by an ignorant outsider, but frankly, it seemed far from that. Noah talked a bit about immigrants in France, and how and when and why they are perceived as "French," and how this can rightly be attributed to a certain colonial, or even racist, mindset. He made some good points, which I will get to shortly.

One thing that many people outside of France do not know, or perhaps simply do not appreciate, is how much immigration has shaped France. People from all over the world have come to France. Many from former colonies, and yes, that definitely plays a significant part in this particular story (it will be explained shortly). But also people from other parts of the world, including many parts of Europe, such as Poland. Andre the Giant, for example, was from a Polish family, and they even often spoke Polish at home.

That fact of the diversity that can be found in France is one of the main reasons why I always detested people classifying "the French" under one umbrella. Because indeed, like the United States,  and Great Britain, and Canada, and Australia, France is, in many respects, a complicated mosaic of very different people. It is a nation of well over 60 million people, and there are all sorts of different kinds of people who are French, and not all of them, or even all but a small minority of them, fit the traditional stereotypes that far too many Americans, specifically, seem to have of "the French."

Perhaps people can take exception with certain aspects of French history. That I can understand. A lot of Americans in particularly cannot get past the military collapse of France during World War II, and that is understandable. I accept that France should be criticized for that in historical terms, as well as for much of the shadiness by too many French people during that era. There was the capitulation, and then the collusion with the Nazi regime by the puppet Vichy government. And many collaborators who helped the Nazis with deporting Jews.

And you can certainly also make an argument against France's colonialism on the other end of things. Whether it was the brutality displayed by France in establishing it's colonies worldwide, or the ruthless methods it employed in trying to defend them against independence movements, or the exploitation of resources and people in between, France's history regarding colonialism is dark. In many respects, if we are honest, many of the tensions that France now is witnessing regarding many  of it's immigrants were created by, and are a residual of the mindset of, the French colonial mindset. The wars that they fought just years after World War II, in Indochina (which some wits also use as "proof" of the weakness and/or backwardness of French military capabilities) or in Algeria, where French forces were merciless enough in trying to put down the independence movement to receive worldwide condemnation, were also both very dark chapters in French history.

Yes, those are horrific stories, and they constitute a reality in history.

France should indeed receive some harsh judgments for those episodes, although I never understood how some people, specifically far too many Americans, seem to define "the French" by some of these things, particularly the collapse and surrender during World War II. Yes, it was obviously not France's finest hour. However, the United States had no shortage of dark chapters in their closet that most Americans would not like to be defined by. After all, there was the massive genocide of Native Americans, which was seen as the worst crime in human history by some prior to the Holocaust, and which is still seen as such by some today. There was the persistence of slavery based on race, to the point that we fought a huge civil war to finally get rid of it. The state of Texas actually fought two wars with slavery as the central issue, and both times, the proud Texan Americans fought on the side of being pro-slavery. And once slavery officially ended, legalized strict racial segregation began in much of the country, while racism remained strong in the rest of the country. Since this country has generally never had an honest and frank discussion on racism, it has persisted as a majorly divisive issue to this day, and we are seeing the results with many shocked at how prevalent and out in the open racism and xenophobia more generally seems to be in the modern day United States. That, coupled with a few other issues, has earned Americans certain stereotypes around much of the world, as well. I saw some posts by foreigners about a supposedly typical American breakfast, with a stack of bacon on a plate, next to a Bible and a gun. Many Americans would feel offended by that portrayal, surely, and would feel it unfair. And another stereotype that seems to be gaining traction is that the American police are to be feared, resorting first to excessive use of force, often deadly force. Another stereotype is that of the loud, crass, and highly opinionated "ugly American," and that Americans in general do not care enough about the rest of the world to know anything about it, to the point that I remember seeing t-shirts in Canada that made fun of just how little Americans know about them. Again, many Americans would object (I have heard some American object to each of these stereotypes). But that does not mean that these stereotypes have gone away.

Anyway, back to Noah. Initially, he joked that Africa had won the World Cup, suggesting that France had used a team largely consisting of African immigrants to win this World Cup. This stirred some controversy, and Noah received a letter from the ambassador of France. My father took exception to Noah, reading this letter in public, when he felt it should have been a private letter between Noah and the ambassador. However, if Noah had not said anything about the letter, I suspect it would have been taken as essentially censoring him, not allowing his arguments the light of day. But the French ambassador is a public figure, and he was responding to a public issue, so I suspect that he had every expectation that the letter would go public, and my guess is that he wrote it specifically with the knowledge that it would go public. The one thing that I was far less than thrilled with was the accent that Noah used, which mimicked what he apparently believes to be a typical French accent, much to the delight of his audience. Not only did this not enhance his legitimate points but, frankly, I feel it detracted from them. Perhaps that is what turned my father off automatically from what Noah said, although that I cannot say for sure.

What he argued, in effect, was that the French have traditionally had a concept that there is such a thing as being French, certain traits and characteristics that French people share. The ambassador had argued that all but two of the 23 players on the World Cup championship team were born in France, and they were educated in France, played and mastered their football/soccer skills in France. That they are French citizens, and proud of their country. In short, these players reflect the diversity of France (when Noah read this, some audience members could be heard to disagree with this sentiment), although Noah suggested that the diversity of the team was likely more a reflection of France's colonialism. He may have a point there, because most of the players likely came from nations that used to be, indeed, French colonies.

Now, the audience plays a very vocal part in the video when Noah reads the part where the ambassador compares France's interpretation and understanding of what "Frenchness" is, versus how Americans often view themselves, and refer to different citizens through the prism of racial or ethnic distinctions (sometimes referred to, often disparagingly, as hyphenated Americans). Specifically, Noah quoted part of the ambassador's words from his letter, with the American audience audibly groaning or otherwise expressing their skepticism and disapproval as soon as the ambassador uses the United States as a base of comparison to the French approach:

"Unlike the United States of America, France does not refer to it's citizens based on race, religion, or origin. To us, their is no hyphenated identity.Roots are an individual reality. By calling them an African team it seems you are denying their Frenchness. This, even in jest, legitimizes the ideology which claims whiteness as the only definition of being French."

Again, perhaps predictably, some people are heard snickering in the audience. What Noah said next made sense (again, I could have done without the exaggerated French accent which, if anything, detracted from his point), but frankly, I am not certain that this is how the vocal audience members were thinking about it when they seemed to be dismissing any notion of France as a diverse nation.

Noah's point was asking why these players could not be both, French and African. He criticizes this interpretation of what being French is, saying that through this lens, effectively, immigrants (in this case African) have to erase their heredity in order to become French. He called it an achievement that many black people around the world celebrated, the fact that these players of African descent could become French and help win a world championship. However, he felt that strictly regarding them as "French" denied this duality. He also argued that too often, some French people deny people of color and originating from former French colonies any legitimacy in claims that they are French. He makes the argument that when these players win the World Cup, they are proudly hailed as French. When an African immigrant climbs four stories to save a baby in danger, he was given French citizenship, and Noah makes the rather powerful argument that this is overly convenient, that this man started his climb as an immigrant, and that once he reached the top and saved the baby, he secured his status as French. Had he dropped the baby, Noah argues, he would likely have gone back to the status of being an African immigrant, or the "other." Not French, in other words.

I do not deny his points in this regard, and truthfully, in fact, I agree with many, if not most of his points. If this is what is considered French bashing by Trevor Noah, I could live with it, because his arguments are, in fact, legitimate. It is an argument that I remember hearing about, and debating, in my college days, and often, that centered around the 1998 World Cup victory, which was still relatively fresh back then.

That said, however, I do take exception with Noah's use of what he apparently thinks is the French accent, which puts many of these things in a very different context based on his tone. He is, after all, a comedian. He wants to entertain, wants to amuse, and in catering to an American audience, he used a supposedly French accent to portray a certain mentality that he attributes to both Nazis and white supremacists in France, but also seems to suggest, indirectly, that the ambassador himself shares these views and this kind of exclusion, while the ambassador was actually embracing France's diversity, something that it was hard not to notice Noah seemed not so keen to talk about.

Noah's arguments are legitimate, but his persistence in undermining his own points by taking a mocking tone with his apparently typical French accent does the legitimacy of his own otherwise valid arguments a disservice. The French ambassador took time out of his schedule to write Noah a letter, explaining his position, and Noah essentially took to the airwaves to mock the letter, thereby effectively nullifying another, competing, viewpoint that Noah clearly did not agree with. I still like Noah and think that he is highly intelligent and insightful, but why he chose to take this approach is, frankly, a bit puzzling, and quite disappointing.

This was not the frankly obnoxious French bashing of angry (and mostly WASP) Americans that became so popular leading up to the invasion of Iraq, and the couple of years afterward. However, Noah could have taken a more serious approach if he wanted to make serious points, as he apparently wanted to do. He pretty much said many things that I have felt myself regarding "Frenchness," while he seemed to cater a little too much to Americans interpretation of how open they are, at a time when we have a President and a political party in power here in the United States that reflects quite the opposite.

If you think that I am being overly sensitive on the subject, let's revisit certain arguments that Noah himself uses sometimes. The context of jokes is different based on who's saying them right? If a white person does not understand why his or her use of the N-word would be offensive, when so many black people refer to each other using the word, Noah would jump on this hypocrisy. So why would he does not (or refuses to) see that his use of what he again seems to think of as a French accent is most definitely not appropriate here, and actually seriously undermines any and all points, however legitimate they might be? If you could argue that Noah himself does not intentionally try to mock the French with his accent here, it is nevertheless clearly taken as such by his predominately if not exclusively, American audience, which seems only too willing to play along, expecting reaffirmations of their own beliefs in French stereotypes. Noah might argue whether a white person would use the N-word, or make that black joke, if a black person is present, which would be a way of telling if a joke might be deemed racist. If that white person would not be comfortable making that joke or using that word in the presence of a black person, then it is probably racist. I agree with that, to boot. Context is everything. But would Noah himself have used that stupid accent if the French ambassador, or indeed any French person, had been present? Would he have dared to do that before a French audience in France? My guess is probably not. And if the answer is no, then maybe Noah should look at himself in this case. It is more than a little disappointing, truth be told. I will not lump Noah as a French-basher, but I will say that personally, I had a better opinion, and better overall expectations, of Noah before this, and it is hard not to think a bit lesser of him afterwards.

Frankly, he could have handled this one better.

Trump Warns Critics & Opponents That They Had 'Better Just Take it Easy.'

This was supposed to be my first blog entry after the World Cup, but somehow, it slipped through without my noticing.

But this is an important one, because it illustrates how President Trump (such a depressing combination of words, I know) says things that he can always claim he does not mean literally, that he was joking, or that the words were taken out of context. Yet, what he actually says has potentially huge ramifications, and is horrifying.

This story was brought to my attention by my brother, so here's a shout out to him. Indeed, this is a chilling story that all Americans should notice and, frankly, be vehemently opposed to (at least if they care about things like freedom, democracy, and liberty). Somehow, though, it seems that Trump supporters, once again, have turned an all too convenient deaf ear and blind eye.

Surprised? 

Nah, neither am I.




Okay, so I wanted to keep away from political posts during the World Cup. We have to give ourselves a break every now and then, and let's face it: the state of world politics since about...oh, the summer and especially the fall of 2016, with Brexit and then especially with the election of Donald Trump into the White House, has been grim and downright depressing.

It was a nice break, and I think I was successful in not posting anything about Trump, or any of the other nonsense that obviously made headlines. But now, it is time to get back to it, right?

Sigh.

This kind of feels like a Monday morning. The first morning back after a long and wonderful vacation. Summer vacation, as a child, and the first day back in school, perhaps.

Ah, well. What can you do?

There is one story that, to me, defined the essence of the problem with Trumpism, and Trump's unique and quite indirect comments that seem to essentially threaten the institutions of our democracy - what remains of it, anyway.

No exaggeration to suggest that this is how fascism begins.

What makes Trump dangerous is how casual he makes it all seem, with his obviously informal rants and tweets, or like when he "jokes" that the US should think about appointing presidents for life, or when he suggests that he wants his people to stand and respect him like the North Koreans supposedly respect Kim Jong-un. Now this, where Trump is suggesting, in casual language and not through any official policy (yet), that critics of him and his administration had 'better just take it easy.' If that's not a veiled threat (and one that he can easily deny or claim to have been taken out of context), then I don't know what is.

We are seeing the steady and clear erosion of democracy and our Constitutional traditions, and Trump fans are applauding and stomping their feet every step of the way.

What true patriots.

Here, specifically, is what the president said, and how he said it:

"I hope the other side realizes that they better just take it easy. They better just take it easy because some of the languages, some of the words you – even some of the radical ideas, I really think they’re very bad for the country."

Trump told Bartiromo, "Some of the things said are terrible. And, you know, it's our people are so incredible."  He also praised his supporters.

"You know, there's probably never been a base in the history of politics in this country like my base."

Well, that much at least is true. There truly has never been anything seen in this country's history like Trump's base. Where he and most of the country, and indeed most of the world, would strongly disagree is whether or not that's such a good thing. When Trump says things like this, it sure does not feel like it.

Trump says critics of his administration 'better just take it easy' with language, 'radical ideas' By ALEXANDER MALLIN Jul 1, 2018:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-critics-administration-easy-language-radical-ideas/story?id=56297174

Black Man Asked to Leave His Own Pool

These racial incidents and assumptions are getting sickening, frankly.

Here is another incident of clear, blatant, and undeniable racism. A black man was asked to leave his own swimming pool.

Surely, those knee jerk defenders of all police, even when there are no excuses to be made for reprehensible conduct, will likely say that this guy should feel lucky not having gotten shot. But the assumptions made are clearly revealing of racial assumptions. 

Black man asked to leave his own pool by officer in viral video Aris Folley, July 11, 2018:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/black-man-asked-to-leave-his-own-pool-by-officer-in-viral-video/ar-AAzWN6X?ocid=ob-fb-enus-280

Please Boycott Papa John's!!

So, by now, everyone has heard about this incident by the chairman and founder of Papa John's, John Schnatter, right?

Yes, he used the worst racial slur towards blacks during a conference call in May, and was then forced to resign in disgrace.

Now, while I was not aware that he was a blatant racist, I was aware that he treated his workers like complete garbage. He was one of those rich owners who feel that everyone else should make sacrifices so that he can line his pockets. If they go without a livable wage, or without adequate health insurance, all the better, so long as it meets the bottom line: more money for him.

For years, I had heard horrendous things about this guy, and made a point of avoiding Papa John's like the plague.

This was not hard to do, frankly, because years earlier, before I knew all of this, I had tried some of their pizza and, in all honesty, it was disgusting. No, I am not just saying that because this man, and always has been, reprehensible. Truly, their pizza was disgusting, and I remember having to wipe off the loads of grease on the top of the pizza before even beginning to attempt to consume it.

That said, their bread sticks were pretty good, admittedly. But why make a point of going to them just for bread sticks?

The point is, I usually got some strange looks whenever someone offered to get Papa John's, and I would vehemently say no.

But if there was ever a time to boycott this business, it's now. It hardly matters that Mr. Schnatter himself is no longer on top there. The fact of the matter is that he used a racial slur on a conference call, which means other people heard him and were aware. And since this happened a couple of months ago, that means that it did not come out immediately, which is to say that some of the people, at least, did not mention anything about it. That they covered it up, essentially, or at best, swept it under the rug.

Now is the time to boycott Papa John's!

No more bullshit!

Papa John's founder resigns as chairman after using N-word on conference call by Nathaniel Meyersohn   @CNNMoney July 11, 2018:

https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/11/news/companies/papa-johns-pizza-john-schnatter/index.html

Papa John's founder John Schnatter resigns as chairman of company's board after apologizing for racial slur       Sarah Whitten

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/papa-johns-founder-apologizes-for-using-racial-slur-on-conference-call/ar-AAzW6Kd?ocid=ientp

Trump Blames Obama for Everything, But the Rest of the World Blames Trump

Okay, so let me state right off the bat, that this is an old poll. 

That said, I think ti is telling that in all but two countries (Israel and, perhaps not surprisingly, Russia), people around the world simply do not trust Trump anywhere near as much as they trusted his predecessor.

Of course, if you look at this man, Trump, and know all of the nonsense that he has said, and just try to count the number of times that he has lied and/or given misleading statements, you can see why, surely.

After all, that whole argument that he simply (and rather conveniently) "misspoke" in front of Putin during their summit in Helsinki, and then cleaned up and made clear what he allegedly meant to say there once back home, and no longer in front of Putin, seems downright laughable. There are so many damn incidents like this with this man, when he says or does something that seems, on the surface as well as on a deeper level, to be outrageous and/or prejudice and/or a sign that he is simply just a terrible person, that you have to be willfully ignorant or stupid to ignore them all and pretend this guy is a model citizen of some sort. Isolated by itself, maybe that incident would be excusable. But the fact that he contradicted his own statement in Helsinki, and then has since contradicted his contradiction, is pretty much par for the course with this man. And who can ignore so many of his other despicable sentiments? Who can simply wave off his suggestion, in announcing his candidacy for the 2016 White House run, that Mexicans are "criminals" and "rapists," or physically making fun of a disabled reporter, or threatening violence on opponents, or suggesting that there were "good people" marching for the white supremacist cause alongside Nazis in Charlottesville, or literally resorting to name-calling towards another world leader, while threatening to wipe his entire country out and boasting that his nuclear button is bigger, or yesterday's ridiculous, all-caps tweet threatening Iran (Wag the Dog, anybody?).

And those are only a handful of the things that this pathetic excuse for a leader has said and/or done that undermines his credibility the world over, especially to anyone who has an ounce of objectivity, or who actually thinks a little bit deeper about any of these issues.

Of course, Trump always can, and often does, claim to be joking. He was just joking when he suggested that the United States should do as North Korea does in picking a president for life. He claimed that he was not serious when he threatened North Korea and was calling Kim Jung-un "little rocket man," claiming he was embarrassed to do so. Recently, he even suggested (and I will finish a blog about this later today or tomorrow) that opponents had better "take it easy" in their criticisms of him, which seems, at best, like a veiled threat.

Apparently, that kind of ridiculous nonsense flies in the United States, with it's present political climate. But the rest of the world understandably takes these things, and this man's wild boasts and false and misleading statements very seriously. And they see a danger that, apparently tens of millions of Americans do not, because they supposedly do not take everything that Trump says seriously, but they take the man very seriously, in theory. 

The rest of the world does not buy it, nor should they. Trump has been around for over seven decades, and he now has the status as the most powerful leader in the world. Yes, that certainly means that his words and sentiments need to be measured and judged, and to be taken seriously. What the rest of the world sees is a man in such a high position who still does not seem to understand that, and they are right to see all of this and find this man left wanting. Trump is no longer a child, although he certainly acts the part. This is a world where we should not run away from adult responsibilities, and seeing a man with such a monumental ego, and no apparent sense of responsibility (nothing is ever his fault, is it?) is not going to endear you to any serious adults. The rest of the world sees his stomping, rowdy crowds and they grow alarmed, as well they should. Nor does the rest of the world buy it, as again tens of millions of Americans buy it, when this man makes wild claims (making Mexico pay for the wall, or bringing back the dying coal industry), or when he automatically labels any criticism of him or his administration's actions as "fake news."

That is why America's reputation has taken such a serious hit, ever since Trump won the 2016 presidential election, and especially since he revealed rather quickly that he would remain ever the man-child once in office. It is sobering, and frankly, frightening, that someone like this is in the position that he is. It is horrifying to think that a man who shows some serious signs of being violently unstable has access to the nuclear codes, frankly, especially when he threatens countries like North Korea and Iran so casually.

This is a dark time in this nation's history. We have a leader who is so clearly unfit to rule, and a majority of Americans know it. The tragedy is that so many of them - particularly but not exclusively Republicans who are riding the wave of his election victory and popularity among his base of supporters - are so willing to pretend that this is not a problem, or that it is not nearly as bad as so many of us are relentlessly pointing out that it clearly is. Again, the rest of the world is viewing what is happening here with genuine horror, and that is something that the United States will likely have to endure and pay for in the many decades to come. 

The rest of the world rightly sees this as the nightmare that it truly is. Why do so many tens of millions of Americans exempt themselves from seeing things as they truly are?

Trump says he inherited a mess. What's the world think?

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-news/watch/trump-says-he-inherited-a-mess-what-s-the-rest-of-the-world-think-985392195648

California GOP Congressional Candidate Proclaims That "Jews Must be Stopped"

No, I am not comparing Trump to Hitler, and frankly, think that is both over the top and overdone.

That said, let's face it: the rise of Trump sure has produced a lot of this kind of ugliness and blatant racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, and general xenophobia in the United States, making us kind of the world's pariah. We keep extolling our national virtues and claiming "American exceptionalism," but right about now, we look exceptionally backwards to much of the rest of the world.

Hate crimes have spiked since Trump's rise in the 2016 election, and racists and violent bigots apparently feel empowered. Not surprising, since Trump is a fairly transparent racist, even if he himself denies this, claiming he is the least racist person anyone could ever meet. Funny, because the least racist person likely would not label a whole group of people (Mexicans) as rapists and criminals,  or that African and Central America nations are "shithole nations" or numerous other things that he seems so comfortable with saying.

We have outright seen white supremacists and Nazis not only marching on American streets, but running for prominent public office. We have one prospective politician in the South putting up a billboard saying "Make America White Again.:

Now, we have a member of the GOP in California saying point blank that "Jews must be stopped."

Frankly, it is an embarrassment, and completely shameful.

Welcome to Trump's America.

‘Jews Must Be Stopped’: California GOP Congressional Candidate Robocall July 11, 2018 By Alyssa Fisher Read more: https://forward.com/fast-forward/405235/jews-must-be-stopped-california-gop-congressional-candidate-robocall/

https://forward.com/fast-forward/405235/jews-must-be-stopped-california-gop-congressional-candidate-robocall/

Trump Administration Continues Attacks Upon Obama's Affordable Care Act

Okay, so now it is time to rejoin the real world. My self-appointed break, or mini vacation, from the hard news, if you will, has come to an end. The World Cup is over, and so is Wimbledon. I wrote as much as I likely could have about the World Cup, and decided to keep a relaxed pace this weekend.

But it is Monday now, and time to face reality. A lot of bad news headlines took place while I was focused elsewhere. I did write about some of them - quite a few, admittedly - but just stayed away from that orange "Publish" button.

Most of the bad news, the depressing stories, centered on - surprise, surprise! - Donald Trump. He of course is still trying to pretend that the disastrous Helsinki summit with Putin was a rousing success, even though he himself claims to have misspoke during it when he said that he saw no reason why the election meddling would have been Russia, only to turn around the very next day, when back in the United States and no longer in Putin's presence, to have claimed that he meant to say he could see no reason why it would not be Russia, and offered some lame excuse about double negatives.

Frankly, double negatives pretty much is a good summary of his presidency, is it not?

In any case, to rejoin the world of what's going on in the world, I decided to focus on the continued relentless attacks on Obamacare/the Affordable Healthcare Act by Trump and the GOP, which seems like attacks against any efforts to more generally make healthcare costs more affordable and reasonable in this country.

In typical Trump style, grandiose promises of fixing all problems related to healthcare are quickly forgotten, and the blame game and focus on divisions is put into hyperdrive.

Apparently, Trump does not care so much about actually taking care of Americans. But he sure cares about himself and his legacy, and so he seems to believe that focusing on minimizing Obama's legacy as a competitor is the surest way to get this done. If Trump succeeds, he will get what he wants, but the country will suffer. Yet another example of Trump winning, while the entire rest of the country loses. 

Trump administration takes another major swipe at the Affordable Care Act by Amy Goldstein, July 7, 2018:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-administration-takes-another-major-swipe-at-the-affordable-care-act/2018/07/07/0f1ff4c4-821f-11e8-b851-5319c08f7cee_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.63232ccc1798

Djokovic Shows a Softer, More Family-Oriented Side

Photo courtesy of Marianne Bevis's Flickr page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mariannebevis/5972100998/in/photolist-a6JzyA-csctLm-cscsEm-csctrw-csct17-f4CWUn-nWz24z-a6Jzhy-a6JzGq-a6JyPu-a6FHJc-9ZEUDd-ohz8qG-ox2Nmj-bPFs5a-5uzT4n-a6FHgX-f52W2j-2KSf8f-f4MHoM-cJrFYL-cJrGqo-f4MDDe-a3t6Ga-cscu3h-f4MESB-f4MJya-bALMj9-a3vX3q-bALMws-a3t6Sv-bPFshK-cJrFKY-nnjmG7-a3t6yv-cJrGd9-vUQeNJ-f4MCVT-cJrFxj-a3vXjs-np5my3-nnjiL7-npmV3n-npmS96-nr8qnZ-bPFr3t-bPFqaF-bPFsDg-f52X2j-bALPWo

Creative Commons License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/

Novak Djokovic won Wimbledon again just a little over one week ago. One thing that I always have admired about him is that he has far more substance than a lot of people give him credit for. How can anyone forget his impressions of other tennis players way back in around 2007 or 2008, when he was just emerging as a tennis star?

More impressively, I remember he posted a quote following the tremendously disappointing loss at the French Open final in 2015. For whatever the reason, although I thought I had preserved it somewhere, it was nowhere to be found. But given how crushing that loss must have been as, at the time, it had prevented him from achieving the career Grand Slam (which he would finally cement one year later), posting such a quote showed some unbelievable inner strength and resolve, and a character that is about much more than being a mindless jock, or hopelessly fixated on tennis or money or whatever.

Indeed, Djokovic has always shown a very human side, which made him all the more likable to me. He did it again after the final match, when he captured his fourth overall Wimbledon title, and his 13th overall Grand Slam title, although also his first in over two years. He took a moment to talk about just how wonderful it felt to be able to experience this with his family - particularly his children - being present. It is a heartfelt moment that shows a glimpse at the man of substance, and not just the tennis legend.

Take a look:

djokernole[Part 1] Dear Family and Friends,  I am writing this message between nappy change and a dinosaurs 🦕 book.  I wish to share, with all of you, how it felt to go through the journey of winning Wimbledon 2018.  First of all, let me start by writing that the feeling of having my son in my wife’s arms at the trophy ceremony in the Player’s box was the most wonderful sensation I have had at any tournament that I have ever won in my career.  When I became a father, one of my biggest dreams was to have my children present at the stands while I am playing. Let alone winning trophies. That dream came true several days ago. Everyone keeps on asking me to describe the feeling. I have said it is unforgettable, special, fulfilling, wonderful, joyful. But most of all, it is magical! When I thought that moment could not get any better, he shouted “Daddy, Daddy!“. That’s when I completely melted. Overwhelmed with emotions. Happy and joyful beyond belief. I am so GRATEFUL to have experienced that.  I have imagined and prayed that one day I would win a Grand Slam trophy in front of my child. Luckily for me, Tara is growing up and I can’t wait for her to see me do the same as I did in front of Stefan. My whole (more or less) was about tennis until I became a father and husband. Everything I did was aimed at tennis success.  When I became father and husband, my “world” evolved. It didn’t change, it evolved into something more beautiful. Of course, more responsibilities add up but at the end of the day, it unlocks a new dimension of Love and Energy inside of you that you never knew existed. And the biggest gift that you receive from God is the enhanced feeling of empathy, compassion and devotion to your kids. But it’s not all clear once you become a father. It takes learning and openness to reach that “golden balance” in Life which everyone is in pursuit for. For me it was balance between tennis, priorities and family. My wife was so helpful and supportive all the way since she gave birth to both Stefan and Tara. She always took time to discuss whatever bothered me and to help me find a way where I can feel like I am giving my best at home with kids and her and at the tennis court.


Taken from Novak Djokovic's Instagram page:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BlbXpbqA7i0/?utm_source=ig_embed

Djokovic Wins Wimbledon & Will Move Up in Rankings

Photo courtesy of Marianne Bevis's Flickr page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mariannebevis/5972100998/in/photolist-a6JzyA-csctLm-cscsEm-csctrw-csct17-f4CWUn-nWz24z-a6Jzhy-a6JzGq-a6JyPu-a6FHJc-9ZEUDd-ohz8qG-ox2Nmj-bPFs5a-5uzT4n-a6FHgX-f52W2j-2KSf8f-f4MHoM-cJrFYL-cJrGqo-f4MDDe-a3t6Ga-cscu3h-f4MESB-f4MJya-bALMj9-a3vX3q-bALMws-a3t6Sv-bPFshK-cJrFKY-nnjmG7-a3t6yv-cJrGd9-vUQeNJ-f4MCVT-cJrFxj-a3vXjs-np5my3-nnjiL7-npmV3n-npmS96-nr8qnZ-bPFr3t-bPFqaF-bPFsDg-f52X2j-bALPWo

Creative Commons License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/

Here were a couple of pictures from the sports section of the newspapers that I got on Monday, the day after France won the World Cup. Still so distracted by the World Cup (despite it being over), that I am only getting around to writing about Djokovic's Wimbledon win now, more than a week after it actually happened!

This was one of the stories that I missed while focusing so much (almost exclusively, admittedly) on the World Cup. 

Serbian tennis superstar Novak Djokovic, one of the greatest tennis players in history, finally won another Grand Slam after struggling, mostly with injuries, during the past two years. He won the French Open title in 2016, which allowed him to reach the height of his powers. That triumph completed a rare career Grand Slam for him, allowing him to join the company of his biggest rivals, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, not to mention his eventual (and now former) coach, Andre Agassi.

Of course, Djokovic was already one of the most accomplished and decorated tennis players in history, but that win put him in truly elite territory among men. Already considered one of the "Big Four" to dominate tennis in the pasrt decade and a half (the others being Federer, Nadal, and Murray). It gave him the career Grand Slam, and was his 12th Grand Slam title overall. It also earned him the distinction as the only man to hold all four Grand Slam titles at once in roughly half a century, and the first to do so on three different surfaces. Not even Federer or Nadal can claim that. Djokovic can also boast some other accomplishments that those other two cannot. He is the only man who I know of to have beaten Nadal more often than he himself was beaten, and many of those were in very important matches, which is something that Federer cannot boast on the same level. Nadal actually has a winning record against Djokovic in Grand Slam meetings, although a huge chunk of those came before 2011, when Djokovic arguably finally reached his peak and, for a while, dominated the men's tennis world. Djokovic and Nadal have met 52 times - more than any other two men's players in the open era's history. The two met in four consecutive Grand Slam finals - something no other two men ever achieved. Djokovic won three straight, winning the finals at Wimbledon, the U.S. Open, and the Australian Open. Nadal snapped this streak with a win at the French Open. Yet, Djokovic did manage to defeat Nadal at Roland Garros, which is something that Federer cannot claim to have done. 

Still, it had been two years where Djokovic knew struggles and frustration more than glorious Grand Slam championships. His ranking took a nose dive while he could not get past injuries and other issues. Somehow, though, you just kind of sensed that, like with Federer and Nadal, he was eventually going to get back to being on top, to winning Grand Slams once again.

Well, to be sure, it took a while. Specifically, it took two years to get another opportunity. And it also took a grueling five-set win against his biggest rival, Nadal, in the semifinal round, to qualify for the Wimbledon final - his first Grand Slam final in nearly two years!

He met South African Kevin Anderson, who had qualified for his first ever Grand Slam final in September at the U.S. Open, but lost to Nadal, who would go on to clinch the number one ranking for the year. But Anderson had another remarkable tournament this year. Like with Djokovic, he too had a grueling semifinal match, defeated John Isner eventually after six long hours, to qualify for his second Grand Slam final in less than a year. Granted, he had survived a physically exhausting match, but since it was the early match, it meant that he got a full day off on Saturday, something that the winner of the Djokovic-Nadal final would not enjoy, since the six hour length of that first match, mixed with how long their own match was starting to be (it ended on Friday with Djokovic leading, 2 sets to 1), the long match would stretch on to Saturday.

Indeed, it went on for quite a while on Saturday, to boot. It, too, was one of the longest matches in Wimbledon history, and when it was over, Djokovic had survived, and had a chance to capture his first Grand Slam title in nearly two years. Most of the experts, however, suggested that Djokovic would have to win it quickly, if he was going to win it. He would not be in any shape to last for another full five sets.

If that was the case, then perhaps Djokovic knew it, too, because he jumped all over Anderson early, breaking him right away, and breaking him again shortly thereafter, not allowing Anderson the time to catch his breath or pick himself up and dust himself off. Before you knew it, Djokovic had taken the first set, 6-2.

The second set felt almost like a replay of the first. Djokovic jumped out early and never let up, never let Anderson back in it. Another quick 6-2 set, and suddenly, Anderson found himself down two sets to none. Not exactly the kind of position you want to be against any professional tennis player, but especially not Djokovic. 

Anderson was much tougher in the third set, but Djokovic, too, held fast. Neither man could manage a decisive advantage over the other, and so at 6-6, it went to a tiebreak. There, rather predictably, the more experienced, seasoned, and obviously still hungry Djokovic once again jumped on his opportunities, and the tall South African found himself hopellessly down and, eventually, out. Djokovic took the tiebreak, 7-3, and thus took the match and the championship, 6-3, 6-2, 7-6 (7-3). 

Now, Djokovic has his 13th ever career Grand Slam title. He moves now to fourth overall on the men's side, historically, behind only Federer (20), Nadal (17), and only trailing the third man on that list, Sampras, by one, as Sampras has a total of 14 Grand Slam wins to his name. 

Perhaps there are some people who doubt whether Djokovic will at least equal, and likely even surpass, Sampras, so that the three most decorated men's tennis players in history will have played together at the same time. But that is not my opinion, because indeed, I am more convinced than ever before that these three men - Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic - are the three greatest men's tennis players in history, and should be remembered together. With this latest victory, these three men have won a total of 50 Grand Slam titles!

Unbelievable!

And it is nice to see Djokovic back on top again, doing what he does best. 

Let's face it - with the year end world's number one ranking still up for grabs, Djokovic's Wimbledon triumph adds considerable spice, as he once again sneaks up to among the vey elite players, not surprisingly topped by names who are only too familiar for Djokovic - Federer and Nadal. I would not bet against one of those men adding still more credentials for himself by capturing the year end number one by season's end.