The girl who opened wide and ate the world
Then took a bite of the moon
She said it did not taste
Like anything on the planet
The stars tickled her tongue
While she played marbles
With Mars and Saturn
She gave Jupiter a big kick
As if it were a football
Laughed as it bounced
Down the Milky Way
The galaxy was her playroom
She roamed far and wide
But always came home for a nap
While the majority of people around the world (demonstrably in the U.S., certainly here in Canada) now take a deep breath of relief that Trump has been defeated, quite a few columnists and pundits are wondering why it was so close. Trump’s campaign undoubtedly succeeded in energizing and growing his base (at least in terms of turnout). However, the same behaviours that fed the Trumpers also motivated, I believe, the other side to turn out and vote in record numbers. His flame-throwing performance in the first debate highlighted his petulance, his rudeness,, his ability to lie with abandon, and his inherent racist behavior. His super-spreading rallies were symptomatic of his disregard for science and common sense. Even his Covid infection, which led to his drug-aided, apparently superhuman recovery, were beacons of his arrogance and his administration’s incompetence. All of Trump’s perversity fueled the urgency of the vote and drove 75 million Americans to cast their ballot for Joe Biden. Certainly, it was not Biden’s steadily unsexy, make-no-mistake campaign that powered this charge.
Yet the question remains: What to make of the 70 million who voted for Trump? The common assumption was that Trump could not grow his base, and perhaps this was true. He did, though, convince a plethora of Americans to vote, who had not done so previously, and they voted for him. There is likely more than one answer to the question. The demonization of the Democratic party as socialist, or even communist, played a large part. While this is laughable in Canada (the U.S. Democratic party platform is far to the right to that of our Conservative party and even the so-called ‘far left’ in the U.S. is basically the Canadian norm), it played a significant role in the election. The mythology that freedom of the individual must come before collective rights is cemented deep within the American psyche, So it is not going to disappear anytime soon. The gun-toting segment of the Trump base is obviously reflective of that,
There is already speculation that Trump might run again in 2024, or that he will sit in a kinglike throne in Mar-O-Lago and control the Republican party from the perch. Either is possible, given the power of his numbers and the decrepit state of the GOP. So this era might not quite be over yet!
The novel Sanctuary by Paola Mendoza and Abby Sher, is targeted at the Young Adult market, and tells the story of a teenage girl and her younger brother traversing a near future, dystopian country, namely the U.S.A itself. The book is founded on a clever twist that reverses the normal trope of Latino refugees navigating the terrors of South American violence to try and enter (illegally or not) the supposed safe zone of the U.S. In fact, the teenage hero of this story, Vali, is an illegal immigrant, having entered the country with her parents when she was just a young child. This is especially dangerous in the year 2032, with all citizens having had a chip embedded in their forearm, which is checked assiduously at various points in the day. Her brother Ernesto is legal, having been born in the U.S., which provides a counterexample to the counterfeit chips that Vali and her mother have.
The story begins with a bang, as Vali watches on video feed, another teenage girl attempt to enter the U.S. (which now has a real border wall and a Trump-like tyrant of a president) and gets blown up by a landmine. A riot ensues, which somehow precipitates the succession of California from the union. So begins the quest for sanctuary, as Cali, her mother and brother embark on a plan to get back to the new country of California. The mother is captured early on, leaving Vali with a map and instructions to find a Sister Luci in New York City. After a few harrowing days on the road, they somewhat miraculously locate the Sister, who is hiding refugees while running a church daycare. She is able to fund a coyote (another miracle) to take them to California.
Of course, all does not go well and easily on this trip. The writing breezes by for the most part, punctuated by the various calamities and tragedies besetting the group of refugees originally led by the coyote. Some of the peripheral characters, like Sister Luci and others, come off as placeholders for real people. The authors do a decent job of providing a realistic voice for Vali, the narrator. However, the entire story reads like a prequel for something larger, like a series that will engender a fight back against the dystopia, similar to the Hunger Games books. We shall see, I suppose.
President Trump whinged (using the English from England spelling as it is way more specific and cool) his way through the interview, then left in a presidential huff, There is little doubt that he was offended by being reminded that the size of his rallies are quite diminished from 2016.
Vice-President Pence was asked to defend his boss and all the slick politician could come up with is that “the President is a tough guy”.
Joe Biden talked about actual plans for the future, and had to deny, once again, that he will be a pushover for the radical left and will not implement Medicare For All and the Green New Deal. As if this is even possible in the bifurcated U.S. of A.
Kamala Harris laughed her way through the first part of her interview, fielding some predictable questions. When asked about the label that she is the “most liberal senator”, apparently usurping the crowns of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, she replies that she won’t be defined by a simple word. “Liberal” is such a denigrated word in the U.S., closely followed and trumped (so to speak) by “Socialist”, that it is impossible to have a rational discussion. The next question, queried by a scowling interviewer, is more ridiculous: “Are you bringing a more Liberal or even Socialist perspective to the White House?”. God Forbid! Kamala responds that she has grown up with the perspective of a brown and black girl raised by a single mother who immigrated from India, of someone who became a prosecutor, then California Attorney General, then the first female woman of colour to be elected to the U.S. Senate. These are her talking points sure, but they do need to be repeated to the wider audience. Meanwhile, the interviewer stares back with a deer-in-the-headlights expression.
This week’s Saturday Globe and Mail, Canada’s national newspaper (in my opinion), dedicated its Opinion section to the U.S. election (with some exceptions, as you shall see). I could not resist the temptation to comment, given that its columnists, for the most part, appear to the left of CNN’s most vociferous ranters.
The Lord of the Star & Stripes
The front page is devoted to a piece penned by Adam Gopnik (born in Canada, a citizen of the world), a novelist and writer for the New Yorker (among other things, no doubt). In this somewhat hyperbolic essay, Gopnik posits the election as an instance of the age-old battle between good and evil (no less), casting Donald J. Trump as Sauron, and Joe Biden as Aragorn (or Frodo perhaps?). In a theme that runs throughout the section, he projects it as the most consequential election since that of Abraham Lincoln during the civil war. This article is all Biden all the way!
Parliamentary Blackmail?
For a change of pace, Andrew Coyne’s article is focused on Canadian politics, specifically how the Trudeau government is “making a mockery of our parliamentary democracy”. In short, it examines the Liberals’ declaration that an opposition (Conservative) motion to create a committee to investigate government corruption in the WE scandal was a “matter of confidence”. In other words, a NO vote would dissolve the minority government and force an election. While not quite as exaggerated as Gopnik’s argument, Coyne claims that this was an act of extortion, forcing the other major opposition party (NDP) to either prop up the government or take the blame for precipitating an election during a pandemic. Given that this type of negotiation is a matter of course for minority governments in a parliamentary system, it is difficult to lay much credence to this contention. The crux of his argument is that the Liberals cannot make a ‘simple’ vote to create a committee into a matter of confidence. Why not extend this to all votes then? Yet, it is a stretch to think that the NDP would not clue into this strategy quite quickly, like right away, one would think. Moreover, later in the article, Coyne makes the argument that the Prime Minister’s original action was an ethical breach that has necessitated a coverup of the underlying corruption. Either the contention is that the government is corrupt is what is at stake here or it is not. Coyne cannot have it both ways.
What’s up, Toobin?
Elizabeth Renzetti’s column on the misery that is Jeffrey Toobin (another New Yorker writer and esteemed CNN commentator) and his colossal lack of judgement. Once one gets passed wondering what in the world he was thinking (well, i guess we know more or less what but not why?) by engaging in an act of self-gratification while on a zoom call with fellow writers and intellectuals, and how did he manage to get himself accidentally caught out. Despite the evident opportunity for black humour, in the end it is just another sad example of males acting out without regard for other people. And now, is it possible to watch those news network talking heads and wonder what is going on beyond the surface?
The U.S. Election - What’s at Stake
This next section comments on the various major issues of the election, each by a different contributor.
The Pandemic
Matt McCarthy rightly focuses on the issue of mask-wearing, given that it has the potential to reverse the terrible upward trajectory in the infection rate that the U.S. is currently traversing. President Trump has politicized the matter, projecting the notion that mask wearing is for wimps and cowards (and of course Democrats). The writer recalls that science got it wrong at first, calling for the general public to avoid masks for various reasons (avoid shortages, unlikely to help, etc.). However, when the experts reversed this stand, Trump and his minions did not follow. In fact, Trump is constantly referring to Dr. Anthony Fauci’s original statement to not wear masks as confirmation of his position, despite the fact that Dr. Fauci repeats the necessity to wear them at every opportunity. Biden’s stance is the polar opposite, following the scientist recommendations to the letter. This is unlikely to be a wedge issue between the two already polarized sides in the election.
Racial Justice
Mychal Denszel Smith recalls that Trump’s pitch to non-wihite voters in 2016 was basically “What do you have to lose?”, implicitly implying that the Democrats have taken that voting segment for granted. Since then, Trump has upped the ante from birther conspiracy and labelling Mexicans as rapists and murderers to encouraging white supremacist vigilante groups and condemning left-leaning protesters as rioters, thugs and antifa insurgents. The writer correctly points that Biden has a checkered history with racial issues, as Kamala Harris aptly pointed out in one of the Democratic debates. Yet, with the act of picking Ms. Harris as his vice-presidential candidate, Biden has hopefully added an extra incentive for Blacks to vote in greater numbers than they did in 2016.
The Environment
Catherine Coleman Flowers uses almost her entire article to rail about the issue of sewage in poorer areas of the South, where inferior funding of infrastructure allows backflow in homes - which is especially problematic in the era of COVID-19. While this problem is no doubt serious, it really feels more a symptom of the inadequacies of racial justice in the U.S. (it reminds one of the lead in the water fiasco in Flint, Michigan) than environmental. The larger issues of climate change and the demolition of the EPA are only mentioned in passing, while fracking and the future of the oil and gas industry is ignored completely - the one issue that perhaps might be moving voters into the Trump camp.
The Economy
Jeffrey D. Sachs’ article is a diatribe against Trump’s precious economy, labelling it a fraud from the get-go, based on an unsustainable supply of Fed money into the consumer market and immoral tax cuts for corporations and the one percent. And then the economy tanked, propelled into oblivion by an alternately mismanaged and ignored pandemic. While Trump's base won’t believe a word of this, Biden at least offers a sort of sane way forward.
Health Care
Ezekiel J, Emanuel gets right to the crux of the healthcare crisis in the U.S., itemizing issues such as the missing (10% of the population) and tenuous (lost jobs, pre-existing conditions) medical insurance, high costs for services and drugs, and racial disparities. Trump and the Republicans tout their vapour-ware plan, while plotting to eliminate the ACA via a backdoor Supreme Court ruling. Biden, on the other hand, has to fend off accusations that he will capitulate to the left and institute socialized Medicare For All (the horror!) on an unsuspecting America. Stay tuned for the next installment of “How the Health Care Boondoggle Turns”.
Diplomacy
Kim Ghattas has an easy job chronically the Trump era of (non)diplomacy, pulling out of the Paris accord and the Iran treaty, bashing the WHO during a pandemic, cozying up to dictators, denigrating allies and basically plummeting the worldwide reputation of the U.S. into something resembling the emperor’s new suit. She even compares Trump unfavorably to Geroge W Bush, but fails to mention that he has also blown up the state department personnel and rendered the Secretary of State position into a revolving door spinning in circles. Somewhat unbelievably, the writer gives Trump credit for not starting any new wars, threatening NATO dissolution to get more money, and giving a “blank cheque to Saudi Arabia’s Mohammad Bin Salman”. He has gotten some new peace agreements for Israel in the Middle East, but I am sure the full story on those negotiations will be interesting reading one day. For sure, four more years of Trump will bring more of the same and worse, while Biden promises to return America to its former standing (if that’s even possible). The question is: does anyone care?
The Culture Wars
In an already divided country, President Trump has pummeled the Twitter-verse with racist proclamations and countless lies, feeding his base the sugar to soothe their aggrieved wihite privilege and cleaving the U.S. into ever siloed partisan camps, like Moses parting the Red Sea. In an uninspired article, Phoebe Maltz Bovy notes lamely that the worse Trump behaves, the better he does (with his base), and that if he loses to the milk-toast, apple pie Biden, the base will be resentful (to say the least). She fails (badly) to mention the potential for outright violence that hangs in the air surrounding this election.
Canada-U.S. Relations
Of all the topics covered, this is definitely the one that will have the least impact south of the border. But this is a Canadian newspaper, and so Roland Paris has his assignment. Trump consumed better than a year of Canadian politics with the negotiations on the deal to replace NAFTA, to end up with an agreement only vaguely different. Amidst the threats, insults and sanctions, Canada emerged relatively unscathed, Four more years of Trump promises more turmoil on the global stage, while Biden is campaigning with a “Buy America” bent to his economic plan. Neither will be great for Canada. Surprisingly, Mr. Paris barely mentions the ‘bullying by China’ (e.g. two innocent Canadians imprisoned as political capital), and does not even broach the role that the U.S. played in precipitating the arrest and pending extradition of Huawei's deputy chair and CFO Meng Wanzhou.
National Security
In the only article written by a Republican (having worked under the George W. Bush administration), William Imboden posits a series of questions but never ventures any answers. He paints a ‘grim picture’ of the international landscape facing the next president, but loses all credibility when he quotes, seemingly unsarcastically, Donald Rumsfled’s unforgettably surreal “unknown unknowns”. Enough said!
Reproductive Rights
Lyz Lenz’s gloomy article depicts a country where, state by state, a woman's rights over her own body are on a downward spiral to nothingness. Now-confirmed Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett is another firm nail in the coffin. Four more years of Trump, she posits, will dig the grave and bury Roe vs. Wade in that tomb for the foreseeable future. The only (faint) hope is that a Biden win will enable a legislative fix this morass of male privilege and evangelical bias. This, like so much else, depends on the Democrats winning the Senate and more importantly,, holding onto it for more than a couple of years.
Privilege, as it used and understood in the present day social context, continues to be a loaded term. The concept is denied and ridiculed by some as political correctness. Others accept its relevance to the problems inherent in our present day miseries. I will attempt to explicate privilege as I understand it.
There is White Privilege, which invariably presents itself for causcasians as an unconscious (or conscious) belief that their rights and needs will be (and should be) satisfied above all. A useful example of this is illustrated by some common “white” responses to the slogan “Black Lives Matter”. One goes “All Lives Matter”. But what is meant by repeating this tautology? The speaker is obviously convinced of his own right to life, and assumes that everyone feels this way for all people. Black people don’t necessarily agree, given the rampant and systemic racism that permeates western cultural and social structures. It is impossible to argue that non-whites are adequately represented in government, entertainment and corporate power structures, or that they do not face racist views in the criminal justice systems, hiring practices, public education, medical care and housing. So it is easy to see why they would believe themselves under-valued, to put it all too mildly.
The second common refrain to the Back movement is that black-on-black violence is more prevalent, and implicitly shows that blacks are responsible for their own plight. For some reason, the issue of white-on-white violence (which obviously dwarfs that of police killings of white people) is never raised. The underlying causes of any social violence and criminal behaviours is simply ignored, echoing the concerns of the previous paragraph.
There is Male Privilege, which is understood as the belief that males should be the dominant power in western society. After all, it has always been so, starting with the caveman (or so the mythology goes). Power goes to the strongest. As with anyone designated in positions of power, the tendency then will be to do what is necessary to retain the privileges (since they are what must be). There are many levels of this privilege. Males in actual power positions use and abuse it at their whim, usually at the expense of females (although not exclusively so). The institution of marriage was, in the relatively recent past, as a form of ownership. The advent of suffragism and thence feminism made substantial inroads in chipping away at this hegemony, but also gave rise to a backlash.
Men are apparently being replaced in the workplace, from the rightful place as head of the family. In fact, it is more apparent that some proportion of men are failing to change with the evolving economic conditions, unable to recognize the value of post-secondary education. “Real Men’ movements and the pathetic Incel tribalism can be traced back to this feeling of supposed emasculation, even though it is clear that Male Privilege is far from extinguished in most cultures. The #MeToo movement is incontrovertible evidence of that.
Finally, there is the Privilege of Wealth (synonymous with class in western culture), and not just the ultra-rich who can jet away to private islands at the first sign of a pandemic. The upper middle class live comfortably in the enclaves, sheltered from the realities and struggles of poverty, lack of proper health care and shelter, etc. The divide between rich and poor is stark and ever growing.
It is essential that people begin the process of acknowledging the predominant role that privilege plays in our societies. It is not enough to proclaim colour blindness or a belief in the equality of all. There needs to be a deeper recognition that the horrific injustices of the past, slavery and genocide and apartheid to name but a few, continue to haunt our institutions and laws. There must be a reckoning with this legacy, and a concerted, continual effort to revamp our inherited biases. It is difficult to see, in the midst of a messy present replete with populist demagogues exploiting prejudice for their own gain, that there has been a slow yet unsteady progress towards better social norms over the past centuries. Hopefully, this will not be undone in the next decades, as mankind faces perhaps its greatest challenges (pandemics, economic upheaval, climate change, the rise of oligarchs and dictators) in a millenia.
The Last Dance, viewed on Netflix, is a documentary series on the final year (1998) of Michael Jordan’s career as a basketball player on the Chicago Bulls. The producers were given extraordinary access to the Bulls’ team goings-on during this period. From what I had heard or read, it supposedly contained some controversial material, especially relating to MJ’s bullying of his teammates. In the end, however, I conclude that this was simply an example of a hyper-competitive, exceptionally talented athlete driving both himself and his teammates to the heights of success.
The series begins well, with the first few episodes delving into the personalities of MJ, Scottie Pippen and the ever-mercurial Denis Rodman. After that, however, it devolves into a more standard sports documentary, ping-ponging back and forth between 1998 and the historical evolution of MJ's basketball prowess. There are some interesting tidbits on Micheal’s upbringing, his battles with this older brother (definitely a harbinger of competitiveness) and his college career. And way too many MJ highlights, which tend to blur into a compendium of acrobatic dunks and final second jump shots swishing through the hoop.
As mentioned, there were some controversies along the way. A trip to Atlantic City with his father, on eve of a pivotal playoff game with the New York Knicks, was conflated into a late night gambling spree. The later tragedy of the murder of MJ’s father was then driven into the murky depths of conspiracy theory around his gambling habits (which were never shown to be of any real consequence for someone some wealthy). For a more humorous take on things, Rodman’s mini-vacation to Las Vegas and another sojourn with the WWF and Hulk Hogan provide some respite to the basketball replays.
Another episode focuses on coach Phil Jackson, which falls a bit flat, and subsequent takes with Phil Kerr are rather boring as well. Then there is the interlude after the Bulls’ first three-peat championships of MJ’s flirtation with baseball, which comes to a sad end with the strike and lockout of the players. In the series, it is intimated that Michael would have (could have) made it to the majors, but that is not what I recall hearing at the time.
Finally, after ten long episodes, we get the end of 1998 and the second successful three-peat championship. And I remembered the reasons I stopped watching basketball after the retirement of Dr. J.
