Ever
since Daniel Ortega’s comeback in Nicaragua, he’s been keeping a fairly low
profile on the world stage, but, suddenly, Nicaragua is back in the news. Some
estimates have put the number of deaths in the recent Nicaraguan protests as
high as 34 or more, including a journalist killed on-camera. The fight has gone
beyond protests over pension reductions, extending to the heavy-handed way Daniel Ortega has prolonged his
presidency once back in power, including the installing of his wife as vice
president. I was an election observer back in 1990 when he suffered a surprising
and bitter loss to Violeta Chamorro,
despite having control of the military, courts, press, and everything else in
the country. He had persisted ever since to regain the presidency and did so in
2007, with only one-third of the vote, as the Nicaraguan constitution bestows
the presidency on the highest vote getter, not necessarily the winner of a
majority. Ortega then rigged the courts and other government agencies and
changed the constitution to enable him to run indefinitely. He is now on his
third consecutive term on this round. He tried to steer a less fiery course
than during Sandinista days and allied himself with business owners, an
alliance now fraying. Oil subsidies from Venezuela have shrunk, which has not
helped his fortunes. Now, Nicaraguans are expressing their discontent. To his
credit, however, Ortega has allowed
the Peace Corps to work in Nicaragua.
Check out our new Amnesty
International Cuba podcasts on https://www.amnesty.org/cuba2018
The Podcasts include testimonies of ordinary Cubans about their
lives in the island. The 2nd episode of the podcast
series ‘Cuban Lives’ is the story of Cuban human rights defender
Laritza Diversent [who also spoke at AI USA’s annual conference in Miami in
2016].
Jeff Sessions, eager to keep his job, has wisely not
recused himself from the probe into Donald
Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen. Sessions is clinging onto his job for dear
life as his only way to remain in politics, enduring all sorts of humiliating
insults from Trump who, so far, has not fired him.
Whenever
Trump’s ego seems to need a boost, he goes on a campaign-type rally in front of
a well-selected friendly crowd, as he did recently in Michigan. His boorish behavior gives license to his followers to follow
his lead, to get revenge for what they regard as threats to their status in our
country.
While
many of us voters oppose the counterproductive activities of Trump and most
Republican leaders, and also decry Trump’s hardcore supporters, along with Fox
News (the real “fake media”) and the systemic advantages favoring Republicans,
we also have ourselves to blame for not fighting hard enough and for taking for
granted that since we were, and still are, so obviously “right,” that right will
prevail. Overconfidence and a feeling of moral superiority on the part of
Democrats and Democratic voters was a main reason why Hillary lost and why we
now have a President Trump.
French President
Emmanuel Macron put
on a charm offensive, buttering up the easily flattered Trump in an effort to persuade
him not to ditch the Iran accords. Perhaps that’s the only way to deal with
Trump for the greater good of humanity and of our nation, by expressing fulsome
admiration and praise since the guy has such a fragile ego—
”a
spoonful of honey” as the song goes.
Quite
apart from mass school, concert, nightclub, and workplace shootings, now there
has been a gun rampage at a Waffle
House. And a legal gun owner, an
Ohio mother, accidentally dropped a loaded gun and killed her 2-year-old
daughter. The constant repetition of such incidents has made the public
kind of numb. I suspect that many more gun owners and their loved ones actually
die from gun accidents, family murder/suicides, and individual suicides than
ever confront a dangerous person with their gun. It’s too easy to pull the
trigger on impulse or by accident. I’ve already mentioned that my son Jon, at
age 11, was accidentally shot in the foot by a parents’ bedside gun dropped by
another boy, an injury which thankfully did not kill him, but still plagues him
today. A gun is most dangerous to the person who possess it and to their family
and friends. It can be fired by a curious child (remember the mother killed in
Walmart when her 2-year-old pulled a handgun out of her purse as he sat in the
grocery cart?) or appropriated by a young family member intending to become a
mass shooter or else stolen by someone intending harm. Countries with strict
gun laws and fewer guns in circulation have fewer gun deaths. Even Switzerland,
which allows considerable legal gun ownership, has stringent laws governing
their use. We and our loved ones are all at risk because of the proliferation
and lack of adequate gun controls in our country. Even if they aren’t actually killed,
victims can still suffer lifelong injuries, like my son has. There are enough
other risks in our lives—we don’t need this one. While gun advocates point out
that a motor vehicle can kill people too, as has happened in Toronto and elsewhere (either
accidentally or on purpose), a vehicle does provide much useful transportation,
but a gun—except perhaps in the case of target shooting—is designed only to
hurt or kill. The NRA is banning firearms
during VP Pence’s upcoming meeting with them in Dallas—why, if guns are so
protective?
I
have a smidgen of sympathy for men caught unaware by the Me-Too movement. I’m
old enough to remember times when sexual harassment by men of women was simply part
of the culture, maybe not outright rape, but a sneaky pinch on the bottom, a
too-tight hug, or a hand on a breast, as well as simply women being paid less
than men in comparable positions or not being promoted at all. We didn’t complain—it
was just how things were. Now, mores have changed, just as they have for the
acceptance of divorce, interracial marriage and even gay marriage, pot-smoking,
and being unchurched. Some guys were caught in the transition for activities
they had indulged in before the full-blown change. As women, we allowed men
license and now that such license has become unfashionable, we are complaining
after the fact. I don’t mean to downplay the Me-Too movement; it is way overdue.
But some men question being called out for behavior that was accepted at the
time.
In
my old age, I’m wondering how we have come to so admire and value money accumulation? It’s understandable
that everyone needs a basic income for food, clothing, and shelter, as well as for
medical care, transportation, and even some extra for fun. Yet, the most
important life values are human connections, physical wellbeing, and basic
security. Surveys have shown that beyond a certain amount--in the US, about
$75,000--an increase in income doesn’t add to life satisfaction. But does it then
add to prestige or feelings of superiority? Why else do folks, especially men,
seek to accumulate large amounts of money in the bank or in investments,
something which, after all, is rather abstract, not a concrete benefit? Is it
for bragging rights? Is it to compensate for evident personal deficits, perhaps
the motivation behind Trump’s boasting about his wealth, while also making sure
no one finds out exactly how much (or little) he really has? Maybe Trump hopes that
seeming to be rich will make up for his feelings of inferiority because of his evident
deficiencies in intelligence, personality, judgment, and appearance, especially
in relation to Barack Obama, someone actually quite competent and with (gasp!) African ancestry? Trump is getting his
revenge now as president by making often cruel and arbitrary decisions that willfully
hurt others, justified by a veneer of political legitimacy. While some individuals
seek to settle scores and overcome feelings of inferiority with guns or by
driving vehicles into pedestrians, Trump uses the powers of the presidency to
do the same against his perceived rivals and so many other, mostly aggrieved and
marginalized men, identify with him and cheer him on. It’s a sorry, mutually
reinforcing, situation.