Ortega’s Reckoning, Cuba, Sessions, Macron, More Gun Violence, Me-Too, Trump and Money Worship

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.

On a drizzly April 25 morning, I joined a crowd outside the Supreme Court protesting the latest version of the travel ban, which tacked on Venezuela and North Korea to give it the cosmetic appearance of not targeting Muslims. Reportedly, Justice Anthony Kennedy is leaning toward joining the conservative majority to uphold the ban this time, despite Trump’s desparaging comments about Muslims making his intent obvious.

 (The idea that the Supreme Ct., because of lifetime appointments, is above the fray, free of political influence, has long since been disproved.) The protest crowd was huge, snaking around the block, as curious tourists looked on. Meanwhile, Kennedy, often a swing vote on the court, will be 82 in July, and is being pressured to retire by Republicans who want to give their party still another shot at naming a Supreme Court justice. Let’s hope that Kennedy, despite his unpredictable leanings, hangs on until after the mid-term elections to prevent that from happening.

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.