Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 289

The legacy of Billie Holiday’s “God Bless the Child,” 75 years later

Billie Holiday (Credit: Getty/Hulton Archive)

When songs birth legacies, they often do so in large part because of the cover versions that come out over the decades to testify to the original’s power.

A original take has its moment in its era and then lives on for future generations of listeners to discover, something which they often do because some more recent version inspired them to go looking for the great maternal original. It is often when that recording is found that proverbial socks are blown off, and everything that followed, in terms of what other artists were inspired to do, makes more sense.

The Beatles’ “Yesterday” is a decent example of this. Seemingly everybody has their own take on Paul McCartney’s track (at last report 3,000 other artists have recorded it and it owns the Guinness World Record for most recorded song.) But it’s not like the Liverpool quartet’s rendition — which was more of a trio between McCartney’s voice, guitar and George Martin’s strings — had ever receded from extreme public visibility.

Much the same could be said for Billie Holiday’s “God Bless the Child,” a song among the greatest jazz vocal standards. The fact that she not only laid down the first recording of the song but co-wrote it as well, is remarkable given that we rarely think of her at the level of a Tin Pan Alley songsmith or a Berlin or Gershwin, composition-wise. But make no mistake about it, whenever Billie Holiday decided to write, she could move you such that you could never imagine standing still again.

That Holiday co-wrote one of her most touted tracks can be a surprise for some. At this point, the multifaceted Holiday has been pressed into some kind of utility — a fashion plate, an Instagram image alongside posted self-testaments to the user’s virtue, a totem held up by those who have little knowledge of her albums or songs. She’s an icon rather than a living artist to many.

It’s something you see behind the scenes in publishing, too. If I’m going around trying to get work and I have six links to show to an editor, one of which is on Billie Holiday, that will be the piece I get comments on, no matter what it is. The editor won’t say a word about the rest. The others could be better. They could be from more prestigious venues.

It often seems this is all because Billie Holiday confers something on you that tends to make you think — or helps you better pretend, both to yourself and the world — that you are quite the intellectual, a progressive, character-steeped individual. Never mind that you’re cartooning a great artist in a way that would make her . . . well, let’s just say that Billie Holiday was tough. Personally, she is not someone I would have wished to piss off with some adopted pose. One need only spend some time with “God Bless the Child” to see that.

Her version, co-written with Arthur Herzog, Jr., was worked out in 1941 and released 75 years ago on the Okeh label. When you encounter the Okeh label, you’re usually going to get some mantle-deep music that you can dig way into. It’s like when you see the RKO signage appear at the start of a 1940s film noir, or find a blues 78 with the word Paramount on it. As a general rule of thumb, stuff is about to get good when you see that sticker — and better still with Holiday.

Holiday wrote her portion of the song— most of the lyrics — over a fight with her mother about money. Apparently, the latter passive aggressively slammed her daughter — who had probably slammed her a few times — with the send-off line of “God bless the child that’s got his own.” Most people would seek out pity-derived caresses in the aftermath of this dust-up (it’s a damn good thing Facebook didn’t exist in the 1940s). But the true artist reaches inward instead. On this song, Holiday did so magnificently.

“God Bless the Child” balances the sacred and the profane in a manner so artful that you have to conclude that the two ride shotgun together. The song features an alteration — a pleasing corruption, a bringing up to date — of Matthew 25:29: “Them that’s got shall have, them that’s not shall lose, so the Bible says, and it is still news.” T.S. Eliot, who saw poetry in places most people never thought to look, would have thought this was apex-level material. It is, especially when delivered through Holiday’s voice.

And that voice changed a lot over the years, such that by the end of her recording career less than a decade later, critics were arguing that she had become a sad reminder of what she was, that she should stop singing altogether. It was nonsense.

Yes, her voice was something very different than what it had been. Stretched thin, it felt like a layer of sound-producing skin exposed to the elements, baked in sun, coated by sea, caked with salt. It’s what I think of as Elemental singing, something Nature herself had assembled and ordered to make the most human of cries.

But at the time of “God Bless the Child,” Holiday’s voice was still honeyed and fierce at once — primal and caressing. It seems borne out of her concern for legitimate emotional inclusivity, not virtue posing. That voice is framed within a fairly lush setting for such a small ensemble, one that’s never cloying, but rather blue to the point of indigo. That backing unit featured Roy Eldridge, Duke Ellington’s vaunted trumpet man, doing his thing at his customary Eldridgean level. He helps open the proceedings, before Holiday enters after about 10 seconds and takes over.

What does she sound like? Sometimes I think in terms of what she doesn’t sound like, which is remarkable, given that these lyrics have a sarcastic side to them, though you almost wouldn’t know it.

For starters, she doesn’t sound angry. She doesn’t sound strident, earnest, draconian. She sounds inevitable. She sounds like unavoidable truth, one that states, yes, people can be broken like a bundle of matchsticks over a knee. But this is a given. Carrying on more aware of one’s internal world, is not. So either sing and sing well, or shut your mouth, the song seems to say. God bless the child? This child blesses herself, thank you very much.

Other great artists picked up on these resonances. Trombonist J.J. Johnson, a Modernist master on that instrument, cut a doozy of a version in 1959, on his “Really Livin'” LP. His take is bluesier, his instrument producing a copper-burnished tone and a slower pace as if slowing down musical time to keep Holiday — who died that year — on the planet just a little while longer. He also seemed to understand that who Billie Holiday was, in the most important sense, would still continue past her physical death.

That same year, Sam Cooke made an album of Billie Holiday covers, which even a lot of Cooke fans do not know exists. Cooke’s battles were always over his internal choices as an artist: to embrace his blues, jazz and soul sides in full measure, or to think in terms of what white audiences may have wanted.

He would tour with a band for white crowds and another one for black crowds. He’d sing in a fashion not terribly removed from Holiday herself, but then he’d coat his albums, for a time, in saccharine strings. It became a bit like listening to a bootleg of a show you really liked, but with horrible sound, such that you had to listen past the sonic deficiencies to appreciate the brilliance beneath.

But my goodness, that voice. We don’t think of Sam Cooke as a writer that much, but he was a genius of a composer. You could argue that a lot of that came from Holiday’s records, with “God Bless the Child” being a key cut. Whatever the case, the two had an artistic affinity, a common ground from which they both drew. You can hear Cooke returning to it in his “God Bless the Child” cover, even through the very-dated Disney-style backing vocals.

If you’re looking for other cool versions, try Aretha Franklin’s from 1962, which is perhaps the most popular cover of the song.

Sonny Rollins offered the ultimate tenor sax iteration of the song to date the same year.

Believe it or not, Lisa Simpson’s take on 1990s “The Simpsons Sing the Blues” does the track credit.

I often opt for the live version from the Five Spot, in NYC, in July 1961, by Eric Dolphy, on solo bass clarinet. For me, it’s the most remarkable one-person piece in all of jazz, and it’s also the version of “Child” that synchs up best with Holiday’s original, while walking a path of its own, which, of course, was the very challenge laid out by her version.

CEOs scolded Trump after Charlottesville — but still won’t cut him off

Donald Trump (Credit: AP//Evan Vucci)

When President Donald Trump said counter protestors at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, should share the blame for violence there, the backlash was fast and furious.

Among Trump’s most outspoken critics: corporate CEOs, who resigned from White House advisory councils and issued vehement statements breaking with the president.

But when the Center for Public Integrity this month asked nearly four dozen large public companies whether they would continue making contributions to funds or political committees related to the Trump administration, none would commit to withholding money from Trump going forward.

That list included several companies with CEOs who stepped down from Trump advisory bodies to protest the president’s comments after the Charlottesville violence, or who have publicly pilloried Trump’s other policies, such as those on immigration or climate change.

Many companies, including Coca-Cola and Qualcomm, didn’t respond to questions. Others, such as Amgen and Exxon, referred the Center for Public Integrity to their political giving, lobbying and advocacy policies. A few said contributions to Trump’s inauguration shouldn’t be considered the same as direct political support, such as funding a presidential campaign.

(All corporate contributions or corporate political action committee contributions reviewed by the Center for Public Integrity were made prior to the events in Charlottesville to Trump’s inaugural committee, to Trump’s presidential transition entity or to Vice President Mike Pence’s recently formed leadership PAC.)

JPMorgan Chase Chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon is among business leaders who explicitly condemned racism after the Charlottesville violence and said he disagreed with Trump’s reaction to it. He also stepped down from a position in which he advised Trump.

“There is no room for equivocation here,” wrote Dimon, who also leads the Business Roundtable, a high-profile Washington-based group made up of “chief executive officers of America’s leading companies” — and at least in that capacity is likely to continue to weigh in on government policies.

Nonetheless, a spokesman for JPMorgan Chase, Andrew Gray, said questions about whether the company would ever again give to a fund or committee connected to the Trump administration were “vague or speculative.”

JPMorgan Chase gave $500,000 to Trump’s inaugural committee and the company’s PAC gave $5,000 — the maximum permitted contribution — to his presidential transition committee.

Intel CEO Brian Krzanich, upon stepping down from a Trump manufacturing council, wrote in a blog post that: “I have already made clear my abhorrence at the recent hate-spawned violence in Charlottesville, and earlier today I called on all leaders to condemn the white supremacists and their ilk who marched and committed violence.”

Asked about future contributions, Intel spokesman William Moss declined comment except to say, “We are bipartisan in our approach to contributions and our engagement activities, and expect that to continue.”

Intel gave $500,000 to Trump’s inaugural committee.

The Center for Public Integrity also reached out to the National Football League, whose marketing and promotions arm gave Trump’s inaugural committee $100,000. In addition, seven NFL franchise owners gave $1 million each.

Trump and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell spent the weekend trading barbs after Trump slammed players for kneeling, as a form of protest, during the national anthem. Goodell said the comments were “divisive,” and “demonstrate an unfortunate lack of respect for the NFL.” Several team owners, including some donors, also criticized the president.

The league did not respond to a request for comment on future contributions. The White House press office also did not respond to requests for comment.

Seven-figure support for Trump affairs

Many companies have policies against contributing corporate or corporate PAC dollars to presidential candidates, sticking instead to backing congressional or local candidates.

Typically, though, special events, such as political conventions and presidential inaugurations, are permitted. And these events provide solid opportunities to mingle with officeholders and policymakers and augment corporations’ multimillion-dollar government lobbying efforts. This prompts corporations to open their checkbooks every four years no matter who wins the White House.

The chance to influence an incoming administration was particularly valuable.

But companies’ support of such events can still invite unwelcome scrutiny.

In the summer of 2016, a number of firms and big donors scaled back on giving directly to convention host committees, reportedly because of controversies dogging both Trump and then-Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

Some companies found more creative ways to support the conventions and score coveted access to lawmakers without having their corporate names appear on disclosure forms: sponsoring delegations or throwing private parties, for instance.

Trump’s inaugural fundraising, in contrast, was an easier sell. It broke records, raising roughly $107 million.

Seven-figure donors — including corporate behemoths AT&T (roughly $2.1 million, including some in-kind services), Dow Chemical Co. ($1 million), Pfizer Inc. ($1 million), Bank of America Corp. ($1 million), Qualcomm Inc. ($1 million) and Boeing Co. ($1 million) —  received almost unprecedented access.

Their donor package  was advertised to include tickets to a “leadership luncheon,” a candlelight dinner and other events featuring Trump, Pence, members of their family and prospective Cabinet secretaries and senior appointees.

Many of those companies did not respond to requests for comment.

A Pfizer spokeswoman, Sharon Castillo, stressed that the company always gives to the inauguration, “which is not a political campaign committee,” no matter who the incoming president is.

In May, Vice President Mike Pence launched a leadership political action committee, something out of the norm for a sitting vice president..

The committee has drawn thousands of dollars in contributions from corporate PACs. So far this year, it’s transferred $5,400 to Trump’s presidential committee.

Corporate PACs donating to Pence’s leadership PAC include Novo Nordisk Inc. and PepsiCo, which didn’t respond to requests for comment, and Honeywell.

“Honeywell supports those who support policies that are good for our business and help to create jobs in the United States,” Honeywell spokesman Rob Ferris said in an email.

 Corporations “much more sensitive”

Star athlete and sneaker magnate Michael Jordan, asked to endorse a Democrat in a North Carolina Senate race decades ago, reportedly demurred, saying, “Republicans buy sneakers, too.”

Some question whether Jordan really said it, but the point stands: Getting involved in politics means ticking off customers. In 2010, facing calls for a boycott, Target was forced to apologize for contributing $150,000 to a group promoting candidates opposed to same-sex marriage. The company said the money was meant to support pro-business policies.

The episode came shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC allowed unlimited corporate, union and nonprofit spending on elections. It was a clear warning: Political spending could backfire.

In recent years, shareholders have pushed for more disclosure of corporate spending on lobbying and politics, and some companies have been targeted for boycotts. Some business groups, notably the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable, have vocally opposed the transparency efforts.

Meanwhile, customers, investors and employees are all monitoring whether corporate political spending aligns with stated corporate values, said Bruce Freed, president of the Center for Political Accountability, which advocates for more transparency around corporate political spending.

“Companies are becoming much more sensitive about who they are being publicly associated with,” Freed said.

A public campaign led by the nonprofit group Color of Change, which describes itself as “the nation’s largest online racial justice organization,” was credited with convincing companies not to support the Republican National Convention over the summer.

In the wake of the Charlottesville violence and Trump’s response to it, Color of Change also targeted executives at companies including PepsiCo Inc. and General Motors with a social media campaign urging them to step down from executive branch advisory councils.

“They are a public-facing company that talks openly about diversity,” the group’s executive director, Rashad Robinson, told Advertising Age about the group’s reasons for taking aim at PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi.

PepsiCo, which contributed more than $250,000 to the inauguration and the maximum $5,000 contribution to the transition, as well as $5,000 to Pence’s leadership PAC via its own corporate PAC, did not respond to a request for comment.

A complete break with the president and his administration isn’t a realistic option for most public companies, business lobbyists interviewed by the Center for Public Integrity said, although the companies may choose to distance themselves from the White House.

The lobbyists wouldn’t speak for attribution. But they said walking away from engaging with the administration isn’t possible for their clients. Moreover, companies are unlikely to pick a fight, by publicly ruling out making contributions related to Trump, with a president known for holding grudges and tweeting negatively about corporations he believes have wronged him.

How should companies engage with government?

In recent years, controversial political proposals in states have prompted corporate blowback and economic losses for the states.

One example is a religious freedom measure in Indiana. Signed by then-Gov. Pence, the measure faced harsh criticism from opponents who argued it discriminated against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Another is North Carolina’s so-called “bathroom bill.”

More companies are speaking out on diversity and discrimination issues, said Heidi Welsh of the Sustainable Investments Institute, a nonprofit that studies efforts to influence corporate behavior on social and environmental issues.

Companies “actually do see that as a bottom-line issue,” Welsh said. “They are not dumb on the issue of diversity. If you piss off a whole wide swath of your customer base, people can shop elsewhere, and they do.”

Aaron Chatterji, a professor at Duke University’s business school and an expert in CEO activism, said CEOs’ increasing outspokenness could lead companies to reevaluate their political engagement.

“It seems like a natural extension,” he said.

He added that he expects a “renewed sort of scrutiny on companies and their political strategies, and I think it’s an indication of a broader shift where the political polarization that has characterized how we vote, where we live … It’s increasingly going to come into how we evaluate businesses.”

Companies are getting more pressure from employees who care about corporate values, said Douglas Chia, the executive director of the governance center of the Conference Board, a business membership and research association that offers members a handbook on corporate political activity.

Chia said corporations must analyze corporate political spending “in light of there being more sensitivity in the public and particularly in the investment community.”

Companies must stay engaged with the government, he said, but can choose how they do that.

When companies contributed to Trump’s inauguration, he said, they were “trying to be optimistic in terms of this president being good for business interests,” especially after years of feeling ignored by the Obama administration.

But Trump’s behavior “reached a tipping point when companies said we need to not just distance ourselves, but we need to come out and condemn that behavior because we are getting so much pressure from our main stakeholders, and that goes back to reputational risk.”

It will be interesting to see, he said, were Trump to be re-elected, “what the contributions would be to the next inauguration.”

North Korea wants to know what Trump is thinking

(Credit: AP/Wong Maye)

North Korea has quietly reached out to Republican-linked analysts in Washington, in an attempt to further understand President Donald Trump and his intentions towards their nation.

The efforts to seek expertise began well before the recent exchange of threats between North Korea’s Leader Kim Jong-un and Trump, according to the Washington Post.

“Their number-one concern is Trump. They can’t figure him out,” a source with knowledge of the country’s approach told the Post.

North Korea’s representatives expressed during a multilateral meeting in Switzerland that they want to be recognized as a nuclear weapons–possessing state, and they are not entertaining discussions about denuclearization, the Post reported.

The Post elaborated on North Korea’s goals:

But to get a better understanding of American intentions, in the absence of official diplomatic talks with the U.S. government, North Korea’s mission to the United Nations invited Bruce Klingner, a former CIA analyst who is now the Heritage Foundation’s top expert on North Korea, to visit Pyongyang for meetings.

Trump has close ties to Heritage [Foundation], a conservative think tank that has influenced the president on everything from travel restrictions to defense spending, but no personal connection to Klingner.

Klinger declined the invitation and believes that “while such meetings are useful, if the regime wants to send a clear message it should reach out directly to the U.S. government.” Yet it appears the Trump administration has no interest in direct talks with the country.

“Early in Trump’s term, the North Koreans asked broad questions: Is the U.S. president serious about closing American military bases in South Korea and Japan, as he said on the campaign trail?” the Post reported. “Might he really send U.S. nuclear weapons back to the southern half of the Korean Peninsula?”

But now the North Koreans are interested in why Trump’s remarks often contradict other members in his cabinet, including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, according to the Post.

“My own guess is that they are somewhat puzzled as to the direction in which the U.S. is going, so they’re trying to open up channels to take the pulse in Washington,” Evans Revere, a former State Department official who dealt with North Korea and is a frequent participant in such talks, told the Post. “They haven’t seen the U.S. act like this before.”

During one meeting attended by Revere, an annual event in Glion, Switzerland organized by the Geneva Center for Security Policy, a government-linked think tank, the North Koreans demonstrated “encyclopedic” knowledge of Trump’s tweets, the Post reported.

“All countries involved in the now-defunct six-party denuclearization talks — the United States, China, Japan, Russia and the two Koreas — were represented, as were Mongolia, Switzerland and the European Union. The Swiss invited the U.S. government to send an official, but it did not,” the Post reported.

Russia and China have proposed that North Korea freeze its nuclear and missile activities if the U.S. ends military exercises in South Korea. But North Korea — as well as the U.S., South Korea and Japan— all rejected this proposal, the Post reported.

The Swiss talks terminated with no signs of improving relations, or reaching common ground.

“I’m very pessimistic,” Shin Beom-chul, a North Korea expert at the South’s Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security said after the meeting, according to the Post. “They want to keep their nuclear weapons, and they will only return to dialogue after the United States nullifies its ‘hostile policy.’ They want the U.S. to stop all military exercises and lift all sanctions on them.”

Trump wants you to know he’s doing an “amazing job” in Puerto Rico

(Credit: Getty/Alex Wong)

Rather than plot out a recovery plan for hurricane-devastated Puerto Rico, the president spent the past weekend engaged in Twitter wars with professional athletes over their right to freedom of expression. Better late than never, Trump spent Monday and Tuesday talking about Puerto Rico, making the rounds in interviews and a Rose Garden news conference. Yet Trump’s statements on the recovery effort have been unorthodox (to say the least) and repetitive (as usual). Here’s what Trump has had to say:

Officials are kissing Trump’s feet as he does a “tremendous” job

Despite reports of desperation on the island, Trump spent a great portion of Tuesday’s news conference tooting his own horn — as he so often does. “We’re doing a very good job,” Trump said in some form or another at least five times. “Everybody has said, it’s amazing the job we’ve done in Puerto Rico.” Trump also wanted everyone to know how “nicely” governor Alejandro García Padilla has treated him. “We have had tremendous reviews from government officials,” Trump repeated. “Everybody has said its amazing the job we are doing there.”

No public statement from any government officials backs up Trump’s claims. San Juan mayor Yûlin Cruz was dismayed that Trump focused on what caused the island’s destruction rather than on relief efforts that should take precedent.

Look! The Atlantic Ocean!

Did President Trump not know where Puerto Rico was before Monday? It’s entirely possible. “This is an island, sitting in the middle of the ocean. It’s a big ocean, it’s a very big ocean,” Trump said in a morning news conference. “It’s out in the ocean. You can’t just drive your trucks there from other states. It’s the most difficult job.” No shit, Sherlock.

Trump on delivering aid to Puerto Rico: “This is an island sitting in the middle of an ocean. It’s a big ocean, it’s a very big ocean.” pic.twitter.com/d3zkbKmQxr

— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) September 26, 2017

The debt of the island

Ever the financier, President Trump astutely mentioned Puerto Rico’s arrears. “Texas & Florida are doing great but Puerto Rico, which was already suffering from broken infrastructure & massive debt, is in deep trouble,” Trump said in a series of Tweets on Monday night. “Much of the Island was destroyed, with billions of dollars owed to Wall Street and the banks which, sadly, must be dealt with.”

Mayor Cruz was less than pleased. “These are two different topics,” Cruz responded. “One topic is the massive debt, which we know we have and it’s been dealt with. But you don’t put debt above people, you put people above debt.”

Texas & Florida are doing great but Puerto Rico, which was already suffering from broken infrastructure & massive debt, is in deep trouble..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 26, 2017

…It’s old electrical grid, which was in terrible shape, was devastated. Much of the Island was destroyed, with billions of dollars….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 26, 2017

…owed to Wall Street and the banks which, sadly, must be dealt with. Food, water and medical are top priorities – and doing well. #FEMA

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 26, 2017

What NFL controversy?

Trump’s fury over protesting NFL athletes dominated headlines this weekend. But when questioned about his priorities and why he waited to address the devastation in Puerto Rico, Trump contradicted himself. “I wasn’t preoccupied, but I’ve been ashamed,” Trump said when reporters asked if his feud with the NFL was becoming a distraction. “I have plenty of time on my hands..all I do is work.”

Trump in response to Q asking him why he’s focusing on NFL instead of Puerto Rico: “I have plenty of time on my hands..all I do is work.”

— Yashar Ali

The White House as Donald Trump’s new casino

(Credit: AP)

During the 2016 election campaign, Donald Trump repeatedly emphasized that our country was run terribly and needed a businessman at its helm. Upon winning the White House, he insisted that the problem had been solved, adding, “In theory, I could run my business perfectly and then run the country perfectly. There’s never been a case like this.”

Sure enough, while Hillary Clinton spent her time excoriating her opponent for not releasing his tax returns, Americans ultimately embraced the candidate who had proudly and openly dodged their exposure. And why not? It’s in the American ethos to disdain “the man” – especially the taxman. In an election turned reality TV show, who could resist watching a larger-than-life conman who had taken money from the government?

Now, give him credit. As president, The Donald has done just what he promised the American people he would do: run the country like he ran his businesses. At one point, he even displayed confusion about distinguishing between them when he said of the United States: “We’re a very powerful company – country.”

Of course, as Hillary Clinton rarely bothered to point out, he ran many of them using excess debt, deception, and distraction, while a number of the ones he guided personally (as opposed to just licensing them the use of his name) – including his five Atlantic City casinos, his airline, and a mortgage company – he ran into the ground and then ditched. He escaped relatively unscathed financially, while his investors and countless workers and small businesses to whom he owed money were left holding the bag. We may never fully know what lurks deep within those tax returns of his, but we already know that they were “creative” in nature. As he likes to put it, not paying taxes “makes me smart.”

To complete the analogy Trump made during the election campaign, he’s running the country on the very same instincts he used with those businesses and undoubtedly with just the same sense of self-protectiveness. Take the corporate tax policy he advocates that’s being promoted by his bank-raider turned Treasury secretary, Steve Mnuchin. It’s focused on lowering the tax rate for multinational corporations from 35% to 15%, further aiding the profitability of companies that already routinely squirrel away profits and hide losses in the crevices of tax havens far removed from public disclosure.

We, as citizens, already bear the brunt of 89% of U.S. tax revenues today. If adopted, the new tax structure would simply throw yet more of the government’s bill in our laps. Against this backdrop, the math of middle-class tax relief doesn’t work out – not unless you were to cut $4.3 trillion from the overall budget for just the kinds of items non-billionaires count on like Medicaid, education, housing assistance, and job training.

Or put another way, Trump’s West Wing is now advocating the very policy he railed against in the election campaign when he was still championing the everyday man. By promoting tax reform for mega-corporations and the moguls who run them, he’s neglecting the “forgotten” white working class that sent him to the Oval Office to “drain the swamp.”

Since entering the White House, he’s also begun to isolate our country from the global economy, essentially pushing other nations to engage in more trade with each other, not the United States. Whether physically shoving aside the leader of Montenegro, engaging in tweet-storms with the President of Mexico over his “big, fat, beautiful wall,” or hanging up on the prime minister of Australia, Trump has seemingly forgotten that diplomacy and trade matter to the actual American economy. His version of “America First” has taken aim at immigrants, multinational trade agreements, regulations, and the U.N. Calvin Coolidge acted in a somewhat similar (if far less flamboyant) manner and you remember where that led: to the devastating crash of 1929 and the Great Depression of the 1930s.

What’s In a Shell?

As a new report by Public Citizen makes clear, the glimpses we’ve gotten of inner Trumpworld from the president’s limited financial disclosures indicate that his business dealings, by design, couldn’t be more complex, shadowy, or filled with corporate subterfuge.  He excels, among other things, at using shell companies to hide the Trump Organization’s profits (and losses) in the corporate labyrinth that makes up his empire. And even though the supposedly blind trust run by his sons is designed to shield him from that imperial entity’s decision-making, it still potentially allows him maneuver room to increase his own fortune and glean profits along the way.

So, what’s in such a shell? The answer: another shell, a company that usually has no employees, no offices, and no traceable capital.  Think of such entities as financial gargoyles. They offer no real benefits to the economy, create no jobs, and do nothing to make America great again. However, they have the potential to do a great deal for the bottom lines of Donald Trump and his offspring.  

Think of the corporate shell game he’s been engaged in as his oyster.  After all, anonymous buyers now make up the majority of those gobbling up pieces of his empire. Two years prior to his presidential victory, only 4% of the companies affiliated with people buying his properties were limited-liability, or LLC corporations, which are secretive in nature. Following his victory, that number jumped to 70%.

What that means in plain English is that there’s simply no way of knowing who most of those investing in Trump properties actually are, what countries they come from, how they made their fortunes, or whether there might be any conflicts between their buy-ins to Trumpworld and the national interest of this country.

Trump Lawsuits Meet Pennsylvania Avenue

Secret as so many of his dealings may be, there’s a very public aspect to them that Donald Trump has brought directly into the White House: his pattern of being sued. He’s already been sued 134 times in federal court since he assumed the presidency. (Barack Obama had 26 suits against him and George W. Bush seven at the same moment in their presidencies.)

In other words, one of the nation’s most litigious billionaires is in the process of becoming its most litigious president. A pre-election analysis in USA Today found that Trump and his businesses had been “involved in at least 3,500 legal actions in federal and state courts” over the previous three decades. That volume of lawsuits was unprecedented for a presidential candidate, let alone a president.

It’s fair to say that the public will, in one fashion or another, bear some of the expenses from such lawsuits, as it will, of course, from a lengthening list of ongoing federal investigations, including those into Trump’s business dealings with wealthy Russian businessmen and their various affiliates. According to Public Citizen, Trump formed at least 49 new business entities since announcing his candidacy (including some that were created after he was sworn in as CEO-in-chief). Of those 49, about half were related to projects in foreign countries, including Argentina, India, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia. Since entering the Oval Office, Trump has met with leaders from each of those countries. And while it’s hardly atypical of a President to meet with foreign leaders, in this case there can be little doubt that national policy overlaps with private interests big time.

As Public Citizen concluded, “Although just prior to being inaugurated as president, Trump announced plans to ‘separate’ himself from his business empire, he still maintains ownership in his corporations and merely reshuffled his businesses into holding companies that are held by a trust that is controlled by Trump himself.” It added that he now has an ongoing stake of some sort in more than 500 businesses. Three-quarters of them are legally registered in Delaware, the largest tax-shelter state in the country.  So expect plenty more trouble and suits and investigations to come.

The Era of Golf-plomacy

Trump has always had a knack for promoting his own properties.  Now, however, he gets to do it on our dime. Indeed, we taxpayers fork over a million dollars or more every time the president simply takes a trip to visit his Mar-a-Lago private club in Florida, his National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey, or any of his other properties. During his first 241 days in office, he spent 79 days visiting his properties.

Meanwhile, a near-army of his well-connected friends and wannabe friends have been sharpening their golf games at Trump locales. At least 50 executives of companies that bagged sweetheart government contracts, as well as 21 lobbyists and trade group officials, are members of Trump golf courses in Florida, New Jersey, and Virginia. As the president’s son Eric Trump told The New York Times, “I think our brand is the hottest it has ever been.”

They’re not just paying for golf, of course; they’re paying for access. About two-thirds of them “happened” to be golfing during one of those 58 days when Trump, too, was present. It doesn’t take an investigative reporter to show that whatever happens on a Trump golf course undoubtedly does not stay there. And keep in mind that the upkeep of the Trump entourage that travels from D.C. to those clubs with him is at least partially funded by us taxpayers, too.

Trump may tilt isolationist when it comes to countries that don’t put money into his clubs and hotel suites, but the nations that do tend to be in big with him. To take one example, Saudi Arabia, the first stop on his first foreign tour, recently disclosed that it had spent $270,000 for lodgings and food at the new Trump International Hotel just down Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House. Trump’s lawyers have pledged to donate any money foreign governments pay that hotel to the Treasury Department. Yet, so far at least, Treasury’s website has no such line item and the money promised for 2017 has now been pushed into 2018. Keep something else in mind: the Trump family forecast that it would lose about $2 million on that hotel in 2017. So far, it has made nearly a cool $2 million profit there instead.

While gaining unprecedented international coverage for his family-owned, for-profit business locales, Trump has created an ethical boundary problem previously unknown in the history of American governments. After all, we, the people, functionally pay taxes to his business empire to host foreign dignitaries, to feed them and provide appropriate security.  In this context, the president has made a point of having official state visits at his properties, which ensures that we taxpayers get hit for expenses when, say, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe stay at Mar-a-Lago. Though the president swore he would cover Abe’s stay, there’s no evidence that it was more than a “fake claim.”

Meanwhile, the Trump brand rolls on abroad.  Though his election campaign took up the banner of isolationism, the Trump Organization didn’t.  Not for a second.  On January 11th, days before placing his hand on the Bible to “defend the Constitution,” Trump proudly noted that he “was offered $2 billion to do a deal in Dubai with a very, very, very amazing man, a great, great developer from the Middle East… And I turned it down. I didn’t have to turn it down because, as you know, I have a no-conflict situation because I’m president… But I don’t want to take advantage of something.”

He also promised that he wouldn’t compromise his office by working privately with foreign entities.  His business empire, however, made no such promises.  And despite his claims, Dubai has turned out to be ripe for a deal.  This August, the Trump Organization announced a new venture there (via Twitter of course): Trump Estates Park Residences. It is to be “a collection of luxury villas with exclusive access to” the already thriving Trump International Golf Course in Dubai, a Trump-branded (though not Trump-owned) part of an ongoing partnership with the Dubai-based real-estate firm DAMAC. Its president, Hussain Sajwani, is well known for his close relationship with the Trump family. Units in the swanky abode are expected to start at about $800,000 each.

Meanwhile, DAMAC gave a $32 million contract to the Middle Eastern subsidiary of the China State Construction Engineering Corporation to build part of Trump World Golf Club, also in Dubai. That’s the same China that Trump regularly chides for not working with us properly. The course is scheduled to open in 2018.

So buckle your seatbelts. U.S. foreign policy and the Trump Organization’s business ventures will remain in a unique and complex relationship with each other in the coming years as the president and his children take the people who elected him for a global ride.

His Real Inner Circle

President Trump has made it abundantly clear that sworn loyalty is the route to staying in his favor. Unwavering dedication to the administration, but also to the Trump Organization, and above all to him is the definition of job security in Washington in 2017. Take the latest addition to his communications team, Hope Hicks, who has rocketed into her new career by making devotion to the Trump brand, including defense of daughter Ivanka, a central facet of her professional life.  The 28-year-old Hicks has now been anointed the new White House communications director.

But she doesn’t have as much job security as one other group: The Donald’s personal legal team.  For make no mistake, Trump’s financial dealings lie at the heart of his presidency, raising conflicts of a sort not seen at least since Warren Harding was president in the 1920s, if ever. And yet, even though they should be secure through at least 2020 and possibly beyond, one little slip about Russia in the wrong D.C. restaurant could see any one of them ushered out the door.

In 2011, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision rendered corporations people. It erased crucial campaign finance and lobbying restrictions, and elevated billionaires to the top ranks of the American political game. It was a stunning moment – until now. Donald Trump’s presidency is doing something even more remarkable. The billionaire who became our president has already left Citizens United in a ditch.  He’s created not just a political campaign but a White House in which it’s no longer possible to imagine barriers between lobbying efforts, government decisions, and personal interest, or for that matter profits and policy.

In November, after the election, Trump announced that “the law’s totally on my side, the president can’t have a conflict of interest.” Recently, however, the Sunlight Foundation, a non-profit dedicated to government transparency, revealed 530 active Trumpian conflicts of interest and that’s after only eight months in office.

Theoretically, we still live in a republic, but the question is: Who exactly represents whom in Washington? By now, I think we can take a reasonable guess. When the inevitable conflicts arise and Donald Trump must choose between business and country, between himself and the American people, who do you think will get the pink slip? Who will be paying for the intermeshing of the two? Who, like the investors in his bankrupt casinos, will be left holding the bag? At this point, we’re all in the Washington casino and it sure as hell isn’t going to be Donald Trump who takes the financial hit. After all, the house always wins.

Nomi Prins, a TomDispatch regular, is the author of six books. Her most recent is All the Presidents’ Bankers: The Hidden Alliances That Drive American Power (Nation Books). She is a former Wall Street executive. Special thanks go to researcher Craig Wilson for his superb work on this piece.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Alfred McCoy’s In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power, as well as John Dower’s The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II, John Feffer’s dystopian novel Splinterlands, Nick Turse’s Next Time They’ll Come to Count the Dead, and Tom Engelhardt’s Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

Clock running out on health program for 9 million kids

Since the inauguration of President Trump, health care has been front and center in American politics. Yet, attention has almost exclusively been focused on the Affordable Care Act, most recently in the form of Graham-Cassidy. With Congress preoccupied with a series of Republican efforts to repeal and replace the ACA, little attention has been paid to a long-running bipartisan program providing insurance coverage to millions of American children: the Children’s Health Insurance Program, often referred to simply as CHIP, which provides coverage to nine million American children.

Since its creation by a bipartisan coalition under the Clinton administration, CHIP has been crucial for the health and well-being of millions of American children, their families and their communities.

Yet funding for CHIP is running out at the end of September, leaving both state governments and families with great uncertainty. On September 18, Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) announced an agreement to continue funding for the program, albeit at greater costs to the states because it would phase out the additional funding provided by the ACA. Yet, the renewed efforts by Republicans to repeal the ACA could derail this agreement.

What Is CHIP?

Today, CHIP serves about nine million children at a cost just below US$14 billion. Together with Medicaid, it serves as the source of insurance for more than 46 million children annually. CHIP has been crucial in ensuring that more than 95 percent of American children are covered by health insurance today. This compares to 89 percent at the time the program was created.

Like most other health care programs, CHIP is a collaborative program between the federal government and the states. Indeed, states have the option to use the CHIP funding to expand their Medicaid program, create a standalone program or establish a hybrid arrangement.

CHIP fills in the gap for those children who fall just above the Medicaid threshold, determined by family income, but still do not have access to affordable, employer-sponsored insurance. Indeed, almost all CHIP children live in households where at least one parent is working. Ninety percent live in households 200 percent below the federal poverty line.

Created on a bipartisan basis in the late 1990s, the program has been popular with both parties. It has been renewed multiple times, and eligibility and federal support have been increased multiple times. Indeed, the most recent extension made the federal government the sole funder of the program in 11 states.

States have been given significant leeway in implementing the program. For one, states have been able to set a diverse range of eligibility guidelines, ranging from just below 200 percent of the federal poverty line in states like North Dakota and Wyoming to more than 400 percent in New York.

They also have a significant amount of flexibility in terms of benefit design, copayments, premiums, enrollment and administrative structure. At the same time, the federal matching rate, or the financial contribution of the federal government, is significantly above the Medicaid match, ranging from 88 to 100 percent, making participation particularly enticing for states. Not surprisingly, with large amount of flexibility and generous financial support, states have long looked favorably toward the program.

CHIP is complementary to Medicaid but differs from it in several respects. Most crucially, it is not an entitlement but rather a block grant. This means that qualifying individuals who meet all the requirements are not legally entitled to receive the benefits provided by program in case no funding is available. Once federal funding is spent down for a given year, no more funds are available unless states choose to pay for the program in its entirety.

Why is CHIP so important?

The benefits for families and communities of CHIP are many. For one, CHIP is crucial in providing financial security and prevents families from suffering catastrophic losses.

Moreover, the program’s benefit design does a tremendous job at ensuring that children’s health needs are met comprehensively. Healthier children are more likely to attend school and graduate from high school and college. Healthier children also prevent parents from forgoing their own care or missing time at work. CHIP also serves a large number of children with special and costly health needs, such as ADHD and asthma.

The crucial role of CHIP has been repeatedly emphasized by health policy experts. Most recently, MACPAC, the congressionally chartered commission that provides Congress with advice on Medicaid and CHIP, recommended the continuation and further enhancement of the program.

How should we move forward?

As a block grant, CHIP requires periodic appropriation of funding to maintain the program. The most recent extension, the Medicare and CHIP Reauthorization Act, funded the program through September 2017.

Without additional funding, states will run out of money over the next few months. Moreover, without a quick congressional action, states will be confronted with daunting administrative and planning challenges on how to possibly maintain or phase out the program. Indeed, several states will automatically terminate their programs in case federal funding for the program falls below a certain threshold. Moreover, state budgets have assumed that the program will be continued in its current form. Failure to reauthorize the program at current levels would pose tremendous problems for all states.

Senators Ron Wyden and Orrin Hatch at a Senate Finance Committee meeting Sept. 14, 2017.

AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

The agreement announced by Senators Hatch and Wyden to provide CHIP funding for the next five years brought hope to America’s children, their families and child advocates. Yet it has also raised concerns. While the proposal leaves the eligibility threshold untouched, it begins to reduce federal support for states from the aforementioned 88 to 100 percent to the original 65 to 82 percent in 2020. Perhaps must crucially, the reemergence of Republican efforts to abolish the ACA seems to have put all CHIP efforts on hold.

Moreover, it is unclear whether the Republican majority in Congress supports the program as it is currently implemented. Indeed, President Trump in his first budget proposed a reduction in both federal support and eligibility.

Between the Medicaid expansions of the 1990s, the creation of CHIP and the ACA, America has made great strides in providing health insurance to its most vulnerable, including America’s children. Indeed, insurance enrollment rates for children are at historic highs, currently hovering around 95 percent.

However, the reduced federal funding may pose a significant challenge for states like West Virginia and Arizona, which may move to reduce or eliminate the program as a result. Indeed, concerns led MACPAC to recommend against any federal funding cuts. It may be that these very cuts will eliminate some of the historic gains made in children’s coverage. Yet, the Hatch-Wyden compromise, given the current political situation in Washington, D.C., could well be the most beneficial outcome for child advocates.

Simon Haeder, Assistant Professor of Political Science, West Virginia University

Students talk about meeting Betsy DeVos

Betsy DeVos (Credit: Getty/Mike Theiler/AP/Jacquelyn Martin/Photo montage by Salon)

It wasn’t only about DeVos

Elly Martinez, Senior

Several days before Betsy DeVos’ visit to Kansas City Academy, I hand-drew new signs for the bathrooms: “Urinals + Stalls” and “Stalls Only.” Why? Well, it wasn’t only about DeVos, I can tell you that much.

No matter how many times my teachers refer to me as “miss” or my parents call me their “daughter” I’m nonbinary. Genderfluid, to be exact. Now, because I’m nonbinary, going to the restroom in public can be a huge pain. My excuse up until this year was that the women’s restrooms were usually cleaner, but on those days where I felt more masculine than anything, I felt like I couldn’t be seen using a restroom at all. Using the women’s restroom always felt awkward, because despite being out as genderfluid, many of the adults around me at school still think I’m a girl. Over half a decade later, too. Seriously? Yet, no matter how uncomfortable that felt, it made me feel like I was unable to go to the men’s restroom either, because if they see me as a girl, wouldn’t I be out of place in there too?

Then came the news Betsy DeVos was going to visit. I definitely did not agree with the principal’s choice to allow her to visit, especially since the school claims to be “progressive,” the opposite of her. When the principal invited news crews and reporters into the halls for the sweet free publicity that comes with welcoming a controversial politician, he bragged about the LGBT population within the school without thinking of the students’ feelings first. Some people may say otherwise, but that’s how a lot of us students saw it, anyway. So as I was sitting in class hearing people upset about how a progressive school would allow someone who made LGBT people feel unsafe in these hallowed chambers, it hit me. How progressive can this place claim to be if the staff flaunts the fact that trans people go here, yet they don’t accommodate non-binary students?

So within a couple days I had asked other students for their opinions on replacing the bathroom signs. The response I got was overwhelmingly for it; I didn’t hear one nay-sayer. So I quickly got the approval, and within a day we had some shiny new hand-made watercolor signs for the restrooms. With not a hint of gender to them, either. So, you could say it was a form of protest against DeVos, which it was, but it wasn’t just that. As this is my graduating year, I feel like making some simple signs for the restrooms was the least I could do to make the new generations of students who arrive to this school after me feel safer and more welcome in a “progressive” school like Kansas City Academy.

I honestly didn’t realize how big of a deal this was

Cooper Enochs, 8th grade

I honestly didn’t realize how big of a deal this was until my sister dropped me off Friday. Like, the protest was huge, and I didn’t expect that at all. That was all my first impression, but now that I’ve been given time to think about it I’ve come up with a better conclusion. That being said, I honestly do not understand why she would want to visit our school that stands against almost everything she stands for. I also do not understand why my principal would accept her visit, but I’ll get back to that later. But what truly angers me is she’s using this school as an example of a school that works. Her stance on public schools angers me to a point I can’t describe in text. And at first I might come off hypocritical since, well, I go to a private school, but the reason I’m here is public school isn’t properly funded and equipped with the capability to help me. And if they were better funded I’d like to think I wouldn’t have to be at KCA. But all of this leads me to believe the only reason my principal accepted her visit is to get the press to grow the school and possibly to feed his ego, but I don’t truly know. And I don’t know if I want the school to grow because part of the reason I’m here because it’s small and doesn’t have many kids. And that’s all I have to say.

The visitation of Betsy

Case Williams, Junior

Unsurprisingly, a visit from Betsy DeVos turned out to be as meaningful and productive as a visit from a ghost. Two weeks of chaotic buildup brought a disappointing conclusion — the visit was more of a whimper than a bang.

That buildup consisted of frantic cleaning, fresh coats of paint, and plenty of gardening. On the other hand, those who felt so inclined to speak up with their dissatisfaction about the visit got the student body together to make posters dedicated to the matter. Of course, it was not as if DeVos took the time to actually look at these. In a 90-minute visit, it would be naïve to actually think she would slow down to consider the concerns of students.

As one of the students who had the opportunity to ask the Secretary questions, the experience was dispiriting at best. In response to a question about her plans, she mentioned through a jumble of repetitive, pleasant-sounding word salad with assorted jargon as garnish her plans to do away with “burdensome regulations.” At that point my concern was that even regulations that are apparently burdensome can still be necessary to protect vulnerable students. My curiosity was piqued, so I asked for an example — just one example, that stuck out to her. I got a whole lot of not much at all. She mentioned there being regulations that required the documentation of certain information that, as she described it, may not be necessary. But no specifics. Insisting did no good. DeVos instead chose to turn to our principal, Kory Gallagher, for agreement. It became a laughing matter to them. I could not find the humor in what seemed to me to be a show of incompetence.

All the other questions she was asked were answered in a similar manner. I did not expect anything more from her, but it was still disheartening to see proof that two weeks of work were rendered essentially meaningless by the fact that the visitor was not particularly qualified for her position.

The publicity caused more havoc than any of the students or teachers actually wanted. I felt that students’ complex views on the visit were cut down for the sake of time. It all felt very shallow. In the aftermath of the visitation of Betsy, there seems to be the sense in the air that we may have crossed some unseen Rubicon. There is no way to know, at this point in time, but I feel inclined to agree.

Accepting and Understanding People

Harper Knecht, 8th Grade

The reason I came to KCA is because of how accepting and kind everyone is. You might not agree with Betsy DeVos (I know that I don’t), but the entire point of the school is to at least try to accept people in who they are and not judge what they believe in. Being a student and protesting is showing that KCA students don’t let people in and don’t even try to understand them. That’s why I am going to be kind and respectful to DeVos and not protest when she visits. She’s a person. Maybe her beliefs aren’t what I agree with, but she is visiting this school to see who and what we are. KCA is about accepting and understanding people, so that’s what I’m going to try and do.

How to handle situations like this with grace

Camilla Cain, Junior

You don’t always get a say. As students at KCA we have the luxury of being so involved in what happens within these walls we forget that at any other school we would’ve not have had a say in a situation like this. The decision was made, and Betsy DeVos is coming whether we like it or not. In response to students who are unhappy about this situation, we all need to just suck it up and stop being babies about it because we are lucky to be educated in a place that cares enough about us as individuals, to listen to our opinions and emotions. Once we leave KCA we will certainly cross paths with people who do not value our values or believe in our beliefs, and there is no avoiding it; chaotically or peacefully, there is only coexisting. If we don’t learn how to handle situations like this with grace, and if we don’t learn how to coexist with others whose beliefs and values don’t align with ours, than the world will not respond to us as kindly (unlike the world we live in at KCA). In a perfect world everyone would agree with the same things and believe in the same things, but it’s not that way. I feel that we don’t have to agree in values and beliefs, politically or non-politically, but as growing people we should listen and observe, agree and disagree, but apply open-mindedness, civilness, and a certain amount of respect in the way we interact, for we are all human.

I’m just a stupid kid

Max Doyle, Junior

Personally, I am quite impartial to the decision of her coming. Whether or not she should be coming does not matter to me. She is, and that’s that. I most certainly do not agree with her opinions, nor do I agree with many of the things she has attempted to place into law. However, I feel that she should be welcomed into our school, and — at least from our side — on the one condition that we have the opportunity to change her mind, however unimaginably slight. To use an example mentioned at the Board meeting (of which I personally view that meeting as a semi-productive shitfest), if the leader of the KKK were to come into my home, sit down with me, and tell me, “Okay, I’ll hear you out. I’ll let you have a go at changing my mind,” I would take that without a second chance. Now, obviously, while she is not saying this to us (nor would I expect her to), the very opportunity is still being presented to us. I feel that, even if we couldn’t do it within reason, we would be remiss not to snatch it. But, even larger than any of that, I feel that we as a school should welcome her into this school more closely on the pretense of attempting to steal the media’s attention.

There are people with deeper pockets (vastly deeper) than mine who may be partial to a school like ours. People such as them may not ever even donate a penny to us. But this is all about chance, like winning the lottery, only the price (if we handle this visit well) is nearly nonexistent. However, if we handle this poorly, especially in front of the media, this could be very, very bad. I don’t trust people’s ability to cordially and respectfully tolerate someone for whom they hold no respect. Somewhere along the line people seem to have begun to think that screaming their opinions the loudest means they automatically win, but this is not true. People open up more when you have a calm, collected and respectful conversation with them (however there is always the chance that they wouldn’t be open regardless), not when you scream and shove signs in their face. If the media captures a high amount of our school joining the protesters, then we lose every bit of credibility and power that we held, no matter how small. We can be dismissed as “just another protester” (or some such), and thus we throw away our very large opportunity.

On the other side of things, people are angry at her, her policies and how this decision was made. They may want to join the protesters, some even saying that just demonstrating our everyday workings is cowardly, but I feel that protesting (in this case) is the more cowardly option. It shows that we have no self-control in respect to our ability to hold a calm and cogent argument, and that we simply want to “join into the hate”.

But what do I know? What do my opinions matter? I’m just a stupid kid.

All I really have to say

Rowan “Roo” Murphy, Junior

I am genuinely terrified. I’m worried this visit could be the end of KCA’s good name. That’s all I really have to say on the subject.

The students won’t matter

Mickie Simmons, Junior

A week before a woman was scheduled to come to our school who doesn’t care about our school (Betsy DeVos), another woman who doesn’t care about our school (M. Sanchez) wrote an article about all the ways our school matters (though the ways that it actually matters were not mentioned in the article). The article that was written was written for people who don’t care about our school (though they will pretend they will because they have heard that we are “progressive”). Our meaning will be lost, our ideas will be lost, and the students won’t matter (unless their identity is exploitable). The entire way in which this school matters — as a place for people who have no other, as a place for people who want no other, and as a place where the person you are is simply you (you are not the gay kid, you are not the sad kid, you are not the liberal kid, you are not the distracted kid) — will be presented to the world as types.

In the news, we will be types.

To Betsy, we will be types.

Although she may hate us,

Our school will be of her;

What else is a private school?

And though we are not,

And though we can not be,

We will be

Types

A cause of stress

Charlie James, 8th grade

I feel like she came and went, and that was very much a reason for mourning, but the fact that she was here was such a cause of stress that it threw off the energy of the building and everyone in it. I think inviting her into our building, a place of education and safety, is a violation of our core principals, and for what? A few minutes of airtime on your local news channel?

Thankfully, our teacher shut and locked the door

Sarah Prange, 8th grade

I felt rather unsure about this visit. I did feel very uncomfortable with the media here. In the beginning I didn’t really have an opinion, but now I’m absolutely sure that I did not enjoy this experience. I didn’t like these people in our school, and on top of that there were police with guns. I know that they were here to protect DeVos and us, the students, but it made me extremely uncomfortable. And in class we discussed the topic, but the media kept trying to listen in and get a clip of it or a few photos. Thankfully, our teacher shut and locked the door. I think that bothered everyone. We couldn’t exactly speak freely about the topic unless we wanted to be possibly heard by the media, or didn’t care about being heard, or something like that. We just had to escape from this scene, so we went for a walk and relaxed a little. I welcome anyone and everyone into this school, but that doesn’t mean I have to accept them.

It didn’t feel as bad as I thought it would

Aidan Ready, 8th grade

My reaction to Betsy DeVos coming to our school is, I hate to say this, but not really anything. I mean I didn’t see her, so it didn’t really impact me as much as I thought it would, and don’t get me wrong, I hate her, but when she came to our school, I personally didn’t feel all that different. Sure, I’ve heard other students’ and teachers’ opinions, and some were more upset than others, but for me personally, it didn’t feel as bad as I thought it would.

A strange day

Max Malinowski, Sophomore

Betsy DeVos’ visit was very chaotic, and it was not a normal Friday. At the beginning of the day when I arrived at the school, I saw many protesters outside the school, and it immediately made my heart race. I was really anxious when I got out of my car and walked down to the entrance we were supposed to go through. When I got inside the building, I talked with my friends, and we all thought it seemed rather chaotic in the building, with news people walking everywhere and students talking about Betsy DeVos. My first class was Modern World History and we weren’t originally scheduled to meet Betsy, but Government class needed to go to the room we were in, so we all ended up meeting her. She walked around the whole table and shook everyone’s hands, asking for our names and saying hello. It was a very surreal experience for me, since I wasn’t prepared for it at all.

Government class had some questions prepared, and really the things that she said are that our school is a good school, and more schools need to be like us, that’s it. I didn’t necessarily disagree with this, but it also doesn’t add anything to the table. I could’ve asked a question, but I couldn’t muster up the courage to do so. All in all, it was a strange day and it made me very anxious but I also enjoyed it in a way.

I slept in that day

Ethan Bennett, Junior

While approaching the day of her visit, I decided that, with permission from the principal, I would skip school. I made this decision the day before her visit, when the reporters came in with their cameras and lights. I didn’t want to be filmed, nor did I ever really want to meet DeVos, so I slept in that day, although I did ask how everyone felt about it, and everyone seemed to feel the same way. I saw pictures of friends posing with DeVos, with very obvious disgusted facial gestures. Besides not wanting to be filmed, or not wanting to see DeVos, I still don’t know why I didn’t want to show up. I feel bad, and I wish I had more to say, because … I talked about coming together and staying together often, and I did the opposite of that.

From my perspective, the visit seemed like an awful time, and even if I couldn’t have been much of an assistance, I wish I could’ve been there with the whole school.

I can’t wait until we stop talking about it

Jack Fritts, Junior

When DeVos visited I decided to stay home from school so as to not get involved in something I didn’t really care about. I have seen the news coverage, however, and it seems like nothing interesting happened in the slightest, so at least I didn’t miss anything. She seemed to enjoy the school and will probably never come back, so I can’t wait till we stop talking about it. People made such a big deal about her visit, but nothing happened.

We must educate the people

Lucy Gobber, Junior

Before Betsy DeVos’s visit to my school I remember not caring that she was coming. My main reason for not caring was because this is just high school, and once I am out, none of it will matter. But I realized it goes beyond high school. I realized her policies go beyond school. They will affect the whole of society. Public school is a necessary instrument in building and fortifying a strong society and public. We must educate the people to avoid an obsolete country, where a few rule the majority, because the majority are not educated enough to stand up for their rights. And that is what I learned after DeVos’s visit.

I stayed home

Marina Kaufman, Junior

I can’t really say anything because I wasn’t here in the morning, but I‘ve heard some things from people. So honestly I don’t know really what happened during the hour and half she was here. I stayed home just to ignore all the drama and situation with protesters, police, press. I don’t really know what else to say about this.

A normal, overly-smiley woman

Claire Kovzan, Junior

Spencer and I had to teach Betsy DeVos how to make a ceramic bowl. My interactions with her didn’t really seem as if I was talking to a politician but just to a normal, overly-smiley women (besides the 50 cameras in my face during that time). She was just so perky and obviously knew what faces and gestures to make to get a good shot for the press and asked us superficial questions like “What’s your favorite color?,” similar to the questions you’d ask a grade-schooler. I wasn’t in the conversations where students talked to her and asked her questions about vouchers and the Title IX stuff, but from what the students told me she never really answered their questions directly, and her responses seemed clearly scripted. Overall, the vibe I got from her was just very fake smiles and just stuff you’d expect from a someone with power talking to people they view as inferior because of our age.

She asked us questions

T. J. Moore, Junior

When Betsy DeVos came to our school she had lots of press and news people with her the whole time, which was kind of overwhelming. The first class she went to was a meeting before school started. Then she headed off to a culinary class where people showed her how to make food for that day’s lunch. Then she went to a ceramics class where our class — which I was in — showed her how to make a pinch pot out of clay. Once she finished making the pinch pot she asked us questions like “How long have you all gone to this school?” and “Do you like ceramics?” and “What is your favorite class and why?” Then she left the ceramics class to go to a government class where people talked about stuff. Then Betsy DeVos talked to some students and teachers and then left the building with her bodyguards and news people. Outside of the school there were a lot of protesters and lots of police. Some of the students were outside protesting that day with signs and posters. There was a lot going on that day, and I’m glad it is over with.

Protesters booing and swearing

Josh Ramphal, Junior

I really don’t have anything to say about her visit because I didn’t even see her that day. All I heard were the protesters booing and swearing at her when she left.

I spent the entire visit out front holding a sign

Kai Smith, Junior

The visit has come and gone, and it was intensely stressful the entire time. In a way, I am glad that she came to KCA, because we can use this experience to open our eyes to see the real issues at hand. Her being allowed to come here has shown me that under the current administration, KCA is slowly dying. Sure the school is thriving. We’re bringing in more people and making more money, but at what cost? The true values of the school are being spat upon, students are being exploited, teachers are not being treated fairly, but it’s all okay because money fixes everything right? I do, however, have great respect for the students and teachers that worked so hard to show Betsy what our school is really about and who we are. I spent the entire visit out front holding a sign that said “We will not stand for the tolerance of intolerance.”

Bumping into her and having an awkward greeting

Troy Thurlow, Junior

I think it went pretty okay. I thought the visit was pretty interesting besides me bumping into her and having an awkward greeting after that or almost being pulled out of my truck by the police because they didn’t think I attended here. For the most part I’d say it was okay. Pretty much after that I really just went back to the regular school routine, although it was different that day. I mean, just all of that can’t die down in a couple of hours, but from what I heard she sounded almost scripted, probably was, when asked a question. She was like a “statue” or in a “constant loop” with the same responses. Even though this event might have been exciting to some, it just felt like a kind of normalish day, disregarding the press, police, protesters, and Betsy herself.

The students exceeded my expectations for their behavior

Adam Vescovi, Junior

I did not get to see or interact with Betsy DeVos even once during her visit to my school, but just about everyone else did. I was very disappointed in myself for this, but what else could I do? It all happened very fast. It was very chaotic, especially with the school being surrounded by protesters, policemen, press, U.S. Marshals, etc. It was a very strange day to say the least. From what I heard, DeVos did not seem like a very sincere person. People were saying that she refused to answer questions asked to her about more serious subjects, or that she would just keep repeating answers or would just keep giving the same answer, word-for-word, to different questions. It’s pretty disappointing to hear about that. I would definitely have expected more from the Education Secretary of the U.S. I am at least glad that the students exceeded my expectations for their behavior. It’s almost somewhat disappointing in all honesty. I feel like maybe more could have been said or some harder questions could have been asked just based on what I had heard (most who interacted with her felt the same). I really wish I could have been interviewed by the press, but as soon as there was an opportunity I was immediately held hostage in French class, so I could not. Overall it was somewhat chaotic. I did not have much of an experience, but I am hoping (although it probably will not happen) that DeVos could have maybe walked out of here with some new ideas. I am hoping that this could have initiated at least one change in something. One thing I do know is that the school now has much more publicity, and I am interested to see what comes of it. Until then, these are my thoughts post DeVos.

Taking the scenic route to get to the solution

Spencer Weis, Junior

I’m not really sure what to say about Betsy DeVos because I don’t know much about her. I guess I understand that she wants higher educational standards, but I don’t think that trying to essentially rework the whole educational system is going to help with that by any means. Trying to allow all children to attend a private school off of vouchers could ruin the school’s financial stability, assuming that they will even be able to stay open. Then if the solution to that is to provide the schools with government-sourced financial aid, it’s essentially turning all of the private schools into public schools. It feels like you would be taking the scenic route to get to the solution. From what I know about her that’s all that I disagree with at this moment. I can’t say that to my knowledge there is anything about her Title IX ideas that I disagree with. It sounds like she just wants trials that are a little less stacked against the accused and less guilty until proven innocent, which I agree with.

I think it was important for her to show up, but I don’t feel like it should stop here

Tiger Baker, Senior

I think that her answers to questions were vague and made you think positively, which to me makes me feel like she was just trying to smile, but she didn’t really know what she was doing. Like, she has an agenda, but she sees no negative outcome. So in a way she’s not lying because she convinced herself that what she is doing is right. I hope that she understands who we are. We’re not just another private school. We have our own entity. You can’t walk into this school and try to say anything similar. Most schools have three or four floors, this one has two. Schools tend to have matching paint throughout the school. We have student art on those walls. Schools have basic lunches where you get chocolate milk and some barely “choice meat.” What I’m saying is that THIS private school works for what the students need but we still need other types of schools. Some students would rather hide behind a taller one and seven hundred other students. Rather than trying to get rid of public schools, just put better planning and money into it! The reason they’re failing is because they rely on security guards and police officers to make sure kids get to class on time. I don’t know about you, but being in that building Friday made me scared. I know they were not gonna harm us, but this school doesn’t normally have security guards or police officers, so it’s scary.

If people who put their kids in public schools are poor then raise money for that. Make incomes higher. The reality of it is is that minimum wage can’t be lived on anymore. Colleges used to be so much cheaper, and so did houses and apartments. If you’re poor you generally get a crappy home and a crappy school, causing the school environment to be full of kids who are constantly bored and never passionate. But you know one thing they can be passionate about? Fighting. Because that’s all they feel like they were given. That’s the way people listen to them. I was in a public school where if you didn’t have someone afraid of you then you were afraid of someone. We need to realize as a country that we can’t keep living in these conditions. Like, goddamnit, if you’re rich then help out the poor. And when the poor get rich, they can help out the other poor. We need to stop being so concerned about how much money we can keep but rather how we can distribute it among the community to have an equal community. Because in this world there are no communities anymore. Sure people can be friends, or they are hired to do it, but no one actually cares about their neighbor if they are a block too far away.

We need to stop talking about community and actually just be a community. We need to realize that we’re not united. It’s every man for themselves out here. When people are homeless we stay away from them because to be homeless is to be a failure. But what if they were born into that? You don’t know someone’s life until you talk to them, and yet we live every day judging people for what they don’t have. We like to focus on what rich people have and what poor people don’t have. It’s easy right? The rich person has X amount of cars and a really nice house. This poor person doesn’t have insurance or a job. They also don’t have healthy kids. They don’t have friends. We need more money. And we need to know how to wisely spend and save. We are in debt and will always be in debt. We see debt as a good thing. Credit cards, student loans, car loans. It’s all to feel like you’re gaining something when you’re actually losing your soul to be paying something off for the rest of your life. We need to wake up. It’s not okay to just be fine with what is going on anymore. We need to fight. I know I have the right to say this because of how lucky I am, but I’m also saying it for the people that can’t get in, people who just weren’t lucky enough to be where I am.

I think about all the times I would’ve been homeless, but someone helped out. A friend of ours would help out. That’s community. Being poor or homeless is not fun. Man, if a rich person experienced not having anything I wonder how long they would last? Why be so rich that it would cost a fortune to repair a car? Why not just help someone else get a car? There is no other reason that rich people want to keep their money other than greed. Because money is life to them! I’m not saying all rich people are inherently evil, but there are rich people that constantly complain about the world not being united, and then do nothing about it. For example If I was really rich and knew I could blow money and not care then I would help people out. People should try to help each other. We have always had sides in this world. If you like something then you are that something. Then people judge upon the thing you have. This world is so full of people used to fighting for themselves that when they get money they hold onto it, right? If you buy a million-dollar car then you’re going to want to keep it polished and just drive it around. Instead you could sell it and spread the wealth among the poor communities.

Anyway back to Betsy DeVos … I think it was important for her to show up, but I don’t feel like it should stop here. We should continue fighting for what we believe in without having someone we’re against to be here. Like, why can’t we just always be doing this? It’s so fake. I hate cleaning up just because someone is coming! If someone is going to be in my life they need to see what we are and who we are. I don’t even know what else to say. I mean, why does it matter what I do say? Who cares? I’m just a nineteen-year-old senior in high school who is lucky enough to have a wifi signal. You have to have money to be of importance because then people want what you have. If you don’t have something that they want then they won’t want you. Why care about a poor person?

Trump’s NFL furor exposes his complete disregard for American workers

Members of the Indianapolis Colts kneel during the National Anthem, September 24, 2017 (Credit: Getty/Michael Reaves)

The National Football League demonstrations on Sunday, in which scores of players, coaches and owners spent the national anthem kneeling or abstaining from the ritual altogether, was the latest reminder of President Trump’s selective patriotism, his petulance and his bigotry, but also of what a two-bit businessman he is.

Trump took a small fire, in the form of NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem, and tried to extinguish the embers with his hallmark fire and fury. Naturally, he only made the fire bigger.

The saga, if you’ve not been following, began last season, with San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick. Kaepernick silently declined to participate in the ritual of players standing with their hands over their hearts during the national anthem, citing the country’s treatment of African-Americans as the reason for the protest.

“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses Black people and people of color,” Kaepernick said after a member of the media noticed that he’d spent the first few weeks of the preseason sitting on the bench during the anthem. “To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”

By week four of the preseason, Kaepernick and a teammate, Eric Reid, began kneeling alongside their standing teammates during the anthem. The decision to kneel rather than sit was motivated by a conversation with former green beret and prospective long snapper, Nate Boyer.

“We sorta came to a middle ground where he would take a knee alongside his teammates,” Boyer told Bryant Gumbel on Gumbel’s HBO show, “Real Sports with Bryant Gumble.” “Soldiers take a knee in front of a fallen brother’s grave, you know, to show respect. When we’re on a patrol, you know, and we go into a security halt, we take a knee, and we pull security.”

Kaepernick was just a few seasons removed from being a phenom who helped bring the 49ers to the Super Bowl, but in 2016 he proved to be a bigger presence on the sidelines than on the field. This season, at age 29, he found himself without a job.

Is Kaepernick good enough to be on a roster? Probably. But the NFL is a conservative league, and its franchises have a history of treating “distractions” like the plague.

Comments by Buffalo Bills running back LeSean McCoy last month are illustrative of the league’s attitude. “As a team, trying to win and not have a distraction on the team, I just take that as a player — there’s certain players that could be on the team with big distractions, and there’s other players that they’re not good enough or it’s not worth it. I think [Kaepernick’s] situation is not good enough to have him on the team with all the attention that comes along with it. I’m sure if a guy like [Tom] Brady or a guy like, whoever is your favorite player — Odell Beckham or a guy like that — you’ll deal with that attention and play him.”

Now, you might not think that a player silently protesting before the game — a time when many fans are getting situated or relieving themselves or tailgating or carrying a tray of nachos back to their seat — would be a distraction. Fans have come to terms with rooting for all manner of criminals, cheaters and altogether rotten individuals, after all. But last year, NFL viewership dipped and a plurality of those polled on why they stopped watching cited the national anthem protests. Fans cared.

 

* * *

 

There is a history of professional athletes protesting ritualized patriotism in sports that predates Colin Kaepernick. During the 1995-1996 NBA season, Utah Jazz guard Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf refused to stand during the national anthem and was subsequently fined two days’ pay by the league and traded by his team. In 2003, the Toronto Blue Jays’ power hitting first baseman Carlos Delgado spent the seventh inning stretch in the dugout to avoid standing during the performance of  “God Bless America.” Delgado’s protest lasted two seasons, ending when he signed with the New York Mets in 2005; the team insisted that he stand on the field with his teammates during the song.

That is how these protests normally go: A player protests without anyone noticing, then someone notices and the protest causes a stir, then the team or the league intervenes and gradually the controversy fizzles and all returns to normal.

But the absence of Kaepernick this season hasn’t meant a return to national anthem normalcy. Donald Trump was sworn in as president towards the end of the 2016-2017 NFL playoffs and his tenure has only magnified racial tensions. In the first two weeks of the season, several players continued to kneel or raise their fists during the anthem. Meanwhile, the NFL has been hit from both sides. Conservative fans are outraged that players are being allowed to kneel, and liberal fans are outraged that Colin Kaepernick doesn’t have a job.   

On Friday, Trump exacerbated the division. At a rally for Alabama Senator Luther Strange, Trump said, “Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, ‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now, out, he’s fired.’” He added: “The only thing you could do better is if you see it, even if it’s one player, leave the stadium.”

But Trump didn’t stop there. He also criticized the NFL for instituting rules to protect players against brain injuries. “Today if you hit too hard — 15 yards! Throw him out of the game!  They’re ruining the game! They’re ruining the game. That’s what they want to do. They want to hit. They want to hit! It is hurting the game.’’

And after Golden State Warriors’ point guard Stephen Curry told reporters that he wouldn’t attend the White House to meet the president, as is customary for world champion sports teams, Trump took to Twitter to disinvite Curry.  

By Saturday, the NFL’s corporatist commissioner Roger Goodell faced little choice but to rebuke Trump. “Divisive comments like these demonstrate an unfortunate lack of respect for the NFL, our great game and all of our players, and a failure to understand the overwhelming force for good our clubs and players represent in our communities,” Goodell said in a statement.

Goodell’s sentiments were echoed, in many cases more explicitly, by players, coaches, owners and commentators in the NFL and NBA. By attacking the NFL over the handling of the situation, Trump forced the hands of NFL owners and their organizations. Organizations are normally inclined to stifle such demonstrations because they’re perceived as bad for business, but on Sunday they faced little choice but to band with players. Some teams abstained from entering the field at all during the national anthem. Many players knelt or raised fists. Trump made it ill-advised for the NFL to dispense with or fine anyone for such an action. To do so would’ve been a PR nightmare.

The episode was Jemele Hill v. Trump all over again. Sports leagues and The Worldwide Leader don’t want talent alienating fans with political speech. But when the president acts like a tyrant and demands someone who criticizes him or who peacefully protests be fired, the given organization cannot be perceived to be acquiescing; they’re left politely telling the talent to be nice or standing with the talent.

Instead of letting dissent run its course, Trump magnifies it. He put the NFL in an impossible position. Action alienated fans and inaction would alienate fans. There’s more for players to protest and less the league can do about it. Trump has made enemies out of former supporters, and he will very likely cost the league millions of dollars.

The NFL’s coffers are packed, and football is not exactly the most benevolent American business. But still, Trump’s penchant for sabotaging and denigrating American industry is striking. He is a president who has time and again promised to put America first. But he has only done so when it has suited his interests. His Twitter presence and his defense of white supremacists in Charlottesville made it untenable for American business leaders to work with Trump on his manufacturing council. He has repeatedly attacked and sown distrust in the media, which, lest he forget, is an American industry. And he has made overtly political, and resultantly polarized, nearly every sector of entertainment.

Sports leagues will be fine. The NFL has withstood an attempt by Trump to replace it; it will withstand Trump’s bad press. But more alarming is the utter disregard Trump has demonstrated towards the American worker. By undoing regulations, he has made American workers and citizens vulnerable to corporate negligence. The latest healthcare plan he championed will weaken protections for people with preexisting conditions. And now Trump wants the NFL to do away with protections for NFL players because the game used to be “tougher” and more entertaining? How dare he claim that “Making America Safe is my number one priority”?

Donald Trump was supposed to run America like a business. But what CEO is permitted by his or her shareholders to vehemently criticize subsidiaries in public, make toxic nearly every working relationship and advocate for putting their workers at greater risk? Trump only wants docile bodies, unthinking reverence, the return of an old racial and gender order and theater. He has always been more suited to the role of reality TV star than businessman. It’s at moments like these that you hope Republicans will have had enough of his antics and his policy ineptitude and impeach him. But it seems more likely that this all ends with The Rock challenging him to a cage match.  

After Reagan and Trump, Republicans don’t get to complain about liberal celebrities anymore

Jimmy Kimmel (Credit: AP/Chris Pizzello)

Conservatives are not allowed to complain about celebrities who promote left-wing agendas.

It’s as simple as that.

Within the last forty years, the only two celebrities to be elected to the presidency — indeed, the first two presidents whose careers began as entertainers rather than statesmen, military leaders, adventurers or intellectuals — were Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump. Both hailed from the Republican Party’s most conservative faction at the time they were nominated, and both did their utmost to push the nation to the right after being elected.

Of course, at least Reagan had the basic common sense to serve as Governor of California for two terms before seeking the White House. Trump went directly from his reality TV show to his presidential campaign.

You would think that these facts alone would silence conservatives whenever they try to denounce celebrities for pushing liberal positions. But as the reactions to Jimmy Kimmel and the NFL player protests indicate, Republicans won’t allow a little hypocrisy from stifling one of their favorite talking points.

When Kimmel used his talk show to denounce the latest Republican effort to destroy Obamacare, Lifezette complained that “predictably, the liberal Hollywood masses herded around Kimmel and used him as their champion against the bill from Republicans.” PJ Media tried to demean Kimmel and his call for compassion for the less fortunate by dismissively describing him as “a professional comedian by trade” who was “back on his soapbox.” Even when Kimmel first talked about health care reform in May — on that occasion by describing his own heartbreaking experience nearly losing his newborn son due to a congenital heart issue — the Washington Examiner sneered, “This is why America hates Hollywood.”

This anti-liberal celebrity assumption was present again in responses to the NFL protests that occurred on Sunday, as evidenced by tweets like these.

NFL, MSM, & liberal celebrities if you Hate & disrespect our country so much, PLEASE JUST LEAVE NOW !

— MAGA DAWN (@dawn_dawnrene3) September 25, 2017

Nobody cares what the liberal celebrities have to say. They're just stupid show ponies.

— jeff nygaard (@jnygaard88) September 25, 2017

Who fckn cares what celebrities say ..they are nothing more than bleeding heart liberal's anyway.. their opinions don't matter

— DemHater (@LiberalsSuckCck) September 25, 2017

NFL and Liberal Hollywood celebrities won't see a dime from me again until they get their heads on straight! Tough love is necessary here!

— Michael Kosterman (@MKosterman) September 10, 2017

The Kimmel and NFL stories are the most prominent ones from the recent news cycle, but attacking liberal celebrities has been a popular right-wing tactic since the days when Senator Joe McCarthy tried to blackball Hollywood left-wingers by accusing them of being Communist double-agents. It is a tactic that seems to have gone into overdrive during the Trump era, from Republican celebrity Tim Allen complaining that conservatives get treated badly in Hollywood (even though his career is doing fine) to White House counselor Kellyanne Conway denouncing the Emmys’ slamming of Trump on the grounds that it wasn’t like the awards shows she used to watch as a child.

That last event, the right wing rage at the jokes made about Trump during the Emmys, deserves some closer inspection. Here is what Fox News host Sean Hannity had to say after the event.

“Leftist Hollywood elites smearing, slandering, besmirching the character of President Trump at the Emmys,” Hannity said. “Now, take a look at just some of the comments from these overpaid, out of touch, pampered Hollywood liberals — and they’re kind of dumb and hypocritical — including the host, Stephen Colbert.”

Notice that, again and again, the logic here isn’t that the celebrities are wrong because of specific ways in which they disagree with Trump’s policies. No, the complaint used by Hannity is that there is something inherently wrong with celebrities having political opinions at all.

And yet we’ve had President Ronald Reagan. And President Donald Trump.

There have also been a plethora of other prominent Republican celebrities-turned-politicians, from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California to New York Rep. Jack Kemp (later a vice presidential candidate) and California Reps. Sonny Bono and Bob Dornan. There have been a handful of liberal ones as well, most notably Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota, as well as the occasional iconoclast like Gov. Jesse Ventura of Minnesota.

Yet the reason Reagan and Trump need to be singled out is that, well, they became president. Schwarzenegger and Ventura may have led individual states, and Kemp, Franken, Bono and Dornan may have influenced specific public policies in Congress, but Reagan and Trump have transformed our nation single-handedly.

The 1980s are colloquially known as the Reagan Era because his brand of conservative politics became so indelibly associated with the zeitgeist of that decade. While Trump may never earn a similar distinction, he has helped the disparate white supremacist and misogynistic political movements routinely categorized as the “alt right” receive mainstream acceptance by virtue of his election.

These aren’t just celebrities who happened to express a controversial opinion here and there. No two celebrities in American history have ever had as much of a direct impact on our political life as Reagan and Trump. Their political significance, as a pair, outweighs the combined clout of every single celebrity in Hollywood and the NFL combined.

So the next time you hear someone try to discredit a Hollywood or NFL liberal by saying that celebrities shouldn’t butt into politics, just mention the names Ronald and Donald.

Enough said.

The 5 most racist incidents in sports this year

There was a time where ESPN was a part of my diet. You could’ve filed it right above salad and below water because I consumed it day in day out. But that’s over now, and it has nothing to do with the network, as I think they always had amazing programing. My issue is with the culture surrounding sports today.

Is this 1950 or 2017? I remember when sports were a great unifier, and racists who never had any real proximity to black people found ways to identify with and celebrate black culture through sports. Magic Johnson’s smile and no-look passes changed perspectives. Athletes like Michael Jordan erased stereotypes with his amazing work ethic and professionalism. I wish it didn’t take athletics for so many to see the humanity in black people; however, it worked for a long time. Now, though, disgruntled fans are doing things like spray painting the N-word on LeBron’s home and chanting racist comments to players at baseball games.

All of these extreme acts are on top of the fact that Colin Kaepernick is still unemployed even though he has the 17th best QB rating in the NFL. Many believe that Kapernick’s unemployment is directly connected to the stance he took against systemic racism last year by choosing to take a knee during the National Anthem — a position that the president chose to condemn in harsh terms last week, leading to a wave of athletes protesting in solidarity over the weekend and a new round of backlash.

Today on the Salon 5 we are going highlight five disgusting acts dealing with race that are plaguing the sports world, and hope that all fans push for a change in culture, because we deserve better.

Tune into Salon’s live shows, “Salon Talks” and “Salon Stage,” daily at noon ET / 9 a.m. PT and 4 p.m. ET / 1 p.m. PT, streaming live on  Salon  and on  Facebook .