Why “Literally” Normally Means “Not Literally”

Not LiterallyIf there is one “misuse” of a word that is likely to make a grammar pedant go crazy, it is the use of “literally” to mean “not literally”: figuratively or metaphorically. But like with most things about pedants, they are wrong. For the millionth time, grammar is a way to understand how language works. It is not a way of constraining it. Grammar snobs are ridiculous in the same way that physicists would be who complain that relativistic mechanics doesn’t act the way that Newton’s theory does. But grammar snobs can get away with this because most people don’t understand that grammar is a model and not a definition.

But if you were to click over to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary and look at the entry for “literally,” you would notice something interesting. The first definition of the word is, “in a literal sense or manner: actually.” But the second definition of the word is, “in effect: virtually.” Now I should be clear: I try very hard to never use “literally” in the second sense. I like words to be clean. And I definitely don’t like to get into arguments (or cabs, elevators, or even really city blocks) with grammar pedants. They’re just exhausting.

There is something weird about the word “literally,” though. It’s kind of useless. Is it ever necessary to say, “He was standing literally in front of me?” About the only time the word is useful is as in, “He took my exaggeration literally.” And it just isn’t used that way very much. So there’s another reason not to use word. It is very rarely necessary. It just stands in the way of communicating what you want to say. But there is a reason that people use the word so much, and it isn’t unjustified.

“Literally” is mostly used as an intensifier: a word meant to add force to whatever is near it. So just as someone might say, “He was really big,” they might also say, “He was literally a giant.” Used in this way, those who “misuse” the word are actually right. Because if the man was André the Giant, it would be redundant to say that he was literally a giant; he was just a giant — it’s in the name. It’s little wrinkles like this that the grammar snobs almost never think about. But I don’t suppose it greatly matters.

But this explains why it is that the second definition of “literally” is the more common one. It isn’t a very useful word in its “correct” form. People love intensifiers — especially in spoken form. Note the extreme popularity of “fucking” used in this context. In fact, with minor syntactical changes, it can generally be used to replace “literally” in a sentence when it is used this way. But what the grammar pedants need to understand is that most of the time when they use literally “correctly” they are being redundant. And that is an even bigger sin than using literally in a way that literally everyone understands.

The Scandalization of Bravery

Paul GlastrisWhy are conservatives so obsessed with Benghazi? The conventional view is that they see it as a great weapon against Hillary Clinton, and that’s certainly true. Seven bipartisan inquiries, including one by the GOP-controlled House Intelligence Committee, have together debunked every single accusation that there was some kind of scandal associated with the attacks that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other US staff members in Libya in 2012 — for instance, that the administration issued a “stand down” order that kept US military from sending in a rescue team. Yet an eighth investigation, by the Select Committee on Benghazi, grinds on.

In June, the committee spent a day grilling the journalist and former Clinton White House aide Sidney Blumenthal. The purported subject of the hearing was a series of emails about Benghazi that Blumenthal sent to Hillary Clinton, a personal friend, when she was secretary of state. The committee session quickly devolved into a political fishing expedition, with Republicans posing more than 160 questions about Blumenthal’s relationship and communications with the Clintons, more than fifty about the Clinton Foundation, and only four about security in Benghazi. The committee looks also to be the source behind The New York Times’ catastrophically inaccurate front-page story in July alleging a criminal referral to the Department of Justice about Clinton and her emails. The committee’s leader, Republican Representative Trey Gowdy, has said that the committee’s report won’t be completed until (surprise, surprise) 2016, in the middle of the presidential race. In the rich history of Washington scandal mongering, we have seen few investigations more cynical and nihilistic than this one.

Still, I don’t think naked political expediency sufficiently explains the bottomless well of outrage that Benghazi has stirred up among base Republican voters. To understand that, I think you have to go back to the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis. Those who lived through that era can recall not just the nail-biting drama of those 444 days but also the sense of national effrontery — Ted Koppel’s famous nightly ABC News show about the crisis was tellingly entitled America Held Hostage.

The hostage crisis had three lasting effects. First, because it happened on Jimmy Carter’s watch, in the midst of a presidential race, and ended at the very moment Ronald Reagan was sworn into office, the crisis validated Republicans’ inner sense that they and only they could be trusted to protect America’s security. Second, the crisis turned the general subject of the safety of US diplomats into a political and ideological issue in a way it never had been. In the eleven years prior to the hostage crisis, five US ambassadors were murdered by militants and terrorists in places like Lebanon, Guatemala, and the Sudan. None of those losses, which occurred under presidents of both parties, was seen by the public or in Washington as a grievous insult to America generally, or through a partisan filter, or as evidence of systematic failure by the US government requiring root-to-branch investigations with presumptions of perfidy at the top. Rather, they were treated the same way Chris Stevens’s murder (the first of a US ambassador since 1979) should be seen: as brave diplomats killed in the line of duty.

The third effect of the hostage crisis was to make politicians and the State Department so paranoid about security that they turned US embassies into fortresses and put tight restrictions on the movement of staff. This has certainly saved American lives. But it’s also made it much harder for our diplomats to do their jobs — a point that the foreign correspondent and former Washington Monthly editor Robert Worth made in The New York Times Magazine in 2012. As a foreign correspondent myself in the mid-1990s I remember senior US foreign service officers expressing envy at my ability to travel to wherever the action was and interview people — an absolutely vital way of learning what’s happening on the ground that they could no longer do without heavy security, or, in many cases, at all. A reporter friend of mine in Sarajevo in 1995 who later served as a USAID officer in Pakistan used to complain to me that he felt like a prisoner in the embassy in Islamabad, unable, really, to do his job effectively.

Ambassadors make the calls on diplomatic security matters in their domains, so they have more leeway to decide where, when, and how they travel. But the pressure on them from their staffs and Washington not to take chances is intense.

Chris Stevens famously pushed back against that pressure in 2011 when, as US envoy to Libya, he was the US government’s main interlocutor to the rebels who ultimately overthrew Moammar Ghadhafi. Stevens, who spoke the Libyan dialect of Arabic, lived openly in Benghazi with minimal security. His actions during that period became legendary among US diplomats. It was an act of patriotic bravery, repeated a year later when, as ambassador, he returned to Benghazi, knowing as well as anyone the poor security situation there. We need more Chris Stevenses in our diplomatic corps. The Republicans in Congress are doing everything they can to make sure we have fewer, even if that isn’t their intention.

—Paul Glastris
The Scandalization of Bravery…

Labor Day 2015

[I wrote this last year for Labor Day. And I think it is great. If you didn’t read it then, you really should read it now. It tells the history of the holiday and about the people who suffered so we could all enjoy it. -FM]

Happy Labor Day!Happy labor day, comrades! Do you know why labor day is today and not on May Day — International Workers’ Day? Well, it’s because of the commies and anarchists. President Grover Cleveland was afraid of associating the international worker movements with the American movements. Of course, Cleveland wasn’t all that keen on the labor movement. But he made Labor Day a national holiday! Why? Because he was trying to make nice after totally screwing up in the government’s response to the Pullman Strike.

This is an interesting but totally typical story. The Pullman Company made railroad cars. Following the Panic of 1893, Pullman lowered worker wages. There is nothing especially wrong with this. It can be much better than laying workers off. Of course, Pullman did lay off workers. It probably only lowered wages because it had an excuse. But all that was probably okay.

The problem was that the workers lived in a company town. They paid the company for rent and food and more. But when the company lowered wages, it did not lower the cost it was charging workers for their necessities. The workers were, not surprisingly, unhappy about this situation. But George Pullman refused to lower his company town prices and refused to even arbitrate the matter.

Eugene DebsNotice the situation here: Pullman thought that his workers should suffer because of the bad economic conditions. But he didn’t think he should suffer at all. During the first years following our financial crisis and the bursting of the housing bubble, there was endless repetition that what the country needed was “shared sacrifice.” But if you dug down even a little into these pleas, you saw that it was all sacrifice by the lower classes — none by the upper. For example: we heard constantly that we had to cut Social Security, but we couldn’t even mention raising the payroll tax cap. (That would be class warfare!) The bankers were bailed out without much fuss but homeowners were just left to their foreclosures. And there were large cuts to social programs but only a tiny increase in the very top marginal tax rate and only because it was going up anyway.

More desperate than we are today, many of the workers joined Eugene Debs’ American Railway Union (ARU). And they went on strike. It got ugly. Union members eventually stopped railroad service in a number of places. Then Grover Cleveland used the interruption of mail delivery to justify sending in federal troops. This did eventually end the strike — at a loss of 30 striker lives and almost twice as many wounded. This is generally the way it goes.

The government does not like organized labor. It is too much of a threat to the status quo. When organized, workers have enormous power. That was why, in 1947, we got the Taft–Hartley Act, which outlawed “jurisdictional strikes, wildcat strikes, solidarity or political strikes, secondary boycotts, secondary and mass picketing, closed shops, and monetary donations by unions to federal political campaigns.” And after that, Reagan savaged unions and basically made the remaining union rights void through lack of enforcement.

Grover ClevelandIn 1894, of course, the government was scared. Grover Cleveland and the rest of the government wanted to make nice with organized labor. They probably had Louis XVI of France in mind and were trying to hedge their bets. So only six days after the strike ended, Cleveland signed the legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

As for old George Pullman, well, a national commission was appointed to look into the causes of the strike. It found Pullman culpable and said his company town was “un-American.” In 1898, the company was forced to sell off the land, which became part of Chicago. It didn’t matter to George Pullman, however; he died the year before.

After the strike, Debs was arrested and charged with conspiracy to obstruct the mail. You know: it wasn’t enough to have your strike crushed; Debs was a little man and so the government needed to crush him too. But Debs was represented by one of the great heroes of that period: Clarence Darrow. Darrow argued that Debs didn’t conspire to do anything and that it was the railroad that conspired against the workers. This is something that doesn’t seem to be understood by my libertarian enemies who almost to a man hate unions: if workers aren’t able to organize, it isn’t fair; the company management is very organized.

The prosecutors saw they were going to lose the case, so they dropped the conspiracy charge. Debs was later convicted on the lesser charge of violating a Supreme Court injunction and was given six months in jail. Although he entered jail what we might call a liberal, he left a socialist. While in prison he read a whole bunch of Marx and that changed his outlook. He was also influenced by visits from Victor L Berger. Along with him and others, Debs founded the Social Democratic Party of America. He went on to run for president as a socialist five times — the last time in 1920, he did from prison. He was serving a ten year sentence for violating Obama’s favorite law, the Espionage Act of 1917. He violated it by giving a speech that “obstructed recruiting” for World War I.

In 1921, The Bridgemen’s Magazine wrote:

Labor Day evolved from the aspiration of the labor movement; it was not handed down as a present. Its recognition as a legal holiday was won by labor: it was not given as a present.

So enjoy your Labor Day. But don’t forget the suffering and loss that it represents. And don’t stand for people like Eric Cantor showing such great disrespect to it. We know conservatives hate the labor movement. We know that many so called liberals are at best apathetic towards the labor movement. But the least we can demand is that they all show a modicum of respect one day of the year. Now go enjoy your barbecue or whatever.

Morning Music: Head and Heart

Bless the Weather - John MartynAs we explore the music of John Martyn, I figure we should skip past his fine work with his wife Beverley Martyn to what is kind of the real beginning of his career, Bless the Weather. He really expanded on this album. For one thing, he has a full French jazz kind of band. It is still focused on his amazing guitar work. But his singing became more jazzy too.

This is how I discovered Martyn. Off the second America album, Homecoming, they did his song “Head and Heart.” And even at the time, I thought it by far the best thing on the album. So in later years, I looked into him. Sadly, all I have is another album cut for this one. But I promise you a live performance tomorrow. In addition to everything else, check out the amazing guitar work at the end of the song:

Anniversary Post: Pope Boniface VIII’s Arrest

Pope Boniface VIIIOn this day in 1303, Pope Boniface VIII was taken prisoner by King Philip IV of France. There, he was beaten almost to death. He died three days after his release just a month later.

So what was up with that? Well, Boniface had this theory that since everyone’s salvation depended upon the Catholic Church, everyone needed to be subordinate to it — and thus him. And this wasn’t some “kingdom of God” sort of thing. He was actively involved in foreign affairs. So Philip had him arrested for sodomy. That was pretty much Philip’s default charge against his enemies. He probably thought it was something that everyone was guilty of anyway. The truth is that under some definitions of sodomy, masturbation and sex with condoms qualify.

What’s more interesting is that Dante threw Boniface into hell in The Divine Comedy. Since it was set in 1300 — three years before Boniface died. We simply learn that, yeah, the old bastard is coming to the eighth circle of hell for the sin of simony. That’s the selling of church titles. There is no doubt that Boniface was guilty of that charge. It would be damned hard to find a pope of that time who didn’t.

Still, was Boniface a terrible pope? By the standards of the time? Well, he did massacre the entire town of Palestrina just because he was pissed off at one family. But it is important to remember that this isn’t what got him in trouble. What can I say? It was a time when being a pope meant something!

I Finally Saw Minions

MinionsAfter such a long time trying, I finally got around to seeing Minions. Of course, by that time, I had heard a lot of whispering that it wasn’t that great. And it wasn’t. That’s not to say that it wasn’t quite enjoyable. It just wasn’t up to the two Despicable Me films. It was written by Brian Lynch, who is basically a comic book writer. His main screen credit before was another film I wanted to love but which somehow missed, Puss in Boots. But let’s make no mistake here: the main problem is the script.

Minions is at times very funny. And as an adorer of these little yellow creatures, I was constantly entertained. But there was not enough of a plot to hang the movie on. The second act is incredibly episodic. Basically, the Minions find themselves living in the arctic because they have a very bad habit of destroying the evil people they work for. But their lives lack meaning, so Kevin, Stuart, and Bob set out in search of a new “boss.” That’s a fine setup. What’s more, given that it takes place in 1968, it sets up the introduction of the young Gru.

But the plot lacks much in the way of motivation, even with that very clear setup. I don’t especially like to second guess writers, but this one is prime for what I consider a modern 5-act structure: (1) the Minions set out on their journey; (2) they overcome many obstacles; (3) they arrive in civilization; (4) they find a new boss and things go terribly wrong; (5) it gets resolved. Now that is actually an outline of the film. But the structure isn’t there. Almost the entire film stays in act 4. That would have been fine, but it would have required a different structure — even a different story.

It would have required something else too: a better villain. Scarlet Overkill is one of the most boring villains ever. Even her big introduction was lame. I get that it — like the Despicable Me films — was making fun of corporate culture. And certainly business people make a big deal of the most banal celebrities. But that doesn’t work in a film. And it certainly doesn’t work here where we are expected to spend about an hour with this tedious character. Clearly, Lynch understood this because he created Herb Overkill — Scarlet’s husband and Q. Now he was interesting and well worth saving for later films.

In addition, Scarlet Overkill who is so furocious at the beginning turns out not to be much of a super-villain as she fights with the Minions. And in the end, little boy Gru seems to be a lot more together than he is four decades later. Mostly, it is all a mess. I’ll admit: a very creative mess, but a mess nonetheless. There is another big problem that was not Lynch’s fault. Scarlet Overkill was almost indistinguishable from Lucy Wilde in Despicable Me 2. And Herb Overkill was just a slight variation on Vector in Despicable Me.

As to the question of whether I will buy Minions when it comes out on DVD… Are you kidding?! Of course I will. They’re adorable! Not as adorable as Agnes, but very adorable nonetheless.

Whole Foods Ain’t That Great to Its Employees

Nicole AschoffWhole Foods workers are better off than many retail and fast food workers. Permanent, full-time employees earn considerably more than minimum wage, and both part-time and full-time workers receive health insurance: part-timers working at least twenty hours a week can buy full-cost coverage after working 400 hours, and full-timers can get lower-cost coverage after working 800 hours. Executive pay is kept in check, relative to other major corporations, and the management structure is more horizontal than vertical. However, wages for many Whole Foods employees fall far below a living wage. Cashier wages range between $8 and hour to $14 for permanent employees, while workers in other parts of the store make between $10 and $15 an hour. Despite its claims that Whole Foods honors all stakeholders, many team members including full-time workers, are forced to rely on food stamps, and a recent study found that 17% of Whole Food’s Massachusetts employees are enrolled in Medicaid.

—Nicole Aschoff
The New Prophets of Capital

Religious Liberty Doesn’t Mean What Kim Davis and Ted Cruz Think It Means

Kentucky Clerk Kim DavisVia Talking Points Memo, Ted Cruz: “I Stand With Kim Davis.” Davis, of course, is the woman now sitting in jail for refusing to do her job of issuing any marriage licenses because she is offended by the idea of same sex marriage. Cruz and Mike Huckabee are coming down in the same place on this one. Davis is supposedly a Christian martyr. Cruz said, “Today, judicial lawlessness crossed into judicial tyranny.” It’s pretty boilerplate stuff coming from a “Constitutional” conservative. They love to throw around the word “tyranny” because it was in the Declaration of Independence. But the way they use it makes it meaningless. It’s just a word they use whenever the government does anything they don’t agree with.

Cruz made an analogy between Davis and San Francisco Major Ed Lee (for the sanctuary city) and President Obama (for immigration law enforcement). These are false analogies, but I don’t feel like going into them right now. The main thing is that this is being made out like a religious freedom issue. And of course that’s the way they are going to play this. But as German Lopez noted, the government actually offered to accommodate her by letting her pass the job on to a willing subordinate. But she refused.

I heard her husband on NPR earlier talking about how “the gays” want their rights recognized, but they don’t want to recognize the rights of Christians. Well, here we have it. Davis didn’t need to be involved with this. But she won’t be satisfied unless she is actually able to stop same sex couples from exercising their secular rights to marriage. It’s all about bigotry. And this could not be more clear. When last I wrote about this, I noted how strange it was that Christians like Davis didn’t just say, “Sure the government can ‘marry’ whomever they want, but God doesn’t accept those marriages!” But Davis isn’t standing up for God’s word; she’s standing up for her cultural privilege.

I’m not a legal scholar, but I do know a bit about drug law. For a very long time, drug users of various kinds of been making the argument that the use of this or that banned substance is part of their religious practice. And the courts have always said the same thing, “Nice try!” Similarly, people could say, “My religion forbids me from allowing African Americans to eat at my diner.” Or they could say, “My religion forbids me from paying income taxes.” It doesn’t matter; your religion could say anything at all. And that is why the courts have decided that you still have to follow the law.

Kim Davis is doing a great service to same sex marriage. In a different article, German Lopez wrote, Republican Candidates to Kentucky Clerk: Follow the Law and Marry Same-Sex Couples. Admittedly, the three candidates he highlights are on the less-crazy side of the crazy party. But still: Davis isn’t fooling anyone. She’s just making a big deal out of her religion and most people see it for what it is: narcissism. Most people I’ve talked to find it exhausting. Their response is, “Oh, just do your job!” It doesn’t matter whether they are for or against same sex marriage, they understand that the issue has been settled and Kim Davis is just an annoyance.

Meanwhile, if God exists, he, she, or it approves of this:

Is the Nazi Gold Train Legend for Real? Maybe

Nazi Gold Train Location?!There is a Polish legend called the Nazi gold train. Supposedly, at the end of World War II, some Nazis filled up three train cars with gold and other valuables and then hid it in a tunnel under the Owl Mountains in southwest Poland. It is said to contain 300 tons of treasure. The reason I bring it up is because there are two treasure hunters who claim that they have found it. This is despite the fact that there is no actual historical record of it, and when Poland was under communist rule, the government did a lot of work trying to find it.

But who cares? Well, for one: an employer of mine. I’ve been working on a project that relates to this. But it puts me in a difficult position because I just ain’t buying it. Just check out the story here. Recently, someone who was supposedly involved in burying the train died. That was 70 years ago, so we are talking someone really old. And on his death bed, he revealed where the train was hidden. So these two treasure hunters went out and used ground penetrating radar and discovered a train. But that’s as much as we know at this point.

More recently, the two men — Andreas Richter and Piotr Koper — came forward. Maybe they think this is the real thing — or at least that the train must contain something of value. They offered the location of the train to the Polish government for a 10% cut. Of course, I’m even skeptical of this. It is a way of getting the Polish government to pay the bill for a speculative dig. Is the probability good or bad? It doesn’t matter to these guys. Even if there is just a 1% chance, it’s worth it to them!

It’s also interesting that the location of this train is not consistent with the local legend. The train was supposed to be in a tunnel. Instead, it was found simply buried under ground near a rail line. That doesn’t encourage me. On the other hand, maybe the reason no one has ever found the train is because the legend got it wrong. But that’s not the only issue. Maybe this is a train that the Nazis buried for other reasons. Or it is just a train that crashed and got buried in the course of the war. I find it fascinating, but not really from the treasure angle. Treasure never much interests me — just the stories that go along with it.

I really wonder about this dying Nazi too. Why didn’t he go to the Polish government and collect the prize? This is my guess: he didn’t think it had gold in it. He was involved in burying a train. He’s an old man. A couple of treasure hunters heard something about this guy talking about a buried train. So they go to him and get the information. No one has reported that the guy said there was gobs of treasure to be found. All we know is that he provided the location of a buried train.

One thing I am pretty sure of: this train doesn’t contain the amount of treasure of legend. If it had 300 tons of gold, that would be worth roughly $15 billion. I doubt that legends tend to make treasure troves smaller over time. So I’m skeptical. But the best thing for me is that it is a huge treasure find — because it means more (paid) work. That kind of treasure I am interested in.

Morning Music: John Martyn

London Conversation - John MartynI promised you something nice this week, and that would be the songs of John Martyn. He kind of reminds me of Nick Drake, but without the whole “Do we kill ourselves today?” vibe. It’s kind of hard to categorize him — especially because he lived a lot longer than Drake and got into a lot more stuff. And actually, I think he just was a far more varied creative mind. But that’s the last I’ll mention Drake — except to say that I might do a week of him too.

Let’s start with his very first, very folk, album, London Conversation — on which he performs alone. This is “Ballad of an Elder Woman,” which I just love. And if I had to guess, it will impress a number of you:

Anniversary Post: Magellan’s Mission Completes Without Magellan

VictoriaOn or about this day in 1522, the Victoria returned to Spain — being the first ship to make it around the world. It was the only one of Ferdinand Magellan’s five ships to return. A total of 260 men started the voyage and only 19 returned. That doesn’t mean the other 241 died. A lot of them just had the good sense to desert. But one of the men who did die was Ferdinand Magellan himself. He died in a battle in the Philippines almost a year and a half before the mission was completed — while still over 10,000 miles from home.

So why do people say that Magellan was the first man to sail around the world? Well, they have to give someone the credit and it was his voyage. But that’s a big part of what is wrong with humans: our insistence on seeing everything in heroic terms. There were so many people who made that trip possible — including scores of people who never set foot on one of those ships. But we just don’t seem to be able to grok that.

Interestingly, I think this is why most people are so much more interested in manned spaceflight. I prefer the robotic kind myself. When humans are involved in that way, I just worry about their safety. But in addition to that, when it is an unmanned mission, it is clear that it is the accomplishment not just of the thousands of people who worked directly on the mission, but of the entire society. And the world is a better place the more we think that way.

So the Magellan mission sailing around the world was a great accomplishment. As for the man? Whatever.

The Most American People in the World!

Donald Trump PiñataIt would be great to be born rich. Obviously, the money would be great. But let’s forget about that. You’d still be rich — or at least well off. That’s because of all of the investment and employment opportunities you would have. You would be connected — networked! That’s what it is all about. There is a wonderful quote in (for the third time today) Nicole Aschoff’s excellent, The New Prophets of Capital, “Going to State University and stalking potential employers on LinkedIn is not equivalent to going to Harvard and having a CEO for an uncle.” Right!

But let’s not limit this. If you were born here in the United States — the child of a couple of people who represent generations here, you have some advantages too. At least you have advantages over people who swim the Rio Grande and somehow survive their way through the desert. You would generally have an uncle who can at least put in a good word for you even at a crummy company. So it is better to be an American than an immigrant. Or it would be if all else were equal.

Of course, all else is not equal. Let’s face it: if you risked death swimming the Rio Grande and hiking through the desert, you are probably made of better stuff than the natural born American. And this is why immigrants are often hugely successful in this country. One of the great myths of America is that we are a nation of immigrants! And we are — in a technical sense. Even the slaves who were brought here against their will represent the ones who survived. Their descendants come from people who lived through lifetimes of torture. If there is such a thing as American exceptionalism, it is that.

But most Americans hate immigrants. I even have a friend who seems to think that he — knowing only English — is at a disadvantage for jobs compared to people who speak pretty much exclusively Spanish. It’s all kind of a whine, anyway, as he’s naturally good at languages and could pick up Spanish if he really wanted. But the main thing is that while knowing Spanish in California is certainly helpful, if you could only pick a single language to know, English is by far the best choice.

My point in bringing all this up is that I’m mostly for an open boarder. And I certainly think that the people who have risked death to get here just so they could work in the grey economy should be given green cards immediately. These are the most American people in the world! They are more American than anyone I know who was born here. They are certainly more American than Donald Trump.

Here’s a fun fact. I just wrote an article, Donald Trump Is Rich Because He Was Born Rich. That puts the best gloss of Trump that you can. There are a number of people who think that Trump’s actual wealth is only about a quarter of a billion dollars. That’s a lot, of course. But he inherited $50 million in 1974. Adjusting just for the rate of inflation, this represents — Wait for it! — a quarter billion dollars!

Trump is certainly very American — in the worst sense of the term: privileged, arrogant, and creepy. But when I say the people who risk death to get here are the ultimate Americans, I’m talking about in the good way — the way that does make America better.


Yes, the Donald Trump Piñata is a real thing. Get ’em while they last!