Heritage Surprise

    Christopher Columbus was not Italian, according to recent research. Rather, he was of the Sephardic Jewish tradition in Spain, and traveled westward to find a new route to the homeland of his people as well as for Spanish Muslims.
   So says a new study by Spanish researchers.
   The goal was to evade the Spanish Inquisition, which was at its height in 1492, under the leadership of Ferdinand and Isabella, the new royalty in Spain.
   (Didn't expect that, did you? But nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.)
   The plan formulated was to transfer Jews and Muslims out of Spain and back to their traditional homeland in the Middle East. That was backed up by the knowledge that the world was round, and taking the westward route would bypass territory controlled by Roman Catholics in Italy. This was supported by the belief that the planet was small enough to enable a roundabout route to the homeland.
   This belief supported the explorer's belief that India as part of his voyage, and that's why the people in the Americas are called "Indians."
   The Spanish government plan, led by Ferdinand and Isabella, was to persuade all Jewish and Muslim people in Spain at the time to either convert to Christianity or face deportation. But rather than send the deportees across the Mediterranean to their traditional homeland in the Middle East, the suggestion was to ship them westward and around the globe. It was known at the time that the world was indeed round, but that it was much smaller. That's why, when Columbus arrived in the Americas, he thought had arrived in India, and called the people he encountered "Indians."
   Columbus himself was not Italian, as many now believe, but of the Sephardic Jewish tradition. His goal was to evade the Spanish Inquisition, which was at its height in 1492, under the leadership of Ferdinand and Isabella.
   The tradition of Italian-Americans to honor Columbus as the explorer who discovered America dates back only to the late 19th Century in New York City, when Italian-Americans were under severe discrimination, and a priest came up with the suggestion that the explorer was Italian, and therefore newcomers to America would honor him and celebrate their right to be here.
   At the time, bias against those of Italian heritage was as strong as earlier bias against Irish newcomers. Similar bigotry existed in America later against Japanese American citizens as World War II began, and even now against those of the Hispanic tradition who come the U.S. seeking jobs and security.
   Oddly, those who are the loudest in their condemnation of newcomers are themselves first-generation descendants of those who come to America seeking opportunity.
   "Send me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

Licentious

   Donald Trump now claims the FCC should take away CBS Television's license for broadcasting an interview with Kamala Harris on its weekly program, "60 Minutes."
   Point one: He rejected an interview request from the same program executives.
   Point two: Such a suspension would violate the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment guarantee of a free press. (The FCC has refuted the demand.)
   Point three: If a candidate can succeed in such a demand, so also could a President.
   Point four: If government can control TV media, it could also control print media.
   Point five: If this happens, then the U.S. is no longer a democracy, but a dictatorship.
   Point six: Perhaps this is just what this political leader wants.

   Such a thing has already happened in other countries.

Warning

   Commentators talk often about politicians. But does anyone listen?
   Therein lies the question. Whether 'tis wiser in the mind to suffer the verbal slings and arrows of outrageous politicians or to ignore them.
   Traditionally, many folks say violence is not the answer. But others say yes, it is, citing the need to get the attention of small-minded politicians. (There's another kind?)
   Still others deny that, insisting that such a tactic only leads to pain and injury, both physical and emotional.
   Where's the answer? Where's the game? If we don't play the game, do we suffer shame?
   But like someone once said, if you want to tell 'em something, you gotta get their attention first.
   However, aggressive talking is one thing. Violence is something else, and is not civil.
 

PR Guideline

"Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel."

   Back in the day, that warning applied to editors and publishers of print media. Today, it adds broadcasting to the list.
   Donald Trump once threatened to take away the broadcast license of any TV network that criticized him.
   Problem: TV networks, especially cable affiliated units, don't have broadcast licenses. Why? Because they don't broadcast. Cable transmission is not broadcasting.
   Secondly, shutting down a news operation for its negative reports violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
   Perhaps a president could get around that by claiming the Constitution specifies that Congress "shall make no law abridging freedom of the press."
   That means it does not apply to a President, they insist. However, that implies that a President is a firm ruler who dictates who can do what.
   Note the term "dictate."
   An extreme warning? Yes, but the last time we had a ruler bent on dictating who can do what, the consequence was a rebellion.
   The year was 1776.

Hopeful Loser

   It's possible that Donald Trump expects to lose the coming election, so he can  use his allegation of falsity to justify his takeover by force.
   That was the apparent plan eight years ago, when he talked so much about a "rigged" election.
   Even before any votes were counted.
   But after a series of challenges that went all the way to a Supreme Court referee, Trump took the presidency.
   So who did the rigging?
   Now we hear similar warnings, and again they come from Trump himself, but now the warning is of a "dictatorship."
   That's the word he used himself, even as he added the claim that it would be "only on day one."
   But where is the guarantee that day one would be the only day?
   Promises, promises.

   Meanwhile, time is passing. Election day is nearing. Candidates are expanding the volume and number of their claims, both how good they are and how their opponents behave.
   Plus, they warn of how bad things will become if their opponent takes office.
   So what else is new? said the resident cynic.

   Of the main guidelines for journalism -- Who, What, Where, When and Why -- the first four are relatively easy to gather. The final W, however, can be difficult, so it is left out of daily news reports, leaving it to opinion writers or weekly analysts.
   It comes down to this: Why do politicians do what they choose to do?
   Some will say they had no choice; they were forced by circumstances beyond their control.
   Or some will blame it on an evil spirit. "The devil made me do it," they insist.
   Others will say there is always a choice, and they should follow the dictates of their conscience, or of their religious teaching to help resist temptation.
   But is following someone else's dictates really a choice? Where is personal responsibility?
   As for the first option -- "forced by circumstances beyond their control" -- what happened to personal responsibility?
   Politicians repeat this claim, but this time the personal responsibility is on someone else.
   You can't have it both ways.

Election Nearing

   The closer we get to election day, the louder and more boisterous candidates and their supporters behave.
   With the advent of television and national networks, the boisterousity becomes louder and more aggressive daily, even to the level of ignoring truth.
   Not that truth was ever crucial in political campaigning.
   But before television and its nationwide networks, false claims or even those of questionable value, were mostly regional -- if that much.
   Moreover, early regulation of broadcast licensing was more critical of half-truth, lies or even biased reports.
   That was back in the day when many regions had only one or two -- if any -- TV stations accessible, and they were based in the largest nearby city. In addition, their programming  reflected the interests and preferences of urban believers. Suburban and rural viewers saw mostly programs aimed at the majority of viewers -- those who had enough money to respond to advertising.
   Politics has not changed, and corruption remains a problem, especially in cities. In addition, bigotry causes violence.
   In past decades, newcomers struggled for acceptance, often because of prejudice from those whose ancestors came to America much earlier.
   "We were here first," was the motto and justification for demands that they were entitled to seniority and preferential treatment.
   But we don't hear that from the Algonquin, the Lenape and people of the many other tribes who were here before European pilgrims.

Political Biology

   Republicans now claim that Democratic candidate and current Vice President Kamala Harris should not be elected president because she has never had a child.
   But no other U.S. president, going all the way back to George Washington, has ever had a child.
   They were all men.
   Quick biology lesson: Only women can have children. Men cannot.
   Moreover, some presidents never married. Washington married a widow and adopted her children, but sired none of his own.