Why I Hate Hillary’s and Donald’s Voters, and Enjoy Doing So

Q:
“Alright, just remember to always explain your opinions logically and give the facts and reasons openly. It doesn’t help the explanation much to rely on emotional explanations without facts.”

A:
It is a fact that I dislike supporters of Hillary Clinton. It is a fact that I dislike supporters of Donald Trump. It is also a fact that some of the people who are in my normal circle of family and friends support Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Because I value maintaining good family relations, and also prefer not to annoy friends (and, you know, “friends”), I make a point of not talking politics with these non-Bernie personal insiders and acquaintances.

Even so, I have taken a nastier anti-Hillary tone lately to try to shake off Hillary type people from my pool of acquaintances (which is the purpose of my new Facebook page). I can afford to have this attitude since I am retired and have no need to ingratiate myself with a wide variety of people in order to carry on a career or become “accepted” in society. But you, as a young person, should not be so unfriendly to the wide variety of idiots that fill the ranks of humanity in these United States. You have yet to launch a professional career, and will need to be tolerant of the many imperfections of your potential audiences. Once you are mature, and have money in the bank, you can prune off the deadwood from you life.

It is true that I see Hillary voters as being one of, or a combination of, the following: ignorant and easily led, obdurate and stupid, selfish, a vagina vanity voter, self-satisfied, spoiled and entitled, suburban, physically older and mentally immature, superficial, vacuous, unaware, gullible, a timorous mediocrity and wannabe careerist dependent on wages, unprincipled: a true careerist in establishment politics, malevolent: an oligarch corrupting democracy with money so as to steal on a grander scale.

Donald Trump’s voters fall into these same categories, except for “vagina vanity voter,” for which they substitute: “bigotry as cover for insecurity by white males.” So, Hillary gets the benefit of XX bigotry, Donald gets the benefit of good-old-boy XY bigotry, and poor Bernie misses out entirely on the bigotry vote because of all his talk of “inclusion” “diversity” and “compassion.” He’s really out of touch with heartland America (and the Confederacy) on this one.

A Hillary or Trump partisan could charge me — beyond being “wrong” about my candidate choice, and beyond the standard charges of being disrespectful of their preferred forms of bigotry and thus a necessary target of them (which I am, proudly and inevitably, respectively) — with taking an insulting attitude toward these partisans and acting superior to them. I don’t see how I can escape such a charge, so I plead guilty. The only mitigating factors I could point out are that:

1, Clinton and Trump partisans don’t care in the slightest what I think, and they pay no attention to what I say or write. So my “insults” of them evaporate in the unseen aridity of their unknowing.

2, The momentarily uncomfortable twinges of mental stress that the proletarian (wage-earning) partisans of Clinton and Trump may feel as a result of my comments and “superior” attitude tickling their cognitive dissonances are quickly dispelled by resort to their favorite palliative: delusion. People believe what they want to believe, and facts don’t matter. By maintaining vacuous and vaporous minds they prevent logical substantive arguments by Bernie Sanders from gaining conceptual traction, and altering their programming. Once again, self-protection by willful ignorance: outta sight, outta mind.

For my part, my sense of superiority comes from knowing that the vision for America that Bernie Sanders presents, and Hillary and Donald oppose, is easily possible and inevitable, in the sense that the 13th Amendment was inevitable, if America is to have any possibility of a worthwhile future. It really comes down to that, folks, are Americans to become servants and slaves? — albeit with gas-guzzling SUVs and big-screen TVs vomiting infotainment garbage on a 24-hour cycle to maintain their conditioning to obedience by the masses — or will the public regain control of their government, their economy, and thus of their lives and the destinies of their children?

So, yes, I think the people who oppose that very realistic vision, by “proudly,” stubbornly and myopically working to advance the ambitions of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, are all the terrible things I have enjoyed saying about them. And, it makes me feel very good to share Bernie Sanders’ vision, and to know that there are millions of people who are my brothers and sisters in the sharing of that vision. QED.

Disgust versus Embarrassment for President

The American news media is diligently fulfilling its obligations to its corporate sponsors by restricting the public discussion of the presidential campaign of 2016 to the two candidates, out of the three contenders, favored by the establishment: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

Hillary Clinton is, of course, the absolute favorite of the establishment, she is a fully bought-off influence peddler yoked to the service of the Big Money, and presents the most popularly appealing package enclosing the the most thoroughly toxic content: unhindered oligarchy.

Donald Trump is tolerated by the establishment because they have no choice, he has commandeered their Republican Party, which fell before the ferocious assault of Trump’s army of populist white supremacist anti-socialist (they think) proletarians.

Bernie Sanders is detested by the establishment because he is a man of impeccable character, morally untarnished history, great wit, humor and experience, and he is fighting tenaciously for the public good. All this bodes ill for corporate-funded political corruption and the many who depend on it for their daily bread (cake).

One of the angles being pushed at the moment by the media, on the wished-for contest between Clinton and Trump, is that of the relative advantage or disadvantage posed by each of their preferred candidate’s massive (and net) un-favorability rating among the public. Bernie Sanders has a high (and net) favorability rating among the public, so establishment media minimizes mention of him.

While the un-favorability ratings of Clinton (57%, of which 46% is strongly unfavorable) and Trump (57%, of which 45% is strongly unfavorable) are comparable, I think the sentiments behind the disfavor of each are different. Against Clinton is disgust, while against Trump is embarrassment.

People who disfavor Hillary Clinton know about her long history of unprincipled ambition, careerism, influence peddling and shameless cupidity. This disgusts people who disfavor her, and such disgust gives them a personal sense of moral superiority, which comfortably distances them from her.

People who disfavor Donald Trump are repulsed by his crude and boorish bigotry and loutish buffoonery, despite his talent for entertaining bombast, and his truthfulness regarding the pain of the white (and black) American proletariate, and the draining bloody waste caused by America’s foreign military adventures and its imperial pretensions. This embarrasses people who disfavor him, because they agree with much of what he says, but they don’t want to be publicly connected with the bigotry, boorishness and bombast even if they secretly agree with it. Embarrassment springs from the shame of sensing that one is not really morally superior to Trump, which uncomfortably shortens the distance to him.

Despite these two flavors of disfavor, people who see their personal interests and illusions advanced (and aversions forestalled) by either Hillary or Donald will vote for whichever applies.

Superficially, it would appear that Trump’s public image carries more liabilities than Hillary Clinton’s, and he is thus less likely to win in November. But, Hillary Clinton has no margin left for improving her public image or erasing her many failings from the public record. In fact, Hillary’s image may suffer serious further abrasion as more of the public takes in the critical report by the State Department’s Inspector General, on Hillary’s illegal (and hacked) private e-mail server while Secretary of State. And, there is always the very well-known possibility for a very-justified criminal indictment, though I would guess the Obama Administration would try to prevent that. So it seems more likely that Hillary’s favorability will decrease rather then increase with time.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, would have an easier time improving his public image than sinking it further. He only has to moderate (he can’t eliminate) his intemperate boorish bigoted bombastic buffoonery to improve the public’s view of him, as “presidential.” Whether he has the discipline, foresight and cleverness to carry off a public image rehabilitation is not clear at this time. But, now that the Republican Party machinery is behind him, I am sure that the best public image rehab doctors will be retained to operate for that purpose. So, I think Trump’s favorability is likely to increase with time.

Today, it was announced that Bernie Sanders will debate Donald Trump (“for charity”) in California before the June 7 Democratic primary. As a Bernie supporter I naturally assume that Bernie will trounce Trump. However, regardless of how that debate unfolds, it is a certainty that the biggest loser will be Hillary Clinton.

A Sanders-Trump debate will highlight:

1, the fact that Hillary Clinton reneged on her commitment to debate Bernie in California before the primary (dismissiveness of millions of voters),

2, the “presidential” images of both Sanders and Trump, since they would be engaged in an inter-party debate,

3, the failure of past and proposed Hillary Clinton politics (without her present to rebut this) by the mere presentation of Sanders’ and Trumps’ alternatives,

4, the actual debate of principles that the public wants between their two major “anti-establishment” champions.

This debate could be the imaginary snowball that initiates an avalanche of anxiety in the minds of Democratic Party super-delegates terrified of being buried by a “dump Hillary” movement.

It is two months before the party conventions, and five months before the general election.

[Dispatch #3]

<><><><><>

Poll: Election 2016 shapes up as a contest of negatives [22 May 2016]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-election-2016-shapes-up-as-a-contest-of-negatives/2016/05/21/8d4ccfd6-1ed3-11e6-b6e0-c53b7ef63b45_story.html

Yes, I Am Embarrassing

Yes, I know I am embarrassing. I make no apology.

I used to feel that way about my father, sometimes, when I was a teenager. But, that was more my own awkwardness and insecurity, cringing when papa was playfully extroverted in mixed company. He was never crude nor boorish, to require such embarrassment on my part, but knowing him so well and, as it were, seeing through his public affability, I reacted to his mild put-ons as if I had a more sophisticated understanding into social engagement than he did. Now that I am older than he was then, I know better, and I am shamelessly embarrassing. I’ll tell you why.

From my earliest days, I realized that people, generally, are very inattentive; in a word: unaware. They amble blithely in their personal little bubbles oblivious to all that lies outside them. They babble loudly in their little groups in cafés without any thought to disturbing the people around them. They drive their cars with minimal notice of traffic, bicyclists and pedestrians. They have an unfailing ability to not-notice you if they are waiting tables or behind a counter you are in line in front of. There are just an uncountable number of ways that people can not-see, not-hear, not-notice and not-know. Of course, sometimes this not-noticing is intentional, arising from laziness, envy, fear or hostility. But, most of the time is it just simple mindlessness.

Because of the commonness of human narrow-view, short-focus bubble-vision, coupled with perceptual insensitivity, communications are often garbled, incomplete, misdirected, mistimed and ineffective. Who is without complaint on this score, whether at work, at school, among family and friends, and out and about in public?

So, I have learned that it is necessary to be quite redundant in my verbal and written communications. This was especially true in all my attempts to teach in schools. To assume that people will listen and read carefully is sheer folly. By the way, the adults in schools: teachers and administrators, are equally deficient in this regard as are their students. Just ask students how many of their homework assignments have been lost by their teachers, and how often their grading reports have been late, erroneous or missing. So much for teaching by example. But, I digress.

In brief, repetition is the essence of pedagogy. Repetition is the unavoidable necessity of successful communication. So, when I want to ensure that my message is received by another consciousness, I repeat myself: in the speaking of the message, in the writing of the message, and in the repeated sending of the message.

Those who notice this repetition easily form the impression that I am “old,” and even “dumb.” Family and friends who observe all this can then feel embarrassed by old, unsophisticated papa. But, I have made the calculation that it is acceptable to be taken for a bit of a clown if that ensures that the messages I care about have been effectively transmitted.

The messages I care about are those that will make for better lives for my children, and also all children; even though I think most American kids (and adults) are spoiled brats. But, “man is a social animal” (as Aristotle said), and the second best way to ensure a good future for my children is to advocate for a just and peaceful society, of benefit to everyone. This motivation has led me to advocate for social democratic (left wing!) political causes and candidates for public office. My advocacy is quite limited, since I have no talent for politics, no talent for persuasiveness, nor affinity for civic affairs, do-gooderism, joining groups, or just getting on with people generally. I prefer working on my own projects, reading my books, doing my music, playing with my equations, and enjoying wandering through my own daydreams and ideas.

So, my advocacy boils down to writing essays and rants that I throw onto the Internet so they drift into the personal bubbles of a few scattered unknowns, entertaining some, enraging others (who deserve it), and encouraging a few. Beyond that, I speak with the people I commonly see (and who tolerate me) about the causes of the day, if they want to. I am a committed supporter of the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign (in 2016), and I advertise for that cause by wearing two highly visible “Bernie 2016” badges every day. Sometimes people smile at me, sometimes their assholes pucker, but usually I glide through a human sea of not-noticing — both conscious and unconscious. I have plowed up a mountain of embarrassment before me, and I trail a wake of relief behind me. And, I don’t care. Transmission gets through.

I have high hopes for the Bernie Sanders campaign, and for the new generation resplendently buoying it up. But, I also have no confidence in the character of the American people who see themselves as part of the establishment, or who fool themselves into believing they are entitled to its privileges by dint of their heritage and attitudes. It is a disheartening realization that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump can each claim millions of Americans as devoted fans.

Former president Jimmy Carter is correct to say that the United States “no longer has a functional democracy,” because incorporated Big Money can and has bought politicians and elections, so that the vast bulk of the public has little impact on government policy, which they are paying for in money, blood and impoverished futures for their children. And, all that sacrifice subsidizes the obscene corporate looting of the public commons, and the subversion of government to the service of very selfish and destructive special interests. Even so, the remnant of democracy that we still have seems able to produce political figureheads for the oligarchy, whose dismal characters do reflect the embarrassing reality of the dominant traits of the American electorate: morally weak intellectual mediocrities who are tolerant of corruption, sloppy to the point of incompetence, and cravenly selfish. Not everybody, and for most not all the time, but in aggregate just too much.

If this were not so, Bernie Sanders’ vision would have been implemented long ago. The opposition, in 2016, to Bernie Sanders’ campaign and its vision is really of the same type as that before 1865 to the vision encapsulated in the 13th Amendment. I like to believe that the vision of the Sanders Revolution will eventually prevail in the United States, when the evolution of the aggregate character of the American people finally arrives at the requisite “higher level.” But, it’s so damn slow!

My children are all essentially adults at this point, and I think I am ready to go back to being fully un-embarrassingly selfish, to drop all efforts to “communicate” with what George Sanders called (in his suicide note) “the sweet cesspool” of human society, and to wander playfully in my own logic bubble producing my “art” (whatever that may be) for my own satisfaction, since really nobody else cares and why should they? I would very much enjoy the calm and serenity of not caring about anybody beyond those close to me. We’ll see.

Those of you who would prefer to read a much better reflection of satisfaction with life in its later years should read W. Somerset Maugham’s entry for 1944 in his book A Writer’s Notebook. A short excerpt:

“There is a nobility which does not proceed from thought. It is more elemental. It depends neither on culture nor breeding. It has its roots among the most primitive instincts of the human being. Faced with it, God, if he had created man, might hide his head in shame. It may be that in the knowledge that man for all his weakness and sin is capable on occasion of such splendour of spirit, one may find some refuge from despair.”

One thing I’m sure of: once I stop embarrassing you all, my piano playing will improve.

Candidate, Voter & Campaign Matrix 2016

This entirely subjective matrix of characterizations of the candidates, their voters and their campaigns, is 100% accurate in my opinion. The candidates (and the categories associated with them, below) are listed in the preference ranking of the corporate establishment, which is exactly the inverse preference ranking of the public.

Candidate Qualities:

Hillary Clinton: corruption, incompetence, mendacity, careerism.

Donald Trump: bombast, braggadocio, bigotry, bluster.

Bernie Sanders: integrity, vision, judgment, compassion.

Voter Qualities:

Hillary Clinton’s:
old, comfortable, boring, fearful, unthinking, manipulative, selfish, want Democratic labels on Republican outcomes.

Donald Trump’s: white male, non-thinking, envious, resentful, want attention/respect.

Bernie Sanders’:
young, young-at-heart, idealistic, sociable, intelligent, hard-working, underpaid, determined, honest, want justice.

Candidate Ownership:
CI = corruption index (0 to 1)
BI = bigotry index (0 to 1)
BI = (BvI + BaI)/2
BvI = verbal bigotry index (0 to 1)
BaI = action bigotry index (0 to 1)

Hillary Clinton’s:
100% corporate establishment;
CI = 1.0, BvI = 0.2, BaI = 0.8, BI = 0.5

Donald Trump’s:
60% corporate, 30% private, 10% public;
CI = 0.6, BvI = 0.7, BaI = 0.3, BI = 0.5

Bernie Sanders’:
100% public;
CI = 0, BI = 0 = BvI = BaI.

Primary Campaigns:

Hillary Clinton’s primary campaign is a public relations spectacle to mask the attempted continuation of corporate establishment ownership of the Democratic Party.

Donald Trump’s primary campaign was a successful hostile take-over of the Republican Party by a combine of maverick corporate raiders and disaffected populist white supremacists. The corporate establishment ownership (same one) has accommodated itself to this change in Republican Party leadership.

Bernie Sander’s primary campaign is a hostile take-over attempt of the Democratic Party by the public. The corporate establishment ownership (same one) continues to fight this take-over attempt, and its intended expropriation of the Democratic Party by the public.

<><><><><>

California Primary Dispatches, 20May2016

[Hillary Clinton reneges on a commitment to debate Bernie Sanders in CA by June 7]:

Logically, it does her no good to debate Bernie, especially now. So, tactically, she’s right to avoid fulfilling her earlier commitment. And, this shows (as if we need to see it again) what a hollow careerist she is. She’s not interested in voters as actual human beings, or “the national good,” or “democracy,” for Hillary “it’s all about me.”

Substantively, she has nothing to debate, her “policies” boil down to influence peddling to establishment high finance. Her campaign now has devolved to simple fear-mongering (“be afraid of Trump, and vote for me to avoid that fear”), which will be most effective with her blissfully delusional “first female president” cultists. Hillary Clinton supporters in the general public (outside Cult Central apparatchiks) have learned how to remain happy and avoid cognitive dissonance, by being delusional.

Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party want voters to serve them. Bernie Sanders’ campaign is the exact opposite, he wants to serve the voters. The debate is done, now it’s time for people to just do the right thing.

[Ray says “vote Hillary” because she’d make better Supreme Court choices than Trump]:

Ray, look at the polls, Hillary is a loser. Neither Trump people, nor more Bernie people than you can imagine, will ever vote for her. Everybody knows she’s just an influence peddler, and that’s not real popular with voters right now, especially anyone who has suffered in some way from the 2007-2008 crash (which is most working/not-working people).

The Supreme Court – does – not – matter. Judges are appointed primarily to safeguard property/capital from populism and democracy; this is true regardless of whether it’s a “Democrat” or “Republican” president. “Social issues” can be resolved (pushed past the SC) by legislation. If the issue doesn’t have enough support to get legislated into law, the SC can diddle with it, but like Obamacare, if the SC sniffs the dominant mood, it goes along (and if the public doesn’t care or seem to notice, they nudge things along in favor of “property”). Also, the “be afraid of the SC appointments” red herring is a typical Clinton campaign fear tactic (like “fear Trump”) to manipulate the non-thinking fearful into acquiescing to Hillary. It’s Hillary-troll type stuff, Ray; it won’t wash with Bernie people.

Revolutions live because revolutionaries are fearless. Revolutionaries think, instead of just reacting fearfully, because thinking is the greatest antidote to fear. Trump-fear is a Clinton Campaign psychological manipulation. To succumb to it is to remain a slave. “I rebel there we exist” (Camus)

Finally, the election is actually about two issues, one national and one partisan:

#1, will the US government remain under the control of property/finance/corporations to the detriment of the public, or return to public control (democracy versus oligarchy)?, and

#2, will the Democratic Party remain under the control of property/finance/corporations to the detriment of the public, or return to public control (“open” democracy versus corruption & influence peddling)?

The Bernie-Hillary contest will determine the partisan issue (who gains control of the DP). A Bernie-Trump national contest would determine the issue of national control (people versus corporations/corruption). A Hillary-Trump contest would mean both the partisan and national issues were settled (for a while) in favor of the Big Money (people would have lost, again), and the result in November would only tell us what style that corporate control would exhibit to perception-manage and string along the enslaved population.

<><><><><><><><><>

Code Blue for Establishment Politics

May 19, 2016: The media is in a code-blue panic. The establishment, of which the media is a lushly funded appendage, is witnessing the steady deflation of public support and approval for the establishment’s presumptive figurehead and aspiring presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton. A national poll of registered voters, conducted by Fox News, for the first time places Donald Trump ahead of Hillary Clinton, at 45% versus 42%, with a margin of error of 3%.

This is just one poll, so confirmation of this shift in public opinion awaits polling by other organizations. But, Fox News polling has usually been comparable to that of other organizations. All polls show Bernie Sanders decisively ahead of Donald Trump, nationally and in “battleground” states. Hillary Clinton is decisively behind Donald Trump in those battleground states.

Hillary Clinton has NEVER had an increase of popularity during the course of any of her campaigns. She has entered her races with a high percentage of voter support/interest, and steadily lost it till the election, whether the final result was a victory or a defeat for her. In April, the Fox News poll showed Trump at 41% and Hillary Clinton at 48%. So in one month, Hillary went from a 7% lead over Trump to a 3% lag behind him; her support (by poll) dropped 6% while Trump’s increased by 4%. This represents a shift in voter opinion by 10% of the electorate (as determined by polling).

The party conventions are in 2 months, and the general election is in 5 months. The escalation of bad behavior by the Clinton campaign (as in Nevada) and the careerists in the Democratic Party (which is, after all, a Clinton machine fronting corporate money and control) only ensures that a larger and significant portion of Bernie Sanders people will abandon the Democrats after July if Bernie is not the presidential nominee (and not the VP nominee, and regardless of hollow promises to include the Sanders agenda in a party platform that a President H. Clinton would completely ignore).

The reason for Bernie’s superior popularity is that a wide spectrum of people resonate with his agenda, that is what they are voting for, not merely a personality (though certainly an appealing one), or a party label. In contrast, Hillary Clinton’s campaign is entirely a cult of personality without any intellectual, policy, and emotional substance beyond Democratic Party brand loyalty. Bernie Sanders supporters are following an agenda, a revolutionary movement, and they will stay with that movement without being restrained and corralled by party labels. Hillary Clinton’s campaign is only about Hillary Clinton, and that drastically narrows its appeal.

As the electorate looks more closely at Hillary Clinton, they like what they see less and less. So, if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, she will absolutely need Sanders’ people’s votes in order to defeat Donald Trump. And, she is doing the most effective job possible of alienating those voters. I think the rift is irreparable at this point. (I know I’m done with Hillary people for good and all.) It’s almost as if the Democratic Party has a death wish by sticking with her; or perhaps their massive cognitive dissonance arises from simple hubris; or maybe they’re just all blackmailed. It is probably as Upton Sinclair observed:

“It is difficult to get a person to understand something, when their salary depends on their not understanding it.”

(The Sinclair quotation was edited for gender neutrality. Sinclair’s original: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”)

Trump has many flaws and liabilities, and the combination of his acting stupidly and also suffering political attacks from his opposition might cause him to lose support in coming months, and perhaps ultimately lose the presidential race. But, if Hillary’s characteristic fading of support continues without reversal, and Trump’s support does not fade, then Hillary might be unelectable even with the votes of all the Bernie people. And in reality that Hillary dream, of hijacking the Bernie Sanders revolution, will never happen.

Because Hillary is running a personality-based campaign (“It’s all about me”) her opposition to other candidates is personal, she prefers to attack their personalities directly or by innuendo instead of getting bogged down in debates about policy differences (Sanders thwarts her the most in this regard). Her policy arguments have been erratic and vague because in reality she has no policy beyond influence peddling to establishment high finance. She is asking voters to choose her personality as superior (“more popular”) than that of Sanders and especially Trump, who is painted as the ultimate bogey man she must be elected to save America from: “Be afraid (don’t think!), elect Hillary.”

However, Bernie people actually do think, and thinking is the most effective antidote to fear. They are voting for national reform (rooting out political corruption) and national renewal (public investment in the American people for universally inclusive social and economic benefit to the American people). Stated negatively, they are voting against corporations and their corruption of the political system by money. The face of that corporate-funded political corruption is Hillary Clinton. More Bernie people than the establishment can imagine are now immune to Trump-fear, they are not going to be diverted from their revolution to save Hillary. It’s code-blue time for establishment politics.

<><><><><>

The poll that might scare Clinton supporters (18 May 2016)
Donald Trump leads Hillary Clinton 45% to 42% in a new national poll…a statistical tie. Historically, that has not boded well for Clinton. Can she turn her numbers around? Lawrence discusses with Michael Steele, Peter Wehner, and Geoff Garin.
http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/the-poll-that-might-scare-clinton-supporters-688508995933

El Que Siembra Su Maíz — Español-English

“El Que Siembra Su Maíz” is a Cuban country-troubadour (trova) song from 1925, composed by Miguel Matamoros, and first recorded by the Trio Matamoros. It was a hit, and remains a perennial classic. For much more about Trio Matamoros, see https://manuelgarciajr.com/2015/10/04/trio-matamoros-old-and-new/

The chorus of this song: “el que siembra su maíz, que se coma su pinol,” might have a very rough Old English equivalent of “the man who plants his corn gets to sit and drink his mead,” or a very rough Tennessee equivalent of “the man who plants his corn gets to sit and drink his bourbon,” since bourbon is a corn-mash alcoholic beverage.

Pinol: maíz molido con azúcar y un poquito de canela.
Pinol: corn, ground with sugar and a little bit of cinnamon.

Pinol, in:
1. Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Honduras and Nicaragua: toasted corn flour.
2. Costa Rico and Nicaragua: “pinolillo” is pinol with cacao (chocolate).
3. Ecuador and Guatemala: sweetened corn flour.
4. Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru: pinol as “máchica,” flour made from ground toasted barley or other toasted grains.

“Mead is an alcoholic beverage created by fermenting honey with water, sometimes with various fruits, spices, grains, or hops. The alcoholic content ranges from about 8% to more than 20%. The defining characteristic of mead is that the majority of the beverage’s fermentable sugar is derived from honey. It may be still, carbonated, or naturally sparkling; dry, semi-sweet, or sweet.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mead

With all their sugar cane, I find it impossible to imagine the Cubans not having had a mead-like equivalent made from pinol and rum, or pinol and fermented guarapo (sugar cane juice).

Pinol would certainly be used to make all the cornbread, corn cakes, hushpuppy and corn mush equivalents familiar to Americans from their southern states. Now, to the song.

El que siembra su maíz
[Miguel Matamoros, 1925]

Huye, huye
dónde está Mayor?
dónde está?

Ya no vende por las calles
ya no pregona en la esquina
ya no quiere trabajar.

Huye, huye
dónde está Mayor?
dónde está?

Ya no vende por las calles
ya no pregona en la esquina
ya no quiere trabajar

El que siembra su maíz
(que se coma su pinol)
que siembra su maíz
(que se coma su pinol)
el que siembra su maíz
(que se coma su pinol)

La mujer en el amor (¡sí señor!)
se parece a la gallina (¡como no!)
la mujer en el amor (¡sí señor!)
se parece a la gallina (¡como no!)
que cuando se muere el gallo (¡sí señor!)
a cualquier pollo se arrima (¡como no!)

El que siembra su maíz
(que se coma su pinol)
el que siembra su maíz
(que se coma su pinol)
que siembra su maíz
(que se coma su pinol)
el que siembra su maíz
(que se coma su pinol)

Muchacha, dice tu abuela (¡sí señor!)
que te mete en la cocina (¡como no!)
muchacha, dice tu abuela (¡sí señor!)
que te mete en la cocina (¡como no!)
que el que tiene gasolina (¡sí señor!)
no ha de jugar con candela (¡como no!)

El que siembra su maíz
(que se coma su pinol)
el que siembra su maíz
(que se coma su pinol)
que siembra su maíz
(que se coma su pinol)
el que siembra su maíz
(que se coma su pinol)

No te parece Rufina (¡sí señor!)
mirar en el farallón, (¡como no!)
no te parece Rufina (¡sí señor!)
mirar en el farallón, (¡como no!) (1)
ni ver redundar el trombón (¡sí señor!)
hasta que se desafina (¡como no!)

El que siembra su maíz
(que se coma su pinol)
el que siembra su maíz
(que se coma su pinol)
que siembra su maíz
(que se coma su pinol)
el que siembra su maíz
(que se coma su pinol)…
(El) que siembra su maíz…

<><><><><><><>

The One Who Plants Her Corn
[Miguel Matamoros, 1925; translation-paraphrase by Manuel García, Jr.]

Gone now, gone now
Where has Mayór gone?
Where’s she gone?

She’s not selling in the streets now,
she’s not hawking at the corner,
she no longer wants to work.

Gone now, gone now
Where has Mayór gone?
Where’s she gone?

She’s not selling in the streets now,
she’s not hawking at the corner,
she no longer wants to work.

The one who plants her corn
(gets to eat up her pinol)
the one who plants her corn
(gets to eat up her pinol)
The one who plants her corn
(gets to eat up her pinol).

A woman who’s in love (oh yeah!)
is just like a barnyard chicken (you bet!)
a woman who’s in love (oh yeah!)
is just like a barnyard chicken (you bet!)
when old red rooster croaks (oh yeah!)
next to any old hen she’s nuzzlin’ (you bet!).

The one who plants her corn
(gets to eat up her pinol)
the one who plants her corn
(gets to eat up her pinol)
The one who plants her corn
(gets to eat up her pinol).
The one who plants her corn
(gets to eat up her pinol).

Honey, your grandma says (oh yeah!)
get yourself into the kitchen (you bet!)
honey, your grandma says (oh yeah!)
get yourself into the kitchen (you bet!)
for who lugs cans of gasoline ‘round (oh yeah!)
shouldn’t play at flaming things now (you bet!).

The one who plants her corn
(gets to eat up her pinol)
the one who plants her corn
(gets to eat up her pinol)
The one who plants her corn
(gets to eat up her pinol).
The one who plants her corn
(gets to eat up her pinol).

Don’t even try, Rufína (oh yeah!)
staring in the lighthouse beam (you bet!)
Don’t even try, Rufína (oh yeah!)
staring in the lighthouse beam (you bet!) (1)
Nor look in the trombone’s bell (oh yeah!)
until it shakes itself off key (you bet!).

The one who plants her corn
(gets to eat up her pinol)
the one who plants her corn
(gets to eat up her pinol)
The one who plants her corn
(gets to eat up her pinol).
The one who plants her corn
(gets to eat up her pinol).
The one who pants her corn…

(1) farallón = cliff, farol = lantern, faro = lighthouse. I chose to use the lighthouse image (faro -> lighthouse) instead of using the cliff image (farallón -> cliff, Matamoros’ actual word), because I thought it more vivid, for my English version, as something fatiguing to stare uselessly into.

<><><><><><><>

A much looser variation of the lyrics, in American English, is as follows.

The Girl Who Plants Her Corn
[a paraphrase of El Que Siembra Su Maíz, in American English, by MG,Jr.]

Gone now, gone now
Margie’s cart is gone.
Where’s she gone?

She’s not selling in the streets now,
she’s not hawking at the corner,
she no longer wants to work.

Gone now, gone now
Margie’s cart is gone.
Where’s she gone?

She’s not selling in the streets now,
she’s not hawking at the corner,
she no longer wants to work.

The one who plants her corn
(drinks her bourbon eats her grits)
the one who plants her corn
(drinks her bourbon eats her grits)
The one who plants her corn
(drinks her bourbon eats her grits).

A woman who’s in love (oh yeah!)
is just like a barnyard chicken (you bet!)
a woman who’s in love (oh yeah!)
is just like a barnyard chicken (you bet!)
when old red rooster croaks (oh yeah!)
nuzzled up to any ol’ hen she’s sticking (you bet!).

The one who plants her corn
(drinks her bourbon eats her grits)
The one who plants her corn
(drinks her bourbon eats her grits)
The one who plants her corn
(drinks her bourbon eats her grits)
The one who plants her corn
(drinks her bourbon eats her grits).

Honey, your grandma says (oh yeah!)
get yourself into the kitchen (you bet!)
Honey, your grandma says (oh yeah!)
get yourself into the kitchen (you bet!)
for who lugs gasoline up ’n down (oh yeah!)
with flames shouldn’t be playin’ around (you bet!)

The one who plants her corn
(drinks her bourbon eats her grits)
The one who plants her corn
(drinks her bourbon eats her grits)
The one who plants her corn
(drinks her bourbon eats her grits)
The one who plants her corn
(drinks her bourbon eats her grits).

Don’t even try, Rufeena (oh yeah!)
staring through a cliff to see (you bet!)
Don’t even try, Rufeena (oh yeah!)
staring through a cliff to see (you bet!)
Nor in the trombone’s bell (oh yeah!)
till it shakes itself off key (you bet!).

The one who plants her corn
(drinks her bourbon eats her grits)
The one who plants her corn
(drinks her bourbon eats her grits)
The one who plants her corn
(drinks her bourbon eats her grits)
The one who plants her corn
(drinks her bourbon eats her grits).
The one – who – plants – her – c-o-r-n…

<><><><><><><>

El Que Siembra Su Maíz
[Trio Matamoros, with (I think) Los Guaracheros de Oriente (my favorites). Matamoros sings.]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV5QRjmfqcI

Trio Matamoros – El que siembra su maíz
(2nd original recording – unequaled)
[2:55]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVU5ThBYe5w

Trio Matamoros – El que siembra su maíz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7on8TFN0Hxs
[1931, from collector’s CD, 1st original recording]

El que siembra su maiz (el montuno) – Oscar D´Leon, Hector Lavoe y Lalo Rodriguez
(Tres grandes de la salsa juntos en una presentación en New York para que lo disfruten; el audio no es muy bueno pero igual se goza)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TmcVMvfv9M
[Salsa jam (1982) on “El Que Siembra Su Maíz” (the montuno part, 11 minutes out of 15) by Miguel Matamoros (Cubano), who wrote the orignal song in 1925! Héctor Lavoe (Puerto Rico), Oscar D’Leon (Venezuela), Lalo Rodríguez (Puerto Rico) sing.]

El que siembra su maíz — Trio Matamoros
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wi-XnsQWso
[Trio Matamors, old, rough and beautiful; just themselves live and free.]

El que siembra su maíz — Los Guaracheros de Oriente
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pImyQwLZ16s
[such crisp and polished performers]

El que siembra su maíz — Gema 4 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfVDEAOOKco
[female a cappella quartet]

<><><><><><><>