Star Trek: SNW Reviews D

I am now starting to do “reviews” of episodes of the new Star Trek series “Strange New Worlds.” Unlike earlier ST review posts this time I’ll be doing, at least MOST of the time, one relatively long essay for a single episode that merits some significant commentary (I wouldn’t be surprised if out of a final total of 46 episodes I’ll do one or two posts that are very brief). I’ll be focusing almost exclusively on the political aspects of the episodes but will usually not comment on the pervasive multiculturalism and gender equality of ST.

“The Serene Squall” Episode Seven, Season One. See this for a plot summary.

There are three political themes to mention.

They/Them/Theirs (LGBTQ+)

Although it could possibly be construed as hostile to non-binary people because the character who makes some good statements about being yourself turns out to be the bad guy, it’s actually pro-LGBTQ+ because the prominent doctor she is impersonating IS non-binary and a good guy. This (the pro-LGBTQ+ statement made by the existence of a character who is a popular Federation doctor and is non-binary) gets a little sharper when there is some talk about how Spock, who is half human and half Vulcan, doesn’t need to choose between being Vulcan and being human:

ASPEN: Spock, you know, all species put things into boxes. It’s like you’re either this or you’re that and sometimes we act a certain way to fit people’s expectations, but that’s not necessarily who we are. And sometimes, like on the bridge just now, it can limit us.
SPOCK: You are proposing I better balance my human and Vulcan natures.
ASPEN: I’m saying maybe you’re neither.
SPOCK: That is nonsensical. If I am not human or Vulcan, what am I?
ASPEN: That’s not my question to answer.

First of all, I think this episode counts as pro-LGBTQ+ and I think that “Dr. Aspen’s” statements above are pretty well written.

I am going to use this as an opportunity to get a little long-winded and also a little personal. On one hand, I have been a fairly good or very good ally of what I call the LGB, since 11th grade. On the other hand, for some reason I have been kind of slow to see what I call the TQ+ as important. I go into a little more detail here when discussing the “Broken Rhymes” episode. This is the first time I have commented on the non-binary part of the population (I have watched every season of Discovery an average of three times (including the last three seasons that include a non-binary main character) but I have yet to do “reviews” of that show- something I’ll do in about a year).

First, if “Dr. Aspen” is talking about Spock identifying as equally human and Vulcan, that seems like a better idea than identifying 100% one way or the other. In The Original Series I believe that Spock identified mostly or overwhelmingly as Vulcan. If “Dr. Aspen” meant creating some kind of brand new identity, something that might be a cultural equivalent of the Q in LGBTQ+, I have tried to grasp what that would be and it has slipped through my fingers or has been as ethereal as smoke, dispersing into nothingness as I try to grasp it. There’s a good chance I am overthinking this and/or I need to get a firmer grip on the LGBTQ+ identities, so I think I will just move on very soon. The good news is that I think that in the process of typing this I DID improve my grasp of the LGBTQ+ identities.

A Clockwork Red??? (Rehabilitation of Convicts)

(Although I was a fan of “A Clockwork Orange” in 9th grade I don’t think I have watched it since then. Wikipedia’s explanation of the term “clockwork orange” doesn’t help, but it sounds like what some assortment of society and government leaders want people to be upon leaving prison, and I believe we need a progressive view of rehabilitation of convicts)

There’s a brief part of the episode that’s about criminal rehabilitation on Vulcan. It sounds pretty good. When I think of that issue in reality in America, I think it’s probably a really good thing, although it must have some short-comings. Although therapy and vocational opportunities and education and such in prison CAN help with some of what’s wrong in our society, I think that a huge majority of convicts wouldn’t be there if they weren’t poor and I would add a similar statement about an overlapping large minority of convicts who wouldn’t be there if they weren’t people of color. In the next three paragraphs I will offer an abridged explanation of exactly what I mean by that.

I simply assume that there are innocent people in prison- and I mean completely innocent- I will say something about the others soon. This belief is partly just a vague one based on being engaged with American liberalism and progressivism for roughly 35 years. It’s also influenced by a work of non-fiction (The Innocent Man) and at least two works of fiction (The Confession and The Guardians) by the author John Grisham. Although I don’t look for this, about once a year I stumble on to a story about someone being declared innocent years after their conviction- I assume that for every such case I hear about there’s probably something like 100 I don’t hear about. There was at least one statement by a main character in the TV show Law and Order: SVU about there being innocent people in prison. And then there’s the people who are sort of guilty but don’t deserve to be convicted - i.e. abused women who killed their abuser, 18yos who had sex with a 17yo in some of the nation’s states, the character Carl Lee Hailey in Grisham’s A Time To Kill, etc.

To a large degree the majority of inmates who wouldn’t be there if they weren’t poor don’t need rehabilitation. Many are completely innocent and would have been acquitted if they hadn’t been represented by an over-worked, under-resourced Public Defender. Many more wouldn’t have committed a crime if not for one or more poverty-related factors that drove their criminal behavior (i.e. they wouldn’t have stolen a loaf of bread for their family if they weren’t penniless, or they wouldn’t have gotten work selling marijuana if they had been able to afford college). In general, POVERTY, not bad morals or a lack of civic values, is why they committed a crime.

To a large degree the majority of those inmates who wouldn’t be there if they weren’t people of color don’t need rehabilitation. They’re there because a racist cop framed them, and a jury fell for it, or they’re guilty but it’s because the racist nature of this society alienated them from trying to work within the system, because the people criticizing crime were the same ones brutalizing their community economically, physically, institutionally, etc. What I’m talking about is well illustrated in the 1996 non-documentary film “Set It Off” starring Queen Latifah and Jada Pinkett Smith. One of the four Black women turns to crime partly because her racist bank employers fire her after a man from her neighborhood tries to rob the bank. Another of the four women turns to crime after her brother, an innocent and unarmed man, is killed by police. There is of course the aforementioned overlap between the population of non-white convicts and the population of poor convicts.

It’s possible that some of the convicts I write about above could benefit from therapy and/or vocational and/or educational opportunities while in prison. Ideally there may, in theory, be some way for that to be progressive- i.e. if convicts get therapy and/or college degrees in prison, is the education or therapy compatible with their experiences as (for example) working-class Black Americans? I also wonder how radical books collected by progressives and donated to prison libraries fare when they’re examined by whatever prison official looks at them. When I think about this stuff I worry that at this point, with increasing politicalization outside prisons because of George W. Bush and now Donald Trump, prisons are not creating opportunities for progressive values to be learned or explored or weaponized (depending on which prisoners we’re talking about).

Spartacus (Slavery)

Although it turns out to be a red herring deployed by the bad guy, at one point the crew of the Enterprise thinks that they’re going after slave traffickers. It would be a good story if there WAS an ST episode about going after such scum. About 3-6 years ago I watched the movie “The Birth of a Nation,” which is based on a true story of a major slave rebellion in the American South, and it is a really good movie. I also watched, about 6 years ago, the movie “Harriet” about the Underground Railroad, and I have it in my collection. ST has reminded us of the issue of slavery several times in it’s life, but an episode just about fighting slavery would be great- one story possibility would be a StarFleet crew helping maintain a sci-fi version of the Underground Railroad. About 33 years ago I read a The Next Generation novel called “Spartacus” about the Enterprise encountering a ship adrift with a bunch of android slaves.

Star Trek: SNW Reviews C

I am now starting to do “reviews” of episodes of the new Star Trek series “Strange New Worlds.” Unlike earlier ST review posts this time I’ll be doing, at least MOST of the time, one relatively long essay for a single episode that merits some significant commentary (I wouldn’t be surprised if out of a final total of 46 episodes I’ll do one or two posts that are very brief). I’ll be focusing almost exclusively on the political aspects of the episodes but will usually not comment on the pervasive multiculturalism and gender equality of ST.

“Ghosts of Illyria” Episode Three, Season One. See this for a plot summary. 

This raises the issue of genetic engineering, something I wrote about very briefly in a couple of  places here. I should be more familiar with the Star Trek aspect of this issue- there’s a two part novel about the “Eugenics Wars” and I read the first part about 30 years ago and then, about 10 years ago after I lost that book I bought the second book and then recently bought the first one. I remember very little about the first one, and not well enough that I would like to type up any kind of book report on it. I think that in a couple years or so I will read them both and then type up something on this blog. In the next paragraph I’ll repeat what I DO remember from different sources about the Eugenics Wars.

The EW took place at some point in the 1990s (of ST lore) and I believe they were not a truly global war but took the form of relatively isolated conflicts here and there throughout the globe, unlike WWII which consumed practically all of the European area, and practically all of the Pacific area but practically nowhere else. There was one scientific creator of the augments but they were separated after they were born and joined up many years later. They were advanced in many neurological and physical ways. Somehow they developed into a small movement and might have initially spoken of being for good, but ended up being autocratic, narcissistic, and bloodthirsty. They started many military conflicts and 30-35 million people were killed. They were eventually, somehow, stopped (probably at great mortal cost to democratic forces) and the surviving augments fled Earth. (The fact that they were initially said (by characters in the future) to have taken place in the 1990s is one reason I thought that at some point around 15 years ago maybe ST should have rebooted as the two different histories (reality and Star Trek) conflicted more and more)

In response to this history, the Federation bans genetic engineering, but in DS9 and in this series (beginning with this episode) those in charge of ST in recent decades seem to be saying that maybe it’s not that bad after all. In DS9 Dr. Bashir (a main character) and the station’s Chief Medical Officer is allowed to continue serving AFTER it’s discovered that he was engineered. In general I like that character, but an argument could be made that someone with that background shouldn’t be given room to become some kind of Dr. Frankenstein considering the power he had over medical stuff. I think there’s a conflict between that part of DS9 and most of the EW stuff in ST. Although I can’t remember any details about this in the SNW context except what there is in this episode, I know that Captain Pike defends Chin-Riley (his engineered second in command) when StarFleet comes after her.

Is this mostly new attitude towards genetic engineering reasonable? I don’t think so. I think it’s best said by Spock in “Space Seed” (The Original Series) when he says that “superior ability breeds superior ambition.” Some would say that *I* lack ambition and that’s why I’m saying this. To a small degree I kind of DO lack ambition, although I have some and I think it’s a healthy amount. The thing is, someone who probably CAN be among the very best leaders in a technical sense because of their enhanced abilities will probably think that they deserve to be THE leader at the very top, by any means necessary and with no democratic checks or balances on their power and such people will fight any democratic resistance to this and will fight, with bad effects for anyone nearby, other similar rivals.

Star Trek: SNW Reviews B

I am now starting to do “reviews” of episodes of the new Star Trek series “Strange New Worlds.” Unlike earlier ST review posts this time I’ll be doing, at least MOST of the time, one relatively long essay for a single episode that merits some significant commentary (I wouldn’t be surprised if out of a final total of 46 episodes I’ll do one or two posts that are very brief). I’ll be focusing almost exclusively on the political aspects of the episodes but will usually not comment on the pervasive multiculturalism and gender equality of ST. 

 

“Children of the Comet” Episode Two, Season One. See this for a plot summary.

Although I’m not going to comment on the dialogue, etc. much, this episode contains a lot of stuff about being open-minded about other faiths. I AM going to say a few things about how in general I believe in taking a very open-minded and/or inclusive approach to religion.

I should first explain a few things about me. I was Catholic since either baptism or not many years after that and now, at the age of 50, I am early in the process of converting to a Protestant Church (the Episcopalian Church). I am doing that primarily because of the situation with the role of women in the Catholic Church (they can’t be priests) and to a lesser degree because of the abortion issue, my belief that homosexuality is not a sin, and my anger about the sex abuse scandal. If it were just 1-2 of those four, I probably would have stayed in the Catholic Church as my late mother would probably prefer. But I have to leave. I did briefly consider leaving Christianity but I have no reason to stop believing that Christ was the Son of God. My fiancé identifies partly as Jewish and largely as Buddhist.

I should be more familiar with Buddhism but I am not and I believe there is some debate about whether or not it is a religion like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism, etc. are religions. So I will not be including it in this essay.

So, one aspect of this issue of religious ecumenism is something I have thought of recently. I wrote in July of this year, in an email to another Protestant Church:

“I probably should study the Bible more before I say this, but I believe that the God I believe in is the same as the God that theist Jewish people believe in and is the same as the God that Muslims believe in. I’m not sure how to alter that statement in favor of inclusion for all the other religions, but if it’s possible to believe that we all see some of our faith in other faiths, or something like that, I’d like to say that.”

(When I write about religion and it’s relevant I often forget to mention that the Druze- a Middle-Eastern religion that incorporates some of Judaism, some of islam, and some of Christianity- are Abrahamic (a term that refers collectively to the religions I refer to in that quote))

I was saying something perhaps better than a similar statement I used to make earlier- that I’d like to add, for example, Hinduism and American Indian faith, to that first sentence if possible. What I may have figured out as I was typing that in July is that wanting to say that I pray to the same God as non-Abrahamic religions is probably a flawed approach in general and I think worse or much worse than that when it comes to the two examples I mention above. Hinduism is polytheistic while Judaism, Christianity and Islam are monotheistic and I simply need to accept that and find some other way of establishing some kind of religious fellowship as a Christian with Hindus. They probably feel just as passionately about their religion as Christians do and it is mathematically impossible for me to believe in the same God(/Gods???######%% as they do (if I make the statement “I believe in the same God that Hindus do” that doesn’t work, and neither does “I believe in the same Gods that Hindus do” and I was thinking of a computer trying to square that circle and smoke coming out of it). It might be even worse when it comes to the American Indian faith. First, I think I’m a lot less familiar with that than I am with Hinduism. And considering that what White Americans have done to Natives is MUCH worse than what Americans have done to Hindus (a big part of my BA is Native American Studies, and I know that we have not, for example, bombed India, or forced them to accept heroin, or something really imperialistic like that), I think it might be even more inappropriate (than what I said about trying to embrace Hinduism) for White American Christians like me to express a desire to put our hands on American Indian faith as if part of it is partly ours (true, I would be doing that in the spirit of it going both ways, but I think American Indians have been asked and “asked” to believe in Christianity enough times already).

As far as the second sentence in the quoted statement above, I have less to say. I am not as familiar with Christianity as I would have to be if I wanted to write a lot about that and I am of course much less familiar with other religions, ESPECIALLY those that aren’t Abrahamic. I’m also not sure which religions I would include besides Hinduism and American Indian faith. I imagine that if I took a shallow but still deeper look at Hinduism and American Indian faith I would find some common themes with Christianity- about “brotherhood” or peace for example (I put “brotherhood” in quotes because I and many people take that concept and make it broader when we apply our religious documents to the real world). It might make sense to say that Christian Churches very committed to environmentalism would find some commonality with aspects of American Indian faith, although that approach, counting a POLITICAL division of Christianity as if it’s a theological division, might be flawed.

There is one more non-Abrahamic religion I’d like to briefly mention. The Yazidis are a religious community in northern Iraq and although I just read a Google AI fact-sheet about them, I’m going to kind of ignore that because I don’t consider it a good source. The thing is, some religious people, including extremists, have labelled them devil-worshippers. They have historically experienced persecution and in 2014 the Islamist group based in Syria ISIS (also known as Islamic State) attacked the Yazidis in Iraq in a way that was (to one degree or another) genocidal, killing hundreds of thousands, enslaving thousands of women and girls, and driving off more. I am a little concerned about the devil-worship accusations, but A) that has never stopped me from being horrified by what happened in 2014, and B) I am open-minded that the spirit of inclusion should be extended to them even IF they are devil-worshippers. And by “spirit of inclusion” I don’t mean just opposing their persecution and being horrified by the genocide. I mean inviting them as friends to religiously ecumenical conferences, etc.; celebrating intermarriage, etc.

The episode that triggered this is largely about atheists accepting the legitimacy of other beliefs about a deity (StarFleet was, at that point early in Federation history probably more human than it was later on and probably more atheist since it didn’t include a lot of aliens with religions that the various creators of ST allowed them to have (i.e. the Bajorans)). I am, to one large degree or another, fine with atheists in general. I have a problem with the New Atheists but I should say that I doubt that many of the various creators of ST are or were New Atheists- as I say, they don’t totally eradicate religion among characters you’re supposed to like (i.e. the second-in-command of the space station on Deep Space Nine (main character!), Kira Nerys, who was a devout follower of the Bajoran faith). I did write an essay about New Atheists about 4 years ago here.                          
               

Besides the last item below this, that is it for this review. I believe that as much as possible, religious people should be ecumenical and interact with each other in a open-minded, curious and respectful spirit. Some times that might not work (possibly with the Yazidis and possibly in some other situations) but even in those situations, the goal should be a campaign of non-compulsory conversion that is as respectful as possible (i.e. don’t go anywhere near eradicating all traces of the unsuccessful religion, which would be a lot more than slightly genocidal and might make things even more traumatic for those who do convert).

At the end of the episode, Captain Pike looks up (on the computer) a small group of future StarFleet officers who are special to him (he has seen his future and they are involved). One of the five names is Muliq Al Alcazar, a Muslim name (that’s the subtitled version- I get the impression from Google that it’s not a common spelling, but I also get the impression from Google that it is a Muslim name). It’s not the first time we’ve had the appearance of Islam on ST- the Muslim world made a much bigger splash with Julian Bashir (almost definitely an atheist with Muslim ancestors (his parents briefly appear, but as far as we know they are also devout atheists with Muslim ancestors)), a main character on Deep Space Nine. It’s true that we don’t know for sure that his heritage was Muslim, but the vast majority of Arabs are Muslims, so it’s reasonable to assume that his ancestors were and although the show says nothing about that, that could be because the human characters are all atheists- a lot of viewers of the show, including those whose opinion of Muslims was improved by the show, very likely assumed that his ancestors were Muslims) (Wired magazine ranked him 25th from the top out of 100 important ST characters). On The Next Generation, Picard makes a brief comment that is respectful of Islam. I’m sure there’s about 5-10 other examples as minor as what Picard said that I can’t remember and probably 1-2 more recurring characters that I can’t remember. But in the last 10-24 years we have had more or much more islamaphobia in this country than we had in the 1990s and I believe that this sort of thing that ST does can help address that, in a small way.

Support Starbucks Strikers and Oppose Racism

UPDATE 11/13/25 Although I could explain why this is less damning of me than most would think, I got it wrong- it's an indefinite strike. BOYCOTT STARBUCKS! 

 

Below is a guest opinion I got published in the Daily Camera Wednesday the 12th. Thursday the 13th is the strike. What they published is here. There is an even longer essay focusing on my theory about unions and racism here.

 Tom

 

On Nov. 13th many Starbucks workers, hopefully thousands, will strike for one day and you can support them by not buying from Starbucks during the strike. Although, nationwide, more than 12,000 workers there are represented by Starbucks Workers United, the company has, for four years now, barely come close to engaging in the legally mandated collective bargaining process where a contract is negotiated.

As the City of Boulder, and to lesser degree Boulder County, become more and more middle-class, it’s unclear how many readers are pro-union. I’m not sure how many readers will be swayed by talk about health care benefits, wages, and respect for unskilled workers on the job, three of the several issues on which unions do great things for the workers they represent. Consider that, to one degree or another unions often play a critical role in getting Democrats elected- not in Boulder, of course, but in more working-class places whose elected Dems contribute, for example, to their leader becoming Speaker of the House. Unions also can play a crucial role in making a workplace more democratic (as you might call it) when it comes to equity for women, people of color, LGBTQ+ folks, and religious minorities.

There is one aspect of this issue that I am very passionate about and which I believe will resonate with the more middle-class Boulder liberal readers who think unions do nothing for them. I believe that unions, inside and outside the workplace, help stop or at least slow and reverse the spread of racism in the white working-class. The labor movement overall became very anti-racist with John Sweeney as President of the AFL-CIO from 1995 to 2009 and with subsequent AFL-CIO leadership. I believe that if, after 1995, the unionization rate hadn’t continued it’s long decline and had instead increased, Donald Trump would have been defeated in the Electoral College in 2016, 2020 and 2024.

Although I’m sure there is something similar in the statements of the American labor movement I have rarely heard of them and this theory I have was initially inspired by an analysis of the conflict in Northern Ireland. In a column included in a 1998 collection of his work in previous decades, Northern Ireland journalist Eamonn McCann wrote that the labor movement had the most potential to eradicate religious bigotry in N. Ireland. He wrote: “No other institution brings Catholic and Protestant workers together on a regular basis in pursuit of a common purpose, which is antipathetic to sectarianism.” McCann’s columns have been published by an average of 1-2 professionally staffed and edited publications (magazines or newspapers) at any given time in the last 40 years and he has held senior positions in Ireland’s labor movement in recent decades and he was one of the main leaders of the N. Ireland civil rights movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In 2016 he was elected to the N. Ireland Assembly and in 2019 he was elected (from a very progressive and very working-class urban district) to the local government of Derry and Strabane. He is an expert on fighting sectarianism in N. Ireland and believes that organized labor has a crucial role to play.

Many people believe there are great similarities between the conflict in N. Ireland during The Troubles and the conflict over racism in the United States. This includes people like Angela Y. Davis and, in 1972, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. I believe unions here play a role in combating racism and that that can be greater when the unionization rate returns to where it was before it's decline began about five decades ago. If racist working-class whites see multicultural, anti-racist unions negotiating collective bargaining agreements that help them, many will start to question racism.

Unfortunately, many fiscally moderate and conservative Democrats refuse to vote in favor of strengthening unions. I’m sure these Democrats are alarmed at the rise of Donald Trump and at the existence of the Proud Boys. What’s more important to them: protecting capitalism or fighting racism?

Please support the Nov. 13th Starbucks strike.

(I am more a supporter of Sinn Fein than I am a supporter of Eamonn McCann, but he is the one who made that statement) 

Star Trek: SNW Reviews A

I am now starting to do “reviews” of episodes of the new Star Trek series “Strange New Worlds.” Unlike earlier ST review posts this time I’ll be doing, at least MOST of the time, one relatively long essay for a single episode that merits some significant commentary (I wouldn’t be surprised if out of a final total of 46 episodes I’ll do one or two posts that are very brief). I’ll be focusing almost exclusively on the political aspects of the episodes but will usually not comment on the pervasive multiculturalism and gender equality of ST.

“Strange New Worlds” Episode One, Season One. See this for a plot summary.

This episode promises that the series will be roughly as political and progressive as most ST TV episodes are. I’ll get to the more important and general topics in a minute. One minor thing is that there are wind generators conspicuously visible in the background of a scene on Earth.

The main issues are war, civil war (of the sort that we face at this point in America), and Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Elsewhere I have gotten slightly long-winded about WMD. Bearing in mind that I didn’t come up with that term, it’s true that only one is INCREDIBLY DESTRUCTIVE, but they are all united by how indiscriminate they are or at least can be (it just occurred to me that Anthrax in an envelope might not be that indiscriminate, but Anthrax (for example) in the water supply is pretty horrible). Chemical weapons are totally indiscriminate although the non-persistent ones might not go far beyond a battlefield, but if that battlefield is populated, that’s a serious problem and the persistent ones are much worse. And I imagine a death from most of these weapons is worse than a death from a few bullets in the chest that kill you after an hour. Nukes are INCREDIBLY DESTRUCTIVE AND INDISCRIMINATE, most easily consume entire cities, there are some lasting and regional environmental problems, and radiation is a slow and painful killer. As far as the pinnacle of the nuclear threat (to humanity’s existence) you should read the book review I did here.                                       

The weapon developed by the aliens sounds very destructive- like it could easily destroy a StarFleet vessel. The idea of using such a weapon on the surface of a populated planet is horrifying.

In general I am very much against war, although I stop short of embracing pacifism. Some of my thoughts about war IN GENERAL can be found here and there in the posts here.

As far as the topic of a second civil war in this country… First, for the Trekkers out there, present and future, I have to point out that ST has shifted the date for the Eugenics Wars, I THINK for WWIII, and has now added an American second civil war, which apparently now all blend into each other. I kind of knew this sort of thing might happen- about 15 years ago I silently suggested ST should make a LOT of TV stuff and then, as there was more and more conflict between between the two histories (ST lore and reality) with the passage of time, just stop making ST, or reboot it possibly? 

Anyway, let me say some things about a second civil war here in reality. I sort of talked about this here, when I made a plea for, in some ways, partisan peace. There are probably a total of 2,000 more words scattered in different paragraphs on my blog that are relevant to this. I am not sure how you can find them, although probably about 15% of them are in a recent post here. Some times I think it might be becoming increasingly unavoidable, with Trump as President and the division that that means. His supporters simply do not believe the various sources that most of us (liberals and progressives/leftists) do and you cannot believe the things that people around Trump imply we support. That’s part of something that’s a big part of what’s wrong- there is no respect for the facts. I’m not saying that’s brand new or totally avoidable in politics, but it is much worse today than it usually is, and that worsening is 100% one-sided- CNN, for example, spends a HUGE amount of time fact-checking Trump, and spent about 5% as much time fact-checking Biden. I believe that there are some other fact-checkers out there that are also good and might possibly be more acceptable to Republicans (is it better if they’re NOT part of the media?). If it hadn’t just started requiring subscriptions I would, as I have in the past, strongly recommend the BBC News website- it’s WIDELY respected throughout the world, and it’s coverage of Northern Ireland 1997-2005 was close behind the Irish media in accuracy and not far behind how sensitive it was to the Irish perspective (if you know Anglo-Irish history and the early history of Northern Ireland, you’d understand the importance of that in coverage of The Troubles) (I say 1997-2005 because during that time each week I read an average of about 100 articles from Irish news sources (primarily the Irish News and the Irish Times) and about 25 articles from the BBC). GOPers would do a lot worse than getting their news there. I am not going to do an entire essay here on this topic and I think I have said all I have to say here about a possible second American civil war.

Trump’s “Great Escape” From Prisoner of War Empowerment

  (“The Great Escape” is a classic movie about Allied POWs in World War II) 

(The image is of Guantanamo Bay in Cuba during the early years of the War on Terror) 

 

Below is something I typed up and, since it was way too long to be a guest opinion, I turned it into a PDF pamphlet-like thing with some interesting format stuff that I can't reproduce here. I sent it to about 15 friends and relatives, about 10 Dem politicians, and two veterans groups that lean to the left and three that lean to the right. I sent it to the vets partly because I thought that a majority of them would represent a large chunk of those Americans who are either pro-Trump or are open-minded about him.

*********** 

Although as a progressive I had a mostly negative view of the late Sen. John McCain, when he was attacked in 2015 by President Trump in connection with McCain’s time as a Prisoner of War in Vietnam, I found Trump’s comment offensive. Trump said that McCain was not a war hero, which I agree with (Hugh Thompson was), but crucially also said that “I like people that weren't captured, okay?” (What does he think of American service members who were killed? In France in 2018 he allegedly referred to them as “losers”). Some of Trump’s supporters would probably say that it was in response to McCain calling Trump’s supporters “crazies.” But there are at least two statements indicating that Trump has always been quite hostile to McCain and I wouldn’t be surprised if that is because of the POW issue. For some bizarre reason, Trump seems to have never suffered much political damage from other Republicans for this.
 

There have been and are international agreements about the treatment of  POWs that make those protocols akin to human rights

I need to briefly state that I believe that what we did in Vietnam was wrong and I am to one moderate degree or another hostile to the US military. And that opinion of Vietnam is influenced not just by progressive analyses of the war, but also by a novel written by the late Vietnam veteran and (usually) hawkish fiction author Nelson DeMille.

There have been and are international agreements about the treatment of POWs that make those protocols akin to human rights and I think this partly reflects the fact that most supporters of, for example, the Allies in WWII, were concerned about the treatment of those captured by the Axis. In general this is probably influenced by the fact that POWs are, to one degree or another, vulnerable (they are physically defenseless and entirely dependent on their enemy captors for food, shelter, medical care, information, etc.).

The attachment that many in war have for their side’s POWs might also be inspired by the fact that many POWs respect their obligation to escape, and one benefit of this is that they tie down enemy forces far behind the front. (I have at least five movies about Allied POWs attempting escape)

I attended the 2002 National Conference of Sinn Fein Youth in Galway, Ireland and bought a shirt (at a SF bookstore in Derry) with an artist’s depiction of an attempted escape tunnel made by IRA prisoners (which said “WE ALMOST GOT AWAY, YOU KNOW” (an inside joke among republicans)). I told some of the kids about what I bought and when I mentioned that shirt one kid said “oh, yeah, my uncle was in on that!” In 1981 10 republicans (seven IRA, three INLA) died on hunger-strike demanding that they be treated as POWs. Many will say they were just terrorists with no popular support. They weren’t terrorists (see this) and when such critics examine more closely the facts surrounding the presence of 100,000 people at Bobby Sands’ funeral (see the middle 3rd, starting with “For about 5 years…” of this), they will know that the Hunger-Strike was a traumatic period for about 80% of the Catholic population in N. Ireland.

I do largely spend my time thinking about POWs focusing on the Allies, and the IRA, and the African National Congress, etc. but I also have my own (VHS) copy of “Hanoi Hilton” about US military pilots shot down over North Vietnam, and I believe that even the Waffen-SS in WWII deserved to be treated as POWs, etc.

As I said, these men and some women (probably especially the women) are (were) in harmful situations which could (have) become nightmares if their captors are (were) a state dismissive of POW rights and they end (ended) up with a psychotic jailer. Do I think they are (were) all heroes? I am far from totally objective and non-partisan and no, most of them are (were) not heroes. But I’m willing to bet that at least around half of them are (were) working-class or poor and very likely in a war that is (was) even more nightmarish than the very few ones I am tempted to call “good.” 

Was John McCain a hero? No, and I probably would have disagreed with about 80% of the votes he cast in the US Congress during his career. But Trump doesn’t understand the need to be at least concerned about the rights of those who get captured (IF his feelings about how POWs are treated reflects that concern he has had several convenient opportunities to express that and he has failed to do so). More critically, he frequently uses the word “loser” to describe McCain and this seems connected to the fact that the late US Senator was captured. McCain was, when he made Sarah Palin his 2008 running mate, a horrible person, but his time as a POW doesn’t mean he was a “loser.”

Some would say that Trump was motivated not by hostility to all American POWs but just hostility to McCain, but there is, in his own words, what he SAID (“I like people that weren't captured, okay?”), and there’s the consistency and intensity of his hostility for McCain, connected, in Trump’s own words, to the fact that he was a POW.

After wanting to do something like this for years, I finally wrote this essay now because a couple weeks ago I saw a bit of CNN video footage taken of the White House, and right below the American flag was the POW/MIA flag. I am sure that millions, maybe tens of millions of Americans who stand with that flag also vote for Trump, and these people would threaten physical violence if a Democrat said what Trump said about American POWs. 

 

Charlie Kirk's Murder And Political Violence in the US

This is about some thoughts I had in the wake of Charlie Kirk's murder. The first essay is what I submitted to the Daily Camera as a Letter-To-The-Editor and is I think exactly what they published here. The second essay is a longer version of the same- this time when writing something I'd like the paper to publish, after I felt that I was kind of done except for the disfiguring editing process so it would be under 300 words, I saved that first, longer version. It might perhaps be the better version because some of the editing I do involves deleting entire sentences or paragraphs which might be less valuable than the rest but are still valuable.

Tom

 

Editor,

After Charlie Kirk’s murder, we are close to another civil war. There’s been, for about 8 years, a “Cold Civil War.” In that time there’s been a large increase in political violence, from the massive insurrection of 1/6/21 by Republicans, to the sole-victim shooting of health care insurance CEO Brian Thompson in 2024.

I am not a pacifist and I define violence as something not inherently unjustified, although it could be defined as something inherently heart-breaking. When I look at Northern Ireland’s history, I defend almost everything the Irish Republican Army did. But I have also supported their 1997 cease-fire since day one. I believe very strongly in electoral politics, petitioning, non-violently protesting, etc. As a socialist I think a lot about how we can be more politically democratic (i.e. reforming the Constitution to reflect the fact that democracy is one-person-one-vote not one-state-flag-one-vote).

Kirk’s murder was wrong but to a very large degree criticizing Trump as a fascist is not deceptively encouraging people to kill people like Kirk- it’s simply not deceptive. Trump has always, since the 2016 campaign, made it clear he likes political violence. He believes that every civilian Executive Branch employee should be loyal to the President- this means that either A) he thinks that every four or eight years the entire civilian Executive Branch workforce should be completely replaced with new people, or B) he doesn’t foresee any future in this country where he is alive and not President.

There is one recent political murder that hasn’t gotten much attention. People should look into the 2020 case of Garret Foster being killed by Daniel Perry in Texas- after being convicted of murder, Perry was pardoned by the governor in 2024.

Tom Shelley

 

*************

 

After Charlie Kirk’s murder, we are close to another civil war. There’s been, for about 8 years, a “Cold Civil War” comparable to the standoff between the Soviets and the US. It can be traced back to the “New McCarthyism” after 9-11 that included censoring the anti-racist part of a book about George W. Bush by Michael Moore. In the last several years there’s been a large increase in political violence, from the massive insurrection of 1/6/21 by Republicans, to the murder of health care insurance CEO Brian Thompson in 2024 (he was probably killed because of the horrible health care situation in this country).

I am not a pacifist and we should understand that violence is not defined as inherently unjustified, although it could be defined as something inherently heart-breaking. When I look at Northern Ireland’s history, I defend, to one degree or another, almost everything the Irish Republican Army did. But I have also supported the 1997 cease-fire (permanent for many years now) since day one and have largely supported Sinn Fein (who bent over backwards to make the Peace Process work) since 2000. I believe very strongly in electoral politics, petitioning, non-violently protesting, etc. And have given a lot of thought as a socialist not just to making this country economically democratic and (what I call) sociologically democratic (i.e. racially just and racially equal) but also how we can be more politically democratic (i.e. reforming the Constitution to reflect the fact that democracy is one-person-one-vote not one-state-flag-one-vote).

Kirk’s murder was wrong. At this point it seems like nothing the Left has to own, but I still wanted to make my opinion clear. To a very large degree criticizing Trump as a fascist is not deceptively encouraging people to kill people like Kirk. It’s simply not deceptive. Trump has always, since the 2016 campaign, made it clear he likes political violence. He believes that every Executive Branch employee should be loyal to the President- this means that either A) he thinks that every four or eight years the entire Executive Branch workforce should be completely replaced with new people, or B) he doesn’t forsee any future in this country where is alive and not President.

There is one example of political violence that hasn’t gotten much attention. People should look into the 2020 case of Garret Foster being killed by Daniel Perry in Texas- after being convicted of murder, Perry was pardoned by the governor in 2024. 

Mexicans, Immigration, And The Irish

I submitted the Guest Opinion below to the Daily Camera about three weeks ago. I am not sure why it wasn't published- probably because they have a policy where in any rolling 365-day period no one can get more than four Guest Opinions published, and I think I had about 1-2 months left before it started over for me. The essay is a little TOO honest about something- I AM behind on staying informed about political developments here. I kind of HAD to say that, at least because of my Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.

 

I think it has some potential, more or less, to get more Irish-Americans to support immigrants, and to emphasize that for some reason(s) we are not hearing about white undocumented immigrants being deported.  

 

Tom 

 

I am a bit behind on reading articles about current events and politics, but I did some research for this, I have a 2003 CU-Boulder BA in Ethnic Studies, and I was with the “Irish Solidarity Movement” in America between 1997 and ending somewhere 2005-2020 (the ISM were people, some non-white, concerned about Northern Ireland Catholics).

Because I am about 2.5 months behind (I have a system where, for example, I save today’s articles until I read yesterday’s articles) I only just now read something that concerns me greatly. GOPers, including many in the Trump administration, are expressing hostility towards the Mexican flag, which has become prominent at many recent protests in America. 

The main thing that needs to be said is that I don’t hear any GOPers complaining about the display of the Irish flag at US demonstrations, etc. in the 70s, 80s, 90s. For about a year in college I displayed a very visible Irish flag outside my house. I took it once in the late 1990s to a progressive pro-Zapatista protest at the Mexican consulate in Denver and was welcomed.

I haven’t heard anything from GOPers about how in Colorado (and maybe elsewhere) there are special license plates you can get that have the Italian flag and a note that the driver is Italian-American. And the thing is, that statement, especially in the Denver area, could be described as incredibly offensive. I don’t know much about this parade post- 2000, but I am sure that many people with that license plate were involved with or supported the Denver Columbus Day parade, which was a celebration of the genocide of American Indians. I have not heard of American Indians and their allies denouncing those license plates as racist and trying to get them banned- but I wouldn’t blame them if they tried. Genocide is A LOT worse than the worst thing Mexico has done to the US.

Going back to Ireland and The Troubles, it wasn’t just British patriots who said that when Americans displayed the Irish flag, it was often in support of what some mislabeled a “terrorist” organization- the Irish Republican Army (the one associated in the past with Gerry Adams, and the one that bent over backwards around 2000 to help the Peace Process). I have, in an April 2014 post on my blog, proven objectively that the IRA were not terrorists (that is, I explain in detail the math and analysis involved). There is no Mexican organization attacking the US the way that the IRA attacked the British, and most of the people angered by the Mexican flag being displayed here would never feel that way about the Irish flag.

There are strong connections between the Irish struggle and the chicana/o movement here. A veteran chicano Denver activist I used to know named Leo Griep-Ruiuz told me that “politically aware” chicanos don’t think it’s a coincidence that IRA member Bobby Sands died on hunger strike MAY 5TH 1981. In 1998 or 1999 I attended a Cinco de Mayo fund-raiser in Denver for the Chiapas Coalition (which was supporting the Zapatistas in Mexico). I asked if I could speak for a couple minutes about Bobby Sands and they agreed. The audience, probably hundreds of Zapatista supporters, responded very positively.

I have also been wondering, have there been any white undocumented immigrants arrested and deported in the last 7 months? Between the fact that I HAVE read a TON of articles about Trump’s agenda between January and June and I recently consulted some friends, I get the impression that there haven’t been so many that it would reflect their numbers here, or any at all. Specifically, any Irish? I know that there must be a lot of undocumented Irish here, partly from the fact that around 10-20 years ago at least two large Irish political parties (SF and Labour) frequently called for legalizing them. Various other facts I’ve come across also contribute to my certainty that there is a substantial population of them.

The double standard we see among GOPers when it comes to Mexicans on one hand and the Irish on the other, is simply racist.

How To Address Tension Between Jews and Muslims, Zionists and Palestinians In America?

Below is something I am very fond of. It's not flawless but I believe it's pretty good. The joke about McMahon might not be as funny as I thought. Also, if the reference to Nazi skinheads seemed odd- A) I believe that they pose a very serious threat to our society and B) reminding Muslim Americans and Jewish Americans that they share or shared or will share a common enemy might be helpful.

 

With some small editing my essay was published as a Guest Opinion in Boulder's main paper a few days after the incident. Below is what I submitted to them. (The quote at the bottom is something written by Sonia Scherr)

 

Tom

 

********** 

 

I saw the headline around 4 PM Sunday afternoon. For the most part I wasn’t too surprised. Although at this point it seems likely there was no Boulder dimension to the planning and execution of the attack, I had encountered Israel-connected anti-Semitism, to a small but significant degree, on a discussion and organizing list associated with the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center shortly after Oct. 7th- at one point concerned City of Boulder officials were briefly involved. Although this attack is suspiciously convenient for the Trump Administration, I am inclined to usually take accusations of anti-Semitism seriously. I didn’t know it was too soon after the attack for some kind of unifying rally near the crime scene, so when I went to Pearl Street about 6:30 PM there were just cops there.

More so than with any other opinion piece I’ve submitted to local media in the last 5 years, I wish I could include links to my blog. Fighting anti-Semitism is a major part of my blog, about 15% of the total, and supporting the Palestinians is about 10% of my blog (those two parts overlap a lot). I am a very passionate supporter of the Palestinians (I was happy to cover my face with a keffiyeh I was given when I was standing next to working-class Catholics fighting the British Army in Belfast in 2002 (fortunately for all of us in the street that day, Education Secretary Linda McMahon wasn’t around enforcing her anti-mask rule!)). On the other hand my response to Oct. 7th was so hostile to Hamas that two people associated with the RMPJC accused me of being a Zionist and almost no one on that list disagreed with them.

The Peace Process in Israel/Palestine is in serious trouble. In recent years I have leaned towards supporting a one state solution, but after Oct. 7th and Israel’s response, maybe a two state solution is more realistic.

Until there is some massive progress towards peace, what can we do in America to prevent more attacks that target people because they are Muslim-American or because they are Jewish-American? With Trump in office, I don’t have high hopes. Here are some thoughts (not an exhaustive list):

1) Critics of Israel need to abandon two ideas I have encountered. The first is that because the conflict is asymetrical it’s okay for the military wing of Hamas to target civilians. The other idea is that Palestinians are so powerless that they have the power to make war, but not the power to make peace.
2) It’s been about 15 years since I read huge amounts of information from the Southern Poverty Law Center, but if we DO see a resurgence of the Nazi skinhead movement, we should, as united communities, counter them by ANY AND EVERY means available.
3) It’s possible that events in the near future will lead me to use this word without hesitation, but I think that until Trump talked about a Gaza Riviera, critics of Israel were a little trigger-happy with the word “genocide.”
4) I think that a lot of American progressives fail to express enthusiasm, when looking at history, for the Allied cause in World War II. I’m thinking of people who are not anti-Semitic but who might be giving other people the wrong idea about the Holocaust, simply because they take their usually solid criticism of America too far.
5) Critics of Israel need to remember that although a majority of Jewish-Americans support Israel, that majority is a VERY SMALL minority of American Zionists.

I am concluding with a quote from the hard-working opponents of organized hate, right-wing politics and economic injustice at the Southern Poverty Law Center. In one of the articles in the Fall 2008 issue of their publication, they wrote the following (it’s a statement by the author of that article):
 
“Although criticism of Israel does not typically amount to anti-Semitism — and many critics of the Jewish state are unfairly accused of bigotry — in some cases those who denounce Israel also cross the line into denigration of Jews as a group.” 

A LTE About Two Examples Of How Trump Is Anti-Democratic

This was submitted as a letter to the Daily Camera in April 2025 and published on April 18th. To be honest, I have collected a bunch of little facts about Trump that I dream of making more visible to either the whole population and/or certain chunks of the American population, either when they will do the most damage, or when I have a good excuse for reminding people about them, etc. I briefly but sufficiently weaponized two of these facts below.

 

Tom

Editor,

Donald Trump is getting closer and closer to making plain his contempt for democracy. In some ways this letter might soon be unnecessary. But it wouldn’t hurt to offer more evidence and develop comprehensive arguments that might be better than what we’ve been doing so far.

There is one thing from the last election that I don’t think was used to attack Trump. That is, his calls for reforming Nebraska’s election laws so that, with the Electoral College, it’s winner-takes-all. Nebraska, as well as Maine, awards two of it’s electoral votes based on the result for the whole state, and then gives one more vote per congressional district to whoever wins each of the districts. But Trump had nothing to say about this in relation to Maine, and the thing is he would have benefited in the election from a winner-take-all law in Nebraska, but not in Maine. He has no principled objection to what Nebraska does, he just wanted to win and didn’t care how.

Trump recently suggested that he might have the Federal government take over the running of Washington DC. It’s already bad enough that DC doesn’t have statehood (which means they have no votes in Congress), it would be a huge (undemocratic) step backwards if that were done. Even progressives don’t believe in getting rid of local government- to one degree or another we love it. I think the non-white majority in DC is pretty much why Trump and other GOPers oppose statehood for the city. I should also remind everyone, especially those who rose to power as leaders of the Tea Party movement (i.e. Rand Paul), that a massive part of why America fought a war for independence was the problem of “taxation without representation.”

Tom Shelley
Gunbarrell