The Stars and Bars II

Recently great attention has been placed on symbols of the Confederacy in our nation. It almost seems like there is a near consensus that such symbols belong in museums and nowhere else. But Trump, who is still supported to one degree or another by a large minority of the population and might be re-elected, passionately believes that there is nothing wrong with such symbols.

I have named this post “The Stars and Bars II” because I did a post about 11 years ago called “The Stars and Bars.” It’s about how legitimizing the Confederate flag contributed to a woman (whose story I read about in the publication of the Southern Poverty Law Center) becoming a Nazi skinhead.

A lot of people believe that the Confederacy was about independence from tyrannical Washington DC rule instead of being about slavery. But when they considered ending slavery to get military support from Europe and win the war, they decided not to. Slavery was more important to them than independence.

When people invoke states rights in connection with the Confederate cause, what they don’t know or ignore is that the Confederate states were unhappy with those northern states that passed laws interfering with the Fugitive Slave Act and which banned slave-owners from bring slaves with them while inside those states. They were against individual states passing anti-slavery laws.

The Confederacy didn’t believe in freedom. According to the movie “CSA: The Confederate States of America” (which is a fake documentary looking at an alternative history where the South wins), they intended to colonize Latin America if successful.

The idea that the South was oppressed by the North is ridiculous. In two ways their voting population was over-represented in the US government.

First, as I explain towards the bottom of this post, the way the US Senate works is undemocratic to the benefit of the smaller states. I have yet to create a 100% fool-proof argument, but take the number two for two Senators and divide it by the population of Wyoming, the smallest state and do the same thing with California. The tiny percentage of a vote that residents of the former have in the Senate is MUCH bigger than the same for Californians, about 67 times bigger. There is nothing wrong about small states being out-voted by big states, it’s not like living in a small state puts you in a protected class and you need some sort of Affirmative Action. I’m willing to bet that the population of the average Confederate state back then was probably about 1/10 the size of the population of the average Union state (UPDATE 9/4/23 I just found a way to sort of nail this down without a lot of work- the average Confederate state had 5.25 congressional districts and the average Union state (including the border states) had 7.4 congressional districts).

There’s also the 3/5 Compromise, where in terms of allocating US House districts, each slave was counted as 3/5 of a person. I’m sure in some Confederate states before the Civil War, this meant at least an additional House seat.

So, the states that formed the Confederacy had MORE power per non-slave resident than the States that remained in the union. They were not oppressed by the North. Even with their inflated political power, they were often just out-voted. Considering that the Constitution gives every state an additional two votes in the Electoral College based on having two Senators, which creates a small and false degree of equality between the states, that statement applies to the election of Lincoln as well.

They were also, if it’s not obvious, just racist. One example of that is that Black Union soldiers captured by the Confederacy were killed instead of being held as POWs. In the event anyone doubts me on that, let me say that if there had been a single Black POW, Hollywood would have made 10 movies about him by now. One of the military installations that Trump wants to keep named after a Confederate general, Fort A.P. Hill, is named after someone who had his men do that. According to this (two other things in this post come from there), when Texas seceded, it was explicitly in favor of the idea that the white race is superior.

The Confederacy was all about racism and slavery and had no legitimate claim to being oppressed by the North. The Confederate flag is a symbol of racism and should be removed from anything official and military bases named after Confederate generals should be renamed and statues etc. about the Confederacy should be removed to museums where they belong.

Law and Order Special Victims Unit Reviews B

This is a set of reviews of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit episodes. My general thoughts about that show are here. I’ll often do no more than make brief notes about an episode, although occasionally I’ll go deeper. Also, often there are dissenting main characters on almost any political issue, but you can usually tell what the general position of the show is. All the rest of the reviews are available by clicking on the l&osvu label at the bottom.

“Caretaker” Season 20. Wikipedia summary is: “The Special Victims Unit is called in to investigate what could possibly be their most heinous and disturbing crime when a father and his daughter are found brutally murdered in their home and his son is found wandering the streets, with stab wounds and blood all over him. The detectives investigate the case while trying not to let their emotions get the better of them and when the murderer (Sasha Alexander) is discovered and the motives of the crime are finally uncovered, it comes as a shock to everyone involved and Benson starts having mixed feelings about the nature of the crime committed.”

There’s an appearance by the gay or bi-sexual psychiatrist who works with the DA’s office.

“Hell’s Kitchen” Season 20. Wikipedia summary is “The Special Victims Unit is called in after a woman (Genevieve Angelson) who works at a trendy popular restaurant is sexually assaulted at a VIP after-party. At first, the victim is reluctant to talk to the detectives, wanting to let it go, but they soon discover that there are more victims and that the rapist's assaults go way back to when the rapist was in high school. The detectives are soon led to an ADA (Jacob Pitts) who is a dedicated advocate for women’s rights, who might be holding secrets related to the case. Meanwhile, Benson becomes stressed as Noah’s defiant behavior continues.”

There is one aspect of this worth mentioning. One of the two stories is that of a business owner who rapes his female employees. According to one victim, as a prelude to his assault he said “you want that promotion?” This tests my understanding of feminist-Marxist sociology, but it’s about a male employer abusing his power in relation to his female employees to get sexual gratification from them. If I had a better understanding of that kind of sociology I would probably have a lot more to say.

“Alta Kockers” Season 20. Wikipedia summary is: “When a young, promising transgender author is found murdered and physically assaulted, the Special Victims Unit is called in to investigate the case. The detectives are soon led to two elderly, reclusive brothers (Judd Hirsch and Wallace Shawn) who have both been harboring a terrible secret for several decades, which soon leads to a case of child sexual abuse suffered by both of the men in the past, which could change how the investigation goes when a decades old murder is uncovered. The case becomes extremely distressing for Rollins and Benson, who are both mothers, especially Rollins who is almost ready to give birth.”

It starts with the murder of a woman who works as a transgender prostitute. She’s killed by a john who didn’t know she was biologically male and who insists during questioning that he’s not gay.

“Plastic” Season 20. Wikipedia summary is: “The Special Victims Unit is called in to investigate after a young woman is drugged and sexually assaulted. The woman claims she was raped by a famous celebrity surgeon (Mark Feuerstein) and his girlfriend (Alyssa Sutherland). The investigation soon reveals that there are many victims of the surgeon and his girlfriend and the sexual assault case soon turns into a murder case when a body is found where a sexual assault is taped. Things soon take a rather bizarre and shocking twist when the girlfriend of the surgeon’s former identity is discovered, changing how the case goes when she proves to be not who she claims to be.”

The victim gets assistance from a gay male couple. It’s pretty brief but worth mentioning.

“Part 33” Season 20. Wikiepdia summary is: “Stone starts the court trial of a woman (Amy Rutberg) who murdered her husband, who was a police officer. The woman claims her husband was abusive to her, often raping, beating and intimidating her. The complicated case forces the Special Victims Unit to take sides and fight over what they think is right, particularly Rollins and Carisi, who have a heated argument with each other over their thoughts on the case. Meanwhile, the case brings back traumatic memories for Benson, who starts remembering her ordeal with William Lewis several years ago.”

This is sort of an example of them occasionally going after other cops.

“Facing Demons” Season 20. Wikipedia Summary is: “The Special Victims Unit is called in after a young man who was molested as a child commits suicide and try to investigate who was his rapist. The detectives soon discover that the man was in the same little league team that former squad member and Benson’s ex Brian Cassidy was in. Remembering Cassidy telling him he was molested as a child by his little league coach, Stone visits Cassidy and asks for his help to catch what could be a serial child molester who has been molesting boys for decades.”

There is a gay male couple.

Roseanne Reviews D

This is a set of reviews of Roseanne episodes. My general thoughts about that show are here. I will focus only on the political aspects and will mention what percent of lines spoken by non-family members are spoken by people of color.

“Workin’ Overtime” Episode 19, Season 1. Wikipedia summary is: “The Wellman Plastics employees are exhausted after Booker continues to lengthen work shifts due to upped quotas and machinery errors. Even Roseanne, the queen of the circle, cannot handle the pressure—especially when Dan starts working overtime as well. After one too many long days, she takes a breather at a local diner where a waitress provides some perspective about life and loneliness.”

It seems that there is no union. Although there is at least one episode in a later season that is pro-union, and one episode that is about employees buying their factory, there is nothing in this episode that is pro-union. However, it DOES illustrate conflict between management and labor, but not in a way that is pro-union and there is very little pushback by labor, which might be what happens in that situation in reality, but ideally there would be something pro-union in there.

There is a bad joke that is more of a transphobic than an anti-transphobic statement.

Of about 40 lines by non-family members, about 10% are by a Latina work-friend of Roseanne’s (I’m going to slightly edit some of the earlier reviews to reflect that this woman is a Latina, something I just found out (there were two barely perceptible hints, but they could have said her name, and I just finally found her name)).

“Toto, We’re Not In Kansas Anymore” Episode 20, Season 1. Wikipedia summary is: “A dangerous tornado is heading for Lanford, and the Conners, along with Crystal (who takes shelter at their house), prepare for the storm. Problems arise: Becky insists on retrieving her pet guinea pigs from the garage, while Jackie barely makes it to shelter after a trip to the grocery store, prompting a fight with her and Roseanne.”

There are about 20 lines by a non-family member and all of them are by a white person.

“Death and Stuff” Episode 21, Season 1. Wikipedia summary is: “During the family's busy weekend activities, a door-to-door salesman drops dead in the Conner kitchen. Roseanne and Dan attempt to conceal the corpse from potential buyers for their washer and dryer. The police officer who responded to their emergency call helps Darlene with a school assignment while waiting for the coroner to arrive.”

There are about 25 lines by non-family members and practically all of them are by white people.

“Dear Mom and Dad” Episode 22, Season 1. The Wikipedia summary is: “An unannounced visit by Roseanne's parents throws the Conner house into an uproar. Dan and Jackie are pushing a usually outspoken Roseanne to stick up for herself after she is at a loss for words. Hostility and craziness abound, but the biggest shock comes when Bev announces that they are moving to Lanford. Bruce Willis makes a cameo appearance as himself during the end credits.”

There is one flawed anti-homophobic statement. We learn that Roseanne has a gay aunt. It involves a bad joke about female gym teachers, but considering how anti-homophobic the show is later on (looking at the entire series, I think that about 1% of all lines are spoken by characters who are out when they speak those lines, and that goes up to about 3% if we count lines spoken when viewers didn’t know those characters were gay) I think it’s an anti-homophobic statement.

“Let’s Call it Quits” Episode 23, Season 1. Wikipedia summary is: “The Wellman factory women rebel against the stringent rules imposed by a tough new supervisor. After he raises the cap on the quotas yet again, Roseanne asks him to ease off. The boss agrees, but only if Roseanne agrees to treat him with undeserved respect. When he reneges on the deal by claiming he now controls Roseanne, she, along with Jackie and their friends, permanently clock out. Final regular appearance of George Clooney as Booker.”

This episode finally has some stuff that is near pro-union and at the VERY end turns into something pro-union. It would be better if it resulted in an organizing campaign or some kind of non-union action (I don’t know what the legal boundaries on that are) but it’s still pretty good. It’s a good illustration of abusive management, not to mention stupid management. Besides the argument that it’s just wrong to treat workers like that, setting an unreachable quota can create anxiety, stress and depression that affects their ability to get anywhere near that quota.

Although it would have been better if they had started a union and/or engaged in some kind of collective action, some of the workers DID talk and get a representative, Roseanne, to talk to the supervisor and she negotiated with him and briefly got the quotas lowered. But he clearly had absolutely no respect for workers and he raised the quotas to the earlier, unmeetable level. Shortly after that, Roseanne and her friends leave.

How far is this from being pro-union? The show expresses solid support for unions in at least one later episode and in the 9th season Roseanne and Jackie use some of their lottery wealth to help the factory employees buy the factory., So, this episode is in the context of a pro-labor show. At the very end of this episode those factory workers who left cheer as Roseanne says her name is Sally Field, which must be a reference to the pro-union movie “Norma Rae” where Field plays a pro-union worker.

There’s probably about 85-100 lines by non-family members and about 20% are by a black female friend of Roseanne’s at work.

Law & Order: Special Victims Unit Reviews A

This is a set of reviews of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit episodes. My general thoughts about that show are here. I’ll often do no more than make brief notes about an episode, although occasionally I’ll go deeper. Also, often there are dissenting main characters on almost any political issue, but you can usually tell what the general position of the show is. All the rest of the reviews are available by clicking on the l&osvu label at the bottom.

The first episode is a two-parter, the first called “Man Up” and the second part called 
“Man Down.” The wikipedia summaries are:

“The Special Victims Unit is called in after a fifteen-year-old boy (Bryce Romero) is sexually assaulted. Despite having evidence, he is too scared to name his attacker (Dylan Walsh), making things complicated for the detectives. When the identity of the attacker is discovered, the detectives do their best to protect the teenager from being abused again. Meanwhile, Rollins talks things through with her ex-boyfriend who cheated on her with an escort and also confides in Benson that she is pregnant for a second time. Benson expresses concern to Tutuola that she is not as strong or fast as she used to be.”

and

“The case involving a teenager who was sexually assaulted continues and Stone takes the rapist to court. However, an unexpected verdict comes back, shocking everyone involved. The victim ends up making a tragic decision which results in several people dead and injured and the Special Victims Unit must charge the victim. An upset Stone along with the rest of the squad decide to try their best to charge the boy's rapist as well in order to get justice for all the victims who were killed or injured in the attack. Meanwhile, Rollins starts having doubts about her pregnancy.”

There are two feminist aspects of this. Overall it’s slightly about taking the idea of pushing someone to “man up” to a point where it becomes sexist. There’s also a moment when Benson says to Rollins about abortion: “This is your decision to make, alone, and I will defend to the death your right to make it, but regret is an awful thing to live with.”

The main element of the second half is a school shooting and this brings up the issue of gun control, something I largely support. I was in college when the Columbine incident took place in 1999 and I think if the “gun show loophole” had been closed it might not have happened. I was surprised to learn recently that in recent years increasingly law enforcement opposes gun control, which seems to me to mean that more than usual they have a double standard and want guns out of the hands of some of the population but are fine with conservatives having guns. They continue to introduce people of color, disproportionately, to the criminal justice system, which seems to usually have a negative effect on your second amendment rights, and search Black people for weapons more than white people, and shoot Black people who don’t even have a gun, but generally are okay with “open-carry” and more specifically treat white people who pose an armed threat to the State with kid gloves while they call for Antifa to be declared a terrorist organization (Antifa and it’s predecessor, the Anti-Racist Action Network, without arms focuses(d) on grassroots fascists (in the past that usually meant Nazi skinheads), not cops.

There’s also two bits about homophobia. First, in the first half, the father suggests that if someone is gay they need counseling. In the second half the son is interviewed by a psychiatrist who refers to her wife and the son just says he isn’t gay, but without any hostility, like he rejects his dad’s homophobia.

“Zero Tolerance” Season 20. Wikipedia summary is: “A nine-year-old girl (Scarlett Lopez) is taken from her mother at the U.S.–Mexico border and ends up in a child sex trafficking ring in New York, which quickly comes to the attention of the Special Victims Unit. Benson and Stone try their hardest to reunite the girl with her family within the court system but meet many obstacles along the way. Eventually, Stone decides to ask for help from an old friend. Meanwhile, Rollins decides to give her rocky relationship with Pollack another chance.”

Even before the main story about immigrants kicks in, there is one minor pro-immigrant thing. Probably an average of 5 times a season, the detectives make it clear that they’re not “la migra” (immigration) when seeking witnesses, and that sort of thing happened here. It just occurred to me that it would be good if about 20-30% of the time that involved white immigrants who are undocumented because it wouldn’t hurt if white people understood that amnesty would benefit, for example, undocumented Irish.

The main story is about separating undocumented children from their undocumented parents, something that became a hall-mark of Trump immigration policy in recent years. The show is extremely critical of that. When someone from the Office of Refugee Resettlement comes to take the girl back to a camp, he is identified as the one who took her from her mother’s arms and Benson has him arrested for kidnapping. It doesn’t survive the courts of course, but it’s still a powerful statement.

As usual there is some probably realistic disagreement among the detectives about the issue. The Black detective (“Finn”) is less than totally pro-immigrant and unfortunately when the “we’re all the descendants of immigrants” argument is made, he (kind of reasonably) describes Black history. I think that when it comes from pro-immigrant black people, it’s a reasonable response to a flawed pro-immigrant argument, but otherwise it’s a bullshit response to a flawed pro-immigrant argument. He DOES make a good point about how Black people are treated today (but again, it really has nothing to do with a less-than-totally pro-immigrant position). (a colleague refers to immigrants “yearning to breathe free” and then Finn says “I still can’t breathe free,” likely a reference to the last words of Eric Garner, a black man who was killed in a chokehold by the NYPD)

“Exile” Season 20. Wikipedia summary is: “The Special Victims Unit is called in to investigate the sexual assault of a young homeless woman (Aimée Spring Fortier). The squad soon realizes that the woman has a dual personality which makes things complicated. However, when she goes missing, the squad becomes challenged to not only uncover her whereabouts but also her real identity. The detectives later discover that someone from her past may be responsible and that the assault may have happened a long time ago. However, the squad meet a dead end in their investigation and Benson makes a generous decision to help the victim recover from her ordeal.”

There are two main aspects of this that are abnormal (normal being about sex crimes).

First, it touches on homelessness. Like almost everyone I’m concerned about homelessness. I have done very little to help the homeless compared to what I’ve done to help those who just have food insecurity (the last 8-10 years I have spent an average of about 4-6 hours a week volunteering at a food-bank) but about 1% of that work was for the benefit of homeless people and probably a lot of food bank clients would become homeless if not for the food bank, and then the resources available for homeless people would have to be shared by a lot more people than is currently the case- i.e. there would be more competition for beds in shelters.

It also touches a little on the subject of homeless people with mental illness. I think that’s a major cause of homelessness- even moderate (let alone severe) mental illness makes it difficult to function and work and pay bills and stuff. Without Social Security disability programs SSI and SSDI there would be even more homelessness. Also, mental illness can be made worse by anxiety, stress and depression and I’m sure gets worse with becoming homeless. (I describe my mental illness here)

The subject of legal marijuana comes up, and the show expresses support for this when Finn buys a legal marijuana snack. I can’t believe that there are still states where even medical marijuana remains illegal. And when it comes to recreational marijuana, I believe there are still federal obstacles for businesses, especially when it comes to banking. Marijuana is much less deadly than alcohol or tobacco and I believe is less addictive, although driving stoned is probably as stupid as driving drunk. In general I fully support medical and recreational marijuana, especially the former. I can’t believe how many people our nation sentenced to the hell that prison must be for marijuana-only non-violent “crimes.” It’s sick.

Lastly, the gay or bi-sexual psychiatrist working with the DA’s office has a brief appearance.

Don't Vote GOP: Three New Poems

(this was originally published 4/27/20 but for some reason it stopped showing up, so I am republishing it now)

Here are three more poems. They are all based on offensive lyrics, I explain that here.

For all the poems, you can click on the "lyrics" label the bottom.

1. Stop the Klan. What you think it's about.
2. Irish Citizen Army. The Irish workers' militia of 1913-1916.
3. Don't Vote SDLP. What's wrong with Northern Ireland's Social Democratic and Labour Party.

“Stop the Ku Klux Klan” based on “Stand Up and Be Counted” by either The Klansmen in the 1980s or the racist assholes who originally wrote it several decades ago. Original lyrics are here.

1. In 2017 or 2018 or 2019 there were reports that caravans of refugees from Central America were traveling through Mexico on their way to the US. Trump used this, probably successfully, to whip up anti-immigrant hatred. These were definitely refugees and they were traveling in caravan for security.
2. I believe that there is a spectrum between democratic and undemocratic and I believe that, politically, the US is closer to the democratic end of the spectrum. But my thoughts about how we can make it more democratic politically are here. I worry greatly that Trump is a fascist, literally, and my thoughts about that are in the middle of a post here.

3. Trump is a racist. See this and this. There’s also his comments on the murder of an anti-fascist by a fascist in Charlottesville in 2017. And there’s this, that I published elsewhere on my blog:

[When asked about David Duke endorsing him, his] response in an interview was:

Well, just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke. OK? I don't know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don't know. I don’t know, did he endorse me or what’s going on, because, you know, I know nothing about David Duke. I know nothing about white supremacists. And so you're asking me a question that I'm supposed to be talking about people that I know nothing about.

4. The Torah is the main Jewish text.
5. My thoughts about religion are found here, although a lot of those posts are only partly relevant.
6. **58% of this version is me, 42% is the original.

7. I give this poem 3 stars out of 5.

8. UPDATE 6/1/22 I believe there's a spectrum between democratic and undemocratic and I USED to believe we were in the middle but closer to the democratic end of the spectrum. With what the GOP has done in the last couple years I think we might be closer to the UNdemocratic end of the spectrum.

Chorus:
Stand up and be counted, welcome the caravans
Stand up and be counted, and stop the Ku Klux Klan

We are anti-racists and love our democracy true
We always can be counted on, when there's a job to do
We educate our communities day and night, to keep them Klan-free
And proudly display anti-racist bumper-stickers, promoting diversity

Chorus

The Bible’s pretty cool, but so are the Torah and Koran
We believe in gay rights, so fuck the Ku Klux Klan
In search of peace and liberty, with the constitution in hand
We will defeat Trump to save our democratic land

***********

“Irish Citizen Army” based on “Blackshirt and Roses” by Razor’s Edge. Original lyrics are here.

1. This is written from the perspective of an Irish Republican in the 1970s, or 1980s or 1990s in Ireland. The Irish Citizen Army was started in 1913 during a general lock-out (where, in response to labor activism, an employer throws their employees out of the factory, etc.) in Dublin. It was formed to protect workers from attacks by the police.  In 1916, when the Easter Rising (an attempt at getting the British out) took place, while most of the moderate Irish Volunteers failed to participate the (admittedly much smaller) ICA participated fully and James Connolly, the leader of the ICA, was the de facto leader of the uprising. Connolly was a Marxist theoretician and union organizer and considered Ireland’s greatest socialist- there is a train station in Dublin named after him.
2. The Starry Plough is basically the flag of republican socialism, although some non-republican socialists use it. At one point about 10-15 years ago, and maybe still today, the youth wing of the Irish Labour Party used it.
3. Connolly was one of the few European socialists to oppose the nationalism of World War I. (The original refers to WWII)
4. Razor’s Edge were/are British and support(ed) the British and Unionist causes in N. Ireland.
5. **54% of this version is me, 46% is the original.

6. I give this poem 4 stars out of 5.

They created the Starry Plough, an emblem of the Irish working-class
And they spread Marxism, patriotic workers struggling en masse.

(Chorus)
Fuck the British Empire
Ireland still recalls
The Irish Citizen Army
Heroes one and all.

Opposed the nationalist war in Europe, they knew the real enemy.
With the European Working-Class, they were in solidarity.

The flame they lit was not extinguished, still burning in our hearts today.
We're carrying on the fight because the ICA led the way.

(Chorus)

Fuck the British Empire
Ireland still recalls
Connolly and the ICA
Heroes one and all.

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

“Don’t Vote SDLP” based on “Freedom” by Razor’s Edge. Original lyrics are here.

1. This is NOT written from my perspective, but the perspective of  the type of person I probably could have collaborated with politically if I had lived in the Nationalist community of Northern Ireland in the 1970s, 80s or 90s (I’m American). It’s from the perspective of someone who lives in a working-class Nationalist area in the 1990s and is sort of pacifist and a left-wing social-dem and doesn’t like Sinn Fein very much because of the violence and doesn’t like the Social Democratic and Labour Party for the reasons I give here (there are some more thoughts about the SDLP here, while discussing the episode “Rising Star”).
The thing is, the British Labour Party hasn’t ever organized in the North and recently had to be taken to court to allow Northerners to join, but they refuse to let the Party run candidates there (which is more of a good thing than a bad thing). There are multiple tendencies in the BLP when it comes to N. Ireland and I think the dominant one is to support their official sister organization the SDLP. I don’t think they ever called for the IRISH Labour Party to organize there and it wasn’t until tension developed between the ILP and the SDLP in 2001, 2002, and 2003 that the ILP started a transitional process of organizing there that was supposed to result in them running candidates as rivals to those of their official sister party. I did an essay/article/post PARTLY about that here.
So, this person has little or no options for voting (even if the BLP had been running candidates there, this person wouldn’t have voted for them (unless they were comparable to Tony Benn or Ken Livingstone)).
2. The red, white, and blue are the colors of the British flag.
3. The SDLP encouraged their supporters to do little more than vote. They were more or less against marching and probably against rallies as well. It’s true that non-SDLP supporters could have become involved and the inevitable friction with the security forces may have been difficult for stewards to control and a riot could have developed. But they still should have tried it, maybe with double the usual number of stewards. If there weren’t enough good stewards in the SDLP, maybe, in the 1970s and 1980s, they could have acquired the help of members and former members of the Official IRA, whose movement the Provisionals (SF and the IRA) had split from, and which was committed to a relatively non-violent path (I just think it would have been great if they HAD organized marches and I wanted to explain that they could have found a way to do it with a low risk of them turning into riots). The failure to offer mass struggle as an alternative to armed struggle weakened the overall effort to advance the interests of the Nationalist population.
4. The SDLP was socially conservative and although they probably did a better job of attracting Protestants than the Provos did, they were also closer to the Catholic Church.
5. Critics sometimes call the SDLP the Stoop Down Low Party.
6. In the 70s and 80s and probably the 90s as swell, I can imagine SDLP canvassers at election time being uncomfortable when whoever they’re talking with informed them that they’re gay. That homophobia is largely gone now, and I don’t think it was all that hateful in the first place, but they were homophobes.
7. They’re in the Socialist International and today maybe the SI almost deserves them, but with their social conservatism and moderate, almost capitalist, economics, they certainly didn’t belong there in the 1990s and 2000s and probably not in the 70s and 80s.
8. My thoughts about what the Provos did are here.
9. Razor’s Edge were/are British and support(ed) the British and Unionist causes in N. Ireland.
10. **66% of this version is me, 34% is the original.

11. This poem gets 5 stars out of 5.

Sell-out politicians always seem confused
They can’t figure out how to eject the red, white and blue
the only time you matter is on Election Day
so they can grab your vote and then tell you to go pray

(Chorus)
Options, no options
For pacifist social-dems in this community
Options, no options
The Stoops offer no mass struggle opportunities

A community defended by heroes but who then go too far
There are too many problems with their repertoire
But the only time you matter to the Stoops is on Election Day
They really want your vote unless you’re lesbian, bi or gay

Chorus

With their moderate instincts, the community gets left behind
if you think they’re helping us, you must be f*cking blind
the only time you matter is on Election Day
They’re in the International, but they’re pro-life and anti-gay

Roseanne Reviews C

This is a set of reviews of Roseanne episodes. My general thoughts about that show are here. I will focus only on the political aspects and will mention what percent of lines spoken by non-family members are spoken by people of color.

“Canoga Time” Episode 11, Season 1. Wikipedia summary is: “Roseanne proposes a deal when Dan cannot bear to part with his old "junk" that Roseanne wants to donate to a rummage sale. Darlene forges a passing grade on her report card.”

There’s about 15 lines spoke by a non-family member, but they’re all by a white person.

“Bridge Over Troubled Sonny” Episode 13, Season 1. Wikipedia Summary: “Crystal still struggles to cope with her first husband's death, Sonny, whose body was accidentally buried inside the bridge that Jackie drove them over on their way to work. Roseanne is unsure whether she should tell Crystal about Sonny's infidelities. Crystal finally confronts her emotions and reveals that she knew about Sonny's cheating and had her own affair to spite him. Darlene decides it is cool to smoke until Roseanne finds her pack of cigarettes.”

First, this is the episode I referred to earlier about work-place safety. Unfortunately, they make it sound like he just screwed up, but I would say that there may have been some kind of safety measure that could have prevented his death, and I still think it illustrates how most or at least many working-class jobs are more physically dangerous than all or at least almost all middle-class jobs. And that should be taken into consideration when we look at (in addition to safety measure) rates of compensation and things like breaks during work and hours (i.e. forced over-time) (considering that fatigue can contribute to accidents happening). Every year on the 28th of April, the global labor movement (and apparently many outside the labor movement as well) mark Workers Memorial Day, remembering all those killed or injured on the job. There is more information here and here.

In the COVID0-19 era, there is a new dimension to the issue of workplace safety. I won’t go into it much, but although I once found myself frustrated that Best Buy wasn’t doing work on computers, I overwhelmingly am concerned about people who have had to and are continuing to work in this situation. I can’t believe that we weren’t all wearing masks a long time ago, that would have increased the safety of everyone including workers at, for example, meat-packing plants. I’ve worn a mask 99% of the time that I’m outside a home and my car since about March 15th.

Also, out of about 40 lines by non-family members, all are by white people.

“Mall Story” Episode 16, Season 1. Wikipedia summary is: “It is time for the annual Landford Mall-A-Thon, and Roseanne and her brood scout out the deals during a Saturday in retail heaven. Roseanne makes Dan buy a new pair of shoes he does not want. Becky finds the perfect dress for the high school dance that Roseanne says is too expensive. Roseanne asks Dan to return the shoes so she can afford to buy the dress for Becky.”

The only thing worth noting is that out of about 40 lines by non-family members, none are by people of color.

“Becky’s Choice” Episode 17, Season 1. Wikipedia summary is: “Becky must decide between her first crush, Chip, and the infamous "Tongue Bandit". The decision worsens when Roseanne and Dan invite Chip's parents for dinner. During the evening, Roseanne catches Becky in the backyard with the other guy.”

The only thing worth noting is that out of about 40 lines by non-family members, none are by people of color.

“The Slice of Life” Episode 18, Season 1. Wikipedia summary is: “Becky prepares for a slumber party, and Darlene practices to pitch in a baseball game. Darlene is extremely moody, and storms out of the house after arguing with Roseanne. Later, Roseanne gets a phone call that Darlene was rushed to the hospital for an emergency appendectomy. Roseanne is wracked with guilt after Darlene develops complications; Roseanne and Dan anxiously wait for the doctor's prognosis.”

This raises the issue of health-care insurance, although not very critically. I think the only thing critical is it says that parents shouldn’t have to worry about health-care insurance when they’re also worrying about their child being in emergency surgery. It’s not a bad point, and there’s a little bit about dealing with health insurance bureaucracy, but it could be more critical of that industry and/or it could have said something about Roseanne having insurance as part of a union’s Collective Bargaining Agreement.

In this episode about 50% of the lines by a non-family member are by people of color. One of the two people of color, the one with about 45% of all such lines is a surgeon who is a black woman. In some ways that’s pretty cool. The only way I dissent from that is that I have heard that the TV show The Cosby Show actually fueled racism in this country because it gave people the impression that black people had equality in class terms and had nothing to complain about. I watched it fairly often as a kid and remember one episode that probably didn’t help at all. Cliff wants to buy a car and at the dealership he tries to act like he's down on his luck in order to get a better deal. I’m not making that up.

In general though it’s awesome that 45% of the lines by non-family members were by a black female surgeon.

The other thing I should say about health-care is that the COVID-19 situation just makes health-care reform even more important in multiple ways. The main thing is that although the period of late March and early April wasn’t the apocalyptic disaster it could have been, there would have been less of a disaster and maybe fewer deaths if we had had a health-care system set up for the entire population instead of just for those wealthy enough or lucky enough to have health-care insurance. There would have been plenty of ventilators and ICU beds if we had a system with the capacity to help everyone who needs health care.

Roseanne Reviews B

This is a set of reviews of Roseanne episodes. My general thoughts about that show are here. I will focus only on the political aspects and will mention what percent of lines spoken by non-family members are spoken by people of color.

“Lover’s Lane” Episode 6, Season 1. The wikipedia summary is: “On a night out at the bowling alley, Roseanne sneaks a peek at Becky's first boyfriend. Meanwhile, Booker makes a bet with Jackie for very high stakes; if he wins she has to spend the night with him.”

The only significant political thing here is that they bowl, which is definitely more of a working-class thing than a middle-class thing.

Also, out of about 50-75 lines spoken by non-family members, none are spoken by a person of color, which really sucks.

“The Memory Game” Episode 7, Season 1. The wikipedia summary is: “Dan's enthusiastic plan to take photographs for his and Roseanne's 15th high school reunion yearbook exposes a 15-year-old secret he has kept from Roseanne. His attempt to explain to an angry Roseanne bring hilarious results.”

There are two bits of pro-labor stuff. First, the female part of a mostly-female factory workforce threaten to strike over the paper-towel supply in their bathroom. And a female worker speculates earlier that management wants them distracted by that instead of focused on pay and benefits. It’s far from a full-throated endorsement of unions, but we see that at least once in the show later on and there MIGHT be a union at the factory, it’s not clear.

There are about 30 lines by non-family members and about 10% are by a Latina work friend of Roseanne's who started the mimi rebellion over paper towels .

“Here’s To Good Friends” Episode 8, Season 1. The wikipedia summary is: “Roseanne and Jackie console a brokenhearted Crystal after her boyfriend breaks up with her. A night at the Lobo Lounge, reflecting on love and men, help to set her right. While at the Lobo, a miffed Jackie embarrasses Booker when he shows up with another woman after telling her he was spending the evening with his mother.”

Only thing worth mentioning is that out of about 50-75 lines by non-family members, only about 5% are by are by people of color (in this case, a Latina work friend of Roseanne's), which really sucks.

“Dan’s Birthday Bash” Episode 9, Season 1. Wikipedia summary is: “Roseanne and the kids surprise Dan with an elaborate birthday breakfast. Later that evening, Roseanne throws Dan a party at the Lobo. During the celebration, Dan barely avoids a fight with a loud-mouthed jerk after Roseanne stops him. Afraid of looking like a wimp, Dan vows to beat up the bully the next time he sees him. Becky is invited to Chip's home for dinner.”

Only thing worth mentioning is that out of about 45 lines by non-family members, none are by people of color, which really sucks.

“Saturday” Episode 10, Season 1. Wikipedia summary: “It is Saturday at the Conners', and Dan plans to spend the afternoon "working on" (that is, drinking beer and talking in front of) an old truck with his friends. Roseanne, having heard Dan make similar claims before, bets him that the guys will not finish the repair work by the end of the day. Dan takes the bet, but soon realizes he may lose.”

There’s some class stuff as they fix their own truck instead of paying someone else to and look for clothes on really good sales at the mall. There a bit feminism, although the response to the sexism could have been more devastating.

And even though they added a new recurring character whose a friend of Dan’s a few episodes earlier and have one brand new minor character that’s a friend of Dan’s in this episode, all 50 or so lines by non-family members are by white characters. That DOES change at least briefly and to a moderate degree at some point in the series. I think so far it’s about 2% of such lines are by people of color but I think that in the first 8 seasons it’s closer to 20%. Also, in all fairness I should mention that about 1/4-1/3 of the extras at the factory Roseanne and Jackie work at are Black at this point in the show, and maybe around 20% of the extras in general are people of color.

The Black Lives Matter Protests and the Trunp Administration

Although I have been following developments and reading commentary about the Black Lives Matters protests like crazy, I have not attended any protests. For MULTIPLE reasons, taking part in protests would cause me the kind of anxiety and stress that would make my mental disabilities much worse than they are.

But, even though I currently am not getting a lot of visitors to this blog (I’m getting some and will soon get more), here are my thoughts about the issues thrown up by the protests.

Many people (like Trump) don’t understand this, but this is not about George Floyd. This is about hundreds of years of black lives being valued less than white lives in this country, including an apparent surge in the murders of unarmed Black people by police in the last several years, as well as some modern-day lynchings that more or less don’t involve the police. I was told at a BLM protest march around 2015 that in a 365-day period ending shortly before that day about 200 black people, armed or unarmed, had been killed by American police. I’m sure some of them were armed, but A) I’m very open-minded about allegations that cops plant guns and B) around that time there were SEVERAL highly publicized cases where undeniably unarmed Black people were killed by police. Police are practically never convicted, or even prosecuted (and rarely fired) for such deaths. Although there isn’t solidly comprehensive information about how often unarmed black people are killed by police here like there’s information about the security forces killing Catholic civilians in Northern Ireland’s Troubles, one reason I believe it’s a widespread and serious problem is that both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League, two organizations that generally get along with police, have expressed support for BLM. That’s here and here. They are making these statements because even though they are sort of pro-cop, they are even more anti-racist and anti-injustice and anti-inequality. And that’s the agenda they see in BLM. (And in the case of the ADL, their support for BLM is also despite the fact that BLM has expressed criticism of Israel)

Trump claims to be sensitive to the death of Floyd, but he clearly isn’t beyond the death of that one individual. He isn’t sensitive to what Floyd’s death symbolizes. His National Security Advisor has said “No, I don't think there's systemic racism. I think 99.9% of our law enforcement officers are great Americans.” Based on multiple facts, a lot more than .1% of police are racist. That’s based on simple common sense, but also the following:

1) What I wrote about the SPLC and the ADL and BLM.
2) In 1992, when the controversy over the Body Count (Ice-T’s heavy metal band) song Cop Killer broke, the (then- 35,000 member) National Black Police Association kind of backed Ice-T. According to an article in the Orlando Sentinel:

The 35,000-member National Black Police Association says it won't join the boycott. Police should try to get at the root of black discontent and try to change it, said Ronald Hampton, the group's executive director.

"Where were these police groups when the police beat up Rodney King?" Hampton asked. "Why were they not appalled by the actions of their brothers? It rings of hypocrisy.”

3) From what I’ve heard, some massive majority of cops are registered to vote GOP and for the following reasons I believe that is a racist party.

A) Not only do they get no more than about 10% of the Black vote, and only around 25% of the Latino vote (and that would be lower if (more or less) white Latinos were excluded from the calculations), they also get no more than around 25% of the Asian-American vote. That last fact is crucial. Even though Asian-Americans as a group do at least as well financially as white people do as a group, and even though there is the history of FDR and Internment, Asian-Americanss look at the GOP and see it as even less attractive than the Dems.
B) There ’s also the fact that in the 1960s and 1970s Segregationist Democrats migrated to the GOP because the Dems became a civil rights party. In 2005 the GOP ADMITTED (and in all fairness apologized for) using the “Southern Strategy” of 1968 where they appealed to segregationist southerners in order to elect Nixon.
C) As I’ll explain further down, Trump is a racist.

There’s also the fact that, according to HuffPost, the Trump Justice Department ignored police brutality:

“Since President Donald Trump took office, his appointees at the Justice Department have all but eliminated the federal government’s police reform work. The Civil Rights Division’s police practices group has shrunk by half, and it hasn’t opened any major pattern-or-practice investigations that could rein in police departments that regularly violate constitutional rights.”

(Also, see this).

(There’s a lot of things I will gloss over because there’s so much attention on them anyway, like Trump’s use of the phrase “when the looting starts, the shooting starts,” or what happened to facilitate his photo-op with the Bible)

Trump is a racist. Here’s some of the most solid evidence:

1) A few years ago was the first time Trump called Antifa a terrorist organization. It was after Antifa members had done what they’re defined by, and that’s not actually or allegedly rioting. They were fighting people clearly identifiable as fascists, and no, I don’t believe that cops are clearly identifiable as fascists. They were fighting FASCISTS.
2) On a similar note, when an anti-fascist was killed in 2017 in Charlottesville by a fascist, Trump said there were “fine” people on both sides.
3) There’s his attitude to the exonerated victims of a racial miscarriage of justice.
4) When asked about David Duke endorsing him, his response in an interview was:

Well, just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke. OK? I don't know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don't know. I don’t know, did he endorse me or what’s going on, because, you know, I know nothing about David Duke. I know nothing about white supremacists. And so you're asking me a question that I'm supposed to be talking about people that I know nothing about.

5) There’s his opinion that Lincoln screwed up dealing with what led to the Civil War. Trump thinks that if the then-late former President Andrew Jackson had been President in 1861 the Civil War would have been avoided. Since Jackson was a slave owner and an opponent of abolitionism, that would have involved, at best, a compromise friendly to the South that would have barely affected the life-span and geographic scope of slavery or the treatment of slaves. There’s information about that here and here.
6) His Veterans Affairs Secretary is a neo-confederate.

(As far as those last two, I should explain two facts about the Confederacy. First, they considered ending slavery so they could get military support from Europe and win the war, but decided not to- slavery was more important to them than independence. Also, when Black Union soldiers were captured, they were simply executed instead of taken to POW camps. The Confederacy was about slavery and racism)

I recently had a bit of a breakthrough on what needs to be done to make significant progress on ridding this country of racism. In addition to everything else people are doing, we need more unions. That’s based on the following:

1. Union households are more likely to vote Democratic than non-union households, and many of the organizers and staff in the labor movement are people of color and most of the whites are anti-racist and most union supporters are people of color or anti-racist whites.
2. In 2000 in a discussion on the email list of the Young Democratic Socialists (now YDSA) a member who was organizing workers in Indiana said that his competition was the Klan (UPDATE 1/26/22 That is, competition for the hearts and minds of the workers).
3. Eammon McCann is a socialist and anti-Unionist activist in Northern Ireland. He was one of the main leaders of the N. Ireland Civil Rights Movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s (he was one of the speakers at the rally/march that was attacked by the British Army on Bloody Sunday in Derry in 1972, and he was an organizer of the second Civil Rights march, the one in Derry in Oct. of 1968). He has held several different senior and very senior positions in the Northern Irish TRADE-union movement in the last 40 years. In 2016 he was elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly and in 2017 he would have been but they reduced the number of seats returned from each constituency form 6 to 5 so he was basically runner-up. As far as I can tell, in the last 40 years at any given time two mainstream or professional news publications have been publishing his columns. He is an expert on sectarianism in N. Ireland. In a column written in the 1980s or 1990s and included in the 1998 anthology of his columns “McCann: War and Peace in Northern Ireland” he wrote:

The trade union movement is better placed than any other to purge the politics of this island of sectarianism. No other institution brings Catholic and Protestant workers together on a regular basis in pursuit of a common purpose which is antipathetic to sectarianism

(Mark Langhammer, who was the leader of the Northern Ireland part of the Irish Labour Party for several years around 2010, told me in 2005 that he agrees with McCann)

I think you could easily say the same thing about racism in this country.

Unfortunately, in recent decades, as the labor movement has become more and more anti-racist, it has gotten smaller and smaller, thanks to the GOP, corporations, and moderate Democrats.

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

In conclusion, although I’m concerned the protests will result in the spread of COVID-19 and I have been unable to take part in them, I am glad that the protests are happening. They seem likely to be successful in multiple ways and have exposed more than usual the fact that our society is racist and that Trump is a racist.


A new mural in Belfast, N. Ireland.

In Memory of JFK

I know that, according to Noam Chomsky, JFK may have been more into escalating the low intensity conflict in Vietnam (it wasn’t much of a war until after he was killed) than Oliver Stone would have us believe. And he was more of a capitalist than FDR was, and he was a Cold Warrior (I don’t know if Stone was right about his attitude towards anti-Castro Cubans). But I still think that he was one of our better Presidents. Although I’m not real familiar with his civil-rights record, a LOT of Black people and Chicana/os and Latina/os greatly admire(d) him (what he was about). He was a mainstream Dem back before the party shifted towards the center, and back when the rich and corporations were taxed more than they have been in the last 45 years, and when privatization was a bad word.

And he was the only Catholic President we have had. And until about the time he was elected, there was a massive history of anti-Catholic bigotry in this country. I’ll get back to that soon.

This post is about the Catholic population of the US (and to some extent elsewhere), the Catholic Church, anti-Catholic bigotry of the sort we find in America, MY relationship to Catholicism, and to a very small degree, Catholicism (although I won’t get theological or philosophical). It might not be incredibly well integrated, so please read the entire post.

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

I’d been thinking of doing this post for about 2-4 years. What convinced me to do it recently is that I have become more sensitive to the existence of anti-Catholic bigotry in this country, I think because I have become even more sensitive to anti-Semitism than I used to be (it’s come up frequently on my blog in the last 4 months, and between when Trump revealed his “peace” plan for Israel and the Palestinians and early March I read an average of 5 articles a day in the Times of Israel (before COVID-19 it looked like that conflict was going to explode and I wanted to be very informed, and TTI is only slightly pro-Israel)). The most immediate cause of me typing this now instead of two months from now is a joke in a movie I generally like. It’s called “Five Feet Apart” and it’s the perfect combination of comedy, tragedy, and romance. At one point one of the characters says that his life-time to-do list includes having sex in the Vatican. The Vatican is much more religious than political- the Vatican barely counts as a State. I know people will try to wiggle out of this by pointing to differences in hierarchy, but what if he said “in a mosque” or “in a synagogue?” What about the Dalai Lama’s residence? I know people will say that Tibetan Buddhism isn’t as offensive as the Catholic Church, but overall that’s only sort of true, and it doesn’t matter. I know people will point to the differences in hierarchy, but if you identify the politics of the average Muslim, and compare that to either the official positions of the Vatican and/or the politics of the average Catholic, I find the Muslim population more politically offensive (before you get the wrong idea, A) wait till I describe the Catholic part of that comparison, and B) see this and C) see this). And like I said, what if it were a Mosque? I would find that just as offensive.

I have experienced anti-Catholic bigotry 2-3 times.

1. A woman who is clearly more right-wing than left-wing said something in my presence that was anti-Catholic. It was about 5 years ago and I can’t remember what it was but it was not a reasonable criticism of the Church or a reasonable theological disagreement. I am not giving her name, and if I have to, the next time I see her I’ll casually ask her how she feels about Catholics and will be able to provide more solid evidence that she’s anti-Catholic.

2. After a Northern Ireland event I organized, a fairly prominent, progressive local activist came up to me and said that it was weird to think of Catholics as the good guys (she only showed up because a prof. she really likes was supposed to speak). Now, in all fairness, she also said that, as someone who's half Jewish and supports the Palestinians, she considers Jews to be the bad guys, too (that is, she's an equal opportunity idiot). And to a large degree her comment indicated some degree of concern for the Catholic population in the North. But it does indicate a problem.

3. I'm not sure this really counts as anti-Catholicism, in fact this person was fairly interested in     Northern Ireland and fairly concerned about the Nationalist (Catholic) community in N. Ireland. In all fairness, when she said this I don't think I knew anything about what she raised that I know now. But she indicated she wasn't real enthusiastic about a United Ireland because Protestant women would be disadvantaged in terms of access to abortion. The thing is, while abortion is something like 99% illegal in the Republic, it was about 95% illegal in the North. That conversation was in the late 1990s and only very recently has the Abortion Act has been extended to N. Ireland. And it was done over the objections of a majority in N. Ireland. And in fact, the Protestant population is a little bit more pro-life than the Catholic population (at a political level as evidenced by statements made during an Assembly debate on the subject in 2000).

The thing is, she was making this assumption about Catholic and Protestant attitudes on abortion that is evidence of anti-Catholicism on the Left. Her statement ignored all the CATHOLIC women who would like access to abortion. (she also suggested that the abortion issue for Protestant women is more important than all the issues that argue in favor of uniting Ireland)

Here are some other things that convince me there is anti-Catholic bigotry on the Left.

1) In 2003 there was a survey done of American non-Catholics which found that some significant minority (I'm almost certain it was 30%) believe that Catholics go along with whatever the Vatican says. Although I'm going to keep this fairly brief, that's ridiculous. There's plenty of dissent. For example, Spain is a leader in gay rights. As I describe here, Catholics in Ireland support gay rights, and in 2015 same-sex marriage was legalized (by a Constitutional Amendment, so it would be difficult to reverse (there wasn’t anything in their Constitution about “a man and a woman”)). As far as I can tell, about 1/3-1/2 of European Catholic majority countries are pro-choice (outside of Europe, it's not as good, overall it's probably some small minority of majority Catholic countries). According to polls by the Pew Research Center, in America in 2013, 76% of Catholics believed the Church should permit birth control, 54% supported same-sex marriage and only 33% believed that homosexual behavior is a sin . As far as I can tell, overwhelmingly the worst the clergy do is inconsistently harass pro-choice Catholic politicians.

The thing is, the liberal positions of the Church (the death penalty, national oppression, war, economic justice) are not nearly as well known as the conservative positions (abortion and homosexuality). Odds are a significant percentage (maybe 30%) of the Left (and liberals, too) assume that all Catholics are conservative, and I've found evidence of that.

2) I've heard at least one comment from a leftist that they're surprised to learn that on most issues, most American Catholics are liberal.

3) This one will take some time. I'll explain shortly why this should have been condemned. First though, as far as I can tell, the Left failed to condemn the Dec. 11th 1989 disruption of a Catholic Mass in New York City by AIDS, pro-choice, and gay rights activists. Now, the Cathedral targeted was ridiculously bad on those issues. But it should have been condemned as a violation of the right to religious freedom, and that doesn't just refer to the Cardinal, but all the parishioners. If Palestinians and their supporters had identified a very anti-Palestinian synagogue and did the same thing, the left would have mostly condemned that. The differences in the situations facing Catholic Americans and Jewish Americans are not big enough to justify that double standard.

If anyone has heard that the Mass was only disrupted by one demonstrator, that's not true.

I have heard nothing to indicate that the Left condemned this protest. All I have heard from the Left is good stuff about the group most associated with the protest- ACT-UP.

4) According the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, in 1996 "by a margin of 44% to 33% the public thinks that Protestants should have less rather than more political power. Somewhat greater margins want to see Roman Catholics (53% to 27%), evangelicals (51% to 27%) and Jews (49% to 27%) have less power." Odds are about half those people saying that Catholics should have less power (and that figure is greater than it is for any of the other main religious groups mentioned) are to the left of center, and the figure for people on that side of the political spectrum is probably 53%. I'm going to keep this brief, but most or all of these people probably under-estimate what percentage of Protestants (Protestants are almost three times more numerous than Catholics are in America) are pro-life and certainly must be exaggerating the percentage of Catholics who are pro-life- one Pew poll found it was a minority. Catholics are probably no more than a large minority of pro-lifers in America. When it comes to gay rights, Catholics look even better-  the homophobic ones are a small minority of homophobes in America (a 2008 Pew poll found that 45% of American Catholics support gay marriage, and I'd estimate there's probably a bloc of 10-20% who oppose gay marriage but nonetheless are difficult to call homophobic). These leftists I'm referring to probably look at conservative Supreme Court Justices and think Catholics having power is a greater threat to liberal goals than Protestants having power is. But look at, for example, conservative Presidents of the US and you'll see just Protestants. The Bible Belt is Protestant. And in general I'm not a fan of talking about this religious group or that religious group being the problem, I'm simply trying to point out how wrong these leftists and liberals are about Catholics being the problem.



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

There is also the question of equality for Catholics in America. As I explain in another post, NO I DON’T THINK CATHOLICS IN AMERICA ARE OPPRESSED. But overall there is a small degree of inequality for Catholics here.

In an average Presidential election year here, Catholics were about 15% of the population. IF, in some bizarre hypothetical political system that I DO NOT ADVOCATE FOR, Presidential election victories were distributed based on figures for religion and population, there should have been about 9 elections won by a Catholic. Instead we have had one election where a Catholic won. Also, we have only had two elections where a Catholic running for Vice President won.

On the other hand, on the Supreme Court, Catholics have a surplus of power. I am not going to re-do the math I did 1-2 years ago, especially because there are different time periods to look at, but if we look at the last 20 years, about 40-60% of the Supreme Court has been Catholic. Some would point to this as evidence that I am greatly exaggerating anti-Catholic bigotry in this country. But, bearing in mind that the vast majority of such Justices in the last 20 years are conservative and the Dems have a better history (in the last 100 years) of nominating Catholics for President or VP and electing them and admiring them, I think it's similar to anti-Semitic Christian Zionists putting Jews in the spotlight- it's harder for supporters of the Palestinians to attack Jewish supporters of Israel and it's easier for conservative Catholics than it is for conservative WASPs to counter-attack when liberals and leftists call them bigots.

I don’t seriously believe this is because of anti-Catholic bigotry (it’s because a massive chunk of American Catholics are Chicana/o or Latina/o), but it’s not irrelevant that (according to the Pew Research Center) in 2016 only 19% of Catholic households earned $100,000 or more. The following groups were ahead of Catholics- Muslims, Mormons, Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, Unitarian Universalist, Presbyterian Church in America, United Method Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, United Church of Christ, Orthodox Christian, Agnostic, Atheist, Presbyterian Church (USA), Episcopal Church, Hindu, Jewish (and ALL US ADULTS (I think that means that Catholics are below average)). (I mention this partly because it says something about how much ECONOMIC power Catholics in America have)

***********

Although this may not qualify as anti-Catholic bigotry, I’m going to say it anyway.

Elsewhere on my blog I offered this description of the Irish “Famine.”

During the Famine, 10-15% of the population died and 10-15% of the population would have died if they hadn’t emigrated. This was concentrated in the South and West of Ireland where there very few settlers- if you ignore the settlers and their descendants, it was probably closer to 15-20% and 15-20% of the population. Why did a potato blight result in something close to genocide? First, the indigenous Catholic population was still recovering from about 1.5 centuries of political and legal disempowerment that occurred because of the Penal Laws which denied them most of the rights enjoyed by most or all Protestants (it varied from right to right). “Catholic Emancipation” was only made about 90% complete about 15 years earlier. Because of this and general poverty, the indigenous population was largely dependent on land owned by land lords and the potato crop. For about 45 years before the Famine and during the Famine, Ireland didn’t have a devolved parliament, they were completely ruled from London. Crucially, during the Famine, MASSIVE amounts of food were being shipped from Ireland to Britain, something that involved seventy-five British Army regiments. …  the deaths only stopped when the blight stopped. … The British were more or less racist towards the Irish at that point in Anglo-Irish history and were more concerned about practicing Laissez-faire economics and feeding the British population than they were concerned about mass starvation among the Irish

Tony Blair was the first British Prime Minister to apologize for British policy during the Famine.

Consider this. Although it’s true that America, in terms of immigration policy, opened its door to the Irish during the Famine, there was incredible nativism and anti-Catholic bigotry at the same time. And, although the UK may have been much less than a fully fledged democracy (today, the monarchy, as far as I’m concerned has got so little power in practice that it almost doesn’t matter, but I think that during the Famine, the monarchy may have been more powerful than it is today, and I’m pretty sure that the un-elected and elitist House of Lords had more power than it does today) and was an imperialist power and was occupying a foreign nation where it’s policies were resulting in something close to genocide, no country in the world militarily took on the UK. America took on Nazi Germany, but not the UK during the Famine. Back then the US was, admittedly, perhaps not as strong militarily as the UK, but they could have assembled a coalition with some European nations, probably some of the Catholic ones, and landed troops in Ireland to kick the British out and stop the shipment of food out of Ireland. (Some would say it was a different USA back then, but has any American President ever apologized for the failure of the US to do something? In some bizarre alternate history where the US sat out WWII and Nazi Germany was defeated anyway and there were a whole bunch of Holocaust survivors, the US would have at some point between then and now apologized for their inaction)

Catholics in N. Ireland went through a nightmare 1969 to 1998 or 2005 (for more information than I provide in this post, you should read all of this).

The Catholic community in N. Ireland experienced high levels of inequality in the first 50 years of NI ’s existence (for more on this see this (describes the undemocratic and sectarian creation of N. Ireland, the inequality Catholics experienced, and how the Troubles began)). Around 1970 the situation transformed. Although there were fewer laws that could be compared to Jim Crow, job discrimination continued or got worse (in 1971 Catholics were twice as likely to be unemployed as Protestants and in 1988 they were TWO AND A HALF times more likely to be unemployed as Protestants) repression got worse, and violence against the Catholic population skyrocketed like you wouldn’t believe. During the Troubles (roughly 1969-2005) they went through a nightmare. 856+ Catholic civilians were killed in the years 1969 to 2005 by either loyalist paramilitaries or the security forces (a comparable scenario in America would have meant around 67,000 unarmed people of color killed by cops or Nazi skinheads (etc.) in the same time period). (A: based on what I’ll describe in the very last section, I would guess that the actual number for that was probably somewhere around 7,000-8,000; B: I'm not saying the racist system in this country wasn't, ideologically or programmatically, capable of killing 67,000 people of color in those years if the "rebellion" among people of color here had been as militaristic as the one among Catholics in N. Ireland; but the reality is that as bad as it was for people of color here in those years, it was, in terms of deaths, MUCH worse for Catholics in N. Ireland). Between 1975 and 1998, with practically zero influence on law and policy beyond local government, they were ruled by a state they quite reasonably saw as both foreign and hostile.

And here are my thoughts about US foreign policy on N. Ireland:

The government most responsible for that nightmare (see this) is the most important ally of the US government in the entire world (in addition to some other relevant info, that post exposes the fact that the British were no more concerned by the sectarian slaughter of Catholic civilians (by organizations that did little else) than they were concerned by IRA attacks that almost never resulted in civilian death). I realize that we are not propping them up like we do with Israel, but who helped us patrol the “No Fly” zones over Iraq 1991-2003?; who contributed something like 20% of the military forces for the invasion of Iraq? And who made a similar contribution during the occupation of Iraq? I believe that the British have a problem- an Ireland problem, or an imperialism problem or whatever you would call it. They need an intervention and you get friends, not enemies or strangers for interventions. The US needs to convince the British to begin, ASAP, a decades-long process of getting out of Ireland.

Ways in which Washington DC was bad on N. Ireland:

1) It seems that D.C. never privately put firm pressure on the British to dramatically change its policy in N. Ireland and/or create a significant role for the South in the affairs of the North (or even, better, begin a process of withdrawal). If they did this privately, it didn't work, and they should have done it publicly (it's possible that to some degree it was done privately between Clinton and Blair, and had some small effect on the GFA, but the GFA could have been much better, and then there's the ultimate goal of a British withdrawal).
2) At some point, possibly for a long period of time, an American company was selling the UK the plastic bullets they were using in N. Ireland.
3) Although at some point in the 1970s the President or Vice President of SF did speak at a committee hearing of the US Congress, from 1983 until 1994 the President of SF was Gerry Adams (he continued in that role until a few years ago, but was first allowed into the U.S. in 1994), and he was not allowed into the US. During this time SF was getting 40% of the Nationalist vote and probably about 60% of the vote from the poorest half of the Nationalist community (go here and type "SDLP" and "Ireland" in the first field and "middle-class" in the second field) (remember what I wrote about unemployment, and see this).
4) During the entire conflict, something like 20 former republican Volunteers went through either extradition or deportation proceedings. I think all the extradited were sent back to the UK, I think most of the deportation cases were deported. I know of at least one deportation, and this was probably the case with all of them, where the issue was that he said on the immigration paperwork that he was never convicted of a crime, and the U.S. government said that he in fact had been. The thing is, republican Volunteers don't consider themselves criminals, and even the British government, to some degree, has recognized this by treating them as prisoners of war during most of the conflict. But the U.S. Government disagrees. There's evidence that some very large majority of the nationalist community more or less supported the hunger-strikers of 1981 whose struggle convinced the British to extend status as prisoners of war (or political status, basically the same thing), which makes me think that some very large majority of the nationalist community was more or less unhappy about the extraditions and deportations (see this and the middle third of this).
5) About 17 years ago Bush was putting so much pressure on SF over policing and decommissioning that Blair told him to ease up.
6) Bush's Immigration had Bernadette Devlin-McAliskey deported, claiming she was a "threat" to the U.S. Devlin-McAliskey has little connection to violence, and half of that connection (the Battle of the Bogside) was widely considered completely justified; the other half, there's less widespread agreement about how justified it was, but she was only associated with the Irish National Liberation Army for something between a few months and about a year in the mid-1970s. Although she has no chance of getting elected to parliament, she's still very popular among the Nationalist population.

It’s not like the US didn't have a relationship with the British, they were best friends. I doubt that anti-Catholic bigotry was more than a very small part of it, and Clinton (in contrast to Reagan of the Reagan and Thatcher friendship) played a slightly positive role in the Peace Process, but still…

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

After explaining why politically conscious Americans should have seen N. Ireland as an important issue (and I think largely of progressives when I think about this), I should say that very little was done. That’s based partly on America’s policy decisions regarding N. Ireland and the fact that there was never a “million-mick march” and my own experience with the issue. On a liberal-progressive campus in a liberal-progressive city (University of Colorado at Boulder), my activism on the North was about 1/7 as successful as my non-NI activism on a range of leftist issues. On average about 25 people were at the NI events, about 175 people were at the other events (that's between 1994 and 2004; between 94 and 01 it was 30 for NI, 75 for everything else). Also in Boulder, CO, the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center has been a very well-respected and successful progressive organization for decades. They often have some representation among the speakers at the official Martin Luther King Jr. day rally in Boulder. Carolyn Bninski, one of the two main staff people in the last 15-20 years wrote me in an email: “We may have anywhere from 5 to 100 people at an event.” In 2005 RMPJC organized three events about the North of Ireland. On average each one had 2 people in the audience. In 2008 they organized another event which attracted about 5 people. (RMPJC has been involved with at least two earlier events about the North, but in this paragraph I’m only looking at the ones where they were the only sponsor). The point of mentioning attendance at RMPJC events is that among the rank and file of the broad progressive movement there is almost no interest in the subject.

On one hand, very few Catholics, outside about 25% of the Irish-American population  and about 10% of the Chicana/o population, cared about the North. But I believe that what I wrote above about anti-Catholic bigotry and what I write in the next section explains why there was so little interest.

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

A lot of Religious Right Evangelical people in America complain about anti-Christian persecution in other countries. I am more or less okay with them being concerned about that, although I think they tend to target countries that they don’t like for other reasons and I wouldn’t be surprised if they sometimes exaggerate the degree of persecution. The main problem though, is that they were silent during decades of Catholics being, to one degree or another, oppressed in Northern Ireland. There WERE other factors that determined how Catholics were treated (anti-Irish bigotry) and some Catholics were Unionists (supported N. Ireland remaining in the UK) but anti-Catholic bigotry was a big factor in how Catholics were treated. Read this and this (the first of those two links is the more relevant one).

The Pope has never visited N. Ireland and there’s a reason for that. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair didn’t convert to Catholicism until AFTER he resigned and there’s a reason for that. And until recently the Monarch of the UK couldn’t be a Catholic or MARRIED to a Catholic (that second part has been changed, but not the first part).

(I’m not saying that Catholics are prevented from practicing their faith, but if you read the first of those posts, you’ll see there were a lot of ways where the government, at every level, was anti-Catholic (bear in mind that the Army was controlled by London and almost the entire time during The Troubles, the police were also controlled by London))

They were also silent during Indonesia’s genocidal occupation of East Timor. The East Timorese are Catholic and the Indonesians are Muslim. When I listened to a recording of Noam Chomsky talking about East Timor, he was introduced by a graduate student who had researched East Timor and who said that it had become a religious conflict (I can’t remember to what degree it had become a religious conflict according to him). But, because the leader of Indonesia was anti-Communist, the US supported Indonesia.


(And these Evangelical people hate Muslims and love talking about Muslims hating Christians, but weren't at all alarmed about Catholics being oppressed by Muslims- they must really be unconcerned about Catholics (see below) (if you're getting the wrong idea, see this))

I did a search and looked at several results and as far as I can tell, a lot of Evangelicals don’t believe that Catholics are Christians.

Here are my thoughts on the idea that Catholics aren’t Christians.

A: With the exception of a tiny minority (about 1% if not less) called “Radical, Traditionalist Catholics,” who I believe have been told by the Vatican to fuck off, we recognize Protestants as Christians.

B: It’s simply sectarian.

C: We believe that Christ was the Son of God.

D: As far as I can tell, these Evangelicals who don’t believe Catholics are Christians recognize other Protestants as Protestant even though they have some different ideas about Protestantism and Christianity in general.

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

Some of this is repetitive but I’ll describe the politics of Catholics. We’re all fascist scum.

Seriously, though, overall, looking at the Vatican, the Catholic population (I’m most familiar with their politics in America and Ireland, but have some sort of idea of where the others are politically) and looking at all the issues, if we were to attach numerical values to different positions and find the average, the center of the Catholic world would be significantly to the left of center, somewhere around Barack Obama, if that's not too vague.

Abortion.

The Church is certainly pro-life. I’ll be honest, I’m not sure to what degree it’s flexible in terms of less harshly condemning abortion in the following cases: rape, incest, when the woman’s mental or physical health is in danger, or when the physical health of the fetus is in serious doubt (i.e. a fatal fetal abnormality). I’m not sure if they believe that women who have abortions should be criminalized. As I’ll mention below, they’re pretty good on economic justice issues and they probably support free or subsidized child care and other financial measures that address the financial motivation that is often part of why in some cases women have an abortion. In Ireland, there is a minority of Catholics who are more or less pro-choice (as I mentioned above, a majority of American Catholics are pro-choice).

Homosexuality.

The Church considers homosexuality a sin but there is a concept that I think most homophobic Catholics (and there aren’t many left) believe in. That is, and these are not my words: “hate the sin and love the sinner.” Ireland has had gay marriage since 2015 and the last few years the Prime Minister has been an openly gay man. UPDATE 10/21/20 The Pope recently came out in support of same-sex unions, according to this.

Economic Justice

The church is only intermittently bad about this sort of thing. In 1995 when I asked my church to take up a labor struggle, they declined and said they had done that sort of thing not long before I asked. When a grocery store strike in the greater Denver, CO area was either in effect or on the horizon, I read that there were concerns that the area’s Catholic Church might (abnormally) not support it because the owner of the chain had donated a lot of money to the Church. During the 2016 American Presidential primaries, the Vatican had Bernie Sanders take part in a conference it had organized about economic justice but didn’t extend an invitation to Hilary Clinton. There’s also the actions that El Salvador’s martyred Archbishop Oscar Romero took in support of the poor.

War

The Vatican intermittently takes the wrong position on this, in my opinion, but that includes their condemnation of the IRA. They did, correctly, oppose the invasion of Iraq.

The Death Penalty

The Church is very much against it. In America I’m not sure how many of them are partly motivated by the fact that the death penalty here is racist, but the Church opposes it.

National Oppression

In general the church is very good about this, although I’m not sure how consistently white clergy in America oppose racism, but the non-white clergy do. The Vatican has expressed a lot of support for the Palestinians, and as far as I can tell very few if any Palestinian are Catholic. The Church in East Timor was, starting 1-3 decades before their arrested achievement of independence, in favor of independence and during the Indonesian occupation I think the Vatican was fairly concerned about the East Timorese.

Anti-Semitism

Although I can’t remember the details, during the Nazi era in Germany there were two popes, first one and then the other and one was more or or less pro-Nazi. I read recently that the archives of his tenure as Pope are being opened to researchers and soon we’ll know more about his attitude towards Jews. No, 1920s Munich wasn’t Catholic. Okay, yes it was.

I recently came across an article here about the current Pope’s positive opinion of things Jewish.

 

UPDATE 10/31/20 Fratelli Tutti: The Pope released a new Encyclical a month ago called Fratelli Tutti. It touches on a lot of issues and is a good example of the progressive tendencies at the Vatican. There's a good opinion column about it here by EJ Dionne in the Washington Post or if you don't want to pay the Post to read it, read this.

The Mary-Knoll Sisters

They are a Catholic Congregation that is greatly concerned about injustice. They take a very multi-cultural and inter-faith approach to their work. I’m not real familiar with them but I know that in the 1990s a LOT of their work was against The School of The Americas (a training center the US Military provided for officers from various Latin American countries and that had a reputation for graduating people who either committed massive human rights violations before they attended the school or after they graduated).

*********

When I was around the age of 11, I read the children’s Bible three times. I’ve never read the whole normal version, although I’ve certainly been exposed to it in other ways. There are a lot of things in the New Testament (and maybe some in the Old Testament) that sowed the seeds which 5-7 years later became my belief in socialism. On the other hand I have never identified as a religious socialist, which is a branch or caucus of the broad socialist movement that bring their religion into it quite a bit. In general, outwardly I’m a pretty secular person and I don’t make religious arguments about politics.

I have not been to a regular Mass since my Mom’s funeral in 2000. A few weeks later I went on a retreat at a monastery in southern Colorado that had been very important to my mom (it's part of the Carmelite Order or a branch of that order that brings Brothers and Sisters together (last I heard that branch had a place in the South of Ireland) (when I briefly browsed their library I found a copy of Michael Harrington’s socialist anti-poverty book “The Other America”)). A year later, I spent a few days around the anniversary of her death at the monastery again. But besides the two retreats I have not been to Mass in 20 years.

When I was 18 I went to Confirmation class, which is one of the things Catholics do like Baptism or Communion. I was faithful and probably one of the more interested students- I think some of the others were doing it just because their parents made them. One of the volunteer lay teachers told us that he was shortly going to get a Masters in Social Work. I decided to not get confirmed. Rightly or wrongly, and I kind of regret that decision, I felt like I didn’t need the ultra-official stamp of approval by the church to be a Catholic and I wasn’t told to stop receiving communion of anything like that, I kept going to Mass (although I almost never went to Mass on my own initiative, I went with my family almost every Sunday until I left for college and after that I went on my own a few times and occasionally with my Mom).

Recently I had two thoughts that developed at roughly the same time: A) going to Mass again and B) converting. I started to wonder if I was even still considered a Catholic since I wasn’t confirmed and hadn’t been to Church in a long time. I spoke with a senior lay staff person at my old Church and he said that I was still a Catholic, but, because of the 18 years of not going to Mass I was technically a bad Catholic. We had a good talk. I was thinking that if I DID go to Mass on a regular basis, I might even get involved beyond that somehow. I have not made much progress on going to Mass- my life has been interrupted here and there since then and I have kind of dragged my feet as far as making a decision and right now, for multiple reasons, is not a good time.

(I have decided that in some ways I was a good Catholic while not going to Mass. In the last 8-10 years I have volunteered an average of 4-6 hours a week at a food-bank and I believe that my political activity on the subject of Northern Ireland also erodes the idea that I’m a bad Catholic)

Why have I considered converting? There are four things I don’t like about the Catholic Church and the fourth one is just too much because I don’t think a lot of Catholics are mad about it.

1. Abortion. I’m pro-choice for the following reasons: I don’t know whether or not the fetus is alive but I am sure that A) women should control their own bodies, B) without the right to choose they can’t have full equality, and C) if men could also get pregnant there would be a massive pro-choice majority in this country. There are of course tons of pro-choice Catholics so this isn’t a big deal as far as me continuing to identify as Catholic.

2. Homosexuality. Again, there are plenty of Catholics who don’t believe it's a sin, so I can feel at home in the Catholic Church on this issue.

3. The sex abuse scandal. First, although the Church really screwed up by moving pedophile priests around instead of turning them into the police, it’s not like the Church approved of what these priests were doing. And I think that practically all Catholics are pissed off about it and I haven’t heard of a massive number of the victims leaving the Church. So I’m not really thinking of leaving for that reason.

4. The fact that women can’t become priests. This really pisses me off and there doesn’t seem to be a lot of Catholics who agree with me. The volunteer lay teacher of the Confirmation class told us that he and some others would wear black arm-bands to Mass as a protest on this issue, but I don’t think I have EVER SEEN someone doing that at Mass. And a few years ago, after defeating a bunch of Nuns in a intra-church conflict, the Vatican announced there would be no change in this policy.

So, at some point in the next 1-2 years I might either go back to Mass on a regular basis or convert. If I convert it’ll be to a progressive Protestant Church. I think I know which one but I can’t remember the name, but I will look into the whole idea of converting and identify two Protestant churches and take a close look at them and talk with them.

*********

UPDATE 5/5/21 There's a great article about Catholic politics here.

********

What makes me confident about my statement “probably somewhere around 7,000-8,000”?

1. Between 1996 and 2005 according to the FBI there were 38 racist murders. I have read that the Department of Justice officially estimates that for every hate crime reported to the FBI there might be 20-30 that aren’t reported because not all local law enforcement agencies report such crimes to the FBI. So I came up with 1,140 for those years.
2. I heard that in a 12 month period during a 2014 (apparent) surge in police murders of black people including those of Eric Garner in NY, Tamir Rice in OH, and Michael Brown in MO among other highly publicized such cases, that around 200 black people armed or unarmed, had been killed by cops in America. Although I’m very open-minded about accusations that cops plant guns, this country also has a ridiculous number of guns.
3. Bear in mind that decades ago the number of people of color and the number of cops in this country were both smaller or much smaller than they are today.
4. If it’s worth much, about 10 years ago I read a huge amount of what the Southern Poverty Law Center put on their web-site in the previous 10-15 years. I also got an Ethnic Studies degree if that’s worth much.
5. There was little or no talk about “Brown Lives Matter” so I get the impression that very few Latinos/Latinas/Chicanos/Chicanas have been killed by cops in recent years (as far as I know, even Arpaio’s sheriff’s department in AZ didn’t kill a single such person) and that might reflect the situation in earlier decades. I have practically never heard of Asian-Americans being killed by cops. And if Native Americans were being killed at a high rate in the 80s and 90s I would have heard (a massive chunk of my major was Native American Studies).

UPDATE 6/9/21 I just found a Democracy Now! story relevant to this. It's about the last 20 years, but there's a small overlap between that and the period I was looking at Catholics and people of color (1969-2005), and it's possible that what I said about this comparison is off a little. Bear in mind that the figure I refer to in item #2 above came from organizers of a Black Lives Matter protest.