Trump, Masks and Conspiracy Theories

Two miscellaneous thoughts about Trump. The first about masks and the second one about right-wing conspiracies.

 1. First, Trump has said (three times with large audiences) that a recent CDC study found that 85% of people who wear a mask get COVID-19. I’m going to rely primarily on a CNN article to refute that and add a couple things. First, the CNN article is here. Second of all, this shows that trump, like many Americans, still doesn’t get it- a mask isn’t supposed to offer more than partial protection to the wearer. It protects people around the wearer in case they are pre-symptomatic  or asymptomatic- in case they have COVID-19 and don’t know it. You can still  get it with a mask because the mask doesn’t protect your eyes, but the only way for the virus to get out is through your noes and mouth (well you also sort of have to worry about your hands as well to some degree). Third, I can only imagine how much damage he did tossing around that fake information. Bearing in mind what CNN says about its accuracy, he must have strengthened the resolve of mask skeptics like a steel beam placed in their spine. I mean, if 85% of mask wearers get COVID-19, who in the world would wear a mask?

2. In the NBC Trump Town Hall that partly replaced the second debate, Trump was asked to reject a popular conspiracy theory. Referred to as QAnon, it is basically saying that Democrats are part of a satanic conspiracy based on pedophilia. I’m not sure how connected it is to the Pizzagate conspiracy theory or if it is separate. Pizzagate resulted in an incident of armed violence and QAnon could, too. Pedophilia (a sexual attraction by adults or adolescents towards pre-pubescent children) is a serious problem. And Trump refuses to say this conspiracy theory is nonsense. Instead he says that all he knows about them is that they’re against pedophilia and apparently that makes it okay. He also emphasizes that he only RE-tweets QAnon stuff. But A) he has the FBI and the rest of the intelligence community at his fingertips- he knows that QAnon is slanderous, politically-motivated nonsense, B) Who ISN’T against Pedophilia? and C) when you retweet something you are, to one degree or another, endorsing it.

The Electoral College and the Election of the President

There’s a ballot initiative on the ballot in Colorado that takes aim at how the Electoral College works. It’s called Proposition 113 and it would do the following: it commits CO to an alliance of states that have taken a similar position and when that alliance represents so much electoral power that it’s Electoral College members could elect the President, CO’s electors will vote in the EC for whichever candidate won the popular vote even if that candidate didn’t win CO.

I don’t like how America places someone in the White House. In 2000 and 2016 that person did not win the popular vote, and look at how many people have been placed on the Supreme Court partly by the two Republicans I am talking about- George W. Bush and Donald Trump. If Trumps wins the EC, he’ll again do so without winning the Popular Vote (although that would be the least of our constitutional problems if he wins  the EC).

At one level, we should simply put in the White House whoever wins the popular vote. But A) there are other problems with the EC and B) I have heard one argument about what Prop. 113 would do that prompted me to vote against it.

First, that argument is that if the EC were abolished and the popular vote placed a candidate in the White House, there would be recounts (possibly recount after recount) in all 50 states after the election. It seems quite possible it might take weeks to stop the recounts after they’ve become excessive- it might be what happened in FL in 2000 but 51+ recounts instead of just one (I am not sure how many others there were, but I’m pretty sure that only one made it to the SCOTUS).

There are 1-2 reforms of the EC that would satisfy me and which would help us avoid that possible nightmare scenario and still have more respect for the intent of the voters.

The first one is not the one I feel strongly about. It’s doing half of what Maine and Nebraska do where there are two EC votes that reflect the majority of the state overall and one vote per Congressional District that goes the way each District goes. I like the second part, about the districts. It could be called proportional representation compared to what happens when ALL the Electoral Votes of a state (with more than one District) go to the same candidate.

The important part is that all the states need to shed the two extra EC votes they get because they have two senators. These two extra Senate-based votes create a small but false and undesirable degree of equality between the big states and the small states. California should have 53 times the power in the EC that Wyoming has (CA has 53 Districts, and WY has one). As it is right now, CA has a little more than 18 times more power in the EC, but it has 69 times the population.

I’ve read some good sources that say Gore actually WON Florida in 2000 when all the votes are counted. But let’s say he lost FL fair and square. Someone did the math and if it weren’t for these two additional votes that every state gets, if all they got were just based on Congressional Districts, he could have lost FL by a landslide and still won the EC. To one extent or another, depending on how you define a small state (I draw the line at them having more than 9 congressional districts) about half of the the small states are reliably conservative, and a minority are reliably liberal, and a few are battleground states, although those numbers could change.

Right now, if these Senate-based votes were eliminated 220 Electoral Votes would be needed to win the election. Although I’m open minded that they may be biased with polling information, I like following the polls and the averages of the polls on the web-site Real Clear Politics, a site that is generally leans to the right. If you strip away two from each of the numbers they use, the total EC votes that Biden would have locked down in the Solid Democrat, Likely Democrat, and Leans Democrat states would be 185. Right now, 10/13/20, Biden is doing very well in WI (8 Votes), MI (14), PA (18) and NV (4). Looking at just those four states, Biden has two instead of just one path to victory (WI could be replaced by NV and Biden could still win; the way things are actually set up, MI, PA and NV wouldn’t be enough).

In general, shedding those Senate-based votes makes it easier for the Dems for the foreseeable future. And even when that ceases to be the case with shifting political trends, it would just be more (small-d) democratic if the EC were without those Senate-based votes.

I don’t feel strongly about the first reform I described (that NE and ME do). And I don’t think that Prop. 113 is horrible. But I think that getting rid of those Senate-based votes is incredibly important. One reason I bring this up is that it also exposes how messed up the Senate is- as i’ve said elsewhere, the Senate needs to be reformed. I think that each senator should get a number of votes equal to the number of Districts in their state, and that number should be used for everything in the Senate, including committee votes.

Proud Boys and Nazi Skinheads

Some of this is at this point widely-known but one part of it isn’t. After Trump’s endorsement of the Proud Boys (which he has kind of walked back) in the first presidential debate, a lot is known about the Proud Boys. A fair amount of background is available here and here.

They’re militant white supremacists but don’t appear to be skinheads. I had gotten the impression that the skinhead population had declined in recent years but was still surprised that there were reports of Antifa fighting the Proud Boys but nothing about them fighting Nazi skinheads. When I read stuff about Trump coddling the Proud Boys I thought it would be better if he were coddling Nazi skinheads because it would be easier to attack him over that.

I recently read a CNN article which said that they wear Fred Perry shirts. The thing is, skinheads, including Nazi skinheads, wear Fred Perry shirts. There seemed to be some connection between the Proud Boys and Nazi skinheads. When I brought this to the attention of several political friends, one of them (Dave Anderson, a columnist for the Boulder Weekly) responded and provided links to the following two stories:

1) Proud Boys and skinheads: MLS faces an incursion from the far-right.

2) Far-right skinheads join Proud Boys in assaulting protesters in New York City following Gavin McInnes event.

They indicate that there ARE connections between the Proud Boys and Nazi skinheads, something that I don’t think has been mentioned by the mainstream media in America.

Another aspect of this is, when did the GOP start believing that political differences should be settled with violence? In my experience they have believed that for a long time.

In 2005 when the Ward Churchill scandal broke, I went a protest at CU-Boulder in support of him. I was wearing an anti-Columbus shirt and a College Republican said that he loves Columbus. I explained about the genocide on Hispanola (when Columbus was governor of the island that is now made up of Haiti and the Dominican Republic at least 99% of the indigenous population was killed) and he said that when he moved into a new apartment he killed off the indigenous population of spiders. Instead of continuing to be patient and explaining how offensive that was, I called him a motherfucker. He asked if I wanted to fight and speculated that I don't believe fighting solves anything- he said it does solve things. I stood next to him but looked straight ahead silently until he was silent for 1-3 minutes and then I left.

Also, in 2003 right before a big anti-war rally I organized, I bumped into three college republicans who were going around covering up the flyers for the rally with their pro-war flyers. When I confronted them about that, one of them, who I think was Iraqi, said he wanted to beat me up. After a short confrontation we parted company.

Law and Order: SVU Reviews K

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.

“Real Fake News” Season 18. Wikipedia summary is: “The SVU squad is asked by a US Representative (James Waterston) to debunk sexual assault rumors currently against him, but it takes a surprising twist when they are led to something much more deplorable. Things eventually become extremely personal when Benson and Rollins are targeted by a news website of questionable validity, with pictures of them and their children spreading false rumors about the nature of their families. Both detectives become infuriated and upset, vowing to stop the website and the man running it.”

This is inspired by the popular right-wing conspiracy theory “Pizzagate” which alleges that Democratic Party officials are connected to an underage teenage sex ring. The episode illustrates how ridiculous a theory it is as the detectives investigate the restaurant and find nothing incriminating. The person pushing the theory is without ethics or integrity. It ends with a US Congressperson being killed by a follower of the theory.

“Conversion” Season 18. Wikipedia summary is: “A church group from Indiana visits New York and reports to the Special Victims Unit that one of their members was sexually assaulted by another member. When the rapist (Casey Cott) is found, he claims it was curative intercourse to cure the girl of her homosexuality and that he was saving her soul. The detectives investigate and must decide whether the rapist is sincere in his beliefs or if something else happened to cause him to attack the victim. They end up finding out that the rapist is hiding a secret.”

This is a very anti-homophobic episode. The rapist hides behind his religion as a defense and the detectives say that that doesn’t matter, that it’s still rape. Which reminds me of something I’ve been wanting to say for years. A lot of people who oppose homophobia tie the bigotry of their opponents to the religion of the homophobes. This is flawed because A) there are religious people who oppose homophobia and B) there are homophobic atheists. I think the approach should be to say something like: “your religion doesn’t matter, your bigotry is the problem” and then explain what I just said in the previous sentence. I also think it would be easier to convince someone to abandon their bigotry than it would be to convince them to abandon their religion. And for many people, religion is a good thing. It makes it easier for me to deal with my mom’s death.

This next review is of a two-parter. The first part is called “American Dream” and the second is called “Sanctuary.” The wikipedia summaries are:

“An extremely brutal hate crime is committed against a Muslim family who owns a restaurant, resulting in two deaths. The detectives investigate, but things become extremely complicated when a crucial witness is suddenly and unexpectedly deported back to his own country. This forces Barba to drop the charges, causing extreme tension, anger, and violence between communities on opposing sides of the case.”

and

“The Special Victims Unit continues to investigate the hate crime against the Muslim family who were viciously assaulted in their restaurant. When their main suspect in the crime is released from custody, Benson and Barba become caught between the Muslim family and the suspect's family, both seeking justice for their loved ones. Protests in the streets start to turn extremely violent and Benson is faced with a tough decision that she has never had to make before in her entire career in order to make an arrest and get justice.”

Bigotry and immigration are the main themes here.

1. An inter-racial couple are witnesses. I know that’s more common and more widely accepted than it was 20 years ago, but it’s still worth noting.
2. At one point a suspect suggests that Donald Trump is right about Mexican immigrants and rape.
3. A suspect’s wife complains that nobody cares about straight white people who aren’t transgendered.
4. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raid a pro-immigrant protest. That’s pretty lame. It’s like police raiding a protest against police brutality.
5. A crucial witness is a gay Syrian whose is in the country illegally. First, it’s significant that he’s a gay muslim- you don’t hear about them very often. Second, he is certain that if he’s deported back to Syria or a refugee camp he’ll be killed because he’s gay (that’s another thing you don’t hear much about, homophobia among Muslims). Shortly after he’s picked up by ICE at the pro-immigrant protest he’s deported. Not only does SVU lose a crucial witness thanks to Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda, it’s as damning of our immigration system as the execution of an innocent person would be damning of the death penalty.

“No Good Reason” season 19. Wikipedia summary is: “The Special Victims Unit is called in to investigate the sudden disappearance of a high school student (Brighton Sharbino). They soon discover that she was the victim of a nasty cyberbullying attack from her fellow peers and best friend (Madison Pettis). When she is finally found, she claims that she was raped by three boys from her school at a party, one being one of her best friends. The case goes well until the victim becomes reluctant to testify due to hatred and bullying from her peers and Benson must convince her to be brave. Meanwhile, Sheila Porter attempts to challenge Benson's parenting skills as a mother, which infuriates Benson.”

The survivor tells SVU that there was underage marijuana smoking and SVU says they don’t care- either much or at all (I can’t remember for sure and I’m not going to watch the episode again now, but in at least one other episode they ignore illegal marijuana use by survivors).

Roseanne Reviews M

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.

“Vegas” Episode 7 Season 4. Wikipedia summary is: “Arnie and Nancy invite Roseanne and Dan to their Las Vegas wedding. Roseanne and Dan have a fight when she feels neglected and pulls him out of a lucky craps game.”

Out of about 60 lines by non-family members, none are spoken by people of color.

“Vegas, Vegas” Episode 8, Season 4. Wikipedia summary is: “Roseanne is upset that Dan would rather play craps than spend a romantic night together. She and Nancy get drunk and walk into a Wayne Newton impersonator performance, unaware she is heckling the real Wayne Newton who is making a surprise on-stage appearance. After Arnie and Nancy's wedding, they offer Dan and Roseanne the chance to renew their vows.”

Out of about 60 lines by non-family members, none are spoken by people of color.

“Stressed to Kill” Episode 9, Season 4. Wikipedia summary is: “Roseanne resumes smoking to cope with her stressful life—then tries to hide the renewed habit from her family. Roseanne is thrilled when Darlene gets a B on a school report until she learns that Becky actually wrote it for her.”

There is some anti-Columbus stuff. Darlene says that he was a slave trader. I’ll be honest I’m not real familiar with that part of how horrible he was, but I’ve heard it elsewhere from a good source so it’s probably true. She also said that he slaughtered thousands of people. Although I’m not sure if it was thousands or tens of thousands, I DO know for sure that while he was governor of Hispanola (the island now made up of Haiti and the Dominican Republic) at least 99% of the indigenous population was killed.

Although she ends up letting Becky write a politically moderate essay about it for her history class assignment, and this takes place at the height of her anti-social phase, I believe that what Darlene says about Columbus is the view of the show because in a later episode, the show offers a very critical view of Thanksgiving.

Out of about 15 lines by non-family members, about 10% are by people of color.


“Thanksgiving ’91” Episode 10, Season 4. Wikipedia summary is: “During Thanksgiving dinner, Roseanne and Jackie discover their father has been having an affair for 20 years that their mother has known about. Darlene hides out in her room and refuses to open up to anyone except Nana Mary.”

Darlene says: “I opt not to celebrate the exploitation of Indians by a group of religious fanatics.”

This isn’t the later episode I was referring to in the review above. That later episode doesn’t involve DARLENE criticizing Thanksgiving. So, independent of Darlene’s anti-social depressed phase, the show is critical of what happened to American Indians. There’s at least three episodes with that message.

“Kansas City, Here We Come” Episode 11, Season 4. Wikipedia summary is: “Jackie and Roseanne head to Kansas City to meet their father's mistress. Dan goes to beat up Becky's boss for being grossly disrespectful to her, but finds that Mark has beaten him to it.”

Out of about 20 lines by non-family members, none are by people of color.