An Essay About Pro-Palestinian Democrats And Progressive Jewish-Americans

I recently read an article published 7/7/26 on CNN.com about Jewish-American progressives and the Democratic Party. Although this was sort of news to me, I had heard some stuff about the problem the article describes- supporting the Palestinians has become a litmus test  required by progressives in the Democratic Party and this was causing some problems for Jewish-American progressives who are at least sort of pro-Palestinian but also support Israel in some ways. 

**********
If our goal is to get the Jewish Israeli population to transform their relationship with the Palestinians, it will work a lot better if we can convince them that accusations of anti-Semitism among us are untrue.

***********

In the last 18 years I have given a lot of thought to blending support for the Palestinians with opposition to anti-Semitism. I have more to say about my qualifications, etc. in the final section of this essay at the very bottom. One thing I will mention here is that although it’s just a BA, I have a degree in a very relevant field- Ethnic Studies. If you want an example of me contributing to the progressive community on this issue, I got a Guest Opinion published in a MSM newspaper (see this or read it here).                   

My position is that progressive Jewish-Americans who are sort of zionist should be treated as part of the progressive community but simultaneously need to re-evaluate their understanding of what is going on with Israel and the Palestinians. There IS a problem with anti-Semitism among progressives and this, among other things, hobbles the Palestine Solidarity Movement (PSM) in America (I am not sure how many pro-Palestinian activists refer to it as the Palestine Solidarity Movement, but it’s a pretty good way of referring to us).

Progressive Zionists?!?!?!?

Although there is a spectrum for this, and at one end maybe some self-identifying progressive Democratic people don’t qualify as progressive, there are a lot of progressives who are Jewish and probably most of those are, to one degree or another, zionists. A big part of why I say that is an idea I adopted in recent years- that I’m not going to look at something political that I dislike and automatically and always say “I’m a progressive and I don’t like that, so that’s not progressive.” I initially came up with it when I thought about how many progressive activists I came across who were bizarrely friendly to the Libertarian Party and I decided that if they were SOME of the time capitalistic economically but only SOME of the time, and checked ALL the other boxes for stuff like opposing racism, supporting the environment, etc. they should be considered progressive. I also decided, in a similar spirit, that although I greatly value the DEMOCRATIC part of democratic socialism and am open-minded about the term “State Capitalist,” the Soviet Union actually had been about some kind of socialism.

Another reason to consider these Jewish-American progressives PROGRESSIVE is that when Irish-American GOP members expressed support for the Provisional Irish Republican Army (the one associated with Gerry Adams) in the 1980s, the other GOPers didn’t evict them from the party when their ethnicity led them to support what was, IN THE 1980s, a SOCIALIST organization.

One more reason is that the GOP Irish-American IRA supporters did a lot of conservative stuff, which I assume they were passionate about and for which they got credit for from their fellow GOPers. They kept LGBTQ+ people out of the NYC St. Patrick’s Day parade, they opposed Affirmative Action as passionately as they supported the MacBride Principles (Affirmative Action for Catholics in N. Ireland), they supported the invasion of Iraq, etc. etc. etc. I get the impression that the Jewish-American progressives we’re talking about have done and are doing tons of good progressive work that they deserve credit for.

No Pasaran?!?!?!?

That phrase is Spanish for “they shall not pass,” and the Spanish original was a rallying cry for the anti-fascist side of the Spanish Civil War.

This bunch of extremist progressive supporters of the Palestinians who are pushing a McCarthyist-like agenda overlap heavily with the “Uncommitted” movement in 2024 who urged critics of Israel to vote for anybody BUT Harris and sometimes were quite friendly towards Trump. This despite the fact that they are the kind of progressives who would insist that they are more radical than I am but basically sided with a fascist who probably IS the most pro-Israel US President we have had. Apparently being VERY pro-Israel is okay if you’re a fascist but being a little pro-Israel is not okay if you’re a progressive.

I also have to say at some point, that the people who coined the phrase “Genocide Joe” to refer to Biden in connection with Gaza and protested him never did get around to giving Donald Trump the same treatment, and Trump was much more in favor of Israel than Biden was and much more in favor of genocide for the Palestinians than Biden was (I don’t think that Biden was anywhere near that hostile to the Palestinians). I think that until Trump spoke about a Gaza Riviera describing the Gaza War as genocidal was going a little too far.

Was the June 1st 2025 Boulder Attack Anti-Semitic?

As you may know, June 1st 2025 in Boulder, CO there was a violent attack on a non-violent demonstration of support for the Israeli hostages. In a Guest Opinion that was published three days later in the local MSM paper here, I described it as anti-Semitic. Apparently a lot of Americans supporting the Palestinians refuse to call it that. In a recent email with one of these people (in this case a Jewish-American man) I wrote the following:

“You have said that the Pearl St. attack was not anti-Semitic. I realize it was a slightly (politically) pro-Israel activity that was attacked, but their focus was the hostages. And you have to take into consideration that they were non-combatants far from a battlefield. Yes, the Israeli flag was displayed, but that may have been less political than it usually is. In general, they were CIVILIANS and a physical, lethal attack on them from someone who is on the opposite side of a conflict which often touches on religion is bigoted, and I will not apologize for saying that in my essay. Unlike usual I am not sure what is analogous in N. Ireland- although I'll tell you this- not everyone in N. Ireland who identified with the Irish flag during the conflict was a supporter of the IRA and/or Sinn Fein.”

There’s also the fact that, in N. Ireland the main thing, conflict-wise, that the unionist (British-identifying) paramilitaries did was intentionally kill Catholic civilians (and about 99% of those Catholics were totally INNOCENT). Often it was in retaliation for republican violence, but anyone who wasn’t a sectarian asshole (and even some who were) labelled it anti-Catholic because they were innocent civilians.

Lastly, although I think the Palestinians and their American supporters have a point or two when they refer to many of the Palestinians in Israeli prisons as hostages, the fact is, there is nothing inherently colonial about Jewish-Americans being concerned about the hostages that were held by Hamas or others. The hostage-taking was roughly as bad as the murders of Oct. 7th- worse when you consider the medical problems made more complicated by being hostages, or the possibility of being raped, etc. I am open-minded about referring to the active duty IDF members taken prisoner Oct. 7th as something else, but in general the extremist parts of the Palestine Solidarity Movement are wrong about the hostage-taking.

Why the issue of the Palestinians?

I am less certain of my position on this aspect, but combined with everything else I will mention it. Why this issue? I’m certain that for most progressive Americans in the PSM it’s just a coincidence that the oppressor of the Palestinians is, largely, a big chunk of the world’s Jewish population. But I am certain there are also plenty of people who use the k-word and are obsessed with attacking Jewish people. 

On one hand, the conflict IS very important. It’s short history has contributed to making the region a “dangerous neighborhood.” For decades BEFORE Oct. 7th, the Palestinians, in different ways, faced one degree or another of serious injustice and inequity. And the United States is heavily involved as a sponsor of Israel and in some bizarre way is also seen by some as a mediator for peace there.

I was involved most of the time between 1995 and 2005 with the IRELAND Solidarity Movement (which was almost exclusively American) and the American Left really dropped the ball on that one. Why the difference? I understand that America isn’t propping up the UK the way we prop up Israel. But A) the oppression of Northern Ireland Catholics was serious, probably more serious than American progressives understand, and B) the UK (until Trump) was the most important ally of the United States in the entire world, and C) the Northern Ireland issue would have given engaged American progressives opportunities to drag a significant chunk of the Irish-American population towards the Left, and D) the US government did not have a good record on The Troubles. (I explain a lot more about those four points in an essay here starting with the words “Here are some of the reasons…” about 3/4 down from the top and ending with the third paragraph (you will then need to skip down to the very last section of the essay starting with “What makes me confident about….”)) (the fourth point I make is backed up in a post here about halfway from the top starting with “Ways in which Washington D.C. was bad…..” )

Another problem with this focus on Israel and use of it as a litmus test is that there have been a lot of very reactionary people who were anti-Zionist. There is not a strong, consistent connection between being a progressive and being opposed to Zionism.

I am not sure I am proving this aspect of my argument beyond the shadow of a doubt, but the differences are glaring in terms of the extent to which progressives today are embracing one cause and how they neglected the other cause in the mid and late 1990s.

Yes, These People Are Being Obnoxious, But Israel As A Jewish State Is Not Acceptable

Here’s the thing. I’m sure that many of the Jewish-American progressives are (according to the CNN article linked to at the top) supporting Israel to such a small, acceptable degree that I probably have no or little problem with them at all- i.e. if they simultaneously also identify as supporters of the Palestinians. But I’m also sure that many of them, for example, object to use of the phrase “Israeli Apartheid,” a phrase that, in different ways, accurately captures how the Palestinians were treated in the Gaza Strip (before Oct. 7th) and have been treated in the West Bank, and in East Jerusalem, and in the internationally recognized borders of Israel. I did a post that debunks the idea that applying the word “apartheid” to Israel is inaccurate and/or anti-Semitic. About 1/3 of the articles it’s based on are from The Times of Israel, which I believe is a fairly mainstream web publication based in Israel and about 1/3 of the articles are from the BBC (the BBC’s professional coverage of N. Ireland 1997-2005 probably means that they are a good source in general, especially for issues that DON’T involve people frequently setting off bombs in London for decades).

In general, some Jewish-American progressives need to understand that a self-defined “Jewish State” of Israel does now and very likely would in the distant future, involve continued inequality for Palestinian-Israelis- when the Israeli Left is in power that would change a little, but about 3-4 years later Likud or other right-wing parties would get into power and use the formally Jewish identity of the State as encouragement and cover for re-imposing anti-Palestinian policies. I have no idea how progressives can accept a state based on religion and/or ethnicity. It is so much in conflict with progressive values. (If you think that I have a double standard because I am not opposed to the 26-County Irish state based in Dublin and I support uniting the two parts of Ireland, see a post here and read the very last part starting with “Lastly, here is my response….” )

At some point I need to link to a post that takes a fairly comprehensive look at why I think Zionism was a bad idea and and why I believed in the one-state solution. On one hand, since Oct. 7th and Israel’s response I have leaned towards saying that now there must be so much hate on both sides that maybe the two-state solution is better. On the other hand, people who believe in justice and equality and peace might continue pushing for the one-state solution and I would sort of still support that and I can’t help but criticize progressives who rejected the one-state-solution BEFORE Oct. 7th. I should also say that uniting Ireland is more or less the one-state solution for that conflict, whereas re-partitioning Ireland would be comparable to the two-state solution in the Middle-East and is something that Sinn Fein and most Catholics in N. Ireland would never accept.

Anti-Semitism Weakens The Palestine Solidarity Movement

Was there anti-Semitism in the college campus protests that swept the nation 2-3 years ago? I am certain that Trump is not nearly as concerned about anti-semitism as he is hateful of Muslims, Arabs, and the Left. But some of the articles about that issue quoted Jewish-American leaders who said that although Trump is not helping and is exaggerating  the problem and/or that they hate Trump, there was a problem with anti-Semitism in those protests.

I make a big deal on my blog about the need to purge the PSM of anti-Semitism (to a large degree I am influenced by an article here that helps define what is anti-Semitism and what isn’t anti-Semitism in connection with the conflict). I have written on this topic here, here, here, and here (this last one is probably the best). I am not sure how popular or unpopular anti-Semitism is in America, and there’s a spectrum that makes this difficult to measure, but I think there’s at least a small majority of Americans who oppose it. So there’s a very good chance based on that alone that this bigotry costs us political influence and the Palestinian people support. If our goal is to get the Jewish Israeli population to transform their relationship with the Palestinians, it will work a lot better if we can convince them that accusations of anti-Semitism among us are untrue. More members of the PSM who are either Jewish or allies, numerically and strategically outweigh any loss of support from people who are simply anti-Semitic and show little potential for change.

On a personal level and on a political level I greatly value the Jewish-American population. Those who were/are liberal or progressive were disproportionately involved in the anti-Vietnam War effort, with supporting the anti-racist cause, and with Democratic Party victories. In my experience they were disproportionately involved with supporting the N. Ireland Catholic population during the conflict. On a personal level I have had some friends here and there who are Jewish, my Mom’s best friend almost her entire life was a Jewish woman, etc. My fiancé who I’ve been with for 6 and 1/2 years is partly Jewish. In case anyone thinks (after all I have written here) that  I will do anything to get along with Jewish people I should explain something- when I started thinking of leaving the Catholic Church about 5-10 years ago, I decided to convert to a Protestant Church after spending maybe an hour contemplating the idea that Christ was NOT the Son of God and then dismissing it and sticking with Christianity.

I think I say enough things in this essay that contribute to this statement: Anti-Semitism is destructive to our communities, our political movements, our nation, and our world. No more or less than, for example, anti-Muslim bigotry (some will say that the greater number of Muslims means that anti-Muslim bigotry is more destructive to humanity, but I am also influenced by the facts that within the last century we almost lost the Jewish population and anti-Semitism is the fuel for the neo-Nazi movement which is still a threat).

Islamophobia and Support for Israel Weaken The Movement Against Anti-Semitism

Via articles on the Southern Poverty Law Center web-site and other sources I have encountered anti-Muslim bigotry from Jewish-American people who were and are more right-wing than left-wing, but I am not sure how widespread is some mild variant of Islamophobia among progressive Jewish-Americans. I imagine it’s a small but significant problem because A) Jewish-Americans are basically White Americans and exposed to the same propaganda all white people are and B) Israel IS in a conflict that usually pits it against Muslims and that is often influenced by religion.

Most of what I would say to liberal or progressive Jewish Americans who might be islamophobic is either typed in, or linked to from, these paragraphs. These Jewish-Americans should spend some time thinking critically about how they see muslims and Palestinians. 

When progressive, Zionist Jewish-Americans say pro-Israel stuff alongside a ton of progressive things they make it a little more difficult for us to get progressive anti-Semites to abandon their bigotry because it is easy for people to experience that as politically maddening- that people would be progressive on all issues but one, about their people (when GOP Irish-American IRA supporters do their version of that I go a lot further and simply call them racist). The Palestinians do have very serious and legitimate national grievances and national aspirations and Jewish-American people denying that doesn’t help the fight against anti-Semitism.

Conclusions

People who are politically active and/or are inside certain communities can help advance these twin agendas of supporting the Palestinians and opposing anti-Semitism. When we convince progressive anti-Semites that their bigotry is wrong, we strengthen the PSM in America and the more people who hear the PSM’s message from people who oppose anti-Semitism, the more progress we make taking down anti-Semitism, the more Jewish Israelis will take us seriously— this goes around and around in an upwards spiral.

Some things that will help with combatting anti-Semitism:

1) American supporters of the Palestinians who believe that because Jewish-Americans are not oppressed (AS JEWISH-AMERICANS) no effort should be made to avoid friction with that community need to understand that we’re all standing in a lake of gasoline called ANTI-SEMITISM and we need to avoid creating unnecessary sparks that could set it on fire. 
2) The Irish political party Sinn Fein, which interacts with Americans a lot and which is largely against anti-Semitism, needs to stop putting out (side-by-side) the following two statements: A) that there must be a boycott of Israel and B) that it was okay that the IRA accepted aid from Nazi Germany (they need to repeal the second of those two statements).
3) It wouldn’t hurt if supporters of Israel would speak about anti-semitism in their own ranks (i.e. The Rapture, and the anti-Soros stuff, and comparing reasonable things like COVID-19 public health measures and hostility towards Republicans in our society with what Nazi Germany did to Jewish people).
4) Critics of Israel need to abandon two ideas I have encountered. The first is that because the conflict is asymmetrical it’s okay for the military wing of Hamas to target civilians. The other idea is that Palestinians are so powerless that they have the power to make war, but not the power to make peace. (I criticize both ideas here).
5) I think that a lot of American progressives fail to express enthusiasm, when looking at history, for the Allied cause in World War II. I’m thinking of people who are not anti-Semitic but who might be giving other people the wrong idea about the Holocaust, simply because they take their usually solid criticism of America too far.
6) Critics of Israel need to remember that although a majority of Jewish-Americans support Israel, that majority is a VERY SMALL minority of American Zionists.

I can only come up with two ideas to counter anti-Muslim bigotry besides everything else I have said or linked to above. 

1) If the opportunity arises, we should ask the US military if they would behave the way they did in Iraq 2003-2008 were they to find themselves policing a rocky Peace Process in N. Ireland (I am not sure how popular this shirt is, especially for the POST-Bush GOP, but the text of a shirt here should be discussed, especially the one about collateral damage).
2) I have read, at least once, the argument that anti-Muslim bigotry in America today resembles the anti-Catholic bigotry that occasionally surged and retreated in this country over the decades until about the 1940s (I think it has surged a little bit since then in terms of left-wing ignorance about Catholic politics). I used to be Catholic (I’ve sort of started converting to the Episcopalian Church) and I experienced anti-Catholic bigotry in this country at least two or three times (I also kind of experienced it in Northern Ireland twice).
3) The two very last statements in this conclusion should balance things a little.

It’s been about 15 years since I read huge amounts of information from the Southern Poverty Law Center, but if we DO see a resurgence of the Nazi skinhead movement, we should, as united communities, counter them by ANY AND EVERY means available. This will be more effective and successful if Muslim-Americans and Jewish-Americans cooperate and have not pushed each other away, and this future battle requires them to start massive dialogue now.

I am concluding with a quote from the hard-working opponents of organized hate, right-wing politics and economic injustice at the Southern Poverty Law Center. In one of the articles in the Fall 2008 issue of their publication, they wrote the following (it’s a statement by the author of that article, Sonia Scherr):
 

“Although criticism of Israel does not typically amount to anti-Semitism — and many critics of the Jewish state are unfairly accused of bigotry — in some cases those who denounce Israel also cross the line into denigration of Jews as a group.” 

My Qualifications And Some Other Stuff About Why You Should Consider What I Say In This Essay

I could be more familiar with this in some ways- but in other ways I believe I have a lot to offer. I  have read a ridiculous number of articles about the conflict there, I have read a ridiculous number of articles about anti-Semitism, and I have given a lot of thought to blending support for the Palestinians with opposition to anti-Semitism. Although it is just a BA, I got a degree in a very relevant field in 2003 at CU-Boulder— Ethnic Studies. When I attended the 2002 National Conference of Sinn Fein Youth in Galway, Ireland, I was representing the Anti-Racism Commission of the Democratic Socialists of America (see below). It might be relevant that I am engaged to marry a woman who identifies partly as Jewish- enough that I have been to three Passover Seders with her in the last four years.

I was a member of DSA from 1995-2002 and my familiarity with it gradually declined after 2002. I left for a hybrid of personal and political reasons but I have some reason to believe that I would probably still feel at home in it today if not for the personal stuff. The political stuff is not relevant to this. Even today I am not as literate when it comes to socialist theory as I should be, and around 25-30 years ago I knew even less. During that time I vaguely identified as a Marxist and I was either a third-party fan or reluctant to register as a Democrat. I have done an okay job of educating myself more since then and I now use two terms in combination to describe my political beliefs- democratic Marxist and left-wing social-democrat. I’ve been registered as a Dem since 2004. I am not officially with any political organization, although I might be close to identifying with Indivisible.

Some people might point out that practically no one has heard of me and suggest that I have done nothing in recent years to earn a prominent stall in the marketplace of ideas. The short version is that while I did a ton of activism in Boulder 1994-2004, since Aug. of 2001 I have been dealing with a “perfect storm” of things that are A) largely or completely not my fault and B) largely personal tragedy (in some ways that situation has been almost overturned since I started dating my fiancé in 2020, but in a lot of ways I still struggle with stuff vocationally, mentally, emotionally, etc.). During the time since 2001 I have continued reading a HUGE amount of political material, I have developed some analytical skills through writing a lot, and I have made some decent contributions to the progressive community. Since 2008 I have published about a million words on this blog. Although in the last 6 years my blog has gotten only about 10 page-views a week on average, 2008-2018 there were about 10,000 first time visitors (who may have looked at several posts and/or come back some other time for more) and in the first few months of the pandemic there were somewhere around 100 page-views a day. 2011-2022 I volunteered an average of five hours a week at a large food-bank in this area. Since early 2021 I have gotten a total of about 10 LTEs and about six Guest Opinions published in a mainstream Boulder County publication and a sort of mainstream Boulder County publication. Since 2010 I have gone to a progressive event or protest about twice a month on average and in the last year it’s been about twice a week on average.

A big part of why few people have heard a lot about me as a political activist in the last 20 years is that I have 4+ mental disabilities that got worse or more numerous at a few different points in the last 25 years (for more about my mental health and progressive politics, read this).           

The Anti-Muslim Attack In San Diego

Below is something I submitted to the daily Camera a week ago about the 5/18 attack on a San Diego mosque. It probably won't be published at this point. You should read a CNN.COM article here. It basically says that an effort was made to deny mosques DHS funding for security about a year ago.

 

**********

 

For decades I have been worried about anti-Muslim bigotry in this country, especially since 9/11. I’m not sure how often I have done something really significant about it- unless expressing support for the Palestinians counts, in which case I have done a lot (including at least one very visible effort). I think that yesterday’s attack in San Diego might be the first fatal attack on a mosque here. There have been many other manifestations of anti-Muslim bigotry in America, including some deadly violence. Trump has done a lot to fuel that bigotry here, especially with his first-term Muslim travel ban and his second-term suggestions that it would be appropriate to get Palestinians to leave Gaza permanently and that it would be appropriate to destroy, as in commit genocide against, the Iranian nation-state. And there’s been tons of smaller stuff as well.

I’ll be honest, in the same spirit of saying that all white people are at least a tiny bit racist, as a Christian I have had occasional anti-Muslim thoughts. It’s so minor it’s barely worth mentioning, but since I am writing this, I should say that I think that in recent years I may have slightly or significantly discounted the progress made in the Muslim world when it comes to how women are treated by men and male-dominated institutions. In the last few years I have been pleasantly surprised by how many news articles quote Gaza women (for example)- to be honest, I DID think they would be discouraged by men and other women from speaking to the media. People who are much worse than flawed Christian allies of America’s Muslim population should consider that Sharia has been mentioned enough already.

I’m embarrassed by that oversight of mine for at least a few reasons and one of them is that I have read, at least once, the argument that anti-Muslim bigotry in America today resembles the anti-Catholic bigotry that occasionally surged and retreated in this country over the decades until about the 1940s (I think it has surged a little bit since then in terms of left-wing ignorance about Catholic politics). I used to be Catholic (I’ve sort of started converting to the Episcopalian Church) and I experienced anti-Catholic bigotry in this country at least two or three times (I also kind of experienced it in Northern Ireland twice).

I could be better equipped to do this- although I set out to read the Koran about 6 and 1/2 years ago, I only read about 5% of it and then the pandemic distracted me. The part I read didn’t contain anything I found offensive. I get the impression there’s a fair amount of politically good stuff in that book, just like there is in the Bible. We need to remember a handful of facts- Muslims believe that Christ was an important prophet and the Angel Gabriel appears in both books. Many people use the term “Abrahamic” to refer to Islam, Judaism and Christianity, and I believe strongly that we all pray to the same God.

Would I say that non-Muslims should never criticize certain tendencies (sexism and homophobia) in the Muslim world in order to avoid encouraging religious bigotry? No. But we should blend critical statements about them with positive ones about Islam and the Muslim community. We should make more efforts to build bridges in every sphere of life with Muslims. We should understand that the Palestinians have very legitimate national grievances and aspirations and reject the Israel lobby’s demonization of them. We should ask the US military if they would act the way they did in Iraq 2003-2008 if they found themselves policing a rocky Peace Process in N. Ireland.

We need to stand with our Muslim brothers and sisters at this time and in general and whenever hatred for them raises it’s ugly head.

Law and Order Reviews J

I have done reviews of many episodes of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit and published some more general thoughts about it here. In that post I offer a smaller number of general thoughts about the original Law and Order show (the one that went from 1990-2010). Although I do not like L&O as much as I like the SVU version, I do like it. There’s some liberal or even progressive stuff here and there and they’re good detective stories, and they’re homicide detectives- if they were narcotics, I’d probably be a lot less fond of the show.

Although I’m not sure I have done and will do this consistently, with the original Law and Order show I will make a note and maybe offer some comments when the issues that are at the core of Law and Order: SVU appear on this show.

“Pride” Season 5. See this for a plot summary.

This is basically about homophobia and I think it’s a fairly good reply to the homophobes.

“Savages” Season 6. See this for a plot summary.

The Death Penalty 

This episode is about the death penalty, but the main characters, collectively, have mixed opinions about it. I won’t bother describing or analyzing those statements with two exceptions. First, it’s stated that (possibly looking just at NY state and it’s death-penalty situation) there was some kind of trend where the suspension of the death penalty saw a decrease in capital crimes or something like that.

One of the main characters (the senior detective) in a practical but not principled way opposes bringing the death penalty back to NY and says that it will create more desperation among criminals who might become more willing to shoot cops when police try to arrest them if they’re already facing charges that could involve the death penalty.

I am generally against the death penalty. To some small degree you could say this is partly inspired by or reinforced by the fact that my Church opposes it (until very recently I was a Catholic and I am now converting to the Episcopalian church that also opposes the death penalty). I know that the statistics indicate that independent of the thoughts of judges, prosecutors, and jurors, it’s application really is racist and classist. I believe there’s no reason to say that it deters serious crime.

I am open-minded about it being used in one situation. If someone is already serving a life sentence in prison with no chance of parole, where life means life, and they are convicted of a serious crime (murder (and maybe rape should also be included)) and there is no other way to significantly upgrade their sentence to reflect the new conviction, maybe they should get the death penalty. I am not sure how often murder and rape happen in prison, but it might possibly happen less often if what I just proposed was an option for judges and/or juries.

“Jeopardy” Season 6. See this for a plot summary.             

First, the Wikipedia summary is REALLY bad. The dead brother’s business had created a financial vulnerability for his family’s business. There were no rival businesses and there was no stealing of clients.

This is a type of episode that I have only inconsistently high-lighted until recently, but my plan for 1-3 years now has been that I’ll make a brief note about this when it comes up. First, the defendant is a wealthy businessperson who doesn’t seem political at all (i.e. he’s not made to look bad because he’s liberal or progressive, since he’s neither as far as we know- he’s made to look bad because he’s the kind of powerful person who thinks the rules don’t apply to him). Second, his even wealthier Mom uses her wealth-created power to subtly BRIBE the judge who gets the case and then rules in favor of the defendant a few times.

“Angel” Season 6. See this for a plot summary.

There’s 2-3 parts where racism towards Puerto Ricans in NYC is illustrated. The first time, I have to admit, the police don’t seem too offended. That doesn’t necessarily exclude the thing I want to highlight as anti-racist. After a well-attended Coleman-organized press conference is basically told that at that point the police are looking for a Puerto Rican man, the police get flooded with tips. One of the two detectives, while answering calls to the tip line, says to his supervisor: “Since the Colemans’ town meeting every nut job in the city who ever got a bad taco is pointing the finger.” It could be a better objection to what is happening to their investigation- it’s sinking into the muck of popular racism- but the detective is basically caricaturing that racism, saying that any White person who had a negative experience with a “hispanic” person is making false allegations about Puerto Ricans and the disappearance of the baby and are doing so in a way that doesn’t distinguish between different “hispanic” racial and ethnic groups. It turns out that the baby's White mother killed the baby.

Trump, Iran, and Genocide

Below is something I wrote about a week after Trump threatened to destroy the civilization of Iran in early April. 

 

Tom 

 

 

I am glad that President Trump has so far not gone through with his threat to destroy Iran. It is damning of him and his voters that he made the threat and he is guilty of threatening genocide (“Conspiracy to Commit Genocide” and “Direct and Public Incitement to Commit Genocide” are crimes in international law (according to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ) and it’s reasonable to assume that Trump’s threat involved planning with high-ranking members of his administration). If there was no conspiracy because it was nothing but a threat, Trump should say so, apologize and acknowledge that even the threat by itself is harmful (and he would still be guilty of the incitement charge)). Although some of his supporters, for various and not-necessarily progressive reasons, have criticized him, the GOP don’t seem to understand how criminal it is to make the threat that he made. Some think that he was just being politically tactical and would never actually do it and therefore it’s okay. It’s so far from OK it is globally considered a crime. It reminds me of a scene in the Denzel Washington film "Training Day" where a cop interrogating college students who just bought drugs threatens to get the young woman in the group gang-raped.

The US should be more sensitive about this sort of thing- not because we have a great history of doing the right thing (we don’t). But because we did the wrong thing when it came to American Indians, because we are more familiar than most countries with the genocide of European Jews, and because we’re more familiar than most countries with the near-genocidal treatment of the Irish during the so-called “Potato Famine.” There are millions of Americans who lost relatives (and not distant ancestors) to Adolf Hitler’s Final Solution, and/or who are also similarily related to many Jewish people who were lucky to survive Nazi Germany- who would have been killed if not for that luck, Allied sacrifice, and/or their own efforts to escape the Holocaust.

I believe that one way to concisely capture the evil of genocide is that a 100%-successful effort could be described as the cultural equivalent of an animal species going extinct. I worry that putting it that way focuses too much on what other populations lose when the victim is (at least to a moderate degree) exterminated. But it contributes to understanding the severity of this crime.

Genocide is so horrible that it should be universally opposed by all nations. Although I am not a fan of the Islamic Republic, I have opposed Trump’s war since day one, and I have a little factoid relevant to this. Although I believe there is at least a fair amount of anti-Semitism in Iran (and I say that while supporting the Palestinians) in 2007 a TV mini-series was made by and broadcast by official Iranian media- a movie based on a true story of how an Iranian diplomat in Paris during World War II engineered some kind of Oscar Schindler-type effort that saved at least about 500 Jewish lives. The mini-series is called “Zero Degree Turn” and there’s an article that seems fair about it here.

Trump is of course selective, more so than most American politicians, in his opposition to genocide. It’s like his attitude to COVID-19, when he explicitly said that states would get more help from Washington if their governors publicly said nice things about him. It was a politically-indiscriminate PANDEMIC, and he saw it as transactional. He is, almost 100%, sensitive when it comes to the Holocaust, because he wants Jewish votes and Jewish money. When he thinks it will help him, he threatens the misanthropic destruction on an entire civilization.

Trump’s threat might give some nations and other actors the impression that genocide or threatening genocide is okay.

Lastly, Trump’s threat greatly undermines how the rest of the world sees the US. We have lost more moral authority on the global stage and we didn’t have much to begin with. It will increase support for or indifference towards any effort at carrying out another 9/11. We have already taken two steps backwards during Trump’s second administration in terms of conciliation with the Muslim world- supporting Netanyahu’s Gaza War, and the first month of Trump’s Iran War. What Trump has threatened would inflame hatred for us throughout the world.

If Trump were to go through with his threat it would be a nightmare for the Iranian people, a nightmare for the Middle-East, and would guarantee pandemic-level hatred of Americans for decades.

Combatting Anti-Semitism

Below is a guest opinion of almost 700 words that, with very few small differences, I submitted to the Daily Camera (Boulder's main paper) about four weeks ago. At this point it's not going to get published.

There are some things I'm going to clarify and offer some addendums below the essay following this introduction. Let me first say that I have heard of two other recent attacks in the last year or so and there was one more in London three weeks ago. Also, one thing I came across a few times in the last several months in articles on CNN.COM is prominent liberal or progressive Jewish-Americans saying that there ARE some problems with anti-Semitism on the university campuses Trump has been attacking, although these leaders make it clear that it's not as bad as Trump makes it out to be and that the President is not helping at all

 

Tom

 

**********

 

I’m sure I am forgetting 1-2 examples of this, but in the last eight years there have been some really significant anti-Semitic physical attacks. From the American Right there was the 2018 murder of 11 Jewish people at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. Right here in Boulder in 2025 one Jewish person (a Holocaust survivor) was killed and several were wounded and the number one suspect is a Muslim. At Bondi Beach last year in Australia 15 Jewish people including one Holocaust survivor were killed and the two (dead) suspects were a Muslim father and son. In January 2026 an anti-Semitic arson took place at an important synagogue and the number one suspect is a White, American (possibly fundamentalist) Christian. A few days ago a destructive attack was carried out at a synagogue and community center in Michigan and the dead suspect was an Arab-American man.

Some of this predates the Gaza War and most of it predates the Iran War. The common theme is anti-Semitism. I do have some connections to the Jewish-American community, and I am incredibly partisan (on one side) in the fight against anti-Semitism, but I go where the facts take me and I say what has to be said, independent of the politics (I have been a supporter of the Irish political party Sinn Fein since 1997, but 1999-2004 I criticized them very publicly three times because they had strayed a bit from the path of opposing homophobia). Although this is greatly exaggerated by some political tendencies among Jewish Americans (such as the ADL), most Republicans including Trump, and an official part of the Israeli government, there IS some anti-Semitism among progressive supporters, Muslim supporters and Arab supporters of the Palestinians. I have encountered it in Ireland and in Boulder.

When I started my blog in 2008 I was very quick to add fighting anti-semitism to the list of official main topics. I’m not sure when I started thinking about it critically (probably about 25-30 years ago) but I have always been a fan, when looking at history, of what the Allies of World War II did. The Holocaust was one of the worst things to happen in this world’s history (a big part of my major was American Indian Studies and in some ways what happened to Native Americans may have been more destructive to humanity, but the Holocaust, overall, was way up there, too). One of the other reasons I made it a big part of my blog is that in my Sophomore year of college (1995-1996) I was mildly anti-Semitic. I don’t think I did any harm, and there were a lot of anti-Semitic things I did NOT do, but I believe in compensating for the tiniest possibility that I DID do some harm. Anyway, about half of why I was slightly but significantly hateful was the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

What can be done about anti-Semitism in the short-to-medium term? Some suggestions:

1) Supporters of the Palestinians who believe that because Jewish-Americans are not oppressed (AS JEWISH-AMERICANS) no effort should be made to avoid friction with that community need to understand that we’re all standing in a lake of gasoline called ANTI-SEMITISM and we need to, when appropriate, avoid creating sparks that could set it on fire.
2) Supporters of Israel need to be less trigger-happy with the accusation of anti-Semitism. I don’t have space here to go into any detail, but, for example, there is nothing inherently bigoted about the term “Israeli Apartheid.”
3) Sinn Fein, which is largely against anti-Semitism, needs to stop putting out (side-by-side) the following two statements: A) that there must be a boycott of Israel and B) that it was okay that the IRA accepted aid from Nazi Germany.
4) It wouldn’t hurt if supporters of Israel would speak about anti-semitism in their own ranks (I.e. The Rapture, and the anti-Soros stuff, and comparing reasonable things like COVID-19 public health measures and hostility towards Republicans in our society with what Nazi Germany did).

I AM a pretty solid supporter of the Palestinians, and for decades now I have believed that opposing anti-Semitism STRENGTHENS that movement, and that supporting the Palestinians STRENGTHENS the struggle against anti-Semitism.

 

*********

 

Some things to clarify and/or add:

 

1) There's a post partly about my sophomore year and anti-Semitism, here.

 

2) As far as my assumption that Jewish-Americans are not oppressed AS JEWISH-AMERICANS, I wrote a fair amount about that in mid-2020 here.

 

3) Why do I mention a "lake of gasoline"? There's a line in the 1991 movie "Backdraft" spoken by Robert De Niro, a line that for some reason I really like. It refers dramatically to a "lake of gasoline."

 

4) I don't know if this has been repealed since but at some point about 20 years ago an agency of the EU said that the term "Israeli Apartheid" is anti-semitic. I did a post that was largely about refuting that accusation. It's here.

 

5) After Bondi Beach I felt like I had to do something and I decided to weaponize a post on my blog about the problem with Sinn Fein that I refer to above. It went nowhere, for some reason or other. So I brought it into this. The post is here. 

 

6) Maybe the worst fit in this essay is suggestion #4. I did a post on my blog that is overwhelmingly about examples of anti-Semitism among SUPPORTERS of Israel. I think it's at least kind of relevant to this, but I'm not sure if I added it to this essay very well. That blogpost is here.

 

7) I am thinking of doing a fairly long essay that focuses on and substantiates and further develops the idea in the last paragraph of the essay above.

Law and Order: SVU Reviews OO

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.

“Prima Nocta” Season 25. See this for a plot summary.

Racism Towards Inter-Racial Couples

One of the rape survivors is in a interracial relationship. I include a note about that sort of thing when doing these reviews because I got the (flawed) impression about 30 years ago that hostility to such couples was sort of the more-widely-acceptable form, and/or pinnacle, of white supremacy (although White hostility towards mixed-race couples IS more common and more intense than the more basic facet of white supremacy (see the next paragraph), the more basic facet is still a massive problem). Another reason I mention it is that I think there is some much smaller degree of hostility towards such couples from some small minority of people of color. As I have explained here, although I understand that calling it racism is inaccurate and unhelpful and I understand that it’s a TINY problem which White people shouldn’t worry about, I believe it does exist. I would say something sort of similar about interracial relationships where both people are non-white- I imagine the frequency that such relationships are treated with hostility by people of color is incredibly low, but it's still noteworthy since they can be described as “multicultural” in a very positive way.

As far as the hate from white supremacist bigots in connection to the first kind of interracial relationship, I WAS open-minded about 1-3 years ago that maybe it’s declining and I should ignore it (part of that math is the fact that the show is set in NY City and there are plenty of minor characters and extras that are people of color, and I already had a policy about this show where I did not high-light everything anti-racist, because of course there are plenty of minor characters who are people of color). But racism has resurged in the last 10-17 years and I believe that white supremacists ARE much more hostile to mixed-race couples than they are to people of color in general (I’ve attached greater value than I used to to a letter the Southern Poverty Law Center published after they received it from a Jewish man in state prison in America and one thing he focused on was the Nazi skinhead-enforced rules about fraternization between different races in prison).

“Fractured” Season 26. See this for a plot summary.

First, there’s a fair amount of vague talk about widespread hostility towards the police in NYC, which is probably a continuation of the ramped-up anti-racism that the show started expressing (not necessarily vaguely) in Season 22 about a year after the 2020 Black Lives Matter-aligned protests. 

“Cornered” Season 26. See this for a plot summary.

Anti-Muslim Bigotry

In some ways it’s not political but in some ways it is. A minor character that the Assistant DA for SVU had become close to is killed by criminals robbing a bodega and this is I think fairly significant because the character has a first and last name (Ali Imran) that is Arabic and also Muslim. The ADA is so upset that in the next episode (“First Light”) he has a graphic flashback to when his friend is killed. As I have said elsewhere about something kind of similar involving a handful of episodes of Star Trek TV shows, I believe this kind of thing can (at least) chip away at anti-Muslim bigotry in this country.

“Deductible” Season 26. See this for a plot summary.

Capitalism and Women’s Sexuality

This episode is basically about something that I don’t think comes up very often in the show. I may have failed to comment on this sort of thing 1-2 times that I should have but didn’t because I thought it was what I have decided to call “pretty basic feminism” (I have no intention of mentioning everything feminist on the show, that content would clutter my posts and surprise no one, so it has to be a pretty significant and/or extraordinary manifestation of sexism). I know I commented on this episode’s topic very briefly with one episode that was a bit different but very similar (“Hell’s Kitchen” in Season 20).

At the risk of greatly exaggerating how intellectual I am, I think it is the kind of thing that can set off Marxist Women Studies scholars. It’s about an insurance business where the boss manipulates female employees into using their sexuality to confirm new clients. He uses his power as a capitalist to exploit not just the labor but also the sexuality of female employees in order to maximize profit. It’s not clear to what degree if at all his male employees are aware of this and/or to what degree if at all they cooperate (we learn that one of his earlier female victims is now COO and helps him- it’s not clear how many of his female employees are not being exploited sexually). The imminently-signing new client featured in this episode seems slightly decent. After being misled by the woman’s boss, he, without permission, tries to give her oral sex and it’s slightly possible he may have gone further without permission if she hadn’t gotten away from him and locked herself in the bathroom till he left. But there are some statements indicating he was far from fully okay with what the boss did. I say that because it seems like, if the show SVU has the pulse of the population, maybe a surprisingly large majority of the male population is against that sort of thing.

What is “that sort of thing?” It’s bad enough that you have exploitation of labor in general with capitalism and then what I believe is called “super-exploitation” of female workers in a non-sexual way. I am, to a large but not blind degree a pro-porn feminist and I believe that sex-work should largely be seen as just another kind of labor. If a woman FULLY consents to let her body be exploited, I’m not going to complain if I get to see pictures of her naked. But basically forcing a woman to put her sexuality to work for the company (a company that has nothing to do with sex and where her official job description says nothing about sex) as a whole and/or her male boss is sickening. Sexuality is something that is usually very personal, private and sacred (unless this protected status is waived BY THE PERSON INVOLVED in a fair and mutually beneficial and respectful agreement (I’ll be honest I can’t think of how to make a comprehensive and legalistic yet general and concise statement about this and I believe it is a little complicated, but what the defendant in this episode does is a GREAT example of what powerful men should NOT use their power for)). 

And it might not hurt if I say something here that I have wanted to say in recent years. At the risk of patting myself on the back too much for being a good feminist, when I think of non-trafficked pornography I am horrified by the possibility that some women do it with little or no enjoyment simply for desperate financial reasons and I think the possibility of that scenario is damning of the fact that women in our society get paid less, are often saddled with ALL the child-rearing expenses, etc. etc.

The Russian Invasion of Ukraine: Trump, Putin, and Zelensky

Although Trump has significantly corrected his attitude towards the Russian invasion of Ukraine, there are several things that people should know about Trump’s record on that issue. 

First is the fact that in general he is very deferential to Russian President Vladimir Putin. This has taken the form of Trump siding (for example) in July 2018 with Putin over his own intelligence community when it came to the allegation that Russia interfered with the 2016 election hoping to help Trump get elected. Trump’s initial response to the February 2022 full-fledged Russian invasion of Ukraine was that Putin was “smart.” In the Spring, Summer and Fall of 2025 Trump would occasionally express a negative opinion of Putin’s behavior in relation to the war but continued to occasionally act as if Putin was a partner for peace (i.e. at the August 2025 Summit between the two leaders).

Why is Trump so deferential to Putin? In addition to reading a huge number of relevant articles at CNN, Politico, the BBC and some miscellaneous sources, I read the 2018 book “Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin's War on America and the Election of Donald Trump” by David Corn and Michael Isikoff. They don’t analyze hardly anything AFTER the 2016 election, but there’s plenty of material about how Trump admires Putin and is connected to him in a few ways. There’s some small possibility that Putin has a compromising video of Trump.

More generally we know that Trump likes strongman leaders (including El Salvador's Nayib Bukele, Hungary’s Viktor Orban, Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman, and many others). Although this will not be a lengthy description of Russia’s democratic deficit, Putin is widely seen as a strongman. Some bases for this includes the legal shackling of pro-democracy foreign NGOs, the extreme suppression of gay rights and information about homosexuality itself, and the muzzling of any anti-war voices in the last four years. In Trump’s first administration Mike Pompeo was for one year Director of the CIA and then spent three years as Secretary of State. Shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine, Pompeo said that Putin, with his KGB background, knows how to “use power” and should therefore be respected.             

It’s also possible that Trump is friendlier to Putin than Ukraine’s President Zelensky partly because the latter is socially liberal. Although Trump makes it difficult to say that he hates the LGB in LGBTQ+, he is certainly on the HOMOPHOBIC half of the spectrum between HOMOPHOBIC and ANTI-HOMOPHOBIC, while Zelensky has expressed support for gay marriage. Zelensky is also against anti-Muslim bigotry. And as far as I can tell, Zelensky has also lobbied non-white nations for support without referring to them as “shit-hole countries.” (On a brief, related note, between this paragraph and the fact that Zelensky is partly Jewish, Putin’s propaganda when the war started, that there was a serious Nazi problem in Ukraine, was nonsense)

Although it is almost ancient history at this point, we need to take a closer look at the February 2025 meeting in the Oval Office where Trump and VP Vance attacked Zelensky. There’s a lot of details about the amount of aid sent Ukraine’s way that I won’t go into here but which undermine Trump’s idea that Zelensky was an ungrateful brat. There’s one thing about that which seems to have been barely mentioned in the mainstream media. When Zelensky came to the White House that day he brought a special gift for Trump. Trump is at least moderately if not seriously into martial arts and Zelenksy brought Oleksandr Usyk's 2024 undisputed heavyweight world boxing championship belt as a gift for Trump. He made a small mis-step and postponed presenting it to Trump- after Trump and Vance ambushed him he left the Oval Office and almost nothing has been heard about the belt since then.

There are three more aspects of Trump’s failure to support the VICTIM of the invasion, and one is that he briefly pushed the idea that UKRAINE was the aggressor in the war. Trump was probably saying it because he’s pro-Putin, but it also reminds me of what a lot of American progressives believe about the war. Whether it’s coming from Trump or the Left, it should be understood that Ukraine is definitely the victim- the Russian military crossed the border, it wasn’t the other way. Some progressives believe that Ukraine’s desire to join NATO justified the invasion. I have no idea how people who are usually driven by a strong opposition to state aggression believe that WANTING to join a military alliance which MIGHT be a threat to Russia is worse than ACTUALLY INVADING Ukraine. If Ukraine had invaded Russia that would be as bad as what Russia actually did. Ukraine was nowhere near invading Russia and they are clearly the smaller, weaker state which had already been militarily violated twice by Russia. It’s Orwellian. 

(Trump leans towards supporting Russia not because he thinks the invasion is legally a good cause, but partially for the same reason that he recognized Israel’s claim to sovereignty over the Golan Heights- he agrees with his Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller who said “We live in a world in which you can talk all you want about international niceties and everything else. But we live in a world, in the real world that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power”)

Trump has some times suggested that Zelensky is an illegitimate President because elections haven’t taken place since the invasion. This is nonsense. Because of the war martial-law has been declared and elections held under those conditions would be illegitimate. No one has said that the United Kingdom (outside of Northern Ireland) was no democracy during WWII even though they suspended normal politics and did so when practically ZERO parts of the Union were occupied by a foreign power and when there was a barrier (the sea) between them and their enemies.

The very last thing I’ll talk about is the main thing that inspired me to write this- it’s something that I don’t think anyone has said in defense of Zelensky. Part of the rationale for the Oval Office ambush of Zelensky was that he dressed very casually for a meeting IN THE OVAL OFFICE WITH THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT. At the beginning of the war Zelensky decided that he would dress in a military style to express that he was symbolically with Ukraine’s soldiers in harms way. He wore that outfit all the time, including meeting with other governments. Apparently Trump and his supporters decided that was dis-respectful of Trump. The thing is, Trump loves the idea of being some kind of “war-time president.” During the first several months of the Pandemic he tried that, apparently thinking that leading during a major health crisis was similar enough to leading during armed conflict with a foreign nation. In Aug 2025 he declared that he was a “war hero” (apparently because he decided that Netanyahu was a “war hero” and Trump was supporting Netanyahu or maybe Trump just felt left out and so declared that he and Netanyahu were “war heroes”) The thing is, Zelensky was a war-time leader for real, in a conflict where a decent chunk of his country was either occupied or made up the front lines, where initially a massive effort was made to seize the Ukrainian capitol and where the invasion involved tanks, soldiers armed with powerful fully automatic rifles etc. Zelensky’s status as a war-time leader is twice as legitimate as George W. Bush’s was, and Trump has ZERO claim to being a war-time leader. Although this can be taken too far and I’m not sure if I can be totally non-political about this, tweaking some of the rules of statehood to accommodate a real War-Time leader seems appropriate, especially in this case (in the movie “Iron Jawed Angels” when suffragettes continue protesting the President after America entered World War I they were severely criticized for protesting a war-time President but they shouldn’t have been).

Trump is on the side of aggression, land-grabs, social conservatism, and is in no position to be criticizing political leaders when it comes to how democratic they are. Although the cause of Ukraine is not something that energizes me as a socialist, it is an important cause and I’m glad to say that most Saturdays when I protest Trump with local progressives near a Tesla dealership in Superior (CO), there’s usually one or two Ukrainian flags held by the protestors.

 

An earlier post on the war is here. 

Law and Order: SVU Reviews NN

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.

“Debatable” Season 24. See this for a plot summary.
Racism/Homophobia

There are two minor items to mention.

1. A Black man (whose son is cleared of the crime SVU are investigating shortly after his Dad’s statement) says something brief but pretty powerful about how Blacks get treated by the police. He says: “give me one good reason why any black man should trust the cops.”
2. One of the detectives says a witness is a total homophobe, and although we already know that that detective is anti-homophobic, it’s good of the show to remind viewers how the people involved in making the show feel about homophobia.

“Truth Embargo” Season 25. See this for a plot summary.
Racism/Criminal Justice System

This is an interesting episode. Towards the end I thought I detected a significant political shift towards the center, but I think I was wrong.

First, the woman, Natalie, who gets raped is a white woman married to another white woman.

Natalie seems pretty uncomfortable with the whole process of helping the police find her attacker. Pretty early we know that the police suspect a black youth. When the charged individual is on trial Natalie testifies and after answering some questions about what happened,  she is asked to identify her attacker, with the defendant seated in the courtroom. She doesn’t answer and after several seconds there’s a recess in the trial. As we learn a few minutes later, she IS certain the defendant raped her and that kind of complicates one part of this that I found politically pleasing.

A few minutes before Natalie testifies Benson (the woman who is head of SVU) speaks briefly with Natalie’s wife, Brook. We learn from Brook that she and Natalie are “acutely“ aware of racist problems in the criminal justice system and worry that the defendant won’t get a fair trial (I could see how even though they were certain of his guilt, good White allies like them would still worry about that). During the recess Natalie tells Benson and the Assistant DA that when she was growing up she had an adopted brother who was Black. One day at a store when they were about 12yo she dared him to steal something. He got caught (apparently she was implicated by the police) and while she got to go home with a warning, her adopted brother spent the night in jail and got a criminal record, something which had a very negative effect on his life.

It emerges in all of this that the main thing which motivates Natalie’s failure to identify her rapist is her belief that once someone gets convicted, that can affect the rest of their life in many ways that are detrimental. There’s a brief discussion about rehabilitation. I am far from an expert on rehabilitation but I recently wrote that a lot of people in prison don’t need rehabilitation. Although in general it would be really nice if rehabilitation was an outcome of going to prison, I get the impression that it often or usually isn’t, and that having a record and experiencing the nightmare of prison must make it difficult to survive once released.

At one point, I thought this episode was going to be a hatchet job on progressives, suggesting that we believe that racial justice requires that all guilty people of color be acquitted and that there is something wrong with cooperating with the police when a white woman has been raped by a black man.

I have a little more to say about this episode’s place on the political spectrum, but first I want to say this. I imagine it’s difficult to be an anti-racist white person victimized by a crime committed by a person of color. More specifically I imagine that anti-racist tendencies in the feminist movement experience a lot of stress when a White woman accuses a Black man of rape.

My conclusion? There’s a fair amount of dialogue involving Benson agreeing (at least to some degree) with Natalie and Brook. Natalie not only identifies her rapist in court, she pushes back when the defense attorney suggests that she is lying about his client.

“Duty to Report” Season 25. See this for a plot summary.
Police Corruption

I am not sure I should be reviewing this one. There are two incidents where a VERY senior NYPD officer commits a very serious crime against a civilian and Benson (the head of SVU) enlists the Internal Affairs Bureau (which investigates corruption, etc. in the police) in her investigation of a crime that involves her superior’s daughter. Benson apparently gets along pretty well with at least one senior IAB officer- a Black woman who Benson was investigated by a few years earlier. At the end, that IAB leader and Benson agree that she will join SVU. Assuming it lasts at least the rest of this brief season, it’s significant in that it’s only the third time there’s been a woman of color in the squad (there was one in the first season, and then in season 24 there was a RECURRING character in the squad matching that description). 

In general it’s a pretty solid endorsement of IAB which I think is either probably a good thing or definitely a VERY good thing.

Benson does, while laughing, say that together they might even break some rules. At the risk of going too easy on them, I think it might either be an insignificant line that goes nowhere or maybe there are some rules they can break that are bad and that are not foci of IAB. In general I am very happy with this episode.

“Third Man Syndrome” Season 25. See this for a plot summary.
Homophobia

This is a very political episode, as I define that, but there’s nothing very special about it. It’s about a gay bashing that seemed like a possible sex crime (which is why SVU gets it). There’s some confusing dialogue about the gay bashers possibly also being anti-immigrant and I think the fact that one of them appears Latino doesn’t rule that out- weird stuff like that happens, at least in TV and movies and real life. The victim, who is straight but presumed gay by his attackers, is a visitor and future resident from Columbia. His cousin, who’s with him, is an undocumented resident- SVU doesn’t do anything in relation to that.

It’s overall a pretty good anti-homophobic episode.

Star Trek: SNW Reviews D

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

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

There are three political themes to mention.

They/Them/Theirs (LGBTQ+)

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

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

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

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

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

A Clockwork Red??? (Rehabilitation of Convicts)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spartacus (Slavery)

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

Support Starbucks Strikers and Oppose Racism

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

 

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

 Tom

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please support the Nov. 13th Starbucks strike.

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

Star Trek: SNW Reviews A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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