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.

Star Trek: SNW Reviews F

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 Broken Circle” Episode One, Season Two. See this for a plot summary.

There is some good dialogue about the need to avoid war. There is some talk about the Enterprise’s second-in-command being prosecuted for lying about her species and the fact that she was genetically engineered, something I go into here. And there is an incident of a StarFleet officer, a main character on this show, engaging in torture.

War and Profits

The main story is that a mining syndicate on a planet that had benefitted financially from the Klingon-Federation War of a few years earlier was determined to get the war started again in order to make massive profits again. I think that sort of thing happens fairly often in reality. One thing I want to highlight is that in this case it isn’t a BANK that wants war, it’s a MINING COMPANY. I think that sometimes the role of banks in capitalism is exaggerated by some people who oppose capitalism and the role of banks in war is exaggerated by some people who oppose war (I also believe that some socialists, as tempting as this is, exaggerate the role economic forces play in the development of wars) . Although banks might be somewhere between important and key to capitalism, they are/were part of social democracy and Soviet communism and in capitalism are often not on the front lines of the class war- corporations are not puppets whose strings are pulled by banks- corporations that bust unions do it for there benefit, not because banks want them to. Arms manufacturers are thinking more of their profits when they push for militarism than they are thinking of whether or not they can get a loan. Believing that banks are key to capitalist efforts to push nations into war for their own financial reasons is a good fit for anti-Semitism, considering the untrue stereotype of Jewish people and bankers.

Torture and Star Trek

There is one scene where a StarFleet officer very briefly engages in what is basically torture- about 60 seconds of questions and physical assault. Star Trek and it’s fictional creation the Federation are generally against torture, but there was a tiny bit on Voyager, a bit more on Enterprise, and now on this series (and maybe one more on Discovery and/or Picard that I can’t remember). On Voyager, the second-in-command objects when Captain Janeway tortures and I wrote the following in a review of VOY episode “Equinox”:

“There is one bit of politics. At one point Janeway engages in what is basically torture and is stopped by Chakotay. She ends up suspending him but shortly after she re-instates him, she says something which could be acknowledged as admitting that she was wrong (she says that Chaoktay might have been justified if he had taken control of Voyager in response to what the Captain was doing).”

On Enterprise the torture was also limited to 1-3 incidents and I wrote the following in a review of the ENT episode “Home”:

In the last post (while discussing the episode “Zero Hour”) I talked about how Archer did some things that were immoral during the mission to find the Xindi weapon. I basically said that although he shouldn’t be tossed in jail or even tossed out of StarFleet, he should get some punishment, to make other officers understand that there are consequences for breaking or bending the rules, even for hero Captains, and they should only do so when very necessary. There is nothing about him getting in any trouble in this episode, nor the three after it (I sometimes do reviews at a slower pace than I watch the episodes at). At the end of his de-briefing, the Vulcan ambassador says that he (Archer) did some immoral things, but says they were necessary for his mission to succeed.

It turns out that in some ways, Archer is doing what needed to be done about his immoral tactics. Mountain climbing with a fellow Captain (Erika Hernandez), Archer explains why he wanted to go climbing.

Archer: I figured this was the last place I’d run into anyone who’d want to shake my hand or take my picture or tell me I’m an inspiration to their children. If they knew what I’d done...

Hernandez: You did what any Captain would have done.

Archer: Does that include torture or marooning a ship full of innocent people- Cause I don’t remember reading those chapters in the handbook.


I’m still disappointed that he didn’t receive some kind of punishment, but that exchange is better than nothing.

In this episode, the StarFleet officer is trying to stop something that could easily re-start the war and he is very familiar with what war is like. It might also be relevant that he injected himself with some kind of sci-fi version of the spinach that Popeye the Sailor ate, which might possibly have had some effect on his brain.

Some of the writers, etc. behind the show and many people in America might say that it’s just realistic to have them torture once in a while. The problem is that, in addition to torture being amoral and illegal, the idea that it is effective is what’s UNREALISTIC. Something like most of the time, or at least a lot of the time and maybe all the time, people being tortured for information will say whatever they think will end the torture- if they DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEIR TORTURER THINKS THEY KNOW, THEY WILL MAKE SOMETHING UP. This is well illustrated in the 2007 movie “Rendition.” People acting on information gathered through torture might not realize it’s bad intel until they do something horrible and/or unjustified, and/or unhelpful, and/or dangerous to those acting on the bad intel.

Law and Order Reviews H

 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.

“Kids” Season 4. See this for a plot summary.

Although it’s a minor aspect of the story, the main characters are concerned that police friends of the defendant’s father (an ex-cop) may have conspired to get a key witness killed, without whose testimony the defendant would probably be acquitted.

“Old Friends” Season 4. See this for a plot summary.

This episode is about a whistle-blower being killed by someone trying to protect a small (or at most medium) sized business from lethal exposure about moldy baby food that could easily sicken or even kill babies. On the other hand, I am not absolutely sure I should be doing this review because it’s a mobbed-up business and the mob is responsible for the murder, so it’s less damning of capitalism than it would be if there was no mob involvement.


“Blue Bamboo” Season 5. See this for a plot summary.

There is one small part of this episode I want to highlight. It sounds like one of the detectives is saying there should be more funding for education. I realize that’s hardly something the Left has a monopoly on, but it is also an important part of our agenda.

In general there’s something that’s a bigger part of the episode but which I am unsure I should comment on. It basically says that there is some massive problem with anti-Japanese bigotry in America. It says nothing about bigotry towards Japanese-AMERICANS. I think it might be exaggerating how much anti-Japanese bigotry there was in the mid-1990s in America. I do have one little anecdote about this. When I was about 6-7 years old in the early 1980s I saw that in a men’s room stall someone had written “Remember Pearl Harbor, stone a Toyota” (or something very similar to that). To be honest, at the time I thought it was clever and/or neat. I had no idea that shortly before or after that day a Chinese-American (Vincent Chin), mistaken for a Japanese-American by two white Michigan auto-workers, was killed in a hate crime in 1982.

“White Rabbit” Season 5. See this for a plot summary.

To some degree this episode could be considered in conflict with the New Left of the 1960s, but the DA and the senior ADA, to one degree or another express some degree of sympathy with those who passionately opposed the Vietnam War. Although I’m not that familiar with him, William Kunstler was for decades an important civil rights and civil liberties lawyer, and in this episode he played himself.

Overall, politically it’s one of the best episodes.

Law and Order Reviews G

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.

“Manhood” Season 3. See this for a plot summary.

This episode is about homophobia in the police. Four cops conspire to fail at backing up a fifth one (a gay man) who is in need of assistance, because they’re homophobes and either want him dead or at least wounded.  It seems like the head of their precinct (a geographical division of the NYPD that probably includes something like 100-300 cops) was at least opposed to the Assistant DA’s effort to prosecute the four cops and may have encouraged the homophobia of his men.

At one point one of the four cops talks about gay people and political influence the same way that anti-Semites talk about Jews and political influence.

The prosecution loses when the jury acquits 3 defendants (one testified against them as part of a deal). In some ways it’s a sad ending, but probably more realistic than convictions would have been and sort of more likely to inspire anti-homophobic action (in general, not necessarily in relation to homophobia in the police).

“Volunteers” Season 4. See this for a plot summary.

This is about a homeless man being  beaten (almost to death) by a middle-class resident of the NYC neighborhood he (the homeless man) lives in. To a large degree the residents and business-people of that area are jerks, but this specific homeless character is possibly worse (until you factor in the attempt at murdering him by the residents of the neighborhood, that is). That kind of undermines the liberal-progressive message the show is trying to give about being sensitive to the problem of homelessness but the writers probably needed the homeless character to provoke the people he lived near. The jury’s vote to convict on one count related to the attempted homicide is practically over-turned when the judge sentences the defendant to time served (a couple days) and a short period of probation. I think that highlights that a lot of this country’s elite is hostile to the homeless.

“Profile” Season 4. See this for a plot summary.

Although not especially noteworthy or inspirational, this is a pretty good anti-racist episode. At one point there’s a brief statement about racial scapegoating. I think that racial scapegoating is a major problem. There’s a lot of white capitalists out there who, to one degree or another like the idea of convincing white workers that their economic misery is the fault of people of color and/or white anti-racists, and/or policies like Affirmative Action.

“Black Tie” Season 4. See this for a plot summary.

In general I was thinking that maybe I should make a brief note when the defendant is a rich person. Especially with episodes like this when they use their influence to obstruct the investigation and/or get away with it because of their wealth.

Law and Order Reviews F

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.

“The Corporate Veil” Season 3. See this for a plot summary.

This is a good one where a corporation is the criminal. There’s also a brief positive reference to Ralph Nader.

“Wedded Bliss” Season 3. See this for a plot summary.

This is about sweatshop labor. It’s pretty damning.

“Mother Love” Season 3. See this for a plot summary.

One of the detectives says that crack cocaine should be legalized, and his partner doesn’t seem to strongly disagree. I support ending the war on drugs, at least in relation to some and maybe all drugs. I think marijuana legalization is great. To one degree or another, I believe other drugs should be either legalized or decriminalized- that is decriminalization of possession of a small amount (this approach would probably not change the law as far as people who sell drugs). Decriminalization would involve treating addiction as a medical problem instead of a criminal one. I think that this would be an appropriate way to deal with crack.

“Jurisdiction” Season 3. See this for a plot summary.

Although he’s alone and pretty junior, a corrupt cop is stopped.

“Conduct Unbecoming” Season 3. For a plot summary see this.

In general, it’s almost critical of the US military. The plot includes the Navy trying to bury the scandal by sacrificing a low-ranking officer in a court-martial but on the other hand the Navy apparently had come down slightly hard on the senior officer who had engaged in “conduct unbecoming.”
Then there's the time that one detective mentions that the tax-payers paid for the massive party the Navy crew had at an NYC hotel. The other detective says: “nice to know my tax dollars aren’t being wasted on school books.”

Law and Order Reviews E

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.

“Cradle to Grave” Season 2. See this for a plot summary.

At the beginning there’s one very progressive statement. The cops are looking for the parent(s) of a dead baby and are asking at child care places. A woman working at one says that they used to watch babies, but because of a cut in the federal funding they got, they had to stop. She says something about how the federal government was able to buy a couple more military aircraft because of those nation-wide cuts to child care subsidies, and implies that it was a bad set of priorities.

After about 10 minutes it became clear to me that it was about a lazy, greedy slum-lord property owner. In order to transform her decaying, low-rent buildings into something more profitable, she encourages tenants to move out- a corrupt building superintendent and a thug posing as a tenant make life very difficult for the tenants. The owner and her two helpers are charged in connection with the baby dying because the heat was turned off and there was a broken window in the apartment the baby died in.

“The Fertile Fields” Season 2.  See this for a plot summary.

Initially there’s some chance that the murder was an anti-semitic hate crime carried out by Black teens. The senior police officer is reluctant to rush to that assumption, worried that it will greatly aggravate relations between NYC Jews and NYC Blacks. The way that the murder turns out to have been committed by a white, non-Jewish criminal I think says a lot about a tendency to blame black teens when they’re innocent.

“Intolerance” Season 2. See this for a plot summary.

There’s a little bit of anti-racism. The white suspects (their conviction was overturned when a mistrial was declared) brought a bit of racism to the academic competition between their loved one and his Chinese-American peer, who they probably killed.

“Silence” Season 2. See this for a plot summary.

This is basically about homophobia. It’s a little flawed but overall it’s anti-homophobic. It’s about a black-mail scam by straight prison inmates against closeted gay men outside prison (I think it might happen in reality because I first read about it in a John Grisham novel two decades ago, and now this (this episode was done about 10 years before that book, so people were thinking about it at two different times in our recent history)). If it IS real, that’s just one more reason to fight homophobia.

“The Working Stiff Season 2. See this for a plot summary.

Although it could be more pro-union and I wouldn’t call it socialist, it is in a fairly good way about conflict between the working-class and the upper-class. The union activist with an attitude toward the bosses gets along well with the cops and the Assistant DAs, so I think the viewer is sort of supposed to like him.

Law and Order Reviews C

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.

“Sonata for Solo Organ” Season 1. See this for a plot summary.

This episode is about an INCREDIBLY wealthy man spending 1-2 million dollars on a plot to extract a kidney from an unwilling donor (who almost dies) so that his (the wealthy man’s) daughter can get a new kidney. The head of the national agency handling organ transplants demands that the prosecutors go after the wealthy man who demanded special treatment because of his wealth- instead of just the MD and nurse who did the dirty work. He says that his organization “is the one true democracy. One of the few instances where money doesn’t talk- at all.”

“The Blue Wall” Season 1. See this for a plot summary.

There are three aspects of this episode which are good politically.

1. It’s indirectly about an effort to go after white-collar crime.
2. It’s also partly about corrupt cops, including a very senior one.
3. There’s a corrupt  congressman involved. He’s an ex-cop, which makes me think he’s Republican- I have gotten the impression that some massive majority of cops are Republican.

“Asylum” Season 2. See this for a plot summary.

There are two things about the senior Assistant DA. First, although he is sort of in conflict with supporters of the homeless in this episode, he DOES say that “homelessness may be the greatest tragedy of our time.” Also, it sounds like he was a member or at least an active supporter of the ACLU, and his opinion of them changed when they defended the Nazis in Skokie, Illinois. I’m not saying he’s a progressive, but I think he might be more or less a liberal (although I don’t have a philosophical definition of liberal, A) I’d say they’re to the left of former President Bill Clinton (what he was like in office) and to the right of Sen. Elizabeth Warren and B) I go into more detail here).

“In Memory Of” Season 2. See this for a plot summary.

This episode is sort of about homophobia. The original NYPD investigators (about 30 years before the events in this episode) suspected  a gay couple in the disappearance of a young boy. Although at the very beginning of their investigation two of the main characters spend a little time pursuing that lead, after about 10 minutes of the 45 min. episode that assumption is illustrated  as nonsense. One of the detectives says that cops know that a majority of child molesters are straight. It’s a good statement (not the first part (I imagine that back then there was a ton of homophobia among cops)), although I assume it could have been better without sacrificing accuracy- it should have been said that gays are no more likely to molest kids than straight people are (i.e. if 10% of the population is gay, 10% of child molesters are gay). They identify and prosecute another suspect who’s straight and he pleads guilty at the end.

Law and Order: SVU Reviews CC

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.

(Now that I’m watching the episodes that involve the character John Munch, I’m going to ignore most of his political statements)

“Disabled” Season 11. Wikipedia summary is: “When she fails to show up at a bus stop, Cara Raleigh (Lisa Arrindell Anderson), a disabled former opera singer with multiple sclerosis who cannot speak, is found by her bus driver (Ralph Byers), beaten and raped in her home. Her nephew (Quinton Aaron) gives an alibi that does not check out and her sister (Jill Scott) is seen physically abusing her on video. As a result, both caregivers become suspects. Cara eventually reveals that the bus driver was the rapist but is put in a nursing home and becomes unwilling to cooperate. Benson manages to persuade her to stand trial with the unit's temporary ADA (Teddy Sears).”

There’s one thing fairly hostile to those who organize dog fights.

“Conned” Season 11. Wikipedia summary is: “A homosexual prostitute (Pressly Coker) is found dead in the storage room of a hotel during a wedding reception with the ID of a friend named Andrew Hingam (John Magaro). Fin Tutuola questions his son Ken (Ernest Waddell) about the two boys since they were all known to volunteer at the same place. Ken leads Fin to Hingam, who confesses to killing his friend in self-defense. Hingam's case deepens when detectives learn that his psychiatrist (Ally Walker) who prescribes a regimen of drugs and electro convulsive therapy may be performing other procedures on him as well.”

At one point, while questioning a hotel’s kitchen staff, they assure them they’re not concerned about anyone’s immigration status.

“Beef” Season 11. Wikipedia summary is: “Following the vicious rape-murder of a beautiful worker (Ioana Alfonso) at "Donna Rosa's" meat packing plant, the police initially suspect that a vegetarian (Aaron Tveit) who lives in her building is the killer. However, suspicion shifts elsewhere when they learn that the victim was an undercover animal activist attempting to document and expose unsanitary practices in the meat packing industry. Information from the company owner (Lynn Cohen) and foreman (John Petkoff) leads the detectives to arrest a plant worker (Juan Javier Cardenas) and match his DNA to that found at the crime scene. This turns out to be a dead end as well after an interview with his jealous wife (Nancy Rodriguez) reveals that he was framed. Detective Benson goes undercover herself to retrace the woman's steps.”

First, they assure immigrants that they’re not Immigration.

The story is about a business-owner and her manager killing an undercover journalist investigating their meat-packing plant.

“Ace” Season 11. Wikipedia summary is: “Detectives Benson and Stabler must track down a pregnant rape victim (Hanna-Liina Võsa) who disappears from the hospital. In the process, they uncover a vast baby-trafficking scam, led by a Bulgarian crime lord (Pasha D. Lychnikoff). When the woman (Gordana Rashovich) who housed the pregnant mothers is discovered murdered, Benson and Stabler go undercover as infertile parents, while ADA Marlowe clashes with Cragen over methods to protect the kidnapped woman and her newborn child. Matters become complicated in the trial when the gynecologist (David Paymer) involved is assigned the same lawyer as the mob that used him for his access to pregnant women. He realizes that if he testifies truthfully he will be killed so a shadow counsel is arranged.”

First, a rape survivor leaves the hospital before SVU can talk with her, because she’s undocumented and is worried Immigration will be called. Second, when a US government official makes some anti-immigrant comments, one of the detectives says: “spoken like a true racist.”

“Bullseye” Season 12. Summary is here.

There’s a brief appearance of a very minor character- a gay man raising a child with another gay man.

Movie Reviews C

Boiler Room (IMDB Wikipedia)

It falls short of indicting Wall Street, but it’s about a rogue investment firm. At the beginning the main character compares selling stock with selling crack. The stock brokers are violent, homophobic and use drugs.

I give it 3 stars out of 5.

Bowfinger (IMDB Wikipedia)

A non-political but very funny comedy.

I give it 5 stars out of 5.

Boycott (IMDB Wikipedia)

An amazing movie about the Montgomery bus boycott during the Civil Rights campaign in the American South. I don’t know how historically accurate it is, but it’s very inspirational. It includes as a character Bayard Rustin. The thing is Rustin was gay and told Dr. King that. I don’t know how homophobic King was, but in this movie he gets along with Rustin.

I give it 4 stars out of 5.

But I’m a Cheerleader (IMDB Wikipedia)

This is a COMEDY about the idea that gay people can convert to straight through therapy. It’s sort of serious (it’s a serious issue and the other movie I’ve seen about it (Boy Erased) is much more serious) but also pretty funny. It does a great job of illustrating how ridiculous the idea of gay conversion therapy is. It isn’t explicit, but it’s kind of implied that a lot of gay teens end up homeless because their families reject them.

I give it 4 stars out of 5.

Come See The Paradise (IMDB Wikipedia)

This is about the internment of Japanese and Japanese-Americans during World War II. I’m not sure if it’s based on a true story or how historically accurate it is, but it seems pretty accurate and about 1/5 of my BA is Asian-American Studies. The male main character is an Irish immigrant and a labor activist.

I give it 5 stars of 5.

Law and Order: SVU Reviews AA

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.

(Now that I’m watching the episodes that involve the character John Munch, I’m going to ignore most of his political statements)

“Crush” Season 10. Wikipedia summary is: “A high school student (Carly Schroeder) falls down a flight of stairs sending her into a coma. The SVU is alerted when the doctor's examination reveals signs of physical abuse. Upon waking, the girl refuses to name her attacker, even though the detectives already have two suspects: the girl's boyfriend and a self-described 'drama-geek' (Ezra Miller) with a crush on her. Frustrated, a family court prosecutor (Melinda McGraw) convinces Benson to use sexting as a pretext for arresting her for distributing child pornography. Faced with this ultimatum and helped by Stabler's daughter Kathleen (Allison Siko), the victim admits to being abused by her boyfriend. Afterwards, the detectives plan a sting operation against a biased judge (Swoosie Kurtz) and her clerk (Geoffrey Cantor) after they are unable to make the child pornography charges disappear. “

This episode is partly about teenagers 13-17yo creating their own porn without any adult involvement (and without any little kids). In this episode a new ADA working with SVU charges a 15-year old girl with creating and distributing child porn (she took pictures of herself and sent them to her boyfriend) and detective Benson initially but reluctantly cooperates. Although in a season 16 episode SVU comes down pretty hard on some teenagers for creating and sharing similar porn (only teenage minors, no little kids or adults), in this episode Benson says a few things about how inappropriate the charges are.

Those two episodes are the only ones where I disagree with more than a tiny chunk of what the SVU does- scattered throughout the series there are some very minor story elements (i.e. some of the tricks they use to get a confession) that I don’t like, but I approve of them going after the perps they go after about 99.9% of the time. But I have a problem with them going after teenage minors for creating child porn when everyone involved is 13-17yo. A child porn charge is a very serious thing and a conviction can probably ruin your life.

I have already admitted twice on this blog that I like porn. Although I generally support our laws on child porn, in the season 16 episode I mentioned above, I feel like the detectives came down too hard on the teens. If minor teens want to create porn with their peers (no adults or little kids), they shouldn’t be criminalized. I have heard that in real life some under-18 teens have been charged with child porn crimes for making porn with their peers and that’s wrong. On the other hand, adults shouldn’t be looking at that stuff for the following reasons: 1) you can’t be certain that it ISN’T created by sick adults, 2) if it is porn that exclusively involves teen minors, the odds are they don’t want adults looking at it, and 3) even if they are pics and videos taken/made by (and of) teens 13-17yo, they’re at least a year from living on their own- they’re still KIDS living at home with their parents. And although I don’t think those teens should be charged with child porn crimes for the kind of porn I'm discussing here, discouraging them from putting that stuff on the web is a good idea- they might regret it later on in life and adults looking at it might get the idea of trying to have sex with a teenage minor when that’s almost always wrong or at least inappropriate.

UPDATE 4/21/21 At some point in the last several years Connecticut made this a less serious crime. And in 2016 New Mexico legalized it for teenage minors completely. I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few other states that have also done this. UPDATE 4/25/21 Colorado also made it a less serious crime in 2018; Washington made it a less serious crime in 2019; According to this, as of 2017, the following states have made it a less serious crime: AZ, FL, IL, LA, MO, NE, NV, NJ, TX, UT, VT.  (UPDATE 4/29/21 You should also look at some of the web-pages here (the ACLU more or less agrees with me about this)).

UPDATE 4/5/22 I just watched, for the first time in 3-4 years, the season 16 episode I have mentioned. I am reluctant to get into all the details of what happened in that episode  and what should happen in similar situations in real life. But I feel pretty much the same as before. Possession and creating and sharing this kind of child porn should be either a less serious crime for minors or no crime at all for minors. But I think that it should be a crime for minors to put it on the Web- much less serious than a felony, but some kind of misdemeanor. And I still feel that the police came down too hard on the teens in the season 16 episode.

At the very end there’s another thing that deserves a note. The judge is sentencing people to a private corrections institution in Ohio that is run by her cousin. SVU exposes her.

“Solitary” Season 11. Wikipedia summary is: “When a woman (Deborah Ann Woll) is reported missing, her boyfriend (Bobby Campo) points Detectives Benson and Stabler in the direction of her downstairs neighbor (Stephen Rea), a convicted bank robber who spent nineteen years in solitary confinement. A surprising twist to the case exposes more of the ex-con's dark past.”

There are two note-worthy things.
1) The ADA refers to water-boarding as torture.
2) The negative effects of solitary confinement in prison are illustrated when Stabler spends 3 days in solitary as an experiment and says that it felt like a week.

“Hammered” Season 11. Wikipedia summary is: “After a night of heavy drinking, an alcoholic (Scott Foley) wakes up to a bloody apartment, a terrible cut on his head and a dead woman in his bed. Unable to recall the night before, he immediately calls the police. Benson and Stabler suspect the crime is the result of a deadly love triangle while Munch and Tutuola discover that the victim was an abortion doctor. After talking to her ex-husband (Chris McKinney), the detectives learn about the numerous death threats that were sent to her. The squad arrests the man who originally called them when they find him beating up his business partner (Chris Bauer) for convincing him to drink again. This leads to a trial which exposes Sonya Paxton's drinking problem.”

There’s briefly some good pro-choice stuff. Not every detective in SVU is onboard with that but overall it’s a pro-choice show.

Although they say this to someone they think might be more of a suspect than a victim, they do say that they don’t care if he was using illegal drugs, they just want the truth.

“Users” Season 11. Wikipedia summary is: “After a crime scene photo of a murdered teenage girl (iJustine) rapidly becomes an Internet phenomenon, the police initiate an investigation with the victim's father (James Colby). When he points the detectives towards his daughter's suspicious therapist (James Frain), it turns out that the man's alibi is airtight. While Munch and Fin are busy tracking down the girl's stolen credit card, Warner and Stabler discover that one of the other therapy patients (Ryan Kelley) has broken into the morgue. The case takes an unexpected turn when the SVU realizes that their best potential witness is desperate for heroin. Huang puts his medical license on the line to get him an illegal drug with a high effectiveness for treating addiction.”

There’s talk at one point about how the pharmaceutical industry won’t produce an alternative to both heroin and methadone called Ibogaine or Ibogaine hydochloride. It’s apparently much better than methadone at helping heroin addicts but the patent expired and drug companies can’t make a lot of money off of it so no company is willing to pay for it to go through FDA trials  and it’s therefore illegal in America. If this episode is right, corporate greed among pharmaceutical companies is blocking something that can end heroin addiction better than methadone does.

Roseanne Reviews P

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.

“Aliens” Episode 25, Season 4. Wikipedia summary is: “DJ's spelling-bee triumph is a welcome bright spot as Rodbell's luncheonette closes down and Dan's bike shop continues its slow descent. Meanwhile, Nancy is heartbroken when Arnie leaves her, especially when he claims he was abducted by aliens.”

There are two main notes I’m going to make about this episode. The first is about a economically progressive bit of dialogue between Roseanne and a state representative (member of the state House) and the second is something that comes up when the state representative meets Roseanne a second time- small businesses.

State Representative: I’m going door-to-door trying to get to know my constituents.

Roseanne: Door-to-door, huh? That takes a lot of time. Why don’t you just go down to the unemployment office and see everyone at once?

SR: I hear you, and you’re right, we can’t let this area’s workforce lay idle. That’s why bringing in new business is my #1 priority.

Roseanne: How?

SR: Through tax incentives. See, we’re going to make it cheaper for out-of-state businesses to set up shop right here in Lanford.

Roseanne: So they get a tax break?

SR: Yeah that’s why they come here.

Roseanne: Well, who’s gonna pay the taxes that they aren’t paying?

SR: Well, you will. But you’ll be working- good steady employment.

Roseanne: union wages?

SR: Well, now, part of the reason these companies are finding it so expensive to operate in other locations-

Roseanne: So, they’re gonna dump the union so they can come here and hire us at scab wages, and then for that privilege we get to pay their taxes.


(A scab is a strike-breaker)

********

I’m not as pro-small business as a lot of progressives are. I understand the arguments in favor of small businesses but A) there are some “small” businesses with dozens or hundreds of employees and at some point there’s enough employees that I think there should definitely be a union, and B) there are some things about larger chain stores that are better than small businesses.

How are small businesses better?
1. In general it’s a good thing that they’re more likely to respond to what the community wants.
2. Although this may be less true than some think, they at least sort of keep money in the community when they bank locally.
3. At many small businesses the boss is working right alongside their employees most of the time and isn’t getting paid tons more than them.

How are large businesses better?
1. They tend to have cheaper prices than local businesses of the same type.
2. They’re more likely to be unionized (or at least that used to be the case and might still be)

In Boulder, CO, about 25 years ago someone started the Boulder Independent Business Alliance, as an alternative to the Chamber of Commerce. It’s founder was a well-known and respected anti-corporate activist, and it was very popular with progressives. Around the same time there was a labor battle taking place in Southern Colorado. Steelworkers in Pueblo were locked out of their plant. I can’t remember many details but it was a pretty messed up situation. At one point I asked the founder of BIBA if he would encourage member companies to boycott a bank that was tied to the employer. He said no. I probably didn’t do a great of trying but I don’t think that explains why he said no. A little before or a little after I asked, a very skilled student organizer did the same thing and got the same response. Even the small businesses that are anti-corporate in Boulder won’t do anything to help LOCKED OUT (not striking) workers. Locked out workers are prevented from doing their job until they cease non-strike agitation as part of a labor dispute; it’s initiated by the employer, not the workers.

I am open-minded about one idea that I think pro-small business progressives would like. There should be some way to identify which small businesses are going to have trouble paying a decent wage because of some reason other than greed at the top, and some mechanism to funnel money from the government to those employees being paid a low wage. Also, although businesses will probably be taxed more to pay for universal health care, that would be an employee benefit businesses wouldn’t need to worry about providing.


There are about 20-25 lines spoken by non-family-members  and none are spoken by people of color.

“Terms of Estrangement, Part 1” Episode 1, Season 5. Wikipedia summary is: “Roseanne and Dan adjust to losing their bike shop while seeking new jobs. Meanwhile, when Mark receives a great job offer in Minneapolis, he and Becky elope."

The job offer that Mark gets is for a union job that pays three times what he was making working for Dan (see the review above this one about small businesses and corporations).

(Mark and Becky get married and after this episode I won’t count Mark or his brother David as non-family members)

There are 20-25 lines by non-family members and about 15% are by people of color.

“The Dark Ages” Episode 3, Season 5. Wikipedia summary is: “The Conners' electricity is cut off when they cannot pay the bill. Darlene and David stay up all night in Darlene's bedroom working on their comic book. When Roseanne and Dan do not believe Darlene when she insists they did not sleep together, she lashes out, feeling punished for Becky's mistakes. Dan phones Becky, finally thawing the ice between them."

In Becky’s apartment, there’s a poster about saving the rainforest.

“Mommy Nearest” Episode 4, Season 5. Wikipedia summary is: “Jackie starts dating Fisher, a much younger guy played by Metcalf's real-life then-husband Matt Roth. Bev makes a large profit after selling her house and gives Roseanne and Jackie $10,000 each.”

This is the first time that Jackie and Roseanne talk about opening a restaurant. In addition to my comments above about small businesses, I would say that in general I don’t have too many negative thoughts  about them.

Two New Poems: "Mass Incarceration" and "Iraq"

 I wrote two new poems. For more about my poetry, see this. Both of these are based on songs I don't like.

You can see all the poems by clicking on the "lyrics" label at the bottom.

“Mass Incarceration” based on “Justice” by Skrewdriver. Original lyrics are here.

0. I THINK that when I first typed this about 5 years ago, I was thinking of the 1990s, and assumed that things in recent years were a little less obscene. I could be wrong about that, and even if it's less bad now, it's still bad.
1. This is about the mass incarceration of Blacks in America. It was the result of “law and order” laws like the 1994 Crime Bill and racist cops, DAs, judges, witnesses, jurors, and the poverty that prevents many black people from getting a good lawyer instead of an over-worked, underfunded public defender. I am not saying that all cops, judgers, jurors, etc. are racist, but many of them are
2. I am not a fan of the kind of gangs that are based in communities of color, but I know that in the past there was a lot of guilt-by-association involved with how law enforcement decide who to arrest. Also, in the movie “Set It Off” a working-class black bank-teller is suspected of being the inside-woman in a robbery because she sort of knows one of the robbers.
3. I think this has changed in the last 10-20 years, but for a long time crack convictions came with a longer sentence than cocaine convictions, and to a large extent cocaine was more popular with whites than blacks and crack was more popular with blacks than whites.
4. I can’t remember the figures and they varied over time, but Blacks were much more likely to be in prison than whites were. Blacks were more likely to be in prison than in college. The rate of incarceration for blacks was very high and America’s general rate of incarceration is very high compared to other countries, maybe all of them, I can’t remember.
5. 44% of this version is me, 56% is the original.

6. I give this poem 2 stars out of 5.

Their knees feel weak as they’re dragged from the court


Convicted because of with whom they consort


One by one, the judge locks them all away


Trumped up charges is the game the DA plays
 


Chorus:


Call that justice, well it just ain't fair,


How much longer before we care


Call that justice from a racist judge


The cop’s testimony was a total fudge

 

Stripped in a cell, they’re shackled in chains


Lost all their dignity, but trying to keep sane


A longer sentence if you happen to be black


their excuse is that instead of coke it was crack


(Repeat Chorus)


Call this a democracy and “the land of free”


They say there’s equality and meritocracy 


Here's the reality, a racist state


Warehousing Black people behind prison gates

**********

“Iraq” based on “They Stand Alone” by No Remorse. Original lyrics are here.

1. This is about the occupation of Iraq.
2. I think another reason for invading Iraq is that it provided multiple opportunities to give money to corporations. Besides arms contractors and those doing privatized work for the military (security, laundry, food, interrogations, etc.), corporations getting money for reconstruction spent about half of what they got doing actual reconstruction (often a contractor would keep half and give the rest to a subcontractor and sometimes THAT corporation would keep half and give the rest to another subcontractor).
3. Black gold is another term for oil.
4. There was a lot of corruption in the Iraqi government.
5. Haliburton was a company that Dick Cheney had been a leader of before he became VP. It got a lot of US Gov’t contracts to do stuff in Iraq.
6. Laos was bombed as part of the Vietnam War.
7. Although the original is supportive of the Palestinians and sometimes fascists are anti-intervention, this is basically in conflict with what the authors of the original lyrics believe because a lot of American Nazi skinheads joined the US military during the Occupation of Iraq and volunteered to go there and because I think that a lot of white supremacists and fascists in America were pro-war during the Vietnam War.
8. 59% of this version is me, and 41% is the original.

9. I give this poem 2 stars out of 5.

A tank rolls out on the sun bright sand.
Gunfire's heard in an occupied land.
People run, scared for their lives
The sounds of death, sounds of screaming wives

chorus
US Army man, you must go.
Your humvees and your CEOs
Iraqis you must make a stand.
You must work to free your land

A nation, full of black gold
In the minds of American oil companies, it’s already sold
Propped up by pillars, of corruption and graft
An occupation supported by ground attack aircraft

Millions for Haliburton, while Iraqis die.
World-wide news media frequently ask why.
Headquarters of Satan, in the Bush White House
It's an imperialist project, just like the bombing of Laos

Roseanne Reviews H

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.

“Fender Bender” Episode 21 Season 2. Wikipedia summary is: “Roseanne is rear-ended by Mrs. Wellman, injuring her neck, and must rest for awhile. When Mrs. Wellman does not apologize, Roseanne considers suing her.”

There is definitely a class dimension to this and although it doesn’t seem like a crushing defeat, it’s about the rich winning. Roseanne gives up on the idea of suing Mrs. Wellman when the latter asks if Roseanne has a good lawyer. Roseanne knows that Mrs. Wellman, as a rich person, has a good lawyer and that she and Dan don’t have a good lawyer. There’s also the issue of respect. Mrs. Wellman doesn’t apologize after the accident because her lawyer advised her it would be admitting guilt. But, when Roseanne considers responding to that lack of respect by suing her, Mrs. Wellman, as I said, wins.

There’s about 65-70 lines by non-family members and only about 10% are by people of color.

“April Fool’s Day” Episode 22, Season 2. Wikipedia summary is: “It is tax season and Roseanne and Dan contemplate how to make the process easier. Dan eventually stresses out when he is unable to complete the tax form. Roseanne tries her hand but they end up traveling to the IRS office.”

This is kind of mixed. There’s a lot of non-partisan criticism of the tax system. There’s one very brief apparent suggestion for a flat tax. But there is also a part where Roseanne talks for about half a minute about how rich people pay less tax than the working and middle-classes because they have accountants and tax lawyers that can identify the loop-holes in the tax code.

There’s about 40 lines by non-family members and about 20% are by people of color.

“Happy Birthday” Episode 24, season 2. Wikipedia summary is: “Roseanne, though only turning 37, feels she has hit a dead-end in her life. Always wanting to be a writer, Roseanne makes a wish on this birthday that she had more time to write. Dan and the kids surprise Roseanne with her own writing studio in the basement and leave her alone so she can write. Unfortunately, Roseanne is hit with a severe case of writer's block.”

Out of about 25 lines by non-family members, about 20% are by people of color.

“The Test” Episode 1, Season 3. Wikipedia summary is: “Set in the middle of a hot summer day Dan is reluctant to give Becky driving lessons. Meanwhile, the whole family awaits the results of a more serious test being taken by Roseanne.”

There’s a very brief argument about abortion, with Jackie taking a pro-choice position and Crystal taking the pro-life position. Roseanne appears neutral but later in the series  expresses a pro-choice position at least once. As I have said elsewhere on this blog, my thoughts about abortion are:

“I’m pro-choice for the following reasons: I don’t know whether or not the fetus is alive but I am sure that A) women should control their own bodies, B) without the right to choose they can’t have full equality, and C) if men could also get pregnant there would be a massive pro-choice majority in this country.”

“Friends and Relatives” Episode 2, Season 3. Wikipedia summary is: “Dan lends Arnie $1,500 to buy Nancy an engagement ring. He instead spends it on her breast implants. When Dan falls behind on the bills, Jackie wants to lend him money, but he refuses because she is a relative. DJ starts peeping on his sisters.”

Out of about 15-20 lines by non-family members, none are by people of color.

Law and Order Special Victims Unit Reviews B

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

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

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

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

Capitalism and Sexism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a gay male couple.

Roseanne Reviews C

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Memory of JFK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

***********

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

B: It’s simply sectarian.

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

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

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

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

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

Abortion.

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

Homosexuality.

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

Economic Justice

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

War

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

The Death Penalty

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

National Oppression

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

Anti-Semitism

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

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

 

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

The Mary-Knoll Sisters

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

*********

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*********

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

********

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

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

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