Star Trek: SNW Reviews A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

*********** 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Charlie Kirk's Murder And Political Violence in the US

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

Tom

 

Editor,

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

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

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

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

Tom Shelley

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

Mexicans, Immigration, And The Irish

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

 

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

 

Tom 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Tom

Editor,

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

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

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

Tom Shelley
Gunbarrell 

Two Brief Essays About The Artifical Electoral Equality Between The Small States And The Big States in America

The first one is an LTE I sent about 4 weeks ago to the Daily Camera who published it a few days later.

Editor,

 

The attempt at killing Donald Trump brings up the claim that republicans in this country are oppressed. Some republicans even compare their situation with that of Jews during the Holocaust. This is total nonsense.

 

Members of the GOP are far from oppressed. Part of this is how the Senate works- the GOP have an undemocratic advantage in that institution. Every state, no matter it’s size, has two senators. This creates an unjustified equality between the large states and the small states when California SHOULD have 52 times the voting power in the Senate that Wyoming has. Democracy is one person one vote, not one state flag one vote. And there’s also the fact that state Senates are based on the former principle and do not involve every county in the state having the same number of State Senators.

 

The problem is, to one degree or another depending on how you define small and big, a majority of the small states at least lean towards red and a majority of the big states at least lean towards blue. Until that changes (and I doubt it will anytime soon) the way the Senate works makes it unjustifiably easy for the GOP to elect a majority of the upper house, even when the number of residents represented by the GOP in the Senate is smaller than the number of residents represented by the Dems in the Senate.

 

We need to either abolish the Senate or reform it so that every senator gets a number of votes equal to how many congressional districts there are in their state. Not only will this end the unfair advantage the GOP has, it will, independent of which party benefits, make the legislative PROCESS in this country more democratic.

 

Thanks,

 

Tom Shelley

*******

The second is another LTE about a related subject which was published by the Boulder Weekly today. This is what I submitted plus a few small changes made after I submitted it. The edited version is here. 

Editor,
 
The Electoral College is pretty unpopular- a recent Pew Research Center poll says that in 2023 2/3 of Americans wanted to get rid of the EC so that the winner of the popular vote becomes President. In 2000 and 2016 the GOP candidate who won in the EC lost the popular vote. We need to do SOMETHING about it (assuming that the moderately democratic nature of the US survives the next year). I believe that the key thing that needs to be done is to amend the constitution so that all states (and Washington DC) are stripped of the two extra votes they get because all states have two senators.
 
One fact that should be considered is that since the 2000 election some people did the math and found that, if it wasn’t for the two extra votes that every state and DC get, Gore could have totally lost Florida and yet would have won in the electoral college (I found a couple of good web-sites and did the math myself and it’s true). Gore would have won by either 12 or 13 electoral votes (one EC voter who was supposed to vote for Gore abstained). Although this isn’t a massive distortion of democracy like the related problem with votes in the Senate is, it IS undemocratic to create even a small yet false degree of equality between the big states and the small states (California SHOULD have 52 times (not 18 times) more voting power in the EC than Wyoming does). And depending on how you define small and big, to one degree or another a majority of the small states at least lean red and a majority of the big states at least lean blue. So, currently the set-up helps the GOP, but even if undoing that wasn’t part of this, addressing the problem with the EC WOULD move the US political system closer to the (small-d) democratic end of the spectrum.
 
Besides what I propose above, what other options do we have? I think that getting rid of the EC completely might be a bad idea. I’ve read that that might result in EVERY SINGLE STATE doing at least one recount. I at least kind of support the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would require states who have signed up to it to (when the electoral votes of Compact states add up to a majority) have their EC voters vote for whoever won the popular vote. I think it’s flawed but a lot better than nothing. On the other hand it doesn’t seem like a very permanent solution and says nothing about the horrible idea, that comes up at least four times in our political system, that there should be some degree of equality (or total equality) electorally between the small states and the big states.
 
Because the US Constitution sometimes DOES say (erroneously) that democracy is one state flag, one vote instead of one person one vote, and that applies to amendments, the permanent solution I propose might be elusive. But I would like to see the EC reformed so that the votes are based solely on the number of congressional districts. And until we get there the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is a good idea.
 
Tom Shelley
Gunbarrell

Britts Out! (Katie Britt, immigration, and sex-trafficking)

(a very similar version of this was published as a guest opinion in the MSM paper for Boulder here) 

 

(That’s what I say about Ireland and the US Senate!)

As you probably know, a month ago GOP Sen. Katie Britt was under a storm of criticism in response to her rebuttal speech after the State of the Union address by President Biden. She told the story of a Mexican woman sex-trafficked when she was a young teen in Mexico- well, for the most part Britt didn’t want you to know it was in Mexico. Britt’s been less than consistent about this, but the idea was to make you think it was in this country and on Biden’s watch (when in fact it was during the George W. Bush administration).

In addition to everything else that has been said about Britt’s rebuttal, I have some more to add. Crucially, read the two paragraphs towards the bottom that are in italics, they’re very important.
 
She was talking about the surge in migration from Mexico to the US, but she also talks about sex-trafficking and Mexican drug cartel activity and she is conflating all three of them (it should be noted that the Mexican woman who was trafficked was not a victim of the cartels contrary to what Britt implied). Has sex-trafficking surged? I’ll be honest- I don’t know, but I think Britt wants you to think it has and that it's coming here with Mexican migrants.

At one point in a March 10th The Guardian article, she is quoted as saying:
 
“We have to tell those stories, and the liberal media needs to pay attention to it because there are victims all the way coming to the border, there are victims at the border, and then there are victims all throughout the country.”
 
I believe that although this is in conflict with what she was saying the rest of the time, she was trying to say in that quote that this kind of sex-trafficking is common in Mexico and Mexicans want to come here and rape your wife or daughter, etc. and only Donald Trump can stop them. She was saying that the sex-trafficking inside Mexico, deaths of migrants at the border and deaths of Americans at the hands of immigrants inside America are one unbroken chain that can only be addressed comprehensively by Trump’s approach to immigration. This is nonsense.

Tough immigration policies will not affect the Mexican drug cartels (it certainly wouldn’t have stopped what happened in Britt’s anecdote because the cartels and the the border had nothing to do with it). Separating children from parents at the border will do absolutely nothing to the cartels. I’m not sure what WILL stop the cartels because I’m not as familiar with recent Mexican history as I should be, but tough immigration policies are not going to help.

As far as “there are victims at the border,” I am not sure what she’s talking about, but there are reports that migrants waiting to cross the border often find themselves in bad situations, which probably does include all kinds of sex crimes. I am not sure how much time is spent at the border by migrants who are not asylum seekers, but as far as the asylum seekers, you must remember that Britt’s party and her hero, Trump, strongly support the “Remain in Mexico” policy where asylum seekers must wait in Mexico until a decision is made about granting them asylum. So, the GOP believes that Mexico is just one big nightmare for teenage girls trying to get to America, but they want such survivors to either wait in Mexico for months or years, or to just stay in Mexico permanently.

As far as victims in this country, yes, it occasionally happens as it might have recently with Laken Riley (I said it- satisfied, MTG?) (I said “might have” because of the presumption of innocence). Those are tragedies but you need to consider a few things:
1) From what I have read non-immigrants here are more likely than immigrants here to commit crimes (yes, that statement probably is based on ignoring the “crime” committed when they enter this country without documents- but that’s a victimless crime).
2) That percentage of the immigrant population that commits violent crime must be incredibly small- why punish everyone in that population because of a very few bad apples?
3) I cannot remember a lot about how often this happens but what about the immigrants who die at the hands of racist and violent white people who listen to the anti-immigrant rantings of people like Britt? Fueling that racism as Trump does will only increase the number of immigrants who get viciously beaten to death by angry teenage males.

In her statement that I quoted above Britt implies that liberals ignore what she's talking about. There are probably better counter-examples than this, but I’m going to go with something that I think is important and probably doesn’t get mentioned very much. The TV show Law and Order: Special Victims Unit FREQUENTLY makes it clear that NYC is a "sanctuary city" where cops don't collaborate with Immigration authorities and not only do they oppose all kinds of sex crimes in general, there was one season 19 two-part episode (Remember Me and Remember Me, Too) about a "coyote" (someone who helps undocumented immigrants get across the southern border and to their destination in the US) who repeatedly raped women he was transporting. Another episode, “911” in season seven, is about a young girl who was brought over the Mexican border by someone who then sold her to child pornographers. In season 16 there is an episode “Girls Disappeared,” about sex-trafficked teenage girls crossing that border. There might be other episodes like that.

 

(UPDATE 7/19/24 The woman Britt talks about was sex-trafficked far from the border)

Liberals and progressives believe that migrant women and girls being sexually exploited and/or assaulted is a serious problem, but they don't support Trump's extreme approach to immigration.

Donald Trump and the 1/6 Capitol Riot

Below is something I sent as a letter to the editor of two local papers. UPDATE 8/3/24 On 7/14/22 the Boulder Weekly published this.

 

Former president Donald Trump was acquitted by the Senate last month in relationship to his role in the 1/6 riot at the Capitol. Part of the argument in favor of convicting him was that he had used the word “fight” when encouraging his supporters to protest at the Capitol that day. His defenders have pointed out that people often use that word without referring to physical violence, and they’re right. But Trump still bears some responsibility for what happened. His use of the word “fight” needs to be considered in connection with two things. First, he painted a picture of America being in grave peril if the results of the election were not overturned. Second, he has a history of encouraging political violence. During the 2016 election campaign, there were at least a couple times when he encouraged his supporters to physically attack protesters at his rallies. There’s also his statement directed at the Proud Boys during the first Presidential Debate last year- “stand back and stand by.” The proud boys are all about political violence and they were at the Capitol that day. Trump had spent months lying about the election and we shouldn’t be surprised that his followers did what they did on 1/6 when he said “fight.”

Tom Shelley
Boulder
https://theblackandthegreen3.blogspot.com/

Law and Order: SVU Reviews L

 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.

“Info Wars” Season 19. Wikipedia summary is: “The Special Victims Unit is called to a brutal crime scene after a violent protest in the city results in a controversial, right-wing female pundit (Rhea Seehorn) getting viciously sexually assaulted. However, with many people in the crowd during the protest, the squad has a hard time catching the victim's assailants. When the case is taken to trial, Barba and Benson fight with each other after struggling to keep their political opinions about the case quiet, which leaves the squad clashing over sides in the case and raises tension between the detectives and Barba.”

The title is taken from one of the web-sites associated with Alex Jones, although it’s not clear if the survivor is supposed to be a female version of Jones or is she’s supposed to be like Ann Coulter. She is at least more right-wing than left-wing and attracts people who I believe are supposed to mirror the Proud Boys (see this). She also attracts counter-protestors including Antifa. Although there is some dissent, for the most part the main characters don’t like her very much.

“Send in the Clowns” Season 19. Wikipedia summary is: “The Special Victims Unit is called in to investigate the disappearance of a teenage prodigy (Mallory Bechtel) during a spring break trip. The prime suspect is a butcher (Eric Tabach) who was seen leaving a club in a clown mask with the girl and she was last known to have been at his apartment. However, the case becomes extremely difficult to close. When the detectives try to find her body at a dump, they find that the dump has been emptied. Stone tries to get justice for the girl and lock up the butcher as the chances of the girl being alive become extremely slim. However, towards the end, the case takes a shocking twist and the detectives discover that the real culprit is someone they least suspected. Stone reveals to Benson that he moved to New York to take care of his sister who is mentally ill in a home upstate.”

At the beginning we are reminded that Finn’s son is gay. Also, while he’s Black, his husband is Latino. It’s not as significant as inter-racial relationships where one person is white, but it’s still inter-racial and what I would call multi-cultural- more multi-cultural than a German-American and an Irish-American. And there IS some conflict between Blacks on one hand and Latina/os and Chicana/os on the other hand.

“Service” Season 19.Wikipedia summary is: “When a female escort (Morgan Taylor Campbell) is found sexually assaulted and brutally beaten, the Special Victims Unit is called in to investigate. They soon discover that she was in a sleazy hotel with three soldiers from the military. However, the case becomes complicated when one soldier (Marquise Vilson) refuses to talk and another (Jack DiFalco) confesses to the crime, even though it is clear that he is lying. Eventually, when the real rapist is found and the DNA comes in, the case takes an extremely shocking twist and a huge sacrifice is made by one of the soldiers who has been hiding a secret from the world for a very long time. Meanwhile, Rollins' unprofessional work on the case leads to her revealing a secret from her recent romantic life, having taken the case too personally.”

One of the suspects, one of the two who is completely innocent, is a transgendered man in the US Army. He’s convinced to testify against his guilty colleague even though it will involve outing himself. Although it’s not critical of the military, it IS critical of Trump’s transphobic policy about transgendered people in the military. Also, the man is Black.

“Remember Me” and "Remember Me, Too” two parter. Season 19. Wikipedia summaries are:

“The Special Victims Unit is called in after a woman takes a man hostage, the incident being live streamed on a phone he left behind. While police search for the woman and the man, who now appears to be the woman's rapist, Benson enters the apartment where the two are located and is herself taken hostage. Benson then becomes a witness to unfolding events. The hostage situation takes a twist when Benson discovers that the man being held was actually a vicious pimp and kidnapper who abducted the woman a while ago and held her captive. As the hostage siege gets more dangerous, Benson tries to put it to a stop before lives are lost.”
 

“As the situation comes to a resolution, the Special Victims Unit investigates the chain of events which led to the hostage siege. After the detectives start doubting the kidnapping and hostage victim's testimony, an extremely dangerous criminal network is discovered by the Special Victims Unit, which is prepared to do anything needed for justice, leading to the squad investigating the criminal network. Whilst investigating, Stone's sister is abducted by the criminal network in an extremely brutal shooting at the psychiatric hospital where she lives. The detectives frantically search for her, ending tragically for Stone, his sister, and the detectives involved.”

(I often don’t read the wikipedia summaries but I read this one and it’s wrong about something. He wasn’t a pimp and he didn’t kidnap her. He was a “coyote” and helped some Mexican women get from Mexico to NYC)

This is kind of about immigration. First, there’s one moment when a detective makes it clear that SVU is not Immigration.

Second, there’s the role of the coyote. I have always gotten the impression that most or maybe all of those who, in exchange for money, help people cross the border are bad, and a political friend who is very familiar with the immigration issue has confirmed that for me. Although Joe Biden is pro-immigrant, when Trump, in the second debate, attacked coyotes, Biden didn’t say anything positive about them. But I wouldn’t be surprised if anti-immigrant people like to say that pro-immigrant people LIKE coyotes. Since they are bad, it would be good for the anti-immigrant argument. But Law & Order: SVU, a very pro-immigrant show, used this show to demonize coyotes (at no point is anything positive said about them). I doubt that many pro-immigrant people like coyotes and most of those who do probably just need to be educated briefly.

“Down Low In Hell’s Kitchen” Season 21. See this for an episode summary.

This is only sort of about homophobia. it turns out that the serial predator of closeted black gay men is closeted himself, and in other ways it’s a little muddled. But it features two scenes with the gay son of the Black detective and it seems that Benson’s supervisor is a gay black man. Which brings up the most substantial thing. It’s not the first time the show has focused on homophobia in the Black community. And although I get this mostly from this show, I get the impression that it IS a bigger problem in the Black community than it is in the white community. I think that might be because of the strength of homophobic churches, but I’m not real sure about that.

Proud Boys and Nazi Skinheads

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Black Lives Matter Protests and the Trunp Administration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Also, see this).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


A new mural in Belfast, N. Ireland.

When Can We Return to Normal? (COVID-19 (Coronavirus))

After I read an article on Politico, I left a comment. Most of what's below is that comment.

The only reason he is including business people on the council is so that they can vote to re-open the country. They're not epidemiologists, they have no idea when the country can reopen. It's great that he'll include some governors and doctors, but I have a bad feeling that the business people will out-vote the others and recommend opening the country. And Trump saying he'll close it back down if there's a resurgence of COVID-19 is stupid. That means he'll wait until AFTER a bunch more people will have gotten an often deadly disease and THEN close the country again.

What we need is for him to use the Defense Production Act to dramatically ramp up the production of masks and whatever is needed to test for COVID-19, and maybe AFTER we have enough masks and everyone is getting tested frequently, then we can reopen the country.

The thing is, the decrease in cases, when it comes, is because of social-distancing. COVID-19 isn't becoming less communicable. We need masks and testing before it's even sort of safe to return to normal. And even then, restaurants and such will have to stay closed (you can't take your mask off) but a lot of non-essential businesses can open again, including many that can't do stuff on-line.

What we really need a is an effective treatment- not the ones that Trump recommends. And from what I've heard, a lot of health-care people think his obsession with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine is requiring effort that could be better spent on other stuff. If you think that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are treatments, you should read this, this, and this.

You should also read the other post I did about COVID-19.

UPDATE 4/14/20 Trump's real reason for not encouraging people to wear masks and and ramping up production of them is that he thought it would look bad if there were a bunch of people wearing masks and it would be bad election-year optics.

Trump, Netanyahu, and COVID-19 (Coronavirus)

I had earlier thought that I would keep the topic of Coronavirus (COVID-19) off my blog. I have sent some thoughts about it (more or less political thoughts), to a handful of individuals by email. Soon I’ll post some more thoughts about COVID-19 but right now I want to get this out there immediately. (I get almost all of my COVID-19 news from Politico)

In general there are a lot of ways to criticize Trump for his horrible response to Coronavirus. But there is one thing that I don’t hear anyone mentioning. For about two months until about 20 days ago I read A LOT of stuff in The Times of Israel, an online and apparently mainstream Israeli newspaper which is only slightly pro-Israel (the founding editor is described here). I found an article that contrasts Trump’s response to COVID-19 with that of Netanyahu, which is the only good thing I can say about Netanyahu. When reading that article, remember that it was the 29th of February when Trump said that COVID-19 was a liberal “hoax.” (UPDATE 4/12/20 Trump can't accuse Netanyahu of predicting a pandemic because he's a liberal in love with the American media)

On March. 17th, Netanyahu said: “This isn’t child’s play, it’s not summer vacation, it’s a matter of life and death,” and “If you don’t have to go to work, stay home. I assume you know the English expression ‘My home is my castle.’ Please adopt that. Your home is your castle in defense against the coronavirus pandemic…stay home.” It was March 24th when Trump said: “I’d love to have it open by Easter, OK? I would love to have it open by Easter. I will tell you that right now.” On March 26th it was reported that Israeli police were handing out fines for violating social distancing regulations. On March 23rd, Trump said of schools: “In many cases, they are open now. But the schools are going to be open. In other cases, (New York) Governor (Andrew) Cuomo, Gavin Newsom of California, certain governors are going to maybe have a decision to make.” Trump has resisted calls for a NATIONAL “stay-at-home” order and continues to refuse to do that, despite the fact that Dr. Fauci supports it (an April 3rd article). Here’s a good (March 27th) article about the response of many Governors to Trump’s March 26th plan for lifting social-distancing restrictions in the near future on a county-by-county and state-by-state basis. A March 22nd article reports that the Isareli Health Ministry said that social distancing will probably last until the Summer and maybe beyond.

In an article here it was illustrated that the Israeli State wasn’t very well prepared for this. But I think that Netanyahu still did a better job. In a more recent article, on April 5th it was learned that at least 10,000 tests a day will be done, and it sounds like that was a pretty realistic estimate. It sucks, but it’s still better than Trump. According to this, only in late March did testing in America get to 100,000 a day, and America’s population is about 30 times bigger than Israel’s.

On production of things like ventilators, I haven’t found much info. But the first article I link to above strongly implied that Netanyahu was deploying the power of the national government to combat COVID-19. And I found an article here saying that Israel has already used a 2/3 public 1/3 private partnership to produce more ventilators. The new production line was set up in days and in one day produced 30 ventilators. From what I’ve heard, the new production lines for ventilators in America haven’t been set up yet. And again, America’s population is 30 times Israel’s. I don’t know how many ventilators America normally produces or how many were already being made in Israel, but again, if you consider the different population sizes involved, Israel might be doing better on ventilator production, and it was set up quickly and Netanyahu was a lot more willing than Trump to involve the State instead of relying, to one large degree or another, on the private sector. (I wish I could find more information about Israel and this aspect of responding to COVID-19, but I am kind of sticking with The Times of Israel and after doing a few searches using Google Advanced Search, I don’t think there’s anything more I’m likely to find). I know more about Trump’s efforts to ramp up production and I THINK it’s worse than Netanyahu’s. An article, from April 2nd goes into Trump’s efforts here.

1-2 weeks ago I tried to get this message out to people I know (and some politicians like Senators Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren) because I thought it could be used to pressure Trump to do the right thing (in addition to the thing about ventilators, there’s the first article I link to that strongly implies that Netanyahu was deploying the power of the national government to combat COVID-19- some would point out that they don’t have a federal system, but the point is that Netanyahu didn’t take a hands-off approach, and in America, the fact is that this situation is the sort where there is broad, bipartisan agreement that the Federal government is supposed to act (why else do we have the Federal Emergency Management Agency and Defense Production Act? (the states don’t have a DPA))). It might be too late for that, but when COVID-19 ends, this can be used to attack Trump. Why? Trump and Netanyahu are very good friends politically. Trump isn’t going to attack Netanyahu as a socialist or liberal or a pussy (on the other hand, there are reports that Trump likes to grab Netanyahu without permission). He won’t have a response. When I thought that this could be used to get Trump to do the right thing, I wrote: “I think it might help if people start pointing out that it's okay for a "tough-guy," right-wing, capitalist, racist motherfucker to take Coronavirus seriously.”

UPDATE 5/29/20 According to CNN (and this), at this point Israel has recorded 284 COVID-19 deaths. The US population is 30 times that of Israel's, so if we had the same death rate per capita, there would only be 8,520 deaths in this country and we just passed 100,000.

1847: Three New Poems

Three more poems. These are all based on offensive material, I explain that and my poems in general here.

The rest of the poems are available by clicking on the "lyrics" label at the bottom. There are about 10 pages worth, so click on "older posts."

1. Black 47. About the Irish "Famine."
2. Still Right-Wing. About American politics.
3. 1945. About WWII.

“Black 47” based on “Six Million Lies” by No Remorse. Original lyrics are here.

1. This is about the so-called “Famine” that Ireland experienced.
2. From elsewhere on my blog, here’s a fairly good summary:

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 descendents, 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

3. It was close to genocide.
4. It wasn’t until the late 1990s that a British Prime Minister apologized for British policy during the Famine. I guarantee you they weren’t being honest about it and not apologizing.
5. I’m not sure to what extent the British pushed the idea that the Irish are all alcoholics, but I’m sure they at least sort of did.
6. If you focus on the number of INDIGENOUS Irish who died or emigrated, it was a little less than three million.
7. As far as the American establishment pushing lies about the Famine, see this. As far as I can tell, a lot of Irish-Americans believe that the Irish chose to just eat potatoes.
8. I’m not saying that everyone who supports Northern Ireland being part of the UK also peddle lies about the Famine, but I think that most of them do.
9. During the Famine, people were offered money if they didn’t teach their children Irish (that’s according to a Sinead O’Connor song).
10. The 12 of July is a major holiday for N. Ireland Unionists, and is political and sectarian (it’s the anniversary of a battle in Ireland where a Protestant contender for the British throne beat his Catholic rival).
11. Orange is the color of anti-Catholic bigotry in the Anglo-Irish context.
12. Partition is the division of Ireland.
12. As I prove here only .3% of operations of the Provisional IRA resulted in civilian death. And I like referring to The Troubles as the Second Anglo-Irish War (the first being the War of Independence).
13. This isn’t ABOUT SF. It’s just saying that the cause of Irish freedom is strengthened by SF’s electoral success. It’s not saying SF believes this or did that, except that they will lead Ireland to unity (no member of SF is going to complain about that statement).
14. There is a theory I largely subscribe to, that the Unionists in N. Ireland are actually Irish, but I’m also comfortable with the idea that they can and (in a united Ireland) will develop a British-Irish identity which I’m sure the Irish will be willing to accommodate.
11. **78% of this version is me, 22% is the original. I took the first two lines of the original, combined them, altered them, and then created a completely new 2nd line.
12. No Remorse were British and supported the unionist and/or British cause(s) in N. Ireland.

Did the Irish really prefer potatoes or is it just a British lie?
20% left and 20% died
Genocide by the Brits, we have the proof
Why did they try to cover up the truth?
Scared that they would look like scum that they are
So they pushed the idea that the Irish can’t stay out of bars

Three million of the human race
Because the British Army had an iron grip on the place
They play down the fact that food was shipped across the Irish sea
They may have fooled you, but not me

The worst case of Laissez-faire economics in history
It was also racism and religious bigotry
American media and schools cooperate
With the lies of those who support the North being part of the British state
Well the beautiful Irish language didn't die
Fuck Margaret Thatcher and the 12th of July!

So let's make Ireland British Army free
We’ll make sure there's no return to an Orange society
The partition of Ireland is rotten to the core
Provos fought with courage and honor in the Anglo-Irish War
With Sinn Fein and global solidarity we'll surely win
And the Protestant Unionists will see us as their kin

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

“Still Right-Wing” based on “Still Occupied” by Razor’s Edge. Original lyrics are here.

1. 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. is the address of the White House.
2. Fash is short for fascists.
3. I doubt it’s just a tiny minority of white people who worry about that. I think it might be around 20-30%.
4. “Right-to-work” is, in general, a reference to anti-union government policies. Specifically, “Right-to Work” laws say that someone can’t be required to join a union in order to get a job. This means that people who benefit from a union contract at their job don’t have to pay membership dues, which weakens the union.
6. As far as the racist, homicidal cops, see this.
7. A lot of GOP local and state elections officials pull fucked up shit. Not enough voting machines in certain precincts and few or no opportunities to vote early means long lines and people going home without voting so they can get up and go to work the next morning. There’s what happened in FL in 2000 where they were. WAY to quick to take people off the rolls because they MIGHT have been convicted of something. More recent fight-back against letting ex-cons vote, and creating a poll tax by saying that such people have to pay all the money they owe in connection with their conviction before they can vote again.
8.  In terms of racial equality, the FUTURE looked so bright when Obama was President. Trump took that and turned it on its head. Also, Obama (as a candidate and as President) was not a progressive, but nor was he a Clintonite. He was a liberal, as I non-philosophically define them here.
9. I’m not interested in an alliance with the obnoxious, extreme, sectarian anarchists. I think the moderate anarchists were SLIGHTLY happy with Obama being elected, because he was the first Black President, and as I explain above, he was not a Clintonite. And I think that most Marxists and almost all social-dems were at least sort of happy with him, for the same reasons.
10. **76% of this version is me, 24% is the original. The second-to-last line of both verses is brand new- it wasn't there before.
11. UPDATE 4/1/20 Just in case there's confusion, I'm not saying that everyone to the left of center and  opposed to the GOP is a leftist or more generally a progressive. It might sound like I'm saying that, but I'm not. I JUST CHANGED "WE'LL" IN THE COUNTY CLERK LINE TO "DEMS AND PROGRESSIVES WILL".

With Obama, the future looked so bright,
Finally, a President who wasn’t white.
But then, at 1600 Pennsylvania, Trump moved in,
Even though, the popular vote, he didn’t win.
Our society is being torn apart,
think this is bad but it's just the start.
Instead of health care fash worry that the white race will die
How can so many white people swallow so many lies?

Chorus
It’s still a “right-to-work” nation, workers aren’t free -
The working-class labor movement is on it’s knees
And it's hard, hard to defeat -
the murderous police departments patrolling the Black street!

With GOP County Clerks Dems and progressives will never have a chance to win
Their idea of democracy and fascism are almost akin
Hopefully the white working-class will awake, before it's too late,
And Labor will keep educating them, however much money it takes.
We’re trying to save the labor movement from homicide,
we're for comprehensive diversity and for class pride.
Whether we’re social-dems, Marxists or moderate anarchists
We're never ever giving in to the fucking capitalists!

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

“1945” based on “Final Attack” by Final War. Original lyrics are here.

1. This is about the last several months of WWII in Europe.
2. A bridgehead is either a position held to maintain the possession of a bridge at the front, or a position just behind enemy lines.
3. Many of them didn’t do any time because they were executed.
4. The Waffen-SS was the military (as opposed to paramilitary) component of the SS (the very ideological, official, domestic security part of the Nazi state).
5. Combined arms attacks involve more than one type of military unit (i.e. infantry, armor, ground attack aircraft, artillery)
6. The main weapon of a tank is its main gun. Bazookas were an early version of a Rocket-Propelled-Grenade type weapon.
7. Panzers were German tanks.
8. **71% of this poem is me, 29% is the original.
9. UPDATE 4/6/20 I need to say that as far as American servicemen opposed to anti-semitism, realistically it was probably just some moderate-sized minority of them.
10. UPDATE 4/6/20 The chorus is kind of out of whack chronologically (to one ridiculously large degree or another, knowledge of the camps was incredibly limited until the end of the war).

The day is approaching the day of victory
for the Poles, the Jews, and all those, opposed to the Nazis
gonna keep fighting gonna knock em dead
gonna reinforce the front and our bridgeheads

gonna take many prisoners when their lines we overrun
won’t stop till our mission is done
they took over Europe and made Jews wear an arm-band
now we’re gonna smash them with an iron hand

(Chorus)
Oh no, what are the Nazis gonna do?
when we find the concentration camps for the Jews
We’ll put them on trial for war crimes
After they’re convicted, they won’t do any time

we’ve got our sights set on the Waffen-SS
Arms factories, all those Nazis who oppress
we’re on a rampage we’re letting loose
And we’ll only accept unconditional surrender, without a truce

We carry out ambushes and combined arms attacks
they tried to take the world, now they cower at our artillery impacts
Main guns and bazookas are how we destroy Panzer tanks
And when we capture Krauts we love to interrogate their upper ranks

Fox News Rejected an anti-Nazi ad

I just found something, it's only a year old and probably still relevant. In one of my poems (Republicans in Congress) I wrote:

Racists and anti-semites in the GOP and on Fox News
Face it, some of you are fascists, democracy you abuse

I just found a article which indicates I wasn't being more than slightly obnoxious suggesting that Fox News is fascist.

The General Election in Ireland, the Working-Class, and the Palestinians

I am a little late doing this, but here are links to two articles about the recent election in the South of Ireland (the Republic).

1. An article about how Sinn Fein is a working-class party. About 15 years ago in another election there about 1/3 of SF candidates had some connection to the trade-union movement.

2. A post by Juan Cole about how Ireland is overwhelmingly in support of the Palestinians and a Sinn Fein government might turn that into policy.

Because of some things in the first article and the fact that in the PAST Cole has attacked the IRA, I want to link to a post on my blog where I explain that the IRA were not terrorists.

Also, it looks certain that there will be another election there, the numbers just don't add up to a 80 without so many different parties and independents that I doubt it will be a stable government. And, since SF didn't run many candidates, if there is another election, they might get a large plurality- hopefully seats taken from FF and not the left, but in any case it might make it more likely SF can form a government.

Also, SF is very much against anti-semitism, although it's a bit complicated. There's some stuff about that here, here, and something a little more critical here. UPDATE Another critical piece is here.



Something I wrote elsewhere:

In a recent post on his blog Juan Cole talks about SF and the Palestinians and says that unlike Germany with it's Nazi history, Ireland will be able to support the Palestinians without that kind of baggage. But That is not entirely true since Ireland was neutral and the IRA accepted aid from Nazi Germany. Unless SF has admitted recently that the IRA was wrong to do that, they are vulnerable to attacks. I go into more detail about that here. But multiple things indicate that SF IS VERY much against anti-Semitism (although it's not all favorable and some of it is ancient history much of this post is about SF and anti-semitism) and I wanted to make that even clearer to people who will criticize them over supporting the Palestinians. (I just did a google search for news about SF's current stance on the IRA and Nazi Germany, and subscribed to the Irish Times and searched that site and found nothing about SF changing it's stance on this (I found something from 2004 indicating that SF was still defending what the IRA did (using Google Advanced Search, I searched SF's web-site and found nothing, although several possibly relevant documents seemed to have been moved or removed (they probably can't archive everything (I also used the search function on SF's web-site and didn't find anything)))))

**********

UPDATE 2/22/20 First, there is an article here you read. Between this, and the WWII stuff, if Juan Cole is right, SF will be destroyed by Trump and AIPAC and much of the Left in America will look the other way because of the IRA/Nazi Germany thing.  A moderate Dem will be more merciful, but even a progressive supporter of the Palestinians like  Sanders will be pressured to criticize  SF. And AIPAC can use Congress to hurt SF. SF really needs to say that the IRA was wrong. As I said in a recent email to the TD mentioned in that article (I am typing a post about her tweets), what if the Israeli government in the 1970s offered the Provisional IRA money? Also SF needs to understand how much Americans like what we did in WWII.

 

Trump, Evangelicals, Israel, and anti-semitism

Supporters of the Palestinians are are often accused of being anti-semitic. To whatever degree there are right-wing supporters of the Palestinians, and there are, yes, they most certainly are anti-semitic. Their hatred of Jews is apparently greater than their hatred  of Muslims.

When it comes to progressive supporters of the Palestinians, it’s more complicated. Yes, even as a supporter of the Palestinians, I readily admit there is some anti-Semitism. There is ignorance of the large minority of Jewish-Americans who support the Palestinians. There is a ridiculously flawed understanding of how much power Jewish-Americans have over foreign policy. There is tolerance for attacks aimed at intentionally killing civilians.

But in my experience most progressive supporters of the Palestinians are not anti-semitic. Many are Jewish.

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

At some point I need to say that the post on my blog that are at least partly about anti-semitism can be found here.

Overlapping with that are my posts partly or entirely about the Palestinians. Those are here. The most relevant one is here. As far as information about the Palestinians that I agree with, there’s always between one and many articles to read on Juan Cole’s blog, just scroll down if you want more. If you want a MUCH more frequently updated and less partisan but only slightly pro-Israel source, see The Times of Israel.

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

What about American supporters of Israel? There’s some leftists and the liberal and moderate Democrats who support Israel, but their numbers are declining. A majority of people who support Israel are Republicans. As I’ll explaIn, the idea that these people are motivated by opposition to anti-Semitism is ridiculous.

All of them, including a small number who are atheists, support Israel because they were our ally during the Cold War and they mistakenly believe that Israel is a helpful ally in the War on Terror.

The ones who are evangelical Protestants (and according to the Pew research Center, in 2014 45% of registered voters who are republican or lean republican are evangelical) believe that Jewish control of that part of the middle-east will bring about the second coming of Christ. According to the PRC:

“In a July 2003 Pew survey, fully 44% of Americans expressed their belief that God gave the land that is now Israel to the Jewish people. In a Pew survey a year ago in August 2005, 22% of Americans said that their religious beliefs were the biggest influence in determining their support for the Jewish state.”


About half of evangelicals also believe in something called the rapture. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, “The Rapture, in Christianity, the eschatological (concerned with the last things and Endtime) belief that both living and dead believers will ascend into heaven to meet Jesus Christ at the Second Coming (Parousia).” (I’m Catholic and not very familiar with such things). Jews will either become christians or will perish, according to about half of evangelicals.

UPDATE 2/9/20 there are polls indicating minorities (small and large) of evangelicals are liberal on some issues. I'd be surprised if they are among the ones who believe in the Rapture and I'd be surprised if these Evangelicals with liberal tendencies vote Republican all the time. It might be safe to say that the vast majority of Evangelicals who consistently vote republican believe in the Rapture.

As I said, I’m Catholic and not familiar with theology, but I believe that we all go to the same heaven (well, out of respect for the beliefs of people who are neither Christian, Muslim nor Jewish, maybe just Muslims, Jews and Christians (I'd probably add the Druze to this)). If the Rapture is going to happen, in my version the Jews will ascend as well.

Although I couldn’t find the poll I found 10 years ago on the PRC site about the idea that Jews killed Christ I wouldn’t be surprised if many Republicans believe that they did.

In N. Ireland in the last 20 years support for the Palestinians in the Nationalist (Catholic) community has blossomed so much that when the Irish flag is displayed it is often accompanied by Palestinian flags and some times it is temporarily replaced by the Palestinian flag. In response to this and perhaps in solidarity with fellow bigoted settlers, often Israeli flags have been seen the Unionist (Protestant) community. At least some of those Israeli flags were erected by the Ulster Defense Association, a group that has often welcomed visiting British Nazi skinheads. In fact at one point they had to temporarily take down the Israeli flags before such a visit (in all fairness they didn't replace them with the Nazi flag, but they WERE flying the Union Jack in British-occupied Ireland, which is almost as bad).

Although this might arguably have more to do with racism than anti-semitism, Trump has often been, at least averse to conflict with the far-right. Eve if it IS just racism, if he were the friend of the Jewish people some like to say he is, he would have immediately and forcefully disavowed David Duke's support when he first heard about it (in all fairness, Trump's response in an interview was:

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

As I said, he's not a passionate opponent of anti-Semitism unless it involves American foreign policy and fucking over a mostly Muslim population. He also displayed this lack of passion after the murder of an anti-fascist protester by fascists in Charlottesville- a woman was killed and he couldn't rouse enough passion to simply condemn those responsible (his first response failed to do that and in general  his responses leaned towards favoring the fascists)- apparrently his racism is more important to him than his opposition to anti-Semitism.

UPDATE 2/24/20 In 2016 Trump gave a speech that was pretty easy to interpret as anti-semitic. There is an article about it here. As far as I can tell, JTA is a good source, not sure to what small or slight degree it's pro-Israel or how liberal it is. It seems pretty professional and only slightly pro-Israel and maybe a little liberal.
UPDATE 2/24/20 According to this, Trump gets along with the leader of Hungry, Victor Orban. This discusses Orban's treatment of Jews. The article says that Orban claims Jewish philanthropist George Soros is supporting illegal immigration into Hungry. A senior leader of the Jewish community in Hungry sort of defends Orban but crucially says that he doesn't believe the conspiracy theory against Soros. If this man is right and Soros is innocent, why does Orban (very publicly) make the accusation? I think it's because of anti-Semitsm. Also the organization of Orban's Jewish defender is heavily supported by the government- admittedly that might erode what I'm saying, but not necessarily. MANY bigots are simply not consisent (i.e. I've heard of Nazi skinheads eating Thai food, and when a Chinese politician in N. Ireland accused an element of the Orange Order of being racist towards the Chinese community there, those accused responded by claiming (probably honestly) that they love Chinese food) and it's not irrelevant that the Nazis used a small but significant number of Jews as collaborators just before and during the Final Solution). Lastly, at least some Jewish leaders in Hungry ARE greatly concerned about Orban. Orban probably IS an anti-Semite.

UPDATE 2/2/8/20 On a related note, a poll recently found that any of the Democratic presidential candidates would beat Trump 2-1 among Jewish-Americans and that includes anti-AIPAC Jew Sanders and anti-AIPAC non-Jew Warren. There is also information about how American Jews feel about Trump's Israel policy, which dents the idea that he is supporting Israel the extreme way he is because Jewish-Americans want him to.

UPDATE 3/9/20 There's an article about anti-Semitism at Fox News.

UPDATE 6/17/20 There's an article here about a senior GOP politician pushing an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory about liberal Jewish billionaire philanthropist George Soros controlling the Dems. UPDATE 2/4/21 An article here contains (towards the bottom) news about her promoting another anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.

UPDATE 7/8/21 An article about Taylor Greene TWICE comparing anti-COVID-19 efforts with what Nazi Germany did.

UPDATE 9/18/20 Trump spoke to Jewish-Americans as if Israel and not America was their country. 

UPDATE 7/8/21 An article here contains an accusation that Trump spoke positively about Hitler.

UPDATE 2/27/22 An article here about two GOP congresspeople attending an event organized by an anti-Semite.

UPDATE 11/26/22 An article about Trump associating with anti-Semites.

UPDATE 9/19/23 An article about Trump making anti-Semitic statements.

UPDATE 9/14/24 An article here is about an apparent dirty-tricks GOP operation aimed at discouraging critics of Israel from voting for Harris- partly because her husband is Jewish. Although I'm not sure they are necessarily anti-Semites, what they are doing can easily result in more anti-Semitism in this society.

UPDATE 9/18/24 There is an AMAZING article here suggesting that JD Vance is pretty soft on anti-Semitism in the GOP.

UPDATE 9/21/24 And article about Tucker Carlson and Holocaust revisionism ("revisionism" is the term used, and might be a little more accurate than "denial" but "denial" also works pretty well).

UPDATE 10/11/25 An article about Jewish-American groups moderately criticizing Trump for saying something anti-Semitic.

UPDATE 10/27/25 An article about how the Trump administration A) has nominated for an important government job a man widely seen as an anti-Semite and B) has, in pursuit of that effort, misrepresented the positions on the issue of between one and four powerful Jewish and/or Israeli organizations. Apparently if Jewish people might be involved, the Administration just says organizations support their likely-bigoted nominee even when that is not the case.

UPDATE 6/13/26 An article about anti-Semitism in the GOP- I feel safe assuming that most of these people are at least sort of pro-Israel.

********

UPDATE 2/11/20

I missed something about two months ago when Trump signed an Executive Order about anti-Semitism on American college campuses. I'm not saying the idea in general is a horrible one- whether it comes from the right or the left, there is anti-Semitism. But on campuses I'm sure almost everyone who is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as anti-Semitic is a progressive and/or Arab and/or Muslim supporter of the Palestinians, and Trump knows that. According to an article here, even some of the Jewish students who complain about anti-Semitism aren't happy about it, and that includes supporters of Israel. Another article here explains that even the anti-Semitism expert who developed the definition it uses isn't happy with it on free speech grounds.

Some of the elements of the definition of anti-Semitism used are:

“holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel” That IS anti-Semitic.

“denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” I'm not sure they have a right to self-determination and certainly not one that trumps that of the Palestinians who have a better claim to that area, and it IS kind of a racist endeavor (in about a week or two I should have a post done which will explain why I doubt they have a right to self-determination, as well as related issues (UPDATE 3/8/20 That post is here) (for more about self-determination, see the bottom of this post)).

“and drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” Such comparisons are not absolute bullshit but they're close. And on a similar topic, if I got pissed off and called a Jewish person a Nazi the way I MIGHT call anyone a Nazi when I'm pissed off, I would apologize immediately.

"Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations." This is also anti-semitic. 

(I got the four items above from the second article and from the State Department page about a definition of anti-semitism)

There is a European Union body that has said using the phrase "Israeli Apartheid" is anti-semitic. I deal with that here.

As the second article says, it is about suppressing pro-Palestinian speech, and as I said Trump knows that on college campuses criticism of Israel overwhelmingly or exclusively comes from people who are progressive and/or Arab and/or Muslim.

*******

UPDATE 2/21/20 In an article here, I learned that Trump's ambassador to Germany (Richard Grenell) has expressed great fondness for a conservative Austrian political party in coalition government with a far-right party. Although beyond that the article is a little vague (I don't know exactly what parties he's talking about or exactly what they're like), he has expressed enthusiasm for insurgent "conservative" (right-wing) parties in Europe. In an article here, it says: 

"The president lashes out frequently at Germany and Merkel, whose defense of liberal democratic values has turned her into a favorite target of the Republican right. Grenell, since arriving in Berlin in May of last year, has doubled down on Trump’s criticisms via tweets and interviews with sympathetic news outlets, seeming to relish the opportunity to translate the trollish ethos of Trumpism into international diplomacy."

Merkel is the leader of a center/center-right party, not a progressive or anything like that. 

Trump just recently made Grenell acting  Director of National Intelligence, the highest official in the intelligence community despite the fact that he has never worked for an intelligence agency or the military, has no experience as an elected politician and has almost no significant experience in the State Department. Trump really likes him.

UPDATE 2/28/20 The Austrian Parliament, including the far-right party I referred to above, passed a measure condemning Israel-related anti-Semitism. It briefly referred to anti-Semitism in general but was focused on the kind about Israel. I think this is similar to what I wrote about Trump and college campuses. 

**********

UPDATE 2/21/20

I want to briefly explain something I mentioned above. My doubt that the Jewish population has a right to self-determination. I AM going to write a post about that and a lot of related things but I have only done some of the research for it and it won't be completed for about 2 more months (UPDATE 3/8/20 That post is here).

The Jewish people are not a nation. Religious groups don't have a right to self-determination (Catholics globally and in Ireland don't). In America, being Jewish is a religious and/or ethnic identity and ethnic groups don't have a right to self-determination (Irish-Americans don't have a right to self-determination). Even with a large concentration in Israel, Jews are a diaspora, and that was even more true in 1948. The Irish diaspora does not have a right to self-determination. The Irish on that island do, but not the diaspora.

UPDATE 2/28/20 IF (and it might be a huge if) anyone says that the Jews are a race and therefore they have a right to self-determination, here's my response: A) No, races don't have a right to self-determination (does the white race have a right to self-determination?); B) The Nazis certainly thought Jews were a race, and C) are such hypothetical supporters of Israel saying that Israel is a racial state?

UPDATE 3/2/20 If the definition I discuss above is referring to Jewish-Israelis as having a right to self-determination, settlers and their descendants don't have that right- white people in America don't, Unionists in N. Ireland don't, Protestants there don't.

*********

Who are the real anti-Semites?