The Anti-Muslim Attack In San Diego

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

 

**********

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Law and Order: SVU Reviews OO

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

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

Racism Towards Inter-Racial Couples

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

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

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

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

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

Anti-Muslim Bigotry

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

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

Capitalism and Women’s Sexuality

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

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

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

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

Roseanne Reviews U

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

“Halloween V” Episode 6, Season 6. See this for a plot summary.

There were about 50-55 lines by non-family members and none were spoken by people of color.

“Guilt By Imagination” Episode 8, Season 6. See this for a plot summary.

There were about 20 lines by non-family members, and all of them were spoken by white characters.

“The Driver’s Seat” Episode 11, Season 6. See this for a plot summary.

There were about 55 lines spoken by non-family members and they were all spoken by white people (almost all of them were spoken by characters who are gay or bi-sexual).

“White Trash Christmas” Episode 12, Season 6. See this for a plot summary.

There are two things to comment on. First, Dan and Roseanne briefly discuss the possibility that their son DJ is gay. Dan doesn’t seem super excited about the possibility that his son is gay but he seems to be okay with it. Roseanne is totally okay with it. In general the show is very anti-homophobic.

At one point Roseanne says something about her son-in-law Mark trying to get a job and suggests that he might have trouble getting a job because employers MIGHT only be hiring women and people of color. I don’t think Roseanne is seriously worried about that, she’s just worried about her son-in-law getting work. The show is very consistently feminist and anti-racist, and towards the end of the series there’s a development meant to make viewers feel good about affirmative action. My thoughts about AA are here.

“Suck Up Or Shut Up” Episode 13, Season 6. See this for a plot summary.
 

At the very end an actor and an actress from a soap opera IN THE REAL WORLD show up and one makes a bad joke about something he calls a “Mexican divorce.” It certainly sounds like a joke that is a bad fit for the generally anti-racist show.

There were about 40 lines spoken by non-family members and and only 10% were spoken by a person of color. On the other hand, about half of them were spoken by a gay character and a bi-sexual character.

"Childless Cat Gentlemen"

Below is a LTE I sent to a local paper, a month ago, who didn't publish it. In a CNN article here, Vance kind of walked back his "Cat Ladies" statement.

Tom

Editor,

 

When JD Vance spoke about “childless cat ladies” I imagine most people outside the GOP thought it was offensive and ridiculous, and it is. But until a few weeks ago I didn’t recognize it as SEXIST and it seems like very few people have spoken of that aspect (I imagine most women DID recognize it as sexist from the very beginning, but as far as I can tell the media either never or almost never mentioned it).

First, there is another aspect of this that also hasn’t gotten much attention. Vance said that these “childless cat ladies” are miserable and want everyone to be miserable. That is ridiculous, although I’m not sure how FOUL (instead of FAIR) it is. On one hand it seems relatively harmless (it’s neither Watergate nor is it Bloody Sunday)) but I have to admit it kind of pisses me off. The most important thing to say about it is that encouraging GOP voters to think that liberals and progressives are (allegedly) trying to spread misery because they’re unhappy does nothing to encourage the kind of respectful, fact-based conversations about politics that this country desperately needs if we’re going to avoid civil war.

But the main point I want to make is that the initial statement said nothing about “childless cat gentlemen” and I don’t think Vance has fixed that. It stinks of misogyny and ignores the fact that men are also part of creating a new life and should take on about 1/2 of the work that raising a child involves. I can imagine a lot of “childless cat ladies” who WANT kids but can’t find an available man who meets their criteria and also wants to have kids.

Women are not solely responsible for the aspects of America that Vance sees as problems.

 

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.

Movie Reviews A

This is a new part of my blog. I’m going to start typing up some thoughts about the movies I watch.

Hidden Figures (IMDB Wikipedia)

I don’t know historically accurate it is, but it is a good story. I’m a little surprised that as long ago as the early 1960s black women were allowed to contribute that much to NASA but apparently they were and it’s so inspiring that these three women overcame the barriers of racism and sexism to such a degree that they succeeded as much as they did. I also love this movie because I love stories about space exploration, whether it’s Star Trek, Star Wars, Aliens or stuff like Apollo 13 and this movie.

I give it 4 stars out of 5.

Foxfire (IMDB Wikipedia)

I found this at a video store in 1997 and watched it a few times. I think it’s an independent film that did very well in the theaters. It’s basically about friendship among a group of high school girls who fight back against a sexually abusive teacher and get suspended. They encounter more sexism among their male peers.

I give it 5 out of 5 stars.

On the Basis of Sex (IMDB Wikipedia)

I don’t know historically accurate it is, but it is a good story. This is about the early career of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the late Supreme Court Justice. It’s one of the best and most inspiring movies I have ever seen. I didn’t appreciate her as much as I should have when she was still alive. I got the impression her husband wasn’t as progressive as she was, but he still seemed like a cool guy, giving her some help with her first attempt at changing this country in a progressive direction. And her daughter also seemed pretty awesome- she verbally fought back as construction workers were harassing her, and earlier she ditches class to go to a rally that Gloria Steinem spoke at. In 10th grade I walked out of my 3rd period class to join other students protesting the 1992 Rodney King verdict (King was brutally assaulted by LAPD officers in 1991 and the officers were acquitted, sparking protests and rioting).

I give it 5 stars out of five.

Roseanne Reviews Q

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

“Pretty in Black” Episode 5 Season 5. Wikipedia summary is: “The Conners enjoy torturing Darlene by pretending to give her a dreaded Sweet-Sixteen birthday party. While playing "Truth or Dare" with Jackie, Anne Maire, and Crystal, Roseanne suffers an embarrassing incident when she unexpectedly meets the Conners new neighbor. “

There were about 40-45 lines by non-family members and about 10% were by a person of color.

“Looking for Loans in All the Wrong Places” Episode 6, Season 5. Wikipedia summary is: “Roseanne and Jackie decide to open a diner with Nancy, using the money that Bev gave them. When the three are unable to get a bank loan for the additional needed capital, Bev agrees to put up another $10,000, but only as a 4th partner. Molly complains to Darlene about D.J.'s voyeurism, and Darlene confronts Molly about her flirtatious behavior with David.”

This episode expresses support for affirmative action (especially for women) when it comes to small business loans. But the Small Business Administration won’t help Roseanne, Jackie, and Nancy and Roseanne says: “the SBA supposed to be set up to help people like us, but y’all don’t know nothing about people like us. The trouble with people who work for the government is you all have jobs.”

There were about 50 lines by non-family members and none were by people of color.

“Halloween IV” episode 7, Season 5. Wikipedia summary is: “Becky's absence has drained Roseanne's Halloween spirit, so she is visited by the ghosts of Halloween Past, Present, and a truly terrifying Future.”

There were about 30-40 lines by non-family members and about 10% were by people of color.

“Ladies’ Choice” Episode 8, Season 5. Wikipedia summary is: “Roseanne and Jackie are shocked to discover that Nancy is a lesbian. Roseanne thinks she is getting old when Bev moves into a retirement community.”

A huge part of this episode is recurring character Nancy coming out as gay or bi. Roseanne and Jackie respond in a way that’s mostly positive but realistically a little homophobic.

Jackie at one point says she’s going to Walmart. This is decades before Walmart started paying its workers better (about 5 years ago). Jackie might be poor enough that  I would have no problem with her shopping there- even though I boycotted Walmart until recently (I’ve probably spent a total of about $100 there and that’s probably about 3-5% of what I’ve spent on groceries in the last year) I’ve always understood that there’s nothing wrong with poor people shopping there.

Out of about 20-25 lines by non-family members, none are by people of color.

“Stand on Your Man” Episode 9, Season 5. Wikipedia summary is: “Roseanne, working a late shift at the diner alone, is threatened by an aggressive customer, prompting the girls to take a self-defense class. When Arnie wants to return to Nancy, he learns she is a lesbian.”

Out of about 45-55 lines by non-family members, about 5% are by a person of color.

Law and Order: Special Victims Unit Reviews E

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

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

“Closure Part 1” Season 1. Wikipedia summary is: “Benson does her best to help a rape victim (Tracy Pollan), who is able to describe her attack, but not the attacker (Neil Maffin) in perfect detail. When the detectives revisit the case a few months later, they find the woman even less willing to talk about what happened, as she claims she has moved on. Things turn uncomfortable within the squad when Benson and Cassidy, who spent a night together, argue over whether the relationship should be continued. “

They somehow know that she smokes pot and decide to not bust her for it (this is 1999 or 2000)

“Bad Blood” Season 1. Wikipedia summary is: “The death of a young gay man initially leads Benson and Stabler to investigate his homophobic father, but once they start looking into the young man's living arrangements, they realize the person they're looking for may be closer than they think. Munch tries to help Benson find the man who raped her mother. “

There’s some stuff about homophobia in this episode. The detectives promise to respect the confidentiality of a gay NYPD witness, and in the show (maybe in real life?) there’s something called the “Gay Officers Action League.” There’s also a swipe taken at former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s ethics problems.

“Limitations” Season 1. Wikipedia summary is: “At the request of a victim, the police commissioner comes to Cragen with a special request: close the case of the man who raped three women (Jenny Bacon, Judith Hawkins and Seana Kofoed) nearly five years ago before the statute of limitations expires. The detectives finally get a lead when they realize one of the victims knows the rapist, but she is not willing to talk. Following Cassidy's departure, Munch is partnered with Jeffries.”

There are two political aspects to this. The survivor who gets the police’s attention is clearly a successful businesswoman and that might have something to do with her getting their attention. The second one is that the progressive Quaker religious community comes close to being endorsed by the show.

“Misleader” Season 1. Wikipedia summary is: “After the pregnant daughter-in-law of a prominent Christian right leader (Robert Foxworth) is found murdered in her hotel room, the detectives investigate a rash of hotel burglaries, only to discover that her adultery (and the probable father of her child) was what led to her death.”

A small aspect of this is the moral hypocrisy that exists in some members of the religious right.

“Remorse” Season 1. wikipedia summary is: “Television reporter Sarah Logan (Jennifer Esposito) refuses to let her recent rape get her down, and talks about her experiences on the air, leading to the arrest of a young man that the team feels is responsible. Over the course of the investigation, Munch and Jeffries become unusually affected by the case, albeit in different ways.”

There are two progressive elements to this. First, East Timor is referred to (East Timor was occupied by Indonesia between 1975 and 1999 or 2000 and it was a cause taken up by progressives in America). Second, one of the detectives is a fan of Noam Chomsky.

Women's Equality in Ireland

At one point one of the detectives says that Irishmen are raised to respect women. I’m not sure exactly where that line comes from, but there is some truth to it. Although I don’t know exactly what the current situation is, abortion has been in recent decades about 99% illegal in the Republic and before that it was completely illegal. But as far as I can tell, women there do okay in terms of equality. For 21 years starting in 1990 three Presidential terms were filled by women. During the last 30 years half the time the Deputy Prime Minister was a woman. I generally got the impression that Irish women do okay in terms of equality. Unfortunately, I think a majority of them are pro-life. I’m pro-choice but the point I’m trying to make is that there are pro-lifers who nonetheless are feminists or at least believe in equality for women, as flawed as such a combination of stances is. And I think it’s found in Ireland because a lot of Catholic pro-lifers don’t want women to “stay in their place” or something like that, they just believe that the fetus is alive, THAT’S why they’re pro-life, not sexism. (you see something similar with the membership of Sinn Fein, a party that is or was basically pro-life but which has also seen a lot of women involved as party activists or politicians and whose current leader is a woman) (You might see it a little bit with some other religious groups that are pro-life, but I think it’s mostly a Catholic thing)

Law & Order: Special Victims Unit Reviews A

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

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

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

and

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

 

Feminism

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

 

Gun Control and Politics

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

 

Homophobia

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

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

 

Immigration

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

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

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

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

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

 

Homelessness

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

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

 

Marijuana Legalization

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

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

Roseanne Reviews B

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Thoughts on the 1988-1997 TV Show Roseanne

I love TV shows, although only about 40% of what I watch is from the last two decades. My top six favorite shows are Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: Voyager, The Big Bang Theory, Supergirl, Roseanne, and Law and Order: Special Victims Unit. There’s a more complete list of shows I like under the “Movies” part of my profile. This is going to be about Roseanne.

I’ll offer a brief summary of the show and highlight some aspects of it but you can also read that wikipedia page.

This show ran from late 1988 until early 1997 and had ten seasons. I don’t think I’ve seen a single episode of the 10th season and I have probably only seen half of the 9th season. I probably have seen 80% of the episodes, an average of 2.5 times and on average about 15 years ago (I watched most of it as it was originally broadcast and watched a lot of re-runs between 2000 and 2010). I recently got a ridiculously good deal on the entire series on DVD and am going to go through it episode-by-episode.

It’s a hilarious 30 minute (with commercials) sitcom about a working-class liberal-progressive white family in what I think is a large town something like an hour away from Chicago (my brief, non-philosophical definition of liberal is someone to the left of Bill Clinton and to the right of Senator Elizabeth Warren; more details are here).

Some of the things that I like about it:

1) It’s progressive economically. There is pro-union stuff and although they get rich from the lottery in the 9th season, they use some of their wealth to help their former co-workers at a factory BUY the factory. There are a few seasons where Dan or Roseanne are small business-owners, but they have practically zero employees and treat them well.

2) It’s anti-racist. Of the very minor characters, about 1/10 are people of color, which kind of sucks, but there’s good anti-racist material. There’s one episode where they address the genocide of American Indians and slavery. Although there’s a small bit that’s pro-prisons, one of the 1-3 episodes that touch on that is also pro-affirmative action. There’s one episode where the Conners confront racism in their family and themselves.

3) It’s anti-homophobic. In an average episode, of the main, recurring and guest characters, about 6-8% are gay (one isn’t identified as gay until towards the end of the series).

4) The recurring character Mark Healy was played by an Irish actor, although he used an American accent because the character is American.

I have placed the Roseanne collection with the other DVDs that I am watching and will be doing reviews of the political issues raised in each episode. I won’t mention those episodes that have nothing political in them.

Motherfuckin' Detective Odafin "Fin" Tutuola (My Thoughts on Law and Order: Special Victims Unit)

("Fin" is played by Ice-T)

I love TV shows, although only about 40% of what I watch is from the last two decades. My top six favorite shows are Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: Voyager, The Big Bang Theory, Supergirl, Roseanne, and Law and Order: Special Victims Unit. There’s a more complete list of shows I like under the “Movies” part of my profile. This is going to be about Law and Order: SVU.

I’m going to assume you are at least sort of familiar with the show, and if you’re not, you can read that wikipedia page.

I have seen every episode (with one exception where I couldn’t fix the disc and Netflix sent another disc that also had the same problem) up to season 18 and in about a month I’ll be done with season 19. I have 6 seasons on DVD in my collection, most of which I got at thrift stores.

Besides the obvious (it’s opposition to sex crimes and child abuse/kidnapping and sexism and misogyny) which is pretty awesome, there’s a lot of other things I like about L&W: SVU.

1) It’s incredibly anti-racist. Not 100% because it is, of course, a little soft on cops. But in general there's a lot of anti-racism. On average, in any episode, something like 25% of the main and recurring characters have been people of color. Of course the population of NYC is much more diverse, but we are talking about the NYPD and I think that 25% is probably a reflection of how diverse the NYPD is, or an appropriately mild exaggeration of how diverse it is. My memory of specific examples is a little fuzzy, but there are a lot of times when the anti-racism gets a little sharper than that.

There is one episode involving a hispanic SVU detective who might qualify as a person of color in a bad fatal  shooting that I think the show could have dealt with more critically- I remember thinking that it was too pro-cop. But there is another episode on almost the same topic that is, overall, much better. Some white non-SVU cops, while helping SVU, fire about 15-30 bullets into an unarmed black man. The (main character) Assistant DA who works with SVU insists on prosecuting the cops and I think the last we hear about that is that he gets an indictment from the Grand Jury. The head of SVU disagrees with him but they don’t have a heated argument and there is no falling out and for about 2 seasons after that episode that character is still the Assistant DA for SVU, and I think it would be totally unrealistic if all the SVU members agreed with the Assistant DA. Unfortunately it DOES end on a fairly racist note. There’s a notice about the fatal shooting of a cop, which is kind of a lame ending for what otherwise is a very good episode. I mean, it’s even worse than saying “All Lives Matter” in response to the statement “Black Lives Matter.” It’s responding with “Police Lives Matter.”

As I mention below, Ice-T has played a main character since season 2 and there are now 21 seasons.

I think that the % of defendants that are people of color is probably a lot less than the % of NYC’s population that is people of color, and I’m almost certain it’s not more.

2) It’s incredibly anti-homophobic. Other than the idea that the Assistant DA in seasons 15-19 is gay (there is a lot of speculation but it’s apparently all wrong and he's actually straight (but played by a bi-sexual man)), I can only think of two examples. First, when an off-duty cop witnesses a sex-related crime (while on a date with another man) and notifies SVU, SVU offers to keep his name out of it to avoid outing him to the “brass” of NYPD. Also, the son of the character played by Ice-T is gay.

3) It’s incredibly anti-transphobic. In one episode, for example, a woman transitioning from being male kills her boyfriend when he sees a penis. I can’t remember exactly what SVU does, but I don’t think they prosecute her or they go easy on her or something. I DO remember the Assistant DA saying that in that situation, when a man learns his girlfriend has a penis or used to be male, he simply kills her. In general it highlights violence against transgender people.

4) It’s pro-immigrant. For example, there’s a two-parter about a witness who is gay and an undocumented immigrant from Syria who will be killed if he is deported. SVU tries to keep ICE from deporting him but fail. It’s as damning of our immigration policy as an innocent person being executed would be damning of the death penalty.

5) There are miscellaneous other liberal-progressive elements like OCCASIONAL negative portrayals of the military or corporations.

6) Since the second season there’s been a character, detective Odafin "Fin" Tutuola, played by Ice-T. In the near future I’ll do a post about why I greatly admire Ice-T, but his long-time presence on this show is one reason I like him and his presence on the show is one reason I like the show so much.

7) They infrequently go after other cops.


One thing that I would largely put in the very small negative column is the five or so cross-over episodes with the TV show “Chicago PD.” The main thing is that the senior officer on that show is comfortable with things that at least come close to torture. But it’s not as damning of the creative people behind the show L&O: SVU as you might think because in one of those episodes, the head of SVU criticizes that officer for that, although she focuses exclusively on the impact it’ll have on getting a conviction. It’d be better if she was more principled about it, but A) I think she figured the pragmatic appeal would work better, and B) if I’m wrong about that and she’s not principled about it, that’s disappointing but realistic, and C) it’s better than nothing.

I’ll soon start going through these episodes for the second time and doing “reviews” on this blog of the ones that have something that politically goes beyond the liberal feminism and basic anti-racist stuff that’s dominates the political dimension of the show (when I say “dominates” I mean there are minority tendencies, some progressive and some moderate). (You could say that I'll focus exclusively on highlighting the issues raised that are NOT sex crimes, because of course they have material about that, but they also have stuff about, for example, homophobia or marijuana or homelessness or abortion)

(Mariska Hargitay, who has been on the show since day one (and whose character has been head of SVU for about 6 seasons) and has been a director and producer on L&O: SVU since 2014, founded the Joyful Heart Foundation)

Law and Order

I also watch the original, homicide-focused show. It is overall less liberal-progressive (I think the cops and Assistant DAs are a little more flexible ethically than their SVU counterparts are as far as how they figure out who to arrest and/or get convictions). In an average episode I think that about 25% of the main or recurring characters are women, which isn’t too good considering that of the six main characters, only three are cops. But in an average episode, about 25% are people of color, which isn’t too bad considering that it should be either a reflection of reality or a little more diverse than reality, in my opinion (it’s about the NYPD and the Manhattan DA’s office) (I think that the % of defendants that are people of color is probably a lot less than the % of NYC’s population that is people of color, and I’m almost certain it’s not more). There are some progressive elements here and there, some anti-racism, some anti-homophobia, some stuff where a corporation is the bad guy, etc. (they infrequently go after other cops). At some point in about 2-10 years at the rate I’m going I’ll do the same sort of reviews I mentioned above.


Corporations on both shows

From what I remember, the last thing these shows do is criticize capitalism or express more than infrequent support for labor, but the episodes about corporate people are better than the old TV show Cops which focused exclusively on poor people. And I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s more likely to feature rich criminals than other cop shows, although I wouldn’t know for sure because outside the L&O franchise, I’ve probably watched a total of 30 episodes of cop shows since I became an adult and a socialist (at 18) (I’m 44).

(I should offer my very brief, non-philosophical definition of “liberal.” It’s someone to the left of Bill Clinton and to the right of Senator Elizabeth Warren. More details are here) 

 

(UPDATE 3/18/21 About 1-3 times each episode the detectives and/or prosecutors engage in behavior aimed at determining guilt and/or getting a conviction that I think is somewhere between questionable and bad (but that's only about 10-20% of what they do to charge a suspect and convict them in court; the rest of what they do I am fine with). There’s something else, maybe once a season on average, where they do something else bad (i.e. in one Law and Order episode of the last season to involve the character Assistant DA Ben Stone, Stone says something uncharacteristically racist). Going back to the first sentence, I have mixed feelings about a lot of the tactics I’m referring to and I am almost certain that explaining why I sort of support them or why I almost totally oppose them, etc. would just clutter those posts and people would be less likely to read them. If you’re thinking that I don’t expose this aspect of the two shows because of some kind of white/middle-class/cis-gendered-male/straight/Christian privilege, you’re wrong and I have a bit of evidence. In one episode of SVU when a suspect is brought to the station for questioning he requests not a lawyer, but that his therapist be present and SVU says no. In recent decades I have gotten tons of therapy and have occasionally asked my therapist for a little more help than they usually give and if I were being questioned at a police station I would probably want my therapist present, although I doubt I would actually request it. With these two shows I have a policy I almost never break- I don’t criticize them)

 

ALL THE POSTS WITH THESE REVIEWS CAN BE FOUND BY CLICKING ON THE "L&OSVU" LABEL AND THE "LAW & ORDER" LABEL

A Response to Lawyers of Rape Defendants AND MY THOUGHTS ON THE READE/BIDEN ALLEGATIONS

This is a very brief post considering there is no link to an article that I’m commenting on, and it’s not about COVID-19. But I’ve been wanting to get this out there for a while.

Often the lawyer(s) for rape defendants, if the woman is or might be promiscuous, want to (try to, used to (I’m not familiar with the rape shield law)) suggest that that means she must have consented. I guess the bullshit argument is that she is insatiable and never says “no” (or maybe that she must been playing a game when she said “no” (I don’t know)), and/or that she is morally compromised. In any case, it’s ridiculous. In addition to all the other reasons to believe a rape survivor unless you have a REALLY, REALLY good reason not to, when it comes to a woman who is or might be promiscuous there’s this- why would a woman who likes frequent casual sex with men she doesn’t know (or is promiscuous to a lesser degree) falsely accuse a man of raping her? If it were more or less proven that she was lying, she would get a reputation and it would seriously lessen the odds of men propositioning her or agreeing to have sex with her.

Besides the fact that such a defense is offensive and probably coming from a lawyer with a guilty client, it just doesn’t make any sense.

(UPDATE 4/17/20 The more I think about it, even when the rape shield law doesn't work, this might not be an appropriate argument to make in court, but in arguments outside court, I still think this can be effective when some people don't believe a survivor who is or might be promiscuous.

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

UPDATE 4/23/20 ALLEGATIONS AGAINST BIDEN

(UPDATE 5/25/20 A few weeks ago Biden did deny it personally. See this)

You should read this. It's about an allegation that Biden sexually assaulted a woman. An update with new evidence is here. More evidence is mentioned here.

**UPDATE 5/32/20 A lot of Biden supporters have been saying things that they normally wouldn't say about women who claim they were assaulted. These Biden supporters think that they can limit those comments to the Reade/Biden situation. But there are immature and/or just sexist men hearing and reading these comments, and they are influenced by them, and the next time they're asked to believe a survivor, they won't believe her **

I posted the following comment:

I don't know if this has already been said. I read the article but not the comments. We need to believe women who make these allegations and Dem politicians should not be seen as innocent because of how bad their oppoents are. I'm terrified of Trump winning- he is a fascist, as i explain at- https://theblackandthegreen2.blogspot.com/…/trump-doesnt-un… . But the way to defeat him isn't to throw sexual assault survivors under the bus. Metoo and others should launch a MAJOR campaign focusing on TRUMP assaulting women, and the other ways that Trump is a sexist and a campaign on how even though it's very likely Biden did something very bad (I need a good reason to not believe a woman who makes these allegations), he is in a lot of ways, a feminist to one degree or another.

WE CAN DEFEAT TRUMP WITHOUT THROWING SEXUAL ASSAULT SURVIVORS UNDER THE BUS!

(One thing I didn't address is the thorny issue of how this should be resolved. I simply refuse to throw this woman under the bus- if she's telling truth, he didn't [do something like] just touch her breast, he PENETRATED her. Maybe she and Biden can agree that if he admits it and apologizes, she won't press charges. I mean, she seems like a liberal-progressive dem, she must want Trump defeated as much as the rest of us)

*          *          *          *

UPDATE 4/26/20

If Biden is no longer a viable candidate, he should step aside for Warren.

1. If Bernie gets the nomination in a bizarre way, a LOT of Biden supporters will not do anything more than vote for him and many won't do that. He is too radical to get their support unless he had earned the nomination by winning primaries.
2. Many women will probably feel betrayed that the DP almost nominated an alleged or actual rapist.
3. She can more effectively attack Trump over COVID-19 because her brother (who did multiple tours in Vietnam) died from it recently.
4. She's progressive enough to get most of the Bernie supporters, but not so progressive that she'll scare off more than a few Biden supporters.
5. With a misogynist like Trump as the alternative, women will proabably vote for her in unprecedented numbers.
6. If Trump calls her "Pocahontas" and tries to pose as the anti-racist in the contest, that will back-fire massively- it will bring more attention than usual to his record on race. And he WILL call her Pocahontas.
7. She came to prominence by being placed in charge of overseeing Obama's response to the recession that started in 2008. She'd be perfect for guiding efforts to get the economy going after COVID-19 is over and we're in a depression.

*          *          *          *

UPDATE 4/30/20 Some more comments I left on Politico.

People need to watch some Law and Order: Special Victims Unit. There's not some category of man that is not capable of assault. What about accusations of racism of one sort of another directed towards white allies? Some white allies have made serious mistakes, and some have not admitted it. What about the Southern Poverty Law Center (which I generally like)? They have made some mistakes. And what about assault that falls short of rape? What Biden allegedly did isn't TONS worse than grabbing a boob- it'e very possible a politically feminist man could do that. And in the last week a fair amount of evidence has emegered that she IS telling the truth. What about believing a woman who makes such allegations unless you have a good reason to think she's lying? Do you know how difficult it must be for women to come forward about this? Maybe that's why she initailly didn't mention the assault. It must be easeir to to tell people you were inappropriately touched than it is to tell people you were penetrated. And as far as the amount of time that has passed, that happens too and you die-hard Biden supporters know that.

And what effect will this refusal to believe her have on other women who want to and need to come forward with allegations agaist powerful Dems or progressives?

And what about this lie about the NY Times clearing Biden? That's suspicious. They're desperate and that's probably because it's true. Also, his refusal to say it isn't true, that's also suspicious.


*          *          *          *


UPDATE 5/2/20 When someone criticized me for leaning on a TV show, I wrote:
"This is almost as simplistic as what I said in that first comment above, but SVU is INCREDIBLY popular and Hargitay is incredibly popular, and what SVU says about sexual assault makes sense to me. And I love Ice-T for a lot of reasons. I have known some women who have been assaulted. I was exposed a little bit to Women's Studies. More of my thoughts about SVU are [here].


*********

**(UPDATE 5/27/20 Facebook recently decided that many of my comments on Politico are spam, apparently because I was including the URL for this blog. So they are now visible only to me, although I am appealing and hopefully they'll be restored. I have thus deleted the names of the people I responded to and what they said. Think of the statements I am responding to as representative of what critics of Reade say)**

UPDATE 5/2/20 in a discussion below an article here, I had the following exchange, partly about my belief that Biden should stand aside for Warren 

"Biden won because he got the most votes. He shouldn't be replaced by one of the losers. We've heard Reade's shifting stories. She's lying."

Tom Shelley There is good reason to believe she is telling the truth. Why would her mom call in to Larry King if Reade wasn't VERY upset and why would she be VERY upset if she was just touched inappropriately? It was recently reported that she DID tell some people years ago. Her story changed, I assume, because it must be difficult to say that you were assaulted.

These allegations wil drag down Biden's campaign. Trump supporters don't give a shit about sexual assault. Dems and progressives do.

Tom

*          *          *          *

UPDATE 5/9/20 There's an article here about how this is hurting other Dems.

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

UPDATE 5/9/20 

**(UPDATE 5/27/20 Facebook recently decided that many of my comments on Politico are spam, apparently because I was including the URL for this blog. So they are now visible only to me, although I am appealing and hopefully they'll be restored. I have thus deleted the names of the people I responded to and what they said. Think of the statements I am responding to as representative of what critics of Reade say)**

Below an article here, I had the following exchange (that article also includes some more evidence that Reade is telling the truth). Based on the silhouette for his Facebook account, ***** is apparently male. (within minutes of updating this, there was another reply for me to reply to, by someone named ******)



Tom Shelley
I don't know how biden's campaign says that she's being inconsistent by adding details. That happens. She said, accoridng to the article "I wasn’t scared of him, that he was going to take me in a room or anything. It wasn’t that kind of vibe." How is that in conflict with what she said earlier? More of my thoughts are at- https://theblackandthegreen2.blogspot.com/.../a-response... after the first few paragraphs.

Tom Shelley
https://theblackandthegreen2.blogspot.com/


*          *          *

"She said one thing and then added more"


*          *          *

Tom Shelley
Saying publicly that you were sexually assaulted cannot be easy for a woman in our society. It's easier to say you were harrassed. That would explain why she initially just reported the harrassment. But, if she's telling the truth, she then got the courage to report the assault.

Why would she lie? She's a progressive and wants Trump defeated. If she was a tool of the GOP, why has she refused offers to be interviewed on Fox?

Tom Shelley

*          *          *

"She is doing this because she supports Bernie Sanders"


*          *          * 

Tom Shelley
Bernie supporters want Trump defeated. Bernie has endorsed Biden. Therefore it's reasonable to assume that she wouldn't harm Biden just because he defeated Bernie. If she's a die-hard Bernie supporter and she wasn't assaulted, she would follow Bernie's lead and endorse Biden. She is saying this stuff because it's true.

Tom

*          *          *

"At one point she said she wasn't scared of him and at another point she said she was scared to file a sexual harassment complaint"

*          *          *

There's a difference between being scared for your physical safety and scared about political/vocational/personal retaliation for reporting a sexual assault

Tom

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

UPDATE 5/21/20      As far as the reports that she is incredibly unethical. Although (if they're true) it makes me a little open-minded that she is lying, consider this- A: unethical women get assaulted, just like ethical women do and B: maybe her experience being assaulted affected her behavior. Do people think that rapists do psychological profiles of their victims and only rape the ethical ones? IF they do such profiles, they would only rape the unethical ones because a lot of ass-holes like a lot of Biden supporters won't believe the woman.

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

UPDATE 6/20/20 As I said above, it's possible for an otherwise feminist man to do something stupid and bad and what Biden allegedly did is not as bad as rape. I just watched a Season 20 episode of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit called "Hell's Kitchen." It's partly about an Assistant DA assigned to sex crimes who has a good reputation, but tried to rape a girl in High School and as an ADA covers for a friend of his who rapes women. Obviously that ADA character is not a mirror image of the kind of man Reade says Biden is, but still, it's possible for otherwise feminist men to do something stupid and bad.

Affirmative Action and the Working-Class

In a recent post I criticized the more extreme white progressives for taking up the cause of Mumia Abu Jamal instead of supporting Affirmative Action. I touched on it briefly in the main part of the essay, saying that AA is more popular with people of color than Mumia is. In an addendum at the bottom of that post I went into more detail. In this post I will explain why AA is good and not in conflict with revolutionary politics.

(the addendum links to a Gallup poll which found that in 2018 72% of Blacks supported AA for poeple of color and 66% of Hispanics supported it for people of color (that figure for Hispanics might be higher if white Hispanics were excluded) (the first paragraph of a report here indicates strong support for race-based AA among Asian-Americans around 2000, and says nothing about more recent surveys which are apparently uncommon) (I haven’t heard anything about American Indians being unsupportive of race-based AA and about 1/3 of my major in college was American Indian Studies) (according to the first poll I link to, in 2018 69% of women supported AA for women)) (I’m willing to be bet that about 1/3 of those people of color who don’t support AA are middle-class Republicans, and something similar might be true about women)

(UPDATE 4/16/20 I think the frequent exclusion of Asian-Americans from polls about Affirmative Action might be because of the Model Minority Myth (and to enhance that myth) and because people like implying that Asian-Americans don’t support Affirmative Action and because they want to give as many Asian-Americans as possible the idea that their community doesn’t support it and create a wedge between Asian-Americans and other people of color) (UPDATE 11/4/20 A 2020 opinion survey of voters found that 35% of Asians in CA supported a ballot issue to legalize AA in CA and 42% opposed it,  and 23% weren't sure (in the same survey, Blacks were 53% in favor, 17% against and 30% not sure; Hispanics were 42% in favor, 18% against, and 40% not sure))

I can imagine a lot of the more extreme white progressives, and maybe some of the ones that aren’t white, saying that Affirmative Action is just for the benefit of the middle-class and it’s placing a bandage on Capitalism when we should let it bleed. To one degree or another, that’s largely untrue and AA shouldn’t be seen as obstructing the revolution.

In general AA negates institutional tendencies to replicate themselves- companies where all the people involved with hiring and/or promotions are white and/or male might only hire or promote people who are white and/or male. There’s also the fact that, often (not always of course, but often) people who are female and/or persons of color “bring something different to the table.” Even in a non-professional job that’s sort of relevant. I wouldn’t be surprised if (for example), when, in a moderately diverse area, a person of color finds themselves dining in a restaurant and all the viewable staff people are white, it would be a less enjoyable experience for them than if there were some people of color working outside the kitchen. And such a workforce in such an area could be evidence of discrimination and it also raises the question, what are the racial attitudes of these white employees working at a restaurant where the only people of color are in the kitchen? (I’d say something similar about gender)

There are three kinds of AA:

1. Outreach. Making sure that job openings are well known to those who are female and/or persons of color.
2. Preferences. This is where, for example, if there is a man and a woman who meet the minimum qualifications and the workforce is mostly male, the woman gets the job, even if in some ways the man is better qualified.
3. Quotas for Universities and Colleges, which I’ll get to soon.

Government contracts to companies owned by women and/or people of color

A lot of extreme progressives would say this is just for the middle-class. But working-class people benefit from it as well. As far as people of color go, such employers are (to put it mildly) less likely to discriminate in hiring, pay, and promotions. Some would say the promotions part is bourgeois, but consider this- although it’s a band-aid treatment for poverty among people of color, we want everyone have a middle-class standard of living (or at least lower middle-class, when there is a redistribution of wealth and no one gets more than about 20 times the minimum wage (I’ll go into more detail about my vision for socialism some other time)), and this is a good start. Also, every institution should involve equality- I’m not a fan of the military, but I believe there should be equality in it for people of color, LGBTQ+ people, and women. Also, today (and after the revolution) there is (might still be) discrimination in the public sector and possibly the employee-owned sector in promotions and maybe hiring as well. Also, a company owned by a person of color is less likely (to put it mildly) to tolerate a racially hostile atmosphere for people of color.

To one very large degree or another, everything I say above applies to AA for women.

Hiring and promotions by businesses owned by white men

Pretty much what I say above, more or less. For Blacks, “Hispanics,” and American Indians it would lessen the unemployment their communities disproportionately experience, and result in the non-white under-class getting better paying jobs (who will do the low-paying jobs? Ideally they would pay better, but that workforce should reflect the nation’s demographics).

(UPDATE 4/23/20 I just remembered that there is greater poverty among women and there's unequal pay for women, so what I said sort of applies to them as well)

Quotas for universities and colleges

This and the contracts and hiring stuff, involve a few more things I haven’t said yet. Diversity. There’s not a bad chance that if it weren’t for AA for people of color, our society would be even more (informally) segregated than it is, and there would be more white people with little or no contact with people of color. And as far as the middle-class nature of most of the third level educated population, A) they’re not all middle-class when they go to college, and B) as far as those who are, they might, in one way or another, interact with working-class people in a significant way. When it’s white working-class people, they might, to one degree or another, discourage the racism that probably a large majority of such people are afflicted by. If it’s working-class people of color, they’re more likely to treat them with respect than they would if they went to a college or university with very few people of color.

I’m not sure to what degree this applies to AA for women, but there’s probably a fair number of white people out there who need to be convinced that people of color can graduate from institutions above the level of community colleges and can do jobs that require a lot of intelligence and/or skill, and/or business skills, etc. (I can imagine a lot of racists dismissing degrees received form Historically Black Colleges and Universities- they shouldn’t, but they do, and without quotas at the rest of the universities and colleges, more Black people would go to them)

(Universities and colleges also do outreach and preferences)

Some of what I say above applies to AA for women.

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

In general, I think that white extreme progressives who oppose AA are saying that people of color and women are just fucked until the revolution happens, and don’t understand that AFTER the revolution, there will probably still be racist and sexist tendencies in our society. According to this, although Castro was incredibly anti-racist and outlawed racist discrimination, he admitted that racism continued in revolutionary Cuba. And for those anarchists who say that their alternative to capitalism will be racism-free, I say “what about the existence of ORGANIZED National Anarchists, who seem to be tolerated by the rest of the anarchists?” (I have read twice about anarchist book fairs (a popular and major event for anarchists) including a table for National Anarchists). What about the fact that most anarchists think that Federal intervention in the Civil Rights conflict in the American South was a bad thing? What about anarchists who are much less than enthusiastic when they talk about the Union cause in the American Civil War?

I am sort of a Marxist in the sense that about 1/2 of the political books I’ve read are by Marxists and I have a weak grasp of Marxist theory. But I’m also a left-wing social-democrat and I believe that 99% of the time reforms are good. First, I used to nominate myself as the least intellectual socialist by using a term I invented: “building blocks socialism.” I don’t put it that way anymore, but I believe that the accumulation of reforms, especially if they include relatively revolutionary reforms (i.e. empowering unions or shortening the work week with the same amount of pay, or reversing partial or local gov't privitization or a public health insurance option available to anyone who wants it (there was some talk about including that in Obamacare)) would add up to something approaching socialism and then it would be a small step to actual socialism. I believe that AA is one of those blocks.

Here is why I believe in most reforms:

1. As I said, they can be “building blocks” towards socialism.
2. They can alleviate suffering, etc.
3. Sometimes they are empowering.
4. Oppressed people can get a sense of the power they have when they successfully demand reforms, and that will possibly or likely encourage them to demand more.

On a related note, when I think about how we will rid this society of racism, I think one thing that will help is when vocally anti-racist progressives achieve more and more reforms or “revolutionary reforms” that benefit the working-class. Also, unionization will help with that (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).

***********

UPDATE 4/15/20

Some more thoughts about unions and racism.
1. 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).
2. 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 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 publication have been publishing his columns. 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

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


Two more thoughts about AA and the working-class
1. In the mid-1990s when I did a lot of activity and writing about AA, I often said that I thought attacks on AA are conservative and right-wing capitalists blaming AA and liberals and people of color for the economic problems their policies cause for working-class white people. It’s scapegoating.
2. It’s true that anti-discrimination measures in a capitalist society mean fewer jobs for white people. Which is why when we defend AA we need to simultaneously advocate for polices that create full employment.  

*********

In conclusion, AA is a good thing.

(I was not consistent in acknowledging this above, but I know that there are women of color)

(I sometimes think that sexual inequality of the sort this post addresses is a fraction of what it was decades ago, but (among other evidence that I’m wrong) in 2016 close to a majority of voters voted in such a way that the Electoral College placed in the White House a man who made several sexist comments, including one that could be interpreted as bragging about sexually assaulting women)

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.

Sanders/Warren 2020!!!

A few days ago I sent the message at the very bottom to the Warren campaign.  It was flawed and incomplete and after I circulated it to some people I know politically and/or personally I actually sent out two more messages to those people. Immediately below are some new thoughts etc. that complement what I wrote to her campaign. I got only one response and that person agreed with me but declined to contact the Warren campaign. I am doing this because I believe that I am part of the broad progressive movement that Warren and Sanders are leaders of, and since I can't do normal political activism, I do my blog, I volunteer at a food bank, and I attend progressive events to learn and contribute to the success of the event as an audience member, and this post is my way of participating in the primaries beyond voting (I voted for Sanders in CO's primary). (I can't do activism because I have Depression, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Tourrette's Syndrome, bad Attention Deficit Disorder, and a brain injury that affects my hearing, my immediate/working memory, and my ability to organize my thoughts)


I believe that the combination of a woman on the ticket and Trump as the alternative will convince some female Clintonites (moderates) to vote for Sanders in the primary. I am not being ridiculous. I think some of them KNOW that he has a better chance in the general, and I THINK they really like the idea of a woman President and VP is a springboard to President.

And the better he does in the primaries, the more united the party will be at the convention and in the general and the more likely that Bernie voters in the general will vote for other Dems down-ballot, and then he has a chance of getting his agenda through Congress.

Also, a lot of female independents who are progressive (and might otherwise have trouble voting for someone, even Sanders, who's a Dem candidate (I don't know what he's been saying recently, but in 2000 Nader said that even progressive Dems should be targeted in elections by the Green Party)) or sort of in the center will vote for Sanders in the general.


My message to Warren’s campaign:

I'm sure you get tons of messages and you're very busy, but I still need to say this. I link from my blog to both Warren and Sanders, but I am a little more enthusiastic about Sanders because I am a socialist and from the beginning he has had a better chance of winning the nomination and a general election. After the results in SC, Warren really needs to drop out and talk with Sanders about being his running mate. I don't know if that sort of thing is done during the primaries but there can't be a law against it. Such a ticket, informal in the remaining primaries and formal in the general will attract some (in the primaries) or a lot (in the general) of support from female Clintonites who would normally hate Sanders. Such a ticket, in the primaries, would help defeat Biden and Bloomberg, and in the general it would have a good chance of defeating Trump.
Thanks for your time reading this and what you've done to promote a progressive agenda.
Tom Shelley
Boulder, CO
tshelley75@comcast.net
https://theblackandthegreen.blogspot.com/