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. 

 

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 2023 LTE About Gaza And The IRA

Below is something I wrote about Gaza. It (probably with some changes to what is below) was published in late Dec. 2023 on the web-site of the Boulder Weekly, but not in the print version of their paper and I can't find it on their site anymore.

 

Tom 

 

 Editor,

 

I have been a supporter of the Palestinians for about 30 years. In 2002 I convinced the other members of a CU-Boulder group (Students for Justice in Northern Ireland) that we should endorse the campus Coalition for Justice in Palestine. In the last 15 years one of the main topics on my blog is supporting the Palestinians. But an even bigger part of my blog is about opposing anti-Semitism, and I’m proud to say that those two parts of my blog overlap heavily.

 

There are many progressives who reject anti-Semitism but have failed to condemn Hamas’ Oct. 7th offensive. Although that failure is not necessarily bigoted, what Hamas did IS bigoted. They are religious fundamentalists and overwhelmingly targeted civilian life, and it was Jews they were after. As someone who looks back and supports almost everything the IRA did in The Troubles, I condemn the Oct. 7th pogrom but I would not condemn a Palestinian effort that resembles what the IRA did- targeting the security forces and (using methods that almost always prevent civilian death) destroying government and commercial property.

 

Why would I say something like that? Because although what happened Oct. 7th was horrible, the Palestinians have very serious and legitimate grievances. Those Palestinians who are Israeli citizens experience a fair amount of inequality (the State is officially Jewish, it cannot be simultaneously democratic). Those in the West Bank have it even worse (they are state-less (they have no citizenship, and thus no civil rights)). And those in Gaza the last month have endured a nightmare much worse than living in the world’s largest open-air prison- which was their existence for almost two decades until the last month.

 

They have every reason to be furious at the Israeli state and Israel’s Jewish population. But intentionally killing civilians in war is, to one degree or another, wrong, and in this case bigoted. Palestinians should leave that to Israel and/or it’s settlers, as we see in the West Bank and Gaza.

 

There must be a cease-fire in Gaza!

 

Tom Shelley
Boulder

 

What I've Done For Ireland

This is an essay about how I became concerned about Northern Ireland’s Catholic population and mostly about what I have done to support that cause. Although I wasn’t INCREDIBLY successful, between 1997 and 2004 I did a LOT of political activity as a progressive American college student in support of the North’s Catholic population, and here and there there was SOME success. I attended the 2002 National Conference of Sinn Fein Youth as a representative of the Anti-Racism Commission of the Democratic Socialists of America. More recently I have done this blog since 2008 and about 1/3 of it is about the North (years ago it was closer to 50% about the North).

I started college in the Fall of 1994. For various reasons that include the time I spent doing activism, it took me until Spring 2003 to officially graduate. I had done some political stuff in High School and there was something I did that was a little immature but nonetheless republican that I will describe next.

At some point in Jr. High I was to a small extent exposed to republicanism by a friend of my mom’s who was supportive of the PIRA. In 9th grade I read a novel that bizarrely fueled my interest in the IRA- the book was more or less anti-republican but it still had a positive effect on me (it was Tom Clancy’s Patriot Games). In the Spring semester of 10th grade, at the same time that I was becoming a sort of active and sort of radical and sort of militant opponent of racism in America, I took a white Notre Dame baseball hat and wrote some stuff on it in pen, including “IRA” and “PIRA.” I ended up having to change my class schedule because there were at least 2-3 people in my gym class that were pissed off at me about the IRA stuff (one guy suggested that Irish-Americans supporting the IRA was like Italian-Americans supporting the mafia and threatened me; an Israeli exchange student and her male friend (who was probably a supporter of Israel) gave me mean looks). I knew almost nothing about the N. Ireland conflict and didn’t respond to the Italian-American guy and even AFTER I got out of that gym class I stopped wearing the hat.

In the Summer of 1994 right before my freshman year of college I read an article about the IRA in “Spin” magazine (which was mostly about popular music but apparently also did some hard news as well). At the very end of 1996 I read a book by Gerry Adams, I then read two books by Tim Pat Coogan (The IRA and The Troubles), and in the Spring of 1997 I finally got on the internet and started educating myself there (i.e. reading the Irish News).

There is one aspect of this that I plan on mentioning only once. From about June of 1997 to about July of 2000, I was flirting with supporting the Irish Republican Socialist Party (a very small rival of Sinn Fein’s in the Catholic community of the North). As bizarre as it will sound to people familiar with one or both parties, I was also a Sinn Fein supporter- and MORE of a SF supporter- I had mixed feelings about both organizations but I really was closer to SF. My more recent, well-developed and probably permanent thoughts on the IRSP are here.                          

Setting aside my mistake with the IRSP, in general I have never been a supporter of SF exclusively and I will not apologize for that at all. Starting in 1995 (and ending in 2002) I was an active member of the Democratic Socialists of America, whose sister organizations on that island were (until about 9 years ago when DSA left the Socialist International) the Social Democratic and Labour Party and the Irish Labour Party. I have always rejected the SDLP (see this). I have always gotten the impression that the ILP was not anywhere near as bad as the SDLP was. Thusly I was a friend of theirs and in 2002 or 2003 wrote a letter to the editor of the Irish News, encouraging the ILP to organize in the North. I like the left of the BLP, but have always believed that the BLP could, over all, be a lot better when it comes to the North.

I have some positive thoughts about some other parties in Ireland and want to remind everyone that if I LIVED THERE I could VOTE for more than one party at the same time (they have something called Single Transferable Vote, which involves votes being transferred from one candidate to another based on a voter’s preferences), so why can’t I have positive opinions of more than one party at the same time?

Around August of 1997 I started organizing a student group at the University of Colorado at Boulder where I was an Ethnic Studies major. To be honest the first year the group had a questionable name- the “Bobby Sands Association.” For better or worse we didn’t do much that first year. The second and third years we were called Students for Justice in Northern Ireland (an independent group). I could go into more detail, but I will say this- we did about 5 events and there was an average of about 50 people at each event. We did do a bit of a campaign at one point, circulating a petition asking the History Department to offer a course on Irish History.

This might have been questionable and possibly even illegal, but I took the text from a lot of pages about the North on the internet and put them in word-processor documents, reformatted them (font size, margin width, etc. so I could get a LOT of words on each page) printed and copied them. We would make that stuff available at events and when tabling in the student center. To a large degree I think that no literature would have been a pretty big hole in our effort to educate people and we gave conspicuous credit to the organizations responsible for the content in the literature we offered.

In the Fall of 2002 I started organizing SJNI again. This time it lasted two years and was probably less successful than the first incarnation. We did about 5 events and there was an average of about 20 people at each event. We did three things that went a bit beyond just educating people. We organized a slightly-successful fund-raiser partly for the Pat Finucane Centre  (we collaborated on organizing it with the other beneficiary, the Rocky Mountain Peace (and Justice) Center). We did a VERY SLIGHTLY successful petition in response to Bernadette Devlin-McAliskey being deported from the US in 2003. And we did a sort of successful fund-raiser for an ex-IRA Volunteer facing deportation from the US- no money was raised, but his campaign might not have connected with an influential local journalist (who ended up being very helpful) if we hadn’t organized that event (the journalist was on the panel discussion). We tried to organize a debate about the North but the pro-Unionist guy (a Northern Protestant fan of Jeffrey Donaldson who was teaching history at CU-Boulder for, I think, a couple years (Donaldson was more or less anti-Good Friday Agreement)) said he wouldn’t debate our choice for the republican position because he had no relevant academic degrees (he would have been a great representative anyway, he WAS totally qualified and it might have been noteworthy that he’s Protestant).

A lot of my N. Ireland activism was anti-racist and anti-homophobic. For more about that and some other relevant thoughts, you might want to read a post here.           

There’s several miscellaneous things I did that I want to mention.

1) In either 1998 or 1999 I went to a fund-raiser for the Chiapas Coalition in Denver (they were supporting the Zapatistas in Mexico) that was on May 5th. Because May 5th is not just Cinco de Mayo, it is also the day in 1981 that Bobby Sands died on hunger-strike, I showed up and asked if I could speak for a couple minutes about Sands. They enthusiastically agreed and the response from the crowd was very good.
2) Although I made some mistakes and it wasn’t successful, I made some effort to try and get the Democratic Socialists of America (and their youth wing the Young Democratic Socialists (of America)) to abandon their sister-organization in the North, the SDLP (and the SDLP Youth).
3) I was involved in one way or another with getting the progressive and popular local radio station KGNU to do several things about N. Ireland from a more or less republican perspective 1997-2002.
4) The notes BELOW the poem here are probably worth high-lighting.
5) This post says some stuff about me doing activism on both the North and for the Palestinian cause simultaneously .

*******

I had to stop doing activism because my neurological disorders had gotten worse  (it was a gradual decline and started either Aug. of 2001 or some time around 2007 and was completed at some point in 2010). I do 3-4 things to sort of replace that although only one thing is relevant to N. Ireland- since 2008 I have done my blog, and at this point there’s about 750,000 words on it.

Since 2020 the N. Ireland component of my blog has shrunk as a percentage of the whole- it was about 1/2 and now it’s about 1/3 of my blog. This is partly because since the beginning of the pandemic, for various reasons I have not followed events in the North anywhere near as much as I did 1997-2020 (during those years I read an average of about 100 articles a week about Irish politics).

There are several posts on this blog that are pretty important in terms of what they say about the North.

1) A post here is in some ways very important, although it needs to be re-done at some point in the near future because it could be and should be shortened and some other changes need to be made to it. It’s called “Sell-Outs?!?!?! Sinn Fein, The Good Friday Agreement, And The World.” It is about how the GFA isn’t that bad, and my theory that the world didn’t support the Northern Catholic population as much as they supported South African Blacks and, how to one degree or another that’s a serious problem, and dissident republicans should be mad at the American Left and the Western European Left instead of at SF.
2) A post here called “In the Spirit of Malcom X” could be re-written and possibly shortened, but it might be worth reading in it’s current form. It’s about how SF needs to approach generating support in America in a more progressive way than what they usually do.
3) A post here called “IRA terrorists?” proves, in an objective way, that the PIRA was not a terrorist organization.
4) A post here is probably worth reading. It’s called “Gerry Adams and the N-word.”
5) ”Strategically Comprehensive,” a post here, is about the overall strategy of the Provos during the conflict.
6) Nazi Germany and the North, a post here, explains that the comparison isn’t as stupid as some think it is.
7) See- “A Brief Argument in Favor of the IRA.”

We Need MORE Criticism of Hamas, not Less

 Since Oct. 7th I have read a lot about the war between Israel and Hamas, I have done a small amount of protesting on the street, I have gotten a letter published in the Boulder Weekly (a widely-read alternative newspaper), I have sent a few messages (in support of the Palestinians) to federal politicians, and I have also taken part in a fair amount of email discussion among a lot of the Boulder County people supporting the Palestinians. In those discussions I encountered two ideas that I think overlap and which I would like to address in this essay. First is the idea that it’s okay for the Palestinians to kill civilians because it’s an “asymmetrical” conflict where the Palestinians don’t have the resources, power, and environment to fight in that the Israelis have. The second idea is that the Israelis have the power to wage peace and the Palestinians don’t and therefore it is the former who need to take the first few steps or so towards peace and the latter can wait until those steps have been taken to reciprocate.

This essay will address these two ideas and to a lesser degree some other aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

*****

Since Oct. 7th I have read something like 2,000 words a day about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict- 50% from the BBC, 10% from Juan Cole’s site Informed Comment, 10% from CNN and the rest is miscellaneous. Looking at the 30 years before that I probably read an average of 100-200 words a day about it and it broke down like this- 20% from Juan Cole and about 20% is from the BBC. The rest, about 60% is from various sources, some  mainstream, some progressive, including The Nation, the Washington Post, the Times of Israel, etc.

*******

Although I only have a BA, it’s in Ethnic Studies and mine includes three courses taught by Ward Churchill (I don’t think this affected how much I learned from him, but he was my faculty advisor (I got an A in all three of the courses he taught)). I have also spent a huge amount of time studying the recent conflict in Northern Ireland (in the last 26 years about 1,000 words a day on average), and that included some things that made me more familiar with the violence than most outside observers (A: I heard a lecture in 2002 by someone who had just months earlier been Chief of Staff of the IRA and B: in 2002 I was in the middle of two riots with the security forces).

In general, I support the Palestinians- in some ways more than many people who support them (in 2002 I got a CU-Boulder group called “Students for Justice in N. Ireland” to endorse the campus Coalition for Justice in Palestine), but in some ways less so (I wasn’t among the brave young people who went there in solidarity with them around 2002). I did a post where I do a pretty good of taking down Zionism and explaining why a one state solution would be better than a two state solution. Here and there in the last six months I say that although I condemn what happened Oct. 7th, I would support something that resembled what the IRA did during The Troubles (a detailed explanation of how I reached the conclusion that the IRA were (OBJECTIVELY) not terrorists is here and a description of the Republican Movement’s (1970-1997) strategy is here).

On the other hand I hate Hamas and always have. Recently I decided that I no longer consider the Palestinian Authority/Palestinian Liberation Organization to be worthy of my support.

I did a post about how incredibly appropriate it is to use the word Apartheid in relation to Israel. That is largely about Israel, East Jerusalem and the West Bank. In one way or another, to one degree or another, in the last 17 years residents of the Gaza Strip have had it worse than Palestinians in the West Bank (until recently Gaza was dominated by Israel even though it had no soldiers there (now it’s still dominated (if that’s the right word), in part because there ARE soldiers there)). Those Palestinians in the West Bank and in Gaza are state-less and thus very close to powerlessness.

So, it’s true that Israel is MUCH more powerful than the Palestinians, and is allied with the most powerful country in the world. The resistance is underground in East Jerusalem, Israel, and the West Bank. Israel has an advanced and conventional military that includes, for example, tanks. Does that asymmetry mean that Hamas shouldn’t be seriously criticized for focusing overwhelmingly on intentionally killing civilians Oct. 7th?

No, it doesn’t mean that. Crucially, the IRA almost never intentionally killed civilians and almost never unintentionally killed civilians and almost never TRIED to kill civilians (I explain how I came to those conclusions here). The IRA was of course an underground army and the British had, for example, many helicopters that were used extensively (especially in South Armagh, where, without helicopters, the British Army would have been defeated by the IRA). In the struggle against Apartheid, operations by the military wing of the ANC (in English known as “Spear of the Nation”) were even less likely to result in civilian death, and they were definitely fighting under difficult conditions.

I should say at some point here that I believe there is a spectrum between completely legitimate targets on one hand and completely innocent civilians on the other hand. This is reflected in my opinion of Hamas’ military wing and my opinion of the IRA, among others. It doesn’t mean that I think less-than-totally-innocent civilians are legitimate targets, but I don’t attach much value to such killings when deciding if I consider the group responsible to be a terrorist organization or something better.

Although I do not totally agree with international law on this, international law is so unfavorable towards the killing of civilians that I believe killing civilians is not excused by the conditions that an underground army fight under against a technologically and institutionally superior foe.

Although this may not be the fairest thing to say about them, it almost seems to me that progressive supporters of Hamas believe that there is something akin to a Law of Physics about the inevitability of underground armies intentionally killing civilians- their argument seems to be, “you don’t condemn an apple for falling to the Earth.” But there are at least two such armies that never or almost never intentionally killed civilians. One of them was totally successful (although it should be mentioned that their economic agenda was not realized, the ANC’s primary goal was the end of Apartheid) and the other was sort of successful (the Good Friday Agreement isn’t that bad and in recent years Sinn Fein and the EU have forced the British to create a border of sorts between N. Ireland and Britain).

The second and overlapping idea is that the Palestinians don’t have the power to wage peace and can only wage war until Israel takes the first few steps towards peace on their own. In my opinion Israel is a lot more responsible for the conflict than the Palestinians are. The average Israeli Jew is a lot more comfortable than the average Palestinian is and could survive the re-distribution of resources (i.e. water) that peace would require. I’m sure a lot of Palestinians would say that they have little or nothing to lose and that for decades now Israel has been brutalizing them and undermining the possibility of a two state solution and many of them will fight until Israel makes the first moves.

Although I am not a pacifist, A) I overwhelmingly support non-violent political efforts and B) what I’m about to say needs to be seriously considered by supporters of this theory that Hamas cannot wage peace at this point. The Black population in America was seriously dis-empowered in the decades before and during the Civil Rights Movement (there was SOME militancy and looking back at that history, I support some of that militancy). But Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was almost 100% against the use of violence and saying that he “waged peace” is putting it mildly- it was a scorched Earth version of “waging peace.” I have a theory that intentionally killing civilians in war is further from “waging peace” than exclusively targeting combatants. I am not saying that liberation movements out there in the world need to completely abandon the use force in order to respect the legacy of Dr. King. But I believe progressives should be careful with who we support when it comes to armed liberation movements. And although I am not going to go into a lot of detail beyond looking at the Civil Rights/Black Power era and N. Ireland, I also think we should ask ourselves, “what would Gandhi think?”

The Republican Movement (Sinn Fein and the IRA), as I mentioned above, conducted a very honorable struggle and DID do a lot of non-violent stuff. In all fairness to Hamas, they did successfully contest an election in 2006 and didn’t have much more in terms of opportunities for non-violent political efforts. But I am still going to point out that starting in the mid-80s SF members who got elected to local councils took their seats and engaged their unionist opponents non-violently and democratically- a move towards waging peace in the acutely imperialistic Thatcher years. When the conditions seemed right, in 1994 the IRA went on cease-fire for about a year. After a brief return to war, they went on cease-fire again in 1997 and to a VERY large degree have become less and less relevant and I wouldn’t be surprised if they pretty much ceased to exist in the last 15 or so years.

Although I’m not gonna go into much detail here (I talk about this in a 2009 post) the RM and the Nationalist community in general bent over backwards to make the peace process work. It would have been VERY reasonable if they had refused to sign up to anything that failed to guarantee a United Ireland after some transitional period. The republican argument is something I go into some detail about here. Around 1997-2005 the IRA took several steps leading up to the full decommissioning of their arsenal, steps that kept the Peace Process going forward, despite frequent provocations by their opponents (i.e. for about 3 months in late 2001 loyalists terrified little Catholic girls (aged about 11) on their way to school just inside a Protestant area (there’s a fairly good article about it here)). 

When the conditions seemed right, the IRA was quick to wage peace. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza have less power than the 1998 Catholic population of N. Ireland, but it’s also relevant that on a per-capita basis, Catholic civilians might have been slaughtered in The Troubles to a greater degree than was the case with Palestinian civilians since 1967 (that is, until Oct. 8th 2023 when that situation changed dramatically) (below, starting with the sentence “As I write elsewhere 856+” I try to illustrate how the Catholics were slaughtered). Even though the Catholics probably had more power in 1998, when it came to support from the global community, the Palestinians definitely have more (i.e. the Catholic population of N. Ireland didn’t have a representative at the UN) (and the British, although I don’t believe they used this to win diplomatic battles with Dublin, are permanent members of the UN Security Council and have a veto and they might have benefited from that in terms of discouraging support for the IRA). I talk about the Irish half of that comparison with South Africa in the middle third of a post here (starting with a paragraph that begins by mentioning South Africa). Crucially, the US government was, to one degree or another, on the side of the British as I describe in note #17 of a post here. As I said, the IRA waged peace not when they had the global community behind them, not just when British politics made peace more likely, but when it appeared there was an opportunity to stop the violence and the inequality, the hate and the injustice. In 1994 that meant after very few moves by the British and the Unionists. In 1996-1997 there were a few more moves by the British, but also some provocation by London and the unionists- which was ignored.

As I was typing this I increasingly came to understand that in terms of power, the Catholic population had more than their brothers and sisters in Palestine. But what I wrote about the latter having more support globally is true. Also, in terms of forgiving your oppressors and waging peace, you have to consider what I write below about the Catholic civilian population, on a per capita basis, being slaughtered to such a great extent that it was possibly worse on a per capita basis than what the Palestinians have been through between 1967 and Oct. 7th (it’s not a perfectly symmetrical comparison and for multiple reasons I am not going to hunt down solid figures for deaths of the Palestinians, but you might agree with me when you read that section after the next paragraph).

I don’t think anything excuses much less justifies what Hamas did Oct. 7th. I’m not saying that they are anywhere near as responsible for the conflict in general as Israel is but Oct. 7th was a massive and (sort of) unprovoked escalation (I say sort of unprovoked because it was disproportionate to what Israel was doing- nowhere near as disproportionate as Israel’s response to Oct. 7th, but still disproportionate (you have to consider that targeting civilians is more provocative than attacking soldiers)). If they were fighting offensively as the IRA did, I’d be pretty supportive. Coming back to reality, what do I think Hamas and the PLO and the Palestinian people in general should do? I think their allies worldwide need to continue to take a stand and communicate to Israel that it had better stop bombing Gaza and allow humanitarian aid into Gaza like never before, and stop going towards what I think would be something fairly genocidal. And they need to get the US to stop supporting Israel. (I believe that when it comes to genocide  there is a spectrum between 100% dead and, at the other end of the spectrum, what Ireland experienced during the Famine). I have no idea how making Gaza livable for 2.2 million people will be accomplished in the immediate future. But worse than that is the possibility that Israel will try to push Gazans out of Gaza and into Egypt, which would be pretty genocidal. I have almost no idea what should be done beyond an end to the violence and a return of aid to Gaza and and an end to American support for Israel. Normally I would say that a one-state solution must be pursued as I argue here, but after what has happened to both the Jewish population and the Palestinian population, I am thinking of going back to supporting the two-state solution. I imagine the reality is there will be no peace process worthy of the name for a very long time.

*******

As I write elsewhere 856+ Catholic civilians were killed in the years 1969 to 2005 by either loyalist paramilitaries or the security forces. A comparable scenario in America would have meant around 67,000 unarmed people of color killed by cops or Nazi skinheads (etc.) in the same time period. A: based on what I’ll describe below, I would guess that the actual number for that was probably somewhere around 7,000-8,000; B: I'm not saying the racist system in this country wasn't, ideologically or programmatically, capable of killing 67,000 people of color in those years if the "rebellion" among people of color here had been as militaristic as the one among Catholics in N. Ireland; but the reality is that as bad as it was for people of color here in those years, it was, in terms of deaths, MUCH worse for Catholics in N. Ireland.

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



1. Between 1996 and 2005 according to the FBI there were 38 racist murders. I have read that the Department of Justice officially estimates that for every hate crime reported to the FBI there might be 20-30 that aren’t reported because not all local law enforcement agencies report such crimes to the FBI. So I came up with 1,140 for those years.


2. I heard (from organizers of a Black Lives Matter protest) that in a 12 month period during a 2014 (apparent) surge in police murders of black people including those of Eric Garner in NY, Tamir Rice in OH, and Michael Brown in MO among other highly publicized such cases, that around 200 black people armed or unarmed, had been killed by cops in America. Although I’m very open-minded about accusations that cops plant guns, this country also has a ridiculous number of guns.


3. Bear in mind that decades ago the number of people of color and the number of cops in this country were both smaller or much smaller than they are today.


4. If it’s worth much, about 10 years ago I read a huge amount of what the Southern Poverty Law Center put on their web-site in the previous 10-15 years. I also got an Ethnic Studies degree if that’s worth much.


5. There was little or no talk about “Brown Lives Matter” so I get the impression that very few Latinos/Latinas/Chicanos/Chicanas have been killed by cops in recent years (as far as I know, even Arpaio’s sheriff’s department in AZ didn’t kill a single such person) and that might reflect the situation in earlier decades. I have practically never heard of Asian-Americans being killed by cops. And if Native Americans were being killed at a high rate in the 80s and 90s I would have heard (a massive chunk of my major was Native American Studies).
 

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

******

In that first part (ending just above this line) I addressed the issues of asymmetry in war and waging peace. Here I need to address some other aspects of Hamas that contribute to me being hostile.

I believe in being consistently against religious fundamentalism and social conservatism. Towards the bottom I will explain how I don’t have a racist double standard in the favor of the Irish.

Hamas is an Arabic acronym for “Islamic Resistance Movement” and they’re very friendly with Iran, so I think I am on pretty good ground saying they are fundamentalists. I’m not an atheist and I’m certainly not a NEW atheist (see this). I believe in the separation of religious institutions and the state, I believe in secular politics (although I have nothing against religious socialists I am not one myself) and I believe in “Intelligent Design” not creationism.

I won’t apologize for consistently being against social conservatism, including sexism and homophobia. I’m sure some readers are groaning at that sentence in this essay, but please read what I write below.

I get the impression there is something close to a consensus among American progressives that criticizing the allegedly misogynist attitudes of MANY Muslim men is inappropriate. Are Muslim women oppressed to one degree or another in many (perhaps most) muslim societies? I think the answer is pretty close to “YES, although I have gotten the impression that some progress has been made on the issue in recent decades. I need to make clear that I don’t support laws (in France, for example) where muslim women are banned from dressing in a way that might be considered religious and/or traditional and/or conservative. I believe that Muslim women are adults and don’t need the government, or male relatives, or random males in the street telling them what to wear, when men are not treated that way as well.

What about homophobia? In general I get the strong impression that the VAST Majority of Muslims are homophobes. I wish I had a lot of evidence specifically about HAMAS being homophobic, but I am comfortable just assuming that they are. I DO know that in recent years Hamas and Iran get along very well and Iran is DEFINITELY homophobic. I also read a brief accusation of homophobia that Meredith Tax leveled against muslim fundamentalists in her book “Double Bind.”

Do I have a racist double standard in favor of the Irish and/or Catholics? No. Republicanism is mostly secular. There were a few Protestants in the IRA (is Sinn Fein as anti-protestant as Hamas is anti-Semitic? See this), and there are a LOT of atheists in Sinn Fein. Going back to the IRA, I was told that at one point, perhaps in the mid-1990s, a significant minority of IRA POWs were housed together in the same part of the prison because they were all devout. But I am certain it was a minority and probably a small minority of the POWs.

The first (or at least close to the first) Vice President of Provisional Sinn Fein (the SF that Gerry Adams was President of for a long time), in the early 1970s, was a woman. In the era of the Civil Rights Movement (late 60s/early 70s), if there was only one leader of the CRM it was Bernadette Devlin (McAliskey). She was also perhaps the main leader of those, around 1980, who were supporters of republican POWs demanding political status. In the mid-1980s for one year SF was pro-choice and between then and now (or at least most of that time) their position was only MODERATELY pro-life, and they might be pro-choice today. In recent years the two most senior leaders of SF are both women. When Gerry Adams stepped down as President of SF he came out as pro-choice.

A handful of facts about SF and homophobia are here.

******

(I believe that Hamas is anti-Semitic. This is primarily based on 2-3 facts. They’re religious fundamentalists and they went after Jews, and some of them raped Jews (if you can prove that they raped a lot of non-Jewish people, I’ll reconsider that statement). I have decided that the PLO are anti-Semitic (based on a BBC article here) and if THEY’RE anti-Semitic I feel comfortable assuming that the socially conservative religious fundamentalists are, too. When I have made this accusation in the past 1-2 American supporters of Hamas have said that the anti-Semitism of some Palestinians can be traced back to Europe- that doesn’t make it okay!)

There are two last things I need to say. This post is partly a response to a blog post  by a woman named Helena Cobban here. The main theme of her post is that “it’s past time to end the demonization of Hamas.” Combined with everything else I have written above, I need to explain that Hamas weakens, it doesn’t strengthen, the cause of Palestine. Large numbers of people in the world believe it’s wrong for civilians to be targeted in war. Large numbers of people believe that anti-Semitism is wrong. Hamas’ targeting of civilians and their anti-Semitism turn people away from supporting the Palestinians. I mean Oct. 7th did nothing to increase support for their people. ISRAEL’S REACTION has, and that might have been Hamas’ plan, but I think that was a pretty bad plan and doesn’t change the fact that Oct. 7th was anti-Semitic. I guarantee you there would be more support for the Palestinians if they were not associated with Hamas.

I imagine that when anti-Semitism in the Palestinian population is not challenged by American supporters of the Palestinians, it might be noted by the younger and more impressionable progressive activists who might adopt that bigotry as their own. That means that ignoring anti-Semitism among the Palestinians can have an effect on how Jews are treated HERE.

We need to criticize Hamas MORE not LESS.

More on the Hamas Offensive

Below is an LTE I might not actually submit to a newspaper, but it says some things that I need to say. The first post I did on this theme is here.

I have been a supporter of the Palestinians since somewhere around 12th grade. I have protested in support of them here in America, and also in Belfast, N. Ireland. In 2002 I convinced the other members of a CU-Boulder group (Students for Justice in Northern Ireland) that we should endorse the campus Coalition for Justice in Palestine. In the last 15 years one of the main topics on my blog is supporting the Palestinians. But an even bigger part of my blog is about opposing anti-Semitism, and I’m proud to say that those two parts of my blog overlap heavily.

I know that there are many progressives who are not anti-Semitic but who have failed to condemn Hamas’ early October offensive. Although that failure is not necessarily bigoted, what Hamas has done IS bigoted. They are religious fundamentalists and overwhelmingly went after civilian life, and it was Jews they were targeting. As someone who looks back and supports almost everything the IRA did in The Troubles, I would not condemn a Palestinian effort that resembled the IRA’s campaign- targeting the military and (using methods that almost always prevent civilian death) destroying government and commercial property.

I say that because the Palestinians have very serious and legitimate grievances. Those who are Israeli citizens experience a fair amount of inequality (the State is officially Jewish, it cannot be simultaneously democratic). Those in the West Bank have it even worse (they are state-less (they have no citizenship, and thus no civil rights)). And those in  the Gaza Strip live in the world’s largest open-air prison.

They have every reason to be furious at the Israeli state and Israel’s Jewish population. But intentionally killing civilians in war is, to one degree or another, wrong, and in this case bigoted.

Tom Shelley

A Brief Argument in Favor of the IRA During The Troubles

 In the last year I have written very little here about N. Ireland, which is one reason I am doing this post.

I spend a lot of time imagining political arguments I might get into with people. Some of that ends up being published on this blog but some of it doesn’t. I often initially don’t put all the arguments I come up with in a post- in the past I would initially leave some stuff out, saving it for when I get into an argument and my opponent says something I expect them to say. But then I started adding that stuff to the relevant posts- about 10% of the “UPDATES” I’ve done in the posts on my blog are just arguments that I was saving. I realized that readers might read the post, think it’s flawed in some way and that I’m wrong, and move on without giving me a chance to respond to their criticism of the post.

There is a very basic argument in favor the IRA’s campaign during The Troubles that I developed about 5-10 years ago but have been saving for an argument with someone. That someone is usually (in my daydreams) a citizen of the Republic of Ireland who opposes what the IRA did in The Troubles. They say something about how the presence of a pro-British voting majority in N. Ireland means that it was wrong for the IRA to try to force the British out. But I guarantee you that these same Irish people are glad that the “Old IRA” fought during the “War of Independence” (around 1920) and gained freedom for most of the Irish population.

The thing is, until they made compromises in the negotiations after fighting in the South stopped, that IRA was fighting for ALL of Ireland to be free, not just those parts with a Catholic majority. About half of the IRA felt so strongly about this that they rejected the Treaty which contributed to the beginning of a civil war. Michael Collins, the main leader of the pro-Treaty side continued sending arms to Northern units of the IRA even after he negotiated and promoted the Treaty.

(UPDATE 5/16/22 See this where I explain how I concluded that only .3% of the IRA's operations resulted in civilian death and this where I explain Provo strategy)

Tom

Comprehensive Post on Unions and Racism in the White Working-Class

At some point in early 2020 I was working on a post about Affirmative Action and although it was partly aimed at the Hard Left (anarchists, Leninists, etc.) I decided to include (towards the end) some thoughts that are more aimed at moderate and liberal Democrats than at progressives. They were about the role of unions in rolling back racism in the white working-class. I did the same sort of thing in a June 2020 post about Black Lives Matter and the Trump administration (that post was aimed at the general population).

In the first month after the George Floyd killing I read many articles about racism on Politico and on the CNN site. Although CNN is pretty corporate, their coverage of BLM stuff in that first month was pretty good and Politico has never seemed centrist to me. But in the articles I was reading about BLM from these sources there was nothing about unions. And when I have read stuff about unions (from progressive or liberal or centrist sources) I don’t think I have ever read anything about rolling back racism among white workers. (UPDATE 8/6/24 Although I DID email a LOT of people about this CNN article last October, I am only now remembering to add it to this post- in that article a CNN reporter talks about pretty much what this post is talking about)

Soon I’ll explain why I believe unions help challenge racist views among white people, but I need to first explain why I believe that most or almost all of the leadership of the American labor movement is anti-racist.

About 27 years ago the late John Sweeney was elected President of the AFL-CIO. He became a member of the Democratic Socialists of America around the same time and DSA is an incredibly anti-racist organization. He was elected on the same slate as Linda Chavez-Thompson who became Executive Vice President and held that position until 2007. He also hired Bill Fletcher Jr. as Assistant to the President. Fletcher Jr. was "national organizer" for the Black Radical Congress and part of the coordinating committee from 1998-2003.  (The BRC was a coalition of Black people and organizations on the broad Left in America).

In a full statement below Fletcher Jr. says that unionization can spread anti-racist education and practices. I imagine that means that leaders at lower and/or higher levels push an anti-racist agenda. Fletcher Jr. and Fernando Gapasin wrote a 2008 book about the split in the labor movement that produced Change to Win. I am not incredibly well educated about the labor movement but one of the things  I HAVE read is that book and although it says that there is room for improvement when it comes to racial justice and organized labor, it gave me the impression that most or almost all leaders of organized labor in the last 27 years are anti-racist.

Why do I believe that unions will help roll back racism among the white working-class? I have known for decades that exit polls during American elections indicate that voters from union households are more likely to vote Democratic than other voters are. This is anecdotal, but in 2000, on the discussion list of the Young Democratic Socialists (now YDSA) a member who was organizing workers in Indiana said that his competition (for the hearts and minds of the workers) was the Ku Klux Klan.

Bill Fletcher Jr. sent me the following statement: “unionization has proven, time and again, to be a critical instrument in promoting democracy. Unionized workers tend to vote in a more progressive direction, though not uniformly.  And unions offer a unique opportunity to bring workers together across race, ethnic, religious and gender lines, to seek a common resolution to the challenges of economic injustice.  Through unionization anti-racist education and practices can be introduced to the broader workforce, often leading to the isolation of racists and rightwing populists.”

In a column included in a 1998 collection of his work in previous decades, Northern Ireland journalist Eamonn McCann wrote that the labor movement had the most potential to eradicate religious bigotry in N. Ireland. He wrote: “No other institution brings Catholic and Protestant workers together on a regular basis in pursuit of a common purpose which is antipathetic to sectarianism.” McCann’s columns have been published by an average of 1-2 publications (magazines or newspapers staffed by professionals, including the Irish Times (Ireland’s biggest newspaper)) at any given time in the last 40 years and he has held senior positions in Ireland’s labor movement for 2-4 decades and he was one of the main leaders of the N. Ireland civil rights movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In  2016 he was elected to the N. Ireland Assembly and in 2017 he would have been re-elected but they had reduced the number of Assembly members elected from each constituency from 6 to 5 and he was runner-up. He is an expert on fighting sectarianism in N. Ireland and believes that organized labor has a crucial role to play. Mark Langhammer, who was head of the N. Ireland part of the Irish Labour Party for several years around 2010 told me in 2005 that he agrees with McCann’s comment on the subject.



Many people believe that there are great similarities between the conflict in N. Ireland during The Troubles and the conflict over racism in this country. This includes people like Angela Y. Davis and in 1972 the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. For more about this, see posts on my blog here and here, And/or read the 1998 Brian Dooley book “Black and Green.”

Although I am not a psychologist or sociologist I believe that both academic fields are relevant to this. On a similar issue (the effect that anti-racist actions by American supporters of Sinn Fein can have on the racial attitudes of many Irish-American supporters of SF) I sought the opinion of a woman with a BA in both psychology and sociology from the University of Colorado at Boulder and a Masters in Social Work from the University of Denver and she agreed with me that if SF and it’s anti-racist American supporters would do more anti-racist stuff in America, many racist Irish-American supporters of SF would start questioning racism. I asked another psychologist with some background in sociology the same question and she agreed with me as well. That makes me confident that I am right about this theory I have about unions and racism.

I believe unions in America play a role in combatting racism and that that can be escalated when they return to the level of strength they were at before their decline began decades ago. If racist working-class whites see multi-cultural anti-racist unions negotiating collective bargaining agreements that they benefit from, many of them will start to question racism.

I think that if organized labor and it’s supporters talked about this that would help win over fiscally moderate and conservative Democrats. 

Unfortunately many such Democrats have declined to vote in favor of strengthening labor unions. I’m sure these same Democrats are alarmed at the rise of Donald Trump and at the existence of the Proud Boys. What’s more important to them- protecting capitalism, or fighting racism?

(Another version of this was published in the Boulder Weekly, a widely read alternative paper for all of Boulder County, here) (it was also published a second time here).

(I am much more of a Sinn Fein supporter than a supporter of Eamonn McCann, but McCann wrote that quote about trade-unions in N. Ireland)

Some Thoughts About New Atheists

I came across an article in Salon about how the New Atheists merged with the far-right. I have read it and read it and read it some more, probably 10 times total (it was the first thing I read in YEARS about New Atheists, so as I was typing this essay, I read about 10 other long articles about the New Atheists (links to those articles are at the bottom of this)). The author of the article (Emile P. Torres) has done a great service for liberal-progressive religious people and some other groups in our society (like atheist women). They seem to be a very solid atheist and might not like helping the former group, but they're also very intellectually honest and when they realized what kind of people the leading New Atheists are, they contributed to publicly exposing them as the scum that they are.

(I discuss what I mean by liberal here (my brief non-philosophical definition is someone to the left of Bill Clinton and to the right of Senator Elizabeth Warren))

(You might want to read part of my post about things Catholic. Read the stuff towards the bottom starting with “Some of this is repetitive but I’ll describe the politics of Catholics,” and ending with the asterisks above the very last section).

I’m going to offer some thoughts about the New Atheists in general, thoughts inspired by reading the Salon article. I’m sure Torres will disagree with some of it, but it is not meant as an attack on them. I encourage you to read their article first and then read this essay.

I believe that the New Atheists cross the line in terms of their hostility to religious people. I will also describe how I am both religious and secular. I will explain that I believe New Atheists were clearly more right-wing than left-wing many years ago.

(I’m going to assume that there are rank and file members of the New Atheist community who are liberal or progressive like Torres)

New Atheism crosses the line

I am fine with atheists in general. I’m close or very close to at least a few if not several. As I’ll explain below, I am very secular. But I believe that the hostility New Atheists have for religious people is so extreme that it is close to bigotry. I would say that even if they were completely even-handed in their hostility to religion, but they’re not. They are much more hostile to Muslims than they are to Jews. I’ll say more about that below.

New Atheists are hostile to religious people because they have a different belief about God (atheists don’t KNOW that God doesn’t exist anymore than theists KNOW that God does exist).They act as if great harm is done by believing in, for example, the Trinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Great harm is done by the right-wing POLITICAL beliefs of many or most religious people (there is nothing right-wing, left-wing or centrist about the Holy Trinity (for example)) but no harm is done by believing, for example, that Christ was the Son of God. In all honesty and fairness there are some miscellaneous non-political ways that religion can harm, such as Catholic priests abusing altar boys, but that miscellaneous stuff isn’t much compared to the political work of right-wing religious people- they are the main problem with religion, and as I explain below, can be dealt with in ways that don’t put down all religious people.

New Atheism wants to make everyone an atheist. One problem with that is that if it were attempted through some kind of coercion (such as treating religious faith like alcoholism) a successful effort would be akin to genocide. And there are many things about religion that bleed into culture and history and philosophy that would also be lost if everything religious was eradicated.

They believe that religion poisons everything and that getting rid of religion would make the world a better place. First, a better place for whom? Based partly on Torres’ article and some other articles I’ve found, the New Atheists are more right-wing than left-wing. Also, the connection between being liberal or progressive and being an atheist isn’t as strong as they think. Same with the connection between being conservative or right-wing and being a theist. There are plenty of exceptions on both sides of that- plenty of liberal or leftist theists and plenty of conservative or fascist atheists. And the idea that attacking the religious beliefs of most conservatives and right-wingers is a short-cut to making them re-consider their noxious political beliefs is likely flawed. I have no idea why it would be easier to change someone’s religious beliefs than it would be to change their political beliefs. And focusing on their religious beliefs makes it easier for them to claim that it’s the liberals and leftists who have crossed the line by attacking their religious beliefs. I say, ignore the religious dimension of the religious right as much as you can and simply oppose, for example, their homophobia as if they’re NOT referring to the Bible.

What’s Good About Religion?

There are other reasons why the New Atheist agenda of eradicating religion is bad. Here’s a list of a few good things about religion.

1) To whatever degree you need to believe in God to believe in Heaven, religion provides a theory for what, if anything, happens when we die. For many people, including myself, this helps with dealing with loss of a loved one.


2) Reading the children’s Bible 3 times around the age of 11 planted the seeds that blossomed into my socialist beliefs about 7 years later (there were other factors, like the music I listened to in High School).
3) There’s a strong sense of community. Although the fairly partisan socialist in me sees that as a bad thing when it’s a conservative community, when it’s a liberal-progressive one it’s great.
4) I’m tempted to say that without the Black church in America, we’d still have segregation. In all fairness it’s likely that if that church had not developed, something secular would have played a similar role in overthrowing segregation, but the fact is, the Black church was a major part of the Civil Rights Movement.

It’s not an exhaustive list at all, but there are a lot of good things about religion that would be thrown out with the bigotry, etc. if (the more liberal or progressive) New Atheists had their way (the others (the ones Torres describes) don’t seem interested in getting rid of the injustice and inequality in our society).

I’m both religious and secular

I have been religious almost all of the time since I was about 5 or 10. But I have also been secular in many ways. When I used to wear a “medal” (like a cross but a little different) I wore it under my shirt. I wasn’t embarrassed or anything like that, but I wasn’t interested in promoting religion, it was just something to remind me of my relationship with God.

When I went to confirmation class at my church in 12th grade, I may have been more interested in the material than most of the other students, but I chose not to get confirmed at the end of it. Although I kind of regret that decision, I felt that I didn’t need the ultra-official sanction of the Church to be a Catholic. And I didn’t need it. I continued getting communion after I declined to be confirmed.

Although the Bible was part of what made me a socialist and I have no problem with religious socialists, I don’t identify as one myself. I’m not sure exactly why, but just in general I am very secular outwardly and fairly religious and spiritual inwardly.

I don’t believe in trying to convert people and I believe that religions should be fairly passive in trying to get new adherents.

I believe in Intelligent Design, the idea that Evolution was guided by God.

On foreign policy New Atheists are mostly right-wing

In addition to being universally and incredibly hostile to Islam, New Atheist leaders have MOSTLY also sided with Israel in the Middle-East conflict and, years ago, (mostly) with the US administration of George W. Bush in the War on Terror and specifically the Iraq War 2003-2008. As others have more or less pointed out, the Palestinian struggle was dominated by secular forces for decades before Hamas won an election in 2006- and although they haven’t lost an election since then they also haven’t won one either- there’s reason to believe that a majority of Palestinians don’t share all of Hamas’ beliefs. There were a lot of complaints among Palestinians about the PLO that had nothing to do with it being secular. I’m not sure to what degree this is true in Gaza since 2006, but in the West Bank the Christian minority of Palestinians is treated just fine by the Muslims. It’s the Israeli state that’s tough on minorities. Christians and Muslims are not considered full members of the Israeli nation. And although there are a lot of atheists in Israel’s Jewish population, the Jewish identity of the State is partly about religion- but many New Atheists are so anti-muslim and pro-American imperialism that they support Israel anyway.

(I offer evidence for calling Israeli policy towards the Palestinians “Israeli Apartheid” here and discuss Zionism here) (UPDATE 7/13/21 most of my thoughts about the War on Terror are here)

Are atheists in America oppressed?

American atheists in general don’t have much to complain about. Based on various answers given on wikipedia, I believe that the percentage of the US population that is atheist is somewhere around 15 to 20. And I doubt that more than 1-2% of the US Congress is atheist, so they have a legitimate complaint there. I’m sure most atheists in America have experienced at least a little harassment because of their belief about God, and I take that pretty seriously.  They sometimes have to fight efforts by government to blur the boundary between church and state, a fight I join them in.

Does hostility towards Atheists result in the kind of job discrimination that creates disproportionate poverty? Apparently not. According to Pew 30% of atheist households earn $100,000 or more and only 24% earn less than $30,000 (in that graph I just linked to, they’re the 5th richest religious group in America, out of about 25-30). I have not heard of anti-atheist police brutality, or mass incarceration, or a low rate of graduation from college, etc..

In general, American atheists don’t have much to complain about.

Religion and The Troubles

For the most part I suggest you start with reading some of my posts here, here, and here. If you want more than that, I recommend the books “Northern Ireland: The Orange State” by Michael Farrell and “McCann: War and Peace in Northern Ireland” by Eamonn McCann.

Although religion is a big thing for most of the anti-Catholic bigots, A) there is also nationality, and B) from what I have heard there are some anti-Catholic bigots who are atheists- not many at all, but some. On the Catholic side there is very little anti-Protestant bigotry and very little religious motivation. When Catholics experience bigotry they don’t quote those parts of the Bible that make it clear they’re Christians. They don’t even use the Bible the way Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. did- when they refer to America in their quest for equality, they sometimes focus on the secular actions of this country’s black population and in general they say little if anything about the Bible which inspired the civil rights movement here.

The British introduced sectarianism to the population of Ireland as a way to (on one hand) divide the settlers and the indigenous people and (on the other hand) keep the Catholics down (which helped with the former goal). They maintained a colonial presence in N. Ireland for several reasons and religious solidarity with the Protestants was only one of them. It was basically because of imperialism.

The white male class privilege of the New Atheists
 

Torres accuses the New Atheists of worrying about the erosion of their white male privilege. I think there’s something else as well as that. They decided that advancing an atheist agenda was incredibly important. They clearly weren’t concerned about economic justice or social justice. I say that partly because you need to build coalitions for those things and you aren’t going to organize a coalition for economic or racial justice if at the same time you’re putting down everyone religious. And I need to say that I’m sure those theists who would be attracted to a coalition for social, and/or economic, and/or racial justice are unlikely to be the kind that would try to start a fight with atheists in the coalition.

*******

Articles I read to refresh and add to my understanding of New Atheism:

Atheism and the Class Problem
Gaza Has New Atheists Split Over Which Religion is more wrong
When It Comes To Islam, New Atheists Sound A Lot Like Christian Fundamentalists
Why Are There So Few Atheists In Israel?
American New Atheism and Israel
Sam Harris, the New Atheists, and anti-Muslim Animus
Why the “New Atheists” are Right-wing on Foreign Policy
The Trouble with the New Atheists: Part II

*******

The posts on my blog that are partly or entirely about religion are here.

Law and Order: SVU Reviews W

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

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

(These are the four reviews I had postponed earlier)

“Grief” Season 4. Wikipedia summary is: “A waitress is found dead outside of a bar. Her death is ruled a suicide because the victim's boss (Paul Leyden) continually raped her and drove her into depression. When the victim's father (Joe Morton) becomes too close to Stabler, the victim's father snaps and vows revenge against his daughter's rapist.”

At one point a suspect (who is later cleared as innocent) refers to the 1997 NYPD rape of Abner Louima with the handle of a broom or toilet plunger. Even though it came from a suspect, it’s still worth mentioning as an example of what’s liberal or progressive on the show because about 5-10 episodes earlier there was another episode that was clearly inspired by what happened to Louima. I’m sure the reference to Louima in this episode was meant to remind people what the NYPD did In reality.

“Debt” Season 6. Wikipedia summary is: “A child abandonment incident prompts Benson and Stabler to investigate the disappearance of a mother. They learn from her sister (Ming-Na Wen) that she made a deal with human traffickers to have her teenage daughter (Jenny Wong) smuggled to New York from China. It is revealed that the teenage immigrant has been forced into prostitution and her life is subsequently used as a bargaining chip by the gangsters to avoid prosecution. When the squad captures the gang's leader (Jack Yang), Detective Stabler is able to get help from one of his junior members (Aaron Yoo) by convincing him that the bright future he was promised is a lie. After arresting a corrupt immigration attorney (Loren Dean), the NYPD finally learns where the captive women are being held. Detective Stabler arrives just in time to keep the promise he made.”

There are five things I want to comment on:
1) I was reminded recently by CNN that there is a stereotype of Asian women of being both hyper-sexual and also submissive. There is something about how non-Asian men see Asian women in this episode.
2) At one point the detectives assure immigrants that they come into contact with during the investigation that they aren’t Immigration officers.
3) I recently learned from a good source something that a more recent episode of SVU implied- that the “coyotes” who help people cross the US-Mexico border illegally are often bad and dangerous people. This episode said the same sort of thing about Chinese criminal organizations that help Chinese enter America illegally. I’m pretty sure that it’s a fair and accurate illustration of such criminals and it’s good for pro-immigrant forces (like Law and Order: SVU) to occasionally criticize them- I imagine that anti-immigrant forces would love to accuse us of liking coyotes because we’d look pretty stupid if we did like them.
4) For the second time recently a law enforcement officer on the show says that Chinatown doesn’t like cops, although it’s not clear why- do they fear gangs in Chinatown, or do they not like the police for roughly the same reason police are usually unwelcome in the Black community?
5) At one point one of the detectives offers the “we’re a nation of immigrants” argument in support of the pro-immigrant position. It’s not the worst thing I’ve heard, but when you think of American Indians and almost all black Americans, it’s a bad argument in favor of a good position.

“Ghost” Season 6. Wikipedia summary is: “A series of drug-related hits leads the detectives back to the notorious drug lord Cesar Velez. The detectives are left with one survivor (Reymond Wittman), a scared child whom the drug lords are trying to finish off. The gun used in the murders is linked to Liam Connors (Brían F. O'Byrne), one of Velez's top agents. Connors has a strong defense which almost gets him acquitted until Benson and Stabler arrest him for trying to kill ADA Alexandra Cabot a year earlier. Alex returns from witness protection to assist with the case.”

The drug cartel’s asassin is a former IRA member who drifted away from the cause because of the cease-fire and started working for the drug cartel. Through a character the writers say that a lot of former Volunteers did that. This is more or less total nonsense. It’s probably inspired by the case of the “Columbia Three,” three men who were members of Sinn Fein and/or the IRA that were arrested in Aug. of 2001 leaving that part of the Columbian jungle controlled at the time by the FARC, the largest left-wing insurgent army in Columbia’s civil war. They were accused of helping the FARC. I don’t know for sure what they were doing, but for a lot of reasons I doubt they were helping the FARC. There was a lot of concern in Ireland about the conditions they were living in in a Columbian prison- so much that there were multiple delegations of politicians and human rights activists with no connection to the IRA traveling to Columbia to investigate those conditions. My theory is that they were there to learn from the FARC about the military aspect of a peace process- there was such a process going on in Columbia and the FARC were participating in it.

There’s a scene with an Irish-American supporter of SF who is accused of raising money for the IRA- it’s not clear that he wasn’t doing both- supporting SF and the IRA, although it seems like the detectives were just being lazy and conflating SF and the IRA. Anyway, this guy said that SF are “fighting for peace in Ireland.” The thing is, SF and the IRA bent over backwards to make the peace process work. They compromised when they would have been justified in refusing to do so. The Good Friday Agreement is alright but should have been much better. The IRA also would have been justified in refusing to decommission until after Ireland was united. The ANC’s military wing didn’t decommission their weapons until there was major progress on ending Apartheid- I think it was after the 1994 election that was won by the ANC.

“Night” and “Day”, Season 6 SVU, and Season 1 Law and Order: Trial by Jury. Wikipedia summaries are, respectively,

“Benson and Stabler investigate the rape and murder of a woman found with a wad of money stuffed in her mouth. They trace the money to a lawyer (Bradley Cooper) handling the finances of a wealthy family. The woman (Angela Lansbury) demands that the detectives stay away from her son (Alfred Molina) even though they suspect that he preys on illegal immigrants who do not report the crimes out of fear of getting deported. The people are short on evidence until a Bosnian immigrant has the courage to come forward. Angry about exposing the fact that she was raped, her brother (Stelio Savante), an Islamic fundamentalist, brutally assaults ADA Casey Novak.”

And

“ADA Kibre works to prosecute a serial rapist (Alfred Molina), whose trail of victims through the years has been whitewashed by his wealthy and protective mother (Angela Lansbury). Kibre must also overcome witness intimidation, and even sees her crucial DNA evidence tossed out, but the slippery suspect's lawyer has yet another surprise up his sleeve.”

Although they end up focusing on only one rape, they believe that their suspect is guilty of a string of rapes of working-poor undocumented immigrants. At one point SVU detectives make it clear that they aren’t concerned about the immigration status of witnesses and victims. A community activist who tells them about the string of rapes accuses the NYPD of not caring about them, but the rape survivors aren’t going to the police because of their immigration status, and it’s believed that’s why the rapist is targeting them. It's just one more reason to oppose anti-immigrant politics.

The one rape survivor whose case is prosecuted is a white muslim from Bosnia who sometimes wears a scarf over her hair but usually doesn’t. I’m not the sort of progressive who believes that every Muslim woman who dresses conservatively is a victim of patriarchy, but it’s nice to see a muslim character who appears to be religious but is flexible about it.

The brother of that woman says he was tortured by Bosnian Serbs in the Bosnian War. And one of the rape survivors is a Catholic from Belfast who refers to The Troubles as an “uprising.” I haven’t typed much stuff about N. Ireland in the last year but you can find the posts largely or totally about that topic here.

An Example of Irish-American Anti-Racism

For about 10 years now I have been linking from this blog to a group called the Irish American Unity Conference. I was vaguely or fairly familiar with them about 20-23 years ago when I believe they were a moderate version of Irish Northern Aid, who were basically supporters of Sinn Fein and the IRA. Now they seem to primarily support SF. Although their links list contains nothing radical that isn’t also Irish (i.e. SF’s web-site), they surprised me when I found a June statement in response to Black Lives Matter activism that was taking place at the time. I am reproducing their statement below but you can find it here.

“We, the Officers of the Irish American Unity Conference, express our outrage at the ongoing, deep-seated, brutal racism that is destroying the fabric of our country. We condemn in particular the recent cold-blooded murders of African-American fellow citizens, including children, in Minnesota, Georgia, Texas, Florida, New York City, Cleveland, Chicago, Baltimore, East St. Louis, and Louisville. We stand in solidarity with our African-American sisters and brothers not only in this time of crisis but at all times. There are disturbing parallels between America’s racism and the state-sponsored political and religious discrimination and violence imposed for over eight hundred years on native Irish people in the north of Ireland. It is not a coincidence that the Northern Ireland Civil Rights movement took its inspiration and strategies from the Civil Rights movement in the United States to fight for justice and an end to oppression. We are painfully aware that recent racist events in this country are not an anomaly or aberration, but rather are a continuation of the violence perpetrated against people of color for hundreds of years, often state-sanctioned, to intimidate and deny equal citizenship to a significant segment of our society. We declare our resolve that the United States must once and for all acknowledge and stop its endemic racism or fail its founding principles of equality and justice for all. None of us can be silent, for if we are not part of the solution then we are part of the problem."

Peter Kissel, President


George Trainor, Vice-President


Kevin Barry, Treasurer


Sarah McAuliffe-Bellin, Secretary

********

It’s really good. Although it’s common for SF supporters to refer to how Black Americans inspired the N. Ireland Civil Rights Movement and we get something out of that, it’s still worth pointing out that every time it’s mentioned, there’s potential for it to get some racist or semi-racist Irish-Americans who care about N. Ireland to change their thinking about race. And this statement goes well beyond simply mentioning the two Civil Rights Movements. I have occasionally suggested to SF members and leaders that they should be in solidarity more with people of color in America and although I have no reason to believe it’s connected to my work, I’m really glad to see that the leadership of the IAUC have done that.

My blog is largely dedicated to the intersection of N. Ireland and fighting racism in America. One of the top three individuals who represent that intersection (along with Bernadette Devlin-McAliskey and Angela Y. Davis) is Bill Fletcher Jr. Bill is a long-time advocate for Justice and Equality on a range of topics. He has held MANY positions, some very senior, in America’s Labor Movement. From about 1995 to about 2001 he was Assistant to the President of the AFL-CIO (John Sweeney). He was "national organizer" for the Black Radical Congress and part of the coordinating committee from 1998-2003., a coalition of Black people and organizations on the broad Left in America. For about two years starting in 2001 he was the President of TransAfrica Forum. An example of his Irish Republican activity is here.

After reading the IAUC statement he commented on the similarities between British Imperialism in Ireland and white supremacy in America: “When the English conquered Ireland they instituted a racial-colonial domination over the indigenous population.  They, in fact, constructed a settler state, the legacy of which is Northern Ireland.  The English introduced this system when they invaded the Western Hemisphere, constructed racial slavery for Africans and succeeded in beginning the expulsion of the First Nations."

The posts on my blog that are at least partly about that intersection, what some call “the black and the green,” are here.

Don't Vote GOP: Three New Poems

(this was originally published 4/27/20 but for some reason it stopped showing up, so I am republishing it now)

Here are three more poems. They are all based on offensive lyrics, I explain that here.

For all the poems, you can click on the "lyrics" label the bottom.

1. Stop the Klan. What you think it's about.
2. Irish Citizen Army. The Irish workers' militia of 1913-1916.
3. Don't Vote SDLP. What's wrong with Northern Ireland's Social Democratic and Labour Party.

“Stop the Ku Klux Klan” based on “Stand Up and Be Counted” by either The Klansmen in the 1980s or the racist assholes who originally wrote it several decades ago. Original lyrics are here.

1. In 2017 or 2018 or 2019 there were reports that caravans of refugees from Central America were traveling through Mexico on their way to the US. Trump used this, probably successfully, to whip up anti-immigrant hatred. These were definitely refugees and they were traveling in caravan for security.
2. I believe that there is a spectrum between democratic and undemocratic and I believe that, politically, the US is closer to the democratic end of the spectrum. But my thoughts about how we can make it more democratic politically are here. I worry greatly that Trump is a fascist, literally, and my thoughts about that are in the middle of a post here.

3. Trump is a racist. See this and this. There’s also his comments on the murder of an anti-fascist by a fascist in Charlottesville in 2017. And there’s this, that I published elsewhere on my blog:

[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.

4. The Torah is the main Jewish text.
5. My thoughts about religion are found here, although a lot of those posts are only partly relevant.
6. **58% of this version is me, 42% is the original.

7. I give this poem 3 stars out of 5.

8. UPDATE 6/1/22 I believe there's a spectrum between democratic and undemocratic and I USED to believe we were in the middle but closer to the democratic end of the spectrum. With what the GOP has done in the last couple years I think we might be closer to the UNdemocratic end of the spectrum.

Chorus:
Stand up and be counted, welcome the caravans
Stand up and be counted, and stop the Ku Klux Klan

We are anti-racists and love our democracy true
We always can be counted on, when there's a job to do
We educate our communities day and night, to keep them Klan-free
And proudly display anti-racist bumper-stickers, promoting diversity

Chorus

The Bible’s pretty cool, but so are the Torah and Koran
We believe in gay rights, so fuck the Ku Klux Klan
In search of peace and liberty, with the constitution in hand
We will defeat Trump to save our democratic land

***********

“Irish Citizen Army” based on “Blackshirt and Roses” by Razor’s Edge. Original lyrics are here.

1. This is written from the perspective of an Irish Republican in the 1970s, or 1980s or 1990s in Ireland. The Irish Citizen Army was started in 1913 during a general lock-out (where, in response to labor activism, an employer throws their employees out of the factory, etc.) in Dublin. It was formed to protect workers from attacks by the police.  In 1916, when the Easter Rising (an attempt at getting the British out) took place, while most of the moderate Irish Volunteers failed to participate the (admittedly much smaller) ICA participated fully and James Connolly, the leader of the ICA, was the de facto leader of the uprising. Connolly was a Marxist theoretician and union organizer and considered Ireland’s greatest socialist- there is a train station in Dublin named after him.
2. The Starry Plough is basically the flag of republican socialism, although some non-republican socialists use it. At one point about 10-15 years ago, and maybe still today, the youth wing of the Irish Labour Party used it.
3. Connolly was one of the few European socialists to oppose the nationalism of World War I. (The original refers to WWII)
4. Razor’s Edge were/are British and support(ed) the British and Unionist causes in N. Ireland.
5. **54% of this version is me, 46% is the original.

6. I give this poem 4 stars out of 5.

They created the Starry Plough, an emblem of the Irish working-class
And they spread Marxism, patriotic workers struggling en masse.

(Chorus)
Fuck the British Empire
Ireland still recalls
The Irish Citizen Army
Heroes one and all.

Opposed the nationalist war in Europe, they knew the real enemy.
With the European Working-Class, they were in solidarity.

The flame they lit was not extinguished, still burning in our hearts today.
We're carrying on the fight because the ICA led the way.

(Chorus)

Fuck the British Empire
Ireland still recalls
Connolly and the ICA
Heroes one and all.

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

“Don’t Vote SDLP” based on “Freedom” by Razor’s Edge. Original lyrics are here.

1. This is NOT written from my perspective, but the perspective of  the type of person I probably could have collaborated with politically if I had lived in the Nationalist community of Northern Ireland in the 1970s, 80s or 90s (I’m American). It’s from the perspective of someone who lives in a working-class Nationalist area in the 1990s and is sort of pacifist and a left-wing social-dem and doesn’t like Sinn Fein very much because of the violence and doesn’t like the Social Democratic and Labour Party for the reasons I give here (there are some more thoughts about the SDLP here, while discussing the episode “Rising Star”).
The thing is, the British Labour Party hasn’t ever organized in the North and recently had to be taken to court to allow Northerners to join, but they refuse to let the Party run candidates there (which is more of a good thing than a bad thing). There are multiple tendencies in the BLP when it comes to N. Ireland and I think the dominant one is to support their official sister organization the SDLP. I don’t think they ever called for the IRISH Labour Party to organize there and it wasn’t until tension developed between the ILP and the SDLP in 2001, 2002, and 2003 that the ILP started a transitional process of organizing there that was supposed to result in them running candidates as rivals to those of their official sister party. I did an essay/article/post PARTLY about that here.
So, this person has little or no options for voting (even if the BLP had been running candidates there, this person wouldn’t have voted for them (unless they were comparable to Tony Benn or Ken Livingstone)).
2. The red, white, and blue are the colors of the British flag.
3. The SDLP encouraged their supporters to do little more than vote. They were more or less against marching and probably against rallies as well. It’s true that non-SDLP supporters could have become involved and the inevitable friction with the security forces may have been difficult for stewards to control and a riot could have developed. But they still should have tried it, maybe with double the usual number of stewards. If there weren’t enough good stewards in the SDLP, maybe, in the 1970s and 1980s, they could have acquired the help of members and former members of the Official IRA, whose movement the Provisionals (SF and the IRA) had split from, and which was committed to a relatively non-violent path (I just think it would have been great if they HAD organized marches and I wanted to explain that they could have found a way to do it with a low risk of them turning into riots). The failure to offer mass struggle as an alternative to armed struggle weakened the overall effort to advance the interests of the Nationalist population.
4. The SDLP was socially conservative and although they probably did a better job of attracting Protestants than the Provos did, they were also closer to the Catholic Church.
5. Critics sometimes call the SDLP the Stoop Down Low Party.
6. In the 70s and 80s and probably the 90s as swell, I can imagine SDLP canvassers at election time being uncomfortable when whoever they’re talking with informed them that they’re gay. That homophobia is largely gone now, and I don’t think it was all that hateful in the first place, but they were homophobes.
7. They’re in the Socialist International and today maybe the SI almost deserves them, but with their social conservatism and moderate, almost capitalist, economics, they certainly didn’t belong there in the 1990s and 2000s and probably not in the 70s and 80s.
8. My thoughts about what the Provos did are here.
9. Razor’s Edge were/are British and support(ed) the British and Unionist causes in N. Ireland.
10. **66% of this version is me, 34% is the original.

11. This poem gets 5 stars out of 5.

Sell-out politicians always seem confused
They can’t figure out how to eject the red, white and blue
the only time you matter is on Election Day
so they can grab your vote and then tell you to go pray

(Chorus)
Options, no options
For pacifist social-dems in this community
Options, no options
The Stoops offer no mass struggle opportunities

A community defended by heroes but who then go too far
There are too many problems with their repertoire
But the only time you matter to the Stoops is on Election Day
They really want your vote unless you’re lesbian, bi or gay

Chorus

With their moderate instincts, the community gets left behind
if you think they’re helping us, you must be f*cking blind
the only time you matter is on Election Day
They’re in the International, but they’re pro-life and anti-gay