Anti-Semitism In Student Protests Is A Problem, But Not As Much As You Might Think

Below is an essay which, after some editing, was published as a guest opinion in the Boulder Weekly here.

Tom

**********

 

As I write this I am having trouble staying on top of what is happening at this or that university campus- it’s wonderful that so much protesting is going on. Although, as I’ll explain below, I am concerned about the likely fact that there is at least SOME anti-Semitism among American progressives supporting the Palestinians, I recently decided that it is probably a smaller problem than what I thought most of the last seven months. What prompts me to say that? A 4/23/24 video on CNN’s web-site (not some far-left web-site) about how the Columbia encampment included a Passover meal.

 

I believe that there IS a substantial amount of anti-Semitism in the sense that these activists are probably not condemning Oct. 7th. I believe most American progressives supporting the Palestinians don’t understand that intentionally killing civilians in war is wrong. I believe that they also don’t understand that Hamas is not a progressive organization. The military wing of Hamas are religiously fundamentalist socially conservative mass murderers.

 

On the other hand, so many Americans, including a dwindling percentage of the Democratic Party, just don’t understand what the Palestinians have gone through- as horrible and unjustified as it was, Oct. 7th did not happen in a vacuum. The Palestinians did experience, to various degrees depending on what part of Israel/Palestine they live in, some pretty serious injustice for decades BEFORE Oct. 7th. A very good source about that is the blog of an expert on the Middle-East who has written negatively about Oct. 7th but generally supports the Palestinians. His name is Juan Cole and his blog is at- https://www.juancole.com/ . If you want something less partisan, there’s an online Israeli newspaper called The Times of Israel, at- https://www.timesofisrael.com/ .

 

The problem of anti-Semitism among progressives might be greatly exaggerated by allies of Israel, but it is a problem. And I believe that Oct. 7th was anti-Semitic. You had an organization like Hamas targeting only Jews and mostly Jewish civilians. I am not sure what has happened recently in the investigation of the alleged use of rape as a weapon of war on Oct. 7th, but I read a handful of things in the last several months, from non-Zionist sources, making me think that it happened (see “UN: 'Convincing information' sexual violence committed against hostages in Gaza” BBC 3/52024). Even without this I am comfortable calling Hamas anti-Semitic, but if there was organized rape of Jewish women, that says something about the acute HATE that Hamas had for their victims.

 

I think that a lot of progressive supporters of the Palestinians need to seriously consider that Hamas doesn’t deserve their support and they need to take the threat of anti-Semitism more seriously. They need to understand that it will be easier to refute accusations of anti-Semitism if they DO condemn Oct. 7th. I think that American supporters of Israel (although the Jewish zionists are a small part of the Israel lobby, this is aimed more at them than at the MUCH larger population of conservative Christian zionists (who are less likely to care about justice)) need to think more critically about Israel and consider that it is impossible for a state to be based on religion and ethnicity and to simultaneously be democratic. There is a lot of material on my blog about these issues, at- https://theblackandthegreen3.blogspot.com/ .

 

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

 

“College campuses are particularly susceptible to anti-Semitism that originates in certain sectors of the far left. This source of anti-Jewish sentiment often begins with condemnation of Israeli policies and devolves into derogatory statements about all Jewish people. Although criticism of Israel does not typically amount to anti-Semitism — and many critics of the Jewish state are unfairly accused of bigotry — in some cases those who denounce Israel also cross the line into denigration of Jews as a group.” (My emphasis)

 

The most important part is the last sentence. Both opponents and supporters of Israel need to think about that seriously.

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Law and Order: SVU Reviews BB

 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)

“Anchor” Season 11. Wikipedia summary: “When two young girls are similarly murdered a little over a month apart, Detective Tutuola decides to investigate the gruesome crimes. Benson puts him in touch with a reporter (Megalyn Echikunwoke) who may have enough connections to get them a lead. After a third killing, Fin discovers that all three children were "anchor babies" of immigrant families and reaches out to the Center of Immigrant Services. After sifting through the Center's hate mail, and witnessing a fight between an immigration lawyer (John Larroquette) and a fanatic (Thomas Sadoski) who follows a conservative talk show host (Bruce McGill), Fin begins to narrow in on the killer.”

The main issue here is immigration and it’s a pro-immigrant show 99% of the time. The immigration lawyer talks about how anti-immigrant politics is about scapegoating for problems like low wages and no health care insurance. The idea that undocumented immigrant labor lowers wages for everyone is sort of true, but only because of a failure by communities to stand in solidarity with immigrants. If more people would stand with immigrants demanding better wages, more employers would pay all their workers better and fewer employers would use the undocumented status of some employees to help break unionization efforts.

Although the detectives don’t go along with this in court, I think the show is trying to say that those who espouse anti-immigrant politics bear some of the responsibility for anti-immigrant violence committed by people who listen to them. Although it shouldn’t result in the violent ones being acquitted (the murderer’s lawyer was trying to get him acquitted with that argument), it’s true that the anti-immigrant intellectuals and politicians bear some responsibility for anti-immigrant violence.

Towards the beginning when detective Finn is looking at the murders of two young children who are people of color, he gets into an argument with his superior about how much effort NYPD is making to find the killer(s)- he thinks there’d be more effort if the kids were white.

“Quickie” Season 11. Wikipedia summary is: “When a seventeen-year-old is found strangled and beaten to death in an alley, her ex-boyfriend (Brady Corbet) leads the cops to a website that she used to meet up with random men. Detective Benson decides to create a user account for the site and finds a womanizer (Brian Geraghty) who met with the victim and had sex with her without a condom. The case is closed when a different suspect is proven guilty of the murder but a new one opens when the original suspect is found to have HIV. To help ADA Cabot prosecute the predator for knowingly spreading HIV, one of his previous partners (Mattie Hawkinson) is brought into court. When this fails to work, the defendant's grandfather (Jack Larson) blames himself for his grandson's misogyny and causes him to have an epiphany.”

There are two small notes:
1) At the beginning, people in an apartment building hear a woman being attacked and no one does anything. A couple of twenty-something guys are doing drugs and one almost does call the cops because of the woman being attacked, but his friend points out that they’re high. This is another reason to decriminalize or in some cases legalize drugs.
2) A woman who’s got AIDS says that her insurance won’t pay for the meds because it’s a pre-existing condition. That’s sick.

“Shadow” Season 11. Wikipedia summary is: “When a wealthy couple is found murdered in their bedroom, Benson and Stabler decide to speak to the deceased couple's daughter Anne (Sarah Paulson). After hearing her story of a strange man who has been following her, the detectives soon discover that the supposed stalker is Detective Ash Ramsey (Naveen Andrews) of the Special Frauds division. Convinced that Anne killed her parents for their money, Ramsey becomes suspicious of Anne's business manager (Dennis Boutsikaris) and is led to believe that he helped her steal money from the foundation she runs. With little evidence to go on, the detectives are able to buy some time by blackmailing the foundation's leader (Edward Hibbert) into pressing charges against Anne for embezzlement. Even though hitmen have been sent after them, Benson and Ramsey go out into the open as part of a dangerous sting operation.”

One of the detectives talks about Wall Street having a lot of psychopaths.

“Witness” Season 11. Wikipedia summary is: “A pretty woman (Diora Baird) is raped and cut in her apartment building's stairwell and claims a black woman saved her by punching the perpetrator (Eric Lange) in the eye. The lady is identified as Nardalee Ula (Saidah Arrika Ekulona), an illegal immigrant from Democratic Republic of the Congo, who came to America after escaping a life of sexual abuse against women used by the country as a "weapon of war". After the victim dies from MRSA, Nardalee is the only one who can testify against the rapist, but risks being deported. After her successful testimony she is awarded a U-Visa, but declines it, saying she will be going back to the Congo to help save other women from sexual abuse. Meanwhile, ADA Cabot makes a shocking decision of her own.”

Besides non-political rape, this is about asylum seekers and rape as a weapon of war. The detectives make it clear that they aren’t with ICE (immigration) and go so far as to get a special Visa for an undocumented witness that allows her to stay as a permanent resident for life. This is after the rapist tries to get her deported- one more reason to reform our immigration system.

The witness was raped multiple times in the war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo. And after the NYC rapist is convicted she decides to go back there to help women being raped like she was. She inspires the SVU ADA to take a break from the DA’s office to join an international team prosecuting rape in conflict zones around the world.

We also learn that some people wait YEARS before they get an answer about being let into the country as an asylum seeker. We need more judges etc. created and assigned to that work.

Law and Order: SVU Reviews P

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)

“Pixies” Season 2. Wikipedia summary is: “The investigation of a gymnast's murder involves her strict trainer (Philip Casnoff), a wealthy benefactor (Armand Schultz) and a competitor (Kate Mara).”

There’s one point where one of the detectives talks about how little labor is paid in the tennis shoe industry compared to how much the shoes cost. I don’t know what’s been happening with that in the last 20 years but around 1999 I did some political activism on the sweatshop issue, including some small contributions to the effort by WAAKE-UP  at CU-Boulder.

“Consent” Season 2. Wikipedia summary is: “College girl Kelly D'Leah (Tammy Blanchard) is raped during a frat party, but can't remember anything that happened. The detectives find that she had a date rape drug in her system, leaving the squad with many suspects and accomplices. They ultimately discover that the boy who had sex with Kelly (Zak Orth) was unaware that she had been drugged.”

I think this may be the only episode that mentions in a significant way the oral contraceptive that is part of a rape kit (the exam done to establish that rape took place and to gather evidence used to identify the rapist). In 2008 John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate for the White House. There were a lot of horrible things about her but perhaps the most damning allegation failed to stick in the eyes of most of the voters. And that is the fact that when she was mayor of Wasilla, the Police Dept. there charged for the rape kit to be done, and either the survivor or her insurance company had to pay.

At some point I read somewhere that the inclusion of an oral “morning after” contraceptive might be why Palin didn’t want to pay for the rape kits. I read some more about that in a blog post here. It seems that Palin only supports abortion when the life of the woman is in danger, not when she’s been raped.

“Paranoia” Season 2. Wikipedia summary is: “The rape of a veteran police officer (Khandi Alexander), who trained Benson, is first linked to her ex-husband's gambling debts and then to her fellow officers.”

This story is about a rape committed by a cop.

“Scourge” Season 2. Wikipedia summary is: “The team searches for a serial killer (Richard Thomas) who justifies his crimes with paranoid religious motivation set on by a rapidly deteriorating medical condition. Even though she knows that he has been driven to kill, his wife (Karen Allen) begs the prosecutors to show leniency because of his condition (Neurosyphilis).”

I’m not sure I do this every time it comes up, but in this episode a corporation (or its CEO) is targeted by the cops at the end for the indirect role it played in four murders and it’s action was sort of motivated by greed.

“Rooftop” Season 3. Wikipedia summary is: “A series of rapes, each more violent than the previous, takes place in a community of African-Americans. Detectives Benson and Stabler promptly suspect a known HIV-positive sex offender (Dorian Missick) who was recently released from jail, however he dies of an overdose and is found on a rooftop. The attacks continue and Detective Tutuola's childhood friends' daughter is killed. As they find nothing, her brother Rodney Thompson (Todd Williams) accuses the police of limiting the budget put on the case. Only when a fifth victim is killed, do her final moments alongside Thompson's persistence give them what they need to find the killer.”

There are two things worth mentioning.

1) There’s a reference to how serial killers often start with harming animals.

2) The detective played by Ice-T agrees with some angry young black men that the media are less concerned about black females being raped and killed than they are concerned about white females being raped and killed and criticizes the police for responding to the series of rapes and murders with an insufficient number of officers when there would be more officers if the victims were white. He even takes a pretty hard-line on the issue in a conversation with his captain.

Law & Order: Special Victims Unit Reviews A

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

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

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

and

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

 

Feminism

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

 

Gun Control and Politics

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

 

Homophobia

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

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

 

Immigration

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

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

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

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

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

 

Homelessness

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

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

 

Marijuana Legalization

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

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

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

("Fin" is played by Ice-T)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7) They infrequently go after other cops.


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

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

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

Law and Order

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


Corporations on both shows

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE 4/23/20 ALLEGATIONS AGAINST BIDEN

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

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

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

I posted the following comment:

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

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

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

*          *          *          *

UPDATE 4/26/20

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

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

*          *          *          *

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

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

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

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


*          *          *          *


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


*********

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

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

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

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

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

Tom

*          *          *          *

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

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

UPDATE 5/9/20 

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

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



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

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


*          *          *

"She said one thing and then added more"


*          *          *

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

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

Tom Shelley

*          *          *

"She is doing this because she supports Bernie Sanders"


*          *          * 

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

Tom

*          *          *

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

*          *          *

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

Tom

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

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

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

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

Star Trek: The Original Series Reviews M

This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.

I have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.

Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).

“Is There in Truth no Beauty?” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.

“Spectre of the Gun” See this for a plot summary.

There are basically three political aspects to this episode:

1) The Enterprise is ordered to make contact with an alien race “at all costs.” When they encounter some kind of space buoy and are told to turn around and not enter the aliens’ space, Kirk acknowledges the buoys message and explains his mission to the aliens. He then takes a small landing party and transports down to the planet.

It reminds me of the United States forcing Japan to open itself to the US. In general, that sort of thing is wrong.

2) There is some talk about how humanity “overcame” it’s “instinct for violence.”

3) At the end, it turns out it’s another episode where an alien race wants to test the Federation citizens to see if they take life when it’s not totally necessary, and then the aliens move towards friendship with the Federation. Some times Kirk goes a bit far in proclaiming the Federation’s commitment to non-violence, but over all it’s fairly true.

I give it three stars out of five.

“Day of the dove” See this for a plot summary.

There are two minor political points made- 1) there’s an incident of sexual assault (or at least attempted sexual assault), which in the context of ST can be seen as a feminist statement (when Chekhov did that, he was under the influence of an alien); and 2) some incidents of racial hostility, which lead to statements against racism.

The political aspect that really deserves some attention comes from Spock: “Those who hate and fight must stop themselves, otherwise it is not stopped.” This presents a problem for me, although I feel comfortable disagreeing with ST on some stuff here and there. But I have gotten the idea that, for example, UN Peacekeepers usually are doing something good that helps with ending conflicts. I also believe in something similar with the non-armed aspects of conflict resolution- for example, I believe that it was a good idea that the International Decommissioning Commission in N. Ireland was led by people from third party countries. In a mid-1990s publication of the Pat Finucane Center in Derry, they called for the police patrolling nationalist areas to be replaced by officers from European Union nations. Partly inspired by those last two items, I wrote up a proposal for resolving the conflict, one that would involve such international elements.

I still believe in such an approach (there’s a possibility that Spock’s theory doesn’t apply to the North, since there is really not much anti-Protetsant bigotry coming from the Catholics) (the Peace-Keepers should come from countries that don't have any selfish interests in the conflict, and civilian 3rd party personel should meet similar criteria). The thing is, when Ireland is close to being united, there will be some degree of loyalist backlash, and I think a UN force dealing with that would be better than either the British Army or the Irish Army would be. That’s because if it were the BA, some soldiers would be sympathetic to the loyalists and hostile to the nationalists, and their presence on the streets might attract attacks by republicans. If it were the Irish Army, that might increase the backlash if they’re suspected of being sympathetic to the nationalists. Third party peace-keepers (who would also have to be conducting raids when necessary) would probably be at least a little better.

I give this episode one star out of five.

“For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.

Star Trek: The Original Series Reviews I

This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.

I have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.

Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).

“The Trouble with Tribbles” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode but a good one. Actually my opinion of it is high because of the Deep Space 9 episode which uses footage from this episode and where DS9 characters travel through time and the actors and actresses appear to interact with TOS actors and actresses. That episode’s summary is here.

I give it three stars out of five.

“The Gamesters of Triskelion” See this for a plot summary.

There’s some political stuff to comment on here:

1) In one scene, it seems like Uhura is getting raped, or at least her attacker is trying to rape her. First, Kirk just keeps asking her if she’s alright. There is nothing said about it afterwards. If it was rape or attempted rape, it’s very disturbing that nothing else was said about it.

2) Kirk’s behavior towards his drill thrall is fairly inappropriate. Between that and the dialogue at the end, this episode is incredibly annoying.

I give it one star out of five.

“A Piece of the Action” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode. I give it one star out of five.

“Immunity Syndrome” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.

“A Private Little War” See this for a plot summary.

Even though it’s a fairly political episode, I’m going to keep this kind of brief.

The first political issue is simply about war. I would say that as far as I can tell it’s horrible, but sometimes it’s necessary and justified and helpful.

The second political issue is the arming of one side in a conflict, and then someone else arms the other side in the same conflict and this escalates in an arms race and fuels war for generations. Whoever starts that would almost definitely be doing something horrible. What is the response to that? Depending on some political aspects (who can be described as oppressed?) and other details, I might reluctantly say that the other side should be given arms- at least as good as what their opponents have.

(I should also say that in a significantly different situation, one comparable to the anti-Apartheid struggle, I would also support arming a group comparable to the ANC's military wing)

In the real world I would also add that there needs to be more work in the direction of a peaceful, just and democratic planet. I generally believe that, as Dr. Martin Luther King said, “peace is not simply the absence of tension, it is the presence of justice.” So, I think pursuing justice should probably be a higher priority than disarmament, but a gradual disarmament is a good (and realistic) idea, especially if efforts are made to keep arms out of the hands of people perpetrating injustice. Also, on the international stage, nations that are gradually disarming and trying to spread peace could form a mutual security coalition and in the event that one is attacked, the total armed forces of the countries would be pooled together and most used for coming to that country’s aid.

I give this episode two stars out of five.

Star Trek: Enterprise Reviews C

This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.

I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)

Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).

“Sleeping Dogs” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.

“Shadows of P’Jem” See this for a plot summary.

There’s one very good bit of politics in this episode. When looking at an alien city from outer-space, Malcolm and Trip have the following exchange:

Malcolm: From what we can tell, the entire capital is surrounded by a shanty-town- there are almost as many bio-signs on the outskirts as there are inside the city.

Trip: Looks like these people have a lot to learn about building a free society.

Poverty does undermine how free a society is. First, the US Declaration of Independence includes “the pursuit of Happiness” as an unalienable right. And poverty seriously affects democracy in a negative way. If you look at everything involved with an election in a capitalist country, it’s sort of a cross between “one person one vote” and “one dollar one vote.” Poverty makes it difficult for people to pursue their dreams.

I give this episode four stars out of five.

“Shuttle pod One” See this for a plot summary.

Although very non-political and in some ways unattractive for me, this is, overall, one of my favorite episodes in ENT. It is almost entirely about two Enterprise officers in a shuttle craft facing death in space as they are completely isolated and are losing oxygen. Normally I wouldn’t be interested in that sort of thing, but I love this episode.

I give it four stars out of five.

“Fusion” See this for a plot summary.

The way that they talk about what happens to T’pol during and after the mind-meld, is very similar to how people talk about rape.

I like the message sent about rape, but because of other elements of the episode (I’m not a big fan of Vulcan episodes), I am giving it only two stars out of five.

Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews B

This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.

I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)

Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).

“The last Outpost” See this for a plot summary.


This is a fairly political episode. We meet the Ferengi and get some more information about them. They’re uber-Capitalists and sexists. My thoughts about them are in this post when I discuss the episode “A Man Alone.” Riker says that Ferengis are just like Humans on Earth several centuries earlier.

One complaint. Having watched DS9, which uses Ferengi for laughs and which makes it clear that there are VERY few Ferengis who are skilled in combat, it’s kind of annoying to see them portrayed most of the time on TNG as aggressive and violent.

I give it two stars out of five.


“Where No One Has Gone Before” See this for a plot summary.

In general a non-political episode, but there is, for the second time, a reference to a human colony that’s not part of the Federation and that has a major problem with “rape gangs.”

I give it one star out of five.

“Lonely Among Us” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.

“Justice” See this for a plot summary.

One bit of politics is that Picard explains how the Federation doesn’t sentence criminals to death. On the other hand, he says that using the death penalty was ended in connection with progress towards eliminating crime by some investigative method that ID’ed potential criminals (we’re left to assume that therapy or something is used to turn such people away from criminality). So it’s more or less not saying that the death penalty is wrong today or in recent years, but that’s probably just some bad writing- elsewhere it’s made very clear that Starfleet is against the death penalty.

I give it two stars out of five.

Star Trek: Voyager Reviews S

This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.

I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)

Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).

There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.

“Retrospect” See this for a plot summary.

One way to look at this episode is that it could almost be referred to by people accused of rape. But that probably isn’t the right way to look at it. In the episode it’s not actually rape, although the dialogue could confuse you about that. And there are many elements that undermine the idea that it illustrates a case of false rape allegations. For one thing, it DOES make sense that Seven was confusing her treatment by the Borg with what happened in the episode. And The Doctor was an amateur psychologist. In general, it doesn’t do what I suggested at the beginning, although considering that possibility is unavoidable.

I give it three stars out of five.

“The Killing Game” parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary.

You’d think this would be my favorite two-parter- Star Trek and WWII (Europe!) combined. But, like all VOY bad guys except for the Borg and Species 8472, I’m not a big fan of the Hirogen. So I give this two-parter only four stars out of five.

“Vis a Vis” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.