Law and Order: SVU Reviews Q

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)

“Sacrifice” Season 3. Wikipedia summary is: “An unidentified man (Mark-Paul Gosselaar) is found shot and sexually assaulted in an alley outside of a gay bar. Detectives Benson and Stabler learn that the victim and his wife (Elizabeth Banks) have a young daughter (Audrey Twitchell) with cystic fibrosis and that they worked in the porn industry to pay for her medical bills. The lead witness (Kevin Geer), who is a recovering drug addict, angers Fin, causing him to re-think his police role.”

A witness at the beginning is an off-duty detective exiting a gay bar. The SVU detectives offer to keep his name out of their report if he’s worried about people learning that he’s gay. And he’s Black (I mention that because of the significance of intersectionality- he's both Black and gay).

Another witness is a homeless man who sleeps near the gay bar and who says that the patrons of the establishment treat him well. I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s true. I imagine that even today a lot of gay teenagers either run away or are expelled by their parents and they spend a lot of time homeless.

“Inheritance” Season 3. Wikipedia summary is: “A young Asian woman (Lynn Chen) is severely beaten and raped at a burglary site. Benson and Stabler initially suspect rival Asian gang members, who are in dispute over the victim's loyalty. This theory is disproven when they find another Asian victim and track down serial rapist Darrell Guan (Marcus Chong). Guan was ostracized throughout his childhood and feels that even his own mother (Wai Ching Ho) did not love him. The case hits close to home for Benson because Guan is also the product of a rape. The trial focuses on the impact of genetic predisposition versus environmental upbringing on the nature of violence.”

There are four things worth a note each.
1. An Asian-American detective says “Chinatown’s got no love for cops.” If that’s true, it’s very interesting to me. I have heard very little about conflict between (East) Asian-Americans and the police, and about 1/3 of my Bachelor’s degree is Asian-American Studies.  Asian-Americans DO overwhelmingly vote Democrat, but I had no idea there was widespread hostility towards the police among Chinese immigrants. If this is true it just means that the internal problem police have to overcome (racism) is even bigger than I thought.
2. At one point the detectives assure an Asian-American man they need help from that they’re not Immigration. I haven’t spelled this out when doing a comment like this before, but the point I’m trying to make is that they’re acting like the cops of a sanctuary city, which is what NYC is.
3. There is a fair amount of material about racial conflicts between Blacks and Chinese in America. I think there is some evidence of that in reality and I think it’s partly because the right-wing part of the establishment want to create a schism between Asian-Americans and other people of color, by, for example, pushing the model minority theory and pushing the idea that the former don’t need or support Affirmative Action (in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of a post here there’s some info about Asian-Americans and Affirmative Action). There’s also the fact that a significant minority of Blacks are anti-immigrant.
4. This episode also brings up the issue of abortion and rape. I am 100% pro-choice but if I were pro-life I would make an exception for rape- if a woman chooses to avoid being frequently reminded of such a nightmare by having an abortion, she should have that right.

“Monogamy” Season 3. Wikipedia summary is: “A pregnant woman (Tricia Paoluccio) is attacked and has her baby ripped from her womb. Detectives Benson and Stabler quickly look for the baby hoping he's still alive. The woman's husband (John Ritter) seems shocked, but it is soon discovered she may have had an affair with a construction worker (Bobby Cannavale). In the resulting trial, ADA Alex Cabot tries to find a way to charge the husband while avoiding the controversial territory of reproductive rights.”

You get the impression that all the main characters (the detectives and the ADA) are pro-choice.

“Prodigy” Season 3. Wikipedia summary is: “A man and a woman are stabbed during a supposedly romantic park encounter. The woman's head as well as her hands are missing, which makes it difficult for detectives Benson and Stabler to identify the victims. They soon learn that the crime scene was staged and that the woman was an officer of the Manhattan Federation for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. This leads them to various people from her organization, as well as its opposers, and a young sociopath (Michael Pitt) who had a troubled relationship with the woman. However they soon uncover a more violent suspect (Brian Sullivan) much more close.”

This is almost entirely about cruelty to animals.

“Popular” Season 3. Wikipedia summary is: “Detective Stabler's wife (Isabel Gillies) tells him that her nurse friend (Laura Duncan) at a local hospital treated a fourteen-year-old rape victim (Brittany Slattery), who refused to report the crime to the police or her family. Stabler decides to investigate her unofficially with the help of Detective Benson. They find out she and her classmates were involved with drugs and alcohol, a fact which troubles her family.”

In a Teacher’s Lounge at a Jr. High there’s a bulletin board below the words “Union News.”

Roseanne Reviews Q

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donald Trump and the 1/6 Capitol Riot

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

 

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

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

Law and Order: SVU Reviews 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.

Roseanne Reviews P

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roseanne: How?

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

Roseanne: So they get a tax break?

SR: Yeah that’s why they come here.

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

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

Roseanne: union wages?

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

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


(A scab is a strike-breaker)

********

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bi-Partisanship and Respect in American Politics

(UPDATE 3/23/21 I have looked at the multiple definitions in multiple dictionaries and I need to clarify what I mean by "respect." I'm talking not about admiration for someone, but about how we want to be treated. I feel like everyone deserves respect. I'm talking about treating people the way we would want to be treated; about respecting their rights; not having a double standard (like the one Senate Republicans had when it came to confirming Amy Coney Barrett in Oct. 2020 after blocking the confirmation of Merrick Garland in Feb. 2016 (they said Feb. 2016 was too close to a Presidential election and said that the winner of that election should appoint a replacement to the Supreme Court)). I hope that clears it up, but I am definitely not talking about admiring Republicans)

 

********

 UPDATE 5/18/24

1. I kind of said this below, but I've been wanting to say SOMEWHERE, something about Mike Pence (of TRUMP/PENCE 2016/2020) that I don't think a lot of people say. If it weren't for Mike Pence, we would be in a civil war right now.

 

 2. You should read an article here. This is far from the first sign that the GOP is dragging this country into a civil war, but it has alarmed me to such a degree that I am almost tempted to retract what I am saying this post.

********

President Biden campaigned as the person who could unite the country and work in a bi-partisan way. Our country is in something close to a “cold civil war” and we should worry about it getting worse. Biden might have to pursue some moderate policies because he barely has a majority in the Senate and the Dem majority in the House is small. But he should not be pursuing moderate policies in an effort to be a uniter.

The cold civil war is largely the work of republicans who have become very partisan and have decided that anything goes in politics. They already have an unfair advantage in the Senate and to a lesser degree Presidential elections because of how every state gets two senators and each state get two extra votes in the Electoral College because of the two senate seats (most of the smaller states are conservative). The police forces are largely republican and are not always professional about their job. And yet republicans talk as if they’re the oppressed in this country, instead of people of color, for example. And there’s reason to believe that many of them BELIEVE they are oppressed or are on the brink of being oppressed (see that link above).

Democrats promoting liberal and progressive policies some or most of the time are not the problem (I define liberal as to the left of Bill Clinton and to the right of Sen. Elizabeth Warren and I discuss that more here). Republicans spreading conspiracy theories like QAnon and calling for the death of democratic politicians and invading the US Capitol as they did in Jan. are the problem. QAnon started with the idea that the Democrats and the so-called “Deep State” (bureaucrats hostile to Trump) are a cannibalistic, Satanic elite that sexually abuse children. There is nothing on the Democratic side that’s both A) so widely accepted and B) so wildly slanderous. Democratic members of congress don’t call for the death of their republican opponents but GOP Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene HAS called for the execution of prominent Dems (a great video refuting one of the GOP arguments in her favor is here). Even during the eruption of Black Lives Matter protests last Summer violence was uncommon and it was aimed at targets other than democratic institutions- the Jan. 6th riot was aimed at overturning the results of a democratic election. (How do I know it was a democratic election? All of the dozens of republican lawsuits were either dismissed by a judge or were withdrawn. Even the Supreme Court of the US wouldn’t help Trump, and there are many statements by government officials like then-Attorney General William Barr which contradicted Trump’s claim that there was fraud on a scale large enough to explain Biden’s win)

Those are just a few examples of the many, many ways that republicans have become incredibly partisan. Biden pushing, for example, a massive COVID-19 relief bill as he’s doing now is not the kind of partisanship that’s the problem. When republicans oppose that kind of effort, I don’t see it as a problem unless they’re using the filibuster some large chunk of the time. If Biden wants to be a uniter, he just needs to not do the sort of things I described in the paragraph above and I can’t see him doing anything like that at all. He doesn’t, for example, believe in packing the Supreme Court, something that’s only questionable, not comparable to the things mentioned in that paragraph. He should act like he’s accountable to Congress and avoid the behavior we saw from Trump in his dealings with Congress. He needs to give the GOP (individually and collectively) credit when it’s due (for example, Mike Pence didn’t give in to Trump’s demands about Congress certifying the 2020 election results, or that a large majority of the House GOP voted to keep Liz Cheney in their leadership after she voted to impeach or that two apparently good COVID-19 vaccines were developed on Trump’s watch or that in 2005 the Chair of the RNC admitted that Nixon’s 1968 campaign appealed to segregationists and apologized for it). He needs to abstain from having a double standard and seriously criticize any Democratic politician or official if (and it’s a huge if) they say anything comparable to what Marjorie Taylor Greene said. Although I’m not sure what is involved with the “reconciliation” parliamentary move (it’ll probably be how Biden’s COVID-19 relief bill gets passed in the Senate) it seems like something that Democrats can’t and shouldn’t use often, just like the filibuster shouldn’t be used too often (actually, at this point I think the filibuster has been abused by the GOP and is a bad thing and that it should be gotten rid of independent of which party is in the majority of the Senate).

Biden should treat the GOP with respect, but you can disagree like crazy with someone and still treat them with respect, so he shouldn’t try to be a uniter by pushing moderate policies.

(I believe that there’s a spectrum between democratic and undemocratic and that our political system is  closer to the former than the latter, and I did a post here about the different ways America can become more politically democratic (there's a similar post here))

The US, Afghanistan and the War on Terror

 Before he lost the 2020 election, Trump was close to ending the US military presence in Afghanistan. He had promised to do so, referring to it as an endless war. I had mixed feelings about it. In the first two years after 9/11 I supported our presence there, even while I actively and solidly opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq (I describe that work here).          

I was influenced by a minority statement from members of the national leadership of the Young Democratic Socialists and believed that it was a time, like WWII, when the progressive thing to do was to support an American-led multi-lateral effort against fascist forces who were a threat to justice and peace in the world. 9/11 was largely about killing as many Americans as possible and it’s easier to kill civilians than it is to kill members of the military, so Al-Qaeda primarily went after civilians. Even the plane that DID target the military had civilians on board. And, not everyone working in the World Trade Center was a “little Eichman” as Ward Churchill said (Ward was my faculty advisor and in general I am proud of that, but he was wrong about somewhere around 99% of the people who were working in the WTC). Although it would have been a crucial part of successfully defeating Al-Qaeda, I don’t think that changing America’s foreign policy to address the complaints of Al-Qaeda would have been enough by itself to stop them. A successful and progressive war on terror would have involved an armed conflict with Al-Qaeda and that’s partly because America’s imperialistic foreign policy (and crucially it’s support for Israel) is not the only thing that motivates Al-Qaeda and it’s supporters to want conflict with the US. It’s relevant that we are a relatively liberal society and they are religious fundamentalists who see most Americans as infidels. In short, Al-Qaeda are religious fundamentalist fascist terrorists who had carried out an attack aimed at killing as many American civilians as possible and who were sheltered by the Taliban government in Afghanistan.

I believe that if we had done the following, we would have been victorious against Al-Qaeda:
1. Changed American foreign policy, especially when it comes to the Middle-East. Looking beyond the Middle-East, I think that a lot of progressive and non-aligned/independent people and groups and nations in this world would have been more interested in helping America defeat Al-Qaeda if we were pursuing a better foreign policy aimed at reversing the transfer of wealth between the global “North” and the global “South” and democratizing the global economy and generally pursuing global justice. Looking at the Mid-East specifically, we shouldn’t be supporting Israel for a whole range of reasons that have nothing to do with Al-Qaeda (I make a pretty good argument against Zionism here) but forcing Israel to negotiate seriously and respectfully with the Palestinians would also dry up a lot of Al-Qaeda’s support in the Arab and Muslim worlds.
2. Made the War on Terror very multi-lateral. Although I’ll concede that NATO’s involvement in Afghanistan hasn’t seemed to help, the effort against Al-Qaeda would have been even less successful if it were just the US. In the very early months after 9/11 Germany offered ground forces and the US declined the offer. It would have been more multi-lateral and if other things on this list had happened there would have also been some Muslim nations prominently involved in Afghanistan.
3. The US had purged itself of bigotry towards muslims. Instead we had popular commentators and politicians spewing anti-muslim bigotry which affected how the Muslim world reacted to 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan.
4. Had a better set of domestic policies. Going back to part of #2, we would have had more allies globally if American DOMESTIC policy was better. A lot of progressive and non-aligned/independent individuals and groups and nations aren’t enthusiastic about helping the US government when they consider how much poverty and inequality there is in America.
5. Stayed out of Iraq. They had nothing to do with 9/11 and Saddam was hostile to Al-Qaeda. The invasion meant shifting resources from Afghanistan to Iraq and angered a large part of the Muslim world.
6. Treated Al-Qaeda and Taliban members captured in Afghanistan as POWs. We would have been doing the right thing and we wouldn’t have been heavily criticized as we were by almost the entire world. I’m obviously not a fan of either group but I believe strongly that when combatants are captured, they should be treated as POWs. Whether they were allied airmen during WWII, or IRA members in N. Ireland, or American pilots in Vietnam, or the German SS or Islamic State members, they deserve(d) to be treated as POWs.
7. Abstained from torture. We not only tortured, many American politicians like Peter King of NY, praised the Bush administration for it’s use of torture (I’m thinking primarily of waterboarding and what happened at Abu Ghraib in Iraq; see this). This turned a huge chunk of the world’s population against us.

So, that’s pretty much why the War on Terror has not been won and why we briefly faced something close to a state (in the north of Syria) based on a version of Islam even worse than the one that Al-Qaeda embraces.

Returning to Trump’s idea of pulling out of Afghanistan, a large chunk of the US military and many civilian commentators don’t believe the Taliban has been following through on their part of the peace deal they agreed with Washington. It seems likely that they will continue with their war against Kabul and when the US and NATO are gone, they will probably win. And they will probably be a safe haven for Al-Qaeda and/or the Islamic State. And one or both of those two will attack America at some point. I doubt that America will change its Israel policy anytime soon. In general I don’t think Biden will have a consistently progressive foreign policy.

Although I have difficulty saying this, I am more in favor of than against us withdrawing from Afghanistan. What do I think we should do when we leave, the Taliban win, and there’s an Al-Qaeda or IS attack on America? What I referred to positively in the list above, and once that’s done, a multi-national invasion of Afghanistan (unless the Taliban hand Al-Qaeda and IS over to some appropriate authority (possibly the US, possibly someone else)).

(one last thing is that there needs to be a change in the US military (especially the Army and Marines), where they make more effort to avoid civilian casualties. It’s estimated that in Iraq tens of, or a couple hundred thousand(s) of Iraqi civilians were killed by the US military. I learned from an interview on the radio of a political acquaintance that when his son was being trained for deployment to Iraq with the US Army Corps of Engineers, he was told to fire at gunmen even if there were civilians in the way who could easily be shot by accident. The US military needs to understand that when they do stuff like that, they are not increasing their odds of surviving the war, because the relatives and friends of civilians killed by the US military are likely to support or become anti-US combatants)

 

(UPDATE 5/9/21 I forgot to mention something. About a week before I wrote this post I wrote a brief note on the same subject in a post of reviews of Law and Order: SVU:

I’m going to keep this pretty brief. Sometime around 2000 I signed at least one if not two email petitions criticizing the Taliban BEFORE 9/11. The first two years of the US invasion of Afghanistan I supported it, partly because of how offensive the Taliban are. I got the impression that Afghan women didn’t support the invasion, but I also supported it because of 9/11 (Al-Qaeda was based there), so it wasn’t just the misogyny of the Taliban (which, by itself wouldn’t justify an invasion considering the opposition of the Afghan feminists). After two years I realized that under George W. Bush’s leadership the War on Terror was a disaster and in that context the war in Afghanistan was not going to help and was just going to make things worse. But I also can’t imagine a successful War on Terror that doesn’t include defeating Al-Qaeda. I’ll take that thought a little further in another post that I’ll work on soon and publish soon.

 

I AM concerned about what a Taliban victory would mean for girls and women in Afghanistan. An article sort of about that is here) 

********

UPDATE 10/24/23 A little more on why a progressive and successful response to 9/11 would have involved taking down Al Qaeda. In 1998, a few months after the Good Friday peace agreement in N. Ireland was ratified by the voters, a splinter group from the IRA detonated a bomb in Omagh, N. Ireland, and killed 29 civilians. The thing is, at that time maybe about 1% of the Catholic population supported armed struggle, and yet the splinter group (the "Real IRA") was able to carry out attacks. Even if all seven things on that list above were done, it would not have 100% ended Al Qaeda's willingness and ability to carry out attacks on western targets.

********

 

UPDATE 7/3/24 I believe that there are a bunch of progressives who seem to think that the American civilian population just has to take hit after hit after hit until they stop voting for ass-holes. I don't think American civilians deserve to die.

Law and Order: SVU Reviews O

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

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

“Wrong is Right” Season 2. I can’t find a summary to link to or copy so here’s my summary: It’s about a teenager who kills the man who adopted him because the man and his boss were molesting him.

The thing is, the man who adopted the boy is an expert on missile guidance systems that the military use and during the Persian Gulf War his legal status as a sex offender was turned off so that he could easily cross international borders to work on missile guidance systems (I’m not sure it makes sense that someone with that speciality would be needed in multiple countries during the war, but that’s what the writers came up with). His legal status was never turned back on and he adopted a boy. We also learn that the man’s boss at a defense contractor also attacked the boy. I don’t think that the show is claiming there’s a connection between the defense industry and the sexual abuse of minors the way they might or probably would claim that there’s at least some racial profiling by the police- I don’t like the defense industry and I don’t believe there’s such a connection. But I still liked the idea of that industry looking bad in this episode.

“Honor” Season 2. Wikipedia summary is: “A woman found in the park shows signs of being viciously assaulted. She is identified as Nafeesa Amir, the daughter of Afghan diplomat Saleh Amir (Marshall Manesh). During the investigation, the detectives learn that Nafeesa and her brother Jaleel (Anil Kumar) were raised according to Taliban traditions in which an "honor killing" is the punishment for disobedience. Although her individuality has been suppressed for her entire life, the SVU squad turns to Aziza Amir (Susham Bedi) for help, hoping that the love she feels for her daughter is stronger.”

This is a pretty good look at the political Islam of Afghanistan’s Taliban. It does a pretty good job of suggesting that the Taliban are in conflict with most Muslims and with the Koran.

I’m going to keep this pretty brief. Sometime around 2000 I signed at least one if not two email petitions criticizing the Taliban BEFORE 9/11. The first two years of the US invasion of Afghanistan I supported it, partly because of how offensive the Taliban are. I got the impression that Afghan women didn’t support the invasion, but I also supported it because of 9/11 (Al-Qaeda was based there), so it wasn’t just the misogyny of the Taliban (which, by itself wouldn’t justify an invasion considering the opposition of the Afghan feminists). After two years I realized that under George W. Bush’s leadership the War on Terror was a disaster and in that context the war in Afghanistan was not going to help and was just going to make things worse. But I also can’t imagine a successful War on Terror that doesn’t include defeating Al-Qaeda. I’ll take that thought a little further in another post that I’ll work on soon and publish soon. (UPDATE 3/32/22 That post is here)


“Baby Killer” Season 2. Wikipedia summary is: “The tragic shooting death of a young girl leads investigators to a little boy Elias (Nicolas Martí Salgado). Elliot and Olivia interview him with his parents (Sara Ramirez and Robert Montano) as he is one of the youngest murder suspects they have ever questioned. Meanwhile, Alex argues with her co-workers over what punishment would be ethical. Ballistic evidence reveals that Elias picked up the gun after a gang related murder which he must have witnessed. In addition to providing a mitigating circumstance for Elias' case, this allows the detectives to apprehend a wanted criminal (Carlos Leon).”

There are a few minor things worth mentioning:

1) The killer’s teacher says that officially classes should have no more than 32 kids and hers has 40 and one of the detectives says “it must make it kind of hard to give each student the attention they need.” The teacher shows the detectives a violent picture the killer drew in class but says that she didn’t act on it because she wasn’t shocked by such things coming from children. Although the picture wasn’t a sign the boy was going to kill the girl, I think that violence among young students might decline if teachers had more time for students who need it, and that’s one more reason for there to be more teachers and smaller classes.
2) When discussing what lead to the shooting members of the SVU team point out that because the HMO of the killer’s parents wouldn’t cover their daughter’s medical condition they had to work more than normal to pay the medical bills but couldn’t afford regular child care so they sent their son to an illegal, cheap and sub-standard child care operation. We need universal health insurance or something close to it (like Obamacare with a public option) and we need, for multiple reasons, free or heavily subsidized child care.
3) A psychiatrist who used to be a recurring character on Law and Order when she worked with the authorities says that her heroes are “not those who started wars but those who brought about peace.”
4) Since the little boy is Latino and the little girl he killed was Black, there is talk of racial tensions. On one hand, the girl’s mom tries to stop this talk, but the little boy ends up killed by a Black little boy.

“Asunder” Season 2. Wikipedia summary is here: “The truth behind the alleged rape of a woman (Amy Carlson) by her police officer husband (Nestor Serrano) comes to light when a history of domestic abuse is uncovered. Monique Jeffries leaves the squad and files a discrimination suit against the NYPD.”

This is one of the episodes where they go after a cop.

Roseanne Reviews O

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

“The Commercial Show” Episode 19 Season 4. Wikiedpedia summary is: “The Conners are picked for a Rodbell's commercial, much to Darlene's embarrassment. Leon and his partner break up. The Bowmans are moving back to Chicago.”

There’s about 55 lines by non-family members, but only about 10% were spoken by people of color.

Also, there’s some significant stuff about Leon being gay.

“Therapy” Episode 20, Season 4. Wikipedia summary is: : ”Darlene mouths off about a girl at school, and Roseanne accompanies Jackie to her therapist.”

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

“Lies” Episode 21, Season 4. Wikipedia summary is: “Darlene bypasses Roseanne for advice on David. Roseanne is anxious about a lie detector test in her workplace.”

A very minor character gets upset that he’s eating meat and that he’s using paper products (a cow and a tree had to be killed) but (unfortunately) I think it’s just the writers being funny- I don’t think we’re supposed to take him seriously the way we would if Darlene said something like that.

Roseanne, in a misguided effort at being a good ally outs Leon at work to an investigator working for the corporation (she thinks they’re investigating Leon because he’s gay and calls that un-Ameican). It’s kind of inspiring, if you ignore how she outed him when his supervisors might not have known (probably didn’t know) that he’s gay. She tries to undo the damage by saying that he’s not gay.

Out of 50 lines spoken by non-family members, none are spoken by a person of color.

“Deliverance” Episode 22, Season 4. Wikipedia summary is: “8-months-pregnant Crystal goes into labor and Dan coaches her as she gives birth to her long-awaited daughter. Roseanne and Bonnie feud over who will manage the coffee shop, the feud causing Roseanne and Jackie to miss Crystals daughter being born, but both learn it is closing down in three weeks. Darlene tells David to stop crowding her.”

Out of about 40-45 lines spoken by non-family members, none were by people of color.

“Secrets” Episode 23, Season 4. Wikipedia summary: “Depressed because Becky still will not see him, Mark gets drunk at the Lobo Lounge and puts his fist through the jukebox. Dan tends to him, then must lie to Roseanne and Becky.”

Out of about 30-40 lines by non-family members, about 20% are by people of color.

Law and Order: SVU Reviews N

 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.

“I Deserve Some Loving, Too” Season 21. See this for a summary.       

The main political aspect of this is an investigator for the US Citizenship and Immigration Services abusing his position to coerce women involved with Green Card marriages into sleeping with him. I like to think it’s a comment on TRUMP’S USCIS, especially since the guy starts talking at one point about how immigration is an “invasion” of people who will take public services, food, and jobs from native-born Americans. The ADA says that instead of the immigrants getting the American dream, they get a nightmare.

There’s a few minor aspects worth mentioning:

1. Towards the beginning there’s a near-riot in response to SVU arresting a Black man for groping on the subway. They move on from it pretty quickly, and he IS guilty, so it doesn’t bother me.
2. Although this kind of undermines sympathy for immigrants, it turns out that one marriage the USCIS supervisor was messing with is fake- the man is gay.
3. One character says that after 9/11 Muslims feel ashamed of being muslim- it’s not because of what Al-Qaeda did, but how America responded to 9/11.

“Swimming with the Sharks” Season 21. See this for a summary.

There’s one thing worth mentioning. The white female character played by the main guest star is in a relationship with a black woman. I realize that nowadays inter-racial relationships are more accepted than they were 20 years ago, but it still seemed worth mentioning.

“Eternal Relief from Pain” Season 21. See this for a summary.

There are two political notes:

1. The apparently Arab-American supervisor of the SVU ADA (a recurring character) says that the main defendant’s father would never have let her marry his white son.

2. The new female SVU detective might be bisexual, although at the risk of getting too sexual for this blog, she might just like fooling around with other women (it’s my theory that a lot of straight women are like that but they don’t want a girlfriend or to even go on a date with another woman. Also the character is, I think, Arab-American, I just can’t remember for sure.

“Solving for the Unknowns” Season 21 See this for a plot summary.

I’m pretty sure at this point that Kat, the new female detective, is identified as bi-sexual. In some ways it’s no more important than the appearance of other LGB characters but I’d say it IS more important. In an average season, between the detectives and the ADAs there’s about 6 main characters, and there’s been 21 seasons. I think that about 15% of NYC is gay or bi-sexual and although there is I’m sure some conflict in real life between that community and the NYPD, it’s still nice that they are now a part of the show in a solid way, every episode, contributing to the team of detectives and ADAs chasing down sex criminals and kidnappers, wife-beaters, and child abusers. Also, although I don’t think that Kat is Muslim, she is Arab-American.

“The Things we Have to Lose” See this for a summary. 

There’s two minor notes:

1. A gay witness.
2. A man transitioning towards being a woman works as a prostitute and is close with the detective Kat.