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))

 

********

UPDATE 11/13/25

I need to add two more items to this post.

First, a paragraph that I wrote about the danger of a second American civil war, for a separate post    should also be here:

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

Second, I need to explain that I recently did something on the fringe of trying to avoid a civil war. I did a little project where I typed up something that touched on various aspects of the Prisoner of War issue (I imagine I am practically the only person who considers that an issue, but it’s very important to me and I explain why in a blogpost version of the PDF essay I put together here) The thing is, one batch of email addresses I sent it to were the “contact us” email address or the leadership addresses of six veterans organizations- three that lean a bit or a lot to the left (About Face (Iraq vets against the war), Common Defense (for progressives and liberals in the general vet population) and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (liberal, but probably includes a lot of moderates as well)) and three that lean to the right (Vietnam Veterans of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars and American GI Forum (probably moderate and for Latinos and Latinas)). I focused exclusively on the POW issue but I think it had potential to make some of them more likely to listen to what I have to say on other issues (although I don’t think I got more than 10 page-views of my blog in connection with emailing veterans groups, my effort could have resulted in some of them reading significant parts of my blog). 

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.     

 

Immigration   

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.

Roseanne Reviews N

 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.

“Santa Claus” Episode 12, Season 4. Wikipedia summary is: “Roseanne and Jackie are the new Santa and Mrs. Claus at Rodbell's; while on duty, Roseanne meets Darlene's new friend Karen...and Karen's son. She is resentful that Darlene refused to open up to her but has shared her writing with Karen.”

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

There are two sort of political things.

1) Darlene’s grown-up friend is a Star Trek fan. Nothing is said about the politics of ST, but it IS a very political franchise, as I explain here.                             

2) Darlene comes out as an atheist.

“Bingo” Episode 13, Season 4. Wikipedia summary is: “Crystal, Roseanne, Bonnie, Anne Marie, and Jackie attend bingo for their girl's night out, while Becky and Darlene look after Little Ed. Roseanne wins a game and quickly becomes addicted, which sparks a fight with Crystal. But Crystal's real story is that she is pregnant again and already feels overwhelmed raising Little Ed and her teenage son while Ed is often away on business.”

An unpopular character makes a stupid but not really offensive comment about Indian casinos. He was acting like the idiot that he is. He’s not a role model like most characters are.

Out of about 45 lines by non-family members, about 1/4 were by a person of color.

“The Bowling Show” Episode 14, Season 4. Wikipedia summary is: “Dan and Arnie struggle to bring their bowling team out of last place, while Roseanne feels shut out of Jackie and Nancy's new friendship. Darlene meets Mark's brother, David for the first time (although he is referred to as Kevin in this episode).”

Out of about 55 lines by non-family members, about 10% are by people of color.

“Less is More” Episode 16, Season 4. Wikipedia summary is: “Roseanne's doctor recommends she get a breast reduction to reduce stress on her back. She agrees in spite of a nightmare (featuring a cameo appearance by Neil Patrick Harris as Doogie Howser, MD), in which her breasts are accidentally enlarged to gigantic proportions.

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

“Breaking Up Is Hard To Do” Episode 17, Season 4. Wikipedia summary is: “When Becky breaks up with Mark, Roseanne and Dan can finally relax.”

I think this is the first time we hear that Darelene is a vegetarian. Although I eat vegetarian and some vegan meals, I’m an omnivore and eat a fair amount of meat. For whatever it’s worth, I occasionally think of becoming a vegetarian (and if I did I wouldn’t eat eggs) but I don’t think I will and I will certainly never become a vegan. I’ve heard that there’s an environmental argument in favor of vegetables over meat because the latter requires more water to produce. I responded to that by cutting back a little on how much meat I consume and replacing it with vegetables.

Out of about 20 lines by a non-family member, none were by people of color.

Two New Poems: "Mass Incarceration" and "Iraq"

 I wrote two new poems. For more about my poetry, see this. Both of these are based on songs I don't like.

You can see all the poems by clicking on the "lyrics" label at the bottom.

“Mass Incarceration” based on “Justice” by Skrewdriver. Original lyrics are here.

0. I THINK that when I first typed this about 5 years ago, I was thinking of the 1990s, and assumed that things in recent years were a little less obscene. I could be wrong about that, and even if it's less bad now, it's still bad.
1. This is about the mass incarceration of Blacks in America. It was the result of “law and order” laws like the 1994 Crime Bill and racist cops, DAs, judges, witnesses, jurors, and the poverty that prevents many black people from getting a good lawyer instead of an over-worked, underfunded public defender. I am not saying that all cops, judgers, jurors, etc. are racist, but many of them are
2. I am not a fan of the kind of gangs that are based in communities of color, but I know that in the past there was a lot of guilt-by-association involved with how law enforcement decide who to arrest. Also, in the movie “Set It Off” a working-class black bank-teller is suspected of being the inside-woman in a robbery because she sort of knows one of the robbers.
3. I think this has changed in the last 10-20 years, but for a long time crack convictions came with a longer sentence than cocaine convictions, and to a large extent cocaine was more popular with whites than blacks and crack was more popular with blacks than whites.
4. I can’t remember the figures and they varied over time, but Blacks were much more likely to be in prison than whites were. Blacks were more likely to be in prison than in college. The rate of incarceration for blacks was very high and America’s general rate of incarceration is very high compared to other countries, maybe all of them, I can’t remember.
5. 44% of this version is me, 56% is the original.

6. I give this poem 2 stars out of 5.

Their knees feel weak as they’re dragged from the court


Convicted because of with whom they consort


One by one, the judge locks them all away


Trumped up charges is the game the DA plays
 


Chorus:


Call that justice, well it just ain't fair,


How much longer before we care


Call that justice from a racist judge


The cop’s testimony was a total fudge

 

Stripped in a cell, they’re shackled in chains


Lost all their dignity, but trying to keep sane


A longer sentence if you happen to be black


their excuse is that instead of coke it was crack


(Repeat Chorus)


Call this a democracy and “the land of free”


They say there’s equality and meritocracy 


Here's the reality, a racist state


Warehousing Black people behind prison gates

**********

“Iraq” based on “They Stand Alone” by No Remorse. Original lyrics are here.

1. This is about the occupation of Iraq.
2. I think another reason for invading Iraq is that it provided multiple opportunities to give money to corporations. Besides arms contractors and those doing privatized work for the military (security, laundry, food, interrogations, etc.), corporations getting money for reconstruction spent about half of what they got doing actual reconstruction (often a contractor would keep half and give the rest to a subcontractor and sometimes THAT corporation would keep half and give the rest to another subcontractor).
3. Black gold is another term for oil.
4. There was a lot of corruption in the Iraqi government.
5. Haliburton was a company that Dick Cheney had been a leader of before he became VP. It got a lot of US Gov’t contracts to do stuff in Iraq.
6. Laos was bombed as part of the Vietnam War.
7. Although the original is supportive of the Palestinians and sometimes fascists are anti-intervention, this is basically in conflict with what the authors of the original lyrics believe because a lot of American Nazi skinheads joined the US military during the Occupation of Iraq and volunteered to go there and because I think that a lot of white supremacists and fascists in America were pro-war during the Vietnam War.
8. 59% of this version is me, and 41% is the original.

9. I give this poem 2 stars out of 5.

A tank rolls out on the sun bright sand.
Gunfire's heard in an occupied land.
People run, scared for their lives
The sounds of death, sounds of screaming wives

chorus
US Army man, you must go.
Your humvees and your CEOs
Iraqis you must make a stand.
You must work to free your land

A nation, full of black gold
In the minds of American oil companies, it’s already sold
Propped up by pillars, of corruption and graft
An occupation supported by ground attack aircraft

Millions for Haliburton, while Iraqis die.
World-wide news media frequently ask why.
Headquarters of Satan, in the Bush White House
It's an imperialist project, just like the bombing of Laos

Law and Order: SVU Reviews M

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 Burden of Our Choices” Season 21. Summary is here.

 

Abortion 

This is more about abortion than it is about a sex crime (in this case sexual abuse of a minor by her step-father). Until the end all of the pro-lifers are more concerned about the girl having an abortion than they are concerned about the abuse that resulted in the pregnancy. One refers to abortion as a “modern-day genocide” which should be seen as an insult to those who have seen their population almost wiped about. There’s the tiniest bit of dissent but in general the main characters are pro-choice.

One says that money is a factor, that women with money can get abortions easier than women without. And that’s true in multiple ways. First, it’s usually not a free procedure and there is great opposition among pro-lifers to using federal money to pay for abortions. Second, in many states only a minority of counties have an abortion provider and that means women have to travel, some times great distances, to get an abortion. And some states have a waiting period which means spending days in whatever city they have to travel to for the abortion. Poor women can’t afford the gas money and motel room needed.

The 13-yo rape victim (and that’s another thing, the pro-lifers in this episode are the sort who don’t make an exception for rape) tries to kill herself. In the Republic of Ireland, abortion is about 99% illegal. In the 1990s there was at least one court case that decided that if the woman is suicidal and that’s certified by two psychiatrists, she can have an abortion. In 2002 a referendum almost over-turned that by constitutional amendment but it was narrowly defeated. Although Sinn Fein was more or less pro-life, they believed in making several exceptions and the woman being suicidal was one of them and they not only called for a NO vote, they joined a coalition for that purpose with the Green Party, the Labour Party, and a feminist organization.

“At Midnight in Manhattan” Season 21. Summary is here.

A big chunk of this is about transphobia.

“Murdered at a Bad Address” Season 21. Summary is here.

This is about clearing an innocent man who spent 16 years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit. Although it’s not clear, I think that when the detective who originally investigated and arrested the man is interviewed by SVU, he refers to the wrongly convicted as PRs and I think that means Puerto Ricans (both of them have Spanish last names). An SVU detective suggests a class and racial dimension to the original investigation, hence the episode title (they lived in the housing project the murders took place in).

The Queens Assistant DA who gets the wrongly convicted man (his alleged accomplice died shortly before SVU started investigating) out of prison is a gay man. So are/were the two wrongly convicted men and the homophobia of our society kept them from explaining that they were having sex with each other when the rape/double murder took place- they probably could have gotten out of the rape charge and therefore the murder charge as well just by telling the truth about their sexual orientation.

“Counselor, it’s Chinatown” Season 21. Summary is here.

There’s one bit that's pro-immigrant. When they raid a massage parlor that involves sex-work, they offer the women working there help with immigration.


“The Longest Night of Rain” Season 21 See this for a summary.

This is about a cop who was raped by a superior in the NYPD.

Trump's Loss and COVID-19

Below is first what I submitted to CNN when they asked people to respond to Biden's win, and below that is another note about Trump and COVID-19. The first one hasn't been edited by me since I submitted it to CNN.

1. I'm really glad. I had a lot of anxiety about it, which won't completely leave until Trump either concedes or it's clear that he's isolated and alone. But Trump is worse than George W. Bush and Bush was worse than his Dad and most republicans. In addition to everything else, Trump has been a disaster in relation to the pandemic. He would actually make fun of people for wearing masks. We have suffered disproportionate to our numbers as a nation. At the end of May we had lost 100,000 people. At the same time, at that point Israel had lost just 284 people- in America, 30 times bigger, that's 8,520 people. As much as I dislike Netanyahu, if he were our President in the early months of the pandemic, we would have lost 8,520 people instead of 100,000. I'm sure something similar can be said about the time since late May. He predicted a pandemic while Trump was calling it a media hoax, he was putting his foot down about social distancing while Trump was prematurely talking about re-opening. I write at greater length about this at- https://theblackandthegreen2.blogspot.com/2020/04/trump-netanyahu-and-covid-19-coronavirus.html     But the main thing is that we had a horrible President when we needed, more than ever, a good one, and now (what will hopefully be) the final months of COVID-19 will be more bearable and less anxiety producing if we have a President who encourages mask-wearing, who doesn't seek political favors in exchange for desperately-needed medical supplies, who doesn't push us too far as far as re-opening, who will allow the scientists and doctors to develop a vaccine that is safe and effective without political interference, etc.

2. Somewhere in my COVID-19 posts I need to put something. I am a very strong believer in masks and I also respect Dr. Fauci. Trump likes to point out that in the very early weeks of COVID-19 Dr. Fauci opposed the idea of encouraging the general public to wear masks. Dr. Fauci's main or only argument was that there weren't enough masks for medical personnel AND the general public. Now, in hindsight and maybe for some people at the time, opposing mask use by the general public was a stupid mistake. There would have been fewer deaths in the Spring if we had all been wearing masks. I understand that medical personnel were a priority, but this is another example of Trump failing to use the Defense Production Act like a sledgehammer. We could have had enough masks in early March if he had. I don't know how Netanyahu did on this question, but Trump failed. Before he started making fun of people for wearing a mask, at one point in April or May he made some half-hearted suggestion that people "might" want to wear a scarf over their mouth and nose. And he seems to think that masks are primarily for the benefit of the wearer, when it's for the people around them. He also doesn't understand that you should wear a mask when no one's around but there's a decent chance someone will come up to you unexpectedly, instead of just when there ARE people around you. We all forget sometimes to wear a mask when we go out, but if you plan on putting one on when you leave the house instead of just when someone unexpectedly comes up to you outside, it’ll work out better.

An Example of Irish-American Anti-Racism

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

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

Peter Kissel, President


George Trainor, Vice-President


Kevin Barry, Treasurer


Sarah McAuliffe-Bellin, Secretary

********

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

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

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

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