My Position on Ukraine

As I’ll explain below, I basically support Ukraine. I don’t see a Nazi problem there any more serious than what most white countries have, I don’t see why it’s so important for Russia to intervene in support of the the Russia population in Ukraine, I find Putin offensive for various reasons, etc. However I am also concerned about a war starting between the US and Russia.

About 40% of my info for this is from CNN, about 40% is from NPR, and the rest is miscellaneous stuff including Dave Anderson’s column.

1. I have heard almost nothing about a current problem with Nazis in Ukraine. According to Dave Anderson in the Boulder Weekly, the Nazis are no longer politically significant. I DID read on CNN.com about a battalion of the Ukrainian military that is more right-wing than most military units. But I got the impression it was also not very significant. I have read that the President of Ukraine is Jewish, probably less than 100%. And although it’s not a good sign for him that I feel a need to say this, I get the impression he is okay with people of color (he recently addressed some body of the African Union and met with his counterpart from Indonesia). I have read of Putin making vague references to Nazism in Ukraine, but they’re incredibly vague. I have heard some stuff making me think that RUSSIA is the one with the Nazi problem.
2. I have heard almost nothing about Russian-speaking people being oppressed in Ukraine. I’m not sure what to think of what happened with Viktor Yanukovych. I don’t remember exactly what happened, but everything else I have read indicates that Ukraine is a healthy democracy and aside from the thing about Yanukovych I have not heard of anything about the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine being oppressed.
3. I don’t believe that NATO expansion explains what Putin is doing to Ukraine and I’m certain it doesn’t justify it. Putin has been acting like an imperialist- taking little bits here and there into his State or at least his spheres of influence- parts of Georgia, then a part of Ukraine and now more of Ukraine.
4. I cannot understand why anyone would blame the Ukrainian people for fighting back. At least some part of that population is going to be under the rule of a foreign nation, a foreign nation that has shown zero respect for the Ukrainian people (what Putin said shortly before the invasion, and what his forces have been doing as part of the invasion). I can only imagine how horrible that is.
5. I don’t like Putin. Last I heard, about 15-20 years ago, he made governors in Russia appointed instead of elected. He’s friendly with Trump. He’s incredibly homophobic. In general he seems pretty repulsive to me. My hope is that if the Ukraine invasion is too costly (in economic and military terms) it might weaken Putin.

6. Practically every European country that is not Russia is in NATO. And some of the exceptions are in the EU which is also supporting Ukraine. Critics of Biden’s Ukraine policy have been out-voted by almost all of Europe that is not Russia. They are worried about Russian aggression.

I realize what I just wrote might not change many minds. I’ve only been reading about 1,000 words a day about the conflict and related issues and in earlier years I am sure I missed a lot of relevant stuff. But I do support Ukraine.

I AM worried about the US getting into a war with Russia. In fact, in 2016 I told 1-3 people that Russia was the only issue where I preferred Trump over Clinton (I voted for Clinton (there were enough serious problems with Trump (i.e. he accepted support from David Duke) that I ignored the fact CO is not a swing state and failed to vote for a good 3rd party)). I can’t believe that Zelensky repeatedly asked for a no-fly zone and I’m really glad that Biden answered with a firm NO. I think the US can help Ukraine defend itself and at the same time avoid a conflict with Russia (Vietnam didn't become WWIII and neither did Afghanistan in the 1980s). Although I ended up looking a little stupid with that book review about nuclear war, the tension between the US and Russia is one of the reasons I am trying to promote the book and discussion about nuclear war.

Tom

Mutually Assured Destruction: My Review of David Mace's "Fire Lance"

 I somehow stumbled onto the sci-fi novel “Fire Lance” in High School. It may have played a small role in me moving towards the left during those years (when I was 16 I became a member of the Rocky Mountain Peace (and Justice) Center at least partly because of their position on nuclear weapons). I’ve read it 2-3 times since then, most recently a couple of weeks before this post was published.

It was written in 1986 by a British sci-fi writer named David Mace. I read one of his other books but I didn’t like it very much (Fire Lance is one of my favorite books). It’s one of my favorite books because it’s both politically progressive and reminds me of the centrist/centre-right author Tom Clancy who often wrote about the military (I might go into more detail about this in a future post, but between 1989 and 2009 about 70% of the fiction I read was by Clancy and people like him- since 2009 it has gone down to about 1/4 of the novels I read).

Fire Lance is about a nuclear war between the USSR and the US. It’s not clear when in the future it takes place, but I think maybe it’s supposed to be about 10-20 years in the future from the author’s perspective in 1986. It’s pretty vague about the political situation that became a shooting war. It started with satellites in space going down and then there was some conventional action in Europe, and then it went nuclear. Some large majority of each side’s nuclear arsenal is used before they stop.  Around the same time they stop, nuclear winter sets in. Although almost the entire book takes place on a US naval vessel where they have no idea what it’s like on land outside the underground American command centers (i.e. Cheyenne Mountain), at one point a soldier who spent weeks at the beginning of the war outside those command centers talks about what that was like in the aftermath of such a total nuclear war. The breakdown of society and the freezing conditions that would be part of a nuclear winter are well illustrated.

Both the President and Vice-President are killed and the “government” is made up of the military and national security bureaucrats, all unelected. After the conventional war is over and the nuclear war winds down, they spend their time debating whether or not to start things up again with the Soviets. Before the story starts the “soft-liners” or “‘no more war’ people” in the places like Cheyenne Mountain are eliminated and the debate shits to those who want to wait and see what the Soviets do, and on the other side those who want to start the war again immediately. One of the only significant military units still capable of attacking the USSR is the Vindicator, a futuristic surface ship with a small number of offensive jets and Anti-Submarine Warfare helicopters and the Fire Lance system- hundreds of nuclear armed cruise missiles.

One of the two main characters is David Drexel, a British national working for the US government on national security matters. Although he’s primarily a survivor and bounces between the two factions in the US “Government,” he also has some good progressive commentary about American politics and foreign policy. He criticizes us for supporting totalitarian anti-Communist governments and on a related note for enforcing a foreign policy that is pro-life when it comes to abortion.

The other main character is the Vindicator’s Commanding Officer Captain Richard Bedford. He’s pretty non-political and doesn’t side with either faction. But after learning that the Fire Lance attacks his ship is making on the USSR are not in response to recent nuclear attacks by  the Soviets, he tries to stop the series of missile launches after the first third are launched. A hardliner shoots him for this. The second in command takes over and finishes the three-part series of launches partly because he's a technocrat and partly because the hardliner brought a squad of elite Army soldiers with him and the new CO wants to avoid further bloodshed on the ship. Bedford has some good thoughts about the need to stop the nuclear war.

There’s some interesting scientific commentary about whether or not life on Earth will survive a nuclear winter. Drexel says that the radioactive dust in the atmosphere that blocks out the sun won’t go away but at some point will come down- which I assume means human survivors would be breathing it and it would get into our water. If what Mace has Drexel say is accurate, that can’t be good. I’m also uncertain of this next thing, but it might be true. Drexel says that the radioactive dust in the atmosphere will also destroy the Ozone Layer and that means that undiluted UV rays will get through and destroy almost all life on Earth.

At the end, the Vindicator, once thought to be unstoppable, is stopped by various Soviet attacks and is abandoned. At the very end, as the survivors use life rafts to get to a frozen island nearby, it’s clear that they’re all going to die. If what Drexel said about the ozone is right, everyone is going to die. Overall it’s meant as a very damning illustration of nuclear war.

Three other things I like about it:

1) As I sort of already said, I like the stuff about how the military works and how the Soviets try to stop them.
2) At one point the ship is very close to Ireland and the Captain considers as likely the idea that the Irish would be very hostile to his ship. He thinks- “It wasn’t Ireland’s war. It was Ireland’s planet.”
3) At one point when US military spending is described by the author, the defunding of social programs is mentioned as something that allowed that military spending to be increased.

It’s 314 pages long. I do recommend it for any progressive who enjoys stuff about the military.  You might be able to find it at a used book store but your best chance is probably a library or Amazon (if it becomes ethical to buy from Amazon).

**********

I wanted to offer some thoughts about nuclear war.

Although I believe that any movement towards a nuke-free world is positive, I DO focus mostly on the US. We started it, and I’m an American. For multiple reasons I would like to see the US change it’s foreign policy in a progressive way and gradually reduce it’s conventional military. It should, at the very beginning of this process begin getting rid of it’s nukes. As that process is going on, they should negotiate with almost every country on Earth to form a new global alliance. This global alliance should be about a global response to any use of nuclear weapons, where the guilty party will be shunned. I would support getting rid of American nukes right away but I think it would be very difficult for a majority of politicians here to support that outside the context I just described.

Tom

 

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

 UPDATE 6/30/22

A friend suggested I read some stuff by a CU-Boulder scientist named Brian Toon. I read a CPR article about his work on nuclear winter and watched a TED Talk he did on the same topic. I then exchanged a few emails with him. I read another article about his work on nuclear winter.

The CPR article is here. The TED Talk is here.

 

As far as the ozone layer, here's what I read in the novel: "Now Ozone is particularly susceptible to chemical degradation, especially by nitrogen containing compounds- and there'll be an awful lot of those in the dust veil, because you get such nitrogen compounds in the smoke produced by combustion.”

Above I wrote: "I’m also uncertain of this next thing, but it might be true. Drexel says that the radioactive dust in the atmosphere will also destroy the Ozone Layer and that means that undiluted UV rays will get through and destroy almost all life on Earth."

I am not sure how much I screwed up (the "dust veil" is the radioactive dust in the atmosphere (actually, although I confirmed that the book says the veil is radioactive, Toon sounded less sure about that, like maybe it's not radioactive)).

Although I wasn't going to ignore that part of the book (the part about humans surviving nuclear winter), I also tried to make it clear that I and the book are not great sources of scientific information (some of what Toon wrote in his emails I didn't totally understand). But Brian Toon IS a great source of scientific information. If you read the two items above and want more, he forwarded to me two articles as attachments that I can forward to you. Let me know.

I'm not saying I have done a great job of this so far, but the more I think about it, the more I think we need to encourage awareness about this issue.

Tom

 **********

UPDATE 7/1/22

One last thing from Prof. Toon:

There are 4 sorts of radioactivity in a nuclear war.  There is prompt radiation released when the bomb goes off.  This would kill a lot of people near ground zero, but they likely die first from blast and fire.  Second if there is a ground burst radioactive isotopes will attach to dust lifted from the ground.  The dust is relatively large and so it falls out fast (hence the name fallout).  This fallout can make a  strip of radiation hundreds of miles long downwind of the explosion.  Anyone in that who doesn't shelter for a week or so is potentially in trouble.  Ground bursts go after things like missile silos so most bombs are air bursts.  The isotopes from these will not attach to large dust particles so they will float around in the air until they get rained out, likely in a week or two.  By the time they reach the ground the radioactivity level will have fallen and so exposure will not be very dangerous.  For instance this happened from a Nevada test, which resulted in a radiation dump in a rain storm in upstate New York.  No one has looked at the rainfall frequency and the deposition of the radiation on the ground so the odds of radiation poisoning are not clear.  Generally the military says don't worry, no one will be hurt.  The forth type of radiation is long lived isotopes that can take decades to decay.   These isotopes explain the 1963 nuclear test ban treaty.  Kids teeth and bones were picking up this radiation.  Generally however, it is believed that this radiation is not much above the natural levels.  So again the military says don't worry.

 

Law and Order: SVU Reviews HH

 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.

“Glasgowman’s Wrath” Season 16. See this for a plot summary.     

Two of the girls (sisters) have two gay moms.

“Forgiving Rollins” Season 16. See this for a plot summary.

This is about a senior police officer getting accused by SVU of rape.

“Agent Provocateur” Season 16. For a plot summary, see this. 

A minor character is gay. They show him in his bedroom with another man (who might be naked and is sleeping in the bed). I’m not sure this is as significant as I think it is. I’m also not sure it’s as unprecedented on this show as I think it is. But I think the average straight man is less comfortable with a scene like that than he is with a similar scene involving two women. I’m not sure how helpful that kind of thing is (occasionally, in non-porn contexts, emphasizing the SEXUAL aspect of same sex relationships (the first man I referred to said he met his friend in a “meat market” bar (where I assume they were both looking for sex))). But I think it’s helpful to do that occasionally. On a last note, the first man I referred to was white and his friend was black.

“Transgender Bridge” Season 17. For a plot summary see this. 

Transphobia is a big part of this episode.

“Patrimonial Burden” Season 17. For a plot summary see this.

I’m not sure how many times I have done a note for similar episodes, but I think this one deserves one. The rapist is a socially conservative clergyman.

Letter to the Editor on Early Voting

A LTE I recently submitted to a local paper. I did a similar post here 2 years ago. UPDATE 8/23/24 This was published in the Boulder Weekly on 6/16/22. (UPDATE  1/6/25 The last sentence of the second to last paragraph should read: "And the white ones who get in that situation have less to worry about as far as their white supervisor firing them for coming in a couple hours late than their black and brown co-workers do.")

 

Editor,

It may have been better if I had written this letter about a year ago BEFORE Republicans in many states made large changes to their state’s election system. But I don’t think that those of us who believe in a democratic system are completely defeated and I want to comment on this.

I didn’t read about every change made by these Republicans but I was always relieved when I read that those Democratic state lawmakers standing up to this had succeeded in preserving early voting. I’m not saying the other stuff isn’t important, but I believe that early voting is incredibly important, partly because I don’t think the Republicans have even tried to suggest that it’s easier to commit voting fraud with early voting. I mean as important as voting by mail is, it IS a little more vulnerable to fraud than in-person voting. But not voting early in-person.

I frequently hear reports about long lines at polling places in certain areas. I haven’t seen it myself but I have always voted in Boulder and I’m not surprised that it doesn’t happen in a liberal, middle-class white area. It seems these long lines, which result in some people going home without voting, are in areas with a lot of working-class black and brown people.  I don’t know what happens to cause long lines at such polling places. My theory is that some mid-level employees and maybe some senior employees of county elections departments provide an insufficient number of working computers. However it’s done, it seems like a great solution is LOTS of early voting.

This is a serious problem when people leave the line without voting so that they can go home and sleep so they can get up for work the next morning. And it’s even more classist and racist than I have already suggested. To some extent a lot of voters who are middle-class and in that situation have some flexibility in their job and can make arrangements to skip the next day or part of the next day so they can sleep in a couple hours after staying up late to vote. And the white ones who get in that situation have to worry less about as far as their white supervisor firing them for coming in a couple hours late than their black and brown co-workers do.

I think that some areas need MORE early voting and no areas needs less, and it’s also a good idea to either make election day a holiday or to have elections on Saturdays.

Tom Shelley
Boulder

A Brief Argument in Favor of the IRA During The Troubles

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

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

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

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

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

Tom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Law and Order: SVU Reviews GG

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.

“Military Justice” Season 15. See this for a plot summary.          

Although it’s a pretty limited criticism of the Coast Guard, it does suggest that there are more than a few “bad apples” in the Coast Guard (and, significantly, one of them is a senior officer). It also illustrates how the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy of homophobia would have silenced any gay members of the military who were victims of hate crimes (a gay Coast Guard member who aided and abetted the rape was told to remain silent about it or he would be outed and expelled from the Coast Guard).

“Jersey Breakdown” Season 15. See this for a plot summary.         

There’s a lot about two aspects of private prisons. First, in this episode there’s a lot of corruption surrounding a private prison; there’s also a lot of stuff about how poorly in-mates at that private prison are treated.

“Betrayal’s Climax” Season 15. See this for a plot summary.  

The rape survivor is a white teenage girl in an inter-racial relationship with a Latino teenage boy.

“Girls Disappeared” Season 16. See this for a plot summary.   

There’s one bit that’s in conflict with anti-immigrant forces. Two detectives are talking about trafficked teenage minor girls and one says: “And these idiots in D.C. wanna send them back because they’re ‘terrorists bringing over Ebola’” (of the group that SVU freed in this episode at least one is an immigrant).

“American Disgrace” Season 16. See this for a plot summary.   

This is kind of about how a lot of white people react to black men hooking up with white women. Although the bad guy is identified as such only near the very end, he is a racist, so it is basically an anti-racist episode.

Trump, Biden and COVID-19

 A letter to the editor I wrote. 

UPDATE 8/23/24 Was never published.

Editor,

From what I’ve read a big part of the fall in President Biden’s popularity has been the resurgence of Covid-19. Although it made sense in many ways to partly blame former President Trump for how bad the COVID-19 crisis was in 2020, it doesn’t make any sense to blame Biden for how bad it is now.

At the beginning of the pandemic Trump tried to ignore it and at the end of Feb. 2020 he  said it was a “hoax” He didn’t use the Defense Production Act right away to make sure there were enough masks, other PPE, ventilators and testing supplies. To be fair we never ran out of ventilators, but the failure to make enough masks at the beginning I believe contributed to the Trump administration initially DISCOURAGING the use of masks by the general population, there were always shortages of PPE for health care professionals and we didn’t test anywhere near as much as we should have (I believe) because there weren’t enough supplies. He largely discouraged mask-wearing and when he did sort of encourage it it was half-hearted. He kept saying it was almost over which contributed to his supporters not taking it seriously.

Biden has always taken COVID-19 seriously and promoted masks when Trump was making fun of people for wearing them. If it wasn’t for a massive chunk of the population that overlaps heavily with Trump supporters, the vaccine effort in this country would be incredibly successful. Biden’s vaccine mandate policies will help (and they’re ethical- we have for decades mandated vaccines for school kids). His administration is helping Florida school districts defying a Republican ban on mask mandates. The Delta variant isn’t his fault. It’s likely it would have gone nowhere if more Americans had gotten vaccinated earlier, and once again, Trump can be blamed for that.

Don’t blame President Biden for COVID-19. If anyone deserves blame for it here in America, it’s Trump.

Tom Shelley
Boulder

Law and Order: SVU Reviews FF

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)

“Criminal Hatred” Season 14. See this for a summary.

It’s about a gay man who attacks men who are married to women but also like men. They are closeted and reluctant to work with the police because they’ll be outed in front of their families. It’s just one more reason to fight homophobia.

“Secrets Exhumed” Season 14. See this for a summary.

This episode is about an FBI agent who murdered a romantic rival and blamed it on the suspect in a string of rape-murders.

“Funny Valentine” Season 14. See this for a plot summary.

In 2010 the Supreme Court of the United States decided in favor of the plaintiffs in Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission, saying that when it comes to political financing corporations are people. The ADA, a main character, says something implying that it was a ridiculous decision. Although I’m not real familiar with the issue, it is ridiculous to treat corporations as people. One of the best bumper-stickers I’ve seen says “I’ll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.”

“American Tragedy” Season 15. See this for a plot summary.

About a black teenager who is racially profiled by a rich white woman who shoots him dead. Her lawyer tried to conflate that with the search that the police were conducting for a rapist who matched the description of the teenager. I’m not super positive about the (relatively acceptable) stop and frisking of Black men who match a certain description (in this case, hoodie and baseball hat, young, tall) in a certain area, but as the detective played by Ice-T (who has criticized white officers for being racist at least a few times) says, that stop and frisk operation was different than shooting someone- although stop and frisk could result in someone innocent being shot, the white woman was pretty quick to shoot the teen when he was still at least 5 feet away. She wasn’t on trial for suspecting him as SVU would have, she was on trial for shooting him when he was still at least 5 feet away. In multiple ways it emerges that the woman is a racist and the ADA for SVU prosecutes her for a homicide. It could be a lot more critical of stop and frisk (that is, that practice in general), but overall it’s an anti-racist episode.

“Internal Affairs” Season 15. See this for a plot summary.

This is about SVU helping Internal Affairs go after a cop who is raping women. Actually, the entire precinct is corrupt and that’s exposed by IA and SVU.

Some Thoughts About New Atheists

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Atheism crosses the line

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

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

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

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

What’s Good About Religion?

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

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


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

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

I’m both religious and secular

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

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

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

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

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

On foreign policy New Atheists are mostly right-wing

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

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

Are atheists in America oppressed?

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

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

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

Religion and The Troubles

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

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

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

The white male class privilege of the New Atheists
 

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

*******

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

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

*******

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