tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-52228398765780623422024-03-18T22:45:13.348-04:00Me Me Me Me MeA chance for me to share my thoughts (or, maybe just vent a bit).MSWallackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04025607935715642114noreply@blogger.comBlogger818125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5222839876578062342.post-32561606726238265202023-11-03T17:05:00.001-04:002023-11-03T17:05:00.135-04:00Why Are There Still Refugee Camps in Gaza?<p><span style="font-family: inherit;">This week, we’ve witnessed the aerial attack by Israel
against a refugee camp in Gaza under which Hamas built tunnels and other
facilities. I’ll leave it to another day (and some of my previous posts about <a href="http://blog.wallack.us/search/label/Israel">Israel</a>) to discuss the
use of refugee camps (and hospitals, schools, mosques, and other civilian
infrastructure, not to mention the civilians themselves) by Hamas as shields
for Hamas members and ammunition caches and whether it is legal and/or appropriate
(morally and/or strategically) for Israel to target a refugee camp (or civilian
infrastructure) in order to kill the leaders of Hamas or reduce the group’s
fighting effectiveness (but see some of my previous posts on Gaza and proportionate
response, such as <a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2012/11/what-is-response-to-terror-repost.html">What
Is a "Proportionate Response" to Terror? (Repost)</a>, <a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2012/11/a-few-random-thoughts-about-gaza.html">A
Few Random Thoughts About Gaza</a>, and <a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2014/07/again-i-ask-how-should-israel-respond.html">Again,
I Ask: How Should Israel Respond</a> ).</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Instead, I want to take a little time to think about a
different question: Why, in 2023, are there <i>still</i> refugee camps in Gaza,
the West Bank, Jordan, and Lebanon? For today’s post, I’ll largely limit the
discussion to Gaza (for obvious reasons).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The Israeli airstrikes targeted the Jabalya refugee camp in
the northern part of Gaza. According to page 81 of the <a href="https://www.pcbs.gov.ps/Downloads/book2364-1.pdf">Preliminary Results of
the Population, Housing and Establishments Census 2017</a> (a report prepared
by Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics [under the heading “State of
Palestine”]; I’ll leave it to each reader to determine the extent to which they
trust statistics put forth by Palestinian authorities), the population of the
Jabalya refugee camp in 2017, was 49,462. The camp should not be confused with
the adjacent, much larger town, bearing the same name. The Jabalya refugee camp
was established by the United Nations in 1948 following Israel’s War of
Independence (or the 1948 Arab-Israeli War depending on your preferred
terminology). At the end of the War, Gaza was controlled by Egypt and the camp
was created by the newly established United Nations Relief and Works Agency
(UNRWA) to provide shelter for Palestinians who had left what was now Israel.
Again, the question of <i>who</i> qualifies as a refugee and just how many
refugees there were following the War (overall estimates [<i>i.e.</i>, not just
refugees who sought shelter in Gaza] tend to range between 600,000 – 800,000,
but there is a lot of nuance to and disagreement about those numbers) are
discussions for another post. Let’s just agree that in 1948 a large number of
people sought shelter and support in the newly established Jabalya refugee camp
which was operated in the UNRWA in territory controlled by Egypt. I don’t think
any portion of that statement should be controversial.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">At almost the exact same time, India was being partitioned
(also from British controlled territory and also administered, at least in
part, by the United Nations). In the process of partitioning India, it is
estimated that somewhere between 14 and 18 <i>million</i> people migrated (not
all willingly) between the newly created nations. Refugee camps were
established in India, Pakistan, and elsewhere to house this mass migration. Yet
today, while tens of thousands of people still live in the Jabalya refugee
camp, as far as I’ve been able to determine, <i>none</i> of the refugee camps
established to deal with refugees following the Indian partition still exist.
Oh, yes, there are refugee camps in Pakistan (for refugees from Afghanistan)
and India (mostly housing Rohingya refugees), but <i>not</i> for refugees from
the 1947 partition and its aftermath. Those refugee populations were
incorporated into the population of the countries in which the refugees took
shelter. The same can be said about virtually every other conflict between 1947
and the present day. Refugees often begin in refugee camps administered by the
United Nations (but <i>not</i> by the same UN agency that administers
Palestinian refugee camps) but are then resettled or absorbed into the
population of the country in which they sought shelter.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">But not in Gaza (or the West Bank). The refugees in the
Jabalya camp were not incorporated into the Egyptian population, even though
Egypt controlled Gaza. Nor was much of an effort made to create a permanent
status for those refugees. Instead, they continued to live in a refugee camp as
refugees, as did their children and the generations that followed (that
descendants of refugees are considered, themselves, to be refugees, is the rule
<i>only</i> with regard to Palestinians; no other descendants of refugees from
any other conflict continue to be classified as “refugees”). In 1967, following
the Six Day Way, Gaza fell under Israel’s control. However, unlike other areas
(like East Jerusalem and the Golan), Israel did <i>not</i> annex Gaza. So, I
suppose, the question might be why Israel didn’t try to build a more permanent
form of shelter and housing to replace Jabalya during the period from 1967
through 1993 when Israel ceded local administrative control in Gaza to the
Palestinian authority. And I suppose that’s a fair question. Though because Gaza
was <i>not</i> annexed into Israel, there was no duty incumbent on Israel to
incorporate the population of Gaza, refugee or otherwise, into the general
population of Israel. But one might also inquire why UNRWA – which operated the
camp (and still does) – didn’t do more to move the residents of the camp into a
more stable and permanent situation. The same query should be applied to
Palestinian refugee camps in the West Bank, Lebanon, and Jordan. And query
what, if any, success Israel might have had in efforts to “resettle”
Palestinians in Gaza, had it tried. Of course, the next question is why the
Palestinian Authority from and after 1993 didn’t do anything to close the
refugee camp and why Hamas has continued that inaction since taking over
control of Gaza in 2009. From 1948 – 1967 and then from 1993 to today,
Palestinian “refugees” have continued to live in refugee camps notwithstanding
that those camps are in an area governed by either an Arab country or a
Palestinian governing body.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">It’s worth noting that following the 1948 War, there was
also enormous movement of Jews from throughout the Arab world and North Africa <i>to</i>
Israel. Similarly, beginning in the 1980s, there have been mass migrations of
Jews to Israel from Ethiopia and the former Soviet Union, many of whom had to
flee from their homelands due to violence or other forms of persecution. Yet
none of those hundreds of thousands (or more) of people still live in refugee
camps in Israel.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Countries throughout the world, including the United States (which
is the largest single donor country) provide literally billions of dollars in
aid to the Palestinians. And yet tens of thousands of people still live in refugee
camps in Gaza and the West Bank. Could it be that the Palestinians chose to use
the money either for weapons (Hamas) or other corrupt purposes (the Palestinian
Authority)? Note that it is estimated that when in he died in 2004, Palestinian
Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat had a net worth of over a billion dollars!
Hmm. Where did that money all come from and what was it <i>supposed</i> to be
used for?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoQuote"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Rather than use donor funds for their intended purposes,
Arafat regularly diverted money to his own accounts. It is amazing that some
U.S. officials still see the Palestinian Authority as a partner even after U.S.
congressional records revealed authenticated PLO papers signed by Arafat in
which he instructed his staff to divert donors’ money to projects benefiting
himself, his family, and his associates.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://www.meforum.org/645/arafats-swiss-bank-account"><span style="color: blue;">Arafat's Swiss Bank Account</span></a>. Current Palestinian
Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is estimated to have a net worth in excess of
one hundred million dollars. <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ministry-of-foreign-affairs-of-israel_hamas-leaders-net-worth-abu-marzuk-3-activity-7124070883769352192-Ms6b?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop">According
to Israel</a>: </span>“<span style="font-family: inherit;">Hamas leaders net worth: Abu Marzuk $3 billion [¶] Khaled Mashal $4 billion [¶] Ismail Haniyet $4 billion [¶] Hamas' annual turnover $1 billion.</span>”<span style="font-family: inherit;"> And note that none of
those Hamas leaders live in Gaza. How many houses (even with bomb shelters!),
how much clean water, how much infrastructure, could have been built in Gaza
with those billions? Keep in mind that just a few days ago, a Mousa Abu Marzouk,
a senior Hamas official told Russia Today that “We have built the tunnels to
protect ourselves from getting targeted and killed. These are meant to protect
us from the airplanes” and that “It is the responsibility of the UN to provide [the
Palestinians] with all the services as long as they are under occupation.” In
other words, it is </span><i style="font-family: inherit;">not</i><span style="font-family: inherit;"> the responsibility of Hamas to care for the
people it governs or to use the money that it receives for their benefit.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">I wonder. Is it possible that the leaders of Hamas (and the
Palestinian Authority before them) don’t <i>really</i> care about the
well-being of the Palestinian people, at least not to the extent that doing so
would prevent them from lining their own pockets (or buying more rockets)? More
importantly, is it possible that from a political or <i>realpolitik</i>
perspective, there is a sort of perverse <i>value</i> in having Palestinians
continue living in refugee camps? Just think of the visceral reaction that you
probably had when you heard that Israel had bombed a refugee camp; somehow,
that sounds so much worse that bombing a town, doesn’t it? Query further the
attitudes and anger (or despair) that one can and should expect from people who
have been living in refugee camps (along with several generations of ancestors)
for seventy-five years at least in large part because <i>their own leaders
pocketed the money and made no effort to help them</i>. It’s likely to breed a
sort of resentment and anger that is easily targeted by those same corrupt
leaders toward an external enemy instead of, perhaps, at those in leadership
positions who have apparently <i>chosen</i> to keep those people in refugee
camps.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">One other point worth noting (though somewhat off-topic) for
those who claim that Israel’s actions amount to a genocide against
Palestinians. According to the <a href="https://www.pcbs.gov.ps/Downloads/book2364-1.pdf">Preliminary Results</a>
report referenced above, the Palestinian population has not been showing the
sort of decline that might be expected were ethnic cleansing, let alone a
genocide, occurring. According to page 11 of that report, the total population
of the West Bank and Gaza increased over sixty-five percent (65%) in just
twenty years!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184;">
<tbody><tr>
<td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 35.7pt;" valign="bottom" width="48">
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Year<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 81.0pt;" valign="bottom" width="108">
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Population<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 63.0pt;" valign="bottom" width="84">
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">%
Increase<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 63.0pt;" valign="top" width="84">
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Cumulative
% Increase<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 35.7pt;" valign="top" width="48">
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">1997<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 81.0pt;" valign="top" width="108">
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">2,895,683<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 63.0pt;" valign="top" width="84">
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">–<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 63.0pt;" valign="top" width="84">
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">–<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 35.7pt;" valign="top" width="48">
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">2007<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 81.0pt;" valign="top" width="108">
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">3,767,549<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 63.0pt;" valign="top" width="84">
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">30.11%<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 63.0pt;" valign="top" width="84">
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">–<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 35.7pt;" valign="top" width="48">
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">2017<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 81.0pt;" valign="top" width="108">
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">4,780,978<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 63.0pt;" valign="top" width="84">
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">26.9%<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 63.0pt;" valign="top" width="84">
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">65.11%<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The current international definition of genocide (from the
1948 <a href="https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/Genocide%20Convention-FactSheet-ENG.pdf">Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide</a>) provides that “genocide”
means any of the following acts committed <i>with intent to destroy, in whole
or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group</i>, as such: (a)
Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to
members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of
life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly
transferring children of the group to another group.” (Emphasis added.) Now,
consider Israel’s actions largely designed to protect its own population (approximately
20% of which are Muslim and Christian Palestinians) taking note, in particular,
of the increase in the <i>growth</i> of the Palestinian population, and ask yourself
whether Israel’s actions really constitute genocide. Has Israel <i>really</i>
been acting “with intent to destroy … a national, ethnical, racial or religious
group”? By contrast, consider the actions (and statements in support of those
actions) of Hamas, which include trying to murder the populations of entire <i>kibbutzim</i>
and towns which is, itself, in furtherance of the stated goal of not only eliminating
Israel but also of killing Jews. Who, then, is <i>actually</i> committing genocide?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Next
time you hear people marching, Palestinians flags waving above their heads, to
the chant of “From the river, to the sea, Palestine will be free,” think about
how anybody could chant that they <i>want</i> a genocide and how any of us (or
our institutions, like universities) could tolerate chants demanding a
genocide.</span></span>MSWallackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04025607935715642114noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5222839876578062342.post-1795267967038395382023-10-13T15:56:00.001-04:002023-10-13T15:56:10.778-04:00Reflections on Yet Another War Between Israel and Hamas<p><span style="font-family: inherit;">This blog has been on hiatus for several years (for reasons that I’ll one day discuss in more depth), but the current situation in Israel has motivated me to lift my head out of my burrow, at least for the moment. I don’t want to rehash (or completely rehash…) the many ideas that I’ve talked about, often at length, between 2008 and 2017. Look up the</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span><a href="http://blog.wallack.us/search/label/Israel" style="font-family: inherit;">Israel</a><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">and</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span><a href="http://blog.wallack.us/search/label/Anti-Semitism" style="font-family: inherit;">Anti-Semitism</a><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">labels on this blog and you’ll find plenty of articles, many of which remain sadly relevant today. (Note that in recent years, I’ve begun using the more modern “antisemitism” in place of the hyphenated “anti-Semitism” but that label has been in use for a long time.) However, there are a few thoughts that have been bouncing around in my head over the last few days and this blog seems to be the perfect outlet.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZBZyQ1SMR1oXF5zUoL1-k1iaUJy3KU5dV7Kn_7FbXmMFwzHPrn7N-T53Jq9smVdrG0vw_P7B-FXBpGkieVxcVBi367HJIHK-y3LlJ39Zz7eXRsNtyYNU6ShwJ5zI0q8CXQoQ4iybcJW-FbtNMvx-khh0BUEWdAx2H_tQ9ipI3ux2eNwF8Z6zFiCs7qSeu/s1080/AJC_Stand_with_Israel_Profile_Graphic.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1080" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZBZyQ1SMR1oXF5zUoL1-k1iaUJy3KU5dV7Kn_7FbXmMFwzHPrn7N-T53Jq9smVdrG0vw_P7B-FXBpGkieVxcVBi367HJIHK-y3LlJ39Zz7eXRsNtyYNU6ShwJ5zI0q8CXQoQ4iybcJW-FbtNMvx-khh0BUEWdAx2H_tQ9ipI3ux2eNwF8Z6zFiCs7qSeu/w200-h200/AJC_Stand_with_Israel_Profile_Graphic.jpeg" width="200" /></a></span></div><span><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Before I continue, I want to make it clear that I think it is possible to support Israel </span><i style="font-family: inherit;">and</i><span style="font-family: inherit;"> the right of Palestinians to live in peace, with dignity, and the right to self-determination. These are </span><i style="font-family: inherit;">not</i><span style="font-family: inherit;"> competing views. I believe in that a two-state solution is the </span><i style="font-family: inherit;">only</i><span style="font-family: inherit;"> viable solution, but that it will take a lot of work – by both parties – to find the courage, common ground, and trust to make that happen.</span></div></span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><u>Justification</u><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">First, one of the recurring themes that I’ve heard from those who oppose Israel and/or support the Palestinians generally or Hamas in particular is that Hamas’ actions are justified because Israel is an occupying colonial power that has been waging war on the indigenous people of the region (or some variation on that theme). This view (let’s call it the “Historical Justification” worldview) has several serious flaws (some of which I’ve addressed in the past), but I’m not going to use this time to rehash history or the reality of <i>who</i> Israelis are (with the exception of a brief discussion of the point, below) or whether the Arab inhabitants are “more” indigenous than the Jewish population (made up of European Jews, Arab Jews, Persian Jews, Ethiopian Jews, and Jews from many other ethnic backgrounds). Rather, I want to look at the hypocrisy of those who take espouse Historical Justification or what that position might really mean if equitably applied. So, solely for the sake of argument, let’s presume that Historical Justification is correct and agree <i>arguendo</i> that Israel is an occupying colonial power, that Israel has “waged war” on the Palestinians and in so doing has deprived them of self-determination and the ability to live share the same human rights as others (though it may be worth asking whether the human rights Palestinians desire – and are absolutely entitled to – are extended to the populations of other Arab and Muslim countries…). Again, I’m agreeing to the Historical Justification worldview <i>solely</i> for the purpose of argument and discussion.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">I presume (perhaps incorrectly) that those who do advocate Historical Justification do so in good faith and would agree that a similar framework for Historical Justification should apply not only to Palestinians but also to other groups who are “oppressed” by “occupying colonial powers”. Thus, I take it, that those who condone the actions of Hamas because of Historical Justification would also condone Native Americans bombing busses in Minneapolis, firing rockets at Tulsa, and kidnapping babies from Phoenix, right? No? Please explain, with specificity, what is worse about the Palestinian situation than the Native American experience (from colonization to conquest to genocide to reservations and residence schools to loss of language to forced sterilization to broken treaties and on and on and on…) and then tell me why Palestinian use of force against a civilian population is acceptable but Native American use of force against America (or Canada) is not. When you’ve completed that assignment, please take a step back and apply the same rationale to other ethnic, cultural, or religious groups all across the globe who believe that they are oppressed or lacking in self-determination. Aboriginal Australians? Basque and Catalan people in Spain? Tibetans? Muslims in India or China? I’ll wait. And before you answer with something like “because Israel drops bombs on Palestinians” or builds a security fence, query whether violence directed towards Israel and Israelis plays any role in that aspect of Israel’s conduct.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><u>Proportionality</u><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">I’ve written extensively in the past about the idea of a “proportionate response” and what exactly that means (for example, see <a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2012/11/what-is-response-to-terror-repost.html">What Is a “Proportionate Response” to Terror? (Repost)</a> and <a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2014/07/again-i-ask-how-should-israel-respond.html">Again, I Ask: How Should Israel Respond</a>). Feel free to go back and look at those posts again and then consider how the idea of proportionality applies to the current situation. What is the proportionate response to an armed incursion that was directed at a civilian population and to whom apparently no quarter was given. Tossing grenades into bomb shelters? Check. Dismembering babies? Check. [<i>Note</i>: I recognize at the time of writing that there is some question as whether babies were actually dismembered or just burned and shot from point-blank range.] Kidnapping women and children and elderly Holocaust survivors? Check, check, and check. Taking refuge, hiding munitions, and then firing rockets from heavily populated areas where civilians have no choice but to act as human shields? Again, check. So, again I ask, how should Israel respond and what is the proportionate response? Should Hamas essentially <i>benefit</i> from hiding in and acting from heavily-populated civilian areas? Should Hamas <i>benefit</i> from hiding weapons in schools, from firing rockets from schools, from digging tunnels under schools? If so, what will stop this from happening again and again and again. Is Israel supposed to just shrug its collective shoulders and so, “Oh, well, nothing we can do other than build better bomb shelters or flee from our homes and return to Ukraine and Iran?” and then just await the next barrage of rockets, paragliders, and suicidal jihadis? Try telling that to the parents whose children were dismembered, to the husbands and wives whose spouses are currently being held somewhere in Gaza, to the residents of villages and kibbutzim that no longer exist. Or is Israel free to take such military action as may be necessary to once and for all eliminate Hamas as an effective fighting force?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">After writing the initial draft of the preceding paragraph (news keeps happening…), I came across a quotation from Israel’s President Isaac Herzog who spoke about proportionality during a press briefing:<o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote><p class="MsoQuote"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Herzog also got visibly agitated when responding to a similar question at the same briefing. Matt Frei, from UK broadcaster Channel 4, asked the Israeli president whether Israel is holding ordinary Palestinians in Gaza responsible for not removing Hamas. “With all due respect, if you have a missile in your goddamn kitchen, and you want to shoot it at me, am I allowed to defend myself?” Herzog retorted. “That’s the situation. These missiles are there. These missiles are launched, the button is pressed, the missile comes up from a kitchen onto my children,” he continued.<o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">(<a href="https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-news-hamas-war-10-12-23/index.html">Israel’s president says it is abiding by international law, when asked by CNN about war crime accusations</a>, internal paragraph breaks omitted; story apparently no longer available because it was part of a running “live” news ticker. The quotation can be found <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/herzog-spars-with-foreign-journalists-over-retaliatory-gaza-strikes/">elsewhere</a>.)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><u>Agency</u><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">I find it troubling that while everyone feels bad for the innocent in Gaza (as we should), there is no assignment of agency to any of the population of Gaza for any acts committed in the name of Islam, the Palestinians, or Gazans, as if that population plays no role whatsoever in Hamas’ actions, strength, or role within Gaza. Contrast, for example, how Jews – even across the globe (not just Israelis) are blamed for the actions taken by Israel.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Do Gazan mothers encourage their sons to join Hamas and praise them when they do join Hamas or do those mothers try to convince their sons to stay away from Hamas and find productive ways to work toward peace? Do international organizations staffed by Gazans (UNRWA among others) take affirmative actions – including telling their parent organizations – about Hamas weapons caches in or around their facilities or do they keep their mouths closed (see further discussion on this below)? Do Gazans push for Hamas, as the <i>de facto</i> ruling power, to build bomb shelters and other infrastructure to improve life in Gaza or do they just look the other way when Hamas uses donor funds to buy weapons, dig tunnels, and leave the civilian population in squalor? Do Gazans spend their days training for war or working to improve their own living conditions and infrastructure? Why hasn’t Hamas built its own water desalinization plant? Do Gazans march in the streets to demand more freedom <i>from Hamas</i>, to have elections, to engage in dialogue with Israel or do they sit by and allow Gaza to be run by a terrorist organization and willingly allow themselves to be used as human shields each time Hamas elects to open new hostilities? Do Gazans not aligned with Hamas and/or who want to live in a better environment, perhaps with peace as a realistic hope, have <i>any</i> obligation to make even minimal efforts to bring those ideas to fruition? Think about it: The people of Gaza are willing send their children off to die in order to “free Palestine” from “Zionist control”. They’re willing to die to kill Jews. They are willing to die to free Palestine but don’t seem willing to die to free Gaza from Hamas.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">When Israel told Palestinians in northern Gaza to relocated to southern Gaza (where there is a fair amount of open space and farmland), even dropping leaflets telling Palestinians where to go and where <i>not</i> to be, did Hamas arrange for an evacuation of its citizens out of Gaza City? Of course not. Instead, Hamas told the people of Gaza City <i>not</i> to follow the Israeli instructions; Hamas told people to <i>stay</i> in Gaza City. Why do you suppose Hamas would rather that people stay in Gaza City rather than relocate to southern Gaza? Hmm. Could it be that the goal is to make it harder for Israel to target terrorist infrastructure, weapons caches, rocket launch sites? Could it be that the goal is to make it harder for Israel to engage in targeted assaults aimed at rescuing hostages? Could it be that Hamas knows the value of using the civilian as human shields? I saw a video of a woman in Gaza complaining about the Israeli airstrikes and noting that Gaza had no early warning system (air raid sirens) or bomb shelters. Why, do you suppose, Hamas has not built an early warning system or bomb shelters? Israel is castigated for inflicting “collective punishment” on the Palestinians of Gaza yet no similar castigation seems to be aimed at Hamas for using <i>the entire</i> population of Gaza as human shields. Collective punishment vs. collective sacrifice?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><u>Language</u><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Another thing that has been forefront on my mind is the language that has been used to describe aspects of the current conflict. As you listen to or read about what’s happening, pay attention to the vocabulary both used and unsaid. For example, are the members of Hamas who shot concert-goers at point-blank range, who dismembered babies (or at least burned and shot them at close range), who threw grenades into bomb shelters, and who kidnapped women, children, and the elderly referred to as “militants” or “terrorists”? For example:<o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote><p class="MsoQuote"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The BBC has defended its decision not to describe Hamas militants as “terrorists” in coverage of the recent attacks in Israel. UK Defence Secretary Grant Shapps said the policy is “verging on disgraceful”. A BBC spokesperson noted it was a long-standing position for its reporters not to use the term themselves unless attributing it to someone else. Veteran BBC foreign correspondent John Simpson said “calling someone a terrorist means you're taking sides”. But Mr Shapps said the BBC needs to locate its “moral compass … I actually think it is verging on disgraceful, this idea that there is some sort of equivalence, and they'll always say, well there’s two sides,” he told LBC.<o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-67076341"><span style="color: blue;">BBC defends policy not to call Hamas ‘terrorists’ after criticism</span></a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">I don’t know about you, but to me there is an important distinction between a militant and a terrorist (and if there wasn’t, why would the BBC have a policy on the wording?). Pay attention to which word is used <i>and by whom</i>. Furthermore, in all of the discussions regarding Hamas’ actions, in particular the kidnapping of Israeli (and non-Israeli!) civilians and transferring them back to Gaza, there is a great deal of contempt being expressed – appropriately so – but how often have you heard those actions actually described as “war crimes”? The Geneva Conventions specifically identifies the taking of hostages as a war crime. I’m not talking about soldiers who may be captured and who are deemed “prisoners of war” (but for whom specific protections are mandated, such as from mistreatment, yet we’ve seen video of captured Israelis being beaten by their captors or even Gazan civilians), but soldiers appear to be a small percentage of the hostages taken by Hamas. And now Hamas is threatening not only to kill hostages (more on that in a moment) but to even do so in the brutal manner “popularized” by ISIS and to broadcast the executions on social media. Israeli parents are being warned to keep their children off of social media for fear that their children may inadvertently see Hamas commit war crimes and show them to the world. Ask yourself why, even as Hamas’ actions are being condemned, they are not being explicitly labeled as war crimes.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Another interesting word choice that I came across comes from the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), headquartered in a suburb of Indianapolis. ISNA published a <a href="https://x.com/ISNAHQ/status/1711174867205185879?s=20">letter</a> on Twitter (sorry, but I refuse to call it X), but oddly <i>not</i> on its website, that largely blames Israel for the violence and demands that the United States stop its “one-sided and unconditional support for Israel.” No great surprise there. The parts of the letter that I found interesting were the opening where ISNA expresses deep sadness for the “recent outbreak of war and violence in the Holy Land and Gaza” before going on to express solidarity with their “brothers and sisters in Palestine” and conclusion where ISNA calls on “all parties and governments around the world to exert pressure on Israel to cease its violence and war on the Palestinian people.” It’s not surprising that ISNA puts all of the blame on Israel. But, at least according to ISNA, Hamas didn’t attack Israel and Israeli citizens. Nope. Instead, in ISNA’s worldview (and you’ll see this sort of language frequently), there was simply an “outbreak” of war. You know, everyone was sitting around having a lazy Saturday morning when suddenly, out of nowhere, war and violence just broke out, the same way a thunderstorm or an earthquake might. In ISNA’s worldview, no blame is assigned to Hamas for actually – well, anything. Israel is to blame for all sorts of wrongs and because of those wrongs, war and violence just … happened. Note further <i>where</i> ISNA thinks that the war broke out. Yes, in Gaza, but <i>not</i> in Israel; rather, according to ISNA war broke out in the “Holy Land”. Apparently, ISNA can’t bring itself to acknowledge that the land on the other side of the Gazan border belongs to Israel and was included as a part of Israel as far back as the UN Partition Plan in 1947. Which of course begs the question when ISNA states that it expresses solidarity with its “brothers and sisters in Palestine”. What, precisely, does ISNA mean when it says “in Palestine”? Is ISNA expressing solidarity <i>only</i> with its Muslim brothers and sisters in Gaza and the West Bank? Or is it also expressing solidarity with Muslims (what about Arab Christians?) who live <i>in</i> Israel and are Israeli citizens? Are they included or excluded from that expression of solidarity with those “in Palestine”? If they’re included, that would appear to suggest that ISNA is denying the very existence of Israel. Now, consider this while remembering that the Hamas emblem depicts <i>all</i> of “Palestine” rather than the region divided into two states: Israel and Palestine.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiCs5usLuLsxPyInR0g6rrAdWJuS7z8wlt8Vi694BvaTJtUQRUlLu3uROf3aJVn3odgJ0spVOysinEzk_p524i2mC5kNVWeRAobj0qtIOYdXX0XAAmPv7hk89HxHlwY4C49LYZIJzWk8lswvNW-TzM-qTs3QJpYuLFT-4jfXJ_SyPx62Ptfmdq_YhW92mng" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiCs5usLuLsxPyInR0g6rrAdWJuS7z8wlt8Vi694BvaTJtUQRUlLu3uROf3aJVn3odgJ0spVOysinEzk_p524i2mC5kNVWeRAobj0qtIOYdXX0XAAmPv7hk89HxHlwY4C49LYZIJzWk8lswvNW-TzM-qTs3QJpYuLFT-4jfXJ_SyPx62Ptfmdq_YhW92mng" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh34b8nRiFNFP8UgqSy7bRAQsXdQta8VsoUVbDotKOR82SERkl6S-S0JtzINLl2g-g6tpm5e7zlX7KgLuwTRkP-yJXXxrBjbh_CAdZJvabMgZifA7b0WxDgDs7mmn5tPKH-oYIWENd2U2pVwAUMh_YWTAtG2nUNlZTR5895eC6SRzitir_bu6Fqv5BiQY8T" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img alt="" data-original-height="330" data-original-width="300" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh34b8nRiFNFP8UgqSy7bRAQsXdQta8VsoUVbDotKOR82SERkl6S-S0JtzINLl2g-g6tpm5e7zlX7KgLuwTRkP-yJXXxrBjbh_CAdZJvabMgZifA7b0WxDgDs7mmn5tPKH-oYIWENd2U2pVwAUMh_YWTAtG2nUNlZTR5895eC6SRzitir_bu6Fqv5BiQY8T" width="218" /></span></a></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Oh, and the swords just scream “peace” don’t they?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><u>Threats</u><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Do you think that <i>any</i> mosques or Islamic centers in America are worried that they might be attacked by angry Jews? Are supporters of Hamas or the Palestinians worried that they’ll be attacked by a mob of Jews as they walk down the street or take their children to school? Yet virtually every Jewish installation across the country has had to increase security (and security at Jewish facilities has already been dramatically increased after all of the attacks perpetrated in recent years including the Tree of Life massacre in Pittsburgh and the 2022 hostage-taking at a synagogue near Dallas by a Muslim man). Once again, to quote Arsenio Hall, “things that make you go hmmm.” And just a few hours ago, fear began to spread online after the former head of Hamas appeared to call for – well, it’s unclear exactly what he called for and whether it’s limited to the Middle East or across the world. But many are interpreting his statements as a call for terrorism or violent demonstrations. Can you imagine if the head of a Jewish organization called on Jews to attack mosques? No. You can’t. Because it doesn’t happen. But my daughter did call to ask me if she was safe in the large American city where she now resides.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-family: inherit;">Threats and Warnings<o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Beyond kidnapping civilians and taking them across the border back to Gaza, “The spokesman for Hamas’s military wing, Abu Obeida, said the group would execute a civilian hostage every time an airstrike hit Gazans ‘in their homes without warning.’” <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/09/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-siege-hamas.html"><span style="color: blue;">Israel Orders ‘Complete Siege’ of Gaza and Hamas Threatens to Kill Hostages</span></a>. Did you notice anything interesting or unusual about that threat? Hamas didn’t threaten to execute a hostage for each airstrike; rather, the threat was limited to airstrikes that hit Gazans “in their homes without warning”. A few things. First, does Hamas give warnings to Israelis before rockets rain down? I believe that the general warning to civilians in Ashkelon a few days ago was a first. Did Hamas warn people at the open air festival or having breakfast in their homes on the kibbutzim? And, I suppose, you could read that threat as explicitly exempting Israeli airstrikes that either: (a) don’t hit homes; or (b) for which a warning is provided. Right? Remember as I’ve <a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2014/07/again-i-ask-how-should-israel-respond.html">discussed previously</a>, in the past Israel has directly <i>warned</i> occupants of buildings that are being targeted for airstrikes:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoQuote"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Israel often tries to warn civilians of an impending attack. Israel will often drop leaflets warning civilians to avoid a particular location because it will be targeted. And prior to targeting certain buildings, Israel has begun using a “door knock” or “roof knock” warning. Israel launches a non-explosive missile at the building to warn those who might be hanging around (or acting as human shields) that a more serious attack is imminent. Even the United Nations (not known as a friend of Israel) <a href="http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_sitrep_09_07_2014.pdf">recognized that</a> “In most cases, prior to the attacks, residents have been warned to leave, either via phone calls by the Israel military or by the firing of warning missiles.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><u>Gaza</u><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">I’ve also heard repeated, almost <i>ad nauseum</i>, that Gaza is the “most densely populated area” in the ___ (fill in the blank; I’ve heard “region,” “Middle East,” and even “World”). Much of the reporting is likely to give the impression that Gaza is densely populated from north to south, east to west, with barely any room to breathe. However, like so much else, the truth is a bit more nuanced than that. First check out the following map of population density in Gaza:<o:p></o:p></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh0Nv6q-RKc7A0hGVB7u_Z2Y8P6Da8Gyuep4x2Bm6Oi6ZNwQ2sp1vs5PCVKEnIU_XCfqpFFvMrhFkMNdFwGgAlxhhc9ioNzh_E7XJePDdQbHv-H6PY1IohUbmNFLArdVz7FoGmJYUQUG4WHxmhrJYsc6iXD7RtzesBOeJ9mjIcbQCbKqt6KfpyNVzm2oZzh" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img data-original-height="1429" data-original-width="450" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh0Nv6q-RKc7A0hGVB7u_Z2Y8P6Da8Gyuep4x2Bm6Oi6ZNwQ2sp1vs5PCVKEnIU_XCfqpFFvMrhFkMNdFwGgAlxhhc9ioNzh_E7XJePDdQbHv-H6PY1IohUbmNFLArdVz7FoGmJYUQUG4WHxmhrJYsc6iXD7RtzesBOeJ9mjIcbQCbKqt6KfpyNVzm2oZzh=w202-h640" width="202" /></span></a></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">(From <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/11/middleeast/maps-population-density-gaza-israel-dg/index.html#:~:text=Across%20the%20Middle%20East%2C%20Gaza,from%20an%20annual%20Demographia%20report.">Maps show the extreme population density in Gaza</a>). Only the area in purple is densely populated (an</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">d the darker the purple, the denser the area). Another map from the same article is also instructive:<o:p></o:p></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhcW50O-0GDRxRS0ClMo3dms33cdJPVwAAPmZOEm4iOKi7r29dN7LAEtSbJ22vqbZXz-88QAPqOkw-BapvutwYF9ovb0jdHI5aXBJmujV1efVt2RaBAwH5Due4CByVo2ZLzI7CrGppACFvyVFutBdJIIL7cJPZ10Kbexza_iOCXUD5EHVnusbGR9AiNlnaC" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img data-original-height="672" data-original-width="450" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhcW50O-0GDRxRS0ClMo3dms33cdJPVwAAPmZOEm4iOKi7r29dN7LAEtSbJ22vqbZXz-88QAPqOkw-BapvutwYF9ovb0jdHI5aXBJmujV1efVt2RaBAwH5Due4CByVo2ZLzI7CrGppACFvyVFutBdJIIL7cJPZ10Kbexza_iOCXUD5EHVnusbGR9AiNlnaC=w429-h640" width="429" /></span></a></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The article also includes a comparison of the density of Gaza City (the darkest purple at the northern end of Gaza) with other cities: Dhaka, Bangladesh, Tel Aviv, Los Angeles, and Washington.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgFUyeH4P5wHxs3_jTfC1BtfYcfjK-K9z1Zwp3nDESCPUipAIGlcT93-1zsKIQ9kzdaE0sypbdA8ZPlWjm9U6x6ezM2wq5IHt943qYx68sOCeAkK_FIqlhw85OiUR7XqJi6BANGIUwwbLB2R7Y4M18Yq8ScU93MBfrApl5IP1VUMKw1-q0RybPRlEPL-cvu" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img data-original-height="639" data-original-width="1352" height="189" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgFUyeH4P5wHxs3_jTfC1BtfYcfjK-K9z1Zwp3nDESCPUipAIGlcT93-1zsKIQ9kzdaE0sypbdA8ZPlWjm9U6x6ezM2wq5IHt943qYx68sOCeAkK_FIqlhw85OiUR7XqJi6BANGIUwwbLB2R7Y4M18Yq8ScU93MBfrApl5IP1VUMKw1-q0RybPRlEPL-cvu=w400-h189" width="400" /></span></a></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">But why not compare Gaza City to any of the 235 (!) urban areas (from the same source) that are <i>denser</i> than Gaza City (including Jerusalem (!), Istanbul, Cairo, Seoul, Mexico City, Berlin, and New York City)? <i>See</i> <a href="http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf">db-worldua.pdf (demographia.com)</a> (Schedule 4 beginning on page 61). But I guess providing closer comparisons or examples from within the region doesn’t lend itself to the propaganda point quite as well.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><u>Putin</u><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Another thing that caught my attention and made me laugh (in that sort of morbid laughter that horrible situations sometimes require):<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoQuote"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday urged “both” sides in the fighting between Israel and Hamas to “minimize or reduce to zero” civilian casualties. Speaking from Moscow on the longstanding Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Putin suggested the lack of a two-state solution has led to the current “explosion of violence,” saying, “Israel, as we know, was created, but Palestine as an independent sovereign state was never created, it did not happen…. We understand that the bitterness on both sides is very great, but no matter what the level of bitterness on both sides is, we still need to strive to minimize or reduce to zero losses among the civilian population, among women, children and the elderly,” Putin said. “If men decided to fight among themselves, let them fight among themselves. Leave children and women alone,” he added.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-10-11-23/index.html">Putin calls to ‘minimize or reduce to zero’ civilian casualties in expanding conflict</a> (internal paragraph breaks omitted). This caught my attention for two reasons. First, with regard to Putin’s suggestion that women and children should be left alone and that civilian casualties should be minimized or reduced to zero, one has to wonder whether Putin: (a) has looked at the civilian casualties caused by his military’s targeting of civilians in Ukraine (estimated at 9,806 as of October 8, 2023, including 560 children [<a href="https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142072#:~:text=As%20of%20Sunday%20(8%20October,%2C%E2%80%9D%20Ms.%20DiCarlo%20added."><span style="color: blue;">Ukraine: Civilians endure ‘unbearable’ toll amid ‘unrelenting’ attacks</span></a>], (b) is aware of the continued war crimes committed by his military as they kidnap Ukrainian children and transfer them to Russia (<a href="https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15395.doc.htm"><span style="color: blue;">Deportation, Treatment of Ukraine’s Children by Russian Federations Takes Centre Stage by Many Delegates at Security Council Briefing</span></a>), and/or (c) is familiar with the word “hypocrite”. But perhaps more troubling is Putin’s attempt to rewrite history (or his unfamiliarity with actual history). Putin claims that “Israel … was created, but Palestine as an independent sovereign state was never created, it did not happen…”. But we have to remember that the United Nations Partition Plan created <i>both</i> a Jewish and Arab state. The Jews immediately accepted the plan and announced the creation of Israel. The Arabs rejected the plan and attacked. So if “Palestine … was never created,” who is to blame? I bet I can guess who most people will blame.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-family: inherit;">Black Lives Matter<o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">I want to touch on something that may be a little more controversial, but seems important. After the murder of George Floyd in 2020 and the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement, American Jewry was front and center advocating for the Black community. More than six hundred Jewish groups signed and published <a href="https://medium.com/@jewishorgssayblacklivesmatter/jewish-organizations-and-synagogues-say-black-lives-matter-a1a0f7ea6da7">a letter</a> supporting the Black Lives Matter movement, just as Jews had been actively involved in the civil rights movement, including being among the founders of the NAACP and the Freedom Riders to the south in the 1960s. The bond between Jews and the Black community has a long and vibrant history. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. <a href="https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/martinkramer/files/words_of_martin_luther_king.pdf">famously said</a>, “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking anti-Semitism!” Yet, even with all of that, it seems that some Black civil rights groups have become, if not fully antisemitic, at least anti-Zionist and/or supporters of the Palestinians (rather than supporters of a two-state solution and a peaceful resolution of the conflict). Now, in the wake of the recent attack by Hamas, some groups associated with Black Lives Matter appear to have amended a caveat to their view. Recall the anger when those on the right suggested that saying “Black lives matter” meant that “White lives <i>don’t</i> matter”? “Of course,” the Black community (and other communities of good will), answered, “all lives matter, but we’re not talking about all lives, we’re talking specifically about Black lives that don’t seem to matter to some.” Well, now it seems as if <i>some</i> in the Black Lives Matter community are amending that view to something more like “all lives matter … except Jewish lives.” How else to explain posts like this from a Black Lives Matter group:<o:p></o:p></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiO1RfI13WYK7hZoFqwK-A7V1moxFFUb3JAAzTiuZIZEarB2DrSVkGlzuusgWiWgyWLP8G93x41Qm_I2XIIaoGMGVAvWYKRGr7JywKC10uN9oLvZFA2KWvaYtsphSZ1lHr_JwAJ21_6IHuGVZA0sK0igdmt6XeeBDoE_2sX5yT1wu05on1XopZIamnLH609" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img data-original-height="627" data-original-width="450" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiO1RfI13WYK7hZoFqwK-A7V1moxFFUb3JAAzTiuZIZEarB2DrSVkGlzuusgWiWgyWLP8G93x41Qm_I2XIIaoGMGVAvWYKRGr7JywKC10uN9oLvZFA2KWvaYtsphSZ1lHr_JwAJ21_6IHuGVZA0sK0igdmt6XeeBDoE_2sX5yT1wu05on1XopZIamnLH609=w287-h400" width="287" /></span></a></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Even when BLMChicago took down the post (quietly and under pressure) and then (finally) tried to walk it back, the <a href="https://x.com/BLMChi/status/1712096179528294562?s=20">best that they could come up with was</a> (emojis of Palestinian flag and colors omitted):<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoQuote"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Yesterday we sent out msgs that we aren’t proud of. We stand with Palestine & the people who will do what they must to live free. Our hearts are with, the grieving mothers, those rescuing babies from rubble, who are in danger of being wiped out completely<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">No condemnation of Hamas or the slaughter or kidnapping; no hope for a mutual peace. Just recognition of the plight of Palestinians and a green light for them to “do what they must to live free”. I can’t help but wonder if BLMChicago knows that the Jewish population of Israel includes about 133,000 <i>Black</i> Ethiopians (around 2% of the population) <i>who were rescued from Ethiopia by Israel</i> or that approximately 45% of Israel’s Jewish population is comprised of people of color (Mizrahi Jews from the Middle East and North Africa). So do groups like BLMChicago believe that Black lives (or the lives of people of color) in Israel <i>don’t </i>matter or that they matter, but just not as much as Palestinian lives?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Condemnation of Israeli civilians being slaughtered by Hamas should be the <i>end</i> of a sentence; it shouldn’t be followed with “but what about…” Condemning the actions of Hamas does not mean that Israel actions or responses are being condoned or that Israeli lives are more important than Palestinian lives.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><u>UNWRA</u><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">One more quick point that I want to make on a subject that I kept meaning to discuss in more depth but never got around to (and which I alluded to above): UNRWA. As you follow coverage of the conflict, you’ll likely see or hear references to UNRWA (pronounced “un-ra”), the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which is the United Nations organization created to address Palestinian refugees after the 1948 War and administer Palestinian welfare efforts. Yes, UNRWA remains actively involved in Palestinian lives seventy-three years after it began operations in 1950. Among other functions, UNRWA operates schools in Gaza; schools where Hamas has been caught <a href="https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-condemns-placement-rockets-second-time-one-its-schools">hiding</a> and <a href="https://unwatch.org/un-admits-palestinians-fired-rockets-unrwa-schools/">firing</a> rockets and <a href="https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/official-statements/unrwa-strongly-condemns-neutrality-breach-against-agency-gaza">building tunnels</a> and which <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/eu-parliament-moves-to-condition-funds-for-unrwa-for-alleged-textbook-incitement/">uses textbooks</a> that incite violence. UNWRA has also been <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/unrwa-places-6-staffers-on-leave-for-incitement-in-social-media-posts/">caught</a> employing staffers who post antisemitic messages on social media. But, perhaps, the craziest part of all of this is that UNRWA exists <i>solely</i> for the relief and works of Palestinians. It has no part to play with regard to Jews who became refugees after the 1948 War. More importantly, <i>all other refugees in the world</i> come under the auspices of the UNHCR (United National High Commission for Refugees) which has a very, very different definition for “refugee” than the definition used by UNRWA (the UNHCR definition is far narrower and doesn’t generally include descendants of a person who fled conflict). Thus, the literally millions of refugees of wars across the globe after 1948 (estimated to be as many as 35 million by <a href="https://www.refugepoint.org/about/why-refugees/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw1aOpBhCOARIsACXYv-dQGiVg4t3bDKWAa3oUQGaxiBH6olIGAu0llqDtzS56w6SXsDNnEeYaArThEALw_wcB">Refuge Point</a>) are subject to a far more restrictive and limited regime than the Palestinians. (If the definition of “refuge” applied to Palestinians were expanded to other conflicts, my children and I might be able to identify ourselves as refugees from Ukraine or Poland.) Yet in virtually none of those other wars are people living in refugee camps decades and decades after the cessation of principal hostilities. But in Gaza and the West Bank (and Jordan and Lebanon), refugee camps exist to this day, most administered by UNRWA. Why haven’t those people forced the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, and Jordanian and Lebanese governments to build the necessary infrastructure to dismantle the refugee camps or to take over providing and schooling these “refugees” in lieu of the United Nations?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">And just for a note of comparison, when Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia massacred 460 – 3,500 Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon in 1982, approximately 400,000 Israelis <a href="https://israeled.org/israelis-protest-sabra-and-shatila-massacre/">protested</a> in Tel Aviv to demonstrate anger at the massacre and demand an investigation into Israel’s role and responsibility. And even today, Israel is still struggling with and coming to terms with those events as part of a inward-looking reflection not too dissimilar to that engaged in by Americans during and after Vietnam or now in the aftermath of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I haven’t seen Palestinians protesting to demonstrate anger at Hamas’ actions.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><u>Conclusion</u><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">I’m sure that I’ll have many more thoughts and much more to say over the next days, weeks, and months. Whether I say it here or not remains to be seen. I will acknowledge, in advance, that some of my language in this post may not be as precise as it should be; anger and fear are emotions that can overwhelm caution and care. As always, I welcome discourse on the subject, but I’m not likely to respond favorably to those who choose simply to insult me, call me names, threaten me, and so forth. But I am very willing to engage in good faith discussions on solutions and ways to work toward peace.</span></p>MSWallackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04025607935715642114noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5222839876578062342.post-86484791714245277672019-10-14T13:05:00.000-04:002019-10-14T13:05:15.475-04:00HiatusIf not readily apparent, this blog is presently on hiatus. The blog is absolutely <i>not</i> discontinued. Unfortunately, for reasons that I choose not to discuss at the present time, I'm just not able to post my thoughts on the blog. When circumstances change, I intend to begin blogging again and there is the possibility that I may recommence writing on some subjects while avoiding others. We'll just have to wait and see. But I'm still around, still reviewing and responding to substantive comments (though most of the comments these days are spam), and still keenly interested in the topics on which I focused over the years.<br />
<br />
So until later…MSWallackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04025607935715642114noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5222839876578062342.post-41908579876670235362018-01-19T17:30:00.000-05:002018-01-19T17:30:50.564-05:00Dumb Bill Alert: If Colts Kneel, Spectators Get Refunds!<p>One of the things that I prepare myself for at the beginning of each new year is the almost inevitable onslaught of stupid bills introduced in the Indiana General Assembly. In past years there have been bills to <a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2013/01/the-stupid-just-keeps-getting-more-and.html">nullify federal laws</a>, bills to <a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2013/01/the-stupid-just-keeps-getting-more-and_11.html">require local sheriffs to arrest federal officials</a>, bills to require that children in public schools <a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2013/01/republicans-want-to-require-indiana.html">say The Lord’s Prayer</a>, and so on and so forth. Usually, these bills don’t become law, but given recent examples like RFRA or the annual attempts to unconstitutionally stop all abortions in the State, it isn’t a guaranty that the stupid (or unconstitutional) bills will be relegated to the trash.</p> <p>So what is the early contender for <a href="https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2017/12/28/colts-fans-offended-anthem-kneeling-could-receive-reindiana-lawmaker-pushes-legislation-refund-sport/986895001/">dumbest bill of 2018</a>? My vote would be for <a href="https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2018/bills/house/1011#document-414e687c">House Bill 1011</a>.</p> <blockquote> <p>An Indiana lawmaker is filing legislation that would require the Indianapolis Colts to offer fans refunds if Colts players kneel during the national anthem at home games.</p> <p>Rep. Milo Smith, R-Columbus, said his bill would allow fans who feel disrespected by the kneeling to ask for a refund during the first quarter. </p> <p>"To me when they take a knee during the national anthem, it’s not respecting the national anthem or our country," Smith said. "Our government isn’t perfect, but it's still the best country in the world and I think we need to be respectful of it."</p> <p>…</p> <p>Smith and his daughter were attending the Colts' September game against the Cleveland Browns when a group of Colts players decided to kneel along with about 200 other NFL players across the country.</p> <p>He was offended but stayed at the game.</p> <p>"I'm pretty patriotic, and it didn't sit right with me," said Smith.</p> </blockquote> <p>My initial reaction was to laugh. My next reaction was to joke that if spectators are eligible for refunds, it should be because of the poor performance of the Colts this year (leading to the team’s dismal 4-12 record). But then I remind myself that introducing a bill — proposing that something become the law of the State of Indiana — is neither a trivial nor laughing matter. And then I get angry.</p> <p>First, let’s remember that Republicans claim that they want to disentangle businesses from the government. How often have you heard the mantra that “burdensome regulations” stifle business? Yet here is a Republican legislator seeking to impose potentially massive costs upon a <em>single type of </em>business because he was offended. He wasn’t physically harmed or forced to incur additional costs. Nope. He was offended. Just imagine living in America and having to put up with the idea that someone might have a different viewpoint that you don’t find to be patriotic enough. What kind of country would allow such a thing?</p> <p>Apparently Rep. Smith (who, by the way, hails from the same city as Vice <strike>Pastor</strike> President Pence) isn’t offended at African American men and boys being shot by police; after all, he hasn’t introduced legislation to help remedy that problem or to require police departments (and, hence, the state) to better compensate those unjustly killed by police (or even to adjust the method by which we adjudicate whether a police shooting was “justified”). Nope. Dead black dude? Meh. Offended white dude? <em>Refund my money!</em></p> <p>So let’s look at the actual text of House Bill 1011 (HB1011):</p> <blockquote> <p>ARTICLE 61. CAUSES OF ACTION: ANTI-PATRIOTIC DISPLAYS</p> <p>Chapter 1. Professional Sports Anti-Patriotic Displays</p> <p>Sec. 1. As used in this chapter, “professional sports athlete” means an individual who receives income for playing a sport from a professional sports team located in Indiana. </p> <p>Sec. 2. As used in this chapter, “professional sports team” means a team that is part of the: (1) National Basketball Association; (2) National Football League; or (3) Women’s National Basketball Association.</p> <p>Sec. 3. (a) If a person: (1) purchases a ticket to a game; (2) attends the game; and (3) is offended by a professional sports athlete, who is a member of the professional sports team hosting the game, not standing during the national anthem; the person may seek a full refund of the price of the ticket, stated on the ticket, from the professional sports team, within thirty (30) days of the sporting event. (b) A request for a refund described in subsection (a) must be in writing. (c) If the professional sports team does not refund the price of the ticket described under subsection (a) within seven (7) days of the refund request, the person may file an action in any small claims court within the county where the sporting event occurred, within one (1) year of the date of the sporting event. (d) If the court determines the professional sports team did not timely refund the price of a ticket after a person was offended, as described in subsection (c), and the person made a timely refund request, as described in subsection (a), the court shall award the person: (1) reasonable attorney’s fees; (2) court costs; (3) three (3) times the price of the person’s ticket; and (4) other reasonable expenses. </p> </blockquote> <p>Let’s start with the actual title of the article and chapter of the Indiana Code that this bill would create: “Anti-Patriotic Displays”. Hmm. I don’t know about you, but the whole idea of a free, democratic society with notions like freedom of speech enshrined in foundational documents suggests that the idea of the government deciding what does and does not qualify as an “anti-patriotic display” seems a bit … troubling? Totalitarian, even? It seems that authoring a blatantly unconstitutional bill that proclaims which activity is unpatriotic is far more unpatriotic than kneeling during the National Anthem. This is probably a good place to remind readers (and certain Republican Indiana legislators, in particular) of what the Indiana Constitution says:</p> <blockquote> <p>No law shall be passed, restraining the free interchange of thought and opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print, freely, on any subject whatever: but for the abuse of that right, every person shall be responsible.</p> </blockquote> <p>Indiana Constitution, Article 1, Section 9. Read that again and think about HB1011 and the idea that the Indiana General Assembly would legislate which acts are unpatriotic and then punish a business that did not prevent its employees from “unpatriotic” actions.</p> <p>Ask yourself further why it is only a failure to stand during the National Anthem that qualifies as unpatriotic? In my post <a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2017/11/to-kneel-or-not-to-kneel.html">To Kneel or Not to Kneel</a> (November 10, 2017), I outlined a whole host of acts (and products) that violate the United States Flag Code, including displaying the flag horizontally as is done before virtually every Indianapolis Colts game. But that conduct isn’t “unpatriotic” in Rep. Smith’s worldview (or at least not unpatriotic enough to warrant a refund). In other words, conduct that Rep. Smith likes (or, I suppose, opinions with which he agrees) are patriotic but those that he dislikes or which challenge his opinions or demand <em>better</em> from our government are disfavored and, thus, unpatriotic. It’s a good thing that our system of government doesn’t allow people to express unpopular ideas. Oh, wait.</p> <p>It’s also interesting to note that the bill, if passed, would only apply to the Indianapolis Colts, Indiana Pacers, and Indiana Fever (WNBA team). Oddly, the bill would <em>not</em> apply to the Indianapolis Indians or other minor league baseball teams in Indiana, it wouldn’t apply to the Indy Fuel or other minor league hockey teams in Indiana, and it wouldn’t apply to the Indy Eleven (a minor league soccer team), even though their players are individuals who receive income from playing a sport in Indiana. It wouldn’t apply to a Major League Baseball team that relocated to Indiana. It wouldn’t apply to the Indianapolis 500 or Brickyard 400 (or other races at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway) even though the drivers are athletes who receive income for driving in the races. And most importantly, it wouldn’t apply to college or high school teams (and let’s face it, scholarship athletes are receiving “income” for playing sports)! In other words, if you get offended at an NFL game (and you were offended for the “right” reason), your delicate sensitivities are worthy of compensation, but if you are offended by the exact same conduct at an Indianapolis Indians game, Indy Eleven match, Notre Dame football game, or Indiana University basketball game, then I guess you’re just being overly sensitive. Or something. Snowflake. Or, perhaps, Rep. Smith doesn’t want the <em>State of Indiana</em> to have to refund tickets; only teams owned by billionaires should have to do that, right? And if you’re offended, but not for the <em>right</em> reason, then your sensitivities still don’t count. </p> <p>And what if the reason that an athlete did not stand for the National Anthem had nothing to do with protest or patriotism? What if the athlete (who, according to the bill need only be a “member of the professional sports team hosting the game”) doesn’t stand because of injury? The language of the bill doesn’t even require that the athlete kneel or be on the field! The athlete could still be in the locker room or, for that matter, not even at the stadium! If the athlete is a member of the team and is not standing during the National Anthem, then the offended <strike>snowflake</strike> person has a right to demand a refund. It’s even crazier than that, though. For example, just imagine an athlete who wants to protest but is aware of this law. Were that athlete to hold up a sign during the National Anthem that said, “Fuck the United States” no right to refund would be created. Nope. Putting on a Nazi or KKK armband during the National Anthem wouldn’t create a right to a refund. Flipping off fans or singing the Soviet anthem wouldn’t create a right to a refund. Nope. Just not standing. So what then? Does the Indiana General Assembly outlaw <em>all</em> unpatriotic displays? Oh, and lest I forget, a spectator wouldn’t be entitled to a refund if a coach or water boy or mascot didn’t stand. Nope. Only a professional athlete is obligated to stand. “Unpatriotic” conduct by others is not sufficient unpatriotic, I suppose.</p> <p>Seems that Rep. Smith believes that the “value” provided for the price of a ticket is the opportunity to see a semi-famous performer sing the National Anthem and watch athletes stand on the sidelines, rather than watching the athletes, you know, actually play the game itself. After all, HB1011 allows a person who has been “offended” to recover the “full refund of the price of the ticket”. Moreover, there is no obligation for the person to have left the game upon being offended. The person can stay, watch the game (which is, of course, what they actually paid to see), and <em>then</em> ask for a refund anyway. What? I ate the whole meal, but I didn’t like it, so give me back my money.</p> <p>Furthermore, note that if you are given tickets to the game or win the tickets in a contest, they you don’t have the right to seek a refund because you didn’t purchase your ticket. I guess offense is only meaningful to those who pay, right?</p> <p>Another minor point I find interesting about the language of HB1011 is that it doesn’t seem to require the “offended” person to actually proving that a player did not stand during the National Anthem; rather, the language requires the person to prove that the team did not refund the ticket price within 7 days of the written request. And then, to add insult to … um … being offended, HB1011 not only allows the poor, offended fan to recover not only attorneys’ fees (thus setting up an entire cottage industry for lawyers) but also entitling the snowflake to recover treble damages, something usually reserved for the worst sorts of civil violations (antitrust and racketeering being the prime examples).</p> <p>Just think of the slippery slope that this bill creates. How long before other types of “offense” lead to the right to seek refund from other sorts of businesses? Offended by the “unpatriotic” message in a movie or book? Demand a refund. The waiting room at the hospital was airing “fake news” CNN instead of an approved national news source like FOX? Demand a refund! The bar served unpatriotic Mexican tequila instead of good ol’ fashioned Kentucky bourbon? Demand a refund! The school taught your child that independent thought was acceptable? Demand a refund!</p> <p>The good news is that there are enough decent legislators in the Indiana General Assembly, especially in leadership roles, that HB1011 won’t go anywhere. Chances are that it won’t even be heard in committee (it was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee, most likely to die a quiet death), let alone get a vote for passage. But the mere fact that a bill that is this blatantly unconstitutional would even be offered is a sign of just how little some members of our elected government understand how our government works and just what ideas like “freedom of speech” really mean. That we have elected officials that can’t see the difference between a democracy with freedom of speech and the forced patriotism of totalitarian societies is frightening. Frightening, but sadly, unsurprising.</p> <p>Finally, query this: If this bill were to become law, how long before Indiana’s “professional sports teams” would be looking for homes in other states? I know that San Diego, St. Louis, and Oakland are looking for football teams. How offended might Hoosiers be at the economic impact to the city and state just so that Rep. Smith doesn’t have his patriotic feelings hurt?</p>MSWallackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04025607935715642114noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5222839876578062342.post-26436307891107718392017-11-10T17:30:00.000-05:002017-11-10T17:30:07.483-05:00To Kneel or Not to Kneel<p><em>I apologize the delay since my most recent post. I’ve had … reasons. And writing this post took … way too long.</em></p> <p>Before I discuss <em>whether</em> I think it is appropriate or acceptable for athletes to kneel rather than stand during the playing of the National Anthem prior to a game, I think it’s worth at least asking <em>why</em> we play the National Anthem prior to games. We seem to do so before virtually all sporting events (is the National Anthem played before golf tournaments?), but we don’t do so before many other large public gatherings. If I go to a high school football game on Friday night, there will be a rendition of the National Anthem, but at the high school choir performance the night before, there was neither a recital of the National Anthem nor a presentation of the flag. And if, the next night, I go to a theater performance, a TED Talk, or a beer festival in a local park, it is unlikely that there will be a recital of the National Anthem before those events. Youth soccer and baseball games don’t usually include a rendition of the National Anthem unless organized by a school. Similarly, before a group of friends gather to play a game of softball, ultimate Frisbee, flag football, HORSE, tennis, or bocce, they don’t usually stop and sing the National Anthem first. So why do we play and/or sing the National Anthem before <em>some</em> sporting events?* I don’t have an answer to that question but I do think that, whatever the answer may be, is at least worth considering when reflecting on the general question at hand.</p> <p>It is also worth considering that playing the National Anthem <em>before</em> a sporting is not a universal behavior. It is my understanding that very few countries include a rendition of their respective national anthems prior to sporting events. An English friend once remarked that Europeans were often puzzled by the American practice of playing the National Anthem. Think for a moment about the Olympics, in which a national anthem is played <em>after</em> the event to honor the winning nation. It might be an interesting exercise to see which other countries do and do not routinely play their national anthems at public gatherings like sporting events. I’d be willing to bet (though not much…) that democratic nations (other than the United States) are much less likely to do so than totalitarian nations in which coercive patriotism (or nationalism) helps keep the ruling elite in power.</p> <p>So, then, on to the propriety of an athlete protesting during the National Anthem. Sadly, I think the answer is actually much more nuanced than a simple yes/no answer, in part because the manner of protest can differ and thus the propriety may differ as well. For example, protest in the form of taking a knee is different than protest by remaining seated, turning one’s back to the flag, holding up a fist, making some other gesture or gesticulation (holding up a middle finger, for example), adding a verbal component to the protest, or other similar actions (or inactions). And, it depends on the context and the venue. Not all protests are the same and, thus, they should not necessarily be treated the same. A protest before the game is different than a protest during the game; a quiet, peaceful protest is different than a loud or violent protest; and a protest that only involves others to the extent that they become aware of, see, or hear the protest is different from one which does <em>directly</em> affect others (such as by physical contact, preventing them from using a public facility, preventing a speaker from speaking or game from being played, or the like). Unfortunately, when patriotism (or a perceived hostility to patriotism) becomes part of the discussion — not to mention issues like race — then it seems that the sort of nuance and careful consideration truly necessary to a proper discussion and examination of the issue becomes … unlikely.</p> <p>For what it’s worth, and to eliminate the suspense: I think that … nah. You’ll just have to read to the end.</p> <p align="center">♦ ♦ ♦</p> <p>When American soldiers stormed the beaches at Normandy or assaulted caves in Tora Bora, were they doing so <em>for the flag</em>, or were they doing so <em>because of what the flag represents</em>? Was their oath to defend the flag and National Anthem or the Constitution for which they stand? Maybe in our current civics-diminished culture, those differences are too subtle for some people to understand. To those who don’t readily recognize the differences, I’d strongly suggest that you put down whatever you’re doing and go read James Clavell’s short work <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Childrens-Story-James-Clavell-ebook/dp/B00OWWOL9S/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1507913155&sr=8-1&keywords=the+children%27s+story+by+james+clavell">The Children’s Story</a><em></em>. I’ll wait.</p> <p>Anyway, it seems to me that our soldiers fight — and die — for the <em>ideal</em> of America; they make the greatest sacrifice for the notion that all men (and women) are created equal and treated so under the law, that people are free to express their thoughts and their religious beliefs without fear, and that we are a nation of laws where no man (or woman) is above the call of justice. The flag and the National Anthem are mere symbols of that ideal, but they themselves are not the ideal and they are not what we seek to honor. Rather, we seek to honor the ideal that <em>is</em> America (or what American should be), that is the core of what we mean by American exceptionalism, and that sets America apart from so much of the rest of the world. Thus, when we stand for the National Anthem, we’re not honoring a song or a piece of cloth; <em>we’re honoring what those things stand for</em>. While I’m not a Christian — and I suppose my analogy could be off — I think it’s fair to equate honoring the flag instead of the ideal of America with honoring the cross instead of the <em>ideal</em> of Jesus.</p> <p>Similarly, when people protest, they are (usually) not protesting the flag or the National Anthem; they are not protesting against our soldiers or veterans (Vietnam, perhaps, being the obvious exception). Rather, they are protesting what they perceive as injustice. They are protesting what they perceive as ways in which we as a society have failed to live up to and adhere to the ideals of America for which the flag and National Anthem serve as symbols. They are not protesting to tear down or to destroy; rather they are protesting in order to try to our make country better (Make America Great Again, anybody?), to help bring it closer to the ideal that the flag represents. Those who think that athletes are protesting the flag or veterans <em>simply aren’t listening</em>. Or perhaps they are listening, but the voices that they’re listening to are the ones opposed to the message the athletes are trying to communicate. After all, why spend so much effort discussing and railing against the protest itself and not having a substantive discussion about <em>why</em> athletes are protesting or whether their complaints have any merit. Wouldn’t it be more productive for us to ask whether there is racial injustice, whether young black men (in particular) are treated fairly or unfairly by the police and justice system, and whether these are systemic or isolated problems? And wouldn’t we be furthering the ideals of America if, rather than expending energy arguing about protest, we instead spent that energy trying to achieve the goals of American exceptionalism and the promise of equality?</p> <p align="center">♦ ♦ ♦  </p> <p>Let me address an element of the broader issue of “honor” and “respect” that has not received much attention. At many of the sporting events that I’ve attended, the formulation preceding the playing of the National Anthem goes something like this: “To honor America, please stand and remove your hats”. The precise words may change, but the request is mostly very similar as is the use of the word “honor”. That word is almost always used. Now imagine that you are an observant Jewish man who wears a <em>kippah</em>, an observant Muslim woman who wears a <em>hijab</em>, a Sikh man who wears a <em>dastaar</em> (turban), or any other person who wears a head covering for religious purposes. Or imagine that you’re a cancer survivor wearing a wig or scarf. Now how do you feel when the stadium announcer tells you that to “honor” America you must remove your hat? Do you choose to honor America at the expense of your religious obligations or personal health-related issues? Or do you stand, put your hand over your heart, but leave your head covering in place hoping those around you won’t think that you’re being disrespectful? Is this a choice any of your fellow Americans should be asked to make? For that matter, when and why did we decide that we “honor” America by standing and listening to a song rather than working to achieve the ideals upon which America was based? Or, why do we listen and not all join in the signing?</p> <p>What about Jehovah’s Witnesses or other religious groups who, as a rule, don’t stand for the National Anthem or Pledge of Allegiance and who have fought, all the way to the United States Supreme Court, for the right <em>not</em> to be forced to stand (more on that at the end of this post). As we argue about the propriety of athletes standing or kneeling, what message are we sending to those who choose not to stand for religious or moral purposes other than protest? Are they “lesser” Americans or not “real” Americans? Are they disrespecting the flag, soldiers, or America? I wonder how those who object to player protests would react to a player who chose not to stand if that choice was based on religious views rather than a protest statement.</p> <p>And what of a spectator or athlete at a sporting event who is <em>not</em> American? Is the message to that person that he or she should “honor” America by standing or … what? … get out? Go home? Really?</p> <p>So what about Tim Tebow? I’ll readily acknowledge that I was critical of Tim Tebow taking a knee when he did something good on the field. I was not a fan of what I perceived as a sort of “in your face” Christianity. But there are two points worth making here. First, isn’t it interesting that kneeling is seemingly acceptable if the <em>reason</em> for kneeling is deemed to be acceptable. In other words, because Tebow was kneeling as an expression of faith, many of the same people who criticize players for kneeling during the National Anthem had no problem with Tebow kneeling. But more importantly, Tebow took a knee <em>during the game</em> when he knew the cameras would be on him <em>because of what he did in the game</em>. Compare that to players who are taking a knee <em>before the game</em>, when the cameras aren’t usually focused on players (ordinarily, television coverage only includes the National Anthem prior to Sunday night games and the Super Bowl), and when the cameras do focus on the players, it is <em>because they are kneeling</em> and not because of their efforts on the field. Hmm.</p> <p>And of course that discussion of Tim Tebow inexorably leads to a discussion of Kim Davis. You remember Kim Davis, don’t you? She was the county clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because doing so “violated” her religious beliefs. Many conservatives cheered her, made her into a sort of folk hero <em>for refusing to obey the law that required her to treat all people equally.</em> Let me repeat: She refused to do her job. The football players? Are they refusing to do their jobs? No. Of course not. But the people who made Kim Davis a hero for refusing to recognize the Supreme Court’s decision in favor of marriage equality are criticizing athletes who are peacefully — and without directly harming others — protesting a system that they don’t believe treats all Americans equally. White Christian lady refuses to follow the law and treat people equally? Good. Black athletes protest inequality and the treatment of people of color by the law? Bad. Hmm.</p> <p align="center">♦ ♦ ♦</p> <p>One person with whom I discussed this issue told me that she disagreed with players kneeling during the National Anthem, not because she disagreed with the subject of their protest, but because she found it to be “impolite”. She had essentially the same response to the cast of <em>Hamilton</em> making a plea to Vice President Pence about equality (alas, while I wrote a post on that episode, I never finished it…). I reminded her that people, especially white people, have been telling African-Americans when and how to protest for years. I reminded her that perhaps the most important element of a protest was a time and place <em>when and where the protest would be visible</em> by others, in particular those with the power to influence decisions and conduct. A protest from your living room couch or a protest in a neighborhood or park not frequented by those to whom the protester needs to address is essentially pointless. A protest needs witnesses in the same way a fire needs oxygen. Taking a knee in front of a banana at the supermarket to protest police brutality just isn’t going to have the impact that the same action will have prior to a televised football game in front of a massive audience. And I reminded her that it was not the function of a protest to make the the listener or viewer comfortable; rather, a sense of discomfort at the protest is <em>precisely</em> what is intended by the protest in hopes that those who are discomforted might, you know, help <em>change</em> things.</p> <p>Don’t forget that protest is generally conducted by the minority or a group that perceives itself as being treated unfairly or poorly. <em>The majority rarely needs to protest</em> and <em>popular views rarely need protest</em>. A protest by the majority in support of a popular idea isn’t a protest at all; it’s a parade.</p> <p>Oh, and how many of those who are angered at the protests have affinity for the Tea Party, a group named after perhaps the most famous protest in American history?</p> <p align="center">♦ ♦ ♦</p> <p>I try (usually…) to avoid so-called “whataboutism” but in this case, I think it’s important to ask why some of those who are so offended by athletes’ decision to kneel rather than stand don’t show similar anger in other situations. Why, for example, have those who are offended by kneeling been silent when, at the end of the National Anthem, fans of the Kansas Chiefs replace “home of the brave” with “home of the Chiefs!” with that last word screamed in such a way that it drowns out “brave” by any who may be singing along with the National Anthem? In my experience at NFL games, when this happens, most people just laugh. But how is that conduct any less “disrespectful” than a player who kneels <em>quietly</em>? (And that query is without even touching on the idea that the Chiefs are named for the Native Americans who were displaced by the westward expanding United States; so isn’t replacing “brave” by “Chiefs” much <em>more</em> disrespectful of the National Anthem and flag or even of the ideal of America?)</p> <p>I don’t know about you, but I’d love to see just how many of the people who are angry about African-American athletes “disrespecting” the flag have a Confederate flag on their pickup truck.</p> <p> More interestingly and importantly, though, is the question of why people who are angry enough to burn their jerseys and season tickets aren’t just as angry about unarmed, innocent people, including children, being killed by police? What is it about the protest action by players that engenders such visceral anger and even hatred while the basis for the protest is barely recognized by many?  I can’t help feel that for some — certainly not all, but some — their is a racist component to anger on one hand and lack of empathy or corresponding anger on the other.</p> <p align="center">♦ ♦ ♦</p> <p>I want to address two further arguments that are being raised with regard to the issue of kneeling during the National Anthem: The First Amendment and the United States Flag Code. Let me be quite clear about one thing: <em>This is not a First Amendment issue.</em> Well, at least not directly, but see the huge caveats that I’ll discuss below. Yes, the First Amendment protects a person’s right to speech and that right includes the right to protest. Thus, the decision to take a knee is protected speech. But that doesn’t matter because the First Amendment addresses prohibitions or limitations on speech <em>by the government</em>. Here, the question is whether the NFL or an individual team should prohibit a player from kneeling or punish a player who does so. And that is <em>not</em> a First Amendment question.</p> <p>The government cannot make people stand, salute, put their hand on their heart, remove their hat, or sing the National Anthem. Each of those requirements would violate the First Amendment. And the government cannot prohibit a person from kneeling during the National Anthem, either, as that would also violate the First Amendment. But an employer <em>can do those things</em> within the scope of the employer’s relationship with the employee and in the workplace. Now, I’ll admit that things can get a bit fuzzy around the edges (<em>i.e.,</em> imagine an employer who says that employees can gather in the company break room for Christian prayer, but only Christian prayer, or an employer who tells employees that they must prove that they voted for candidate X or contributed a portion of their salary to charity Y), but as a general rule, so long as the employer is not engaging in certain forms of prohibited discriminatory action, the employer can adopt workplace rules that might include standing for the National Anthem if it is played in the workplace.</p> <p>Now with all of that being said, there are several caveats that I’d like to offer to my general statement that this isn’t a First Amendment issue. First, I think it’s important to recognize that prior to 2009, the NFL players <em>stayed in the locker room until after the National Anthem</em>. Why the change? As I understand it, the United States military <em>paid</em> the NFL to add patriotic elements prior to games. I’m not sure what I think of the idea of paid patriotism. But more importantly, once you insert the government into the situation, then the analysis may change. Employers (the NFL and its teams) are now asking their employees (the players) to stand for the National Anthem <em>at the paid behest of the government</em>. That seems to be a dramatically different situation than an employer making a decision and acting on its own; the influence of the government (especially the military) cannot easily be ignored. To this point, it is probably worth adding that most of the teams play in stadiums owned and/or financed <em>by the government</em>. Though I haven’t researched the issue, I believe that there is some jurisprudence that limits an employer’s rights with regard to employee speech when the employer is relying upon government facilities, largesse, or funding.</p> <p>Second, we can’t ignore President Trump’s decision to insert himself into this mess. Had he limited his remarks to “I disagree with the decision to kneel” or even “I think that it’s disrespectful for the players to kneel”, then the situation would simply be that of a government official offering an opinion on a matter of public debate and discussion. But Trump went beyond. He, in essence, told the NFL owners to fire players who kneeled. When the President suggests that a particular citizen or business take a certain action, that is not easy to ignore. And that form of governmental interference in business issues may bring First Amendment analysis into play.</p> <p>For what it’s worth, I didn’t think that Trump violated the law with his statements suggesting or demanding that team owners fire players. Several complaints have been lodged on the basis of <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/227">18 U.S.C. § 227</a>, but that statute requires that a government official acts “with the intent to influence … an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity” and does so “solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation” and that in so acting, the official “(1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or (2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another”. Had Trump followed up his statement with any sort of threat to withhold government action or to take certain action, he might have met the second part of the statute’s requirements, but the requirement of “solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation” could be difficult to prove.</p> <p>Of course after I wrote the preceding two paragraphs, Trump went even further, when he threatened to revoke the tax exempt status of the NFL (“change tax law!”) and tied that proposal to “disrespecting our Anthem, Flag and Country”. That thinly veiled threat does, I think, violate the statute cited above and, more importantly, looks an awful lot like a threat to enact legislation tied to the protected speech of individuals. Think of it this way: Would you be offended if a President said that he/she would change tax laws so that civic advocacy groups that criticized the government would lose their tax exempt status? What about religious groups that didn’t “honor” the President as a part of their religious service. What about youth groups who don’t begin their meetings with the Pledge of Allegiance or the National Anthem? What about a threat to curtail government business with a company that refuses to fire an employee who privately expresses criticism of the government?</p> <p>There is yet another factor that, unfortunately, must also be considered. We all recognize that private businesses are <em>generally</em> allowed to make workplace rules, whether in the nature of attire, use of company property, attendance, and so forth. But those rules <em>cannot</em> be discriminatory toward a protected class like race or religion. So the question, when applied to professional athletes, is whether a rule prohibiting them from protesting (or from engaging in certain types of protest) might be viewed as having a racially discriminatory motive or effect. I’m sure some will argue that race would have nothing to do with the imposition of such a rule, but given that virtually all of the players protesting are black (I think only one white player has taken a knee during the National Anthem) and that the protests are about racial inequality and injustice toward the black community, I don’t think that a racial impact or motivation can be so easily discarded.</p> <p align="center">♦ ♦ ♦</p> <p>Much of the criticism directed at players has focused on the allegation that kneeling, rather than standing, is disrespectful. So let’s turn our attention to the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/chapter-1">United States Flag Code</a> and, in particular, the section on <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/8">respect for the flag</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor.</p> <p><a name="a"></a>(a) The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.</p> <p><a name="b"></a>(b) The flag should never touch anything beneath it, such as the ground, the floor, water, or merchandise.</p> <p><a name="c"></a>(c) The flag should never be carried flat or horizontally, but always aloft and free.</p> <p><a name="d"></a>(d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker’s desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general.</p> <p><a name="e"></a>(e) The flag should never be fastened, displayed, used, or stored in such a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any way.</p> <p><a name="f"></a>(f) The flag should never be used as a covering for a ceiling.</p> <p><a name="g"></a>(g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.</p> <p><a name="h"></a>(h) The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything.</p> <p><a name="i"></a>(i) The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown.</p> <p><a name="j"></a>(j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.</p> <p><a name="k"></a>(k) The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.</p> </blockquote> <p>It’s also worth noting the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/301">statute governing conduct during the playing of the National Anthem</a> (which largely duplicates another section from the United States Flag Code):</p> <blockquote> <p><a name="b"></a>(b) Conduct During Playing.—During a rendition of the national anthem—</p> <p><a name="b_1"></a>   (1) when the flag is displayed—</p> <p><a name="b_1_A"></a>      (A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note;</p> <p><a name="b_1_B"></a>      (B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for individuals in uniform; and</p> <p><a name="b_1_C"></a>      (C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and</p> <p><a name="b_2"></a>   (2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.</p> </blockquote> <p>The most important thing to note about both of these statutes is the repeated use of the word “should”. In almost all statutes, the words used to direct or proscribe conduct are “shall” and “shall not”. I seriously hope that I don’t need to take time to explain the difference between “should” and “shall” (or “should not” and “shall not”). The point, however, is that neither of these statutes create <em>obligations</em> or <em>prohibitions</em>; rather, they present directives of how the United States <em>wants</em> people to act in certain situations, sort of like saying that pregnant women should not smoke or drink alcohol. But it is not a crime to act contrary to the instructions of the Flag Code and their is no penalty for doing so.</p> <p>So, OK, the Flag Code and National Anthem statute provide that people should “stand”. Thus, athletes who kneel during the National Anthem are not following these guidelines. Thus, I suppose, criticism on that basis is fair. But… (you knew there would be a but…, right?). Did you notice anything else? First, if we’re going to criticize someone for failing to follow one of these guidelines and thus being “disrespectful,” then aren’t we being unfair if we single out the “offensive” conduct of that person without noting the ways in which others fail to follow the guidelines as well? I know, I know. More “whataboutism”. But is it fair to pick one provision of these guidelines and publicly rebuke those who don’t follow that guideline as being “disrespectful” while remaining silent when others fail to follow other guidelines and are, I suppose, <em>not</em> being “disrespectful” because … um … their conduct didn’t violate the particular guideline that you are focused on? I don’t think so. By way of simple example, note that the Flag Code doesn’t just say that a person should stand; rather the Flag Code says that a person should “stand at attention”. Hmm. When I look around stadiums, whether on the field or in the audience, I see a lot of people standing, but almost none of them are “at attention”. Many have removed their hats and placed their right hands over their hearts, but many have not. So why aren’t those people being criticized? Isn’t their failure to stand “at attention,” to remove their hats, and to place their hand over their hearts, just as much of a violation as those who kneel instead of stand? Why is kneeling disrespectful but failure to stand at attention, remove a hat, or place a hand over a heart not equally disrespectful?</p> <p>But why stop with that analysis? Let’s look at some of those other guidelines from the Flag Code. For example, the Flag Code says that the “flag should never be carried flat or horizontally, but always aloft and free”. So why aren’t NFL teams being criticized for holding large flags <em>horizontally</em> on the field? It seems even more outrageous that this sort of “disrespectful” display is happening <em>at the behest of and following payment by</em> the United States military and often with the cooperation of many military personnel. In other words, the military is paying the NFL and its teams to violate the Flag Code week in and week out and the NFL and its teams are, apparently, happy to do so if the money is right.</p> <p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-a5-N8_fJjtU/WgYMQXg-AvI/AAAAAAAABaI/wDZMS1bE2ToIDnASS3yE1xH5w26lXUjpACHMYCw/s1600-h/us-flag-football43"><img title="us-flag-football" style="margin: 0px auto 5px; float: none; display: block; background-image: none;" border="0" alt="us-flag-football" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-1ikpx6UeRwo/WgYMQ4GZDKI/AAAAAAAABaM/DYOVnFdr3QEjT5U7L3jvXmMEWTqKwilJACHMYCw/us-flag-football_thumb41?imgmax=800" width="604" height="454" /></a></p> <p>(This is what it looks like at most home Indianapolis Colts games during the playing of the National Anthem.)</p> <p>The Flag Code says that the “flag should never be used as wearing apparel”. So why aren’t people being criticized for doing so?</p> <p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-PVnwCEnUmtQ/WgYMRKB83JI/AAAAAAAABaQ/DQNdu8fHXKoI8oXZX5QEIknqwFq9EabyQCHMYCw/s1600-h/0118510129"><img title="01185101" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; float: left; display: inline; background-image: none;" border="0" alt="01185101" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-M9lxnWU6_MY/WgYMRRvSw2I/AAAAAAAABaU/iuh_SClmOQI-wdBKbVFxKEJgMM1vrnCzgCHMYCw/01185101_thumb29?imgmax=800" width="184" align="left" height="228" /></a></p> <p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-0OFbgaBehJQ/WgYMRlKac9I/AAAAAAAABaY/QUiWU8rKdZ4OhDLR0jj1-Rpcllfjaf0pACHMYCw/s1600-h/c8917f283917cc0d9b61d478e79f97d3--ve%255B1%255D"><img title="c8917f283917cc0d9b61d478e79f97d3--venus-swimwear-american-flag-bikini" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; float: left; display: inline; background-image: none;" border="0" alt="c8917f283917cc0d9b61d478e79f97d3--venus-swimwear-american-flag-bikini" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-PSl-S1Fw8_o/WgYMR3OzCGI/AAAAAAAABac/TVZnP2jlTCILCKlsvGIlLrN1cjn01qwSACHMYCw/c8917f283917cc0d9b61d478e79f97d3--ve%255B2%255D?imgmax=800" width="184" align="left" height="257" /></a><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-2SFVI6se9NI/WgYMSB8d2dI/AAAAAAAABag/Spxnpsh-kPMvGbxF-SWWzBqrjMd6lLCzwCHMYCw/s1600-h/MascotBoxers_Lifestyle_1024x102422"><img title="MascotBoxers_Lifestyle_1024x1024" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; float: left; display: inline; background-image: none;" border="0" alt="MascotBoxers_Lifestyle_1024x1024" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-3yJo40wH3Tk/WgYMSvGRdDI/AAAAAAAABak/fvTotKfZma8VxCMdHOZ4ms0gAaBt1RXKACHMYCw/MascotBoxers_Lifestyle_1024x1024_thu?imgmax=800" width="184" align="left" height="274" /></a></p> <p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-aGop71BTrWc/WgYMS6hLaoI/AAAAAAAABao/FeSkmu40GYsa96JiVlpU937Q3YoRjovDwCHMYCw/s1600-h/515531acc2374784144ae59dbc04a8e9--do%255B2%255D"><img title="515531acc2374784144ae59dbc04a8e9--dolly-parton-lyrics-red-white-blue" style="margin: 0px auto 5px; float: none; display: block; background-image: none;" border="0" alt="515531acc2374784144ae59dbc04a8e9--dolly-parton-lyrics-red-white-blue" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-1We7odArjpI/WgYMTRjnI9I/AAAAAAAABas/GgK_Z6LaVkQMYsvu4Y-4HU2qsicR9DDtACHMYCw/515531acc2374784144ae59dbc04a8e9--do?imgmax=800" width="244" height="184" /></a></p> <p>Hey, nothing says “respect for the flag” like wearing it on underwear with a bald eagle covering your dick. But at least the girl in the bikini is saluting, right? And Dolly Parton is … um … Dolly Parton! And she has a theme park! So she can wear an American flag dress, right? Just remember, though, that a man who quietly takes a knee during the playing of the National Anthem to protest injustice is being disrespectful and worthy of scorn, termination of employment, and boycott, but none of these images are worth more than a shrug. OK.</p> <p>What about the Flag Code’s guideline that the flag should not be used for “bedding, or drapery”?</p> <p align="center"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-8PszNsWR4Pc/WgYMTjdWKmI/AAAAAAAABaw/k-TeJKVuvDM42wCKpxudCD4HdWKr0UlrQCHMYCw/s1600-h/dbd91682fe0322efe20c5d69e38bb4392"><img title="dbd91682fe0322efe20c5d69e38bb439" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; display: inline; background-image: none;" border="0" alt="dbd91682fe0322efe20c5d69e38bb439" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-D7JiDA-k-KU/WgYMTzBC5rI/AAAAAAAABa0/r4O0IoidyjoyP71TCpYaRabXbeUwxu6bwCHMYCw/dbd91682fe0322efe20c5d69e38bb439_thu?imgmax=800" width="244" height="244" /></a><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-4itqfQ_ISm0/WgYMUNVykTI/AAAAAAAABa4/gszKfxivmcIhFHWp55eP5XYwtOBWvSzLwCHMYCw/s1600-h/shelterpop20"><img title="shelterpop" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; display: inline; background-image: none;" border="0" alt="shelterpop" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-8_fmACITCA0/WgYMUh0EOyI/AAAAAAAABa8/ZECF4HwIUJkXgOCyoJ79MS9ftX2k-imGQCHMYCw/shelterpop_thumb19?imgmax=800" width="304" height="204" /></a></p> <p>I presume that those who plan to boycott the NFL because some players are being disrespectful also plan to boycott the stores that carry flag bedding and draperies (I specifically chose <em>not</em> to include links to these products because I don’t see any problem with them and don’t think that the stores should be subject to boycott or scorn just for selling American flag bedding or drapes).</p> <p>Somebody really needs to tell these soldiers that the Flag Code says that the “flag should never be used as a covering for a ceiling” (and I learned in some research that I did while writing this post that <a href="http://ar670.com/articles/view/1/when-the-wear-of-the-army-uniform-is-required-or-prohibited/13">service members are not supposed to wear their hats [covers] indoors</a> unless “under arms in an official capacity”).</p> <p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-EYuNSufBthQ/WgYMUzyUuvI/AAAAAAAABbA/Tx1Ale8d2oAsGEJtGUnJNlpcNJF4olAtACHMYCw/s1600-h/140704-F-PB969-0411"><img title="140704-F-PB969-041" style="margin: 0px auto 5px; float: none; display: block; background-image: none;" border="0" alt="140704-F-PB969-041" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-1dILu30wp10/WgYMVcCk3RI/AAAAAAAABbE/B_ZoxRRK4nwUsAAwxtnaq96yJtREwi3ywCHMYCw/140704-F-PB969-041_thumb?imgmax=800" width="404" height="289" /></a></p> <p>I didn’t see an exception in the Flag Code for use of the flag on the ceiling if accompanied by a Confederate battle flag, but I’m sure that some “patriot” can explain why this is not being disrespectful.</p> <p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-UTn2qaDrFks/WgYMVjsjNYI/AAAAAAAABbI/h7J6ZpgESjAe-zS4nsf9ObIem_6ETaDKQCHMYCw/s1600-h/route-38-restaurant1"><img title="route-38-restaurant" style="margin: 0px auto 5px; float: none; display: block; background-image: none;" border="0" alt="route-38-restaurant" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-RVi4XqHvXik/WgYMVyL-dQI/AAAAAAAABbM/lsMoimwUTugT3odZXjnnCQC-U88r4MTRgCHMYCw/route-38-restaurant_thumb?imgmax=800" width="404" height="304" /></a></p> <p>“The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature”. Somebody needs to tell these Vietnam vets that they’re violating the Flag Code! (and then boycott them and demand that they be fired).</p> <p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-KraOd__uBzY/WgYMWTHNjFI/AAAAAAAABbQ/uUIteOUdJNkeuftr2ea8wlnNXw9-V8raACHMYCw/s1600-h/31648272"><img title="3164827" style="margin: 0px auto 5px; float: none; display: block; background-image: none;" border="0" alt="3164827" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-CrcwepnCq7A/WgYMWlyuLwI/AAAAAAAABbU/QNRUeipOaGgoWtqtw-ljPRKxH06QpVvkACHMYCw/3164827_thumb2?imgmax=800" width="404" height="267" /></a></p> <p>Though I do wonder whether there should be an exception in the Flag Code to permit the National Anthem or the Pledge of Allegiance to be written on the flag.</p> <p align="center"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-JKJwjdJNfUc/WgYMW_W_gII/AAAAAAAABbY/1AQtG368QEgYPH_muiMXHP_cjQ-g8UUUwCHMYCw/s1600-h/00640fae025f85ddc652711c22af67c910"><img title="00640fae025f85ddc652711c22af67c9" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; display: inline; background-image: none;" border="0" alt="00640fae025f85ddc652711c22af67c9" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-fZSfN1U_v0w/WgYMXE64kFI/AAAAAAAABbc/PMg8XyfqGJwqQKKnZOb4MiNKkr2p8p-9wCHMYCw/00640fae025f85ddc652711c22af67c9_thu?imgmax=800" width="254" height="159" /></a><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-pD_cjvvtQvw/WgYMXidMqKI/AAAAAAAABbg/XRDwVdDkxLYFloLdEkLc_PJp8MWhdGr9ACHMYCw/s1600-h/flag_0610"><img title="flag_06" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; display: inline; background-image: none;" border="0" alt="flag_06" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-PBxtayNAia0/WgYMX1nASPI/AAAAAAAABbk/srJGx9txv0gqupNKaHLKwrR7xRQnEZQrQCHMYCw/flag_06_thumb10?imgmax=800" width="254" height="189" /></a></p> <p>“The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything.”</p> <p align="center"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6g6sWwD-5Nw/WgYMYS2Q5EI/AAAAAAAABbo/_YiuobPgWgQFXzA5kL5MbdtgIdABXAS5ACHMYCw/s1600-h/71AM8-CphpL__SY355_10"><img title="71AM8-CphpL__SY355_" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; display: inline; background-image: none;" border="0" alt="71AM8-CphpL__SY355_" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-7Jt4DOQYz-s/WgYMYhBInhI/AAAAAAAABbs/dzWF4SMbxFgi1jGL_hBN7XPK-hvlDuw0wCHMYCw/71AM8-CphpL__SY355__thumb10?imgmax=800" width="254" height="254" /></a> <a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-pgZoWkYVucQ/WgYMZORHqzI/AAAAAAAABbw/U7Skmctaqf4QnJUG89CkuZ0d-H6gTBSSACHMYCw/s1600-h/ee810acaaa1a0b804c7aa69e879b554c14"><img title="ee810acaaa1a0b804c7aa69e879b554c" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; display: inline; background-image: none;" border="0" alt="ee810acaaa1a0b804c7aa69e879b554c" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-cCFoWz8SkB8/WgYMZVPOnoI/AAAAAAAABb0/VyWbhqX-1_E1HPJbOo5jier2__BLnYgnQCHMYCw/ee810acaaa1a0b804c7aa69e879b554c_thu?imgmax=800" width="254" height="254" /></a></p> <p>Again, throwing your trash in a flag-themed trash can is apparently fine, just don’t take a knee to protest injustice.</p> <p>“The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever…”.</p> <p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-l4N41VCPrGc/WgYMZmg4t2I/AAAAAAAABb4/B2h2-A3ycH0GbKpe43dzUhvGJTTpLBNzgCHMYCw/s1600-h/05302011-Budweiser-USA-can2"><img title="05302011-Budweiser-USA-can" style="margin: 0px auto 5px; float: none; display: block; background-image: none;" border="0" alt="05302011-Budweiser-USA-can" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-XlEf7Or2tAY/WgYMZw5RB9I/AAAAAAAABb8/37_XWRW8sxgKMNXY3L_ULrBh4s5j587OACHMYCw/05302011-Budweiser-USA-can_thumb?imgmax=800" width="133" height="244" /></a></p> <p>Do I really need to provide more examples of the flag used in advertising? Yeah… thought not.</p> <p>The flag “should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs…”.</p> <p align="center"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-s3lF5XdYKEg/WgYMaTWtWxI/AAAAAAAABcA/NzJckWad7oInWdjF3TFc04R0373Apbi0ACHMYCw/s1600-h/81V-hsqnkgL__SY355_12"><img title="81V-hsqnkgL__SY355_" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; display: inline; background-image: none;" border="0" alt="81V-hsqnkgL__SY355_" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-bXVb62lABjs/WgYMaup0pYI/AAAAAAAABcE/ZpYc7eEKunEZFd0VmVKafbI2mcsoOEgjwCHMYCw/81V-hsqnkgL__SY355__thumb10?imgmax=800" width="254" height="254" /></a> <a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-5hCFEurEQEg/WgYMa5RRF4I/AAAAAAAABcI/hMQ9Jok-v2sFs9kq-xTrdSKs3OIKqNk9ACHMYCw/s1600-h/51oUel4xPEL__AC_UL200_SR160200_97"><img title="51oUel4xPEL__AC_UL200_SR160,200_" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; display: inline; background-image: none;" border="0" alt="51oUel4xPEL__AC_UL200_SR160,200_" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-K5N15EuC0kY/WgYMbRXjcPI/AAAAAAAABcM/y7P2lEXQzRs_7aqlNottvWpE5DY7u9ILwCHMYCw/51oUel4xPEL__AC_UL200_SR160200__thum?imgmax=800" width="254" height="316" /></a></p> <p>A bandana is essentially a handkerchief, right? So are you going to tell this guy how disrespectful he is?</p> <p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-vb1V0tw2rSY/WgYMbiZoseI/AAAAAAAABcQ/12-nEUyOxXsazGXymzBCbxbSU-hb1O0CgCHMYCw/s1600-h/20490417-Motorcyclist-with-American-%255B1%255D"><img title="20490417-Motorcyclist-with-American-flag-bandana-driving-on-Interstate-Highway-90-heading-west-towards-Sturgi-Stock-Photo" style="margin: 0px auto 5px; float: none; display: block; background-image: none;" border="0" alt="20490417-Motorcyclist-with-American-flag-bandana-driving-on-Interstate-Highway-90-heading-west-towards-Sturgi-Stock-Photo" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-3Ohqc8ct0A8/WgYMcIW0-ZI/AAAAAAAABcU/Meuv556jUewuCHkdvvJ4JZQ8KJrJ6zucQCHMYCw/20490417-Motorcyclist-with-American-?imgmax=800" width="404" height="271" /></a></p> <p>And the flag should not be “printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard”. What percentage of households that have a July 4 party use American flag napkins? Time to boycott some parties!</p> <p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-UM_ZMhamVIc/WgYMcSMy0AI/AAAAAAAABcY/8LGDlZy8GgMzYTGFJZWQAues_JjtBsGcwCHMYCw/s1600-h/untitled2"><img title="untitled" style="margin: 0px auto 5px; float: none; display: block; background-image: none;" border="0" alt="untitled" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-rc_J4X8ApTQ/WgYMciVecuI/AAAAAAAABcc/8-0-arMXysUiT4g5lAfnFd6jVT7tJP0kwCHMYCw/untitled_thumb1?imgmax=800" width="304" height="320" /></a></p> <p>“No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform.”</p> <p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-TGhzMN0mbUo/WgYMczelesI/AAAAAAAABcg/MVlF9H1YB7UcOi6zSvxbxOmoFVCworiIACHMYCw/s1600-h/article-2184611-146A7A09000005DC-97_%255B1%255D"><img title="article-2184611-146A7A09000005DC-97_634x418" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; float: left; display: inline; background-image: none;" border="0" alt="article-2184611-146A7A09000005DC-97_634x418" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-bxgp_lFt9ug/WgYMdHlIFPI/AAAAAAAABck/NMFzWKQAvjQSGECjfe3GWDUuF000ZcclACHMYCw/article-2184611-146A7A09000005DC-97_?imgmax=800" width="284" align="left" height="188" /></a></p> <p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-DrkcY8Iitvo/WgYMdmQpPrI/AAAAAAAABco/M16f9Gd79s4f9yezGkPNe8BnCBxqu-DwACHMYCw/s1600-h/article-uniforms-1-01231"><img title="article-uniforms-1-0123" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; float: right; display: inline; background-image: none;" border="0" alt="article-uniforms-1-0123" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-7Gi6NBqTDCc/WgYMdxfsOdI/AAAAAAAABcs/_fI4zK5BUaIDLWIzoKmP6dchUUv2IDzowCHMYCw/article-uniforms-1-0123_thumb1?imgmax=800" width="284" align="right" height="198" /></a></p> <p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-XXRU5aaxK08/WgYMeGYt7QI/AAAAAAAABcw/JnIhTCr0jzMcm2KUtkCQVJOnRIerHbtpwCHMYCw/s1600-h/jeterthunderhorribleuniform2"><img title="jeterthunderhorribleuniform" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; float: left; display: inline; background-image: none;" border="0" alt="jeterthunderhorribleuniform" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-jMRKkvQoHeg/WgYMefI0hpI/AAAAAAAABc0/6x58fGRznVY08_fqkOdKJlC4QTkQB31FQCHMYCw/jeterthunderhorribleuniform_thumb?imgmax=800" width="244" align="left" height="233" /></a></p> <p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6JgW5pvtuhQ/WgYMei0AE5I/AAAAAAAABc4/HtV9M0bq9lUlZLxdNGMPuAqX9EY60JI2ACHMYCw/s1600-h/THUMBpng-3072936_300x1681"><img title="THUMBpng-3072936_300x168" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; float: right; display: inline; background-image: none;" border="0" alt="THUMBpng-3072936_300x168" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-GPcLD3dc7O8/WgYMfMlNdMI/AAAAAAAABc8/4jeq1tRyit0xe25JZ7I-nKXBNhpmAD8YACHMYCw/THUMBpng-3072936_300x168_thumb1?imgmax=800" width="284" align="right" height="160" /></a></p> <p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-bafeAt9rd1U/WgYMfeqXggI/AAAAAAAABdA/GssJG-KwvtQDnXW6bh0CndPCSkfkG_NHQCHMYCw/s1600-h/RI_1972_Flag_Dress_USA_C20132"><img title="RI_1972_Flag_Dress_USA_C2013" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; float: right; display: inline; background-image: none;" border="0" alt="RI_1972_Flag_Dress_USA_C2013" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-CYdQ6ZvsBWw/WgYMfl8kpJI/AAAAAAAABdE/9PJ9aQLYK98cEVz6XEF7aQYyo6-jI211wCHMYCw/RI_1972_Flag_Dress_USA_C2013_thumb?imgmax=800" width="137" align="right" height="244" /></a></p> <p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-nwZfeLWiqpI/WgYMgLfVljI/AAAAAAAABdI/_cdHbNbPOkA8BnNA9Az9mA8zFlbZdim9ACHMYCw/s1600-h/usa-flag-us_14709140152"><img title="usa-flag-us_1470914015" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; float: right; display: inline; background-image: none;" border="0" alt="usa-flag-us_1470914015" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-mTC8ZDzdoZE/WgYMgekn6ZI/AAAAAAAABdM/byUzTv3IqPIXbOorULheie_jYbVg6cVWwCHMYCw/usa-flag-us_1470914015_thumb?imgmax=800" width="100" align="right" height="244" /></a></p> <p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-LWXImNrR-28/WgYMg0AO61I/AAAAAAAABdQ/0GIbZOVN62E20dolQRRKvPx9Tiqvl_v8wCHMYCw/s1600-h/womens_american_flag_onesie_12"><img title="womens_american_flag_onesie_1" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; display: inline; background-image: none;" border="0" alt="womens_american_flag_onesie_1" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-xhsUwFZ1Ej8/WgYMhF7Z4CI/AAAAAAAABdU/jiyowkssQK0cdzERdg94JgK6-3QMxsdXACHMYCw/womens_american_flag_onesie_1_thumb?imgmax=800" width="164" height="244" /></a><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-rt-PbLaON1o/WgYMhWwbD4I/AAAAAAAABdY/SUngf7r31hMYDwtfCBCYgdcNBsCa1B0qQCHMYCw/s1600-h/blogs-the-loop-loop-american-flag-gu%255B1%255D"><img title="blogs-the-loop-loop-american-flag-guy-518" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; float: right; display: inline; background-image: none;" border="0" alt="blogs-the-loop-loop-american-flag-guy-518" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-lxDUiQeLrKI/WgYMh3z1YVI/AAAAAAAABdc/-SKb8ZunETsBwiB5C3gbyIUrsO0-bsP5QCHMYCw/blogs-the-loop-loop-american-flag-gu%255B2%255D?imgmax=800" width="131" align="right" height="244" /></a> <br /><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-3iZ93cbrGyc/WgYMiKh2ajI/AAAAAAAABdg/4Yn6eTUTqL8u_Qvy50s-8C5C5zyqSg03ACHMYCw/s1600-h/captain-america-civil-war-captain-am%255B1%255D"><img title="captain-america-civil-war-captain-america-sixth-scale-marvel-feature-902703" style="margin: 0px auto 5px; float: none; display: block; background-image: none;" border="0" alt="captain-america-civil-war-captain-america-sixth-scale-marvel-feature-902703" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6fdvIcK3JiU/WgYMieT8aRI/AAAAAAAABdk/5S0pZQ5TTcoZ5vktmQvlZYCDnqECsTQBQCHMYCw/captain-america-civil-war-captain-am%255B2%255D?imgmax=800" width="244" height="149" /></a></p> <p>In the process of researching and writing this post and while looking for some of the images that I’ve used, I came across an interesting story that I had to include. I think that it’s probably fair to presume that many (again, many, not all) of those who object to athletes protesting by taking a knee are on the right of the political spectrum. And I also think that it’s probably fair to recognize that many of those on the right of the political spectrum get their news from <strike>Fox</strike> Faux News. Now, recall that the Flag Code states that, “No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform.” So imagine my … um … surprise, to come across a <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2184611/London-Olympics-Fox-News-questions-gymnastics-teams-American-pride-leotard-colour.html">story</a> about the time during the 2012 London Olympics, when a Fox host and Tea Party commentator criticized the decision of the US women’s gymnastics team to wear pink instead of the American flag uniforms worn in previous years. In other words, it’s not OK o violate the Flag Code if the “violation” is to protest inequality, but it is OK to violate if the “violation” is to show patriotism. Clear on that?</p> <p>The Flag Code never mentions certain products or uses, but you do have to wonder how those who are so worried about disrespecting the flag would feel about American flag dildos or guns.</p> <p align="center"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-57R8y2hC_bQ/WgYMinYe5sI/AAAAAAAABdo/Cf9MU5rOBOEDIrwpOrqbIQoNaMkDjyGagCHMYCw/s1600-h/imageedit_1_5348330240_grande18"><img title="imageedit_1_5348330240_grande" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; display: inline; background-image: none;" border="0" alt="imageedit_1_5348330240_grande" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-qdcg0BBT2Kw/WgYMi4FEsWI/AAAAAAAABds/MSzG5sh0dhsSoWqJrinU5GvOuz8VZm7gwCHMYCw/imageedit_1_5348330240_grande_thumb1?imgmax=800" width="164" height="274" /></a><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-eI3_b7grTpo/WgYMjdMe_II/AAAAAAAABdw/Feagjy08P9gs6gCZlnxix5AJ8uU9DSpagCHMYCw/s1600-h/4b5d7a6ccae81b69c508911df3350c1339"><img title="4b5d7a6ccae81b69c508911df3350c13" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; display: inline; background-image: none;" border="0" alt="4b5d7a6ccae81b69c508911df3350c13" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-cWS8so_AjiU/WgYMjl-hTKI/AAAAAAAABd0/SfY18pnQLnkaSUemnLzuSntwIl7l80FRACHMYCw/4b5d7a6ccae81b69c508911df3350c13_thu?imgmax=800" width="284" height="214" /></a></p> <p>Scratch that last query. I’m sure they’d love, love, love, American flag guns. They’d probably propose legislation to require us all to carry one and to honor it daily. I think that’s what the Second Amendment requires, anyway, right? Do American flag guns use special American flag bullets?</p> <p>Furthermore, I do find it striking that those who criticize a protest that, in their view “disrespects” the flag, don’t spend even a fraction of their righteous anger criticizing uses of the American flag that seem far more disrespectful than either peaceful protest or a bikini:</p> <p align="center"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-XF5klgv_OAs/WgYMj3B_YKI/AAAAAAAABd4/atc7DzcFvmg71pVE3X3yM-Pxahy03YwDQCHMYCw/s1600-h/AP11041614553739"><img title="Neo Nazi Rally" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; display: inline; background-image: none;" border="0" alt="Neo Nazi Rally" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/--xh9nntnxks/WgYMkThJvXI/AAAAAAAABd8/YPjJ-7TpBHIR6YaDPdPdvWb06yKQM6tKwCHMYCw/AP110416145537_thumb40?imgmax=800" width="284" height="162" /></a><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-alhKDN9zyOc/WgYMkl5ZLvI/AAAAAAAABeA/S61MG2ByxrsgBDycpx8ysbYBW_JRIcWVACHMYCw/s1600-h/the250517_p18_nazi40"><img title="the250517_p18_nazi" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; display: inline; background-image: none;" border="0" alt="the250517_p18_nazi" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-88-xKMpeHUQ/WgYMk3XELrI/AAAAAAAABeE/HWbcntyMfK0_RHGTqFjQtkNxPeboPzN3QCHMYCw/the250517_p18_nazi_thumb40?imgmax=800" width="284" height="191" /></a></p> <p align="center"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-o7xLkVz-gg8/WgYMlemzNjI/AAAAAAAABeI/19huUhcenccDGcX_joppxPQiD3xFhzXJwCHMYCw/s1600-h/usa-illinois-white-supremacist-ku-kl%255B1%255D"><img title="usa-illinois-white-supremacist-ku-klux-klan-rally-on-steps-of-illinois-an098r" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; display: inline; background-image: none;" border="0" alt="usa-illinois-white-supremacist-ku-klux-klan-rally-on-steps-of-illinois-an098r" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-DMr5zS4g-Fg/WgYMljThSTI/AAAAAAAABeM/9infSXu19RQjG1_GNnzXdlIQ8Zt2v9xLACHMYCw/usa-illinois-white-supremacist-ku-kl%255B2%255D?imgmax=800" width="284" height="218" /></a><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-xzt84UhrlcM/WgYMl5rrq3I/AAAAAAAABeQ/Gmrj6fwBSlMA7wXlFY29vgbYGyIzbf3AACHMYCw/s1600-h/white-supremacist-usa42"><img title="white-supremacist-usa" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; display: inline; background-image: none;" border="0" alt="white-supremacist-usa" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ja5mdaw3Fcw/WgYMmbgRaII/AAAAAAAABeU/vlEIluu3NJY9BImm8KAaAu80hm017oO9QCHMYCw/white-supremacist-usa_thumb42?imgmax=800" width="284" height="214" /></a></p> <p>Recall that the night before Vice President (and former Indiana Governor) Pence walked out of an Indianapolis Colts game because members of the <em>visiting</em> team knelt, there was a second gathering of white supremacists and Nazis in Charlottesville, Virginia (sight of the white supremacist terrorist attack that killed a woman). However, Pence, who apparently had time to craft a statement against the “disrespect” shown by black athletes couldn’t be bothered to say anything about white supremacists rallying. Again.</p> <p>Finally, I had to share this photo, apparently taken at or prior to an October 15, 2017, New York Jets game:</p> <p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-sOdmuye7hDU/WgYMmwvXcMI/AAAAAAAABeY/Css4QPhHbC4pRsik-SlIVefoutsl_wiKwCHMYCw/s1600-h/I%2BStand%2Bfor%2Bthe%2BNational%2BAnthem%255B71%255D"><img title="I Stand for the National Anthem" style="margin: 0px auto 5px; float: none; display: block; background-image: none;" border="0" alt="I Stand for the National Anthem" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-AF4sjO-q08U/WgYMnJto8OI/AAAAAAAABec/pIFxofbI5ccsTqOr4DrMD5ozXRDf34f5wCHMYCw/I%2BStand%2Bfor%2Bthe%2BNational%2BAnthem_thumb%255B71%255D?imgmax=800" width="354" height="217" /></a>If you can’t quite make it out, his shirt says “I stand for the National Anthem” <em>while he lounges on an American flag being used as a blanket</em>. It would appear, then, that this Jets fan is simultaneously violating paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) of the Flag Code while criticizing those who choose to kneel.</p> <p>So if none of those other pictures make you want to boycott stores or criticize other “disrespectful” behavior, but you <em>do</em> want to boycott the NFL, then doesn’t that suggest that your problem is not so much with disrespect for the flag or National Anthem, but rather with the either the message the protestors are sending <em>or the people sending that message</em>?</p> <p align="center">♦ ♦ ♦</p> <p>While we’re on the subject of honoring the National Anthem, I wonder how many of you can sing any stanza of <em>The Star Spangled Banner</em> beyond the first? I ask, not because I think you’re any less a patriot if you can’t sing the following stanzas, but rather because one of those stanzas can, in some ways, be seen to relate directly to the issues being raised by the current protests by athletes. I’m sure that many of us are familiar with the basic history of Francis Scott Key watching the British shelling Fort McHenry during the War of 1812 that prompted him to write <em>The Star Spangled Banner</em>. But what is less familiar (and I’ll admit to not knowing any of this before doing a bit of research) is some of the additional history that motivated his writing and that was reflected, in particular, in the rarely heard third stanza of <em>The Star Spangled Banner</em>:</p> <p align="center">No refuge could save the hireling and slave <br />From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave, <br />And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave <br />O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.</p> <p>Apparently, most historians agree that with this stanza, Key was addressing and taking aim at the British Colonial Marines, a company of  <em>freed slaves fighting for Britain</em>. Key was happy to see these freed slaves without refuge, in “terror or flight,” and with the “gloom of the grave” facing them. Think about that for a moment: Our National Anthem has lyrics celebrating the defeat and death of freed slaves. And now athletes are using the signing of the National Anthem as an opportune time to bring to attention the problem of African-Americans being killed by police officers who then suffer no punishment together with other perceived racial inequalities in the American criminal justice system.</p> <p align="center">♦ ♦ ♦</p> <p>One thing that I’ve heard repeatedly, is that football games are meant to be enjoyable entertainment into which politics or other serious matters ought not intrude. And I’m sympathetic to that argument. I want to watch a football game for the action on the field; if I wanted politics, I could go to a speech or rally. But… We don’t seem to object to the NFL’s annual efforts to raise breast cancer awareness (or now, just general cancer awareness). We certainly don’t object to the NFL’s “salute” to soldiers and veterans. I don’t usually see people get upset when the teams take time to give special recognition to soldiers or vets recently returned from overseas (or their families). And if you watch a game on TV (where you usually <em>do not</em> see the National Anthem performed), you <em>are</em> very likely to see political advertisements, whether for or against a candidate or focused on a particular issue.Yet I haven’t heard the “it’s entertainment, keep politics out of it” come up to prompt people to boycott sports on TV. Don’t even get me started on the mass of advertisements, both at the games and during television broadcasts, that certainly detract from the viewing experience.  </p> <p align="center">♦ ♦ ♦</p> <p>So what makes you a patriot? If you stand and salute the flag does that make you a patriot? Or is there something more to patriotism? What if you oppose some action that the government (or military) take; does that make you unpatriotic? What if you speak critically about a law, your member of Congress, or the President; does that make you unpatriotic? To me, it seems that the problem is that for too many people, it appears that failing to fall in lockstep with a particular view is unpatriotic. Many of those same people would likely view any effort to change the status quo as being unpatriotic if the status quo was a position supported by that person. From this sort of view comes the “love or leave it” sentiment, which of course presupposes that the only way to “love” America is to agree with one position, to never see fault or wrongdoing on the part of America, and not to try to seek change (other than, perhaps, threatening to secede when you don’t get your way).</p> <p>Let me offer this <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/09/28/standing-for-the-national-anthem-does-not-make-you-a-patriot-heres-what-does/?tid=ss_fb-amp&utm_term=.41994a6b8a45">observation</a> from Ashley Nicolas, a 2009 graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point who served as an Army intelligence officer and female engagement team leader, completing a tour in Kandahar, Afghanistan, before being named a 2016 Pat Tillman Foundation scholar:</p> <blockquote> <p>Patriotism is recognizing that those men are taking a knee because our country is deeply flawed and that segments of our citizenry have suffered from systemic inequality for centuries.</p> <p>Patriotism is asking hard questions and demanding that America do better. It is asking Congress how we continue to be involved in conflicts around the world without any congressional mandate.</p> <p>Patriotism is demanding reform within the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is fighting homelessness and the opioid crises across the nation. It is demanding criminal justice reform and asking why, in 2017, the quality of your education is determined by your Zip code.</p> <p>Patriotism is nuanced.</p> <p>Slapping a “support the troops” bumper sticker on your car does not make you a patriot, nor does standing for the national anthem. These are symbols — meaningless without the values that underlie their existence.</p> <p>Patriots are critical thinkers who hold leaders accountable by asking tough questions and recognizing the flaws in our democracy.</p> <p>Criticism is deeply patriotic. It keeps our leaders accountable and forces us to recognize that we are still on the long, hard march toward a “more perfect Union.”</p> <p>Patriots do not stand idle when there is work to be done. They find partners, build coalitions and make an impact.</p> <p>…</p> <p>In the United States, we do not force people to engage in rote ceremonies or stand at attention for the flag by force of threat. The beauty of America is that this is a nation where every citizen has the ability to voice dissent without fear of reprisal. That conversation propels us forward.</p> <p>As someone who has worn the flag on my shoulder in combat, I feel a deep pride at the sight of it. To me, the flag represents a common bond of service between myself and my sisters and brothers in uniform.</p> <p>I am proud to stand and salute the flag, but my discomfort with anyone who exercises differently pales in comparison to the feelings in the hearts of those who kneel because they cannot be proud of what America has been for them.</p> <p>The most patriotic thing I can do, is listen.</p> </blockquote> <p align="center">♦ ♦ ♦</p> <p>I want to finish this (overly long, I know…) post with a quotation from the Supreme Court’s landmark 1943 ruling <em>West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette</em>, in which the Court held <em>in the midst of World War II</em>, that a school could not require students to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance or salute the flag.</p> <blockquote> <p>National unity as an end which officials may foster by persuasion and example is not in question. The problem is whether under our Constitution compulsion as here employed is a permissible means for its achievement. </p> <p>Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good as well as by evil men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon but at other times and places the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard. </p> <p>It seems trite but necessary to say that the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority. </p> <p>The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are obscure but because the flag involved is our own. Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. <strong>To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds</strong>. We can have intellectual individualism  and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. <strong>But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order</strong>. </p> <p><strong>If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein</strong>. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us. </p> </blockquote> <p><em>West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette</em>, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted).</p> <p align="center">♦ ♦ ♦</p> <p>In conclusion, I’m not sure that kneeling during the National Anthem is the best way for athletes to voice their opinion and I’m not sure whether a similar sort of protest would be appropriate in all circumstances and for all reasons or at all times (<em>e.g.</em>, I’m firmly against protests at the funerals of fallen soldiers, even if the protest is against the war in which the soldier was killed). But when it comes to the narrow question of whether I support the right of professional athletes to kneel during the playing of the National Anthem in order to call attention to their concerns with racial injustices within the American criminal justice system, then my answer is strongly in the affirmative. And if asked whether those same athletes should be punished for making their opinions known by kneeling or whether the NFL should be subject to repudiation or condemnation for allowing the protests or refusing to punish the protestors, then my answer is strongly in the negative.</p> <p>Most importantly, I’d suggest that the best response to the protests is not to spend our time focusing on whether the protests should be allowed or the proper time and place to protest; rather, the best response to the protests is to <em>listen to the concerns giving rise to the protests</em> and then get down to the hard work of trying to do what is necessary to make those protests unnecessary and bring America closer to the ideals represented by the flag and the National Anthem.</p> <p>That would be patriotic and respectful.</p> <hr /> <p>*Before Major League Baseball, NBA, and NHL games that involve one of the teams from Canada (including the All Star Games, I believe), both the American and Canadian national anthems are played. Yet before the Indianapolis 500 and other auto races, only the American National Anthem is played, even though in many racing series (other than NASCAR), many (or most) of the drivers are not American. So why do we honor Canadians in baseball, basketball, and hockey, but not in motor racing? And why don’t we honor those from other countries in all of our sports?</p>MSWallackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04025607935715642114noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5222839876578062342.post-45038669657959436212017-03-22T18:30:00.000-04:002017-03-22T18:30:06.159-04:00God in the Schools. Again.<p>The Indiana General Assembly is, yet again, debating a bill to legislate the interplay between religion and the public schools. In this case, the bill in question is <a href="https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2017/bills/house/1024">House Bill 1024</a> (HB1024) authored by Rep. John Bartlett (D-Indianapolis). Unlike many of the bills I’ve written about in previous years (such as the <a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2013/01/republicans-want-to-require-indiana.html">bill to require public school students to recite The Lord’s Prayer</a>), HB1024 actually seems designed to be inclusive rather than exclusive and to solve perceived problems. Moreover, the bill does not (generally) try to elevate any singular religious viewpoint over others. Nevertheless, despite seemingly good intentions, HB1024 has significant flaws, many of which exemplify the real difficulty of crafting legislation on such complicated and emotional subjects.</p> <p>So let’s take a look at HB1024 and discuss some of the problems that I see. (Note that HB1024 is divided into two parts; the first adds a new Section 22 to the end of Indiana Code <b>§</b> 20-30-5 while the second part adds new Chapter 20-33-12 to the Indiana Code.) I’ll work through the language of each provision of HB1024 followed by my comments on each provision. Note that throughout this post, I’ve tried to use different religions and ideas as examples, often in an intentionally provocative way. It is not my intention to denigrate any religion or belief or to suggest that ideas espoused by any religion are right or wrong; rather, it is my intention to provoke <em>thought</em> and often being a bit over-the-top or offensive is the way to accomplish that goal.</p> <blockquote> <p>Sec. 22.</p> <p>(a) Each school corporation shall include as an elective in the school corporation’s high school curriculum a course surveying <a>religions of the world</a>. The course must include as part of the course’s curriculum:</p> <p>   (1) the historical study of religion;</p> <p>   (2) the cultural study of religion; and</p> <p>   (3) a literary study of <a>writings, documents, or records relating</a> to various religions.</p> <p>(b) The curriculum described in subsection (a) must be neutral, objective, and balanced. It may not <a>encourage or promote acceptance</a> of any particular religion.</p> </blockquote> <p>Consider Section 22(a)’s requirement for a “course surveying religions of the world”. Note that what this means is largely left up to the school corporation. Yes, the course must include a historical study, cultural study, and literary study, all of which must be neutral, objective, and balanced. That is good; after all, religion is extremely important to many people and has been a driving factor in much of human history, both for good and for ill. But what is really required of a “survey” of “religions of the world”? For example, would the course meet the statutory requirements if it examined the Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Episcopalian, Greek Orthodox, and Amish faiths but did not include Native American faiths, Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, Buddhism, or Hinduism? Could the course include only monotheistic faiths? Only faiths with adherents at that particular school or within that particular community? Who would determine which faiths to include or exclude (<em>i.e.</em>, do we include Baha'i, Santeria [voodoo], Scientology, Hari Krishna, Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster)? And should a course surveying religions of the world also include cultural manifestations that do <em>not</em> include theistic belief (I’m being careful here not to confuse atheism with a religion, but atheist “beliefs” as well as things like secular humanism and the like are, in many respects, similar to religion with regard to historical and cultural studies of the sort contemplated by HB1024).</p> <p>I also wonder whether the survey course could satisfy the statutory requirements by studying Biblical passages from the Old Testament (I’m using the phrase “Old Testament” here although I don’t believe that it is an accurate or appropriate term, but it is more commonly accepted and its use means that I don’t need to spend time discussing biblical historicity or terminology) and New Testament or perhaps comparing different versions or translations of the Bible but without readings from the Koran or the foundational works of other religions? HB1024 requires that the course not “encourage or promote” any particular religion, but won’t the choice of versions of writings associated with a religion implicitly serve just such a cause?</p> <p>Finally, look at that last prohibition again: The course “may not <a>encourage or promote acceptance </a>of any particular religion.” Notice anything missing? Two things actually jumped out at me. First, the course can’t “encourage or promote acceptance of any <em>particular</em> religion” but what about encouraging or promoting <em>religion</em> generally? Can the course teach students that <em>some form of theistic</em> belief is necessary to lead a good or moral life or to be a full participant in <a href="http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/02/01/faith-few-strong-links-to-national-identity/">what it means to be an American</a>? It doesn’t appear that would be prohibited by HB1024 so long as the promotion of religion was general (“You should believe in a deity”) rather than specific (“You should be Catholic”). The other concern is that HB1024 prohibits encouragement or promotion of a particular religion, but says nothing about discouragement or disapproval of religion generally or any religion in particular. Thus, while HB1024 may prohibit a teacher from saying, “You should be Lutheran” it doesn’t appear to prohibit the teacher from saying, “The Pope is the Whore of Babylon and Catholics aren’t patriotic Americans”. Query further how the right-wing meme claiming that “Islam is an ideology and not a religion” would factor into HB1024’s requirements and prohibitions.</p> <p>In other words, while the idea of a survey course on religions of the world is probably a good one, I’m concerned about the possible ramifications or unintended consequences of statutory language that does not precisely delineate the boundaries, requirements, and prohibitions. Sadly, we can’t presume that all teachers in all school districts throughout the state (not to mention all school boards and school administrations) are completely neutral when it comes to discussion, promotion, or denigration of religion and religions.</p> <p>Moving on to the second part of HB1024… I’ll break this up into digestible chunks for the purpose of analysis and discussion.</p> <blockquote> <p>Chapter 12. Indiana Student Religious Civil Liberties</p> <p>Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all <a>public schools</a>, including charter schools.</p> </blockquote> <p>OK, I know the answer already, but think about this one for a minute. Why <em>shouldn’t</em> parochial schools that receive state funds also have to comply with the sort of “religious liberties” that this chapter requires? Sure, I understand that a Catholic School is going to want to instill Catholic principles and teach Catholic lessons, but if it elects to receive money from the State of Indiana, then shouldn’t it be forced to adhere to certain protections for its non-Catholic students (or even Catholic students who elect to express non-traditional views)? What about wholly secular private schools? Should they be able to engage in the sort of religious discrimination that HB1024 would otherwise prohibit in public schools? Why?</p> <blockquote> <p>Sec. 2. A public school shall not discriminate against a student or a student’s parent on the basis of a <a>religious viewpoint or religious expression</a>. A public school shall treat a student’s voluntary expression of a religious viewpoint, if any, on an otherwise permissible subject in the same manner the public school treats a student’s voluntary expression of a secular or other viewpoint on an otherwise permissible subject and may not discriminate against the student based on a <a>religious viewpoint</a> expressed by the student on an otherwise permissible subject.</p> </blockquote> <p>First, as I mentioned above, it is probably incorrect to classify atheism or similar non-theistic worldviews as being religions, but it nevertheless seems that students who express either an atheistic or anti-theistic viewpoint should be entitled to the same protections as a student who expresses a religious viewpoint. I’m not sure that “if any” really covers those sorts of viewpoint expressions. This concern extends to many of the provisions of HB1024 but I’ll (mostly) refrain from making this same observation over and over and over; just keep in mind as you read HB1024 and my analysis, how an atheist viewpoint would be treated by the bill’s requirements and prohibitions.</p> <p>This provision also made me wonder under what circumstances a school is or should be allowed to discriminate “against a student or a student’s parents”. HB1024 would ban such discrimination on the basis of religious viewpoints or religious expression. But what about political viewpoints or political expression? Could a school discriminate against a student because his parent ran for elected office as a Democrat? What about commercial viewpoints or expressions? Could a school discriminate against a student because her parent’s business chose not to sponsor the school’s choir? Or what if a student’s parent stood up at the school board meeting to criticize a decision by a principal or teacher? I know that this is moving a bit afield from the core issues of HB1024, but it seems that the real answer is that schools shouldn’t discriminate against students or parents. Why do we need to create statutory guidelines for which specific types of discrimination are prohibited leaving some types, at least by implication or inference, as permissible?</p> <p>Also, while I understand that the private schools are … well, <em>private</em> … I’m concerned that we would statutorily exclude those schools from prohibitions on discrimination against students or parents on the basis of religious viewpoints or expressions, especially if those private schools are receiving money from the government (or on behalf of the government).</p> <blockquote> <p>Sec. 3. Students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments <a>free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions</a>. Homework and classroom assignments must be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other <a>legitimate pedagogical concerns</a> identified by the public school. Students may not be <a>penalized </a>or rewarded on account of the <a>religious content of their work</a>. If an assignment requires a student’s viewpoint to be expressed in course work, artwork, or other written or oral assignments, a public school shall not <a>penalize </a>or reward a student on the basis of <a>religious content or a religious viewpoint</a>. In such an assignment, a student’s academic work that expresses a <a>religious viewpoint</a> shall be evaluated based on ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance to the course curriculum or requirements of the course work or assignment.</p> </blockquote> <p>I think that the principal goal of this section to provide that students are permitted to talk about religion in their school work and won’t be graded on the basis of what they say or don’t say vis-à-vis religion. I think. But query whether this section protects a student who writes an essay in a science class that says that evolution is wrong and that divine creation is the correct explanation? I’m really not sure if this section says that a teacher can give the student a poor grade for not addressing <em>science</em> or if the student is protected from receiving a poor grade because of the religious viewpoint that was expressed. And what if the “legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the public school” include creation science or “intelligent design” (just to pick a single example)? I guess what I’m asking, in part, is whether the requirements or prohibitions set forth in a religious foundational document can be qualified as a legitimate pedagogical concern upon which grading of religious expression can be based? And, just for yucks and giggles, query whether the work of a student who bases an argument on his or her religious belief must be analyzed for grading purposes on appropriate formulation, understanding, and citation to the religious dogma upon which the argument is based? If a student writes that abortion is wrong because Jesus was against abortion, should a teacher be able to grade that student’s work upon whether the student adequately supported the position that Jesus did, indeed, oppose abortion? Or is that student’s schoolwork essentially un-gradable because it is premised upon religious belief (even if wrong)?</p> <p>Now consider that survey course of world religions described above. Can a student who writes an essay in that course that denigrates another religion point to this section to protect his/her expression of religious viewpoint? Or imagine a student who, during the portion of the history curriculum that focuses on the Holocaust, writes that Jews deserved to be exterminated because they are responsible for killing Jesus. What about a student who argues that civil rights laws are wrong because the foundational documents of her religions claim that her religion’s deity chose to separate the races (a basis for the trial court’s ruling upholding miscegenation laws in <em>Loving v. Virginia</em>)? It seems to me that we ought not be creating an environment in which <em>children</em> are emboldened to express bigoted or hateful views and cite their religion as a defense. Sadly, I fear that the language of HB1024 could do just that.</p> <p>Sec. 4.</p> <blockquote> <p>(a) <a>Public school students may pray or engage in religious activities or religious expressions before, during, and after the school day in the same manner and to the same extent that students may engage in nonreligious activities or expression</a>. Students may organize prayer groups, religious clubs, or other religious gatherings before, during, and after school to the same extent that students are permitted to organize other noncurricular student activities and groups. A public school may indicate, in writing, orally, or both, that the religious activity does not reflect the endorsement, sponsorship, position, or expression of the public school.</p> </blockquote> <p>While this may come as a surprise to some, I have no real concerns about students praying in school. They do it all the time before a test or before asking a girl to prom; they do it before eating lunch and before taking the field for the big game. The issue is not <em>whether</em> students can pray in school but rather what sort of accommodation the school must provide for prayer and whether the students can engage in prayer activities organized by the school or faculty.</p> <p>The first sentence of this provision seems innocuous enough in allowing students to pray or engage in religious activities before, during, or after the school day. But what many may not realize is that the sort of prayer or religious observance contemplated by this provision does not, in fact, apply to all religions or permit the sort of prayer or religious activity that are part of some faiths. And this provision is somewhat duplicative of the current law. Indiana law presently requires schools to give students a moment of silence to “meditate, pray, or engage in any other silent activity” provided that the students must “remain seated or standing and silent and make no distracting display”. <a href="http://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-20-education/in-code-sect-20-30-5-4-5.html">Indiana Code S 20-30-4-4.5(b)</a>. However, while many Christian students can easily sit at their desk and offer a silent prayer, that is <em>not</em> how many other religions approach prayer. Some religions require prayer to be done from a kneeling posture or even prostrate; some require gestures or movement; some require prayer to be aloud, often in the form of chant or song; and some require physical actions (such as ritual sweeping for Jains, the burning of incense, or the wearing of special garb or talismans). Some religions also require that prayer be done in groups rather than individually. So now, with those sorts of religious requirements in mind, go back and read the bill’s language again and try to understand how adherents to certain minority religions will be able to engage in prayer or religious activities within the school environment.</p> <p>Moreover, tying the ability to students to pray to the types of activities permitted for non-religious activities doesn’t solve the problem; rather that just creates a two-tiered system where those whose religious activities fall within a certain range of activity will be permitted but those that fall outside that arbitrary range may not be. For example, if groups are generally not allowed to have lighted fires as a part of their permitted non-religious activities, what do we tell a religious group that requires the lightning of candles or incense for their religious practices? What about groups that require animals to be a part of the religious activity?</p> <p>Then note the language regarding the school’s ability to say that the religious activity is not an endorsement. But the language doesn’t seem to <em>prohibit</em> the school from advocating participation in a particular group or club (“This afternoon, the Lutheran Club will be meeting in Room 222; we encourage all students to attend and listen to what the Lutherans have to say…”). And query the extent to which school faculty can be involved in religious clubs or groups. If the chess club, robotics club, or Young Libertarians club have faculty advisors, can the Catholic Club or Muslim Club include school faculty? What if faculty involvement is paid or not wholly voluntary? And what if the school’s rule is that a club or group must have a faculty advisor but the Islamic club or the Pastafarians can’t find a faculty member willing to become involved? Would that simply mean that some groups would be unable to engage in religious activity the same way others might be?</p> <blockquote> <p>(b) Religious groups must be given the same access to school facilities for assembling as is given to other noncurricular groups without discrimination based on the <a>religious content of the students’ expression</a>. If student groups that meet for nonreligious activities are permitted to advertise or announce meetings of the groups, the public school <a>may not discriminate</a> against groups that meet for prayer or other religious speech.</p> </blockquote> <p>I know that I said I wouldn’t keep repeating the point, but again consider whether an atheist group or a group hostile to religion would (or must) be permitted access to school facilities pursuant to this provision.</p> <p>Next think about the signs in school hallways that certain nonreligious clubs might use to advertise or announce meetings: “Join the cool kids in theater club” or “Help stop hunger” or “Rally for ____ [insert your favorite cause]”. How do we make sure (or do we make sure) that religious groups don’t cover the school’s halls with overtly religious messages: “Join the Christian club or go to Hell!” or “Join Islam, the world’s fastest growing religion!” or the like? Thus, I guess the question is whether schools are or should be able to require that messages not denigrate other groups or use offensive rhetoric (and whether adding those sort of content restrictions is constitutionally permissible). But I can see the outcry now if the Jewish students club put up a sign that said, “Jesus Was Jewish and You Should Be Too!” or if the Church of Cannabis put up a sign promoting marijuana usage.</p> <p>One other point to question is the extent to which clubs that use school facilities must be open to all. While I doubt that the robotics club would turn away anybody, query whether it would be appropriate for the school to host and permit advertisements by any group that limited its membership to adherents of a particular faith (“Hindus only!”), prohibited membership by those who might be disfavored by the particular faith (“No gays allowed at the Evangelical Christian group!”), or had any other sort of discriminatory or exclusionary policy (recall my <a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2012/08/a-school-that-ignores-its-diversity_24.html">posts a few years ago</a> about a school being open for use by the Boy Scouts notwithstanding the anti-homosexual policy the group then followed).</p> <blockquote> <p>(c) A public school <a>may</a> disclaim school sponsorship of noncurricular groups and events in a manner that neither favors nor disfavors groups that meet to engage in prayer or religious speech.</p> </blockquote> <p>What struck me as odd about this section was the use of the word “may” instead of “shall”. So a school <em>may</em> disclaim sponsorship but doesn’t have to disclaim sponsorship? Which, of course, leads to the next question: Does a school have the right to sponsor groups in a manner that favors or disfavors certain religious speech? And wouldn’t a school’s disclaimer of sponsorship of one religious group but silence about another group be perceived as an implicit sponsorship or endorsement of the group for which no disclaimer was issued?</p> <blockquote> <p>(d) <a>Students in public schools may wear clothing, accessories, and jewelry that display religious messages or religious symbols in the same manner and to the same extent that other types of clothing, accessories, and jewelry that display messages or symbols are permitted</a>. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit a school corporation or charter school from establishing a policy requiring <a>students to wear a school uniform or establishing a student dress code</a>.</p> </blockquote> <p>This is another one of those provisions that seem innocuous at first blush, but which becomes more troubling with more detailed consideration. For example, what happens if a school has a “no hats” rule? In that case, aren’t observant Jewish men who wear kippas, observant Muslim women who wear hijabs, or observant Mennonite women who wear caps, being treated differently than other students who may also have garb required by their religion (Mormon undergarments, for example) but which is permitted? What if the rule was even more narrowly tailored to prohibit only scarves that cover all of a woman’s hair? Or consider a rule that only prohibits t-shirts with messages that advertise alcohol or illegal conduct; does that mean that a student could wear a “God Hates Fags” t-shirt or a shirt proclaiming “Jews Killed Jesus”? Is that really what the hallways of our schools should look like? Query a rule that says “no messages”. Would a cross on a chain around a student’s neck be an impermissible message? What about a WWJD bracelet? The problem with this provision of HB1024 is that it may, perhaps unintentionally, permit disparate treatment of students on the basis of the religious garb or viewpoints. It may also lead to students who want to be provocative to look for loopholes in school dress code rules in order to make religious viewpoint statements or use the idea of religious expression to be provocative from a fashion sense.</p> <blockquote> <p>Sec. 5.</p> <p>(a) To ensure that a school corporation does not discriminate against a student’s publicly stated voluntary expression of a <a>religious viewpoint, if any</a>, and to eliminate any actual or perceived affirmative school sponsorship or attribution to the school corporation of a student’s expression of a <a>religious viewpoint, if any</a>, a school corporation or charter school shall adopt a policy, which must include the establishment of a <a>limited public forum </a>for student speakers at all school events at which a student is to publicly speak. The policy regarding the limited public forum must also require the school corporation to:</p> <p>   (1) provide the forum in a manner that does not discriminate against a student’s voluntary expression of a <a>religious viewpoint, if any</a>, on an otherwise permissible subject;</p> <p>   (2) provide a method, based on <a>neutral criteria</a>, for the selection of student speakers at school events and graduation ceremonies;</p> <p>   (3) ensure that a student speaker does not engage in <a>obscene, vulgar, offensively lewd, or indecent speech</a>; and</p> <p>   (4) state, in writing, orally, or both, that the student’s speech does not reflect the endorsement, sponsorship, position, or expression of the public school.</p> </blockquote> <p>Presuming, for the sake of argument, that the initial provisions of HB1024 were acceptable, here is where the bill goes off the proverbial rails and into the “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWwOJlOI1nU">danger Will Robinson</a>” realm.</p> <p>In order to do any justice (pun intended) to the discussion of this issue, I need to dive into (briefly, I promise) the legal issues regarding use of public spaces. Generally, and consistent with the First Amendment, the government cannot prohibit speech in public spaces (subject to what are often referred to as “reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions”). Thus, the government can’t stop you from standing on a street corner or a public park and giving a speech about whatever issue motivates you and you can be as offensive as you want. That being said, the government could impose <em>reasonable</em> restrictions such as use of a loudspeaker or speeches in the middle of the night that might disturb nearby residents provided that those restrictions are content neutral. The government could close the park during the night, but the government could <em>not</em> close the park at night only for those who wan tto speak about a particular issue or offer a particular viewpoint. Thus, the government could not ban loudspeakers for those who want to express a religious viewpoint but permit them for political speeches and the government couldn’t allow pro-choice groups to gather in a park at night but not allow similar access to an anti-immigrant group.</p> <p>But not all “public” spaces are open forums like a street corner or park. For example, there are some government owned spaces that are generally <em>always</em> off limits to the public. You don’t have a right to walk into the Oval Office or the BMV to give a speech; you certainly don’t have the right to walk onto a military base or into an FBI office to express your political views. Those spaces are “public” in the sense that they are owned by the government, but they are not public forums available for use by the general public.</p> <p>And then there is the middle ground: Government owned property that is <em>sometimes</em> open or open to <em>some</em>. And this is where things begin to get a bit more tricky. So think of a stadium or concert hall owned by a city. Or think of the auditorium or even cafeteria in a public school. These sorts of venues are owned by the government, but aren’t generally available to the public for use. Or, for an even more simple example, think of a bulletin board in town hall on which flyers might be posted. The question becomes what sort of control can the government exert over speech in these environments.</p> <p>Generally speaking, when the government permits some access to these sorts of environments, it has created what is often referred to as a “limited public forum” (as opposed to the nearly unlimited public forum of the public street corner or park). The government can limit access to and use of the public space, but that use cannot be discriminatory and cannot favor or disfavor any particular viewpoint or expression. Thus, the government could restrict access to the auditorium to groups that pay for insurance, groups that are from that local community, or groups that do not discriminate in membership, but the government could not prohibit use of the auditorium by Muslims, anti-abortion activists, the Green Party, or those who want to complain about the job elected officials are doing. That sort of viewpoint or content limitation is impermissible under the First Amendment.</p> <p>Got all that? Now let’s review part of the HB1024: “[A] school corporation or charter school shall adopt a policy, which must include the establishment of a <a>limited public forum</a> for student speakers at all school events at which a student is to publicly speak”. Whoa! The school must establish a limited public forum <em>at all school events</em> at which a student is to publicly speak? Thus, if the valedictorian is to give a public speech at graduation, the school must establish a limited public forum <em>at graduation</em>! In other words, after the valedictorian sits down, other students would have the right to stand at the microphone and offer their own views and the government would not have the right to limit the content of the views expressed in that forum. Once the government opens the door to some speech, it must, in essence, keep that door open for other speech. It will be interesting to see how parents and families will respond to speeches from the gay rights group, the men’s rights group, the marijuana legalization group, the school’s Satan worshippers, the anti-immigration group, or non-traditional or less mainstream groups or individuals. Should be fun. And this wouldn’t apply only to graduations, either. Recall that the bill’s language speaks about “all school events at which a student is to publicly speak.” I can think of a whole lot of school events at which a student speaks (query whether a choir performance or play includes “speech” by a student such that the performance would become a limited public forum; query whether a school convocation at which the student body president will give a speech would require a limited public forum). If HB1024 passes, <em>all</em> of those events would need to include a limited public forum.</p> <p>I was also struck by one particular element of phrasing in this section: “a student’s <em>publicly stated voluntary expression</em> of a religious viewpoint”. Why should the non-discrimination standard focus on a “publicly stated voluntary expression”? And what does that even mean? Must students stand on the stage of the school’s auditorium and express their religious viewpoint in order to be safe from discrimination? So, if no student stands up and says “I’m a Muslim” or “I’m Skyclad Wiccan”, then those religions <em>can</em> be discriminated against? And I can just see someone from a particular religious persuasion (<em>i.e.</em>, those who might argue that Islam is not a religion) making the argument that a Muslim student who does publicly state a religious viewpoint did so under duress from the student’s parents rather than voluntarily (ignoring, of course, that the same argument could be made about minors who profess any other religious viewpoint).</p> <p>Last time I checked, schools didn’t ask students to make public expressions of religious affiliation. And, last time I checked, the purpose of schools was to educate all children, regardless of religious affiliation (or lack thereof) and not to denigrate any particular faith or student or to put a student on the proverbial “spot” to declare his or her religious views.</p> <p>Now, to be fair, the language of the bill does include some limiting language to try to make this whole situation more … well, I suppose “fair” is the goal. But I’m not sure how workable any of those limitations really are. For example, the language speaks about not discriminating against a religious viewpoint on an “otherwise permissible subject”. And what, precisely, is an “otherwise permissible subject” especially in the context of a limited public forum in which content-based limitations are generally impermissible? I suppose that the goal here might be to prohibit a student from discussing abortion if topics like sexuality were deemed impermissible, but the problem quickly becomes an analysis of which viewpoints or subject matter are being restricted by the government in the limited public forum. Just because an issue is sensitive, controversial, or unpopular is not grounds for it to be excluded from the limited public forum.</p> <p>Or consider the requirement that student speakers be selected based on “<a>neutral criteria</a>”. What neutral criteria will be used and how will the designation of such neutral criteria impact a diversity of views, especially religious views? For example, if “neutral criteria” means GPA or some form of school participation metric , then certain racial, religious, or cultural groups may be both over- and under-represented; furthermore, students for whom English is not their first language and certain non-traditional or non-conforming students may also be left out of due consideration. I presume that “neutral criteria” excludes a student vote. And do the “neutral criteria” need to be structured in such a way that ensures a balance or proportional cross-section of viewpoints (whether religious or otherwise) will be presented? Moreover, I’m not sure that the notion of the <em>government</em> establishing criteria for who can speak in a limited public forum passes Constitutional scrutiny, but I’ll leave that to someone more versed in complex First Amendment issues. In essence, though, my worry is that “neutral criteria” could be used as a means, a justification, or both, to deny minority religious views (or minority views on any of a host of other subjects) from being expressed in the limited public forum created by the school.</p> <p>Next HB1024 speaks about ensuring that student speakers do not use the limited public forum for speech that is “obscene, vulgar, offensively lewd, or indecent”. Anybody care to define <em>precisely</em> what that means? Would a student be in violation if she took the podium to express her religious view that Jews killed Jesus and deserve eternal, collective punishment? Would a student be in violation if she took the podium to express his religious views that a woman who has an abortion has committed murder and should go to jail? Would a student be in violation if she took the podium to express her view that there are no deities and that those who believe in a deity are delusional and should seek mental health treatment? What if the student wanted to describe, in detail, how a late term abortion is performed in order to make an anti-abortion argument? What if a student wanted to describe, in detail, how female genital mutilation is performed and its effects on women? And what if a student wanted to describe, in detail, what death by crucifixion would entail and the pain that would be suffered? I could go on and on, but I suspect that you get the idea. HB1024 would tell schools to establish limited public forums to allow different religious viewpoints to be expressed but then micromanage which aspects of religious views are acceptable. Oh, and how confident are you that all religious viewpoints will be given the same degree of scrutiny and leeway when being judged for appropriateness in the setting of the limited public forum? Will a tiny, all-white, all-Christian school in rural Indiana have the same understanding of what is “obscene, vulgar, offensively lewd, or indecent” as a highly diverse school? Remember that some communities still view things like dancing, let alone, homosexuality, as indecent or lewd. </p> <blockquote> <p>(b) The policy established under subsection (a) shall require the disclaimer described in subsection (a)(4) to be provided at all graduation ceremonies. The school corporation or charter school must also continue to provide the disclaimer at any other event in which a student speaks publicly for as long as a need exists to dispel confusion over the school corporation’s or charter school’s nonsponsorship of the student’s speech.</p> </blockquote> <p>I can just imagine the principal standing up at graduation, just before the valedictorian speaks, to say that the speech “does not reflect the endorsement, sponsorship, position, or expression of the public school” but that the school has merely “selected the speaker on the basis of neutral criteria.” Will anyone in attendance understand that disclaimer or believe it?</p> <blockquote> <p>(c) The policy established under subsection (a) must ensure that student expression on an otherwise permissible subject may not be excluded from the limited public forum because the subject is expressed <a>from a religious viewpoint</a>.</p> </blockquote> <p>Again, the applicable question is what is an “otherwise permissible subject”? Moreover, wouldn’t this permit a student to denigrate or attack others so long as the general subject matter is permissible and the student’s expression is of a religious viewpoint? Thus, for example, wouldn’t this mean that a student could talk about a subject like immigration or the value of diversity (which, I presume, would be permissible subjects) but then use a “religious viewpoint” to express the belief that Islam is not a real religion and that Muslims should be excluded from immigration?</p> <blockquote> <p>(d) <a>The policy established under subsection (a) must include</a> measures to make reasonable accommodations for individuals who wish to be excused from a student’s speech that includes religious content because of the individual’s own religious belief or lack of religious belief. Such accommodations may include requirements that students who wish to express <a>religious content </a>in a limited public forum speak at the beginning or end of the particular event to allow individuals who desire not to be exposed to the religious content <a>the opportunity to be excused</a>.</p> </blockquote> <p>This provision could be entitled “How to Divide Your Student Body Into Discrete Faith-Based Groups” because that is essentially what it would likely entail. And I can think of few better ideas for a school environment than being forced to segregate students or forcing some students to self-identify as “different”. </sarcasm> First, think of how the school is supposed to know whether a student speaker intends to express a religious viewpoint (and what happens if a student improvises to add religious content…)? And how exactly is the school to determine if the viewpoint being expressed is religious or secular? For example, if a student wants to speak about her opposition to abortion, is that a religious expression? Is it only a religious expression if she mentions the Bible or Jesus? What if she speaks about morals rather than religious directives? What if the student is an atheist who wants to discuss the harm that religion can cause or the wars that have been started in the name of G-d?</p> <p>As the law currently stands, schools cannot compel students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Moreover, schools aren’t supposed to ostracize students who elect not to participate in the Pledge. But do we honestly think that, especially in less diverse schools, that sort of ostracizing doesn’t happen? Think how much worse that might be if the topic is religion rather than patriotism (note, that I don’t really equate the Pledge of Allegiance with patriotism…). Consider further the sort of reverse stigmatism that could be put into play as well. For example, when students who express a religious viewpoint hostile to homosexuality ask to be excused from having to listen to the presentation from an openly gay student or when the only Muslim student in a particular class finds himself speaking to an empty classroom because other students exercised their right not to be exposed to the religious views or expressions of that student. Wait, I know! Maybe we should have some schools just for Christians, others just for Jews and others just for Muslims. Equal, but separate. Oh, wait. Never mind.</p> <p>So let’s think about how this might work in actual application. Does this new law permit a school to give the microphone to a student (chosen on the basis of neutral criteria!) before each football game to offer some words of encouragement to the team and fans? And, if the chosen student indicates an intent to offer a prayer or other religious expression, does the school have to make some sort of announcement that “all godless heathens or who profess a faith that won’t say ‘amen’ to a prayer given in the name of Jesus Christ should leave the stadium for a few minutes”? Or maybe a somewhat more subtle announcement, like “Will all students who don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus and who don’t want to hear a prayer in his name, please leave now? Hopefully, we’ll remember to let you know when we’re ready for kickoff.” Is that what we want?</p> <blockquote> <p>Sec. 6.</p> <p>(a) The department, in collaboration with <a>organizations with expertise in religious civil liberties</a>, shall establish a model policy addressing the requirements established by this chapter. The model policy shall be made available for school corporations and charter schools to assist a school corporation or charter school in meeting the requirements established by this chapter.</p> <p>(b) The department shall publish the model policy established under subsection (a) on the department’s Internet web site.</p> </blockquote> <p>Anybody have an idea which organization “with expertise in religious civil liberties” will help the Indiana Department of Education establish a model policy? What if that organization has an avowed religious affiliation or viewpoint itself? Perhaps I’m wrong, but I suspect that Republican Indiana would be loathe to have organizations like the <a href="http://www.aclu-in.org/">American Civil Liberties Union</a> or <a href="https://www.au.org/">Americans United for Separation of Church and State</a> help craft the model policy. I suspect that Indiana would be more likely to turn to an organization like the <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/american-family-association">American Family Association</a> or <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/liberty-counsel">Liberty Council</a> to help craft the model policy, but I have little faith (pun intended; sorry, couldn’t resist) that those organizations (or others like them) would have much interest in creating policies that would really treat all religious viewpoints equally or that would have a sympathetic view of those who might want to express minority or nontraditional views.</p> <blockquote> <p>Sec. 7. This chapter shall not be construed to authorize the state or any political subdivision to do either of the following:</p> <p>   (1) Require any person to participate in prayer or in any other religious activity.</p> <p>   (2) Violate the constitutional rights of any person.</p> </blockquote> <p>It seems almost — almost, mind you — amazing that we would even need to include language in a statute that reminds us that the state can’t require people to participate in prayer or religious activity or violate constitutional rights. More importantly, a statute <em>can’t</em> authorize the state to violate constitutional rights (and forced religious participation would violate rights guaranteed by both the state and federal Constitutions). But that’s where we are… Of course given that Indiana legislators have, in recent years, proposed legislation <em>requiring</em> all student’s to engage in Christian prayer, then perhaps this language is intended more for their benefit than for the schools.</p> <blockquote> <p>Sec. 8. The provisions of this chapter are severable as provided in IC 1-1-1-8(b).</p> </blockquote> <p>This last little bit of legalese is actually important. In essence, what this says is that if a court were to find one part of HB1024 to be unconstitutional, only that part of the law would be unenforceable while the rest would remain in place as opposed to having the entire statute become unenforceable. Often, as in bills like this one, the statutory framework is designed to work as a whole and if pieces are found to be unenforceable, then the intent or the protections, for example, may not be reflected in the way that the law winds up being enforced when only parts are struck down by a court. Adding this severability clause means that parts of the law could be enforceable even if other parts were not.</p> <p>As I mentioned at the outset, I think that HB1024 was based on good intentions and a desire to try to avoid conflicts within schools over religious expression. However, I believe HB1024 is fatally flawed. Much of the conduct that it endeavors to address is already permitted within schools or the subject of detailed (and often complex) court rulings. More importantly, because of the complexity of the issues and the raw emotions often involved with issues involving religion, HB1024 is likely, as I I’ve tried to address, to lead to even more controversy, litigation, claims of discrimination, hurt feelings, and segregation along religious lines.</p> <p>Please call your Indiana legislators and ask them to vote against HB1024.</p>MSWallackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04025607935715642114noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5222839876578062342.post-26032550451750537802017-02-02T17:30:00.000-05:002017-02-02T17:30:03.687-05:00Supreme Court Battles<p>Donald Trump has nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). I have not read many of Judge Gorsuch’s opinions. However, based on what I have read (both by and about him), my initial reaction is negative. His views seem to be very much on the opposite side of the socio-political spectrum from mine. But those differences are within “normal parameters” (to continue borrowing P.J. O’Rourke’s terminology). Thus, in ordinary times, my inclination would be to voice criticism about the nomination but recognize that a President <b>— </b>with his party holding the majority in the Senate <b>— </b>is entitled to have his nomination confirmed.</p> <p>But these aren’t ordinary times.</p> <p>Let’s remember that Justice Scalia died nearly a year ago. Before the cause of death had even been announced (and don’t forget that Trump suggested foul play…), Senate Republicans stated that they would not consent to <em>any</em> nominee from President Obama. It didn’t matter that Judge Merrick Garland was well-respected, that GOP leaders had previously said that if he were a nominee, they would consent to his appointment, or even that they could go through the process of nomination hearings and then vote the nomination down. Nope. Instead, Republicans stonewalled for 10 months, refusing to even <em>consider</em> the nomination. Republicans argued, in essence, that a (black) President is not entitled to nominate a new Justice during his last year in office or during an election season. And they made up all sorts of … um … “alternative facts” to support their twisted and tortured reasoning.</p> <p>Shameful and disgusting are the two words that first come to mind to describe those actions by the Senate Republicans. An attack on our democratic institutions is a phrase that also comes to mind.</p> <p>And then, <em>almost</em> unbelievably, things got even worse. Think back to the waning days of the 2016 electoral season when several Republican Senators (including John McCain, Ted Cruz, and Richard Burr) <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/whats-the-opposite-of-court-packing/506081/">said that they would never consent to any Supreme Court nominee put forth by President Hillary Clinton</a>. In other words, the rules for Supreme Court nominations, as articulated by Republicans, appear to be that Democratic Presidents <b>— </b>especially blacks or women <b>— </b>are no longer entitled to have their nominations to the Supreme Court confirmed by the Senate and that vacant seats on the Court must remain that way until a Republican is in the White House.</p> <p>And then the Republicans won the White House and maintained a slim majority in the Senate.</p> <p>Now that Trump has nominated Judge Gorsuch to the seat that should have been filled by Judge Garland, Republicans are outraged <b>—</b> <em>outraged!</em> <b>—</b> that Senate Democrats might try to block the nomination.</p> <p>Hmm. Well, according to their own rules, we should wait for the next election to let the people speak as to whether the people approve of Judge Gorsuch, just as Republicans wanted to let the people speak with regard to the nomination of Judge Garland (and apparently 3 million more people approved of Judge Garland than those who disapproved…). Oh, and we <em>are</em> in a Presidential election season; after all, Trump broke with tradition and has already filed paperwork to run for re-election in 2020.</p> <p>(By the way, it’s worth noting that President Obama and Democrats had several ways that they could have countered Republican obstruction, including a recess appointment, claim that Republicans failed their Constitutional obligation, or a confirmation vote between the end of the previous session of Congress and the swearing in of new and re-elected Senators, but Democrats were apparently not willing to “blow up the system” and force a Constitutional crisis the way Republicans seem to be. Just food for thought.)</p> <p>I’ve seen some commentators suggest that Judge Gorsuch be treated to the same degree of courtesy and consideration shown to Judge Garland. I actually disagree with that statement. I think Judge Gorsuch should be shown the same degree of courtesy <em>usually</em> afforded to a Supreme Court nominee. But Democrats should hold firm and use whatever powers they may have to be sure that no Supreme Court nominee is considered until Judge Garland takes his rightful seat on the court.</p> <p>In fact, given the degree to which Senate Republicans blocked or delayed President Obama’s other judicial nominees (at an unprecedented rate), I think that Senate Democrats should use all of their powers (which may not be much…) to block <em>all</em> of Trump’s judicial appointments until outstanding Obama appointments are given due consideration.</p> <p>I’ve also heard the suggestion that Democrats should consent to Judge Gorsuch’s nomination and hold their fire for the battle if and when a liberal member of the Supreme Court retires or dies. The problem with that strategy, as I see it, is that there is no reason to believe that the Republicans would view Democrats’ graciousness now in any sort of favorable way later. Yes, Republicans might try to do away with the judicial filibuster now. But if Democrats don’t filibuster Judge Gorsuch’s nomination and save that tool for a later nomination fight, why do we think that Republicans wouldn’t just do away with the judicial filibuster then? </p> <p>Look, I don’t like these sorts of political games. I really don’t. I think that both sides need to “get along” and work together to find bipartisan solutions to important issues. I really do. But when one side chooses to abuse the system (remember when Republicans filibustered their own bill and nominees that they recommended; remember when they filibustered the appointment of a chair for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, not because of his qualifications, but because they didn’t like that new governmental bureau; remember when they continued to hold sham “sessions” at which no business was transacted in order to keep President Obama from making recess appointments) and to put politics ahead of both tradition, comity, and country, then perhaps two wrongs <em>can</em> make a right. Maybe some of the more principled Senators will recognize that brinksmanship and these sorts of efforts to destroy the system are actually bad for the country. Maybe. But if Democrats don’t even try to stop this nomination, if they just roll over and play dead (as they seem to have done so many times before), then Republican malfeasance will be rewarded and will become the standard way of doing business (at least when Democrats are in the White House).</p> <p>Will the Democrats be able to stop Judge Gorsuch’s nomination (or the nominations of others)? Probably not. But they must try. They must put up the “good fight”. They must show the Republicans that total obstruction and gridlock is a weapon that can be wielded by both sides.</p> <p>And perhaps Senate Republicans should consider one more thing if they continue to act as they have been: Let’s just say, hypothetically, that in 2018, Democrats retake the House and Senate (remember that the party holding the White House traditionally loses a number of seats in those off-year elections). If I was a Democratic Congressman, I might think about filing articles of impeachment against Justice Gorsuch (or whoever occupies Justice Scalia’s former seat) because that seat should have been occupied by Judge Garland. High crime or misdemeanor? Well, I’d argue that a blowjob was neither, but it was, then perhaps “theft of a Supreme Court seat” might also qualify. Senate Republicans need to remember that if they want to use the rules to play politics at the expense of the country, then at some point the proverbial shoe will be on the other foot. But until then, it is likely that Senate Republicans will hear the desire of Trump and many of his supporters to bring chaos to the system and to burn down the institutions that have worked so well for so long.</p>MSWallackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04025607935715642114noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5222839876578062342.post-61685134658570137892017-01-27T17:30:00.000-05:002017-01-27T17:30:10.957-05:00We Have a New President and I’m Worried<p>First, let me apologize for the lack of recent posts. Though there have been many things about which I’ve wanted to write, I think that I’ve been virtually paralyzed by a sense of depression, dread, and even a bit of fear. Over the years that I’ve been writing this blog, I’ve been critical of many politicians at many different levels of government, but never did I worry that any of that criticism would lead to retaliatory action against me, my family, my associates, or groups or businesses with which I am affiliated or employed. But with the inauguration of Donald Trump, I find myself harboring just those sorts of concerns.</p> <p>However, at the same time, I find that I cannot sit idly by. I just … can’t.</p> <p>After Trump was elected, I promised a friend that I would keep an open mind and judge Trump by his actions and not just by his campaign rhetoric. I intend to uphold that promise. But I won’t withhold criticism when Trump’s words or actions are problematic. As I’ve thought about it more, I’ve realized that staying quiet out of fear of what a “leader” may do is a first step toward allowing fascism to take hold at the expense of a democratic system premised upon the free and open exchange of ideas and where we have the First Amendment specifically to permit the electorate to criticize its government and leaders. We cannot allow fear of reprisal to weaken the institution of free speech and the marketplace of ideas.</p> <p>Thus, if I am to set aside Trump’s campaign rhetoric and judge him by his actions, I can’t say that I’m either impressed or pleased. Whether it be Trump’s inability to let any insult go unanswered (and can we give Alec Baldwin the Emmy now?), his feud with the intelligence community, his off-the-cuff remarks that have needlessly antagonized both allies and adversaries, or any of a number of other things that he has said, done, or <em>not</em> done, I am not reassured. In fact, my sense of worry has only increased in these transition months and the first week of his administration.</p> <p>So allow me to discuss just a few of the things by which I think it is fair to judge Trump and for which, in the judging, he has come up far short.</p> <p>First, is his refusal to really address his innumerable conflicts of interest in any real manner (and not just give lip service to the issue). Let me offer just a few small examples of how this could come into play. Take the Trump hotel in Washington D.C. Foreign leaders visiting Washington may feel pressure to stay in that hotel to gain favor with Trump. Or, to be more crass about it, they may essentially feel compelled to bribe the President of the United States to curry diplomatic favor. Think how angry some of you would have been had a foreign leader paid tuition for President Obama’s daughters. But when foreign leaders stay in a Trump hotel they will be directly benefitting Trump <em>the individual</em> in order to keep Trump <em>the President</em> happy. That can’t be how our system is designed to work. In fact, the Emoluments Clause was included in the Constitution precisely to prevent such a situation.</p> <p>Because Trump hasn’t released his tax returns, we don’t know about all of his investments or debt obligations. But we do know that he is indebted to the Bank of China and Deutsche Bank. Had Trump divested his assets or put them into a blind trust, he would likely be less tempted to consider how any particular policy might impact his <em>personal</em> relationships with those banks. But he hasn’t. Those relationships are still “in the family”. So if the Bank of China were, hypothetically, to offer to forgive Trump’s debts in exchange for the United States (<em>i.e.</em>, Trump) recognizing China’s claim to the Spratley Islands, are you convinced that Trump would say “no”? I’m not. Similarly, if Deutsche Bank were, again hypothetically, to offer to forgive Trump’s debts in exchange for the Justice Department waiving the multi-billion dollar fine being levied against the bank, are you convinced that Trump would say “no” to that offer? What about relationships with other countries in which Trump owns real estate or where property is emblazoned with his name? Might his decision-making in the White House include as a component how any action (or inaction) by the United States would affect those properties? It is worth noting that is initial executive order to block visas from some Muslim notions omits Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, all of which are countries in which Trump apparently has business relationships or assets. Hmm.</p> <p>And none of that is even remotely as dangerous or worrying as the very real possibility that Russia does, indeed, have some sort of compromising information about Trump.</p> <p>I’m also very displeased with many of Trump’s nominees. Look, I understand that in politics one side wins and one side loses. Thus, while I may dislike some nominees because their views on certain issues differ from mine, I also recognize that is how the system works. But the system also has a built-in expectation that those nominated for cabinet posts will have some degree of qualification for the post to which they are nominated. And there is some built-in expectation that the nominee won’t be an actual foe of department to that the nominee would lead. As a recent Internet meme noted, the last three Secretaries of Energy (under President Bush and President Obama) all had doctorates in the sciences (chemical engineering, physics, and nuclear physics, one with a Nobel Prize, while Trump’s nominee, former Texas Governor Rick Perry, studied agriculture and received a D in a class called “Meats”.</p> <p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-BOphLE0igDI/WIuUWyciayI/AAAAAAAABT8/zpDp-1ADEFo/s1600-h/sam-asambioyce-10h-this-is-samuel-bodman-secretary-of-energy-9421755%25255B4%25255D.png"><img title="sam-asambioyce-10h-this-is-samuel-bodman-secretary-of-energy-9421755" style="border-top: 0px; border-right: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom: 0px; float: none; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-left: 0px; margin: 0px auto 5px; display: block; padding-right: 0px" border="0" alt="sam-asambioyce-10h-this-is-samuel-bodman-secretary-of-energy-9421755" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Edk2pBWnwjQ/WIuUW715WZI/AAAAAAAABUA/MgMclCzU3NE/sam-asambioyce-10h-this-is-samuel-bodman-secretary-of-energy-9421755_thumb%25255B2%25255D.png?imgmax=800" width="504" height="379" /></a></p> <p>I am also very, <em>very</em> troubled by Trump’s claims, each based on essentially nothing, that torture works and that voter fraud is real. An administration that bases policy on unsubstantiated “experts” or conspiracy news is very worrying. And think about this: Trump wants to investigate voter fraud, despite the fact that there is no evidence, but he doesn’t want to investigate Russia’s interference with the election, despite the fact that there is apparently an abundance of evidence. Can we trust how he will consume, interpret, and act upon evidence given to him by real experts over the next four years?</p> <p>And is Trump so … I don’t know … scared? … of reality, facts, science, and the like, that his insecurity demands that he try to bury information that he doesn’t like or agree with and gag those who might share that information?</p> <p>I’m not even going to get into the whole problem of “alternative facts”. That is a huge subject better left for another day. Let me just offer this “alternative fact” of my own: Hillary Clinton is the President of the United States because she won 3 million more votes than Donald Trump.</p> <p>The United States is not some petty Third World dictatorship; nor is it the dystopian Airstrip One of <em>1984</em> where history is remade to suit the leadership. Unfortunately, in the week that has passed since the inauguration, Trump’s actions have made me question whether he understands that. And isn’t it interesting that <em>1984</em> is now the best-selling book on Amazon?</p> <p>Now, I will admit that I was pleased to see Trump back down or walk away from some of his campaign pledges. I’m glad that he no longer intends to “order” a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton. I’m really glad that he wants to make healthcare available to all Americans (though if ever the phrase “the devil is in the details” were appropriate, it would be for that claim). However, the speed at which he has changed course is troubling. It’s not unusual for a newly elected President to ignore or even reverse course on some campaign pledges (“Read my lips: No new taxes!” comes to mind), but those sorts of policy shifts usually occur over time, often as a result of political capital, changes in the economic situation, or the like. Yet here, at the same time that Trump is going full steam ahead on some pledges, he has acknowledged that he had no intention to keep other promises that he made simply because they sounded good during the campaign. Thus, I can’t help but wonder whether there is <em>anything</em> about which people can trust and rely upon Trump’s previous pledges. (Well, he is, apparently, going to “build that wall”, but who will ultimately pay remains very much an open issue.)</p> <p>Moreover, as much as I don’t want to see him push forward some of the policies that he has advocated, I am also worried about what may happen when he abandons those things that caused people to vote for him. Many claim to have voted for Trump because he wasn’t a normal politician. But how will those people react when they realize that he is, in many ways, even worse than a normal politician? How will blue collar workers who he led to believe were losing jobs to undocumented immigrants feel (and react) when they realize that their taxes will be used to pay for the wall? How will factory workers feel (and react) when Trump <em>doesn’t</em> put pressure on <em>their</em> company to retain jobs the way he put pressure on Carrier to retain some jobs? How will they feel or react when they lose their healthcare or when their public school loses federal funding because of privatization efforts? And so on and so on and so on… How will they react when it finally dawns on them that Trump is enriching himself and his billionaire colleagues at the expense of working Americans?</p> <p>We saw anger start to boil over in 2010 when President Obama and Congressional Democrats were considering legislation to provide healthcare (and don’t forget that much of that anger was premised upon outright lies like “death panels”). How might that anger be directed if people feel betrayed by Trump’s actions?</p> <p>It is incumbent upon Americans to stand up and be heard and to make sure that Trump does not go beyond the bounds of the office, does not use the office to enrich himself, and does not destroy the notion of what America is and what it stands for.</p> <p>I will view Trump’s statements and actions with an open mind. But one week into his administration I am displeased and worried.</p>MSWallackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04025607935715642114noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5222839876578062342.post-14570112072431164782016-11-29T17:30:00.000-05:002016-11-29T17:30:08.734-05:00Donald Trump Suggests Revoking Citizenship of Americans Who Engage in Constitutionally Protected Free Speech<p>Donald Trump is still more than a month away from taking the Oath of Office to become President of the United States yet he is already suggesting new ways to shred the protections set forth in the Constitution of the United States:</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!</p> — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/803567993036754944">November 29, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <p>Plenty of other people have already pointed out that burning an American flag is a Constitutionally protected form of free speech, so I won’t belabor that point (though if the issue remains lively, perhaps I’ll come back and address the free speech implications including the late Justice Scalia’s view that flag burning is precisely the sort of speech that the First Amendment was intended to protect). What fewer people are discussing is Trump’s suggestion that the penalty might be “loss of citizenship”. That sort of thinking may be endemic to petty dictatorships or totalitarian countries but it is <em>not</em> how we punish people in America, especially for the “crime” of speech.</p> <p>Yes, US law permits revocation of citizenship <em>for a naturalized citizen</em> (such as Melania Trump) for falsifying immigration and naturalization information (such as, perhaps, Melania Trump), refusing to testify about immigration information, for joining certain “subversive groups” (like the Communist Party, but apparently not the “alt-right”)*, or for being dishonorably discharged from the military (after a court martial) when service in the military was the basis for naturalization. The law does not permit denaturalization for merely criticizing the government, a governmental policy, or an elected official; nor does the law permit denaturalization for engaging in constitutionally protected activity other than association with certain groups (and I haven’t researched how courts have interpreted that exception with the First Amendment’s right to freedom of assembly). In fact, the law does not even permit denaturalization for commission of a crime.</p> <p>But here is the important thing: There is <em>absolutely no constitutionally permissible procedure</em> for the United States to revoke citizenship from a natural born citizen unless that citizen intentional actions steps to renounce citizenship (such as actually renouncing citizenship or swearing allegiance to a foreign power in lieu of the United States). Absent such an act by a natural born citizen, the United States can’t revoke citizenship. Think of it this way: The United States did not revoke the citizenship of Japanese-Americans interred during World War II; nor did the United States revoke the citizenship of Vietnam-era protestors or draft dodgers (hey, there, Donald!); nor did the United States revoke the citizenship of “communists” exposed during the McCarthy era or of domestic terrorists like Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, or the Unabomber). And we certainly didn’t revoke the citizenship of people who exercised their First Amendment rights to criticize the American government, American policy, or American leaders (such as, for example, Donald Trump).</p> <p>The very suggestion of revocation of citizenship as a penalty for … well, for <em>anything</em> … should terrify Americans. If revocation of citizenship is appropriate for flag burning (presuming it wasn’t constitutionally protected free speech), then for what other activity might revocation of citizenship also be appropriate? Engaging in an illegal protest? Giving support to a group or country deemed “bad” by the United States (such as Cuba or Venezuela or … Russia)? What about refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, kneeling during the singing of the <em>Star Spangled Banner</em>, or saying that you are “ashamed” of America or that the President “is not <em>my</em> President”? Are those offenses for which revocation of citizenship should be contemplated as an appropriate penalty? All of them seem similar to burning the flag, don’t they?</p> <p>And what about those of us who refuse to raise our arm at the proper 45° angle while chanting “Heil Trump”? Will our citizenship be revoked? Yes, obviously, that is an extreme example, but the point remains that an elected leader who even suggests using revocation of citizenship as a penalty, especially as a penalty for engaging in core constitutionally protected free speech is just the sort of demagogue for which those sorts of remote examples are exactly appropriate. It is often said that “dissent is highest form of patriotism” (often falsely attributed to Thomas Jefferson), yet Donald Trump is threatening revocation of citizenship for a certain type of dissent with which he disapproves. Of course if we only permitted “approved” forms of dissent, it wouldn’t make for very good dissent, would it?</p> <p>Donald Trump will soon swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. It would help if he had some tiny glimmer of what the Constitution says, what protections it provides, and <em>why those protections exist</em>. In a democracy like ours, we don’t punish people for dissent; we don’t punish people for criticizing their government; and we certainly don’t punish people by revoking their citizenship. So which parts of the Constitution will Trump defend?</p> <p>We need to keep pointing out just how little Trump knows or cares about our democratic institutions and how outrageous some of his discriminatory and undemocratic ideas are so that, perhaps, his supporters will understand both the mistake that they’ve made in electing him and the fear being experienced by many minority communities and other detractors.</p> <p>-----</p> <p>*The <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-10362.html">law</a> provides that naturalization can be revoked if a person <em>within 5 years after being naturalized</em> becomes a member of a group that would have precluded naturalization in the first place. Those groups are <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9847.html">defined</a> as:</p> <blockquote> <p>(2) who is a member of or affiliated with (A) the Communist Party of the United States; (B) any other totalitarian party of the United States; (C) the Communist Political Association; (D) the Communist or other totalitarian party of any State of the United States, of any foreign state, or of any political or geographical subdivision of any foreign state; (E) any section, subsidiary, branch, affiliate, or subdivision of any such association or party; or (F) the direct predecessors or successors of a ny [sic] such association or party, regardless of what name such group or organization may have used, may now bear, or may hereafter adopt…</p> </blockquote> <p>Query why the Communist Party is specified but groups like <em>al-Qaeda</em>, ISIS, or certain non-totalitarian white nationalist parties (like the KKK) are not included.</p>MSWallackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04025607935715642114noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5222839876578062342.post-52710348676171423452016-11-09T17:30:00.000-05:002016-11-09T17:30:37.326-05:00My Friend Died Yesterday; Her Name Was America<p>It is very difficult to describe the depth of my pain and sorrow this morning. I have long thought of America as an ideal, imperfect, but always striving to be that more perfect union. A land where the petty hatreds that have torn at the fabric of humanity for millennia could finally be laid to rest as all people would be treated equally and with dignity, a land where people could choose to live according to the dictates of their faith (or lack thereof) with the respect of their neighbors, and where people of all races could mingle knowing their differing values and views, traditions and hopes, would be welcomed to the giant melting pot. Where <em>e pluribus unum</em> was more than just an old motto carved into monuments.</p> <p>And I know that <em>some</em> of those who voted for Donald Trump share that ideal.</p> <p>For years, beginning when I was in junior high school and continuing through the present, in one capacity or another, I have worked to help further that vision of America and to help bring about the promise of equality and an expansion of civil rights, whether with regard to religion, race, sexual orientation, or any of a host of other categories. And, since the very beginning of 2008, I’ve written this blog. I’m pretty certain that if you go back and read about the issues on which I’ve written, you’ll discover my passion for equality, dignity, and civility has been a consistent theme. I’m sure that from time-to-time, my anger or frustration, have gotten the better of me, but I’ve strived to offer people an opportunity to engage me in civil discussion over important issues, at the core of which are the rights and dignity of <em>all </em>Americans.</p> <p>I understand that people were angry with how the system was working (or not working). I understand some people felt dislocated by the transition in the economy from manufacturing to services and tech. I understand that some people felt left out by globalization and other rapid changes in our economy. And I certainly understand that many people feel as if their voice doesn’t matter because of the influence of money and special interests in our political system. I get that. And I get that not everyone who voted for Donald Trump did so on the basis of animus for those who don’t look or think the same way that they do.</p> <p>But last night, I seemed as if nearly 60 million people told me that all of the ideals that I’ve worked for, all of those ideals that I hold at the core of what our country is supposed to represent — <em>supposed to be</em> — didn’t matter. They told me that they don’t care about equality for the LGBT community. They told me that they don’t care about voting rights for African-Americans. They told me that they don’t care about splitting up immigrant families or the harm to undocumented immigrants for whom America is the only home they’ve ever known. They told me that they don’t care about the plight of those fleeing civil war and horrific brutality. And they told me that they don’t care that they are aligning with those who view me as a subhuman who should be led to the gas chambers with my family because I am a Jew. Excuse me, I meant to say (((Jew))).</p> <p>So when I woke up this morning and reflected on the election, I had to consider something that others have told me from time-to-time: This isn't really <em>my country.</em> I can only wonder if some see this as only as “their country” which they have now “taken back” from “the other” while allowing those who don’t fit into the majority cohort to stay here as something … well, something <em>less</em>. It is a country that belongs to its white, Christian majority that has tolerated the presence of Jews, Muslims, and others, has grudgingly granted something approaching equality to people who aren’t white, and which is reluctantly grappling with the question of what to do with the fact that there are homosexuals (and transgender people) in our midst. But I now understand, more so than I have previously, that the minority communities of America are not, at least to a large swath of the population, “real Americans”.</p> <p>Please understand that I'm not suggesting and don't believe that all of the people who voted for Trump are racists, anti-Semites, xenophobes, misogynists, bigots, or the like. But I am extremely troubled that those people chose to ignore or forgive those traits when they cast their vote. A vote for Trump may not, in and of itself, represent racism and its associated bigotries, but it did validate Trump’s racist views and the views of the alt-right, KKK, and the like. Those votes told Trump that his use of racism and bigotry was a winning tactic and, as such, will likely persist and increase in the American political lexicon and playbook. And it emboldened those who viewed him as giving voice to what they perceive as an embattled white (and, in particular, white Christian) America.</p> <p>So after this election, how do you look at your gay cousin who must now worry that his newfound equality (still a work in process) will be stripped away, his marriage nullified, his adoption of a baby reversed? How do you look at your Muslim colleague who wants nothing more than to live in peace with his neighbors now that he knows that a huge swath of his country and his President-elect think he is a terrorist who hates America and intends violence upon us? How do you look at your Latino co-worker who worries that her mother may be deported or that she cannot serve as a judge simply because of her heritage? How do you look at your African-American acquaintance who worries that her husband or child will be shot by police for driving without a broken brake light? How do you look at your Jewish friend who heard vicious anti-Semitism from Trump supporters, such as exhortations to put America's Jews into gas chambers?</p> <p>Perhaps it's because far to many of you have no gay cousins, Muslim colleagues, Latino co-workers, black acquaintances, or Jewish friends, most likely because our society has become so bifurcated and polarized and “those people” live only in the “blue” urban areas that seem foreign and alien to you. Perhaps you don't see those people as being your friends, of being real Americans, of being human and entitled to the same dignity you expect for yourself. I don’t think Donald Trump’s presidency is going to make minorities feel more a part of our society or make you think of them as being more American.</p> <p>But even if you don’t really care about the gay cousin, Muslim colleague, Latino co-worker, black acquaintance, or Jewish friend, how do you look at your <em>daughter</em> who now knows that you can forgive the admission of sexual assault, use of terms like "pig" and "bimbo", serial philandering, and pussy grabbing? And how do you explain to your son that the things that his President brags about are unacceptable … but that you voted for him anyway?</p> <p>To me, America was both my country and an ideal; an ideal that I put years and years of effort into making more perfect so that all of us could live together in peace. Last night that ideal was ripped away.</p> <p>Let me conclude with the hope that I <a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2015/12/im-too-depressed-to-write-about-donald.html">expressed nearly a year ago</a>, when I began to see the rise of Donald Trump as a serious candidate:</p> <blockquote> <p>It’s time to recapture the idea of America from demagogues like Trump. It’s time to recapture the idea of an America in which competing ideas can be discussed civilly and in which the notion of a melting pot, of <em>e pluribus unum</em>, is celebrated. It’s time to put hate and fear aside in favor of efforts to make friends across barriers and to take the time to learn about others who may be different than we are. We can disagree on policies but recognize that we are all <em>Americans</em> who value the concept of <em>America</em>. We can disagree on those policies but learn to discuss them without hate or rancor, without viewing those with whom we disagree as the enemy or intent to destroy the idea of America.</p> </blockquote> <p>But our democracy worked as designed. A <em>minority</em> of voters elected a racist, anti-Semitic, xenophobic, misogynistic, know-nothing, fascist.</p> <p>I feel like a good friend died yesterday. Her name was America.</p>MSWallackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04025607935715642114noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5222839876578062342.post-72854181367447764292016-11-01T17:30:00.000-04:002016-11-01T17:30:31.459-04:00Would the “Bradley Effect” Help Clinton or Trump?<p>When looking at polling data and trying to extrapolate the expected results in an upcoming election, one thing that is often encountered has come to be known as the “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect">Bradley Effect</a>”. In 1982, former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley was running for Governor of California. All of the polls showed that he was leading in the days leading up to the election. Thus, most everyone was surprised when Bradley lost. Essentially, what appears to have happened was that white voters told pollsters that they would (or had) voted for Bradley (who was African American), but when the votes were actually counted, Bradley did worse than expected due(apparently) to white voters who told pollsters one thing but did another. This phenomenon has been seen in other elections (almost always when one candidate is a minority).</p> <p>So the question becomes whether the Bradley Effect might be in play in the 2016 Presidential election. And the follow-up question is, of course, who the Bradley Effect would help or hurt?</p> <p>One view is that many people who plan to vote for Donald Trump don’t want to publicly admit that they will be doing so (or have already done so) because they don’t want to be labeled a “deplorable” or a racist, bigot, <em>etc.</em> It seems reasonable to believe that there could be many, many voters who would refuse to admit support for Trump for just this sort of reason. Similarly, I wonder about support for Trump among minorities who may be attracted to Trump’s immigration policies but who feel constrained –- by being minorities themselves -- not to be seen supporting someone who is criticized for his views about minority groups. I’m not so sure that other reasons why someone might lie about supporting Trump make as much sense or would account for too many voters. And I cannot begin to evaluate the idea that some men will proclaim support for Clinton only to decide that they really don’t want a woman as President.</p> <p>Now the thing to ask yourself about these “hidden” Trump voters is whether they are telling pollsters that they are voting for Clinton, thus elevating her apparent support, voting for a third party candidate (in which case they will help Trump but not to Clinton’s direct detriment), or are included in the category of undecided voters.</p> <p>Of course there is an opposite side to the Bradley Effect in the 2016 election.</p> <p>Might some voters, especially women or young people, be telling pollsters that they are planning to vote for Trump because they are expected to do so based on race, locale, economics, or so forth. How many women, for example, might be planning to vote for Clinton -– either because she is a woman or because of Trump’s misogynist statements –- but don’t want to let those in their family and friend circles know because of the expected backlash they might expect? Imagine, if you will, the dinner table discussion in the home of a white, working class family, where neither the husband nor wife has a college education. In that situation, might one (or both!) of them be reticent to express support for Clinton or opposition to Trump because of concern about the spouse’s expected reaction?</p> <p>It seems that passions are so high this electoral season, that it might not be surprising if people were hesitant to admit support for or opposition to one candidate out of concern about how they might be perceived by family and friends. And that hesitation might carry over in to responding to the questions of pollsters. It might even be seen in the exit polls that are reported on election night.</p> <p>Two final anecdotes to add to all of this: Last night (Halloween), I sat on my driveway handing out candy to trick-or-treating kids. And I talked to parents who trailed behind their kids along the sidewalk. It was hard for them to miss the makeshift Clinton (and John Gregg for Governor) sign I’d put up in my yard (my “real” sign was stolen after being up for just five days). One man, who by application of stereotypes, I presumed would be a Trump supporter (remember, I live in a <em>very</em> red district), told me that he loved my sign and said that he wished that he had the “courage” (his word) to put up his own Clinton sign. What do you think he is telling pollsters, if asked? At the other end of the spectrum, another family saw my sign and told their child that she didn’t need to come up my driveway for candy. I guess they expected a Clinton supporter to try to poison their child, right?</p> <p>Anyway, for two additional views on the subject, you might want to read both “<a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-shy-voters-polls-gop-insiders-230411">GOP insiders: Polls don't capture secret Trump vote</a>” and “<a href="http://www.salon.com/2016/10/27/how-large-is-the-secret-hillary-club-red-state-women-may-be-defying-their-trump-loving-husbands/">How large is the “Secret Hillary Club”? Red-state women may be defying their Trump-loving husbands</a>”.</p>MSWallackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04025607935715642114noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5222839876578062342.post-79824067987887713472016-10-19T17:30:00.000-04:002016-10-19T17:30:03.335-04:00The Right to Hunt and Fish Does Not Belong in Indiana’s Constitution<p><em>Portions of this post were originally published on February 9, 2011 in a post entitled “<a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2011/02/you-have-got-to-cluck-be-kidding-me.html">You Have Got to (Cluck) Be Kidding Me</a>”.</em></p> <p>As I think I’ve previously said on an occasion or twelve, constitutions (whether that of the United States or the State of Indiana) are important documents. They represent the basic framework under which our government works and provide a broad description of rights retained by citizens. Constitutions are for the “big stuff” and aren’t the place to deal with the mundane. Thus, I want to look at one of the dumbest <a href="https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/resolutions/senate/joint/2">proposed constitutional amendments</a> that I’ve ever seen:</p> <blockquote> <p>(a) The right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife: </p> <dl><dd>(1) is a valued part of Indiana's heritage; and </dd><dd>(2) shall be forever preserved for the public good.</dd></dl> <p>(b) The people have a right, which includes the right to use traditional methods, to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, subject only to the laws prescribed by the General Assembly and rules prescribed by virtue of the authority of the General Assembly to: </p> <dl><dd>(1) promote wildlife conservation and management; and </dd><dd>(2) preserve the future of hunting and fishing.</dd></dl> <p>(c) Hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife.</p> <p>(d) This section shall not be construed to limit the application of any provision of law relating to trespass or property rights</p> </blockquote> <p>The proposed amendment was sponsored by eight Indiana Republican legislators and was supported by Gov. Pence. Both the National Rifle Association and Safari Club International support the amendment while The Humane Society and the Hoosier Environmental Council oppose it. If adopted, this provision would be enshrined in Indiana’s Bill of Rights.</p> <p>There are so many problems with this proposed amendment that it’s hard to pick a good place to start.</p> <p>First, is this <em>really</em> the sort of provision that needs to be added to our Constitution? And, just in case you’re not sure, here are the titles of all of the other provisions in Indiana’s Bill of Rights, to which this “right” to hunt and fish would be added:</p> <blockquote> <p>Inherent rights · Right to worship · Freedom of religious opinions · Freedom of religion · No religious test for office · No state money for religious institutions · Religion no bar to competency of witnesses · Mode of oath administration · Freedom of thought and speech · Libal, truth as defense [sic] · Search and seizure · Openess of the courts, Speedy trial [sic] · Rights of accused, Rights of victims · Double jeopardy and self-incrimination · Rights of persons arrested · Excessive bail or fines, Cruel and unusual punishment · Bailable offenses · Penal code and reformation · Criminal cases—Jury determination · Civil cases--Right of trial by jury · Compensation for services and property · Debts—Imprisonment exemption · Equal privileges and immunities · Ex post facto laws · Laws—Taking effect · Suspension of laws · Habeas corpus · Treason defined · Treason, proof · Effect of conviction · Right of assemblage and petition · Arms—Right to bear · Military · Quartering of soldiers · Titles of nobility · Freedom of emigration · Slavery—prohibition</p> </blockquote> <p>If you’re curious about any of those rights, I encourage you to take a few minutes to <a href="http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/inconst/art-1.html">read them</a> (I bet very few Hoosiers have ever actually read even a small part of Indiana’s Constitution).</p> <p>But anyway, does the right to “hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife” belong in that list? How does it compare to things like the right to worship, freedom of religion, search and seizure, double jeopardy, right of trial by jury, and slavery? Think about how our Bill of Rights would read: “… Section 36. Freedom of emigration. Section 37. Slavery—prohibition. Section 38. Freedom to hunt and fish.” Wow, what a modern state we must be!</p> <p>Query whether there is any real concern that hunting, fishing, or harvesting wildlife are in jeopardy here in Indiana. Has anyone <em>seriously</em> proposed prohibiting hunting, fishing, or harvesting wildlife? And other than discussions about whether we should ban “hunting” animals who are in cages, have there been any real discussions about limiting the right to hunt, fish, or harvest wildlife? If not, why do we need to protect these “rights” and why do we need to do so <em>in the Constitution</em>?</p> <p>Think of some of the other “rights” that we all know that we have but that aren’t in the Constitution: the right to procreate, the right to name our children as we choose (not true in some European countries…), the right to marry who we want (within limits … sorry … couldn’t resist), the right to speak whatever language we want, the right to play a guitar or piano, the right to put mayonnaise on your roast beef sandwich (though, if you do so, I may never speak to you again). I could go on and on. There are plenty of things that we can do that we haven’t bothered to put into our Constitution. Why are hunting, fishing, and harvesting wildlife so important? There are also many things that are important parts of our heritage that aren’t enshrined in our Constitution. Where is the right to play basketball?</p> <p>I’m also curious about the meaning of the phrase “shall be forever preserved for the public good”. What does that even mean? Does it mean that the <em>right</em> is a public good or does it mean that hunting, fishing, and harvesting wildlife are a public good? And how are we supposed to preserve either of those things for the public good? If someone doesn’t want to fish or hunt , must we require them to do so? And by “public good” do we mean that the product of hunting and fishing is a resource belonging to the State and its citizens? And how exactly is killing an unarmed deer in the woods or putting a hook through a fish’s gills before throwing it back into the water a “public good”? How do either of those things benefit the public, generally, or me, in particular?</p> <p>The right of people to hunt and fish includes “traditional methods”. What does that mean? I suppose that shooting animals with guns or bows and using lures for fish are traditional methods. But what about setting traps in the woods or stringing nets across streams and rivers? Those seem like traditional methods, too. So does this amendment provide a constitutional right to stretch a net across the white river or place traps in your local woods? (“Oops, sorry Mrs. Smith, we didn’t mean for little Billy to get caught in our beaver trap; we’ll pay for the surgery to amputate his foot…”)</p> <p>Note further that section (b) is written quite poorly. Do the limitations set forth in subparagraphs (1) and (2) apply to “laws prescribed by the General Assembly” or only to “rules prescribed by virtue of the authority of the General Assembly”? That sort of ambiguity is likely to lead to disagreement and litigation and could easily have been addresses before the amendment was approved by the General Assembly.</p> <p>More importantly, look at those two limitations: “(1) promote wildlife conservation and management; and (2) preserve the future of hunting and fishing”. As I read section (b), the <em>only</em> restrictions that can be placed on hunting or fishing are ones to “promote wildlife conservation and management” or “preserve the future of hunting and fishing” (whatever that may mean). Thus, a law that limits hunting or fishing <em>in any way</em> that does not promote conservation (or preserve the future of hunting and fishing) will be unconstitutional. In other words, a designated hunting season would probably be unconstitutional. Prohibitions on cruelty to animals being hunted would probably be unconstitutional. Clearly a law that prohibits hunting animals trapped in cages would be unconstitutional. And I suspect that a law prohibiting the use of dynamite to kill fish <em>en masse</em> would also be unconstitutional. I can even see laws written to preserve safety (<em>e.g.</em>, wear an orange vest) being deemed unconstitutional because they might infringe on the right to hunt or fish (hey, an orange vest isn’t “traditional” is it?).</p> <p>And what about laws that prohibit hunting in certain areas? I suppose that a law banning hunting in a local park might pass as one promoting wildlife conservation (presuming that the legislature that passed that law remembered to identify that as the reason for the law and not, say, the safety of park goers). But what about a law that prohibits the discharge of firearms within city limits? What about a law that prohibits hunting in residential areas? What about a law that prohibits my neighbor from shooting into my yard? Hopefully, the exception for trespass and property rights would cover that. Hopefully. But what will stop my neighbor from shooting squirrels in the common area of my neighborhood at all hours of the day? Oh, and can you hunt a stray dog?</p> <p>Then, think about that next provision: “Hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife”. Really? Why? Why do we want to prefer hunting and fishing over other forms of wildlife management (birth control, relocation, fencing, and other non-lethal methods, for example)? Why are we deciding today that hunting and fishing are preferred? And remember just how difficult it is to amend our Constitution. Perhaps in a few years, we’ll discover a better way to manage and control wildlife. But we may not be able to use that method so long as some people would rather use the “preferred” method of hunting and fishing. Is that really the sort of thing to put in our Constitution? Do we provide a constitutionally preferred method to treat cancer and manage diabetes? Do we provide constitutionally preferred books or religions?</p> <p>Apparently, groups like the NRA believe that:</p> <blockquote> <p>Sportsmen have been under attack for many years by well-funded, national anti-hunting groups who demonstrate a clear disregard for both the cherished traditions of many Americans as well as responsible wildlife management in their drive to eliminate hunting and fishing.</p> </blockquote> <p>Really? <em>Really</em>? So we should amend our Constitution? And query whether this is a true claim or if it is the same sort of “they’re coming to take your guns” fear-mongering at which the NRA excels. Perhaps more importantly, if a majority of Hoosier legislators, in response to the wishes of their constituents, want to impose additional restrictions on hunting or fishing, why shouldn’t we allow that? Are hunting and fishing <em>really</em> the sort of fundamental rights (like freedom from slavery or choice of marriage) that we need to protect in the Constitution (thus requiring a minimum of 3 years and 2 elections to change)?</p> <p>This proposed amendment is a bad idea that addresses a problem that does not exist. It will create new problems, limit the ability of Hoosiers to protect themselves, and restrict our ability to change the law to reflect changing attitudes or technology. It may even be used as a way to counter efforts to enact additional gun control measures (“hey, you can’t require me to undergo a background check because if I fail the background check, how will I be able to hunt?”). In short, this amendment is nothing more than a ploy by the NRA and like-minded groups to encourage a particular hobby and to sell more guns.</p> <p>Please vote no.</p> <p>-----</p> <p>Back in 2011, the General Assembly passed a slightly different version of this amendment, but it was amended before being passed a second time. Here is the language of the original amendment that I <a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2011/02/you-have-got-to-cluck-be-kidding-me.html">wrote about</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>The people have a right to hunt, fish, harvest game, or engage in the agricultural or commercial production of meat, fish, or poultry, which is a valued part of our heritage and shall be forever preserved for the public good, subject to laws prescribed by the General Assembly and rules prescribed by virtue of the authority of the General Assembly.</p> </blockquote> <p>So what happened to the right to engage in agricultural or commercial production of meat, fish, or poultry? Why did the legislature decide that hunting and fishing were important rights but that agriculture wasn’t? I suppose that growing kale and raising a coop full of chickens doesn’t sell many guns for the NRA.</p>MSWallackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04025607935715642114noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5222839876578062342.post-10085427055760140542016-09-30T17:30:00.001-04:002016-10-07T09:34:29.531-04:00Donald Trump and the Central Park Five<p>In April 1989 a brutal crime was committed in Central Park in New York City. A woman was raped and beaten nearly to death. Five teenagers, four African American and one Latino, were arrested and charged with the crime. A few weeks later, Donald Trump paid to run a full page advertisement in four New York newspapers:</p> <p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-q35WYejt6_Y/V-6jAWnTcLI/AAAAAAAABSY/radJW7O5LDY/s1600-h/Trump-Central-Park-Five4.jpg"><img title="Trump Central Park Five" style="border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; float: none; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin: 0px auto 5px; display: block; padding-right: 0px; border-top-width: 0px" border="0" alt="Trump Central Park Five" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-rjZsamn1n8g/V-6jAmbDZUI/AAAAAAAABSc/tolAAqfgPFg/Trump-Central-Park-Five_thumb2.jpg?imgmax=800" width="549" height="772" /></a></p> <blockquote> <p align="center">BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY.</p> <p align="center">BRING BACK OUR POLICE!</p> <p>What has happened to our City over the past ten years? What has happened to law and order, to the neighborhood cop we all trusted to safeguard our homes and families, the cop who had the power under the law to help us in times of danger, keep us safe from those who would prey on innocent lives to fulfill some distorted inner need. What has happened to the respect for authority, the fear of retribution by the courts, society and the police for those who break the law, who wantonly trespass on the rights of others? What has happened is the complete breakdown of life as we knew it.</p> <p>Many New York families — White, Black, Hispanic and Asian — have had to give up the pleasure of a leisurely stroll in the Park at dusk, the Saturday visit to the playground with their families, the bike ride at dawn, or just sitting on their stoops — given them up as hostages to a world ruled by the law of the streets, as roving bands of wild criminals roam our neighborhoods, dispensing their own vicious brand of twisted hatred on whomever they encounter. At what point did we cross the line from the fine and noble pursuit of genuine civil liberties to the reckless and dangerously permissive atmosphere which allows criminals of every age to beat and rape a helpless woman and then laugh at her family’s anguish? And why do they laugh? They laugh because they know that soon, very soon, they will be returned to the streets to rape and maim and kill once again — and yet face no great personal risk to themselves.</p> <p>Mayor Koch has stated that hate and rancor should be removed from our hearts. I do not think so. I want to hate these muggers and murderers. They should be forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes. They must serve as examples so that others will think long and hard before committing a crime or an act of violence. Yes, Mayor Koch, I want to hate these murderers and I always will. I am not looking to psychoanalyze or understand them, I am looking to punish them. If the punishment is strong, the attacks on innocent people will stop. I recently watched a newscast trying to explain the “anger in these young men”. I no longer want to understand their anger. I want them to understand our anger. I want them to be afraid.</p> <p>How can our great society tolerate the continued brutalization of its citizens by crazed misfits? Criminals must be told that their CIVIL LIBERTIES END WHEN AN ATTACK ON OUR SAFETY BEGINS!</p> <p>When I was young, I sat in a diner with my father and witnessed two young bullies cursing and threatening a very frightened waitress. Two cops rushed in, lifted up the thugs and threw them out the door, warning them never to cause trouble again. I miss the feeling of security New York’s finest once gave to citizens of this City.</p> <p>Let our politicians give back our police department’s power to keep us safe. Unshackle them from the constant chant of “police brutality” which every petty criminal hurls immediately at an officer who has just risked his or her life to save another’s. We must cease our continuous pandering to the criminal population of this City. Give New York back to the citizens who have earned the right to be New Yorkers. Send a message loud and clear to those who would murder our citizens and terrorize New York — BRING BACK THE DEALTH PENALTY AND BRING BACK OUR POLICE!</p> <p>Donald J. Trump</p> </blockquote> <p>All five of the teenagers (who came to be known as the Central Park Five) eventually confessed, were tried, and convicted. The oldest (16 years old) was tried and sentenced as an adult. But because New York did not have the death penalty, the teens were spared execution.</p> <p>Which is probably a good thing because <em>all five were innocent of the crime for which they were convicted</em>.</p> <p>Another man eventually confessed to the crime and to other crimes that had been blamed on gangs of roving youth. His DNA matched that of the semen found in the victim and he knew details about the crime that the police had not publicized. Oh, the confessions of the teens? Right. Their confessions were obtained under duress, without counsel, without their parents (remember, they were minors), and were inconsistent. But the police, prosecutors, and jury all chose to ignore those inconsistencies and lack of DNA evidence tying the teens to the crime.</p> <p>In 2014, well over a decade after the Central Park Five were finally exonerated, the New York City settled a lawsuit and agreed to pay the men $40 million dollars. Not surprisingly, Donald Trump was displeased by this and so he wrote an op-ed which was published in the <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/donald-trump-central-park-settlement-disgrace-article-1.1838467">New York Daily News</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>My opinion on the settlement of the Central Park Jogger case is that it’s a disgrace. A detective close to the case, and who has followed it since 1989, calls it “the heist of the century.”</p> <p>Settling doesn’t mean innocence, but it indicates incompetence on several levels. This case has not been dormant, and many people have asked why it took so long to settle? It is politics at its lowest and worst form.</p> <p>What about the other people who were brutalized that night, in addition to the jogger?</p> <p>One thing we know is that the amount of time, energy and money that has been spent on this case is unacceptable. The justice system has a lot to answer for, as does the City of New York regarding this very mishandled disaster. Information was being leaked to newspapers by someone on the case from the beginning, and the blunders were frequent and obvious.</p> <p>As a long-time resident of New York City, I think it is ridiculous for this case to be settled — and I hope that has not yet taken place.</p> <p>Forty million dollars is a lot of money for the taxpayers of New York to pay when we are already the highest taxed city and state in the country. The recipients must be laughing out loud at the stupidity of the city.</p> <p>Speak to the detectives on the case and try listening to the facts. These young men do not exactly have the pasts of angels.</p> <p>What about all the people who were so desperately hurt and affected? I hope it’s not too late to continue to fight and that this unfortunate event will not have a repeat episode any time soon — or ever.</p> <p>As citizens and taxpayers, we deserve better than this.</p> </blockquote> <p>So why do I bring up this incident and the aftermath? Because I think that a careful look at what Trump said (and didn’t say, I suppose) helps us understand what Trump really believes and how he might act as President.</p> <p>Let’s start with is initial full page ad calling for the reinstatement of the death penalty. Not only that, though, but also calling for the death penalty <em>against minors</em>. First, it’s obviously a good thing that the teens weren’t executed (and that is precisely the reason that I do have serious concerns with capital punishment); after all, once a person is dead, it’s hard to say “oops, sorry” when the conviction is overturned and the person exonerated. I note, though, that in his 2014 op-ed, Trump never apologizes for demanding that the teens be executed or acknowledges what the ramifications might have been had New York met his demands.</p> <p>It is also worth noting that Trump’s prediction that the teens “will be returned to the streets to rape and maim and kill once again” turned out to be wrong.</p> <p>But then we get to the core of Trump’s position — and here is where Trump’s worldview really begins to get scary:</p> <blockquote> <p>I want to hate these muggers and murderers. They should be forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes. They must serve as examples so that others will think long and hard before committing a crime or an act of violence. Yes, Mayor Koch, I want to hate these murderers and I always will. </p> </blockquote> <p>Now I don’t really disagree with him at wanting to have negative feelings toward muggers and murderers, though I think “hate” is probably too strong a word; I’ll reserve that for other things (though of course each situation is fact dependent). But he wants them to “suffer”. Is that why we incarcerate criminals? As far as I’m aware, in many states the expressed reason for incarceration is punishment and rehabilitation, not to make the convicted criminal “suffer” (and yes, I do see a difference between punishment and suffering). Our Constitution specifically prohibits cruel and unusual punishment; I would argue that making criminals “suffer” because of our collective “hate” is precisely what the Constitution sought to prohibit.</p> <p>Note further, Trump’s claim that he will “always” hate these murderers. Hmm. Does that hate continue even after they’ve been exonerated? Look closely at Trump’s 2014 op-ed where Trump continues to attack the teens: “These young men do not exactly have the pasts of angels.” In Trump’s world, are we supposed to be convicting, punishing (via “suffering”), executing, and hating people who don’t have “the pasts of angels”? What happened to innocent until <em>proven</em> guilty? Are we to continue hating people who have served their time in jail or who have shown honest remorse for their actions?</p> <p>And then Trump tells us that he doesn’t want to “understand their anger”:</p> <blockquote> <p>I am not looking to psychoanalyze or understand them, I am looking to punish them. If the punishment is strong, the attacks on innocent people will stop. I recently watched a newscast trying to explain the “anger in these young men”. I no longer want to understand their anger. I want them to understand our anger. I want them to be afraid.</p> </blockquote> <p>Sadly, unless I’m mistaken, empirical studies demonstrate that punishment for certain types of crimes doesn’t act as much of a deterrent. More importantly, why did (does?) Trump not want to understand the anger being expressed via criminal act? To understand something isn’t to agree with or condone it. But to understand something may be the best way to try to counter it or prevent it. For example, if the anger is fueled by lack of opportunity or by terrible schools or by a sense of institutionalized racism, then aren’t those things that we, as a society, can and should address? If crime is an outlet when there isn’t any hope or when there aren’t any socially acceptable (and legal) activities for youth, then isn’t that something that we can try to alleviate? What if these teens had an opportunity to play in youth sports leagues, or receive good mentoring, or had schools from which they saw a path to graduation and eventual employment at a living wage? But if we’re not offering even those sorts of opportunity, should we be totally surprised at youthful anger?</p> <p>Look, I don’t know what was going on in the minds of Central Park Five, whether they were guilty of other crimes, whether they were troublemakers or just kids in the wrong place at the wrong time, whether poverty and the like were the primary motivating factors in their behaviors, or whether they were evil. But it seems that just being angry, just wanting to punish, and not wanting to <em>understand</em> means that you don’t want to find ways to solve the problem at all. Punishment may be a balm for a raw nerve but it probably won’t stop the next criminal act motivated by the same underlying factors.</p> <p>This point has application beyond just local crime, too. Re-read Trump’s words about not wanting to understand and wanting the criminals to be afraid. But this time, instead of thinking of a bunch of criminals in New York City, think of al-Qaeda or ISIS or even homegrown terrorists:</p> <blockquote> <p>I am not looking to psychoanalyze or understand them, I am looking to punish them. If the punishment is strong, the attacks on innocent people will stop. I recently watched a newscast trying to explain the “anger in these young men”. I no longer want to understand their anger. I want them to understand our anger. I want them to be afraid.</p> </blockquote> <p>Again, I would argue that understanding their anger (understanding, not accepting) is likely the first step toward <em>stopping</em> it. We’ve been punishing terrorists with bombs and missiles and troops. And they may, in fact, be afraid. But they haven’t stopped, have they?</p> <p>Trump then asks rhetorically, “How can our great society tolerate the continued brutalization of its citizens by crazed misfits?” While he was characterizing violent teenagers as “crazed misfits” couldn’t his accusation be equally applicable today to mass shootings in our shopping malls and movie theaters? For that matter, couldn’t his accusation also be applicable to the shooting of unarmed, often innocent civilians, by the police? Or what about the bankers who allow the housing market to collapse (or to billionaires who cheered for its collapse) or companies who pollute our air and water? Somehow I doubt that Trump 2016 would recognize those comparisons with Trump 1989.</p> <p>But then we come to the most damning sentence in Trump’s op-ed and the sentence that led me to write this post in the first place:</p> <blockquote> <p>Criminals must be told that their CIVIL LIBERTIES END WHEN AN ATTACK ON OUR SAFETY BEGINS!</p> </blockquote> <p>First, the Constitution doesn’t provide that rights end when someone becomes a criminal; just the opposite, in fact. The Constitution provides for a right to a trial by jury, a right to a speedy trial, a right against unreasonable searches and seizures, and perhaps most importantly, a right against cruel and unusual punishment. In the years since the Constitution was adopted, courts have recognized that suspects have to be told their rights (Miranda warnings), have a right to an attorney, and, if I’m not mistaken, if they are minors, have a right to the presence of their parents. The need for these rights should be self-obvious, but this is Donald Trump that we’re talking about so it’s quite possible that he just doesn’t get it or just doesn’t care.</p> <p>So once again, take Trump’s claim that civil liberties end when an attack on our safety begins and imagine how he might put that into play as President. He’s already told us that he would reinstate the use of torture against terrorists, but of course the question of <em>whether</em> someone is a terrorist would not have been adjudicated at the time that the torture was being used, would it? He’s told us (including during the first debate) that he would reinstate the unconstitutional “stop & frisk” tactic and has even said that he wanted police to take guns away from “bad people” (again without any sort of prior adjudication of who is “bad”; I have to wonder if it depends on the color of their skin or the language that they speak).</p> <p>When you combine the ideas of making criminals “suffer” with a claim that they lose their “civil liberties” then doesn’t Trump’s America begin to look like one of those Third World hellholes he seems to already believe America to be? The Central Park Five <em>did</em> have civil liberties and they were <em>still</em> wrongly convicted. What would happen if we didn’t grant <em>accused</em> criminals their civil liberties in the first place? Does Trump’s call for the reinstatement of torture only apply to terrorists or would he support torturing accused violent criminals to obtain information or confessions? How would we explain years of suffering at the hands of the state if a criminal was eventually exonerated? But that is the America that Trump was demanding in 1989 and, seemingly, still wants today.</p> <p>Trump also relates a quaint tale from his youth of police roughing up a couple of bullies. This anecdote prompted me to wonder about three things: First, why didn’t Trump’s father intervene? Why didn’t he teach young Donald how to stick up for others? Did the elder Trump sit idly by while the waitress was being harassed instead of asking the bullies to stop? And if not, what kind of lesson did that teach young Donald (and was he orange as a child…)? Second, why didn’t the police arrest the “thugs”? Why put them back on the street to terrorize the waitress (or others) again? And third, why is it that Trump’s “feeling of security” only came about from the police using force? Perhaps force, along with money, are the only things that Trump really understands. We know that he seems not to object by the use of force by police; after all, witness his criticism of complaints of police brutality in the very next paragraph where he seems to be demanding that police be “unshackled” from prohibitions on the use of unnecessary force. Would the event have been less had the police simply talked to the bullies to defuse the situation or was it the use of force, even if only minor force, that made an impact upon Trump? Maybe that’s why he has been so quick to advocate violence against protestors at his rallies.</p> <p>And what exactly did Trump mean when he talked about “citizens who have earned the right to be New Yorkers”? Was he suggesting that some people, oh, I don’t know, maybe those who have darker skin, haven’t “earned the right” be New Yorkers? What does one do to “earn” that right?</p> <p>Moving on to Trump’s 2014 op-ed, the first thing that strikes me is his claim is that “Settling doesn’t mean innocence”. That’s true. Of course, with regard to the Central Park Five, the confession of another man who had specific knowledge of the crime and who was tied to the crime by DNA evidence probably does mean innocence. Moreover, it’s worth noting that when Trump spoke during the first debate about the lawsuit against for racial discrimination in housing, he talked about settling without an admission of guilt <em>as if that settlement did, indeed, prove his innocence.</em> So which is it? Does a settlement prove innocence or not? You can’t have it both ways.</p> <p>It’s also interesting to see how, in 2014, Trump attributes all sorts of incompetence, political meddling, leaks, and so forth to the handling of the original case, yet way back in 1989, he didn’t seem worried about anything getting in the way of his rush to judgment and demand for the death penalty, did he?</p> <p>Trump was also highly critical of the settlement, both in terms of the case being settled at all and the amount. Of course, in reaching that settlement, the City likely had access to all sorts of information relating to the likelihood of success in the litigation and the possible damages that could be assessed; perhaps a $40 million settlement seemed reasonable given the possible outcomes. Apparently, Trump knows more about this case than did New York City officials, much like he claims to know more about ISIS than our generals.</p> <p>Notice, too, what Trump does <em>not</em> say or acknowledge in his op-ed. He doesn’t apologize for demanding that five innocent teens be subject to the death penalty. He doesn’t acknowledge that the teens were wrongly convicted or that they spent between 6 and 13 years in prison <em>for a crime they didn’t commit</em>. He doesn’t acknowledge that the police acted illegally by coercing minors into giving false confessions. And of course he doesn’t acknowledge that his own actions and accusations may have poisoned the jury pool or inflamed public sentiment in a way that pushed police and prosecutors to act in a certain way and not consider other possible perpetrators or inconsistences. But if there’s one thing that we’ve learned watching Trump’s bid for the White House, it’s that Donald J. Trump is never, <em>never</em>, NEVER at fault if something goes wrong. Nope. Trump was the shining light of truth and goodness when he demanded that innocent teens be executed. Let’s Make America Great Again!</p> <p>Furthermore, and this is a bit afield, but I want to look at the last part of the opening paragraph of Trump’s 1989 ad. However, instead of thinking about the police and how they should respond to violent criminals, think instead about New York billionaires who engage in racial discrimination in housing and employment, who establish fake “universities” to defraud people out of their retirement, who sue and get sued at almost unprecedented rates for, among other things, refusing to pay for services rendered and goods delivered, and, when things don’t go their way in the courts, either settle the cases or argue that the system or the judges are biased, who like to plaster their names on everything, seemingly in a need to satisfy and unquenchable ego, who bribe public officials with money taken from a charity and who appropriate charitable funds to enrich themselves, and who are “smart” because they don’t pay taxes or who circumvent the law to do business with Cuba despite an embargo they claim to support. With that in mind, read Trump’s words again (emphasis added):</p> <blockquote> <p>who had the power under the law to help us in times of danger, <em>keep us safe from those who would prey on innocent lives to fulfill some distorted inner need</em>. <em>What has happened to the respect for authority, the fear of retribution by the courts, society and the police for those who break the law, who wantonly trespass on the rights of others</em>? What has happened is the complete breakdown of life as we knew it.</p> </blockquote> <p>Was Trump anticipating the need for the FBI and the New York Attorney General (and others) to keep Americans safe from <em>Trump</em>?</p> <p>Finally, thinking back to Trump’s actions in the Central Park Five matter, ponder for a moment how a President Trump might respond in the event of another tragic event. Would he be calling for calm with pleas to allow the police to complete their investigation and for the justice system to work … or would he be atop the leading the howling masses with the proverbial pitchfork, stoking and inflaming the fires of revenge and retribution, facts and the rule of law be damned?</p> <p>Please don’t allow Donald Trump — a racist, xenophobic, fascist — to become President. Please.</p> <p><em>Update October 7, 2016:</em> I just came across an article on CNN referring to a <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/06/politics/reality-check-donald-trump-central-park-5/index.html">statement that Trump gave this week to a CNN reporter</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>“They admitted they were guilty,” Trump said this week in a statement to CNN’s Miguel Marquez. “The police doing the original investigation say they were guilty. The fact that that case was settled with so much evidence against them is outrageous. And the woman, so badly injured, will never be the same.”</p> </blockquote> <p>Now think about that for a moment. Trump still believes that the five teens were guilty <em>even though another man confessed to the crime and his DNA matched the semen of the woman’s rapist</em>. And Trump still looks to the confessions of the teens <em>even though they were obtained under duress while the teens were deprived of certain constitutional rights</em>. Hmm. So what does it say about Trump that he ignores exonerating evidence (maybe he doesn’t understand DNA?) and is willing to accept coerced confessions? Do we really want that sort of person to be President?</p>MSWallackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04025607935715642114noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5222839876578062342.post-53453769345884631492016-09-14T17:30:00.000-04:002016-09-14T17:30:04.937-04:00Is the Media Really Showing a Bias for Clinton and Against Trump?<p>We often hear references to the “liberal media”. Donald Trump, in particular, has made accusations against the “dishonest” and “liberal” media a hallmark of his campaign rhetoric, following up on years (or even decades) of similar attacks from Republicans generally. So let me pose a few questions regarding the alleged liberal bias of the media.</p> <p>First, if the media does, indeed, have a liberal bias, why isn’t Jill Stein getting more airtime and coverage? Why isn’t she being asked to participate in the debates? Stein and the Green Party are well to the left of both Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, so why aren’t they the recipients of the liberal largesse of the media?</p> <p>Second, if the media is, indeed, biased in favor of Clinton (and/or against Trump), why have we been hearing so much about her email “scandal” and about the Clinton Foundation? If the “liberal” media was “in the tank” for Clinton, then shouldn’t we expect to be told that these things are complete fabrications or non-issues rather than having them treated as serious issues worthy of discussion by hours and hours of talking heads and column inch after column inch of print reporting? For that matter, how many times have you heard the media refer to Clinton as being “disliked” or having “trust issues”? Again, if the “liberal media” were really trying to get her elected, then wouldn’t we be hearing the opposite?</p> <p>Third, if the media was really biased against Trump (and/or for Clinton), then why haven’t we seen wall-to-wall news coverage of a scope similar to that paid to Clinton’s emails (or the Clinton Foundation or Benghazi or the Lewinsky affair, <em>etc.</em>) but focused, instead, on Trump’s <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/donald-trump-scandals/474726/">controversies</a>, such as:</p> <ul> <li>the pending lawsuit against Trump alleging that he <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/why-the-new-child-rape-ca_b_10619944.html">raped a 13-year-old girl</a>; </li> <li>that he perpetrated a fraud on thousands of people in the guise of “Trump University”; </li> <li>that he (or his foundation) essentially bribed the Florida Attorney General to drop the investigation into Trump University; </li> <li>that he has been linked over the years to the New York City mafia; </li> <li>racial discrimination and tenant intimidation in his apartment projects; </li> <li>racial discrimination in his casino employment practices;</li> <li>hiring undocumented Polish workers to build Trump Tower, not providing them with appropriate safety gear, and paying them below minimum wage (if at all); </li> <li>the claim by Ivana Trump, during their divorce proceedings, that he’d raped her; </li> <li>the numerous fines that Trump had to pay when his casinos violated all sorts of laws; </li> <li>his responsibility for causing the United States Football League to collapse (but remember, he’s a “great” businessman!); </li> <li>other business deals that have gone bad leaving all sorts of lawsuits in their wake (not to mention the multiple bankruptcies of Trump businesses); </li> <li>the repeated refusal to pay contractors for work that they’d performed on Trump properties; </li> <li>Trump’s failed libel lawsuit against a reporter for, you know, reporting about the things that Trump had claimed; </li> <li>marrying a woman who may have entered the country under false pretenses (thus making her an illegal immigrant); </li> <li>Trump’s apparently hollow claims of charitable giving (which might be confirmed by his tax returns…); or </li> <li>using his foundation’s charity money (given by others to the foundation, not by Trump himself) to purchase, at other charity auctions, a artwork and a collectible souvenir <em>for Trump.</em> </li> </ul> <p>And the list goes on and on and on…</p> <p>Similarly, a large part of his “appeal” is his claim to be a very successful businessman, yet how much time has the media spent <em>really</em> digging into and reporting upon just how “successful” he has really been and just how bad some of his business ventures were (<em>e.g.</em>, Trump Shuttle, Trump steaks, <em>Trump Magazine</em>, or condo hotels, to name just a few)? How much money have investors in his projects lost? How many contractors have been stiffed? How many fines has he paid? Hoosier voters might want to remind themselves about <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/07/how-trump-broke-his-promise-fund-major-charitable-foundation">Trump’s broken promises to Indiana investors and broken promises to provide charitable funding</a> when he wanted a casino in Gary. Ask yourself this: What might we learn if the “liberal” media spent even 10% of the time and effort that they’ve spent investigating Clinton’s emails to investigate Trump’s scandals?</p> <p>And though this is slightly off topic, I do want to take a quick look at point for which Trump is receiving criticism but for which, I suspect, Clinton would get far, far more criticism were she to make a similar comment. Over the last few months, Trump has repeatedly praised Vladimir Putin. Even many Republicans have been uncomfortable with that praise and Trump’s seeming refusal to recognize that Putin is running a repressive regime that is willingly to assassinate political opponents and invade neighboring countries. But consider what the response might be were Clinton to make a statement praising Raul Castro or … well, almost any other leader of a country with whom we have a tense relationship?. What would the reaction have been if Clinton talked about how “strong” Putin was? We’d be hearing screaming about a “weak” woman being intimidated by a strong man, wouldn’t we?</p> <p>Now, I’m not suggesting that some (even many) reporters are not, themselves, liberals or Democrats. But I would argue that because of that many feel that they need to bend over backwards to prove that they are not biased and, in so doing, evidence a sort of reverse bias. In any event, don’t simply accept the narrative or accusation that the media is biased for Clinton or against Trump. Rather, consider the full scope of information being provided and think for yourself whether the candidates are being treated equally.</p> <p>And please, please don’t let Donald Trump become President of the United States.</p>MSWallackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04025607935715642114noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5222839876578062342.post-31121341252301197712016-08-30T17:30:00.001-04:002016-08-31T15:54:17.692-04:00Why Do I Support Hillary Clinton? The Issues!<p>A few days ago during an exasperating discussion on Facebook, the person with whom I was engaging said, “if you feel that Clinton is a better candidate than Trump then state your reasons.” Generally speaking, I feel that I’ve done so on this blog, over and over and over, sometimes with specific references to Clinton, sometimes with broader references to the Democratic party or to liberal or progressive ideas (or with criticisms of GOP or conservative ideas), and yet other times by my detailed posts on issues about which I’m passionate or which somehow move me to pick up my pen (or, I suppose, put fingers on keyboard).</p> <p>But the request (demand?) that I “state my reasons” for thinking that Clinton is a better candidate than Trump got me thinking. I seem to recall, either in 2008 or 2012, coming across a website that offered a detailed set of issue questions for a voter to answer in order to compare the voter’s views with those of the candidates. Sadly, I couldn’t remember the address of the website; luckily, there is Google.</p> <p>After finding <a href="http://www.isidewith.com/">I Side With</a>, I decided to take the policy survey. I encourage you to do the same. See which candidate most aligns with your views and, for those issues with which you are not familiar, take some time to learn a little. I’m sure that there are some people who will find fault with the questions, whether on the basis of the issues queried or the phrasing of the questions or answers. But, for the most part, I thought that the questions were broad in scope covering a vast range of the issues. Moreover, I found that the bulk of the questions were written in a neutral tone designed to generate honest answers and opinions rather than drive results to a particular answer or candidate.</p> <p>A few quick notes before I share my results: First, I answered <em>every</em> question. At the end of many of the sections, you can click to get more questions in that general topic area. I did so and so should you. The more questions presented, the more issues you can spend a few moments thinking about and the more opportunity to compare your views to those of the candidates. Second, most of the questions are initially presented with a binary choice of answers (yes/no, for example), but almost all of them have a third button that will present several other possible answers (usually framed as “other stances”), often more nuanced or detailed than the initial binary choices. I <em>always</em> clicked to see the other possible answers and so should you as that provides you an opportunity to give a more granular, detailed response when appropriate. Third, when you do ask to see other stances, you are also presented with a chance to type in your own answer. On a number of occasions, I was tempted to do so, but I wasn’t sure how the website’s algorithm could possibly interpret a free text response and score it against the views of the candidates. Thus, with one exception, I never chose to enter my own answer, choosing instead to simply pick the answer from those provided that most closely matched my own view (the exception was a question on voter ID where two possible answers were both precisely right from my view and thus I typed in my own answer which was a word-for-word combination of those two answers).</p> <p>Perhaps most importantly, I did <em>not</em> try to “game” the system. I didn’t look at a question and ask myself, “What would Clinton answer”. Nor did I try to think about the “right” answer or the answer that someone would expect from a progressive, liberal, or Democrat, in general, or from me, in particular, to give. Rather, I thought about each question and tried to answer with my honest view (or with the answer that best approximated my honest view). I answered with the expectation that nobody would ever see my answers and that I didn’t need to try to prove anything with my answers.</p> <p>The one thing that did give me some difficulty was identifying, for each issue, how strongly I felt about it. Sure, it was easy to indicate those issues about which I feel strongly or about which I don’t really care. But trying to identify how strongly I felt about many of the issues in the middle range was more difficult. So I did my best. I’m sure that if I took the test again, how strongly I felt about each issue would likely vary somewhat for many questions, but not for those about which I do feel strongly.</p> <p>Anyway, with all of that in mind, I encourage you to visit <a href="http://www.isidewith.com/">I Side With</a> and take the quiz. Give yourself some time so that you can think about the issues and answer all of the questions. When you’re done, come back and we can compare results. (It’s also worth noting that new questions are, periodically, added to the site, so it may be worth going back from time-to-time before the election.)</p> <p>My results:</p> <p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-zAxXFrLJc5s/V8W3taBAALI/AAAAAAAABQM/n4dk8ZmnmlM/s1600-h/Snap%2525202016-08-30%252520at%25252012.27.15%25255B4%25255D.png"><img title="Snap 2016-08-30 at 12.27.15" style="border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; float: none; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin: 0px auto 5px; display: block; padding-right: 0px; border-top-width: 0px" border="0" alt="Snap 2016-08-30 at 12.27.15" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-8xEyK2Nq6-Y/V8W3tqibq7I/AAAAAAAABQQ/5RdNl0maGvM/Snap%2525202016-08-30%252520at%25252012.27.15_thumb%25255B2%25255D.png?imgmax=800" width="524" height="590" /></a></p> <p>Below is a more detailed comparison of my responses to Clinton’s positions. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find a better way to share this information other than in a screenshot (which was not easy to obtain given the page layout). (I believe that the distinction between the 97% above and the 96% below is that I answered a new question subsequent to generating the screen capture below.)</p> <p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-bEpGWmPtY2I/V8c116bOsKI/AAAAAAAABQo/t2VZYS4xetI/s1600-h/I%252520Side%252520With%252520%25255B2016-08-26%25255D%2525201%25255B5%25255D.png"><img title="I Side With [2016-08-26] 1" style="border-top: 0px; border-right: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom: 0px; float: none; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-left: 0px; margin: 0px auto 5px; display: block; padding-right: 0px" border="0" alt="I Side With [2016-08-26] 1" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-siecv9mSd14/V8c12JZdbQI/AAAAAAAABQs/IwoteqV4vN4/I%252520Side%252520With%252520%25255B2016-08-26%25255D%2525201_thumb%25255B8%25255D.png?imgmax=800" width="520" height="673" /></a></p> <p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-OTbp6JezUNw/V8c12X3IqYI/AAAAAAAABQw/cNlxUCJiCQM/s1600-h/I%252520Side%252520With%252520%25255B2016-08-26%25255D%2525202%25255B4%25255D.png"><img title="I Side With [2016-08-26] 2" style="border-top: 0px; border-right: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom: 0px; float: none; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-left: 0px; margin: 0px auto 5px; display: block; padding-right: 0px" border="0" alt="I Side With [2016-08-26] 2" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-yvVZgtu3vjg/V8c12qplhKI/AAAAAAAABQ0/7MfCwm0Ahto/I%252520Side%252520With%252520%25255B2016-08-26%25255D%2525202_thumb%25255B6%25255D.png?imgmax=800" width="520" height="645" /></a><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-_es-lpFu4_Y/V8c126o72wI/AAAAAAAABQ4/Oalmz3z7fp4/s1600-h/I%252520Side%252520With%252520%25255B2016-08-26%25255D%2525203%25255B4%25255D.png"><img title="I Side With [2016-08-26] 3" style="border-top: 0px; border-right: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom: 0px; float: none; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-left: 0px; margin: 0px auto 5px; display: block; padding-right: 0px" border="0" alt="I Side With [2016-08-26] 3" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Shpof2kZIwg/V8c120bITYI/AAAAAAAABQ8/zgX-Mk-l148/I%252520Side%252520With%252520%25255B2016-08-26%25255D%2525203_thumb%25255B5%25255D.png?imgmax=800" width="521" height="700" /></a><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-9Y5N_7p2Bck/V8c13Cib5eI/AAAAAAAABRA/ihpbj6NwR2Q/s1600-h/I%252520Side%252520With%252520%25255B2016-08-26%25255D%2525204%25255B4%25255D.png"><img title="I Side With [2016-08-26] 4" style="border-top: 0px; border-right: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom: 0px; float: none; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-left: 0px; margin: 0px auto 5px; display: block; padding-right: 0px" border="0" alt="I Side With [2016-08-26] 4" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-jFn1a-qhQDw/V8c13bbxi3I/AAAAAAAABRE/AEPcmsWI_3w/I%252520Side%252520With%252520%25255B2016-08-26%25255D%2525204_thumb%25255B5%25255D.png?imgmax=800" width="517" height="705" /></a><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-g_wLPa3a8Wc/V8c13oOgnVI/AAAAAAAABRI/7KrFPD49h8g/s1600-h/I%252520Side%252520With%252520%25255B2016-08-26%25255D%2525205%25255B4%25255D.png"><img title="I Side With [2016-08-26] 5" style="border-top: 0px; border-right: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom: 0px; float: none; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-left: 0px; margin: 0px auto 5px; display: block; padding-right: 0px" border="0" alt="I Side With [2016-08-26] 5" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Pn0UcA84nm0/V8c13yT25zI/AAAAAAAABRM/N1mlmWB6nns/I%252520Side%252520With%252520%25255B2016-08-26%25255D%2525205_thumb%25255B5%25255D.png?imgmax=800" width="517" height="680" /></a><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-C-NS1FhSKGI/V8c14ECymII/AAAAAAAABRQ/xeDlh9fIgPE/s1600-h/I%252520Side%252520With%252520%25255B2016-08-26%25255D%2525206%25255B3%25255D.png"><img title="I Side With [2016-08-26] 6" style="border-top: 0px; border-right: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom: 0px; float: none; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-left: 0px; margin: 0px auto 5px; display: block; padding-right: 0px" border="0" alt="I Side With [2016-08-26] 6" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-32jomz7yyAw/V8c14ILTiEI/AAAAAAAABRU/TiWun4fz31o/I%252520Side%252520With%252520%25255B2016-08-26%25255D%2525206_thumb%25255B1%25255D.png?imgmax=800" width="524" height="675" /></a><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-a0CEydTk6c8/V8c14UYJG1I/AAAAAAAABRY/fwtSDx81RHo/s1600-h/I%252520Side%252520With%252520%25255B2016-08-26%25255D%2525207%25255B3%25255D.png"><img title="I Side With [2016-08-26] 7" style="border-top: 0px; border-right: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom: 0px; float: none; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-left: 0px; margin: 0px auto 5px; display: block; padding-right: 0px" border="0" alt="I Side With [2016-08-26] 7" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-s1vRTumk8vQ/V8c14u9HFBI/AAAAAAAABRc/arfCYIML7lA/I%252520Side%252520With%252520%25255B2016-08-26%25255D%2525207_thumb%25255B1%25255D.png?imgmax=800" width="524" height="709" /></a><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-aP1Ddzgqyh8/V8c143SgwBI/AAAAAAAABRg/5ewohP6a5-A/s1600-h/I%252520Side%252520With%252520%25255B2016-08-26%25255D%2525208%25255B4%25255D.png"><img title="I Side With [2016-08-26] 8" style="border-top: 0px; border-right: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom: 0px; float: none; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-left: 0px; margin: 0px auto 5px; display: block; padding-right: 0px" border="0" alt="I Side With [2016-08-26] 8" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-HUm3nXgdb7w/V8c15Cu79SI/AAAAAAAABRk/UVxLHgZoGUw/I%252520Side%252520With%252520%25255B2016-08-26%25255D%2525208_thumb%25255B5%25255D.png?imgmax=800" width="516" height="660" /></a><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-AUvXyIgj2Kc/V8c15NRuDlI/AAAAAAAABRo/YucMo3zu1hM/s1600-h/I%252520Side%252520With%252520%25255B2016-08-26%25255D%2525209%25255B3%25255D.png"><img title="I Side With [2016-08-26] 9" style="border-top: 0px; border-right: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom: 0px; float: none; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-left: 0px; margin: 0px auto 5px; display: block; padding-right: 0px" border="0" alt="I Side With [2016-08-26] 9" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-L8r6y6haHmw/V8c15VqihwI/AAAAAAAABRs/IxT3Y3-Jwu8/I%252520Side%252520With%252520%25255B2016-08-26%25255D%2525209_thumb%25255B1%25255D.png?imgmax=800" width="524" height="668" /></a><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-GvvzaeNyl3E/V8c15ruMA-I/AAAAAAAABRw/ydhGfkKqS1w/s1600-h/I%252520Side%252520With%252520%25255B2016-08-26%25255D%25252010%25255B3%25255D.png"><img title="I Side With [2016-08-26] 10" style="border-top: 0px; border-right: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom: 0px; float: none; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-left: 0px; margin: 0px auto 5px; display: block; padding-right: 0px" border="0" alt="I Side With [2016-08-26] 10" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-bw0xYhPW2v0/V8c158XvgXI/AAAAAAAABR0/Lek5zbl1EsQ/I%252520Side%252520With%252520%25255B2016-08-26%25255D%25252010_thumb%25255B1%25255D.png?imgmax=800" width="524" height="705" /></a><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-7G7wQSh8DTM/V8c16AyMe_I/AAAAAAAABR4/oLD6V-CJv6A/s1600-h/I%252520Side%252520With%252520%25255B2016-08-26%25255D%25252011%25255B3%25255D.png"><img title="I Side With [2016-08-26] 11" style="border-top: 0px; border-right: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom: 0px; float: none; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-left: 0px; margin: 0px auto 5px; display: block; padding-right: 0px" border="0" alt="I Side With [2016-08-26] 11" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-xcaoEibLurk/V8c16W8OyPI/AAAAAAAABR8/_UcpJ75fIFc/I%252520Side%252520With%252520%25255B2016-08-26%25255D%25252011_thumb%25255B1%25255D.png?imgmax=800" width="524" height="498" /></a></p> <p>Any issues you’d like to discuss?</p> <p><em>Updated August 31, 2016</em>: The original image that I used to show the comparison of my answers to Clinton’s didn’t display properly. So I’ve deleted that giant image and replaced it with a series of smaller (oddly cropped) screen captures.</p>MSWallackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04025607935715642114noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5222839876578062342.post-90529975431321517522016-08-26T17:30:00.000-04:002016-08-26T17:30:00.158-04:00Let’s Look at Who Has Endorsed Donald Trump … and Then Ask Why<p><em>I started this post about 10 days ago, but time has been limited. Anyway, yesterday afternoon, I was able to listen to some of Hillary Clinton’s speech on the same issues that this post addresses. Part of me was thrilled that these issues were being discussed, but if I’m being honest, I have to admit that a small part of me was annoyed that she addressed these points before I could post my blog. Oh, well. I don’t feel like just throwing away the work I’ve done, so I’m posting what I have completed.</em></p> <p><em>It is well worth taking the time to go and listen to Clinton’s speech on these topics:</em></p> <div style="text-align: center; margin: auto"><object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" style="width:560px; height:315px;" data="//www.youtube.com/v/_soeyHVrawY?color2=FBE9EC&rel=0&version=3"> <param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/_soeyHVrawY?color2=FBE9EC&rel=0&version=3" /> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /> </object> <div style="font-size: 0.8em"> </div> </div> <p>I want to spend some time examining what some of Donald Trump’s supporters are saying about him, his candidacy, and the issues that he is discussing (or, perhaps to be more accurate, the issues that they <em>hear</em> him discussing).</p> <p>I’ll start with <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/thomas-robb">Thomas Robb</a>, the national director of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (he is the successor to David Duke), pastor at the Christian Revival Center, and proponent of anti-Semitic Christian Identity theology. When Robb <a href="http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/03/10/knights-of-the-ku-klux-klan-leader-praises-trum/209137">appeared on Alan Colmes show</a>, he was asked, specifically about Donald Trump and “white culture” (emphasis added):</p> <blockquote> <p>ALAN COLMES (HOST): What will Donald Trump do for white culture?</p> <p>THOMAS ROBB: Well, I was going to say a wall built. You know, you say it won’t happen, maybe it won’t, I don't know. It needs to happen. I’d like to see our national debt reduced. Probably it won’t happen, but it needs to. At least he’s saying something. That’s the point. Whether he does it or doesn’t do it, whether he can accomplish it or doesn’t accomplish it, at least he’s saying things that many, many people in this country are identifying with and are saying, “Yeah, that needs to be done.” So it isn’t Donald Trump that you guys are concerned with. <em>You’re not afraid of Donald Trump. You’re afraid of the masses of people, the millions of people supporting Donald Trump becoming awakened to what they feel to be a country that’s being taken away from them.</em> </p> </blockquote> <p>For a little context for Robb’s comments, it’s worth noting that his website states (sourced from the <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/thomas-robb">Southern Poverty Law Center</a>):</p> <blockquote> <p>We believe that the Anglo Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, and kindred people are THE people of the Bible — God’s separated and anointed Israel.” The statement goes on to declare, “Our people must … resist the call of Satan, which the Bible says will come disguised as light and love … brotherly – interracial love</p> </blockquote> <p>Robb also said, following the election of President Obama in 2008, that he saw a “race war … between our people, who I see as the rightful owners and leaders of this great country, and their people, the blacks.”</p> <p>Charming fellow, no? You have to wonder whether he views “his people” — who he thinks of as the “rightful owners” of the country — to also be the “rightful owners” of “the blacks” to whom this country clearly does not belong (at least not in his racist worldview).</p> <p>Then there is <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/don-black">Don Black</a>, a former KKK leader who runs the white supremacist (Nazi?) website Stormfront (to which I will not link), which was until recently often thought of as the largest hate site on the Internet and which remains very influential among white supremacists, Nazis, anti-Semites, and others who are … um … let’s just say less than welcoming of the idea of racial and religious diversity. </p> <blockquote> <p>Don Black … said he noted a spike in visits to his site after Trump unveiled his proposed Muslim ban. Trump “has clearly been a benefit to us,” Black said, referring to his community of white supremacists.</p> <p>“There's an insurgency among our people that has been seething for decades that have felt intimidated and demoralized,” he added. “The Trump candidacy has changed all that.”</p> </blockquote> <p>(<a href="https://news.vice.com/article/white-supremacists-are-loving-donald-trumps-presidential-campaign">White Supremacists Are Loving Donald Trump's Presidential Campaign</a>, Vice News, December 13, 2015.) Black also said, “Most of our people are pretty disenchanted with politics. Most of them usually don't vote, because there's no one to vote for… They will vote for Trump, though.” And:</p> <blockquote> <p>All I know is that our people — white nationalists and white Middle America out there who would never call themselves that — are inspired and energized,” he said. “And I don't think that's going to go away. Trump is doing a great thing.”</p> </blockquote> <p>Again, for context, here are some other things that Black has said (sourced from the <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/don-black">Southern Poverty Law Center</a>):</p> <blockquote> <p>The people that visit Stormfront have a righteous indignation to the Israelization of America. Zionism unbound, that is what goes on in Washington, D.C., these days. … [T]he Jewish people demolish homes abroad and condition peoples minds with the media here in the U.S.A.</p> </blockquote> <p>And:</p> <blockquote> <p>I remember [the 1950s] quite well, that a lot of people were mad about blacks. They were mad about school integration and black crime…. [B]ut … it was kind of rare to find someone that really, fully understood the Jewish involvement … behind all of this promotion of the destruction of culture and our heritage, the destruction of our schools and our neighborhoods. … [W]ith the Internet — and, I think, with this involvement in the Middle East, American involvement in the Middle East — everything’s changed. I mean, we have to calm down people sometimes on Stormfront about the Jews.</p> </blockquote> <p>And:</p> <blockquote> <p>I get nonstop E-mails and private messages from new people who are mad as hell about the possibility of Obama being elected. White people, for a long time, have thought of our government as being for us, and Obama is the best possible evidence that we’ve lost that. This is scaring a lot of people who maybe never considered themselves racists, and it’s bringing them over to our side.</p> </blockquote> <p>Consider this last quote in light of the quote above from Thomas Robb where he talks about “becoming awakened to what they feel to be a country that’s being taken away from them”.</p> <p>Then there are <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/islamophobes-white-supremacists-and-gays-for-trump-the-alt-right-arrives-at-the-rnc/">these statements</a> from <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/richard-bertrand-spencer-0">Richard Spencer</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>I think with Trump, you shouldn’t look at his policies. His policies aren’t important. What’s most important about Trump is the emotion. He’s awakened a sense of ‘Us’ a sense of nationalism among white people. He’s done more to awaken that nationalism than anyone in my lifetime. I love the man.” </p> </blockquote> <p>And:</p> <blockquote> <p>What I care about is not just about being comfortable. It’s not just about safety, or national security. White people are unique in the sense that, we are the ones who are going to explore the world. We’ll need our own state eventually, for our Faustian destiny to explore the outer universe. That is what we were put on this earth to do. We weren’t put on this earth to be nice to minorities, or to be a multiculti fun nation. </p> </blockquote> <p>And:</p> <blockquote> <p>When I look at Thomas Jefferson’s writings, the Declaration of Independence, it makes me want to vomit. The idea that a ‘creator’ made all human beings equal? That’s ridiculous. The idea that all human beings are equal is such an appalling sentiment. We’re here on this earth for such a short period of time. The idea that we would dedicate ourselves to something as stupid as ‘equality’ or ‘democracy’ is morally insulting to me.</p> </blockquote> <p>And:</p> <blockquote> <p>I think we should be pro-Russia, because Russia is the great white power that exists in the world. I’m a Slavophile! I admire Vladimir Putin. I think Trump and Putin, together, could bring about a united white world. It’s beautiful</p> </blockquote> <p>Or these (sourced from the <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/richard-bertrand-spencer-0">Southern Poverty Law Center</a>):</p> <blockquote> <p>Martin Luther King Jr., a fraud and degenerate in his life, has become the symbol and cynosure of White Dispossession and the deconstruction of Occidental civilization. We must overcome!</p> </blockquote> <p>And:</p> <blockquote> <p>Immigration is a kind a proxy war—and maybe a last stand—for White Americans, who are undergoing a painful recognition that, unless dramatic action is taken, their grandchildren will live in a country that is alien and hostile.</p> </blockquote> <p>And:</p> <blockquote> <p>Our dream is a new society, an ethno-state that would be a gathering point for all Europeans. It would be a new society based on very different ideals than, say, the Declaration of Independence.</p> </blockquote> <p>Seems like a nice guy, too, don’t you think?</p> <p>[All of that and I hadn’t even gotten to my discussion of David Duke!]</p> <p>One might also ask why the Trump campaign has given press credentials to white supremacists while, at the same time, withholding press credentials from serious journalists? Again, seriously.</p> <p>It’s also worth noting that, in some ways, there is a sort of mutual admiration between white supremacists and Trump. How else can we explain Trump retweeting, not once, but often, false statistics, images, and other memes from white supremacists on Twitter (including some with user names like “WhiteGenocideTM” and “WhiteGenocideT1” and others with Nazi-inspired avatars or profiles that praise Hitler)? Trump of course dismisses these sorts of concerns <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/trump-defends-tweeting-fabricated-racist-murder-statistics-cd2d6a0f74ac#.m1f2h2r25">asking</a> “Am I gonna check every statistic?” Um, yes, Donald, if you want to be President, you have an obligation not to perpetuate racist lies and to make an effort to be sure that things that you say are <em>true</em>. After all, if you get your “news” from the <em>National Enquirer</em> or the dark underbelly of white nationalist websites, then what decisions might you make as President?</p> <p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-8DNEAQuPVms/V8B_nK9QPjI/AAAAAAAABP0/EjqOA8v4OJ0/s1600-h/0_NjUNWjNEOL1hkwBX3.jpg"><img title="0_NjUNWjNEOL1hkwBX" style="border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; float: right; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 5px 5px; display: inline; padding-right: 0px; border-top-width: 0px" border="0" alt="0_NjUNWjNEOL1hkwBX" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-hUB3ao4O-Fs/V8B_nWZp17I/AAAAAAAABP4/l3EA4rPQV6k/0_NjUNWjNEOL1hkwBX_thumb1.jpg?imgmax=800" width="363" align="right" height="484" /></a>And remember when Trump tweeted the anti-Semitic image meme about Hillary Clinton? Yeah, well guess where the image that he used, with her face superimposed on a pile of money next to a Star of David and the word “corrupt”, originated? Would you be surprised if it was <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/watch-trumps-former-campaign-manager-get-paid-to-defend-white-supremacist-meme-358872b0d090#.u37fzd7hj">sourced</a> to a white supremacist message board?</p> <p>So ask yourself this: Why is Donald Trump reading white supremacist message boards or the tweets of white supremacists and neo-Nazis? And if he isn’t actually reading those message boards or tweets, then who among his advisors is doing so and why does Trump just go along and tweet or retweet those people?</p> <p>Of course the first of the real questions to ask yourself is: Why are racists, bigots, Nazis, white supremacists, and the like so enamored with Trump? What is it about his candidacy that attracts those holding racist views and what is it about his candidacy that seems to have emboldened people to openly express those views. Then, after pondering those queries, ask yourself this follow up: How comfortable will you be with a President who gives voice to these views and may even give them a place at his table?</p> <p>Please don’t allow Donald Trump to be elected President. Please.</p>MSWallackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04025607935715642114noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5222839876578062342.post-40644019618997587382016-08-23T17:30:00.000-04:002016-08-23T17:30:12.927-04:00Still Thinking About Supporting the Green Party? Meet the Party’s Nominee for Vice President<p>I know that some people on the left don’t like Hillary Clinton. I’d generally argue that these people are essentially rewarding the right wing for its efforts at character assassination over the last 20 or more years and accepting as truth the vast panoply of lies and outright conspiracies directed at Clinton. That isn’t to say that she is a perfect person or perfect candidate; she isn’t. But then who is? Sadly, some people don’t want to engage in actual conversation and dialogue about Clinton and have, instead, elected to simply reject her..</p> <p>However, those on the left who reject Clinton now have a choice to make. If they can’t bring themselves to vote for her, then who <em>can</em> they vote for? My suspicion (hope?) is that few people on the left of the political spectrum who choose not to vote for Clinton would cast a vote for Donald Trump. And I doubt that many of those people would vote for a libertarian candidate either (at least not once they learn about more about the libertarian’s positions beyond legalization of marijuana). So that leaves Jill Stein and the Green Party.</p> <p>I’m going to take a slightly different approach to discussing that last option. Today, I’m not going to discuss why Jill Stein or the Green Party aren’t really viable. I’m not going to discuss how a vote for a third party can, in essence, be viewed as a vote for Trump. And I’m not going to delve into the positions advocated by Stein or the Green Party (including fears about vaccines or WiFi). Instead, I’m going to focus on <em><strong>one</strong></em> decision made by Stein to demonstrate just how bad a vote for the Green Party would be.</p> <p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-w-JJjuBhnv8/V7yRcs4Km9I/AAAAAAAABPg/KdZROtq8ieU/s1600-h/Ajamu-Baraka2.png"><img title="Ajamu Baraka" style="border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; float: right; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 5px 5px; display: inline; padding-right: 0px; border-top-width: 0px" border="0" alt="Ajamu Baraka" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-KHMtGUPIHj0/V7yRc9f-gJI/AAAAAAAABPk/FnxWKoS-heY/Ajamu-Baraka_thumb.png?imgmax=800" width="204" align="right" height="244" /></a>It is often said that the first important decision that a Presidential candidate makes is the selection of a running mate. After all, if the President dies or is otherwise incapable of executing the duties of President, then the Vice President takes over. One would presume that the President would select a Vice President whose judgment and advice the President would seek and value. So, with those concepts in mind, let’s meet Jill Stein’s choice to be the Green Party’s candidate for Vice President: Ajamu Baraka.</p> <p>So what does Baraka have to say about certain important issues? What sort of advice might be offer President Stein? What policies would he pursue were he to become President?</p> <p>As a starting point, try this paragraph from an <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/16/the-yemen-tragedy-and-the-ongoing-crisis-of-the-left-in-the-united-states/">essay</a> of Baraka’s that can only be described as being hostile (and I’m being charitable here) to the leftist foreign policy ideas expressed by Bernie Sanders (emphasis added):</p> <blockquote> <p>It means that if today leftists in the U.S. can find a way to reconcile the suffering of the people of Yemen and Gaza and all of occupied Palestine for the greater good of electing Sanders, tomorrow my life and the movement that I am a part of that is committed to fighting <em>this corrupt, degenerate, white supremacist monstrosity called the United States</em>, can be labeled as enemies of the state and subjected to brutal repression with the same level of silence from these leftists.</p> </blockquote> <p>It’s worth noting that the essay was published in Counterpunch, a far left, anti-Israel, conspiracy-focused website that has been known to publish essays from people who are not just anti-Zionist, but also outright anti-Semites (but that is a topic for another day).* Anyway, go back and read that paragraph again. Then ask yourself if someone who thinks that the United States is a “corrupt, degenerate, white supremacist monstrosity” should really be Vice President of the United States. Ask yourself whether someone who believes that, essentially, anyone to the right of his extremely far left position on the political spectrum (from Bernie Sanders and his supporters rightward) would label Baraka and his “movement” as “enemies of the state”? Does he really believe that those who harbor opposition views in America are subject to “brutal repression”? If so, how is that he is on the ticket to be Vice President and not in jail, Guantanamo, or dead in a ditch?</p> <p>Or perhaps we should consider that Baraka has an essay in the book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/ANOTHER-French-False-Flag-Bernardino/dp/0996143017/ref=as_at?tag=thedailybeast-autotag-20&linkCode=as2&">Another French False Flag?: Bloody Tracks from Paris to San Bernardino</a> edited by <a href="http://blog.adl.org/tags/kevin-barrett">Kevin J. Barrett</a>, a noted anti-Semite, Holocaust denier, and 9/11 “truther” (who also blames Israel for the massacre at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando along with virtually every other evil in the world). As you can tell from the title, Barrett’s book takes the position that many of the terrorist attacks that we’ve witnessed in recent years were not actually perpetrated by the Islamic terrorists upon whom blame has been leveled. Besides the essay from Baraka, Barrett’s book also includes essays by authors such as noted anti-Semites Gilad Atzmon and Ken O’Keefe (who once made a video called “Hitler was Right” [to which I obviously will not link]). To be fair, Baraka claims that he didn’t know which other authors or views Barrett would include in the book: </p> <blockquote> <p>When Kevin Barrett, someone who has interviewed me in the past, contacted me to ask if he could include my piece in a compilation on the Paris Attacks, I didn’t see any problem with it,” Baraka said in a statement to Gawker in which he stridently disavowed Holocaust denial. “I didn’t inquire as to the other authors and don’t know much about some of them or their positions on various issues. I stand by everything I wrote in that article and would be happy to discuss the details.”</p> </blockquote> <p>But… really? You agree to allow your essay to be included in a book being edited by someone you know takes controversial positions, but don’t ask what other essays will be included alongside yours? Hmm. I wonder if Baraka even bothered to learn the title of Barrett’s book; it isn’t exactly subtle. I sure hope that as Vice President, Baraka would bring that attention to detail to the job. Oh, and the essay by Baraka that was included in Barrett’s book should also give you an idea of Baraka’s worldview: <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/11/20/the-paris-attacks-and-the-white-lives-matter-movement/">The Paris Attacks and the White Lives Matter Movement</a> (originally published in Counterpunch).</p> <p>Recall that Baraka claimed not to know about the positions of other authors, suggesting that Barrett was simply someone who had interviewed him in the past. Hmm. Well, given the tenor of Barrett’s radio program (on which Baraka has apparently appeared more than once) and the sorts of discussions that they’ve had, it seems unlikely that Baraka would be unaware of the point of view that Barrett and those included in his book might offer. Witness, for example, <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/17/the-wild-beliefs-of-ajamu-baraka-jill-stein-s-green-party-running-mate.html">this exchange</a> (about the downing of the Malaysian airliner over Ukraine a few years ago):</p> <blockquote> <p>“What do you think of this plane — Malaysian plane shootdown?” Barrett asks. “The U.S. media is putting out the possibilities of this being done by the Russians or by the pro-Russian Ukrainians, but President Putin’s plane was flying through there shortly before this plane was shot down—it looks like Putin’s plane may have been targeted. If so, obviously that wouldn’t have been done by the Russians or pro-Russian separatists quote unquote, that would have been done by the Kiev Zio-Nazi government. Which is what it is—these Zionist Jewish oligarchs, billionaire criminal dons, are funding Nazi street thugs. These are the people who overthrew the legitimate democratically elected government of Ukraine and created a fascist junta, and they are the ones who would be the suspects, at least in my opinion — somebody shooting at Putin’s plane, and yet the media doesn’t even raise that as a possibility.”</p> <p>Baraka immediately engages with the idea and agrees.</p> <p>“And when it’s raised, it’s raised as a conspiracy,” Baraka responded. “I think that this is a — I was trying to find the citation, I remember reading, I can’t remember who it was, someone wrote about three weeks ago that we should expect false flag, a major false flag operation in eastern Ukraine that’s going to be blamed on the Russians. And that’s exactly what has happened.”</p> </blockquote> <p>Note that not only does Baraka appear to agree with the notion of a “false flag” attack being behind the downing of the aircraft, but he doesn’t challenge Barrett’s claim that the Ukrainian government was a “Zio-Nazi” government comprised of “Zionist Jewish oligarchs … funding Nazi street thugs” who created a “fascist junta”. (For those who are blissfully unaware, the shorthand “Zio” is a epithet used mostly on the far left to describe Israelis, Zionists, and, often, Jews.) Note further that both Barrett and Baraka (like Donald Trump…) seem to be taking the side of Russia its dispute with Ukraine.</p> <p>Baraka views President Obama as an “<a href="http://www.ajamubaraka.com/black-lives-dont-matter-in-racist-capitalist-america/">Uncle Tom President</a>”. He <a href="http://www.ajamubaraka.com/muhammad-ali-and-dylann-roof-contested-meanings-and-contested-lies/">described</a> President Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch as “black petit-bourgeoisie who have become the living embodiments of the partial success of the state’s attempt to colonize the consciousness of Africans/black people”. Baraka even tears into Bernie Sanders and his supporters <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/16/the-yemen-tragedy-and-the-ongoing-crisis-of-the-left-in-the-united-states/">claiming</a> that Sanders promises “continued war crimes from the sky with drone strikes and Saudi led terror in support of the Western imperial project” and that Sander’s program is a “tacit commitment to Eurocentrism and the assumptions of normalized white supremacy”. Baraka does, at least, attempt to soften these attacks by noting that his criticisms are “not to suggest that everyone who might find a way to support Sanders is a closet racist and supporter of imperialism”. No, not <em>everyone</em>…</p> <p>Baraka is also, apparently, a Boko Haram “truther”, claiming among other things that the number of schoolgirls kidnapped by the group had been inflated and that the US didn’t have real humanitarian concerns for the plight of those schoolgirls; instead, he apparently claimed that the US was interested in Nigeria only as a means to Nigerian oil. Of course given that his <em>entire</em> worldview seems to come from a lens of the evil, white American empire looking for ways to subjugate or at least tolerate the destruction of people of color, then we shouldn’t be too surprised, should we?</p> <p>I was also not surprised to learn that Baraka opposes the Trans Pacific Partnership (the TPP). It faces strong criticism from both the far left and the far right (and pockets in between). Criticism of the TPP in the US has largely focused on whether it would be good for Americans generally and American jobs in particular. Baraka approaches the issue from a <em>slightly</em> <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/05/12/stopping-the-trans-pacific-partnership-is-a-black-issue/">different perspective</a> (emphasis added):</p> <blockquote> <p>The TPP is a weapon to maintain U.S. global hegemony by denying the fundamental economic, social and cultural rights of millions of people in order to benefit a <em>parasitic white minority ruling class</em> in the U.S. And for that fact alone, African Americans and all people of conscience should opposed [sic] it.</p> </blockquote> <p>A “parasitic white minority ruling class in the U.S.”? Yep, this man should be Vice President, shouldn’t he?</p> <p>Baraka <a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/01/the-charlie-hebdo-white-power-rally-in-paris/">described</a> the “Je Suis Charlie” rallying cry that followed the terrorist attack on <em>Charlie Hebdo</em> magazine (and a Jewish market) as “an arrogant rallying cry for white supremacy”. Really.</p> <p>I’m often critical of those on the right who claim that the “real racists” are African Americans (or Latinos) who raise the issue of race. I’m sympathetic to the notion of the need to recognize so-called “white privilege”. And, while I don’t think that racism is to blame for everything, I do think that racism is an important issue that needs to be addressed. However, the way Baraka seems to see <em>everything</em> through race-tinged lenses only serves to feed the view from that right that racism emanates from minority communities. His racism and racist rhetoric weakens efforts by those who desire to engage in real discussion and dialogue on the problems of racism and on the problems caused by racism. In other words, Baraka’s rhetoric will not lead to lessening of racism or improve the lives African Americans or other people of color at home or abroad; he is just pouring jet fuel on the fire.</p> <p>Oh, and Baraka <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/04/the-syrian-elections/">thinks</a> that Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad has legitimacy as a democratically elected leader. He also argues that the story being told about the civil war in Syria is propaganda designed to conceal the truth about the surrender of Syria’s “national sovereignty to the geo-strategic interests of the U.S. and its colonial allies in Europe and Israel.”</p> <p>Finally, one last issue on which Baraka has been quite vocal. I know that many readers who are thinking about voting for the Green Party may be critics of Israel (and I’m sure you view yourselves <em>only</em> as anti-Zionists and not as anti-Semites, but that is a discussion for another day). So calling out some of Baraka’s views on Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may not matter much to you. But for my readers who <em>do</em> support Israel and its right to exist as a democratic Jewish state within safe and secure borders, a quick summation of Baraka’s views on Israel are worthwhile. These views can be readily summarized by the findings of the <a href="http://www.ifpb.org/africanheritage/statement.html">African Heritage Delegation to Palestine/Israel</a> (from April 2015; and note that the group renamed itself Zaynah Hindi African Heritage Delegation “in recognition of and in solidarity with our delegation’s co-leader, a Palestinian American”) on which Baraka participated.** Among that group’s findings (after meeting with early leaders of the Israeli Black Panther party, which I must admit, I didn’t know existed):</p> <ul> <li>Israeli policy of settlement expansion amounts to <em>ethnic cleansing</em> and 21st century colonialism. </li> <li>We condemn the campaign Israel’s government has waged to court black religious and political support and call on the Black community to give unconditional support and solidarity to Palestinian Liberation. </li> <li>The global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement is an essential tool in the struggle for Palestinian liberation. </li> <li>We call on activists and non-activists alike to join initiatives in their communities that support and work in solidarity with <em>Palestinian resistance movements</em>. </li> </ul> <p>(Emphasis added.) There’s more, both from the Delegation and from Baraka in his other writings, but that should give you a good idea. Note that the phrase “resistance movements” is often used to describe … terrorists. You know, like Hamas, which is the acronym for “Islamic Resistance Movement”. In other words, Baraka signed a statement calling for support for and work in solidary with terrorist groups. And, if you’re curious, I did come across a statement by Baraka equating Israeli treatment of Palestinians in Gaza as a form of genocide.</p> <p>Yep, he would make a great Vice President. Before casting a ballot for the Green Party, think about Baraka’s views on Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and ask whether he would be good for those on either side of the issue who hope for a just and lasting peace. </p> <p>In conclusion, let’s turn our attention back to Stein and the Green Party. I’m not well versed in many of the platform planks of the Green Party. I’ve heard some of the things that Stein has said, but frankly haven’t paid too much attention. But I couldn’t ignore her choice for running mate. After all, it is the first important decision made by a presidential candidate. So go back and review some of the positions that her chosen running mate has taken and then think about how well those positions reflect your own views on the issue. Ask yourself why, among all of the other possible voices on the left of the political spectrum, Jill Stein and the Green Party chose Baraka. What does that choice say about Stein? What does it say about her understanding of the positions of her supporters? Does she share Baraka’s views on these issues? In any event, it seems that by this one choice alone, Stein has demonstrated how poor her judgment is and has essentially disqualified herself as a viable candidate for President. John McCain hurt himself greatly with his choice of Sarah Palin but Stein’s choice of Baraka makes that prior blunder pale in comparison (or would if Stein was a viable candidate…).</p> <p>Please recognize that <a href="http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/210549/friends-dont-let-friends-vote-for-jill-stein">Stein is not a viable candidate for President</a>. I understand (kinda) opposition to Clinton, but please don’t cast your vote for the Stein-Baraka ticket and, perhaps, do as Ralph Nader did in 2000, and hand the Presidency to the Republicans and Donald Trump.</p> <p>-----</p> <p>*While I don’t really suggest that you waste your time looking (sadly, I did), just a quick review of the titles of the essays that Baraka has published on <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/author/cuxere/">CounterPunch</a> will certainly give the impression that the only issue of importance to him is the treatment of people of color and his expression of concern about that treatment is blatant racism directed against whites.</p> <p>**It’s interesting to note that Baraka is identified as a signatory of the report as a member from Cali, Colombia, and not from the United States; <em>all</em> of the other members of the Delegation are identified as being from the United States. So, a man who wants to be Vice President serves on an international delegation but doesn’t identify himself as being from America. Good to know.</p>MSWallackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04025607935715642114noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5222839876578062342.post-5303548312168972822016-08-19T17:30:00.000-04:002016-08-19T17:30:10.857-04:00Beware Terrorists (or Russia or Wikileaks) Giving Trump His October Surprise<p>Those who follow politics, and presidential politics in particular, are familiar with the idea of an “October Surprise”. Put simply, an October Surprise is an event that occurs very late in a political campaign (<em>i.e.</em>, in October immediately prior to the November election) that will sway votes, usually without an opportunity for the candidate hurt by the event to respond. An October Surprise can be a neutral event to which each candidate’s reaction can be judged (think Hurricane Sandy in 2012) or it can be intentional, targeted to hurt or help a particular candidate. Often, candidates and their campaigns worry about any sort of October Surprise that the other side (or those supporting the other side) might be planning.</p> <p>While I don’t really intend to drive conspiracies (you know what I think of conspiracy theories…) or fear-monger, I want to offer three possibilities of an October Surprise that would, sadly, not come as a great surprise but which could have a profound effect on the outcome of the election and the future of our nation and the world.</p> <p>First, I think that we need to be seriously concerned about a significant terrorist attack by ISIS in America or against American interests in the days leading up to the election. Now, I’m sure many of you are saying, “But wouldn’t a terrorist attack help Trump”? Yes, it probably would. And that is likely precisely what ISIS wants. You see, while many people may be arguing that Trump will be “tougher” on terrorists than Clinton, I think that in the part of the Muslim world that is either sympathetic to ISIS or susceptible to the ISIS message, a Trump victory would be a good thing … for ISIS.</p> <p>Yes, really.</p> <p>Sure, we might drop more bombs on parts of Syria, Iraq, and Libya. And we might kill more jihadi fighters. But one of my biggest fears of a Trump presidency is that he would give ISIS precisely what it wants: A clash of civilizations and religions, pitting the wealthy, decadent, Christian West against the poor, pious, Islamic world. Think of it this way: When the US drops a bomb on a village in Syria, does that tend to dissuade more young Muslims from joining ISIS or does it serve as a recruiting tool to radicalize even more people to the call of radical Islam? If America tortures Muslims it accuses of terrorism, does the torture act as a deterrent or a clarion call to other Muslims susceptible to radicalization? If you read what experts on the subject have been saying ever since Trump first suggested that we ban Muslims from coming to America (or resume the use of torture or kill the families of terrorists), you’ll see just this fear being one of the core concerns being raised. We know that ISIS (like al-Qaeda, Hamas, and other terrorist groups) is not afraid to sacrifice “martyrs” for the larger “good” that their deaths may bring. If ISIS can goad Trump into a much broader war in which more and more Muslims will die at the hands of “infidels”, then ISIS may be even closer to the realization of their basic goals. And sadly Donald Trump doesn’t seem to understand that we can’t fight a war against a a few million Muslims by alienating or fighting against a billion Muslims who haven’t yet taken up arms.</p> <p>Thus, a terrorist attack that would put fear into the American populace, bring about the election of Donald Trump, and from there the alienation and radicalization of more of the Muslim world, might be a perfect game plan for ISIS.</p> <p>Yet if there is a terrorist attack that seems to benefit Trump, we can’t presume that ISIS is responsible. In any normal and sane universe, it would be difficult to imagine an violent October Surprise in which a candidate was complicit or that was conducted by a state actor. But this is not a normal year and I have my doubts as to whether Donald Trump is sane (at least in the classic sense of the word of being able to understand the difference between right and wrong).</p> <p>What am I talking about? Russia.</p> <p>We’ve already seen the apparent warm relations (bromance?) between Trump and Vladimir Putin. We’ve seen Trump praise Putin’s leadership (and by “leadership” I mean the killing of opposition journalists). We’ve seen Trump talk about abandoning our NATO allies and essentially ceding the Baltic countries to Russia. We’ve seen Trump talk about reversing the US (and global) position on Russia’s annexation of Crimea. And we’ve seen Trump ask Russia for help in hacking into Clinton’s computers (oh, wait, that was just sarcasm, right?). Earlier this week we heard Trump tell the world that he doesn’t trust American’s intelligence agencies. Seriously. Moreover, I suspect that from the Russian perspective, the internal chaos, dissension, and isolationism that a Trump presidency would cause in the US would be an enormous boon to Russia’s efforts to reassert its own global influence.</p> <p>If Russia’s spy agencies are willing to try to subvert American democracy via hacking and disclosure of information, what else might they be willing to do? Might the Russians be willing to aid ISIS, especially if in doing so, they were able to keep the focus of ISIS directed westward instead of northward into the Muslim republics of Russia? Or might the Russians even be willing to risk a direct action if it could be plausibly blamed on ISIS (a so-called “false flag” attack)? Again, while I would usually scoff at such a notion in normal times … these are <em>not</em> normal times.</p> <p>Finally, recall the release by WikiLeaks of documents stolen from the Democratic National Committee, most likely by the Russian spy agencies. So what happens if WikiLeaks releases other damaging (or potentially damaging) documents closer to the election? How would that play out? At least one of Trump’s supporters and occasional advisors, Roger Stone, seems to think <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/16/roger_stone_a_mutual_acquaintance_told_me_julian_assange_has.html">that is precisely what is going to happen</a>. Just imagine a WikiLeaks document dump in the days immediately prior to the election that confirms any of a host of conspiracies about Clinton. Just imagine the results. And if such a release is timed properly, Clinton might have no time to respond.</p> <p>Now, given the likely involvement of the Russian spy agencies in the theft of information, <em>why should we presume that any damaging information is accurate?</em> For example, imagine a document dump two or three days before the election that supposedly demonstrates that Clinton accepted bribes from Wall Street or foreign leaders or that she had been diagnosed with some ailment or that she was actually Saul Alinsky’s love child. Can you imagine the last minute swing such news might play in the election? But think for a minute how simple it would be for anyone to create a fake document. We’ve seen it before with the fake military records of George W. Bush. Now, imagine for a moment what would happen if, after Trump was elected because of fraudulent documents, it could be conclusively proven that the documents were, indeed, fraudulent. The results of the election and our entire electoral process might be thrown into a state of turmoil. And who would benefit from an America paralyzed by internal turmoil or a constitutional crisis? Russia. And China. And maybe ISIS. But definitely <em>not</em> the American people.</p> <p>Just to muddy these particular waters a bit more, don’t forget that veteran political observers have been puzzled by the Trump campaign’s failure to do those things that are ordinarily required for a successful electoral strategy. The lack of a “ground game” (and associated get out the vote efforts), the failure to engage in major fundraising efforts (at least until recently), and the failure (until yesterday, apparently) to spend money on television ads could all be put down to Trump being Trump and simply bucking tradition and political wisdom. Or, if you’d like to climb down the conspiracy rabbit hole, it could be because Trump knows that he’s got something to shake things up before votes are actually cast.</p> <p>Yeah, I know. I probably sound a bit like Alex Jones. Sigh. That’s not my intent. Maybe I’ve just read too many well-written thrillers. I’m not sitting here telling you that any of these things are <em>going</em> to happen. Rather, I’m simply suggesting that we be prepared for the unexpected, the October Surprise. And I’m suggesting that given the stakes, given the people and countries involved, given what we’ve already seen, and given the ramifications of the possible outcomes of the election, that we be careful in jumping to <em>any</em> conclusions should any sort of unexpected event occur.</p> <p>I fear what could happen if Donald Trump is elected President. I fear for our country and for our world. And I fear that Donald Trump, a man seemingly without any moral convictions whatsoever, will do quite literally <em>anything</em> to get what he wants. And what he wants is to <em>win</em>.</p>MSWallackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04025607935715642114noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5222839876578062342.post-60965358990577922602016-08-12T17:30:00.000-04:002016-08-12T17:30:20.943-04:00Donald Trump and Second Amendment People<blockquote> <p>Hillary wants to abolish — essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know.</p> <p align="right">— Donald Trump, August 9, 2016.</p> </blockquote> <p>There is so, so much to say. So I’ll start at the beginning.</p> <p>First, notwithstanding what Donald Trump may say (and say over and over), Hillary Clinton does <em>not</em> want to abolish the Second Amendment. Nor does she even want to <em>essentially</em> abolish the Second Amendment. This one is easy. Let’s look at <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/21/donald-trump/despite-new-adverb-trumps-claim-about-clinton-want/">Politifact</a> (the <em>second</em> time they have reviewed the claim by Trump, this time after he began using the word “essentially” to describe what he claims Clinton wants to do):</p> <blockquote> <p>We found no evidence of Clinton ever saying verbatim or suggesting explicitly she wants to abolish the Second Amendment. The bulk of her comments suggest the opposite: She wants to enact stricter gun control, but has no objection to responsible gun ownership.</p> </blockquote> <p>Note that <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/11/donald-trump/donald-trump-falsely-claims-hillary-clinton-wants-/">Politifact</a> originally reviewed and found the claim that Clinton wants to abolish the Second Amendment to be false in May 2016 (before Trump added the adverb “essentially” to his claim). Yet here we are, three months later, and Trump is still making the false claim. But lying about what your political opponent intends is standard political operating procedure, so it’s hard to get too worked up over that, though most politicians when called out on perpetuating a falsehood will usually drop that attack and pivot to another issue. But Trump can never admit to being wrong, so…</p> <p>But that brings me to the next point in my analysis of Trump’s comment. He says that Clinton wants to essentially abolish the Second Amendment. I wonder if Trump has any understanding of how the process to amend the United States Constitution even works. I ask that because, if he did, he would know that while the President may have a loud voice he (or she) has <em>literally no role to play in the amendment process</em>. None.</p> <blockquote> <p>The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.</p> </blockquote> <p>United States Constitution, Article V. See any role for the President in the text of Article V? I didn’t think so. So even if Clinton did want to abolish the Second Amendment, she couldn’t without a whole lot of help from Congress and three-quarters of the states.</p> <p>Then Trump doubles down on the fact that he doesn’t understand how the Constitution works when he says that there is “nothing you can do” if Clinton “gets to pick her judges”. Apparently, besides having never read Article V of the Constitution, Trump is also unaware of the provisions of Article II Section 2 of the Constitution:</p> <blockquote> <p>[The President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.</p> </blockquote> <p>Trump seems to have forgotten the fact (or perhaps never knew) that after the President nominates a candidate to be a judge, the Senate must consent to the nomination. Of course, it’s somewhat hard to believe that Trump doesn’t know this given that one issue in this electoral contest is the fact that President Obama exercised his constitutional right and obligation to nominate a judge to replace Justice Scalia <em>but the Senate has refused to take up that nomination</em> with Republicans arguing that the American people should elect a new President to make that nomination. In other words, the Senate is preventing President Obama from appointing the judge that he picked. So tell me again, Donald, why it is that there will be “nothing you can do” if President Clinton were to pick her judges? Elected Senators could vote down the nomination or be like today’s Republican-led Senate and refuse to even consider the nomination (and thus avoid their constitutional responsibility). So perhaps we should take Trump’s claim of “nothing you can do” as an admonition against the Senate for refusing to consider the President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland. Yeah, I didn’t think so either.</p> <p>Which of course brings us to the final part of Trump’s statement. I’ll repeat it:</p> <blockquote> <p>if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. <em>Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is</em>, I don't know.</p> </blockquote> <p>(Emphasis added.) Now I think that it is important to consider the temporal arrangement of words and thoughts here. Trump begins the thought with the hypothetical statement “if she gets to pick” before moving on to what can be done. So <em>if</em> she gets to pick <em>then</em> nothing you can do. But then he modifies that. <em>If</em> she gets to pick <em>then</em> nothing you can do <em>but</em> maybe Second Amendment people can do something. I mention this because one of the responses from the Trump campaign and Trump supporters is that what he meant was for gun rights advocates (Second Amendment people) to unify as a voting block to vote to elect Trump. But that formulation doesn’t really work with Trump’s actual words because the way he framed things was with regard to what could be done <em>if she gets to pick her judges</em>. He didn’t frame it in terms of stopping her from becoming President and thereby preventing her from picking judges; rather, he framed it as what could be done <em>after she is the President</em> and has the right to nominate judges: “[N]othing you can, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is…”. In other words, if we read what Trump said and not what his campaign or supporters want us to think he said, then it should be obvious that he was talking about what people can do <em>once she is President</em>. And his answer was, at first, “nothing” only to be modified by “maybe” — for the Second Amendment people.</p> <p>Thus the question becomes what, precisely, could Second Amendment people do, <em>after Clinton has become President and picks judges</em>. Add to the query the further question of what it might be that Second Amendment people could do that others (like First Amendment people or Nineteenth Amendment people or just people) could not? What differentiates Second Amendment people from the larger body politic or of groups who may frame and focus their issues around other amendments or provisions of the Constitution. Hmm. What could it be? What is different about the Second Amendment?</p> <p>Guns.</p> <p>Or, perhaps expressed differently, guns and the desire to hold and use them to stop the paranoid fear of government tyranny. (Consider my previous posts <a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2013/02/do-i-have-right-to-take-up-arms-against.html">Do I Have the Right to Take Up Arms Against the Government?</a> or <a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2012/12/guns-in-america-part-2.html">Guns in America (part 2)</a> [sorry for the missing images…].)</p> <p>Trump’s comment, no matter how his supporters may want to spin things, was a dog whistle (belling of the cat?) to those who oppose any reasonable gun regulations. In our supposedly civil society, we are (or should be) reluctant to believe that anyone would use exhortations to violence as a part of a political campaign. But we’ve seen repeated examples of violent rhetoric from Trump (not to mention actual violence playing out at and around Trump rallies with Trump acting as cheerleader- or instigator-in-chief). You and I may not want to hear Trump’s words as an incitement to violence, but to those who believe that that Kenyan Muslim Barrack Hussein Obama or Hillary “Lock Her Up” Clinton are coming to take their guns, that is exactly how Trump’s words are likely to be perceived.</p> <p>References to “Second Amendment remedies” and similar gun-based or violent rhetoric have become more and more common on the right. It was just back in 2011 when Sarah Palin said to her supporters, “'Don't Retreat, Instead – RELOAD” and included Rep. Gabrielle Giffords on a list of legislators to be targeted. Rep. Giffords, you’ll recall, was the target of an assassination attempt. Perhaps the best known example was the statement by Sharron Angle who was running for Senate in Nevada when she said, “if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies.” Or there was the statement by Joni Ernst during her successful bid to be elected to the Senate from Iowa (before she made Trump’s short list for vice presidential nominees), talking about her right to defend herself “from the government, should they decide that my rights are no longer important”. There is a strong undercurrent among Republicans (and, I presume, Trump supporters) that violence may be necessary to stop a government with which they disagree. Trump’s dog whistle politics won’t do anything to calm the situation (especially not when he is also telling his supporters, in advance, that the election will be “rigged”).</p> <p>And it is to this last point that Trump was really … um … aiming. As I’ve referenced numerous times on this blog, there is a cohort of Americans that really believe that the government is tyrannical (or will soon become so) and that it is coming for them. Now Trump is adding to that fire by telling them that the election will be rigged and that once elected, President Clinton will be coming for the guns when she abolishes the Second Amendment. These people believe, in essence, that they need to keep their guns to prevent the government from coming to take their guns. Or something.</p> <blockquote> <p>Brett Lunceford, a former professor who has <a href="http://contemporaryrhetoric.com/articles/lunceford1_4.pdf">researched</a> the political discourse around guns, said these sort of remarks and actions feed into a belief that “the Second Amendment was put in place to overthrow the government if need be."</p> <p>“[Trump’s] throwing a bone to that mythology, that, if the government is tyrannical, ‘Well you guys are the ones that can do something about it,’” Lunceford told TPM. “There’s this idea that they’re the ones that can stop tyranny. It’s not about self defense, it’s about defense from the government.”</p> <p>Gun control advocates say that purveyors of such language take their cues directly from gun industry lobbying groups. Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, pointed to NRA Board member Ted Nugent—<a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/ted-nugent-threatens-to-kill-barack-obama-and-hillary-clinton-during-vicious-onstage-rant-20070824">who has said </a>President Obama, Hillary Clinton and other Democrats should “suck on my machine gun” — and to Gun Owners of America executive director Larry Pratt, who in June said voters may “resort to the bullet box” if they don’t like Supreme Court decisions.</p> <p>“We have seen the radicalized behavior of the NRA leadership, also impact lawmakers and other gun extremists to speak in rhetoric that is dangerous,” Watts said. “The Second Amendment is not a suicide pact. It’s not a manual for vigilante justice.”</p> <p>For victims of gun violence themselves, Trump's comment had a very specific and acute connotation.</p> <p>"Responsible, stable individuals won't take Trump's rhetoric to its literal end, but his words may provide a magnet for those seeking infamy. They may provide inspiration or permission for those bent on bloodshed," former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ) said in a statement with her husband, Mark Giffords.</p> </blockquote> <p><a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/trump-second-amendment-people-context">Trump Just The Latest On Hard Right To Call For ‘2nd Amendment Remedies’</a>, Talking Points Memo, August 11, 2016.</p> <p>After receiving condemnation for his comments, and not just from Democrats, Trump and his supporters tried to “fix” his comments with all sorts of explanations (some discussed above), including suggesting that it was a “joke gone bad” (<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/08/10/ryan-trump-second-amendment-remarks-a-joke-gone-bad/">according to Speaker Paul Ryan</a>). The problem is that this fits into a pattern with Trump; one day he says something outrageous and totally unacceptable and then, when criticized or called out for the statement, he claims it was a “joke” or “sarcasm” or misunderstood or simply blames the media. Today he used the defense of sarcasm to try to walk back his repeated claim that President Obama was the “founder of ISIS” (even after he had repeated that statement several times and even after a conservative radio host had given him a chance to walk back that claim yesterday, a chance Trump took to, instead, repeat his claim and express that it was, indeed what he meant). Or remember when Trump appealed to Russia to hack into Clinton’s computers only to suggest that it was a joke when the nearly universal response was condemnation of his call for a foreign power to become involved in the American electoral process?</p> <p>Trump never apologizes, never acknowledges mistakes, never accepts blame or takes responsibility; rather, in virtually every case in which he crosses one proverbial line or another, he blames the listener for not understanding that it was a joke or sarcasm or blames the media for reporting on what he said. But query what happens if this sort of language is used by a President. What happens if President Trump says, “The Chinese are killing us in trade; killing us. We should bomb their factories to level the playing field.” Saying, “Gee, I was only joking” a few days later after isn’t going to fix the problem that his flippant and dangerous words may have caused.</p> <p>Words have meanings, but that is a lesson apparently lost on Donald Trump.</p> <p>Again and again and again, Donald Trump has demonstrated that he has no respect for the political process. He has no respect for civility. He has no respect for the truth. And he certainly has no understanding of the Constitution or the effects that words can have. The man is completely unfit, both in terms of mental stability, intellectual capacity, and general temperament to be allowed anywhere near the White House.</p> <p>Please help me be sure that he doesn’t win in November.</p> <p>Please.</p>MSWallackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04025607935715642114noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5222839876578062342.post-19131912634921902062016-07-26T17:30:00.001-04:002016-07-26T17:30:14.046-04:00The DNC Emails … And Russian Involvement in American Politics<p>My personal Twitter troll has asked (demanded? challenged?) me to comment on the revelation that the staffers at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) engaged in email discussions regarding the campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders that included strategizing against his campaign. While I ordinarily like to follow a “don’t feed the trolls” approach, I thought that this issue was at least worth discussing (and, hey, it’s pretty cool that I have my own Twitter troll, isn’t it?). Before diving into the issues, let me offer one <em>major</em> caveat: I haven’t read the emails. I’ve read a few news stories and brief excerpts, but I’m sure that I don’t know all of the facts and, as always, I’m willing to reconsider my views as additional facts are learned or as mistakes that I make (as if!) are identified.</p> <p>So, on to the emails…</p> <p>It is my understanding that, at the heart of the matter, were discussions or even actions by some DNC staffers to either help Hillary Clinton’s campaign and/or hinder Bernie Sanders’ campaign together with some … er … less than generous descriptions of Sanders. Now, there is a part of me that says, “Gee, that’s not fair” and I certainly would like to think that the DNC would always play fair. But then there is the part of me that remembers that this is the <em>Democratic</em> National Committee and that, until he needed the ballot access that the Democratic Party had, Sen. Sanders was <em>not a Democrat</em>. Or, to phrase it differently, why shouldn’t the DNC work to help its own members to the detriment of an outsider? That point is even more compelling given the work that Hillary Clinton has done over the years both for the Democratic Party and for other Democrats. (And let’s not forget that Sanders endorsed the primary challenger for the House seat held by DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, so I think she can be forgiven at least a bit of pique directed toward Sanders.)</p> <p>As to the notion that the primary system was rigged, the only answer is “bullshit”. The primary system was in place long before Sanders announced his candidacy. He knew what the system was; he didn’t have to run and he didn’t have to run as a Democrat. But he did. He could have sought the nomination of the Green Party or run as an independent, but that wouldn’t have given him the ballot access he needed or the ability to get the sort of news coverage that helped propel his campaign. And let’s not forget the allegations from several months ago that the Sanders campaign was, itself, hacking into the DNC database to obtain information improperly. I guess that was OK, right? Look, I’m not saying that the democratic primary system is a <em>good</em> system or that it shouldn’t be modified. But the system was the same for Martin O’Malley, Lawrence Lessig, Lincoln Chafee, Jim Webb, and others, and I don’t recall hearing their supporters whining about the system or booing the party’s leaders at its convention.</p> <p>I also find it interesting that so many of the people who are almost giddy about the disclosure of these emails from the DNC seem to so quickly gloss over the apparent source. The emails were released by WikiLeaks. Now, first, we should think back to what people had to say about WikiLeaks when it was responsible for other document dumps; I recall hearing plenty of people call for criminal prosecution of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange (and accusations that he was a “traitor” even though he isn’t American). I wrote about the massive WikiLeaks disclosure of US diplomatic cables in December 2010 (<a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2010/12/wikileaks-im-not-sure.html">Wikileaks? I’m Not Sure</a>). Yet apparently, if the information WikiLeaks discloses harms those who you oppose <em>on political grounds</em> then that disclosure is peachy keen. if would be interesting to see how people would react if WikiLeaks were able to obtain and disclose Donald Trump’s tax returns (especially if they included something damaging). But I digress.</p> <p>More important is the source from which WikiLeaks itself apparently received the emails in the first place. WikiLeaks doesn’t do the hacking; rather WikiLeaks discloses documents obtained by hackers. And in this case, there is apparently ample evidence that the hackers who took the emails from the DNC <em>are part of the Russian intelligence services</em>, in particular the FSB (the successor to the KGB) and the GRU (military intelligence), both under the control of Vladimir Putin … you know, the same man to whom Donald Trump, just a few days ago, gave a green light to invade our NATO allies (<a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2016/07/did-trump-just-give-putin-carte-blanche.html">Did Trump Just Give Putin Carte Blanche to Invade Eastern Europe?</a>). As Arsenio Hall once said, “Things that make you go ‘Hmm.’” Don’t forget the extent to which Trump has praised Putin, so much so that the phrase “bromance” has been used to describe Trump’s relationship with Putin (or maybe it’s just a mancrush). So was the release of the emails to WikiLeaks the <em>quo</em> for Trump’s <em>quid</em> suggestion that he might abandon NATO and the Baltic states?</p> <p>Think back to when Edward Snowden stole data from the NSA before fleeing, eventually to Russia. How many of you called him a traitor? How many of you worried about Russia having access to the information he obtained? Yet now, some people (mostly those opposed to Democrats in general or Hillary Clinton in particular) are practically cheering over Russia hacking into data belonging to a political party (including, donor data, opposition research, and the personal email accounts of Democratic staffers)? Really? I seem to recall that the last time criminal activity was aimed at obtaining private information from one of the political parties, things didn’t end so well. For those of you who aren’t sure what I’m talking about, here is a hint: The data one party tried to steal was located in an office located at the <em>Watergate</em> hotel. Ring any bells?</p> <p>One thing, however, that really troubles me about the information in the emails is the apparent discussion about using Sanders’ religion (or atheism, perhaps) as a weapon against him. That sort of conduct is reprehensible. Period. The saving grace, I suppose, is that it doesn’t appear that this discussion evolved into actual action; rather, from what I’ve read, it appears to have been a suggestion made as part of a strategy discussion that was not followed up. But to even discuss using a person’s religion against them (or their lack of faith, as the case may be), is simply un-American and wrong.</p> <p>A critical thing that must be recognized about this entire mess is that the chairwoman of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz <em>resigned</em>. And then the interim chairwoman of the DNC, Donna Brazile <em>apologized</em>. Publicly and sincerely. While people cannot go back and change what happened, they can take responsibility, apologize, and learn from mistakes. So far, that appears to be what the DNC is doing in the wake of these disclosures.</p> <p>Of course, noting that the chair of the DNC resigned and that the DNC’s new chair apologized does make me wonder when we’ll see similar actions from Republicans in regard to the xenophobia, bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, and so forth being spewed by the Republican Party’s candidate and his supporters. I’m not holding my breath.</p> <p>I do hope that over the next days and weeks we will learn more detail about possible Russian involvement in the hack of the DNC servers. Perhaps more importantly, I hope that we’ll learn more about whether the Trump campaign had <em>any</em> knowledge about that hacking or any involvement in the decision to disclose the emails (I certainly hope that not even Trump would stoop that low…). But even if the Republicans and the Trump campaign were completely in the dark and innocent, we should have a serious national discussion about <em>why</em> Russia might want to harm Democrats or Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. What did Russia hope to gain by hacking the DNC servers and what did Russia hope to gain by releasing the stolen emails to WikiLeaks for public dissemination. And ask yourself if you’re comfortable knowing that another country, and especially Russia, is inserting itself, via its intelligence agencies, into the American political system and presidential election. Does that scare you as much as it scares me?</p>MSWallackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04025607935715642114noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5222839876578062342.post-5170077522550757342016-07-21T17:30:00.000-04:002016-07-21T17:30:29.435-04:00Did Trump Just Give Putin Carte Blanche to Invade Eastern Europe?<p>In January 1950, Secretary of State Dean Acheson gave a speech to the National Press Club in which he articulated the United States’ defense perimeter in Asia. However, when Acheson described the defense perimeter, he excluded South Korea. Several months later, North Korea (backed by the USSR) invaded South Korea. Most historians cite Acheson’s exclusion of South Korea from the defense perimeter as one of the important factors that led the decision by North Korea and the USSR to invade the South, operating under the perception that the United States would not intervene militarily because South Korea was outside the Asian defense perimeter.</p> <p>In July 1990, April Glaspie, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, told her Iraqi counterpart that the United States did not have an opinion on Iraq’s escalating dispute with Kuwait (over oil) and that the United States would not start an economic war against Iraq. Most historians cite Glaspie’s comments as one of the important factors that led Saddam Hussein to conclude that the United States would not intervene in an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.</p> <p>Why do I cite these two historical examples of comments that led to war? Consider what Donald Trump told <em><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/us/politics/donald-trump-foreign-policy-interview.html">The New York Times</a></em> yesterday:</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>SANGER:</strong> I was just in the Baltic States. They are very concerned obviously about this new Russian activism, they are seeing submarines off their coasts, they are seeing airplanes they haven’t seen since the Cold War coming, bombers doing test runs. If Russia came over the border into Estonia or Latvia, Lithuania, places that Americans don’t think about all that often, would you come to their immediate military aid?</p> <p><strong>TRUMP:</strong> I don’t want to tell you what I’d do because I don’t want Putin to know what I’d do. I have a serious chance of becoming president and I’m not like Obama, that every time they send some troops into Iraq or anyplace else, he has a news conference to announce it.</p> <p><strong>SANGER:</strong> They are NATO members, and we are treaty-obligated ——</p> <p><strong>TRUMP:</strong> We have many NATO members that aren’t paying their bills.</p> <p><strong>SANGER:</strong> That’s true, but we are treaty-obligated under NATO, forget the bills part.</p> <p><strong>TRUMP:</strong> You can’t forget the bills. They have an obligation to make payments. Many NATO nations are not making payments, are not making what they’re supposed to make. That’s a big thing. You can’t say forget that.</p> <p><strong>SANGER:</strong> My point here is, Can the members of NATO, including the new members in the Baltics, count on the United States to come to their military aid if they were attacked by Russia? And count on us fulfilling our obligations ——</p> <p><strong>TRUMP:</strong> Have they fulfilled their obligations to us? If they fulfill their obligations to us, the answer is yes.</p> <p><strong>HABERMAN: </strong>And if not?</p> <p><strong>TRUMP:</strong> Well, I’m not saying if not. I’m saying, right now there are many countries that have not fulfilled their obligations to us.</p> </blockquote> <p>How do you think Vladimir Putin will view those comments by Trump? How do you think our NATO and other treaty allies will view those comments?</p> <p>From my perspective, Trump just told our allies that they may not be able to rely upon the United States and essentially gave our adversaries (or potential enemies) carte blanche to take aggressive actions without fear of intervention by the United States. Trump’s statement is even more dangerous than the statements of Acheson or Glaspie because in those instances, the United States wasn’t suggesting that it would ignore treaty obligations. Moreover, those statements dealt with Korea and Kuwait, <em>not Europe</em> and not America’s most important defense alliance. </p> <p>Perhaps Trump isn’t aware that Article 5 of the NATO treaty provides that an attack on one NATO member is deemed to be an attack on <em>all</em> NATO members and obligates the other NATO members to assist the country that was attacked. And perhaps Trump doesn’t understand that a treaty has the force of law; complying with treaty obligations isn’t optional. But if he isn’t aware of such a cornerstone element of our national defense structure, then he certainly isn’t qualified to be the Commander-in-Chief. And if he is aware of what Article 5 means and he is still willing to suggest that it might be ignored, then he is … well … dangerous isn’t quite a strong enough word. Perhaps his <em>machismo</em> is spoiling for an armed confrontation with Vladimir Putin and the Russian bear. I just hope America is ready to pay the bill of blood and treasure when Trump’s statements or inaction lead to the armed conflict.</p> <p>Look, I’m not suggesting that we shouldn’t make efforts to have our NATO allies fulfill their treaty obligations. They should and we should try to hold them to the terms of the treaty. But to suggest that failure to pay a bill is reason enough to abandon that country to a Russian invasion is lunacy. Dangerous lunacy. (Of course, Trump’s business <em>modus operandi</em> appears to be to leave bills unpaid, so this is something he should be quite familiar with…)</p> <p>When Donald Trump opens his mouth, what we hear is hate, bigotry, racism, xenophobia, and a complete lack of understanding of the complex issues facing our nation and the world. He’s already suggested that nuclear proliferation to South Korea, Japan, <em>and Saudi Arabia</em>, might be a good idea. These statements about NATO are just the most recent example. And you can bet that Vladimir Putin and the people of Europe heard Trump loud and clear. I just wonder how far into Europe Russian tanks will be permitted to drive during a Trump presidency.</p> <p>And I wonder whether any country would ever trust America again.</p> <p>Is that what Trump means when he talks about making American great again?</p>MSWallackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04025607935715642114noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5222839876578062342.post-1338674901098797492016-06-27T17:30:00.000-04:002016-06-27T17:30:32.842-04:00Is Brexit the Beginning of the End of the UK … or of Other Countries?<p>So citizens of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. Good or bad? Right or wrong? I’m not sure and I’m not sure that I really know enough to make an informed judgment. That being said, my instinct is to view the decision to leave the European Union as a bad decision (and the fact that both Donald Trump and Sarah Palin think that Brexit is good is almost enough reason for me to believe that it isn’t). I must admit that I find interesting the exit polling that showed apparent strong correlations between both age and education and the choice of whether to remain or leave (more education and younger voters tended to vote to stay, while older and less educated voters tended to vote to leave). But what the long term effects will be for the UK economy, for the European economy, for the global economy … I have no clue.</p> <p>I do, however, have some concerns about what Brexit may mean both with regard to the stability of nation-states and to relations between them.</p> <p>Let me address the latter of those two points first. One of the principal motivations for the original formation of what eventually evolved into the European Union was the notion of finding ways to avoid future conflicts within Europe and by and among European countries. The European Union has been largely successful in that ambition. But consider how things might look once the United Kingdom is fully divorced from those European nations that remain a part of the European Union. For example, what sort of hard feelings may exist by and between Britons and Europeans? If Europe’s economy stagnates and the United Kingdom’s flourishes (I have my doubts…), won’t many Europeans have a sense of … well, anger, I suppose, toward the United Kingdom? Similarly, if the UK’s economy stagnates and Europe grows, then how will Britons feel when they look across the Channel?</p> <p>Perhaps more importantly, what sort of cooperation existing today might become strained or even cease? For example, think of the large migrant camps in northern France, populated by refugees and immigrants seeking to make their way to England. France has worked hard to try to keep those migrant camps stable and to help the UK keep mass waves of immigrants and refugees from making their way across the Channel. Part of the reason for that is good relations between the UK and France and part of the reason for that was the pan-European approach to dealing with immigration and refugees. But if the UK is no longer part of the European Community, what, if any, duty to does France have (let alone Italy or Spain or Greece) to help the United Kingdom deal with “unwanted” immigrants and refugees? Likely, none. Given that a motivating factor for many Britons who voted to leave the European Union was the desire to deal with immigration without interference from the European Union, then how ironic will it be if France chooses to cease its efforts to prevent immigrants and refugees from embarking on journeys across the Channel to England? (And it seems just as likely that those countries might actually opt to find ways to help immigrants transit their territory for Britain, in order to try to lessen their own refugee and immigrant burdens.) </p> <p>I can also see other possibilities for European countries to sort of lash out in petty revenge against the United Kingdom if Brexit is viewed as damaging those countries. For example, I wouldn’t be surprised to see countries adopt tariffs or other fees on British goods or even travel by Britons within Europe (which could come as a real shock to Britons who have purchased vacation properties in Spain). Or, just imagine if FIFA (the world body governing soccer … er … football) were to decide that because the United Kingdom no longer views itself as being a part of Europe, that soccer clubs from the United Kingdom would not be eligible to play in the European Champions League or the UEFA Euro Cup?</p> <p>Based on the last millennia or so, anything that gives one European country a reason to act in anger against another European country is … um … not good.</p> <p>I also worry that the Brexit vote may, over time, begin a slide into the fracturing of stability within Europe and elsewhere.</p> <p>In September 2014, Scotland voted, 55% to 45%, to remain a part of the United Kingdom. There were many factors at play in that vote, but one that appeared to play prominently was the role an independent Scotland would be able (or perhaps unable) to play within the European economy and global markets. It was pointed out that an independent Scotland would <em>not</em> be a part of the European Union and would, thus, not be able to avail itself of free trade and the other benefits of membership in the European Union (at least until going through the difficult and multi-year process of joining the EU). Thus is probably isn’t surprising that last week Scotland voted to <em>remain</em> in the European Union. Each of Scotland’s voting districts voted to remain and the results weren’t terribly close (62-38 to remain, compared to 53-47 in England). But the United Kingdom voted to leave. So where does that leave Scotland?</p> <p>The leader of Scotland’s Parliament (the “First Minister”, I believe) has already called for a second Scottish referendum on independence. I suspect that such a referendum will be held and I also suspect that in a post-Brexit vote, Scots will, indeed, vote to make their own way.</p> <p>Is that good or bad? I don’t know.</p> <p>But if Scotland votes to leave the United Kingdom, what then of Northern Ireland? Like Scotland, Northern Ireland also voted to remain a part of the European Union (56-44 to stay). So, were Scotland to leave the United Kingdom, might Northern Ireland contemplate doing the same and, perhaps, even seeking to unify with Ireland which <em>is</em> a part of the European Union and with which many Irish have a closer bond that the government in London?</p> <p>Those actions would, quite obviously, have a significant impact on the United Kingdom, reducing it down to just England and Wales (and who knows how long Wales would want to stick around…). But how might the democratic dissolution of the United Kingdom impact independence movements elsewhere in Europe? Consider Belgium which is essentially divided into two distinct communities (roughly dividing the country in half geographically, south and north), one French-speaking (Walloons) and the other Dutch-speaking (Flemish). The divide between the French and Flemish within Belgium has risen to near-crisis levels in the past. Query whether watching the disintegration of the United Kingdom might, once again, prompt calls for Flemish independence.</p> <p>Or consider Catalonia, the northeastern part of Spain, with its capital in Barcelona. Catalans speak a different language from the rest of Spain, they don’t permit bullfighting, and, perhaps even more importantly, find themselves in a much different economic condition than the rest of the country. Might the rending of the United Kingdom give further impetus and strength to the already quite vocal and popular Catalan independence movement?</p> <p>Of course if Catalonia were to become independent, that might reinvigorate the independence desires of the neighboring Basque region of Spain and France. Or, just to the southeast, perhaps the independence movements of Corsica and Sardinia (from France and Italy, respectively) would find succor in the example of Scotland.</p> <p>In fact, the number of independence movements across Europe is almost too numerous to count and includes both large areas (Bavaria in Germany, South Tyrol in Italy) and tiny (Faroe Islands in Denmark, Venice in Italy); I even came across a reference to a independence movement for the Åland Islands, a tiny chain of islands between Sweden and Finland that presently belongs to Finland, but whose 28,000 inhabitants speak Swedish (but an acquaintance of mine who lives in Åland assures me that it is merely a “romantic protest”).</p> <p>In any event, I think that the concern (or hope, I suppose, depending on your perspective) of the tearing asunder of European countries and the reformation into something … well … different, is worth contemplating. The goal of the European Union was a form of European unity, but that is splintering and it is quite likely the first breach of the unity of the European Union may also lead to the splintering of the United Kingdom. And as people across Europe — or even the world — watch Scotland and perhaps Northern Island pressing for independence, then it seems quite likely that independence movements will be strengthened and, quite possibly, the political structures of the world will see dramatic changes.</p> <p>One commonly used phrase to describe the breaking apart of countries into smaller nations is “Balkanization” and that word is used for a reason. However, consider if you will, the history of the Balkans and whether that worked out for the best or not.</p> <p>I don’t know what the results of Brexit will be for the United Kingdom, Scotland, Europe, or the world. But I have concerns that this will be the first act in a drama that may result in a period of chaos and contention.</p> <p>But please, don’t get me started on the discussion of Texit (Texas exiting the United States). Just … don’t.</p>MSWallackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04025607935715642114noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5222839876578062342.post-80794567193150826032016-06-17T17:30:00.000-04:002016-06-17T17:30:39.652-04:00Some of My Previous Posts on Guns and Gun Control<p>In the days and months following the mass shooting at Sandy Hook, I spent a lot of time writing about guns. In the wake of the most recent shooting in Orlando, I thought that I’d gather the links to some of those and other posts on gun control. I really hope that <em>finally</em> there will be enough public anger to compel Congress to do something, but if nothing else, perhaps linking to these prior posts will offer a chance for a discussion and debate about the issues.</p> <p>Of particular interest should be the post <a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2013/04/guns-in-america-background-check-system.html">Guns in America: Background Check System Excludes Those on the Terrorist Watch Lists</a> (April 24, 2013) which is obviously highly relevant to the current debate.</p> <ul> <li>Guns in America</li> <ul> <li><a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2012/12/guns-in-america-part-1.html">Guns in America (part 1)</a> (December 16, 2012)</li> <li><a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2012/12/guns-in-america-part-2.html">Guns in America (part 2)</a> (December 18, 2012) [sadly, some of the images used in this post are long gone; I’ll see if I can update the post with new images]</li> <li><a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2012/12/guns-in-america-part-3.html">Guns in America (part 3)</a> (December 19, 2012)</li> <li><a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2013/01/guns-in-america-part-4.html">Guns in America (part 4)</a> (January 2, 2013)</li> <li><a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2013/01/gun-owner-and-firearms-ceo-im-going-to.html">Gun Owner and Firearms CEO: “I’m Going to Start Killing People” (Guns in America [part 5])</a> (January 10, 2013)</li> <li><a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2013/01/guns-in-america-part-6.html">Guns in America (part 6)</a> (January 23, 2013)</li> <li><!--EndFragment--><a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2013/01/guns-in-america-part-7-absolutism.html">Guns in America (part 7) – Absolutism</a> (January 29, 2013)</li> <li><a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2013/04/guns-in-america-background-checks.html">Guns in America: Background Checks</a> (April 17, 2013)</li> <li><a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2013/04/guns-in-america-background-checks-redux.html">Guns in America: Background Checks (redux)</a> (April 18, 2013)</li> <li><a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2013/04/guns-in-america-background-check-system.html">Guns in America: Background Check System Excludes Those on the Terrorist Watch Lists</a> (April 24, 2013)</li> <li><a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2013/05/guns-in-america-just-one-of-those-crazy.html">Guns in America: “Just One of Those Crazy Accidents”</a> (May 2, 2013)</li> <li><a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2013/05/guns-in-america-just-one-of-those-crazy_7.html">Guns in America: “Just One of Those Crazy Accidents” (update)</a> (May 7, 2013)</li> </ul> <li>One Child Is Holding Something…</li> <ul> <li><a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2013/04/one-child-is-holding-something-thats.html">One Child Is Holding Something That’s Been Banned in America to Protect Them: Powerful Gun Control PSAs from Moms Demand Action</a> (April 16, 2013) [I think I’ve received more comments and feedback on this post and it’s follow-up posts than almost any other post that I’ve written]</li> <li><a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2013/04/one-child-is-holding-something-thats_22.html">One Child Is Holding Something That’s Been Banned in America to Protect Them: Commenting on a Comment</a> (April 22, 2013)</li> <li><a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2013/11/one-child-is-holding-something-thats.html">One Child Is Holding Something That’s Been Banned in America to Protect Them: Commenting on Another Comment</a> (November 5, 2013)</li> </ul> <li>Guns in Dorms</li> <ul> <li><a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2009/01/guns-in-dorms.html">Guns in Dorms!</a> (January 22, 2009)</li> <li><a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2013/01/guns-in-dorms-redux.html">Guns in Dorms (redux)</a> (January 9, 2013)</li> <li><a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2013/04/guns-in-schools.html">Guns in Schools</a> (April 9, 2013)</li> </ul> <li>Other Posts<!--EndFragment--></li> <ul> <li><a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2013/02/do-i-have-right-to-take-up-arms-against.html">Do I Have the Right to Take Up Arms Against the Government</a> (February 25, 2013)</li> <li><a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2009/10/guns-fable.html">Guns: A Fable</a> (October 13, 2009)</li> <li><a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2011/06/should-justice-alitos-views-on-evolving.html">Should Justice Alito’s Views on Evolving Technology in the First Amendment Context Also Be Applied to Second Amendment Jurisprudence?</a> (June 29, 2011)</li> <li><a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2012/07/votes-and-guns.html">Votes and Guns</a> (July 27, 2012)</li> <li><a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2008/03/supreme-court-hears-2nd-amendment-case.html">Supreme Court Hears 2nd Amendment Case</a> (March 18, 2008)</li> <li><a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2013/12/one-year-since-newtown-what-have-you.html">One Year Since Newtown: What Have You Done to Stop Gun Violence?</a> (December 13, 2013)</li> <li><a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2015/06/a-few-initial-thoughts-following-tragic.html">A Few Initial Thoughts Following the Tragic South Carolina Church Massacre</a> (June 18, 2015)</li> </ul> </ul>MSWallackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04025607935715642114noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5222839876578062342.post-53726096404530811822016-06-08T17:30:00.000-04:002016-06-08T17:30:21.822-04:00Trump’s Racist Attacks on the Federal Judiciary<p>Donald Trump is, quite rightly, being excoriated for his racist attacks on the judge presiding over one of the lawsuits against Trump University. However, that criticism has been largely limited to the straightforward racism of Trump’s attacks and has, sadly, ignored his broader attack on the federal judiciary in general, his threats against judges who Trump doesn’t like, and the implications of his suggestion of conflicts-of-interest on the basis of race or other motivational interest. Trump’s attacks aren’t just limited to a particular judge; rather, he is attacking one of the co-equal branches of government and attempting to subvert its independence and ability to function. One must, therefore, wonder — if not fear — what a Trump presidency would look like were a federal judge (or the Supreme Court) to rule against Trump or a Trump policy.</p> <p>Criticism of judges is fine and there is certainly a long precedent of American citizens, politicians, and elected officials doing so. One of the most famous recent criticisms of a judicial decision came from President Obama during the 2010 State of the Union speech, in which President Obama expressed his views of the recent <em>Citizens United</em> decision:</p> <blockquote> <p>With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections. I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems.</p> </blockquote> <p>That criticism by President Obama was, itself, subject to intense debate and critique. But note that President Obama did <em>not</em> question the integrity of the justices or impugn their reputations or motivations. He criticized the decision and what he perceived the effects would be, but he didn’t accuse them of ruling the way that they did because of their skin color, ethnic heritage, religion, or animus to Hillary Clinton (who, if you’ll recall was the target of the video at issue in Citizens United).</p> <p>Now, compare that sort of criticism to the way <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/05/27/trump-attacks-federal-judge-in-trump-u-case/">Trump attacked the judge presiding over a Trump University case</a> (internal links omitted):</p> <blockquote> <p>“I have a judge who is a hater of Donald Trump, a hater. He’s a hater. His name is Gonzalo Curiel,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd of several thousand booed. “He is not doing the right thing. And I figure, what the hell? Why not talk about it for two minutes?”</p> <p>Mr. Trump spoke for far more than two minutes about Judge Curiel and the Trump University case–he devoted 12 minutes of a 58-minute address to the litigation….</p> <p>…</p> <p>“We’re in front of a very hostile judge,” Mr. Trump said. “The judge was appointed by Barack Obama, federal judge. Frankly, he should recuse himself because he’s given us ruling after ruling after ruling, negative, negative, negative.”</p> <p>Mr. Trump also told the audience, which had previously chanted the Republican standard-bearer’s signature “build that wall” mantra in reference to Mr. Trump’s proposed wall along the Mexican border, that Judge Curiel is “Mexican.”</p> <p>“What happens is the judge, who happens to be, we believe, Mexican, which is great. I think that’s fine,” Mr. Trump said.</p> <p>Judge Curiel was born in Indiana.</p> <p>Mr. Trump told the crowd he looks forward to returning to San Diego for the trial in November and asked for an investigation into Judge Curiel for reasons he did not specify.</p> <p>“I think Judge Curiel should be ashamed of himself,” Mr. Trump said. “I’m telling you, this court system, judges in this court system, federal court, they ought to look into Judge Curiel. Because what Judge Curiel is doing is a total disgrace, OK? But we’ll come back in November. Wouldn’t that be wild if I’m president and I come back to do a civil case? Where everybody likes it. OK. This is called life, folks.”</p> </blockquote> <p>Recognize that this wasn’t a one-time event, either; Trump has repeated these sorts of criticisms multiple times, <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/over-the-waterfall-into-trump-s-racist-abyss">including this</a> (emphasis added):</p> <blockquote> <p>I think the judge has been extremely hostile to me. <strong>I think it has to do with the fact I'm very, very strong on the border</strong>, and he happens to be extremely hostile to me. We have a very hostile judge. <strong>He is Hispanic, and he is very hostile to me</strong>.</p> </blockquote> <p>See a difference? President Obama criticized the <em>decision</em> of the Supreme Court, and discussed his concerns about the effects of that decision, but he did not suggest that individual justices were biased or “haters” and he certainly didn’t suggest that any of the justices was unable to act impartially because of race or religion. And President Obama did not offer an implicit or veiled threat against any of the justices. But Trump has done all of that and more. Repeatedly.</p> <p>There has been plenty written and discussed about just how wrong and un-American are Trump’s attacks against the judge on the basis of race and ethnicity. Yet we can’t forget that Trump went even further and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/06/us/politics/could-a-muslim-judge-be-trump-neutral-trump-thinks-not.html?_r=0">also claimed</a> that Muslim judges might also be biased against him:</p> <blockquote> <p>Mr. Dickerson asked Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, if a Muslim judge would be similarly biased because of Mr. Trump’s call for a ban on Muslim immigrants. “It’s possible, yes,” Mr. Trump said. “Yeah. That would be possible. Absolutely.”</p> </blockquote> <p>But rather than focusing simply on Trump’s unabashed bigotry, I want to focus first on the suggestion that race, heritage, or religion can create inherent conflicts of interest among judges. Let me begin by quoting myself in my post <a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2010/08/addressing-few-red-herrings.html">Addressing a Few Red Herrings</a> (August 5, 2010) written following the original challenge to California’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage when some argued that the judge who decided that case had a conflict-of-interest because he was gay.</p> <blockquote> <p>Why is it that when it comes to litigation involving social issues, straight, Anglo-Protestant white males are never seen as being biased, but a judge who is black or Jewish or female or gay <em>is</em> biased, often for no other reason that the fact that the judge is black or Jewish or female or gay?</p> <p>Or think of it this way: Must every woman judge recuse herself from a rape case? Must every Jewish judge recuse himself from a case involving church-state issues? Must every Hispanic judge recuse himself from an immigration case? Must a black judge recuse himself from every lawsuit alleging racial discrimination? And with your answer to that last query in mind, must every <em>white</em> judge recuse himself from a case alleging racial discrimination if one of the parties is … um … <em>white</em>? And, by all of that reasoning, shouldn’t any <em>straight</em> judge have been forced to recuse himself precisely because he <em>wasn’t</em> gay?</p> <p>Those who argue bias of this sort are either so blinded by their own bias and bigotry or simply cannot recognize that, in order for our system to work at all, we must all have faith in the impartiality of our judiciary. That a judge disagrees with us doesn’t mean bias; it means that judge <em>judges</em> a particular issue differently that you or I might. It doesn’t mean bias. But if we start seeing bias in every judge solely on the basis of that judge’s color or religion or DNA, then it won’t be long before our judicial system becomes a joke and the respect for the rule of law on which the foundations of our country are supported will rot away.</p> </blockquote> <p>Donald Trump doesn’t understand any of that. Rather, it would seem that in the America that he envisages, the only judges who can be relied upon to offer impartial rulings and justice would be judges who share race, religion, heritage, <em>and political viewpoints</em> with those being judged. Or maybe good Aryan (or at least male White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) judges would be exempt from being scrutinized from conflicts-of-interest because of their majority status, right? Of course one has to wonder whether that Aryan or WASP might have a predisposed bias <em>in favor of Trump</em>; after all, shouldn’t we expect that all whites would be supportive of his positions of wanting to keep <strike>American racially pure</strike> out Latino immigrants and those of disfavored religions? I mean, if we can presume that judges of Mexican heritage or of the Muslim faith would be biased against Trump because of his political positions, then shouldn’t we presume that those of European heritage or of the Christian faith would be biased toward Trump for the same reason? Isn’t that really the argument that he is making? As Philip Klein noted in <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trumps-attack-on-a-judges-mexican-heritage-is-an-attack-on-the-american-idea/article/2592920#.V1G53yTAyKY.twitter">The Washington Examiner</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>Trump could just as easily be arguing that a Jewish judge is against him because he refuses to be beholden to Jewish donors. Or an American Asian judge is against him because he wants to get tough on China. Or an Irish Catholic judge is against him because of his attacks on Pope Francis. Effectively, anybody who isn't a white Protestant of European ancestry can be a target of Trump's ethnic and racial attacks.</p> </blockquote> <p>So let’s tease out the ramifications of Trump’s argument that judges can’t be relied upon to be impartial based on their race, heritage, religion, or reactions to the political views of a party appearing before the judge. Essentially, the ramifications become quite simple: Our entire judicial system ceases to function and the rule of law, for which our system is an absolute model and light among the nations, becomes but a quaint relic of bygone days. If Americans are taught that they can’t trust the impartiality of judges, especially judges who look different or pray to a different god, then the rulings of those judges may never be accepted. People will refuse to recognize decisions from “biased” judges and those ruling may, thus, become not worth the paper they are printed on. How long before someone says, “I’m not going to follow the judge’s order because he was biased against me?” In our hyper-polarized present, how long before some legislature or sheriff buys into this sort of viewpoint?</p> <p>You see, one of most important responsibilities of our elected officials is to help provide to the public the sense that our system <em>works</em>. Sure, there may be bumps. Politics may get ugly and messy. Judges may get things wrong and legislators may not always reflect the will of the people. Executives may direct their offices and agents to do things that some will object to. <em>But on the whole, there remains the notion that the system as a whole works</em>. But now we have a situation where one of the major party’s candidate for President is essentially arguing that one of the co-equal branches of the government, the same branch that we rely upon to stop the unchecked power of the executive branch, doesn’t work because of racial or religious bias. The idea of a major party candidate arguing, not that the policy goals of the other party are wrong, but that a branch of the government <em>can’t</em> properly function because of bias, is absolutely unprecedented. And scary.</p> <p>Consider the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/us/politics/donald-trump-constitution-power.html?_r=0">comments</a> of David Post, a retired law professor: </p> <blockquote> <p>“This is how authoritarianism starts, with a president who does not respect the judiciary,” Mr. Post said. “You can criticize the judicial system, you can criticize individual cases, you can criticize individual judges. But the president has to be clear that the law is the law and that he enforces the law. That is his constitutional obligation.”</p> <p>“If he is signaling that that is not his position, that’s a very serious constitutional problem,” Mr. Post said.</p> </blockquote> <p>Then, as if all of that wasn’t enough, we also have Trump’s threat against Judge Cureil.</p> <blockquote> <p>Wouldn’t that be wild if I’m president and I come back to do a civil case? Where everybody likes it. OK. This is called life, folks.”</p> </blockquote> <p>I’m not really sure what Trump meant here (for that matter, Trump’s … um … creative grammar often leaves me a bit befuddled, but that’s a blog for another day), but it does seem like some kind of threat against the judge. Is Trump saying that, after the election, he would sue the judge? Or is he talking about impeachment (“where everybody likes it”)? It’s hard to know. But the notion that a candidate for President is suggesting, even implicitly, that he might try to use the power of the office to retaliate against a member of the federal judiciary should be absolutely chilling to anyone who values the functioning of our system. We need judges who are unafraid to issue difficult rulings and who aren’t influenced by the politics surrounding them. That is one of the reasons that federal judges are appointed to a lifetime term. Now we have a candidate for President who seems willing to throw politics into the <em>functioning</em> of the judiciary. And note that we’re not talking about a case like <em>Citizens United</em> that deals with constitutional issues and the election process; rather, Trump’s concerns arise from a case against one of his businesses <em>for fraud</em>.</p> <p>In the late ’80s and early ’90s, disgruntled farmers and members of the early version of the militia movement (and later so-called “sovereign citizen” movement) began taking actions against judges (both state and federal) who, among other things, issued decrees of foreclosure. These actions often took the form of fake liens against the judges’ properties, thus making it difficult for the judges to sell or refinance their houses. Citizen “grand juries” popped up to issue “warrants” against judges. States like Indiana that fell prey to these shenanigans had to enact laws to protect judges (and others). And now Donald Trump seems to be suggesting that if he doesn’t get his way, it will once again be open season on judges … or at least on judges who don’t rule the way Donald Trump thinks that they should.</p> <p>As I was thinking about this subject last night, I wondered about the precedent that Trump seems to be setting without necessarily realizing it. Think of it this way: Let’s say that I become party to a lawsuit following a traffic accident. And let’s say that the judge presiding over that case is Asian. Now, when that judge issues a ruling with which I disagree, rather than appealing that ruling or otherwise acting within the bounds of the legal system, if I follow Trump’s lead, I should argue that the judge is a “hater” who is a “disgrace” that only gives me “negative” rulings. But then, when the judge refuses to reverse course or to recuse himself, I guess I should start making bigoted anti-Asian comments after which I should argue that the judge has an inherent conflict-of-interest or bias against me because of what I’ve said. Or, to put it even more simply, if I have a judge that I don’t like, I should walk up to that judge and tell him that he is an ignorant asshole who should go fuck his mother, and then I should demand that he recuse himself because <em>my comments and actions</em> may have biased the judge against me. Isn’t that really Trump’s argument here? That judges of Mexican heritage will be inherently biased against Trump <em>because of Trump’s political views</em>? It will be nice to know that if I’m ever sued, I can use my political views to be sure that only a Democratic Jewish judge will be able to preside over my case.</p> <p>I also want to touch briefly on one other red herring argument that seems to be getting some traction, namely that Judge Curiel’s membership in a Latino bar association group (note that the group to which he belongs is the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association and not the national National Council of La Raza (an <b></b>advocacy organization)) is enough to demonstrate bias and some sort of implicit reverse racism (as if by being a member of a Latino organization implies racism against non-Latinos). Of course, that argument ignores the existence of groups like the Italian American Bar Association, German American Bar Association, Chicago Irish American Bar Association, Asian American Bar Association of New York, American Catholic Lawyers Association, J. Reuben Clark Law Society (a Mormon organization), or the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists. And yes, I could go on and on. For the record, I’ve occasionally attended a luncheon (well, really an opportunity to each a Shapiro’s corned beef sandwich) under the auspices of the Jewish Lawyers Luncheon group in Indianapolis. Judges are also people. They are part of their community and that community may include their religion, their ethnic heritage, or their kids’ soccer team. But to suggest that a judge is inherently biased because he is an active member of his community is itself a sort of racist dog whistle to those who argue that the “real racists” are members of minority communities and not the white or Christian majorities.</p> <p>Donald Trump can criticize judges all he wants. That’s fair. But his criticism shouldn’t — can’t — be based in racism or bigotry, it can’t — not if Trump believes in our system of government — call into question the actual functioning of the judicial branch or the belief in the rule of law, and it absolutely can’t include threats, implicit or explicit, that he will use the power of the office of the President to retaliate against judges who don’t agree to jump to Trump’s tune. Yet the continued exhortation to racism and bigotry and attacks against the functioning of our governmental system just makes ever more clear that Trump really is nothing more than a fascist. And I, for one, am not willing to risk the America that I know for the whims of an egotistical, narcissistic, racist, fascist like Donald Trump.</p> <p>Please help me make sure that he is not elected President.</p>MSWallackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04025607935715642114noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5222839876578062342.post-51607334382947216842016-06-01T17:30:00.000-04:002016-06-01T17:30:22.311-04:00Trump Implicitly Condones Anti-Semitism (part 3): The Hate Continues<p>I wonder how Donald Trump will respond when, sometime in the not too distant future, one of his grandchildren asks him, “Zadie* Donald, why do some of your supporters hate Jews … like me?” I wonder how Ivanka will answer her children when they ask why Zadie didn’t tell his supporters to stop saying anti-Semitic things. It could make for some uncomfortable Passover Seder conversation in years to come, don’t you think?</p> <p>Earlier this month, I posted <a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2016/05/trump-implicitly-condones-anti-semitism.html">Trump Implicitly Condones Anti-Semitism</a> and <a href="http://blog.wallack.us/2016/05/trump-implicitly-condones-anti-semitism_13.html">Trump Implicitly Condones Anti-Semitism (redux): The Use of Stereotypes</a>. Sadly, since publishing those posts, the situation has only gotten worse.</p> <p>My initial post came on the heels of an outpouring of anti-Semitic abuse directed at a reporter who wrote an article about Melania Trump. I wrote about Donald Trump declining an offer to give a message to his “fans” about the anti-Semitism they were spewing in his name. Since then, not only has the situation not gotten better, it has gotten demonstrably worse. For example, <a href="http://dujour.com/news/melania-trump-interview/">when asked</a>, indirectly, about anti-Semitism directed at the reporter who interviewed and wrote about her, Melania Trump didn’t do much to repudiate the anti-Semitism (emphasis added):</p> <blockquote> <p>“I don’t control my fans,” Melania says, “but I don’t agree with what they’re doing. I understand what you mean, but there are people out there who maybe went too far. <strong>She provoked them</strong>.”</p> </blockquote> <p>Now to casual readers, this may seem a fairly innocuous statement, but Jewish readers are most likely very familiar with Melania’s final claim of provocation. You see, Jews have been blamed for <em>causing</em> or <em>provoking</em> anti-Semitism for millennia. Literally. Read any anti-Semitic hate site and you’ll quickly come across charges that Jews bear the blame for anti-Semitism (see, for example, one of the images posted below, asking why Jews have been expelled from countries over the millennia). The best that Melania can say is that she doesn’t “agree” with what her fans are “doing” (you know, like making death threats or posting images of Julia Ioffe as a prisoner at Auschwitz) and that such people “<strong>maybe</strong> went too far”. Maybe. Or maybe not, I suppose, right? And Donald? He told Megyn Kelly that anti-Semitic and other abuse directed at reporters and others is “in response to something that they did.” In other words, in Trump’s view, anti-Semitism and other verbal abuse is acceptable if it is in response to something he (or his fans) view with disfavor.</p> <p>Is that the kind of country we want? One in which someone who expresses an opinion contrary to that of a particular <strike>demagogue</strike> politician becomes the target of vicious hate?</p> <p>Ah, but that is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg of the continued failure by Trump and his inner circle to try to stop the virulent anti-Semitism being spewed in Trump’s name. For example, consider the following:</p> <p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-FhdSNHHtho0/V08nI0eAmAI/AAAAAAAABOg/740QoxYAWQg/s1600-h/IMG_21214.jpg"><img title="IMG_2121" style="border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; float: none; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin: 0px auto 5px; display: block; padding-right: 0px; border-top-width: 0px" border="0" alt="IMG_2121" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-_KqCB9RMp-c/V08nJNjDc-I/AAAAAAAABOk/o4NYaVH0zkQ/IMG_2121_thumb2.jpg?imgmax=800" width="484" height="535" /></a></p> <p>Josh Greenman is an opinion editor for the <em>New York Daily News</em>. He posted some graphs of analysis from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center about Trump’s tax policy proposals. In response, an apparent Trump supporter (with an avatar that included a “Make America Great Again” hat and a profile that includes “MAGA” [the acronym for Make America Great Again]) responded simply:</p> <blockquote> <p>Jew</p> </blockquote> <p>Greenman replied, asking the Trump supporter not to “hold back” and received this reply:</p> <blockquote> <p>Your time as the gate keeper is up. Bolshevik propagandists like yourself are a blight on America. Move to Israel.</p> </blockquote> <p>In other words, for the horrible act of posting an tax policy analyst’s results of an examination of the tax policy articulated by a major party candidate for President, a reporter was labeled “Jew” (and clearly that was meant as an epithet) and communist and targeted with the classic anti-Semitic canards of undue influence and control, causing harm to the country in which he resides, and dual loyalty with Israel. One reporter. One tweet. And not even his own tax analysis. Just retweeting what a respected tax analyst published. What might have happened if Greenman said something <em>really</em> critical about a Trump policy? What might happen if a reporter like Greenman were to publish something critical of a <em>President</em> Trump? Kind of chilling to think about, no?</p> <p>Then we come to perhaps the most extreme incident (at least of the last few weeks). On May 18, 2016, <em>The Washington Post</em> printed a column by Robert Kagan, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and foreign affairs columnist for <em>The Washington Post</em> entitled “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-is-how-fascism-comes-to-america/2016/05/17/c4e32c58-1c47-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory">This is how fascism comes to America</a>”. The column, and Kagan’s warnings and conclusions, make for interesting reading. The column concludes (internal link omitted):</p> <blockquote> <p>This is how fascism comes to America, not with jackboots and salutes (although there have been salutes, and a whiff of violence) but with a television huckster, a phony billionaire, a textbook egomaniac “tapping into” popular resentments and insecurities, and with an entire national political party — out of ambition or blind party loyalty, or simply out of fear — falling into line behind him.</p> </blockquote> <p>Jonathan Weisman, a deputy Washington editor for <em>The New York Times</em> tweeted a link to Kagan’s column, including a sentence from that conclusion. The flood of hate was not long in coming. It began with a Twitter user who, like the person described above who interacted with Josh Greenman, also has an avatar with a “Make America Great Again” hat and a nearly identical profile (which is common among a certain class of Trump supporters) who simply tweeted to Weisman:</p> <blockquote> <p>Hello (( Weisman ))</p> </blockquote> <p>Weisman apparently didn’t recognize that the use of multiple parenthesis around a name or term is a popular meme within the anti-Semitic and white supremacist movement to denote a Jew or a supposedly Jewish-controlled business or institution. So Weisman took the bait:</p> <blockquote> <p>Care to explain?</p> </blockquote> <p>So the Trump supporter did just that:</p> <blockquote> <p>What ho, the vaunted ashkenazi intelligence, hahaha! It's a dog whistle, fool. Belling the cat for my fellow goyim.</p> </blockquote> <p>(I had to look it up, but apparently “belling the cat” as used here <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collective_action&action=edit&section=7">describes</a> the “collective action problem” or “the situation in which multiple individuals would all benefit from a certain action, but has an associated cost making it implausible that any individual can or will undertake and solve it alone. The ideal solution is then to undertake this as a collective action, the cost of which is shared.”)</p> <p>Weisman then spent the next eight hours or so retweeting some of the anti-Semitic hate directed his way from a number of different people. Here are just a few of the tweets and images Weisman highlighted with his retweets (see <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/05/19/new-york-times-staffer-tweets-out-op-ed-critical-of-trump-faces-anti-semitic-avalanche/?postshare=3121463704366097&tid=ss_tw">The Washington Post</a> and <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/u-s-election-2016/1.720610">Haaretz</a> for additional details):</p> <ul> <li>all kike-americans that would put Israhell first should be dropped from a helicopter over Tel Aviv </li> <li>Poor <a href="https://twitter.com/jonathanweisman">@jonathanweisman</a> is 4 open borders, sexual degeneracy, and turning the US into 3rd world shithole. Elite Jews went 2 far and have 2 go. </li> <li>Real conservatives principles demand ovening the jews. </li> <li>Savagery is their nature; being from Central Asia they were selected for sociopathic cutthroatedness. </li> <li>I’m not anti-Semitic. I love Semitic groups like SSNP and Hezbollah that kill filthy Jews </li> <li>in fact, Jews are the biggest murderers of Levantines, so it’s pro-Semitic to hate them. </li> <li>Roughly 85% of <s>#</s>Jews consistently vote as <s>#</s>progressives, hence aren’t fit to be American citizens. </li> <li>after the Mexicans and Muslims you filth are next. </li> <li>you must be very thirsty without your daily feeding of blood. </li> <li>Parasites don't know any better. Its just in their nature. You have to get rid of them to survive. </li> <li>You’ve been indoctrinating Jews and goyim with guilt and milking the “Holocaust” for 7 decades. </li> <li>Jews have foisted debt, immigration, & war upon us for 100 years. The pendulum has begun to swing back, and it is glorious. </li> <li>Yeah I don’t mind that a bunch of pornographers, moneychangers and 5th columnists got what they had coming. </li> </ul> <p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-LU5o0D0OjLw/V08nJbJh6oI/AAAAAAAABOo/KWGC25Rg1N8/s1600-h/Ci1uU6AU4AA5Upl.jpg-large4.jpg"><img title="Ci1uU6AU4AA5Upl.jpg large" style="border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; float: none; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin: 0px auto 5px; display: block; padding-right: 0px; border-top-width: 0px" border="0" alt="Ci1uU6AU4AA5Upl.jpg large" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-8fJQ_0paEeA/V08nJtt94LI/AAAAAAAABOs/Nkl87hCFdU0/Ci1uU6AU4AA5Upl.jpg-large_thumb4.jpg?imgmax=800" width="364" height="426" /></a></p> <p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-RuKe6YGDXzE/V08nLRnRdrI/AAAAAAAABOw/Ov4S9Zn9MAM/s1600-h/Ci1qyonWkAEzzMv3.jpg"><img title="Ci1qyonWkAEzzMv" style="border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; float: none; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin: 0px auto 5px; display: block; padding-right: 0px; border-top-width: 0px" border="0" alt="Ci1qyonWkAEzzMv" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-r6gwuoe8C1Y/V08nMIlVuuI/AAAAAAAABO0/XQvksfYm28s/Ci1qyonWkAEzzMv_thumb1.jpg?imgmax=800" width="304" height="537" /></a></p> <p><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-GS4R2p_6nwM/V08nMVbxeNI/AAAAAAAABO4/XRXDbNbL7-8/s1600-h/Ci1hvpBXIAAPKVv3.jpg"><img title="Ci1hvpBXIAAPKVv" style="border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; background-image: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; float: none; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin: 0px auto 5px; display: block; padding-right: 0px; border-top-width: 0px" border="0" alt="Ci1hvpBXIAAPKVv" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-zLahb4j7SoQ/V08nMkdVvtI/AAAAAAAABO8/pj_bfs27AwE/Ci1hvpBXIAAPKVv_thumb1.jpg?imgmax=800" width="577" height="484" /></a></p> <p>The following exchange sort of neatly summarizes how the exchanges went. At one point, Weisman tweeted about the outpouring of anti-Semitism flooding his Twitter feed:</p> <blockquote> <p>Generations of American Jews did not believe this still existed til now.</p> </blockquote> <p>That tweet was in response to one that said:</p> <blockquote> <p>FAR better to welcome #Facism here than to continue along the #JEW created #Marxism road</p> </blockquote> <p>And the response to Weisman’s tweet about the continued existence of anti-Semitism:</p> <blockquote> <p>get used to it you fucking kike. You people will be made to pay for the violence and fraud you’ve committed against us.</p> </blockquote> <p>So now that the expression of virulent and repulsive anti-Semitism from Trump supporters is being talked about on Twitter and, more importantly, in periodicals like <em>The New York Times</em>, <em>The Washington Post</em>, <em>National Review</em>, <em>The Atlantic</em>, <em>Haaretz</em>, and others, you’d expect some kind of response from Trump, his campaign, and/or his more mainstream supporters. Yet Trump has said … <em>nothing</em>. Still. Given how rapidly Trump usually responds (especially on Twitter) to stories that he disagrees with or which anger him, it seems almost impossible that he isn’t aware of either the discussion of anti-Semitism among his “fans” or the criticism of him for failing to repudiate that anti-Semitism. Don’t forget that Wolf Blitzer gave Trump a chance to say something. And yet … silence.</p> <p>And it is a dangerous silence because Trump’s anti-Semitic “fans” take that silence as acceptance of or even incitement for more of that behavior. And query whether, sometime soon, that silence will become a matter of incitement for … something worse. Query what happens if Trump is elected and has the power of the government at his disposal.</p> <p>It seems that almost every day I come across more examples of anti-Semitism from Trump supporters, often aimed at members of the media (who, you’ll recall, Trump regularly lambasts as “dishonest” or worse). For example, Jeffrey Goldberg <a href="https://twitter.com/JeffreyGoldberg/status/733421716152672256">tweeted</a> about an email that he received telling him that if Trump is elected, Goldberg will be “sent to a camp”. ThinkProgress <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/05/27/3782503/donald-trump-anti-semitism-tweets/">reported</a> on a number of its reporters who received anti-Semitic comments from Trump supporters:</p> <blockquote> <p>Kira Lerner and Alice Ollstein — both political reporters and both Jewish — say they have encountered anti-Semitic remarks online while covering Trump.</p> <p>“I immediately blocked them,” Ollstein said. She pointed out that the attacks were unique to this election season, noting, “I’ve been reporting in Washington, DC for six years, and this is the only time it’s ever happened to me — either in person or online.”</p> <p>The same is true for Bryce Covert, ThinkProgress’ economics editor. Covert says she received a deluge of anti-Semitic tweets in May after she <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/opinion/campaign-stops/make-america-great-again-for-the-people-it-was-great-for-already.html">published an op-ed</a> in the New York Times decrying Trump’s policy agenda as disproportionately benefiting white men. The tweets personally attacked her for being Jewish and referenced her family — even though she never mentioned her Jewish heritage (she’s half-Jewish) in the story.</p> <p>“The Trump supporters had to really dig deep to figure out that I’m Jewish,” Covert said. “They unearthed this tweet of mine from months ago referencing my Jewish grandma.”</p> <p>“I haven’t gotten any anti-semitism in my mentions for writing about any other candidate,” she added.</p> </blockquote> <p>ThinkProgress made <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/05/27/3782503/donald-trump-anti-semitism-tweets/">this further observation</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>The connection between Trump and internet-based anti-Semitism has gotten so bad that The Donald’s name and image is now brandished as an excuse to unleash insults whether or not he is being discussed. In mid-May, a Twitter account sporting an image of Trump attacked a Jewish reporter at the Charleston Post and Courier for commenting on shifting opinions regarding the Confederate flag, tweeting, “I guess daddy didn't love her enough to get her a nosejob for her Bar Mitzvah.” The account’s bio notes that liberals should be sent “straight to the ovens.”</p> </blockquote> <p>Jake Tapper, John Podhoretz, Noah Rothman, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-brings-bigots-out-of-hiding/2015/12/18/8a02e4ac-a587-11e5-9c4e-be37f66848bb_story.html">Dana Milbank</a>, and others have all <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/05/19/new-york-times-staffer-tweets-out-op-ed-critical-of-trump-faces-anti-semitic-avalanche/">reported</a> increased anti-Semitism directed their way, apparently from Trump supporters.</p> <p>And before you tell yourself that this vitriolic hate is directed only at the “liberal media” consider the experiences of Ben Shapiro (I can’t believe I’m quoting him here…), one of the more notorious “journalists” on the right (he is a former editor of Breitbart), published in <em><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435527/anti-semitism-donald-trump-right-nationalism-white-supremacism">National Review</a></em>:</p> <blockquote> <p>I was wrong.</p> <p>I’ve spent most of my career arguing that anti-Semitism in the United States is almost entirely a product of the political Left. I’ve traveled across the country from Iowa to Texas; I’ve rarely seen an iota of true anti-Semitism. I’ve sensed far more anti-Jewish animus from leftist college students at the University of California, Los Angeles, than from churches in Valencia. As an observer of President Obama’s thoroughgoing anti-Israel administration, I could easily link the anti-Semitism of the Left to its disdain for both Biblical morality and Israeli success over its primary Islamist adversaries. The anti-Semitism I’d heard about from my grandparents — the country-club anti-Semitism, the alleged white-supremacist leanings of rednecks from the backwoods — was a figment of the imagination, I figured.</p> <p>I figured wrong.</p> <p>Donald Trump’s nomination has drawn anti-Semites from the woodwork.</p> <p>I’ve experienced more pure, unadulterated anti-Semitism since coming out against Trump’s candidacy than at any other time in my political career. Trump supporters have threatened me and other Jews who hold my viewpoint. They’ve blown up my e-mail inbox with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. They greeted the birth of my second child by calling for me, my wife, and two children to be thrown into a gas chamber.</p> <p>Yes, seriously.</p> <p>This isn’t a majority of Trump supporters, obviously. It’s not even a large minority. But there is a significant core of Trump support that not only traffics in anti-Semitism but celebrates it — and god-worships Trump as the leader of an anti-Jewish movement.</p> </blockquote> <p>Shapiro continues on before concluding:</p> <blockquote> <p>Now, this doesn’t mean that Trump is an anti-Semite. No politician is responsible for all those who follow him.</p> <p>But politicians become responsible for movements when they pat those movements on the head. Trump has done that repeatedly. When Trump refused to condemn David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan days before the Louisiana primary, then blamed it on his earpiece, that was a signal to his anti-Semitic base. When Trump retweets accounts heavily connected to white supremacism, his anti-Semitic base celebrates. When he appears on national television and refuses to condemn his supporters’ anti-Semitic death threats against a reporter (“I don’t know anything about that … I don’t have a message to the fans”), his anti-Semitic base takes note. When his wife, Melania, states in an interview that that same reporter “provoked” anti-Semitic death threats, Trump’s anti-Semitic base nods.</p> <p>Trumpism breeds conspiracism; conspiracism breeds anti-Semitism. Trump is happy to channel the support of anti-Semites to his own ends.</p> <p>The anti-Semitism on the right may slink back beneath its rock when Trump is defeated. Or perhaps it will continue to bubble up, fed by the demagoguery of bad men willing to channel ignorant rage toward their own glorification.</p> </blockquote> <p>For even more of the anti-Semitism directed at Shapiro from his fellow travelers on the right, please see his post <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/3783/anti-semites-are-out-force-trump-ben-shapiro">The Anti-Semites Are Out In Force For Trump</a>. It’s sickening.</p> <p>Or <a href="http://forward.com/opinion/336159/my-trump-tweets-earned-me-so-many-anti-semitic-haters-that-i-bought-a-gun/">there is this</a> from journalist Bethany Mandel (an Orthodox Jew who writes for <em>The Federalist</em> and <em>The Forward</em> “usually from a conservative perspective”):</p> <blockquote> <p>As any high-profile Twitter user with a Jewish-sounding last name can tell you, the surest way to see anti-Semitism flood your mentions column is to tweet something negative about Donald Trump. My anti-Trump tweets have been met with such terrifying and profound anti-Semitism that I bought a gun earlier this month. Over the coming weeks, I plan to learn how to shoot it better.</p> </blockquote> <p>I implore my fellow Jews … no, I implore my fellow <em>Americans</em>: Do not let Donald Trump get anywhere near the White House because to do so would be to legitimize and elevate this vile hate that has taken hold within some of his supporters. Trump may not be Hitler, but it certainly seems that some of his most ardent supporters wish that he was. We cannot elect a fascist who draws support from racists and bigots and refuses to repudiate hate expressed in his name. That way lies danger … for all of us.</p> <p>-----</p> <p>*“Zadie” is Yiddish for grandfather and is a term of endearment used by many Jewish children.</p>MSWallackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04025607935715642114noreply@blogger.com0