The Fire Next Time, and the next

It has been 57 years since James Baldwin wrote The Fire Next Time — 28 years since Rodney King was beaten down by police in L.A. and 6 years since Michael Brown was murdered by one in Ferguson, Missouri. In the interim there have been hundreds of these police lynching, all but a handful ever prosecuted.

Baldwin’s warning, from which his title was chosen, calls out the “racial nightmare” of this country by name, challenging America to “dare everything” to end it:

“If we — and now I mean the relatively conscious whites and the relatively conscious blacks who must, like lovers, insist on, or create, the consciousness of the others — do not falter in our duty now, we may be able, handful that we are, to end the racial nightmare and achieve our country, and change the history of the world. If we do not now dare everything, the fulfillment of that prophet, recreated from the Bible in song by a slave, is upon us: God gave Noah the rainbow sign, no more water, the fire next time!”

But White America not only refuses to do anything about racism, it doesn’t even want to hear about it.

But if even the silent, nonviolent protest of “taking a knee” while the national anthem is being played is too much for delicate white sensibilities, then it is inevitable and expected — even reasonable to assume — that those most affected by America’s racial nightmare will have no other choice but to rage and try to burn the entire system down — over and over again, until the system stops killing them.

Hail to the Chief

Like everyone I have been watching events of the last few months with horror. I don’t mean the Corona virus, which most civilized nations, even the hardest-hit, have managed to confront with strength, medical science, and social responsibility — while the United States instead has chosen denial, lies, and finger-pointing.

No, as bad as it is — and it’s not over by a long shot — the world will survive this as it did the 1918 Spanish flu.

It’s our “democracy” — and the word is in quotes because I’m not convinced we actually have one — it’s our democracy’s demise that’s making me lose sleep.

No need to recite the long list of crimes and usurpations from the fascist playbook that the current President has committed in only the last few months. No need to point out the erratic, disturbing behavior on display daily. Encouraging acts violence, threats to the press, the Justice Department run by a gang of cronies defending criminals. All part of a four year nightmare from which we have not yet awakened.

Even the steady approval the President receives from his “base” of White Christian nationalists, anti-government militias, overt white supremacists and treasonous grifters — this, in one form or another, has been with us since the founding of this slave republic. Historians can fill you in on past centuries, but if you don’t know what’s transpired in your own lifetime, you haven’t been paying attention.

I’ve been relatively silent these last months. Truth is, I’ve said just about everything I’ve had to say about Capitalism, American imperialism, foreign policy, militarism, white supremacy, inequality, immigration, press freedom, democracy, criminal justice, and police accountability.

If, after the second collapse of the American economy in little more than a decade — and if, after seeing precisely on what kind of foundation American Capitalism is based, the kind of people running the show, the total disregard they have for the lives of citizens and how easily they will abuse the power of the state for their own advantage — if after all this inescapable reality people cannot recognize America’s true face, then what’s the point of hurling more words into the void?

Hardly surprising, my conservative friends and relatives don’t understand why I have a problem with things that have been working so well for them — for us, for white America — these last 400 years. But it is American Liberals that worry me the most.

Here we are, on the cusp of a national election, and Democrats — correctly identified as the party of upper middle class elites — don’t know what side they’re on. Of the several trillion dollars of COVID-19 bailout money allocated, little is actually finding its way into human hands. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called the amount “crumbs” when refusing to support one rescue bill.

Here we are, faced with the loss of 50 million jobs and the Democratic nominee is still clinging to Obamacare — employer-based healthcare — and his party has never debated generational poverty.

Here we are, faced with a resurgence of lynchings and police abuse, viral infection of prisoners in tightly-packed prisons — and Democrats have said almost nothing about mass incarceration and police accountability.

Here we are, faced with the obvious connections between global pandemics and global environmental crises, and the need to address them urgently — and the DNC still thinks environmental policy and the Green New Deal are too controversial to discuss in public.

My Liberal friends expect me to support a gaffe machine who was just pulled out of storage and still smells of mothballs — this after watching younger, better, smarter candidates of color being systematically flicked off the primary chess board.

But of course I’ll vote for him. What’s the alternative? A neurosyphilitic white supremacist? Liberals are not wrong to describe the 45th president as a toxic menace. But he’s only a menace because he has so successfully exploited every loophole in a Constitutional government designed by slaveholders to thwart a functional democracy.

My Liberal friends tell me their man is just the guy America needs to return things to “normal.”

And this is precisely the problem. The “new normal” in America is really just the unavoidably, undeniable cartoon version of the “old normal” Democrats would have us return to. And it does nothing to address underlying problems of economic inequality, racism, militarism, and systemic exploitation and injustice that have made a lot of Democrats financially very comfortable.

Among Democrats there is an obsessive preoccupation with quashing “divisiveness,” a disturbing avoidance of committing to specific policy positions, and an even more disturbing kinship with Republicans — the obsession with “leadership.” Maybe it’s because in a Capitalist society every chief executive is a mini-Stalin, and it’s just another convention we never question. One friend wrote that a detailed party program was wrong, that we should elect Biden and then let him write it: “once elected, then comes the hard work of determining the specifics.”

What my friend describes is a very American, very corporate, fundamentally undemocratic, and frankly patronizing, process of leaving heavy thinking to a leader who doesn’t have to follow party principles. In fact, in this world parties don’t have any principles. By the time political decisions are made lobbyists are already running the show — because they were the ones whispering into the candidate’s ear from the beginning.

A recent example of the Liberal preoccupation with “leadership” is a Washington Post article by Karen Tumulty attempting to connect Joe Biden’s COVID-19 remarks with Robert Kennedy’s after Martin Luther King’s assassination: “Though Kennedy was a white man of enormous privilege, he spoke with the moral authority of one who had lost his own brother to a murderer’s bullet […] Barely two months later, Kennedy himself would be slain. But the words he said still live. They speak not only to what this country can still become, but its need for a leader who can point the way in that direction.”

But nostalgia, name-dropping, and ham-handed metaphors don’t cut it for a lot of Americans. If you hadn’t noticed this week, African Americans are fed up with being killed and fed up with meaningless verbiage.

From Bakari Sellers to Derecka Purnell to Van Jones to Trevor Noah Liberals have had a recent opportunity to hear (again) from black intellectuals and notables in media outlets they are familiar with. And these men and women are not saying anything past generations haven’t told white Liberals. The question is: why haven’t we been listening?

Van Jones took aim at Liberal hypocrisy: “It’s not the racist white person who is in the Ku Klux Klan that we have to worry about. It’s the white, liberal Hillary Clinton supporter walking her dog in Central Park who would tell you right now, ‘Oh I don’t see race, race is no big deal to me, I see all people the same, I give to charities,’ but the minute she sees a black man who she does not respect, or who she has a slight thought against, she weaponized race like she had been trained by the Aryan Nation.”

I guess some of us are just a special sort of stupid. If Trump was promising “shooting” for “looting,” New York City major Bill DeBlasio was shooting himself in the foot. After NYPD police officers actually ran over demonstrators with patrol cars, the mayor defended their actions, attributing unrest in the city to “out-of-towners” — apparently the Northern version of “outside agitators.”

Liberals just don’t know (without running a focus group or consulting pollsters) whose side they’re on.

An article in the Root ridiculed the White need to “contextualize the anger, frustration and desperation that forced protesters to recreate the lawlessness and chaos that black people experience on a daily basis.” “Alright,” it began. “August 1619…”

It is not a single person, a particular president, or a specific “leader” who is the cancer destroying the United States. It is not bad leadership but Capitalism and White Supremacy that are killing people, impoverishing families, oppressing people.

If Liberals think that replacing one old white hair-plugged, dental-veneered geezer with another is the only remedy for what ails us, I have some hydroquinone I’d like to sell you.

The issue is not leadership, but the system that the leader leads.

The America of 2025

Each day we are reminded how corrupt, incompetent, mentally ill, and cognitively impaired Donald Trump is. His administration is a nightmare from which we awake only to discover that the new day’s reality has become even more frightening than the day before.

With over 1.2 million COVID-19 cases and over 73,000 deaths [as of today], Trump is more concerned with “reopening” the country than saving lives, providing testing and masks, or issuing a national shutdown order. Trump’s leadership has been as lacking as with every other GOP response to a natural disaster.

Trump has hawked snake oil cures, peddled multiple conspiracy theories involving China and the World Health Organization, his scientists have been muzzled, he has sidelined and censored the CDC, and his son-in-law is in charge of phantom ventilator contracts. Just as with deals involving the mafia, when doing business with the White House Don it seems it pays to “know a guy.”

In the midst of all this chaos, ineptitude and deep division over how (or whether) to socially distance, people have no recourse but to fend for themselves, make their own masks, help their neighbors, try to nurture social connections, and somehow keep body and soul together. Trump’s followers, however, are prepping for the apocalypse, stockpiling weapons and ammunition, placing their neighbors in the crosshairs, and putting them in spitting (and coughing) distance — all because it’s their “right” as God-fearing White Americans.

In Michigan, armed militia members opposing the governor’s stay-at-home orders entered the state capitol, forcing legislators to don kevlar vests. In contrast, the full weight of the State has come down on any Black person found ignoring masks or social distancing orders. That is, when Black folks aren’t being harrassed for actually wearing a face mask. In Texas, a white woman refused to obey an order to close her salon and became a hero in a state that objects to asylum seekers crossing the border because “we are a nation of laws.” But laws only for some.

The Coronavirus has also illuminated America’s festering racial, class, and economic inequalities. For Republicans the pandemic has been a bonanza for extracting greater tax and loan advantages for Big Business, enacting bans on travel and abortion while the public is distracted, and for returning the country to the 1950’s. For Democrats, the economic and health crisis on our doorstep hasn’t fully registered. Democrats managed to choose a 78 year-old Centrist with a massive #MeToo problem who just wants to return the world to 2012 and to tweak Obama’s flawed health plan as little as possible. In the meantime, the world has completely changed. Even with Biden’s candidacy in shambles, they’re still sticking with their man and his vision for the past.

Although people of color and America’s working poor have borne the brunt of the pandemic, there is little indication that help is on the way. Although $3 trillion has been disbursed to save American jobs, most of the money is predictably not finding its way into human hands.

Black Americans account for a staggering number of Coronavirus deaths. In Louisiana, the percentage of African American mortality among all COVID-19 deaths is 70%. The same percentage describes the situation in Chicago. Black Americans have long had high rates of asthma (lack of environmental protections), diabetes and heart problems (lack of healthcare and insurance) — and these are all “underlying conditions” which reduce COVID-19 survivability. It’s no exaggeration to say that America is literally killing Black people.

Despite the fact that the the Navajo Nation has the third highest infection rate in the country, it has not received emergency funds for testing. Similarly, the Seattle Indian Health Board, a Native American health center, “asked for tests, and instead they sent us a box of body bags,” according to the center’s CEO. White America seems to be trying to tell Native Americans something.

LatinX workers in the nation’s meat processing plants have been forced to work-while-sick at their jobs despite massive infection levels. Likewise, people in the jails and prisons of this nation with the greatest incarceration rate in the world — overwhelmingly poor and people of color — are at risk of contracting the virus in crowded, unsanitary conditions, deprived of soap, face masks and testing.

Many Americans are now literally starving, people are unable to pay for rent or food, and everyone wants an expansion of antibody testing and vaccine development. But corporate immunity is about the only immunity the Trump administration and its collaborators in the Senate really care about. Democrats just signed off on the greatest corporate giveaway in American history, and only one House representative protested the “crumbs for our families.”

I am confident that America will survive a global pandemic — just as it did 102 years ago. Whether we end up with a quarter of a million or several million deaths is largely up to the lunatics running the asylum. Some of us will be statistics; others will be survivors. Life will go on.

But it’s the survival of anything resembling a democracy that’s got me worried. Unless a substantial number of Americans have had enough, the world of 2025 will be run by the same Capitalists who have profited the most from a series of corporate bailouts beginning in the Seventies. For all the lofty Liberal expressions of “rethinking America” and “reconsidering” who is actually an essential worker, don’t expect to see any change unless we — collectively — decide that an essential worker ought to be paid at least as much as a supply chain consultant. But please, somebody, tell me how that happens in a Capitalist economy.

We don’t have a democracy now, and we won’t have one in 2025 unless everyone is equal under the law. Without a serious effort to erase long-standing economic and racial injustices and completely restructure criminal justice and policing in America, cops will still be harassing and even lynching Black men in America in 2025, and the jails will still be full of poor people who can’t make bail. Without health care as a right, some of us will live decades longer than others. Without reparations or a plan to lift up generationally disadvantaged communities, many Black and Native and LatinX Americans will still live in a Third World America while White America continues to live in its dreamy version of Pleasantville.

A new society is possible. But I fear White America, comfortable in its privilege, really has no incentive to tinker with what’s been working for them so well all these years.

2016, R.I.P.

In 2016 a small percentage of Bernie Sanders’ supporters refused to support the Democratic Party candidate, Hillary Clinton. I agreed with Bernie that Clinton’s “damn server” was not her main problem, nor were her tangled connections to oligarchs and war criminals through the Clinton Foundation, the $2 billion family business, my main objection to Clinton.

No, I was one of those people disgusted at the blood Clinton had on her hands from her stint crafting malign foreign policy and advocating regime change in the Middle East as Secretary of State. I voted Green and don’t regret my protest vote for a second, although some of my friends still believe it was people like me who tipped the scales in Trump’s favor.

They forget, of course, that for every one of us who voted Green — “robbing” Clinton of “her” vote — there were more than three people who voted for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian, thus robbing Donald Trump of three times our votes. In the grand scheme of things, the Libertarian vote hurt Republicans much more than the Green vote hurt Democrats.

In contrast to 1992, when Ross Perot received almost 19% of the vote, in 2016 third parties received a combined total of only 4.4% of the popular vote. Neither Jill Stein nor Gary Johnson received even a fraction of a single Electoral College vote — the only thing that really counts in a presidential election. The tiniest of fractions were, however, allocated to Colin Powell, John Kasich, Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, and Faith Spotted Eagle. Despite winning the popular vote 48.18% to 46.09%, Democrats were defeated — not by the Greens but by a combination of the Electoral College, voter apathy, and Clinton’s own failure to campaign in key states.

So here we are four years later. Sanders, who once again ran on a progressive platform and lost to Centrist Democratic machinery, finds himself once again being a good soldier, supporting another Centrist. Once again some of his disgruntled supporters are being accused of acting irresponsibly by not playing the Two Party game with sufficient enthusiasm. And once again old accusations against Sanders supporters have re-surfaced.

It’s not clear how many Working Families Party, Our Revolution, or Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) members will vote for Joe Biden — in a time of pandemic and incipient fascism it’s going to be a lot more than you think — but the fact progressives are not eager to endorse Biden has some people in a tizzy.

American Prospect editor Harold Meyerson, for example, accuses DSA of “moronic rectitude” for withholding their endorsement of Biden. One hopes that Meyerson knows the difference between a grudging vote cast in the privacy of the voting booth and a full-throated public endorsement. Of course, it might also help if Biden reached out to the Democratic Left with progressive policy changes to earn that endorsement — at a time in our history when progressive policies are needed more than ever. And by now Biden should have chosen an African-American woman running mate. His dithering — and the ongoing market testing of various white female Centrists — say a lot about Biden, the DNC, and the power of Democratic Party’s PACs and big donors.

So I’m going to vote for the guy who’s not a fascist. I will probably even donate money to his campaign. But there are a couple of things about voting that bear repeating.

First, voters don’t owe anyone their votes. Those who don’t vote are a majority in many American elections. Voting statistics reveal the low opinion the electorate has of both parties, their hollow promises and their bullshit platforms. Though most of you will disagree with the following statement, it is true enough for those who hold it — the differences between the two mainstream parties are simply not significant enough to get most people off their couches on Election Day. Want more voters? Offer something worth voting for.

Second, voters don’t owe you their votes. A vote means what a voter wants it to mean. You may regard my vote as an obligation to get with your program and ensure that your candidate wins an election, but that’s not why I show up at the polls. Elections are not horse races. If they were there would occasionally be a pay-out. Elections are just as much referenda on ideas and principles as they are the ritual selection of interchangeable elected representatives.

Phrases like “electability” and “viability” are not Good Housekeeping seals of approval. They are mainly indictments of the hollowness of American politics. It’s not my fault that many of you vote for people you don’t even like that much — candidates who do test polling instead of actually believing in something and committing to fixing the root causes of the nation’s most serious problems. And since when do mainstream Democrats, who just concluded a vicious liberal red-baiting campaign against Sanders, believe in Marxist-Leninist Party Discipline? My vote is my own, not the Democratic Party’s.

By now we all know that elections have consequences, but so do campaigns and candidate choices. Give voters a good and decent candidate with good and decent policies and they’ll vote for her. Offer them the lesser of two evils, and an electorate conditioned to always snap to attention and choose American greatness will choose the greater evil every time.

Biden’s going to be an extremely long-shot this November. Don’t blame his loss on progressives.

What’s a life worth?

In late March Donald Trump told the press corps, “Our country wasn’t built to be shut down […] This is not a country that was built for this.” Since then Trump seems to have backpedaled on his notion to open the nation for business on Easter Sunday — presumably to the peals of church bells announcing the resurrection of the nation and his own polling numbers. But in a move calculated to sideline the nation’s infectious disease experts — including some of his own advisors — Trump is back at it again.

You never thought the pit bull was going to let go of your pants leg, did you?

Trump recently announced the formation of an “Opening Our Country Council.” He indicated that neither his son-in-law and daughter nor the Vice President would be involved, and it is still unclear who will actually be on the council, or why it is really necessary. Regardless, Trump claims that he — not state governors — has “total authority” to decide when workers will be forced to return to work — without testing, without masks, and without sufficient ICU beds or ventilators to let them survive the COVID-19 infections they will receive by returning too soon to the germ pool.

Trump may not have a plan for dealing with the Corona virus, but he claims total authority to carry out that plan.

Naturally, the nation’s governors are pushing back. New York governor Andrew Cuomo said that before anyone talks about “opening” the nation for business the first order of business will be testing. Connecticut governor Ned Lamont announced that social distancing would remain in effect until at least May 20th, and New Jersey governor Phil Murphy said that economic recovery depends entirely on public health safety.

As for Trump’s “total authority,” Cuomo told CNN, “The president does not have total authority. We have a constitution, we don’t have a king, we have an elected president.” University of Texas Constitutional Law professor Stephen Vladeck agreed, slamming Trump’s authoritarian move: “Nope. That would be the literal definition of a totalitarian government–which our traditions, our Constitution, and our values all rightly and decisively reject.”

With the nation in the grip of both a deadly pandemic and an incompetent fascist wannabe, the nation’s governors have been left to their own devices.

California governor Gavin Newsom announced that his nation-state of California had no choice but to fend for itself given Trump’s inaction and incompetence. California, together with Oregon and Washington, has formed a regional alliance to plot its own course for economic recovery. The same strategy has been adopted by an alliance of Northeast governors from New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware.

When Hong Kong temporarily suspended its lockdown after a few weeks, it experienced a spike in new infections and was forced to lock down citizens again. The same sort of spike occurred in Singapore after it prematurely relaxed social distancing. So we know that keeping people sheltered in place must go on much longer, and we know that only testing will tell us how much of the population has been exposed and how much has recovered.

Fifty million Americans receive Social Security payments and many workers are either salaried or still manage to draw an income. These lucky enough to own their homes and have health insurance have a sense they will probably survive the pandemic. For the most part, this segment of America has enjoyed a healthy life of adequate and nutritious food, clean water and a clean environment, and does not have disproportionately high rates of diabetes, hypertensions or asthma. This privileged segment of America does not live in crowded apartments in polluted neighborhoods for which they must pay rent, is not forced to commute during a pandemic on crowded subways or buses, and can afford to have someone else deliver food and supplies to their homes.

But for the rest of America, life is incredibly precarious — and has always been. African Americans, Latinos, Indigenous people, the working class, the working poor, and the disabled are at elevated risk and are dying in shameful numbers. There is an old saying something like, “When white folks catch a cold, black folks get pneumonia.” By sending America’s most vulnerable back to work without adequate protections, we are sending some to their deaths — all for the sake of corporate greed. And because their lives do not hold particularly great value by policy makers.

As we now contemplate the frightening lack of hospital beds and ventilators — and who must die for lack of one — the rules for triage are revealed as decidedly racist. On April 7th Massachusetts Secretary of Health and Human Services Marylou Sudders released a memo entitled “Crisis Standards of Care Planning Guidance for the COVID-19 Pandemic” which described state guidelines for making decisions about who receives care and who doesn’t during the global pandemic. The memo describes the recommendations of a panel of medical professionals in which those with the lowest scores have the highest priority for treatment. “But among the factors giving patients a higher score, and therefore, a lower priority for medical intervention are health conditions common to black, Latino and Asian people including diabetes, hypertension and obesity.”

Oh, well, they’re just going to die anyway.

Similarly, Alabama’s 2010 triage handbook for ventilator use puts a low premium on the lives of disabled people: “persons with severe mental retardation, advanced dementia or severe traumatic brain injury may be poor candidates for ventilator support.”

We are not so very far away from the world of 1935, when a magazine called “New People” published by the new German “Racial Politics Office” pointed out to subscribers:

“60,000 Reich Marks is the cost to society of caring for those with congenital diseases. Citizens, this is your money.”

Friedman’s Cabinet

A New York Times editorial by Tom Friedman making the rounds offers specific recommendations for a Biden cabinet. Friedman’s terrible picks deserve both scrutiny and comment.

For starters, the “Team of Rivals” approach is even more ill-conceived today than it was in 2016. And backing up for a second, what’s the rush to anoint Joe Biden before he survives the Coronavirus, the last Democratic primary, and a convention? Joe Biden is not Juan Guaidó: he can’t simply proclaim himself president (or nominee) before an election says he is. Premature anointment is a 2016 mistake Democrats seem determined to repeat in 2020. This is a party that never learns.

Instead of a “Team of Rivals” that magically makes Republicans sing Kumbaya along with Democrats, what we really need is an experienced Democratic cabinet that reflects America’s neighborhoods and not America’s boardrooms. We need a kick-ass team of Democrats who believe in science and education and health and economic and racial justice — including Democrats usually relegated to the sidelines while people like Friedman’s choices run America into the ground as ineptly as their Republican golfing buddies.

The Democratic Party is being held together with duct tape and spearmint gum. If Democrats need anything, it is to give power to people already inside the tent, especially progressives and African Americans — rather than handing Republicans, Think Tank ideologues, CEO’s, and Friedman’s Davos crowd any more power than they already have.

Where Friedman casts a few crumbs to progressives and African Americans, they are cynical and ill-fitting posts akin to ambassadorships. With Friedman’s picks, Corporate America can rest assured that Neoliberalism and reckless foreign policy will continue — and his choice of so many American oligarchs all but guarantees it.

Worse, Friedman’s cabinet assignments are an extension of the Centrist Democrat election “strategy” of sidelining progressives and minorities in favor of America’s imagined “heartland” and “center.” The enthusiasm with which Friedman’s half-baked notions have gathered appreciative sighs is discouraging. It confirms my belief that Democrats are a party of small ideas and wishful thinking.

Who on Friedman’s List will finally deal with reparations, student debt, or the formation of a single-payer National Health Care System? Who on his list is prepared to implement economic, criminal, policing, and racial justice reforms? Remember: this will be a Biden monster cobbled together from human parts harvested from the Clinton and Obama administrations.

Basically, the best Friedman has come up with is an offer to share Democratic power with Republicans immediately after being won — that is, if a lackluster candidate and an uninspiring cabinet can even inspire voters to choose a Democratic slate.

Below are my comments on Friedman’s specific choices. Among them are too many Centrists and Republicans, a frightening number of oligarchs, numerous Think Tank and Davos buddies, and a racial and socioeconomic mix that looks little like the real America.

Post Person Notes Vice President Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, former Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala or Gov. Gina Raimondo of Rhode Island This is a giant “F*** You” to African Americans. And from which section of his colon did Friedman pull Gina Raimondo? Treasury Secretary Mike Bloomberg Another member of the Ruling Class? Health and Human Services Secretary Bill Gates Another member of the Ruling Class? Secretary of Oversight for the trillions of dollars in emergency Coronavirus spending Elizabeth Warren Instead of letting Warren create a single-payer national healthcare system Attorney General Merrick Garland Why not Kamala Harris and save Garland for SCOTUS (again)? Homeland Security Secretary Andrew Cuomo Another Giulani in the making; he is not acceptable to progressives Secretary of State Mitt Romney A White Republican, and not even one most White Republicans like Defense Secretary Michèle Flournoy A Clinton neoconservative, just what we don’t need Labor Secretary Ro Khanna An attempt to buy off a progressive critic of reckless “Defense” spending Secretary of National Infrastructure Rebuild (Friedman’s new cabinet post) Walmart C.E.O. Doug McMillon Another member of the Ruling Class? Commerce Secretary Former American Express C.E.O. Ken Chenault Another member of the Ruling Class? O.M.B. Director Gov. Mike DeWine of Ohio Why is Friedman afraid to let a Democrat run the OMB? Education Secretary Laurene Powell Jobs Friedman has been hob-nobbing at Davos too long with celebrities like Steve Jobs’ widow U.N. ambassador Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Why not put AOC in charge of the Green New Deal? Maybe because Centrists don’t believe in it. HUD secretary Ford Foundation chief Darren Walker Walker is Friedman’s only African-American pick but is not exactly in touch with its problems Interior Secretary Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico Friedman treats this like an inherited position: Grisham’s father, Manuel Lujan, was Bush’s Interior Secretary Energy Secretary Andy Karsner (a green Republican who led renewable energy for George W. Bush) Another from the Davos crowd, and affiliated with Laurene Jobs. But why not an author or cosponsor of the Green New Deal? E.P.A. administrator Al Gore Gore made some nice movies back in the day, but my choice would be Jay Inslee

Fighting the wrong enemy

An authoritative critic of the American national security state is Andrew Bacevich, West Point Class of 1969, retired Army Colonel, and historian specializing in international relations, security studies, American foreign policy, and American diplomatic and military history. Bacevich is a Professor Emeritus of International Relations and History at Boston University and President of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

Bacevich’s essay in TomDispatch yesterday (“America Terrorized”) makes the case that billions, and now trillions, of national treasure have been squandered annually since the 1950’s fighting largely phantom enemies. This may have turned us into a national security juggernaut but our dubious status has cost us our democracy and failed to protect us from all-too-real threats.

Read the whole thing here.

From the 1950s through the 1980s, keeping us safe provided a seemingly adequate justification for maintaining a sprawling military establishment along with a panoply of “intelligence” agencies — the CIA, the DIA, the NRO, the NSA — all engaged in secret activities hidden from public view. From time to time, the scope, prerogatives, and actions of that conglomeration of agencies attracted brief critical attention — the Cuban Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961, the Vietnam War of the 1960s and early 1970s, and the Iran-Contra affair during the presidency of Ronald Reagan being prime examples. Yet at no time did such failures come anywhere close to jeopardizing its existence. […]

Presidents now routinely request and Congress routinely appropriates more than a trillion dollars annually to satisfy the national security state’s supposed needs. Even so, Americans today do not feel safe and, to a degree without precedent, they are being denied the exercise of basic everyday freedoms. Judged by this standard, the apparatus created to keep them safe and free has failed. In the face of a pandemic, nature’s version of an act of true terror, that failure, the consequences of which Americans will suffer through for months to come, should be seen as definitive.

Read the whole thing here.

People or profits

The Senate is supposed to reach agreement today on some sort of Coronavirus financial package. There are fundamental disagreements over whether we let families die and slide into even deeper financial ruin while we bail out the travel, hotel, airline, and financial industries; whether we let Trump and Mnuchin access a half trillion dollar slush fund; and what kinds of strings should be attached to corporate bailouts. Both sides have offered their own rescue plans. The Democrat version alone is 1400 pages.

Whether we end up calling it a rescue plan, a stimulus package, a bailout, a lifeline, or a disgrace depends on what we learn later today. Don’t get your hopes up. We live in a county that has always valued the mighty dollar more than human life. Now, this week, today, some are going to face that bitter truth for the first time.

We certainly know what the Republican administration and its Fox News cabinet think. People, at least of the expendable variety, must sacrifice themselve (or have it done to them) through inadequate testing, an absence of virus protection, lack of testing, and privatized healthcare that currently excludes them — just to keep the economy running for the owners.

Three months after the virus was first identified (it’s called COVID-19 because it was discovered in 2019) Americans still have insufficient ventilators, no masks, and almost no testing kits. And there is still no national plan to lock down people at home to minimize fatalities and to keep them financially solvent as the crisis unfolds.

The administration has shown us graphs showing that social distancing may help reduce pressure on hospital admissions. But they haven’t shown us their spreadsheet showing the cost in human lives in one column, and the cost to the economy in another.

Trump failing to keep a safe social distance from Fundamentalists
Trump failing to keep a safe social distance from Fundamentalists

But Republican priorities are pretty clear. What are a few million deaths if casinos can be kept open? Just ask Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, who told FOX News’ Tucker Carlson he’d to worship a golden calf if it saves business — which he confuses for a nation of human beings:

“So, I’m going to be smart, I think all of my fellow grandparents out there are going to be smart. We all wanna live, we wanna live with our grandchildren for as long as we can,” he added. “But the point is, our biggest gift we give to our country and our children and our grandchildren is the legacy of our country.”

Naturally, the President agrees. “Our country wasn’t built to be shut down,” Trump said. “This is not a country that was built for this.”

No, the United States is an all-day-all-night casino in one of Trump’s hotels.

An effective lockdown could go on for months. The Wuhan lockdown lasted seven weeks, and during the 1918 Spanish Flu public gatherings in the United States were banned in some places for as long as six months. When Hong Kong temporarily suspended its lockdown after a few weeks, it experienced a spike in new infections and was forced to lock down citizens again. So we know that keeping people sheltered in place must go on much longer than just two weeks.

But Trump knows better than the scientists. Appearing to confuse the disease’s incubation period with its duration, Trump thinks everything will be over in a couple of weeks. “America will again, and soon, be open for business.” Anthony Fauci, who is the only person in the entire Trump administration with the guts to disagree with his boss publicly, thinks lockdown measures should be of much longer duration. Trump has acknowledged Fauci’s disagreement, but the very stable genius has decided he knows better than the world’s epidemiologists.

This is the sort of cynical, callous, and criminal disregard for human life we have come to expect from Trump and his bobble-headed sycophants in the new Republican Party — the same people who told Americans with a straight face that a national healthcare plan would create Death Panels to determine who gets life-saving health care, and who must, regretfully of course, die. But now Republicans have outed themselves as the ultimate Death Panel. Money talks, and if protecting the public costs too much, then money says: the public is expendable.

By the end of the day we’ll know if Congress votes for preservation of millions of human lives — or the preservation of Capitalism for a second time in just twelve years.

The world, rebooted

There are many things a global pandemic ought to make us see with new eyes — what social animals we really are, for one. Now is a good time for us all to insist that we actually live in a society, not just an economy. I’ve heard from and communicated with my friends and neighbors more these last two weeks than at any other time. When these connections are limited, we feel deeply what we take for granted.

Another is the value of our fellow citizens. In a world where the working class doesn’t get enough respect, maybe now we should recognize there is a whole army of “essential workers” keeping the lights on, the stores open, and infrastructure going. It’s not just first responders and medical caregivers who are the real heroes. We all are. We are all indispensable pieces of a whole.

And maybe, too, we ought to reconsider the purpose of government. Our society is not mere scaffolding for Business and Capital, with government there mainly to collect taxes, enforce property rights, and police city streets. There is an essential role for government to play in keeping citizens safe, healthy, and economically secure.

As companies shed workers and lobby [again] for massive economic bailouts, it should be obvious that the market economy is not a machine designed to look out for anyone’s interests but its own. Conversations about the social safety net, basic income, and a government that defends its people in ways besides building walls and bombs must reshape what kind of society we will live in and the quality of lives its citizens can lead.

That is, once the world has been rebooted.

It’s increasingly clear that we also need to take the risks to human life of environmental change and pandemics much more seriously. Deferring action on climate change for 10-20 more years will lead to the same sort of crisis that deferring action on pandemics has created. Google the 2006 TED Talk on global pandemics by Epidemiologist Dr. Larry Brilliant.

About thirteen minutes into the video Brilliant predicts with uncanny accuracy the pandemic we are experiencing today. And he asks for the world to take action to prevent it from happening. But that TED talk was 14 years ago, and today we can see the result of complacency, denial and inaction.

It may be too much to ask — from a nation that voted for “America First” and which does not believe it is truly a part of a world community, doesn’t fully recognize the UN or the legitimacy of international courts, only briefly joined international environmental accords, and which rejects basic science — that we must participate, if not take a leading role, in an international health plan such as the one Dr. Brilliant suggests. But it would be the smart and right and sane thing to do.

We will soon see if the world is capable of saving itself through solidarity, justice and rationality. Unfortunately, centuries of human history present a strong case against it. But what other choice do we have?

Thank you for your service

America loves its men in uniform. Policemen and firefighters who responded to 9/11 in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania were celebrated as heroes, as many of them truly were. A generation later, members of the American military — even those who fought a war in the wrong country without ever questioning it — are given preferential boarding, preferential hiring, healthcare, paid leave, and state and municipal stipends. Laws in some states place a greater value on a policeman’s life than on an ordinary citizen. State and federal laws criminalize false claims of having received military honors. Even among those who question American wars most fiercely you hear the familiar “thank you for your service.”

Americans have decided that only a very limited (and mainly weapon-carrying) minority of American “workers” are worthy of our praise. When we attend professional sports events we find them running out on the field in fatigues along with the military flyover. It has become so common for an on-leave service member to surprise his son or daughter at a high school sports event or graduation ceremony that the President of the United States staged one of these heart-warming reunions at his last State of the Union address. Cash and spectacle are rewards for those who do the bidding of the defense industry without asking too many questions.

But America has real heroes — and they have been right under our noses all along.

The global pandemic we find ourselves in today has made it crystal clear that those who continue to deliver the mail, pick up the trash, show up for work at supermarkets, staff the help lines, deliver pizza to the door, care for the sick, keep making meals for school children, look in on their elderly neighbors — we/you are just as integral to the functioning of society as those we have chosen to police us and surround our borders with missiles and barbed wire.

To all Americans now being guided by their better angels, to all who look out for their neighbor, care what kind of world we live in, and to all who put their health on the line during this extraordinary crisis:

Thank you for your service.

ICE detainees worry of being exposed to COVID-19

A March 18 complaint from 51 ICE detainees at the Bristol County House of Corrections warns of a potential outbreak of the COVID-19 virus at the Dartmouth, Massachusetts facility because of unhealthy conditions of their confinement. Another 10 detainees did not sign the complaint for fear of retaliation from jail officials, according to a copy of the complaint. Detainees say that at least two potentially infected officers, one who was sent home on March 16, may have exposed an entire wing of ICE detainees to the Coronavirus.

The complaint reads in part:

“The ICE detainees of Unit B of the Bristol Correctional Center, individually and collectively, would like to highlight serious concerns about the outbreak of the COVID-19 virus within the facility of Bristol Correctional Center.

The facility safety conditions and the conditions of its personnel, in light of two recent and separate episodes, have raised the concern into a very serious matter.

Specifically, on March 14, 2020 a Correctional Officer was observed to be symptomatic of the COVID-19 virus during his shift followed by another C.O. on March 16, 2020 that was later on replaced by a colleague.

Two separate and serious episodes recently occurred and have alarmed the entire detainee population of Unit B and prompted a number of detainees to file their own Sick Call / Medical Encounter Request.

Unit B is comprised of sixty-six (66) beds, fifty-seven (57) of them occupied, one of them filled as recently as 24 hours ago…”

The detainees assert that prisoners are held in conditions that almost guarantee that they will become infected: they are housed closer than 6 feet apart; and in groups six times larger than the recommendation of 10 people in proximity at one time.

The complaint asks that detainees be released if they have serious medical conditions or are considered low-risk, or that they be released on bond if they have rescheduled hearings. The complaint also asks that detainees scheduled for deportation be repatriated within five days instead of remaining in dangerous condidtions for an indeterminate period of time.

Copies of the complaint were sent to Immigrations and Custom Enforcement, the Bristol County Sheriff, Correctional Psychiatric Services (the medical vendor), the Massachusetts Department of Health, and the ACLU.

The ICE detainees are appealing to the public for help.

“We are hoping that you will mobilize on our behalf by contacting your local congressman and any and all TV and media outlets. […] We are trapped inside […] and in fear for our lives. Please help!”

Despite prisoner claims that a couple dozen detainees are already showing symptoms of the virus, including coughing, the Sheriff’s media spokesperson, Jonathan Darling, told us on March 20 that there were no illnesses in the ICE wing and that no one was at risk.

Stay safe, stay informed

People in the Trump administration like Reagan’s joke: be very afraid when someone says “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” But anyone who remembers government responses to Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Maria ought to be doubly afraid when it’s a Republican offering the help. Only with the recent appearance of the Trump administration’s apparently only competent public health official, Dr. Anthony Fauci, are we now beginning to get some truth from the White House. There is still a lot of misinformation regarding both the Coronavirus and the government’s response to it.

COVID-19

COVID-19 is the 2019-2022 manifestation of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The virus is most dangerous to people over 70 who are immune-compromised, have existing heart, circulatory, or respiratory problems, and who are habitually exposed to pollutants or do not have reliable medical care. COVID-19 is more deadly than the average flu but nothing like the 1918 Spanish Flu. That said, the 1918 Flu illustrates how a global pandemic unfolds, what helps to save lives, and the sorts of denial and stupidity that kill people.

Some readings on the virus itself:

Effects and Responses

Poor people suffer the greatest during pandemics and the United States stands alone as a nation without a national health care system or universal health care. Worse, Trump fired government global pandemic experts as soon as he came to office. Why? Well, because if Obama thought taking global pandemics seriously was a good idea, well then, it had to be reversed.

The strategy of “shelter in place” or self-quarantine is designed to slow down the transmission of the disease so that the American healthcare ‘system’ is not overwhelmed by too many hospital admissions. The entire United States has 924,000 hospital beds and only 45,000 acute care beds, so we are going to be in deep shit big trouble if too many people are sick at one time, as happened in China, Iran, and Italy. You can show no symptoms and still be a carrier, so it is important — not just for you — but for your grandparents and elderly friends to note expose them to a virus you don’t even know you are carrying.

The death rate in Italy is extremely high — not because Italy has a national healthcare system — but because the average age in Italy is 10 years greater than in the US; the average age of an Italian COVID-19 fatality is 81. So stay at home if you can. For 97.5% of us the virus is survivable. But for the very sick and very elderly, COVID-19 can be a death sentence.

New York expects the number of Coronavirus cases to peak in 45 days, the White House is saying this first wave of the virus may persist “well into July” and German researchers think that the entire course of the virus might repeat the 1918 pattern, taking possibly two years to die out. In some places school is being cancelled until next August or September. People really need to take this thing seriously and devise ways of staying in touch and checking-in with friends and family — without exposing high-risk people.

This is not a two week event. You are going to be bored and inconvenienced and stressed and freaked out for at least a few months.

Despite the science, there has been plenty of stupidity, especially by those who deny the risk to an aging population or who regard the risks as exaggerated or, worse, a plot to smear the president. There are currently several attempts to develop a vaccine, but it’s going to take at least several months to test and produce large-enough quantities to deal with it.

Legislation

The virus will hurt people’s ability to earn a living, stay in their houses, feed their kids, and has already damaged an economic system that loves corporations but is not structured to help human beings. 63% of all Americans are $500 away from financial ruin, and the Coronavirus is going to take that $500 from most. For this reason Democrats have proposed a bill, H.R.6201, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act.

Families First Coronavirus Response Act

This bill responds to the coronavirus outbreak by providing paid sick leave and free coronavirus testing, expanding food assistance and unemployment benefits, and requiring employers to provide additional protections for health care workers.

Specifically, the bill provides FY2020 supplemental appropriations to the Department of Agriculture (USDA) for nutrition and food assistance programs, including

  • the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC);
  • the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP); and
  • nutrition assistance grants for U.S. territories.

The bill also provides FY2020 appropriations to the Department of Health and Human Services for nutrition programs that assist the elderly.

The supplemental appropriations provided by the bill are designated as emergency spending, which is exempt from discretionary spending limits.

The bill modifies USDA food assistance and nutrition programs to

  • allow certain waivers to requirements for the school meal programs,
  • suspend the work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the food stamp program), and
  • allow states to request waivers to provide certain emergency SNAP benefits.

In addition, the bill requires the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to issue an emergency temporary standard that requires certain employers to develop and implement a comprehensive infectious disease exposure control plan to protect health care workers.

The bill also includes provisions that

  • establish a federal emergency paid leave benefits program to provide payments to employees taking unpaid leave due to the coronavirus outbreak,
  • expand unemployment benefits and provide grants to states for processing and paying claims,
  • require employers to provide paid sick leave to employees,
  • establish requirements for providing coronavirus diagnostic testing at no cost to consumers,
  • treat personal respiratory protective devices as covered countermeasures that are eligible for certain liability protections, and
  • temporarily increase the Medicaid federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP).

Republicans seem less inclined to help the most vulnerable among us, oppose language in the legislation providing help to single-sex families, generally oppose paid sick leave, and seem to be unduly concerned with the airline and travel industries. Senate Speaker Mitch McConnell has told his GOP friends in the Senate to “gag and vote for it anyway.” But McConnell has not yet convinced them. Negotiations drag on.

The limitations of the plan are significant. Even thought the Coronavirus is a global pandemic that will last many months, the Families First bill only provides 10 days of paid sick leave — and only if you are employed with a company with 500 or more employees. The estimated cost of the legislation was originally $750 billion but was negotiated down to $104 billion by timid House Democrats. To provide a little context, Professor Deborah Lucas at MIT’s Sloan School estimates the 2008 financial bailout to Wall Street ended up costing taxpayers $498 billion. The Families First bill is an insignificant gesture that is unlikely to help much in a crisis of this magnitude expected to linger for many months.

Trump’s Economic Bailout

Trump and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have unveiled a separate $850 bailout program for business and Wall Street. The plan was first discussed at a private lunch with Senate Republicans and provides help to small businesses, retailers, hotels and the airline industry, as well as more tax breaks. The airline industry alone will receive $50 billion in aid. The rest of America must be happy with a one-time $1000 check and 10 days of sick leave. When you hear “we’re all in this together” realize that some are in this thing more than others.

Other Legislation

There are a few other pieces of legislation: modifications of the War Powers Act to help manufacturers in yet unspecified ways; rulings on tax filings (April 15 is Tax Day); and the invocation of the Stafford Act, which (among other things) authorizes Alex Azar, the secretary of Health and Human Services, to:

  • Waive laws to enable telehealth services, for remote doctor visits and hospital checkins.
  • Waive certain federal licensing requirements so doctors from other states can provide services
  • Waive requirements that critical-access hospitals limit the number of beds to 25 or the length of stay of 96 hours.
  • Waive a requirement for a three-day hospital stay before transfer to a nursing home.
  • Allow hospitals to bring additional physicians on board and obtain additional office space.
  • Waive rules that severely restrict hospital care of patients within the hospital itself, ensuring that the emergency capacity can be enhanced.
Readings

None of this legislation has yet been signed into law. Stay tuned.

More Spackle, please

I watched part of the Biden-Bernie debate list night. Whatever anyone thinks about Democratic Centrists or Democratic Socialists, it’s clear that either of these two would take on a global pandemic with smarter people and more compassion and honesty than the present inhabitant of the White House. And while one might be tempted to think that Trump’s failed response to the pandemic might lead his supporters to doubt him even a little, one would be wrong. Read this and this and this and weep for a nation of so many willful idiots.

I have to admit: I couldn’t watch the whole Bernie-Biden debate. It was disappointing that even a crisis of this magnitude couldn’t move Biden to acknowledge that a national healthcare system covering everyone could have been more than handy this week, and that (going forward) it would be the best long-term response to another pandemic. Instead, Biden seemed comfortable with the idea of sitting in the Situation Room managing a one-time crisis. Of course, after that we’d still have a patchwork healthcare “system” that excludes 80 million people — and be waiting for the next national health emergency.

The 63% of all Americans who would be wiped out financially by a $500 emergency are the same ones likely to lose the little they own during this pandemic because their services providing rides, eldercare, serving tables, or running corner stores and restaurants won’t be needed for several months. I didn’t hear any satisfactory explanations last night of how Capitalism and The Market were going to handle the massive financial damage to these vulnerable people.

Our nation of 330 million people has 400 million guns and 924,000 hospital beds and we may soon find ourselves in the same situation as Italy, which announced yesterday that people over 80 might be denied treatment because there are simply not enough ventilators and hospital beds. As schools close due to the virus, we are forced to acknowledge how much we depend on them to provide a safe place and food for millions of children. And until last week I thought Andrew Yang’s universal basic income was a gimmick. I was wrong: COVID-19 is the best argument seen yet for providing financial stability to families — now that we’re way past hypotheticals.

Progressives keep saying government has a role to play in providing a safety net for real people — not just defense contractors, the oil industry and big agriculture. But most Democrats still think the market economy can handle everything. I wonder if the Coronavirus has made anyone rethink this assumption, even a little. No, dear friends, this week has been a wake-up call. We’ve been patching the cracked walls of the house for far too long. Even though the floor has buckled and we can hear the beams snapping while even bigger cracks appear with greater frequency, the only solution we ever come up with is to buy more Spackle.

Why the hell don’t we just fix the foundation?

Erasure: a False Narrative

One of the justifications that supporters of the Dartmouth mascot give for “defending” it is that choosing something else would result in the “erasure” of Native Americans and Native American history. This is a view echoed by one Dartmouth school committee candidate who wrote on her Facebook page: “Our local Aquinnah Wompanoag [sic] Tribe was up against cancel culture.” The candidate’s other platform? “Helping our schools create and maintain a wholesome, safe, environment, […] get beyond race, […] oppose indoctrinating children […] to think a certain way about controversial topics.”

This is in a town that can’t even agree on the wording of an historical sign near a place where indigenous people were sold into slavery.

Part of the problem is the schools themselves. Dartmouth has a woeful track record of teaching indigenous history. One 2020 high school graduate wrote, “In my four years of being an Indian, I only was exposed to the mascot in connection to the white people wearing the uniforms.” Dartmouth School Superintendent Gifford seemed to confirm this, noting that students are taught indigenous history “primarily” in the 3rd grade. One AP History competition called the “Colonial Real Estate Agency Project” involved students trying to “attract more settlers to your region of the colonies […] persuade your European audience to migrate.”

So if indigenous history is not being taught in the schools, then precisely what history is being erased? Are football teams the only way to remember indigenous people? And if a mascot is a stand-in for history education, what is the mascot actually teaching kids?

There were plenty of answers to these questions at a school committee meeting on March 8th.

Three years ago the Dartmouth School Committee voted 3-2 against holding community hearings on the mascot. But the issue refused to go away, partly because of state legislation to restrict native mascots. So the Committee formed a “Diversity subcommittee” to look at curriculum and they threw in the mascot, which otherwise would have suffocated in the thin air of neglect. March 8th was the subcommittee’s best work.

The leadership of the Aquinnah, pressing hard at both school and town level for exclusive representation on indigenous issues and exclusive control over the “Indian” logo, attacked the subcommittee, calling its members “outsiders,” a view echoed by ultraconservatives both within and close to the leadership. It was only thanks to the Committee chair, Dr. Shannon Jenkins, and other level heads that Wampanoag tribes other than the Aquinnah received invitations to be heard.

And was it ever enlightening.

For years we have heard that the mascot “honors” Native Americans. Pushing back on that narrative, Mashpee Wampanoag members Dawn Blake Souza, Shawna Newcomb, and Brian Weeden; Pokanoket Wampanoag council member Megan Page; and Aquinnah Wampanoag member Brad Lopes explained in thoughtful detail why mascots and symbols — even if historically accurate — harm indigenous people nevertheless.

For years we have heard that no one is offended by mascots, that only “woke” crybabies and “outsiders” want to “cancel” the Dartmouth mascot. There was plenty of testimony on March 8th to lay that one to rest.

And for years we have heard that retiring the mascot would “erase” history — a laughable assertion from folks who refuse to acknowledge real erasure: genocide, ethnic cleansing, and enslavement of indigenous (and other) people, some right in our own backyard.

Brad Lopes, who spoke for Aquinnah members opposing mascots, provided a perfect example of why “erasure” is a demonstrably false narrative:

“Yesterday was the three-year anniversary of the ban of mascots in the state of Maine. And the Wabanaki people are still here. They do not need a mascot to represent them. They do not need a symbol. They do not need an image. They are still here. And their culture and history are brought directly into the classroom because of LD.291, which is a state law that requires schools to teach Wabanaki history. That is how you provide some sort of honor to native peoples, some sort of respect, as you will actually form authentic relationships. […] I would encourage you all to move away from any narratives that have to do with “erasure” […] A symbol is not the solution, education is. This is something I want you all to strongly consider.”


David Ehrens is a Dartmouth resident and one of the founding members of The New Bedford Light. The Light is a nonprofit, non-partisan community news organization, and donors. sponsors and founders do not exercise any influence over content.

Reckoning with Race and History in Dartmouth

Like so much in America that is touched by race, a reckoning with the Dartmouth High School mascot has been simmering for years. Maine, Oregon and Washington state have all banned Native American school mascots. And here in Massachusetts – even after Pentucket, Groveland, Merrimac, West Newbury, Athol, Barnstable, Nashoba, Hanover, Winchester, Grafton, Brookfield, Taconic High, Braintree, Walpole, and Pittsfield abandoned theirs – many in the Town of Dartmouth insist on defending their “Indian” mascot as if it were a besieged Confederate monument in the Heart of Dixie.

Massachusetts legislation to ban Native American mascots brought the local issue to a head in 2019. That was the year the School Committee voted 3-2 to reject a public discussion of the mascot. With George Floyd’s murder, a short-lived national moment prompted the School Committee to create a “Diversity Committee,” in which the mascot issue was conveniently buried. This subcommittee, though it tried hard to address the issue, never really had the full support of the larger School Committee and the chair became the recipient of numerous ad hominem attacks by mascot defenders.

In 2021 Chairwoman Cheryl Andrews-Maltais of the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) registered her formal notice to both the Town of Dartmouth and its School Committee that she was displeased with the “lack of consultation and coordination regarding the name and imagery” used by the school system and that she supported the mascot. A Dartmouth High School graduate herself, Chairwomain Andrews-Maltais’ sentiments were echoed by several other Aquinnah alumnae: her brother Clyde Andrews (who created the 1974 version of the “Indian”); her sister Naomi Carney; her nephew Sean Carney; Massachusetts Tea Party activist and former school committee member Christopher Pereira (who runs Friends of Dartmouth Memorial Stadium Inc. and the Dartmouth Indians Football Alumni Club); and twice unsuccessful anti-immigrant state senate challenger Jacob Ventura.

This group has the full and exclusive attention of both the School and Select Committees. Everyone seems content to let the Chairwoman speak for all Native Americans.

But the Wampanoag Nation is not the only indigenous nation in Massachusetts and it includes numerous tribes, not just the Aquinnah. Even voices within the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head Aquinnah are anything but monolithic. Kisha James, a member of the Aquinnah who supports statewide legislation to ban mascots, told the Boston Globe last Fall that the word “mascot is just another word for pet.” She added, “It solidifies this idea that we’re not people. We’re costumes, we’re characters forever stuck in the past.”

Brad Lopes, Program Director of the Aquinnah Cultural Center, created a change.org petition disputing Chairwoman Andrews-Maltais’ efforts to promote the Dartmouth mascot “as the official position of our Nation.” In a separate letter to the Chairwoman he wrote, “I worked alongside members of the Penobscot and Passamaquoddy Nations here in Maine in an effort to ban mascots, with that bill passing, and would also think it would be wise to hear from them why. I do not feel this would provide any benefit to our tribal nation, and may in fact just create another symbol that Thomas King would describe as a ‘dead Indian’ for colonial narratives to use as they see fit. We are Wôpanâak after all, not ‘Indians’ or objects.”

Chairwoman Andrews-Maltais suggested in her letter to the Town and Schools that the Aquinnah enter into an agreement “much like the historic Seminole Tribe of Florida and Florida State University agreement of 2005.” In that agreement Florida State created scholarships for some Florida Seminole tribal members.

But Seminole history is complicated. Oklahoma Seminoles remember their ancestors being forced to march the bitter Trail of Tears, and not all were happy with the FSU accord. David Narcomey, a member of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma who was part of the 2005 NCAA review that banned many Native American mascots, referred to Florida State’s use of Chief Osceola as a “minstrel show.” Here in the SouthCoast, members of other indigenous nations, other Wampanoag tribes, and other members of the Aquinnah have similarly expressed their frustration with Chairwoman Andrews-Maltais for speaking in their name.

Nevertheless, the School and Select Committees have chosen to hear what they want to hear – and who they want to hear it from.

So at the January 24th meeting this year committee member Chris Oliver asked the Committee to “reaffirm” the Indian and to begin discussions with [only] the Aquinnah – discussions he admitted that had long been in “limbo.” Committee member John Nunes went a step further, demanding that the whole issue be “put to bed” with an immediate vote, right then, right there. Nunes argued that “if we need to have discussions with the Wampanoag tribe [sic]” he was good with that. The Committee member revealed a decided lack of enthusiasm for consulting with even the Aquinnah. Level-headed members of the Committee urged that other, unheard, indigenous voices be respected and consulted.

Many of those ignored in Dartmouth were nevertheless heard at state Senate hearings on legislation to ban the use of Native American mascots and through letters and statements published by many local tribes and Native American groups. They include:

  • A letter of January 21, 2019 from Alma Gordon (White Sky), Sonksq of the Chappaquiddick Wampanoag Tribe: “Any time a school sports team plays a game against a school with an offensive mascot, they experience demoralizing racial prejudice. Native American mascots in sports are not educationally sound for Native American and non-indigenous youth.”
  • A letter of January 2019 from the Chairman of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe: “A state law to address the problem of these nicknames / logos is necessary because many communities in Massachusetts resist calls to eliminate [those] used by the schools. The Tribe / Nation urges you to listen to our voices, and the voices of other Native American tribal nations […].”
  • A letter of January 2019 from Megan Page of the Pocasset Wampanoag Tribe: “We have tried at a local level to get offensive mascots removed, but attempts remain unsuccessful. We were not heard, and it solidified the need for state legislation regarding this matter. It is time we are heard. It is time we are celebrated for who we are. It is time for a change.”
  • A statement by Melissa Harding Ferretti, Chairwoman of the Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe: “The fact that racist ideas about Native peoples in Massachusetts are deeply ingrained, and are reflected in sports teams mascots, should not have to be explained in 2020 – especially since Native activists and educators have worked so hard for so long to educate other Americans about this. But here we are again today.”
  • A letter of June 28, 2020 from Elizabeth Solomon on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Massachuset-Ponkpoag Tribal Council: “Despite repeated calls from Native communities, non-Native allies, and numerous professional organizations to eliminate the Native American nicknames/logos used by their schools, many communities maintain them while insisting that no harm is done and no disrespect is meant. The Massachusett Tribe at Ponkapoag urges you act on the research regarding the actual harm that is generated by Native American mascots and to listen to our and the many diverse voices calling for the prohibition of all Native American sport team mascots/nicknames/logos in Massachusetts public schools.”
  • A letter of July 7, 2020 from Cheryll Toney Holly, Sonksq of the Nipmuc Nation: “As humans living among the many communities in the Commonwealth, we would prefer to speak and reason with townspeople about the harmful effects of their school mascots. Unfortunately, our voices are not heard.”
  • A letter of July 22, 2020 from Fawn Sharp, President of the National Congress of American Indians: “Indian Country’s longstanding position on this issue has been made abundantly clear for decades – we are not mascots, and we will not tolerate being treated as such.”
  • An open letter of February 17, 2022 from Brad Lopes, Director of the Aquinnah Cultural Center: “Native American mascots can have a harmful effect on the development of self in indigenous students, even in settings where the tribal entity has been involved in these designs. The American Psychological Association acknowledges the negative impacts these mascots can have on students, and I was one of those kids unfortunately. I attended Skowhegan High School, which was the last Native American mascot here in Maine. Due to our ‘Indian’ mascot, which was meant to ‘honor the Wabanaki people’, I faced continually bullying and torment from students and some staff as well. I found my daily life in that school to be about survival, and whenever I could pretend to be white, I would. This has taken me years to unravel and heal from. I would not wish a similar experience on any other indigenous student.”
  • The website of MA Indigenous Legislative Agenda: “According to 2019 data from the Census Bureau, there are more than 50,000 Native American people living in Massachusetts, many of whom attend Massachusetts public schools. Native American mascots are likely a violation of state and federal anti-discrimination laws, including the Massachusetts Anti-Bullying Law. Often school districts fear community backlash and so fail to fulfill their legal responsibility to protect all students from this discrimination.”
  • The website of the United American Indians of New England: “Native Americans are people, not mascots.”
  • (non-native but relevant): American Psychological Association Resolution Recommending Retirement of American Indian Mascots: “The use of American Indian mascots as symbols in schools and university athletic programs is particularly troubling because schools are places of learning. These mascots are teaching stereotypical, misleading and too often, insulting images of American Indians. These negative lessons are not just affecting American Indian students; they are sending the wrong message to all students.”

Despite an impressive number of towns that have done the right thing and retired their nicknames and logos, about 20 Massachusetts school districts still choose to ignore Native voices and a large body of research shows how harmful their use is to both Native and non-native children.

It remains to be seen if any indigenous views will be honestly considered on March 8th at a special hearing for Native Americans on the mascot – or in time for a town referendum on the mascot on April 5th that the town’s Select Board decided to drop on the ballot at the last minute. The referendum vote is barely three weeks after the town’s first, last, and only community hearing on the issue on March 22nd.

Only between 11-15% of the 91% white residents of Dartmouth historically cast votes in the town election. When a voter walks into the booth and stares at the reverse side of a ballot, they will probably know little about what indigenous people think of mascots and will have had little or no time to digest any Native American testimony. They will also have been amply influenced by constant dog-whistling about “woke” “aristocrats,” “elites,” “outsiders” and “cancel” culture.

But people don’t just wake up one morning and decide to be arbitrarily “PC” or “woke.” Human dignity involves real issues, real moral values, and real people. The NAACP, whose members are hardly “aristocrats,” includes people of all colors and our local branch includes members of the Wampanoag nation. We have consistently opposed Native American mascots since at least 1999. We’ve said it again and again and again – and we’ll say it once more:

Native American mascots should not be a matter for a plebiscite. Human dignity is a moral issue.

We took some heat for remarking previously that if this were 1965 and not 2022, some of the “Dartmouth defenders” would be railing against “woke” white allies of the Civil Rights movement like Abraham Joshua Heschel, who marched to Montgomery, Alabama with Martin Luther King. This is the same Abraham Heschel, a respected German rabbi, who had to flee Nazi Germany.

It doesn’t take a genius to guess what Heschel would have thought of letting an ethnic majority take a vote on what rights or what level of tolerance a minority deserves.

As America changes, a reckoning with real history and real respect for every member of society is needed more desperately than ever. But great swaths of White America are pushing back with book and curriculum bans, and there is considerable whining from those who no longer feel free to practice their racial insensitivity at will.

Dartmouth College created not only the big “D” letter and the “Big Greennickname but also the Indian logo that is virtually identical to the one Dartmouth High School uses today. But in 1974 – almost 50 years ago! – Dartmouth College actually honored Native Americans by agreeing to a 1971 student petition and retired a stereotype that, as the students described it, “is a mythical creation of a non-Indian culture and in no manner reflects the basic philosophies of Native American People.”

If the Town of Dartmouth can “borrow” every other sports symbol from Dartmouth College, why not also adopt a principled, ethical decision to retire their Indian?

Today the whole story of the “Indian” mascot at Dartmouth College has become a teachable moment. In 2020 the college offered History 08.07: The Indian Symbol at Dartmouth: A Story of Voices and Silence. Likewise, Dartmouth Schools could incorporate the town’s struggle with a tough issue into their own History or Civics curriculum.

Supporters may regard the Dartmouth mascot as a trivial issue foisted upon them by “woke” “outsiders,” but the stakes for the Town and the Schools are much higher. According to state data Dartmouth has 443 teachers and 436 of them are white. In a town that’s 91% white and where 98.4% of the teachers are white, how can Dartmouth ever attract BIPOC teachers and staff or make BIPOC students feel like they really belong?

Calls for retiring the mascot, which to some appear as nothing more than an arbitrary assault on a beloved town symbol, have much in common with ultra-conservative efforts to purge school curriculum that reckons with America’s racist history.

“Critical Race Theory,” a post-graduate research methodology that has nothing to do with teaching history in public schools, has become the latest Trumpian bogeyman in dozens of states. The many Constitutionally-questionable initiatives and enacted laws to limit speech, control thought, and let history be written by politicians of a certain sort, are designed to result in the Disneyficaton of American history and the whitewashing of America’s crimes against indigenous and enslaved people.

This is what can be found in the deeper waters of the mascot debate.

Let’s give Kisha James the final word. “It’s like settlers are hearing ‘no’ for the first time and they don’t like it. […] Getting rid of mascots and acknowledging racism humanizes us and a lot of people aren’t comfortable with that. Because if you do, you also have to acknowledge the other wrongdoings, like genocide.”

Great questions

As the March 3rd Democratic primary approaches, I have been arguing with just about all of my centrist Democrat friends. It was interesting to come across an essay about the centrist-progressive dispute by Jim Hightower, who may be best known (at least in Texas) as the agriculture commissioner whom Rick Perry unseated. For progressives Hightower is probably best known for the many causes and candidates the sprightly 77 year-old has worked for, including Bernie Sanders.

In an essay entitled “The Irony of the centrist-progresssive Debate” Hightower argues that centrists “tinkering around the edges” aren’t going to fix America’s problems, and those who fear to make real change won’t appeal to voters in numbers sufficient to vote Trump out of office. Moreover, Hightower writes, polls show that voters want substantial and progressive change, not centrist diddling.

So — forget moral arguments for a moment and focus on tactics — you can’t replace a solid, political platform with a vague appeal to throw some bum out of office. Voters are not going to vote the bum out if Democrats propose the same cold, cautious, poll-tested and spreadsheet-engineered technocratic B.S. they always come up with. Instead, Democrats ought to be appealing to people’s hearts — you know, like the Republicans do. More importantly, I completely agree with Hightower’s South Texas dictum — grandes males, grandes remedios. Big problems, big solutions. And we have some incredibly big problems.

But — aside from nostalgia for a democracy centrists themselves had a hand in vandalizing when they voted for the Patriot Act, FISA courts, ICE, 287g, border walls of their own, the war on drugs, the war on crime, wars, wars, and more wars — centrist Democrats don’t really have a problem with the nation’s staggering economic, military, foreign policy, environmental, and race problems. If they did, we’d be seeing them proposing ambitious platforms like progressives. But for centrists a little tinkering suffices and no big solutions are necessary.

The centrist argument seems to boil down to this — that America isn’t ready for a progressive agenda and that Democrats can win only by being slightly less depraved than Trump. Specifically, that Democrats must align their own platform with Republican values. And more specifically, that Democrats have to embrace white Republican values. Flag-waving, red-baiting progressives, going soft on abortion, avoiding national conversations on reparations and criminal justice reform, and showing they can pray as fervently as Evangelicals is now their ticket to centrist Democratic victory.

This is not only distasteful but a fool’s errand because common sense dictates that nobody is going to rush out to buy a case of Pepsi when they already have a pallet of Coke in the garage. If you want flag-waving, god-fearing patriots, NATO, corporation-friendly trade agreements, a belligerent foreign policy, regime change, wars of choice, saber rattling with China and Iran, a new Cold War, coddling Israel, and the defense of private insurers and bailouts for Wall Street, it doesn’t matter if it’s in the centrist Democratic playbook.

Republicans do it so much better.

What America is desperately looking for are real solutions, and Democrats had better offer them now — or lose the next presidential election.

Hillel the Elder famously wrote in the Pirkei Avot: “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? And if not now, when?”

Desperate Americans have been asking the first of Hillel’s questions — “who will be for me” — and have yet to receive an honest reply from either party. In 2016 Republicans lied to voters, and continue to do so. As 2020 unfolds, Democrats — rejecting “identity politics” and unlikely to make desperately needed structural changes in a broken America — appear to be ignoring Hillel’s last two questions.

If I am not for others, what am I? And if not now, when?”

Great questions.

The poverty of Liberalism

This essay was written about, and intended for, a group of friends I respect for their political engagement and civility. I hope this is received in the spirit of dialog.

I can’t believe it was fifty years ago that I first read Robert Paul Wolff’s “The Poverty of Liberalism.” Written in 1968, Wolff’s book took on the limitations (and poverty) of Liberalism — with its technocratic and individualistic utilitarianism, its grudging tolerance instead of full embrace of diverse community, and its acceptance of power dynamics instead of working toward shared values. Today, Liberalism continues to suffer a crisis of confidence, and its frequent conflation with democracy leads some people to believe that the crisis of Liberalism is really a crisis of democracy. Wolff’s book shows that this is not the case.

I have been attending a series of Wednesday night political dinners which, until last night, were mainly discussions of the Democratic presidential primary and current affairs — specifically impeachment and our descent into autocracy.

Most of my Liberal dinner companions support centrist Democrats. There are a couple of Progressives and a couple of conservative Republicans — though they are nothing like the MAGA-hatted racists seen behind Trump at his rallies. These are earnest, civil people trying to explain what they find wrong with American society and why they have embraced Donald John Trump.

Mind you, I don’t agree with their analysis — at all — and I haven’t been shy about saying so. But they know something that some of the others don’t — that a successful politician must passionately express a clear vision in terms voters understand. I don’t think any of the Democrats are doing that yet.

I’m no Republican, but I can still tell you all about Trump’s platform. Individual One ran on a platform of ridding the country of Mexicans and Muslims, building a wall that Mexico would pay for, bringing back dirty coal, eliminating regulations, giving billionaires tax breaks and padding his administration with them, making America Great (by which he meant White), privileging Evangelicals, outlawing abortion, and filling federal courts with extremists. That was Trump’s clear vision, as evil as it is.

But — quick! — without consulting an “on the issues” web page, tell me what Amy Klobuchar’s platform is. Or Biden’s or Buttigieg’s. No points if you say “Anybody but Trump.” That’s a phobia, not a platform.

Even Elizabeth Warren has the same problem of clarity, but it’s not because she hasn’t spelled out in great detail her many plans for healthcare, education, a 2% Wall Street tax, and other issues. It’s because Warren has drowned voters in a thousand policy memos — while failing to offer a stirring, coherent vision of a new America.

For the first time, last night’s discussion veered into Trump’s appeal to voters. Some at the table thought his simplistic, vague, and easily digested policy positions were absolutely the wrong approach for Democrats. Several said that radical policies of any kind would derail party unity (whatever that is), that what we really need is to simply focus on beating Donald Trump. And each of the centrist candidates my dinner companions support says the same.

One participant pointed out that even Bernie Sanders has failed to talk about deep structural injustices in America. Nobody is really talking about Native Americans. All of the candidates of color have been pushed out by the DNC and nobody is talking about racism. Now that Jay Inslee has exited the debate stage, climate change is scarcely mentioned. Another participant mentioned that no candidate has a coherent foreign policy. The White American Middle Class seems to care mainly about itself, its retirement, its health insurance. But there is a huge, forgotten America that centrist Democrats have never regarded as their natural constituents. If you haven’t read Thomas Frank’s “Listen Liberal,” buy yourself a copy.

First it was Republicans, but now Democrats have followed them in pandering to White America. And Democrats want to copy Republican success by focusing on regions like the Midwest, the South, and the Iron Range. This is a losing strategy. If you haven’t read Steve Phillips’ “Brown is the New White,” he argues that Democrats’ obsession with appealing to white centrists in Flyover Country will doom them in the 2020 election as it did in 2016.

Candidates who have tried to push past this limited view of the centrality of the White American Middle Class have been accused of being too strident or unwilling to compromise. There was a debate in the Democratic Party about identity politics, and the party elite decided to focus on white voters, not minorities. It was no coincidence that Democrats announced their “Better Deal” campaign in a white suburb in the South. Corporate media friendly to Democrats (there is also corporate media friendly to Republicans) red-baits Progressives or calls them brownshirts — and centrist Democrats take the bait.

Ignoring the fact that Republicans won the 2016 election on radical change, Liberals are only prepared to accept an extremely narrow range of acceptable socio-economic values and reforms. This may explain the strangely familiar situation Progressives and Conservatives both value values. If there has ever been any affinity between Trump and Sanders supporters, it may center around values.

In the Liberal political landscape, where values are suspect and only “electability” has currency, it is no wonder that the DNC bent over backwards to accommodate a second billionaire candidate — Mayor “Stop and Frisk” Michael Bloomberg. It is alarming to me that Democrats who claim to hate an entitled, racist billionaire from New York have fallen in line behind another one of precisely the same species.

It is unlikely that the 40-45% of Democrats who identify as progressive will ever see their candidate on the ballot in November. The Democratic Party is a much smaller tent than previously thought. And it’s too bad. Because, until the Democratic Party sheds its hollow centrist poliicies, it can never hope to win the confidence of voters looking for a new vision for America.

Democracy did not die today

Democracy did not die today with the Senate rubber-stamping the President’s “innocent.”

For a democracy to die, it must have first lived. There are many precedents for Trump’s sham impeachment trial which point an accusing finger at a nation that has never believed in the florid promises of democracy found in its own Declaration and Constitution.

Slavery, genocide, and subversion of democratic elections in other countries have been a steady feature of American “democracy.” Creating a society of equals with equal opportunity and equal representation has never been its object, as Jim Crow, voter suppression, mass-incarceration, censorship, and ever-new variations of McCarthyism show.

As central to our sick society as these are, I don’t want to talk about history, colonialism, capitalism, or white supremacy today. We know these are the root causes of so many of our ills. I would rather talk about the blatant impunity and injustice which occur daily in our courts and which have culminated with the rigged Senate trial of Donald John Trump on February 5th, 2020. And though there are four centuries of our history to consider, let me simply point to events that have occured in my own lifetime.

In 1955, Emmett Till was visiting relatives in Money, Mississippi, when he was lynched and his body discovered three days later in the Tallahatchie River. The identities of his killers and the ringleaders of his lynching were never in doubt. Roy Bryant and J.W. Millam were arrested. But an all-white jury found them not guilty.

In 1963 Medgar Evers was murdered in his driveway by Byron De La Beckwith, a member of the White Citizens Council in Jackson, Mississippi. In 1964 an all-white jury somehow could not reach a verdict. It took thirty years of fighting by Evers’ family, and finally his exhumation for additional evidence, to reopen the case against De La Beckwith.

In 1964 Ku Klux Klan “Kleagle” Edgar Ray Killen participated in the murders of civil rights workers James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner. When Killen was finally arrested, an all-white jury refused to convict a “preacher.” Twenty years later Killen was again charged with murder, but a mostly-white jury again refused to hold him directly accountable for the murders, instead convicting him on lesser conspiracy charges.

The War in Vietnam slaughtered up to two million Vietnamese and left behind birth defects from Agent Orange and ruined bodies from land mines long after the U.S. beat a hasty exit from Saigon. But it was the My Lai massacre in 1968 that indicted the American justice system that failed to prosecute it and the government officials who covered it up. Hundreds of civilians — the US said 347, the Vietnamese government counted 504 — were raped, bayoneted, and shot execution-style, including children, and left in ditches full of blood. Only one platoon member was ever convicted. William Calley was sentenced to just three years of prison, but Richard Nixon ordered this commuted to house arrest. The matter was quietly closed. We have a long history of impunity for war crimes going back to the nation’s founding.

Tens of thousands of black people were lynched from Reconstruction through Jim Crow, and one would have thought this gruesome chapter of our history was over. But it doesn’t take much to revert to barbarism in this country. A case in point was the lynchings of African Americans immediately following Hurricane Katrina in 2005. In 2019 The Nation and ProPublica reported on a significant number of unsolved homicides of black people in Algiers Point and elsewhere, and of the emergence of white supremacist militias that had organized the killings. After the articles were published, New Orleans Police Superintendent Warren Riley said he’d “look into” it.

Most of us will not forget the name Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager who in 2012 was shot after punching George Zimmerman, who had been harrassing and following him. Zimmerman’s lawyers had planned to defend their client on the basis of so-called “stand your ground” laws, and the case was under intense public scrutiny. Alan Dershowitz — that Dershowitz — attacked Florida’s State Attorney Angela Corey for even daring to prosecute Zimmerman. In the end a Florida jury let Zimmerman walk.

In 2013, when rich white boy Ethan Couch crammed seven of his friends into his hot red pickup truck and then totaled it, killing four of them, Couch’s defense lawyer claimed he was a victim of “affluenza” — a word the lawyer said described the coddled teen’s irresponsibility resulting from his family wealth. Even though Couch had a blood alcohol level three times the legal limit and had killed four people, the defense strategy worked. Couch was released on probation — until he fled to Mexico with his mommy.

And who can forget former Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, who murdered Michael Brown in 2014 and was never prosecuted? This was a case that launched the Black Lives Movement — a fight against precisely the sort of impunity I’ve been enumerating.

Or Stanford swimmer Brock Allen Turner, who in 2015 was discovered by two graduate students in the process of raping a woman behind a fraternity house dumpster. Turner’s lawyer wrote that “he is fundamentally a good young man” and Turner’s father argued it was unfair that he should go to prison for “20 minutes of action” by his rapist child. The Golden Boy was given six months in jail by Judge Aaron Persky.

Or the refusal to prosecute Baltimore police officers for the 2015 death of Freddie Gray, who died an excruciating death in the back of a police van. Not even Obama’s Justice Department found sufficient grounds to charge any of the officers with civil rights violations. In fact, a 2016 national study which examined civil rights violations of 21,000 policemen found that only 3% were ever convicted of crimes against the public.

In 2018 Georgia white supremacist William Christopher Gibbs showed up at an emergency room afraid he had exposed himself to ricin, and he and his car tested positive for the deadly agent. But prosecutors refused to charge Gibbs with domestic terrorism, cititing “technical” reasons they couldn’t charge a white terrorist. To this day, the U.S. government is largely unwilling to admit any danger to society of white supremacists.

Each year roughly one thousand people are shot by police, most of them people of color and many of them unarmed. But 98% of the officers are never charged for murder and police frequently claim “reasonable” fear for their safety as a justification for killing an unarmed civilian. I find it ironic that police can claim “I feared for my life” — and White America believes them — while any refugee seeking asylum because “I feared for my life” is regarded as a liar.

When Brett Kavanaugh appeared before a Senate confirmation committee in 2018, witnesses cited his sexual predation as a teenager as a reason he was unfit for the Supreme Court. Yet the Senate — as it was when Anita Hill had made similar charges about Clarence Thomas — was not disturbed by any of the allegations. Michelle Goldberg wrote in the New York Times, “Boys will be Supreme Court Justices,” and she was right. Rebecca Solnit wrote that the old white men of America simply don’t want to know, and she was also right.

American Justice may be blind — but it is wilfully so. Our entire legal system, from top to bottom, is nothing more than concierge service for rich and powerful, mainly white, men.

And how is a system of impunity possible without pardons?

In 2019 Donald Trump pardoned SEAL commander “Eddie” Gallagher and promoted him. Members of Gallagher’s platoon, SEAL Team 7, claimed he had killed innocent civilians and murdered an unconscious prisoner, then posed for pictures with the corpse. One platoon member who testified said of Gallagher, “The guy is freaking evil.” According to testimony, when the SEALs captured an injured ISIS fighter Gallagher began stabbing him in the neck. Another platoon member turned off his helmet cam right before the fighter died. Besides Gallagher, Trump also pardoned convicted civil rights abuser Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Dinesh D’Souza, who was convicted of federal campaign violations.

We say we are a “nation of laws” — for some — but in an oligarchy, a kleptocracy, or a kakistocracy the usual rules of law don’t apply to men with high-level connections. Whatever we call this system, let’s not call it a “democracy.”

The 2008 financial crisis was another example of the American justice system revealing itself as an agent of impunity for financial criminality. In 2014 — six years after the financial crash — ProPublica and the New York Times reported that the only Wall Street executive to ever be prosecuted as a result of the crisis was Kareem Serageldin. Meanwhile, there are people still serving life sentences for marijuania possession in prisons all over the United States. To add insult to injury, rather than hold Wall Street accountable for its losses, a bipartisan group of rich and powerful men decided to make citizens cough up the almost two trillion dollars necessary to bail them out.

Last week a friend sent me a piece by Andy Borowitz from the New Yorker — “El Chapo outraged that his trial included witnesses.” It was funny at the time. Or would have been if it hadn’t so painfully highlighted the hollowness of the culture of impunity we mistakenly call “democracy.”

So let us not weep. Democracy did not die today. We never had it in the first place.

Support Native American legislation

Last June I wrote about legislation that had been filed to reconsider the racist Massachusetts state seal and flag, and another bill to prohibit the use of racist mascots by school sports teams.

Here in my home town of Dartmouth the “Dartmouth Indian” is hardly different from the Confederate flags and monuments to the legacy of slavery that MAGA America feels is their heritage and their birthright. Dartmouth teenagers in “green face” (as if the Wampanoag were some species of leprechaun) are seen at football and lacrosse games. Community members cry that they “bleed green” and claim their caricature of Native people somehow “honors” them. The Dartmouth Schools even have licensing agreements that have netted thousands of dollars from the “Indian” image. Not a cent was ever returned to Native Americans.

I am not the only one to find this exploitative and racist. A couple of local tribes of the Wampanoag, letter-writers and historians who have been complaining about this far longer than I, the NAACP New Bedford Branch, and others in the community joined in forming a small group to try to do something about it. We wrote letters, attended meetings, asked pretty please. But the Dartmouth Schools weren’t having any of it. The school committee shut down even a discussion of their racist caricature.

Two months after the dust settled a bit, one more tribe affiliated with the Wampanoag came out in support of at least talking about it. The committee again refused to even listen to them. As Superintendent Bonnie Gifford finishes up her career, one thing will have changed: the superintendent and her enablers on the school committee can no longer claim — with either straight or green face — that they are “honoring” Native Americans. Too many Native people have told them that this is a bald-faced lie.

In the process of going through this exercise, we met the Native advocacy organization Massachusetts Indigenous Legislative Agenda, which supports not only the two bills I mentioned above but three others related to education and other issues.

Two weeks remain for the legislation to be voted out of committee. You can help by going to the Massachusetts Indigenous Legislative Agenda website and adding your voice.

But even if this legislation never makes it out of committee, we will be back at it again next year. With more passion and more people.

Liars, racists, and extremists at the State House

On January 24th a handful of white extremists appeared before the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security to lie about immigrants and about the provisions of the Safe Communities Act. This relatively small number of opponents is loud and extremely well-funded. Almost all are financed or fronted by two organizations identified as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center — the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). Both were founded by white supremacist and Michigan ophthalmologist John Tanton.

Indeed, it was Old Home Week at the State House for most of these people, who appear together repeatedly. And it’s time legislators knew precisely who they were listening to.

FAIR – Federation for American Immigration Reform

Tom Hodgson, who testified on January 24th in the Gardner auditorium, is not so much a county sheriff as he is a spokesman for FAIR. Hodgson serves on its National Advisory Board and sticks Massachusetts taxpayers with his travel expenses to FAIR events. Hodgson’s neglect of his day job in favor of his anti-immigrant crusade is costing incarcerated people their lives, health and rehabilitation.

Donald Rosenberg dropped in from Westlake Village, California to testify. Rosenberg is the president of AVIAC, Advocates For Illegal Alien Crime, a front group for FAIR whose events, such as the September 2019 “Angel Families” event in Washington DC, are organized by FAIR (whose legal arm, IRLI, the Immigration Reform Law Institute, provides legal services for AVIAC). Susan Tully, FAIR national field director and friend of Tom Hodgson, even admitted the connection to AVIAC in a Facebook post: “Working with our new group AVIAC.”

Maureen Maloney, AVIAC’s Vice President, also testified at the State House. Maloney told attendees at a 2017 event that the Catholic Church isn’t doing enough to turn its back on its own values: “The Catholic bishops make a fortune off of the refugees and the illegal aliens, and I’m a Catholic,” she claimed. When Maloney and Rosenberg (and FAIR) kicked off their organization at the National Press Club in Washington DC, their featured speaker was America’s white supremacist legislator Steve King, who was stripped of his committee assignments by Trump’s Tea Party GOP — no mean accomplishment in an age of concentration camps for Central American children and Stephen Miller’s brainstorm to ship DACA recipients out of the country in boxcars. Maloney herself is no slouch when it comes to unvarnished racism. Maloney was previously a member of The Remembrance Project, a group similar to AVIAC, also with substantial white supremacist connections.

CIS – Center for Immigration Studies

Jessica Vaughan fled Massachusetts for South Carolina’s more agreeable (to her) racial climate and is now the “Director of Policy Studies” for the Center for Immigration Studies. Vaughan testified for five minutes and answered questions for fourteen more before the Joint Committee. Rather than focus on the SPLC’s designation of CIS as a hate group, just consider Vaughan’s own words and deeds: “Vaughan haspreviously discussed her work with The American Free Press, a virulently anti-Semitic newspaper founded by Willis Carto, a Holocaust denier who was active on the radical right for over five decades before his death in 2015. She has also been a featured speaker at multiple extremist events including white nationalist publisher The Social Contract Press‘s annualWriter’s Workshop and the Federation for American Immigration Reform‘sSheriff Border Summit. At the Writer’s Workshop, white nationalist Peter Brimelow of the racist website VDARE also spoke. In 1996, Vaughan appeared on an episode of ‘Borderline,’ a show produced by FAIR, alongside Chilton Williamson, a longtime editor of Chronicles magazine, a publication with strong neo-Confederate ties that caters to the more intellectual wing of the white nationalist movement.”

Lou Murray, whose group Bostonians Against Sanctuary Cities appears to be a front for CIS (with ties to FAIR), sat right next to Vaughan and yielded most of his time to her. Many of Murray’s public appearances feature Vaughan, Hodgson, and retired ICE agents. Murray’s group’s Facebook page is also littered with links to FAIR and CIS. When Michelle Malkin was disinvited from an appearance at Bentley College, Murray and Vaughan organized a private event for her. And as if to demonstrate how insular this little circle is, Murray and Vaughan hosted Maureen Maloney at one of their events in West Roxbury. Murray, who was a 2016 Republican National Convention delegate, hates Muslims just as much as he does Latinos. Murray serves on Trump’s Catholic Advisory Group and has “nothing but high praise” for Trump’s 2017 executive order to ban Muslims. Murray said the US government should help “those populations who are most vulnerable,” including “the Christian population who is most at risk from ISIS, Al Qaeda and other Islamic dangers.”

Steve Kropper of MCIR, the Massachusetts Coalition for Immigration Reform, also testified before the Joint Committee. Kropper, who in 2012 was arrested for violating a domestic violence restraining order, came to the microphone joking about his divorce. The rest of his testimony was equally unamusing. MCIR appears to be another CIS front group, but is also affiliated with another of white supremacist John Tanton’s groups, the Social Contract Press. MCIR’s president John Thompson wrote in 2016 in the Social Contract Press that immigrants “are natural constituents for politicians desirous of expanding the welfare state. They could potentially provide career opportunities for social workers, ethnic militants, immigration lawyers, and poverty activists for generations to come.” Thompson goes on to quote Jason Richwine, a white supremacist known for his paper, “IQ and Immigration Policy,” which says, among other things:

  • “No one knows whether Hispanics will ever reach IQ parity with whites, but the prediction that new Hispanic immigrants will have low-IQ children and grandchildren is difficult to argue against.”
  • “the totality of the evidence suggests a genetic component to group differences in IQ, but the extent of its impact is hard to determine.”
  • “The statistical construct known as IQ can reliably estimate general mental ability, or intelligence. The average IQ of immigrants in the United States is substantially lower than that of the white native population, and the difference is likely to persist over several generations. The consequences are a lack of socioeconomic assimilation among low-IQ immigrant groups, more underclass behavior, less social trust, and an increase in the proportion of unskilled workers in the American labor market.”

Thompson also quotes Robert Rector, of both the Heritage Foundation and CIS, whose 2007 study of the costs of undocumented refugees was rejected by even conservative Republicans (and eventually the Heritage Foundation itself) and Rector was blasted for his report’s sloppiness and dishonesty.

In March 2005 MCIR member Robert Casimiro, a Weymouth resident, flew to Arizona to join up with an armed militia called the Minuteman Project. According to a press release, “the project’s participants will also be conducting auxiliary border patrols, ‘spotting’ people crossing illegally and reporting them to the border patrol and the local authorities.” The Anti-Defamation League reported that Minuteman “members belonging to active vigilante groups, including their leadership, have been arrested on weapons charges and white supremacist and anti-governments groups continue to express interest and take part in organized ‘patrols’ of the border.”

These are just a few of the liars, racists, and extremists that routinely testify against Safe Communities.

some title

On January 18th, a little over a hundred people marched from William Street to the Ash Street Jail to protest the incompetence and abuses of Bristol County Sheriff Tom Hodgson, and to call for his resignation.

“After careful consideration
We invite your investigation
We don’t need your fascist nation
We don’t want your bloviation
Down with prison exploitation
You are always on vacation
You turned in your Congregation
Down with ICE participation
You are Bristol’s humiliation…”

Accompanied by a New Bedford Police Department escort, marchers chanted and carried signs with messages like “Hodgson is a Failure as a Jailer,” “No 287g,” “Stay Home and Do Your Job,” “Resign!” and “$348,922” — the dollar amount Hodgson received from ICE and “forgot” to pay back to Massachusetts taxpayers. Others read “Programs not Walls!” or “Demasiados suicidios – que verguenza!!!” (Too many suicides – shame!!!).

At the Ash Street jail marchers were met by about a dozen Bristol County Sheriff’s officers who said nothing and for the most part simply stared at protestors. Standing outside the oldest jail in the country, Bristol County for Correctional Justice (BCCJ) members cited the neglect, abuses, and malfeasance that characterize Hodgson’s administration of the jail and called for the sheriff to resign.

Protestors then marched back to Grace Episcopal Church, where there was a short speaking program followed by an opportunity for people from over a dozen groups from Providence to the Cape to exchange contact information.

At the church BCCJ member Joe Quigley moderated the presentation. Betty Ussach talked about jail suicides, Kathy Williams about Hodgson’s financial corruption and abuse of taxpayer money. Susan Czernicka covered Hodgson’s medical neglect, while Marlene Pollock highlighted Hodgson’s extensive contacts with white supremacists. Bishop Filipe Teixeira spoke about the struggle to visit immigrants in Hodgson’s jail and Kerry Mahoney, a community member, spoke movingly about the needless death and suffering at the jail because of Hodgson’s refusal to provide medically-assisted opioid treatment and other types of health care.

Lindsay Aldworth from the Coalition for Social Justice, Richard Drolet from the New Bedford Democratic City Committee, Diane Hahn from 1199 United Health Care Workers East, Jim Pimental from the Bricklayers Union and the Labor Council all offered their organizations’ support. Sally Fehervari from the Mansfield Dems and Adrian Ventura from Centro Comunidade de Trabajadores also spoke in support of ridding the county of Hodgson. Several organizations were unable to attend but sent greetings: the NAACP New Bedford Branch, FANG, Freedom for Immigrants, and Barnstable County’s Safe Communities Coalition. Immigration Justice in Eastern MA (from Plymouth County) and several members of Marching Forward (Dartmouth) also attended both the march and followup meeting.

Despite the outpouring of broad community support, WBSM’s Chris McCarthy — where ACLU FOIA records show Hodgson was actually offered a regular time slot — tried to portray the marchers as “the illegal alien lobby” and “the radical left,” accusing them of trying to overturn the will of voters — voters who were never offered another option in 2016. This was all par for the course for the aptly-named McCarthy, whose Islamophobia and gay-bashing can be seen in his Tweets from the ACLU filing. The Standard Times did not send a reporter to cover either the march or the meeting that followed.

Regardless of how the local media chose to ignore or characterize the fight by BCCJ and other groups opposed to Hodgson’s abuses — the fight goes on.

We will hold the rogue sheriff accountable.

The Radical King

Yesterday was Martin Luther King Day, and I followed columnist Esther Cepeda in reading King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. But I’ve also been reading Cornel West’s “The Radical King,” which reprints many of Martin Luther King’s more “radical” essays and sermons. I’m not finished with it because you can’t read a book of thoughtful essays in one go.

But from what I have read, West sees no contradiction between the nonviolent King and the man he calls the Radical King. King’s nonviolence, for all the nods to Ghandi and other religious traditions, was rooted in his Christianity and specifically in the Black Church. Yet apparently there were also connections to the Jewish prophetic tradition — in which prophets rage against the evils of kings and tyrants. This may be one reason for King’s friendship with Abraham Joshua Heschel.

King’s most famous speech was part of a 1963 march on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, and when he was killed King was in Memphis to support striking sanitation workers. King told his staff in 1966, “There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.” King travelled across the country with his Poor People’s Campaign, a campaign that Rev. William Barber today is trying to revive. And though the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, four years later King still found himself fighting for civil and economic rights when he was assassinated in 1968.

America of 1968 was not only about to implode from racial injustice but also from economic injustices and wars of choice that were not only killing black, brown and poor white men but bankrupting America financially and morally. At quite a cost to his own political capital, and even putting himself at odds with other black leaders, King spoke out against American militarism and materialism.

King was regarded as the “most dangerous man in America” by J. Edgar Hoover, who also tried to brand King as a Soviet asset — not because he was a nonviolent advocate of racial equality (most certainly true), but because he represented a challenge to economic and political exploitation.

West points out in his introduction to the collection that King’s thoughts were constantly evolving. We are all familiar with the “long arc” optimism of King’s “I Have a Dream” speech but no one ever got to hear the more pessimistic sermon King had planned to deliver the Sunday after he was murdered, “Why America May Go To Hell.”

Toward the end, the radical King had grown disillusioned with white liberals whose deeds never matched their rhetoric. In one essay King discusses Stokely Carmichael’s rejection of both white allies and nonviolence. With increased physical represssion, Carmichael’s SNCC, CORE, and Deacons for Defense were all beginning to sense the limits of nonviolent strategy. In West’s “Black Power” excerpt from 1967, King never repudiates his nonviolence but clearly understands and even appreciates the reasons Black Power advocates gave for their willingness to use force if necessary:

“Black Power advocates contend that the Negro must develop his own sense of strength. No longer are ‘fear, awe, and obedience’ to rule. This accounts for, though it does not justify, some Black Power advocates who encourage contempt and even civil disobedience as alternatives to the old patterns of slavery. Black Power assumes that Negroes will be slaves unless there is a new power to counter the force of the men who are still determined to be masters rather than brothers.”

By coincidence, our book group’s selection this month was Colson Whitehead’s “Nickel Boys,” set in Tallahassee, Florida in 1962. The very first page begins with Elwood Curtis’s thoughts on a ten cent record of Martin Luther King’s speeches. King’s speeches could also serve other purposes than a moral call to action. For kids like Elwood, King’s speeches were educational and also an affirmation of black pride:

“In the third cut on side A, Dr. King spoke of how his daughter longed to visit the amusement park on Stewart Avenue in Atlanta. […] Dr. King had to tell her in his low, sad rumble about the segregation system that kept colored boys and girls on the other side of the fence. Explain the misguided thinking of some whites — not all whites, but enough whites — that gave it force and meaning. He counseled his daughter to resist the lure of hatred and bitterness and assured her that ‘Even though you can’t go to Fun Town, I want you to know that you are as good as anybody who goes into Fun Town.’ That was Elwood — as good as anyone.”

Elwood is well-read, naive, and a bit of a geek. And when his bicycle chain snaps, he ends up being arrested along with the driver of the stolen Plymouth he has hitched a ride with. Elwood’s grandmother Harriet, a great believer in doing things by the book, hires a white lawyer who absconds with the $200 intended to defend Elwood. Elwood ends up in Nickel Academy, a segregated prison camp for boys, where some go missing without explanation. Whitehead’s book deals with the boys’ attitudes toward resistance and compliance, particularly in a [still] Jim Crow prison setting. A boy name Turner “with an eerie sense of self” who knows that only he is ultimately responsible for his own safety is the foil for the tragically well-behaved and trusting Elwood.

In one passage which seems to illustrate the divide between Black Power and Respectability Politics, Elwood is still trying to make sense of Dr. King:

“He called upon his Negro audience to cultivate that pure love for their oppressors, that it might carry them to the other side of the struggle. Elwood tried to get his head around it, now that it was no longer the abstraction floating in his head last spring. It was real now:

Throw us in jail, and we shall still love you. Bomb our homes and threaten our children, and we shall still love you. Send your hooded perpetrators of violence into our community at the midnight hour and beat us and leave us half dead, and we shall still love you. But be ye assured that we will wear you down by our capacity to suffer. One day we shall win our freedom.

The capacity to suffer. Elwood — all the Nickel boys — existed in the capacity. Breathed in it, ate in it, dreamed in it. That was their lives now. Otherwise they would have perished. The beatings, the rapes, the unrelenting winnowing of themselves. They endured. But to love those who would have destroyed them? To make that leap? We will meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will and we will still love you.

Elwood shook his head. What a thing to ask. What an impossible thing.

Indeed. What an impossible thing.

As he stated somewhat prophetically in his last speech, King had been to the mountain top. And King had seen the Big Picture if not been given sacred insight. King’s early sermons were well-crafted moral calls to action, Christian in style and language, but he frequently tipped his hat to other traditions. King was often ecumenical and usually very accessible. For example, in 1956 King delivered a sermon to 12,000 people at an Episcopal cathedral in New York City on the second anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision. The talk was about evil. His sermon contained the seeds of the same argument that so perplexed young Elwood:

“Let us remember that as we struggle against Egypt, we must have love, compassion and understanding goodwill for those against whom we struggle, helping them to realize that as we seek to defeat the evils of Egypt we are not seeking to defeat them but to help them, as well as ourselves.”

Some will find King’s argument unconvincing (I am one), though most will admire the radical King’s ‘love of the oppressed. Some will admire the prophetic King for his speaking truth to power, while others will be surprised at his growing understanding of (and even sympathy for) those advocating change “by any means necessary” (King approached Malcolm X in 1966 about working together on a UN resolution).

Though King believed in ecumenism and frequently linked arms with men of different faiths, West cautions us to always remember that King’s

“radical love flows from an imitation of Christ, a response to an invitation of self-surrender in order to emerge fully equipped to fight for justice in a cold and cruel world of domination and exploitation. The scandal of the Cross is precisely the unstoppable and unsuffocatable love that keeps moving in a blood-soaked history, even in our catastrophic times. There is no radical King without his commitment to radical love.”

More essays to go.

State Auditor emails highlight lack of accountability for prisoner deaths

The ACLU’s FOIA request yielded communication between the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO) and the Office of the State Auditor, which in 2018 conducted a performance audit that noted the BCSO’s (1) failure to reimburse the state $350K until it was caught; (2) failure to update its per-diem custody and care rate for ICE; (3) failure to file inmate total cost reports; and (4) failure to properly document travel records.

The Auditor was asked to look into suicide rates at the jail and her field auditors did. But they looked at only two years of suicide data — 2016 and 2017. It would have been better if the Auditor had used more thorough, accurate and statistically meaningful data, such as that collected by the New England Center for Investigative Reporting, which looked at Massachusetts jail suicides from 2006 to 2016.

The BCSO, in fact, had 20 years of data and offered numbers for 2013 forward, but it would have been work to compare it to other counties in the state because there is no formal mechanism in Massachusetts government (other than a FOIA request or an audit) to collect mortality data from state correctional facilities. Neither the Massachusetts Department of Correction nor the Massachusetts Sheriff’s Association collects, much less publishes, such data for public or research. So, for the first time ever by an agency of the state, it was up to bean counters to look at jail suicides while doing a financial audit.

In citing Bureau of Justice (BJS) statistics to Auditor James Moriarty, Jonathan Darling compared BCSO suicides with national averages. According to the BJS report Darling cited, “the suicide rate in local jails in 2014 was 50 per 100,000 local jail inmates. This is the highest suicide rate observed in local jails since 2000 (table 4).

Having chosen the highest national rate to compare with his jail’s suicides, Darling wrote:

“As you can see, even when we had a spike in 2016, we were still well below the national average. The narrative in the media is how evil Sheriff Hodgson is, when it really should be how great Massachusetts Sheriffs are.”

But several of the families whose loved ones committed suicide on Hodgson’s watch didn’t think he was such a great sheriff. They have filed wrongful death lawsuits.

If you want to verify the BJS data Darling cited, it can’t be done. Bureau of Justice Statistics “Deaths in Custody Reporting Program” (DCRP) data is collected by RTI International, a research group originally founded by USAID. OpenSecrets shows 80% of RTI’s corporate principals are connected with a lobbying firm, Cornerstone Government Affairs, otherwise known as the Pentagon’s lobbyist. The data — even “sanitized” and stripped of personal identification — may simply not be accessed by the public:

Due to the sensitive nature of the data and to protect respondent confidentiality, the data are restricted from general dissemination. These data are enclave-only and may only be accessed at ICPSR’s location in Ann Arbor, MI. Users wishing to view these data must first contact NACJD, complete an Application for use of the ICPSR Data Enclave (available as part of the documentation for this study), and receive permission to analyze the files before traveling to Ann Arbor.

But it doesn’t matter now. DCRP data has not been updated since 2014 and it appears that the Justice Deparment under Trump has stopped collecting it.

Sheriffs love accountability — for everyone but themselves. But because of the secretive and undependable availability of federal jail death statistics and a lack of public reporting by the Massachusetts Sheriff’s Association or the state Department of Correction, the only way to get the data is for Massachusetts legislators to mandate the monthly collection and publication of detailed mortality statistics from DOC prisons and county jails.

Let’s see the data.

A little late, gentlemen

As the United States continues to slide into fascism, I have been rereading Hannah Arendt’s book “Eichmann in Jerusalem,” concerning the 1961 trial in Jerusalem of a war criminal who expressed himself in cliches, was an ambitious braggart, an egregious liar, an ignorant sociopath, someone attracted to and utterly at the service of men of power. We have many of these creatures living among us today. It could happen here. It is happening here.

In Arendt’s discussion of how ordinary Germans made themselves accomplices in something so monstrous as the Holocaust, she touches on the coup attempt that almost ended Hitler’s regime. Arendt quotes from German novelist Friedrich Reck-Malleczewen, who himself died in a concentration camp on the eve of the collapse of the Third Reich. In his “Diary of a Man in Despair” Reck-Malleczewen writes of those who participated in the dictatorship who could have stopped Hitler early on — but only thought of it too late to save their nation.

I swear, he was talking to the Republican Senators of 2020:

“A little late, gentlemen, you who made this archdestroyer of [the nation] and ran after him, as long as everything seemed to be going well; you who […] without hesitation swore every oath demanded of you and reduced yourselves to the despicable flunkies of this criminal […] Now, when the bankruptcy can no longer be concealed, they betray the house that went broke, in order to establish a political alibi for themselves — the same men who have betrayed everything that was in the way of their claim to power.”

Inhumane

The National Sheriff’s Association — the organization that represents rogue sheriffs like Sam Page, David Clarke, and Tom Hodgson and which celebrates the abuses of Customs and Border Patrol officers — has a soft spot for animals. Yes, the NSA actually endorsed legislation on animal cruelty, arguing that there is a link between animal cruelty and cruelty to humans. And we would not disagree.

But the sheriffs didn’t seem to appreciate the irony of defending puppies while torturing humans in the county jails they themselves operate.

Not to be out-done by the sheriffs’ hypocrisy, Donald Trump signed the Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act (PACT) last month, giving rights to animals that he refuses to extend to Central American children in his concentration camps.

But concern for animal rights while simultaneously showing indifference to human suffering is also a feature of Massachusetts law.

Massachusetts has animal cruelty statutes which provide for up to seven years in prison for the abuse of animals. In 2016 the Attorney General charged ten people with the mistreatment of over a thousand animals on a farm in Westport. All were allowed to plead guilty and serve probation, which outraged animal rights groups. When it comes to humans, the AG’s office has a civil rights division but has not similarly intervened in behalf of prisoners suffering and dying in the state’s jails.

The rights of dogs and cats in the Commonwealth have a leg up — actually four legs up — on the rights of their human counterparts. According to the Massachusetts General Laws, Part I, Title XX, Chapter 140, Section 137C:

“The mayor of a city, the selectmen of a town, the police commissioner in the city of Boston, a chief of police or an animal control officer may at any time inspect a kennel or cause the inspection of a kennel. If, in the judgment of such person or body, the kennel is not being maintained in a sanitary and humane manner or if records are not properly kept as required by law, such person or body shall, by order, revoke or suspend the license for the kennel.”

That’s right. Kennels may be freely inspected by public officials if conditions are believed to be unsanitary or inhumane. This is a right that not even state legislators have in Massachusetts “corrections” facilities.

For dogs, state law likewise regulates confinement:

“No person owning or keeping a dog shall chain or tether a dog for longer than 5 hours in a 24–hour period and outside from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., unless the tethering is for not more than 15 minutes and the dog is not left unattended by the owner, guardian or keeper.”

Your eyes are not playing tricks on you. “No excessive solitary” for dogs is written into Massachusetts law — while mentally-ill Bristol County prisoners are going to have to wait for the courts to decide if the overuse of solitary confinement is legal.

Under Massachusetts law a dog must be given adequate space to move, and environmental considerations (heat and cold) are strictly regulated. Specific types of inhumane treatment are prohibited:

“(1) filthy and dirty confinement conditions including, but not limited to, exposure to excessive animal waste, garbage, dirty water, noxious odors, dangerous objects that could injure or kill a dog upon contact or other circumstances that could cause harm to a dog’s physical or emotional health;

  1. taunting, prodding, hitting, harassing, threatening or otherwise harming a tethered or confined dog; and

  2. subjecting a dog to dangerous conditions, including attacks by other animals.”

No such protections exist for the safety and well-being of humans confined in Massachusetts jails and prisons.

Finally, it boggles the mind that “inhumane” is the word chosen by people to describe mistreatment of animals — but not of fellow humans who “deserve what they get” in prisons that “are not country clubs.”

But there is a solution. By simply re-designating jails as “kennels” — a name change prison rights advocates point out already describes the inhumane conditions in state prisons and jails — human prisoners in Massachusetts will finally receive the legal rights their four-legged friends already have.