Boycotts and free speech



I am certain that there is a segment of our nation's population who when asked how they feel about BDS will think the question is related to a K-Pop boy band.  That's BTS, btw.

BDS is an acronym for a movement calling for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against the nation of Israel until:

Israel withdraws from the "Occupied Territories"
Removal of the separation barrier in the West Bank
Full equality for Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel
Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties.

Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar are members of the U.S. House of Representatives.  Donald Trump tweeted the following regarding their plans to visit Israel:

It would show great weakness if Israel allowed Rep. Omar and Rep.Tlaib to visit. They hate Israel & all Jewish people, & there is nothing that can be said or done to change their minds. Minnesota and Michigan will have a hard time putting them back in office. They are a disgrace!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 15, 2019



It is clear that both Ms Tlaib and Ms Omar support the BDS movement from their words and actions.
Does supporting BDS mean that you hate Israel?  I don't buy that.  Does it make the supporter an Anti-Semite?  I don't buy that either.  The issues involving the Occupied Territories, a homeland for Palestinians and so on are complex.

One fact is very clear.  In 2011 Israel passed a law that allows Israel to bar these two members of our Congress from entering their country, based solely on their support of the BDS movement.

Does that mean banning them was a good decision?  The Jerusalem Post wrote an editorial that it is.  It also wrote an editorial that it is not.  Here is an excerpt from the editorial criticizing the decision to bar the two members of Congress:

"One must ask though, is Netanyahu’s vision of Israel so feeble that it can’t tolerate intense public criticism?   Israel is a nation that has survived two intifadas, countless wars, a deluge of rocket-fire, diplomatic isolation, and yet this is what Netanyahu chooses to back down on? The Prime Minister’s biggest fear are two freshman congresswomen who at most would cause a week’s worth of press before returning home."

In a democracy, engaging in a boycott must be protected.  It is part and parcel of freedom of expression.  Remember, when we discuss freedom of expression, we are talking only about attempts by any level of government to infringe on that freedom.  Any of us can criticize the speech of another person.  Businesses, employers and so on can impose consequences for violations of company policy regarding speech.

I know why Donald Trump is making the travel of these two members of Congress an issue.  He is using it to stoke the divisiveness that he uses regularly.  I do not understand what Mr. Netanyahu is afraid of.  Unless he's afraid that the BDS movement has a point.

In any event, the choice to ban these members of Congress from visiting Israel has probably given the BDS movement more publicity than the visit would have produced.

Mixing Facts and Fiction

Because of all of the hype and discussion about Quentin Tarantino's claim he will make his 10th major motion picture his final film, many begin descriptions of those movies by numbering them.  Which brings me to the 9th film from QT, Once Upon A Time in Hollywood.  The critical reception has been very positive.  Rotten Tomatoes gives it a critic's score of 85%.  I gave it 4.7 out of 5 stars in my review.  

But there has been considerable criticism of how QT portrays the legendary Bruce Lee in his film.  Played by Mike Moh, the revered martial arts/movie legend comes off as a loud-mouthed arrogant ass.  The Los Angeles Times reports that QT defended how Lee is portrayed at a press conference in Moscow.  

“Bruce Lee was kind of an arrogant guy,” Tarantino said in a video posted by Radar magazine. “The way he was talking, I didn’t just make a lot of that up. I heard him say things like that, to that effect. If people are saying, ‘Well, he never said he could beat up Muhammad Ali,’ well, yeah, he did. Not only did he say that, but his wife, Linda Lee, said that in her first biography I ever read. ... She absolutely said it.”

She did.  The problem is, those were not her words.  She was quoting a television critic, according to Matthew Polly.

WRONG: Linda was quoting a TV critic. “Even the most scathing critics admitted that Bruce’s gungfu was sensational. One critic wrote: ‘Those who watched him would bet on Lee to render Cassius Clay senseless if they were put in a room and told that anything goes.” (pg. 88) (3/11)

— Matthew Polly (@MatthewEPolly) August 12, 2019

As to "I heard him say things like that, to that effect" just when did QT hear him say those things?  Tarantino was only 10 years old when Bruce Lee died.  I've seen no recordings of Bruce Lee saying anything like that.  Dan Inosanto, who probably knew Bruce Lee better than anyone except Linda Lee had this to say.

"Bruce Lee would have never said anything derogatory about Muhammad Ali because he worshiped the ground Muhammad Ali walked on. In fact, he was into boxing more so than martial arts."

It is also worth noting that in a later biography of Bruce Lee penned by Linda Lee, The Life and Tragic Death of Bruce Lee, there are five references to Muhammad Ali.  The final reference is worth noting in this discussion.  She is talking about the movie Game of Death, much of which had been shot before Bruce Lee's death in July of 1973.

"Bruce had to go into the pagoda with two followers and to fight his way up through the floors, tackling a different martial artist and a different style on each floor. Danny Inosanto, who uses the nunchuka as well as anyone now alive defended one floor. A Korean 7th degree Hapkido Chi Hon Joi defended another floor and so oRight at the top was Kareem Abdul Jabbar, the final protector of the treasure. The fight between them, as I have said, is quite extraordinary. It has often been argued that if Bruce were locked in a room with Muhammad Ali and both were allowed to fight in their usual styles, then Bruce was bound to have been the winner." 

However, QT raised a very valid point in trying to counter the criticisms of how Bruce Lee is portrayed in the film.  In discussing whether or not "Cliff Booth" could have defeated Bruce Lee in a fight, he points out that Booth is a fictional character.  Any writer has complete control of what their fictional characters can and cannot do in their writing/filmmaking.  Yes, Mr. Polly is correct that QT's claim that Booth was a "Green Beret" is silly, because the Green Berets weren't created until well after World War II (he says Booth was a veteran of that war).  That is not relevant.  

A writer can author a book, a short story or a screenplay and give their fictional characters any abilities they want to.  In the movie Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, showing Cliff Booth defeating Bruce Lee is a valid choice.  I have no issue with that.

I've been a serious fan of Bruce Lee since I first saw Enter the Dragon in 1973.  I've seen all of his films multiple times.  Watched every episode of the television show The Green Hornet.  Read every book about him I could get my hands on.  I do not think for one minute that he was as big a jerk as he was portrayed in QT's movie.  

When mixing factual and fictional characters in fiction, I believe the writer has a duty to give as an accurate portrayal of the real people as possible.  But the choice to take poetic license is the author's.  

Middle ground on immigration


If the presence of immigrants in the U.S. illegally wasn't one of the top issues in our country prior to the mass shooting in El Paso, it is now.  

One of the arguments used frequently by Donald Trump and his supporters to validate their thesis that the removal of those here illegally will make us "safer" is using anecdotes involving horrific crimes committed by those here illegally.  

The Kate Steinle killer came back and back over the weakly protected Obama border, always committing crimes and being violent, and yet this info was not used in court. His exoneration is a complete travesty of justice. BUILD THE WALL!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 1, 2017

Kate Steinle was shot and killed while in the Embarcadero District of San Francisco, CA in July of 2015.  Her killer, José Inez García Zarate was in the U.S. illegally.  He had seven felony convictions prior to this tragedy.  They involved possession of drugs (including heroin possession and manufacturing of narcotics) and repeated illegal entry into the U.S.  In March of 2015 he was in a federal prison in San Bernardino, CA when the San Francisco Sheriff's office was notified that he was about to be released.  That agency took custody of him on a warrant dating back to 1995 for possession of marijuana.  That case was dismissed the day after he arrived in San Francisco.  Three weeks later he was released from custody by the SF Sheriff's Department due to the city's Sanctuary Law.  

There are other anecdotes such as this; used by proponents of the removal of all persons here in this nation in violation of our immigration laws, to demonize all undocumented immigrants.  They argue that such people make the nation less safe.  The New York Times reported this past May that research shows that "...growth in illegal immigration does not lead to increased crime rates."  CNN reported this past January that data from a 2015 Cato Institute study of crimes and immigrant populations in Texas showed a startling fact.

Crimes per 100,000 population of Texas in 2015

Native born Americans - 1,797

Legal Immigrants - 611

Undocumented Immigrants - 899

Imagine that.  People born here were committing crimes in Texas at almost twice the rate crimes were committed by those in the country illegally.  Makes the claims of Donald Trump silly.

* * *

The problem I see with sanctuary city policies is that they do not distinguish between minor offenses and serious crimes.  Can we agree that anyone who is undocumented and charged with the taking of a life should not be granted sanctuary until AFTER their case is adjudicated by the criminal justice system?  The same should apply to other serious charges like rape, aggravated assault, attempted homicide and so on.

Earlier this week ICE raided seven food processing plants in Mississippi, arresting and taking into custody 680 undocumented immigrants.  As of Thursday, 377 of them were still in ICE custody.

Aside from the inhumanity of doing this on the first day of school for the children of those arrested, there is another question about what prompted this raid.  In August of last year, Koch Foods settled lawsuits brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of dozens of workers at the same processing plant in Morton that was raided this week.  They paid out $3.75 million and the terms of the settlement require Koch Foods to provide training and operate a "hotline" for employees to report claims of discrimination.

Some believe that these raids, and the threat of future raids are tools used by those who exploit undocumented workers from filing future complaints.  There is no proof the settlement and the raid are connected, but this isn't the first time.

Of those arrested, how many of them have committed no other crime besides their illegal entry into the United States?  Undocumented workers pay income taxes, and pay into Social Security (which I like to call Social Insecurity) and Medicare.  Federal law does not allow anyone in the country illegally to receive Social Security benefits.

I have no problem with sanctuary cities providing protection for those who have committed no crime other than entering the country illegally.  We can quibble about what is and is not a minor violation.  But we should not be giving sanctuary to violent offenders.

On a lighter note, in case you hadn't already seen this...

Unique to the USA


Mass shootings have many different definitions.  The FBI defines a mass killing as one where four or more people are killed.  The Congressional Research Service uses the same definition.  The definition of a mass shooting used by the Gun Violence Archive is when four or more people, excluding the shooter are shot at roughly the same time.  That is the definition used in this tweet.

2019 mass shootings:

🇦🇹 0
🇩🇰 0
🇫🇮 0
🇩🇪 0
🇮🇹 0
🇮🇪 0
🇱🇺 0
🇨🇭 0
🇬🇧 0
🇭🇺 0
🇪🇸 0
🇵🇹 0
🇸🇬 0
🇸🇦 0
🇧🇪 0
🇸🇪 0
🇦🇺 0
🇫🇷 0
🇳🇿 1
🇳🇱 1
🇧🇷 1
🇨🇦 1
🇲🇽 3
🇺🇸 249

— Keith Edwards (@keithedwards) August 3, 2019

Mass shootings are not unique to the U.S., but we are the world leader in the frequency of them, by any definition.  Like Neil deGrasse Tyson's tweet about data, others have criticized that tweet by pointing out that the U.S. has a lower murder rate than a number of other nations.  But mass shootings are not the same as murder rates.

Donald Trump and other Republicans try to put the blame for mass shootings on mental health issues and violent video games.  The problem with that is that neither violent video games or mental health issues are at all unique to the USA by any measure.

There is one thing in the discussion of mass shootings that is unique to the U.S.  We are the only nation on this planet that has more than 1 firearm for every member of the civilian population..  Only the Falkland Islands (population estimated at 3,000) and Yemen have more than 1 firearm for every 2 members of the civilian population.  Of the 230 nations for which data is available, only 25 nations have more than 1 firearm for every 5 members of the civilian population.

The timespan of the 25 deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history dates from 1949 to the present.  8 of them, which is nearly 1/3rd, have taken place since Mr. Trump was inaugurated.

* * *

Now I cannot say with certainty the next item I'm going to mention is truly unique to the U.S. but I suspect it is nowhere near as rampant anywhere else in this world.  No other nation has a leader who has taken out over 2,000 campaign ads since this past March, talking about how the nation is being invaded by immigrants.

No other nation has a leader who attacks those who disagree with him in the way Mr. Trump does.  He describes his words as unifying, but they are some of the most divisive, negative rhetoric to come from the Oval Office since our nation was founded.

* * *

If mental health is such an important part of the cause of mass shootings, as Mr. Trump claims, why did he end an Obama-era regulation that made it more difficult for those with mental illnesses to get guns?  Why doesn't he reinstate that regulation?

The bottom line is that Mr. Trump is definitely part of the problem and definitely part of the solution.

How many more?

On Saturday night I went to bed, disturbed by the mass shooting in El Paso.  Sunday morning I awoke to news of another mass shooting, this one in Dayton.  In one 24 hour period, 29 lives taken, dozens more injured.

I watched the coverage on CNN and elsewhere all day, abandoning my plans to go to the movies.  Finally I could take no more.  I channel-surfed until I came upon the film The Patriot, in time to watch the last 40 minutes or so.  Here is a scene from that film that shows how wars were fought in the era where our nation's Constitution was written.

Single-shot muzzle loaded weapons.  After firing they had to be reloaded by hand. 168 years later, when the Allies landed at Omaha Beach, the weaponry had changed dramatically.

That's the opening battle of 1998's Saving Private Ryan.  The weapon being carried by Tom Hanks is a M1A1 Thompson submachine gun.  He used 30 round magazines and that weapon could fire 600 rounds per minute.  The machine guns being used by the Germans looking down on the beach were MG-42s.  They could fire 1,200 rounds per minute and were referred to as "Hitler's buzz saws."

In the 75 years since, as technology has advanced in every other field, so have the ability to make even more lethal assault weapons.

This is a photo of the weapon that the shooter in Dayton used.

This is a better photo of the double-drum magazine the shooter was using.

This magazine holds 100 rounds.  That shooter had the ability to fire off 100 bullets before having to reload.

* * *

Let's review the text of the 2nd Amendment.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I've blogged about this before.  A little over three years ago I suggested we pass a law to reinstate the ban on assault weapons and amend the current law on the militia.

Like it or not, there is NO good reason for anyone who is not part of our military, law enforcement or that well-regulated militia to own an assault weapon.  The only reason for magazines for such weapons that can hold more than 10 rounds is to kill people.  The emphasis on people, plural.

Republicans tried to place the blame on mental illness, violent video games and so on.  The same Republicans who tried to stop the funding of treatment for those mental illnesses.  Violent video games do not stoke the flames of bigotry.

Hatred and bigotry are learned behaviors.

Thoughts and prayers have accomplished nothing.  The NRA's lobbying has accomplished a lot.

We need change.  Now.