Continuum Thinking, Disjunction, and ICE

Curmie doesn’t go this far, but...

Curmie was extremely fortunate throughout his career to have encountered a number of extraordinary university lecturers.  At, or at least very near, the top of the list was Ron Willis, who was the professor of record for an Intro to Theatre class for which Curmie was a Graduate Teaching Assistant for a couple of years in grad school.  Ron would lecture to a couple hundred undergrads on Mondays and Wednesdays, and then the GTAs would lead discussion groups of 20 or 25 students each on Fridays.

What made Ron special wasn’t merely his intellect, his grasp of the subject matter, or even his wit, all of which were on ample display every time he stepped up to the lectern.  Rather, it was his insistence on what is too often trivialized as “thinking outside the box.”  The phrase is cliché; Ron’s lectures never were.  One of the basic concepts Ron emphasized keeps coming back into Curmie’s consciousness: the difference between disjunctive and continuum thinking.  It is hardly a novel idea, but Curmie hadn’t seen it applied quite so self-consciously or specifically outside the realm of probability theory. 

If the local high school basketball team takes on an NBA team (that’s actually trying) and loses by 15 points, they’ve still lost by double digits (disjunctively) but played extraordinarily well (on a continuum for high school teams).  Of course, whereas continuum thinking is to be encouraged in general terms, many, even most, situations will eventually require a disjunctive solution: we watch this movie or that, we try to avoid traffic by going a little out of our way or we don’t, and so on.  You can’t cast 62% of your vote for Candidate X, 35% for Candidate Y, and 3% for that interesting third-party candidate who’s kinda crazy but has this one really cool idea.

Real-life problems, then, generally involve some level of… “compromise” isn’t quite the right word.  “Accommodation,” perhaps?  Back in the Dark Ages when Curmie was first of voting age, he sometimes found two candidates roughly equally appealing: X is better here, but Y is better there.  Now, of course, neither candidate is appealing, but they’re roughly equally unappealing. 

The key is getting the order right.  First the continuum, the weighing of all the pros and cons, then the disjunctive decision.  Reversing that process leads to confirmation bias.  That is, if we decide that a particular point of view is correct, we inevitably search out “evidence” that supports our conclusion and ignore that which might contradict that impression.  We must remember that pols and pundits lie.  All of them.  Even the ones on “our side.”

Which brings us to a discussion of ICE.  Curmie doesn’t purport to speak for everyone whose politics are somewhere to the left of those of Louis XIV or Francisco Franco (Curmie antiphrastically avoids mention of that dude with the bad haircut and the funny mustache).  That said, he understands two things: that in the modern age some form of border patrol that seeks to protect the nation from those who actually are “the worst of the worst” is a net positive, and that some of the testimonials coming out of Minneapolis right now (and elsewhere in weeks past) may well be exaggerated or even falsified.

Let’s take the second point first.  What we face here is the possibility that the anti-ICE faction might not be providing objectively accurate information.  Indeed, much of what we see and hear comes from neighbors (and therefore friends?) of victims of ICE brutality, and from left-leaning media outlets.  Does that make the reportage suspect?  Maybe.  But the alternative is to believe the stories ICE and the Trump administration are spinning.  

We saw the murder of Renee Good.  We saw ICE deny a doctor the opportunity to attend to her.  We saw the priest get pepper sprayed for no reason.  We saw the veteran dragged from her car.  We saw the invalid dragged from hers.  We saw the protester sprayed in the face when he was already in custody, face down on the ground.  We saw the 5-year-old kids (yes, plural) in custody.  We saw the old man get tackled in the hallway outside the office where he was checking in on his application for citizenship.  We heard the police chief tell us that his off-duty BIPOC officers were harassed by ICE.

And we’ve seen and heard Trump, Vance, Bondi, Noem, Bovino, Miller, et al., flat-out out lying about what happened.  Every.   Single.  Time.  And you know you we haven’t heard from?  Anyone on-site who witnessed these events live and can corroborate ICE’s narrative.  Anyone except ICE agents themselves, that is.  Is it possible that some of the specifics of some of the cases have been exaggerated or even fabricated by the left?  Curmie would say that’s not merely a possibility, but a likelihood.  Alas, that’s rather the way of the world.  And certainly the technology exists to make something appear to have happened when it didn’t.  It’s also true that people like Gavin Newsom seem much more interested in their prospective presidential runs in ’28 than in actually solving problems in the here and now.

So yes, there’s a continuum at play here.  We ought to be careful about what we believe.  One side might be lying.  The other side definitely is.  The only thing we should believe from anyone associated with ICE is when they say they “don’t care.”  Don’t care that you’ve done nothing illegal.  Don’t care that you’re a citizen.  Don’t care that you’re an asylum-seeker and can prove it.  Don’t care that you’re a doctor.  Don’t care that you’re a veteran.  Indeed, don’t care about literally anything but their presumed power.  They lack empathy, actual patriotism, humanity.  Oh, and courage.  Mustn’t forget that.

But let’s return to the other part of this analysis.  If, as those on the right would have it, ICE were detaining the “worst of the worst,” then the opposition would be significantly weakened.  And it is true, apparently, that a fair number of unsavory folks have indeed been apprehended: murderers, rapists, robbers, drug dealers, and the like.  But the percentage of detainees who fall into one of those categories is far too low.  It’s also important to remember that even accused murderers have 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment rights.  ICE doesn’t care.  Curmie does.

Curmie wrote about a variation on the theme back in 2012 when New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg was all about stop-and-frisk measures despite the fact that they were “successful” only once in every 879 stops, and that young black or Hispanic males were more than eight times more likely to be stopped than their percentage of the population would indicate.  Curmie wrote, 

If you search literally everybody without any provocation, chances are pretty good you’ll catch someone with a gun or drugs or an outstanding warrant. But the price is too high except in the McCarthyite universe inhabited by arrogant buffoons like Mike Bloomberg. Really, if the price of “law and order” is a state in which the authorities can do whatever the hell they want, I’ll take a little risk.

That’s still true.  By the way, how does one prove citizenship?  You can get a driver’s license without citizenship, after all.  A voter ID card, I suppose?  Curmie has never carried his except literally on election day, or his passport except heading to or from an international airport.   And if you happen to be on the other side of the state (or the other side of the country) from where those documents are stored (in Curmie’s underwear drawer, for example), there’s not a lot to be done to establish your right to be in this country.  

Curmie, being white (well, there’s a little First Nations heritage in there, but not enough that anyone would even suspect that by looking at him) and having English as his native language, is less likely than some of his friends are to be hassled by a goon squad that is longer on testosterone than on brain cells.  But “less likely” isn’t good enough, and what other folks, especially those who “look Hispanic,” have to deal with is absurd… or, rather, it would be if it weren’t so real.  Curmie has been loath to say this, at least this frankly, for the past year, but cannot now come to any conclusion other than that ICE is not merely primarily about the racism, but indeed virtually exclusively so.

Curmie does not argue here that there should be “no raids, no detention, no deportations,” as that one protester’s poster in the photo above reads.  But it is unreasonable at best to allow anonymous, largely untrained, “agents” to be able to do whatever they want, without warrants, without even probable cause (or at least without what any reasonable definition of probable cause would be), without oversight.  Take away their masks, their guns, and their ability to commit violence.  Make them work with local police: N.B., this does NOT mean that they’re the ones in charge.  No one can be detained if they are in fact obeying the rules—applying for asylum, seeking work permits, etc.  Any arrest without a judicial warrant or demonstrable exigent circumstances is felony kidnapping.  Make ICE follow the law, and Curmie has no objection to their continued existence.  But the current structure and leadership cannot endure.

So…  Yes, there have been some violent criminals taken off the street by ICE.  Yes, some of the allegations against them are no doubt inflated.  But ultimately the choice is disjunctive: we fund and tolerate ICE or we don’t.  Captain Bonespurs and the Gravy Seals would make a pretty good band name, but it’s no way to run a free country.  Time to melt the ICE.

George Orwell Had 47 Figured Out

 

George Orwell, 1903-1950

With all due respect to Heather Cox Richardson, Robert Reich, et al., the keenest observer of the 47 regime has been dead for almost 76 years.  He was a fella named George Orwell, and his two best known books, Animal Farm and 1984, encapsulate the reign of the Mad King of Trumpistan.

The latter has been much quoted of late, and we’ll return to it in a moment, Gentle Reader, but Animal Farm hasn’t been given enough credit for its apt analysis.  The animals join together to revolt against the imperious Farmer Jones.  Their linkage is born of negativity: a sort of enemy-of-my-enemy bonding that leads to the overthrow of the shared adversary.  But, of course, the alliance begins to crumble as the pigs begin to assert absolute control.  One particular pig, Napoleon, becomes fully as megalomaniacal and indeed evil as Farmer Jones had been, and all the other animals—hens, horses, sheep, etc.—are in at least as bad shape as they had been before the revolution.  They work harder than ever, while the pigs in general and Napoleon in particular reap all the benefits, all the while proclaiming the glorious economic and political glories of the regime. 

Eventually, we see new slogans that are presented as dictates: “Napoleon is always right” and, ultimately adding an addendum to the rallying cry, “All animals are equal”: “…but some animals are more equal than others.”  The book may have been originally intended as a critique of communism, but it works just as well as a parable about the 47 regime.  The animals represent the MAGA horde, happily overturning the old order, but many are gradually realizing that the self-proclaimed “Mr. Tariff” is destroying their livelihood: making imports of raw materials more expensive and exports harder to sell because of reciprocal actions by other nations.  Health care costs are skyrocketing, especially for those on Medicaid, who are disproportionately… MAGAs.  Those tax cuts for billionaires are important, after all.

Napoleon… well, that’s pretty obvious.  The name suggests someone who wants to be emperor.  Think of someone remarkably porcine in appearance.  Someone who is the most piggish, in both senses of the term—greedy and vulgar—of any American politician Curmie can think of or even imagine.  And, of course, someone far more interested in consolidating power than in solving any problem, as demonstrated, hypothetically, of course, by scuttling a bi-partisan border bill for the sole purpose of not allowing the political opposition to get a victory: something to campaign on is deemed more important than making progress on an issue of concern.  Wonder who that could be…

There is one place where the analogy breaks down, of course.  Farmer Jones really was cruel and abusive.  The American political system and its leaders in early November of 2024 had plenty of faults, but the MAGA world wasn’t really oppressed; they just wanted to pretend they were.  They needed someone to blame for their problems, and their version of Napoleon supplied them with a list: Hispanics, Muslims, Queer folk, et al.  The great thing about the hate list is that it’s enormously flexible: any group (blacks, Asians, Jews, women…) that isn’t People Like Us can be construed as The Problem.

It’s 1984 that gets referenced more often of late, however, and for good reason.  Curmie lost track of how many of his FB friends recently posted one of the most famous lines from a book cluttered with memorable phrases: “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”  We’ve certainly seen that scenario play out of late.  First (hardly really the first, but the first this week), there was (and still is, alas) the bizarre and utterly mendacious page on the official White House website blaming the Capitol Police, Nancy Pelosi (and Democrats in general), and Mike Pence for the debacle that was January 6, 2021.  (The New York Times analysis of this remarkable display of chutzpah is pretty good.)  It wasn’t outrageous enough, apparently, that the stack of pardons (almost certainly signed by autopen, by the way) wasn’t just for those who may indeed have been overcharged, but also for those who literally attacked law enforcement officers, injuring scores of them, some permanently. 

More importantly, we all saw and heard what happened.  Here’s the thing: if, Gentle Reader, you don’t think Trump’s speech that day rose to the level of incitement, Curmie will listen.  He’ll disagree, but he’ll listen.  At the very least, however, Trump could have done a lot to prevent things from getting out of hand and didn’t.  If you want to argue that the January 6 Committee was something of a partisan witch hunt and a waste of taxpayer money, Curmie will even agree.  But if you want to claim that the violence was initiated by the Capitol Police, he’ll call you a liar.  Why?  Because he refuses to reject the evidence of his own eyes and ears.

And that, of course, brings us to the events in Minneapolis, where an ICE goon killed Renee Nicole Good.  Curmie would say “murdered,” but of course just because that’s the accurate term doesn’t mean it can be used until and unless there’s an arrest, a trial, and a conviction.  Unfortunately, it’s pretty certain that will never happen.  The wagons have already been circled.  Minnesota police have been shut out of the investigation by Kash Patel’s incompetent and politically subservient FBI (murder is a state, not federal, crime, remember), potential evidence has been removed from Jonathan Ross’s house, and the three most incessant and unrepentant liars in the country—Trump, Vance, and Noem (yes, even worse than Hegseth)—have all declared Ms. Good a “domestic terrorist” or some variation on the theme.  Indeed, the most persuasive argument that Good was not, in fact, a violence-prone leftie insurgent is that that trio of sociopaths says she was.

Again, we’ve all seen the videos. 

Curmie, as you probably know, Gentle Reader, taught college-level theatre courses in six different decades, beginning in 1979.  For many years in Play Analysis class he used David Ball’s Backwards and Forwards: A Technical Manual for Reading Plays.  One term Ball uses is grimly ironic in the current circumstances: “trigger.”  What he means is that every action is a response to another specific, immediate, action.  Thus Hamlet, who surely knows of Claudius’s treachery and has just watched his mother die from poison, does not act attack Claudius until Laertes declares, “The King, the King’s to blame.”  That’s the “trigger” for what happens next.

We know that Good seemed perfectly pleasant in uttering what turned out to be her last words, “I’m not mad at you.” There would be no reason to expect even the potential for violence on either side.  But we also know that Ross then tried and failed to intimidate Good’s partner (wife?); she responded “You want to come at us?  I say, go get yourself some lunch, big boy.”   And then he walked around to the front of the car, handgun already in hand.  Were Curmie of a cynical disposition, he might suggest that a hypersensitive and cowardly asshole like Ross wasn’t really fearing for his life at all; he just wanted to show them fillies who’s boss.  Hence, the ever-so-endearing “Fucking bitch” line with which Ross (or perhaps one of his fellow goons) responded to the shooting.

We also see that Good was trying to steer away from him, which means that he had stepped into her path.  We know that it’s a violation of protocol to do so, that it’s illegal to use deadly force against someone merely fleeing, and, significantly, that there was a review a little over a dozen years ago that found that Border Control agents near the US/Mexico border were intentionally stepping into the path of moving cars in order to justify the use of deadly force.  Two questions: 1). How sick is that?  2). Guess where Jonathan Ross was at the time?

We also know that Ross walked away from the incident apparently uninjured, certainly not “lucky to be alive” or any of that bullshit spewed by POTUS and his minions.  And that also means that he was already out of the path of the vehicle when the car lurched forward after Good was shot.  We know also, from a different video that a doctor sought to examine Good—to render assistance if that was still relevant, or to pronounce her dead at the scene.  He was stopped by a different ICE asshole who proclaimed that “we have our own medics.”  According to one report, those medics didn’t arrive for another 15 minutes.  It’s certainly possible that Good was already dead, but getting her assistance immediately—which, by the way, is required in any officer-involved shooting—might conceivably have made the difference between life and death.  To suggest that ICE is unconcerned with the lives of anyone but themselves, that they’ll cheerfully defame an innocent person if it gets one of theirs off the hook: this is to be too kind to them.

A few other points, and this is where, once again Curmie reminds you, Gentle Reader, that he is not a lawyer, so if there’s someone out there who knows more about this stuff than he does, please comment.  No, Curmie is not a lawyer, but he’s read a lot of stuff from people who are (or at least purport to be).  According to several of those folks, ICE has jurisdiction over one thing and one thing only: people who are in the country illegally.  In other words, they had no authority to order Good out of her car (or to yell at her to move, which also happened).  One lawyer said that in matters involving traffic, they have less authority than a school crossing guard.  They have no right to detain anyone about whom they lack probable cause to believe is an illegal alien.  Yet they strut around like they don’t answer to any laws… unfortunately, they may be right about that.  And, of course, they’re real tough when they’re armed to the teeth and confronting an unarmed mom.  When they actually start going after the “worst of the worst,” give Curmie a call.

The good news here is that tens of millions of people saw those videos.  Irrespective of what anyone in the administration says, we know better.  They can cover up all they want at this point, but we all know what happened, and we’re not going to reject the evidence of our eyes and ears.

But wait!  That’s not all!  Our lad George has been on this administration’s case for a long time.

The incursion into Venezuela prompted a Friend of Curmie to post, “I am deeply concerned that this action is going to draw resources away from our war in Eastasia.”  We have, after all, always been at war with Eastasia.

“War is Peace.  Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”  Well, we’ve got a POTUS who has ordered military strikes against three other nations and threatened at least three others, including a NATO ally… and thinks he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize.  Curmie isn’t sure that anyone in the administration thinks freedom is slavery, but there are plenty that think (economic) slavery is freedom.  And ignorance is indeed the strength by which this regime maintains power.

“Big Brother is Watching You.”  Turning over private records of every American to the unvetted DOGE techbois wasn’t enough, apparently.  Now they’re breaking out the spyware to pry into the private conversations of people who… you know… attend the kind of protests protected by the 1st Amendment.

There’s more, but we’re approaching 2000 words, so it’s probably time to wrap this up.  We close with this, also from 1984: “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”

Be careful out there, Gentle Reader.

On Regretting the Loss of Thoughtful Disagreement

One of the saddest things about the current administration is that it has forced once-principled and intelligent conservatives to start spouting total nonsense.  Most of this comes as obeisance to an unstable and vengeful leader… more on that a little later.

One change is a new obsession with disjunctive thinking: every question must be answered with “black” or “white.”  There is no allowance for grey, or (especially) for qualifiers.  For example, Curmie recently saw an argument centered on whether someone supported deporting people who are in the country illegally.  Naturally, the only acceptable answer was “yes” according the racists and other right-wing zealots. 

Curmie won’t speak for all liberals, some of whom might indeed say “no” to that question, but his response is “yes, if…”  If they are indeed undocumented (remember that there were American citizens sent to “Alligator Alcatraz”), if they don’t have green cards and work permits, if they aren’t already in the process of applying for asylum and/or citizenship, if they’re afforded due process, then there’s no objection here. 

Well, actually, that’s not quite true.  Curmie would still disapprove of deporting those who have lived here for decades, contributed to their communities and to American culture, and have no criminal convictions.  Unless aggravated in some way (returning after being deported, for example), simply being in the country illegally is a Class C misdemeanor, the equivalent of a speeding ticket.  Perhaps it shouldn’t be that way, but it is.  Several states have a statute of limitations of under ten years for rape, but there’s none for a C misdemeanor?  Curmie would ask you to make it make sense, Gentle Reader, but he’d rather not subject you to that level of mental gymnastics.

Nor does agreement that some undocumented people should indeed be deported mean that ICE ought to be able to randomly tackle and detain anyone who looks or sounds Hispanic, which they’re doing with grim regularity.  And let’s drop the bullshit about how such-and-such a suspect “attacked” officers who were “just doing their duty.”  If that were true, then there would be video footage of the attack, but Curmie has literally never seen anyone do that except in obvious self-defense.  (Oops, I stand corrected: there was that guy who tossed a sandwich at a CPB agent.  A grand jury appropriately refused to indict him for a felony.)  

There is, however, plenty of footage of ICE agents tackling elderly citizens (!) without cause, shooting a pepper ball directly into the face of a minister who was <checks notes> praying, dragging a woman (a citizen) out of her car after they rammed it for the apparent crime of DWL (Driving While Latina), and so on.  Oh, and (of course), they lied about what happened.  Oh, and this just in: tear-gassing little kids in Hallowe’en costumes.

Sometimes, but only sometimes, ICE might be able to cobble together a complaint for resisting arrest.  Attacking them?  Nope.  They’re bullies and therefore cowards (hence the masks), and they’ll cheerfully lie to continue their cosplay as actual law enforcement.  The idea that these assholes have immunity from arrest and prosecution, as Reichsmarschall Stephen Miller proclaims, should send a shiver up the spine of every American; the fact that it doesn’t is truly horrifying.

It’s unlikely that Curmie will be attacked by masked men with high-end weaponry but without identification, a warrant, or probable cause.  His ancestors (well, most of them), after all, were from places like England, Wales, Ireland, and the Netherlands instead of Africa, the Middle East, or one of those places where they speak (gasp!) Romance languages.  But should it happen, you can bet that he’ll do what he can to defend himself.  He’ll lose the fight, of course, but he does know how to fight dirty, and with luck there might be someone other than just Curmie who regrets the encounter.

Another variation on the theme is what Curmie calls Trump Derangement Derangement (TDD).  This manifests as an unwillingness to recognize that some of the criticisms of Dear Ruler are not merely plausible but in fact objectively correct.  Did he lie about “not interfering” with the East Wing for the Epstein Ballroom vanity project over-priced boondoggle bunker upgrade corporate bribe White House renovations?  Yes.  Full stop.  Oh, but… you see… he broke the law avoided going through the normal planning process for such projects because doing that would have held up the project for so long it might not have even been completed during his presidency.  Curmie thinks that if the new ballroom is such a good idea, whoever 48 turns out to be would cheerfully complete the process for the good of the country.

Did the Manchurian Cantaloupe scuttle a 2024 bi-partisan bill to address the problems associated with the southern border because he’d rather have a campaign issue than a solution?  Yes, and it’s GOP legislators, not (just) Curmie who say so.  Less certain, but still more than plausible, is the argument that the settlement between Israel and Hamas is virtually identical to one proposed by Biden and subsequently rejected by Netanyahu because he wanted Trump to get the credit.  (Trump deserves at least some credit either way, of course, but quite likely not as much as he’s claiming for himself.)

Indeed, ignoring laws, even SCOTUS rulings, that Dear Leader considers inconvenient is standard procedure for this administration, and with both houses of Congress dominated by GOP boot-lickers, he’s likely to continue getting away with it, even on those rare occasions when this SCOTUS actually decides to uphold the Constitution.

One of the more interesting variations on TDD is the assertion that people don’t dislike Trump’s policies; they dislike him.  Well, it’s true that Curmie dislikes him.  He tends not to have a particularly high opinion of rapists, grifters, embezzlers, pathological liars, and those with so high an opinion of themselves that Narcissus had to call a press conference to say, “Hey, c’mon, I’m not as bad as that.  Don’t compare me to that guy.”  As for the other part, Curmie won’t pretend to speak for everyone to the left of Tommy Tuberville, but he very much dislikes virtually every policy of this administration.

A few examples: pretending to be targeting the “worst of the worst” when the majority of those detained have no criminal record; allowing incompetent idiots like Hegseth, Patel, and Kennedy to keep their jobs (appointing them to begin with was bad enough); cutting funding to about every program designed to help everyday people—the FAA, CDC, FEMA, NOAA, SNAP, ACA, Medicaid, medical research, research grants to universities, etc.—while lining the pockets of his fellow billionaires; turning Elon Musk’s unvetted minions loose on the private records of every American; using the military against our own citizens; sinking foreign-owned fishing vessels in international waters based on speculation (at best); abrogating this country’s responsibility to defend Ukraine (part of the deal for them to abandon nuclear weapons) because Uncle Vladimir said to… There’s more, of course, but this paragraph is long enough already.

There’s also the problem of exaggeration.  No, Bernie Sanders is not a communist just because he thinks that poor people ought to be able to afford food and shelter.  But at one level, this is the same kind of enflamed rhetoric that characterizes a lot of political speech… as Curmie demonstrated above in referring to the abominable Stephen Miller.

A more complex problem because it requires a projection of long-term vs. short-term effectiveness comes in economic policy.  Raising tariffs, for example, may seem like a good idea in the near term, but there are several inevitable results.  Some things just can’t be created here: think coffee, for example.  Also, if the price of some imported product goes up 10%, US competitors will cheerfully raise their prices by 5% and still get a greater market share.  In both cases, prices go up.  And, of course, other countries are likely to impose their own retaliatory tariffs, making it harder to export American goods, especially agricultural products.  Ask soybean farmers what they think of these policies.  Or, in a variation on the theme, talk to cattle farmers who hear the guy they voted for suggesting a significant increase in importing Argentinian beef.

Similarly, cutting ACA subsidies doesn’t hurt just those directly affected.  Those folks can’t afford health care, so they don’t get it.  They show up at work with communicable diseases.  Small-town hospitals go out of business.  Doctors charge the rest of us more to make up for lost patients.  How is any of this good news?

We could also, of course, address the internal contradictions in so many policy decisions.  Let’s take that Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education, for example.  It insists on a de facto quota system based on ideology, but is radically opposed to DEI, i.e., diversity, equity and inclusion.  It demands that international students open their social media accounts to governmental snooping. 

It pretends to support free speech, but seeks to punish universities which allow protests against what some students perceive as Israeli genocide.  The key word in the previous sentence is “allow.”  A university need not encourage such protests, merely allow them in the spirit of First Amendment principles and that “broad spectrum of ideological viewpoints” the Compact purports to endorse to run afoul of this administration’s attempts at controlling what can be discussed on university campuses.  Curmie could go on, but he hopes the point has been made. 

There was a time, not that long ago, when genuine, honest, debate could happen, when it was possible to see the point of view of someone whose stance on abortion or gun control, for example, was different from one’s own.  There’s a limit to that viewpoint, however.  The Republican Party is now completely subservient to the petulance and vindictiveness of a delirious despot-wannabe, and they’ll say or do anything to prove their allegiance to him. 

Either that, or they truly believe that Americans ought not to have access to disaster relief if they happen to live in a “blue state,” that there’s not a problem with reverse Robin Hood policies designed to steal from the poor to give to the rich, that protecting a pedophile is more important than representing the people, that health insurance premiums increasing by over $50 a day (!) is quite all right…  Again, there’s more, but we’ll leave it at that.

The idiocy and intentional cruelty of those policies is transparent to anyone who can out-think a rutabaga, but debating those issues is an exercise in futility because the first tenet of MAGA-dom is never to admit anything.  The rhetoric on either side doesn’t matter; policy does.  There’s plenty to distrust on both sides of the political aisle, but mud-slinging isn’t the answer.  (Yes, Curmie is aware of the irony of this statement appearing in this essay.)  The truth always seeks to be free.  It will find its way out.  In the meantime: resist by whatever (legal and ethical) means necessary… and ultimately vote the bastards out.

It’s a Different World Out There Now, Dennis

Masked ICE agent sprays Pastor David Black directly in the face. Photo by Ashlee Rezin of the Chicago Sun-Times

There were, no doubt, several adult visitors to my classroom when I was a boy, but there were only two I remember with any clarity.  One was a friend of my 3rd grade teacher, Mrs. Hamilton.  He was a very nice man who told funny stories and sang and played his banjo for us.  I remember the tale of defeating the mean giant Abiyoyo, the funny song about little boxes on a hillside, and that one beautiful tune that I didn’t understand because it was in Spanish (but he explained to us what it was about and even got us to join in on the chorus).

Mrs. Hamilton was my teacher again in 5th grade, and her friend visited us again.  It wasn’t until a couple of years later that I learned that the nice man was kind of famous, and a few more years after that, that the “Holy shit, that was Pete Seeger!” revelation dawned.

But it’s the other visitor I want to talk about today.  I think his name was Dennis something, but I might well be making that up.  Exactly why he showed up in our classroom, I don’t recall, if indeed I ever knew.  I don’t remember how old I was, although probably a tween.  Anyway, Dennis (we’ll call him that) was an FBI agent.  He was probably in his late 20s or early 30s, and he was dressed in the then-standard FBI get-up: a cheap and rather ill-fitting black suit, with highly polished black shoes, a white shirt, skinny black tie, and a crew-cut. 

Dennis was clearly very proud of being in the FBI, and went on for some time about that agency’s spotless record of integrity.  I’m pretty sure he believed his own testimony, as it wasn’t until a few years later that the atrocities of the J. Edgar Hoover era became known.  Indeed, Curmie, who even in junior high was a skeptical lad, later found it very difficult to process evidence of slander, intimidation, even assassination pointing to the agency as perpetrators rather than investigators.  The National Guard was, of course, a different story.

Dennis’s visit, that utter confidence in the rectitude, even the incorruptibility, of the FBI, still lingers in Curmie’s memory over a half century later, mostly because any such testimony now would be so risible that even kids wouldn’t buy that nonsense for a moment.  Not with every federal allegedly law enforcement agency—ATF, FBI, ICE, DHS, et al.—turned into a private army by a bullying POTUS incapable of any emotions other than rage and paranoia.  Rule of law?  What’s that?

Frighteningly enough, it may indeed be true that the FBI, even headed by a mendacious moron like Kash Patel, is still the most uncompromised of the federal agencies.  We need only look at the outrageous antics employed by ICE and their attendant lackeys in other departments (and SCOTUS) in places like Los Angeles, Chicago, and Portland, to think that the FBI, though rendered incompetent, partisan, and corrupt, may not be quite so bad in comparison. 

It might also be worth noting that none of those three cities appears on the US News and World Report list of the 25 Most Dangerous Places to Live.  Indeed, the top four cities, and eight of the top ten, in murder rate per capita, are in red states.  You know who checks in at #10?  Shreveport, the biggest city in Mike Johnson’s district.  Yet there seems to be no indication that federal troops will invade the Ratchet City.  Go figure, huh?  You know who doesn’t appear in the top 20?  Los Angeles, Chicago, or Portland. 

Over-zealous, violent, and often racist policing is, to be sure, not a new problem.  Yes, it has been aggravated by the recklessness (at best) of the First Felon, but police over-reach at all levels has been around for a long time.  This situation is not, of course, exclusively the result of the efforts of the authoritarian right, but it sure does seem like there’s a correlation.  More to the point, whereas the problems haven’t changed, the degree has.  Curmie has now reached the point at which he no longer implicitly trusts any member of law enforcement at any level even to refrain from brutality and to tell the truth, let alone to be competent at the job.  That’s not a good place to be.

It is difficult to determine the rationale for impassioned and utterly mendacious proclamations coming from ICE and DHS.  They can’t really believe that dozens of heavily armed, masked, and armor-protected agents are truly at risk in the presence of unarmed protesters who are <checks notes> chanting at them.  Can they?  It is certainly true that bullies, and anyone who would work for ICE either is one or wants to be, are, by definition, cowards.  And that particular variety of pusillanimity almost always manifests in bluster and, more often than not, in outright lies.

The other alternative is more chilling.  A number of left-leaning pundits suggest that all this activity is intended for the sole purpose of raising tensions.  If the authorities can plausibly claim they were threatened, then a show of even more authoritarian power can at least appear to be legitimized.  So far, it’s clear that the aggressors are nearly always the ones recently described by a federal judge (a Reagan appointee, by the way) as “cowardly desperados.”  Unfortunately, that may not last, which, goes the theory, is precisely what Trump and his minions wants: an excuse to pretend the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments don’t exist. 

Oh, and they’re not really big fans of the 2nd amendment, either, unless the gun-toter is a white male who answers to “Bubba.”  Witness the desperate attempt by DHS to claim that Marimar Martinez was armed; she had a gun that never left her purse, and a valid concealed-carry license.  Martinez’s lawyer says there’s bodycam evidence that the federal agent, not Ms. Martinez, initiated the collision between their vehicles.  OK, Gentle Reader, he’s not the most objective source, but the easy way to prove him wrong is for the government to release the tape… guess what hasn’t happened.

The pressure still needs to be applied, and Ghandi-like non-violence is difficult, but it’s the only way.  Rising to the bait is the worst thing to do.  In the words of today’s birthday boy, John Lennon, “When it gets down to having to use violence, then you are playing the system’s game. The establishment will irritate you – pull your beard, flick your face – to make you fight. Because once they’ve got you violent, then they know how to handle you. The only thing they don’t know how to handle is non-violence and humor.”

Musings on the Shootings in Dallas... with a personal connection

Curmie really wants to write about something other than the immorality and incompetence of the Trump administration and their minions in more than a few statehouses.  He’s even got something about another topic essentially written and ready to post. 

But.

It doesn’t happen often, thankfully, but this time a personal friend was witness to an event that made national headlines, and his story demands to be told.  By now, Gentle Reader, you’ll have read about the shooting at an ICE facility in Dallas early yesterday morning. 

You may well have first learned of the incident when the Usual Suspects started blathering without evidence about the shooter’s motives, just as they did in the wake of events in Utah a couple weeks ago.  Here’s Kristi Noem: 

This vile attack was motivated by hatred for ICE.  For months, we’ve been warning politicians and the media to tone down their rhetoric about ICE law enforcement before someone was killed. This shooting must serve as a wake-up call to the far-left that their rhetoric about ICE has consequences. Comparing ICE Day-in and day-out to the Nazi Gestapo, the Secret Police, and slave patrols has consequences.

And JD Vance: “The obsessive attack on law enforcement, particularly ICE, must stop. I'm praying for everyone hurt in this attack and for their families.”  Curmie notes that all the victims were detainees, and the day Vance gives a shit about any of them is the day after the Devil tells him why he’s in hell. 

And Kash Patel: “These despicable, politically motivated attacks against law enforcement are not a one-off. We are only miles from Prarieland, Texas where just two months ago an individual ambushed a separate ICE facility, targeting their officers.”

And Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons: “It wasn’t directed at the detainees; it wasn’t directed at civilians in the street.  It was a definite attack on law enforcement.”

And here’s a selection from the rant by the Tangerine Palpatine himself: 

The Brave Men and Women of ICE are just trying to do their jobs, and remove the “WORST of the WORST” Criminals out of our Country, but they are facing an unprecedented increase in threats, violence, and attacks by Deranged Radical Leftists. This violence is the result of the Radical Left Democrats constantly demonizing Law Enforcement, calling for ICE to be demolished, and comparing ICE Officers to “Nazis.” The continuing violence from Radical Left Terrorists, in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, must be stopped. ICE Officers, and other Brave Members of Law Enforcement, are under grave threat.

OK, let’s unpack that a little.  ICE is not the least bit interested in removing the “worst of the worst.”  Indeed, they’re under orders to avoid high crime areas, especially those with significant levels of gang activity.  Whether this is because of commands that they fill numerical quotas (it’s a lot easier to arrest a grandmother than a gang leader) or simply garden-variety cowardice is unclear.  Probably a bit of both. 

It is indeed true that at least one of the bullet casings found at the scene did have “anti-ICE” written on it.  That may be relevant; indeed it likely is.  But, of course, as some memester pointed out, a real lefty would more likely write “Fuck ICE” or “Abolish ICE”; “anti-ICE” is what “a right-winger thinks a leftist says.”

Still, A hand-written note found at the home of the shooter, Joshua Jahn, seems to support the idea that Jahn was indeed attacking ICE.  It remains curious, however, that there were three casualties, including at least one death (not counting Jahn himself), but none of the victims were the supposedly intended targets.  There’s a difference between a likelihood and a certainty, after all, but you’d certainly never know that if you listened to the squawking from the Trumpian minions.  And some of the evidence that Jahn was indeed anti-ICE wasn’t discovered until well after the accusations were belched forth.  Government officials hurling accusations without evidence is a problem, even if, as now seems probable, they turn out to be right.

In fact, all this hyperventilating about “Radical Left Terrorists,” especially given the inconclusiveness of the evidence, does little but fan the flames and incite further violence.  Curmie isn’t quite ready to say that such is the intent of the administration—providing an excuse for further infringements on First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights, for example—but it does loom as a possibility.  Of course, simple stupidity is the explanation for a lot of what this administration does…

Let’s be honest here.  We may suspect, even strongly suspect, what may have been Jahn's motives, but we don’t know with anything like certainty.  The local Fox affiliate reports that “A sign on a car that reportedly belonged to the shooter reads, “Radioactive fallout from nuclear formations that've passed over these areas more than 2x since 1951.”  So we’re dealing with someone quite likely to be a pancake short of a Grand Slam Breakfast, whatever his politics.  Plus, of course, if he was truly aiming for ICE agents, he’s an even worse shot than Thomas Michael Crooks.

All of this brings us to Curmie’s introduction to this piece.  A good friend and former student of Curmie’s posted on social media that he was on site when the shooting occurred.  His post was public, but Curmie doesn’t want him to get any backlash, so he’ll be listed here only as SR, and Curmie isn’t supplying a link; you’ll have to trust me on this, Gentle Reader.  Curmie also declined to ask for further details: this had to have been an especially harrowing incident, and there’s no need to make him re-live that experience just to assuage Curmie’s curiosity.

Curmie should also mention that SR is a man of exemplary honesty and forthrightness.  He has no political agenda, and is far more forgiving than Curmie of other people’s ethical failures.  If SR says, “this is what happened,” then, Gentle Reader, you can take it to the bank that that’s what happened.  His account may not be complete (how could it be?), but it is honest.  Curmie would bet everything he owns that SR is telling the absolute truth to the extent that he can determine it.

So… SR drove a member of his church, who apparently had an appointment, to the ICE facility.  Apparently there’s a rule that you can’t enter the facility without an appointment, so SR and several other people were directed to an outdoor waiting area.  (Curmie bets this will go over particularly well in February.)  OK, so it’s a stupid rule, but ICE doesn’t have a monopoly on them…

The half dozen or so people outside, including SR and a mother and her infant, still weren’t allowed inside when the shooting started.  SR says he “can’t really blame the employees” for that decision; this is because SR is far more forgiving than the average person.  SR “had nowhere to go, nothing to hide behind. The best option given the situation was to shelter in place and wait and hope.”  Eventually, “Dallas PD arrived at the scene and ordered us to shelter inside, and the ICE agents finally allowed us into the building.”

SR concludes, aptly: 

Frankly, I don't care about the motive because it will just be propagandized to death. Ultimately, this event is another indicator of failed policies and inflammatory messaging.

Perhaps the most frustrating part is knowing that this will not lead to any meaningful change. It will be another fading headline, another statistic, another signpost on the road toward our own self-destruction.

There’s a reason SR is one of the former students in whom Curmie takes the most pride. 

Let’s consider above all his objective statements rather than his analysis.  Those “brave men and women on the ground” that Lyons was praising may indeed have been trying to rescue detainees from vehicles that were under fire.  But we also know that ICE employees—perhaps the same ones, perhaps not—refused to allow innocent civilians to seek shelter inside their facility: an act both craven and cruel.  How do we know?  Because SR said so (without the adjectives).  If the average person on the street said something contrary to a Trump minion’s statement, Curmie would tend to believe that person.  When it’s SR, he’s certain of it.

This, alas, is the true face of ICE: paranoid, cowardly, and mendacious.  They’re not the Gestapo, though.  Those guys weren’t afraid to show their faces.