Morning Music: Almanac Singers

Solidarity ForeverI have long maintained that the true target of the capitalist class against unionization is not higher wages and better working conditions. It is solidarity. The greatest threat is that the workers will bind together. Nothing can stop the workers if they are united. And that is why it is not surprising that unionization in this country is all but dead: the power elite have managed to convince the workers that unions are the enemy, even while the power elite pick the pockets of every worker.

It also isn’t surprising that the last great hope for workers in this country comes from the weakest: the fast food workers. They have little to lose. They can see that their only option is to bind together. I am not a man of faith. But if there is faith to be had, surely it is to be found in this movement. So this morning, I offer up to you the song, “Solidarity Forever.” It is another Wobblies song — this time written to the tune of “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.” Here it is performed by the Almanac Singers along with Pete Seeger:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Morning Music

Anniversary Post: Greece Democracy Denied 1973

Greek ReferendumOn this day in 1973, the people of Greece voted overwhelmingly to abolish the monarchy and establish a republic. It was a gambit by the military junta leader, Georgios Papadopoulos. He figured he could finesse the resulting democracy. But what actually happened was no democracy and much chaos. Almost a year and half later, the people of Greece got to vote again and they created more or less the system they now have.

But as I was reading about it, I couldn’t help but think it sounded very familiar: the Greeks vote overwhelmingly for something — and then they don’t get it. But at least in 1973, they were living under a dictatorship. Now it was their own elected officials who called for an election, celebrated its victory, and then did the opposite.

Of course, there is a real question of whether Greece still has a democracy. It seems that once a country enters the eurozone, it is no longer a democracy. This is actually why I don’t think that the eurozone is going to survive. In the 1930s, European countries had to fall militarily to Germany. This time, they’ve just surrendered to Germany. I can’t imagine that the people of Europe are going to continue to enjoy living under Germany’s thumb — especially with the way that Germany gleefully abuses its power and tells everyone they would be fine if they were more like Germany. The last thing we need are more countries acting like Germany.

But we mark this day 42 years ago when the people of Greece voted and then were ignored.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Anniversaries, Politics

Bruce Bartlett’s Ridiculous Trump Gambit

Bruce BartlettI’ve long admired Bruce Bartlett. But like all the truly reasonable people who continue to call themselves Republicans, I do think he has a screw loose. If I had been a Democrat my whole life, but it kept changing to the point where what I had always thought the Democratic Party represented was now found in the Republican Party, I would become a Republican. I’m not wedded to the name. Bartlett is a man whose beliefs place him clearly in the mainstream of the Democratic Party, and yet he continues to hang onto the Republican Party. In this way, he is like Josh Barro and David Cay Johnston.

But I knew what Bartlett was up to earlier this week when he wrote, The Moderate Republican’s Case for Trump. It wasn’t necessary even to read the subtitle, “Only Trump can make the GOP sane again — by losing in a landslide to Hillary Clinton.” He’s such a smart guy, how can he think this? It must be like a father who just doesn’t want to believe that, in fact, his son is a serial killer. Bartlett so wants to believe that his party really is what he’s so long thought. But he couldn’t be more wrong.

Bartlett argued that a Trump nomination would lead to a “defeat of Barry Goldwater proportions” and this would “prove beyond doubt that the existing conservative coalition cannot win the presidency.” But this is not how elections work. Take the 1964 election where Goldwater lost by almost 23 percentage points. Did that cause the Republicans to moderate? Not at all. They nominated Richard Nixon — a hardcore cold warrior who ran on the idea of the “silent majority” — those people who weren’t demonstrating against the Vietnam war and who supposedly loved it — and “law and order” — basically oppression of the weak and suppression of speech. Yeah, those Republicans really learned their lesson!

But there is an important connection here. Bartlett claims that John McCain and Mitt Romney lost because they were encumbered “by the right-wing baggage essential for winning the nomination.” But this is total garbage. First: they lost because the economic environment favored Obama. Second: neither man was a moderate. But this is what passes for Republican moderation in polite society. It’s like that argument I got in with “danny” over racism: unless someone is explicit about their wanting to dismantle the New Deal and Great Society, we are all expected to pretend that they would never do such a thing. So what Bartlett is saying is that Donald Trump would prove to Republicans that they can’t talk like Trump, even though the actual policies of Trump would likely be more moderate than any of the “moderate” Republicans that would come later.

Bartlett then goes on in his article to recount the history of Ronald Reagan — a totally ahistorical history, but the standard one that Republicans tell themselves. And he repeats the true, but deceptive claim that Reagan raised taxes 11 times, as though that makes up for the fact that the top marginal income tax rate was 70% when he came in and 28% when he left. In terms of domestic policy, Reagan was more conservative than any president. But Bartlett’s false memories of the time (he was in the administration) are doubtless what keeps him thinking that the modern Republican Party has been hijacked, rather than having just evolved the way that Reagan would have wanted.

But what is most ridiculous about Bartlett’s article is his cluelessness as to why people vote Republican. He understands that his side of the party is elitist. He repeats the joke, “Republicans could never understand why they lost an election because all their friends at the country club voted Republican.” But somehow he thinks that the “yahoos” (His term!) will just continue to vote Republican in the name of truly conservative foreign policy (which is what the Democrats offer) and a truly conservative economic policy (which is also what the Democrats offer).

The argument that Bartlett is making is the same argument that pundits made after John McCain lost by almost 8 percentage points. And it is the argument that pundits made after Romney lost by 4 percentage points. “The Republicans will have to moderate now!” But they didn’t and they won’t. And the idea that political parties move that quickly is ridiculous anyway. If the Republican Party is going to stop being a revolutionary power, it is going to take decades. And that’s especially true given that it can continue being a regional power where racism is still a big motivator of the electorate.


Filed under Politics

The Mythical Serious, Honest Conservatives

Paul KrugmanWhat I would argue is key to this situation — and, in particular, key to understanding how the conventional wisdom on Trump/McCain went so wrong — is the reality that a lot of people are, in effect, members of a delusional cult that is impervious to logic and evidence, and has lost touch with reality.

I am, of course, talking about pundits who prize themselves for their centrism.

Pundit centrism in modern America is a strange thing. It’s not about policy, as you can see from the many occasions when members of the cult have demanded that Barack Obama change his ways and advocate things that… he was already advocating. What defines the cult is, instead, the insistence that the parties are symmetric, that they are equally extreme, and that the responsible, virtuous position is always somewhere in between…

On one side, they can’t admit the moderation of the Democrats, which is why you had the spectacle of demands that Obama change course and support his own policies.

On the other side, they have had to invent an imaginary GOP that bears little resemblance to the real thing. This means being continually surprised by the radicalism of the base. It also means a determination to see various Republicans as Serious, Honest Conservatives — SHCs? — whom the centrists know, just know, have to exist.

We saw this a lot in the cult of Paul Ryan, who was and is very obviously a con man, whose numbers have never added up, but who was nonetheless treated with vast respect — and still sometimes is.

But the ur-SHC is John McCain, the Straight-Talking Maverick. Never mind that he is clearly eager to wage as many wars as possible, that he has long since abandoned his once-realistic positions on climate change and immigration, that he tried to put Sarah Palin a heartbeat from the presidency. McCain the myth is who they see, and keep putting on TV. And they imagined that everyone else must see him the same way, that Trump’s sneering at his war record would cause everyone to turn away in disgust.

But the Republican base isn’t eager to hear from SHCs; it has never put McCain on a pedestal; and people who like Donald Trump are not exactly likely to be scared off by his lack of decorum.

—Paul Krugman
The Donald and the Delusional

Leave a Comment

Filed under Politics, Quotations

Latinos Like Sanders, Pundits Do Not

Bernie SandersOne thing that has bothered me about the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign is that the people who support him are overwhelmingly white and highly educated. I don’t like to be part of such a homogeneous group. And this has caused a lot of people to call into doubt Sanders’ ability to mount an effective challenge to Hillary Clinton. But is that description of Sanders’ coalition even correct?

Earlier this month, Nate Cohn wrote, Why Bernie Sanders’s Momentum Is Not Built to Last. Basically: it’s just the strong liberals, stupid! In a companion article, he wrote, What the Hispanic Vote Says About Bernie Sanders’s Chances. He noted the whiteness of Sanders’ coalition and claimed that it didn’t include African Americans and Latinos because they were more socially conservative.

If that seems like an odd criticism, that’s only because you’ve been paying attention. The one thing that most defines Bernie Sanders is that all he talks about populist economic issues. Everything else is in that context. True: Bernie Sanders is a consistent liberal down the line. But like me, he is focused on economic issues. And economic issues are — you know — the most important issues for all groups. So are African Americans really not supporting Sanders because he’s in favor of same sex marriage — even though he rarely talks about it?

I was very pleased to read an article on this subject by Matt Bruenig, How “Consistent Liberal” Deceives. In it, he noted that it obscures what’s really happening to lump economic and social issues together — especially when talking about a candidate like Bernie Sanders who is all economics, all the time. This is something I’ve written about a lot around here over the last six years. One of my great disappointments with the Democratic Party has been its abandonment of economic issues in favor of social issues. I just don’t care that much about social issues — and neither do the voters.

So Cohn claims that African American and Latino Democrats are not supporting Sanders because they are less liberal. But they aren’t less liberal on the issues that Sanders focuses on. He isn’t running on same sex marriage or reproductive rights or criminal justice reform. So is it really the case that these voters aren’t flocking to Sanders because he’s too liberal? Or is it the case that upper middle class white New York reporters are so stuck in their own paradigms that they can’t see the truth of what’s going on?

It turns out that Bruenig was able to dig up some data on what Latinos actually think about Sanders. You would have thought that a number cruncher like Cohn would have used actual data on this question rather than just assume that Latinos aren’t keen on Sanders. It turns out that in the one poll Bruenig could find, Latinos are more fond of Sanders than whites. In a poll by The Economist/YouGov, they asked people how they would vote in a match-up between Clinton and Sanders. In it, Sanders got 38% of the white vote and 41% of the Hispanic vote.

Now it is true that Clinton’s support among African Americans is amazing. She got 79% of it and Sanders got only 11%. There are a lot of reasons why this might be. For example, it could be that the Clinton brand is just really strong and that she will get strong numbers until the campaign gets under way and people learn more about the candidates. It could have something to do with being in the Obama White House. It could be that being part of the underclass has made the African American community skeptical of candidates like Sanders who sound too good to be true. It could be scores of other things. There is one thing that most definitely isn’t the reason that African Americans aren’t supporting Bernie Sanders. It isn’t because he is too liberal.

Bernie Sanders is really only too liberal for one group: vaguely centrist pundits in the mainstream media. (I’m not really talking about Nate Cohn here, but I think he’s been poisoned by this attitude.) It is them, after all, who define centrism as economic conservatism and social liberalism. These people usually don’t see even the most extreme social liberalism as anything but common sense. But move even a bit to the left on economic issues, and they start freaking out. Maybe Bernie Sanders will never appeal to the African American community. But that isn’t what all this wringing of hands is about.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Politics

Republican Evolution and the End of Norms

Bob Dole WheelchairBrian Beutler asked a good question, Would Republicans Support the Americans with Disabilities Act Today? When the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed 25 years ago yesterday, it was supported by just about everyone. Sure, some business lobbyists claimed that it would cost money and destroy capitalism as we know it. But people liked it and politicians liked it. It passed the Senate 76-8 and by unanimous consent in the House. I don’t think it is surprising. I think most humans understand that it would really suck to be disabled, and so the least that we as a society can do is make it as painless as possible.

But would it pass today? Probably not. Beutler reminded us of the Senate vote on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Bob Dole, Republican icon, then 89 years old and in a wheelchair, came to the Senate for the vote — hoping to sway some votes. But it didn’t work. The treaty was not ratified by the Senate because 38 Republicans stood strong against helping the disabled all over the world. Those 38 Republicans included three current presidential candidates: Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio. What brave men they are!

So there is little doubt that if the ADA came up for a vote today, we would hear screams about socialism and how the law would destroy the economy and this was just the first part of the attack on American sovereignty and is that a black helicopter on the horizon! But it brought to mind an argument that I was hearing a lot a few years ago. It was claimed that the Republicans had not, in fact, gotten more extreme. Liberals had been saying that since at least Barry Goldwater. I found that argument pretty compelling. But now I wonder.

It’s probably just a question of expectations. Yes, Ronald Reagan raised taxes seven times — blah, blah, blah. But he also lowered the top tax rate massively compared to where it had been. And he lowered the top tax rate down to 28% — a rate that Bush was forced to raise back up to the still ridiculously low 31%. Yes, Nixon was president while the country looked seriously at a single payer healthcare system. But that was being forced on him by a liberal Congress. The best you can say about him is that he didn’t especially care. And overall, Nixon’s focus was on international matters.

I don’t think that the Republicans are necessarily more ideologically conservative than they used to be. But they are just more crazy — less serious about what they are supposed to do. There is a breakdown of norms. I don’t actually think that Republicans of old cared that much about the disabled. But they knew that all human beings do care about the disabled and the weak more generally, so they supported common sense measures like the ADA. But now, most of them don’t.

And I think I know why from 1994 onward, the Republican Party has lost all touch with humanity: they’ve learned it isn’t necessary. The average American doesn’t pay that much attention to politics. And as much as they do, they assume that the truly vile things that the Republicans say is all for show. “They don’t really think we should let people without insurance die, right?” No, they really do. But given that the mainstream media never calls them out on this, everyone assumes that they don’t. And as a result, one norm after another falls. And the end of this road is fascism. The Republican Party is already pretty far down that road.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Politics

Morning Music: Utah Phillips

Utah PhillipsIn the early part of the 20th century, members of the Industrial Workers of the World (Wobblies) were in conflict with the Salvation Army, which they referred to as the “Starvation Army.” It used to be a very big thing among Christians to say that we didn’t need to worry about earthly possessions because God would reward us in the afterlife. Well, the Wobblies weren’t too keen on that. They had this thing about eating.

So in 1911, Joe Hill wrote another of his songs, “The Preacher and the Slave” — often referred to as the refrain, “Pie in the Sky.” It is a parody of the hymn “In the Sweet By-and-By.” Here is the great Utah Phillips doing the song live. “Folk music belongs to everybody…” That’s no lie!


Filed under Morning Music

Anniversary Post: B-25 and Empire State Building

B-25 Slams into Empire State BuildingOn this day 70 years ago, a B-25 Mitchell flew into the Empire State Building. Three crew members got lost in the fog and slammed into building at roughly the 79th floor. The crew members were killed as well as 11 people in the building. It is mostly notable to me that the story of this was widely told to me as a reason to think that either the 9/11 attack was a hoax or that people had really messed up in designing the World Trade Center.

On the issue of 9/11 being a hoax, well, I don’t have a lot to say about that other than that I wish such people would spend half that effort being engaged in actual politics. On the issue of design failure, well, hindsight is a really great thing, ain’t it. Regardless, there is a big difference between a medium sized propeller airplane at the end of its flight, and a Boeing 767 just filled with jet fuel for a transcontinental flight.

But there you are. There will always be a lot of woulda, shoulda, coulda reactions to these kinds of things. Because humans don’t like the idea that they aren’t in control. But they should get used to it. Americans especially should be waking up to the fact that their economic station in life is wholly dependent upon factors beyond their control. And some times, you starve to death because of a global warming induced drought. And other times an airplane slams into your office and kills you.

Seventy years ago, that happened to a small group of people in the Empire State Building.


Filed under Anniversaries, Politics

False Claims of the Presidential Candidates

Pants on FirePaul Bibeau did a little research, Which 2016 Candidates Are the Biggest Liars According to Politifact? He went over to PolitiFact and counted all the articles that they had done on the various presidential candidates to see what percentage of them were “mostly false,” “false,” or “pants on fire.” It’s an interesting idea. But we don’t want to take it all that seriously.

The big thing here is that this is hardly a random sample. And conservatives are absolutely convinced that PolitiFact is part of the liberal media conspiracy. They think this because, consistently, conservatives come off worse than liberals. And it just can’t be that conservatives are just more likely to either lie or not have their facts straight, can it? At the same time, liberals like me think that PolitiFact is far too hard on fellow liberals. It has a tendency to nitpick and find clearly true statements “half true.” All of the fact checking groups have this problem.

Since it clearly is the case that conservatives are simply more likely to believe things that aren’t true, conservative politicians are more likely to go around repeating this nonsense. There are cultural and ideological reasons for this: liberals pride themselves on following the facts and conservatives pride themselves on their certainty. It isn’t a value judgement, but it does explain why conservative public figures would end up saying more false things.

But this puts the fact checking people in a bit of a bind. If they find too many lies on one side, they will be written off as biased. But if they go out of their way to make the numbers even, then they aren’t doing their jobs. I think what ends up happening — probably without them even knowing it — is that they loosen up on the conservative claims and tighten up on the liberal claims. The result is still that the conservatives come off worse, but it isn’t as stark as it is in reality.

One thing I disagree with Pibeau about, however, is that these claims are lies. And I’ve always thought the “pants on fire” designation was stupid. In the vast majority of cases, the people making false claims actually believe them — they aren’t lying; they’re just misinformed. Of course, the Republican Party is indeed “post-truth.” But not valuing the truth is not the same as actively misrepresenting it.

Here is the list, along with the ones that Bibeau didn’t include. I’ve filtered out all of the candidates who don’t have at least 10 statements:

Candidate Statements Fire % False %
Donald Trump (R) 29 21% 83%
Ted Cruz (R) 49 8% 70%
Rick Santorum (R) 56 9% 53%
Mike Huckabee (R) 34 12% 50%
Scott Walker (R) 146 7% 49%
Lincoln Chafee (D) 17 0% 47%
Rick Perry (R) 166 11% 46%
Marco Rubio (R) 95 2% 39%
Rand Paul (R) 40 5% 35%
Lindsey Graham (R) 12 0% 34%
Chris Christie (R) 93 8% 32%
John Kasich (R) 51 6% 32%
Jeb Bush (R) 46 2% 32%
Martin O’Malley (D) 10 0% 30%
Hillary Clinton (D) 114 2% 29%
Bernie Sanders (D) 23 0% 23%
Not listed: Ben Carson (R, 100% of 3 statements), Carly Fiorina (R, 57% of 7 statements), Bobby Jindal (R, 14% of 7 statements), and Jim Webb (D, 14% of 7 statements).

That’s a pretty stark list. Wouldn’t it be amazing if the people actually used this to form their opinions about the parties? But the thing is that I suspect that most people already know about this. But this is where we get into the whole idea of cynicism. “Well, Clinton lies 29% of the time so she’s no better than Trump!” But what the table shows above all is that the Democrats operate in more or less the real world. And the very high levels of false claims are more an indication of the demagoguery of the Republican Party than anything else.

Still, I think the whole thing is true. And it probably understates the reality because of PolitiFact skewing. For example, the last “true” claim of Jeb Bush that the group investigated was, “Says his release of 33 years of tax returns is ‘more than any presidential candidate in history.'” Wow, I’m sure people were just begging for them to get to the bottom of that one! Just the same, the last Clinton “mostly false” was, “Despite keeping distance from national media interviewers, ‘I did local press all along, the last three months.'” This isn’t actually false, but PolitiFact didn’t think she did enough local press, so it’s “mostly false.” But again: not exactly something the people were begging to know about.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Politics

Lobbyists in Control of Congress

Lee FangThe top lobbyist for Chevron, Stephen Sayle, is now a senior staff member for the House Committee on Science, which oversees science policy for the federal government. This is a lobbyist, Mr Sayle, who has helped Chevron beat back regulatory efforts that rest on federal science — whether it’s on the ozone or on climate change. And now that he is overseeing the science committee, he has a unique opportunity to shift not only policy that not only governs the way that federal science is used to implement pollution regulations, he also has an opportunity to help with the science committee’s “investigation” of climate scientists. Over the years, the science committee has brought in scientists to quiz them on climate science and other issues that are very controversial now given the EPA’s pursuit of regulations that affect the fossil fuel industry.

This isn’t a unique dynamic. In the last two Congresses, we’ve seen some unprecedented wholesale change in the senior staff positions in Congress. I’m referring to the chief of staff, which reports directly to a member of Congress or Senator. Or the staff director position. And that’s a position that oversees either a committee or subcommittee. In almost every single position or staff director, we’ve seen lobbyist from the relevant industry take those spots. So before the agricultural committee, which oversees school lunches and nutrition guidelines, we now have a Pepsi lobbyist who is overseeing that committee. In the Senate arms services committee, which oversees military spending, we have a lobbyist for the trade group that represents Lockheed Martin and Boeing, now leading that committee. So from committee to committee, no matter whether it’s on chemical safety, no matter whether it’s on pollution or on school lunches, we have lobbyists for the industries effected running the show from the inside.

—Lee Fang
Interviewed on CounterSpan

Leave a Comment

Filed under Politics, Quotations

Racism, Hulk Hogan, and Jimmy Dore

Jimmy DoreI was listening to a little of The Young Turks while cooking the other night. I like the show, but as I’ve noted in the past, other than Cenk Uygur, it is intellectually weak. And that was well on display in a segment, WWE Fires Hulk Hogan Over Racist Rant. It seems that the wrestler was fired because he was recorded privately saying the n-word repeatedly. I don’t especially care. Are we supposed to be shocked that a profession that has long used the most vile racist stereotypes would not create a nice liberal culture? I’m not saying that WWE shouldn’t have fired him; it is just that it doesn’t matter.

There is one aspect of the tape that I find interesting. As far as I could tell, Hogan was upset because his daughter had abandoned him for some other mentor who was black. And so Hogan was using the worst word that he could think of. In general, my problem with private use of the n-word is that it breeds a broader callous attitude. It is a sign that the person using it is letting (in this case) his racist thoughts become unchecked. And that is a very dangerous thing because it is empathy destroying.

Another thing that Hogan repeated was the phrase, “I guess we’re all a little racist.” I’m not sure what to make of that. It seems like it indicates that Hogan knew what he was saying was wrong, but he had all this anger toward this African American and it was manifesting in some very ugly ways. Certainly, it was self-justification. But I think it shows more self-awareness than I would have expected. If this is Hulk Hogan’s nadir, then I think he’s okay. If this is a typical moment for him, then I’m afraid he is lost to the civilized world. I like to think the best.

But the gang on The Young Turks did not want to think the best. And that’s fine. But all they did was pile on. They provided no insight. It’s the easiest thing in the world to say that Hulk Hogan is a racist and that’s that. But that could have been done in 30 seconds. The gang spent nine minutes on it. And those were nine very self-important minutes where they, the good non-racist people, looked down on the bad racist, Hulk Hogan, who used the n-word.

The worst part was the focus on the line, “I guess we’re all a little racist.” Now I understand that it is being used by Hogan to justify his anger and language. But Jimmy Dore pushed the idea, “No, we’re not all a little racist.” Well, the last hundred years of cognitive science would beg to differ. Certainly many of us manage to get through our whole lives without using the n-word — or any other racial slurs. But whenever I hear someone tell me that they aren’t racist, I know that they are either a complete bigot or deeply misinformed about how racism works.

Most of us have the best of intentions. And on a rational level, we are often very good. But we are more than our rational selves. And our subconscious, gut, reactions poison us. Dore discussed growing up in a fairly racist subculture, and how he grew past that. Great! I’m the same way. But I still have that background. I have still lived these five decades in a racist society where the underclass is primarily black and brown. And I cannot allow myself to think that I am “past” racism.

None of this means that Jimmy Dore is the real racist and Hulk Hogan is some paragon of honesty. Nor is it to put myself on a higher level. All three of us — and everyone else for that matter — are just a jumble of good and bad contradictions. I would expect that we could all agree that race is a social construct and we are all racist to one extent or another. And hopefully, we can all do better. But thinking of racism as some kind of on-off switch is the game that conservatives play to delegitimize the complaints of those who our racism still oppresses.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Politics

Serial Killer Managed by Quick Thinking Victim

Neal FallsThe man in the photo is Neal Falls. He’s dead. And I have to admit to being okay with that — even a bit happy. I’m not proud of that. But he appears to have been a serial killer — responsible for as many as ten murders and disappearances that we know of. There are two clusters — separated by a decade. So there’s a good chance that there were lots more in between.

This doesn’t mean I’m in favor of the death penalty. Had he just been caught by the authorities, I’d be fine with him rotting in jail until the end of his natural life. I wouldn’t want the state putting him to death. But the way that Falls died is so wonderful — so appropriate — that I just can’t help feeling good about it.

About a week ago, Falls contacted a woman on Backpage — something like Craig’s List, but apparently where sex ads are still okay. According to the NBC News, Man Killed by Sex Worker in West Virginia Could Be Linked to 10 Other Attacks:

The woman, whose identity hasn’t been released, told investigators Falls drew a gun and tried to strangle her. She said she grabbed Falls’ gun when he set it down to overpower her and shot him.

It should be clear from this what I like: the empowered woman. I do hope that the police are treating her as a hero and not as a criminal. And I hope this is an opportunity for her to get into a better line of work. I have no problem with sex work. But in this country, it is usually associated with drug addiction and other dysfunctions. It doesn’t usually pay well. Most people deserve better lives than sex work provides.

On the other hand, I have no special mallace towards Neal Falls. If what has been reported is true, he seems like a garden variety psychopath. And I no more blame him for his behavior than I do a grizzly bear who attacks a human: something that needs to be managed. But dead at the hands of one of his victims? I’m fine with that.


Heather - HeroI just found out that the woman was not arrested. That’s her picture there on the right. She asked to be called Heather. She said that Falls came to her home with a gun and said, “Live or die?” He then started to strangle her. She grabbed a rake. He put the gun down to get the rake, she grabbed the gun and shot him. Then, “Heather ran out of the house and flagged down a neighbor, who called 911.”

Leave a Comment

Filed under Politics