Thanksgiving is a day for a traditional menu, and part of my holiday is to reprint this annual column on the origins of the day.

The first presidential proclamation of Thanksgiving as a national holiday was issued by George Washington on October 3, 1789. But it was a one-time event. Individual states (especially those in New England) continued to issue Thanksgiving proclamations on various days in the decades to come. But it wasn’t until 1863 when a magazine editor named Sarah Josepha Hale, after 15 years of letter-writing, prompted Abraham Lincoln in 1863 to designate the last Thursday in November as a national holiday–a pattern which then continued into the future.

An original and thus hard-to-read version of George Washington’s Thanksgiving proclamation can be viewed through the Library of Congress website. The economist in me was intrigued to notice that some of the causes for giving of thanks included “the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge … the encrease of science among them and us—and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.”

Also, the original Thankgiving proclamation was not without some controversy and dissent in the House of Representatives, as an example of unwanted and inappropriate federal government interventionism. As reported by the Papers of George Washington website at the University of Virginia.

The House was not unanimous in its determination to give thanks. Aedanus Burke of South Carolina objected that he “did not like this mimicking of European customs, where they made a mere mockery of thanksgivings.” Thomas Tudor Tucker “thought the House had no business to interfere in a matter which did not concern them. Why should the President direct the people to do what, perhaps, they have no mind to do? They may not be inclined to return thanks for a Constitution until they have experienced that it promotes their safety and happiness. We do not yet know but they may have reason to be dissatisfied with the effects it has already produced; but whether this be so or not, it is a business with which Congress have nothing to do; it is a religious matter, and, as such, is proscribed to us. If a day of thanksgiving must take place, let it be done by the authority of the several States.”

Here’s the transcript of George Washington’s Thanksgiving proclamation from the National Archives.

Thanksgiving Proclamation

By the President of the United States of America. a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor—and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be—That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks—for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation—for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war—for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed—for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted—for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions—to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually—to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed—to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord—To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us—and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New-York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go: Washington

Sarah Josepha Hale was editor of a magazine first called Ladies’ Magazine and later called Ladies’ Book from 1828 to 1877. It was among the most widely-known and influential magazines for women of its time. Hale wrote to Abraham Lincoln on September 28, 1863, suggesting that he set a national date for a Thankgiving holiday. From the Library of Congress, here’s a PDF file of the Hale’s actual letter to Lincoln, along with a typed transcript for 21st-century eyes. Here are a few sentences from Hale’s letter to Lincoln:

“You may have observed that, for some years past, there has been an increasing interest felt in our land to have the Thanksgiving held on the same day, in all the States; it now needs National recognition and authoritive fixation, only, to become permanently, an American custom and institution. … For the last fifteen years I have set forth this idea in the “Lady’s Book”, and placed the papers before the Governors of all the States and Territories — also I have sent these to our Ministers abroad, and our Missionaries to the heathen — and commanders in the Navy. From the recipients I have received, uniformly the most kind approval. … But I find there are obstacles not possible to be overcome without legislative aid — that each State should, by statute, make it obligatory on the Governor to appoint the last Thursday of November, annually, as Thanksgiving Day; — or, as this way would require years to be realized, it has ocurred to me that a proclamation from the President of the United States would be the best, surest and most fitting method of National appointment. I have written to my friend, Hon. Wm. H. Seward, and requested him to confer with President Lincoln on this subject …”

William Seward was Lincoln’s Secretary of State. In a remarkable example of rapid government decision-making, Lincoln responded to Hale’s September 28 letter by issuing a proclamation on October 3. It seems likely that Seward actually wrote the proclamation, and then Lincoln signed off. Here’s the text of Lincoln’s Thanksgiving proclamation, which characteristically mixed themes of thankfulness, mercy, and penitence:

Washington, D.C.
October 3, 1863
By the President of the United States of America.
A Proclamation.

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consiousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States the Eighty-eighth.

By the President: Abraham Lincoln
William H. Seward,
Secretary of State

The post Origins of Thanksgiving first appeared on Conversable Economist.

Columbia University Severs Ties with Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma

From natural disasters to mass shootings and riots, journalists are often first on the scene documenting the world’s tragedies. However, few in journalism take the time to step back and recognize how traumatic events can affect reporters, photographers, and others in the field as they convey what they have seen.

A traditional toxic mindset will not allow journalists to seek support. They think…that their colleagues will think less of them, or that their editor will take them off hard stories…because they’re not tough enough. That fear prevents people from seeking help.

Leona O’Neill, professor, Ulster University

This summer, Columbia University cancelled its partnership with the Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma after 16 years, raising questions about the future of journalistic training for covering and coping with violence and tragedy. The move highlighted a pivotal moment for journalists facing rising mental health risks amid recurring exposure to traumatizing events.

The Dart Center, reorganized as the Global Center for Journalism and Trauma, an independent non-profit. It raised enough money to continue, though not at Columbia.  

Bruce Shapiro, director of the Dart Center at Columbia since 2009, explained that he now continues the same work as the executive director of the Global Center, which aims to better adapt to a rapidly changing landscape within the industry. 

“On the one hand, our core programs are continuing in the new global center, and on the other hand, we see this as a moment for innovation, a moment that requires a lot of agility to respond to threats to journalists and to new issues that are coming into the news agenda very quickly,” Shapiro said. 

New Partner

The Global Center will be partnering with the non-profit Committee to Protect Journalists in Manhattan to develop programs that address the escalating threats journalists are facing, while looking for a new home. Prospects include both the City University of New York’s graduate journalism school and New York University’s journalism school.

The need for this support is clear: from beats that include local protests to global crises such as war and famine, contemporary journalists who cover conflicts, mass shootings, and natural disasters are constantly exposed to traumatizing events.

“The whole foundation of domestic journalism has changed,” said Dr. Anthony Feinstein, a psychiatry professor at the University of Toronto. He researches how trauma affects journalists.

“There are now multiple stressors that don’t seem to have much downtime between one stressful story and the next. Because of all of this, you really need to be trauma aware; it has become an increasingly stressful position,” Dr. Feinstein said in a telephone interview.

Beginnings

The Dart Center, founded in 1999, was set up as a resource center and think tank around two issues: what journalists need to know about the psychology and science of trauma to inform their reporting on victims of violence, and to support journalists who are traumatized because of their reporting.

Shapiro explained the new Global Center was formed after it became clear over the summer that the best way to continue its mission was to create a new, independent nonprofit to carry the work forward. “That mission has continued in the new Global Center for Journalism and Trauma. It’s the same core team, the same major projects for the most part.”

Shapiro said he had cobbled together, from several sources, roughly the amount of money the Dart Foundation had been donating.

Matthew Pearson, a journalism professor at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, who researches trauma-informed reporting, says the emotional toll of journalism no longer falls only on reporters and photographers who cover conflict zones or intense crises. In recent years, he said, it has become clear that no category of journalism is untouched by trauma.

 “In years past, there may have been a time when sports and business and entertainment writers could sort of say, ‘No, I don’t have to get my hands dirty with any story,’” he said. “But as these social issues [like sexual harassment and racism] have complicated every realm of society, they also complicate every realm of reporting.”

Old Problem

Journalists have long faced difficult and traumatic reporting assignments including coverage of wars and the Civil Rights era. But the need to support them is more urgent than ever, Shapiro said.

“Trauma and violence are at the heart of so much of what is at the top of the news agenda today, whether it is conflict in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan; whether it is climate change; whether it is violent authoritarianism… issues like migration and attacks on immigrant communities in the U.S.,” Shapiro said. “All of these issues require journalists, on the one hand, to have special knowledge about the impact of violence on the individuals and families and communities we report, and all of them also require us to look after ourselves.”

Although this era of change has brought increased fear and distress in journalists, in newsrooms, the traditional expectation of “toughing it out” remains strong.

Journalist Leona O’Neill, a professor at Ulster University in Northern Ireland and founder of Media Strong, a mental health symposium for journalists, witnessed the murder of a colleague during a 2019 riot in Derry. O’Neill reflected on her Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, as well as what she says was an utter lack of support from her newsroom. “Because of the newsroom bubble, the story is the only thing that matters,” O’Neill said. “Getting the story out. Being the first with the story. There are so many demands.”

O’Neill added that many journalists are afraid to ask for help because of the stigma that they must be able to handle the tough parts of the job.

“A traditional toxic mindset will not allow journalists to seek that support. They think…that their colleagues will think less of them, or that their editor will take them off hard stories…because they’re not tough enough. That fear prevents people from seeking help,” she said.

Stigma

Feinstein connected with these sentiments, saying that the stigma of toughing it out has become highly problematic. Feinstein said there should not be distinct cultural attitudes for psychological and physical injuries. He argued that if a reporter were to break an arm, they would be treated immediately.  However, when the injury is psychological or emotional, many journalists are expected to continue working and push through it, creating what Feinstein said is a harmful double standard.

The lack of care when it comes to trauma and mental health highlights how newsroom cultures continue to prioritize stories over the well-being of the reporters producing the work.

This intense pressure from newsrooms not only belittles the emotional distress journalists often face but also worsens it. Some mental health experts say that this can cause an emotional breaking point.

Emily Sachs, a clinical psychologist and co-director of the Global Center for Journalism and Trauma, explained that, due to fear of missing deadlines or performing inadequately, many journalists seek help only when their ability to work begins to deteriorate.

“Usually, I find that journalists come to therapy very often when the trigger is that the distress is at a level where it is impacting their functioning, and they’re worried they’re not going to be able to do the job,” she said.

Craft and Mission

Sachs added that many passionate journalists who entered the field out of a love for storytelling and a sense of morality experience deep internal conflicts when their organizations fail to protect the values that originally drew them to journalism.

“The people who went into it because they loved the craft and the mission and wanted to do it right, those people suffer with moral distress and get disgusted when their institution is not upholding it and start to realize it’s costing their mental health,” Sachs said.

Her observations show that while emotional distress follows situations that many journalists are exposed to, a lack of institutional support often compounds trauma.

When organizations send reporters and photographers into dangerous or traumatic circumstances without providing adequate resources and support systems, experts argue that it becomes the organization’s responsibility to help their staffers and freelancers.

“It comes down to a duty of care,” said Pearson, the Canadian journalism professor who studies how trauma affects journalists. “I think that news organizations, journalism schools and anybody who is asking somebody else to get on the front lines of difficult stories, whether that be a car crash…or war in another country…[these institutions] ought to have a duty of care for the people they are asking to do that.”

Pearson explained that this responsibility should extend beyond physical safety and should include readily accessible mental health resources.

“Newsroom benefits ought to include mental health support, and the best mental health support that is unlimited…and by unlimited, I mean if an employee needs to seek care weekly, that is not going to be taken out of their personal pocket,” Pearson said.

While Pearson emphasized the responsibility of organizations to implement mental health support, others, like O’Neill, have personally experienced the consequences of inadequate duty of care from these institutions.

Duty of Care

O’Neill highlights why this duty of care is vital. Journalists “are sent into the worst situations possible,” she said. “They have to gather all the information and the gruesome details…then they have to come back and write all that up so the public can consume it.”

This reflects the broader issue that institutions that rely on journalists’ courage fail to protect their well-being.

“It’s very difficult to shake that off and show people journalists are humans and they’re not robots,” said O’Neill.

She believes that change must start by breaking the silence on this crisis and debunking the stigma that surrounds reporters’ mental health. “When you take the stigma out of a conversation, it takes the silence out of the conversation.”

Similarly, Pearson’s work in trauma-informed journalism argues that the future of the press depends on building strong institutional systems of support.

“Trauma-informed journalism is an approach to our work as journalists that brings an understanding of both what trauma is and the impacts it can have on people….and that needs to inform us as we approach a particular type of coverage,” he said.

This perspective explains what awareness and focus are needed to be implemented in the industry to prepare reporters properly.

“It’s really important now for journalism organizations to understand that there is a human cost to covering conflict and violence,” he added. “We need to think about those costs….by creating and talking about ways to report on traumatic incidents in a more thorough way.”

Open Conversations

As a professor, Pearson said that he is always thinking about how we are preparing people to enter the industry.

Feinstein emphasized that the need for open conversation and information needs to begin even before journalists enter the newsroom.

“Education [around trauma in journalism] needs to start at [university level] and in our journalism programs.” As a professor, he also argues that trauma awareness must be embedded not only into newsrooms but also into journalism education.

As the Global Center for Journalism and Trauma replaces the Dart Center at Columbia University, its leaders hope to continue providing vital aid for reporters.

“It’s going to be the work of the Dart Center, and the team is the same core team… and the mission is the same,” said Sachs, program director of the Global Center for Trauma’s Journalist Trauma Support Network. “The program has just been sunset at Columbia and transitioned to an independent non-profit…and therefore it intends to do really the same work [even] outside the limitations of the academic bureaucracy that Columbia is.”

While the work is not yet done, experts such as Feinstein, O’Neill, Pearson, Sachs, and Shapiro are leading the conversation on supporting journalists’ mental health.

“The world needs journalists; they need those lights shone in dark places,” O’Neill said. “Journalists are the bravest people in the world. You know, they’re amazing.”

“FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IS NOT JUST IMPORTANT TO DEMOCRACY, IT IS DEMOCRACY.” – Walter Cronkite. CLICK HERE to donate in support of our free and independent voice.

The post Trauma Stalks Journalists Covering Disasters and Wars appeared first on DCReport.org.

What’s Happened More Than Once Could Happen Again

My mind has been in a rut thinking that the one time we were virtuous was a fluke. We recently had a reminder that’s not true.

That all needs explanation. The current ugliness of our political and social situation had me lose track of the fact that the post-war era was not our only comparatively good era. Part of the reason things were politically sensible, at least relatively, during the ’50s to ’70s was an echo of WWII. All the patriotism and common bond that war built, and all those guys (mostly guys) in politics who had fought side-by-side or under similar horrible circumstances, created a more civil kind of political competition.

The aftermath of the war also had the nation well poised for a booming economy for long after. That echoed too. While the era had its shortcomings for some, women still treated as if they should be obedient, people of color still held to lower wealth and position by subtle, and unsubtle, bias, the national wealth softened that. In a living demonstration of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the fact that all those white guys felt absolutely confident that they and their children could have jobs, good working careers, a home, a not-terrible retirement, it afforded us the luxury of being willing to consider better things. Better things like President Nixon, of all people, responding to the popular push for environmental responsibility by creating the Environmental Protection Agency. And safer conditions for workers by creating the Occupational Health and Safety Administration. Better things like the social progress on the status of women and people of color. Not perfection but improvement.

My mind had gotten in a rut of thinking that it was only that very unusual set of circumstances that allowed us to behave in more civilized ways. That without circumstances like those we tend to behave worse. Just recently I had a reminder, we all had a reminder available to us, that there are other times we’ve behaved well.

The reminder was “The American Revolution” documentary on PBS. One of those Ken Burns remarkably impressive pieces. No, the show was not all happiness and light about what wonderful philosophical ideas were part of the revolution. On the contrary, for anyone who only had a passing notion of the Founding Fathers and the great liberties that came out of it, the show was a good lesson in how conflicted, messy, unimaginably bloody and gory, vicious and devastating the war was. Full of assorted motivations beyond liberty, contradictory and wavering, full of both bravery and inhumanity.

But despite what we went through to get to its end what did indeed come out of it was some great things. Those liberties, best encapsulated, as always, in the Bill of Rights. Note that the leaders at the end of the revolution did not aim for those rights. When the draft of the constitution was sent around to the colonies to ratify, as you may know, the colonies objected. Some colonial leaders objected and some heard the pressure from their citizens. Where were the rights they understood they had just sacrificed for? The citizens would not allow the new era to begin without those rights added in.

There’s an imperfect two-part process in this. The leaders, at the start of the revolution, rallied around their right to be free of British imperial rule, and they were enlightened enough to pick up and chant the new ideas of John Locke and others about human rights. New, in that the rights being declared were a step beyond what had been in the Magna Carta. So the leaders gave the people a taste for these ideas, but then forgot to feed them when they drafted the constitution. The people, now hungry for what they had tasted, and in a position to make demands because of the up-in-the-air state of things at the end of the revolution, demanded the full meal.

A similar thing happened after WWII. President Roosevelt (FDR) and his team, started to focus the economy much more on the benefit of the people rather than just the top. The New Deal. The people got the taste of this. And they were in a position to demand. Partly because the New Deal included much more leverage for workers, mostly white guys, to demand good pay and treatment and they came to expect that’s how things should work. And partly because of that booming national wealth that made many things possible. Leadership had wet their whistle, people were in a position to demand, and good things happened. Same pattern after the revolution and after WWII.

Does this mean this can only happen after a terrible war? No. It’s just that conditions pushed it along. But people could push it along anytime if they realized it.

We are in a dark and disrupted time. If great leadership like FDR and his team, or like Washington and Jefferson and the rest, came forward and held out the possibility of a new people’s era, and if the people demanded, just because they’re pissed, and squeezed, and because they can, then a new era of good things could happen again.

Will it? Unknown. But the possibility is just dangling out there for the right leadership to start the process again.

“FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IS NOT JUST IMPORTANT TO DEMOCRACY, IT IS DEMOCRACY.” – Walter Cronkite. CLICK HERE to donate in support of our free and independent voice.

The post We Can Still Be Good Sometimes appeared first on DCReport.org.

This week, two articles about immigration have set off firestorms on social media. One in the New York Times looks at two men, one who had his identity stolen and the other an undocumented immigrant who bought and used it, to illustrate the epidemic of identity theft by undocumented immigrants, who often need social security numbers in order to work and can procure them from middlemen — with disastrous and sometimes financially ruinous consequences for the people whose identities have been swiped. The other in the New Yorker is about a Trump administration policy of third-country removals: Deporting people from the United States, some of whom were undocumented but some of whom were legal permanent residents, not to their countries of origin but to totally random third nations — often troubled places, sometimes places actively torn apart by war and violence. The people initially deported to third countries were men convicted of crimes. They finished their sentences in the US, and then, instead of being deported to their homelands, were sent half a world away to be imprisoned indefinitely. After the deportations of convicted criminals to third nations, the Trump administration targeted people who hadn’t been convicted of any crimes, many of whom were in the US because they were fleeing torture.

Subscribe now

Both stories are worth a read. It’s been stunning, though, to see the reaction on social media, especially to the New Yorker story about third-country deportations, a hellish policy that should appall anyone whose politics are to the left of Stephen Miller. But instead of being angry about the policy, the reaction has been outrage at the story — because one of the subjects, who was brought to the US when he was 12, was convicted of murder and served a long sentence before being deported to a prison in the tiny Southern African nation of Eswatini. “I’m fine deporting murderers” is the general vibe.

If you don’t understand why this is wrong, I’m not sure how else to explain it to you, but I’ll give it a shot: The US is under no obligation to keep people here who are not citizens and have committed serious crimes, and I personally do not object to deporting people who were in the US illegally and were convicted of violent crimes, especially murder. But the penalty for being a non-citizen who commits a serious crime is not to be flown against your will to South Sudan or Eswatini or some other place where a corrupt government is being paid to help disappear you (or locked up indefinitely with no access to a lawyer and no rights). There are virtually no due process protections in play here. The people being deported to third countries have no ties there. They are being exiled to nations where torture and abuse are de rigueur, certainly for prisoners. Like any other nation, America can and should lawfully deport people who do not abide by its laws. It should not be disappearing people to foreign torture-prisons in nations where those people are also not citizens, have no family ties, cannot speak the language, and have no rights whatsoever.

It’s been shocking, then, to see even some self-styled liberals chime in online to basically say, well, these are Bad People and so deporting them in this way is fine.

I get it from the MAGA folks — these are people who shrugged when babies were being ripped from their mothers’ arms and warehoused in “tender age shelters,” people who have very little empathy and even fewer principles. But liberals are supposed to have some actual beliefs. One of those principles is that it’s wrong to deport people without due process to random third countries where they have no ties, no citizenship, no family, and no rights, and where they will be stuck in foul conditions and likely tortured, possibly for the rest of their lives, unless they are sent to places where they have been tortured in the past.

And the thing with principles is that they’re only worth something if you stand on them even when it’s hard. Even, for example, when the person you’re standing up for is a murderer.

The test subjects for this third-country deportation policy were the South Sudan Eight and the Eswatini Five, all men, all convicted of crimes. As Sarah Stillman of the New Yorker writes, “The first group, from countries including Myanmar, Mexico, and Laos, had been deported, in early July, to South Sudan, a nation struggling to recover from a civil war. Days later, the second group—five men from Cuba, Jamaica, Laos, Vietnam, and Yemen, all of whom had lived in the U.S. for many years—had been deported to the southern African nation of Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland. There, they were detained in a maximum-security prison, without clear justification.”

But of course, the administration didn’t stop there. There’s a second category of people also now being deported to third countries: Those who haven’t been convicted of crimes, and who have what are essentially protective orders from judges (in several cases under the Convention Against Torture because they faced genital mutilation, rape, torture for being gay, and so on) allowing them to stay in the US and barring their removal to their nation of origin, because there is credible evidence that that they will be abused or killed there. Many of these people, too, have been deported to third countries like Ghana, which subsequently deported some of them to the places they had fled. This seems to be the point: The Trump administration will have more legal trouble deporting people without criminal records who US judges have found to have credible torture fears; so instead, the Trump administration deports them to places like Ghana, which then turns them over to their home countries, and the Trump administration can shrug and say it’s not their fault. Stillman paints this scene:

The Justice Department attorney, Elianis Perez, did not contest the basic fact of the removals. Instead, she insisted that the U.S. had obtained “diplomatic assurances” that Ghana would comply with the Convention Against Torture and other safeguards. Yet one member of the group—a bisexual Gambian man who had been granted protection under [the Convention Against Torture] by a U.S. immigration judge—had already been returned to his home country.

“How is that O.K.?” the judge, Tanya Chutkan, asked.

“Your Honor, the United States is not saying that this is O.K.,” Perez replied. “What the government has been trying to explain to the court is that the United States does not have the power to tell Ghana what to do.”

This is wrong. If you don’t understand why this is wrong, I don’t know what else to tell you. And I cannot for the life of me figure out why any liberal or progressive is signaling support to the Trump administration on this one, or justifying this insane policy in any way — including by saying, well, one of the deportees was a murderer.

Except: I think too many people have had their brains and moral compasses slightly broken by this administration. I think there’s a deeper psychological issue happening here, and it’s not good.

In the aftermath of the anti-woke backlash and Trump’s second win, many progressives, myself included, have been doing some soul-searching. Clearly, a lot of our beliefs and especially our strategies and our language are not widely popular. Clearly, we got a little high on our own supply, and we believed that as long as we were righteous, we could simply righteous our way to victory without having to actually persuade, compromise, engage, or even address genuinely difficult questions. We pushed too hard and too far too fast, in ways that sometimes defied deeply culturally salient values like fairness. There are a bunch of issues where this was apparent, but immigration is one of the more obvious. There was a genuinely righteous response to the immigration horrors of the first Trump administration, but the long tail of that righteous opposition was that progressive groups then opposed a great many of the more reasonable immigration restrictions proposed by moderate and liberal Democrats. This dovetailed with the opening of more migration routes through the Darien Gap, the social media recruitment of many more migrants, and traffickers’ not-incorrect assessment that crossing the border illegally would be easier and more humane under a Joe Biden presidency than a Trump one. That left Biden with surging immigration numbers, including scores of specious asylum claims. When the governors of conservative border states began busing migrants up to blue cities, even many blue-state Democratic voters began to feel frustrated by increases in visible homelessness and a sense that their cities were providing free housing and resources for law-breaking newcomers while neglecting the escalating housing and food costs hitting law-abiding and hard-working citizens.

In other words, Biden really did screw up the immigration thing, and liberals and progressives really did underestimate how much that would hurt Democrats in elections, and Democrats generally caught onto the problem way too late. Few of us want to repeat a cycle where Trump acts terribly, we react, and then when a Democrat retakes power the demands on them are so maximally left that they alienate a ton of voters and an even worse person wins the next time around and implements even more devastating policies. Liberals do need to have some principles, and we do need to have positions on immigration policy that are not simply reactive to the Trump administration.

But right now, I’m seeing a lot of liberals simply being reactive by siding with the Trump administration against the bleeding-hearts — without bothering to even understand what the administration is doing. It’s disgusting. It’s cowardly. It’s lazy (for the love of god, read a thing before you comment on it). And most of all, it’s ceding what should be immovable principles to seek approval from people who have none.

xx Jill

Subscribe now

Share

Oh boy, is Senator Kelly in trouble now. In addition to referring Kelly for court martial, Secretary of I-wanna-start-a-war-so-bad-I-need-a-drink Hegseth has accused Kelly of displaying the medals on his uniform jacket out of order and threatened, “When/if you are recalled to active duty, it’ll start with a uniform inspection.”

First, Hegseth is utterly and completely wrong about Kelly’s medals, which are displayed the photo above in correct order. Second, I cannot even begin to describe how puerile Hegseth’s post on X is. It is utterly beneath the dignity of the office of Secretary of Defense or War or whateverthefuck Hegseth and Trump are illegally calling it these days. Kelly flew 39 combat missions during the first Gulf War in support of ground troops at the risk of his life and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross and the Air Medal with “V” device signaling “valor,” two of the medals Hegseth accuses Kelly of displaying wrongly in the photograph of his dress uniform.

There is a special place in hell for pipsqueaks like Hegseth accusing war heroes such as Mark Kelly of anything regarding their service, much less improperly displaying the medals he was given for going to war for his country and serving not only with distinction, but heroically. Hegseth has referred Kelly for court martial on the basis of the video Kelly made with five other members of Congress which did nothing more nor less than state the law regarding the obligations of service members if they are given illegal orders.

Hegseth engaged in what the military considers illegal “command influence” when he posted this on X about the actions of the six members of Congress; “The video made by the ‘Seditious Six’ was despicable, reckless, and false. Encouraging our warriors to ignore the orders of their Commanders undermines every aspect of ‘good order and discipline.’” What command influence means in the military is a commander – that would be Hegseth – judging someone guilty of a crime, in this case sedition, before he is charged with the crime, tried, or convicted.

Everyone in the military serves under the command of others – even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is under the command of Hegseth and Trump, who under the Constitution, is the Commander in Chief. Your job in the military is to do what you’re told by your commander – to follow orders, at least when they are lawful. When a commander tells you someone is guilty of a crime, in the absence of any information contradicting that, you’re supposed to believe them.

In the case of Hegseth’s command influence, in his referral, Hegseth is telling the Secretary of Navy and everyone under him that Kelly is already guilty, so the conclusion the Navy’s chain of command should be that Kelly has done something that subjects him to court martial, and once the court martial is held, the jury of members of the Navy hearing the case against Kelly, must find him guilty.

In the military, command influence is equivalent to giving an order to find someone guilty. The great irony here is that Hegseth has in effect given an illegal order. That is exactly what Kelly and the others were warning service members they do not have the obligation under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to follow. If this seems like a classic “Catch 22,” that’s because it is. Here is the law, but do not follow it. Instead, do as I tell you, and find Kelly guilty of doing the right thing.

The words inside out, backwards, and upside down apply to everything Hegseth and Trump are doing with respect to the six members of Congress who made the video. Today, we found out that not only is Kelly under threat of court martial by the Navy, the other five have been told by the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms that the FBI has requested they be made available to be “interviewed” by agents from – get this – the FBI Counterterrorism Division.

So now we know, as if we didn’t before, how far Donald Trump is willing to go to enforce his will on those who speak words that he doesn’t like. Trump is seeking to criminalize speech by members of Congress. He has said they are guilty of sedition and should be “hanged,” and now he has turned loose his Department of Justice and FBI to invent some sort of violation of the law that has been committed by speech that clearly and unmistakably told members of the military that they should follow the UCMJ, the law which governs the military.

These people, Hegseth and Trump and the rest of the Republican Party for that matter, are more of a threat to the national security of this country than any foreign power could ever be. They have invaded our democracy using the laws of the democracy itself, the Constitution, they are destroying this country, and in the process, destroying the Constitutional rights of Mark Kelly and the five other members of Congress who have stood up and spoken not just a truth, but a truth that is written down in the laws of the military, the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Where is it written that speaking out in defense of liberty is an illegal act? In the minds and morals of these people who want to destroy laws and lives and the Constitution itself.

The one thing Kelly has going for him is that most members of the military don’t like it when outsiders, people who are not in uniform, come into their world and fuck around with the rules they live by. The motto of West Point – Duty, Honor, Country – encapsulates the code under which members of the military services live their lives and conduct themselves in service to their country. To those in uniform, Hegseth and Trump are outsiders, despite their temporary status in the chain of command. Elected officials like Trump, and appointed officials like Hegseth, come and go, but the uniforms worn by service members were there before them, and they will be there after they are gone. That is why Mark Kelly proudly displayed a photograph of his Navy dress uniform to accompany his response to Hegseth’s disgusting post on X. Here is what Kelly wrote:

“Secretary Hegseth’s tweet is the first I heard of this. I also saw the President’s posts saying I should be arrested, hanged, and put to death. If this is meant to intimidate me and other members of Congress from doing our jobs and holding this administration accountable, it won’t work. I’ve given too much to this country to be silenced by bullies who care more about their own power than protecting the Constitution.”

Sen. Mark Kelly and Sen. Elissa Slotkin and Rep. Jason Crow and Rep. Chris Deluzio and Rep. Maggie Goodlander and Rep. Chrissy Houlahan are truth-tellers and patriots. They are heroes. They will prevail.

Give a gift subscription

Leave a comment

Share

The Opinionated Ogre is 100% reader-supported. Please help me continue to inform/amuse/outrage you by becoming a supporting subscriber today for only $5 a month or just $50 a year (a 17% discount!)! If not, it’s all good. Welcome to the Ogre Nation anyway!

🌟BECOME A CONTRIBUTING SUBSCRIBER!🌟

Prefer a one-time tip? We got you!

When I was very young, like, 5 years old, I was obsessed with the Titanic. I wanted to find it. I wanted to find the iceberg that sank it and blow it up (dude, I was 5). I had a light-up globe with world disasters on it (the 70s were a different time) and I could find the spot where the Titanic sank faster than any other catastrophe. One of my favorite movies, a few years later, was 1980s’ “Raise the Titanic,”1 which, if you’ve ever seen it, you are aware of just how ridiculously bad it was. Soooooo bad. And yet, watching that model2 pop to the surface was a BFD for Little Ogre.

Anyway, my mother happily fed my obsession with a board game, The Sinking of the Titanic. We played a looot of board games when I was kid, but this one stayed with me more than any of the others.

The game was silly but fun. You played a crew member racing around the Titanic, gathering food, water, and passengers while the ship steadily sank. Then you had to get to a lifeboat, get off the ship, brave the open seas, and…tropical islands?,3 before getting to the rescue ship.

I loved this game so SO much. I played it with my mother so many times, I can’t even begin to recall. It was a frantic race to escape the ship and sometimes, you didn’t make it. For a stupid little board game by a company that disappeared in 1997, it really ramped up the anxiety. Neat trick.

Fast forward 44 years. Anastasia is going through HER Titanic obsession phase, which, apparently, is genetic? We speed-watched the movie because even though she will read the absolute shit out of a romance YA graphic novel or book, she’s not going to sit through three hours of Leonardo DiCaprio making kissy faces. That’s gross!

But watching the ship sink? THAT was worth paying attention to. Glub glub. She watched a ton of YouTube videos about it and ranted about all these little details for weeks and months.

And I started to think of how cool it would be if we could play that stupid little game from when I was a kid. I knew she would love it as much as I did, even though it was just full of WTF? Dead serious, one of the cards you could pull was “Island full of cannibals, lose one passenger.”

Cannibals. In the North Atlantic. Bro, whut?

So last year, we were up in NYC to visit family. We stopped by our friend Christine’s, and another of our friends was there, Glenn. We were talking about random whatevers, and as I was looking at Christine’s extensive collection of board games, I mentioned that I was looking online to see if I could buy a copy of the Titanic game from almost 50 years ago. Glenn says he has it, and I just stare at him.

“The Titanic game? Where you rotate the ship until it sinks? And you have to run around in little lifeboats?”

“Yeah. That one.”

“Are you fucking kidding me? Give it to me now!”

OK, I was more polite than that. But we arranged to have Glenn mail it to us so we could play it and then return it when we were done.

Anastasia foamed at the mouth when she saw it. We played the shit out of it and Anastasia moved on from her Titanic phase. Then we put the game away, safely (it’s OLD!) and there it sat until this week. Now we’re heading back up to NYC, and we’ll be stopping by Christine’s again. We’ll drop the game off with her and she can give it to Glenn (who will be there the next day).

But before we go, we broke out the Titanic last night for one last sinking. We raced around the ship, collected our food and water, and avoided the flooding blukheads. We all got to a lifeboat, barely, and none of us got assaulted by cannibals. There was a lot of laughing and yelling and only a spot of piracy on the high seas.

Then we packed it up again for its trip back to New York.

It’s not often I get to share something that meant this much to me and my mother with my kids. She died long before they were born and there is precious little of her I can share with them. The Nutcracker. D&D. And now The Sinking of the Titanic. It was a good night and a sweet memory for Anastasia (and me) to hold on to.

Please support this work by becoming a paying subscriber. This newsletter is free and will always remain free, but it still takes time and effort to produce. Your support means everything to me. For just $5 a month or $50 a year (a 17% discount!), you can keep the Opinionated Ogre going. Thank you!

🌟BECOME A CONTRIBUTING SUBSCRIBER!🌟

Prefer a one-and-done tip? Click here!