The Hollywood scandals: should we convict someone on hearsay alone?

November 3, 2017 • 9:00 am

The increasing number of accusations of sexual harassment or assault by famous actors and producers in Hollywood—the latest is Kevin Spacey—carries two lessons: the practice is far more prevalent than many believed (and I’m one of those who had no idea), and if a powerful man does it once, they’ve probably done it before (viz., Bill Cosby). I was going to write about Kevin Spacey this morning, and in particular Brendan O’Neill’s defense of him in Spiked, “Kevin Spacey is innocent” (what he means is that Spacey’s “not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”, since Spacey was accused of fondling an underaged boy, but it was 30 years ago and Spacey doesn’t remember it)—but then I woke up this morning to read that Spacey has been accused by at least eight more people of inappropriate behavior on his “House of Cards” television show:

All of those involved described Spacey’s behaviour as “predatory”. It allegedly included non-consensual touching and inappropriate sexual comments, with the actor typically targeting young, male members of the production crew.

Well, these are neither rape nor pedophilia, but they’re inappropriate, probably prompted by a power relationship, and may be illegal, as they create a climate of harassment in the workplace.

That is, if the allegations are true.

What’s happening now, and what I want readers to discuss, is that many people’s lives are being overturned by accusations that can’t be proven—accusations that wouldn’t stand up in a court where the standard of conviction is “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”.  An accusation in the present climate is tantamount to a conviction, even if the accused denies it.

Now in many cases they don’t deny it: they admit it and apologize, which is the right thing to do if you’re really guilty. In other cases in which the accused doesn’t admit anything, or says that the sex is consensual, the accusations gain credibility as the number of accusers mounts and their stories comport. That’s the situation of Harvey Weinstein, who in my view was an odious sexual predator and, most likely, a rapist. (New York is investigating the possibility of rape charges.) But what if there are only one or two accusers? Is the word of a single person, contested by the accused, nevertheless sufficient to demonize someone and ruin their career?

Aside from the power relationships involving someone like Weinstein, these situations—the one-offs—resemble accusations of sexual harassment or assault made in American colleges, nearly all by women against men. When I asked readers how the accused should be judged in those cases, readers here voted this way:

The lesson was that college judiciary bodies shouldn’t be trusted to adjudicate these cases, which could result in expulsion and a permanent black mark on an accused student’s record. They should, said 82% of readers, be adjudicated first by the courts, which use the “reasonable doubt” standard. If you can’t trust college judicial bodies to do it, why trust the “court of public opinion”: the media and social media folks who take accusations for convictions?

Okay, now what about a student who has not one but two accusations? Do you feel the same way: no punishment without solid proof? I suspect many of you do.

This is the situation that many Hollywood figures are in, and that’s what Brendan O’Neill wrote about. Before I give a few quotes from his piece, let me emphasize that I’m not trying to exculpate sexual harassers and predators. I am not a woman, but I’ve heard enough of them tell me (one yesterday who lives in Los Angeles) about the lifelong harassment they’ve endured: groping, creepy remarks, penises being exposed, and so on. When it’s done in a power relationship, it’s doubly bad because it’s extra coercive. I’m also aware that some studies show that the bulk of such accusations are true. But we can’t use that when judging a single person, just as we can’t use the statement (made to me by a public defender) that “85% of my clients are almost certainly guilty” to go ahead and convict all accused people without a trial.

Nevertheless, let’s go back a day and assume that Kevin Spacey (like some figures) had only one accusation against him, with no proof. There’s nothing wrong with going public with accusations against him or similar people, but do we automatically say “guilty” and throw him out of the industry? O’Neill says no (we’ll ignore Spacey’s excoriation for also saying, in his statement, that he was gay, which some say was the wrong way to “come out”).  An excerpt from O’Neill’s piece:

Why does everyone believe Kevin Spacey’s accuser rather than Kevin Spacey himself? In a civilised society, it would be the other way round. In a civilised society we would doubt the accuser and maintain the innocence of the accused. But increasingly we do not live in a civilised society. As demonstrated by the hysteria of the Harvey Weinstein scandal and the increasingly strange and narcissistic #metoo contagion, we live in a society where accusation is now proof. Where accusation alone can colour someone’s reputation beyond repair. I fear we haven’t yet registered how worrying, and terrifying, this state of affairs is.

No sooner had Star Trek: Discovery actor Anthony Rapp claimed that Spacey made a ‘sexual advance’ towards him in 1986, when Rapp was 14 years old, than the internet was aflame with whispers and chatter about Spacey being a paedophile. Everyone, it seems, believes Rapp, and they want the world to know they believe Rapp. ‘I believe him’, people are tweeting. ‘Of COURSE we believe you’, says civil-rights activist — read professional tweeter — Danielle Muscato. One political comedian says we need to use the right term for ‘what he did’ — it was ‘child molestation’. ‘What he did’. The arrogance. The mob thinking. How do we know Spacey did this thing? Because one person said he did. If we had any kind of attachment to the ideals of reason and justice, the building blocks of civilisation, this wouldn’t be enough. It would be so far from being enough.

Spacey says he doesn’t remember the assault. ‘I honestly do not remember the encounter’, he said in a statement, before going on to say that if it did happen, then he’s sorry. (Who’s advising these people? Do not apologise for something you do not remember doing.) Spacey, in his own lame way, is calling into question the veracity of Rapp’s accusation. And you know what? We should all be doing that. For three reasons.

First, because the alleged incident took place 31 years ago. Thatcher and Reagan were in power. Mark Zuckerberg was two years old. Boy George joined The A-Team. It is entirely feasible — likely, in fact — that Mr Rapp misremembers what happened that long ago. We all have foggy memories of decades-old events. Secondly, because Mr Rapp has made his accusation as part of the #metoo phenomenon, which may well have coloured how he sees that alleged event that is a third-of-a-century old. As part of #metoo, individuals can fast-track themselves to a position of moral and cultural authority through claiming to have been victims of celebrity abuse. Can we agree that this attractive prospect, this promise of cultural cachet, might — only might — have influenced both Mr Rapp’s recollection of what happened and his decision to accuse now? And thirdly because this is what we are meant to do. We are meant to believe in the innocence of everyone accused of a crime or misdemeanour, until such a time as a jury of their peers has been convinced beyond reasonable doubt that this is ‘what he did’.

We are meant to side with the accused. It is the civilised thing to do: side with the accused. We are meant to insist upon his or her innocence until guilt has been properly and convincingly established. But today the Twitterati, the media, the feminist set and increasingly the political class — see the jumped-up, ‘me too!’ sex-harassment panic now brewing in the House of Commons — line up with accusers. . .

Well, you get the point, though O’Neill’s argument has lost considerable force due to the new accusations against Spacey. In the courts, people walk away free from punishment if the allegation can’t be proven. (That, of course, doesn’t mean free from criticism, as evidenced by the decline in O.J. Simpson’s reputation after he was found not guilty of murder.). But are we supposed to fire someone, demonize them, and remove their honors and livelihood when they’re accused of sexual malfeasance—and it hasn’t been definitively established? Or, if you use the word of people as this kind of proof, how many people does it take to accuse someone before they’re not just seen as guilty by the public, but deserve punishment for what they’re accused of?

The trope “always believe the accuser” may usually lead to accurate beliefs, but as we know from individual cases, not ones that are 100% accurate. (Estimates of false reports of sexual assaults appear to be between 2% and 10%.) And so long as there is some doubt, should we consider someone guilty when they’re simply accused?

But weigh against that the likelihood that even if false reports are low, most cases involving simply hearsay wouldn’t even make it to trial, so many guilty people would walk away free. And sexual predation seems to be something that’s notoriously difficult to “cure” by psychological treatment, so if unpunished it will persist—and grow.

These are just some thoughts.

Let me know your thoughts, and do remember that I’ve listed several factors that, to my mind, make accusations more credible.  If you have solutions to the pervasive problem of sexual harassment and assault, given that many aren’t reported and there is no proof for many, put it below.

Readers’ wildlife photos

November 3, 2017 • 7:45 am

These pictures from Joe Dickinson were from August 30, and I recently found them in an old email.  But everyone else’s photos (I think) are safely tucked away, so no worries. Please keep sending them in.

Joe’s comments are indented; he saw a bunch of diverse wildlife on this trip!

Here are photos of assorted wildlife seen on the way down to San Diego and the return trip.

First, we looked in on the sea otters (Enhydra lutris) at Moss Landing.  There was a very tight cluster of 15-20 animals plus many others scattered around.

Here is a California ground squirrel (Citellus beecheyi) on the grounds of a hotel in Pismo Beach.

Near the same hotel was a cliff on which many brown pelicans (Pelicanus occidentalis) roosted.  The last pair seemed to be showing each other pieces of plants, but I don’t know what that was about since it was not nesting season (or location, so far as I know).

 

This female mallard (Anas platyrhynchus) was resting on some water lilies in Balboa Park, San Diego.

In Port San Louis (return trip) the California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) had a special “dock” provided for their convenience, but several had decided to take over a fishing boat anchored nearby.

Back in Pismo Beach (different hotel) this immature black-crowned night heron (Nyctocorax nyctocorax) perched on a railing by our room.

This brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani) lived in shrubbery just outside a boundary fence, dining on the hotel lawn when safe.

Finally, a western gull (Larus occidentalis) seemed to be doing a monumental yawn (or “sassing” a neighbor?).

 

Friday: Hili dialogue

November 3, 2017 • 6:45 am

We’ve reached the end of another work week, as it’s Friday, November 3, 2017. It’s National Sandwich Day, and I believe Subway has some 2-for-1 deals today (if you’re going to comment “I don’t like Subway sandwiches,” don’t bother!) What’s weird is this information about sandwiches posted on the Foodimentary page:

Here are five things to know about Sandwich:

Americans eat about 300 sandwiches everyday.

There are four other “facts.” But why the capitalized Sandwich without an article? It sounds like a pet’s name. And “everyday” as one word? But weirder than that: “only 300 sandwiches are consumed by all Americans every day”? That’s not very many! Alternatively, it could mean that each American eats 300 sandwiches per day. But that’s not true, either. What gives?

On this day in 1908, William Howard Taft was elected the 27th President of the United States; at 340 pounds, he was our heaviest President, but the rumor (heard by many Americans) that he once got stuck in a bathtub appears to be false, though his girth once caused a hotel tub to overflow, flooding the dining room beneath.  On November 3, 1936, Franklin Roosevelt was elected to his second term as President; he would be elected twice more and then die during his fourth term.  On this date in 1957, the Soviets launched Sputnik 2, containing Laika, the first animal to orbit the Earth. The poor dog, picked up as a stray in Moscow, died from overheating during the first four orbits, though the Soviets didn’t disclose that. I always thought it was incredibly cruel to put an animal into space knowing it would die, so here’s to Laika: a photo and a Romanian postage stamp in her honor. She was a cute dog:

On November 3, 1964, Lyndon Johnson was elected to his only full term in the White House, aided by the residents of Washington D.C. voting for a President for the first time. Finally, on this day last year, the Chicago Cubs won the World Series in a squeaker in game 7, defeating the Cleveland Indians and winning their first Series in 108 years. It may be another 108 until they win again, but I never saw such celebrating in this town (unless you include Obama’s election night).

Notables born on this day include photographer Walker Evans (1903), James Reston (1909), Charles Bronson (1921), Michael “Tank Boy” Dukakis and Amartya Sen (both 1933), and Anna Wintour (1949). Those who died on November 3 include Annie Oakley (1926), Wilhelm Reich (1957), and William J. Coyne (2013; no relation but a lawyer and politician in Pennsylvania).

Evans took some magnificent and heartbreaking photos during a stint working for the government’s Farm Security Administration; his job was documenting rural America. It was during the Depression, so we have photos like this:

Bud Fields and His Family, Hale County, Alabama. Photo by Walker Evans

Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Cyrus shows his low self esteem:

Hili: A penny for your thoughts.
Cyrus: I wouldn’t give that much.
In Polish:
Hili: Grosik za twoją myśl.
Cyrus: Ja bym tyle nie dał.
From Heather Hastie, who has an excellent collection of tweets in her latest post. The first shows how different things were in Afghanistan not that long ago. All these women would be veiled now, and I’m not sure there would be a mixed-sex class:
And a few nice cat tweets:

https://twitter.com/CUTEFUNNYANIMAL/status/926047332386459648

Somebody send me one of these!
From Matthew:

https://twitter.com/SeeDaneRun/status/925948835226161152

From the ever-edifying Ziya Tong:

I follow only one creature on Twitter—Paddles. She’s New Zealand’s First Cat, staffed by the new Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. And she’s polydactylous! (Paddles, not Jacinda)

Look at those toes!

https://twitter.com/FirstCatofNZ/status/926220249115922432

Results of the Offensive Costume Vote

November 2, 2017 • 1:30 pm

I’ve compiled the data on yesterday’s vote about all 16 costumes presented by Insider as being offensive. For each costume, I’ve given the name, the percentages of “no” (not offensive) and “yes” (offensive) answers, and the total sample of respondents. We clearly have a group not prone to offense, but that’s no surprise. Also, I’m sure we have more than 15% women who read this site (and probably responded), though I don’t know how many members of minority groups we have. (I’m going to remedy this soon with another poll.) If we have very few members of the groups that are most likely to be offended, that would explain the fact that for every costume—save Anne Frank—a large majority of readers found it inoffensive. If you want to explain your votes on specific costumes below, and didn’t in the last post, I invite you to chime in.

This has been a useful exercise for me, at least—helping me think about why I found some costumes more offensive than others (only two, really), but, more important, how do we determine whether a). a costume is offensive (and presumably you’d have to poll those whom the costume conjures up, and get a large majority rather than just one offended Arab or Native American);  b). whether, if it’s offensive, you shouldn’t wear it; and c.) should you call out such costumes when you see them? I’m still thinking about these issues, but clearly polling people here tells us only whether the readers of this site find something offensive, rather than whether people whose cultures are represented by those costumes find something offensive. And surely the opinions of the latter group is more important.

For those costumes that were found offensive by 10% or more of readers, I’ll add my own gloss below:

Sexy Shooter

No: 90.0%
Yes: 10.0%
N = 492

I was surprised by this one, as the Mexican “stereotype” didn’t seem to be making fun of Mexicans so much (the sombrero is the Mexican equivalent of a cowboy hat, and if it’s denigrating, then every member of a mariachi band is denigrating Mexican culture. But of course members of a culture traditionally have a lot more leeway to use “offensive” terms, or wear certain costumes, than do “outsiders” (the use of the word “nigger” is a classic example). I suspect, but don’t know, that women dislike “sexy” costumes more than do men, and that played a role in this costume.

Dream Catcher
No: 83.8%
Yes: 16.2%
N = 488

Many Native Americans might find this offensive, particularly because of its “spiritual” connotations, and I suspect readers, guessing that, gave it a 16% offense rating.

Men’s Arab Sheik Costume

No: 87.0%
Yes: 13.0 %
N = 476

I was surprised that the “yes” vote was higher here, for (as Greg observed) the costume is accurate, and doesn’t seem to be making fun of anyone. One person noted that when he wore Arab dress one day a year on a national holiday in an Arab country, everyone liked it. Likewise, when I wear Indian clothes in India, people like it.

Golden Geisha Costume

No: 93.0%
Yes: 7.0%
N = 473

Rasta Costume

No: 91.4%
Yes: 8.6%
N = 466

I found this offensive, but most readers didn’t. Why do I feel this way? I’m not quite sure, except that I thought it was the equivalent of “blackface”: the fake dreadlocks and hat seemed to me to mock Jamaicans.

Anne Frank/World War II Costume

No: 50.6%
Yes: 49.4%
N = 492

This was the most “offensive” costume, and it’s clear why: it uses dress-up and fun by appropriating a terrible story of a girl killed in Auschwitz. It’s in bad taste. I wouldn’t wear it, but I wouldn’t tell other people not to, for what I consider offensive is not something I’ll enforce on others, or call them out about.

Dia De Los Beauty Costume

No: 96.2%
Yes: 3.8%
N = 467

Inflatable Ballerina Costume

No: 74.4%
Yes: 25.6%
N = 464

My guess is that this was pretty offensive to some because of fat-shaming: it makes fun of people being overweight, and overweight people are already somewhat ostracized.

Drooper Costume (Older Hooters Girl)

No: 70.8%
Yes: 29.2%
N = 456

My guess is that more women found this offensive than men, for it mocks an inevitable result of aging in women, as well as objectifying the sex by using the “Hooters girl” trope. (I have to say that I’ve never been to a Hooters and wouldn’t want to go.)

Reality Star in the Making Costume (Kylie Jenner)

No: 96.7%
Yes: 3.3%
N =  449

Upside Down Honey Costume

No: 92.9%
Yes: 7.1%
N = 434

Sexy Convict Costume

No: 96.9%
Yes: 3.1%
N = 449

Restrained Convict Costume

No: 93.3%
Yes: 6.7%
N = 448

Hobo Nightmare Costume

No: 93.0%
Yes: 7.0%
N = 442

Gorilla/Harembe Costume

No: 94.3%
Yes: 5.7%
N = 441

Snake Charmer Costume
No: 94.3%
Yes: 5.7%
N = 401

 

I’ll add here one comment that reader Alex SL made, on the earlier post, in which he wanted to start a discussion. Feel free to respond to this comment.

Alex SL

Posted November 1, 2017 at 4:12 pm

I think at some point I would like to have a discussion about how the kind of harmless fun that is involved in a costume is ‘harmful’ to a group of people, or why something is called cultural appropriation if it does not involve actual harm or loss to anybody whatsoever. (The original idea was taking over somebody’s IP without re-compensating them for its use because they are powerless to make a case for their interests, and that makes sense; but who in Japan loses one dollar if an American wears a kimono?)

It seems as if this works as follows:

1. You have a costume with a sombrero.
2. ????
3. HARMFUL TO MEXICANS!

To say it with science, this theory does not seem to come with a plausible mechanism of action.

Then again, I was made uncomfortable by the Anne Frank label, and I cannot really demonstrate any harm or loss there either, so maybe it works the same way for other people in the other cases.

My duck is back again! (I think)

November 2, 2017 • 12:00 pm

I’m sorry, but I’m going to subject you to another duck post. You don’t have to read it, of course, but don’t try to deplatform it!

Walking back from the doctor’s (good news: no cortisone, no surgery, just continued exercises), I was stopped in my tracks when I walked by the pond. There I spied TWO MALLARDS, a hen and drake, and one of them looked like my beloved hen Honey. Of course all hens look like Honey to me, so I whistled, which is how I used to call her for food. And, sure enough, she started swimming toward me, but she stopped about 15 feet away, as she has done for a while.

I wasn’t sure, but this may be the drake and hen who showed up last time, when the hen was definitively identified by a duck expert as Honey. (Duck Expert also thinks the drake is her son who was born this year.)

I ran upstairs, grabbed my Panasonic Lumix as well as a big cup of mealworms to feed them. (It’s clear they haven’t been hanging around for food, as I haven’t seen Honey since September 1.)  They both ate eagerly, but took care not to come too close. Still, the hen, but not the drake, perked up each time I whistled. The whistle response suggests that this is Honey.

First, the lovely pair today (the drake is in fine plumage):

Now, on to the identification.  It’s overcast, and I was hand-holding the camera at about a 1/10th of a second shutter speed. It took a gazillion photos to get even a couple I could use to crop and see the bill markings. I’ll put the definite Honey markings first (photographed several months ago), and then the ones I photographed today.

Top of the bill, Honey (old photo):

Honey duck bill markings

Top of the bill, photographed today:

 

Left side of the bill, Honey (photographed earlier):

Left side of the bill, today:

I say yes, but I’ve got a strong case of confirmation bias here. So you vote, and feel free to comment below. I will of course consult the Duck Expert on this most important matter.

Muslim writer wants his “Allahu akbar” back

November 2, 2017 • 10:00 am

When I visited Cambridge, I was kvetching to a friend about how mainstream media was losing it over Trump, with many sites becoming both obsessed with Trump and marinated in identity politics.  My friend is one of the more Leftist people I know: not an antifa-ite socialist or communist, but deeply imbued with Leftist values, and acting on them: teaching English for free to new immigrants, volunteering to help those in a Nicaraguan village, and (for many years) an English teacher and principal in Cambridge public schools that were heavily attended by minority students. So I was surprised to hear him kvetch as well, saying that the only things the New York Times wrote about was how horrible Trump is. When I played devil’s advocate, saying, “Well, he’s doing a lot of public and bad stuff,” my friend responded, “Yeah, but there’s a lot of other important news that isn’t about Trump.”

Like me, my friend feels that the Times, like other media (HuffPo is the most obvious example), is a leftist outlet that has been driven nuts by Trump’s election. The constant harping on his missteps seems to me (and my friend) like a kneejerk reaction: a journalistic tantrum that says, “Well, if we couldn’t prevent him from being elected, we’re going to malign him as much as we can in hopes of bringing him down.”

I don’t mind the maligning at all, as the President is incompetent, thick, uber-conservative, un-Presidential, and just about about every slur I can think of. But it’s clear that the Times, along with many other Leftist outlets, is succumbing not just to Trump Obsession, but to identity politics, which may be just another way to express that obsession. Scan the editorials of the Times over the last few weeks and I think you’ll see what I mean. Of course there are exceptions, like the columnist Bari Weiss (a progressive Leftist who criticizes the ideological purity tests dividing the left), as well as the usual conservative columnists, but by and large I see the NYT converging toward The Huffington Post. It’ll never be that bad, of course, but it’s already abnegating its responsibility for objective journalism.

One example of the Times‘s growing HuffPo-ism is today’s op-ed piece by Wajahat Ali, a Muslim-American playwright and essayist who has in fact written a lot of articles for HuffPo. Today his HuffPo-ian piece for the NYT is called, “I want ‘Allahu Akbar’ back.” The tenor is similar to that of Linda Sarsour’s tweet from yesterday; both she and Ali want to reclaim “Allahu akbar” (meaning either “God is great” or “God is greater”) from the terrorists who use it, restoring it to the normal nonviolent usage of “thank God” or “praise God” that Christians use.

Sadly, the “editorial” is weak. Ali spends most of his time recounting the stupid things Trump said after terrorist attacks, like his “many sides” remark after Charlottesville, suggesting that Muslim terrorists be shot with bullets smeared in pig’s blood, and so on.  These are a matter of record, and are the usual stupid and unthinking utterances of our “President.”

But reclaiming “Allahu akbar” (which Ali says he utters over a hundred times a day) back to its “normal usage” doesn’t depend on Trump’s stupidities. Ali and Sarsour are free to use the phrase as many times as they please, and I won’t call them out when (as Ali recounts), they say it after a meal or, in Ali’s case, the bathroom after a successful defecation (!). The issue isn’t Trump. It’s that “Allahu akbar”, when uttered by someone who’s just rammed his car into a crowd, killing eight people, is a pretty good tip-off that the killer was a Muslim who was committing a terrorist act.

Ali doesn’t like Americans identifying the phrase with terrorism, but he doesn’t realize that the phrase is how we get our first notion that a killer was Muslim, and was, in all probability, killing on the instructions of ISIS or aping the methods of ISIS. In fact, Ali seems to think that the phrase has been appropriated by terrorists in an unseemly way, when in truth they’re using the phrase as Muslims always use it: to thank God that something good has happened, whether it be a nice meal, a pleasing defecation, a mass murder by van, or a beheading. It all comes down to praising God; and Ali doesn’t like his God being praised when infidels are being killed—precisely the instructions of the Qur’an. As he says:

. . . it hurts that on Tuesday, “Allahu” and “akbar,” those two simple words so close to our hearts, instantly shaped the entire news coverage and presidential response. A common, benign phrase used daily by Muslims, especially during prayer, is now understood as code for “It was terrorism.”

It’s easy to forget that language is often hijacked and weaponized by violent extremists. Some people yell “Allahu akbar” and others chant “heritage,” “culture” and “white pride.” The preferred slogans of a killer don’t make much difference to the people whose lives are lost or their loved ones, but they make all the difference in Americans’ collective understanding of a tragedy.

Of course it does, and it should! For those are the words indicating that a Muslim terrorist has struck again. And that makes a big difference in how we understand the motivations behind a tragedy. It would be the same if Nazis killed and then said “Heil Hitler” every time they did—except that “Heil Hitler” has no benign usage.

I won’t go into the ludicrous beliefs that underlie Islam—as they underlie all faiths—nor the perfidies particular to Islam. Let Ali use the phrase as he wants, but let him not blame how we understand it, in the context as a tragedy, on the moron who’s our President.  In fact, Ali sounds a little desperate at the end of his piece. The first paragraph in particular (my emphasis) is just dumb.

If only the hurricane that devastated Puerto Rico, leaving American citizens in desperate need of power, food or water, could have yelled, “Allahu akbar,” triggering that kind of tough response. Perhaps our president would have been able to see the storm as evil. Perhaps he would have been energized by a “them versus us” rage to insist on swift action to repair the damage.

Last night, as breathless news coverage of the phrase the suspect uttered repeated on a loop, I took my children trick-or-treating in the Virginia suburbs. We walked the streets with friendly, diverse neighbors and hordes of happy kids wearing costumes and clutching bags filled with fattening goodies. My 3-year-old was a pirate and my 1-year-old was Supergirl. We all shared smiles and candies with strangers, with open hearts, without fear. Allahu akbar. God is greatest.

The whole article is the whine of a Muslim who doesn’t like other Muslims killing from religious motivations, mixed with a hefty does of Trump hatred. And I’m sure that’s why the Times published this lame editorial, for both tropes fit nicely with its Identity Politics stance. As a colleague told me, “this marks a new low for the Times.”  I’m not sure it’s the lowest they’ve gone, but why on Earth was it published?

I get emails from goddies

November 2, 2017 • 8:45 am

Here’s an email I received this morning. Though it’s addressed to multiple people, it may have been sent to me and “atheists and LGBTQ friends” may be the readers.

I will reveal, besides the state where he lives, the fact that the person is an older gentleman (he has a publicly viewable Facebook page) and—no surprise!—is a God-fearing, Trump-supporting Republican. His morning message:

Greetings atheists and LGBTQ friends. I found your e-mail addresses while browsing through the University of Chicago website, and God inspired me to write this letter to you, because He loves you and gave His life for your salvation. Please reply with honest questions and comments, and if you would like me to visit you and give you a more detailed testimony and Bible study. Or, you can visit one of the many Apostolic Pentecostal churches in Chicago, and show this to the pastor.

I really appreciate the honesty of your website, making your e-mail addresses available. Here is some good news for you. But before I tell you, please consider this: understanding new information in your mind, and believing in your heart are 2 separate issues. Please take time to honestly consider my point of view. Then, if you can prove you understand me, and you can then tell me something better, I will consider your point of view.

Before you decide to agree or disagree with this message, please try to understand it. Afterwards, you can make a more well-informed decision whether or not to believe it. This is what I recommend of you. “Consider what I say, and the Lord give you understanding” (2 Timothy 2:7). The Bible is true scientifically, historically, archeologically, emotionally, generationally.

I would like to show you many forms of infallible proof that the Bible is true, and also show you what is true about the Bible. If you have access to a Bible, please read the cited Scriptures. I understand more than catholic and protestant theologians what is true about important parts of the Bible, intellectually (by meticulously analytically studying original dictionary definitions of Old Testament Hebrew words and New Testament Greek words) and their context (author’s intended meaning), and emotionally (by experience, having received some of God’s promises). Also, keeping everything in proper context, there is nothing in the Bible that contradicts itself, and there is no evidence that can be used to prove anything in the Bible is false.

NAME REDACTED

Of course I’d like to see the “infallible proofs that the Bible is true,” but engaging someone like this is like stepping in quicksand: you’re going down and there’s no help. I love the last sentence with its loophole of “proper context,” as well as this claim: “there is no evidence that can be used to prove anything in the Bible is false.” What about evolution? (Of course, he’d probably say it was a metaphor, but I’m not going to find out.)

The beliefs of the Apostolic Pentecostal Church can be found here; they’re more or less what you’d expect: Bible infallible word of God, Jesus is coming back, accepting him will save you, and so on. No mention of snake-handling. . .