In the greatest of the “Star Wars” movie series, “The Empire Strikes Back,” in its most famous scene, after Darth Vader says to Luke Skywalker, “I am your father,” Vader asks Luke to join him in ruling the galaxy. Vader says, “it is your destiny.” Luke, exercising free will, tells Vader, “I will never join you,” and drops into the depths of the Death Star.

In the film “Lawrence of Arabia,” after making an almost impossible trek at night across the Nefud desert, Lawrence discovers his Arab colleague, Gasim, has fallen off his camel, and says he’s going back because Gasim will die in the heat of the day. Sharif Ali tells Lawrence not to risk returning into the Nefud. And about Gasim’s almost certain death Sherif Ali says, “It is written.” In other words, it was Gasim’s destiny to die. Lawrence replies angrily, “nothing is written,” exercises his free will, and chooses to go back into the Nefud in the daytime to find Gasim, which, of course, he does.

If one’s future is determined by destiny or by the Koran, free will is negated. Freud believed in psychic determinism, or the theory that a person’s makeup is determined by how they were treated as a child, a theory that also denies free will. If anyone believes in determinism of any kind, they do not believe that people have free will, that they have a conscious power to make choices. If people’s behavior and actions are predetermined, then we can’t hold them accountable for the choices they make.

Determinists would say that Hitler’s murder of six million Jews was because Germans and Austrians were virulently anti-Semitic, because he was brutally beaten as a child, and because he was over indulged by an adoring mother. In other words, as Han Solo said in “The Empire Strikes Back,” when the Millenium Falcon failed to jump to hyperspace, “it’s not my fault.”

But we must hold malignant narcissists such as Hitler, Stalin, and Trump responsible for their behavior. They made choices and they must be held accountable. They can’t say, “it’s not my fault.” It is their fault. They made their choices. They could have made different, humane, compassionate choices, but they didn’t, so they must be held accountable.

Most rational historians have held Hitler and Stalin accountable for their crimes against humanity. Chair Bennie Thompson and Vice-Chair Liz Cheney of the House January 6 Attack Committee are making a devastatingly effective case holding Trump accountable for inciting a riot that attempted to overturn a free and fair election. Trump is accountable for his crimes against humanity (e. g. separating children from their families at the border).

Great movies such as “The Empire Strikes Back” and “Lawrence of Arabia” tell stories that contain universal truths. Like the truth of myths, they tell us how to live our lives. One of the truths of great movies and myths is that “nothing is written,” that we have free will to choose good or evil. and when we make the wrong choices we will be held accountable.

Trump must be indicted, convicted, and sent to jail. “Star Wars” and “Lawrence of Arabia” were right, Freud was wrong.

As a part-time associate professor who teaches graduate courses at The New School, I’m very fortunate in that I get great feedback and appreciation from my students. However, last month I had lunch with a dear friend and his girlfriend, who is a high-school teacher in an upscale Long Island school district. She was complaining about how poorly she was treated by parents and students. Therefore, I thought of her when I read the lead item on Axios Finish Line yesterday (June 8), titled “How to Help Stressed Teachers.” Here are Axios’s suggestions:

1. 
   Say “thank you.” Teachers tell us they rarely receive a simple thanks from parents and community members. Tell the teachers in your life you appreciate them, and post on social media to spread the message in your network.
2. Make calls and write letters. Pick up the phone and thank the teachers who changed your life. If you don’t have their numbers, look for them on social media and reach out there. And write notes and cards to the teachers at your local public schools.
3. Volunteer. If you have the time, step up to volunteer in classrooms, in the library or in the cafeteria — and try to give our teachers and school staff a long-overdue break.
4. Give them gift cards for school supplies and a stash of healthy snacks — they are among the few people outside the home who know a kid is hungry.
5. Be kind. When you’re emailing your child’s teacher, remember that they’re barraged with demands and complaints. Be cheerful, appreciative and efficient: They may well be answering you on their own time. 
6. Bring donuts. It may sound frivolous, but it’s not. Show up with goodies or coffee to your kids’ school. Little gestures like that don’t fix the situation. But they sure make it more tolerable, says Brooke Olsen-Farrell, superintendent of the Slate Valley Unified School District in Vermont.
7. Empathize. Dial back the political attacks on teachers. They, like all of us, are simply trying to do what’s best for our kids. Usually your issues are with the PTA or the union anyway.

The bottom line: Recognize the crazy stress teachers face. They joined a once admired, albeit modestly paid, profession — and now are vulnerable to physical attack, while being pelted with political grievances.

I received two interesting responses to my “Putin and Hitler” blog post:

Bruce Braun wrote:

Like they say:  Every US Senator who looks in a mirror sees a US President looking back.

Back in 1981 when I was at WCAU in Philadelphia, I took the Metroliner down to DC for meetings one morning.  The train stopped in Wilmington and who gets on but Joe Biden along with some guy who was apparently an aide of some sort.

They sat down one row up and over from me, with Joe on the aisle.  They began talking about people and legislative matters.  Joe spoke in a loud voice, the kind that people use when they want those around or near them to hear what they are saying.

It surprised me because I had been taught to never discuss company business when you were on a plane, train, elevator or bathroom.  The reasoning was you never knew who might be in earshot.  And, if you did have to speak, you whispered.

Apparently Joe did not subscribe to that philosophy.  He made a point of expressing his opinions and feeling towards, legislation, other senators and congress members.  None of those loudly voiced comments could have been considered to be complimentary.

I was stunned how vulgar his characterizations were:  asshole, jerk-off, shithead, etc. Yeah, it was that bad and on a crowded public train.  I concluded he was a narcissist of the first order who thought he was a brilliant politician without peer.

I think your analysis below is spot on and in particular,the 50/50 example. 

In respect to military psychological testing and screening. When I went thru Basic and Advanced Infantry training in the Army in 1970, we had six guys in our company who were criminals convicted of armed robbery, larceny, assault, etc.  The judge gave them the choice of six years in prison or three years in the Army.  Early one morning, the MP’s burst into the barracks, cuffed these guys and hauled them off.  The MP’s tossed their lockers and found several live hand grenades, blasting caps, detonation cord, a block of C4 high explosives, magazines of M-16 ammo and even a Claymore Anti-personnel  mine, and other items they had purloined off the different training areas.  Without a doubt, these soldiers-in-arms were psychos of the first order.

I concur about administering psychological screening testing to politicians, starting with every candidate for public office.

Interestingly, Sharon has a cousin who is a clinical psychologist  (Colonel and PhD) in the AIrForce.  Air Force Academy grad as well.  I was chatting with her one day and she told me the AF actually looks for narcissistic traits when screening those aspiring to become military pilots!  I asked why and she said the belief was in part because pilots need to be supremely self-confident and fearless. 

Bill Grimes wrote:

I would never agree that we (who? Pres, Congress, doctors, psychiatrists, you or me?) should give psychological tests because the results are not science and misinterpretation and manipulation would be easy.

And who would be in the role to interpret the results? Democrats, Republicans? Judges, shrinks? Mayhem would result.  

To end life today three doctors must agree that the individual has no chance to recover, and as a result there is frequent disagreement, (I know this because a friend with stage 4 cancer was denied to have a merciful, painless death). It is difficult to get three docotrs to agree, and that causes undue suffering for the person who is denied the right to end his/her life.

We have the right to pursue happiness but not to end our lives without suffering. To this, of course , we can thank religion, mostly Catholicism. Of course in Switzerland and I think a couple of other nations in Europe, one can decide–with certain conditions, like pain and suffering–to decide how and when to have a painless death.  In our country the State decides, which I think is more control over an individual’s life than any government should have.

Psychological testing is not the way to determine whether a person will be an honest, hard-working, empathetic person working for the good of all he/she serves.  Prior experience  and references who have worked with the candidate(s) would have produced a much better result.

I’m not sure that psychological testing is the right answer,but I think we need to debate the issue of how a democracy deals with protecting itself against the Putins, Hitlers, Stalins, and Trumps?

This past week we’ve seen the good, the bad and the ugly in the media.

The Good

Tom Jones, Senior Editor of The Poynter Report, writes:

Malika Andrews, host of ESPN’s new NBA show “NBA Today,” is wasting little time exerting her voice to weigh on controversial basketball topics. Hosting the “NBA Countdown” pregame show before a preseason game this week, Andrews had a strong take about Brooklyn Nets star Kyrie Irving, who has not gotten the COVID-19 vaccine.

Andrews said some players are saying it’s an “individual choice,” but Andrews continued by saying, “I understand in some ways taking that approach or maybe that’s just what you say facing forward, but that is the antithesis of what a pandemic is. You do not have the privilege of just looking at yourself. You have to look at the people next to you because that’s how we got to this being the most deadly pandemic that has killed over 700,000 people in the United States. That’s not all on Kyrie, but it’s on all of us to do our small part and his small part is in that locker room.”

That’s good stuff from Andrews: smart, to the point and passionate. ESPN is going to be happy with its decision to give Andrews an increased role in its NBA coverage.

Malika Andrews is the first Black female to host “The NBA Countdown,” so good for ESPN for continuing to increase diversity and good for Andrews for intelligently calling out the selfish Kyrie Irving.

The Bad

This past week was the 25th Anniversary of Fox News. Washington Post columnist Max Boot wrote on October 12:

Last week, Fox “News” Channel celebrated 25 years since its launch. More than 700,000 victims of covid-19 were not available for comment.

Oh, I’m not suggesting that Fox is responsible for all, or even most, of the covid deaths. That would be the kind of cheap shot you would expect to be aimed at the “libs” by the “fair and balanced” network. What I am suggesting, however, is that the covid death toll is higher than it would have been if Fox did not exist.

This is, after all, the most watched basic cable network in America. In September, it averaged 2.49 million viewers a night in prime time, and its impact is magnified by social media (such as Facebook), where its clips often go viral. What Fox says matters. So what has Fox been saying about the worst pandemic in a century?

From the start, Fox hosts dismissed “coronavirus hysteria,” compared the pandemic to the seasonal flu, and opposed lockdowns and social distancing. “I’m not afraid of the coronavirus, and no one else should be that afraid either,” Jesse Watters said on March 3, 2020. On March 9, Sean Hannity said: “This scaring the living hell out of people — and I see it, again, as like, ‘Oh, let’s bludgeon Trump with this new hoax.’” On April 8, Tucker Carlson announced that the “short-term crisis . . . may have passed,” and “it hasn’t been the disaster that we feared.”

Fox News prime-time hosts continue their murderous hypocrisy by lying to their viewers about the effectiveness of vaccination while getting vaccinated themselves and complying with the Fox stringent vaccination policy. Carlson, Hannity and Ingraham should watch Malika Andrews on ESPN.

The Ugly

John Gruden. Gruden “stepped aside” as coach of the NFL Las Vegas Raiders, according to the Washigton Post “amid a burgeoning controversy over racist, homophobic and misogynistic language that he used in emails over a span of approximately seven years before he agreed to return to the NFL in 2018 as the Raiders’ coach.”

The NY Times reported:

Gruden’s departure came after a New York Times report that N.F.L. officials, as part of a separate workplace misconduct investigation that did not directly involve him, found that Gruden had casually and frequently unleashed misogynistic and homophobic language over several years to denigrate people around the game and to mock some of the league’s momentous changes.

He denounced the emergence of women as referees, the drafting of a gay player and the tolerance of players protesting during the playing of the national anthem, according to emails reviewed by The Times.

Tom Jones of The Poynter Report wrote:

During the “Sunday Night Football” telecast on NBC, analyst Tony Dungy said, “What Jon Gruden did in that (racist) email — definitely insensitive, definitely inappropriate, definitely immature — I thought he attacked the character of a man. But he apologized for it. He said it wasn’t racially motivated. I have to believe him. I think this was an incident that was 10 years ago. He apologized. I think we need to accept that apology and move on.”

Interestingly, Gruden replaced Dungy as head coach of the Tampa Bay Bucs in 2002 and immediately won a Super Bowl. After additional emails came to light on Monday in the Times story, many who had accepted Gruden’s initial apology, such as Dungy, were widely criticized. That led Dungy to use his Twitter feed to clarify his comments on “Sunday Night Football.”

Dungy tweeted, “On @SNFonNBC I commented on an email sent by Jon Gruden. I did not defend it. I said ‘inappropriate, immature, attack on a man’s character. Wrong!’ I did not attribute it all to racism and said given a single incident 10 yrs ago we should accept his apology and move on.”

Dungy continued, “Now more emails have come. More inappropriate, immature, wrongful attacks on the character of people from all walks of life. I don’t defend those either and given the apparent pattern of behavior the Raiders did the appropriate thing in terminating Jon Gruden.”

Dungy then concluded with, “That being said, if Jon Gruden shows TRUE remorse — and more importantly changes his mindset and actions — I would forgive him. As Christians that’s what the Bible commands us to do because that’s what God does for us. I know that’s not popular but it’s biblical.”

Dungy then posted a quote (Matthew 6:14-16) from the Bible: “If you forgive those who sin against you, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you refuse to forgive others, your Father will not forgive your sins.”

Many of Dungy’s Twitter followers responded to Dungy’s tweets, and Dungy engaged with several to share his beliefs.

Meanwhile, Sports Illustrated’s Jimmy Traina — who covers sports media and hosts a sports media podcast — wrote, “It does seem like Tony’s standard M.O. for any and all controversies is ‘let’s forgive.’ Well, that’s a cop-out. You can forgive, but you can also call for consequences. Every incident should be judged on its own. Sometimes a person deserves a slap on the wrist. Sometimes they deserve 24 hours of getting crap on social media. Sometimes they deserve to be fired. The blanket take on every single issue can’t be, ‘Let’s forgive and move on.’ Tony Dungy should do better and so should NBC’s studio show.”

Not surprisingly, the usual conservative middle-aged white guys — radio host Clay Travis, podcaster Matt Walsh, Donald Trump Jr., radio host Jesse Kelly and Newsmax’s Greg Kelly — took to Twitter to complain about a fellow white guy losing his job for saying a bunch of awful stuff that can’t possibly be excused or defended. Kelly called it “cancel culture (expletive)” and said Gruden was “totally screwed over,” while the others used the tired whataboutism arguments. It was all about what you would expect.

I think you can forgive someone as a person, as an individual, but not as someone who has authority over, influence over or leads others. The job of an NFL coach is not only to create offensive and defensive strategies but also to create a culture, communicate team values and motivate coaches and players, over half of whom are Black.

In his September 15, “Press Watch” newsletter, Dan Froomkin writes:

The discourse about political journalism is once again afire with debate over whether the now-ubiquitous Republican allegations of election rigging and election fraud should be called “lies” or not in news stories.

Of course they should. It’s ridiculous that we’re even talking about it.

The distinction between a “false” or “baseless” statement and a lie is that a lie is uttered or spread knowingly, intentionally, and to serve a purpose. These lies undeniably qualify.

Froomkin also writes:

But simply calling out a lie isn’t enough. Yes, it’s better than using a euphemism. But it’s still a disservice to the public if you don’t explain its purpose — if you don’t explain the motive.

And in the case of the Republican lies about elections, the motive is crystal clear: They are trying to subvert democracy. That’s not hyperbole. They are literally preparing to manipulate and, if necessary, disregard the voting process if they don’t win.

Calling blatantly fraudulent allegations about elections “baseless claims” or even “lies” is not nearly enough. They are calculated, democracy-killing lies. And that needs to be made very clear in every story about them — or journalists are not really telling their viewers and readers what they need to know.

Another thing to keep in mind: The best lies are often part of a compelling, if fictional, narrative. To effectively expose and rebut those lies, journalists need to tell the full, true story, which includes who is spreading the lie and what they are hoping that will achieve.

Most of our major newsrooms finally found the fortitude to call Trump’s assertion that he won the presidential election in 2020 the “Big Lie.” But they’ve backslid since then, describing littler lies claiming election rigging and fraud – most recently from Republicans in California — as “false claims” or “baseless allegations”.

Froomkin makes his point clear — call a lie a lie. However, even though words matter, and identifying lies for what they are is not enough. The more important issue is: should the lies about election fraud be covered at all?

It strikes me that publishing stories about election-fraud lies is a form of bothsidism. Bothsidism was most prevalent in climate change coverage in which a story would cover glaciers melting and then, in a ridiculous attempt at “balance,” would include a statement by a wingnut climate change denier. Climate change is not a controversial issue. We don’t need to know about the non-scientific, stupid opinions of deniers.

We also don’t need to know the stupid opinions of election fraud promoters. The press (legitimate news media) shouldn’t give these lies any oxygen. Cut them off. Don’t cover them.