Bring back the 1950's blacklist? Debra Messing and Eric McCormack star/starred (I don't know, I never watched it) in the TV series "Will & Grace." McCormack Tweeted: "Hey @THR (The Hollywood Reporter), kindly report on everyone attending this event (a Trump fundraiser in Hollywood), so the rest of us can be clear about who we don't wanna work with. Thx." Messing added: "Please print a list of all attendees." They were rebuked by none other than Whoopi Goldberg, who had to remind them of the blacklisting of the 1950s. "...a lot of really good people were accused of stuff. Nobody cared whether it was true or not. They were accused. And they lost their right to work...In this country, people can vote for who they want to." The two actors then backpedaled, claiming they just wanted transparency, and it had nothing to do with keeping people from working. Right - "so the rest of us can be clear about who we don't wanna work with." Got it.
Messing makes more noise. Recently, Messing "liked" a church sign that referred to Blacks who voted for Trump as being "mentally ill." But don't worry. Messing will not be fired like Roseanne Barr was. No, Barr was a conservative, and Messing is a liberal. Therefore, it is permissible to suggest that Blacks are too stupid to think for themselves; and if they voted for Trump then what else could it be but mental illness? Do not expect Messing to be accused of racism.
Of course Democrats support the Courts. Or do they? Five US Senators filed a "friend of the court" (amicus curiae) brief in a gun control case at the Supreme Court. The five Democrats (Sheldon Whitehouse, Mazie Hirono, Richard Blumenthal, Dick Durbin and Kirsten Gillibrand) offered this: "The Supreme Court is not well. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics." That looks like these Senators using politics in an effort to influence, nay, threaten, the Court. The Wall Street Journal (8/16/19) aptly referred to the brief as an "enemy of the court brief."
Are your ideas good enough? Molly Worthen is a journalist, and has a PhD in the history of American religion. She penned an Op-Ed in the 9/1/19 New York Times, titled "Can We Guarantee Intellectual Diversity?" She opined that the allegations made by the web site "The Evil Empire on Campus" are "laughably overblown." I did not research all their allegations. However, a quick Google search shows that a number of studies of major universities reflect an overwhelming percentage of Democratic professors over Republican professors. Anywhere from 10 to 1 to 13 to 1, with the ratio being much higher if the math and science departments are excluded. Worthen: "Not all ideas deserve admission to academic discussion on equal terms, if at all." I can agree with that. But would we agree on which ideas should be excluded?
Ah, yes - assumptions. Worthen explains the academic method: "Explain your terms, identify your assumptions, admit the possibility that you could change your mind." Sounds right. However, the attack on assumptions has often been an attack on religion, Western Civilization and - yes - what makes America great.
The end of wars? Stephen Wertheim had an Op-Ed in the 9/14/19 New York Times, titled: "The Only Way to End 'Endless War.'" His policy proposal? "...end America's commitment to armed supremacy and embrace a world of pluralism and peace." Do we all get to hold hands and sing Kumbaya? I get the fact that the US has entered into wars that good people have opposed on legitimate grounds. But, let us not be naive. We still live in a very dangerous world. Pluralism and peace? Is that like Russia taking over the Crimea and part of the Ukraine? Or propping up the dictator in Syria? Or threatening Israel to not attack any further installations in Syria? Russia now supports the Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah axis. Russia has extended its reach into Africa and Latin America. Let's not forget Russia's cyber attacks against other government's elections.
And what about China? While Russia uses both hard power (its military) as well as soft power (economic influence), China has been busy extending its reach around the globe through soft power (economics and culture and education). China has been sending money to foreign universities and think tanks, and "training" foreign journalists. The goal, of course, is to encourage support for China and its leadership and policies, while also encouraging self-censorship by the recipients of Chinese aid. Meanwhile, China has been rapidly building its military, and working to develop new weapons systems.
What about the others? There are plenty of bad actors, not just Russia and China. Iran. North Korea. The countless Islamic terrorist organizations. I must ask Mr. Wertheim, what pluralism? What peace?
Let's end with Mattis. James Mattis is the former Secretary of Defense, and a retired Marine Corps General. In his recent book, he discusses what he sees as our two main foreign policy threats - Russia and China. No disagreement there. He also discusses our two greatest internal threats. One is our ever-growing national debt. I have said for years that neither party cares about your money. But the second is perhaps the most disturbing of all: "it's the lack of friendliness, it's the increasing contempt I see between Americans who have different opinions...If we want this country to survive, we're going to have to work together...That's the way a democracy is set up." I wholeheartedly agree. I am just not sure how we will get past differences about the fundamental nature of what America is and should be.
Sunday, September 15, 2019
The Cultural and Political Wars, Part I
Where's the evil? The New York Times put up this Tweet, before taking it down under pressure: "Eighteen years have passed since airplanes took aim at the World Trade Center and brought them down." Those evil airplanes! Do not blame the perpetrators, who were radical Muslims who wanted to kill as many Americans as possible. No, 9/11 was about planes taking down buildings. The same "analysis" is used by the Left when it comes to guns. The guns do the killing, not the evil perpetrators. Where's the call to ban airplanes? Never mind; the Green New Deal proposes just that.
Speaking of guns. The Board of Supervisors for the County of San Francisco. actually passed a resolution describing the NRA as a "domestic terrorist organization." The resolution asserts that the NRA uses "its considerable wealth and organization to promote gun ownership and incite gun owners to acts of violence." Incite gun owners to acts of violence? When? Where? If this were even partly true we would have millions of gun deaths a year. (Just under 40,000 gun deaths occurred in 2017. Most were suicides.) The NRA expressed their disappointment that the Supervisors do not care about "the real problems facing San Francisco, such as rampant homelessness, drug abuse and skyrocketing petty crime, to name a few." The NRA also sued, seeking court action "to instruct elected officials that freedom of speech means you cannot silence or punish those with whom you disagree." The Left does not care about the First Amendment, or the Second Amendment, or much else of the Constitution.
The mainstream media (MSM) tries to help. The MSM was, apparently, quite concerned about the 10 Democrats engaging in the last debate. Prior to the debate, two of the main MSM papers had Op-Eds on 9/9/19 intended to help the candidates. The USA Today Op-Ed was titled "2020 is a referendum on Trump. Full stop." The writer made several suggestions, including: "...if you're not focused on the Electoral College and only the Electoral College, resign yourself to a decade of Trumps in the White House." And this: "Heart, guts and being great on TV beat brains and policy over and over again." Not bad.
The New York Times chimed in. The Op-Ed in the self-described "paper of record" was titled "Democrats Need to Get More Ruthless." Interestingly, the writer recommends that the Dems drop proposals that are not supported by a majority of Americans. They tell us that 67% of Americans oppose decriminalizing border crossings, 63% oppose reparations for slavery, and 55% oppose getting rid of private health insurance. If you watched the debate you know that advice did not work.
Medical school too? In an Op-Ed in the 9/13/19 Wall Street Journal, a former associate dean of curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania medical school, was lamenting the intrusion of left-wing ideology into the school. For instance, he was criticized for failing to include a course on climate change. But the former dean tells us that is only the beginning, as "curricula will increasingly focus on climate change, social inequities, gun violence, bias and other progressive causes only tangentially related to treating illness." Says the writer: "the prospect of this 'new,' politicized medical education should worry all Americans."
Racism, again. Mayor Pete Buttigeig told us that if we support immigration policies that are racist, then we are racist also. Let's analyze that. Clearly, Mayor Pete was referring to support for Trump and his policies. What if, hypothetically, I disagree with Trump on immigration (I don't), but agree with him on other matters. If I vote for him based on those other issues am I still a racist? And why should anyone accept his conclusion that supporting a stricter immigration policy is racist? Heather MacDonald commented in an 8/19/19 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal with this retort: "to the academic and democratic left, however, a commitment to border enforcement can only arise from 'hate.' Such a pre-emptive interpretation is a means of foreclosing debate and stigmatizing dissent from liberal orthodoxy."
The 1619 Project. The New York Times made a big hoopla with their 1619 Project, telling us that American history began when the first slaves were brought over 400 years ago. Others in the MSM picked up on it, as did the Dems, and we've heard quite a bit about slavery and racism since. Robert Woodson is the founder and president of the Woodson Center. The Center was established in 1981 to "help residents of low-income neighborhoods address the problems of their communities." In an Op-Ed in the 8/29/19 Wall Street Journal, Woodson made this observation: "Barraging minorities with constant reminders of the injuries their ancestors suffered only discourages them from working to surmount the obstacles in their way." I have often held that so-called Black leaders who tell Black youth that the "system" is stacked against them, are committing evil. They are discouraging an entire generation from achieving.
Woodson continued. "Black America's history of success and achievement - and its continuing legacy today - is a vital, inspiring part of our nation's past. It's sadly overlooked in 'The 1619 Project.'" Woodson closes with this, which he says is paraphrasing C.S. Lewis: "some prisons have locks that are on the inside." Robert Woodson is 82 years old; and he is Black.
Speaking of guns. The Board of Supervisors for the County of San Francisco. actually passed a resolution describing the NRA as a "domestic terrorist organization." The resolution asserts that the NRA uses "its considerable wealth and organization to promote gun ownership and incite gun owners to acts of violence." Incite gun owners to acts of violence? When? Where? If this were even partly true we would have millions of gun deaths a year. (Just under 40,000 gun deaths occurred in 2017. Most were suicides.) The NRA expressed their disappointment that the Supervisors do not care about "the real problems facing San Francisco, such as rampant homelessness, drug abuse and skyrocketing petty crime, to name a few." The NRA also sued, seeking court action "to instruct elected officials that freedom of speech means you cannot silence or punish those with whom you disagree." The Left does not care about the First Amendment, or the Second Amendment, or much else of the Constitution.
The mainstream media (MSM) tries to help. The MSM was, apparently, quite concerned about the 10 Democrats engaging in the last debate. Prior to the debate, two of the main MSM papers had Op-Eds on 9/9/19 intended to help the candidates. The USA Today Op-Ed was titled "2020 is a referendum on Trump. Full stop." The writer made several suggestions, including: "...if you're not focused on the Electoral College and only the Electoral College, resign yourself to a decade of Trumps in the White House." And this: "Heart, guts and being great on TV beat brains and policy over and over again." Not bad.
The New York Times chimed in. The Op-Ed in the self-described "paper of record" was titled "Democrats Need to Get More Ruthless." Interestingly, the writer recommends that the Dems drop proposals that are not supported by a majority of Americans. They tell us that 67% of Americans oppose decriminalizing border crossings, 63% oppose reparations for slavery, and 55% oppose getting rid of private health insurance. If you watched the debate you know that advice did not work.
Medical school too? In an Op-Ed in the 9/13/19 Wall Street Journal, a former associate dean of curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania medical school, was lamenting the intrusion of left-wing ideology into the school. For instance, he was criticized for failing to include a course on climate change. But the former dean tells us that is only the beginning, as "curricula will increasingly focus on climate change, social inequities, gun violence, bias and other progressive causes only tangentially related to treating illness." Says the writer: "the prospect of this 'new,' politicized medical education should worry all Americans."
Racism, again. Mayor Pete Buttigeig told us that if we support immigration policies that are racist, then we are racist also. Let's analyze that. Clearly, Mayor Pete was referring to support for Trump and his policies. What if, hypothetically, I disagree with Trump on immigration (I don't), but agree with him on other matters. If I vote for him based on those other issues am I still a racist? And why should anyone accept his conclusion that supporting a stricter immigration policy is racist? Heather MacDonald commented in an 8/19/19 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal with this retort: "to the academic and democratic left, however, a commitment to border enforcement can only arise from 'hate.' Such a pre-emptive interpretation is a means of foreclosing debate and stigmatizing dissent from liberal orthodoxy."
The 1619 Project. The New York Times made a big hoopla with their 1619 Project, telling us that American history began when the first slaves were brought over 400 years ago. Others in the MSM picked up on it, as did the Dems, and we've heard quite a bit about slavery and racism since. Robert Woodson is the founder and president of the Woodson Center. The Center was established in 1981 to "help residents of low-income neighborhoods address the problems of their communities." In an Op-Ed in the 8/29/19 Wall Street Journal, Woodson made this observation: "Barraging minorities with constant reminders of the injuries their ancestors suffered only discourages them from working to surmount the obstacles in their way." I have often held that so-called Black leaders who tell Black youth that the "system" is stacked against them, are committing evil. They are discouraging an entire generation from achieving.
Woodson continued. "Black America's history of success and achievement - and its continuing legacy today - is a vital, inspiring part of our nation's past. It's sadly overlooked in 'The 1619 Project.'" Woodson closes with this, which he says is paraphrasing C.S. Lewis: "some prisons have locks that are on the inside." Robert Woodson is 82 years old; and he is Black.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)