Category: ideological culture

Categories
general freedom ideological culture

The NBA’s China Syndrome

Mark Cuban, China, NBA

“I’m against human rights violations around the world,” declared Mark Cuban, owner of the National Basketball Association’s (NBA) Dallas Mavericks, joining Megyn Kelly for her Apple podcast.

“Including the ones in China?” Kelly posed ever-so impolitely.

“China is not the only country with human rights violations,” Cuban prevaricated. Adding that, “Any human rights violations anywhere are wrong.”

Then Kelly dropped the bombshell: “Why would the NBA take $500 million dollars-plus from a country that is engaging in ethnic cleansing?”

“So basically,” the NBA owner fumed, “you’re saying nobody should do business with China ever?”

Perhaps not entertaining Chinazis is the right course — especially if doing so leads to kowtowing to Chinese government demands that their genocide be met with your well-compensated silence.

“They are a customer of ours . . .” he continued. “I’m okay with doing business with China. And so we have to pick our battles. I wish we could solve all the world’s problems. But we can’t.”

In addition to the PR problems brought by cuddling up to China, Kelly also asked whether prominently placing “Black Lives Matter” on the league’s courts had contributed to an “unprecedented viewership collapse” for the just-finished NBA Finals. 

“Each game has broken another all-time low,” wrote Bobby Burack for Outkick.com. “With a marquee match-up between the Lakers and the Heat and the league’s biggest draw in LeBron James, a drop of almost 60% is inexcusable.”

“Your audience is fleeing,” Kelly noted. “They object to the politicization of their game.”

Cuban demurred, but as Election Day approaches, I bet it has occurred to him more than once that Americans have already used their television remotes to cast some powerful votes.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture

Reluctant Retreat on Racism

witch dunking, racism, Critical Race Theory

Politics and culture move according to rhythms not easy to comprehend, but political and cultural insanity seems to rush up and pull back according to time and tide.

The latest wave includes the growth of “diversity” or “anti-racism” training at workplaces and on campuses. One of its pernicious purposes seems to be to make people feel guilty if they have too-white skin color.

Race-based indictments are the opposite of judging people for content of character rather than color of skin.

According to the ideologies informing the indoctrination, failure to racially discriminate (in the “right” way) proves racial discrimination. Indifference to questions of race proves “racism.” One feature of the current dispiriting environment is ritual self-denunciation for imaginary crimes, like that of penning a bland encomium to the value of college football.

Until recently, universities that imposed “anti-racist” indoctrination could rely on uninterrupted federal funding. But now the Trump administration has started to ban the imposition of critical race theory in federally funded programs.

Trump’s executive order states that critical race theory is “rooted in the pernicious and false belief that America is an irredeemably racist and sexist country; that some people, simply on account of their race or sex, are oppressors; and that racial and sexual identities are more important than our common status as human beings and Americans.”

The University of Iowa and John A. Logan College have announced, with emphatic reluctance, that they’ll discontinue the indoctrination for now — lest they lose funding. 

But they are ready to reverse their reversals at a moment’s notice.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom ideological culture

Q and an Answer

Q Anon, conspiracy, MAGA

Can we start laughing again?

If the actual positions of our goofy ruling class won’t do it for you, then . . . what about QAnon?

A few weeks ago, President Trump was asked about QAnon. “At the crux of the theory,” a reporter explained, “is this belief that [Trump is] secretly saving the world from this Satanic cult of pedophiles and cannibals.” She went on to ask the president if that was something he was behind.

“I haven’t heard that, but is that supposed to be a bad thing?”

This may be the most politic and understated response ever given by our impolitic and hyperbolic leader.

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives took QAnon seriously enough to formally condemn it, asking the intelligence agencies to monitor it closely. Though it is a set of conspiracy theorists, a few enthusiasts apparently have taken criminal actions.

Not included in “the widely supported bipartisan measure”? Seventeen Republicans and “Rep. Justin Amash (L–Mich.),” reported Christian Britschgi on Friday. “The latter argued the resolution posed serious free speech concerns and could be counterproductive.”

Amash had the wit to see that sending the FBI to investigate “conspiracy theorists who believe in a deep state that’s fighting against them” might possibly . . . “just confirm . . . their fears.”

If you are like me, you know little about pedophiles and bupkis about cannibal cults. But if Trump supporters who spin tall tales about Trump directing secret military units to nuke underground nests of alien deviltry unnerve politicians enough to publicly condemn them for doing so, three responses seem rational:

  1. Uproariously chortling;
  2. Recognition that if pedophile cannibal cults do exist, unearthing them would be helpful; and
  3. Wondering on which side in that struggle Congress might place itself.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture

Papitalism

Pope

In his new encyclical, “Fratelli Tutti,” Pope Francis continues his attacks upon capitalism.

“The marketplace, by itself, cannot resolve every problem, however much we are asked to believe this dogma of neoliberal faith.” Capitalism “does not resolve the inequality that gives rise to new forms of violence. . . . The fragility of world systems in the face of the pandemic has demonstrated that not everything can be resolved by market freedom.”

What caused the inequality? Nature? Predation? Production? Inequality caused by theft and serfdom is a problem; inequality caused by production and freedom is not.

The pain of lockdowns (whether justified or not) is inflicted by massive restrictions on capitalism. And it turns out these government programs — pandemic “mitigation efforts” — will likely hit poor countries the hardest, causing (as the UN fears) mass starvation.

The pope cannot blame capitalism for that inequality!

Also, which champions of capitalism contend that capitalism resolves (instantly?) “every” problem? 

Capitalism is the socio-economic system characterized by freedom of production and exchange and by respect for property rights. It enables us to earn a living and make plans without worrying that we will be continuously robbed and our plans continuously derailed by governments. A free society shouldn’t pretend it can fix every problem, but it provides many incentives and opportunities to solve, or at least cope with, the problems of life. When free, we can speak and act as we judge best. 

And learn from our mistakes.

It would be a grave mistake to think that capitalism must be blamed for natural inequality, or for government actions to shut down production and commerce in order (we are told) to fight a virus. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Photo of Pope Francis by Catholic Church England

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture international affairs

The Culture of Genocide

Stapleton Roy, former U.S. Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong,

“Let’s be careful with our language,” advises Stapleton Roy, former U.S. Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China. 

Very careful. Totally careful. Totalitarian-ly careful.

Speaking to students earlier this month in a Zoom meeting as part of Pomona University’s Model United Nations, Roy took issue with Hong Kong students and protesters for “provoking mainland intervention,” arguing the millions who marched for basic democracy “went too far” and should have used more “self-restraint.”

The U.S. foreign affairs veteran even decries the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, which he also concludes “set back the cause of reform in China for decades.”

And here I was thinking that the massacre of an estimated 3,000 to 10,000 unarmed Chinese civilians by the People’s Liberation Army is what detoured that noble cause.

“China has come under criticism from U.S. officials following revelations of mass forced sterilization of Uyghur women, as well as the internment of over one million Uyghurs in camps where detainees are forced to learn Communist Party ideology. Reports of torture, rape, and other abuses have emerged from these camps,” writes National Review’s Zachary Evans.

“Genocide is generally used to refer to the extermination of a people or nation,” Ambassador Roy explains. “Genocide is not taking place in Xinjiang.” 

Yet according to the United Nations, the Chinese Communist Party’s manner of oppression does constitute “genocide.” 

“More accurately,” even Roy acknowledges, “there is what can be called ‘cultural genocide.’”*

That is merely the extermination of a people’s customs, religion, ethnicity and, imperatively, their freedom . . . but kindheartedly not murdering all of them. 

Okay, Mr. Ambassador, let’s choose our terms precisely. Protesters in Hong Kong have a word for the Beijing government: “ChiNazis.” 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* What a coincidence! “China seized control over Tibet in 1950 in what it describes as a ‘peaceful liberation’ that helped the remote Himalayan region throw off its ‘feudalist’ past,” notes a recent Al Jazeera report. “But critics, led by exiled spiritual leader the Dalai Lama, say Beijing’s rule amounts to ‘cultural genocide.’”

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture

Hairdo, Don’t

BLM, Black Lives Matter, Trader Joes, protest, riots,

The name was dropped again the other day, Karen.

Not a proper name, though — it is a put-down, idiomatic and not inoffensive.  

Over at PJMedia, Bryan Preston used the term “Karen” good-naturedly (and with an *) in reporting on the “trained Marxists” at Black Lives Matter taking over a Trader Joe’s grocery store in Seattle to protest the, ahem, “lack of access to grocery stores” . . . because “capitalism exploits the working class.” 

Somehow I got stuck on Karen. 

“Karen is a pejorative term used in the United States and other English-speaking countries for a woman perceived as entitled or demanding beyond the scope of what is appropriate or necessary,” Wikipedia informs. “A common stereotype is that of a white woman who uses her privilege to demand her own way at the expense of others. Depictions also include demanding to ‘speak to the manager,’ anti-vaccination beliefs, being racist, or sporting a particular bob cut hairstyle.”**

Is it just me, or does “being racist” seem a lot worse than sporting an uncool haircut? When racism’s at issue, why not use the label “racist,” instead?

And isn’t there already another five-letter word for a female exhibiting the less extreme negative features?  

“Karens are most definitely white,” Helen Lewis assures in The Atlantic. “Let that ease your conscience if you were beginning to wonder whether the meme was, perhaps, a little bit sexist in identifying various universal negative behaviors and attributing them exclusively to women.”

Apparently it is not okay to mock women . . . but thank goodness we can still mock women who have white skin! 

And a specific hairdo!

Land of the Free, Home of the Trash-Talkers.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Preston’s footnote read: “with all due respect to the Karens I’ve known, all of whom are nothing like the stereotype of Karens as busybodies who leap to complain and always end up running authoritarian regimes such as HOAs.” 

** The Urban Dictionary also does not fail to mention that “crown bowl haircut.”

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment ideological culture

Down Among the Non Sequiturs

BLM, Black Lives Matter, protests, riots, property, Antifa

There is a rule in respectable writing, particularly academic: don’t quote “down.”

This means that academics don’t cite newsletter writers as authorities, scientists don’t consult table-rappers as purveyors of relevant data, politicians don’t quote tweets.

But of course that’s all changed now, thanks to Trump.

Which perhaps excuses me to deal with a simple Facebook “meme” that I’ve seen shared around among progressives. It’s a deceptively simple question; the point in criticizing it is not to castigate the person who first posed it.

Here it is: “Why is murder an appropriate response to property damage, but property damage isn’t an appropriate response to murder?”

I confess: this really startled me. Not because it is hard to answer, but because what it says about discourse in our time.  

Note what is obviously wrong with it:

1. Murder is not an apt response to anything, for murder is unlawful and/or immoral killing. The premise is absurd.

2. Some people do indeed kill rioters and others who are attacking them or their property. This can be justified because self-defense is the basis of all our rights, and a violent attack doesn’t just fit into neat little “I’m only destroying your property” box. 

3. The proper response to murder, after the fact of some violent moment, is lawful arrest and trial, not killing. Self-defense is for moments of conflict. Some time after an illegal act? Then we proceed by the rule of law.

Of course, this little thought experiment was designed to justify riots.

It does not.

It justifies, really, only this episode of

Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture international affairs media and media people

Disney’s Mickey Mouse Boycott Policies

Disney, China, Mulan, Uyghur Muslims

The state of Georgia and the country of China differ. The policies of one are much worse than those of the other.

Thus, the Walt Disney Company seriously mulled refusing to do business in Georgia but was eager to film in China, near internment camps used to imprison Uyghur Muslims.

Last year, Disney Executive Chairman Bob Iger threatened to suspend Disney’s film work in Georgia if the state’s new restriction on abortion went into effect. The law would have prohibited abortion when a heartbeat could be detected in the fetus. Before the law was struck down, Iger said that Disney would likely leave Georgia if it survived challenge, because “many people who work for us will not want to work there, and we will have to heed their wishes….”

Journalists and others have been excluded from the Xinjiang region. But satellite images and the accounts of victims and witnesses provide evidence that perhaps two million Uyghurs and others have been imprisoned in the camps there, where many have died. Others have been forcibly sterilized.

In addition to getting permission to film in Xinjiang for its new movie “Mulan,” a few years back Disney got the go-ahead to open a Disneyland in Shanghai.

In the film, Disney expressly thanks a propaganda arm of the CCP, the “publicity department of CPC Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomy Region Committee.” 

Disney’s conduct seems reprehensible. 

But let’s remember: the government of China is not exactly the government of Georgia.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

N.B. In previous episodes of Common Sense with Paul Jacob, the people here identified as “Uyghur” — following the spelling used by Disney — were spelled as “Uighur.”

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture partisanship

Ssshhh, Not Now

DC FACES, racism, monuments

“Democrats need to keep their eye on the ball,” a Democratic Party strategist confided to The Washington Post on deep, dark background, “and not say things that are, on balance, a loser when everything is on the line.”

To what “loser” is this anonymous capital insider referring?

“D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser gave [President Trump] ammunition,” informed The Post this week, by “publishing a sweeping list of historical figures whose names should be removed from public property or ‘contextualized.’”

Developed by a task force Mayor Bowser appointed this summer called DCFACES (District of Columbia Facilities and Commemorative Expressions), the report calls for “renaming 21 public schools, 12 recreational facilities, six public housing complexes and other sites.”

The Washington Monument and the Jefferson Memorial are both fingered, though they are on federal property, not city land. Still, plenty of statues, schools and other public buildings controlled by the city bear the names of such historically tainted folks as Ben Franklin, Alexander Graham Bell and Presidents James Monroe, John Tyler, Zachary Taylor and Woodrow Wilson.

“The mayor, her top advisers and the authors of the list,” The Post noted a day after the public release, “would not discuss it.”

What caught my attention, however, was the issue of timing. 

“The mayor usually has very good political instincts,” offered former D.C. Chamber of Commerce CEO Barbara Lang. “I was just surprised that this came out now, quite frankly.”

As The Post explained, Lang “believes Bowser should have waited to publish the report until after the presidential election.”

Why after? Because the issue is a “loser.” And the Dems do not want the public to know their lofty and ludicrous (and loser) goals and aspirations until after all votes are cast.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture media and media people

Discussion versus Intimidation

newspaper, New York Times, dogma, propaganda

“My boss got fired for running an op-ed by a sitting U.S. senator,” says Bari Weiss, former opinion editor for The New York Times, in a recent TV interview.

Cotton argued for sending troops to quell rioters who “have plunged many American cities into anarchy.” Unnerved by furious criticism not only of the op-ed but of the paper’s temerity in publishing it, The Times now prefaces Cotton’s piece with an abject and silly apology.

In her public letter of resignation, Weiss reports being hired in 2016 “with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives. . . .”

By the time she quit, “intellectual curiosity — let alone risk-taking” had become “a liability at The Times. . . . If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it. . . . Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril.”

Weiss says the country is becoming “retribalized,” with politics amounting to undebatable religious dogma, revelation rather than ratiocination. The sort of government that becomes possible when politics is a religion is total government. Totalitarianism.

Old-timers like me can recall a Times editorial page that featured plenty of horrific opinions (not very diligently vetted, one suspects) but that also had room for the William Safires of the day.

Does the current dread of reasoned debate at The New York Times represents a mere temporary spasm of appeasement?

The signs (of the Times) aren’t good.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts