Displaying posts published in

July 2020

Communist China: A History Lesson for Mark Cuban To virtue-signaling corporatists, black lives matter but Chinese lives do not. By Thaddeus G. McCotter

https://amgreatness.com/2020/07/24/communist-china-a-history-lesson-for-mark-cuban/

Recently, in what constitutes the modern equivalent of an old-fashioned Texas showdown, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban met in the middle of the Twitter community’s Main Street and exchanged fire.

The genesis of the dispute was conservative talk radio host Mark Davis’ statement that he would be “out” if Mavericks players took a knee during the national anthem in a show of support for the Black Lives Matters movement. Not surprisingly, Cuban defended his players by responding to Davis with “Bye.” 

Not surprisingly, too, Senator Cruz took exception to Cuban’s cavalier attitude toward Texans who believe kneeling for the national anthem is disrespectful. This led to Cuban questioning Cruz’s manhood. Cruz responded in kind.

Though initially about the anthem controversy, the most noteworthy aspect of this Twitter shootout at the “I’m OK, You’re Not Corral,” occurred when Cruz challenged Cuban to criticize Communist China, in general, and Beijing’s mistreatment of Hong Kong and the Uyghurs in particular. 

After Cuban affirmed his support for Black Lives Matter, claimed America is systemically racist, and accused Cruz of not doing enough to stop the COVID-19 pandemic (which Cuban failed to note originated in Communist China), he espoused the amoral canard corporate titans have long used to justify their complicit silence about oppression in the face of massive profits: “But I have never gotten involved in the domestic policies of ANY foreign country. We have too much to do here.”

High Culture’s Iminent Surrender to the Woke By Jared Peterson

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/07/high_cultures_iminent_surrender_to_the_woke_.html

Not at all surprisingly, the classical music world is now squarely in the sights of the woke mob.  So now the gang of callow American Maoists is going to teach us that excellence in classical music — composers and performers — is also a white male plot.  I suppose that soon great American symphonies will be hiring violinists who might just barely be able to cut it in a small-town community orchestra.  And the Metropolitan Opera? As an opera lover I can attest: Few sounds are more grating to the ear than opera badly sung, and to sing it well takes extraordinary talent and a lifetime of devotion.

For lovers of classical instrumental music and opera, prepare yourselves for mediocrity and worse.  Can the legitimate stage and museums be far behind?

Of course, in the current revolutionary environment, the culmination of 50 years, this had to come.

It’s important to see this ongoing cultural revolution in some kind of historical context.

America’s rapid cultural collapse, as distinct from its gradual decline, started with an attack on a key cultural — not political or economic — institution, the university.  It began in earnest in the fall of 1964 at UC, Berkeley.  This writer was present, a 19-year-old junior, participated as a dissenter, and followed events closely in amazed disgust, as President Clark Kerr surrendered the university to the radical left and handed them a tactical roadmap for the next 60 years.

The events at Berkeley in 1964 and Kerr’s handling of them provided the template for the left’s destruction of the American university: Take over the Dean’s office, employ a mob to bring normal university functions to a halt, make “non- negotiable” demands, and then, as a reward, get anything you want from administrators and faculty prepared to sell out the functions of the university – imparting knowledge and pursuing truth – for (temporary) peace.

The depth of UC President Clark Kerr’s confusion, weakness and cowardice in October of 1964 — an important story for another time — shocked even the left.  But leftists quickly drew the correct lesson from Kerr’s fecklessness: Universities are easy to mug.  And, employing the Berkeley model, mug them the left did over the next two decades.  By 1985, perhaps earlier, American universities were unrecognizable as the institutions they had been.  The worst consequence of that period was the creation of an entire array of politicized and intellectually vacuous new departments and majors focusing on grievance and specializing in victimology, all born at the gunpoint of the Berkeley tactics that had been validated by Clark Kerr in 1964.  For at least 30 years those new departments have been spreading the lie of American and western civilizational evil, tarted up as academic theory and gradually oozing outward to infect all aspects of campus life with the new university ethic: Ideology over rigorous analysis, mandatory beliefs over rational inquiry, and — above all — feelings over facts.

Another company stands up to the cancel culture mob By Andrea Widburg

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/07/another_company_stands_up_to_the_cancel_culture_mob.html

For quite a while now, we’ve been treated to the demoralizing and unedifying spectacle of media outlets and corporations bowing down to the mob’s cancel culture demands. Authors have been banned, editors fired, Trader Joe’s products renamed, statues dragged down, and much more, merely because spoiled, entitled, college-educated snowflakes, secure in their victimhood, have said that words or products hurt their feelings and made them feel “unsafe.”

Thankfully, after the first shock of this Maoist attack on American institutions, some are beginning to recover their backbone. First, Goya Foods stood up to the mob. Then Red Bull refused to back down. And now the Wall Street Journal has declined to allow its baby journalists to hold its editorial page hostage.

The back story to the Journal’s courageous stand is that 280 employees in the News department signed a letter to the publisher, Almar Latour, criticizing the paper’s opinion pages. The letter is a marvel of Orwellian writing. It opens by expressing support for the First Amendment and then spends three pages explaining why the paper’s opinion page needs to stifle itself because it publishes material with which the letter’s signatories disagree. Not coincidentally, they invariably disagree with conservative content.

The greatest offender, according to the letter, was Heather MacDonald’s piece about a pair of academics’ cowardly decision to withdraw from publication a study showing the absence of systemic racism when it came to the police shooting blacks in America. The academics wanted to withdraw the piece because MacDonald had relied on its findings. (NB: MacDonald had not twisted the results; she had merely relied on them.)

MacDonald wrote about this academic game in the Wall Street Journal’s opinion pages, something the letter writers found unacceptable. Indeed, the MacDonald article caused psychic pain greater than any snowflake should have to bear:

Multiple employees of color publicly spoke out about the pain this Opinion piece caused them during company-held discussions surrounding diversity initiatives…. If the company is serious about better supporting its employees of color, at a bare minimum it should raise Opinion’s standards so that misinformation about racism isn’t published.

Democrats Have Completely Abandoned Civility By Jeffrey Folks

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/07/democrats_have_completely_abandoned_civility.html

On July 20, Nancy Pelosi said that if President Trump refuses to accept the results of the November election, he will have to be “fumigated” out of the White House.  Fumigation is a technique used against insects, and the idea that human beings are insects has a long history in totalitarian discourse.  Hitler described Jews as “vermin” and “parasites,” a form of dehumanization that is always just one step away from physical violence.  Speaker Pelosi should apologize immediately, and profusely, for her use of this inappropriate rhetoric.

Most thoughtful persons would agree that labeling another an “insect” is uncivil.  A cultured individual who practices civility is tolerant of the opinions and beliefs of others, and indeed, toleration is the best measure of civility.  One may be a Catholic, but he practices tolerance toward other Christian and non-Christian forms of belief, even including atheism and agnosticism.  He may be a liberal, but he values the opinions of conservatives and treats conservatives with respect.

By this measure, Joe Biden and the radicals who now support him have not been civil.  Biden now expresses contempt for conservative policies before even considering their potential value.  So it was with President Trump’s pledge to buy American-made goods.  That pledge of “America First” drew harsh criticism from Biden and his party — until Biden stole the idea and made it part of his own platform.  Biden could not bring himself to admit that Trump was right.  That sort of contempt for another is the essence of incivility. 

Like most liberals, Biden’s contempt is all-encompassing.  In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., ultimately decided in Hobby Lobby’s favor by the Supreme Court, Biden sided with those who would force persons of traditional Christian faith to pay for employees’ contraceptives.  Indeed, it was Biden’s Affordable Care Act that forced Hobby Lobby to provide all twenty FDA-approved contraceptives to employees.  The Obama administration was intolerant of traditionalists when it wrote the contraceptive mandate into the Affordable Care Act, and Biden would only double down on this intolerance if he sought to restore the mandate to his “expanded” version of Obamacare.

Hobby Lobby was not an isolated case of liberal intolerance.  In every free speech case that arose during the Obama years, Biden seemed more than willing to force his opinions on others.

The Frankfurt School and Excellent Foolishness: How the Left Infects Impressionable Minds By David Solway,

https://pjmedia.com/columns/david-solway-2/2020/07/24/the-frankfurt-school-and-excellent-foolishness-how-the-left-infects-impressionable-minds-n696846

It has long struck me how the Frankfurt School, a collection of Leftist émigrés from Nazi Germany, could have been so successful in dominating the curriculum of the American university and wielding so massive an influence over following generations of students. Its major figures, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse, were the main authors of the political revolution of the 1960s which gradually filtered into the culture to produce the revisionist “narrative” and physical violence we observe all around us today.

The most publically significant spokesperson was Herbert Marcuse, whose One Dimensional Man, Eros and Civilization and his influential, totalitarian-inspired essay “Repressive Tolerance” planted the seeds of political and epistemic subversion in the fertile soil of American academia and, ultimately, in the marl of the cultural and institutional life. Marcuse argued in the essay that we must be “intolerant toward the protagonists of the repressive status quo.” By “status quo,” he meant classical liberal thought with its emphasis on tradition, individual autonomy, civic responsibility, and limited government, which he thought were responsible for deep-rooted social injustice. The narrative he developed was irresistible to his legion of acolytes.

The Frankfurters were the red brigades of the university Left, striving to fill their students’ minds with the doctrine of human and social perfectibility according to the egalitarian principles of their Marxist forbears, in particular the theories and ruminations of the Italian revolutionary thinker Antonio Gramsci and Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukács. The Woke generation now rioting in the streets of Portland, Seattle, and other cities are their unwitting progeny, the shock troops of Antifa and BLM who never read Marcuse, let alone Horkheimer, Adorno, Gramsci or Lukács—and surely would be incapable of doing so with any comprehension. They have succumbed to a political virus of which they are unaware, fallen prey to a toxic narrative developed by the luminaries of the intellectual Left. This is what I would dub trickle-down intellectonomics, how complex thought (however specious) gradually leaks away into howls, bellows, and yawps.

There is no doubt that the crucial figures of the “Western Marxist” movement were brilliant men and erudite scholars, eloquent to a fault. They were right about some things, in particular about the rise of anti-Semitism as a function of a world sinking into barbarism. But how could they have been so wrong about America, working to transform the American Dream into the American Nightmare?

The Racism of Anti-Racist Education by Noah Rothman

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/noah-rothman/the-racism-of-anti-racist-education/

Amid an aggressive campaign by teachers unions to prove that the work public-school teachers do is so essential that they cannot be allowed to do it, it would seem an inopportune time for the New York Times to mount an attack on those schools. But that is what it plans to do—at least, implicitly, and only in the most socially acceptable of ways: by attacking the white parents of white students, who make up a plurality of public-school enrollees.

“[W]hen we look at how our schools are failing, we usually focus on who they’re failing: Black and brown kids,” the Times noted in announcing a new podcast series contemptuously entitled “Nice White Parents.” Indeed, we usually ask that question because those are the demographics public schools are failing—a condition that has gotten worse in the age of distance learning (an objective assessment rendered by no less a source than the New York Times itself). “If you want to understand what’s wrong with our public education system,” the podcast’s pitch continues, “you have to look at what is arguably the most powerful force in our schools: White parents.”

In truth, they’ve got a point, though not the one they’re intent on making. A national effort to purge from the American political landscape even the subtlest remnants of racist thought long ago captured the primarily white educational establishment. “Anti-racism” may be relatively new to the American political vocabulary, but it’s been an objective America’s educators have pursued for some time. Unfortunately, the forms this well-meaning mission has taken look to a skeptical observer like marginally more benign forms of racism.

For example, English grammar is now racist. Or, translated into the inscrutable language of the academy, the expectation that minority students should be as competent as their white counterparts in the syntax and morphology of the written word is an outgrowth of internalized racial constructs.

Black Opera Alliance Calls for Removal of David N. Tucker from Richard Tucker Foundation Position for Racist Comments

https://operawire.com/black-opera-alliance-calls-for-removal-of-david-n-tucker-from-richard-tucker-foundation-position-for-racist-comments/

COMMENT FROM A FRIEND

…….”It appears that David Tucker, a son of the famed opera singer, the late Richard Tucker, spoke out on social media referring to rioters as « thugs ».  To be sure, some of the rioters were Black, but also included members of other races, most if not all Americans.  No use of racial epithets has been reported, however, on the complaint of an organization calling itself the «  Black Opera Alliance », Mr. Tucker was removed from the Tucker Foundation board due to the statement of his opinion.

I do not question the right of the Black Opera Organization to speak out on a matter that concerns it’s members.  Such organizations are protected by the Constitution.  It is the action by the Foundation that is deplorable as a violation of Mr. Tucker’s right of free speech even as narrowed by state laws which criminalize “ hate speech”.

Were Mr. Tucker to challenge removal as a violation of rights guaranteed in the First Amendment of our Constitution, his suit would stand a reasonable likelihood of success if fairly adjudged on a non political basis and if properly brought would present the Supreme Court with an excellent opportunity to define the meaning of free speech in a time when this right, central to freedom, is under attack by the political left.

Freedom House, a non political civil liberties organization, publishes annually ratings based on how free a country is deemed to be (Freedom House.org).  Criteria include free speech, free press, freedom of religion, among other rights deemed essential in a free society.  The United States has always received the highest rating, a One.  Countries that are rated lowest (their grade is Seven) include China, Iran, North Korea and Cuba. “

Andrew McCarthy: Trump critics wrongly mount political attack on his use of fed law officers to protect cities

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/protests-chicago-portland-andrew-mccarthy

Demagogues aligning themselves with subversives against federal agents are wrong

“Unidentified stormtroopers” is what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called the law enforcement agents of the Department of Homeland Security struggling to protect the federal courthouse that Portland, Ore., rioters have been firebombing.

“The president’s personal militia,” chimed in Tom Ridge, the nation’s first Homeland Security secretary.

It’s shameful.

Never is it more critical for the nation’s senior officials and elder statesmen to present a united American front than in times of insurrection. No matter how we may feel about the underlying political grievances, when peaceful protest descends into violent subversion, or — more accurately — when essentially violent subversion is allowed to masquerade as peaceful protest, there needs to be ringing condemnation and support for law enforcement.

Yet, Democrats and Trump-abhorring Republicans cannot get past their petty political score-settling, even for the purpose of supporting law enforcement against violent anti-American radicals.

This is not one of those times for “But Trump …” bleating. Yes, the president is abrasive and prone to say inexcusable things. On this one, though, there is only one right and one wrong side. The demagogues aligning themselves with subversives against federal agents are wrong. Say what you will about the president, he’s made it very clear he’s with our agents.

Pelosi is a professional political partisan, among the most powerful members of a party that, like Middle Eastern governments, thinks it can make common cause with violent radicals, even use them as political attack dogs, and not get bitten in the end. Sadly, then, her slander against law enforcement comes as no surprise.

Ridge’s remarks, on the other hand, are worth pausing over. First, there was the revisionist history: DHS, he says, “was established to protect America from the ever-present threat of global terrorism.”

New Trump Policy Would Restore Voting To Its Rightful Owners — Citizens byBen Weingarten

https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/24/new-trump-policy-would-restore-voting-to-its-

Political representation should not be driven by foreign citizens.

All Americans who claim to care about voting rights should be cheering the Trump administration’s new policy on congressional apportionment, which would help restore representative government by transferring political power from illegal immigrants back into the hands of citizens.

That our political class granted power to those unlawfully in America ought to outrage anyone who cares about the sanctity of the ballot and the rule of law. Yet this fact has persisted for decades under administrations both Democratic and Republican. The Trump administration, on behalf of forgotten Americans, has been uniquely willing to challenge a convention that had long gone unquestioned.

Prior to the release of the president’s new “Memorandum on Excluding Illegal Aliens From the Apportionment Base Following the 2020 Census,” the federal government distributed congressional seats based on the total number of people residing in an area, including illegal aliens, rather than on the number of people legitimately represented, namely citizens.

Should the president’s memorandum hold, the United States will now exclude illegal immigrants from the population counts used to apportion House seats. This is right as a matter of law, fairness, and common sense.

Voting Rights Belong to Citizens

Following the Science—Where? Medical evidence is not always clear, and it rarely mandates a clear policy direction. Joel Zinberg, M.D., J.D.

https://www.city-journal.org/science-of-covid-19-policy-choices

When doctors meet a patient for a new complaint, we make a list of different possible explanations for the problem—a differential diagnosis—and try to determine the correct diagnosis, while starting treatment for the most likely one. After this initial assessment, as test and imaging results come in, we may alter the differential diagnosis and treatments.

Public-health officials dealing with a new pathogen, like the coronavirus that causes Covid-19, go through a similar process. They must recommend policies with incomplete information and adjust them over time. But unlike physicians, they do so in public, and sometimes under intense scrutiny.

Dr. Anthony Fauci—and this is not meant as criticism—has epitomized the public-health diagnostic process with multiple, incorrect, early pronouncements: In January and February, he downplayed the risk of person-to-person spread; he expressed doubt that asymptomatic people could transmit the virus; in late February, he reassured the public that, “at this moment, there is no need to change anything that you’re doing on a day-by-day basis”; and in March, like many other public-health officials here and abroad, he said that, outside of health-care personnel, ordinary people should not wear masks. In fact, both Fauci and Surgeon General Jerome Adams suggested that mask-wearing could increase a person’s risk of being infected. All these assertions proved wrong.

We know a lot more about the virus—how it’s transmitted and how to treat it—than we did a few months ago. For instance, the coronavirus can spread person-to-person from both symptomatic and asymptomatic people. Dr. Fauci now espouses the opposite of each of his earlier statements, but there is nothing wrong with that. As economist John Maynard Keynes purportedly said, “When the facts change, I change my mind—what do you do, sir?”