Posted on by rjonakait · 1 Comment

Snippets

Charlie Kirk said, “George Floyd was a scumbag. Does that mean he deserved to die? No, of course not.” Replace “George Floyd” with “Charlie Kirk.” What would the outcry be?

Pete Hegseth wants “warriors” in this man’s army. Apparently, according to Hegseth, warriors don’t have beards. I watch Sunday football, and many of the players have quite luxurious facial growths. Apparently, at least according to Hegseth, I was wrong if I thought of them as manly men. They have beards. They are wusses. A tradition in the NHL is for players not to shave as long as they are in the playoffs. Once again, they are pansies, not warriors. Hegseth wants lethality in our armed forces. Nothing produced more deaths in our history than the Civil War. After hearing Hegseth, I don’t know how the North won with the bearded Ulysses S. Grant in charge. I thought he was a warrior, but apparently just another wuss. Maybe his side won because the Confederates had bearded Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. Those two must have been really big pansies if they lost to Grant. Certainly, the fairy Custer, with his hair, could not be in Hegseth’s army. And in World War II, Bill Mauldin’s Willie and Joe, who were on the front lines for the entire war, were never clean shaven. If they were still around, they might like to know that they are not wanted in Hegseth’s army. So they can just go home.

In the wake of Kirk’s death, I ask, not for the first time, What is a Christian?

Perhaps if General Grant and General Eisenhower had spent less time on military strategy, tactics, and logistics and more on pullups, pushups, and sit-ups, the Civil War and World War II would have ended sooner. I wondered, too, if the generals who were flown from all four corners of the world to Virginia (at enormous expense, one might add) might have had better things to do than to sit in a lecture on sartorial issues and calisthenics.

At my new residence I am about to start a six-week course on the musical theater. The first week, we will study the seminal Oklahoma! When I watched a video of it, I realized that I knew most of the music, but I have no idea how. I have never seen a live production of the musical and only clips of the movie. When I was a boy, our family did not have a record player much less a hi-fi. We did have a radio, but I don’t believe I ever heard show tunes out of it. Still, I know much of the score. How do we learn the stuff we do?

Pete Hegseth seems not to want women in the armed forces. He certainly does not want transgender men. I wonder what his reaction would be to what Tony Horwitz relates in his Confederates in the Attic: Dispatches from the Unfinished Civil War (1998). As a result of an automobile accident in 1911, a union Civil War hero was discovered to be a woman. She was then sent to an insane asylum and forced to wear skirts, in which she was clumsy. She died as the result of a hip injury after a fall. Horwitz reports that at least 400 women disguised as men fought in the Civil War.

When I was eight or nine, the news was filled with UFO sightings. I wanted to spot one and spent much time in the backyard gazing upward. I was getting discouraged when one day as I looked over the Schneidermann house I saw what appeared to be a rotating, silvery disk. It came closer and hovered almost silently about fifty feet off the ground at the back of our property. A hatch slid open, and a creature came down on a beam of light. It got to the grass just outside the kohlrabi patch, but I could not discern any features. It was fully covered in hair. I could not tell if there was a head, or arms, or feet because of all the hair. But there was what appeared to be a hypodermic needle coming out of where the head might have been. Father must have seen the lights because he was standing just behind me. With my voice that had not broken, I asked, “What is that?” “My last-born son,” he intoned, “that is definitely a furry with the syringe on the top.”

Posted on by rjonakait

Three Modern Free Speech Issues

I was asked by a leader of a current events discussion group to comment on some present free speech issues. I briefly commented on several.

1 . The first is the issue of self-censorship by media and other entities because of a concern about retributive governmental actions. Jimmy Kimmel is a prime example. Following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Kimmel made comments on his late-night show, which were not disrespectful of TurningPointUSA leader, but included some misinformation regarding the political affiliation of the killer. Brendan Carr, the Trump-appointed Chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), responded by saying: “We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies [Kimmel’s employers] can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

Kimmel was promptly suspended by ABC, a subsidiary of Disney. It was certainly reasonable for Disney to think it was being threatened by the Chair of the FCC. Over-the-air networks like ABC require licenses from the FCC. Moreover, two companies owning affiliates that air ABC programs were negotiating a merger that needed to be approved by the FCC. They could see the FCC Chair’s statement as a threat to that approval.

Though seemingly unrelated to free speech, these (not so) veiled threats have a direct impact on free speech. Sometimes even without a threat free speech is affected because of potential government action. We saw this dynamic in action with the $16 million settlement by Paramount Global (owner of CBS) of the Trump lawsuits against CBS. At the time of the settlement with Trump, Paramount had an $8 billion merger on the table that required government approval. What does this have to do with free speech, one might ask. Answer: Media companies (no company) should not be required to cave to the petulant posturing of a president in order to secure government approval for their business. And yet, Paramount Global felt, no doubt, that it had no choice but to cave to the political caprices of the president.

Perhaps there has always been a concern that free speech would result in government retribution. But it is more concerning now. First, the open vindictiveness of president Trump has changed things. In addition, the playing field has changed dramatically because the Supreme Court is consciously allowing the president more power that increases the possibility and feasibility of presidential retribution. Here’s how: Agencies like the FCC or the Federal Trade Commission or the Securities and Exchange Commission were meant to be independent of the president. Ninety years ago, the Supreme Court held that commissioners on such agencies could not be removed at the whim of the president, but only “for cause.” The Supreme Court has not officially overruled that precedent, but it effectively has done so. The Supreme Court has now allowed Trump to “temporarily” remove commissioners while litigation goes on about whether the removals have been lawful. It is expected that the 1930s precedent will be formally overruled this year. In other words, the previously independent agencies will no longer be independent but must answer directly to the president. Thus, companies who need agency approval for something will naturally be concerned that they will be punished for actions that displease Trump. This is affecting free speech in ways it was not before.

An aside: Might conservatives have a point in the Jimmy Kimmel affair? Four over-the-air late- night hosts use the public airwaves: Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Fallon, Seth Myers, and Jimmy Kimmel. All can be characterized as anti-Trump. What if all were the comedy equivalent of Fox News? How would liberals react?

2. The second is another, non-Kimmel free-speech issue occurring in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination.

A recent newspaper article states that over 145 people have been fired or disciplined by their employers for comments about Charlie Kirk. These data are from public records, but there may be many more that haven’t been reported. Often the comments have been innocuous. For example, an employee of a public university commented on her private Facebook page, “If you think Charlie Kirk was a wonderful person, we can’t be friends.” She also said that she believed in the Resurrection and was praying for his soul. She was fired for these comments.

All the firings of employees for their comments while not on the job raise free speech issues, but not all raise First Amendment issues.  The First Amendment applies only when the government does something that limits speech. Thus, it comes into play when a public employer disciplines public employees for their speech. However, there are few legal restraints on private employers who often can fire for any reason.

But something new is also operating in this arena. Online armies are scanning for social media comments to get people fired. Those who have made comments critical of Kirk are often doxed and flooded with ugly and threatening messages scaring them and others into silence. The online scrollers want to punish and prevent speech they don’t like.

While the private firings and the doxxing may not raise First Amendment concerns, they do raise important free speech concerns. We need more discussion of how free workers should be to express their views while not on the job, and, further, how to prevent some of the terrible excesses of social media and the internet.

3. The new Pentagon leadership says it will require credentialed journalists at the military headquarters to sign a pledge to refrain from reporting information that has not been authorized for release — including unclassified information. Reporters, in effect, can publish only press releases. Journalists who don’t abide by the policy risk losing credentials that provide access to the Pentagon.

I asked a friend who had been a media attorney whether he knew of similar past directives. He says this appears to be unprecedented.

He did point out that this administration (and others) have cut off reporters who published stuff the president didn’t like. (Witness the AP and the “Gulf of America” controversy). But these restrictions on free speech were relatively mild. They only limited the access of individual reporters. They were not a blanket restriction on what can be reported.

The Hegseth directive for the first time tries to make those covering the Pentagon into something like state media. You may publish only what the government authorizes. We have not had this Pravda-like restriction before. If it stands up in court, it would be a titanic and dangerous change in how the government, the press, and the people interact with each other.

Posted on by rjonakait

Snippets

The spouse is the leader of the discussion of Sing, Unburied, Sing by Jesmyn Ward. Someone announced she would not attend because they could not make it through the novel even though it won the National Book Award, was on yearly top ten lists, and high on the 100 best books of this century. With its themes of Black and interracial families and the legacy of slavery in southern prisons and much more, this is the book that Pete Hegseth would ban, if he hasn’t already, from the service academies. The woman who pulled out of the book group was a Trumpista. The spouse and I could not help but think that it was the subject matter, not the quality, of the book that was the withdrawal’s motivating factor. With the attacks on DEI, some people may feel that it is unpatriotic even to read Jesmyn Ward. And so it is that America dumbs down.

With summer coming on, I wonder: “If nature is so truly wonderful, then why didn’t she make the mosquito a vegetarian?”

Many political ads last year bemoaned the fentanyl crisis that the ads maintained resulted from a porous southern border. This never made sense. Border patrol officials knew that nearly 90% of the fentanyl that entered from Mexico came in at legal crossings. Furthermore, most apprehended couriers were American citizens, which, of course, makes sense. If you were running the drug smuggling operation, wouldn’t you think that a Mexican or Honduran would be more likely stopped and searched at the border than an American citizen? It was clear that “securing” the border would do little to change our fentanyl crisis. And, of course, the laws of supply and demand mean someone will find a way to bring the opioid into the country as long as there is a market for it. Meanwhile, it turns out that last year while our southern border was so easy to cross according to so many pundits, opioid deaths dropped precipitously. It will be interesting to see with all the government cuts to all sorts of services what will happen to the death rate even with a “secure” border.

I would like to live in a world where data trump beliefs, and ideology does not trump facts. Some days I am an optimist.

A wise person said: An optimist is someone with little experience.

The big, beautiful bill will leave us under a mountain of new debt, which Trump and his supporters now don’t seem to care about. I am reminded of what Kurt Andersen wrote in Evil Geniuses: The Unmaking of America, A Recent History (2020). He reported that neoconservative Irving Kristol said that if tax cuts for the rich “leave us with a fiscal problem,” that is fine because that would force conservative “opponents to tidy up afterwards.”

With the warmer weather, I am again about to confront one of my biggest golf troubles: I stand too close to the ball after I hit it.

Posted on by rjonakait

Snippets

The article reported on the weightlifting prowess of women in their 60s, 70s, and even 80s. It concluded that the weightlifters showed that “age is nothing but a number.” Another cliché that is hooey. I have been four and now many multiples of that, and age has never been nothing but a number. I couldn’t drive when I was four and I have trouble cutting my toenails now. If anything, age has my number.

I have a friend whose memory is so good that he can remember sex.

I have thought it possible that Trump was a Russian asset, but now I have my doubts. I have wondered what Putin thinks about Trump proclaiming the United States won World War II, which Trump, disregarding the brutal killing that went on for months longer in the Pacific, maintains ended on May 8, 1945. Of course, one of the turning points of WWII, perhaps the turning point was Stalingrad. Trump should ask Putin how many Russians died during that war. And I am guessing that Trump never heard John and Paul’s song A Day in the Life with its line, “The English army had just won the war.”

Viewpoint is everything. What did one lab rat say to the other? “I’ve got my scientist so well trained that every time I push the buzzer, he brings me a snack.”

For the third straight year, Utah was named the nation’s top state, based on 71 metrics, including education, economy, and crime. The next four states were New Hampshire, Idaho, Minnesota, and Nebraska. The bottom five: Louisiana, Alaska, Mississippi, New Mexico, and West Virginia. I note that four of the bottom five are solidly red states.

I remember when conservatives railed against big government. However, our present administration is trying to take over Harvard. That sounds to me like big government. Where are those conservatives when you need ‘em?

How many Harvard graduates does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Just one. He grabs the bulb and waits for the world to revolve around him.

As a result of Defense Secretary’s war on DEI, West Point, according to a news article, is ordered “to remove any readings that focused on race, gender or the darker moments of American history.” The Defense Department told the Naval Academy to remove 381 books from the library. Hegseth’s order does not just prohibit the teaching of aspects of our history and society; it also commands that the service academies teach that “America and its founding documents remain the most powerful force for good in human history.” And I thought that Pete Hegseth thought of himself as a Christian.

A lot of people these days tell us that this country was founded on Christian principles or, sometimes, being more inclusive, Judeo-Christian principles. I assume that they do not know that North Carolina’s original constitution banned Jews from public office and that in other states only members of specified Protestant denominations could hold office.

Posted on by rjonakait

Snippets

Hey, DOGE, a suggestion for you. A news report said that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has government housing. We taxpayers are on the hook for a $49,000 paint job and six figures for renovations. Why? Hegseth has a salary of $235,000, almost three times the median household income in this country. People making as much as Hegseth are responsible for their own housing. Why shouldn’t government workers be, too? DOGE, get an executive order selling off all that housing. How much could we save?

Part of the renovations are apparently for secure information facilities. What? I thought Hegseth was adamant about not working remotely. I assume that he has secure facilities at his office. Is he planning to work at home instead of the office?

Along the same lines, DOGE. How many government workers have a car and driver? We ordinary taxpayers, even if we make $235,000, have to handle our own commutes. Why are government workers better than we are? How much can be saved by jettisoning the cars and drivers? (And do those who have a car and driver pay income tax on the value of that service?)

A wise person said: “There should be a happy medium between government running private business and private business running the government.”

I assumed it was on old sign that read: “Full Service Unisex Hair Care.” Hasn’t Trump outlawed all unisex activities?

We do have savings as the administration follows Mark Twain, who said, “Truth is such a precious article let us all economize in its use.”

I could never be a birder if you have to be able to say “blue-footed booby” without suppressing a smirk or a chuckle. Or “tufted titmouse.”

With all the brouhaha over that gulf, I wonder: Do the French call it the English Channel?

Before going to sleep, I always walk slowly backwards around my bed three times. I do this because it keeps the polar bears away. I know this works because I have never had a nighttime ursine invasion. Some of Trump’s executive orders remind me of my ritual. For example, one EO forbids undocumented aliens from receiving federal benefits. However, before the recent order, the undocumented did not qualify for any such funding, and nothing indicates that the migrants have gotten anything substantial from fraud. In other words, before the order, no federal benefits for the undocumented, and after the order, no benefits for the undocumented. Even so, I expect that the success of the order will be touted. Another example: Trump flamboyantly signed an executive order to end Covid vaccine mandates in public K-12 schools. However, schools do not now have such mandates. I still expect the fanfaronade about the order’s success. And still my slow backward walk has kept the polar bears out of my bedroom. However, I am searching for a way to bring giant pandas in to snuggle up with at night.

Every year—well, three out of four years—I purge and fast on February 29, 30, and 31.

Posted on by rjonakait

Define It

This country’s stark divisions are exacerbated when we don’t share the meanings of words. Conversation is useless when you and I use the same terms, but they mean different things to each of us. For example, what does “merit” and “meritocracy” mean? I have looked up definitions, and they seem understandable, but those meanings have become vague and carry unshared connotations when applied. Conservatives want institutions peopled by those with merit. So do I. However, their current measure of merit for appointments in the current administration is suspect. So, e.g., you can be appointed to office only if you believe, or at least don’t question, that Trump won the 2020 election. For me a sign of merit for a government employee is the ability to recognize and expose falsehoods. For others, merit requires mouthing and spreading them. Trump often seems unique in his insistence on loyalty, but, unfortunately, this is not the case. We have had something like this before: If “inexperienced” or “lack of expertise” replaces or perhaps is added onto “stupidity,” what Michael Dobbs wrote about Nixon’s presidency in King Richard: Nixon and Watergate: An American Tragedy (2021) applies: “Stupidity was not necessarily a disqualification for high office if combined with unthinking fealty to the commander in chief.” And how did that turn out?

We can’t agree on “merit” in our jobs and institutions unless we agree on what it means to perform well. At a track meet, it is those who run the fastest. For a corporate executive, it means higher profits. But what, for example, makes a good police officer? The one who best knows the law? The one who can shoot most accurately? The one who can best talk to a mentally ill person who is potentially violent? One characteristic I believe a good officer should have is a lack of racism. How do you measure that in a hiring or promotion process?

There is yet another factor in espousing diversity, equity, and inclusion, the DEI that is such anathema to the Right. It is not just that police performance matters. There should also be public confidence in the police. However, when the police force does not look like the community it serves, the community can become suspicious of police goodwill, and respect for the rule of law can suffer. Thus, racial, ethnic, and gender diversity and inclusion in law enforcement furthers the public good. There can be merit in diversity.

Something similar can be said of the military. Just assume for a moment that all the officers were white, and all the enlisted personnel were Black. Morale among the troops would probably be lower than if the officer corps were more racially mixed. In other words, diversity among the ranks leads to greater camaraderie in the military and is a desirable national security goal.

Let’s stick with the military for a moment. Our new Secretary of Defense finds merit in and plans to stress lethality and a “warrior culture” in our armed services. (Hegseth seems to subscribe to what Bertolt Brecht wrote in The Caucasian Chalk Circle: “A good soldier has his heart and soul in it. When he receives an order, he gets a hard-on, and when he sends his lance into the enemy’s guts, he comes.” Is this also an explanation for why Hegseth does not want women in combat?) I am unaware that an improper regard for lethality and warrioring characterizes our current soldiers. Nevertheless, those slogans are misleading, and such merit has its limits. Even when there is a war, only a minority of soldiers are in combat. Moreover, today’s armed services do many things that require qualities different from those identified by the Defense Secretary. For example, Trump has sent soldiers to the border to assist in immigration control. It is my hope that lethality and a warrior culture are not the salient qualities for this assignment.

It is easy to agree that we want a meritocracy. It is another thing to define what that is or to recognize whether it exists. While it is clear that a band of conservatives feel that DEI is its enemy, they have not told us how they define meritocracy. It seems too often to require fealty to a person and to imply exclusion of those groups who have often been excluded in the past.

But perhaps more on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion another day.

Posted on by rjonakait

Meritocracy and Hypocrisy

It is not a new word, but the frequency of “meritocracy” coming from the mouths and pens of conservatives has made it a trendy one. The richest of them has made it a catchphrase. Elon Musk: “It’s not like America’s been purely a meritocracy, but it has been more of a meritocracy than any other place. Which I regard as good.” Musk again: “America rose to a greatness over the past 150 years because it was a meritocracy more than anywhere else on Earth. I will fight to my last drop of blood to ensure that it remains that land of freedom and opportunity.”

Musk, who is not averse to hyperbole (Isn’t your ability to fight gone long before your last drop of blood oozes onto the Tesla leather?), surprisingly qualified his meritocratic statement about America. He concedes that this country has not been a pure meritocracy, only that it has rewarded merit more than any other place.

The United States has always had limits on meritocracy. In the first place, let us not confuse merit with opportunity and advantage. The rich have always had more opportunities than others. (If you got it, you get it.) Those born into rich families have always had more opportunities. (It is easier to score if you are born on third base.)  And, of course, opportunities have always been limited in this country by race, ethnicity, religion, locality, gender, and other factors. Perhaps there has been a meritocracy in a certain pool of Americans, but that pool has been restricted. At times, it has not included Irish, Swedes, Italians, Hispanics, Asians, Catholics, Jews, women, and, of course, Blacks. Put another way, meritocracy has often been confined in this country to white male Protestants.

Even when attempts at expanding that pool have been made, they have often been circumscribed. In the 1940s, for example, some department stores started for the first time hiring Black women for sales, but there were quotas. An executive of Lord & Taylor, which was a pioneer in hiring Blacks, told The Afro-American: “It seems to me that it is only fair that the person with the best qualifications should be hired, regardless of color . . . with limitations of course. [Emphasis added] It is only natural that we don’t want to flood our place with colored people, even if they all had the best qualifications.” (Quoted from Julie Satow, When Women Ran Fifth Avenue: Glamour and Power at the Dawn of American Fashion, 2024.)

A foundational American myth has been about meritocracy and the ability to get ahead through one’s own ability. As Dara Horn says in People Love Dead Jews: Reports from a Haunted Present (2021), the legend “is that it doesn’t matter who your parents are, or who their parents were, or where you came from—that what matters is what you do now with the opportunities this country presents to you, and this is what we call the American dream. The fact that this legend is largely untrue does not detract from its power; legends are not reports on reality but expressions of a culture’s value and aspirations.” How many qualified women for how many years were rejected by medical schools and law schools because, well, they were women?

In spite of our history of the limitations on opportunities, many conservatives are furthering the legend by pretending that our meritocracy has been undermined. And what has undermined it? DEI. Yep, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. As though seeking the meritorious from a diverse pool, or equalizing advantages and opportunities, or seeking to include an overlooked source of qualified people is the most egregious thing that a democratic country could do even though it would seem obvious that the larger the pool from which we seek to draw talent, the more likely we are to get the best.

Another enemy, they say, is “wokeness.” I guess it’s also egregious in a “meritocracy” to want to make sure that all types of people feel as though they are equal and welcome participants in the pool.

Let Elon Musk speak again, “DEI is just another word for racism. Shame on anyone who uses it.” To say that DEI is racist implies two things: 1) You don’t believe that the previously excluded races, ethnic groups, women, or religious groups require special attention in order to join the meritocracy pool, or 2) You think that anything that undermines the hegemony of white males is threatening.  Although the opposition to DEI may have many roots, most charitably it is based on the belief that diversity is the enemy of meritocracy. It assumes that the only way diversity is achieved is by allowing less qualified people of color or women (or other groups) to leapfrog over what are assumed to be more qualified white males. Even if that is sincerely believed, those with that belief should still want to expand the pool from which the meritorious are drawn. Doubt the sincerity of those who cry out for meritocracy unless they also seek broadly for the meritorious.

At another time, Musk maintained, “The point was not to replace DEI,…but rather to be a meritocratic society.” How are you to have a meritocracy if you do not actively encourage participation by all?

Pete Hegseth, Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, says Trump has told him to “clean house of the woke crap. All that stuff. Climate stuff, the (Critical Race Theory), the DEI and genderism. Get rid of it.” Not clear how “Climate stuff” got in there, but it’s clear that Trump and his cohort are fed up with trying to break down the barriers that have prevented a true meritocracy to emerge.

A familiar pattern: If something goes wrong, and if anyone other than a white male is in charge, the pejorative cry of “diversity” is uttered again and again. The mayor of Los Angeles is a Black woman, and something definitely went wrong in Los Angeles recently. However, she did not attain her position as part of a DEI movement. She was not appointed by some person who thought it would be politically correct to have a black person (and woman as mayor. No. She was picked by the electorate, just as Trump was. But still conservatives talk about her as if she were part of a DEI or woke movement.

 If a white male had been in charge, his competence might be questioned, but we don’t point to the “old boys” network that might have put him there in the first place. And we only blame DEI if a non-conservative has done the appointment or hiring of a non-white male. If Pam Bondi turns out to be a less than a stellar attorney general, diversity will not be blamed. After all, a conservative president nominated her. (Fox News presents a lot of women as hosts and commentators. Aren’t they a product of diversity?)

The anti-diversity group, however, may proclaim that the country has been successful in the expansion of the meritocratic pool and that, sadly, the pool has been exhausted. Is that why they are advocating for the expansion of H-1b visas? It is certainly the case that having more of those visas is good for businesses of rich conservatives. Among other things, they can pay those workers less. However, if the barriers to success were truly overcome in the U.S., would we need to import workers from out of the country? Shouldn’t Making America Great Again mean making sure that all Americans in fact have the opportunity to attain merit? (Not all conservatives agree that we should expand the availability of H-1b. Laura Loomer, an ardent supporter of Trump, has said, “Our country was built by white Europeans, actually. Not third world invaders from India.”*)

There are things wrong with DEI and wokeness. It is fair to criticize these movements and policies, but a meritocratic society needs more than such criticisms. It requires plans and action to expand the pool from which we seek the meritorious. I have not seen that from conservatives, and without such expansion, it sure looks as if they want to see again a future dominated by white males.