Category: Politics

By on

Tom Cotton repeatedly asked TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew whether he was Chinese and/or a Chinese Commie. Chew should be complimented for his remarkable restraint when faced with such monumental stupidity and/or rudeness. Mr. Chew told Cotten numerous times that he was from Singapore, not China and not a Communist.

When someone repeatedly asks something, there is a suspicion that the Senator is setting a trap for the person. Giving his prey several chances to admit the truth and when he doesn’t, springing into action with evidence that Chew was both Chinese and a Commie. This did not happen, so all Cotton discovered was that Chew was from Singapore and not a Communist. All facts that were known before Chew sat down for the hearing.  

I first thought what an idiot but, after viewing the video, I realized Cotton was trying to connect Chew and TikTok to China and Communism without having to actually provide any facts that proves his point. Cotton will say he was just asking questions, that he in no way was saying that Chew was a Chinese Communist, he was just verifying whether this was indeed true. So without actually saying that Chew was a Chinese Commie, Cotton gets to paint Chew as a Chinese Communist because why would a US Senator ask about that unless Chew was a Chinese Commie. Cotton’s mission accomplished.

Cotton then highlighted how Chew’s views on Chinese political issues didn’t match Cotton’s which then, especially if the person is Asian, makes that person a potential Chinese Commie even if that person is a Singaporean businessman. Now I am not saying that Chew’s position are particularly brave but remember he is a businessman doing business with China. He needs to be careful how he addresses these issues. I doubt that Chew’s position on these issues are that different from any other Western business person working in China. Indeed, I would expect that Cotton would pursue this line of questioning anytime he had an opportunity to question someone.

So what did we learn from Cotton’s aggressive grilling of Chew — that Chew is not a Chinese Communist and the Chinese government is a dictatorship that Chew won’t criticize in a manner that would make Cotton happy. None of this is exactly new information but thank you Sen Cotton for confirming what we already knew while also subtly undermining Chew’s reputation in the process.

This is sad because there were legitimate questions about China and TikTok. Maybe Cotton’s colleagues addressed them with Chew in their questioning. But, of course, none of that was reported on because the exciting news was Cotton trying to get Chew to admit being a Chinese Commie.

I can’t help but to be reminded of Joe McCarthy badgering his witnesses about being Commies. For most Americans this is a bad look but, unfortunately, for ambitious Republicans it is a way to get seen by the constituencies that matter in the GOP. They want to see people who will take on the Chinese Communists head on so Cotton did everything he needed to show them he is their man and that is all that matters.

By on

Laura Perrins is complaining about the end of our meritocracy. A common worry among Conservative thinkers everywhere. Diversity is ruining our institutions which now disregard talent and ability for skin color and gender. She remembers a day when only the best got their positions through their efforts, talents and intelligence. 

Wait. Perrins believes that we had a meritocracy. Really. Think about it. There was a time when people didn’t consider race and gender and only made decisions based on who was the best person for the job. The trouble is, as I cast my mind back in history in order to understand her point, I couldn’t find much evidence to support her contention. When exactly did the Western World have a meritocracy?

Never is the answer if you are having trouble coming up with a response despite what conservative thinkers are saying. It pains me to have to point this out but in the good old days, both gender and race were a very important consideration on who got the job. People of color and women were eliminated from consideration from the start. How this can be considered a meritocracy is beyond me.

By on

Well, it is certainly reassuring that Governor Abbott realizes that shooting migrants is against Federal Law. And, just as a helpful reminder for Abbot, it is also against God’s law. It is right there in the Ten Commandments. I thought it was against Texas Law too but, who knows, I am willing to risk being wrong here and say it is. I apologize if I am wrong.

I am sure in a week from now, after the media make a big media storm about this, rightfully in this instance, and Abbott’s political analysts assess the damage done, he might even apologize. But only if absolutely necessary. Honestly I don’t think that Abbott wants to shoot migrants. He is dealing with a difficult situation that nobody really has the answer to and he wants to make political hay. Abbott was careless. He was thinking about the problem and not that the vast majority of migrants are actual flesh and blood human beings.

So, he found himself thinking out loud and it popped into his head that the only way for this problem to end is for the migrants to disappear and an easy way to make that happen is shooting them. Then, knowing this sounded awkward, he tried to reassure his audience that, of course he can’t actually murder anyone because the Feds would arrest him. Which is not reassuring at all. It sounds very much like the only thing stopping him from mowing down migrants is the thought that he wouldn’t do well in prison and not his own strong moral values. Abbott’s tone is shockingly dehumanizing and that is worrisome.

By on

Republicans are spreading the rumor that Barack Obama is actually running the country while old Joe Biden is sitting on the White House veranda drooling and soaking up the sun under a pile of warm blankets waiting to die. While there is no evidence that this is true, and I am convinced that Biden is presently up to the duties of his office and infinitely better president than that wastrel Donald Trump, I find Biden’s age worrisome. So when I hear these whispers about Obama being in charge, it comforts me.

Not because I believe it to be true but because it reminds me that the American system of government prevents the most powerful person in the world from having too much power. As we have witnessed in the past 20 years of partisan warfare, the President can do very little without the support of Congress and the approval of the Supreme Court. Biden doesn’t have either and thus little is being done right now. The only unchecked power he has, and it is mighty, is to send missiles flying in the event of a sneak attack. So who are the Republicans trying to scare here?

Not me. I like Obama and he also is popular with a large segment of the American Electorate. He is a young man particularly in comparison to both Biden and Trump. He is a recent president so he is up on the latest issues. Obama is a Democrat, Biden is a Democrat — is there much of a chance that Obama would be doing anything differently from Biden? Why should this concern me?

The Republicans spread this lie as if this should be upsetting. All I can say is good then. There is someone stable at the helm. And, if given the choice between a senile old man that is being manipulated by a younger known politician and a mad man who doesn’t take anyone’s advice but his own and who’s understanding of the bigger world stopped somewhere in middle school. I am going with the senior citizen.

The Republicans can continue to spread this vicious piece of gossip for however long they want to but I don’t think many people are gasping from the shock. They are undermining their strongest argument against Biden for no good reason. The only thing I can come up with is that they think the general public hates Obama as much as they do. They must have forgotten that Obama handily defeated the Republicans twice. I am happy to see them fumble around with this issue as I think a stronger and potentially more damaging case can be made regarding Biden’s age. Fortunately the Republicans aren’t able to grasp what that is.

By on

Mark Tapscott at the Epoch Times reports that, according to the National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR), Unions spent $25 billion dollars on 2022 election. Which is really kind of remarkable because Federal Elections Commission (FEC) reported that the total amount of money spent on political campaigns was 8.9 billion dollars. You might have spotted a glaring difference between the two organization’s figures. I certainly did.

Why the difference? First, and this is pretty important, the NILRR is anti-union. They want to demonize the union movement so they fiddled with the figures to make the actual 54 million labor spent on 2022 campaigns $25 billion. After this little switcheroo, the relative modest spending becomes outrageously large, especially with the untampered figures from corporations. $25 billion says unions are this powerful behemoth who have an endless supply of money to force their collectivist ways on the poor employers of America.

How did $54 million become $25 billion? NILRR’s much broader interpretation of union political spending can be found here: “the bulk of unreported political power is wielded by government union officials. They’re armed with the monopoly power to negotiate salaries, pensions, and hiring practices for entire swaths of federal, state, and local government workers. This makes monopoly bargaining in the public sector, by its very nature, political.” So, everything a union does is political and, therefore, must be included in political spending. Voila, you now have a rich monster with billions to spend facing those poor corporations who are just trying to run their business.

It’s a blatantly unfair comparison. Why isn’t the same standard applied to corporate spending? In non-union shops, which is close to 90% of all American worker’s experiences, the companies have this same monopoly power to negotiate salaries, pensions and hiring practices. When there are no unions, the worker is on his own and the company has all the power. Does the NILRR consider the money spent on Union Busting as political spending? Technically, I am sure it isn’t but by the NILRR broad definition of political spending, it definitely should be.

I am confident that when you add up all the Corporate Spending on salaries, benefits, HR policies and union busting, there would be a much higher amount of money for corporate political spending. Then we can talk political spending for both Corporations and Labor. Until then I think the FEC’s figures on money spent directly on political campaigns is the only fair way to appraise political spending. It gives a much different story about who is spending more money than Tapscott and NILRR.