Can a simple sign be unwittingly offensive? Can it be (unwittingly) racist to advise people about proper hygiene?
I ask because it never occurred to me until my wife pointed it out. And now, like that song that keeps running through your head, the one that won’t stop playing, I can’t unsee what my wife saw.
A little background: As most of you know, my wife was born in the ancient, mysterious land of Cathay, modern China. She is descended from the mighty Hànrén (漢人), the Han people, who (she says) are proud bearers of the Han nose—to my mind, one of her most attractive features.
Furthermore, as some of you know, we both patronize a local gym, where she usually swims and I usually lift weights (but I swim a few laps afterwards to cool down). Last night, as we crossed paths in the pool area, I saw her complaining to a lifeguard about this sign. As I never do these prohibited things, I had never before paid the sign any mind. But my wife seemed offended about the pictures at the bottom, so I took a closer look.
And if you look at it in a certain way, it does indeed (well, kind of) look like a stereotypically “Asian” representation of a face—the hair, the eye shape, the roundness—along with the close-up of the “Han nose.” She took a picture of the sign, so, being a good husband, I did too.
The tax on property—cash, real estate, stock, or other assets transferred from deceased persons to their heirs—should be raised. A lot.
Mr. Trump is about to propose tax relief… for himself and other rich people. Including the elimination of the estate tax—which the rich like to call the “death tax.” That plan is just wrong. Here’s why.
Passing on huge amounts of untaxed wealth from generation to generation is inconsistent with long-held American values. Bootstraps, anybody? Americans are supposed to make it on their own efforts (we’re supposed to be a “meritocracy”), not slide by on the sweat of dead people.
Large concentrations of wealth are inimical to democracy. We need to limit the ability of the wealthy to buy our democracy and privatize the Commons—and those who take their money abroad in an effort to avoid paying US taxes should lose their US citizenship.
Americans have a moral obligation to pay forward a return to invest in the success of current and future generations. Think of it as a “thank-you” to the system from which they benefitted. It is simply un-American to climb the ladder to success, then pull up the ladder after you.
Investing the wealth of deceased Americans will assure that new wealth can be created. And innovation. This is one reason why the US doesn’t innovate anymore.
When estate taxes are high, there is an incentive to invest in productive things and businesses, thereby benefiting both the investor and the society. As the saying goes, “Money is like fertilizer…”
The top 1% will never miss it. Only a tiny fraction of the wealthy will pay any estate tax under current law; those who have to pay will do so on only a fraction of their residual wealth.
The USA will need the money. Those who benefit most from the current system, which is rigged in favor of vast concentrations of wealth, should feel not just an obligation to pay more, but a desperate need to pay more—because there will be increasing numbers of economic crashes (capitalism is naturally unstable) and increasingly disastrous weather events (because of anthropogenic climate destruction). Call it a “rainy day fund” if you like (or a hurricane fund!)—but the poor and (vanishing) middle class are already squeezed to the limit.
Inherited wealth serves to “feudalize” society. Those who believe that talent and hard work will provide a good life will be left behind those whose wealth gives them more than they can ever get through earnings alone: when someone doesn’t do much to earn what they have, they don’t appreciate it very much.
Transfers of accumulated wealth from generation to generation create not just an increasingly unequal society—already an un-American idea—but an unstable society, as well. The idle rich will put policies into place that are more favorable to those inheriting their money, rather than the low-income workers who earn it. Massive wealth inequality creates political unrest.
Most of the fortunes in the USA (and elsewhere in the world) were created from stolen money. That is, the wealthy elite became that way because they opportunistically exploited resources and undercompensated the labor of their workers. Gifting this stolen wealth on future generations, without heavily taxing it, will only encourage resource and wage theft in the future.
Remember the saying, “Unearned money buys nothing but trouble”? So, who wouldn’t want to spend money they didn’t earn? Well, me, for one.
I recently received a campaign e-mail from the office of Democratic Senator Christopher van Hollen Jr. (D-MD). He asked for a donation. I asked for answers.
Dear Senator van Hollen,
Yes, I voted for you. Maybe I’m old enough to know better and too young to stop, but every time I see one of your emails I try to find just a hint of what the Democratic Party stands for. I’ve never found it.
“We’re not Trump” isn’t a winning strategy—not for a party that has lost almost a thousand state, local and national offices since Mr. Obama was first elected. If the party pins its electoral hopes on impeachment, and Russia-Russia-Russia, the party will lose. Again.
What’s your message? What’s your plan to get voters to the polls next November? There isn’t a clue in any of your emails.
Why not try this: getting corporate influence out of political campaigns, supporting a living wage for all workers, providing Medicare-for-all single-payer health care, repairing America’s crumbling infrastructure, ending crushing debt for higher education, breaking up the large financial institutions that are taking over our government, ending endless wars, and addressing the existential crisis of climate change by unsupporting fossil fuels and instead supporting renewable energy sources?
These are policies that will get voters to the polls. And you know what? These policies will also create jobs!
You’re not acting like an opposition party. It’s almost as if the Democratic Party would rather lose to a Republican than support progressive ideas. So I ask again: what’s the party’s plan? What do Democrats stand for? If I don’t hear answers soon, my plan will be to stay home next November.
Ronald B. Meyer
I never got a reply. Just another solicitation for funds. I think I’m done.
The Liberal/Progressive Trashing of Bernie Sanders, Traitor
I get it, Progressives. You’re butt-hurt that Bernie Sanders threw his support to Hillary Clinton after he failed to win the Democratic nomination to oppose Donald Trump in the 2016 election. I’m disappointed, too. But this temper-tantrum of trash talk has to stop. It’s not productive and it signals that we now live in a “binary” political climate: if you’re not a savior, you’re a traitor—or you were in league with the forces of darkness to begin with!
In case you slept through the events leading up to the surprisingly legitimate appointment of Trump by the anti-democratic U.S. Electoral College, allow me to put my spin on the story.
As usual, the Republicans fielded some truly laughable candidates. Yet the craziest clown in the clown car eventually became their nominee: the reality TV star and fake populist, Donald J. Trump. For her part, corporate toady and warmonger Hillary Clinton, who certainly had the résumé and the experience to manage a nation (at least for the benefit of her backers), seemed destined, even entitled, to win the nomination and the election. This may explain why her campaign was so boring and her rally crowds so thin, even as her campaign “war chest” (a telling descriptor) boasted twice the mostly corporate cash of her closest Republican rival.
But along came this relatively obscure Vermont Senator, who was still the longest-serving Independent in the history of the United States Congress, and who dubbed himself a Democrat for convenience (because Independents are precluded from voting in many state primaries). Bernie Sanders refused to run from the “socialist” label—only correcting it to “democratic socialist”—and he announced his candidacy by saying some very interesting things, things no Democrat had promised in many years, even though they would not be novel to FDR.
Sanders told Rolling Stone in November 2015, “We need millions of people to stand up and fight back, to demand that government represents all of us, not just the one percent. I’m trying to create a movement.” More specifically, the Sanders “movement” touted some incredibly popular ideas – not popular with the Establishment, of course, but popular with the populace:
Major investment to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure
A reversal of climate change and a transition away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy
A living wage for all workers
Pay equity for women
An end to trade agreements that reward offshoring employment
An end to debt for higher education
An end to debt for healthcare via a single-payer system
Breaking up the large financial institutions that are taking over the government
Strengthening the social safety net by expanding Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and nutrition programs
A more progressive tax system based on ability to pay, so as to reduce the income inequality that is stifling the middle class and the poor
Sanders refused to establish a super-PAC and instead generated a substantial campaign treasury through individual donations from his supporters. “I will work for my donors,” he seemed to be saying. “Be wary that my opponents will work for theirs.” And that message caught on, catapulting Sanders to win 22 state primaries and caucuses, mostly in open-primary states where Independents and people disgusted with the Democratic Party actually could vote.
But then the “system” took over. The Democratic Party’s “superdelegate” system was stacked against Sanders from the beginning of the contest. It was then revealed that the DNC was tipping the scales toward Clinton instead of remaining neutral, as their charter promised. Clinton finally acquired the required number of delegates and clinched the Democratic nomination. On July 12, 2016 (one year ago today), after he uttered five words—“I am endorsing Hillary Clinton”—Sen. Sanders suddenly became a traitorous, backstabbing sell-out.
Why did he do it? In his own words, Sanders said, “our country, our values, and our common vision for a transformed America, are best served by the defeat of Donald Trump and the election of Hillary Clinton.” But many former Sanders supporters chose to believe either (a) Sanders was “threatened” by the DNC or that (b) Sanders was a “plant” to grab the all-important progressive vote and herd it into the Establishment DNC corral; that he was part of a conspiracy from the get-go.
Option (a) is a real possibility, but would have been a bad show for the DNC. As for option (b), I am reminded of the words that are attributed to Joseph Stalin: you cannot “fake” power. If Sanders was a decoy to trick progressives into supporting Clinton, it was a dangerous game at best and an utter failure in the event. Not only was nobody fooled; not enough Sanders supporters crossed over to Clinton!
Furthermore, there was his message, which was also not fake. Sanders then, and Sanders to this day, still causes heartburn among Establishment Democrats by saying and supporting things that the DNC would just as well leave alone. At last month’s People’s Summit in Chicago, Sanders reiterated his judgment that “the current model and the current strategy of the Democratic party is an absolute failure” and that “Trump didn’t win the election, the Democratic Party lost the election.” It seems that, after all, Bernie was the real deal. And Clinton?
The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming
Was it Russian interference that cost Hillary Clinton the 2016 election? If so, did Russia write the emails showing the DNC’s thumb on the scale against Bernie Sanders? Or blow off Sanders and his voters? Did Russia make Hillary Clinton the most unpopular Democratic candidate in history? Did Russia make Clinton ignore her working class base in favor of her corporate masters? Did Russia force Clinton to make speeches to her banker buddies? Did Russia persuade Clinton not to campaign in three “swing states” she desperately needed to win the election?
Russia is bad, but they’re not quite that bad (or that good). Contrary to the DNC’s favorite narrative, echoed by their friends in corporate media, Clinton lost the 2016 election without Russian help. All the “evidence” is hearsay, based on secret sources. And, as St. Christopher (Hitchens) pointed out, “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
But was Bernie a spoiler? Bernie changed the DNC’s game: he got Clinton to change her position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, he moved Clinton toward his college tuition proposal, he got the DNC to change their superdelegate rules (binding a much larger percentage of them to the popular vote winners of state contests), he got the DNC to endorse its “most progressive platform in history.” Bernie even got some of his supporters positioned inside the DNC machine.
Was Hillary Clinton really so godawful a fallback choice? As Bill Maher pointed out in his May 6 New Rules segment, this “lesser of two evils” was quite a bit lesser. As Maher asked, rhetorically: Would Clinton have appointed a racist attorney general? An education secretary who knows nothing about public education? A Supreme Court justice who will roll back reproductive choice rights? Would she even consider a Muslim ban? Or a border wall? Would her cabinet look like elders from a KKK rally? Would Clinton be doing less than nothing to address the existential issue of climate deterioration? Or less than nothing to improve the nation’s health care system? Or worker rights? Or voting rights?
As political satirist Jimmy Dore pointed out regarding Jon Ossoff’s recent loss in Georgia’s 6th congressional district: “So if you run a campaign about nothing,” says Dore, “it turns out people won’t vote for you. You got Ossoff, a Democrat who’s against single-payer and against taxing the wealthy, against a Republican, [Karen Handel], who’s also against single-payer and against taxing the wealthy. So, when the voters are given a choice between a Republican and a Republican, they choose the Republican every time!”
Dore suggests that telling America how bad Trump is, and investigating his Russian connections, won’t get voters to the polls. That’s not a campaign strategy. This is: Getting corporate influence out of political campaigns, supporting a living wage for all workers, providing Medicare-for-all single-payer health care, repairing America’s crumbling infrastructure, ending crushing debt for higher education, breaking up the large financial institutions, ending endless wars, and addressing the existential crisis of climate change—that will get voters to the polls. And you know what? Those policies will also create jobs.
Whether within or without the Democratic Party, “The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming” is not a winning strategy. To paraphrase Jonathan Winters as Officer Norman Jonas: “Democrats have… GOT… to get organized!”
Neo-liberals are the reason Donald Trump is president
Is the Democratic Party beyond reform? I don’t know. But one thing that cannot happen is change from the top. Change always comes from below, from the grassroots. The Tea Party understood this: it was the seed of their success.
The Vermont Senator received more than 12 million votes in the primaries. Bernie pulled together a coalition of liberals and progressives and even somewhat conservative citizens who are weary of the pro-corporate, two-party duopoly. He demanded that the oligarchs of both parties listen to the vox populi and remember that it is the vox dei.
He has collected more money from small individual contributions than anyone before. He is not beholden to big money donors. He has reached people who have given up on traditional politics, getting overwhelming support from young voters;
He has reframed the political debate, making the issues of inequality and power the centerpiece of his campaign, unapologetically and with no euphemisms;
He has been clear that his ambitious proposals will require new taxes, for example on financial transactions, and higher taxes, yes on the rich and corporations, but also on the middle class (that would include taxing rich Democrats, too). He makes the case that for the vast majority the value of the public services they receive will far outweigh what they pay in higher taxes.
As at least one writer has pointed out, there is a certain Democrat hypocrisy on making an opportunity society. That’s because it involves taxing corporate Democrats alongside their corporate Republican counterparts. Getting Democrats on board with that idea will be a struggle. But maybe we need a struggle. Maybe we need a little class warfare. As the Founders recognized in 1776, six years after the Boston Massacre, when they finally issued their Declaration of Independence, we’re already in this struggle. The struggle only needs our Declaration and support.
Bernie-bashing is a losing strategy
Let’s be clear. Bernie Sanders never said he was the only man who could lead the “political revolution.” What Bernie wanted was allies, not dittoheads. Of course he is seen from the right wing as a threat to corporate privilege. But some from the left (such as it is in the USA) see him as soiled, tainted, a “controlled opposition” and a tool of the corporate Democrats. This is what I don’t understand. Most of us, I believe, support ideas, not people. In a sense, Bernie himself is irrelevant, only a vessel for progressive change. That does not stop the Bernie-bashing.
When it came out that Bernie Sanders made over $1 million last year because of his Our Revolutionbook deal, it was assumed by some Bernie-bashers that he had thereby joined the 1%. But this needs to be put into perspective: First, based on his annual income of $200,000, Sanders still is one of the least wealthy Senators. And it matters more what you do with your wealth—and your political power—than how much of it you have. Second, this is a one-off, as journalist and conservative blogger Daniel Greenfield refuses to admit in his vituperative take-down piece, “Bernie Sanders: Greedy Lying Socialist 1 Percenter.” Greenfield characterizes Sanders as lazy and greedy, but seems always to cite biased sources when he cites any at all.
The fact is, Sanders doesn’t get six-figure book deals every year, so his income average, year after year, is below the “1% threshold.” Finally, Sanders has been known to donate excess income from book sales. You can’t say that of many millionaires.
Some among us called the People’s Summit (9-11 June 2017), at which Bernie and other progressives were featured prominently, a “political fraud” because Sanders and his allies sought to refurbish the Democratic Party. “The purpose of the People’s Summit,” says these detractors, “is to smother, contain and channel mass opposition to social inequality, unemployment, poverty and the Trump administration’s assault on all the rights of the working class behind the Democratic Party. That is, it seeks to subordinate genuine social anger to the right-wing agenda of sections of the ruling class.”
But that Chicago meeting also featured the likes of Naomi Klein (author of the 2015 climate-change, anti-capitalist warning This Changes Everything), the head of National Nurses United (the summit’s sponsor), activists Nina Turner, Bill McKibben and Eve Ensler, as well as writers Thomas Frank (author of the 2016 Democrat critique Listen Liberal), David Sirota and Zephyr Teachout. These are hardly captives of the corporate Democrats or the “ruling class.” In fact, the “political fraud” faction go so far as to claim “By backing Clinton… Sanders helped hand victory to Trump”—forgetting, perhaps, that if Sanders didn’t back Clinton, Trump would still have become President. But perhaps the Bernie-bashers would have felt better about it.
The Bernie bashers have to go all the way back to 1998 to find “evidence” that Bernie Sanders deliberately victimized brown people by supporting a bill (H.R. 629), that would allow toxic waste from Vermont to be dumped in a 60% Hispanic Texas community—a bill proposed by Texas Republican Joe Barton. Sure, not all of Bernie’s votes are defensible, but is this entirely his doing?
The charge is made again and again that Bernie Sanders is the “controlled opposition” and that he is in league with the corporate Democrats. But if Bernie is in league with them, why are Bernie Sanders donors suing the DNC?
We should probably expect Bernie-bashing from the pro-corporate, pro-Hillary Clinton New York Times, but nothing could have been more irresponsible than the June 14 analysis which followed the shooting of Republican whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana: “Attack Tests Movement Sanders Founded.” “The suspect in the shooting in Virginia,” writes Yamiche Alcindor, “put a new spotlight on the rage buried in some corners of the progressive left.” Seriously? If you can blame this shooting on Sanders, can you blame right-wing violence on Trump? Or should you instead (to paraphrase another commentator) decline to tether a mass shooting to a political movement?
In fact, even Progressives have feet of clay when it comes to free speech. They like it for themselves, but are stingy about listening to other viewpoints—especially on college campuses. Time and again, Progressives have tried to, and in many cases succeeded in, shutting down or “disinviting” college speakers with whom they disagree.
Time Magazine reports: “Sanders has … made appearances at high-dollar Democratic Party fundraisers, including one on Martha’s Vineyard in 2007 that included more than 100 lobbyists and wealthy donors who donated the maximum possible funds to the Party…. The Vermont Senator’s campaign has taken money from lobbyists as well, including the National Mining Association and the National Cannabis Association.” Granted. But Bernie takes far less from corporate donors, in dollar amount and by name, than his Senate colleagues. Just check out OpenSecrets.
Were you expecting purity? I have something to say to the Progressive whiners about that.
You want some cheese with that whine?
I come neither to praise Bernie nor to bury him. I really don’t care if he runs for the presidency again or he doesn’t. But I am getting weary of the unjustified, self-defeating Bernie-bashing: most of us support the ideas over the man. Bernie-bashing is bad enough, though totally expected from the Right. It is frightening coming from the left. In fact, I can’t help but think that the Bernie-bashing from the “left” is really progressive whiners, wittingly or unwittingly, doing the work of corporate Democrats and Republicans.
Liberal purists need to remember that not getting everything isn’t the same as getting nothing. Liberal purists against Bernie Sanders should never have, as Voltaire said, let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Want proof? Liberal Bernie-bashers have never suggested a viable alternative that maintains their liberal purity aside from (a) sitting out the election in a snit, (b) voting for a no-hope-in-hell third party candidate in a snit, or (c) voting for Trump. That’s what ideological purity gets you: Donald Trump.
Yes, Donald Trump. If Bernie had gone third party in 2016, and refused on principle to endorse Hillary, he would have split the Democratic vote and made a Trump victory a certainty. Bernie would have been a spoiler. So Bernie endorsed Hillary Clinton and many “Bernie-or-bust” voters exercised mostly options (a) or (b)—a snit—thereby handing Trump his victory. If you think that outcome was better than a Hillary Clinton presidency, please refer to my citation of Bill Maher above.
Worse, if Bernie had refused to endorse Hillary Clinton, the corporate Democrats could have, and probably would have, removed Sanders from committee assignments and worked vigorously to unseat him. If only Democrats could vent that venom against Republicans! Indeed, if Bernie had gone third-party, his candidacy might as well have gone into the Witness Protection Program. There is an old saying, refined from Menander by Oliver Goldsmith: “For he who fights and runs away / May live to fight another day; / But he who is in battle slain / Can never rise and fight again.” (ἀνήρ ὁ ϕɛύγων καὶ ράλίν μαχήɛṯαί)
First, the opposition and reformation needs to be united. I think the Democratic Party is about to be co-opted by the Republicans. They are largely indistinguishable from the Republicans even now. It is as if Democrats say to minority communities and Progressives, “Sure, we ignore you, but the Republicans will actively hurt you. And, anyway, where else are you going to go?” That arrogance could get you killed as a political party. A better party is coming, but it is not here yet.
Bernie understands this. Butt-hurt progressives and Bernie-bashers haven’t figured this out to this day: to end the two-party duopoly, you do not start at the top but at the bottom. That takes a “political revolution.” And what other politician counsels his supporters to undertake one?
Second, Bernie Sanders is Jewish (like Jesus); but he doesn’t walk on water and he is no Messiah. All he counseled was a political revolution, with or without him. And this, again, is why liberal/progressive Bernie-bashing is so unproductive. On all of the issues, Bernie was way out in front of anybody else with political experience and electability. And any candidate who can fill a stadium with tens of thousands, based solely on his ideas, at least stands for something the people want to see happen. Compare Bernie’s crowds (and Trump’s) with Hillary Clinton’s during the 2016 campaign. Need I say more?
But Bernie-bashing Progressives are also their own worst enemy. They think everybody is corrupt: politicians, journalists, even scientists. They trust not even the (small-d) democratic institutions erected to protect them: they believe all of them to be corrupt, too. This refusal to trust any politician or institution is not “enlightened” or “woke.” We should call it what it is: it is nihilism.
And, so far, Liberals, Progressives and Socialists have not organized anything. They’ve not even organized their own disparate discontents. You want change? Stop whining and start organizing.
Progressives who insist on “political purity” will get pureed
Most important, liberals and Progressives need to shit-can the purity test for politicians. Insisting on “political purity” will get you pureed. The perfect is the enemy of the good. You have to start somewhere, anywhere, and build upward. Starting at the top, without a strong foundation is like building on shifting sand.
It’s not easy fighting both the Republicans and the Democrats (and the mainstream media) to install a Progressive agenda. If you don’t like or trust Bernie Sanders, fine. Don’t support him. But can you at least get behind his platform? Not Progressive enough? Granted. But get done what is politically possible first, then build on that. This is a negotiation, not a dictate. Leave that to the Republicans and their Tea Party “Freedom Caucus.”
Progressives need their own version of the Powell Memorandum.* We can’t afford to play nice; we need strategy and tactics, a long game. That doesn’t mean accepting corporate contributions, but Bernie Sanders showed how donations from just people can finance a national campaign. It means being aggressive and pushing our agenda by all legal and necessary means. If we adopt the tactics of the opposition, as the Democrats have done, we will become as corrupt as the opposition.
Unless, of course, nihilist Progressives don’t believe in democracy and the rule of law, either. Remember that the Occupy Movement was shut down under a Democratic president, in tandem with Democratic mayors—all “Establishment.” The Founders broke away from monarchy and established a republic for a reason. And that republic became “progressively” more democratic over time. It’s a journey, but don’t stop believing. That is a history we Progressives should strive to repeat.
*The Powell Memorandum (1971) is “a confidential memorandum for the US Chamber of Commerce that proposed a road map to defend and advance the free enterprise system against perceived socialist, communist, and fascist cultural trends… titled ‘Attack on the American Free Enterprise System,’ [characterized as] an anti-Communist, anti-New Deal blueprint for conservative business interests to retake America,” written by Nixon-appointed Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. (see Wikipedia).
Over the last weekend in June, my wife and I traveled through Michigan to Canada on a mini-vacation. My wife, as some of you may know, was born in China and is a US citizen. She retains strong ties with the Chinese community in the USA. There was a purpose to our choosing to travel north via Detroit: 35 years ago a young Chinese-American named Vincent Jen Chin was murdered by two auto workers who mistook him for Japanese. We were to attend a “Vincent Chin Remembrance,” to watch a documentary film created in his name and to recall that justice was not served against his murderers.
Here is the background, drawn from multiple sources (including Wikipedia).
On June 19, 1982, 27-year-old Vincent Chin (or Chén Guǒrén; 陈果仁) was out with friends at a strip club for his bachelor party in the Detroit suburb of Highland Park, Michigan. There he encountered and had words with two white Chrysler auto workers, who instigated the confrontation by declaring to Chin (referring to U.S. auto manufacturing jobs being lost to Japan), “It’s because of you little motherfuckers that we’re out of work!” Club security prevented any escalation of the confrontation, but the two auto workers would not let it go. They got in their car and searched for him, eventually finding him alone at a McDonald’s about 20 minutes later. While one of the two held Chin, the other beat him severely with a baseball bat, cracking open his skull. Four days later, on what was to have been his wedding day, Vincent Chin died from his injuries.
The perpetrators, Chrysler plant superintendent Ronald Ebens and his recently laid-off stepson, Michael Nitz, were charged with second-degree murder, but made a plea bargain for manslaughter. They were fined $3,000 and put on three years’ probation. They never got any jail time. The verdict prompted outcry and protest in the Chinese-American community at the time, one representative proclaiming it a “$3,000 license to kill” Chinese people. The hurt to the Chinese-American community is ongoing because the two murderers were able to go on with their lives.
The Vincent Chin Memorial
Until a few weeks ago, I had not heard of Vincent Chin, who was born about the same year I was. Now I shall never forget him. Vincent would have been 62 this year.
He was remembered at the Chinese Community Center on Saturday, June 24, by Association of Chinese Americans Inc., American Citizens for Justice and the Michigan Asian Pacific American Affairs Commission, among other groups and public officials. Curtis Chin, producer of the documentary film Vincent Who? which led off the remembrance, answered questions about the film and the issues it covered. A proclamation was presented for Vincent Chin. A panel discussion followed. Then the crowd was invited to lay flowers on his grave (and that of his mother, Lily, who passed away in 2002) at the Forest Lawn Cemetery in Detroit.
My wife and I stood with a crowd of at least 40 people, mostly Chinese-American, as the pastor gave his homage and invited others to do the same. Then each of us laid flowers on the slab. It was a time for reflection and that is exactly what I did.
The two men who murdered Vincent Chin in 1982 certainly deserved to be punished, but did they at least get their “economics” right? Was it because of the Japanese that they (or their friends) were out of work in the auto industry? Did Japanese imports kill the US auto industry?
The answer is yes, but not in the way those two murderers apparently believed. In the 1980s, Japan was selling cars in the US under a different business model: giving the consumer all the features up front, rather than price-gouging with add-ons after the fact. Who knew Americans would rather buy that way than the “American” way? Also, the Japanese were accustomed to making their cars more fuel efficient because they didn’t have an expensive military stationed around the world to keep oil prices low. US automakers basically failed to keep up—and that was a management problem, not a union problem, not a CAFÉ problem, not a problem of specifically foreign origin. Rather than innovating, the US auto industry rested on past glories and present arrogance. They asked Congress for help (so much for the “free market”) and got it. So it wasn’t unions or even Japanese competition that deflated the market for US-made automobiles: it was management failure among the Big Three automakers. The two men who murdered Vincent Chin, mistaking him for Japanese, were brainwashed.
Let me be clear: I take nothing away from the justice of movements such as Black Lives Matter; I do not suggest that anti-Asian prejudice is on a par with structural racism endured and resisted by black people. With 12.6% of the US population, African-Americans are triple the number of Asians (which includes Chinese, Filipino, Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese, et al.), who rank only 4.8%—according to the 2010 census. But the root cause of the prejudice is the same: a sense of white privilege, which includes a longing for a halcyon day when white hegemony was unquestioned and unquestionable.
But, again, white people are brainwashed: it isn’t black people or even yellow people who are “taking away” the jobs and the country from white people. We’re all in the same boat, economically. We just need a little mutiny to hold the “captain” to account.
Yeah: Because we have a secular center on every street corner that never pays property taxes, a majority of legislators in office, both major political parties dominated by atheists, religion-bashing TV shows dominating the airwaves (especially on Sunday morning), atheists shooting Christians, or denying them jobs, adoption or housing, for not sharing their beliefs, US currency has an atheist slogan on it, the Pledge of Allegiance had two words denying God inserted into it in the 1950s, atheists never have to fear for their safety if they declare their nonbelief in public, Christian-owned business are frequently picketed and firebombed by atheists, Congress pays for its atheist chaplain with your tax dollars, atheists frequently visit dying people and try to separate them from their faith—and nobody thinks there is anything wrong with that.
Yeah, atheist bullies…
(Originally posted 6/9/2017)
PS: One commenter suggested that the community should decide. My reply was, no.
“The Freedom From Religion Foundation claims the cross is offensive and it endorses Christianity,” the mayor told me. “We say it’s been there since 1930 and it’s a historical part of our town and our heritage.”
This is the same rationale Southern Civil War sympathizers (that is, traitors and racists) use to justify keeping displays of Confederate flags and statuary: historical heritage. Just because something unjust has been that way for 90 years, it is not for that reason inoculated from being unjust and exclusionary. In addition, the fact that the legislature was unanimous in approving what will become an expensive and unnecessary litigation suggests that anybody in the City of Neosho who might have objected to the display would fear for their safety if they actually did so.
Let’s put this in perspective: First, as the article says, based on his annual income of $200,000, Sanders still is one of the least wealthy Senators. And it matters more what you DO with your wealth—and your political power—than how much of it you have. Second, this is a one-off, as far as I can tell: Sanders doesn’t get six-figure book deals every year, so his income average, year after year, is below the “1% threshold.” Finally, Sanders has been known to donate excess income from book sales. You can’t say that of many millionaires. (Originally posted 6/8/2017)