Volume 6, Issue 38
It is time to pause and reflect on righteous misconceptions and their impact.
Michael Che
At last night’s Emmy Awards, the host, Michael Che, delivered a joke insulting Christians. He said his mother would not be watching the show. “She says she doesn’t like watching white award shows because you guys don’t thank Jesus enough," Che said. "That’s true. The only white people that thank Jesus are Republicans and ex-crackheads."
The joke was scripted and read from a teleprompter. That means that it passed editorial review and was found acceptable by the producers. That joke would not have been acceptable to Hollywood elites if it had been about Muslims, Buddhists or Jews. Open season on religious bigotry seems only to pertain to Christians. Nobody laughed. It added no value to the show’s dialog. People protested via Twitter. The viewer audience immediately dropped. There was absolutely no reason whatsoever to denigrate Christians.
One-third of the American adult population self-identifies as evangelical born-again Christian. Sixty percent identify their faith as Christianity. Ninety-two percent believe in the power of prayer. Yet, even at the peril of economic cost, the Emmy producers felt it was necessary to minimalize the faith of Christianity.
Why?
What was the socially moral redeeming value of the joke? Was it about politics? One-third of the American public is Republican. Are we to assume there are no Democrats or Independents who are Christians? Of course not. And Hollywood would say that Donald Trump is out of touch?
Zhang Baohui
Yesterday, in reference to the U.S.-Chinese trade dispute, Professor Zhang Baohui, Director of the Center for Asian Pacific Studies, charged that “more and more in China’s elite circle now think Trump’s trade war is not just about fair trade and imbalance, rather it is a containment program to change China’s long-term power trajectory.” Zhang purports to reference official Chinese opinion of President Xi’s cabinet.
The Chinese want the world to ignore the fact that they steal foreign technology with abandon. They expect trade advantage. They seldom reciprocate with access to their own domestic markets. They appear to believe that all these transgressions are appropriate. Therefore, President Trump’s policy is an errant, oppressive, and unjust attempt to thwart Chinese economic growth.
Really?
Believing that you can break all the rules as your privilege, and lament that anyone would hold you accountable in your effort to gain unfair advantage, is a righteous misconception.
Anita Hill
Today, Anita Hill decided it was necessary to interject her opinion on the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination process. In so doing, she re-opened national emotional wounds not yet totally healed.
She alleged sexual misconduct on the part of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas while they were co-workers. The Thomas hearings were in 1991. The abuse alleged was verbal. Miss Hill, of course, has a right to her opinion. But the recent statement she provided was inflammatory. The New York Times states, “in Opinion, Anita Hill urges Senators not to repeat mistakes from her 1991 hearing as they weigh sexual assault claims against Brett Kavanaugh.
What mistakes? She was allowed to testify. She made a full statement. She was given the opportunity to produce evidence to corroborate her claims. The Senate, in its wisdom of advice and consent to the President, confirmed Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. It’s presumptuous for her to claim that they made a mistake.
There are legal differences between her allegations against Clarence Thomas and allegations Christine Blasey Ford has made against Brett Kavanaugh. For one, Ford and Kavanaugh were juveniles at the time of the alleged incident; Hill and Thomas were professional adults. The law treats the actions of juveniles differently than adults. Also, Ford’s accusations of said incident were 38-years ago. Substantiating facts and intentions of a so long-ago occurrence are difficult to determine. Miss Hill’s accusations were of a more recent history.
It is critical that we get to the bottom of Ms. Ford’s allegations. However, for Miss Hill to conclude that all circumstances are similar, in her case and in the case of Ford, is beyond jumping to conclusions. It is an endeavor to make her past wounds relevant in today’s drama. Relevant facts encompassed in a Senate hearing on a Supreme Court nomination stand in context to the character of the particular candidate. No exact reference can be made to the character of others from a different time and set of circumstances.
When will recriminations be curbed in favor of common decency and respect for individual integrity? When will we put the nation first and our personal politics second? When will we cease pursuing selfish agendas that result in righteous misconceptions?
When will we start believing in our country again?
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?