The View from Right Field

East Germany Comes to Mizzou

Earlier this week I wrote a post I called “East Germany Comes to Tibet.”  You can find it, and the reason for the title, here.  Now it appears that East Germany may be coming closer to home.

Following up on everything that has been happening at the University of Missouri, the MU Police Department sent out an email Tuesday morning, with a subject line of “Reporting Hateful and/or Hurtful Speech”:

“To continue to ensure that the University of Missouri campus remains safe, the MU Police Department (MUPD) is asking individuals who witness incidents of hateful and/or hurtful speech or actions to:

• Call the police immediately at [phone number redacted]. (If you are in an emergency situation, dial 911.)

• Give the communications operator a summary of the incident, including location.

• Provide a detailed description of the individual(s) involved.

• Provide a license plate and vehicle descriptions (if appropriate).

• If possible and if it can be done safely, take a photo of the individual(s) with your cell phone.

Delays, including posting information to social media, can often reduce the chances of identifying the responsible parties.  While cases of hateful and hurtful speech are not crimes, if the individual(s) identified are students, MU’s Office of Student Conduct can take disciplinary action.”

Mozilla CEO Forced to Resign Because He Supported California Prop 8

The CEO of Mozilla Corp. has been forced to resign because he gave a $1,000 contribution in 2008 in support of California Proposition 8, which defined marriage as only between a woman and a man.

This raises the question of whether full disclosure of contributions to political candidates is a good idea.  In 1958, the United States Supreme Court decided, in the case of N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama, that the State of Alabama could not force the NAACP to disclose its membership lists.  Let me quote from Justice John Harlan’s unanimous opinion in this case (citations deleted):

“Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association, as this Court has more than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly.  It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the ‘liberty’ assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech.  Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny. …

This Court has recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one's associations.  When referring to the varied forms of governmental action which might interfere with freedom of assembly, it said in American Communications Assn. v. Douds: 'A requirement that adherents of particular religious faiths or political parties wear identifying arm-bands, for example, is obviously of this nature.'  Compelled disclosure of membership in an organization engaged in advocacy of particular beliefs is of the same order.  Inviolability of privacy in group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association, particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs.”

The purpose of the Constitution is, in part, to protect the American people from themselves.  One wonders if we are perhaps approaching that situation today with respect to required disclosure of all campaign contributions.  

GM Dumps GMOs – In Some Cheerios

General Mills will soon be selling some Cheerios made without ingredients containing “genetically modified organisms,” a/k/a “GMOs”.  This from yesterday’s Wall Street Journal:

“Critics of GMO use in foods called attention to the Cheerios move Thursday, hailing it as a major victory.  Advocacy groups have raised concerns about possible health problems from eating foods with GMOs, which are crops like corn grown from seeds genetically engineered for desirable traits like pest resistance.  The groups have promoted consumer campaigns in some states to mandate labeling of GMOs in food, and targeted specific brands – including Cheerios – and to change their policies.

Most big food companies have rebuffed such efforts, arguing that there is no evidence of any health problems resulting from GMOs despite decades of use.  The food companies also generally have refused voluntarily labeling, saying it is costly and will give consumers a misconception that GMOs are harmful.

‘There is broad consensus that food containing GMOs is safe, but we decided to move forward with this in response to consumer demand,’ said Mike Siemienas, spokesman for General Mills. …

GMO Inside, a campaign that advocates GMO labeling, said Cheerios is the first major brand of packaged food in the U.S. to make the switch from containing GMOs to marketing itself as non-GMO.  Some foreign countries have restricted GMO use in food for years.”

I have no objection to General Mills doing whatever it wants with the products it sells.  Cheerios is GM’s product; it can make Cheerios however it wants to.  My concern is not with General Mills.  The main problem isn’t even what happens in the United States.  If people in the United States want food made without genetically modified ingredients, it would be a problem.  Most of our food presently comes from genetically modified seeds, etc., so there would be a difficult transition period as we stopped using GMOs.  But we could do it.  Our farmers could grow all the food we need without using GMOs.  Our food would be more expensive, but we could afford it.  And we would have enough.

The problem with the campaign against GMOs is not in the rich countries; it’s in the not-so-rich countries.  There are many countries where people do not have enough food, where drought and pests can cause major dislocations in the food supply from year to year.  Drought-resistant and pest-resistant crops can provide more food and more secure food supplies in those countries.

Fifty years ago, the green revolution of Norman Borlaug and others brought relief from hunger and famine to millions of people in poorer countries.  GMO foods have the potential to do the same thing today.

Protesting against foods grown from genetically modified seeds and other GMOs makes people in the United States feel good about their social conscience.  In less advantaged countries, those protests will, if successful, result in more hunger and more disease made worse by malnutrition.

Trying to Take “Christmas” Out of Christmas Market

A couple of years ago, the four of us went to Germany in December to see the Christmas markets there – and other things.  They were great.

Chicago has what I have read is the largest German-style Christmas market in the United States.  In keeping with the German influence, they call it “Christkindlmarket Chicago”.  But in keeping with American political correctness, they don’t call it a Christmas market.  Rather, they say it is a “traditional German holiday market”.  The one thing I wonder, though.  Do those who call it a “holiday market”, instead of a Christmas market, know what “Christkindl” means?

Genetically Modified Seeds: Good or Bad?

French researchers have published a study saying that a certain type of genetically-modified corn causes cancer.  Let me quote from the Chicago Tribune:

“For more than a decade, American farmers have planted corn seed containing modified genes that resist crop disease, combat insect pests and make weedkiller more effective.

Generations of livestock have been raised on genetically modified corn.  Millions of Americans have consumed it too ….

If genetically modified corn posed an urgent health threat, America would know it by now.  In fact, the science behind these crops not only is safe, but transformative. Agricultural biotechnology has reduced the amount of chemical pesticides and herbicides in use.  It has improved yields. It is making important contributions to the relief of global hunger ….

So imagine our surprise at the new study from the University of Caen in France claiming that genetically modified corn causes cancer. … [I]t has prompted European authorities to consider banning a certain type of bioengineered corn made by St. Louis-based Monsanto Co.

The study alleged that rats consuming Monsanto corn over a two-year period developed more tumors and other health problems than a control group of rodents fed with conventional corn.  The rats also developed cancer when they consumed water spiked with the common herbicide Roundup, which the corn is modified to resist.

Roundup-Ready corn, as it's called, has been a boon.  It has enabled farmers to spray weedkiller directly on their fields much more efficiently.  If the substance gets on the crop, thanks to the biotech protection, no damage is done.  Only the weeds die. …

The study followed the lives of 200 lab rats, and that is problem No. 1.  The sample size is too small to be useful in determining food safety.  By testing both the corn and the Roundup, the researchers diluted what would have been a small-scale effort even further.  In addition, the research team selected a strain of rat said to be especially susceptible to tumors. …

The study was greeted with skepticism from scientists around the world for other reasons too. …

The scientific community's doubts were absent from initial accounts of the study, for a particular reason.  According to published reports, journalists were given advance copies of the findings only if they agreed to keep the information confidential.  So their accounts at first were published without independent input. …

No one familiar with Europe's customary aversion to this technology can be shocked at what looks to us like a misuse of science in the service of a political agenda.

… It is sad to consider that the rats in this flawed study ate better than many of the people in the world who could benefit from the crop technology that it attempts to smear.”

The most logical conclusion from this study is, of course, that a person who is especially susceptible to developing tumors should not eat as much corn, compared to their body weight, as these rats did, especially while drinking water laced with pesticides.  That shouldn’t be too hard for most of us to do.

But the main point here is that a certain group of people, living in the developed world, where food is plentiful and relatively inexpensive, have developed an aversion to things like genetic modification of foods and seeds that might help make food less scarce and less expensive in less developed countries (or whatever the proper “pc” term is for such countries today).  In fact, the developed world’s elites have even convinced the governing elites in some less developed countries (who personally have enough food at an acceptable price, even if their people don’t) to limit the use of genetically modified seeds in their countries.*

Actually, the elites’ aversion to genetically modified seeds fits with their attitudes in other areas.  They have their homes in Vail or condos in San Francisco, so now they worry about over-development and propose zoning controls and density limits to keep others out.  While they talk about maintaining the wilderness for all to enjoy, what they really want is to keep others out so it is not crowded for them.

It all brings to mind, in an ironic way, a movie I saw a couple of years ago, “Unknown.”  (I particularly enjoyed the movie because it had so many scenes of Berlin in it.)  The plot of the movie involves an evil organization that is trying to stop a scientist and his Saudi benefactors from disclosing to the world a new genetically-modified strain of corn that can grow in any climate.  The scientist and the Saudi prince want to give the formula to all, for free, to combat world hunger.  The implication is that a group of big agri-business corporations are trying to kill the scientist and steal the formula to protect their profits.

This is, of course, how Hollywood sees the world.  Big business = bad. But in reality, it would be the PC green elitists who would most want to stop the genetically-modified strain of corn from being distributed around the world.  They are doing it today with respect to GM crops when it is corporations who want to sell them.  They would oppose it just as much if the seeds were being given away for free.

--------
* One wonders what these people would be saying about Norman Borlaug’s “green revolution” if he were doing it today.

Political Correctness – Down Under and a Little to the Left

Political correctness caused problems for Larry Summers at Harvard. A particularly virulent form of political correctness resulted in riots around the world in the case of those Danish cartoons which, depending on your point of view, either satirized certain believers of Islam or blasphemed the Prophet Mohammed. More recently, the Deutsche Oper in Berlin canceled its performances of Mozart’s "Idomeneo" because of a combination of political correctness and giving in to fear. An interesting example of political correctness popped up in New Zealand recently.

First, some background. In 1840 the British entered into a treaty, the Treaty of Waitangi, with several hundred native (or Maori) chiefs in New Zealand. The Treaty had three main articles. While there have been, and still are, disputes concerning the meaning of the clauses (the English words and native words have somewhat different meanings), in general the Treaty’s three articles did this: The first article granted the Queen "sovereignty" over New Zealand. The second article guaranteed the continued "chieftainship" of the native chiefs and their ownership of their lands and treasure. The third article gave the Maori the same rights as all other British subjects.

In the last thirty years the Treaty has become central to New Zealand political life. To some, the Treaty established a partnership between the Europeans ("pakeha") and the Maori, a so-called partnership of two peoples in one land. To many who view the Treaty this way, this interpretation has become almost a secular gospel that cannot, and must not, be challenged. In other words, it has become a pillar of political correctness in New Zealand.

Not everyone agrees with this interpretation of the Treaty – or with this approach to governing New Zealand. The head of the National Party (the more conservative major party), Don Brash, a former Governor of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand and a latecomer to electoral politics, has strongly disagreed with this interpretation.

Brash’s most recent statement on this point came in an article published in The New Zealand Herald (Auckland) on October 2, 2006, in which he said the following: "[A]ll New Zealanders, whatever the ethnicity of their ancestors and whenever they or their ancestors arrived in New Zealand, must be equal under the law. And all must receive help from the Government based on their need, and not on their race."* Before that, he said, in part:

"[I]t may well have made sense in 1840 to think of the Treaty of Waitangi as being between two very distinct groups of people – the indigenous Maori people on one side of the Treaty-signing table and European settlers on the other.

But that view of the world simply no longer makes sense. Through six or seven generations of inter-marriage there are few if any people in New Zealand who have only Maori ancestors.

That is not to deny that many New Zealanders choose to identify strongly with the Maori part of their ancestry, and with Maori culture. That is absolutely their right.

Neither is it to deny that the Government of New Zealand, on behalf of all New Zealanders, Maori and non-Maori, has an obligation to specific groups of Maori to compensate them for the injustices done in the past. …

But it is quite wrong to argue that because Maori are over-represented in negative social statistics, the Crown, or the Government on behalf of all New Zealanders, has somehow failed to discharge its obligations under the Treaty."

What has been most amazing about Brash’s article, however, is not what he said, but what others said about it and him in response.

Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples said, "We never talk about the man, but what he’s doing is evil – directly negating our existence." Of course, Brash specifically said that many New Zealanders identify with the Maori part of their ancestry and it is their right to do so. How that means Brash is "negating" the existence of the Maori is unclear.

Prime Minister Helen Clark said that she found Brash’s brand of politics "odious" and that "[m]any of us who have contact with the Maori world know there’s a distinctive culture, and it’s something we treasure in this country." But Brash did not object to those who identify with their Maori ancestors or say people should not identify with the Maori culture.

Other comments went beyond amazing into amazingly confusing. In addition to calling what Brash said "evil," Winston Peters, leader of the New Zealand First Party, a party that itself has called for ending different treatment of Maori, said: "When New Zealand First says that Maori don’t want special treatment, we do not mean that Maori should stop being Maori. When the current leader of the National says he does not want special treatment for Maori, he means that Maori have no reason to want to be what they are – Maori." In others words, we’re good guys and he’s not, but we can’t really explain why.

Finally, Rosemary McLeod in The Dominion Post (Wellington) tied Brash to eugenics and from there to racial purity and, of course, the Nazis. She said Brash "must be convinced that racial purity means something pretty significant," though Brash did not say that and she did not explain why she thinks he is so convinced. She asked whether "the fact that Maori have intermarried with other races for a century or so mean they can no longer claim an identity of their own?" Of course, it doesn’t. In fact, Brash specifically said that he understood "many New Zealanders choose to identify strongly with the Maori part of their ancestry, and with Maori culture. That is absolutely their right." Given this, what concern does Ms. McLeod really have?

But this is the point of political correctness. Political correctness takes the view that it is so obviously right that anyone who opposes its policies or preferences can only be doing so for improper purposes or motives. The politically correct cannot believe that anybody who disagrees with them could have good intentions or could do so in good faith. The politically correct view is so obviously right and moral that any disagreement can only be for selfish or some other "bad" reasons. (It is this feature of the politically correct mindset that lends itself so well to those on the political left. In the United States it is not uncommon for liberals/Democrats to reject the idea that conservatives/Republicans could possibly disagree with them for any reason other than selfishness and meanness of spirit. See, for example, Howard Dean’s statement that Republicans are evil.)

In addition, because it is so obvious to the politically correct that they are right, sometimes they find it hard to state reasoned arguments for their positions. They are not used to having to defend their views, so when they are challenged, instead of arguing on the facts, they just state their conclusions louder or call their opponents (and their opponents’ positions) names like "evil" and "odious."

All Don Brash did was to state a fact: Because of "generations of intermarriage there are few … people in New Zealand who have only Maori ancestors." And a position: "[A]ll New Zealanders, whatever the ethnicity of their ancestors and whenever they or their ancestors arrived in New Zealand, must be equal under the law. And all must receive help from the Government based on their need, and not on their race."

But in doing so, Brash attacked one of the main pillars of political correctness in New Zealand. In response, his opponents lashed back, not with reason and argument, but with mischaracterization and insult. Unfortunately, this is too often the way it is with the politically correct, wherever they are.

---------------------

* Since The New Zealand Herald requires a paid subscription to read the complete article, I quote it here:

In the past few days a storm has broken out about the National Party's policy on things Maori, with Tariana Turia making it clear she intends to withdraw her acceptance of my invitation to dinner next month.

What is still unclear is whether this strong reaction is based on National's policies or on a misunderstanding of the selective comments reported by the Herald on Sunday after the paper asked for my opinion on a speech by Supreme Court judge Justice Baragwanath.

In terms of National's policy in this area, nothing has changed since the last election.

The important thing for the National Party, and for me personally, is that all New Zealanders, whatever the ethnicity of their ancestors and whenever they or their ancestors arrived in New Zealand, must be equal under the law. And all must receive help from the Government based on their need, and not on their race.

It was in this context that I reacted strongly to the address given by Justice Baragwanath to the Law Commission's 20th anniversary seminar in August.

Justice Baragwanath seemed to argue that, because Maori health and social statistics showed Maori to be in a worse position on most indicators than non-Maori, New Zealand law and institutions have failed to deliver on the promise of the Treaty.

He added that so long as Maori are under-represented in the Auckland Law School there is more work to be done.

I reacted strongly to this view when asked about it. I said that it may well have made sense in 1840 to think of the Treaty of Waitangi as being between two very distinct groups of people - the indigenous Maori people on one side of the Treaty-signing table and European settlers on the other.

But that view of the world simply no longer makes sense. Through six or seven generations of inter-marriage there are few if any people in New Zealand who have only Maori ancestors.

That is not to deny that many New Zealanders choose to identify strongly with the Maori part of their ancestry, and with Maori culture. That is absolutely their right.

Neither is it to deny that the Government of New Zealand, on behalf of all New Zealanders, Maori and non-Maori, has an obligation to specific groups of Maori to compensate them for the injustices done in the past.

It was a National Government which first settled many of these grievances, particularly those of Tainui and Ngai Tahu.

Any National Government led by me will accelerate that process, so that historical grievances can be dealt with fairly, fully and finally.

But it is quite wrong to argue that because Maori are over-represented in negative social statistics, the Crown, or the Government on behalf of all New Zealanders, has somehow failed to discharge its obligations under the Treaty.

If Maori New Zealanders die more frequently from lung cancer than non-Maori do, for example, it is almost certainly because Maori New Zealanders choose to smoke more heavily than other New Zealanders do, not a result of some failing by the Crown.

Similarly, if there are relatively few Maori at the Auckland Law School - and that despite preferential access arrangements for Maori - that is not a failing of the Government, but a result of decisions made by individual Maori.

I repeat what I noted at the outset: the important thing for the National Party, and for me personally, is that all New Zealanders, whatever the ethnicity of their ancestors and whenever they or their ancestors arrived in New Zealand, must be equal under the law. And all must receive help from the Government based on their need, and not on their race.

That is the only way forward for New Zealand in the 21st century.

I certainly hope that Tariana Turia will reconsider her decision to withdraw her acceptance of my dinner invitation, so that any remaining misunderstanding can be sorted out.