The Fourth Estate

Doug:
Welcome new readers! FYI, we publish every Wednesay around noon (EST). This has been an exciting week for Blank versus Blank. We were interviewed on Radio Times with Marty Moss-Coane on the WHYY radio station. You can listen to an archive of the show here:

http://whyy.org/cms/radiotimes/2016/10/

Which brings up the topic of the media and politics. Our founding fathers knew the importance of what others had called The Fourth Estate. This is generally what we now call "the  press" and is protected by our First Amendment to the Constitution. As many have noted, you can't have a true democracy without having a knowledgeable electorate, and you can't have informed people without a strong press.

But Trump hasn't exactly embraced the idea of Freedom of the Press. At his rallies, Trump frequently calls reporters "disgusting" and "sleazy", has retracted access if a reporter writes a negative story, has threatened to sue papers for libel, and threatened to weaken First Amendment protections for reporters.

David:
I think Trump is correct in pointing out media bias. The unsubstantiated stories of his groping dominated headlines and the nightly news for a full week. Stories about Trump's troubles averaged 10 minutes on network news programs each night. Stories about Wikileaks email releases, which document more serious issues for Clinton, averaged 30 seconds.

Newspapers and reporters are not immune to slandering or libeling people. But as a major media figure, I think the standards Trump would need to prove makes his argument for libel un-winnable.

Doug:
Unsubstantiated stories of groping? Trump admitted as much in his own words. And there are many witnesses that report that each of these women told them privately at the time that each group occurred. Trump's troubles? When a major party candidate has a dozen women come out accusing him of exactly what he was bragging about, this is all of our troubles. This is usually caught much earlier.

David:
Exactly the point...

Doug:
No, that is not your point. My point is that we have to do 40 years of background checks in a short time. Your point is that that information is coming out in this short time.

David:
Please, wait until I finish the comment.

While all of these events may have occurred, and I think they likely occurred, the fact that no one came forward until now, and all on the same day, as an October surprise, questions the integrity of the story.

Doug:
No, it does not question the integrity of the issue. You can't argue that the story is true, but the timing "questions the integrity of story." That is not a thing. Next time a famous person sticks his tongue down your throat, let me know why you didn't come forward and report it immediately. It would (as it is now) be your word against theirs. And they have enough money to destroy you and your reputation. All of these women came out with their stories when Trump claimed that he didn't do what he bragged about. That was too much for them to bear.

David:
And here's another scenario, if you can entertain one. If you are a candidate, and your opponent has already made it clear that if you play the gender card, he will bring up your husband's infidelities and your treatment of the women who accused him. That discussion rattled around the news cycle for a week, and you recognize it's a major liability that may wreck the only real reason you're running: to be the first female president. What do you do? You spend months finding women who will claim that the candidate has exhibited the same behavior. The issue is now neutralized, or becomes an issue in your favor. This is just politics 101, brother. And how quickly everyone has forgotten about Monica Lewinsky and Hillary's "Bimbo" and trailer trash attacks against women who still accuse Bill of sexual assaults.

Doug:
This issue is not about sex, but consent. If you think that Clinton is only running to be the first female President, and she is winning, you may want to rethink your political strategies. Clinton's life has been in public service, and in the public. Trump has not been in government and is largely an unknown quantity. We never did see his tax returns. There may still be additional October surprises. But don't be surprised.

David:
Clinton has run heavily on the idea that she'll be the first woman president. It's a fact that is present in almost every ad she runs, even in her negative attack ads. Trump has been in the public eye almost as long as Hillary, but in a different role. You may argue that it was an acting role, but he was playing himself. If you don't think Hillary had people managing her image for the past 30 years, you're kidding yourself.

Doug:
Should Clinton's hacked emails be getting the same amount of coverage as Trump's attacks on women? Has anything newsworthy come from the hacked emails? Not that I can see. Lot's of interesting points about how the sausage is made, and some internal discussion. If anything, her emails make her look more appealing to Republicans, and less appealing to Sander's supporters. But then again, many of these are private, one-on-one conversations devoid of context.

I do think that the WikiLeaks email release has brought us into a new situation. Unlike Snowden's revelations, the leaks weren't made to reveal anything in particular. Most of us believe that even Clinton or Trump deserve to have some private conversations. How should the press deal with this information, some of which could never be verified? It has brought computer security to front of the stack. I wouldn't be surprised to see a President Clinton make security more a important priority for everyone.

David:
That last comment made me smile. Clinton, who says that you need a cloth to wipe a server clean, is now claiming to be an expert in cybersecurity. Excuse me while I catch my breath, I'm laughing so hard now.

Doug:
That was just my hypothesis (or wish, really). Hacking is a serious problem, and we don't really take it seriously. Perhaps because this happened to Clinton, she will take it seriously. We all need our privacy, from government and others.

David:
The Wikileaks documents have not been denied by anyone. In fact, Clinton acknowledged they were real when she attempted to accuse Abraham Lincoln of having made her say that she's lying to the public, and doesn't really mean what she says. When the sausage making includes information that Clinton is a dishonest and conniving hypocrite, it seems noteworthy. There are numerous pieces of information in the leaks that raise questions of how the Clinton Foundation operated and collected cash. That is, the information is there if you care to understand it in it's context.

Doug:
No one has verified that the 20,000 emails are real and haven't been edited. There are some from Podesta's email account that have been cryptographically signed that we can confirm that not a single character has been altered. But the others would require confirmation from one of the participants. There has been no evidence that anything illegal occurred. Which is amazing! If someone stole the private email of any criminal, there would be smoking guns everywhere. Trump won't even release his tax reports, and yet we see Clinton's private emails, and you still think there is any question about who to trust. Amazing!

David:
Again, no one has denied their authenticity. The Clinton campaign has been shown to have pushed the conflict-of-interest boundaries with the cosy relationship of foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation. In an exchange about whether to take donations from lobbyists from foreign countries, Clinton's team had no questions. "I’m ok just taking the money and dealing with the attacks," writes Robby Mook, Clinton’s campaign manager. Jennifer Palmieri, Clinton’s campaign manager, added "Take the money!!"

Doug:
You blur the distinction between the "Clinton campaign" and the "Clinton Foundation" by talking about "Clinton's team." Very clever. But these are different groups of people. The conversation really is interesting to see how the foundation carefully examines what money that should and should not accept. Recall that this foundation does a lot of good work. They do need money to do this work. And it is amazing that everything that they do, and the way that they do it, is legal. Even when we examine their private emails. Amazing!

And yet you wonder why this doesn't get nearly the airtime as the other candidate first admitting to assaulting women, followed by women confirming his exact words.

David:
Mook and Palmieri are both Clinton campaign managers, and they were talking about the Clinton Foundation accepting foreign cash for expected access to the Clintons, and the optics those transactions presented. Glad I could connect those very difficult-to-follow dots for you.

I'm not sure if the media bias we are now witnessing represents a return to the "yellow journalism" of the past, or just a temporary bias brought about by the desire of Democratic-run networks and newspapers to get their candidate elected in a close election. Several of America's highest-ranking news kingpins are married or related to stalwarts of the Obama administration, and journalists are likewise connected to the Clintons' campaigns, past and present. Perhaps it only represents lazy journalism, as they report scandalous accusations without having to do any research to back up any of their stories.

Doug:
I disagree. I think most newspapers and reporters work very hard. I encourage everyone to support their local news coverage.

David:
Yellow journalism was a highly sensationalized and dramatic reporting style used by New York newspapers run by William Randolph Hurst and Joseph Pulitzer in the 1890s to promote and sell their newspapers. Both men were Democrats, so there was not really a partisan edge to the reporting. While "yellow journalism" is a well-known term, it really didn't play out anywhere other than New York, and the two newspapers that used it in such outlandish ways were not even the most popular newspapers in New York at that time. The problem we run into now, with partisan, biased reporting, is that most cities only have one newspaper. There are not multiple papers to offer varying opinions and news angles. The internet may provide a wide and easily accessible variety of news sources, but the internet is full of very partisan viewpoints, and really rides the coat-tails of classic yellow journalism.

Doug:
The problem is that newspapers have to make money, and many people want to be entertained rather than given the truth about someone on their Political "team." Many people don't want the truth, and they certainly don't want to have to pay to hear negative information about their side. CNN tries too hard to be both entertaining and informative. Although they have some very talented reporters, they also try to stretch a non-story into 24-hour coverage.

David:
I believe that's what I said. Then you sort of denied it, and then agreed that news media are more interested in ratings than reporting real or unbiased news.

Doug:
Not quite. Each woman that is accusing Trump of sexual assault is a story. What is a non-story is when they give Trump airtime to sell steaks. They have too many "breaking stories" just to fill airtime. Ironically, there are enough real stories to fill a 24-hour news cycle, but we don't hear about those. And I'm not talking about fake stories about the "optics" of Clinton's email.

David:
Avoiding the Wikileaks emails is not quite the same as selling steaks. The media is still the filter of news. They still get to decide what you see, and what gets omitted. Here's how that works:

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/10/techniques-of-bias-how-journalists-can.html

The media has real power. Malcolm X said, "The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses. "

Doug:
Yes, we are all biased. That is a fact. But some news organizations work to remove, or at least curtail, that bias. But because you believe in a false equivalency between every "Clinton X" and "Trump Y" that does not mean that that view is valid. It is not.

David:
There is data that does not support your view. Corruption in government is the thing Americans fear most, not Donald Trump's gropes. While the media has played up the sex, they have overlooked quite a few emails that lay out a reasonable case for corruption within the Clinton campaign and Foundation. The FBI emails, which have also been essentially ignored, also note favoritism shown Clinton in their investigation. There is a justice system for a few select, elite individuals, and then there is a justice system for the rest of us.

Doug:
Again, Trump's troubles are not about "sex" but about "consent." Many of these fears are irrational. Fear of gun control?! I wish! People's ginned-up concerns don't change the equation of false equivalency. The future of news does not look good if people only hear what they want to hear. This blog is a good example of that. Blank versus Blank is hard to read regardless of which "side" you are on exactly because one is confronted with the "other" side's position. What is the solution?

David:
You like to use the term "false equivalency" a lot. Whenever you don't think something is as important as the rest of the country does, you feel it's not on equal footing? I believe that is a new phrase you've come up with to attempt to minimize or deligitamize arguments that you can't actually argue against effectively. Kind of like your phrase, "It's too nuanced for you to understand", when you've run out of ammunition.  Perhaps you need to get out more and meet people outside of your little liberal bubble. Here in Indiana, as has been done in a dozen other states, we will be voting on a state constitutional amendment to protect the right of Hoosiers to hunt and fish. In other words, to protect the right to actually use the gun you own. That's how fearful people are of gun control.

The obvious solution to the problem is more Blank Versus Blank!

Aside from that, the unabashed bias in the main stream media has pushed some people away from traditional sources for news. The internet has made it much easier for people to seek ever more polarized viewpoints, which will make candidates ever more polarized, which will make politicians more polarized as well. Right now, both major party candidates have greater than a 60% disapproval rating across the board. Whomever gets elected is going to have a very difficult time pursuing anything at all, as a majority of Americans will not be on board for anything that candidate has to offer. If either candidate also controls the Senate, and pushed ideological candidates for the Supreme Court, this country is in for some very bitter political fighting in the near, and potentially far future.

Doug:
Nah. I see bright future full of love and hope. Oh, there will be "Trump TV" as I predicted two weeks ago. There will be a pus-filled boil of anger on Trump TV. But at least it will be contained. I think people will come back to mainstream media. Even Rush Limbaugh this week admitted that he was wrong to reject polls reported in the 2012 election. So, support your local press. Now is a good time to support your local NPR station too.

David:
What do you think?

A New Cold War?

David:
While the hijinks of the US Presidential campaign continues its slow slide into the swamp, there are still some very important and very serious issues at stake. Throughout the past 8 years, Russia has increasingly moved in aggressive ways throughout the Balkans and the Middle East. They have invaded and secured the Crimean Peninsula, have established stronger ties with Iran, and have positioned themselves to control whatever happens in Syria.

While we may have opposing views on why this has happened, it threatens the peace of the world. Just this week, Russia has pulled out of an agreement to dispose of tons of weapons-grade plutonium, while at the same time moving missiles into Kaliningrad. They have been testing NATO and the US in the region by flying into sovereign airspace and buzzing US ships.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/d3b3e157-00a9-3955-a86c-4b9adbdeab44/ss_putin-throws-out-the-old.html

President Obama has not, and does not, seem to want to make any moves at all, strategic or otherwise. But the next President will have to deal with a much more forceful and empowered Putin. Is it a mistake to let him act with impunity, or is it already too late to intervene in any diplomatic or military ways? How should the next President interact with Russia and Putin?

Doug:
Some recent activity by Russia definitely seems alarming. But I wouldn't go as far to say that we know if it "threatens the peace of the world." That sounds alarmist at this point. Let's not make this political. It may seem to you that "President Obama has not, and does not, seem to want to make any moves at all, strategic or otherwise." But I suspect that you are not privy to the government's strategy.

David:
What happened to President Obama's plan for his administration to be "the most transparent  ever"?  Or are you saying that it's better not to tell the enemy your plans ahead of time, by not making your plans privy to Americans? That sounds exactly like Donald Trump.

Doug:
Yes, Donald Trump invented the strategy of private negotiations.

To your question:

"Is it a mistake to let him act with impunity?" Of course, the United States would not let Putin do anything. There are many tools in the diplomacy toolbox for attempting to work with foreign governments.

David:
Wouldn't let him do anything! What do you think he's planning to do with tons of weapons-grade plutonium? He's strategically moving missiles into the Baltic.  He's lining up troops along the Ukrainian/Crimea border and moving tons of military supplies and weapons into Syria. What do you call that? I have not seen us, or NATO, do anything to slow down Russia's aggressive movements.

Doug:
I don't think that you are representing the situation accurately. Countries flex their muscles all the time without diplomats jumping to the conclusion that we are on the brink of war, let alone on the brink of a cold war.

David:
There is a difference between flexing muscles, and actually invading other countries.

Doug:
"Is it already too late to intervene in any diplomatic or military ways?" Of course not. That is ridiculous to suggest that it is too late. It is never too late.

"How should the next President interact with Russia and Putin?" They should interact with Russia in an appropriate manner. That would be using diplomacy and force as needed. Obama has done a fairly good job of balancing these. The last 8 years have been challenging. Let's hope the next President can also handle such challenges appropriately.

David:
The next few years will be more challenging, due to the inactions of our current administration.

Doug:
Now you're a foreign policy expert that can see into the future? Gee, who caused more problems: Bush starting wars in multiple countries, or Obama? I think we'll be dealing with Bush's fiascos for many generations.

David:
That is such a tired old mantra. It's Bush' fault.

Doug:
Many tired old mantras are also true. Which is why they are often said. How could starting multiple wars not have an effect for generations?

David:
While Obama has done nothing but draw red lines (that he didn't really mean), and makes threats (that he didn't intend to really follow through on), Russia has positioned itself to be the stronger player in our negotiations in the region. Diplomacy only works, if there is a realistic threat of force to back up your words. Otherwise, you are not negotiating, you are pleading.

Doug:
We have the largest military force in the world. I don't think we need to do much more to make people realize that we pose a realistic threat.

David:
We spent a good deal of time trying to figure out if we should have a "no-fly" zone over Syria. While we were spending our diplomatic efforts there, Putin has moved into Syria with anti-aircraft batteries and is bombing hospitals and civilian aid-workers with impunity. The UN put together a proposal to stop this, which Russia promptly vetoed.

The reason we are debating what to do with all of the Syrian refugees, is we are doing nothing to prevent them from becoming refugees in the first place.

Is there any point where you would advocate using the military to stop this? Is there a certain number of civilians that would need to be killed? Or should we continue telling Russia they'd better not cross our red lines, or else.

Doug:
Using military to stop this? What is "this"? The military is not the first tool a president should reach for. In fact, it should be the last. I see that you are frustrated that Russia is doing things that we wished it wouldn't. But one can't just threaten violence back every time one feels threatened. There are civilians killed all over the world every day. We need to work towards solving that. But not with more violence.

David:
So your answer is no. You would never use force to back up your position. Because you would never consider using force, or would only use it in the most dire of circumstances, when your back is against the wall, your diplomacy will never be successful. Diplomacy with a realistic threat of force to back it up must work in tandem together, not as an either/or strategy. Clinton and Obama spent years telling the Russians we were all going to be good buddies, while Putin never had friendship with us on his mind.

Doug:
Restraint takes more courage than engagement. Obama realizes that our military lives should not be sacrificed if diplomacy can work. And using force can create enemies for long periods of time.

David:
All Presidents have known that. But there are things that can be done without using force. Moving troops into NATO countries in the Balkans, or placing a missile defense system in Poland sends a message that we are prepared to use force if Russia invades other countries or pushes further. Sending in jets to protect civilians from bombing raids says we are prepared to use force to protect the innocent from Russian aggression.  Putin is using force right now. Telling Putin that we won't send John Kerry to talk to him anymore is not a deterrent. (Although threatening to send Kerry over to his house might be a deterrent. It would be for me.)

Doug:
Which is why you don't understand how diplomacy works.

David:
Ditto. You can have the largest military in the world, but if your enemies know you will never use it, it is meaningless. Sending in small groups of men, without a clear strategy to win decisively, wastes those men's lives. Remember, we have men fighting in Mosul right now. We had already captured Mosul under Bush. Pulling all of our men out allowed Mosul to fall back into the hands of the enemy. Many men gave up their lives to take that city in 2003. What a waste. That's how Obama's diplomacy has worked: re-fighting wars that had already been won, once. Let's start tallying up his body count.

Who Should Win the Election?

Note: This post was written differently from the previous ones. We wrote the initial statements separately, posted them simultaneously, read the other, and then wrote a response.

David:
Donald Trump has given several major policy speeches, including topics such as the economy, terrorism, foreign policy, immigration reform, and law and order.. He didn't have someone ghostwrite a book for him. He developed the policies with experts in each field. These experts have obtained a consensus that the majority of his ideas are better for the country than Clinton’s, particularly when it comes to taxes and the economy.

Economic growth is the key to making America great again. Trump promises to decrease regulation, which is keeping the economy from flourishing. Even the European Union has just introduced language into its charter reigning in regulations because it hurts growth. While we’re currently mired in the slowest recovery since the Depression, Clinton promises bigger government and more regulation. A survey of over 200 economist found that 77% supported Trump’s plans for the economy, while only 15% liked Clintons.

Trump knows more about the US tax code than just about anyone. He has freely admitted that he donated to politicians, because then “they owe you something”. He donated to the Clintons, and they came to his wedding. Wall street and foreign countries have donated to the Clintons, through their foundation. What will they expect in return? Trump understands it’s a rigged system, and has noted specific tax code changes to close loopholes. Clinton has benefitted from this system, and plans to continue to do so. Clinton says she’ll go after Wall Street in her public speeches, but we now know she’s been promising something different to the big bankers behind closed doors, for money. Trump is not paid for by Wall Street.

On foreign policy, many of our allies just don’t trust us anymore. Obama made many promises and threats, and failed to follow through. Our enemies are emboldened, and our allies feel as if we are unreliable. Clinton’s well-known inability to tell the truth exacerbates this problem. Trump will follow the Reagan model of projecting strength through a robust, well-trained, and well-supplied military.

Almost ¾ of Americans believe America is currently on the wrong track. What’s the definition of insanity? Clinton has promised she will deliver more of the same. She believes hard-working, middle-class Americans are deplorable and irredeemable. Trump understands the anger that created both the Trump and Sander’s movements. He understands American exceptionalism, and that it all begins with education. Not Common-Core, liberal, watered-down education, but real, competitive, charter-school driven education advancements that will create the next generation of successful Americans.

Doug:
Who should win the election, and why? That's easy: Hillary Rodham Clinton. Why? She has shown that she has the right temperament, knowledge, and experience. That's it. There isn't any more to say. If policy mattered at all this election, she also has the right policies. But that doesn't even matter. If Trump had exactly the same policies as Clinton, I would not vote for him. For many, having the right temperament, knowledge, and experience are all that matters.

But why would anyone vote for Trump? Obviously he doesn't have the right temperament. He has over-the-top reactions to just about everything. He has no experience in, or knowledge of, government. He does have some experience, of course. But running a business (or playing an executive on TV) is not useful in running a government. One needs to know how government works. Even if you think that government doesn't actually function well, you still need to know the mechanics of government.

So why would Trump supporters think that proper temperament, knowledge, and experience don't matter? I believe that there are many people angry about their current situation, and it is worth trying anything to fix it. Perhaps they have lost their jobs or homes, or they are angry because they don't believe that they are getting what they deserve. They perceive their life was better in some "good ole days" and they are willing to try anything to get back there. Trump is their "Hail Mary" to an imagined better world.

The very idea of having to be respectful to others makes these people angry. Why? As you have pointed out, many of these people call themselves Christian. Of course, there are many other Christians that are not Trump supporters. But the Christians that are Trump supporters hate the idea of "political correctness" (i.e., being respectful to others). They don't find a problem with Jesus telling them to be respectful of others. But if someone representing the government suggests the same, they yell "we're losing our freedom!"

Government vs. religion. I believe that is the division. Trump Supporters want their church (or other local organization) to be their main organizing infrastructure. Others are fine using government to be that organizing and philosophical structure. Government could be the method that we all work together to build something for the greater good. But will they be willing to let that happen?

David:
You put a great deal of faith in the word temperament. But I don't think you are using that word correctly. When you say temperament, do you mean the ability to lie while looking straight into someone's eyes? Do you mean the ability to have both a public and a private (and opposite) viewpoint on topics like dealing with Wall Street? Is temperament the ability to destroy other's lives while enriching your friends? Or perhaps temperament is just hiding your emails from the public by skirting federal law.

You need to brush up on your American history. Using only your temperament ideals, Teddy Roosevelt would be excluded from contention. LBJ would not have been allowed to be president. Both of these men were loud, obnoxious, and boorish. And, they accomplished great things.

Before they became president, none of our presidents had any experience in running a country. Clinton has a lot of experience being in politics. She's made numerous bad decisions. Her policies helped get Putin in a position where he is now dictating to the USA what we can and cannot do in the Middle East. She helped create the policies that enabled ISIS to become a force against us. She failed to provide enough security for the diplomatic staff at the most dangerous location in Libya. Having a great deal of experience within the machine of Washington DC is just a resume for doing more of the same.

Government versus religion? Yes, I do believe that's how you see the world. But your lack of understanding of Christians and Christianity surprises me. Christians do not like the idea of being forced to accept and condone sin or wrongdoing (political correctness). They are respectful of others, but don't wish the government to force them to participate in activities they believe are wrong. I'm surprised you would even spend half of your space to introduce religion into this debate. Christians have no candidate in this race with anything resembling a moral compass, except for Mike Pence. So they are left to look to the larger picture. Who will pick SCOTUS candidates that will protect innocent lives and ensure religious freedoms? Who is the most likely to protect Christians abroad from ISIS beheadings? Just today, emails revealed that Clinton's camp mocked Catholics and evangelical Christians. No wonder you also have such disdain for these Americans.

You and Hillary can go mock and ridicule (behind their backs) the rednecks, Catholics and Christians, and other deplorable and irredeemable Americans you care so much about.

Doug:
After Clinton wins the election, and democrats control the Senate, and perhaps even the House, what will happen with Trump's supporters? Even before the votes are counted, some will attempt to cause chaos at the election sites to attempt to keep people from voting. Then, there will be cries that the election was stolen, even though Trump was never predicted to win:

From 538 blog: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=2016-forecast-analysis

Would Trump go as far as inciting attacks on the US government? I think that is a real possibility. In that case, it will be easier to identify those that do not want to live under the rule of law. More likely, people will say that Clinton is not their president, but won't break any laws directly.  This is not an appealing prospect for many Republicans, and will probably result in a third party. But I don't see people like the Koch brothers supporting such a party. The Koch brothers already have made inroads with the established Republicans, and are very cleverly attempting to co-opt colleges with money and institutes.

I expect that Trump and Roger Ailes will move back into their world and create "Trump TV" and other resources where conspiracy theories and hate can fester. As this group gets older, their numbers will diminish. Younger voters are more attracted to hope, not fear. But Trump and Ailes can make still make a couple of bucks before they fade from sight completely. But they won't get the kinds of publicity or attention from main stream media any more.

I suspect that the Republican party will learn some valuable lessons in all of this: there are far worse things than having your opponent win; sometimes you have far more in common with your opponent than someone on your own team; your opponent is not your enemy, but just working towards your goals, albeit via a different path. 

Disney's Cultural Appropriations

David:
Disney Studios next animated feature is titled Moana. According to it's synopsis:

"An adventurous teenager sails out on a daring mission to save her people. During her journey, Moana meets the once-mighty demigod Maui, who guides her in her quest to become a master way-finder. Together they sail across the open ocean on an action-packed voyage, encountering enormous monsters and impossible odds. Along the way, Moana fulfills the ancient quest of her ancestors and discovers the one thing she always sought: her own identity."

But, the movie has already run afoul of the PC police. It seems that Polynesian peoples, including the Maori people of New Zealand, have decided the movie is guilty of cultural appropriation, by depicting characters from their folklore. Disney has already pulled Halloween costumes after being accused of participating in "poly-face", a polynesian take on black-face makeup. 

I had never heard of Maui before as a mythological character, but only as one of Hawaii's islands. By telling this tale, isn't Disney promoting Polynesian culture?

Doug:
You know that "PC police" aren't really police, right? These are actual Polynesian people that didn't like how the Halloween costumes depicted them. Remember, "PC" only means "be respectful." So, Disney rightfully pulled the plug on the costumes. Disney is still going to show the movie, so you'll still get to learn important cultural history through your preferred medium.

I'm sure Fairchild's statement "It was wrong to sell a costume that allowed children to pretend to be another race" is probably something with which Disney agrees. 

David:
But what about Mulan? What about the female lead in Moana? What about Tiana, the lead female character from the Princess Frog? These are characters that are also a different race, and yet no one complained about costumes with those movies. 

Doug:
Oh, I'm sure that there have been people that were not happy with the portrayals of these characters.

David:
Little white girls dressing up as a Polynesian girl, a black princess, or a Japanese warrior was okay before. The cultural crime of cultural appropriation is a new phenomenon. Disney, and many others across a broad spectrum, in art, fashion, literature, and even cuisine have been recently attacked for cultural appropriation, the new PC battle cry. America has always been a melting pot of cultures and races, which has enriched us all, and made America something different. Our language is a confluence of words and dialects from all over the world. But now, we are not allowed to use words,  fashion,  music, or anything else that originated from another culture. 

Doug:
Don't get confused: you are allowed to be as ignorant as you wish. And Disney could sell the costumes if they wanted. But I will point out that these costumes actually come with the character's skin. You actually wear their tattooed skin:

Disney's Maui costume that was pulled from shelves.

Isn't that a little different than other costumes? 

David:
Yes...and no. 

It appears that you believe that a Chinese seamstress, working with her magic sewing machine, can turn some ordinary padding and fabric into someone's skin. Let me assure you that no one is wearing anyone's skin. This isn't Silence of the Lambs.

Doug:
Why in your mind it is a Chinese woman making these costumes? But you got me on that one. I should have said metaphorical skin. 

David:
The costumes are made in China. I suppose Xi Jinping, the Chinese president, might be sewing the costumes in the palace basement.  I should not have assumed it would be a seamstress doing the sewing.

Doug:
I don't know how you would have found out they were made in China... the costumes were pulled off of the shelves. Why is it when conservatives are caught, they say something like "I suppose the president of China is making them in his basement" or "Yeah, I was out working the cones." You could have just said "Oops, that was a bit of a stereotype. Sorry."

David: While you, as an adult, may say that the child is wearing someone else skin, that isn't correct either in reality or in the child's mind. If you asked the child, "are you trying to be a Polynesian boy?", the child would look at you with incredulous eyes and say, "No! I'm Maui!". When the child puts on the costume, he sees himself as a character, the mighty Maui, a demigod of the oceans, a powerful warrior. He would recognize the tattoos, and would recognize that tattoos are on skin, but would likely argue with you that he is not wearing anyone's skin. You are projecting your adult beliefs and understanding (completely lacking in imagination) onto children. It would be different if you wore this costume. Adults have different interpretations of events and context, that children do not. The little boy would not have even seen that there is a difference in skin color until you pointed it out. 

There have been numerous other costumes that have met no resistance at all: Tarzan, Tonto, and Hercules, to name a few.

 



You're projecting adult interpretations onto children. Children do not see themselves as transforming into another race. They see themselves as becoming a character. That's different.

Doug:
Yes, as an adult I let children know that that isn't appropriate behavior. By your own logic, blackface is perfectly acceptable. Even college kids make these mistakes, but that is no reason to say "kids will be kids."

David:
What I'm saying is that children would not even see the different colors of skin, if you didn't make it an issue.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/08/21/to-the-new-culture-cops-everything-is-appropriation/?postshare=2461475353699053&tid=ss_mail&utm_term=.186ffdc61c77

And this goes further than being respectful. Disney, and many others in various fields, are not being disrespectful.

Doug:
Nope, you don't get to decide.

David:
Yes, I do.

Doug:
No. I think you fundamentally don't understand the asymmetry: being white and dressing up as black versus being black and dressing up as white. These are not the same in our culture. You may not like the fact that they are different, but they are.

David:
Because you apparently get to decide that. Got it. Because you're liberal, and you care.

Disney designers certainly didn't sit down one day and say, "hey, who can we insult today?"

Doug:
I agree. But this subtle racism seeps in very easily. But Disney did the right thing in the end and pulled the costumes.

David:
They took great care to bring a story to life that represents Polynesian culture. It's a small group of people who decided to be offended at their efforts that caused the problem we are now discussing. Disney, along with many other artists, designers, and even chefs,  are incorporating other cultural ideas into our culture, creating a new blend, and a more diverse culture. They are introducing cultural stories, symbols, and characters into our mainstream. But that's a terrible sin, according to the PC police, which appears to be anyone offended by anything these days.

"Marama Fox, a co-leader of New Zealand's indigenous Maori Party and a member of New Zealand's parliament, said the costume was a case of cultural misappropriation and an example of a company trying to profit off of another culture's intellectual property.

The movie itself, she said, appeared to be playing into stereotypes.

"It depicts Maui as a bit of a beefy guy, and not in a good way. That's not the picture I have of the Maui who fished up the North Island, and had a number of feats attributed to him," she said."

This person is upset that Disney didn't portray a mythological character the way she imagined he should look. Seriously. Disney should not have been allowed to make Hercules according to this woman, as that mythological character is the "cultural intellectual property" of Greece. (And I don't think Hercules looked like that anyway. He was a little taller, and had darker hair.)

She also goes much further than just discussing the costume. She believes the entire movie, because it portrays Polynesians, is inappropriate. If you follow her lead, white people can only write about, or make movies about white people, and the same goes for blacks, or women, etc.

Doug:
No one said that. But you do say "mythological" and I wonder what the difference is between that and "religious". Is it because if you describe it as "mythological" then that gives you the privilege to use it in whatever way you like?

David:
As if people don't use God or Jesus in any way they wish. God has appeared in a great many movies and cartoons through the years. Sometimes with the express desire to offend Christians. Just don't draw a certain Muslim Prophet who's names starts with M. You'll end up dead.

You can actually go on Amazon.com right now and buy a Jesus costume. If you Google "Jesus at Halloween Parties", you'll find that many people dress as Jesus, complete with crown of thorns and spatters of blood. Hilarious, right? If someone showed up as Jesus at one of your parties, explaining to everyone that it was all a big mis-understanding, and he's really not the Son of God, yada, yada, yada, you'd probably think it was funny. Does that offend me? Certainly it does. It's intended to offend me....

but....

There. I'm over it. I'm offended, but I don't spend more than a second, or spend any more time thinking about it. I get to choose how I view the world, and how I spend my time. There are more productive things to do than to look for offenses around every corner.

Doug:
That isn't for you to decide how everyone should feel. If there are those that are offended, then they should speak up. But I don't think you are upset with random people complaining that they don't like one thing or another. You are upset because Disney agrees with them, and are taking action. Isn't this really that Disney is showing that it has different values than you do, and that bothers you.

David:
Disney is in the business of entertainment, and they will do whatever they think is best for their business. I don't blame them for anything. What I am bothered with, is a minority of folks who are thin-skinned and easily offended bullying others into accepting their viewpoints.

Doug:
It is exactly because they are a minority that we should respect their views.

David:
What you seem to misunderstand is that you can respect someone's views, without accepting their viewpoint as accurate. I respect you and your views, even though you are usually wrong. Political correctness is an attempt to force me into accepting and condoning your viewpoints.

Even in sports, a vocal minority can create a giant scandal. It is unproven that the few loud voices actually represent the groups they proclaim they represent. A recent poll of Native Americans shows that there has been no change in the opinion of Natives during the past 12 years. An overwhelming majority either don't care about the name Redskins, or are proud of the name. They certainly are not offended. Some Native American schools have Redskins as their moniker.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html

Doug:
I don't think vocal minorities can create a "giant scandal." Unless they actually have a point. Some Native Americans quoted in the article mentioned some issues with the poll, and that sounds right. But there are more people these days that just find that kind of stereotypical usage offensive. It would be in the team's best interest not to offend people.

David:
However, the people you mentioned who are offended are not Native Americans. You are offended for them. They don't care. In the old days, that would make you a busybody.

Doug:
I don't like the n-word, but I am not black. I am offended for me. You can call me names (that's what bullies do) but that doesn't make me feel differently.

David:
That's my point exactly! There are all sorts of things that may offend you, but that doesn't mean it offends anyone else, and what someone else says doesn't mean that you have to internalize it or feel differently. You can choose to walk away and get over it. Or, you can decide to let it affect you in a negative way.

Even folks who once argued against "cultural appropriation" feel the movement has swung way too far. Instead of a call to bring diverse people together, cultural appropriation zealots are creating division in the name of diversity. Here is a nice article illustrating how this author has changed their position:

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/05/cultural-appropriation-in-fashion-stop-talking-about-it/370826/

I realize you live in a PC universe, and everything you say or do must first be self-analyzed to make sure all of your micro-aggressions are in check, and everything anyone else says or does must be judged by the same criteria. But most of the rest of us do not live in that world. Most of us are not looking to be offended, and if someone says something that might be offensive, you ignore them. Most of us do not go around judging others, or living in a world of one offense after another. We get along with others, and get along with our lives, and enjoy our friends. And we enjoy Chinese foods, German-engineered products, Italian pasta, and dozens of other things created from, and borrowed from many other cultures.

By the way, you can't wear a bathrobe anymore, because bathrobes originated from the Japanese yukata. If you do wear one, you're a cultural misappropriator! Shame! Shame!

Doug:
I do care about not hurting other people's feelings for no reason. I don't want to disrespect Polynesian people. Most of us do live in that world where we care, apparently. Otherwise Disney wouldn't pull the costumes. And you don't get to tell a race of people that they shouldn't be offended.  You have developed a very rich understanding of Chinese and Italian people through your choices of cuisine. I find your callous dismissal of their valid concerns embarrassing.

David:
Perhaps I need to remind you of the poor white people (clinging to their guns and Bibles) who live in Western Pennsylvania, or West Virginia, and are now unemployed due to Obama's green-energy agenda that destroyed the coal industry.  You don't mind calling them "deplorable".

Doug:
You need to at least try to stick to the topic. I call racists deplorable, wherever they live. You want to turn that attack on everyone. There are many people that are racist... we all are a little bit. The ones that try to hide their racism are the worst.

David:
Ah, but you and Hillary didn't decry racist as deplorable. You two said that half of Donald Trump's supporters were deplorable. That's a big difference. Unless you are making the broad assumption that his supporters are racist, which is painting a very broad picture with a very broad brush. You seem to have a callous dismissal of their very valid concerns. They are Americans who have their own culture. But they don't follow your ideology, so therefore you don't have to care about their feelings, or offending them, or calling the deplorable. Apparently, some people and groups are fair to target. You might even have some "poor-white-trash Trump supporters" at your Halloween party, all dressed up and saying stupid things about the loss of their culture and their way of life. Hilarious. Some might say it's hypocritical to lecture someone about their behavior  while engaging in the same behavior.

Doug:
Your imagination of my Halloween party is ugly. I would not stoop to such behavior. Why would you think I would?

David:
I have heard your opinions of both Christians and out-of-work Trump supporters.

Doug:
I have no idea what you are talking about. You certainly like to jump far to your conclusions.

David: Again, you are hiding behind a stated desire not to hurt other's feelings. But you can't control how other people feel.

Doug:
Oh, but I can. I don't say offensive things. See how easy that is?

David:
Two words: micro-aggressions. You may not intend to say something offensive, but I might still be offended by what you say. You didn't mean it to be that way, but you can't control the interpretation of your words. That's the very definition of micro-aggressions. You are a college professor, so you should know that.

Doug:
Yes, and when you learn that something is offensive (micro-aggression or not) you stop saying that. And then you don't say offensive things. See?

David: What if a certain truth hurts other's feelings? Should you not be able to tell the truth? African-Americans are responsible for more violent crime than any other race in America, by a wide margin. They probably don't want to hear that. It might even hurt their feelings to tell them that they have a violent culture. But to solve the problem of violence in our country, we need to discuss the truth. Here, though, we aren't talking about murder. We are only talking about cloth and padding (and magic sewing machines).

Doug:
You really have a warped sense of reality.

David:
Reality is, well, reality. What's warped is that more blacks have been killed in Chicago than in all of our wars since 9-11, and yet no one wants to talk about it. Hillary encourages protestors to throw rocks at police, rather than discuss the real threat that young black men face.

Disney Studios has told many stories and made many films through the years that we have all treasured. And some of those tales have broadened our understanding of other cultures. The old TV series, Wonderful World of Disney, travelled the world specifically to show other cultures, and several episodes dealt with Polynesian culture. One of the hotels at Disney World is The Polynesian Resort, with art, cuisine, and decor all representing that culture. That's a good thing. But in your PC world, Disney might not be able to create such place, as a few Polynesians might accuse them of cultural appropriation. They might even sue Disney. And Disney would likely back down, because the PC climate, and our new culture of victimhood, would create a news story. The media would likely give voice to the offended, vocal minority. It's that type of bullying, in the name of being offended, that needs to stop.

Doug:
There are many people who find Disney's selling of culture to be offensive. People that are offended are not the bullies.  You have an upside down view of the world where those minorities are being mean to the Disney megacompany.

David:
Right. They're upset that Disney makes a profit. And a company that makes a profit is offensive. I agree with you that is what they're really upset about.

But, hey, it's a small world, after all. Let's all share our cultures with each other instead of hoarding them from each other.