We’re So Inclusive We Want You to Leave: How Brendan Eich’s Resignation Proved Him Unfit As CEO

Tags

CEO, homosexual lobby, Mozilla

Brendan Eich recently resigned from his short-lived position of CEO at Mozilla, as criticism rained down upon him for his opposition to homosexual marriage.  Note that this occurred in California, where Proposition 8, the initiative to ban homosexual marriage, was passed by a majority in 2008.  Pressure was brought to bear on him not because he held an extreme view, but because he held a view that the majority of Californians shared just a few years ago.

While CEO, Eich made it clear that his views on homosexuality would not influence his running of the company, so those urging his dismissal were doing so based on an ideological purity test.  Eich had already been working at the same company as CTO, and there were no apparent issues with his performance.  The leftist Guardian newspaper from Britain (theguardian.com) helped heap on the pressure by pointing out Eich’s campaign contributions to Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, two previous contenders for the Republican presidential nomination.  Eich’s detractors were simply complaining about his previous political actions outside the company.

Eich’s personal political convictions weren’t a good reason for him to step down from the CEO position at Mozilla.  However, the fact that he did resign demonstrates his unsuitability for the job.  A CEO must be able to handle office politics, and if he can’t be depended on to defend his own beliefs, how can he be expected to defend the company’s interests?

Commentary on the left on this issue tends to focus on “inclusivity,”  and Eich’s political views are branded “non-inclusive.”  However, because homosexual marriage is a contentious issue in California, any position Mozilla might take on homosexual marriage would be at odds with roughly half of California’s voters.  The only way to accommodate both factions is for Mozilla to have a neutral stance on the issue – which is apparently the course Eich was planning to take.  This was the simplest and perhaps only way to include both sides amicably.

After Eich removed himself from Mozilla, that organization released a statement saying it supports “marriage equality,” which implies support of homosexual marriage.  It also quotes its Community Participation Guide, which says this in part:

We welcome contributions from everyone as long as they interact constructively with our community, including, but not limited to people of varied age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views.

If Mozilla is truly keen about welcoming people of all religious views, why has it felt the need to support a cause that is irrelevant to its core business and is opposed by virtually every American with strong religious convictions?  If Mozilla were sincere about “inclusivity,” it would have had no problem keeping Brendan Eich as CEO.

This incident lays bare the truth about the progressive cry for “inclusion:” it is only ever issued so that conservatives make way for progressive causes.  Because Eich really was the champion for inclusion, if he had the right skills to be CEO he could have defended himself more than adequately.

As a general rule, when a conservative is accosted by a progressive and exhorted to be “more inclusive,” a good response for the conservative is this: “I’m glad you value being inclusive, because that means you will be respectful and tolerant of my views and traditions.”

 

Advertisements

Immigration Policy as Customer Relations Management: How Bank Customers React to Bank’s Outreach to Bank Robbers

Tags

illegal aliens, immigration

The “immigration reform” debate in the mainstream media over the last decade or so has centered on the status of illegal aliens.  The status of people outside the United States who would like to become legal immigrants, or aliens legally living in the United States and working their way towards citizenship, is at most reported as a side issue.

The legal immigrant is roughly in the position of being a bank customer who sees bank management calling bank robbers “undocumented customers” and prioritizing ways to turn the bank robbers into legitimate customers.  Even worse, imagine that the bank manager starts referring to bank robbers just as “customers,”  so legitimate bank customers are lumped in with the lawbreakers.

That a bank manager would make no distinction between the law abiding and the lawbreakers casts a cloud of suspicion on his own character.  It hints at a willingness to rationalize his own misdeeds as being inconsequential.

It should be fairly obvious that such a bank would no longer be an institution that legitimate customers would care to patronize, if they could possibly avoid it; and so a secondary negative effect of an illegal alien amnesty which I have not often seen talked about is that the United States would fall down the list of countries that highly talented immigrants would want to go to.

Americans are sometimes surprised to learn that legitimate immigrants are irritated by illegal aliens and do not support amnesty, but that is my experience with green card holders.  When put in terms of the bank analogy, the reason for this attitude should be obvious.

This opens up an opportunity to organize legal immigrants to speak out against amnesty.  Such an effort would hurt the amnesty coalition because its rhetoric lionizes immigrants and purports to represent their interests.

Help Them Get Home: A Border Enforcement Slogan For Bleeding Hearts

Tags

DREAM act, illegal aliens, immigration

By allowing an illegal alien to address the Democratic National Convention in 2012, the open borders coalition signaled their abandonment of the rule of law on the illegal immigration issue.  It is plain that the open borders lobby believes emotional manipulation and political arm twisting will carry the day, as it continues to grow its coalition.

To achieve effective amnesty, it is sufficient to pass something like the DREAM act, because the rest of the families can be sponsored for citizenship.  You can be sure that we are seeing an emphasis on beneficiaries of the DREAM act because it is easier to make an emotional appeal on their behalf.  The various proposals for granting illegal aliens legal status would also result in them becoming full citizens, thanks to judicial activism in the name of equality.

In the wake of the Reagan-era amnesty, there is no plausible argument in favor of another amnesty, because recent history shows the deleterious effects that ensue.  An appeal to the rule of law and the consequences of moral hazards should be enough to convince conservatives.  However, this may not be enough to win the argument with the general public.

The open borders lobby attempts to paint its conservative opponents as mean-spirited.  There is a danger that this tactic could be as effective as the  “War Against Women” arguments in favor of mandatory contraception in Obama healthcare plans were.

In response to the amnesty rhetoric, consider the emotional appeal of “help them get home.” This phrase intends to convey the sentiment that a Mexican national’s natural home is Mexico, and only a tyrant with a cruel heart would stand in his way.  The word “help” is key because it conveys compassion.

A progressive no doubt would object that the United States is the home of the illegal aliens in question, but this presents an opportunity to turn his anti-Americanism against him.  Ask such a progressive about the oppression that the illegal alien would face as a minority in America, compared to the opportunities afforded to him in his home country, where he is already guaranteed the full rights of a citizen, with friends and relatives eagerly waiting to help him celebrate his heritage.

If the progressive insists that his plan is especially intended to help children, you can even hit below the belt and ask what sort of person attempts to keep children from going to their rightful, lawful home.  The charge of pedophilia still hurts the progressive’s self image, but they are working on that.

Schooling Paulo Freire: Deconstructing the Deconstructionists

Tags

education, Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, William Lind

On the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), user mariogreymist quoted the following passage from Paulo Freire‘s Pedagogy of the Oppressed (I have not verified its accuracy):

As we attempt to analyze dialogue as a human phenomenon, we discover something which is the essence of dialogue itself: the word. But the word is more than just an instrument which makes dialogue possible; accordingly, we must seek its constitutive elements. Within the word we find two dimensions, reflection and action, in such radical interaction that if one is sacrificed – even in part – the other immediately suffers. There is no true word that is not at the same time a praxis. Thus, to speak a true word is to transform the world.

An unauthentic word, one which is unable to transform reality, results when dichotomy is imposed upon its constitutive elements. When a word is deprived of its dimension of action, reflection automatically suffers as well; and the word is changed into idle chatter, into verbalism, into an alienated and alienating “blah.” It becomes an empty word, one which cannot denounce the world, for denunciation is impossible without a commitment to transform and there is no transformation without action.

On the other hand, if action is emphasized exclusively, to the detriment of reflection, the word is converted into activism. The latter – action for action’s sake – negates the true praxis and makes dialogue impossible. Either dichotomy, by creating unauthentic forms of existence, creates also unauthentic forms of thought, which reinforces the original dichotomy.

 

I responded as follows:

The quoted passage is an excellent example of the type of philosophical writing that turns off the general reader, even though it purports to answer fundamental questions.

As is common with academic socialists’ writing, a dialectical framework is imposed whether or not it is warranted. I’m not convinced that “action” and “reflection” are key components of a word; Freire has just baldly stated that they are, without providing any justification.

For me, the most relevant insight provided by this passage is the disdain for the plain descriptive language of the natural sciences. Consider the simple scientific statement that the Earth orbits the sun. I fail to see any call to action here; it is merely a useful fact about the real world. However, because the statement describes reality rather than transforms it, Freire would consider the statement “inauthentic” and “alienating ‘blah.'”

The passage also helps explain the socialists’ fascination with word games: ones like Freire literally believe that changing the words used to describe a phenomenon will change that phenomenon. This explains the hyperventilating of progressives when badgering people to use politically correct language.

It is worth noting that the passage implicitly supports “denouncing the world,” which is a common aspiration amongst the progressives, and is consistent with William Lind‘s observation that the only real purpose of critical theory is to badmouth Western civilization.

My response was received well enough that I thought it was worth preserving here, since IMDb posts disappear after a period of time.

Human Vs Animal: Subtle Dehumanization in Feminist Language

In a discussion on the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) website, user cwin13 appeared to lose his temper and referred to one of his sparring partners as “Mr. White Male,” complaining that such a person couldn’t understand the plight of “minorities” and “women.”  The user subsequently deleted the comments, so I can’t link to them.

The conversation illustrates a common rhetorical device employed by the progressives: they tend to contrast the terms “woman” with “male”, when the opposite of “woman” is “man,” and the opposite of “male” is “female.”  Once you learn to look for this sort of language, you will frequently encounter it in progressive writing.

The significance of the unusual contrast between “woman” and “male” is that a woman is always a human being, whereas a male can be an animal.  It’s less direct than the old “male chauvinist pig” imagery, but the basic idea is the same.

 

Talk First, Show Later: Penn Jillette on the Pre-Interview Process for Talk Shows

Penn Jillette, the talkative half of the Penn and Teller magic duo, gives some valuable insight behind the scenes of the talk show circuit: there is a significant vetting process for anybody who appears on talk shows, which can include tests of political orthodoxy.  The political grilling goes beyond topics that are actually covered on the talk show.

For example, in the link above, Jillette reveals that a staff member of the now defunct Lopez Tonight show conducted a half hour interview.  According to Jillette, such a long interview is routine even for a four minute spot on a talk show.  In the particular case of the Lopez Tonight show, Jillette was queried about his views on Arizona’s immigration law that was implemented to enforce the existing federal law.  However, no such discussion takes place during what appears to be the corresponding Lopez Tonight episode.

As a libertarian, Jillette supports open borders and has bought into the reinvention of America as a nation of immigrants.  In defending his position, Jillette pulls at the heartstrings by talking about Jewish refugees from Germany who were turned away from America in a period before Hitler started killing his enemies en masse.  What Jillette neglects in his calculations is that with open borders, America would have openly accepted not merely Jewish refugees but also any of their Nazi persecutors who cared to move to America.

Jillette is not only a magician but also an outspoken libertarian who has presented shows that debunk conventional wisdom, so he has more credibility than most entertainers when it comes to drawing back the curtain.  His career is also successful and extensive enough that he is well positioned to speak authoritatively on these matters.  It is only in the matter of immigration that his judgment has been victim to a vanishing act.

The Diversity Consultants’ Latest Method for Managing Diversity is Segregation

Tags

diversity

The Diversity Index, a recent book by Susan Reed, approaches modern human resource considerations about “diversity” from the perspective of a cheerleader for diversity.  She departs from the simplistic verbal pompoms that other diversity consultants brandish in admitting that the project is veering off-course, if not towards defeat, then at least towards a dissatisfying tie.

First, we should be clear as to the nature of diversity in modern political parlance.  Ostensibly, it attempts to create an “inclusive” environment by catering to the various groups designated as historically oppressed, according to the rules of political correctness.  Rather than list all the groups it encompasses, it is far simpler to name the one group it leaves out: straight white men.  In practice, diversity is a program to exclude straight white men and promotes all others at their expense.

A telling anecdote from the book recounts a white businessman who was trying to interact with a group of employees from a stage.  Speaking from a raised height on a platform to an audience below is a common scenario in Western business culture, and normally wouldn’t elicit any sort of comment.  On one occasion, however, an attendee complained that the raised stage made her feel like a slave being talked to by her master.  Rather than the businessman calling her on her hypersensitivity, he treated the statement as a reasonable attitude and sought to accommodate it.

This sort of attitude has led to distinct networking groups within a single organization taking hold on the basis of the standard politically correct classifications.  Reed notes approvingly that many major companies now give bonuses to managers based on how many politically correct candidates they promote.  This has led in turn to straight white men asking to be explicitly included as a separate officially recognized group for promotion.

The progressives talk endlessly about “institutional racism.”  However, when you look at official corporate policies, they are always in favor of diversity.  For the most part, these policies are also put into practice.  It leaves the sensible observer asking where the “institutional racism” has left to hide.

The author never seems to realize that these entrenched groups are tantamount to an official segregationist policy for the social hierarchies.  The explicit racial bean-counting by management makes it harder to network across groups.  At best, it could be argued that “diversity” holds at the top levels of the firm, but the promotional paths will be segregated, and thus most of the company will exist in segregated silos.  The organizational structures may be diverse on paper, but the social networking is explicitly segregated, with the approval of management.

Reed delves into the history of large companies that were urged by Lyndon Johnson, when he was vice president, to desegregate.  In several cases, companies that were open to desegregation couldn’t because of existing laws or labor contracts.  Reed doesn’t mention any cases of managers receiving bonuses for official company policies of promotions based on race during that era.

One interesting fact unearthed by Reed is the number of foreign-born managers now present in major American companies.  It undermines the notion intrinsic to politically correct discourse that there is an “old boys” network fiercely determined to exclude outsiders.  The outsourcing phenomenon should have made it clear that American business is quite happy to hire strangers from another continent as long as it will save money.

Despite uncovering all these problems with the diversity project, Reed can’t escape from the notion that diversity is such an important goal that it has to be somehow saved and fixed.

Sloganeering: Something the Progressive Movement Does Well

The progressive leadership learned a long time ago the effectiveness of emotional appeals over rational thought.  When you trace back the history of the movement to its nineteenth century forerunners, the cynical and unpalatable nature of the radical left is something even its modern day proponents feel the need to conceal.  There has been no better fictional account of this mechanism than Orwell’s 1984.

One of the tricks in play is the tendency to introduce slogans without ever defining the real meaning of the terms.  Often an existing term is taken from an earlier, non-progressive movement and twisted.  A good example is “social justice,” which in our time is a portmanteau for any leftist cause.

In response, I suggest this slogan to expose the phoniness of the “social justice” term: if social justice were just, it would just be called justice.

Rhetoric for the Really Young: The Utah Common Core Curriculum’s Fatal Flaw

Tags

Common Core, education

Recent revelations about primary school textbooks in the state of Utah have raised the hackles of traditionally-minded parents.  The lesson plans intend to teach children to use emotive language to deliberately induce calls to action.  The children are encouraged, for instance, to use the word “refuse” instead of “will not.”

Examples in the book involve coercing businesses to change their ways in the face of advocacy from the small set, so complaints about indoctrination make some sense.  However, these attempts will probably be less successful than past exercises in young mind manipulation because the lessons lay bare the manipulative techniques that are employed on the students.  The cleverer youngsters will find ways to wheedle the teachers using the subterfuge they have just been taught; there are already examples in the texts that suggest manipulations of their parents.  By teaching rhetorical tricks, the teachers are unwittingly giving their charges the tools to see through the progressive propaganda.

I suspect the curriculum was devised by well-meaning and well-indoctrinated progressives who see the progressive causes as so natural that they assume students will just naturally gravitate to those pet causes.  Instead of selling the progressive worldview, the curriculum teaches salesmanship and assumes the sale of the progressive movement.

Given the natural interests of children, I expect their advocacy to be for longer lunch breaks, less homework, and chocolate chips in the trail mix.  It’s the perfect preparation for a post-industrial future nation of salesmen.

Disrobing Before the Assault: Gaddafi’s Son’s Message for al-Assad

Tags

Libya, Syria, war

The recent Charlie Rose interview with al-Assad was intriguing, as the Syrian evidently was struggling valiantly with the English language to justify his regime.  It was hard to see in him the cold-blooded killer his Western enemies claim him to be; rather, the nervous ophthalmologist who wasn’t initially groomed for military leadership was center stage.  It was much easier to come to the conclusion that Washington is piling pressure on him precisely because his is a weak leader than to shiver over any imaginable rampage he might inflict on the region.  Even when his moment of bravado came, and Rose offered him the chance to outline the repercussion of an American attack, al-Assad could only talk in vague terms, hinting at the actions of third-parties and complaining that he couldn’t be expect to foretell the future.

With the offer of Syria’s chemical weapons coming under international control now on the table, I expect Washington to ease off for the time being.  Concern about chemical weapons was never the real problem, since they have only limited usefulness against modern armies, but it was Washington’s excuse to get formally involved in the Syrian civil war.  Moreover, if Syria loses its chemical weapons, America will have weakened one of its enemies merely through saber rattling, and al-Assad’s concession can be spun in the Western media as a confession of wrong-doing on his part.

Saif al-Islam, Gaddafi’s son, has some valuable advice for al-Assad: stay armed, stay alert, and don’t rely on feigned friendliness of foreign diplomacy.  In al-Islam’s Russia Today interview, in which he is suitably supportive of buying Russian weapons, he bemoans his former “liberal and tolerant” belief system that made him so gullible.  His easy facility with English makes him the worthy basis for a character in a Tom Wolfe novel.  If al-Assad could express himself in English as well as al-Islam, he would have had a much better chance of finding greater sympathy in the West.

As it stands, agreeing to get rid of chemical weapons is like agreeing to disrobe in front of an eager aggressor.  A new excuse for assault should be coming along soon.