The Oscars – Diversity Gone Ludicrous

In this day and age, what was once considered incredible no longer is.  A billionaire TV reality star leads the GOP race for president, a declared socialist is bested Hillary Clinton in Iowa and the liberal Hollywood establishment is accused of racism.

Can you imagine?  Some prominent black actors, such as Will Smith, have blasted the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences for the past two year’s absence of nominees of color from the list of candidates of major awards.

Although the term has not been used, the clear implication of this criticism is that race was used as a selection criterion.  The lack of “color” diversity among the chosen has been cited.

The irony that the Academy is accused of prejudice against blacks is hard to escape.  This organization has long been notorious for its leftist orientation where politics is concerned.  It does represent the attitudes of Hollywood’s elite who have, for instance, been staunch supporters of America’s first black president.

 

Interestingly, the accusation that black nominees have been slighted in recent years is simply false.

From 2004 – 2014, for instance, blacks were nominated by Academy members at the rate of 9.5% for the slots available for the top Oscars:  best actor/actress and best supporting actor/actress.  And during that period  twelve and a half percent actually won the coveted trophy.

Yet the knee-jerk liberals who run the Academy didn’t mount a defense based on these facts.  No, they caved as if to be accused is tantamount to guilt.

 

The Academy solemnly promised to rectify the claimed racial deficiencies by adding further diversity to its membership and leadership.

What silliness!  Isn’t it far more likely that Hollywood liberals choose nominees based on merit alone?  Academy members certainly should know something of acting quality.  And, to the extent politics enters into the process – which it undoubtedly does – it is of a leftward variety.  (But why should those whites expressing sympathy for victims of so-called white racism be immune from the attacks of race hustlers?)  And, dealing with facts that are so conveniently ignored by such people, what conclusions are to be drawn from the fact that in 2006, five nominees in the key Oscar categories were black (25%).  Was it reverse discrimination?

Follow the sensible conservative on Twitter @rightsmarts

Justice Antonin Scalia – Life As An Example

From a political and legal perspective, the loss of conservative jurist Antonin Scalia is monumental.  The Sensible Conservative can only hope that a Republican president is elected in November who will find and select a worthy successor in Scalia’s mold.  Truly, the nature (the future) of our constitutional republic is at issue. 

Justice Scalia certainly will long be remembered for doing as much as he could to honor and respect the Constitution created by our nation’s founders.

Yet to mention only his contributions to strict constitutional constructionism is to short-change his life. 

Remarkably in this day and age of common place venomous discourse in public life, Antonin Scalia chose a different course.

Plainly he was a man of strong convictions who often expressed them in strong, often biting, terms against those with whom he disagreed.  But it wasn’t personal.

His conduct exemplified the obvious fact that each of us can only do what we can in the short time on earth we have.  Fight hard, but don’t hold grudges against those whose contrary views are well-intentioned.  Our foes may be deeply in error, but in time reality will correct their wayward ways, even if they don’t.  Will the correction come soon enough to reverse the harm caused?  Who knows?  But as long as our free society exists, America is not without hope.

In the meantime, make the best of it.  Be a loyal and good friend to those who merit friendship – require only a good spirit not ideological or political comradeship.

[Justice Ginsberg, probably the most liberal jurist on the High Court, described Antonin Scalia, upon hearing of his death, as a “good buddy”.]

And, by all means, enjoy life.  Don’t wallow in pessimism no matter how justified such an attitude may appear… It’s hard not to feel that way when viewing the moral decay seemingly all around.  But that serves no purpose except to depress the person who harbors it.

Justice Scalia didn’t.  He was well known for weekly poker parties – long before the game recovered its current popularity.  And he was an avid outdoorsman who enjoyed hunting.  There was something poetic in the seventy-nine year old judicial genius dying (almost) with his boots on.  He passed away in Texas on a weekend hunting trip.

RIP

Why Has Public Life Become So Coarse? What Are the Consequences?

Many people – the Sensible Conservative included – are shocked by the language so commonly used in the public arena these days.  I am not referring to personal attacks on political opponents regularly spewed by Donald Trump, for instance.  Character assination and ad hominem assaults have been a frequent feature since our nation’s founding.

[For historical perspective, take a look at the 1800 presidential campaign featuring incumbent candidate John Adams against challenger Thomas Jefferson.]

But I am talking of the vulgar and obscene words – formerly proscribed in what was known as “polite company” – that are now in common usage.

 

Do you remember the days when using even mild (by today’s standards) swear words like damn would raise eyebrows?

 

Obviously, times have changed.  The reasons are many including the internet, entertainment culture, shock DJs, rap music, etc.

Some commentators dismiss concerns over these changes as overblown.  It’s certainly true that people have always had cruel, nasty and unpleasant thoughts about others.  Mostly though, “civilized, well mannered” people kept them unspoken to avoid the condemnation society’s mores used to impose.

 

I’ll agree that such people still follow those strictures; it seems undeniable, however, that their portion of America’s population has declined dramatically in recent decades.

Last week, for instance, thousands of attendees at Donald Trump’s Louisiana rally seemingly urged him to repeat a previously uttered slur against opponent Ted Cruz.  Was the voiced vulgarity deemed to be titillating by the crowd? 

The lessening of verbal restraint, of course, is obvious across society.  But it’s fair to ask, so what?  What difference does it make if now so many people make public what they’re thinking?

  

Plenty.

What exactly do we mean by “good manners” and acting in a “civilized fashion”?

It’s not complicated.  Those traits are intended to serve the interests of people (society) striving to live together in peace and harmony.  That means that we avoid giving offense and show by our conduct and words that we respect those with whom we interact. 

In sum, manners and shared respect are the glue of a healthy society.

When they are missing or weakened, divisions between people deepen and intensify.  Respectful disagreement becomes hatred and disgust with those who have contrary opinions.  Expressed venom is reciprocated in kind.  Personal attacks turn opponents into enemies.

 

In the political sphere, angry partisans who challenge the motivations and character of foes are not disposed to compromise with them.

Simply put, the coarsening of society threatens its longevity.

The Sad, Humiliating Campaign of Jeb Bush

Jeb Bush was a highly regarded Florida governor from 1999 to 2007.  Many touted him as a future president, following in the footsteps of his dad.  But his brother beat him to it.  And perhaps because of that, Jeb had not been on the political scene in recent years until 2015 when he announced his candidacy for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination.

Although he topped polls for a brief period after that, his national Republican support quickly dropped into the single digits where it remains today.  (He received less than three percent in Iowa.)

What happened?  Times change.  The Bush name long ago lost appeal for most GOP voters.  The Iraq war played a part as did George W’s unpopular spending policies.  Further, putting a third Bush in the White House smacked of a dynasty not unlike the prospect of electing another Clinton.

 

By all accounts, Jeb Bush is a bright, thoughtful individual who would be a solid president.  But heritage for him is plainly disqualifying.   And his own personality has a role – albeit minor in my estimation – in his poor polling.  His personality is mild in a year where a forceful presence is more highly valued.

The sad aspect of his candidacy is that all of these considerations were readily apparent before 2015.  A Jeb Bush candidacy would be a loser.

So why did he run?  The so-called GOP establishment wanted him to.  They either chose to ignore political realities or convinced themselves that massive expenditures of money could overcome them.  In either case, they were fools and made one of the formerly-esteemed Florida ex-governor.

Jeb Bush has been subjected to humiliation as well.  Not only has he trailed badly in national polls behind a loud-mouthed New Yorker and a politically inept neurosurgeon, he has been forced to call on his mother, Barbara Bush, to say nice things about him to New Hampshire voters.  (What on earth could she do for him except remind listeners that her son is a Bush?  For reasons set forth above, not a smart move.)

In a few days, it is certainly possible that Jeb Bush will reach a double digit vote total in New Hampshire.  But it will be only a momentary bit of good news for a doomed campaign.  Jeb is going nowhere.