Mediaboss Marketing

OPINION: I took the long-suffering wife to Cuba for our honeymoon. Shes a lucky woman. Back then Fidel Castro was still in charge and I wanted to see what real communism looked like.

Readers, it wasnt pretty. We saw children with treatable deformities in a country that claims to have a world-class health system. We encountered intelligent ambitious men reduced to pan handling for tips as bellhops and endured street girls touting themselves brazenly for a few dollars.

Cuba isnt the only dictatorship Mrs Grant has been dragged to. Gadhafis Libya was the other stand-out, but weve travelled to Myanmar, Mozambique, Vietnam and Cambodia. I proposed in Laos, a country that has never had a free election and has engaged in brutal oppression of the Hmong people.

I had no moral qualms in visiting countries ruled by evil governments. I have done business in China and have commercial contracts with a firm in Vietnam. I tried to get a visa to North Korea a few years back, but was denied on account of being a columnist. Journalists are banned from the Hermit Kingdom and the distinction between a columnist and a journalist got lost in translation. Or perhaps they took the time to read my columns. I remain unsure.

Many reasonable people feel a deep sense of unease trading with countries that are ruled by malevolent governments and this issue was highlighted for many last week when we signed an updated free-trade agreement with China.

READ MORE:* With the US now calling China's treatment of the Uyghurs 'genocide', how should NZ respond?* New Zealand signs upgraded free trade agreement with China* China is building vast new detention centres for Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang

These concerns are sensible; Id be worried about the humanity of an individual who didnt consider the ethics involved; so let me share my perspective.

For a start, sanctions do not work. No tyrant has moderated his behaviour once they were imposed. Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Saddam Husseins Iraq and dozens of African kleptocrats provide a mountain of evidence for the thesis that tyrants are impervious to external economic forces.

Governments that are subject to political and economic pressures at home can be bullied into behaving better domestically. South Africa is the most obvious example but there are others. Such niceties are utterly ineffective against true dictatorships such as Cuba, North Korea and China.

The Kim family developed a communist dynasty in North Korea whilst their people starved. Sanctions did nothing to dent the ruling familys power or moderate their tyranny. Today, while many of his people live on the edge of hunger Kim Jong-uns quality of life remains undiminished.

Not only do they not work, the rationale for limiting trade is immoral. At the extreme, it amounts to a demand upon a civilian population to risk their lives to topple a government or face the economic consequences. Sometimes these consequences are barbaric; with much of the population of Iraq exposed to malnutrition in the 1990s.

On the surface, the logic of sanctions is appealing. What, a reasonable person can ask, is the moral justification of doing business with places like Saudi Arabia, where women are denied the same rights as men and dissidents are whipped and often beheaded?

If sanctions worked imposing a short-term economic harm on ourselves to help free an oppressed people would be the right thing to do. But they dont. They impoverish the civilian population, sometimes resulting in their death, for no material advantage.

Saul Loeb/AP

Outgoing US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared China was committing a genocide against the Uyghur. (File photo)

Today, the super-power of human rights abuses is China and the outgoing American Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, declared that China was committing a genocide against the Uyghur. Surely if we are ever to draw the line, it must be at genocide?

To understand why the answer is no, consider that we do not trade with a nation. We trade with firms, individuals, collectives or whatever enterprise has been established to undertake commerce.

To refuse to trade with the factories, farms and supermarkets in China because of the crimes committed by those running the Communist Party is to engage in collective responsibility and punishment. We are harming one person for the crimes of another and doing nothing to assist the victims while the perpetrators live in undiminished luxury.

But if you still remain unconvinced let us look a China through a longer historical lens.

Under the isolationist and inward-looking Mao Zedong, tens of millions of Chinese perished in his various programmes. He is, objectively, the bloodiest tyrant in human history. Since his death, China has embraced not only its unique version of capitalism but the world; through trade, education and tourism.

China has moderated as a direct result of its economic engagement with the West and this transformation began with Richard Nixons visit to China in 1972, during the height of the Cultural Revolution. The deepening economic ties has helped lift a billion Chinese out of poverty and makes a return to the violent extremes of the past unlikely.

An argument can be made that trade enhances the economic power of countries with expansionary ambitions and self-preservation dictates prudence. I am unpersuaded by this line of thought but that isnt the focus of this column.

Stuff

Damien Grant: We may be economically impotent but our voice carries a heavy moral weight. We should use it.

We should be more concerned about China using economic levers to pressure us. New Zealand appears to be distancing itself from its five-eyes partners in recent months, especially in response to Hong Kong. A cynical observer may suspect that our muted reaction to the crackdown in the former British colony and our improved free-trade deal are connected.

Given the importance of our trade with China, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and her new Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta have a difficult path to walk.

While threats of economic pain for their citizens do not deter dictatorships, those running these regimes have demonstrated a desire for respectability. China in particular appears highly sensitive to criticism. We may be economically impotent but our voice carries a heavy moral weight. We should use it.

If Beijing elects to retaliate that is beyond our control; but while I believe we should trade with China, we should not become a vassal state in the process.

* Damien Grant is a regular columnist for Stuff, and a business owner based in Auckland. He writes from a libertarian perspective and is a member of the Taxpayers Union but not of any political party.

See the rest here:
The logic of sanctions is appealing, but do not work with communist countries - Stuff.co.nz

Buena Vista County is doing okay, considering. Our economy is in relatively decent shape with low unemployment. But the virus continues to ravage us with BV topping the 4,000-case mark last weekend. The schools are doing welllocally, the frontline workers have been heroes, and we at least are assured that effective vaccines are in production. The overriding and urgent goal of Iowa should be getting through this pandemic and recovering as quickly as possible.

Instead, the legislature controlled by the Republican Party is playing political games by ramming through a right-wing legislative agenda. No better illustration can be made than in education.

The governor and legislature are pushing school vouchers for students in underperforming districts. That is not the solution for Sac City. The solution is trying to help families and children succeed through stronger schools. That means money. Figure out why the district is not achieving, and design programs that make the public school more effective.

The same is true for an urban school district with a disadvantaged enrollment.

The brothers who own this newspaper are proud graduates of St. Marys High School and Catholic universities. We are strong supporters of the Iowa Tuition Grant, which supports Buena Vista University. Pell Grants support private institutions of higher education for students of limited means. Government funds support reading and school lunch programs. It is all good. St. Marys School is important to Storm Lakes social fabric. So is Buena Vista. They receive and deserve public support to the extent that they satisfy public goods by meeting state and federal education requirements.

But this is not the year to be pushing vouchers.

We are for grants that help private schools survive the pandemic. We would like to see the Iowa Tuition Grant increased in size. Support the existing tuition assistance tax credit set up for parochial schools. Discussion of vouchers can wait for another day, when we are past our current state of emergency. We must keep schools whole and not decide to refashion our public education system in the middle of a national crisis.

We have been chipping away at the foundations of education for years. State appropriations to public universities have declined while private corporate donations and tuition leading to enormous student debt loads have replaced them. Community colleges are increasing tuition and local property taxes. K-12 public school districts suffered during the economic recession of 2008-10 that drove Gov. Chet Culver out of office, and have since been starved further by the Branstad/Reynolds tenure with state aid that seldom keeps pace with inflation. The state took away the ability of teachers to bargain with the school board. We should leave bad enough alone. But the culture wars call. Vouchers have animated public school educators across the state.

Republicans would do well to slow down and just get through this emergency. Pass a standpat budget, help bail out public health agencies and schools, and get out of Des Moines. That is the best political strategy, too. The public generally supports open enrollment among school districts but not direct vouchers. The public supports the unique sharing arrangement that goes on between St. Marys, Buena Vista, Iowa Central and Storm Lake High School. There are all sorts of creative ways to support private and public schools, to provide a bit of competition to keep everyone sharp, that involve steady state investment and partnerships with private philanthropy. Vouchers are not the best way to achieve better academic performance for every student unless the state is prepared to give public schools what they need. They have been on an austerity budget for a decade, all of them, public and private, as Iowa conducts this great experiment in allowing education funding to lag economic performance. And that is precisely why Iowas economic performance is subpar, because we are short-changing education.

Right now, we dont need huge tax cuts or shifts in tax load. We dont need a debate over abortion, which actually is not a pressing problem in Buena Vista County. We dont need a hollering match over vouchers when so many of us are simply emotionally exhausted. The pandemic is the problem. Period. Use your heads. Get after it. Leave everything else alone.

Continued here:
Editorial: Quit culture wars, fight the pandemic - The Storm Lake Times

Prior to 2016, people had a pretty good sense that things that purported to be true should be supported by facts and evidence.

Trump and Brexit changed the landscape to one of alternative facts and post-truth, in which truth is contingent on what you feel it to be, not on what the facts and evidence say about it.

Of course, 2016 was no such watershed. Debates and controversies about the nature of facts and truth have raged for years, and the culture wars they engender can get personal and vitriolic (you might know about the Sokal hoax).

Philosopher Lee McIntyre describes post-truth as ideological supremacy, whereby its practitioners try to compel someone to believe in something whether there is good evidence or not.

You might be forgiven for thinking that we in fundraising are immune to such ideological supremacy. Dont kid yourself. Fundraisings own culture wars over whether fundraising is a science or an art; whether passion or knowledge are the right qualities of a fundraiser; whether donor-centred or transactional is the right way to run donor relationships have been simmering for a long time. They might be about to boil over.

The evidence is firmly on the side of donor-centred fundraising. Yet there are a few fundraisers who wilfully disregard this evidence and argue for (and practise) what is effectively churn and burn. But science/art and passion/knowledge havent been empirically tested (they can be if you frame the right research questions). In the absence of evidence, adherents take the side they feel best represents their truth.

Beth Breeze has analysed the science vs art' culture war in her book The New Fundraisers, finding that authors of fundraising as art books are often contemptuous of fundraising as science authors.

If, when the research is done, the facts the evidence point towards the scientific approach making for better fundraising, how will adherents of fundraising-as-art (those who are contemptuous of science) receive this information? Will they change their minds because the facts arent on their side? I have my doubts.

There are emerging culture wars in fundraising where evidence is absent and may not even be considered relevant.

One is the community-centric alternative to donor-centred fundraising. Theres wish-fulfilment among some donor-centred fundraisers that the two approaches are perfectly compatible. But they are not they represent a clash of worldviews about how philanthropy and fundraising ought to be practised, and evidence that donor-centred fundraising works will be of little weight with a viewpoint that argues such an approach is inherently unjust; and they have alternative facts about the harm (as they see it) donor-centred fundraising can do.

Another emerging conflict is over the professionalisation of fundraising, encompassing the debate about whether fundraisers ought to be graduates. One argument is that professionalisation will lead to a more knowledgeable, more competent workforce with clear entry pathways open to anyone. A different take is that professionalisation is elitist and will be unjust and inequitable because it erects barriers to entry.

Pluralism of views and ideas is absolutely a good thing. We need to constantly challenge what we know, or what we think we know.

In doing this, facts are not everything. We have to weigh them, discriminate between them, and interpret them in support of the narrative or position that we favour; and doing so may lead us to change our minds.

But neither are facts nothing. Without evidence, we have ideology or faith: we believe passion is more important than knowledge to being a good fundraiser, but we dont have any evidence to suggest that it is. And you know what? We dont care, because our belief is enough.

And this is where it gets problematic.

For a profession that likes to boast (kid itself?) about how friendly and collaborative it is, some of these debates, particularly recently, have spilled over into personal abuse.

Ive written in Third Sector previously about the need to give people with whom you disagree the benefit of intellectual doubt and to treat both them and their arguments with respect.

Pluralism doesnt have to lead to a culture war. If someone on one side of a debate asks to see the other sides evidence or challenges their theory, that doesnt make them a cultural or ideological enemy, and they ought not be besmirched and attacked for being on a different side, especially not in a profession that prides itself on its amiability.

Ian MacQuillin is director of the think tank Rogare

Read this article:
Ian MacQuillin: Fundraisers must rise above the culture wars there's work to do - Third Sector

IN retrospect, I think a Malaysianised version of one of the most lasting legacies of Donald Trump could be surmised as: Saya white supremacist, saya ok.

Im not going to write a rant about how and why white supremacy is bad, though it obviously is.

Instead, Id like to try and reflect a little on what is sometimes termed the "culture wars" in America, and the evolving dynamics of what is often termed "political correctness".

Moral history is quite interesting. Americas founding fathers featured many slaveowners. A hundred years later, a civil war was fought to end slavery. Some hundred years later after that, Martin Luther King Jr. was at the forefront of a civil rights movement.

And today (or until quite recently at least), the word "racist" is one that seems to be universally reviled. Even the most right-wing Republican might admit to all sorts of bigoted views, but its almost impossible that even the most racist of them would openly say: Im a racist.

Here at home, someone comically tried to prove that the Kedah Menteri Besar was not racist by posting a photo of him being on a badminton doubles team with what was presumably a Chinese gentleman.

The internet has been the dominant platform for public discourse for some time now - a replacement, some saw, for the mainstream media.

Somewhat ironically, it turns out that there is now probably such a thing as the "mainstream Internet" - and man, it is a warzone out there.

This mainstream Internet has helped bring down many giants. Harvey Weinstein is a good example of someone who the facts showed 100% deserved to be brought down.

There were many others like him. Then there were more ambiguous cases, one example being perhaps the case of former US senator Al Franken (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/29/the-case-of-al-franken).

In my research for this article, I came across this list of "10 biggest celebrity cancellations of 2020" (https://www.thethings.com/cancelled-celebrities-2020/). Theres nothing scientific about this list, but it was interesting to note how some cases were deeply rooted in established facts, while others may have been the exact opposite.

I imagine there will be multiple books eventually published about "cancel culture".

Im not qualified or equipped to go into it in detail, but in the context of Trump and America, I get the sense that while a culture of political correctness has had a profound effect on what is considered acceptable to say out loud in public, it has not had a similarly profound effect on what people feel in their hearts and minds.

I dont imagine this to be a novel or wholly original observation, but I feel we should pay careful attention to the manner in which Trump likely recognised that deep undercurrents of racism still existed in the hearts of those who would never in a million years dream of describing themselves as racists.

He likely recognised that there were perhaps millions of Americans who were tired of being scolded because airing their true views in public would get them all sorts of public backlash.

The internetisation of public discourse has meant that such scoldings are becoming an increasingly embedded part of our culture.

Many on the far ends of each spectrum cheer when one of their own delivers what is perceived to be some sort of scathing "smackdown" to the other side.

These "smackdowns" are usually filled with self-righteous anger, positioned as representing an oppressed group, and are generally composed (consciously or subconsciously) with ones supporters as the intended audience.

People scold other people to consolidate their own tribe, and in the hopes of shaming others in public.

I would venture to guess that those who study education may feel that an education process that is centred on shaming a child is unlikely to end well.

Adults are no different. Sometimes, public shaming works - especially against those in high positions of power and influence, when the clearly demonstrable, proven facts are against them.

Other times however, those who feel publicly shamed merely retreat into their own enclaves, where they can surround themselves with others who are "just like them", and where they can form their own silo of a mutually supportive community where they plot their revenge - in extreme cases, in very violent ways.

As one of the points of this article is that self-righteously lecturing people online is not effective, I of course am not seeking to lecture any individual over what to do or how they should talk.

I am only writing in hopes that amidst all the shouting coming from the extreme ends of the spectrum, there are others who do value civilised, genuine discourse and who believe in carefully ascertaining facts and always hearing every side are important things.

Those of us in this space can often feel like a minority silo of our own. After all, by nature we do not shout, so we are often less heard.

My own beliefs would probably be generally described as left-leaning and progressive. That said, the way I see some right-wingers being attacked suggests that sometimes, extremists on either side have more in common with each other than they do with the moderates on either side.

There are undoubtedly times in this world where we need to bang the tables, face the tear gas, and rise up in protest. Many of us have been there and done that.

But if we truly want to convince others, and spread values we believe in and/or build on common ground, then we should be aware of how screaming at others or constantly trying to shame them is counterproductive.

I often feel like the pendulum of history is liable to swing violently from one extreme to another. Some may have expected the amplitudes of those swings to reduce, while others may be observing that they are increasing.

Im not wise enough to predict how it will play out, but I do believe that if we collectively want to badly enough, we can work on shaping our culture and institutions in such a way as to manage our differences positively, and encourage discourse that is productive rather than divisive.

Its a tall order, and wed have to fight against a lot of entrenched cultures, resistance to innovation, as well as a lot of vested interests, but I refuse to believe it is beyond our capabilities.

NATHANIEL TAN works with Projek Wawasan Rakyat (POWR). He tweets @NatAsasi and can be reached at nat@engage.my.

Originally posted here:
'Culture wars': The Trump effect - The Star Online

SINGAPORE: Gender identity issues have become bitterly contested sources of divisionin some Western societies, and Singapore should not import these culture wars, said Minister for Education Lawrence Wong on Monday (Feb 1).

Mr Wong was responding to a parliamentary question from Sengkang MP He Tingru of the Workers' Party about the Ministry of Educations (MOE) policies and guidelines on students with gender dysphoria;how often the policies and approaches are reviewed;and the level of autonomy schools have over setting these policies and approaches.

This comes after an 18-year-old student said in a Reddit post on Jan 14 that the Education Ministry had intervened with her treatment, preventing her from obtaining a doctor's referral letter to begin hormone therapy.

MOE denied these claims two days later, saying that it was "not true" that it interfered with the students hormonal treatment.

On Jan 26, three individuals, aged between 19 and 32, were arrested after a protest against transphobia was held outside the MOE building.Police said the three were arrested for allegedly taking part in a public assembly without a permit.

I recognise how strongly some people feel about this issue. We welcome continued dialogue and feedback, and will strive to provide a supportive environment in schools to support our students holistically, said Mr Wong in Parliament.

Issues of gender identity have become bitterly contested sources of division in the culture wars in some Western countries and societies. We should not import these culture wars into Singapore, or allow issues of gender identity to divide our society.

Mr Wong also reiterated MOEs previous statement that all medical treatment decisions, including the use of hormone replacement therapy, ultimately rest with medical professionals, the person with gender dysphoria and their family.

Where anyone below 21 is concerned, parental consent is also required before any hormonal treatment can commence, he added.

Such medical decisions are beyond the purview of MOE or any educational institution.

The Education Ministrys focus is on the school environment and the students involved, said Mr Wong.

Schools are a common space for all students regardless of their backgrounds and circumstances. We have a duty of care to every student.

For students with gender dysphoria, MOEs main focus isproviding them with a conducive learning environment and to support their overall well-being, he added.

Recognising that the issues are complex, and that there are diverse opinions amongstudents and their parents, we strive to deal with these situations sensitively and with compassion.

School rules are a particularly difficult issue, said Mr Wong.

"They are in place to help students cultivate self-discipline and a sense of responsibility. But we recognise that students diagnosed with gender dysphoria and undergoing hormone therapy could face difficulties with certain school rules," he said.

"Where there are valid medical grounds, schools can exercise flexibility and work out practical arrangements for these students. The schools will consult and work closely with different stakeholders, including the relevant medical professionals, the students concerned and their parents, in putting in place these arrangements."

Mr Wong added thatsince each students situation is unique, these matters must be dealt with individually.

He said: Our guiding principles are to treat these students with dignity and respect, and to provide as much support as we can to help them.

In her question, Ms He also suggested that MOE consider presenting a public report on these matters to Parliament on a regular basis.

In response, Mr Wong said that family members, especially parents of such students, are very uncomfortable with their situation being aired publicly.

We ought to respect their requests for privacy, and avoid putting out information that will compromise any student or family confidentiality," he said.

"Let us give the students and their families time and space to resolve matters among themselves, in consultation with their doctors and counsellors.

Read this article:
Gender identity issues 'bitterly contested sources of division'; Singapore 'should not import these culture wars': Lawrence Wong - CNA