China 2022 Olympics, Moral Failure, and the Case for Boycotts

Though only a year away, more and more attention is being devoted to the upcoming winter Olympics in Beijing, and rightfully so. As conversations about the winter games escalate, so too is the question of whether or not the Olympics should be boycotted. The primary controversies in China center around extreme human rights abuses and atrocities, especially involving the Uighurs, the COVID-19 pandemic, tyranny against Hong Kong, and many other state-sponsored acts of aggression and indignities orchestrated by the Chinese government. From genocide and organ harvesting to sterilization and forced labor, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been accused of serious human rights abuses against the Uighurs since at least 2014. In an Amnesty International report from 2019, they describe the Uighur situation as follows:

In November, the New York Times and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists disclosed two sets of leaked documents from unidentified Chinese officials detailing the crackdown in Xinjiang and the framework for facilities where hundreds of thousands of predominantly Muslim ethnic groups are being subjected to brainwashing and other ill-treatment. The descriptions in these documents matched the testimonies Amnesty International received from former detainees and overseas relatives of those sent to the camps or who went missing in Xinjiang. The documents also further disproved the Chinese government’s claims that these facilities were merely “vocational training facilities”.

As recently as a few weeks ago, the BBC provided extremely disturbing accounts of torture and the rape of Uighur women in Chinese detention and re-education camps. The video footage below documents the brutality and inhumanity experienced by Uighur women.

As more print and video information surfaces, the world is grateful for the many human rights organizations that have been on the front lines monitoring the Uighur situation very closely and making these realities available for all to see. Thankfully, more pressure seems to be mounting on the Chinese government to stop the torture and inhumanity suffered by the Uighurs, but much more is needed.

Because the Uighurs suffer simply because of who they are as an ethnic-religious minority, which is the essence of injustice and human rights abuse, the most pressing question government leaders face worldwide is, should the 2022 Winter Olympics in China be boycotted? There are two sides to this question. First, the pro-side states that given the cumulative history of human rights abuses in China, both past and present, China does not deserve to be rewarded and should be boycotted forthright. The opposing side argues that boycotts deprive athletes of an opportunity they sacrificed and worked their entire lives for and that they can actually draw more attention to the issue through political statements and protests during performances and interviews.

While I am sympathetic to Olympic athletes and the sacrifices they endure to compete at the highest levels nationally and internationally, theirs does not create an overwhelming sense of obligation that overrides the human trauma, suffering, indignity, and injustice suffered by an oppressed ethnic minority. In fact, in the face of the argument against boycotts, which I mentioned above, thehill.com released a powerful article on February 4, 2021 titled, 180 human rights groups urge boycott of Beijing Winter Olympics. The author cites the following which challenges world leaders to do the right thing right now:

The coalition said its members and other human rights advocates have “repeatedly sought to inform” the International Olympic Committee (IOC) about the reported abuses for two decades, noting it “refused to listen in 2008,” when Beijing hosted the Summer Olympics.

“As human rights experts predicted, this decision proved to be hugely misplaced; not only did China’s human rights record not improve but violations increased substantially without rebuke,” the coalition states. “Now, in 2021, we find ourselves back in the same position with the IOC who are refusing to act despite the clear evidence of genocide and widespread and worsening human rights failures.”

Thirteen years later, more recorded state-sponsored horrors and atrocities than ever before, and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) gets rewarded with another Olympics cash cow? I'm confused...the world is confused! How dare the IOC enrich the Chinese government given its gross moral failure and an impoverished track record of human misery and ethnic destruction! The unmitigated inhumanity suffered by the Uighurs is indefensible and defies not only American ideals, but everything the United Nations has stood for since its inception. Perhaps my outrage is misdirected; maybe the object of my outrage should be directed squarely at the IOC for China's unjust and undeserved reward. Whatever the case, tyranny against the Uighurs has no historical, political, or legal justification whatsoever and must be challenged by the world court of public opinion and investigated by the UN Human Rights Council.

John Locke's Second Treatise of Government has much to say about this blatant abuse of power and government authority. Locke writes the following in Chapter XVIII. Of Tyranny:

§. 199...so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to. And this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private separate advantage. When the governor, however initiated, makes not the law, but his will, the rule; and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge covetousness, or any other irregular passion.

§. 201. It is a mistake, to think this fault is proper only to monarchies; other forms of government are liable to it, as well as that: for wherever the power, that is put in any hands for the government of the people, and the preservation of their properties, is applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them to the arbitrary and irregular commands of those that have it; there it presently becomes tyranny, whether those that thus use it are one or many...

§. 202. Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another's harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command, to compass that upon the subject, which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate; and, acting without authority, may be opposed, as any other man, who by force invades the right of another.(1)

Locke's words are timeless and the perfect challenge to CCP tyranny and oppression against the Uighurs. For a country that seeks to be treated with full rights and access to all the benefits of the world over, China must show a basic understanding of and respect for foundational moral and legal principles upon which the authority of the State is predicated. In essence tyranny, then and now, is hostile to civil society and incompatible with government for and by the people upon which it was meant to serve and protect.

China's history of denying the obvious when it comes to prolific wrongdoings and the COVID-19 pandemic of today are obvious examples of CCP treachery, tyranny, and corruption, a pattern of practices which continues to haunt the world more than a year later despite CCP impunity. Until China's government restores confidence in the institution of government, its leadership, and humanity's conscience against human evil, I find no basis whatsoever that justifies China hosting the 2022 Winter Olympics. In fact, I fully support a boycott of the Olympic games as an act of global compassion against China's blatant brutality and defiance against UN standards of accountability and humane treatment of ethic minorities. Moreover, in the absence of cooperation from China, I would argue that Americans and all freedom loving peoples worldwide boycott all Chinese products until the inhumanity ends and dignity is restored to the Uighurs in compliance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Uighur Humanity Now!...U I G H U R H U M A N I T Y N O W!

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

1. John Locke: Second Treatise of Government, Macpherson, C.B., Editor, 1980.

The Racial Equity Fallacy (Part 1)

On January 26, 2021, President Joe Biden spoke to the nation in an address titled Remarks by President Biden at Signing of an Executive Order on Racial Equity. Just as the title states, it was a speech devoted to the issues of race, racism, and more specifically, racial equity. He called on the nation, starting with the federal government, to overcome economic inequity by confronting systemic racism. Early in his speech, he states:

Across nearly every faith, the same principles hold: We’re all God’s children; we should treat each other as we would like to be treated ourselves. And this is time to act — and this time to act is because it’s what the core values of this nation call us to do. And I believe the vast majority of Americans — Democrats, Republicans, and independents — share these values and want us to act as well.

We have never fully lived up to the founding principles of this nation, to state the obvious, that all people are created equal and have a right to be treated equally throughout their lives. And it’s time to act now, not only because it’s the right thing to do, but because if we do, we’ll all be better off for it.

Biden's commitment to equity is loud and clear, but notice that equity is now associated with our founding principles and is being elevated above equality, which, up to now, was the standard when it comes to American justice as fairness. But in the last paragraph above, the language also suggests that Biden and the Democrats have given up on equality because equity, for them, is better able to deliver the outcomes necessary to close the economic divide between the races.

From the Racial Equity Institute, they define and describe the issue of racial equity as follows:

Racial Equity: Racial equity refers to what a genuinely non-racist society would look like. In a racially equitable society, the distribution of society’s benefits and burdens would not be skewed by race. In other words, racial equity would be a reality in which a person is no more or less likely to experience society’s benefits or burdens just because of the color of their skin. This is in contrast to the current state of affairs in which a person of color is more likely to live in poverty, be imprisoned, drop out of high school, be unemployed and experience poor health outcomes like diabetes, heart disease, depression and other potentially fatal diseases. Racial equity holds society to a higher standard. It demands that we pay attention not just to individual-level discrimination, but to overall social outcomes.

For racial equity advocates, this belief and its growing social movement center around redistributing society's benefits and burdens so that racial outcomes are more equitable. Notwithstanding the Socialism implications, which are very real anytime the economic formula for wealth creation and class stratification are altered to comport with the Marxist principle, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," racial equity is a flawed approach to overcoming racism by improving racial outcomes. As a result, racial equity is conceptually incoherent and thus runs afoul of the Constitution, the premier gatekeeper of equality, justice, and fairness; utilizes a flawed approach to racial disparities; and lacks historical compatibility with African American historical thought leaders like Frederick Douglass.

Racial equity's conceptual incoherence stems from its advocates' willingness to compromise and sacrifice equality and fairness for all as safeguarded by the Constitution in order to advance racially equitable outcomes that are purely driven by internal policy reforms and commitments to social justice for the few. This is well captured in Montgomery County, Maryland's 2018 Resolution to Develop an Equity Policy Framework in County Government. Item (7) of the Background section states:

As part of the Govermnent[sic] Alliance on Race and Equity (GARE), a growing number of jurisdictions are undertaking the work needed to operationalize equity, and integrate it into the decision-making process. These include the use of an "equity lens" to determine who benefits from public policies, regulations and practices and the development of equity tools and plans to inform local decision-making.

Just like the racial equity statement from the Racial Equity Institute highlighted above, "equality" has been exchanged for "equity" wherein the principle force behind equity is the use and redress of historic injustices and disparate outcomes. Again, from the Montgomery County Resolution, the equity-disparity connection figures prominently and is indispensable with virtually all policy prescriptions that advocate for racial equity:

Eliminating disparities by promoting equity - the fair treatment of individuals and diverse groups - is an economic imperative. The Urban Institute's Racial Inequities in Montgomery County, 2011-15 report shows that a more equitable Montgomery County would increase the number of immigrants, Latinos, African Americans, and Asians with some college education, and would also increase employment and homeownership rates among people of color. A more equitable Montgomery County would enhance opportunities for all residents, thereby improving the economy.

By eliminating disparities through equitable outcomes, benefits and burdens are redistributed thus making for a more just society, at least that's what the racial equity advocates want us to believe. The reality is, however, that equitable outcomes for X necessarily create unequal outcomes for Y, and this tramples over everything the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution stand for and mandate when it comes to justice, fairness, and equality before the law. Because equity replaces equality, the Constitutional requirements delineated under the Fourteenth Amendment and its Equal Protection Clause are now rendered mute, moot, and meaningless under this flashy new arrangement. This troubling exchange creates a portentous legal situation of incalculable claims and harms as equity becomes the policy preference at the local, state, and federal levels of government.

Racial Equity is nothing more than repackaged egalitarianism with racial justice veneer. In short, egalitarianism is the belief that between law and public policy, everyone is rightfully entitled to all social benefits, and these are to be distributed equitably. From politics and economics to health care and education, there's to be no difference in societal treatment. In so doing, egalitarianism violates its own rules of valuing the individual by imposing the weight of government over human agency, individual autonomy, and self fulfillment. Under egalitarian systems, individual accomplishments that result in "excesses" over that of others is frowned upon. Again, harkening back to Marx, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," achievement, enrichment, and advantage are inherently incompatible with the ideals of equity because this creates social disadvantage (i.e. inequity). Tibor Machan fleshes this out masterfully in his timeless article, The Errors of Egalitarianism upon which my egalitarian critique is based. Machan exposes the egalitarian flaws and fallacies in the following:

Egalitarianism is thus both a political and moral crusade, demanding that people do the right thing via their political institutions and, when it comes to their personal conduct, demanding that they give away all of their own wealth beyond whatever is deemed subsistence level.

The Declaration of Independence tells us that "all men are created equal." Ever since, critics of the idea of the free society have argued that this is nonsense because, in fact, we are quite evidently not all created equal. Indeed, they stress, the truth is we ought to be equal--it is only fair and just but we are not. Nature bungled. Accordingly, force should be deployed in society not primarily to combat criminal conduct but to make us all equal in al important aspects.

Of course, the Declaration was referring to equality of rights, equality of legal status in society. Men are said to be "created equal" in the respect of possessing unalienable rights to, among other conditions, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In other words, we are all rights possessors. That does not mean we are--or should be--equal in our heights, fortune, intelligence, looks, or talents.

Despite all the clear and undeniable differences among human beings, there are some basic principles we ought to respect and protect, namely, our fundamental rights as agent of our choices. Any kind of broader egalitarianism is both impossible, and, to the extent that its incoherent program is coercively imposed, blatantly unjust.

Machan's treatment is very powerful, compelling, and a necessary corrective to the errors of the liberal worldview that has resurfaced under a new identity. Equally, his critique applies to the fallacies of racial equity in that this emerging theory is unjustifiably hostile to the fundamentals of liberty and equality as defended in the Constitution. In the end, it cannot deliver what it sets out to accomplish and should be rejected and redirected toward advancing and protecting the virtues of racial equality that were spearheaded by the civil rights movement, a tradition that gave us enormous historical successes politically, legally, socially, and economically despite ongoing challenges and hardships that must be overcome in the interest of the African American community, specifically, and the United States of America, collectively. In part two, I will examine the issue of disparities more closely and how racial equity theory distorts and misapplies this important concept with reckless disregard.

The Impeachment Sequel, Starring Liz Cheney as Fredo

The quintessential Godfather series stands out for its brilliance in portraying, among other things, the complexities of family loyalty, power, and honor as the Corleone family struggles to maintain its status as the alpha crime family in New York's notorious mafia underworld. I'm no film critic, and my pithy summary does the acclaimed series no justice in terms of its wonderfully dramatic story-telling and overall intensity.

One of the most memorable scenes and exchanges in the entire series involves the two brothers, Michael and Fredo, where the latter was sent to Las Vegas to learn the highly profitable casino-hotel business under Moe Green, a Corleone family ally whose casino-hotel was financed by the Corleones. Michael travels to Vegas to buyout Moe Greene's stake, and when the three meet, Michael's surprising offer offends Green resulting in a testy exchange and refusal. Fredo, caught between upholding family loyalty versus defending his friendship with Green and his newfound significance in the casino industry, reacts against his brother and what he sees as an affront to one of Vegas' premier powerbrokers. Michael's response is epic, timeless, and illustrative of the dangers of negotiating between competing loyalties.

Fredo (Emphatic) "Mike, you don't come to Las Vegas and talk to a man like Moe Green like that!"

Michael (Calm and composed): "Fredo, you're my older brother, and I love you, but don't ever take sides with anyone against the family again...ever."

Fredo drew his line in the sand and paid for it with his life. Moe Green, likewise, sealed his fate when Michael unleashed targeted hits against the five families as part of his reign of terror and rise to power. Ultimately, this scene captures the essence of loyalties and the influence of organizational power. All that said, I in no way am making a comparison between the Corleone's, the Godfather, and Republicans. Equally, I absolutely do not endorse the use of threats and violence to intimidate and destroy opposition. Just as Michael spoke to his brother Fredo reminding him of his first duty to the family, his words, without threat for my purposes, are applicable to Liz Cheney in that she, in her leadership role, has a duty to her Congressional colleagues to which I will now explore.

Today, GOP politics is all the buzz, and the aftermath of the Trump presidency with newly introduced Articles of Impeachment against the departed President have caught the world by storm. With impeachment talk hanging over Trump even before he was elected, impeachment redux was expected due to the catastrophic events that unfolded at the U.S. Capitol building on January 6th and given the Democrats' propensity to disgrace Trump by any means necessary(1).

Enter Congresswoman Liz Cheney. The two-term Republican representative from Wyoming is daughter to the notable Dick Cheney, whose career in GOP politics and government spans approximately four decades and covers stints as a member of Congress (1978-1988), Secretary of Defense (1989-1993), and, most notably, Vice President of the United States (2001-2009). Clearly, Liz Cheney is no stranger to GOP politics, but now she finds herself fighting for her political career due to her decision to support the most recent impeachment efforts by the Democrats.

Currently, Liz is the House Republican Conference Chairwoman, which makes her the third highest ranking Republican in the House of Representatives. This leadership position gives her unprecedented influence and visibility and thus makes her decision to support Democratic impeachment against the former President highly controversial and problematic. Subsequent to her announcement, she now has a primary challenger and has been censured by the Wyoming Carbon County Republican Party. She also is facing the prospects of being removed from her leadership position as the House Republican Conference Chairwoman.

Everything mentioned thus far is prologue for the remaining analysis, which poses the question, as House GOP Conference Chairwoman, was Liz Cheney wrong for supporting the Democrats impeachment effort? Cheney's impeachment statement reads as follows:

On January 6, 2021 a violent mob attacked the United States Capitol to obstruct the process of our democracy and stop the counting of presidential electoral votes. This insurrection caused injury, death and destruction in the most sacred space in our Republic. Much more will become clear in coming days and weeks, but what we know now is enough. The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the President. The President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not. There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution.

I will vote to impeach the President."

Again, let me highlight the following from above, "...but what we know now is enough. The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack.

There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution.

Cheney's statement essentially holds then President Trump responsible for organizing and inspiring a "mob" to attack the U.S. Capitol. She concludes that upon doing so, he betrayed his oath of office.

Prior to the rally on December 19, 2020, Trump tweeted, "Be there, will be wild!". In a subsequent and related Facebook posting, the following are captured by the New York Times(2).

If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism,” a member of the Red-State Secession group on Facebook posted on Tuesday, the eve of the appointed day, Jan. 6.

Beneath it, dozens of people posted comments that included photographs of the weaponry — including assault rifles — that they said they planned to bring to the rally. There were also comments referring to “occupying” the Capitol and forcing Congress to overturn the November election that Joseph R. Biden Jr. had won — and Mr. Trump had lost.

At the rally, which was held on the rotunda just below the U.S. Capitol, he at one point stated, "We will never give up,”. We will never concede. It will never happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore."

Cheney and the Democrats use these combined statements, both oral and digital, to assert Trump's culpability for the turbulent events at the U.S. Capitol. However, Cheney and her Democratic allies seem to be on shaky ground because the Constitution's language regarding impeachment in Article II Section IV explicitly refers to the "current" President, not former. To use the impeachment clause retroactively appears to be a gross violation on its face, without legal merit or precedent, and hazardous to future impeachment cases writ large. Not to mention, the impeachment process lacks due process and procedural protocol, which are held sacrosanct for the United States as the standard bearer for democratic ideals and Constitutional governance globally.

If Cheney felt so strongly about impeachment, then she should have first stepped down from her Republican leadership position. Her personal moral convictions were in direct conflict with her role as Conference Chair for the House Republican Party. The House GOP website summarizes her position as follows:

...the House Republican Conference is responsible for electing the House Republican leadership, approving GOP Member committee assignments, managing leadership-driven floor debates, and executing a communications strategy that is executed within the party and is conveyed to constituents through the media.

Externally, the House Republican Conference coordinates media availability...and generally communicates the House Republican message to the public.

Given her announced disposition regarding impeachment, it stands to reason that she would've had reservations about executing all internal and external functions that were in opposition to impeachment. As such, her resignation would have been reasonable, appropriate, and in the interest of House Republicans, who voted overwhelmingly against the Democrats' Articles of Impeachment (201 Nay 10 Yea). I strongly believe that this was her prima facie moral duty as Conference Chair, but by remaining onboard in leadership, it was morally irresponsible and harmful to her Congressional colleagues as dissenters collectively. Cheney "took sides against the party", and this was leadership failure, morally, politically, and Constitutionally.

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

1. Washington Post, January 7, 2017. The frontpage headline reads, "The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun". Underneath, the first sentence states, "The effort to impeach President Donald John Trump is already underway."

2. New York Times, January 6, 2021. ‘Be There. Will Be Wild!’: Trump All but Circled the Date. Barry, Dan and Frenkel, Sheera.