Skip to main content

Turning that New York Times “Hit Piece” on Neville Roy Singham, Jodie Evans, and Code Pink into Truth



The New York Times published a story on Saturday (8-5-23) that is couched in critical and disparaging undertones about Progressive philanthropist, Neville Roy Singham. This post will factor out the negative, and inject a more positive tone to the story's facts. 

Mr. Singham, whose father was a school teacher, built up his own tech company optimistically called “Thoughtworks” (get it?). In 2017, he married Jodie Evens. He was 69, she, 68.

Six months later he sold his company for $785M. The couple wanted to devote their lives and resources to benefit humanity. Jodie was already an activist. She, along with another woman, Media Benjamin, founded a peace and justice group they called “Code Pink,” in 2002. The two ladies, and their supporters, foresaw that George Bush’s lies about Iraq having Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), was leading the nation into a completely unnecessary war. Of course, that’s what happened in February 2003, when the US invaded Iraq. They also protested against the War in Afghanistan for the entire 20 years that it lasted.

At a 2014 meeting of middle eastern countries in Cairo, Code Pink protested the mistreatment of Palestinians in Israel. Ms. Benjamin was arrested by Egyptian police, beaten, and given a dislocated shoulder.

Later in 2014, Code Pink was awarded the US Peace Prize by the US Peace Memorial Foundation "In Recognition of Inspirational Antiwar Leadership and Creative Grassroots Activism."*

Code Pink has demanded that President Joe Biden do more to negotiate a peaceful end to the war in Ukraine. For many years, the group has demanded an end to the cruel embargo that the US has imposed on Cuba.

Thanks to generous funders, like Mr. and Mrs. Singham, Code Pink, and other peace and justice groups, have been able to raise Moral Objections to all kinds of inhumane treatment of our fellow humans by our fellow humans.

The Times article notes that Mr. Singham is especially concerned that the relations between the US and China do not deteriorate into armed conflict. In his view, the people of the United States have been grossly misinformed by the US media about life in China and the intentions of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). This has resulted in the vast majority of Americans thinking that the people of China are miserable, oppressed, and unfree, and that China is a growing military threat to the US and the Free World.

Mr. Singham is quoted in the Times article as saying that he wants to help educate folks outside of China about “the miracles that China has created on the world stage.”

For example, the World Bank has issued a report finding that China has ended extreme poverty among its people. Indeed, under the leadership of the PRC and the CCP, over 800M people have been able to work together to lift themselves out of grinding poverty and into a middle class life equal to the best parts of the American middle class.^

Mr. and Mrs. Singham currently reside in Shanghai. They are working with the Chinese government to try to find ways to counteract all the negative propaganda about China in countries all over the world. Their belief is that if people understood China more as it really is, and less as an Evil and Demonic threat, the prospects for World Peace would be much better than they are today.

William J. Kelleher, PhD

References:

New York Times, Saturday, August 5, 2023. (Front page, below the fold.)

*Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Pink

^ For sources, see Re-interpreting the Meaning of China for the USA

https://interpretat.blogspot.com/2022/02/re-interpreting-meaning-of-china-for-usa.html

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How the “But For” Test for Causation in Law can be Adapted to Political Science

For social science, as for law, the concept of “causation” can  take on different forms. These forms of causation are “outside   the box” of the old Newtonian concept of causation. That is, a   one-on-one collision. For example, the “8 ball” in a pool game moved to the corner pocket because the cue ball struck it at the intended angle. The cue ball did that because Minnesota Fats hit the cue ball just right with his pool stick. This is a mechanistic model of causation. In that model, the list of causes prior to Minnesota Fats could go back endlessly; or at least to the Big Bang of 13.8 billion years ago, which, mechanistically, is thought to be the First Cause of everything. However, for the most part, social science, like law, envisions human behavior as conduct for which the actors are responsible. This need not be a “moral” responsibility, for which moral blame is attached. Instead, “causal responsibility” is simply a matter-of-fact, or practical, concept...
Post a Comment
Read more

Executive Immunity – Beyond the Hype

                                           The media and fund raising emailers are having a ball screaming “the sky is falling! The Trump Supreme Court has given Trump ‘absolute immunity’ for whatever he wants to do as President. He’ll kill us all!” But that’s far from true. The United States v Trump The case is known as US v Trump . In its opinion, the Supreme Court didn’t give Trump anything. In fact, the Court remanded the case to the District Court, and told the lawyers for both sides to start all over again. This time, they have to consider three important points. Before explaining these, lets see how the case got to the High Court. As you probably know, Trump was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury for several criminal charges alleging a conspiracy to change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. (SCt's Opinion, page 2. All references to the Opinion.) In the...
Post a Comment
Read more

RIP Prop 33 😭 What happened?

Why did Prop 33 lose in California? Here are three reasons, although there could be more:  1) Out of state billionaire real estate special interests, combined with in-state millionaire Landlord orgs, spent over $121,000,000 on telling scary falsehoods to Californians. Like, rent control will cause rents to go up, and affordable housing will disappear. They just needed to cause enough confusion about the meaning of Prop 33 to get the voters – even tenants! – to vote no.   2) As I explain in a vid on YouTube,* the California Legislative Analyst presented a biased and negative summary of Prop 33 in the Voter Guide. That was sent out to 22M Californians. For many voters, it was the one and only thing they would read about Prop 33. The law requires the Legislative Analyst to suggest the economic impact of a prop for both state and local gov – but only a negative view was given, and only for the state gov – “tens of millions” would be lost in tax revenues, it said. But renters w...
2 comments
Read more