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 Reappraising David Easton can make Political Science Research more Exciting.

D avid Easton’s theory of the political system has long been  misrepresented  as requiring a mechanistic theory of causation, thus dehumanizing political behavior. The widespread claim that his vision was of the political system as striving for equilibrium is totally false.   Easton was a humanist. He envisioned human political behavior as a consequence of the meanings people create volitionally in their own minds and social context. He rejected the automaton theory of political behavior.     He also understood the relationship between system performance and public opinion and sentience. A well operating system will likely result in public satisfaction and support. Poor operation, the opposite.   That, in turn, implies a  standard,  or norm, by which to assess how well a political system is performing. Indeed, Easton's theory of the empirical political system can also be used as a way to assess how well a political system is operating. Efficiency and effectiveness are elements to b
Post a Comment
Read more

Causation, Not Correlation, in Interpretive Political Science

Using David Easton’s theory of the political system as my interpretive framework, in this post I will offer a non-mechanistic theory of how human political behavior can be “caused.” I will argue that, for Interpretive Political Science, reasons can be causes of political behavior. Indeed, respect for the subject matter – human political behavior – requires this causal theory. After all, people are not machines. “Reasons” will be understood as units of meaning in the minds of people. I will offer examples of such causal relations in the operations of two political systems, China and Peru. Hypothesis: The operation of a political system will tend to provide reasons which explain the political sentience of the public. A well-functioning political system will probably be the reason for high approval ratings among its membership. Likewise, a poorly functioning system will probably be the reason for low approval ratings. China In the past 40 years the Chinese political system hel
Post a Comment
Read more

Does Political Science Force Graduate Students into a Career of Irrelevancy?

Introduction In a 2014 New York Times op ed, columnist Nicholas Kristof drew numerous defensive responses when he criticized political science for having very little “practical impact” in “the real world of politics.” [1] Rather than exercising civic leadership, political science has been most noticeably AWOL from public policy debates since WWII, he claims. And, in his view, there are “fewer public intellectuals on American university campuses today than a generation ago.” How does he account for this absence? Primarily, it is due to the academic interest in pursuing the quantitative approach in political science research. This kind of research is too often unintelligible to both the politically interested general public and the policy making community. Also, the “value neutrality” required for such studies prohibits advocacy. The pattern persists, in part, because graduate students must conform to the expectations of their professors, as a requirement for a successful academic
Post a Comment
Read more