Dumb or Dumber?

Sometimes, the necessity to stick to a well-worn script causes prominent people to say things that are hopelessly stupid. I  present two recent examples.

I

In The Free Press last week there was a story titled ‘The iPhone Update That Could Wreck Political Fundraising’. It describes a new feature that Apple is going to put on its iPhones that, according to the article ‘…will allow iPhone users to screen messages from “unknown senders.” That will automatically place texts from such senders, starting in mid-September, in a separate folder without notifying the recipients.’

Now, I do not have a smartphone, but I had always assumed that some kind of blocking and screening ability for text messages was already available on them. Thus, I don’t know what is really new here. But that is beside the point. Here’s the point –

Joanna Rodriguez, a spokesperson for the NRSC [National Republican Senate Committee], told The Free Press:

“Unilaterally blocking campaigns and political parties from being able to contact voters with get-out-the-vote or persuasive messaging is voter disenfranchisement, and it’s critical Apple delay their rollout of this feature until these concerns have been addressed,”

Voter disenfranchisement?

Jeeezus, Mary and Joseph. Allowing users to block out unwanted texts is that? The NRSC, by the way, spends money in a variety of ways to help Republicans get elected to the US Senate. Here is what the ‘About’ section of their webpage says:

The NRSC (National Republican Senatorial Committee) is the only national organization solely devoted to strengthening the Republican Senate Majority and electing Republicans to the United States Senate.

We provide invaluable support and assistance to current and prospective Republican U.S. Senate candidates in the areas of budget planning, election law compliance, fundraising, communications tools and messaging, and research and strategy.

And their position is that if your phone can be set to block texts from them, you have been disenfranchised.

But, the NRSC are not the only fools in the room. Again from the article:

“This is a massive issue for a variety of reasons,” said one veteran Republican operative who runs a public affairs firm in Washington. “This is going to be an attack on democracy and free speech if Apple does this without ensuring voters are able to access information.”

An attack on democracy and free speech. Dear lord. (I do wonder why TFP didn’t name that ‘veteran Republican operative’.)

Not everyone is a self-interested ass, however. Here is what another person interviewed in the piece said –

“Apple is only doing this because they are getting a ton of customer complaints about the number of unsolicited text messages. It’s in the best interests of its consumers.”

He then added, “We have ourselves to blame as an industry. We bombard people with messages, and both [Democrats and Republicans] have a ton of candidates who never say or do anything interesting, who don’t have any original thoughts, who aren’t trying to bring people together.”

Exactly.

II

The Wall Street Journal published an editorial by one Sean McLean on August 3 titled ‘The WNBA and Caitlin Clark’s Civil Rights’. The editorial starts with a photo from a WNBA game on July 9 which shows Clark face down on the floor, the ball under her, and an opposing player, who is black, leaning on Clark and pulling on the ponytail in which Clark wears her hair during games.

In case you don’t know, Clark entered the WNBA last year as a rookie with the Indiana Fever, after a college career at the University of Iowa in which she became the highest-scoring player in NCAA basketball history, and led her team to two national championship games, losing both. She is a phenom, as they say, and her presence in the WNBA has done this, according to info in the editorial:

“Since she joined the league last year, Ms. Clark’s impact has been seismic: Merchandise sales soared 601%, Indiana Fever viewership jumped 170%, the team’s value tripled, League Pass subscriptions climbed 366%, app engagement rose 613%, and her endorsements topped $11 million.”

Not bad, eh? This has not come without issues, as Clark has also been beat up by opposing players at a rather high rate. Again, according to the editorial, ‘Clark absorbed 17% of flagrant fouls last season—double her peers’ rate.’

I’m not sure what that stat means, and no source is given. However, I don’t think it is controversial that Clark has been getting hit and pushed around more than her share since she entered the league. The question is, why? It has been suggested by some that it is largely because Clark is part of a minority demographic in the WNBA; she is white and, apparently, straight. To whatever extent that is the case, MacLean characterizes her treatment as follows:

“The league has fostered a hostile workplace for Ms. Clark through excessive fouling, targeting, and hostile comments from other players and owners. These aren’t isolated—they’re documented, continuing and ignored by officials.”

Mr. MacLean also knows what to do about this, it is written in the subtitle of his editorial:

If the league won’t act to protect its superstar from a hostile environment, the government should do so.

His specific action plan is this, again from the editorial:

“Congress and the administration should demand answers from WNBA leaders, investigate officiating and internal league communications, hold hearings, and insist on real reforms. The Labor Department should review league protocols for workplace safety. If evidence shows discrimination or retaliation, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division must act. If leaders remain inert, Congress should reconsider the WNBA’s special privileges, including its antitrust and broadcast considerations.”

Yes, I can think of few better uses of the time and resources of all those parts of the goddam federal government than to investigate what is going on in a professional sports league.

Again, lord save us from such as MacLean.

I do wonder what Ms Clark would think of this if she read the editorial. She’s out with an injury at the moment, so maybe she saw it.

Basketball is the one pro sport to which I pay no attention. I used to play backyard hoops endlessly as a kid, but lost interest when the formerly-awesome NCAA March Madness got bigger and bigger and full of one-and-done players.

However, I have watched some Fever games when Clark was playing, as I found her story compelling, and I do like the way she plays the game. She’s just fun to watch. Clark reminds me of a male college player of my youth, Pistol Pete Maravich. Dribbling madly all over the floor, firing no-look passes to her teammates (she led the WNBA in assists last year) and firing up long bombs from everywhere (she also led in 3-point baskets). And, she is no shrinking violet. She plays with real fire, and when she gets pushed, she pushes back.

Maybe we ought to let Ms Clark deal with all this hostility – and that there is hostility I have no doubt – on her own, or rather, with the aid of her teammates. As one commenter on the WSJ editorial noted, Jackie Robinson faced down the same bullshit when he entered Major League Baseball, and he triumphed without any help from any government agents. Caitlin Clark seems to me perfectly capable of doing the same, and it will be fun to watch. Congressional hearings – not so much.