Category: too much government

Categories
Internet controversy social media too much government

The Kids Are All Right

Australia, internet ban, censorship, freedom

All is not yet lost in a country where the children rise up as one to evade mandatory age-check barriers to social media.

Reclaim the Net reports the finding that, as judged by looking at 408 Australian teens, some 85 percent “of Australians aged 12 to 15 were still merrily logging on three months after the ban supposedly cut them off from the world.” Maybe not merrily. Perhaps only sturdily or insouciantly. Anyway, rightly. Good job, guys.

The ban is failing because kids know how to draw a mustache on their faces or borrow somebody else’s login.

Their privacy and the privacy of all other users has been invaded; the Australian government achieved that part of its mission. But the assault on everybody’s rights has not accomplished what it was supposed to. The kids are still in grave danger of being texted a link to a critique of the Australian government’s awful policies.

Solution: throw in the towel and roll it all back. Get government out of everybody’s apps. Let parents rear their own children themselves.

No! answer gendarmes like Prime Minister Albanese. Must make it work. Somehow. Like by doubling the already outsized maximum fines — from $49 million to $99 million Australian dollars ($68.6 million USD) that the tech companies must pay for failing to defeat the young people. (When in doubt, loot. . . ?)

Online predators are a problem. But Australia’s social-media engineers won’t solve it by preying on the rights of all.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
deficits and debt national politics & policies too much government

Spending All the Way to the Abyss

Entire categories of federal spending shouldn’t exist.

Now, it would be easy to eliminate budget deficits and to begin to make big and regular dents in the national debt, were it not for one teensy-weensy problem. Just hand me the budget (in electronic form, please) and a red pencil and I’ll hack away at the billions and billions. And trillions.

If that would take too long, I’d enlist a team of like-minded spending cutters to help.

We’d be doing something like what the Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE, tried to do early in the second Trump administration. DOGE didn’t go or wasn’t allowed to go anywhere near far enough, though. We know this because the big picture of runaway government spending hasn’t changed.

That’s what would thwart me and my team too: lack of political will. Or too much political will pulling in the opposite direction. Too many constituencies for all the spending and too many politicians, both parties, catering to the constituencies.

That’s the teensy-weensy problem.

The current U.S. national debt is approaching $40 trillion. This year, the federal government has already borrowed $1.4 trillion. These seem like catastrophic amounts. But somehow the U.S. still teeters on the edge of fiscal doom, yet to fall in.

Maybe when we get to a trillion trillions in federal debt and when a billion dollars won’t buy a dozen eggs, then we will surely see real reform. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies partisanship too much government

Socialists to Seize Power?

socialism, Democratic Party, prison, authoritarianism, totalitarianism

Evan Barker isn’t surprised. 

“The democratic socialist surge of the past several weeks has stunned the nation,” this former Democratic operative wrote last week. “From left to right and everywhere in between, people are asking: How did we get here? What does it mean? And will the Democratic Party survive it? The prevailing reaction has been shock.”

She’s not shocked, though, because for half a decade she had worked for “a slew of progressive candidates” teaching “DSA-aligned staffers how to build a money machine for the left; coached progressive politicians on how to speak to donors; and collaborated with billionaires to create a robust fundraising network.” 

But after the big loss for Kamala “Salad Slinger” Harris and Tim “Cringe” Walz, Barker left the party. And wrote a book, Nothing Left, regaling us with how she became disillusioned with “a leadership class” that had drifted “further and further from the working-class Americans they purportedly represented.”

Barker’s not alone. Others in the rah-rah crowd for an older Democratic Party have also expressed their chagrin. On the First of July, well-known “liberal” journalist Jonathan Chait published in The Atlantic “There’s Nothing Democratic About These Socialists.”

Noting that the Democratic Socialists of America despise the Democratic Party, with many of DSA’s stalwarts veering off into communist advocacy without much nudging, the question becomes why Democrats with some sense don’t come to their alleged senses.

Chait observes that Michael Harrington, the socialist founder of DSA, placed into its bylaws “the expulsion of members who were ‘under the discipline of any self-defined democratic-centralist organization,’ a slightly jargonish way of describing communists.”

Yet, the Democratic Party isn’t as moderate as Harrington!

Truth is, “DSA supporters see internal division not as a risk but as a historic opportunity to seize power.”

And the “means of production.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture regulation too much government

Air Conditioners — Threat or Menace?

U.K., Great Britain, global warming, climate, regulations

Is it selfish, asks Good Morning Britain, to want air conditioning?

Yes, it’s selfish to want to live and prosper and be comfortable in 90 degree heat. 

And this “selfish” cooling is bad because . . . ?

According to “the experts” queried by the Good Morning Britain presenters — which broadcasts using “non-green” energy — it’s bad because “we know” that the cooling of indoor air will heat up the outdoors — and therefore the planet.

Catastrophically, of course.

But we don’t know.

It’s one of many unproven assertions about the future of weather that get tossed around to make us feel guilty about not wanting to live in caves and eat dandelions. 

We do know that people deal capably with often extremely variable weather and other problems by using manmade food, shelter, clothing, and transportation — as well as cooling and heating. All highly suspect in the minds of Europe’s climate catastrophists. Who even attack farming.

Some climate autocrats in the UK are now actually making Brits take out their air conditioning units. Catastrophically, of course. One North London resident “was forced to ‘permanently remove’ two air-con units from the back of their home.” Council members ordained that there was “no justification” for the units. Another resident ordered to rip out his AC prevailed after appealing to a Planning Inspectorate — because he had solar panels.

“Air-con engineers told The Telegraph that they had been called out to remove perfectly operational units worth thousands of pounds across London.”

It’s a Blitz that the Brits are doing to themselves. Soon we’ll have to airlift the few who are still sane out of there. Think of it as a civilizational Dunkirk.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

The Long, Long Two Weeks

covid, hysteria, protest, obedience, disgrace, freedom

Nothing is so permanent, wrote Milton Friedman, as a temporary government program.

Six years ago, Americans learned that not only vaguely temporary measures go on and on, even precisely marked-out periods with clear starts and stops stated at the outset can be dragged on well past their expiration date.

Last week, Robby Soave “celebrated” the most astounding example of this in an article for Reason titled “This Was the Moment the COVID-19 Experts Betrayed Us,” about how the “two weeks to slow the spread” rationale for the lockdowns was shown to be a lie.

I wonder how many people were like me, at the time, noticing that the lengthening of the lockdown period was almost never justified by hospital numbers — a key point in the initial rationale, since we feared overwhelming the hospital system. The opposite happened almost everywhere, with hospitals becoming ghost towns in most locations, stressing the system in the opposite manner. By extending the duration of the near-universal quarantine, government officials and employees and their hangers-on showed how little interest they had in taking our health seriously.

What Soave focuses on is one tweet by National Public Radio, about how all crowds were bad for public health except those marching in protest of the death of George Floyd, a criminal with a long, violent rap sheet. NPR’s post began “by condemning the protests against lockdowns” and then drew “an explicit contrast with the racial justice protests, which are explicitly condoned.”

Soave calls this “junk science.” 

But it wasn’t any kind of science at all. It was pure ideological perversity.

Knowledge of that moment must be kept alive. Our expert class betrayed us by prioritizing their riot apologetics over our health.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

NOTES:

See Milton Friedman, Tyranny of the Status Quo (1980) p. 115.
For a “Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States (2020)” see Grokipedia.
The encouragement of the riots was, many hazard, an opportunistic psy-op to unseat President Trump in the 2020 election. It seems to have succeeded.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
defense & war ideological culture international affairs state terrorism too much government

The Nerve of Some People

China, Falun Gong, Taiwan, Hong Kong, cemetary, tiananmen square, tiananmen crackdown, June 4

“Police warn families of Tiananmen crackdown dead not to visit graves on 37th anniversary,” reads the headline of yesterday’s story in New York’s Newsday.

How rude of those families! 

How dare they show such utter disregard for the right of the Chinese Communist Party to “grind you up and crush your bones”! Or to have your “heads bashed bloody,” as CCP top Pooh Bear Xi Jinping has more recently been fond of saying.

Especially after all the trouble Xi and Chinese authorities have gone to easing all this unnecessary tension by facilitating a thoughtful and therapeutic four-decade “campaign to erase what happened from public memory.”

For 30 years, they allowed the thousands of teary-eyed Tiananmen Mothers to visit the gravesites, but come on, stop monopolizing the cemetery. I mean, there are millions of Uyghurs waiting to mourn, for heaven’s sake. And don’t forget the Falun Gong religious genocide. Organ harvesting political prisoners sure does quickly fill a cemetery.

Be a team player for the CCP. 

Sans sarcasm, I note that at The Gate of Heavenly Peace no one really knows how many died on June 4, 1989. The Chinese students and workers killed by soldiers who shot into crowds and rolled over them with tanks have never, even to this day, been accounted for by the Chinese government. 

It has only lied about the massacre, continuing to cover the horrors up — the government now even bullying grieving parents away from visiting their loved ones’ graves.

To think that President Bush, père, was so ready to usher in trade for the big boys of business that he sold out, 37 years ago, the protesters on Tiananmen Square!

Having snuffed out freedom in Hong Kong, inserted their hands into virtually everything we consume, and built up the world’s second largest military, what will be next for the Butchers of Beijing? Small cases of Chinese aggression — water cannons, ships sunk, a couple soldiers injured, even killed — have not halted. Asia is under threat.

Americans are not invulnerable. 

We have a serious problem. 

Which I’ll keep talking about in Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

NOTE: We take comments, too!

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Grok Imagine and Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
First Amendment rights social media too much government

Are British Censors Winning?

An outfit in the United Kingdom called Ofcom, the main enforcer of the U.K.’s Online Safety Act, is requiring social platforms to implement onerous procedures to censor “hate,” including stripping users of anonymity — or face mammoth fines, bans in the U.K., and other draconian penalties.

Nobody would object to compelling the removal of content that is clearly criminal. But is that what most so-called “hate” content really is? Of course not. Much of what irks censors and the merely censorious is merely vituperative, and no small part of what gets their goat is nothing other than sharp disagreement with those authorities who decide what “hate” is — that is, the censors themselves. 

Last year, the social media platform X formally decried Ofcom’s demands as “overreach” even as it tried to comply with the new regulations. The platform objected to U.K. mandates that would “prevent adults from encountering ‘illegal’ content” and impose “steps to ensure age verification that limit adults’ anonymity online.”

But X has now caved. It has agreed to review most content flagged as illegal “hate” within two days. All the language of that earlier remonstration is “gone now,” Reclaim the Net observes. What remains is only an agreement to comply with an organization and a system known to be militantly hostile to freedom of expression — and to Elon Musk’s X.

What could X do instead? 

Fight. 

Pull out of the United Kingdom and tell UK users, “Sorry. You’re just going to have to use a VPN to disguise your location in the UK if you want to keep using your X account,” with links to free VPNs.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Further Reading:

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
regulation too much government

Regulating BBQ

Los Angeles, busybody, regulations, busybodies

Los Angeles councilwoman Nithya Raman wants city officials to impose new regulations on backyard grilling when conditions are dry and windy. The mayoral candidate proposed restricting “backyard barbecues, fire pits and other open flames” in residential neighborhoods when such conditions exist.

Cities often prohibit burning leaves on windy days, in part because burning leaves may spread too easily when it’s blustery. But barbecues are more contained.

National Review’s Noah Rothman suggests that the caution would be more plausible if California had ever suffered a “rash of fires — or even just one — attributable to the careless mishandling of charcoal briquettes.”

Accidental causes of conflagrations tend to be things like lightning strikes and faulty power lines. These work in conjunction with poorly managed forests.

Arson, a big danger in recent years, comes in a variety of forms, as Mr. Rothman explains. “The record-breaking 2024 Park Fire was set by an intoxicated motorist who pushed his car into some flammable brush after an accident.”

The Palisades Fire was “first set by an embittered anti-capitalist vigilante” who hated the rich.

Arson and drunk driving are already illegal.

Anybody can try to cook hamburgers by setting a fire in the middle of high vegetation and calling this a “barbecue.” But that’s not the kind of thing Raman had in mind.

Fortunately, another councilwoman, Monica Rodriguez, managed to block Raman’s effort to toss a wet blanket on barbecues.

“The last thing Angelenos need,” Rodriguez says, “is a ban on hosting a carne asada in their own backyard.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Grok Imagine

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall tax policy too much government

The New Property-Tax Revolts

property taxes, protest, revolt, taxes

Decades after a famous revolt by California homeowners led to the relief provided by Proposition 13, taxpayers acting to resist sky-high property taxes are making waves throughout the country.

Just a few of the many examples reported by The Epoch Times:

Ohio. The elderly couple who paid off the mortgage on their home long ago but cannot now afford the property taxes is one reason that people are signing a statewide petition to eliminate local property taxes. It will take about 413,000 signatures, collected by a July 1, 2026 deadline, for the measure to reach the November ballot.

Florida and Texas. Legislators in Florida and Texas hope to limit the “flexibility” that local governments enjoy in how they raise revenue.

Minnesota and North Dakota. Lawmakers are pushing a cap on property tax increases tied to inflation and population growth. Voters would have to agree to any change in the cap. Recent school-board driven increases of 8 or 9 percent would be limited to 3 or 4 percent in typical scenarios.

Montana. Lawmakers want a two-percent limit on tax hikes for “local government spending but not for schools, which consume about 55 percent of property tax revenues.” A fatal flaw? Public schools are better at bloating costs than improving education.

The author observes that 46 states and D.C. already impose some sort oflimits on local property tax increases — though “their designs and restrictiveness differ widely,” adds the Tax Foundation.

Let’s improve those designs and increase the restrictiveness ASAP.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture political economy too much government

Super Under-Blown

Seattle, socialism, democratic socialism

Just 60 years ago, we were talking the end of ideology. Thirty years ago, we were talking about the end of socialism — and of history itself! — as capitalist democracies seemed triumphant after the fall of the USSR.

But here it’s A.D. 2026 and we have socialist mayors in New York and Seattle and . . . we don’t need to argue about definitions. They call themselves socialist.

While New York’s Mamdani has grabbed much of national attention, let’s not forget the Evergreen State’s Emerald City. Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson showed her defiance of economic common-sense in her defenses of many anti-business, anti-rich tax and regulation policies by her city and the state.

“I think the claims that millionaires are going to leave our state are,” she asserted, “like, super overblown.”

Her notion being that, since Washington State has a sales-tax-dominated “regressive tax system,” adding a progressive layer wouldn’t matter. New high-income-focused taxes would only make things better!

Not to those targeted by the tax, though. Not with socialists in charge. After all, she’s showing her true colors, taking photos with antifa terrorists, pooh-poohing welfare fraud (and refusing to investigate), expressing solidarity with Somali immigrants accused of fraud in Washington, and pushing for non-citizen voting.

Mayor Wilson’s response to those who have exited the soviet of Washington has been a chuckle, a wave, and a cheerful “bye.”

But then a major Democratic funder in the state, Nick Hannauer, wrote a think-piece for GeekWire suggesting that both the city, Seattle, and the state, Washington, were going too far. “Making the total tax burden here 5–10 times the alternatives isn’t progressivism; it’s stupidity.” The Daddy Warbucks, who’d promoted capital gains taxes and opposed Tim Eyman’s tax limitation measures, wants to put the brakes on Evergreen State spoliation — plundering— noting that “virtually every wealthy friend I have has either left or is planning to.”

Seattlites and Washingtonians sure seem stuck with “the usual Socialist disease — they’ve run out of other people’s money.” For the “other people” are fleeing fast.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

NOTE (first paragraph references): Daniel Bell, The End of Ideology (1960), Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (1992), and Robert Heilbroner, “The Triumph of Capitalism,”The New Yorker (January 23, 1989). Concluding allusion: Maggie Thatcher on socialism.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts