Category: general freedom

Categories
Common Sense defense & war general freedom Today

Last Monday of May

memorial day, 2026, war, foreign policy, freedom

Once called Decoration Day, this last Monday of May is a federally designated holiday set aside from the normal course of days for solemn reflection on the sacrifices made by soldiers — many with their very lives — in past wars of the United States of America.

In past episodes of Common Sense with Paul Jacob, you can find

“In Memory of the Fallen” — May 25, 2025 — “Don’t we owe them our freedom? I certainly believe we owe it to the fallen to keep that freedom alive.”

“Memorial Day Questions” — May 25, 2015 — War in the time of President Obama. “Vets deserve, and we all need, more (not fewer) questions of presidential candidates, such as the hypothetical inquiry of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush on Iraq, and the hypothetical Libya question Sen. Rand Paul suggests should be posed to Mrs. Clinton.”

“Disneyland vs. Politicians” — May 30, 2016 — “Do congressmen wait months to get a medical appointment? No. Then why not close the VA and give veterans the same healthcare coverage as our (pardon the term) representatives?” 

“Of Horror and Honor” — May 25, 2020 — “Last year, when the public relations wing of the U.S. Army asked, on Twitter, “How has serving impacted you?” the bulk of the responses were not what was hoped for. What came like tear drops and bursts of rage were thousands of horrific tales, expressions of sorrow, bitterness and despair.”

Illustration created with Nano Banana

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

Categories
general freedom ideological culture

Welcome the Revolutionaries?

Declaration of Independence, freedom, communism, leftism, universities, education, schools, anti-Americanism

Attending his son’s commencement ceremony at the University of Michigan, Judge Michael Warren came away . . . concerned. 

“In stark contrast to several speakers who dutifully acknowledged that the campus sits on land ceded by the Ojibwe, Odawa and Potawatomi Nations by the 1817 Treaty of Fort Meigs (or Treaty of the Foot of the Rapids),” the judge lamented in The Detroit News on Monday, “not a single speaker dared to acknowledge the birthday of our own nation.”

The ceremonies, writes Judge Warren, “could have occurred in any country without missing a beat.” 

Warren, a U of Malumnus, sadly notes how thoroughly “in thrall” to the “well-documented anti-West, anti-American sentiments” his old school has become. He also highlights how very different they were from the ceremonies, a half century ago, during the Bicentennial, when the keynote speech was entitled “Welcome to the Revolution.”

Nowadays, any Revolution extolled on campus might best be symbolized not by fife and drum or quill on parchment, but by a raised red fist.

Or hammer and sickle — perhaps painted in rainbows.

Lost on the university class? Any charm to the “near magical words” of the Declaration of Independence. Before the Declaration, Warren explains, all governments “were unequivocally opposed to recognizing that the people had the right to reform or start government anew.”

Today’s university folk, expressing the typical pieties of the center-left, in fact mimic our familiar American model to justify their own, much less impressive and far more dangerous notions of never-ending revolution.

In April, Republic Book Publishers came out with The Revolutionary Words that Forged America: The Definitive Guide to the Declaration of Independence by this very same Judge Michael Warren. I bought a copy. It looks great. 

For he takes the founders’ seriously good ideas seriously.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

NOTE: Judge Warren also happens to be a very serious candidate for the Michigan Supreme Court. And, in full disclosure, my friend.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

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

Categories
general freedom nannyism regulation

Killer Cars for Your Safety

“It is in my memory banks,” Eric Peters wrote last month, referencing an android on an old Star Trek episode, “the long-ago time when GM was a car company.”

Yes, in the “long-ago” they “made an almost infinite variety of vehicles to suit almost any need and budget, all of them designed and engineered to free their owners. Some were utilitarian. Others were beautiful. Some were arrogant. None were parenting. They were made by adults who respected other adults. What became of that GM?”

The answer? Government.

Specifically, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, as directed by Section 24220 of 2021’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. 

“By 2027, every new car sold in the United States could be required to actively monitor the person behind the wheel,” explained Shawn Henry, the Chief Security Officer at CrowdStrike until last year. “That means watching your eyes, tracking your behavior, and constantly evaluating whether you’re alert enough to drive. For a lot of drivers, that starts to feel less like safety and more like surveillance.”

The idea is for your car to remove you from control.

The excuse for this nanny-state totalitarianism — a human-made robot take-over! — is that it will save lives. If you are too tired, too excited, too sleepy, or just walking erratically, the idea is for your smart car to prevent you from taking the wheel. 

But it would only save lives under normal conditions. In an emergency, your actions — watched over with loving grace by your ultra-smart car — could look like you’re on drugs or worse, and the car, not understanding the emergency, blocks your escape.

That is, if the NHTSA ever finalizes the regulation.

In a world where the CIA can execute you by making your car drive off the road (yes, it’s a thing), adding more overriding tech?

The wrong direction.

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
general freedom ideological culture public opinion

Mayday! Mayday! Mayday!

may day, communism, socialism, capitalism

Long time ago, May Day was about celebrating Spring — for which rejoicing is appropriate. Over the last century, it has become International Workers’ Day. 

“In 1889, an international federation of socialist groups and trade unions designated May 1 as pro-workers day,” informs the Wikidates.org website, “on the anniversary of the Haymarket Riots in Chicago (1886).”

Five years later, clearly opposed to cavorting with socialists, the U.S. established Labor Day on September 1, an alternative date to honor workers.

Today, political rallies and protests are expected in major cities across the country.  “On May 1, 2026, workers, students, and families rally, march, and take action across the country to demand a nation that puts workers over billionaires, with many refusing business as usual through No School. No Work. No Shopping,” says May Day Strong, the umbrella group organizing events.

These are the revolutionary slogans of a General Strike, intended to shut down society. Or perhaps, since the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the National Education Association (NEA) are big supporters, just provide teachers a day off. 

And considering Cato Institute’s graph of student performance in public education charted against tax outlays to the cause, any teachers’ union suggestion of skinflintery on the part of Mr. Moneybags The Taxpayer is obscene. 

“Workers over billionaires” is the sort of un-American class-warfare slogan that is not only divisive but also badly misguided: billionaires create jobs, without which being a worker really loses its luster. Plus, it’s ineffective: Demonizing the rich never made a society any richer.

Apter for the day? The international distress call: Mayday! Mayday! Mayday!

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
education and schooling general freedom ideological culture international affairs subsidy

The Price of a Canadian Education?

Canada, education, authoritarianism, freedom

At a convention of Canadian Liberals, tech executive Patrick Pichette proposed that youngsters eager to escape Canada be charged a half-million dollars for what he apparently regards as a privilege, not a right.

We must remind ourselves that the word “liberal,” here, is used in its modern, anti-liberal sense: of the ideology of ever-increasing restraints on everybody.

Very illiberal.

Even if Pichette means Canadian dollars, that’s still $360,000 in real USD dollars. Hardly a ten-dollar processing fee. More like extortion. He rationalizes that the kids owe that much anyway thanks to Canada’s heavily subsidized education system.

Terry Newman observes that Pichette “is a Canadian who left Canada for better opportunities himself.” He went to California and Google and now lives in London.

But Pichette and his de facto self-exemption are not the problem. The problem is all Liberals who “want to govern as many aspects [of the economy] as possible, pick winners, and unload the tax burden of the massive bureaucracy onto Canadians, the smartest of which understand this clearly and choose to leave.”

While Pichette’s proposal had his audience of Canadian Liberals cheering, sane individuals rightfully express varying degrees of alarm. After all, punishing people for leaving a country is eerily reminiscent of what totalitarian states do: prevent them from leaving altogether.

Pichette’s rationale itself is based on a misunderstanding. Are the half-million per student subsidies really there to educate? More like to placate well-organized lobbies of too-often ideologically driven careerists. 

The idea that Canadian students actually receive half-a-million-dollar educations is not believable.

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
defense & war general freedom ideological culture Internet controversy national politics & policies

Deuce Bigelow, Political Philosopher

Rob Schneider, the draft, conscription, freedom

Americans have not endured a military draft since the 1970s. Our bodies and very lives aren’t conscript. Just our fortunes.

Not perfect, true, but as political trades go it’s better for equal freedom than slightly lower taxes and a return of the draft, which conscripts some* to benefit (the story runs) “all.”

The all-volunteer force has produced the world’s best military . . . without “slave” labor.

Comedian Rob Schneider thinks differently.  

“We must once again recommit ourselves to one Nation under God, indivisible,” he posted to X recently. “Therefore, we must restore the military draft for our Nation’s young people.

“Each and every American, at eighteen years of age, must serve two years of military service. They could also choose to serve part of that time overseas or in country in a volunteer capacity,” he went on.

“Unlike in today’s Universities, our young people will learn how truly great their country is and how unique and incredible are the Freedoms that this Nation bestows upon them.” But wouldn’t the best place to learn of American freedoms be living free in America? 

Other criticism leaned to mockery, such as the parody movie poster of Deuce Bigelow Joins the Army. 

Schneider later clarified that he aims for less military action: “A military with EVERY SEGMENT OF SOCIETY REPRESENTED would make the DEPLOYMENT of TROOPS and foreign wars LESS likely as there would be MORE accountability at the highest levels of power.”

This notion is, explains The Epoch Times, “part of a public appeal for Americans to return to traditional values.”

But surely the all-volunteer service is more traditional, the norm for most of our history, and, especially in the sense that freedom to join, or not, embodies liberty better than coercion does. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* The all-volunteer force is admittedly not an exact replica of our society, representing “every segment.” It is better than that. Better educated. Better motivated. In better shape. Consider that the military cannot use at least 12 percent of the population for any purpose.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

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

Categories
general freedom ideological culture

Winning Through Identification

Javier Milei, Argentina, freedom, government

Argentina’s libertarian president, Javier Milei, perceives that many political battles amount to a clash between producers and thieves. Between those who work for living (using what sociologist Franz Oppenheimer called the “economic means”) and those who steal for a living (using the “political means”).

Politics can’t always be reduced to this conflict, of course. But it can pretty often — certainly in a country where socialists have been pulverizing the economy.

Now, this knowledge is not kept by Milei as a dark secret, about which he would be embarrassed to be caught mentioning to a select few supporters.

Milei is not coy! That we learned during his campaign for president; and, no matter what his ups and downs in office, he still seems to be just as candid, just as willing to blast his opponents, to their faces, for —

Well: “Listen up, you ignorant fools! ‘Social justice’ is theft. It implies unequal treatment before the law and is preceded by theft. You bunch of thieves! Criminals!”

Also: “The world has only two kinds of people: those who live off what others produce — that is, the parasites, that is, you — and those who produce everything that is possible in modern life.

“The true battle of our time is cultural, philosophical, and moral. It is about choosing the system that lifted millions out of poverty. It is about ceasing to be an immature nation that squanders the future to distribute benefits in the present. . . .”

Probably even better in the original Spanish.

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
general freedom ideological culture

Medicine Reverses Course

gender affirming care, health, fads, hysteria

Scott Jennings reports on what he calls “a political earthquake”: both the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and the American Medical Association have “gone on the record saying the same thing. There is insufficient evidence to justify ‘gender transition surgeries’ for minors, and these surgeries should generally be deferred to adulthood.”

The ASPS made its statement on February 3, which the New York Times explained was prompted by “a lack of quality research on the long-term outcomes for young people who had undergone surgical interventions like mastectomies and cited ‘emerging evidence of treatment complications and potential harms.’”

The next day, the AMA, the nation’s largest medical organization, spoke up. 

When this issue came to the fore a few years ago, the usual response was “this is only happening to a tiny group of young people, if any.” Now, according to TheTimes, a review of “hospital data from 2016 through 2020 identified about 3,600 patients aged 12 to 18 who had received gender-related surgery. The vast majority were mastectomies.” 

The Times references a York University social scientist studying “transgender medicine” who attributes the new positions, in part, to “the growing political backlash over gender-affirming care.” Just as Scott Jennings judges these two big turnarounds as huge blows to “the left,” which has supported those surgical practices in the cause of gender-fluidity and -identity along with inclusion and whatnot.

By advising against major irreversible interventions into the maturation process of young people, ASPS and the AMA have, at the very least, made a long-overdue advance for 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
general freedom nannyism national politics & policies

The Unstoppable Kill Switch

Congress, regulations, control, authoritarianism

Fifty-seven Republicans in Congress worked with the bulk of Democrats, and the President of These United States, to continue funding development of a “kill switch” on new cars. On Tuesday, the bill became law.

You may have thought that most new cars driving down the road could already be switched “off” remotely. After all, the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, signed by former President Joe Biden, required the National Traffic Safety Administration to develop just such a technology for passenger cars. “The sweeping infrastructure law passed Congress with bipartisan support,” MSNBC pointed out last week.

But government isn’t fast, and the kill switch project “needed” more funding, which was included in the new $1.2 trillion spending package.

Still, a minority did try — unsuccessfully, alas — to put a halt to this “advanced impaired driving prevention technology.”

Calling the R&D “Orwellian,” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) asked a relevant question: “When your car shuts down because it doesn’t approve of your driving, how will you appeal your roadside conviction?”

Competitive Enterprise Institute fellow Clyde Wayne Crews further explained: “The vehicle ‘kill-switch’ is precisely the kind of overreach that will empower regulatory agencies to manage behavior without votes by elected representatives in Congress or real accountability.”

Though Republican Massie had proposed an amendment to defund the kill switch, and a few Democrats joined him — Reps. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington, Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, Lou Correa of California and Val Hoyle of Oregon — a Heinz 57 sauce of GOP representatives sided with the overwhelming bulk of Democrats to keeping the kill switch funding flowing.

Separate efforts to repeal Section 24220 outright, such as H.R. 1137 (the No Kill Switches in Cars Act), remain pending but likely paralyzed in committee.

The Leviathan rumbles along, no kill switch in development.

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
general freedom nannyism

The Next Population Explosion

robots, Elon Musk, dystopia, utopia, totalitarianism, benevolence

While I sit way out here on the margins of big technological trends, Elon Musk pitches a very science-fictional near-future. 

“With robotics and AI, this is really the path to abundance for all,” he said at January’s World Economic Forum in Davos. “If you have ubiquitous AI that is essentially free or close to it and ubiquitous robotics, you will have an explosion in the global economy that is truly beyond all precedent.”

The world’s richest man predicted that humanoid robots will soon become pervasive: “there will be more robots than people.”

I’m not much of a science fiction reader — does Nineteen Eighty-Four count? — but from movies and friends’ book suggestions, it sure seems that sci-fi writers have not predicted universally cheerful outcomes from Elon’s prophesied robot population explosion.

How would we control such creatures? Isaac Asimov wrote a lot about this, using his “Three Laws of Robotics,” a Three Commandments for artificial beings. The first reads “A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.” But surely another scenario is more realistic, Jack Williamson’s The Humanoids (1948). There the shiny robots — primed with “To Serve and Obey, And Guard Men From Harm” — set up a totalitarian society without the State. 

Just the humanoids, nannying humans about.

What would life be like with all these “helping hands”? 

Remember Thoreau’s warning in Walden (1854)? “If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life. . . .”

Ronald Reagan quipped that “I’ve always felt the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”

Elon Musk merrily imagines an “upgrade” to busybodies and governments.

Artificial busybodies and governments. On auto-pilot.

Terrifying.

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