Category: ideological culture

Categories
education and schooling ideological culture

Child Sacrifice to the Cult

integration, politics, children, symbolism

One’s political ideology should not become a cult.

The text for today’s sermon against cults is a post about a curious case of child sacrifice. 

In Alex Tabarrok’s first sentence he links to a 2016 article in The New York Times by one Nikole Hannah-Jones, “Choosing a School for my Daughter in a Segregated City.” Economist Tabarrok, blogging yesterday at Marginal Revolution, explains that Ms. Hannah-Jones “sent her child to a predominantly black/lower-income public school in New York City. Now her child says she shouldn’t have been used as political fodder.”

What Hannah-Jones did was send her daughter to a failing public school to somehow advance social justice. She could have sent her daughter to a school with a better curriculum, better teachers, and better fellow students, but to serve her woke ideology, she subjected her own child to a terrible education.

A decade later she and Najya, her daughter, finally confronted the consequences of that choice, the lackluster learning being just the first half of it: “Najya knew very little algebra and had huge gaps in many of the building blocks of math that she should have learned in elementary school, like mastery of long division and fractions.” 

And the psychic toll was worse.

Tabarrok swiftly undermines the initial assumptions going into the schooling choice,* concluding with an astute analysis of our times: “It’s been said that Ayn Rand’s heroes don’t exist, but her villains do. . . Hannah-Jones says that she and her husband ‘felt an obligation to make educational decisions based on the collective good.’ But she wasn’t just sacrificing herself for her ideology; she was sacrificing her child, who had no choice in the matter.”

That’s the operative word in education, no? Choice. Schooling decisions aren’t easy. Even parents with education, intelligence, and resources can make mistakes. Sometimes ideological ones. With our system failing, at whopping tens of thousands spent per pupil, please consider that sacrificing individual kids doesn’t really serve the collective good.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* “The failures she documents are failures of management and accountability, not lack of resources. NYC spends upwards of $40k per pupil on average, the highest of any large district in the country. Moreover, schools in NYC with lower-income students get more than the average. PS 307, where NHJ initially sent her child, is currently funded at just over 52k per student, far above the national average.”

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Grok Imagine

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

Categories
crime and punishment Fourth Amendment rights general freedom ideological culture too much government

I Spy vs. They Spy

Flock, surveillance, traffic, police

There is an argument making the rounds: Flock cameras are good because cop cams have proven themselves so useful. More transparency!

Flock cameras, you may remember, are the traffic cameras integrally linked to an artificial intelligence that tracks car license plates (and thus the cars, and drivers) that come within the cameras’ field of vision. 

The company contracts with cities and other governments. To surveil us. 

You know, “to protect us from crime.”

The fear — and I know it, because I fear it — is that this will lead to a total surveillance state where “innocent until proven guilty” has no real meaning. Watched and analyzed, our every action on the roads and sidewalks would potentially become ensnared in Big Brother tyranny.

A somewhat secondary fear is that police and other government workers — or hackers — would be able to access the database/a.i. for reasons of an, uh, extra-legal character.

And that has happened aplenty!

The latest tale comes from Sussex, Wisconsin, where our “public servants” tracked a specific person — Napoleon Jones, a Navy Veteran — after he had recorded a traffic stop that “just didn’t feel right” and had then been arrested and (understandably) filed a complaint.

While it is legal to record a public traffic stop, for some reason cops really don’t like “civilians” to record them.

In the course of reviewing the complaints, Jones’s lawyer discovered that the police had been tracking him through the Flock system.

Before you shout the now common protest of “What the Flock,” remember what we are up against: government workers using the system to defend their own misbehavior.

This is not the transparency we were looking for.

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 partisanship

Socialist Idiocracy

Democratic Party,Zohran Mamdani, socialism, DSA, Congress, capitalism

Old School Democrats are losing it.

Losing the young and, therefore, control of the direction of their party . . . to the Democratic Socialist of America.

Do they understand the dangers?

While it is expected that Republicans — such as Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) — would object to the rise of socialist agitation in the Democratic Party, getting Democratic leaders to object to the new radicalism has not proved quite so easy.

But James Carville, the strategist behind Bill Clinton’s victorious presidential runs three decades ago, is speaking out.

“What I would tell a Democratic socialist — ‘If you hate the Democratic brand so much, why use our words? Go call yourself something else. Call yourself the Socialists of America,” he said. “Don’t use our name. Make up your own name.”

The Fox News report elaborated, “Carville argued that the DSA’s values and policy positions, including defunding the police, do not align with those of the Democratic Party.”

Now, Carville’s not really in any position to demand that the ersatz “Democratic Socialists” strike the “Democratic” from their name. The Democratic Party — the party of Jackson and Van Buren as well as of Wilson and FDR — does not have a monopoly on the term. It is not Democratic® or Democratic™. And what with how Democrats in the Democratic Party are now scarcely committed to democratic processes at all — remember the stealing of Bernie Sanders’ nominations, or selecting a new presidential candidate without one vote of party regulars? — maybe the term should be up for grabs.

But not by socialists. 

Why? Carville called the hyper-successful and self-designated socialist “streamer” Hasan Piker an “idiot,” and his listeners “left-wing idiots.”

Yet they cannot call themselves “Idiot Socialists of America,” can they?

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 too much government

Shirkers of the World, Unite

socialism, freedom, control, democracy

“Now it is our turn,” Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders told the crowd gathered at the Lincoln Memorial, last Friday, celebrating the 63rd anniversary of Martin Luther King’s March on Washington speech. 

Socialist Sanders was followed by New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. 

“We the people demand guaranteed healthcare for every American as a right and not a privilege,” insisted AOC.

“We the people of the United States of America demand that one job with no need for overtime,” she declared, “should be enough for our most basic needs.”

Then Ocasio-Cortez added, “Which also include rest.”

“Exactly,” remarked Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade, “We became number one in the world by resting and not working overtime.

“Right behind her is an army of socialist foot soldiers,” Kilmeade continued, “ready to work 30 hours and then take a break.”

That army is the Democratic Socialists of America — to which AOC had just re-upped her membership.

“Imagine taking a day off from work,” reads their program’s very first message, “in a future without capitalism.” You see, in that socialist utopia just around the corner, “You enjoy your work; it’s interesting to you” and “you would control your own labor” and it would never be “just a job to pay the bills.” 

The promise of socialism fulfilled at last.

“Speaking of bills,” the DSA assures you won’t “really have them anymore.” And there will be “no debt”! Why, you won’t even “pay a mortgage or have a landlord, because comfortable housing is a human right.” Simple as that, plus, “Your retirement is publicly funded.” 

Sure sounds like they’re going to take care of us real nice. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana and Grok Imagine

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

Categories
general freedom ideological culture

My Sporting Double-Standard

WNBA, trans, sports, gender, sex

I like sports. Even soccer.

That’s why I oppose “transgender women” — biological men, for those playing at home — competing in women’s sports. The physical advantages that men, transgender or not, have over women make such athletic contests inherently unfair. 

Worse, from a marketing standpoint: unexciting. 

And sometimes dangerous.

Look, women are better than men at a lot of things. Maybe everything else.

The problem is one of uncompetitive competition, not hatred of transsexuals. It’s no more anti-trans to forbid men from competing in women’s sports than it is anti-men to limit girls’ sports to biological girls. 

“I got a lot of negative feedback about me hating trans,” WNBA star Sophie Cunningham told ESPN. “And I’m like, ‘I never once said that.’

“I think that I am here to extend love. But I also think with that love is truth, being honest,” Cunningham explained. “And I want to protect young girls in a locker room, or young girls in sport who shouldn’t have to go against biological men.”

What about the reverse? That is, “transgender men” — biological women — competing in men’s sports?

There doesn’t seem to be a big controversy about that. Why not? 

It just hasn’t happened, I figured. But I discovered that yes, it has. 

Without sparking much controversy, I note. And why? Because in this scenario the transgendered person is at a disadvantage. Punching up, so to speak. Trans men going against bigger, stronger, faster competitors (biologically likely to be, at least) and yet they’re still willing to suit up.

That’s what I love about sports.

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 too much government

The Greed of Socialism

socialism, national debt

Do the young think that their trendy-again socialist notions are new?

There’s no hat older than socialism. Our civilization has been grappling with socialist ideas for at least two centuries. While the arguments for and against socialism are many and varied, maybe it all boils down to ignorance and greed.

“This century’s socialist wave starts at a big disadvantage,” wrote Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., for the Wall Street Journal, yesterday. “It arrives as the socialism we already have runs out of that famous quantity, other people’s money.”

Today’s allegedly “democratic” socialists use “the socialism we already have” as an excuse for more. Truth is, we cannot afford what we now must put up with.

“An American baby born today owes $376,000 in federal debt and unfunded entitlement liabilities, assuming the burden is evenly distributed,” explains Mr. Jenkins. “Of course, it isn’t. We oldsters plan on checking out before the bill comes due.”

The intergenerational conflict of actually-existing socialism has been buried under nice phrases like “Social Security” — even as that specific program teeters, insolvent, requiring re-jiggering to ratchet up burdens on the young every other generation. 

I see why the young would object. It’s harder to see why they would want more of the dog that bites them.

“Let me be the 1,000th to notice that the New York socialism of Mayor Zohran Mamdani seems to appeal especially to privileged young people, still supported in adulthood by their parents.” 

And let me be the millionth to observe that demanding other people do your work and pay your bills amounts to exactly what these very nice socialists have always railed against.

Greed.

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
education and schooling ideological culture Internet controversy

A Scandal’s Arc

Jason Arday, scandal, plagiarism, Cambridge, DEI, race

When did you first hear the story of Jason Arday? 

In 2023, Mr. Arday became something of a public sensation in Great Britain, where his claims to being autistic, mute till age 11, and illiterate till 18 made a striking rag-to-riches/up-from-racism story upon his appointment as Professor of Sociology of Education at the University of Cambridge.

The youngest Black professor at that institution ever.

But few in America heard much about him. 

Last September, Times Higher Education journalist Jack Grove documented what he alleged to be plagiarism in Arday’s 2015 PhD thesis and academic publications. Grove contacted Arday for comment; Arday responded with a letter from his lawyers. The story was not published. 

Then, a month ago, philosopher Nathan Cofnas published his exposé, which began with a litany of Arday’s autobiographical whoppers, not including the one I heard most bandied-about: that at age 7 the young Jason had been interviewed for the famous documentary Seven Up! — a glaring fib because the movie came out 21 years before Prof. Arday was born.

Cofnas compared passages in Arday’s 2018 paper to someone else’s 2012 paper. One sentence can serve to illustrate: “In particular, I seek to make a direct association between the tools of normative Whiteness and the deployment and consequences of racial microaggressions.” The italics indicate the one word Arday added.

A key contribution.

The Telegraph and The Times published stories on July 24th. On August 1, The Guardian got into it; four days later, the university opened an inquiry; the next day, Arday resigned. 

Eight days later, Jason Arday was found dead in his apartment. Suicide? That’s what many surmise, but police have only said his death was “unexpected but is not believed to be suspicious.”

For some, a cause célèbre! Vigils, ongoing. But his mourners downplay the lies and plagiarism. It’s all about racism.

But whose? Could it be those who rushed to promote a man beyond his merit merely because of race?

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

Awake to Evasion 1.0

AOC, woke 1

There are people who still debate the term “woke.” From the beginning, defenders of woke judgments, discourse, and activism claimed it was “just good manners”; others said it didn’t exist, a mere figment of “right-wing paranoia.” 

Truth is, it was a new, trendy term used to replace “social justice” and the peculiar bent and activism methods of “social justice warriors,” after “SJW” became fodder for ridicule by collegiate leftism’s opponents.

Now, more than a few Democrats are trying to distance themselves not only from the rising tide of know-nothing communism but also the woke style itself, which increasing numbers of Americans have come to loathe. The bellwether in this is U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D.-N.Y.).

What she and her comrades said in the time of the COVID lockdowns was “not rhetoric that we would use today,” she told an ABC This Week interviewer. But she insists that the extremist/radical positions of her fellow Democratic Socialists (she’s still a member of the New York chapter) were “useful.”

Nevertheless, her apologetics for defunding the police and other crazytown nonsense was not what went viral. It was her repeating of a local politician’s statement to the effect that “Woke 1.0 was crazy” that dominated commentary.

Ha ha ha, it was a confusing time; we can move on, seems to be her takeaway.

But she herself was a big part of the madness, says Robby Soave — and so says your memory. “No one,” declares Soave, “should accept these conversions at face value.”

Of course they aren’t even conversions. They are evasions and spin. AOC is a politician, and no more honest about her past positions than she is her ignorance of economics, political philosophy, and especially . . .

Common Sense.

Of which This Is. (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 tax policy

Uh & Other Naughty Words

Francesca Hong, Wisconsin, socialism

The love of other people’s money is the root of so much political evil. 

Francesca Hong, the Democratic front-runner in today’s gubernatorial primary in Wisconsin, embraces that evil. She’s even willing to add curse-words to declare her dedication to soaking the rich: “Tax. The. Fucking. Billionaires.” Or so she says on Facebook.

So edgy.

But Hong blanks out when it comes to the negative fallout of taxing the rich at higher rates. Says lame things; doesn’t use the f-word. She uses the u-word: “uh.” When challenged in last week’s debate, about what she’d do “if all the millionaires leave the state,” she responded with “You know, uh, discussing that hypothetical is, um, a little bit, uh — I’m confused about that.”

“Like most socialists, she is in denial about the costs and consequences of her proposals,” argues The Washington Post editorial board. 

“To fund ‘free’ child care, state-run grocery stores and more health care subsidies” she pushes an additional 1 percent in taxes on the top income bracket. “This might sound fine to a taxpayer who doesn’t make a million dollars, but Wisconsin — like every other state — relies on wealthy taxpayers to support state infrastructure, public schools and social programs,” WaPo explains. “The top 5 percent of earners pay about 40 percent of the state’s net income taxes.”

For years, journalists have enabled demagogues to lie about how much the highest income earners actually pay in taxes, fooling many voters into thinking that the goose that lays golden eggs can be plucked and plundered without consequences. A turnaround on the issue at WaPo is refreshing.

“Recent elections seem to suggest,” its editors conclude, “that Democratic voters no longer fear labels such as ‘socialist’ and are more interested in tearing down the party’s establishment. A better strategy to combat extreme policies is to explain the damage they will cause.”

Too late? I hope not. For Wisconsin and for other states.

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
free trade & free markets ideological culture national politics & policies political economy

Trump-Approved Profits

Donald Trump, oil, prices, inflation, redistribution, socialism

Occasionally, President Trump takes an anti-capitalist rhetorical turn. He apparently supposes his unleashing of an Inner Mamdani will help him through a political rough patch. 

Or perhaps he is just momentarily confused.

The president recently asserted that oil companies are making too much money right now and “ought to give back” some of it to the public. This, although “I’m a big free enterprise guy.”

But oil companies don’t owe buyers anything more than the oil they supply. Nor, when prices are low, do buyers owe oil companies or gas stations more money than what they pay.

In markets, a sudden big drop in supply of a good — like oil, shipments of which might be blocked by wars in the Middle East — tends to lead to higher prices.

Companies unable to ship or sell the good lose money. If demand remains the same or increases, prices for the part of the supply still available go up. Which means more profits and more money to expand production and distribution.

Consumers of oil should want its producers to be as successful as possible. That’s just reason, common sense. High profits encourage and fund more digging, refining, and distribution, and attract more competition — ultimately increasing supply to reduce prices. 

Whenever supply of an urgently needed good takes a hit, producers should be as free as possible to deal with the problem and to enjoy the rewards of dealing with it successfully. Any big free enterprise guy should be able to understand this. 

You too, Mr. President.

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