Categories
education and schooling general freedom ideological culture

Inherent Racism of Racism

New Hampshire bans public school teachers from telling kids they’re inherently racist or oppressive because of unchosen traits like skin color.

Some lawmakers want to overturn the ban.

The debated law, Right to Freedom from Discrimination in Public Workplaces and Education, is imperfect. But we live in a world where some taxpayer-funded educators, inspired by noxious doctrines like critical race theory, are eager to accuse students of being inherently racist or sexist or oppressive.

Obviously, though, moral wrongdoing is something chosen. One doesn’t commit it merely by having a certain hue, gender, or ancestors.

So how can one reasonably object to a provision stating that “No government program shall teach [that] an individual, by virtue of his or her age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, [etc.] is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously”?

The law itself stresses that it’s not to be interpreted as prohibiting discussion of “the historical existence of ideas and subjects” like racism. Nevertheless, critics falsely claim that the law bans classroom discussion of racism as such. And their repeal bill, HB61, seeks not to perfect the current law but to repeal all sections “relative to the right to freedom from discrimination in public workplaces and education.”

New Hampshire lawmaker Jim Kofalt rightly reminds proponents of HB61 of the vision of Martin Luther King, a future where his children would “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustrations created with Midjourney and DALL-E2

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

Categories
ideological culture international affairs Regulating Protest

Making Symbolism Count

“Governments do unconscionable things every day; it is in their nature,” writes Katherine Mangu-Ward in the February Reason. “But not all transgressions are equal.”

Ms. Mangu-Ward’s piece is entitled “Bodies Against the State,” and though she doesn’t quite come out and say it, not all protests are equal, either, with some deserving more respect than others.

“In China, crowds of people line the streets,” Mangu-Ward writes. “They are holding blank sheets of paper.” This is something I’ve written about, too, in “Point Blank Protest” back in November. “The police nonetheless know what they mean. The leaders of the Chinese Communist Party know what they mean. The world knows what they mean.”

Helpfully, she explains: “the protesters’ goal is to make manifest the implied violence that authoritarian states use to keep order.”

Of course, in China, even more than here (not all transgressions being equal), the state’s violence is too often more than merely implied. 

And in America, the symbolism of protests has been marred by too much violence — something Mangu-Ward mangles in her piece. But the point of pitting oneself symbolically against state crimes remains important, as she explains: “The most perfect and enduring image of a person weaponizing his body against the state was taken after the brutal suppression of protests in Tiananmen Square in 1989. The unknown Chinese man standing in front of a tank didn’t have to hold a sign for the entire world to know exactly what the problem was.”

The art of protest needs some perfecting in the west. When our protests run to riot, their symbolic impact becomes confused, and adds to our ideological strife, clarifying nothing — quite unlike Tank Man, and the blank paper protests.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with DALL-E2

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

Categories
general freedom ideological culture

It’s a Heroic Life

“An icon with such well-established status is an irresistible target,” The Bulwark’s Claire Coffey writes about the holiday season favorite, It’s a Wonderful Life, “and the competition to come up with the definitive contrarian takedown of the film is now a Christmas sub-tradition in its own right.”

Last year, I had to correct Washington Post columnist Monica Hesse, who belittled protagonist George Bailey as “the tortured Boy Scout-type,” arguing that Mary, his wife, was “the real hero.”

One of the nicest things about the movie is that mythical Bedford Falls has a lot of ordinary heroes . . . just like in real life. And Mary is right at the top of the list. But with her husband George, whom she dearly loves, not instead of or as his chief competition. 

“George Bailey Isn’t the Hero of ‘It’s a Wonderful Life,’” insists the headline to Mickey Randle’s recent column at Collider, where we learn that “many of [George’s] responses to hardship” are “less than admirable.” I don’t know about “many,” but George does throw something of a tantrum upon discovering that his business will go bankrupt and he likely end up in prison. 

Hate me if you must, but I might throw a momentary fit, too, at that set of circumstances.

“Mary bears almost identical burdens,” notes Randle, “and always responds productively.” Of course, even Mary gets angry in one scene and smashes one of her favorite records. Apparently, this wonderful woman is not perfect. Who knew?

Randle concludes by calling the movie “significant because of its observations on gender,” suggesting: “We just have to remember to see things from Mary’s perspective.” 

But can anyone who knows Mary claim that George is not a hero from her perspective?

One major point of attack on the film has been the idea that, if George “had never been born,” the sweet and beautiful Mary would certainly not be “an old maid,” as depicted. Granted, her being single would not be for lack of trying by every able-bodied, cisgendered male person in Pennsylvania. But in her piece at The Bulwark, Coffey gets this right by noticing, “Mary could marry any man in town. She doesn’t want to. She wants George.”

Seems to me the criticism is intended to obscure the powerful moral of this movie: that good guys and good gals are winners, not losers. And that two people in love and committed to doing what they think is right are as unconquerable as anything this world has ever known. 

When push comes to shove, I put my faith in that tantrum-throwing George Bailey and the record-smashing Mary Bailey . . . working together. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with DALL-E2

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

Categories
First Amendment rights ideological culture nannyism social media

Reversal of Charge

Using PayPal never guaranteed smooth sailing.

But until recently, the problems users encountered mostly pertained to PayPal’s targeting of fraud — not with whether a user uttered wrong thoughts or pursued projects disfavored by corporate implementers of a Chinazi-style social credit system.

More and more, though, PayPal is informing individuals with unwelcome thoughts that they can no longer use PayPal and that PayPal will hold their funds “for up to 180 days . . . we’ll email you. . . .”

PayPal has, for now, rescinded — or partially and temporarily rescinded — policy provisions pledging to fine users $2,500 for “misinformation” or “hate speech.” 

But PayPal is still targeting thinkers of wrongthink.

An example is Eric Finman, whose Freedom Phone provides access to apps banned elsewhere. After ousting him, PayPal held onto $1.2 million in his PayPal balance. Finman eventually recovered the money, but the delay “killed all the momentum.”

Biologist Colin Wright was ejected for criticizing gender ideology. PayPal won’t confirm this without a subpoena. But these and many other examples follow a similar pattern. Often, PayPal comes down like a ton of bricks right after a user utters a viewpoint PayPal dislikes.

I’m appalled. Many of PayPal’s founders — Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, David Sacks and Max Levchin — are appalled. They say that PayPal’s original mission of empowering people is being perverted.

We’ve seen how government officials and partisan political operatives have whispered in the ears of Facebook and Twitter, instructing such companies to censor and deplatform users. Are they also instructing PayPal?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for print

Illustration created with DALL-E2

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

Categories
ideological culture judiciary too much government

Right Color Only

The latest battle over race-conscious affirmative action policies is taking place over a loan forgiveness program in the Providence, Rhode Island, public school district.

The Legal Insurrection Foundation is suing to overturn an “overtly racist and discriminatory” program being implemented by a district that receives millions in federal funding. Which means that all taxpayers are indirectly subsidizing this sort of thing.

According to the district’s new policy, an applicant for a teaching post can get up to $25,000 in college loans paid off if he teaches for three years in a row in the district. The incentive seems innocuous enough until you learn that beneficiaries of the grant, being funded by a Rhode Island charity, must “identify as Asian, Black, Indigenous, Latino, biracial, or multi-racial.”

The specification that one must “identify as” a member of one of these races may sound as if persons of unambiguously blanco tint need merely “identify as” Black or Indigenous or the like to get around the whites-need-not-apply exclusion. But such a mode of circumvention — even if, as seems unlikely, it could succeed to the extent that officials pretended to believe the claim — would require applicants to lie or become delusional. 

To match this delusional policy, no doubt.

But the policy would still remain racist and discriminatory.

The Foundation’s filing quotes a dictum that if universally accepted would put an end to all this nonsense: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with DALL-E 2

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

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies political challengers

Surfin’ U.S.A.

Back in the Spring, a pollster was detailing his findings to a group of us. The Democrats were none too popular, he informed. And informed. And further informed. But at one point, the pollster stopped to remind: “Don’t get me wrong, that’s not to suggest the public is fond of Republicans.”

“We have the worst inflation in four decades, the worst collapse in real wages in 40 years, the worst crime wave since the 1990s, the worst border crisis in U.S. history, we have Joe Biden who is the least popular president . . . since presidential polling happened,” Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen explained on Fox News, “and there wasn’t a red wave.”

Barely a ripple.

Voters, he continued. “looked at all of that and looked at the Republican alternative and said, ‘No, thanks!’”

Calling it “an absolute disaster,” Thiessen advised the GOP to do a “a really deep introspective look in the mirror right now.”

Watch for cracks.

More than the abortion issue or the mixed blessing of Mr. Trump’s omnipresence, I think the GOP’s problem was the lack of any serious, cohesive and positive agenda. We are indeed facing massive inflation, crime, cultural revolution . . . but what are you going do ’bout it?

Answers aren’t coming from the Republican Party.

In last year’s red wave across my home state of Virginia, it wasn’t now-Governor Glenn Younkin who made respecting the rights of the parents of public education students a cataclysmic issue. Parents did that.

The Republican Revolution of 1994 rode a tsunami produced in no small part by the term limits movement. With term limits measures on the ballot throughout the country, the GOP gained 52 seats to secure a majority after 40 consecutive years in the minority — even defeating the Democratic House Speaker. 

Want candidates to ride a popular, pro-freedom wave? 

Better start splashing.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with DALL-E

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

Categories
crime and punishment ideological culture media and media people

Right-Wing Nudist from Berkeley

Last Friday, at 2:30-ish in the morning, a man allegedly broke into Paul and Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco home and attacked 82-year-old Paul Pelosi with a hammer.*

The attack fractured Mr. Pelosi’s skull, forcing emergency surgery, but fortunately he’s expected to make a full recovery. 

Police have arrested David DePape for the assault and numerous associated felonies. The 42-year-old is surprisingly well-known in California politics, long “affiliated with a prominent pro-nudist activism group in the Bay Area,” and, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, “a sort of ‘father figure’ at a group home in Berkeley.” 

Police have yet to offer any motive for the attack but say the assailant was asking, “Where is Nancy?” Fortunately, the Speaker of the House wasn’t there, but back in Washington. 

Newsweek reports that DePape has “espoused numerous mainstream and right-wing conspiracy theories, including the belief that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump, climate change denial, COVID-19 vaccine and mask skepticism, and other ideas associated with QAnon.”

In recent weeks, DePape was apparently living in a school bus parked in front of his ex-wife’s home. She — a fellow nudity activist, now serving an unrelated prison term — explains plainly: “He is mentally ill.”

Nevertheless, our statesmen strive for a deeper meaning. One they can harness.

“While the motive is still unknown,” tweeted Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), “we know where this kind of violence is sanctioned and modeled.”

Calling it “the direct result of toxic right-wing rhetoric and incitement,” State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Fran) declared, “Words have consequences, and without question, the GOP’s hate and extremism has bred political violence.”

But then consider what former President Barack Obama told a crowd in Michigan over the weekend: “This habit of saying the worst about other people, demonizing people, that creates a dangerous climate.”

Does it? Left, right and all around? You don’t say.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


* I’ve never been attacked by a hammer-wielding man, but it sounds especially unpleasant. On the other hand, I have “attacked” myself with a hammer on several occasions, but that was ostensibly unintentional. 

Note: There is still much we do not know about this crime. For instance, just yesterday it was disclosed that “there was a third person inside the house that opened the door for police.” 

PDF for printing

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

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies political challengers Voting

Good Night, Mr. Fetterman

In popular political culture, it’s the Republican Party that’s historically been fettered with the moniker of “The Stupid Party.” 

That’s what liberal philosopher and economist John Stuart Mill called Britain’s Tories, and affixing the “stupid” label to conservatives has been important for intellectuals ever since: it’s one way they feel good about themselves. 

We can argue about the (in)justice of the accusation till the cows come home and go out to pasture again, but it’s the Democrats who are pushing brain-damaged leaders, not Republicans.

I’m not just referring to President Joseph Robinette Biden’s many out-of-mind moments. I’m also talking about Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman’s run for the U.S. Senate.

The man suffered a stroke last spring, and has mostly been hiding out in the proverbial Biden Basement ever since. But on Tuesday he appeared on stage to debate his Republican opponent Dr. Mehmet Oz

Fetterman’s mental impairment? Obvious.

He began with the immortal clumsiness of “Good Night” rather than “Good Evening,” and stumbled through question after question. His handling of the minimum wage issue was slow-witted, and his awkward and robotic — and so obviously deceptive — repetitions regarding fracking sent shivers down my spine.

It’s not my purpose to make fun of people with brain injuries. But it is my role to call attention to the apologetics by Democrats (and the center-left/far-left news media) for their candidate, and their pretense that Fetterman’s just fine. 

He isn’t. Biden isn’t. 

And this says something about where Democrats are — intellectually; spiritually.

Very not fine.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

US Capitol Building, brain damage

On Rumble: 


PDF for printing

Illustrations created with DALL-E

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

Categories
general freedom ideological culture

A Fully Baked Defense

Having your say can have an important impact even if you don’t know about it. Sometimes the people on the front lines are paying surprisingly close attention to what you say.

William Jacobson of the Legal Insurrection blog has learned how important his posts and the comments of readers have been to the legal team fighting for Gibson’s Bakery.

Gibson’s, you may remember, is the shop in Oberlin, Ohio, that Oberlin College tried to clobber because an employee of the bakery confronted shoplifters. Because the thieves were black, race-conscious student activists erupted in outrage — at the bakery, not against the shoplifters — and college officials echoed the students’ irrational hostility and smears.

Long story short, Gibson’s sued for damages and spent years in court to first win a substantial judgment, then to fight Oberlin’s appeals.

In a recent interview with Professor Jacobson, Lee Plakas, lead trial attorney for the bakery, told him how important Jacobson’s blog has been to the legal team.

They clicked in daily.

“Your readers gave the family the support and the courage that they needed to persevere,” Plakas said. “We had a billion-dollar bully doing everything they possibly could to destroy this iconic bakery. . . . And we wanted to make sure that in this battle that we didn’t miss any nuance that one of your readers or Professor Jacobson may have identified. So we could incorporate it into our presentation.”

The result? Oberlin College finally agreed to pay the damages: $36.59 million.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with DALL-E

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

Categories
general freedom ideological culture media and media people

X Lives Matter

I don’t usually comment on fashion. But at a recent show in Paris, this rather famous rapper who calls himself Ye but who used to call himself Kanye West sported newly designed black-and-white T-shirts with the slogan “White Lives Matter” on the back. Squarely in the territory of ideological fashion, I can comment without too much embarrassment.

There was some furor

It is unfashionable, politically, for anyone — even a black man, or especially a famous black man — to admit the obvious truth that “White Lives Matter.”

It appears that chic faux-lib’rals regard the slogan “Black Lives Matter” as some sort of trademark that precludes extension to other races. Only people of color may use an “X Lives Matter” kind of branding.

Idiotic. And racist. But ABC News laid out the case as if it were clearly established truth: “The [White Lives Matter] phrase has been described by the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center as a white supremacist hate slogan that originated in 2015 as a racist response to the civil rights movement Black Lives Matter.”

And yet a statement like “White Lives Matter” or “Human Lives Matter” can only be hate speech if you think one usage defines words forever.

Which of course is precisely what some are trying to establish here.

Why? Well, the better to engage in angry, hateful ideological pseudo-discourse: shaming; marginalizing; de-humanizing.

Ye also posed with Candace Owens, a conservative commentator for The Daily Wire, wearing those shirts, and that, too, really annoyed people.

Not that it should. Ye was once married to a white woman, and Candace is married to a white man. They are making a commonsense point here: if you can’t say your spouse matters, what kind of spouse are you? And if you cannot extrapolate that mattering principle more generally, what kind of human are you?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with DALL-E

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