Category: ideological culture

Categories
fraud ideological culture Internet controversy political economy

X Marks the Success

Elon Musk, grift, government contract, private enterprise, taxes, technology

Yesterday, I defended the honor, so to speak, of Elon Musk against Eric Peters’s charge — published, on his website — that the high-tech magnate is a “grifter.”

I focused only on the free speech angle. But Mr. Peters (“the libertarian car guy”) didn’t limit himself to criticizing X. He also criticized Tesla, SpaceX and DOGE.

Musk, Peters notes, “has just become a trillionaire by dint of the IPO of his Space Xcrement grift.” Folks bought into SpaceX, he says, because “they believe there is a Tesla roadster in orbit around the Earth and that we’ll soon be able to buy tickets for a trip to Mars.”

Is Peters suggesting that Musk did not send a Tesla Roadster into space? Is this some new sort of (forgive me) “conspiracy theory”? Truth is, the Roadster orbits the Sun, coming back from beyond the Martian orbit.

What does he think is really going on here? What Musk’s investors “have bought into is the grift of government contracts,” he says, “which are paid for with dollars fleeced from the tax sheep. People who buy Space Xcrement stock can share in the grift, of course. But it does not change the nature of the grift.”

While the bulk (but definitely not the whole) of SpaceX’s clients are government agencies, most importantly NASA, remember something that one might forget while reading Peters’s fun rant: Musk is indeed putting objects into orbit, with new and astounding technology of amazing efficiency, and NASA has announced that SpaceX’s biggest and best will soon take astronauts back to the Moon.

As for Tesla, these cars are on the road. They work. I wouldn’t buy one, but I wouldn’t call it a grift a million times, or even once. And Musk himself has said he’d happily produce cars without the subsidies. But he continues to use the system set up for more than just him — the usual businessman rationale.

Criticizable? Yes. Wholly a grift? No.

And as for DOGE, it’s not as if Musk did not try. He just got little support from Congress . . . or the President. Too bad. Still not a grift.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Grok and Nano Banana

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

Categories
ideological culture individual achievement social media

X Marks the Grift?

Elon Musk, X, free speech, censorship, freedom

Most of the calumnies against Elon Musk come from people who are either envious or completely unaware of the basic principles of economics. Or both.

That being said, not everyone “in my camp” admires or defends the South African-American tech magnate. On Sunday, Eric Peters — “the libertarian car guy” — published, on his website, “Xcrement Is Just That (and more).”

“I have written a number of articles critical of Elon Musk’s ‘free speech’ social media grift,” Mr. Peters asserts, “which I say is just that because it isn’t free. . . .” 

Since I pay nothing for X, I was surprised. What?

Peters is “assuming you want more than a few people to know you’ve spoken.” That’s how he put it. “You must pay a recurrent fee for what is styled ‘reach.’ Even then, your ‘reach’ is subject to being limited via completely obscure parameters known only to Elon and his algorithm.”

And the complaint is . . . ?

The Twitterverse prior to Elon’s acquisition of the platform, asserted, with some perspicacity, that “freedom of speech is not freedom of reach.” The “freedom of reach” part was nothing other than “freedom of the press” — and the technological and business platforms that make up “the press” have never been “free of price.” Someone must pay for getting ideas out there far and wide.

Yet Mr. Peters seems to think that “Free ought to mean not just without cost but open. As in everyone can use it and no one is limited in any way from using it. Xcrement does not work like that.”

Well, the telephone system in days of yore was indeed open to everyone, but that did not mean “free.” And if you wanted to make a long-distance call, you had to pay the phone company.

While old-time telephony isn’t equivalent to modern-day social media, the parallel is close enough to show that this specific case against Elon is without merit.

Still, I wouldn’t call it excrement.

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 Internet controversy political economy

A Quiz to Teach

affordability, inflation, costs, bureaucracy, government, regulations

I’m too old.

I’m too old, that is, to qualify as a contestant in the “million dollar question” drawing held, this summer, by the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE). To be eligible to win the million-buck prize (minus taxes!) one must be 18-35 years of age. (I’m a bit older than 35.) FEE is sponsoring this Million Dollar Contest Quiz as a way to promote the idea of a free society and its superiority to never-ending government regulation, taxation and subsidy.

What’s the question?

Nothing other than “what’s behind the affordability crisis?”

The answer, in short, is too much government.

But the quiz format helps explain that better.

“Most people blame capitalism,” we read, “but the reality is different. Healthcare, education, housing, and childcare are some of the most heavily regulated, subsidized, and mandated sectors in the American economy. They aren’t free markets. They’re crippled capitalism; markets distorted by decades of government intervention until they can no longer deliver quality at a price people can afford.”

If you are old, like me, you have probably encountered this case before. (If you read this column, you most definitely have!) But young people? They’re not so lucky. Most have endured public schools and government-regulated and -subsidized universities and received, there, increasingly Marxist nonsense about how capitalism enslaves us all.

When capitalism — basically, free markets with markets in capital goods, making up what Ludwig von Mises called “mass production for the masses” — liberates. 

Who? Just white males?

No. Free markets liberate all peaceful people. As the quiz and its answers make clear.

So take the quiz. Learn something. But, if you’re over 35, pass it on to a young person!

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Grok Imagine Nano Banana

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

Categories
ideological culture partisanship

Partisan Pride Divide

national pride, patriotism, democrat, republican, military, higher education, America, freedom, democracy

“How proud are you to be an American?” a new NBC News poll asked.

“At the turn of the century, three quarters of Americans were ‘extremely’ or ‘very proud,’” Steve Kornacki explained to Meet the Press host Kristen Welker yesterday. “That number’s fallen to 56 percent.”

It is a sizable drop, leading Kornacki to inquire, “What’s behind this?” before supplying an answer: “it’s partisan.”

Boy, is it. Fully 90 percent of Republicans are “extremely” or “very proud” to be Americans, with just a mere 3 percent “only a little” or “not at all” proud. Compare that to Democrats, less than a third (29%) of whom are “extremely” or “very proud” to be Americans with a whopping 36 percent “only a little” or “not at all” proud.

There is a significant divide between those 65 years old and older, 75 percent feeling pride, and the 18 to 34 age group, with only 36 percent feeling it. But those differences pale in comparison to party identification.

In analyzing the poll at NBCNews.com, Jonathan Allen points out that Americans “have little faith in their institutions.” 

The military is the only institution mentioned in the survey that received overall majority support — 60 percent had a “great deal” or “quite a bit of trust,” including 86 percent of Republicans but only 40 percent of Democrats.

A bare majority of Democrats, 52 percent, had significant trust in colleges & universities, while only 17 percent of Republicans shared that trust. “The significance: this is the only major institution,” noted Kornacki, “that a majority of Democrats feel that way about.”

Institutions often disappoint and our government has done things for which the proper emotion is shame, not pride. But the principles of individual liberty, equality and justice, proclaimed here 250 years ago, have been, as Tom Paine predicted, “an asylum for mankind.”

A source of pride.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created wth Nano Banana and Grok Imagine

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

Categories
free trade & free markets ideological culture

What the Trillionaire Can’t Do

Elon Musk, trillionaire, billionaire, debt, interest, spending

When Elon Musk took SpaceX public, last week, the value of his stock in the company was said to amount to about $866 billion, which — added to other holdings — makes the “world’s richest man” now a trillionaire.

Capitalism’s first. 

So of course nearly every left-of-center journalist, blogger, and social media warrior decried the enormity of the record.

While “it’s hard to even imagine a trillion dollars” is an honest reaction — it is difficult, just as it is to imagine the projected 2026 federal “budget” ($7.4 trillion), deficit ($1.9 trillion), and the ever-increasing debt — immediately moving from awe to anger is less than honest.

Mr. Musk, Metro UK’s Brooke Davies mused, “could give every single person in the United States a share of his cash, with everyone receiving $2,917.32,” while, if he set his sites a little wider, he could “give every person on the planet a gift, they would receive $121.80.”

What’s less than honest? Elon Musk could not do this. 

Mr. Musk’s wealth is in the company that just took on new investors, driving up his shares. If he started selling his shares, the value of the stock would plummet before he found enough buyers. It is Mr. Musk’s managerial genius and technological vision that is responsible for the company’s success, so any step back from control — even by relinquishing stock — would almost certainly spell disaster. 

And if he vanished off the face of the Earth, our global civilization would feel it.

What Elon Musk’s envious haters do not seem to understand is that Musk succeeds by developing products that people, businesses, and governments are willing to pay big bucks for.

He isn’t exploitative in the negative sense, either. “In total, more than 4,400 current and former SpaceX employees” — “from execs to even welders,” says Fortune — “are expected to become millionaires in the IPO.”

Were Elon’s critics a tiny bit consistent, they’d suggest that Space X’s nouveaux riche welders also cough up unearned wealth. Contribute, evil magnates!

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
ideological culture national politics & policies partisanship

Promising & Not

Endorsements, Democratic Party, socialism, Mamdani

“We are capitalist, not socialist.”

Those words are from the “Promise to America” pledge promoted by a new group of the same name and unveiled last week by Reps. Tom Suozzi (D-New York) and Rep. Adam Gray (D-California). 

“Two Democrats in Congress who flipped Republican-held seats in 2024 are launching a pledge for their party’s candidates they hope will act as a rallying cry for centrists,” explains a Washington Post article, dubbing it “a direct rebuke to the party’s leftward tilt as democratic socialists such as New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) capture the party’s energy and activism.”

"We Are Capitalist, Not Socialist." Adam Gray, Tom Suozzi, Democratic Party

“We want safety,” their “Promise” continues, “not lawlessness.”

“No, duh,” would have been the response to such a statement years ago. But today? “Refreshing!”

These Democrats call for “secure borders, safe communities, honest government, and an orderly immigration system that protects the country, strengthens the economy, and treats people with dignity.” It’s a far cry from: Free healthcare for those here illegally!

“We believe America remains indispensable to global stability, democratic values, international security, and strong alliances,” the document expounds. “In a dangerous and uncertain world, America must lead with strength, purpose, and partnership.”

In closing, they declare: “We are proud, not ashamed of America.”

The Post suggests, however, that this slogan “could be polarizing on the left.” 

Sure, it is a much different message than Maine Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Graham Platner has expressed. On an online forum back in 2021, in a discussion on securing disability benefits from the VA, a fellow veteran vented, “Fuck Uncle Sam,” to which Platner added a clarification: “Fuck him and take his money.”

Which message for Democrats?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Note: Sorry for the foul language but, frankly, I did not want to cushion the blow.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

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

Categories
folly ideological culture

Obama’s Bonkers Beacon

Barack Obama, president, monument, Klingon, Obama Presidential Center, Chicago

We had the idea of a beacon,” said the architect who designed the Obama Presidential Center.

It looks like . . . a triumph of brutalist . . . whimsy? (Is that even possible?) A science-fictional housing for our ET overlords, maybe. Or something worse. 

Perhaps Baphomet poses inside.

You’ve probably seen the outside of the monstrosity by now. If you’re like me, you’ve marveled at this triumph of bad taste. It surely symbolizes something, but what?

It may serve as an icon for the 44th president’s monumental pretentiousness. 

Or his oblivious ideological bravado.

But it could stand for Political Hubris more generally.

“The Egyptians had their pyramids,” muses Oliver Wainwright in The Guardian. “The Anglo-Saxons had their barrows. And the Americans have their presidential libraries — the chief difference being that the leaders the U.S. venerates are usually still alive at the opening.” Wainwright notes that Americans lack “a royal family or a state religion,” and this has allowed an Imperial Presidency to bloom — filling “the void, transforming over the decades into a national personality cult, complete with its own secular temples to these powerful men.”

He’s not wrong.

But as politics has gotten more extreme, even bizarre, and America’s ideologues and beleaguered voters find themselves anointing a series of increasingly unfit pharaohs (hat-tip to The Guardian’s “pharaonic edifice”), this . . . oddly shaped (“like a Klingon prison”) eyesore . . . serves as a monument, perhaps, for the whole age.

Just don’t blame the architect. “The president was very, very hands on with the design,” Wainwright quotes the genius behind this laid egg. “He talked a lot about his love of Brâncuși.” 

No. 44 being hands-on in the design explains a lot.

The Center hasn’t opened yet; the Grand Opening ceremonies are scheduled for the 18th.

Please let me know how it goes, if you attend. I live near Washington, D.C., and lost my genuflecting and awestruck wonder at that city’s much less ridiculous monuments years and years ago.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Note: Chicago, a city with beautiful architecture, will survive.

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
ideological culture partisanship political challengers

A Perfect Fit?

Graham Platner, Democrat, Maine, The View, democracy

“These are character flaws that I’m tired of hearing about,” offered Whoopi Goldberg, Monday, on The View. 

She was speaking about Graham Platner, the leading Democratic Party candidate for the U.S. Senate seat in Maine currently held by Republican Sen. Susan Collins . . . and of his litany of scandals — the latest to garner attention being his sending of sexually explicit texts to as many as a dozen women during his marriage . . . while having been married for only two and a half years.

“Platner has faced criticism for a series of inflammatory Reddit posts and, more recently, for a Nazi symbol tattooed to his chest,” The Free Beacon reported last year. Mr. Platner says he was unaware that his tattoo was a Nazi symbol but, according to the Beacon, “Two Platner associates have contradicted his claim of ignorance.”

The Reddit posts included calling himself an “antifa supersoldier” and a “communist,” while also using anti-gay slurs and belittling veterans, police, rural white people, and African Americans.

After counting all his various scandals, The View regular Sunny Hostin concluded, “So he’s a liar, a racist, an antisemite,” then added, “He’s a homophobe.”

Nonetheless, Hostin said she is “conflicted.” Meaning she might still want him to be Maine’s next senator?

Now making a play for the Senate, Platner has kindly covered up the tattoo and deleted those deeply offensive Reddit posts. 

The 41-year-old presents himself as a working-class guy, though he comes from a wealthy family that placed him in a $75,000 a year prep school. He is an oyster farmer, but most of his income derives from disability payments. He told reporters that he bought his home with a VA loan, but his father loaned him the money.

“You’ve shown me who you are,” The View’s Sara Haines said of Platner, “and I heard you.” She declared, “This man should be nowhere near Congress.”

Senator Bernie Sanders, the Vermont socialist, begs to differ: “We desperately need somebody like him here in the U.S. Senate.”

Graham Platner should fit right in.

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
ideological culture political challengers

Post-Conflagration L.A.

Spencer Pratt, Karen Bass, Los Angeles, mayor, election, AI

Though Angelinos started voting early in the mayoral race, today is L.A.’s election day. It’s a race watched with varying degrees of enthusiasm and alarm across the country. Polls show no candidate close to a majority, which means the top two will likely face-off in a November runoff.* 

Spencer Pratt, a former reality TV star, has run a study-worthy campaign and could finish close to the top.  He’s a former Palisades homeowner. He now lives in a trailer on his property, upon which he cannot yet re-build after the fires that swept through the area in January 2025. And he’s built his campaign around the government’s absolute failure on every level to assist — or just get out of the way — of a recovery.

His video ads — and satirical contributions by fans — have been magnificent.

Erstwhile Castro-loving incumbent Mayor Karen Bass — who was celebrating in Ghana during the conflagration, basking in the glory of the continent’s first woman president — is in no small part responsible for the city’s worse-than-inept response to the fires. And candidate Pratt isn’t letting anyone forget it. 

A month ago, Mayor Bass blasted Pratt for “exploiting the grief of people in the Palisades,” calling it “reprehensible.” A weird twist of the reality of Pratt’s righteously indignant stance. What she did and didn’t do during and after the Palisade Fires are better described as “reprehensible.” 

The other major candidate is Councilwoman Nithya Raman, an outspoken homeless advocate who didn’t like it at all that homeless started camping outside her home.

Yesterday, the race was described as “neck-and-neck” by KTLA-5, with Hollywood actors Jane Fonda and Samuel L. Jackson cited as “supporting Mayor Bass, while Chelsea Handler and Mindy Kaling are backing Councilwoman Raman.”

In most other cities these endorsements would likely fizzle.

But in L.A. . . . ?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* The latest UC Berkeley/LA Times poll shows Mayor Bass with 26%, Councilwomen Raman with 25% and Pratt with 22% support. Los Angeles does not use the same Top Two system that California uses statewide, whereby the top two vote getters move on to the General Election. In L.A., if a candidate garners a majority, the race is over. 

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Grok Imagine

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