Category: ideological culture

Categories
crime and punishment general freedom ideological culture

Specifically Alarming

Heartland Institute/Rasmussen Reports, covid, Democrat

To see Washington politicians and political hacks behaving badly, demanding the power to roll over the rights of those with whom they disagree, is not nearly as frightening — because it’s now so mundane — as to witness that insiders’ itch also infecting the grassroots of the body politic like a viral contagion.

Specifically alarming? A new Heartland Institute/Rasmussen Reports survey of voters finds a plurality of self-identified Democrats (48 percent) support slapping fines and imposing prison sentences on Americans “who publicly question the efficacy of the existing COVID-19 vaccines.”

No joke, as President Biden would say . . . but I’m telling the truth. 

Here’s the precise question asked: “Would you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose a proposal for federal or state governments to fine or imprison individuals who publicly question the efficacy of the existing COVID-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications?”

Thankfully, the overall numbers less portend a totalitarian future, where speech would be thoroughly policed and suppressed (like China today). Pro-censorship Americans total only 27 percent of the population, with fully two-thirds of us opposed to shredding the First Amendment.

Still, per this poll, it isn’t free speech alone that Blue Team members are increasingly willing to jettison in fear of COVID:

  • “Forty-five percent (45%) of Democrats would favor governments requiring citizens to temporarily live in designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine,” explained Rasmussen Reports. 
  • And 47 percent of Democrats support “governments using digital devices to track unvaccinated people.”
  • Nearly a third of “Democratic voters would support temporarily removing parents’ custody of their children if parents refuse to take the COVID-19 vaccine.”

Constitutional rights belong to everyone . . . “in sickness and in health.” 

Right? Democrats?  

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

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

Categories
general freedom ideological culture

A Sometimes Thing

Constitution, preamble, freedom, rights, revolution, government

One in three Americans claim that “violence against government can be justified,” The Washington Post warned last weekend. The Post-University of Maryland public opinion poll, done in anticipation of today’s one-year anniversary of the January 6th Capitol Riot, was heralded as “a window into the country’s psyche at a tumultuous period in American history.”

“The percentage of adults” so claiming “is up, from 23 percent in 2015 and 16 percent in 2010 in polls by CBS News and the New York Times.” 

And the results are more partisan, with 41 percent of independents and 40 percent of Republicans agreeing that violence can sometimes be justified, only 23 percent of Democrats concurring.

Here’s the precise question: Do you think it is ever justified for citizens to take violent action against the government, or is it never justified?

“Never” is a very extreme term. How can anyone — much less the 62 percent majority in this poll — conclude such political violence could “never” be warranted?

Our country was born in a revolution which declared “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.” And further contended, “it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government.”

Such “throwing off” (here and around the globe) has often necessitated a degree of violence. Why? Call it self-defense — as governments so often go on the offense, refusing to relinquish power when called to do so.

The 34 percent answering “Yes — sometimes” does not constitute a violent cadre, contra the “Oh, My” reactions from the media’s fainting couch set. The Yes-Sometimes Americans merely understand the nature of human rights. (And hypotheticals.)

Worry about those who answer “No — never.” What atrocities would they ever oppose?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

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

Categories
ideological culture

Heroism & Love Abounding

It's a Wonderful Life, George Bailey, Mary Bailey

“I cannot express how much I love this movie,” Monica Hesse writes in her Christmas eve Washington Post column about It’s a Wonderful Life (Frank Capra, dir.; 1946).* Yet she mocks protagonist George Bailey as “the tortured Boy Scout-type” and contends that “Mary Bailey is the true hero.” Meaning that her husband George — beloved by many in fictional Bedford Falls — is not the “true hero.”

Puh-lease. 

Even Mr. Potter, the movie’s villain, acknowledges that Bailey is “no ordinary yokel.” George is bright, ambitious, hardworking and, most importantly, a good man — someone who cares about people.

He makes sacrifices: taking over his deceased father’s business instead of going to college with money he has saved; loaning that money to his brother to go in his stead; and once turning down ten times the salary so that folks in the town have “someplace to go without crawling to Potter.”

Hesse ignores all this to mark George as a deadbeat regularly bailed out by his wife, Mary. When in one scene “a market crash threatens to sink the Bailey Building & Loan,” Hesse smugly asks, “whose idea is it to donate George and Mary’s honeymoon funds to keep things afloat?”

Indeed. But George earned that money and, having just shared it with his new bride, would never take it back. Still, many spouses would lack Mary’s quick thinking. 

Hesse belittles George’s existential panic at impending bankruptcy and scandal as “his foul work-mood,” and highlights Mary as “the one who’s been home all day with a sick toddler.” 

As if a competition. 

Most perplexing for Hesse? “[T]he movie suggests that the saddest thing of all is that Mary Bailey became a librarian.” Well, not exactly. In the world the angel shows, in which George had never been born, it is that Mary “never married,” not the librarian gig, that rocks George.

But had Mary wed a wonderful fellow enjoying a relentlessly happy family, that would hardly demonstrate to George Bailey what the angel Clarence insists, that George’s life mattered.

“The entire movie celebrates the personal sacrifices of a nice man,” claims Hesse, “while ignoring the identical sacrifices of a nice woman.”

It’s a Wonderful Life is told from George’s perspective but doesn’t ignore Mary’s sacrifices at all. If it did, how on earth could Hesse recount them?

Moreover, George and Mary are more than merely “nice.” They have the courage and commitment to do for each other and the world around them . . . even under enormous stress. 

Both are heroes. Don’t let Monica Hesse or anyone tear them asunder. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* If you are part of the less than 1 percent who have somehow dodged viewing the ubiquitous film, George’s uncle misplaces (into Potter’s evil hands) $8,000 of the company’s money, which would force the Bailey Building & Loan into bankruptcy likely followed by George’s criminal prosecution. Desperate and unable to come up with the money on Christmas eve, George considers suicide to save the business and his family with his life insurance money. But an angel intervenes and shows George what the world would be like without him. George decides he wants to live and get back to his wife and kids and, when the angel returns him to real life, Mary has rallied all his friends who contribute many times the amount of money needed. Lots of heroes found in this flick.

PDF for printing

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

Categories
First Amendment rights general freedom ideological culture social media

F-Book Goes Meta

Metaverse, Facebook, VR, virtual reality

When Mark Zuckerberg changed the name of Facebook’s parent company to “Meta,” months back, a lot of people found this funny.

But for some of us older folks, the name was more funny-peculiar than funny-ha-ha. We’re used to “meta” as in Aristotle’s Physics and Metaphysics — the latter so-called because the book came “after the Physics.” 

So what does Zuckerberg’s desire to take the lead in the “shared virtual reality” market (Meta’s confessed goal) have to do with “after” anything? After real reality, there’s meta-reality? Uh, OK.

I don’t think I’ll be an early adopter of that waste of time. I still have things to do.

But that’s old Facebook news. Now, ready yourself for today’s Facebook news: defending itself from John Stossel’s defamation lawsuit over a bad case of pseudo-fact-checking, Facebook has admitted that its fact-checking is, from a legal point of view, opinion.

“In referring to its frequent use of ‘fact-checker’ labels on posts,” explains The Patriot Post, “the conglomerate stated in its motion for dismissal, ‘The [fact-check] labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion.’”

Truth is, as the New York Post observes, the whole “fact-check industry is funded by liberal moguls such as George Soros, government-funded nonprofits and the tech giants themselves.”

Facebook is moving beyond reality fast. Meta-fast. When bad “fact-checking” is defended as mere opinion, reality refracts to the point of unintelligibility.

Maybe Facebook’s name should be changed to Fraudbook, for while opinion is protected speech, labeling one’s opinions “facts” under the rubric of “fact-checking” sure looks, if not like legal fraud, exactly, certainly fraud in common parlance.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

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

Categories
ideological culture judiciary national politics & policies U.S. Constitution

Packing Unpacked

Supreme Court, Justice, court packing

The “court packing” notion that progressives itch to implement has obvious flaws — which have been addressed (but not settled) in the recent report of the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, initiated by the Biden Administration last April. 

The report, just out, did not give progressives what they want. “Opponents contend that expanding — or ‘packing’ — the Court would significantly diminish its independence and legitimacy and establish a dangerous precedent that could be used by any future political force as a means of pressuring or intimidating the Court. The Commission takes no position on the validity or strength of these claims.” 

Not a few Democrats wanted the Commission to take a very negative position on those claims. Democrats currently maintain a shaky hold on power in the Legislative and Executive branches. Had the Commission given them the green-light to push progressives onto the Court — to overwhelm the current “conservative” majority — they might have consolidated power.

The report is inconvenient for that political move — as is Associate Justice Stephen Breyer’s opposition. Damon Root, at Reason, summarizes Breyer’s case: “It is a tit-for-tat race to the bottom. One party expands the size of the bench for nakedly partisan purposes, so the other party does the same (or worse) as soon as it gets the chance.” Breyer fears that court-packing would undermine Court authority, and liberalism itself would suffer.

By “liberalism” I take Breyer to mean the order that is defined by the Constitution itself: separation of powers, basic rights, citizen control of government. And there is a way to save this kind of “liberalism”: fix the size of the Supreme Court in the Constitution.

The very opposite of court packing.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

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

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies

Commie Beyond the Pale

Saule Omarova

President Biden has a funny way of admitting that his nominee for Comptroller of the Currency had to withdraw for being, well, too communist. He says Saule Omarova faced “inappropriate personal attacks that were far beyond the pale.”

Is calling a communist a communist . . . personal? 

As for “inappropriate” . . . negative attacks against an appointee are only inapt if groundless or unrelated to prospective performance.

Ominously, Omarova’s paper on Marxism got memory-holed after she was nominated; she refused to cough it up to the Senate Banking Committee. Written back in her college days in the USSR — was that too long ago to serve as fair evidence?

Fast-forward.

An undated but recent video clip shows Omarova musing that oil companies should “go bankrupt if we want to tackle climate change.”

A 2019 Twitter tweet opines: “Say what you will about old USSR, there was no gender pay gap there. Market doesn’t always ‘know best.’”

Mass murder, mass repression — but hey, no gender pay gap!

In a 2020 paper, “The People’s Ledger,” Omarova proposed “a structural shift at the very core” of the current system. The Fed balance sheet “should be redesigned to operate as . . . the ‘People’s Ledger’: the ultimate public platform for both modulating and allocating the flow of sovereign credit and money in the national system.”

Central bank accounts would “fully replace — rather than uneasily co-exist with — private bank deposits.”

Not sure what that means, precisely? No wonder: slogging through the paper, we find vagueness — maybe even evasion. My guess: it’s all about massively increasing control over our wallets and lives.

Typical, but not just of Marxists, of the Washington elite more broadly. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

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

Categories
general freedom ideological culture

The Pivotal Issue

Hitler, baby

A recent video about vaccination passports brought to mind an old parlor game: “If you could go back in time, would you kill Baby Hitler?”

Most civilized people realize the moral problems of this thought experiment. Sure, Baby Hitler grew up to be Nazi Führer Hitler, a mass-murderer worthy of assassination. But young Adolf wasn’t a monster. Yet. 

Moreover, every step on the way to becoming a monster was accompanied by situations in which civilized people could have stopped the coming horrors without murdering a child:

  • World War I was a choice (or set of choices).
  • The Versailles Treaty was a choice.
  • The Weimar Republic hyperinflation was the result of bad decisions.

More interesting than Killing Baby Hitler would be a parlor game about who could have stopped each horrific event that went into the rise of Hitler’s Third Reich. What decisions could they have made that would have changed history?

The point of these counterfactual exercises? To learn how to make better policy.

Such as in a pandemic, when governments are expanding their power over citizens with lockdowns and business shutdowns and mask and vaccine mandates. While in America many such mandates are being struck down as unconstitutional, beyond the authority of officials, in Germany and Austria vaccine passports are going into tyrannical effect.  

We need to take seriously the warning in the video mentioned at top, This Pivotal Moment. Stop vaccine mandates. Reverse the mandates in effect. Abolish internal passports. Resist this tyrannical notion of a two-tier society.

In Europe, masses of people have taken to the streets in defiance.

Open defiance is also necessary here . . . in “the land of the free.”

That’s how you stop Baby Hitler.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

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

Categories
First Amendment rights general freedom ideological culture international affairs

Which National Church?

Finland, religious freedom

Juhana Pohjola, writes Joy Pullmann in The Federalist, may be “the first in the post-Soviet Union West to be brought up on criminal charges for preaching the Christian message as it has been established for thousands of years.”

While it may seem strange that Bishop Pohjola’s being prosecuted for saying Christian things — considering that he heads the Evangelical Lutheran Mission Diocese of Finland, and the Lutheran Church is the country’s state church — the truth is that Finland is majority nonbeliever, now, and the actual state religion might best be called Wokianity. 

That is why he’s being prosecuted.

And he’s not alone. 

Former Minister of the Interior and current Member of Parliament Päivi Räsänen also faces charges: “The medical doctor, mother of five, and grandmother of seven is accused of having engaged in ‘hate speech’ for publicly voicing her opinion on marriage and human sexuality in a 2004 pamphlet, for comments made on a 2019 radio show, and a tweet directed at her church leadership.” 

That last is a quotation from the ADF International, which describes itself as “a faith-based legal advocacy organization that protects fundamental freedoms and promotes the inherent dignity of all people.” The tweet quoted a Bible verse.

At issue is protecting “government-privileged identity groups,” in this case LGBTQ folks, from “centuries-old Christian teachings about sex” that “incite hatred.” 

A sign of the times: Finland, which used to be very liberal, is now merely “progressive” — making the assault on Christian beliefs for being un-woke completely unsurprising.

And worth noting here in America. For this sort of attack on free speech and freedom of religion is obviously what many on the left wish to implement.

It’s Wokianity versus Christianity . . . those with political powerful against the most basic rights of the First Amendment.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

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

Categories
ideological culture

Cosmic or Merely Comic?

Jussie Smollett, woke, victim, progressivism

A number of important criminal trials are bunching up together at the moment. The Rittenhouse acquittal came first, but the Coffee and Arbery verdicts, along with it, also qualified as major milestones. Looming over our heads is perhaps the headiest of all, the Ghislaine Maxwell honey pot case. But for the wildest comedy, there’s Jussie Smollett’s.

The story is such a travesty it is hard not to laugh — especially if you have heard comedian Dave Chappelle’s bit about “the French actor, Juicy Smolliet.”

Eddie Scarry, writing in The Federalist, provides a less humorous take: “Smollett wasn’t engaging in a hoax. He was perpetuating a scam and that scam has a name. It’s called ‘social justice.’”

Scarry makes a case for Smollett’s rationality: “It’s not like Smollett is a demonstrable sociopath who told an aimless lie about being attacked by Trump supporters in 2019 for the sake of it.” When he hired two Nigerians to fake a racist, homophobic attack on him, he did so with a purpose: to parlay rampant “woke” sentiment to gain fame and fortune. “This is what our entire culture is teaching now — that the quickest way to advance is to claim victimhood on account of race, sex, or sexual identity — ideally, some combination of all three.”

While the scam element is obvious in Smollett’s greed, social justice itself is not a scam. It is an ideology of constant revolution, always to re-make the world over to correct for cosmic injustices.

And it’s more: Social justice is open-source psychological warfare. It doesn’t need centralized control — though it has some, in the form of the insider elitists — because its strength comes from the distributed acceptance and performances of its hapless criminal pushers.

Thankfully, comic criminality may undermine its allure.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

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

Categories
crime and punishment ideological culture

Democrats: Dissonance on Self-Defense

Kenosha, fire, Rittenhouse

The Kyle Rittenhouse case, which I talked about on my podcast, This Week in Common Sense, reveals a deep divide.

One side thinks young Mr. Rittenhouse is guilty because he clearly sided with property-owners by cleaning up graffiti, putting out fires, caring for the riots’ victims . . . and carrying a big, scary-looking rifle; the other points to the facts of the altercation between Rittenhouse and the three men he shot, judging the shootings self-defense.

On Monday, the lead prosecutor, Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger, insisted that “You lose the right to self-defense when you’re the one who brought the gun,” despite that not being Wisconsin law. Rittenhouse also wasn’t the only one with a gun.

While the prosecution tried to undermine self-defense by declaring that Rittenhouse had instigated the whole scene, the media relentlessly feeds a general prejudice against the idea that citizens should be armed and for the notion that we must rely upon the police alone. 

Dissonant with this, however, were the months of leftists excusing, when not cheering, “protests” turned violent in which not only property was destroyed, but people were killed. To top off this cultural license to mayhem, progressive mavens pushed the opposite of state protection: let the mob run riot.

Followed by “defund the police.”

The leftist/statist argument seems to be: You mustn’t protect yourself with deadly force, instead relying upon the state — except when we (the left) riot, then no protection for you!

This is a recipe for civil war or tyranny or both. 

Not civil peace.

Meanwhile, as Rittenhouse’s jury deliberates, everyone assumes that leftists itch to take an acquittal as another excuse to riot.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

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