Categories
ideological culture

The Portlandia Problem

Whatever happened to Portland, Oregon?

Describing two “anarchists” in that riot-torn city, Nancy Rommelmann paints quite a picture in the May 2021 issue of Reason: “They are outfitted in the black bloc uniform of head-to-toe black; the boy carries a steel baton and wants me to know it. There is nonetheless something patrician about them, as if under different circumstances one might encounter them at cotillion. The uniform conceals their identities, but it can’t hide the sense of entitlement that allows them a cheap laugh at the cop, at the fan.”

The mocked cop? Sitting inside a federal building next to an industrial fan airing out the place after being attacked . . . with a thrown bucket of diarrhea.

Ms. Rommelmann wonders why these miscreants think it acceptable to throw excrement around.

“‘Do you believe that property is worth more than human lives?’ asks the boy.

“‘Do you believe the police should be allowed to murder people?’ asks the girl.”

Rhetorically. 

For there had been, that year, only “one deadly police shooting in Portland.”

Thirteen years ago, Portland’s anarchist craze was still latte liberal, when 75,000 showed up to cheer on candidate Barack Obama. That was when it was “a little bit goofy, a little bit twee,” as Rommelmann puts it. 

What went wrong? 

Well, both city and state are solidly Democratic, and the Democrats’ leftist pieties disabled them from ever standing up to the violence of ideologues.

Utopians with every instinct to turn common sense on its head can only take each failure to establish their ideals as an excuse to turn up the volume. And violence.

Our civilization has seen this before. The utopians bring only dystopia.

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 social media

Left-Winged Wikipedia

Wikipedia — the free online, once freely editable encyclopedia — started out upholding a principle about “neutrality.”

According to Wikipedia, this means that Wikipedia content “must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV) . . . representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.”

NPOV isn’t the same as objectivity, which is about getting at the truth by honest observation and logic, not primarily by balancing viewpoints about what’s true. But if good objective work by “reliable sources” has been done about a subject, Wikipedia’s neutrality standard requires that both the sludge and the good work be included. 

Somebody new to the subject has a fighting chance to be steered in the right direction.

NPOV still guides many Wikipedia articles where it is not really necessary, articles about elms and carburetors. The standard is now often ignored, however, in articles about controversial subjects. Like politics. Or socialism.

As I write, Wikipedia’s article on socialism mentions the kill list of “suspected high-ranking Communists” drawn up by Indonesia’s Suharto but not the many millions slaughtered under the commie-socialist regimes of the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, et al. Critiques of socialism are barely touched on. No NPOV here.

Such agitprop is guarded by non-neutral left-wing Wikipedia editors. Britannica is one alternative. Conservapedia was launched in 2006 as “a conservative, family-friendly Wiki encyclopedia,” and appears to be going strong. Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger, harshly critical of Wikipedia’s centralized propagandistic turn, is developing an alternative called Encylosphere.

It’s even mentioned in Wikipedia.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
folly ideological culture

Peak Absurdity

We have gone on beyond nonsense. Theodore Geisel — Dr. Seuss — whimsically drew and rhymed his way into our hearts. But owners of his copyrights and trademarks have announced that they will no longer keep in print a handful of Seussiana, including And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street, If I Ran the Zoo, and On Beyond Zebra! 

“These books portray people,” says a press release from “Seussville,” “in ways that are hurtful and wrong.”

The objection appears to be that caricatures of Chinese and Africans and others are based on stereotypes and, therefore, “hurtful.”

After retrieving your rolled eyes from deep within their sockets, recognize that cartoons and caricatures rely upon stereotypes. Which is why I still own copies of the first two books on the list and will not hesitate to read them and show the pictures to any child of any race or ethnicity who might be interested.

While the woke guardians of the Seuss brand have every right to cease publication — just as eBay, the trading platform, possesses the right to prohibit sale of used copies — this is historic. The woke social justice crowd have pushed  their mania past absurdity.

Not, alas, a funny, Seussian absurdity. 

His very liberal voice, favoring individuality, diversity and just being nice, was utterly at odds with the implied calumny from the corporation that bears his pen name.

But I do hear chanting in the background: “boil that dust speck!” (A great line from Horton Hears a Who.) Seuss developed his case against intolerance and mob mania in a number of works, most of them not deprecated by his heirs, thankfully. 

Kids who read them possess the tools to understand the whys of woke nonsense. 

Pity that the adults in charge do not.

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

Jeep & Freedom

“Bruce Springsteen issued a call for common ground, unity and political centrism,” CNN reported, “in a 2-minute long ad for Jeep [that ran] during the Super Bowl on Sunday.”

The Detroit Free Press called the commercial a “healing message.”

Not so much over at The Federalist, a conservative outlet, where Mollie Hemingway listed three main problems:

1. The Messenger Is Known For Hating Republicans

2. The Images Were All Off

3. The Argument For Unity Was Not Made Well

I don’t disagree with her. Springsteen, after all, said he would leave the U.S. if President Trump were re-elected; he has long supported Democrats and bashed Republicans.

But, nevertheless . . . I heard something that rang true. 

“Now fear has never been the best of who we are,” spoke Mr. Springsteen. That’s a truism.

But the Boss added, “And as for freedom, it’s not the property of just the fortunate few; it belongs to us all. Whoever you are, wherever you’re from, it’s what connects us. And we need that connection.”

Yes. We. Do. 

Freedom unites us . . . because we can do our own thing.

Whether Born in the USA or recent arrivals to these shores, let us celebrate not what government can legislate, mandate, or make us do, but what those in power cannot make us do, that we are free to speak truth as we see it and to dream, build and achieve a better tomorrow of our own making. 

It all sure fits with Jeep’s “Go Anywhere. Do Anything” slogan. And I have no doubt they mean “anything” as long as you don’t impinge on anyone else’s rights.

Just note that the slogan applies to us, not our politicians.

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 ideological culture media and media people

Gun Group Deplatformed

Mailchimp is an “all-in-one integrated marketing platform” that helps businesses send newsletters and other email to customers, prospects, and supporters. In January it blocked the Virginia Citizens Defense League from sending email to members about an annual rally in defense of gun rights and told the organization to get lost.

Some help.

According to the president of the Defense League, Philip Van Cleave, “There was no justification. They provided nothing. Basically, they just said we need to get our stuff and be prepared to move on.”

Well, Mailchimp’s boilerplate letter did also state that its “automated abuse-prevention system, Omnivore, detected serious risks associated with [your] account. . . . This risk is too great for us to continue to support the account.”

What risk? Oh, why bother to specify. The point is, the automated system detected it. I’m guessing that certain scary words were flagged, like “gun,” “Second Amendment,” “Constitution,” “rights.”

It seems that any kind of assembling on behalf of certain constitutionally protected rights or to petition for redress of grievances is to be regarded as a rationale for summarily ejecting politically right-leaning customers — at least by firms going along with this accelerating strategy to abet repression.

Mailchimp has violated the terms of service upheld by those who respect freedom of speech and do not respect arbitrary assaults on costumers. If you’re using it, look for an alternative.

The Defense League’s “Lobby Day” rally was peaceful again this year — as the group’s website informs, “just a lot of patriots sending a strong message to the General Assembly to keep their hands off our gun rights.”

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

The Day and the Hour

Time is almost up!

“Three years ago, scientists gave us a pretty stark warning: They said we have 12 years to avoid the worst consequences of climate change,” John Kerry, former U.S. Senator (D-Mass.) and Secretary of State and current US Special Climate Envoy, stated last week. 

“And now we have nine years left,” the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate added, “to try to do what science is telling us we need to do.”

Science speaks to Kerry. Just nine years, though? Not much time. 

But it could be worse. 

And apparently already is.

According to BBC environmental correspondent, Matt McGrath, who reported roughly 18 months ago that “there’s a growing consensus that the next 18 months will be critical in dealing with the global heating crisis.”

“The climate math is brutally clear,” Potsdam Climate Institute founder Hans Joachim Schellnhuber argued. “While the world can’t be healed within the next few years, it may be fatally wounded by negligence until 2020.”

“Healed”? Or brought to heel?

That time is running out “is becoming clearer all the time,” McGrath noted then, before quoting the eminent scientist, the Prince of Wales: “I am firmly of the view that the next 18 months will decide our ability to keep climate change to survivable levels and to restore nature to the equilibrium we need for our survival,” declared his royal highness, speaking at a reception more than 18 months back. 

Prince Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor is also considered something of an expert on receptions.

For my part, regarding these prophecies, I’m with Gavin Schmidt, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who advised, “All the time-limited frames are bullsh*t.”

I can follow that science.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts