Category: ideological culture

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies Popular

Hat Hate

MAGA, white, hat

I will concede — at least “arguendo”  — that President Trump is awful. But I will not concede that he is uniquely awful. His Tweets and signature verbal provocations aside, he is arguably better than his predecessors.*

Arguably.

Which means that his cribbed campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again,” affixed to an ultra-simple red hat, is the last thing we should fixate on. 

You know, as a symbol of “hate.”

Even Andrew Sullivan, in lambasting the media — and the left in general — over their insane over-reaction to the Covington kids’ non-existent “racism” and “disrespect” (“The Abyss of Hate Versus Hate, Intelligencer), could not help himself when it comes to the MAGA hat. Amidst his defense of the lads, Sullivan wrote that “they should not have been wearing MAGA hats to a pro-life march.”

Why not? Mr. Trump has taken pro-life action.

“They aren’t angels,” Sullivan went on, “they’re teenage boys.”

The President is no angel either. But he was duly elected. And he hasn’t started any unconstitutional wars** or suppressed the freedom of the press.

MAGA is said to be a statement of “white supremacy,” but, well, there are non-whites who find that absurd. For good reason. 

This all indicates a deeper problem: an over-indulgence in symbolism — real and contrived.

In the immortal words of “motorist” Rodney King, “can we all JUST get along? Can we get along? Can we stop making it, making it horrible for the older people and the kids?”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Admittedly a low bar.

** Unlike other presidents we could name.

PDF for printing

MAGA, white, hat

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


Categories
Accountability ideological culture national politics & policies Popular

The Obstruction

building a divide, wall, immigration, ideology, Trump, Pelosi

The federal government “shutdown” — now on reprieve — has been and continues to be a rather strange charade. Various political players make motions towards one another, and we, the people, are supposed to guess the real meaning. 

Which is usually conceived as

  1. All about President Trump’s “Wall”;
  2. All about the Pelosi-Schumer commitment to never letting Trump get away with his Evil Agenda; or
  3. The great huge, honking divide in America that grows every day.

I suspect it is about all these things and more — which is easy to say, since these three issues are intimately related.

 And as if playing a subtle joke on us all, the standoff that appears as obstructionism is about a proposed obstruction at the southern border: literally a “Mexican standoff.”

Meanwhile, a different security measure has received attention.

Americans have, rather spontaneously, been taking canned and packaged foods, and even fresh produce, to unpaid but “forced-to-work” TSA agents. A heartwarming story. Sure. But the Transportation Security Agency, cobbled together in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, is spectacularly ineffective, an example of “security theater.” TSA agents repeatedly fail internal tests.

Congress could, of course, take this opportunity to disband this airport security worker agency. If managed by the airlines or any entity but the federal government, TSA wouldn’t have suffered through the shutdown. 

Tragically, Congress long ago ceased being functional, responsible, or even the eensiest, teensiest bit respectable. And a divided public stands little chance of forcing a change. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

building a divide, wall, immigration, ideology, Trump, Pelosi

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


Categories
general freedom ideological culture Popular

Toxic Smile?

smirk, smile, Covington, MAGA, PC

Smirking is a subset of smiling. But what is a grimace? 

Nick Sandman, the offending Covington, Kentucky, Catholic high school student who triggered so much outrage last weekend, smiled. The effrontery!

Seeing a snippet of video, a social media mob formed, leaping to the conclusion that young Mr. Sandman was being disrespectful of an older Native American man who — chanting and drumming right up in his face — should have been “shown respect.” 

And not smiled? Instead, what: frowned? Cried? Bowed?

Smirks are irksome. Sure. But the young man’s facial expression seemed to me an attempt, only half-successful, to smile — a covered-over grimace. 

Understandable. The Covington youngsters — waiting to be picked up — had been targeted earlier by a group of nutty “Black Hebrew Israelites” who taunted at them for being . . . white. And the Native American man, Nathan Phillips, had singled Mr. Sandman out, violating his personal space. A grimace could be accounted for as putting “a brave smile on the situation,” as we used to say. 

But that was not how the Twitter mobs interpreted it. And of course the young Catholic students were wearing “MAGA hats” (pro-Trump “Make America Great Again” baseball caps) which were later said to be racist. And the pro-life rally he and his friends attended was said to be sexist. 

Can we all calm down? If we disagree on so much that even smiling is scandalous, maybe take a breath. 

In the midst of it all, economist Bob Murphy reminded us of the previous culture-war fracas, the Gillette “toxic masculinity” ad, tweeting “if you see a mob picking on a boy, Gillette wants you to intervene.”

Masculinity wasn’t to blame for the mobbing. 

Toxic political correctness was. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

smirk, smile, Covington, MAGA, PC

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


Categories
folly ideological culture media and media people Popular

Inclusivity Not Included

women, woman, march, inclusion, in group, out group

The 3rd annual Woman’s March strolled by over the weekend — a tiny fraction of its former self. 

Two years ago, close to a million protesters converged on Washington, D.C., while this year’s event “appeared to attract only thousands,” The Washington Post reported, “mirroring lower turnout at marches . . . across the country.”

“[A] movement that once bragged about its inclusivity,” explained a separate news analysis, “has been roiled by reports of battles over diversity, hate speech and branding.”

In addition to squabbles over corporate ownership of the very name of the “Women’s March,” the leaders of the main organization have been accused of anti-Semitism. “Board members Linda Sarsour, Carmen Perez and Women’s March, Inc., co-president Tamika Mallory, have publicly affiliated with and praised anti-Semitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan,” notes the Capital Research Center’s Influence Watch website.

March founder Teresa Shook called on them to resign, charging “they have allowed anti-Semitism, anti-LBGTQIA sentiment and hateful, racist rhetoric to become a part of the platform . . .” The Democratic National Committee and a number of progressive groups have withdrawn their support.  

But the “inclusivity” was always fake. As a “women’s” march, it started out excluding half the population. Nothing wrong with women having events or organizations that focus on issues of particular interest to females; it’s just not inclusive.

And let’s not ignore that pro-life women were specifically booted from participating in the original 2017 event.  

“Is the Women’s March more inclusive this year?” a USA Today article asked before last year’s pink-hatted festivities. 

Apparently not. This year, everyone was excluded fromthe Eureka Women’s March — cancelled because those hoping to participate were “overwhelmingly white.”

With all this inclusion, no wonder we are so divided.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

women, woman, march, inclusion, in group, out group

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


Categories
folly ideological culture national politics & policies Popular

Skepticism in Order

denier, climate change, globlal warming, skepticism, science

It is not a question of “belief,” says Anastasios Tsonis. 

In “The overblown and misleading issue of global warming,” this emeritus distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee explains that in a “scientific problem ‘believing’ has no place,” going on to clarify: 

“In science, we either prove or disprove.”

And regarding climate there is no “settled science.” Lacking unquestionable experimental context — “we have only one realization of climate evolution” — no matter how strong our opinions, skepticism is always in order.

But let us admit the obvious, the “global warming”/“climate change” debate has been frustrating for just about everybody. And much of this is the result of dogmatism.

“The fact that scientists who show results not aligned with the mainstream are labeled deniers is the backward mentality,” Tsonis insists. “We don’t live in the medieval times, when Galileo had to admit to something that he knew was wrong to save his life.”

He argues that our lack of knowledge means that we should be circumspect about whether humans have caused the bulk of recent climate change. “Climate is too complicated to attribute its variability to one cause. We first need to understand the natural climate variability” — which, he says, “we clearly don’t.” 

Tsonis concludes talking about problems more urgent than climate change. We can (and should) quibble with his list, but we should be open about our reasoning.

One reason for concentrating on these other issues is that we might be more likely to gain clarity on them.

And thus might be able to do something not foolish.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

denier, climate change, globlal warming, skepticism, science

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


Categories
folly ideological culture

War Lust Flags

soldiers, foreign policy, war, peace, Syria, Afghanistan

A new poll shows that a narrow majority of Americans would support the President were he to pull troops out of Afghanistan. Less than a quarter of those polled said they would oppose it. 

“The survey also indicates Americans remain unconvinced that the United States has a clear purpose in Afghanistan,” explains the January 10 press release of the Charles Koch Institute, which commissioned the poll. “Almost half of respondents, 45 percent, said the United States has no strategic objective, while only 21 percent said it does. About one-third (34 percent) said they did not know.”

However you slice the public opinion data, the wars in the Mid-East are not gaining in popularity. A plurality of Americans polled want out of Syria, too — no matter “whether the conflict was framed around the Syrian civil war or to counter-ISIS.”

Lucy Steigerwald, writing at Reason, highlights the incoherence in the White House and Pentagon: “no one seems to know what the hell is going on.” Which just shows how far we have come, after all these years. “The long life of the Afghan war makes it hard to remember how popular it was when it began.”

But back then it all seemed so clear: get Osama bin Laden, destroy his training camps, and punish the Taliban for harboring him.

All that was accomplished long ago. Now our leaders fear pulling out because . . . we haven’t established a western democracy there?

That was never going to happen.

It is foolish — even immoral — to keep a war going with impossible and incoherent goals.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

soldiers, foreign policy, war, peace, Syria, Afghanistan
Categories
ideological culture too much government

Worse Than Her Faux Pas

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

“If we work our butts off to make sure that we take back all three chambers of Congress,” stumbled U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D.-N.Y.), “uh, rather, all three chambers of government: the presidency, the Senate, and the House. . . .”

The Daily Wire, where I encountered this particular snippet of inanity, could be caught gloating between her lines. And it is funny (amidst the fear) when politicians prove themselves ignorant, clueless, unprepared. Politicians rarely come across as masters of their subject.

But we who are subjected to their lack of mastery should worry about their substantive flubs more than their trivial technical errors.

As the newly elected solon herself had the wit to notice.

“Maybe instead of Republicans drooling over every minute of footage of me in slow-mo, waiting to chop up word slips that I correct in real-tomd [sic],” she went on, “they actually step up enough to make the argument they want to make: that they don’t believe people deserve a right to healthcare.”

I am not a Republican, but I’m here to help. The only rights we “deserve” are those we can have without enslaving and exploiting others. My right to freedom requires only your duty to leave me alone, not systematically taking from others or running their lives. But a right to “healthcare”? The corresponding duties are vague and ominous, potentially limitless.

And thus oppressive. 

A government big enough to give Ocasio-Cortez everything she wants is too big to leave any freedom for the rest of us.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

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


Categories
education and schooling ideological culture

Administrators Strike Back

Peter Boghossian, Portland, postmodernism, academic research, education

The academic world is filled with “scholars” who write papers that are almost never cited, and which are so filled with gobbledygook and periphrasis that they are almost impossible to read.

Without cracking up, anyway.

A year and a half ago I wrote about one team who authored fake papers to show up postmodernist academics for the phonies they are. But the sad truth is that even serious papers prove to be nothing more than “cryptic, pretentious, prolix nonsense.” 

Since then, the team that wrote the infamous “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct” went on to successfully place some incredibly goofy papers into prestigious journals — and even garner earnest praise from peer reviewers.

Now, the humiliated academic world is striking back. One of the japers, Professor Peter Boghossian of Portland State University, is facing academic censure and misconduct charges.

“This strikes me (and every colleague I’ve spoken with) as an attempt to weaponize an important [principle] of academic ethics in order to punish a scholar for expressing an unpopular opinion,” wrote Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker, entreating PSU not to persecute their philosopher. Biologist Richard Dawkins and psychologist Jordan Peterson joined Pinker in support of the rogue-but-reasonable academic.

PSU administrators say that Boghossian, by trying to trick academic journals into publishing fake studies, has violated Institutional Review Board protocols. You see, he did not seek approval to carry out experiments on human subjects!

The thing is, the whole post-structuralist, post-modernist, “‘Studies’ studies” mob has been experimenting on their alleged clients, the students, for decades. And the results have been . . . enlightening if not praiseworthy.

It is hard to see Boghossian’s antics as anything but heroic.

And hysterical.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Peter Boghossian, Portland, postmodernism, academic research, education


Categories
Common Sense First Amendment rights general freedom ideological culture

Ideas, Online and Ongoing … with Help

Benjamin Franklin, We must all hang together, quote

In recent years there has been a great burgeoning of public debate about ideas. Politics. Ethics. UFOs. You name it.

This “burgeoning” has mostly taken place online.

Some people are so good at it that they have made their whole livings at it, parlaying advertisements and donations into successful careers.

But this has not gone unnoticed.

They are under attack.

A cabal of highly connected financial and Internet platform professionals have coordinated their attention against Alex Jones, “Sargon of Akkad,” and others. Patreon is the latest to get involved, having ousted Lauren Southern off the company’s donation intermediary service, and now the aforementioned Sargon (Carl Benjamin, an Englishman). And behind all this there lurks the shadowy decisions and machinations of PayPal and Mastercard.

I have covered some of this in the past, here at Common Sense. But too much of it has passed by, as if in my peripheral vision. I know these de-platformings have taken place, however, and am somewhat alarmed. 

Not for myself, so much, as my main gig is political activism: helping citizens place ballot measures before voters through Liberty Initiative Fund and protecting the ballot initiative process with Citizens in Charge Foundation. Common Sense was not conceived to be a profit center, but a herald, a communication platform.

Still, like everything, the program does cost money and must prove its worth. Which is why I cherish my many donors to Common Sense. Thank you. You really do help keep the Common Sense coming — after nearly 20 years!

Something big is brewing. In our culture. In our country. Across the globe. Free speech is under attack. Corruption is rampant at all levels of government. Socialism seems on the march. 

From assisting the police camera ballot measure that passed in Ferguson, Missouri, to last November’s ballot initiative on “citizen only voting” that prevailed in North Dakota, Liberty Initiative Fund knows that real change can better come from the grassroots and the ballot box than from the halls of Congress in Washington.

Those of us who cherish individual freedom must work together to change laws and policies. We have to hang together — or, as Ben Franklin reminded, “most assuredly we will all hang separately.” 

How long will we be able to speak out politically?

I do not know.

But here is something we do know for sure. It is the last day of the year. If you have been planning on making a charitable donation for the cause of limited and accountable government, freedom of speech and press and association, this site, “Common Sense with Paul Jacob,” gratefully accepts donations . . . and could not carry on without the help of “people like you.”

By which I mean patriots. Thoughtful people concerned about the future.

And donations to Common Sense are fully tax deductible!

Please help us in this important work. Support us with dollars if you can. And keep forwarding my daily commentary, telling friends, and taking a stand for FREEDOM.

This is Common Sense. Common effort is the key. Oh, and I’m Paul Jacob.


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


Categories
education and schooling ideological culture

Why Fire the Dean?

Dean Ellis, diversity, racism, quotas

Students and faculty at the University of Southern California are upset because a popular dean of the Marshall School of Business, James Ellis, has been fired by interim USC President Wanda Austin. Hundreds have rallied in protest and petitioned for his reinstatement.

Why the ouster? 

The administration has offered a vague indictment about “lack of diversity” and problematic handling of racial- and gender-bias complaints. There’s apparently a commissioned report, the Cooley report, about the complaints. But few have seen it.

 “Jim has not been allowed to see the Cooley report, despite repeated requests to do so by him, his legal counsel, a trustee, and me,” says donor and USC board member Lloyd Greif. “Nobody has seen it.” 

Greif argues that no complaint dealt with by Ellis’s office “alleged any egregious conduct, and none of them involved inappropriate behavior by Jim.”

Was old white male Ellis expelled for presiding over a too-little-diverse student body (and perhaps for being inadequately “diverse” himself), as determined by an arbitrary standard?

Without transparency or due process, who could know? 

But lack of any official accountability suggests some warped notion of “diversity justice” is being applied here, a notion that dismisses rational goals and relevant facts to focus only on whether the ethnic/gender/other-unchosen-trait makeup of a sub-population sufficiently mirrors that of the general population. 

If so, is this a standard that should be applied universally? 

No matter how you answer that question, note what is not being focused upon: providing a good education.

This is not Common Sense. 

I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Dean Ellis, diversity, racism, quotas, protest, blacklisting

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