Categories
Accountability crime and punishment public opinion

ICE Melt in Minnesota

Americans are strongly united against people being gunned down on our streets by federal agents. 

Saturday, the victim was Alex Pretti, a 37-​year-​old ICU nurse working at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center. Pretti was an American citizen with a conceal-​carry permit. Border Patrol Chief Greg Bovino quickly informed the public: “During this operation, an individual approached U.S. Border Patrol agents with a 9 mm semi-​automatic handgun. The agents attempted to disarm the individual, but he violently resisted. Fearing for his life and the lives and safety of fellow officers, a Border Patrol agent fired defensive shots.

“The suspect also had two loaded magazines and no accessible ID,” added Bovino. “This looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.”

Had this farfetched narrative been even close to true, maybe we could partly reconcile the killing we witness relentlessly in cellphone videos. I like to reserve judgment until all the facts are in, but to me the videos don’t implicate Pretti as a “terrorist” in the slightest and leave little doubt that, in law enforcement lingo, this was not at all a “good shoot,” i.e. a justified use of deadly force.

Yesterday, President Trump told The Wall Street Journal that he had a “very good telephone conversation” with Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey. “The president agreed the present situation can’t continue,” offered Frey.

This change is driven democratically: Republicans at the White House, in Congress and across the country know the voters will crush them if this continues through the fall elections. 

Now if voters can only unite on reform beyond merely stopping the shooting. 

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 public opinion too much government

Looking for Work

“Social sector” workers — described by Forbes as “nonprofit organizations and the social sector at-​large” — have been losing jobs because of budget cuts and corruption cuts.

Many newly unemployed are unhappy about having to job-​hunt. Some complain about having to take jobs from profit-​making businesses. Others lament sparse communication from prospective employers.

“When asked about barriers to finding employment, 85% of respondents cited lack of employer response as their primary challenge,” Aparna Rae’s not-​very-​shocking-​at-​all Forbes article elaborates. “The irony is stark: a sector built on human dignity subjects job seekers to dehumanizing ‘digital hiring mazes’ where qualified candidates are ghosted after final-​round interviews. The disconnect between mission and practice erodes the sector’s moral authority.”

Wow. Dehumanizing to have to … look for work (or customers)? Worse because your last job was all about dignity — unlike all those grubby profit-​sector jobs or, for that matter, jobs with nonprofits that rely only on voluntary private donations?

“I want to be seen and recognized as a human,” explains one representative job seeker. “The lack of communication and impersonal nature of the hiring process is demoralizing and makes job seekers feel devalued.”

Job hunting can be tough. It’d be nicer if qualified candidates who have been considered but lose out to other qualified candidates were always notified. Sure. But how does failure to do so represent a “disconnect” between mission and practice, and how does it “erode the [nonprofits’] moral authority”?

Job seekers might feel less demoralized if they didn’t take the impersonal aspects of the search so personally.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with NanoBanana and Firefly

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

Categories
ideological culture public opinion

Bad, Worse & Communist

After four recent commentaries showing, without hyperbole, that Democratic Party mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani is a flat-​out seize-​the-​means-​of-​production communist, you might wonder why anyone could possibly vote for him. 

Well, elections are a choice. And New Yorkers have a plethora of lousy choices — especially the best-​known politicians running against Mamdani. 

Take former Governor Andrew Cuomo — puh-​leez! He finished second to Mamdani in last month’s Democratic mayoral primary but has vowed to stay in the race on the ballot line of his recently formed Fight & Deliver Party.

The key reason for Mamdani’s victory? Voter revulsion with Mr. Cuomo. After serving ten years as governor and announcing he would seek a fourth four-​year term, Cuomo was rocked by sexual harassment allegations (including “attempts to silence victims”). Facing “almost certain removal from office” by the state legislature, he resigned in 2021. 

“To Mr. Cuomo, I have never had to resign in disgrace,” responded Mamdani to Cuomo in a televised debate. “I have never cut Medicaid. I have never stolen hundreds of millions of dollars from the MTA [Metropolitan Transportation Authority]. I have never hounded the 13 women who credibly accused me of sexual harassment. I have never sued for their gynecological records. And I have never done those things because I am not you, Mr. Cuomo.” 

Mamdani’s other major opponent is the incumbent, Mayor Eric Adams, who was indicted last year on five felony counts, including conspiracy to receive campaign contributions from foreign nationals, soliciting and accepting a bribe, and wire fraud. Though Trump’s Department of Justice dropped the prosecution, or maybe partly because of that, Adams is a pariah among the city’s supermajority of Democratic voters.

The problem is staring us in the face: When the choice is between communism and corruption, communism stands a better chance.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with Grok and Firefly

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

Categories
public opinion too much government

Vote Communist!

The world wants to be deceived, so let it be deceived!

Maybe, just sometimes, we let fools dig themselves deeper into their folly.

Take New Yorkers. The city’s government has been dysfunctional for ages. But now it’s potentially taking the starkest left turn yet, towards … communism.

Mayoral candidate Rep. Zorhan Mamdani may call himself a “democratic socialist” and quote Martin Luther King piously, but he also admits that seizing the means of production is the ultimate goal … just not politically acceptable. 

Yet.

That’s communism. Will New Yorkers vote for a commie?

Maybe running under the Democratic banner is cover enough for many voters. Seems safe. Seeking to help “the poor” by attacking “the rich” and “the whites” (as I wrote last Monday) is certainly not unfamiliar.

And neither is his reaction to rising food prices: blame something called “capitalism.” 

Then set up government-​run grocery stores!

While our first instinct is to oppose him with everything we’ve got, comedian Steven Crowder counsels otherwise. “Maybe he’s exactly what New York City deserves,” says Crowder. Let Mamdani make New York an object lesson in what not to do. 

New Yorkers can vote in this “teachable moment” for the whole nation: pop the corn and watch the Big Apple rot under Mamdani — with food cheaper everywhere else, under Trump.

Or so Crowder argues.

Embrace the old motto, “mundus vult decipi” (the world wants to be deceived), and let one city run further down the length of rope … until they’ve done enough damage.

To learn. Finally.

If one city wants communism, let it have it. 

Good and hard.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Previously on This Is Common Sense:

July 3 — The Big Decommodification — a communist housing plan for socialist NYC.
July 1 — If Mamdani Wins — the likely results of electing a socialist mayor.
June 30 — Socialist Intifada — the problematic philosophy of NYC’s political phenom.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

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

Categories
defense & war public opinion

Iran: What Next

The Iran Question dominates the news.

Most papers and programs have numerous takes at the top of the page or the hour devoted to Israel’s attack on Iran’s nuclear program; President Trump’s demand that Iran unconditionally surrender, and the government of Iran’s defiance; and Trump’s latest statements vaguing up “his decision” to bomb Iran.

And in a man-​bites-​dog angle, I’m going to agree with The New York Times.

Specifically, the editorial board’s “America Must Not Rush Into a War Against Iran,” run yesterday.

Where the Times is right regards not the disputed facts and theories about the conflict, but whether the United States military, under direction of its Commander-​in-​Chief, should bomb Iran.

That is not merely open to debate but must be debated.

Many in Trump’s base oppose any involvement: Trump was voted into office to stop the endless wars.

But it’s not just the matter of politics. It’s a constitutional issue: “An unprovoked American attack on Iran — one that could involve massive bombs known as bunker busters — would not be a police action or special military operation,” the Times declares. “It would be a war. To declare it is not the decision of Mr. Netanyahu or Mr. Trump. Under the Constitution, Congress alone has that power.”

And if we wince at the idea of our dysfunctional Congress grandstanding and bloviating about such a weighty matter, consider this: the congressional debate must occur in a context where Americans debate. We debate; the People.

After all, we end up playing lots of heavy roles in these things. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

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

Categories
international affairs public opinion

An Independent Nation

Our leaders have been surprisingly expressive in signaling U.S. military support for the defense of Taiwan. 

Ironic, considering that official U.S. policy is dubbed “strategic ambiguity,” meaning we don’t say one way or the other about our defensive intentions for helping the island nation against a regularly threatened and rehearsed-​for Chinese invasion or naval blockade. 

Four separate times during his term, however, former President Joe Biden publicly pledged American military help to counter a People’s Republic of China assault on Taiwan. As for the Trump 2.0 Pentagon, weeks ago it leaked (or suffered a leak of) a global defense strategy memo that said preventing a PRC takeover of Taiwan was the “sole pacing scenario” engaging our armed forces. 

Surprising unanimity for the two parties in Washington. But has anyone asked what the American people think?

Well, Humanity for Freedom Foundation conducted a poll, released yesterday.*

Informed that “China claims Taiwan as its own territory,” 82 percent of respondents agreed that “Taiwan is an independent country.” Only 3 percent felt “Taiwan is part of China.”

A 58 percent majority favored full U.S. diplomatic recognition for Taiwan. When it comes to American military defense, a plurality of 39 percent wanted to continue the status quo of not saying (“strategic ambiguity”), while 32 percent of Americans preferred their government make a clear commitment to Taiwan. Only 2 percent supported ending arm sales and adopting a neutral stance. 

The above results are thoroughly — and surprisingly — non-​partisan, with arch conservatives and far-​out progressives finding common ground to defend Asia’s freest society against the world’s most maniacal totalitarian state. 

Could the specter of a future dictated by the Chinese Communist Party be bringing the world closer together?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 


* In full disclosure, I’m on HFF’s board of directors. As for the national poll, it had 800 respondents, giving the results a 3.5 percent margin of error with a 95 percent confidence level. Full results are here.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

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

Categories
national politics & policies public opinion

The CIA’s Mutating Opinions

As January closed, the CIA changed its story on the origin of the SARS-​CoV‑2 virus.

But was it big news? 

Most people had given up any hope of finding a natural origin, and evidence favoring the virus’s creation in Wuhan, China — partly funded by U.S. taxpayers courtesy of Big Pharma bureaucrat Dr. Antony Fauci — has been clear for a very long time.

So the CIA saying it now “believes” that COVID-​19 was leaked from the Chinese lab looks, suspiciously, like a convenient change of opinion upon the beginning of the 47th presidency. 

New beliefs for a new president!

Note that the CIA certainly offers plenty of reasons to make light of the turn.

  1. The agency expresses “low confidence” in the new opinion.
  2. The spokesman admits that no new evidence was behind the shift.
  3. The spooks say they continue “to assess” both theories of coronavirus origination.

Very political. 

The change of mind looks like this: the CIA had pushed the natural origination story because it had an agenda, and Americans have largely given up on that agenda. Left pushing a wet noodle, the CIA now tries to recover some of its cachet — or prevent further erosion of public opinion in the institution — by siding with the once-​derided belief.

And the “low confidence” warning is there to allow mainstream news media to downplay the story. The whole thing smacks of propagandistic manipulation rather than honestly informing the president, Congress, the Pentagon, or the American people.

Oh, and what of that agenda? 

Let’s just say that the agency always seeks to keep us ill-informed.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with Flux and Firefly

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

Categories
defense & war government transparency public opinion

Only a Test?

“This has been a test, and only a test. 

“Of the Emergency Propaganda System.

“In case of a real emergency, we would have bombed you already.

“Or infected you with a new disease from one of our gain-​of-​function labs.

“Or (and this is a real stretch) found the missing plutonium that’s always whispered about.

“Instead, the mystery drones were a scheduled test run of a newly developed drone technology, which the FAA had this last month scheduled as a testing period for the product. The developer is an above-​board military contractor in New Jersey. The test period was indicated in a bulletin. Somebody outside the military must’ve read it.

“Now, if we had the interests of the citizens in mind we would have made a big deal out of the FAA bulletin. Or at least referred to it after people began noticing the drones.

“But let’s get real. We did not do either of those things. Instead, we reacted as if we knew nothing. And, of course, most government functionaries knew nothing. But the Biden administration knew,* and the Federal Aviation Administration knew, and the CIA and the NSA and the military knew. We could have told everyone the whole truth.

“We didn’t because we needed to learn how people would react to a swarm of oversized drones dotting the skyscape. This was a test of how Americans would react in a possible (and admittedly eerie) emergency.

“And, boy, did citizens react entertainingly. Some people — easily confused by parallax effects — saw more drones than existed, misidentifying normal airliners for drones, for grand example.

“Some people opportunistically made fake video footage. Some of those fakers may or may not have been paid by tax dollars.

“And some people noticed non-drone UFOs, and reported them. We won’t talk about those, either, even when they appear over the Pentagon.

“Remember: Only a test.”

And this, here at ThisIsCommonSense​.org, is Common Sense. And I’m Paul Jacob.


* Unless nobody bothered to tell the Lame Duck-​in-​Chief. See Wednesday’s witless assurance.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Flux and Firefly

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

Categories
folly media and media people public opinion

Volcano Denialism

Some weather we’ve been having, eh? Record-​setting heat in many locales. 

It must be global warming!

Well, it is hotter than usual. 

But this is summer.

And a volcano did blow in the ocean near Tonga, a year and a half ago, and scientists at the time did say that the water vapor it placed into the stratosphere could linger for years, affecting the climate.

Still, you won’t see recognition of this factor for warming on the major news sources. They keep pushing the AGW line: anthropogenic (human-​caused) global warming: “climate change.”

Matt Walsh, on his podcast, ran through the vulcanism story last week. Water vapor is a more effective, broad-​spectrum greenhouse gas than CO2, which all the journos cannot help but push (because it fits a statist agenda, and that’s their real business: propaganda). 

Walsh calls mainstream AGW crusaders “volcano denialists.”

Our planet’s ecosystem is ultra-​complicated. Cloud cover (which has something to do with water vapor, you might say) can also cool the planet by increasing high-​altitude albedo, a point touched upon in The Epoch Times, “Nobel Winner on Climate Agenda: ‘We Are Totally Awash in Pseudoscience,” which focuses on physicist John Clausner and his contrarian views on climate. 

“Contra the IPCC and other major institutions,” Clausner contends “that climate is primarily set by … the ‘cloud cover thermostat,’ a self-​regulating process whereby more clouds start to enshroud the Earth when the temperature is too high and vice-versa.”

He was slated to give a talk to the International Monetary Fund on July 25, but that was cancelled. These elites have directed trillions of global dollars to “research” global climate, and Clausner’s caution that they’ve made “a trillion-​dollar mistake” is not exactly welcome.

It’s not just vulcanism they deny. They deny water.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder​.ai and DALL-E2

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

Categories
First Amendment rights Internet controversy public opinion social media

The Mockingbird Shuttle

“After weeks of ‘Twitter Files’ reports detailing close coordination between the FBI and Twitter in moderating social media content, the Bureau issued a statement Wednesday,” journalist Matt Taibbi tweeted on Christmas Eve. “It didn’t refute allegations. Instead, it decried ‘conspiracy theorists’ publishing ‘misinformation,’ whose ‘sole aim’ is to ‘discredit the agency.’”

Taibbi offered a droll retort: “They must think us unambitious, if our ‘sole aim’ is to discredit the FBI. After all, a whole range of government agencies discredit themselves in the #TwitterFiles. Why stop with one?”

Indeed. The federal government is full of rogue, anti-​constitutional cabals.

Elon Musk’s Twitter Files release of behind-​the-​scenes Twitter deliberations over which political news stories and Twitter accounts to trounce upon, and what medical information to declare as “misinformation” and which to allow, yielded more than just the influence of J. Edgar Hoover’s legacy outfit.

“The files show the FBI acting as doorman to a vast program of social media surveillance and censorship, encompassing agencies across the federal government – from the State Department to the Pentagon to the CIA.”

Twitter employees referred to these other outfits as “OGA” — for “Other Government Agenies.”

There were so many that Twitter “executives lost track.”

The vastness of the operation boggles the mind. “The government was in constant contact not just with Twitter but with virtually every major tech firm.”

It is worth remembering that the lore of the Deep State includes the controversial but rarely-​mentioned “Operation Mockingbird,” whereby the CIA fostered paid mouthpieces (disinformation agents) throughout the media, back in the Sixties.

Now we have uncovered an operation that dwarfs this by several orders of magnitude.

Certainly, the behavior of the FBI and these OGAs has had an effect: they directed public opinion during the pandemic and in the lead-​up to the 2020 election. 

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