Virtue is the health of the soul.
Ariston of Chios, Stoicorum veterum fragmenta, fragment 359.
Virtue is the health of the soul.
Ariston of Chios, Stoicorum veterum fragmenta, fragment 359.
On December 23, 1783, George Washington resigned as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army, at the Maryland State House in Annapolis, Maryland.
While many experts, including Southwest Airline’s CEO, think that the air filtration systems on jetliners are so good that wearing protective face coverings (“masks”) is pointless, our Doctor Anthony Fauci will have none of it.
When the National Institutes of Health head honcho and Big Pharma Pusher No. 1 was asked about whether we can ditch masks on airplanes, he responded predictably: no. “I think when you’re dealing with a closed space, even though the filtration is good, that you want to go that extra
This was on ABC News’s This Week on Sunday.
“As Christmas approaches, COVID-19 again threatens to upend American life, driving the spread, Omicron,” ABC’s Jonathan Karl narrated. “At least 43 states now have confirmed cases of the latest and by far most contagious variant yet. On Saturday alone, New York state reported nearly 22,000 new COVID cases, breaking a single-day record set just the day before.” And then Karl mentioned total COVID deaths in the United States — but not the number of Omicron deaths.
See how the propaganda is pitched? The breathless relaying of statistics, but nothing like a sense of the science.
Contra Fauci, these once-discouraged and now-forever-exalted masks are not nearly as effective as made out. And they have severe “unintended” effects.
I put marks around “unintended” because for some people in power, the psychological effects of mandatory masks in a situation of perpetual or seasonal alarm might be the whole point: the inducement of a mass delusional psychosis. How very fascist.
We can appreciate the name “Fauci” both by rhyme and reason: Faucism is medical fascism.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts
Titles are tinsel, power a corruptor, glory a bubble, and excessive wealth, a libel on its possessor.
Percy Bysshe Shelley, Declaration of Rights (1812).
On December 22, 1989, Communist President of Romania Nicolae Ceaușescu was overthrown by Ion Iliescu after days of bloody confrontations. The deposed dictator and his wife fled Bucharest with a helicopter as protesters erupted in cheers.
The couple was quickly caught and, on Christmas day, tried by a military tribunal and executed by firing squad.
Congressman Jared Golden, a Democrat in a Trump district, may be feeling heat.
“First, Nancy Pelosi said she’d raise taxes. Now, she’s coming for what’s left,” warns an American Action Network television advertisement airing in Golden’s Maine district.
“To help pay for trillions in new spending, Pelosi wants the government to spy on nearly every American bank account, looking for new money to spend,” the spot continues. “Your deposits, payments, bank balance . . . under Pelosi’s plan, the government monitors them.
“Call Jared Golden and tell him to . . . keep the government out of your bank account.”
Fact-checking the spot, News Center Maine determined that, “yes, as part of that plan, banks would be required to give two additional pieces of information to the IRS: how much money went into certain bank accounts over the course of the year and how much came out.”
Those “certain” accounts started out being those with $600 going in or out. After the public uproar, the plan hiked the amount to $10,000.
Same principle, though.
“The only way to ensure that upper-income taxpayers pay what they owe,” explained a U.S. Treasury press release, “is by giving the IRS the resources and information required to close the tax gap.”
But does our system work that way? Not according to the Fourth Amendment.
We do not keep “a closer eye” on people making a certain amount; it is un-American to require all such “suspects” be put through the wringer the better to find a few guilty of something.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts
One does not humanize carnage, one condemns it, because one humanizes oneself.
On December 21, 1620, William Bradford and the Mayflower Pilgrims landed on what is now known as Plymouth Rock in Plymouth, Massachusetts.
American settlers in Nacogdoches, Mexican Texas, declared their independence on December 21, 1826, starting the Fredonian Rebellion.
Avant-garde rock ’n’ roll guitarist, band leader, and composer Frank Zappa was born on this date in 1940. In 1985, Zappa testified before the United States Senate Commerce, Technology, and Transportation committee, attacking the Parents Music Resource Center or PMRC, a music organization co-founded by Tipper Gore, wife of then-senator Al Gore. Zappa was a passionate advocate for freedom of speech, self-education, political participation and the abolition of censorship. Describing his political views, Frank Zappa categorized himself as a “practical conservative,” or “independent.” He died in 1993.
Well, why not? According to some politicians, I have a perfect right to.
But, you ask, on what grounds?
Because of the emotional injury I suffer when I listen to these bozos.
Legislation being considered in Congress would permit social-media companies to be sued for causing physical or “severe emotional injury,” a provision of the Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act.
This legislation would amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act so as to make Internet service providers liable if they algorithmically recommend content that results in “severe emotional injury to any person.”
The text of the legislation is — you guessed it! — vague and murky. And would doubtless be applied with extreme selectivity if enacted.
Other bills being pondered would tackle things like “health misinformation.” Senator Amy Klobuchar declares that it is “our responsibility to take action.”
Uh, what action?
The action of penalizing social media for inadequately censoring those with whom the senator disagrees.
Such rationalizations of assaults on freedom of speech are severely emotionally injurious to me.
Will I sue? Nah. I wouldn’t win. I doubt I would be one of the ones allowed to collect such bounties. Nor would any successfully passed legislation ever permit congressmen to be sued for their own psyche-pummeling lies, psy-ops, and blather.
Perhaps more importantly, it’s wrong to seek to penalize others merely for exercising freedom of speech, no matter how lousy or dispiriting that speech.
Lousy legislation, though — yes. If only we could sue for that.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts
The feeling of reverence should itself be treated with reverence, although not at a sacrifice of truth, with which alone, in the end, reverence is compatible.
George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Vol. 3: Reason in Religion (1905).