Quid est ergo tempus? Si nemo ex me quaerat, scio; si quaerenti explicare velim, nescio.
What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know.
Augustine of Hippo, Confessions, XI, 14 (c. 397).
On July 2, 1776, the Continental Congress un-tabled the Lee Resolution and voted to sever ties with the Kingdom of Great Britain.
One year later, to the day, Vermont became the first American territory to abolish slavery.
The victory of Zohran Mamdani in the city’s Democratic mayoral primary has some high-profile Democrats, like Sen. John Fetterman, expressing chagrin over the success of this openly commie slash-and-burn, soak-the-(white)-rich, pro-Hamas guy. Others, like former President Bill Clinton, who once posed as a moderate, are cheering him on.
Mamdani is also anti-policing. He has said: “We don’t need an investigation to know that the NYPD is racist, anti-queer & a major threat to public safety. What we need is to #DefundTheNYPD . . . NO to fake cuts — defund the police.”
Curtis Sliwa, founder of the Guardian Angels and former and current GOP nominee for NYC mayor, says that Mamdani “has a weird notion of how policing is, as if it should be people like Mahatma Gandhi walking around, you know, functioning as a social worker. That does not work.”
Some police officers say they’ll quit if someone so openly hostile to law and order — not to abuse of police power, but to reasonable policing when it’s obviously necessary — also wins the general election and becomes the next mayor.
Top brass fear an exodus.
But would only police officers quit? Everyone in NYC who prefers civilization to annihilation should then quit.
And it would be natural for many of the more successful New Yorkers to leave if Mamdani gets in on the strength of the NYC’s apparently huge and growing ressentiment vote and starts robbing and pillaging in earnest.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Illustration created with Krea and Firefly
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts
Frustra fit per plura, quod potest fieri per pauciora.
It is pointless to do with more what can be done with fewer.
William of Ockham (c. 1287 – 1347) — he of “Occam’s Razor,” one of its expressions here presented — in Summa Totius Logicae, i. 12.
On July 1, 1858, a joint reading at the Linnean Society of London of papers by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace debuted a new explanation of speciation and biological evolution.
Linnean Society records record that eminent scientists Charles Lyell and Joseph Dalton Hooker “communicated” the papers of the two breakthrough theorists:
Though attended by about 30 prominent intellectuals and scientists of the day, conspicuously not in attendance were either Wallace (who was in the East Indies) or Darwin (whose son Charles Waring Darwin had died two days earlier).
The event proved to be one of the more significant scientific presentations in the history of western civilization.
“I don’t think that we should have billionaires,” was the democratic socialist’s reply.
So, his answer to whether they have a “right to exist” was . . . NO!
“Because, frankly, it is so much money in a moment of such inequality,” continued Mamdani, “and ultimately what we need more of is equality across our city and across our state and across our country.”
Even equality at lower levels of wealth. By design and decree.
But don’t worry your pretty little billionaire heads about being pilloried, prohibited, prevented from existing, because Mamdani generously offered: “I look forward to work with everyone, including billionaires, to make a city that is fairer for all of us.”
Ah, the rest of us . . . what does it all mean for us? Hmmm, could politicians aiming to tax, exploit, and totally end any such thing as “the rich” ever miss the mark and wind up hitting us of lesser wealth? And what if billionaires’ success is intimately tied to ours?
Still, New York City’s undesirables do not end with billionaires. Zohran Mamdani sees white people. (They’re everywhere.)
Welker confronted the Democrat state rep with a racially charged statement on his website: “Shift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods.”
Why bring up skin color?
The democratic socialist assured his policy is “not driven by race,” adding, “It is not to work backwards from a racial assessment of neighborhoods or our city.”
Of course, that “racial assessment” appears to be precisely what he’s working from.
Mamdani was also questioned about the slogan “globalize the intifada,” which he declined to condemn. It looks like his intifada will be against billionaires and white people.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Illustration created with Krea/Firefly
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts
Nullum malum bona intentione factum excusatur.
No evil can be excused because it is done with a good intention.
Thomas Aquinas, On the Ten Commandments (c. 1273).
Charles Julius Guiteau met his death on June 30, 1882, at the end of a rope (as was commonly said at the time), three days shy of a year after shooting newly elected President James A. Garfield.
Guiteau was a member of the “Stalwart” faction of the Republican Party, devoted to the continuation of the kind of job-seeking corruption that Garfield, the reformer, opposed on principle. Despite being on the opposite team, so to speak, Guiteau was an ardent supporter of Garfield in the election campaign, and expected a diplomatic position in return. Failing to gain such a position in the new administration, Guiteau decided upon a sort of mad revenge as the apt response to Garfield’s “betrayal.”
While it took a year to finalize Guiteau’s execution, it took much less time — if itself an excruciatingly long time — for Garfield to die of the wound and the subsequent doctoring, on September 19th, 1881.
One often heard the opinion, as recently as a year ago — sometimes as a whisper, sometimes as a boast of savvy opinion or special knowledge, or even daring prophecy — that Michelle Obama was the Democrats’ secret weapon, the most likely next “sure thing” candidate for the presidency.
Is anyone saying it now?
Michelle Obama’s candidacy is off the table. Comb through X — you’ll see almost no one thumping for Mrs. Obama.
Of course, it was never really on. She always denied any interest in it. But that did not prevent the sages of our age from repeating the notion. Until the election, Senator Ted Cruz talked up Michelle Obama as a potential unkillable candidate on his podcast, and historian Brion McClanahan did the same on his.
Now? Crickets.
But what made the savvy sages of our time drop the issue?
There are probably two issues:
I. The general collapse of Democratic Party cultural cachet after the debacle that was the Kamala Harris campaign. The Democrats have great trouble reaching a majority of Americans right now. It is the party’s issues. Michelle Obama would not solve this problem. (Or would she?)
II. The fizzle that was (or at least yawns induced by) “IMO with Michelle Obama & Craig Robinson.” It is not doing well on YouTube, and not creating much buzz outside of a narrow fan base. Or so it appears to those outside the fan base. Apple and Spotify say the podcast is a success.
But if success it be, Michelle Obama’s enduring popularity does not seem to be remotely political. This may reflect her own non-political outlook on life.
Almost certainly the lack of Michelle O. buzz has nothing to do with this:
Logic is the most useful tool of all the arts. Without it no science can be fully known.
William of Ockham (c. 1287 – 1347) — he of “Occam’s Razor” — in Summa Logicae (c. 1323).