Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies

The New Non-Normal

“Too much of what’s happening in our country today,” President Joe Biden offered last night, “is not normal.”

You can say that again!

“A crowd of about 300 invited guests — a mix of elected officials and dignitaries, along with Democratic supporters,” reported CNN, “watched Biden speak” at Independence Hall in Philadelphia “from behind panes of bulletproof glass.” 

The president said some other things with which I agree.

“There is no place for political violence in America. Period. None. Ever,” Mr. Biden intoned. Well, “ever” goes just a tad too far. After all, the American Revolution was violence. But generally, yes, Joe is right that “we can’t allow violence to be normalized.”

Which is why he should call out the political violence that occurred throughout the summer of 2020 as well as that of January 6th. 

Biden spoke against “the politics of grievance” and those who “obsess about the past.” But golly gee whiz, does Biden really want to alienate his Critical Race Theorist fan base?

“You can’t love your country only when you win” an election, he argued. Hasn’t that been an equal opportunity foible for both Rs and Ds — considering the 2016 as well as 2020 presidential results!

Losing the battle for the economy of the nation, Mr. Biden is looking for Campaign 2022 to be a “battle for the soul of the nation.” But making sweeping attacks about all who favor Trump being “semi-fascists” has led even Democrats like U.S. Sen. Maggie Hassan to criticize Biden.

“They refuse to accept the will of the people,” the president said of so-called MAGA Republicans. “They embrace political violence. They don’t believe in democracy.”

Sadly, that applies to both parties as well.

“Get engaged,” Biden implored the audience. “Vote, vote, vote!”

Well . . . maybe just vote once.

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 partisanship

Ultra-Dumb

A turn in rhetoric caught the attention of the attention-catchers.

On Friday, USA Today explained “Why Biden is blasting the ‘ultra MAGA’ agenda, not Donald Trump, in his midterm push.” The paper explained that Biden, seeking “to avert a midterm disaster that would all but end his domestic agenda,” is pointedly not mentioning the name of his predecessor in office.

“Instead, the White House works aggressively to paint Republicans and their policies as an ‘ultra MAGA agenda’ in a push to overcome the president’s brutal approval ratings and voters’ frustration with high inflation to help Democrats maintain control of Congress.”

Jenn Psaki, on the way out as the president’s press secretary, attributed the “ultra MAGA” epithet to none other than that genius specimen of Homo politicus himself, Joe Biden. But, as reported in the Washington Post, that’s just another whopper for the cameras and the gullible.

Actually, the Post didn’t put it like that. “The attack line followed months of testing from the Center for American Progress Action Fund,” writes USA Today, summarizing the Post’s reportage. “Democrats believe ‘ultra MAGA’ tells a story of a movement that’s no longer just about Trump.”

Democrats are right . . . in that “ultra MAGA” does tell a story.

Democrats are wrong . . . to imagine it could dissuade Republicans. Many conservatives now embrace the epithet, mocking Democrats for thinking they’ve found the key to unlocking Democratic success in the upcoming mid-terms.

While I won’t be embracing Ultra for my messaging — is Ultra Freedom or Ultra Responsibility or Ultra Accountability on the menu? No? Then: no! — I can join conservatives in shaking my head at rule by focus group.

And President Biden’s calling MAGA “the most extreme political organization that’s existed in American history?”

The charge — coming from the party of riots, lockdowns, shortages, and inflation — seems ultra-suspect.

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

Q and an Answer

Can we start laughing again?

If the actual positions of our goofy ruling class won’t do it for you, then . . . what about QAnon?

A few weeks ago, President Trump was asked about QAnon. “At the crux of the theory,” a reporter explained, “is this belief that [Trump is] secretly saving the world from this Satanic cult of pedophiles and cannibals.” She went on to ask the president if that was something he was behind.

“I haven’t heard that, but is that supposed to be a bad thing?”

This may be the most politic and understated response ever given by our impolitic and hyperbolic leader.

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives took QAnon seriously enough to formally condemn it, asking the intelligence agencies to monitor it closely. Though it is a set of conspiracy theorists, a few enthusiasts apparently have taken criminal actions.

Not included in “the widely supported bipartisan measure”? Seventeen Republicans and “Rep. Justin Amash (L–Mich.),” reported Christian Britschgi on Friday. “The latter argued the resolution posed serious free speech concerns and could be counterproductive.”

Amash had the wit to see that sending the FBI to investigate “conspiracy theorists who believe in a deep state that’s fighting against them” might possibly . . . “just confirm . . . their fears.”

If you are like me, you know little about pedophiles and bupkis about cannibal cults. But if Trump supporters who spin tall tales about Trump directing secret military units to nuke underground nests of alien deviltry unnerve politicians enough to publicly condemn them for doing so, three responses seem rational:

  1. Uproariously chortling;
  2. Recognition that if pedophile cannibal cults do exist, unearthing them would be helpful; and
  3. Wondering on which side in that struggle Congress might place itself.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability media and media people

Democracy Thrives in Out-of-Court Settlement

Nick Sandmann has won again. The Washington “Where Democracy Dies in Darkness” Post has agreed to settle out of court with young Mr. Sandmann — for an undisclosed amount. We learned this from Sandmann himself, on Twitter:

On 2/19/19, I filed $250M defamation lawsuit against Washington Post. Today, I turned 18 & WaPo settled my lawsuit. Thanks to @ToddMcMurtry & @LLinWood for their advocacy. Thanks to my family & millions of you who have stood your ground by supporting me. I still have more to do.

CNN settled in January. Suits against ABC, CBS, The Guardian, The Hill and NBC are still pending.

At issue?

The Washington Post falsely reported in 2019 that a group of Covington Catholic High School students, including Sandmann, harassed a man named Nathan Phillips with taunts and racial slurs,” explains Beckett Adams in The Washington Examiner. “The students did no such thing, as video evidence available at the time made clear. In fact, footage of the incident shows the teens were accosted not only by Phillips, who clearly sought out a confrontation, but they were also being harassed by a nearby gathering of members of the racist, anti-Semitic Black Hebrew Israelites. The Washington Post chose to give glossy, glowing news coverage to the Black Hebrew Israelites, a known hate group, all while portraying the Covington Catholic students (some of whom were black) as racists.”

Enflamed by the Post and CNN and other outlets, a self-righteously woke online mob jumped on Sandmann and other students — included were many calls for violence, and much harping on the fact the kids wore MAGA hats.

If ever a lawsuit of this kind made sense, this one did.

But will these media outfits learn their lesson?

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 Popular

Hat Hate

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
general freedom ideological culture Popular

Toxic Smile?

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