Categories
media and media people

Suicide?

Some news stories serve more as inkblot tests than as first runs at history. With the Jeffrey Epstein story we find sightings, Rohrschach-like, of both Minotaurs and unicorns, depending on the viewer.

I am not seeing the sad unicorn of suicide in his story. Are you?

Of course, there’s a maze of information to wade through, and we on the outside possess only the grossest of clues about whatever insider life Epstein lived.

And speaking of clues, maybe the key to the story can be found in how it plays in the headlines.

Before: 

  • The question that must be asked: Was Epstein running ‘honey traps’ and blackmailing the power elite?
  • Alex Acosta Reportedly Claimed Jeffrey Epstein ‘Belonged to Intelligence’
  • ‘IN DANGER’ Jeffrey Epstein’s life ‘in jeopardy’ as powerful pals ‘don’t want their secrets out’, victim’s lawyer claims
  • Jeffrey Epstein on suicide watch after accused sex trafficker is found injured in New York jail

After: 

  • JEFFREY EPSTEIN DEAD BY HANGING IN JAIL … Taken Off Suicide Watch
  • Jeffrey Epstein Dead in Suicide at Jail, Spurring Inquiries
  • Former MCC inmate: There’s ‘no way’ Jeffrey Epstein killed himself
  • Jeffrey Epstein’s jail guards were working extreme overtime shifts, source says
  • Jeffrey Epstein was not on suicide watch before death, official says
  • Epstein suicide sparks fresh round of conspiracy theories
  • Jeffrey Epstein’s death is a perfect storm for conspiracy theories

Who doesn’t roll their eyes, just a bit, when a news story in a major media news source confidently labels Epstein’s demise “suicide”?

Who wasn’t making jokes about Epstein’s suicide (often with pointed mention of the Clintons) before his first attempt?

Now the joke is the news media’s blithe acceptance of the official narrative.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


N.B. All the stories, headlined above, can be found by searching DuckDuckGo, the safe and non-creepy search engine. No joke.

PDF for printing

Jeffrey Epstein, murder, death, pedophile, conspiracy, paranoia,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts


Categories
general freedom term limits

The Bonesaw Massacre

Last week, the Washington Post published journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s final column. Khashoggi was apparently murdered by dismemberment at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, earlier this month.

“The Arab world is facing its own version of an Iron Curtain,” Khashoggi wrote, “imposed not by external actors but through domestic forces vying for power.”

Decrying that “Arab governments . . . continue silencing the media at an increasing rate,” he called for the U.S. to “[play] an important role in fostering and sustaining the hope of freedom,” advocating the equivalent of a Radio Free Europe to reach nearly 400 million Arabs.

The Saudi dissident highlighted Freedom House’s 2018 report “Freedom in the World,” noting that “only one country in the Arab world . . . has been classified as ‘free.’ That nation is Tunisia. Jordan, Morocco and Kuwait come second, with a classification of ‘partly free.’ The rest of the countries in the Arab world are classified as ‘not free.’”

Perusing that report’s coverage of the Americas, I noticed a section on “Gains and declines show value of electoral turnover.”

“Under new president Lenín Moreno, Ecuador turned away from the personalized and often repressive rule of his predecessor, Rafael Correa,” the report states. “Moreno has eased pressure on the media, promoted greater engagement with civil society, proposed the restoration of term limits, and supported anticorruption efforts . . .”

In Bolivia, sadly, “the constitutional court . . . struck down term limits that would have prevented incumbent leader Evo Morales from seeking reelection. Voters had rejected the lifting of term limits in a 2016 referendum, and international observers called the court’s reasoning a distortion of human rights law.”

Rotation in office — you know, like provided by term limits — appears strongly linked to freedom.

The lack of which having proved tragic for Jamal Khashoggi.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 


PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment free trade & free markets general freedom media and media people moral hazard responsibility

Blame the App?

Who spreads “fake news”?

Gossips, politicians, publicity agents, Twitter eggs, partisan bloggers, lying news journalists?

Or . . . the medium of communication they use?

Do envelopes, stationery, telephones, email, and messaging apps have moral agency?

And who commits the crimes that news (true or false) is used to rationalize?

A New York Times story discusses “How WhatsApp Leads Mobs to Murder in India,” which is like saying that civilization, flying lessons and boarding passes “led” terrorists to 9/11.

The Times reports that fake news about children being kidnapped — dramatized by doctored video clips and forwarded via WhatsApp, a messaging app — provoked anger and fear in many Indians. Some were then willing to attack anyone who “seemed” about to kidnap children.

In recent months, dozens of people have been murdered for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Without social media and the mega-popular WhatsApp, the murders probably would not have happened, at least not the way they happened. That seems certain. But this doesn’t mean that without WhatsApp, nobody in India would spread false stories or assault innocent people.

Mob violence in the country antedates the Internet.

Perhaps a thousand material circumstances directly or indirectly enable any particular act of wrongdoing. But no such prerequisites “lead to” anything without individual choices.

If someone pretends it’s okay to kill innocent persons — or persons whose guilt or innocence he doesn’t care to know — he, the killer, is the guilty party. The telecommunications network or messenger app used to provide grist for excuse-making is innocent.

Apps don’t murder people. People murder people.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 


PDF for printing

 

Categories
Common Sense crime and punishment ideological culture media and media people responsibility

Vinland?

Agreeing with a murderer is . . . uncomfortable. Even if the agreement is only in part.

Over the weekend, the news hit that one Jeremy Joseph Christian was in custody for a stabbing spree on one of Portland, Oregon’s MAX trains. According to reports, Christian had been yelling religious slurs at two hijab-wearing women when three men intervened in defense. Christian then stabbed the men . . . two to death.

The next day, quadrennial Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein politicized it in the now-de rigueur point-scoring manner: “Another heartbreaking tragedy in Trump’s America, as a white nationalist shouting anti-Islam slurs murders 2 on Portland, OR subway.”*

Immediately, other Twitterers (tweeters?) rushed to point the finger back at her. It turns out (investigation courtesy of BuzzFeed) the accused’s Facebook page showed the knife-wielder as supporting first Bernie Sanders and then . . . Dr. Stein herself.

But that is just the side story. Christian appears to have a long criminal record. It seems likely that he took to white nationalism as well as free speech — he brought a baseball bat to the recent Portland free speech rally I wrote about a few weeks ago, the police say, to “attack left-wing protestors” — and even progressive politics simply to fill his personal rage quota. The fact that he saluted Nazi-style, shouted “Hail Vinland,” and called himself a “nihilist” strongly suggest that he’s mostly unhinged.

You and I support free speech; he said he supported free speech. But free speech doesn’t include stabbing people. We can all agree that Stein is off the hook.

As is President Trump.

As are we.

We, after all, don’t support murder, heiling Hitler, or . . . Vinland?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Portland has no subway; MAX is an on-the-surface light rail system.


Printable PDF

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies

Savagely Killing Conversation

“You think the police deserve to be killed?” That’s what talk show host Michael Savage asked his caller yesterday.

What brought that on?

A self-described liberal woman named Teri had called The Savage Nation. Though not a Trump supporter, she “did not have the antipathy for him that most liberals did.”

“[U]nderneath his brashness and braggadocio,” Teri had thought, “there actually beat a heart for America.” But after his numerous initial appointments, she is now “terrified.”

On air, Teri admitted that her preferred candidate for president had been independent (not turned Democrat) Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Savage called Sanders a “con man” — a “race-baiter” who “attacked the police regularly.”

That’s when he inquired if it was her desire to see police officers murdered. To which, she replied, “No, my husband was a police captain.”

Savage: “That’s amazing. How could you vote for a man like Bernie Sanders, who hated the police and used the police as a weapon to stir up minorities?”

Teri: “Believe it or not, my husband actually supported him, too.”

Savage: “Why would a police captain support Bernie Sanders?”

Teri: “Well, my husband was a very honored and honorable policeman.”

Savage: “You mean, all the police who were killed deserved to be killed?”

Savage, indeed. Does he really believe that a person criticizing certain police behavior or seeking reform necessarily thirsts for the blood of innocent police? Really?

Or does he simply hope to shut down any thoughtful conversation about the injustice in our criminal justice system?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

Michael Savage, police, murder, killing,, justice, Bernie Sanders

 

Categories
crime and punishment national politics & policies Second Amendment rights

Most Murders?

As the nation reels from another school-place murder spree, this time at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, The Detroit News took notice of a not wholly unrelated milestone: St. Louis, Missouri, took “title” to “nation’s murder capital” from Detroit, Michigan.

Detroit’s Chief of Police waves, as he put it, a “flag of progress,” not a “flag of success.” Crimes overall are down . . . as are (interestingly) police forces. Still, as the FBI stats for 2013 make clear, “Motor City’s overall violent crime rate remains the nation’s worst for the second straight year for cities of more than 100,000 residents.”

St. Louis scored 50 murders per every 100,000 population; Detroit went down to 44 per 100,000.

But hold your breath: all this is based on a per capita reckoning: Detroit still tallied more murders than did St. Louis, 298 to 59. Detroit just has more population.

In total terms, Chicago actually leads the nation, with 411 murders. (These include all murders, not just gun-related homicides.) New York follows with 333. Then it’s Detroit, followed by Los Angeles (260), Philadelphia (248), Houston (242), and Baltimore (211).

The 2013 murder count for the nation?14,249. Subtract the seven highest grossing murder cities and the number is 12,246.

That’s still a lot, but remember: nationwide, the murder rate (including murders with guns) continues to plummet — even with more guns in private hands. Could it be that more than “more cops” and “more jails,” more guns is the answer?

Dramatic Gun-Free-Zone shootings are trend exceptions. Most usages of guns remain in self-defense. Real gun control has been, in a sense, privatized.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

murder, gun, gun control, statistics, crime, collage, photomontage, JGill, Paul Jacob, Common Sense