Tag: politics

Categories
education and schooling government transparency

The Secret Teachings of Our Age

education, school, ideology, politics

The high school course was not “Logic and Semiotics in Western Culture” — or “Eastern.” It was not “Memes for Momes.” Or even “Cartoons from Cave Walls to Bathroom Stalls.”

It was “A History of Ethnic and Gender Studies.”

Do we dare ask what’s in it?

Doesn’t matter. Because we’re not allowed to see what’s in it.

“Michigan parents can’t request some school curricula under public record acts after the Michigan Supreme Court chose not to hear an appeal from a lower court,” explains the Michigan Capitol Confidential.

“On Sept. 25, the state’s top court denied an appeal filed by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy on behalf of a Rochester parent who requested the curriculum for a class held in the Rochester Public Schools district.” Using the “the state’s Freedom of Information Act, Carol Beth Litkouhi in 2022 sought course materials” for the class mentioned above. “Rochester Public Schools refused. The district argued that the law did not require it to provide records held by teachers.”

And so far — and barring a revision of state law — the public schools have won. 

Not a happy story, but even more than bad news for Michigan parents and (by extension) their children (the students in public schools), it demonstrates a mindset we’ve encountered before, and not confined to one school district or one state.

According to educators in public service, they have a right to teach your kids and not tell you what they are doing.

They are committed to doing this.

They are indoctrinators and not on your side.

They must be stopped. Politically. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

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

Categories
Accountability government transparency national politics & policies

Infected by Politics

covid, science, scientist, politics, politicians

In 2020, circumstantial evidence suggested that the COVID-​19 virus had originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, China.

Let’s say that the available data, limited by Chinese uncooperativeness, couldn’t exclude the possibility of a natural origin. Nevertheless, the evidence certainly sufficed to prevent the escape-​from-​lab explanation from being reasonably deemed an implausible “conspiracy theory.”

Years later, U.S. officials who probably also knew better three years ago have acknowledged that, yes, escape from the lab is likely how the pandemic began.

We’re also learning from communications that have come to light that the authors of an influential 2020 paper published in Nature “proving” that “SARS-​CoV‑2 is not a laboratory construct” fudged their reasoning for fear of China.

Co-​author Andrew Rambaut, to co-​authors: “Given the shitshow that would happen if anyone serious accused the Chinese of even accidental release, my feeling is we should say that given there is no evidence of a specifically engineered virus, we cannot possibly distinguish between natural evolution and escape so we are content with ascribing it to natural process.”

Co-​author Kristian Andersen: “Yup, I totally agree that that’s a very reasonable conclusion. Although I hate when politics is injected into science — but it’s impossible not to, especially given the circumstances.”

The paper itself asserted that the authors’ analyses “clearly show that SARS-​CoV‑2 is not a laboratory construct …” (emphases added). And: no “laboratory-​based scenario is plausible.”

This paper was then used to rationalize censorship of persons proposing the Wuhan lab as the site of origin. It was completely political; the scientists were acting as politicians and not scientists when they authored it. Better to blame bats than the dreaded Chinazis.

Funded by the U.S. Government.

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
government transparency insider corruption national politics & policies

The Regime Shows Its Fangs

IRS, corruption, power

“No one thinks it’s a coincidence,” says Rep. Jim Jordan, chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. “Everyone thinks this was done for intimidation reasons.”

The “this” was a visit by the Internal Revenue Service to the home of journalist Matt Taibbi while he was testifying to Congress about his Twitter revelation research.

Normally, the Regime’s collection wing, the IRS, does not just ‘stop on by’ unannounced.

The timing, Rep. Jordan suggested, is suspicious.

And the condemnations are coming in from more than just the “right.” A journalism professor at DePauw University joined the tide of free speech advocates to note that the “this” indeed “runs contrary to every principle” of the American press freedom as instituted in the First Amendment. 

The IRS has not so far clarified the visit, and Jordan is threatening to subpoena all documents related to the event.

Journalist Sharyl Attkisson — who “has long contended the Justice Department during the Obama administration illegally surveilled her while she was at CBS News,” explains Fox News — not unreasonably contends that the “IRS would have to know how their visit to Taibbi’s house would be construed, which suggests that’s exactly as they wanted it.”

The chilling effect is by design.

But why would The Regime be so blatant?

So clear in intent and corrupt in method?

Does The Regime feel impregnable?

Maybe the old lore of deviltry and contracts with the Principalities and Powers is true: evil feels compelled to signal what it is doing, at least nominally. Leaving it up to good people to see the signs.

Which we now cannot unsee.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Midjourney

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

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies political challengers Voting

Good Night, Mr. Fetterman

US Capitol Building, brain damage

In popular political culture, it’s the Republican Party that’s historically been fettered with the moniker of “The Stupid Party.” 

That’s what liberal philosopher and economist John Stuart Mill called Britain’s Tories, and affixing the “stupid” label to conservatives has been important for intellectuals ever since: it’s one way they feel good about themselves. 

We can argue about the (in)justice of the accusation till the cows come home and go out to pasture again, but it’s the Democrats who are pushing brain-​damaged leaders, not Republicans.

I’m not just referring to President Joseph Robinette Biden’s many out-​of-​mind moments. I’m also talking about Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman’s run for the U.S. Senate.

The man suffered a stroke last spring, and has mostly been hiding out in the proverbial Biden Basement ever since. But on Tuesday he appeared on stage to debate his Republican opponent Dr. Mehmet Oz. 

Fetterman’s mental impairment? Obvious.

He began with the immortal clumsiness of “Good Night” rather than “Good Evening,” and stumbled through question after question. His handling of the minimum wage issue was slow-​witted, and his awkward and robotic — and so obviously deceptive — repetitions regarding fracking sent shivers down my spine.

It’s not my purpose to make fun of people with brain injuries. But it is my role to call attention to the apologetics by Democrats (and the center-​left/​far-​left news media) for their candidate, and their pretense that Fetterman’s just fine. 

He isn’t. Biden isn’t. 

And this says something about where Democrats are — intellectually; spiritually.

Very not fine.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

US Capitol Building, brain damage

On Rumble: 

PDF for printing

Illustrations created with DALL‑E

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

Categories
insider corruption scandal

Today in Integrity News

integrity

Was there once a golden age of probity in government? Where no corruption, self-​dealing, or partisan double-​standards prevailed? 

Well, surely there have been times when politicians generally tried to pretend harder.

A story in the Washington Post epitomizes current attitudes.

“The nation’s most prestigious scientific body said Tuesday that it has barred a key White House official focused on climate change, Jane Lubchenco, from participating in its publications and activities for five years,” wrote Maxine Joselow six weeks ago. It turns out that the National Academy of Sciences took this uncommon course for good reason. “While serving as an editor for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Lubchenco accepted an article for publication that was later retracted because it relied on outdated data, and because she has a personal relationship with one of the authors, who is her brother-in-law.”

Now, Dr. Lubchenco has admitted her “error of judgment” and her “regret.” 

But she’s not just any White House official: “Despite this disciplinary action from one of the most prestigious science organizations in the world,” explained M. Anthony Mills and Ian R. Banks in The Wall Street Journal this weekend, “and her own admission of fault — Ms. Lubchenco continues to lead the White House’s Scientific Integrity Task Force.”

The Biden Administration — called “The Biden” here on Tuesday, as a tip of the hat to the commonsense conjecture that Joe Biden isn’t really in charge — hasn’t removed Lubchenco from her position. She still co-​chairs the Scientific Integrity Task Force.

And her being barred from publication and participation in a number of scientific venues? It doesn’t mean that much, when she’s in government. That’s about money and propaganda, and power. Not science.

Or integrity.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with DALL‑E

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

Categories
political challengers

Vermin Competition

Vermin Supreme,

Should Lincoln Chafee invert a boot and place it on his head? 

It might help him compete. The famous Republican turned Democratic politician from Rhode Island — former U.S. Senator and Governor, both, and sometime presidential hopeful — has filed to run for the presidency.

But as a Libertarian.

The Libertarian Party started out nearly fifty years ago as a venue for libertarians disgusted with Richard Nixon and the Republican Party to make a pitch to the American people to abandon the lying, thieving, murderous statism of our times and swap it for freedom. In the words of its first presidential nominee, philosopher John Hospers, the idea was to “challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.”

The Libertarian Party has pulled in supporters from left, right and center, but mostly from the GOP, as seen in a solid one third of its past presidential runs: 

  1. former Republican elector Roger MacBride (1976)
  2. former and future Republican U.S. Representative Ron Paul (1988) 
  3. former Republican U.S. Representative Bob Barr (2008)
  4. former Republican New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson (2012; 2016)

The Libertarians are an earnest lot, trying to get the attention of earnest American voters by putting up men with political credentials. In the case of Gary Johnson’s last campaign, the strategy “paid off” with over 4.4 million votes. The LP attracts ambitious politicians and publicity seekers who do not quite fit in with the two parties, in no small part because Libertarians have done a great job of obtaining all-​important ballot status in most if not all 50 states in presidential elections.

Libertarian Party members have so far avoided non-​political celebrity candidates, such as the late activist and actor Russell Means (1988) and gonzo millionaire John McAfee (2012). Chafee would be the first Democratic pol to get the nomination. But he is running against some strong libertarian activists (Kim Ruff, Jo Jorgensen, Jacob Hornberger, et al.) as well as a return bid from McAfee (who also happens to be on the run from the IRS). 

A parody candidate calling himself “Vermin Supreme” and running on a joke (and quite anti-​freedom) platform (mandatory ponies for everyone!), has just won the Libertarian position in the New Hampshire Primary’s non-​binding preference poll — 26 to Chafee’s 4, perhaps because he wears a boot on his head.

Tough competition for Chafee, who seems only a little more libertarian than Vermin.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Vermin Supreme,

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


Categories
partisanship Second Amendment rights

The Word Is

Inigo Montoya

“You keep using that word,” said Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride. “I do not think it means what you think it means.”

He might as well have been talking to David Hogg — not Vizaini — and young Hogg’s March For Our Lives gun control advocacy group. 

The word?

Partisan.

“On Wednesday,” writes Christian Britschgi at Reason, “the group released its Peace Plan for a Safer America with the ambitious goal of reducing gun deaths and injuries by 50 percent in 10 years.”

Among the issues their plan — a sort of “Gun New deal” — aims to tackle is the Supreme Court’s make-​up of justices who support a common sense reading of the Second Amendment, which Hogg & Co. characterize as the result of “partisan political influence and interference.”

Favoring the right to bear arms or opposing socialized medicine isn’t “partisan” any more than favoring gun control and “Medicare for all.” We use the word “partisan” when members of parties behave in ways that align with their respective parties for little reason other than power, or when they cannot muster or even try for bipartisan support for their legislation.

When Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and President Barack Obama pushed through “Obamacare” without one Republican vote, that was partisan only because the Democrats could not muster any support across the aisle, quite astounding for a major new program.

Regarding the Supreme Court, we should remember that the standard for judgment is neither party nor policy, but constitutional law.

March for Our Lives wants a “national conversation” on restructuring the Supreme Court.

A better conversation would deal with actual partisan perversity.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Inigo Montoya

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

Categories
international affairs

The Grateful President

Donald Trump, Trump, politics, Saudi Arabia,

What are you thankful for?

Surely you were asked over Thanksgiving by friends or relatives — just as the president was by reporters. No doubt you had more social grace than to launch into a full-​throated self-endorsement.

In his defense, President Trump first answered, “For having a great family,” before quickly pivoting to “and for having made a tremendous difference in this country.… This country is so much stronger now than it was when I took office that you wouldn’t believe it.”

Yes, hard to believe.

Thankful for Saudi Arabia? The Donald is. Oil prices are down.

Controversially, Trump also decided that Saudi Arabia has suffered enough for their grisly state murder of Washington Post contributor Jamaal Khashoggi. U.S. sanctions have indeed been firmly placed on 17 Saudis accused of involvement in the murder, but no action taken against Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who the CIA “assesses” was “likely responsible.” 

“It’s a very complex situation,” the president told reporters. “It is what it is.

“We’re not going to give up hundreds of billions of dollars in orders and let Russia, China and everybody else have them,” Trump continued. “It’s America first.”

“Our relationship with Saudi Arabia has always been transactional,” explained the American Enterprise Institute’s Danielle Pletka on NBC’s Meet the Press. “Our relationship with Saudi Arabia has always been about our larger goals in the region, not out of admiration for Saudi Arabia’s rule of law, human rights record, or anything else.”

“Transactional” is a pretty word for this foreign policy, with pretense about human rights or without.

How thankful should we be for that?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

PDF for printing

 

» See popular posts from Common Sense with Paul Jacob HERE.

 

Categories
general freedom initiative, referendum, and recall political challengers Popular

Spoiler Season

libertarian, spoiler, porcupine, snake, politics

“Libertarians poll high enough to tip key races,” informs The Washington Times — citing contests for governorships and both houses of Congress.*

Libertarian Lucy Brenton is one example, running for U.S. Senate in Indiana. She grabbed 7 percent in a recent poll, greater than the margin between incumbent Democratic Sen. Joe Donnelly, who had 44 percent, and Republican challenger Mike Braun with 40 percent. The Times says Brenton is just one of “a number of Libertarians whose poll numbers are high enough to more than account for the difference between Republicans and Democrats in key midterm races.” 

She had garnered 5.5 percent in 2016, when she sought the state’s other U.S. Senate seat. 

There is disagreement over whether Libertarians help or hurt Republicans. Most folks suspect that Libertarians take votes away from Republicans, but polling appears to show Libertarians snagging more otherwise Democrat-​inclined voters.

No matter. As often discussed here, enacting Ranked Choice Voting is the rational institutional solution to the so-​called spoiler effect Libertarians present. It’s a win-​win for both so-​called major and minor political parties. 

“Libertarians bristle at the term ‘spoiler,’” the newspaper notes, “saying it’s a belittling term for a party that presents a viable option to voters.”

Which brings me to a second solution to Libertarians luring away your voters. Steal their issues. Take them and make them your own.

There’s no law against it.

No reform required.

“Libertarians are running against President Trump’s tariffs, immigration policy and record on spending …” explains The Times, and “are embracing … less taxation as well as marijuana legalization, criminal justice reform and ending the war on drugs.”

Fresh elections. Happy voting.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* It won’t change the outcome, but on Monday the Boston Globe endorsed Libertarian Dan Fishman for state auditor, writing: “An auditor without any partisan axes to grind could shake up the state.” That’s a different kind of spoiler.

PDF for printing

 

 

Categories
Common Sense free trade & free markets government transparency insider corruption local leaders media and media people national politics & policies too much government

Never Trust a Politician

salt, lies, politicians, politics, Donald Trump, truth, economy, trade

One of my more persistent critics on this site asked, last week, why I might believe anything the current president says — considering all the lies.

For reasons of decorum I won’t repeat his exact wording.

The odd thing about the comment was not the vulgarity, though (unfortunately). It was the idea that I was relying upon belief in Donald Trump’s veracity. The whole point of my commentary regarding Trump’s handling of trade and foreign policy was to read between some lines.

I try never to believe anything … er, everything … any politician says.

In Donald Trump’s case, though, there are lies and there are fictions and there are exaggerations. And corkers … and “negotiating gambits.” Separating the wheat from the chaff from the grindstone is not always easy.

Based not only on some of what he says, but also on results-​thus-​far from the EU negotiations, Trump’s idea of “fair trade” appears to be multilateral free trade. But he has chosen a bizarre method to get there: the threat of high-​tariff protectionism — which in the past has led to multilateral protectionism, not free trade.

Trump sees everything as a contest. Trade isn’t a contest as such. It’s win-​win. But trade negotiations are contests. And Trump’s game of chicken is dangerous.

Regarding foreign policy generally, though, he seems to be playing a more familiar game: we can outspend everybody. The recent increase in Pentagon spending is bigger than Russia’s annual military budget!

So, who pays? Americans in

  1. higher taxes and 
  2. the consequences of massive debt, as well as in
  3. the higher prices from his tariffs.

That’s awfully daring of him. For us.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

PDF for printing

 

Photo from Max Pixel