Categories
crime and punishment media and media people

New York Vigil

What happened on a New York City subway train on May 1 was a tragedy: Jordan Neely died. 

Daniel Penny, 24 years old, a former Marine, has been charged with second-​degree manslaughter in Neely’s death, after prosecutors weighed the evidence following multiple protests.

Neely became unresponsive and was pronounced dead at the hospital. The medical examiner ruled his death a homicide.

“Let’s not forget that there were three people restraining him, and it is vital that the two others are also held accountable for their actions,” argued Rev. Al Sharpton. “The justice system needs to send a clear, loud message that vigilantism has never been acceptable.”

But was this “vigilantism”?  

“Penny claims he and others on the train felt threatened and did not intend to harm Neely,” reported Eyewitness News ABC7NY. Penny physically overpowered Neely “after witnesses said Neely was making threats and scaring passengers,” informed Good Morning America, “but that there was no indication that he was violent.”

Good night! Making threats is one of the foremost indicators of coming violence.

“Officials and friends say Neely struggled with homelessness and mental illness for years,” noted CBS Mornings, “and he worked as a Michael Jackson impersonator.”

Missing from the CBS coverage — and so many other stories — was the fact that, as CNN disclosed, “Neely had a lengthy arrest record … including 42 arrests … and three unprovoked assaults on women in the subway between 2019 and 2021.”

Three. Assaults on women. In the subway.

As one attorney put it, NYC prosecutor Alvin Bragg must now prove that Daniel Penny “recklessly caused the death of Jordan Neely.”

There is little doubt Penny caused the death but was his impulse “reckless” … or responsible

Thank goodness for the right to trial by jury.

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
ideological culture media and media people

Queen’s Color Guard

Does it matter that Netflix will premiere, on May 10, a “docudrama” depicting Cleopatra VII Philopator as black?

She was, after all, a direct descendent of a Macedonian general — and pal of Alexander the Great — “Ptolemy the Savior.” 

European, in other words. White.

Anthony Brian Logan, a conservative African-​American YouTube commentator, notes Netflix’s woke race-​swapping as habit, a trend — which he takes as a “meme” and a “joke” — with the most egregious recent example being Anne Bolyn being portrayed as a “sub-​Saharan African woman.” Mr. Logan argues that this “is the equivalent of casting Tom Hanks to play Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.”

Cannot we have movies “that make some kind of sense”?

The answer may be No; the reason, not at all mysterious. 

After all, race hustlers and ideologues have been spewing out misinformation about ancient Africa for a long time, trying to get ignorant, public-​school-​educated Americans to think of “the dark continent” as a place of one race.

I’m sure many people, reading the above, might wonder if the Ptolemies might not have inter-​married native Egyptians. Well, the Egyptians weren’t sub-​Saharan blacks, either. They were basically lighter-​skinned Mediterranean types. 

But, as Anthony Brian Logan observes, previews of the upcoming series have darkened up some images, suggesting that the producers (one of whom is Will Smith’s notorious wife, Jada Pinkett Smith) may be messing with us. Nevertheless, the big issue remains the “underlying effort to try to change historical fact.”

“Who controls the past controls the future,” Orwell wrote. “Who controls the present controls the past.”

Race isn’t really the issue. It’s lying. For political reasons.

And yes, it matters.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and DALL-E2

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
folly general freedom ideological culture

The Wreckage of Racism

In the “urban forests” of our nation’s capital, several abandoned autos have been discovered. Which can mean only one thing: racism

“Deserted cars may be driving a type of racism,” The Washington Post headlined its take.*

The paper introduces readers to Nathan Harrington, executive director of the Ward 8 Woods Conservancy, who has discovered four decaying automobiles in those woods. 

No one knows how the cars got there. 

All that is known is that their presence is, well, racist

Blacks make up 87 percent of Ward 8’s population, one of the most heavily black areas of the city. “Advocates,” explains The Post, “call this neglect of Black neighborhoods ‘environmental racism.’”

An assistant professor of sociology and environmental studies at Boston College is offered to explain that, as The Post paraphrases, “environmental racism is linked to ‘racial capitalism’ — the idea that the economic value of a person is based on their race.”

And to think I was worrying that those rusting vehicles might be leaching dangerous elements into our environment!

“It’s deliberate inaction on the part of the agencies that control that land,” complains Harrington. Believable enough, on the surface, but we are presented with no specifics as to who has refused to help.

Nor are we provided any evidence that this failure of the DC government, if it even is one, can legitimately be ascribed to racial bias.

 The District of Columbia’s mayor happens to be black, as are eight of 13 city council members.

When four rusted-​out cars in the woods become front-​page fodder to focus on systemic racism, it seems things are looking up.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


* This punny headline adorned the dead-​tree edition. Online, the article’s headline is: “‘Environmental racism’ and the mysterious cars rusting in D.C. woods.”

PDF for printing

Illustration created with DALL-​E2 and Midjourney

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
education and schooling general freedom ideological culture

Inherent Racism of Racism

New Hampshire bans public school teachers from telling kids they’re inherently racist or oppressive because of unchosen traits like skin color.

Some lawmakers want to overturn the ban.

The debated law, Right to Freedom from Discrimination in Public Workplaces and Education, is imperfect. But we live in a world where some taxpayer-​funded educators, inspired by noxious doctrines like critical race theory, are eager to accuse students of being inherently racist or sexist or oppressive.

Obviously, though, moral wrongdoing is something chosen. One doesn’t commit it merely by having a certain hue, gender, or ancestors.

So how can one reasonably object to a provision stating that “No government program shall teach [that] an individual, by virtue of his or her age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, [etc.] is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously”?

The law itself stresses that it’s not to be interpreted as prohibiting discussion of “the historical existence of ideas and subjects” like racism. Nevertheless, critics falsely claim that the law bans classroom discussion of racism as such. And their repeal bill, HB61, seeks not to perfect the current law but to repeal all sections “relative to the right to freedom from discrimination in public workplaces and education.”

New Hampshire lawmaker Jim Kofalt rightly reminds proponents of HB61 of the vision of Martin Luther King, a future where his children would “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustrations created with Midjourney and DALL-​E2

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
free trade & free markets media and media people too much government

Time & Tide & Race

The big news? Daylight Saving Time may soon be history. “The American Academy of Sleep Medicine, the Sleep Research Society and other medical groups have advocated for ending the practice, calling for the adoption of a permanent standard time that would not involve shifting forward each spring and falling back each autumn.”

That’s an important organizational voice for getting rid of Congress’s current jury-​rigging scheme for commerce and recreation in America.

It has costs. Imposed on us. On our sleep patterns.

But the passage quoted from CNN was not the news angle that the “Cable News Network” story, by Jacqueline Howard, emphasized.

The deleterious effects of lurching back and forth twice a year is not what CNN headlined. The fact (and commonsense conjecture) that these bi-​annual shifts are bad for us? Not as interesting as that it could all be racist.

The title of Howard’s piece is “Daylight Saving Time sheds light on lack of sleep’s disproportionate impact in communities of color.”

The key piece of information? “Growing evidence shows that lack of sleep and sleep disorders, such as obstructive sleep apnea, remain more prevalent in Black, Asian, and Hispanic or Latino communities, and these inequities can have long-​term detrimental implications for physical health, even raising the risk of certain chronic diseases.”

If true, this is a political reason to get the Social Engineering Class to finally balk at the pseudo-​Saving chronometer-​jiggering laws.

But what does that say about said class? (A class not limited to, but somehow paradigmatically represented by, Democrats?) That they don’t care about the harm they do unless it can be shown to accrue predominantly to racial minorities?

There’s something sick here, oddly racist.

But we can accept this nonsense for the win, if it helps stop our ritual springing forward and falling back.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with DALL-​E2

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
education and schooling general freedom

Federally Funded Racism

Can one cosponsor a racially discriminatory program without having any idea of its nature, even if this is implied by the program’s very name?

The University of Oklahoma and other universities are cosponsors of the Oklahoma Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation, a program funded by the National Science Foundation that requires beneficiaries be members of certain minority groups: “African American, Hispanic, Native American, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander.”

The Alliance’s goal is to “increase recruitment, enrollment, and retention of minority students in STEM [science, technology, engineering, and math] programs.”

Because of the program’s discriminatory criteria, the group Do No Harm has filed civil rights complaints against a dozen Oklahoma universities. Its leader, Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, points out that the terms of the federally funded program “specifically exclude white students, students from middle eastern countries, and Asian students.… [B]ut it is illegal to engage in such discrimination based on race.”

When first asked about the complaint, the University of Oklahoma declined comment. But after The College Fix site reported on the matter, OU spokesman Jacob Guthrie said that the university’s site had been amended to reflect the fact that any student may apply, insisting also that the program “has never been restricted by race.”

It sure looks to me as if OU officials, like those of Ithaca College (subject to a similar federal complaint in October), are now suddenly worried about legal consequences. 

Anyway, Do No Harm’s filing is already doing good, helping to re-​establish that old liberal idea that governments must not discriminate on grounds of race.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with DALL‑E 2

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts