Libera Voce

“What would men be without women? Scarce, sir…mighty scarce.”  Mark Twain

My grandparents came from Cefalu in Sicily in the late 19C. Eventually they came to Staten Island, started a business, and had nine children. None of that would have happened without women; if you asked them if they knew what the difference was between a man and a woman, they had nine answers, one of whom was my father. If you asked him the same question, he had seven answers, and I was one of them.

These were common sense people who worked hard for a living and made families, and never for one moment had any confusion about how they did it. If you don’t know what I mean then you don’t understand biology…and unfortunately, you’re not alone. As Mark Twain also famously said, “The two most important days in your life are the day you’re born and the day you find out why.” You had little to do with the day you were born as your parents took care of that, and likely were the same people who got you to understand why.

Eventually all human beings come to understand the human biology of life but there was never a guarantee of course that every human being would do so the same way; given the variables in religion, sexuality and personality there would be differences among us all, and consequently the opportunity for conflict driven by intolerance of anyone who did not conform to what society deemed “normal”. This was much the case in the 80’s with the HIV/AIDS pandemic, with many people blaming gays and lesbians when in fact it affected everyone through sexual contact.

However, the gay and lesbian community were not confused about the difference between a man and a woman as that was the very basis for their preference in sexual partners; the public intolerance expressed against them was based on medical and biological ignorance, and the social stigma of being different. Thankfully, much progress both socially and medically has been made since those times, and no thanks to Dr. Anthony Fauci who, as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) was not only slow in response but an obstructionist to the development of treatments versus cures, which delayed development of treatments causing much unnecessary suffering and death.  

The delusion regarding biological sex also started in the 80’s, although there were cases of horrible experiments decades earlier on mostly children to see if biological sex in humans could be altered; we know it today as transgenderism. This has nothing to do with a person’s preference for sexual partners but is based on a psychological dysphoria regarding what sex a person claims they are contrary to biological reality; it is such a perversion against rational behavior that transgenderism is actually a form of “menticide”, the destruction of a person’s mind or sanity.

The development among some in the medical, psychological, and most alarmingly, educational professions in defense of transgenderism only contributes to the normalization of gender dysphoria; add to this both political and media coverage in support of transgenderism, and we have a serious societal dilemma. The horror of this social contagion is particularly egregious when it involves minors, including cases in public schools where parents are intentionally restricted from being informed about a student’s claims regarding transgenderism.

Then we have the ludicrous development of enforcing the participation of transgender men competing in women’s sports, a clear violation of women’s rights, and what should be a criminal practice of putting women in harms way, especially in allowing biological men in women’s locker rooms and bathrooms. That there are “progressive” politicians that support such obviously unfair and unsafe practices exposes the total lack of decency and common sense among them. Thankfully, there are signs of change for the better, especially with the International Olympic Committee (IOC) recently ruling that an athlete’s biological sex determines competition eligibility.

While only 0.5% to 1% of adults identify as transgender, and about 1.4% to 3.3% of young people do, it’s curious that this delusion has become such a dominant issue. In research by Lisa Littman, a physician and professor of behavioral science at Brown University, found that most young people who claimed to be transgender or “non-binary” were influenced by peers and social media, which has had a significant impact on mental illness including transgenderism; this is not a natural organic experience, but a delusion that rejects the reality of biological sex. Those that see transgenderism as a delusion are met with accusations of “transphobia”, a common example of the elitism pervasive in American society dismissive of anything contrary to their world view.

“Transgenderism is the only mental illness demanding that the rest of society adopt the patient’s delusion as part of the patient’s treatment.” Dr. Paul McHugh, Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, John Hopkins School of Medicine

“If we would learn what the human race really is at bottom, we need only observe it in election times.” Mark Twain

As we approach the midterm elections, we have an example of what Mark Twain was talking about, and the bottom may have been reached (no guarantee) with which party can out do the other with gerrymandering; Texas, California, Viginia, Missouri, Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, and counting, have broken with tradition of redistricting only after a census cycle with which to base changes in populations. Although not a new political gimmick as it started back in 1812 in Massachusetts, it is an obvious political manipulation by allowing politicians to select their voters rather than voters choosing their representatives.

The U.S. Constitution does not address the practice of gerrymandering directly; it does require a census every 10 years to apportion House representatives based on population, necessitating redistricting; it requires that electoral districts be geographically contiguous and nearly equal in population as possible. The Supreme Court has not ruled definitively in the past, other than to say that gerrymandering presents political questions beyond the reach of federal courts. However, there have been cases and decisions in the federal courts which regulated gerrymandering under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, which prohibits racial discrimination in redistricting.

Now we have the Supreme Court ruling of April 29^th in Louisiana v. Callais that found its proposed redistricting an unconstitutional racial gerrymander; looking at the proposed redistricting, we are struck by the similar circumstances of the 1812 redistricting map from which gerrymandering got its name. Then Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts contrived a redistricting whose shape was so odd that it was likened to a salamander, and a new political term was born. Now if you add race to the issue, you create an even more grotesque political practice.

Gerrymandering is bad enough but basing it on race is like treating people like cattle in a herd to be moved around to meet a specific electoral quota; it is so dehumanizing that it’s difficult to believe there are Democratic Party members in Congress who are outraged by the recent SCOTUS decision and actually support racial gerrymandering. That said, we should not be surprised by this as race has become just as much a political weapon as it was in the Jim Crow era, except now it’s mostly used by those who pretend to be defenders of minorities, while they use them as political pawns to their advantage. This is not something that is intended to unite a nation already so divided by such extreme partisan rhetoric.

“Our children and grandchildren may yet curse the day we began hyping race and ethnicity. There are countries where that has led to slaughters in the streets but you cannot name a country where it has led to greater harmony.” Thomas Sowell

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” Sun Tzu

In my last blog I spoke to a resolution of my conflicted view of the Iranian War, specifically how I have accepted that there are two results that are in conflict with themselves; the good one being the near destruction of Iran’s ability to continue its wars of terror, the bad one being the refusal of the Supreme Court to rule on the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The later is not just applicable to the Iranian War, but applied also to the Iraqi and Afghanistan War, and a score of other military actions by various presidents that were blatantly unconstitutional, riddled with false flags.

What needs further discussion about the Iranian War is the reason for it, which has been the mantra of nearly every administration since the Iranian Revolution of 1979 that established the Islamic Republic, and that is that they can’t be allowed to ever possess a nuclear weapon; given their decades long history of state sponsored terrorism, this is a perfectly rational policy. The problem with this policy is how to effect it, which has confounded the world for over fifty years; despite appeasement, bribery and threats, nothing has ever worked, until recently with an operation known as “Midnight Hammer”.

Having destroyed and buried both the nuclear material and the ability to enrich it to weapons grade under the mountain of rubble known as the Isfahan Nuclear Technology/Research Center (INTC), the US demonstrated the ability to do so then, and anytime in the future that Iran seeks to restore it or operate similarly elsewhere. This was a true case of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (WMD), unlike the false flag from the Bush administrations to justify the Iraqi Wars, but to then embark on the military action known as “Epic Fury” given the success of “Midnight Hammer” constitutes yet another false flag.

According to Merriman Webster, “A false flag is a hostile, harmful, or dramatic action designed to look as though it was perpetrated by someone other than the actual person or group responsible.” Further “In modern contexts, it refers to covert operations, political, or military activities orchestrated to manipulate perception, justify aggression, or create sympathy.” Again, I have total disgust for the Iranian regime that currently controls Iran, but even under the regrettable War Powers Resolution of 1973, and having established the irresistible force of American air power with “Midnight Hammer”, I see no “clear and present danger” to justify “Epic Fury”, the consequences of which are and will continue to cause economic and political harm to the American people.

The economic harm is not only with rising energy prices due to supply and demand, but with creating economic uncertainty and increased deficit spending. The political harm is providing cover to those, both foreign and domestic, who are always looking for ways to denigrate America; starting a fight without an exit strategy is risky enough, but failure to address the unintended consequences will provide your political enemies with the means to defeat you. What was considered a difficult midterm election historically, may now turn into a regrettable certainty for success for what has become a very violently radicalized Democratic Party.

The best exit strategy for the Trump administration now is to end this war really soon, by whatever means necessary; apparently his military advisers have given him various options to do so, and we can only hope that he will come to realize the wisdom in this. The blockade would work if there was a rational regime in Iran, but unless some miracle occurs that is unlikely to change; hope is not a plan, so stop the fantasy about negotiating with lunatics, seize the means of their survival known as Kharg Island and the Straits of Hormuz, and get back to attending to the domestic policies that serve the interest of the American people who are your sole source of potential success in the midterms…otherwise beware of what Ron Paul cautioned:

“What if the American people woke up and understood that the official reasons for going to war are almost always based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests?”

“If you don’t read the newspapers you are uninformed. If you do read them you are misinformed.” Mark Twain

We all have at times found ourselves conflicted with what we read and hear in the news, and the war with Iran is no exception. This is true regardless of our political views, provided we are objective. I found myself conflicted about the war with Iran principally based on my libertarian perspective regarding the constitution. For a while I was unable to resolve my fear and disgust of the Iranian terrorist regime and my dedication and trust of the constitutional dictate that only the American people, through their congress, have the power to wage war.

What came to mind as a way to think this through was Milton Friedman’s famous quote that “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” I am no fan of Trump, but I also disdain TDS as an intellectual wasteland where the focus is on his personality rather than the results of his actions. This led me to work through my conflicts with the war in reverse, i.e., start with the results, which in this case any rational person would consider the destruction of a terrorist group to be a good thing. The empirical evidence that this is the case has been illustrated over and over again for decades by this death culture that has made clear in their own words their intent to kill anyone who disagrees with them.

Knowing what I have read and heard from some politicians and the news who have referenced Article I of the Constitution regarding war powers as evidence that this war is unconstitutional, I on the one hand agree, but apparently that is not the case with the Supreme Court. Starting in 1983, there have been a number of cases filed with SCOTUS challenging the War Powers Resolution of 1973, whose intent was to limit presidential war powers, but the results were that it constructed the protocol under which the president could proceed with a war without Congressional authorization. In all cases SCOTUS declined to rule on its legality because it involved settling disputes between branches of government, dismissing such cases as political questions to be resolved among those parties. Personally, I find SCOTUS at fault since its job is to rule in cases involving constitutional matters.

Therefore, I have no choice than to conclude that, while I do not agree with SCOTUS, and as Trump has so far met the requirements of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, I am left only with the results, and the frustration that once again we the people have been deprived of the protection of our constitution. That said, I have resolved my conflict as I realize that I will have to deal with two results that are contradictory, i.e., the destruction of much of this terrorist groups ability to kill, which is a good thing, and the apparent disregard of SCOTUS to protect our constitution, which is a bad thing.

This conflict among the three branches of our government will continue eroding the distinctions among them, including the possibility of more cases being referred to SCOTUS which will be dismissed, likely another episode of Articles of Impeachment, which will resolve nothing, and more executive action in war. While we lament the partisan divide, we should pay more attention to the erosion of the constitutional structure regarding the separation of powers, especially as they have become something never intended under the constitution.

“The Three Branches of Government are Money, Television, and Bullshit.” P. J. O’Rourke

“The individualist recognizes the limitations of the powers of individual reason and consequently advocates freedom.” Friedrich Hayek

What Hayek is basically saying is that an independent and objective person will put aside their own reasoned conclusions on issues that affect the rights of others, a principle such people practice that no one has the right to coerce another to their way of thinking. In my prior post I referenced “Groupthink”, a term first coined by Irving Janis, a Yale psychologist in 1971, which described a phenomenon that demands abandoning reason all together in favor of whatever narrative of the day is in vogue, while it demonizes those that think for themselves. It is very similar to George Orwell’s “Doublethink” in 1984 which was intended to repress critical thinking.

Friedrich Hayek was awarded the 1974 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences; his work in monetary theory and his analysis of the interrelationship of economics and social behavior was in stark contrast to the collectivist politics of the modern era. Conversely, “Groupthink” is contrary to the practice of critical thinking as Hayek used in his research and analysis, a phenomenon based on faith which we should be skeptical of, and which Richard Dawkins, the famous British evolutionary biologist aptly defines as “Faith is belief without evidence and reason; coincidentally that’s also the definition of delusion.”

I very much doubt that Hayek would have won the Nobel in this current environment of collectivist euphoria; groupthink relies on narratives to be effective in enlisting, motivating, and mobilizing people to act in support of a cause, or against whoever is identified as the enemy of a cause. Historically it does not have to rely on a majority of a society to be effective as was the case in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy; it can be effective by a minority through intimidation or the majority’s apathy or ambivalence about the cause. Its main problem arises when someone calls out the fallacies in their narrative; the consistent reaction when that happens is to silence those that dare to do so, as if silencing an argument is the same thing as winning one.

Groupthink is like a virus, constantly mutating to avoid the antidotes created by reason and facts; critical thinking on the other hand is the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment. The goal of critical thinking is to discover the truth, which psychologically is beneficial for mental health; groupthink demands that you accept lies as truths, which is the basis for the current crisis in mental health, especially among the young. The narratives that Groupthink relies on are like using story telling as a substitute for critical thinking, making it the antithesis of logic and reason.

“To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.” Thomas Paine

“The word politics comes from poly, meaning many, and ticks, meaning bloodsucking parasites.” Larry Hardiman

I recently came across the above quote when looking for a concise definition of the word parasite but could not find out more about the author of this witty word play. I did find a concise but far less humorous definition in the Meriam Webster dictionary that a parasite was “An organism living in, on, or with another organism in order to obtain nutrients, grow, or multiply often in a state that directly or indirectly harms the host.”

In listening to the latest moronic ideas from the growing socialist faction of the Democratic Party and their problems in finding ways to fund them, it becomes apparent that without the benefits of a free market, specifically the creation of wealth, they would not have the means to do so, or in other words socialism requires a host to feed off, like a parasite. Thomas Sowell described the narrative that the politicians of the Democratic Socialist faction use very effectively when he said that “Few skills are so rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims.”

There’s nothing new with socialism, even when it is dressed up with the prefix “Democratic”, and there is nothing new about how historically it has consistently failed. Regardless of the many names socialism has been given, or any version of it that has been proposed, it is not concerned with the creation of wealth, only the distribution of it; in all cases the consistent theme from politicians advocating for it is the promise of free stuff like education, health care, transportation, and whatever else that will entice those with a childish sense of entitlement to what they have not earned.

This post is not so much about the economic fallacies of socialism, even though when asked the vast majority of its proponents can’t provide a coherent economic definition of what it means; it’s about the political manipulations that create the opportunities socialism requires. While events such as the Russian Revolution are examples of direct violent action to create the totalitarianism socialism needs to function, the current paradigm is to do it politically by vote; as Ayn Rand insightfully observed, “It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.”

Recently, Zohran Mamdani in his speech celebrating his one-hundred-day anniversary as NYC mayor said, “I have thought often of the Margaret Thatcher quote, ‘The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.’ If anything, it seems you eventually need a socialist to clean up the mess.” The more you think about this statement, the less sense that it makes. On the one hand it recognizes the reality in Thatcher’s statement given NYC’s budget deficit, which is now greater than during the Great Recession, while at the same time stating it takes a socialist to fix the problem with policies that created the problem to begin with.

This is the very nature of what is called “Democratic Socialism”; by linking democracy with socialism, it provides the proof for Karl Marx’s political thesis that “Democracy is the road to Socialism.” The people of NYC voted for this, illustrating that reality; it has been the socialist policies of the Democratic Party that have created the Democratic Socialist faction. It is an example of “Groupthink”, the psychological phenomenon of entitlement where desire for what belongs to others overrides critical analysis, like the robotic reaction of parasites.

“Socialism is groupthink. How uninformed in history do you have to be to advocate for groupthink?” A.E. Samaan

“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” Buddha

There are so many ideas that are obviously false yet irrationally accepted because they support some ridiculous narrative that ignores or hides the fact in plain sight that there is a total lack of common sense. Mark Twain once said that “Humor is the good natured side of truth.” This is a common theme among America’s great common sense thinkers who wrote their observations of such phenomena that are not only accurate, but despite being ominous, are also humorous. Here are some examples:

“I was educated once; it took me years to get over it.” Mark Twain

There is no diploma for common sense, and quite often what our educational institutions are teaching our children is not how to think, but what to think, reducing learning to propaganda. This happens with history, biology, economics, race…just about all facets of human knowledge that leave our children in a confused and catastrophic frame of mind, yet we wonder at the rise in mental health issues among the young causing dysfunctional behavior.

“All I know is just what I read in the papers, and that’s an alibi for my ignorance.” Will Rogers

Rogers had that rare gift of seeing the humor in the idiotic things happening all around us where most people were never even aware of them; his easy going style providing funny insights as a social commentator brought him much fame during the Great Depression at a time when journalism, like today, was more about narrative than news. In recent international surveys of people in various countries regarding their trust in mass and social media, Americans were among the least trusting; perhaps that’s a good thing.

“When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment feels like discrimination.” Thomas Sowell

This beacon of common sense is such a keen social observer, brilliant economist and prolific writer even at the young age of 96; he insightfully attributes the affliction of entitlement to those that create it by manipulating outcomes as a source of victimization, an age-old political tool so contrary to the concept of equality.

“If you think health care is expensive now, just wait ’til it’s free.” P. J. O’Rourke

America lost this beacon of intelligent journalism four years ago, but his voluminous work provides so much of the timeless wisdom of common sense we so urgently need today. He was one of the first to understand that the Affordable Care Act had nothing to do with affordability and everything to do with the cronyism inherent in government regulated health care, which has now become so critical both economically and medically.

“Socialism only works in two places; Heaven where they don’t need it and Hell where they already have it!” Ronald Reagan

This from the President who finally brought an end to the Cold War, a period of time when wars were not so “cold” or legal, like the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Reagan was called the “Great Communicator” for his clear, direct and common sense stand against the socialist regimes that proliferated much of the world. Unfortunately, history has repeated itself again with the help of many “useful idiots” promoting that failed ideology that should have been permanently discarded to the intellectual sewers from which it came.

“The only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn’t get worse every time Congress meets.”  Will Rogers

I could not resist including another one of Roger’s gems because no matter what is promised or who we elect we have come to know that what he said is so true, except for one recent development about death – governments want more and more of the money the deceased may have left their families, money that had already been taxed, and making the loss even more of a burden for the survivors.

“There is no greater indictment of judges than the fact that honest people are afraid to go into court, while criminals swagger out of its revolving door.” Thomas Sowell

Given the tragic phenomenon of a failed judiciary regarding crime, I could not ignore Sowell’s ominous and perhaps not so humorous but accurate observation. There are so many examples of this that to just list them would take more time than what many of these criminals deserve behind bars. Common sense tells us that while this is unsustainable, it is ultimately the existential threat to our society; crime doesn’t pay, its victims do.

“Free speech is too dangerous to a democracy to be permitted” H. L. Mencken

Mencken could be accused of being a cynic, but never for missing the obvious, and with satirical skill calling it out. One of the most essential and sacred rights that our constitution protects, and an essential element of natural law embraced by our republic is free speech; however, simple observation of what is going on in American society today, especially in politics, provides the reality that a majority, or even a strong minority, can easily punish those who disagree with it.

“Common sense and a sense of humor are the same thing, moving at different speeds.  A sense of humor is just common sense, dancing.” William James

This last quote I find to be the most positive and essential part of common sense as it gives us a sense of humor, even about what might otherwise cause us to despair.

“Common sense is genius dressed in its working clothes.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

On balance, considering all the political pundits, candidates, advocates, journalists, and party apparatchiks, why is there so little common sense? The current vocabulary describing the spectrum of political doctrines in the US today tends to be about some linear direction to the left or right, with who are called “moderates” somewhere in the center of an imaginary neutral point between the two extremes; it appears to be a movable point as the extremes become more or less radical. This paradigm tells us little other than whose narrative has the most influence at any particular time; it does not provide a factual context to determine that it represents any common sense, which instead tends to deepen the partisan divide rather than promote civil discourse.

If the narratives are subjected to verifiable observation or experience rather than emotion, prejudice or theory, we should be able to see if there is any common sense to them; unfortunately there’s not much of that available with most mass and social media, but that does not mean common sense people can’t determine this for themselves, and in fact would be better off doing so. Recent polls showed the average American IQ at about 95, whereas the minimum for someone to be considered “intelligent” is 100, and a genius at 140 or better; the definition of intelligence is the ability to derive information from experience, adapt to the environment, and understand and correctly utilize thought and reason. That’s informative but why do Americans fall short…or do they?

While there’s controversy about IQ tests given accusations they are tainted by political prejudice, we can ignore that since common sense by definition (see last post) is “foundational”, meaning “common” with being human; this was considered radical back in the day that Aquinas, and later Locke wrote about natural rights. To test if the “Enlightenment” writers were right, let’s consider some common problems Americans need to solve today.

Consider immigration for example. As a factual matter, by “Americans” means US citizens, because citizens of other countries are not by definition Americans. Immigrating to another country for whatever reason means you chose to live in that other country; in doing so you should understand that you have become subject to its laws, customs, and societal norms, but if not then why immigrate? One of the narratives in support of open immigration is “multiculturalism”, a concept devoid of any common sense. Culture is a societal characteristic reflecting its history from which it developed. While there have been various eras of immigration in America’s history from all parts of the world, for the most part assimilation was key providing acceptance by those who came before and a civil evolution to citizenship for those immigrating. There have been over 170 immigration laws passed by Congress, which tells us that immigration is one of the most important phenomena in American history.

When Biden claimed that he needed Congressional action to provide him the executive power to enforce immigration laws, given the scope and breadth of legislative history common sense told us that was simply not true; the laws are there, but the agenda by his administration and party was so obviously focused on changing the composition of the American electorate with massive infusions of “illegal aliens”. The term “illegal aliens” originated about a century ago during a high immigration period; it is now attacked as politically incorrect as we are lectured to use the term “Undocumented Americans” in the promotion of a concept called “Multiculturalism”. Again, common sense tells us that this is just so much more word salad; if you are an American, that means you are a US citizen, so the term “undocumented” does not apply, and yes, there are likely as many cultures as there are countries, including American culture.

While the process of immigration and assimilation has influenced the development of American culture, particularly in music and cuisine, multiculturalism does not mean what we are told it means. As the well known and respected journalist George Will insightfully observed, “Multiculturalism is a campaign to lower America’s moral status by defining the American experience in terms of myriad repressions and their victims. By rewriting history, and by using name calling (Racist! Sexist! Homophobe!) to inhibit debate, multiculturalists cultivate grievances, self-pity and claims to entitlements arising from victimization.”

These are facts, and there is nothing more insidious to common sense than pretending otherwise in support of narratives. The same goes for the deployment of ICE agents as we are told that they are directed to first attend to the deportation of immigrants with criminal records; while it’s true that entering the US illegally is in itself a criminal act, common sense also tells us that the sheer numbers of illegal aliens entering the US during the last administration requires a focus on those representing a threat to the safety and security of Americans first and foremost. However, what we have also seen is some pretty blanket sweeps in immigrant neighborhoods, sometimes of people who have been here for a long time; what we have also seen is the ludicrous practice of state and local politicians obstructing enforcement of federal laws as the constitution reserves immigration as the sole domain of the Federal government. I hate to say it, but common sense tells us that we need to have yet a new immigration law that attends to these issues, but don’t bet on that happening.

The idea that diversity is intellectually important is inconsistent with common sense if the narratives about it demand compliance to whatever perspective is promoted, even to the extent of suppressing speech that is a contrary perspective; if there are no other perspectives allowed, then all perspectives are intellectual dead weight. The intellectual value of a true diversity of perspectives makes it more likely that the truth will not be overlooked, or in common sense terms, we can judge what the facts are. It is also common sense that judgement will not always be right, leading at times to making bad decisions, and that experience will be the feedback that tells us when that happens; that in itself is just plain common sense, and there will be more of that in future posts.

“Good decisions come from experience. Experience comes from making bad decisions.”  Mark Twain

“Common sense is a foundational level of sound judgment, practical reasoning, and everyday knowledge that allows individuals to navigate daily life, solve problems, and make decisions without specialized training. It relies on shared social norms, experiences, and cause-and-effect understanding. It is often defined as generally accessible intelligence and has historical roots in Aristotelian concepts of shared human perception.”

This excerpt from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary so clearly and concisely defines this phenomenon we call common sense; it has no reference to education, but relies on experience, perception and logic. As the great late 19C writer and orator Robert Ingersoll observed “It is a thousand times better to have common sense without education than to have education without common sense.” Ingersoll also was an advocate for Americans to read and understand Thomas Paine’s role in unifying the American colonies with his famous essay in a pamphlet appropriately titled “Common Sense”. It was common sense that Thomas Paine relied on when he offered his reasons for advocating for the American colonies to rebel against Great Britain.

Historically, Americans were by necessity a practical people who sought to resolve their differences rather than fight about them. However, that didn’t always happen; ever since America’s inception, its social structure was fractured politically, leading to the bloodiest war in its history; so polarized were the political opponents represented by the Democratic and Republican parties that violence was inevitable. It is hard today for us to understand how, on a common sense level, anyone could defend slavery; what we know of those in the Democratic led South that did, is that they saw the Republican led North as an aggressor against their “way-of-life” and violators of the constitutional guarantee of “states’ rights”.

Here we are about to celebrate our 250^th year as a Republic, and still with a similar dilemma. Politically, the American electorate is now about 40% independents, and about even between the two main parties, which means the largest sector of voters are skeptical about any political party’s claims to the principles of a republic as they have proven contrary to how they govern; their failed policies have brought us forever wars, egregious debt greater now than our GDP, chronic inflation, high crime, dysfunctional educational institutions, and ludicrous crisis mongering. Throwing out mindless labels like fascist, extremist, radical, racist or whatever the current narrative dictates demonstrates a lack of thoughtful consideration of the issues, a fig leaf to cover the essence of a problem and a sure-fire way to perpetuate the polarizing partisanship we claim we want to cure.

So how about some common sense, OK? If we rely on common sense regarding what’s going on, we first have to find out what that is; it sounds like common sense, nothing new except that over time our reliance on mass and social media has increased dramatically, creating the opportunity for prejudicial journalism, if not disinformation. We must listen to a lot of noise in the news, and attempt to distill from it whose position has more or less common sense, and without even thinking about Trump, Newsome, Schumer, Cruz, and the rest of the political pantheon all struggling for oxygen in the rarefied air of the power elite, none of whom seem to be aware that we have a constitution so you don’t have to rely on your egos to know the rules.

How about the rule that only Congress can legislate a tax like tariffs? How about the common sense that only American citizens can vote? How about the rule that protects free speech? How about the common sense that as a species humans know the difference between male and female? How about the rule that you are elected to serve your constituents first, not your party. How about the common sense that living beyond your means brings trouble? How about the rule that only Congress can declare war? Oh, I forgot that Congress passed a law about limiting presidential war powers that actually provides for the president to go to war! I would dare anyone to advise us where the common sense is in that, except for the fact that the Supreme Court found that law constitutional! In every one of the above examples there is no common sense, yet politicians will claim that there’s a wrong they must right, or an emergency to address, some crisis to provide cover for what we all know is nonsense; this is what Aristotle calls “a shared human perception” for what is universally considered BS.

I am not proposing that there are no Republicans or Democrats that have common sense, and therein lies the existential problem with political parties – those in power appear to owe more to the party than to the principles under which they were elected and sworn to defend; there are exceptions like John Fetterman and Rand Paul, but too few to mention. Regardless of the narratives we are given, the political process is not about good governance as it has degenerated into the chaos of power struggles; you don’t need common sense in a power struggle – what you need is anything that hurts your opponent, regardless of collateral damage.

So how does an independent navigate through all the narratives, lies and rants that serve as news today? The only common sensible way is to ignore all that and focus only on actions and consequences, or cause and effect. In addition to all that’s going on today, we have the ludicrous American phenomenon of what we call the midterm elections where the outcome has traditionally been the opposite of what created the administration we just voted in. There’s no common sense having the distraction of political campaigns so often, especially since the content itself are promises so seldom kept, and especially now given the dysfunctional situation created by a mindless government shutdown about funding that has already taken place with a bill that was already agreed to. What we have here is the perfect storm of power plays whose collateral damage falls on the very people these dumbocrats and moronocans are sworn to serve and protect. More to come next post on the status of our common sense, or lack of it.

“The heresy of heresies was common sense.” George Orwell, 1984

“History doesn’t repeat itself, it just rhymes.”  Mark Twain

This old quote is so often repeated that we would think society should have come to terms by now with how to avoid repeating the same mistakes; while Twain understood that events are never identical, he wrote often about society’s repeated behavior in similar situations. Given our historical resources, why does society so often get on the wrong side of history; it’s like failing an open book test, a sure sign of willful ignorance. Cynically, Sigmund Freud dismissed it all as “History is just new people making old mistakes.” When we hear Mamdani, Sanders and AOC speak in support of socialism, they ignore the historical reality of the inevitable failure of centrally planned economies; these are the voices of ignorance using words cloaked in deceptive labels like “progressive” or “democratic” in order to make us think that somehow this time things will be different.

You don’t have to be an economist to understand on a commonsense level that debt is not a good thing, that deficits are unsustainable, and that nothing is free as someone always pays; but here we are with so many politicians telling us the opposite of what common sense, and history tells us is just not so. The legacy media reports about polls that show there are many Americans who think that socialism is a good thing, while at the same time so many are concerned about saving democracy; is this a contradiction or an insight into the relationship between the two? The very word “history” comes from the ancient Greek word for “inquiry”, or “witness”, meaning to know something by investigation or actually being part of it; the former relies on those who have written about being a part of it because we weren’t, and the latter relies on our understanding of what’s going on around us. Thomas Sowell observed that “One of the most important reasons for studying history is that virtually every stupid idea that is in vogue today has been tried before and proved disastrous before, time and again. Do we need to keep repeating the same mistakes forever?”

Is such repetition the definition of insanity as Einstein noted or is there something else at play that brings society time again to the same dismal result when socialism is embraced? Heinlein made a very insightful observation when he said that “A generation which ignores history has no past and no future.” I think he’s really on to something there, although it’s not so much that recent generations “ignore” history, it’s more that prior generations failed to educate them about it, or even worse, to rewrite it in support of some narrative. These narratives are constructed on a very facetious and fallacious concept called “Presentism”, i.e., judging the past based on current standards and values; this creates a very distorted context as it’s not the one that existed at the time of past events, leading to prejudices based on ignorance.

There are politicians who use language to disguise socialism’s inherent authoritarianism with labels like “Democratic Socialism”; this is just to create an illusion that somehow you can have freedom while you destroy it. According to Karl Marx, “Democracy is the road to socialism.”; maybe that’s less an illusion for socialism than a delusion about democracy, a system of government that operates on the premise that your individual rights don’t exist because you are outnumbered. For some politicians, the fear of losing power underlies the anger they direct at those who expose their failure to perform the foremost existential responsibility for government to begin with, which is the safety and security of the citizens they are sworn to protect.

Change is not synonymous with progress. During the 60’s and 70’s, things changed; while we didn’t have ANTIFA or HAMAS, we did have SDS, and the PLO. While free speech was all the rage, there was also rage against those who had a position contrary to whatever group objected to it. Rock was here to stay, while pot was illegal everywhere, like alcohol during the prohibition (now there’s a definite historical lesson to learn with that). Race, sex and the Viet Nam War dominated the social debates, while today we have the race card, gender identity, dominant drug cartels and even more wars; this does sound like a rhyme, and it keeps getting dumber. Consider the choices of running mates that presidential candidates have made starting with Obama, and why; they didn’t want anyone more intelligent than themselves, so Obama took Biden, Trump takes Pence, Biden takes Harris, and Trump takes Vance. This is not going in a good direction considering how many VPs ran or will run for President.

Historically, socialism has always failed because it is not about creating wealth but redistributing it, lasting only as long as there are capitalists around to pay for it; in every sense it’s a parasitical system. There is no virtue in any engineered economic system as they all rely on coercion and so are contrary to the natural laws of humanism, so contrived as to rely on ignorance and envy that all it can do is create misery in the name of equality; historically liberty only exists with equality of rights, but equality of wealth only exists with a government with totalitarian powers.

“The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.” Thomas Sowell