“Uncommon Common Sense” by Sydney Williams

http://swtotd.blogspot.com/

At some point in the mid 1950s I attended a party at Dr. Edwin Land’s summer home in Peterborough, New Hampshire. I was fifteen and Dr. Land’s thirteen-year-old daughter was my girlfriend. I found myself listening to three or four learned men trying to define horse sense. There was no unanimity. Having grown up with horses, I knew they were not the most intelligent of animals, but I also knew they had enough sense to seek shelter when it rained and come to the barn when hungry for grain. They had (and have) common sense. Horse sense and common sense are born of the same mother, though I was too intimidated to say anything 65 years ago. Webster’s agrees. Horse sense is defined: “the ability to make good judgements.” W. C. Fields also agreed, when he said that “horse sense is a thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people.” Besides providing a horse laugh, there is a lesson in that adage.

Coleridge was right. Wisdom is the exercise of common sense. Wisdom is rare, especially in politicians who choose political correctness (the world as they would like it to be, not as it is), identity politics (segregation over unity), and victimization (the passing of blame rather than the assuming of responsibility). Common sense bases judgements on empirical evidence, on “self-evident truths,” as Robert Curry wrote in his book Reclaiming Common Sense: Finding Truth in a Post-Truth World. Meanwhile, politicians appeal to emotions, not reason, for example getting attendees pumped at rallies, which common sense says is a reason not to allow early voting.

“Facts,” as John Adams is supposed to have said, “are stubborn things.”  Nobody in Washington seems to worry about deficit spending even in a period of economic growth, yet last year’s deficit of just under a trillion dollars is equal to $3,000 per person. The published national debt is an obligation of $80,000 for every man, woman and child in the nation. When one adds in the unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Social Security, per person debt rises to $380,000. Facts tell us that our population is aging – that the number of workers is shrinking, while the number of retirees is expanding. Yet, the six candidates for President in last week’s debate in Iowa were interested only in programs that would add to the deficit, add to the national debt and add to unfunded liabilities. Even the Republican Party, the party supposedly of thrift seems to care little about running a fiscally responsible administration. To paraphrase Dr. Seuss: “How did we get so stupid so soon?”

ELECTIONS ARE COMING: THE NYTIMES ENDORSES KLOBUCHAR AND WARREN

In a break with convention, the
editorial board has chosen to endorse two separate
Democratic candidates for president. Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren

Another dud in the string of bombshells

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/16/another-dud-in-the-string-of-bombshells/

You have to pity the bombshell-shocked American citizen trying to take seriously all the “shocking,” “stunning” and “bombshell” news coming out of Washington these days.

It is a little maddening — though mostly amusing — watching Rachel Maddow and the breathless news wags on MSNBC and CNN contorting themselves during interviews with greasy “witnesses” to supposedly nefarious behavior in Ukraine as to why exactly what they are claiming is so important and damning.

Or, “bombshell!,” as they like to say. And, certainly, “impeachable!”

HINT: If it takes exhaustive and complicated explanations to pinpoint precisely why something is a “bombshell,” then it is not a “bombshell.” That is the point of a “bombshell.” It is so powerful that it does not need to come wrapped in complicated explanations.

But there is no rabbit hole these people will not venture down in pursuit of President Trump. There is no zany conspiracy theory they will not gulp down to keep the party going. And there is no arcane strip of federal code from centuries gone by that they won’t dust off to construct their rickety case for impeachment.

ust ask Rep. Adam B. Schiff, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence chairman and a newly ordained impeachment manager. He got thoroughly snookered by a couple of gonzo radio goofs pretending to be Ukrainians with naked pictures of Mr. Trump.

Of course, the raunchy pervert happily went along — anything to get his grubby little hands on nudie pictures of Mr. Trump. It really is astonishing that these people are taken seriously anywhere outside the peep-show booths that used to populate Times Square.

Mark Krikorian: Trump’s Blind Spot on Immigration

https://amgreatness.com/2020/01/18/trumps-blind-spot-on-immigration/

A more moderate level of immigration is both good policy and good politics. Cheap foreign labor is cheap foreign labor, whether it’s legal or illegal, permanent or temporary, blue-collar or white-collar. 

President Trump’s recent interview with Laura Ingraham highlighted an aspect of his views on immigration that doesn’t get enough attention: He wants to increase immigration.

High-skilled or low-skilled, temporary or permanent, the president’s desire has been consistent: “We need people!” Apparently, 1.1 million new permanent immigrants a year—plus hundreds of thousands of “temporary” workers—just isn’t enough.

There’s no doubt that the president is committed to better enforcement of immigration laws, and his administration has made some modest progress in that regard, in the face of savage, Battle-of-Stalingrad opposition.

But when it comes to legal immigration, Trump’s approach is little different from that of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer and John McCain, Mike Bloomberg and Mark Zuckerberg.

Ingraham is a fan of the president, so the half-hour interview, ranging across a variety of topics, was generally friendly. But Ingraham is also no sycophant, so when she brought up the issue of foreign workers, she didn’t pull her punch.

“We don’t have a tight labor market,” she said (about halfway through the linked clip). “If we had a tight labor market, we’d be seeing real increases in wages. I hear that your team is planning on advocating more foreign workers coming in for some of these high-tech companies. I’m very concerned about that, as are a lot of your supporters.“

Democratic Candidates Are Sorry for All the Wrong Things Henry Miller & Andrew I. Fillat

https://amgreatness.com/2020/01/18/democratic-candidates-are-sorry-for-all-the-wrong-things/

We’d like to see candidates expressing dismay about the ways that government malfeasance or indifference threatens Americans’ health and safety every day. If they don’t, we should make them sorry on election day.

When presidential candidate Joe Biden began a campaign tour with the slogan, “No Malarkey” (a seeming oxymoron for a politician), the rallying cry was contradicted by his many apologies for past actions and positions. Had he fashioned his expedition as a “No Apologies” tour, he doubtless would have done far more to solidify his position as the most electable Democrat.

But he is not alone in lamenting past positions, actions, or inaction. One could imagine the consternation from Michael Bloomberg’s natural constituency when he felt the need to apologize for his support of “stop, question, and frisk” in New York City. Had Bloomberg simply said he should have made sure the policy was not taken to an extreme, as apparently was the case, he not only could have been truthful, but also avoided alienating those who recognized the positive impact the policy had in his city.

This presidential campaign has raised apologizing to a new art form. Much of it is no more than pandering. A simple explanation that one’s views have “evolved” would, we think, be far more effective. Instead, the pandering has spurred the legions of woke social justice warriors to even greater extremes of political correctness, harassment, and suppression of free speech.

In America, Interfaith “Bridge Building” Imam Praises Soleimani, Slams Israel

http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2020/01/in-america-interfaith-bridge-building.html

According to a 2014 post on his apparently now discontinued blog here, Shi’ite Imam Ibrahim Kazerooni, born in 1958 in the city of Al-Najaf in southern Iraq, completed his theological studies in Iran and his secular studies in England.

He afterwards went to live in the United States, where he was

“the former Director of the Abrahamic Initiative Program at St. John Cathedral in Denver. Currently he serves as a member of the Board of Religious advisers to the Denver Police.
He has received a number of awards for his bridge building and peace initiative, including, Faith to Faith Award for interfaith works. (2007), Martin Luther King Award for services in peace building (2007), the “Iliff/D.U Joint Ph.D. Award for Community Service(2007), and Honored with Congressional Record for working to end the war in Iraq. (2004) ….”

Fast foreward to 2020, and this paragon of interfaith harmony has been caught on video by Memri.org (whose YouTube site has, I believe, yet again been taken down by YouTube) in a speech on 3 Janiary at the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, Michigan eulogising Qasem Soleimani and deploring his death, along with that of PMU Deputy Chairman Abu Mahdi] Al-Muhandis:

‘… He led a prayer for the souls of Soleimani and Al-Muhandis  and told the congregation that Soleimani had “brought hope to the marginalized [and] hatred and fear to the enemies of Islam.” He explained that Soleimani had been instrumental in keeping the Syrian regime in power despite American and Zionist attempts to destabilize it, in defending Iraq against ISIS alongside the PMU, and in ultimately defeating ISIS in Iraq, which Sheikh Kazerooni described as the “extended arm of American foreign policy.” He cited several examples from Islamic literature that speak of martyrdom as a virtuous act and added: “Let’s wait and see what happens next.”‘
https://www.memri.org/tv/iraqi-american-michigan-sheikh-kazerooni-eulogizes-soleimani-defended-iraq-zionist-american-isis-fear-enemies-islam/transcript

Iranian Women Defy the Mullahs; Western Feminists Nowhere in Sight by Giulio Meotti

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15464/iranian-women-western-feminists

Before 1979, Iranian women had freedom. They want it back.

If Iranian feminists who refuse to wear the hijab are brave, their Western counterparts, who wear pink hats, have wretchedly abandoned them.

Why is Iranian barbarism so easily condoned in the West?

Thirty years ago, the Berlin Wall was torn down by ordinary citizens who wanted to reclaim their freedom of movement. Today, the wall of the Iranian regime could be torn down by these ordinary women who want to reclaim the freedom to wear what they like. They are bravely refusing to walk on flags of Israel and the U.S. — and enjoying the wind in their hair again.

In October 1979, in a rare interview with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the late Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci charged that the veil was symbolic of the segregation into which the Islamic revolution women had cast women. “Our customs,” Khomeini answered, “are none of your business. If you do not like Islamic dress, you’re not obliged to wear it because Islamic dress is for good and proper young women.”

“That’s very kind of you,” Fallaci replied. “And since you said so, I’m going to take off this stupid, medieval rag right now.” Fallaci removed her veil and left the room without saying another word. Iranian women, emulating Fallaci, are now leading protests against the regime.

Persecution of Christians, October 2019 by Raymond Ibrahim

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15457/persecution-of-christians-october

In another incident, Fulani herdsmen intentionally maimed Grace… , a Christian woman, by cutting her hand off. She was alone on her farmstead when the terrorists invaded the village. According to a source, “her attackers told her to place her hand on a log of wood before cutting it off.” — Punch; October 16, 2019; Nigeria.

“Saudi citizens who convert to Christianity face risk of execution by the state for apostasy if their conversion becomes known.” — Barnabas Fund, October 14, 2019; Saudi Arabia.

“If the West strikes against Muslims anywhere in the world, enraged fundamentalists in Pakistan often attack the churches…. Muslims believe that converting one person to Islam earns them eternal life. If an initial effort fails, people turn to kidnapping…” — Aid to the Church in Need; October 4, 2019; Pakistan.

The Slaughter of Christians

Uganda: A Muslim mob set fire to the home of former Muslim, Ali Nakabale, 36, for converting to Christianity. Four of his family members—including his two children, a six-year-old son and a nine-year-old daughter—were burned to death in the blaze. His wife, apparently enraged to learn that Ali had become a Christian, reportedly prompted the arson attack. “I had just visited my aunt only to receive sad news of the burning of our house,” Nakabale said. “Upon arriving home, I found the house destroyed by fire that burned my four family members, including my two children.” His mother and stepfather were also killed in the blaze. “On reaching the mortuary, I found their bodies burned beyond recognition.”

“We saw fire emanating from the house of Hamidah with loud chants from Muslims saying, ‘Allah Akbar [Allah is greater],'” reported a neighbor. Earlier, when his wife learned that his son and he had become Christian, she had beated the boy. On “[t]he same day my wife walked out of the marriage and left the home,” said Ali. “We got scared because we knew that our lives were in danger.”

Iran: Why the Old Recipe Does Not Work by Amir Taheri

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15463/iran-old-recipe

The latest protests, however, are clearly focused on a demand for regime change, even by some former “reform-seekers”. All this means that the regime’s classical recipe for survival isn’t working as before.

For the first time, more and more Iranians are beginning to contemplate regime change not as merely a desirable slogan but as a practical strategy to lead the nation out of the impasse created by Khomeinism.

No matter what gloss the ruling clerics might try to put on current events in Iran, one point is clear: their Islamic Republic is in trouble. Deep trouble.

This is, of course, not the first time that the system hastily put together by a bunch of mullahs and their leftist allies hits a bump on its road to nowhere. Even in its first year the Islamic Republic faced huge protest movements in Tehran and other major cities and had to use force to crush rebellions by Iranian-Kurdish and Turcoman communities.

According to best estimates, to remain in place the Islamic Republic has executed more than 15,000 people and driven more than 8 million Iranians into exile. And all that not to mention the eight-year war that the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini provoked with Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Despite all that the regime managed to survive, thanks to a number of factors.

Democrats Consume Themselves Hatred of Donald Trump has been to some extent sidelined while what Freud called the “narcissism of small differences” plays out in bickering, backbiting, and political sabotage. Roger Kimball

https://amgreatness.com/2020/01/18/democrats-consume-themselves/

Eventually, I am going to get around to saying something about CNN’s hostility to Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—evidenced, most recently, by its energetic exertions on behalf of the campaign to elect Elizabeth Warren at last Tuesday’s Democratic debate. And I’ll say something, too, about the delicious exhibition of angst-filled hand-wringing that said hostility occasioned in many precincts of the leftwing media.

First, however, since CNN apparently undertook its cheerleading for Warren in order to declare its feminist bona fides, I would like to pose a few questions as a sort of prolegomenon, what Kierkegaard, in another context, called a “preliminary expectoration.” 1) Why are feminists so unpleasant? 2) Why do they insist on whining instead of getting on with the task at hand? 3) Why do they tend to blame other people for their failures?

I do not propose to answer these questions—I am writing a column, not a book—but I would like to register my suspicion that part of the answer to all three is the dim, imperfectly articulated awareness that feminism’s real complaint is not with men or “the patriarchy” but with reality, with human nature.

To illustrate this, ask yourself questions such as why are there not special programs to recruit more men in engineering programs? Why aren’t grants available to encourage men to study math, or physics, or—when you come right down to it—to study anything? Why do politicians announce to general applause that this year there are more female representatives, or judges, or senators than ever before? Why is it thought to be a badge of virtue to have more women in this profession or that but the same is never claimed for men?