Author: CS Admin

The Women-Haters

Hillary Clinton, victim, pay gap, wage gap, misogyny, sexism

“You’ve just spoken eloquently about the sexism, the misogyny and inequity around the world,” CNN anchor Christiane Amanpour said* to defeated presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, “but do you believe it exists here still?”

The audience at Tuesday’s Women for Women International luncheon in New York City erupted in laughter, cutting Amanpour off. A second round of chortles ensued when Hillary Clinton touched the side of her face in wonderment, uttering, “Hmmm?”

“Were you a victim of misogyny?” Amanpour continued. “And why do you think you lost the majority of the white female vote. . . ?”

“Well, the book is coming out in the fall,” Hillary joked. “Yes,” she went on, turning serious, “I do think it played a role.”

Noting that “other things did, as well,” Mrs. Clinton decried Russian interference. Back to misogyny, however, she added: “It is real. It is very much a part of the landscape politically, socially and economically.”

Hmmm, indeed. So, most white women didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton because they hate women . . . per se?

All women?

Simply because they’re women?

“An example that has nothing to do with me, personally,” explained Mrs. Clinton, “is this whole question of equal pay. We just had Equal Pay Day in April, which is how long women have to work past the first of the year to make the equivalent of what men make the prior year in comparable professions.”

Hillary is mistaken about the Gender Pay Gap, which compares completely dissimilar professions (and hours worked, qualifications, etc.). Plus, this same gender pay gap was found at the Clinton Foundation, her U.S. Senate staff, her State Department and among her campaign staff.

Hillary Clinton — misogynist?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* The full interview is here. But you can cut to the chase here.

PDF for printing

Tags Hillary Clinton, misogyny, pay gap, sexism, victim, wage gap

Accountability free trade & free markets initiative, referendum, and recall insider corruption moral hazard national politics & policies porkbarrel politics too much government

A Wall of Separation

cronyism, pork, stadium, Tom Hanks, ballot initiative, welfare

Whatever you think of Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, wherein he celebrated the First Amendment for “building a wall of separation between Church & State,” let’s agree that it would have been nice had he penned another letter — to the Waterbury Methodists or someone — urging a wall of separation between Sports and State.

Last week, actor Tom Hanks became another brick in my hoped-for wall. “It’s a billion-dollar industry,” Hanks said of the National Football League.

[T]hey have billion-dollar TV contracts. All the owners are billionaires. And yet when they want to build a stadium they’re going to use for 10 weeks out of the year, they expect the city taxpayers to buy the building.

Hanks is livid. The recent “deal” that lured his beloved Oakland Raiders to Las Vegas included $750 million in public funds to build a $1.9 billion stadium. The Raiders are planning to stay in Oakland for the 2017 and 2018 seasons, while that new stadium is built. “When the Raiders leave,” the beloved star declared, “I am going on an NFL moratorium for two years.”

Unfortunately, Hanks appears more angry that his team is leaving (eventually), than with the principle that taxpayers ought not be ripped off.

Subsidizing businesses is cronyism, not capitalism. It’s even more outrageous when the poor must pay for the rich.

But how to stop it? In every city where citizens can propose ballot initiatives, let’s petition and pass measures requiring a public vote before any such subsidy.

It may not be the great wall I’d prefer, but it’s a high hurdle providing taxpayers some important protection.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags ballot initiative, cronyism, porkbarrel politics, stadium, Tom Hanks, welfare

Accountability crime and punishment folly general freedom moral hazard nannyism Regulating Protest too much government

The Oregon Fail

Oregon, traffic light, license, licensing, government, regulations, engineer

My children used to play “The Oregon Trail,” an early computer game where one navigated the amazingly dangerous wagon trip out west — often dying of dysentery or drowning while crossing a river.

Oregon remains treacherous.

Yesterday, we bemoaned the cancellation of a parade because a Republican Party group’s participation elicited threats of violence. Now, we find that writing a thoughtful letter to public officials about problematic traffic lights garners a $500 fine.

Mats Järlström, a Swedish electronics engineer, made the mistake of moving to Beaverton, Oregon, and then compounded his error by sending an email to Oregon’s engineering board alerting them to a traffic light problem that put “the public at risk.”

The Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying responded by informing him that statute “672.020(1) prohibits the practice of engineering in Oregon without registration . . . at a minimum, your use of the title ‘electronics engineer’ and the statement ‘I’m an engineer’ . . . create violations.”

Mr. Järlström expressed shock at the bizarre response. “I’m not practicing engineering, I’m just using basic mathematics and physics, Newtonian laws of motion, to make calculations and talk about what I found.”

After a red-light camera ticketed his wife, Järlström investigated and discovered that the yellow light didn’t give drivers slowing down to turn at the intersection enough time.

He wasn’t disputing the ticket, just attempting to right a wrong. Which is apparently against the law, when bureaucrats are committing the wrong.

The Institute for Justice accuses the licensing board of “trying to suppress speech.” Thankfully, they’re helping Järlström sue in federal court.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Photograph by Tom Godber on Flickr

Tags engineer, government, license, licensing, Oregon, regulations, traffic light

crime and punishment First Amendment rights general freedom ideological culture moral hazard national politics & policies Regulating Protest U.S. Constitution

Thorns in the Parade

Portland, rose, parade, protest, violence, AntiFa, BAMN, free speech, censorship

Portland, Oregon, styles itself as “The City of Roses.” For over a century, this Pacific Northwest city has held an annual Rose Festival, complete with multiple parades.

This year, there will be at least one parade less.

“The annual 82nd Avenue Rose Parade and Carnival scheduled for Saturday have been canceled because of threats against the Multnomah County Republican Party, a longtime participant in the parade,” we learn from the Portland Tribune. “In a Tuesday afternoon email, the 82 Avenue Business Association, which sponsors the Rose Festival-sanctioned event, said it canceled the entire event because [it] could not guarantee the safety of the community.”

KOIN-6 News reported that the threats came from the Direct Action Alliance, an “antifa”-styled group that “created a Facebook event called ‘Defend Portland from Fascists at the Avenue of Roses Parade.’ The group wanted to disrupt the march because of ‘Nazis and fascists’ participating.”

Now, what you regard as “white supremacist” and what young pseudo-antifascists think of as “white supremacy” are probably very different. I doubt that many real Nazis and fascists would have marched on Saturday.

But the identification issue is irrelevant. If fascists want to peacefully parade, let them.

What is objectionable? Those who engage in violence to suppress views of which they disapprove.

Also objectionable? The organizers and the City of Roses police, who, by caving in, let free speech and assembly be squelched.

Spontaneous marches did occur on parade day, corralled to the left and right sides of the street. Literally and figuratively. Three violent activists were arrested but not identified by affiliation.

Portlanders used to worry that the clouds would rain on their parades. Now, it is ideological violence casting a dark shadow.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags Antifa, BAMN, censorship, free speech, parade, Portland, protest, rose, violence

Accountability free trade & free markets general freedom national politics & policies tax policy

Death and . . .

taxes, tax cut, Trump, gift, give away, rights, growth, economics

It’s a sure thing — that most folks will like President Trump’s tax cuts. Though we don’t yet know all the details.

When it comes to taxes, less is more.

That is, if you’re paying taxes. It is no great mystery that people like it when their own taxes are reduced.

But what about reducing other people’s taxes?

“The core economic case for tax cuts is that they reduce the obstacles to creative and productive activities,” economist Don Boudreaux explained yesterday at the Café Hayek blog.

Cutting the corporate tax rate — which even former President Bill Clinton supported during last year’s campaign — won’t immediately appear in people’s paychecks, but can stimulate economic growth helping everyone. Recent experiences in both Britain and Canada bear this out.

Cutting taxes, of which “the rich” pay more, can also spur growth.

Yet, these ideas do not dominate popular discussions of tax cuts. Boudreaux lamented media reporting that treats any tax reduction as simply a “‘gift’ to high-income earners,” dubbing the coverage: “Biased. Benighted. Blind.”

“Suppose that freedom of the press were reported in the same way as . . . a ‘giveaway to the press’?” he asked. “Most people, of course, do not own newspapers or other media outlets.”

Boudreaux concluded, “When the press is free, the chief beneficiaries are the general public.”

Freedom — of both the press and to keep more of the fruits of our labors — helps the common man. As well as the uncommon man. A tax cut for me helps me directly, and you indirectly. And vice versa. Just as a free press is great for those in journalism as well as those of us not in journalism.

That is not blind, but eyes open; not benighted, but enlightened; not biased, but . . .

. . . Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags economics, gift, give away, growth, rights, tax cut, tax policy, Trump

folly general freedom ideological culture responsibility too much government U.S. Constitution

UN-appealing

UN, U.N., United Nations, Obamacare, socialism, socialists

Like E.F. Hutton, when the United Nations’ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights “Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health” talks, people listen.

In disbelief, perhaps. Or amusement. But they listen. Well, at least Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank does, anyway.

Unfortunately, Milbank couldn’t get Dainius Puras — the Lithuanian doctor serving as the U.N.’s Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to blah, blah, blah — to talk. Milbank did, however, uncover an “urgent appeal” sent by Puras to the U.S. State Department, with instructions to pass it along to congressional leaders.

Puras won’t discuss his confidential February letter until June, when “it becomes public at the next session of the Human Rights Council.” But the “leaked” letter announces the U.N. has launched an investigation to determine whether repealing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) violates international law.*

“The letter urges that ‘all necessary interim measures be taken to prevent the alleged violations’” Milbank further explains, “and asks that, if the ‘allegations’ proved correct, there be ‘adequate measure . . . to guarantee the accountability of any person responsible.’”

Should Congress repeal Obamacare, will U.N. troops occupy Washington, arresting congressmen for voting against its mandate?

The international body has no way “to impose its will,” Milbank acknowledges, seeming to wish it did and complaining that folks just “scoff at lectures from U.N. bureaucrats.”**

Taking solace, Milbank declares: “[T]he U.N. letter is at least a bit of moral support for those defending Obamacare.”

Moral support? From the U.N.? Now, you’re pulling my leg.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Along with other U.N. gobbledygook, the letter cites Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which proclaims, “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family” etc. etc. Standard U.N. speak: flowery, vague and unenforceable.

** People throughout the world and across the political spectrum — from the UK’s Daniel Hannan to Chelsea Clinton — scoff at the U.N. for being incompetent and corrupt. Not to mention thoroughly socialist.

Printable PDF

Tags ObamaCare, socialism, socialists, U.N., UN, United Nations

Accountability folly free trade & free markets moral hazard national politics & policies porkbarrel politics

Super-Subsidize Me

welfare, taxes, charity, subsidy, subsidize, shrimp, stadium, Tesla

“In American political discourse, those on the side of the sick, poor, and underprivileged tend to favor more federal government intervention,” writes Heartland Institute policy advisor David D’Amato at The Hill. He explains that many “see government as . . . rather like a charity . . .”

Sure, government can act charitably, except that its money isn’t given voluntarily, and the recipients are often not so needy.

Earlier this month, the stock price of electric car company Tesla, Inc. rose high enough to overshadow General Motors. That’s great news for billionaire Elon Musk, Tesla’s CEO. But an Investor’s Business Daily editorial noted, “[T]he company is heavily reliant on taxpayer support.”

Who benefits (in addition to Musk)? “A study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that 90% of electric car subsidies go to the top 20% of households,” the editorial stated. IBD added that it was “a lot of welfare-for-the-rich for very little environmental benefit.”

In addition to funding advanced technology, American taxpayers have spent $6.7 billion over the last few decades to subsidize stadiums for wealthy sports team owners. The latest? In Clark County, Nevada, taxpayers forked over $750 million ($354 for every resident) to bribe — er, bring — the Oakland Raiders to Las Vegas.

The ridiculous Minnesota legislation to feed $5 million in state funds to start two shrimp farms almost seems reasonable in comparison. Almost.

“Maybe growing shrimp in Minnesota is a great idea,” admits John Hinderaker of the Center of the American Experiment. “If so, the owners should do what other small businessmen do: either find investors, or get a bank loan.”

Government’s crony capitalism taxes the poor to give to the rich.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags charity, shrimp, stadium, subsidize, subsidy, tax policy, Tesla, welfare

general freedom media and media people responsibility

Less Innocent Times?

Dan Balz, Term Limits, coffee, internet, media, web, trust

Many years ago, waiting for coffee at a vendor in front of the Washington Post building and across the street from my U.S. Term Limits office, I often exchanged friendly banter with the Post’s Dan Balz.

Coffee in hand last Sunday, I read Balz’s column, “A scholar asks, ‘Can democracy survive the Internet?’”

“In more innocent times, the rise of the Internet was seen by many people as a boon to democracy,” Balz began, adding that “the Web broadened the flow of information, introduced new voices into the political debates, empowered citizens and even provided a powerful fundraising tool for some lesser-known candidates such as Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders.”

Obama, Sanders . . . all to the good!

“Now, in what are clearly less innocent times, the Internet is viewed as a far less benign force,” he continues, next to a picture of President Donald Trump’s Twitter feed. “It can be a haven for spreading fake news and rewarding the harshest and most divisive of political rhetoric.”

Mr. Balz’s time continuum is faulty. The “innocent times” when Bernie Sanders used the Internet to raise money were the same “clearly less innocent” times when voters elected President Trump.

“Neither the legacy media nor the established political parties,” Balz bemoans, “exercise the power they once had as referees.”

Nathaniel Persily, the scholar cited by our legacy-media columnist, shares Balz’s anti-Trump bias. But he makes an important point, writing that the Trump campaign “could only be successful because established institutions — especially the mainstream media and political party organizations — had already lost most of their power.”

People voted against the less-than-innocent political (and media) establishment.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Illustration based on original artwork by PRO With Associates

Tags coffee, Dan Balz, Internet, media, term limits, trust, web

ideological culture political challengers too much government

Forwards ! Backwards ?

Emmanuel Macron, Marine Le Pen, France, French, elections, immigration, government,

France held an election over the weekend. Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen came out on top, and will face each other in a runoff on May 7th.

Current polling puts Macron over Le Pen, 62-38. But a SkyNews reporter cautions: there is no certainty.

We in America have reason to respect that cautionary note. Our last election was an upset against the establishment candidate in favor of a wild card often dubbed “far right” and even “fascist” — which is precisely what Ms. Le Pen is being called.

Indeed, pitting a Big Government “centrist” (Macron) against an anti-immigrant protectionist (Le Pen) in the context of an economic slump and rising terrorism, and with neither candidate having much contact with limited-government principle, eerily echoes the 2016 U.S. presidential race.

But, on closer inspection, the parallels between the American and French contests appear inexact. Macron’s En Marche ! party* was created just over a year ago, while Le Pen’s National Front has continually found itself on the margins of power, despite its rise in popularity.**

Still, it is hard not to suspect that Ms. Le Pen could come from behind to upset the status quo. Macron is not invulnerable. The man worked, after all, in Hollande’s government, and Le Pen has characterized him as a socialist in a snazzy suit.

Macron is way ahead in the polls. And TV experts talk about how reliable modern polling is, while we in America . . . snicker.

But, since France lacks an Electoral College, can Le Pen really “Trump” the odds?

France will be in for a bumpy fortnight.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Amusingly, the party’s initials are identical to those of its founder, Emmanuel Macron. “En Marche !” (the extra space is there in party material) translates into English as “Forward!” or “On the Move!” and is formally designated as the Association pour le renouvellement de la vie politique (the Association for the Renewal of Politics).

** All the established, formerly governing parties are on the outs.

Printable PDF