Author: CS Admin

Categories
crime and punishment free trade & free markets general freedom nannyism national politics & policies Second Amendment rights too much government U.S. Constitution

What Doesn’t Fly

Pulse, Orlando, shooter, background, registration

After the Orlando massacre, isn’t it time to get guns out of the hands of . . . licensed security guards?

Omar Mir Seddique Mateen, who murdered 49 people and wounded 53 others in The Pulse nightclub, worked for the globe’s largest security firm, Britain’s G4S. He passed two background checks conducted by the company.

Mateen’s government credentials included “a Florida state-issued security guard license and a security guard firearms license.” Twice, he was investigated by the FBI, in 2013 and again in 2014, and cleared — investigations closed.

Should we talk about security failures?

Instead, a filibuster by Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy and a sit-in protest by House Democrats changed the channel to gun control. The Senate voted on four bills that threatened more than the Second Amendment. Our Fifth Amendment rights to due process were also in the sights of crusading Democrats and appeasing Republicans and still are.

Not to mention the Ninth Amendment, freedom to do all manner of things, including travel.

Hillary Clinton says that “if you’re too dangerous to get on a plane, you’re too dangerous to buy a gun.” Yet, the problem comes in government simply declaring someone too dangerous to fly or to buy a gun, without ever publicly bringing a charge — you know, with evidence — much less convicting that person of a crime.

Having a government agent place a name on a secret list doesn’t even approximate due process of law. And, accordingly, doesn’t justify stripping a person of fundamental liberties.

Terrorism is terrifying . . . but not any more so than politicians who, in pursuit of their political agendas, don’t think twice about our freedoms or their constitutional limitations.

It’s not all right.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Pulse, Orlando, shooter, background, registration

 

Categories
folly porkbarrel politics responsibility too much government

A Bullet Train to the Head

California, high speed, rail, boondoggle, waste, illustration

Romanticism. The yearning for greatness; the need for speed. Efficiency! It’s all there in California’s high-speed rail project — hopes and dreams and a sense of the grandeur of progress.

And yet the bullet train project, approved by voters in 2008, is a fiasco.

One can blame the voters, I suppose. At least the 53.7 percent who said yes to a referendum authorizing a 9.95 billion bond. Just to get the project started.

But we shouldn’t, really. All the people pushing the bullet train notion (from Los Angeles to the Bay) said that most of the investment would come from private investors. Further, it would require no ongoing subsidies.

Those assurances, however, “were at best wishful thinking, at worst an elaborate con,” writes Virginia Postrel for Bloomberg.

How bad is it? Total construction cost went from a $33 billion to $68 billion — despite route trimming. The first segment, which is understood to be the easiest to build (shooting through an empty stretch), is four years behind schedule, and still lacks necessary land.

The list of failures goes on and on, and includes a dearth of investors. And then there’s the estimate of the company who got the first bid on the project. It says that the line will almost certainly not be self-sustaining.

“The question now,” Postrel concludes, “is when they’ll have the guts to pull the plug.”

Corruption, hope without realism, business as usual — all these are revealed in the project. And wasn’t the second season of True Detective about this? Let’s hope this real-world fiasco ends with less bloodshed.

Californians have already lost enough in treasure!

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

California, high speed, rail, boondoggle, waste, illustration

 

Categories
general freedom media and media people national politics & policies

Why, Journalists, Why?

HIllary Clinton, Donald Trump, Gary Johnson, polls, Washington Post, illustration

Complaints about “the mainstream media” are old hat. But that doesn’t mean the complaints have lost validity.

I was struck by this while reading Matt Welch’s warning, at Reason: “Don’t Believe Any Headline Showing Hillary Clinton with a 12-Point Lead over Donald Trump.”

“There is indeed a 51 percent to 39 percent advantage for Clinton over Trump in newly released Washington Post/ABC News poll, conducted from June 20-23,” Welch concedes. “But that same survey also asked the same pool of voters to react to a far more representative ballot, i.e., one that includes Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson . . . and the Green Party’s Jill Stein. . . .”

The point is, leaving out Hillary’s and the Donald’s actual competition from poll results — or from poll questions, for that matter — is tantamount to misreporting. It is, in other words, “bad science” and “journalistic malpractice.”

“Clinton has yet to reach 50 percent when her proper competition is included,” Welch explains, “and Trump hasn’t even cracked 40.”

In the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, Mrs. Clinton was reported to enjoy a seven-point lead, but when voters were offered all likely ballot options, including Johnson, the Libertarian, and Stein, the Green, Hillary bettered Donald by only one point: 39-38 percent.

But why would journalists and editors systematically rig the reporting of politics?

Laziness? Covering four candidates is twice as much work as covering two.

Partisan reasons? The Washington press corps has been embedded with R&D operatives for decades.

Whatever the reason, they’ve missed a huge story: the impact of these minor party candidates is major news.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

HIllary Clinton, Donald Trump, Gary Johnson, polls, Washington Post, illustration

Photo credit: Brett Weinstein on Flickr

Categories
Accountability folly government transparency

A Most Bizarre Misuse

transparency, government, copyright, illustration

Increasingly, folks in government balk at the commonsense requirement for transparency. They don’t like the basic idea of a republic, apparently — that we have rights; folks in government have duties. They are bound to serve us.

And allow us to oversee their work.

The latest bizarre attempt to wiggle out of transparency comes from California. A proposed bit of legislation, AB-2880, seeks to grant state employees copyright protection — for their everyday work as public servants.

“The bill claims to protect access to the documents through the California Public Records Act,” explains Steven Greenhut in The American Spectator, “but it gives the government the ability to control what people do with many of those records.” Emphasis added — to direct your attention to the enormity of the increase in government prerogatives.

Public records are called “public” not merely because they putatively serve the public, but because they are open to the public. Yet, if this measure passes, those records are essentially privatized . . . to the government.

That is not what we mean, usually, when we say “privatize.”

Using copyright law to protect “thin-skinned officials,” AB-2880 would insulate bureaucrats even further from citizen oversight.

The excuse for the law, to help agencies manage their “intellectual property,” is hardly a big concern, except perhaps in one way: trademark infringement. We do not want private businesses to pretend to be state parks or bureaus. But the overreach beyond this core issue goes so far into crazyland that one must question the intent behind it.

And stop it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

transparency, government, copyright, illustration

 

Categories
crime and punishment folly general freedom media and media people national politics & policies too much government

Not Buying a Stairway to Riches

Led Zeppelin, copyright, lawsuit

I am not a writer by trade. I don’t make a living off of these daily and weekly writing gigs. I give this stuff away, for free. The donations I ask for are there to cover bandwidth, website expertise, artwork, etc. They don’t cover my contributions.

But that doesn’t disqualify me from my occasional wonder and amazement (and worse) at how intellectual “property” is handled in America.

This week a Los Angeles jury found that the great rock band “Led Zeppelin did not plagiarize the opening chords of the rock epic Stairway to Heaven from the U.S. band Spirit,” the BBC reports. “It said the riff Led Zeppelin was accused of taking from Spirit’s 1967 song Taurus ‘was not intrinsically similar’ to Stairway’s opening.”

So, my surprise, and perhaps yours too, is that a riff, a mere riff, taken from one song and put into another, could be actionable at law. It seems to me that this would be like suing over an essay title (one has no private property rights to your headlines, no matter how original), or clever turn of phrase. Writers copy this stuff all the time. Even more commonly, they inadvertently regurgitate these writerly “riffs” from the far corners of their minds, or even think up these things separately.

But honestly, I didn’t think one could sue over a riff. Riffs and chord progressions vary in originality, but some of the best songs use the same three chords, so there is a lot of apparent “stealing” going on.

Thankfully, the jury wisely knew the difference between What Is and What Should Never Be.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Led Zeppelin, copyright, lawsuit

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment folly free trade & free markets general freedom ideological culture nannyism national politics & policies

Digs at the Gig Economy

Uber, Lyft, sharing, economy, HIllary, Bernie, illustration

In Texas’s progressive enclave of Austin, the government has regulated Uber and Lyft out of the city.

Massachusset’s uber*-progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren cautions that the “much-touted virtues”of the “gig economy” that these services represent are actually dark signs of the times, providing workers a false “step in a losing effort to build some economic security in a world where all the benefits are floating to the top 10 percent.”

Vermont’s Sen. Bernie Sanders, the independent candidate for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, is also no fan. Why? These services are not regulated.

Sanders’s charge that these person-to-person (P2P) ride-sharing services are “unregulated” is of course the opposite of the truth. They are self-regulated for safety and efficiency in ways that taxi services never were. How much extra value did governments add, with their regulations of the taxicab industry? They just reduced competition and made cabs more expensive.

P2P online cooperation is revolutionary. And “progressives” are stuck in the past, itching to suppress that revolution. “Initially,” writes Jared Meyer in the July issue of Reason, “hostility mostly came from state and municipal governments, at the behest of local special interests.” But as the services became more popular, opposition shifted. To the national Democrats like Sanders, Warren and . . . Hillary Clinton. She promises to “crack down on bosses who exploit employees by misclassifying them as contractors or even steal their wages.”

Par for the course: the Internet provides more opportunity than ever, and all some progressives see are the old socialist fears of “exploitation” and “greed” . . . while they greedily suck up to unions and special interests.

The bright side, Meyer argues, is that they are on the losing side.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

*I guess the pun here is intended. Or not. You choose, P2P style.

Printable PDF

Uber, Lyft, sharing, economy, HIllary, Bernie, illustration

 

Categories
Accountability ideological culture media and media people nannyism national politics & policies property rights responsibility

The Climate Cassandra

Global warming, climate change, illustration

Thirty years ago, in June, 1986, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee met to consider the problems of ozone depletion, the greenhouse effect, and climate change.

Present at those hearings was today’s climate Cassandra, James Hansen, then of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies. And he was predicting that “global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years,” according to Associated Press reporting at that time.

There was some sloppiness either in Hansen’s account, or the AP’s, for in one part of his testimony Hansen claimed that his institute’s climate models projected, for “the region of the United States, the warming 30 years from now is about 1 1/2 degrees C, which is about 3 F.”

Ronald Bailey, the science writer over at Reason, tries to make sense of this mess of numbers, models, and predictions.

Oh, and actual, tabulated results.

Hansen’s predictions went, as Bailey put it, “definitively off the rails when tracking the temperature trend for the contiguous U.S. between 2000 and 2016. Since 2000, according to the NOAA calculator, the average temperature trend has been downward at -0.06 F degree per decade.”

That’s not the whole picture, though: “global temperatures have increased by 0.51 C degree since 1986, so perhaps the man-made global warming signal has finally emerged.”

No matter, though, as Bailey notes, “the United States and the Earth have warmed at considerably slower pace than Hansen predicted 30 years ago.”

Which suggests that Hansen’s models may be inspired more by wish, fear, and ideology than genuine science.

So, to those who wish to rush to “do something” (anything?) to combat “climate change,” take it slow. Follow the pace of the Earth itself.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Global warming, climate change, illustration

 

Categories
free trade & free markets general freedom too much government

Hysteria, Assassination, and Big Government

Brexit, EU, European Union, independence, democracy, illustration

The biggest political story of the month? Brexit.

The people of Great Britain will vote, this week, whether to remain in, or exit, the European Union. (Britain+exit=“Brexit,” you see.)

Establishment forces in Britain have engaged in hysterical, hyperbolic overkill, warning of grave disaster were Britain to leave the union. America’s President Barack Obama contributed to this, recently, when he warned that an independent Britain might find itself placed “at the back of the queue” in trade talks.

Tragically, things got more troubling last week when anti-Brexit, pro-union campaigner Jo Cox, a Member of Parliament and prominent Labour Party activist, was brutally slain last week in front of her local library. The man had just left a mental health facility, after requesting help.

At first, major media reported that the killer had shouted “Britain First,” an old patriotic motto as well as the name of a pro-Brexit political party, while shooting and stabbing her. Of the several eyewitnesses to have allegedly testified to this murderous shout, only one is sticking to the story . . . a member of the British Nationalist Party, which is antagonistic to Britain First. Other eyewitnesses deny the story.

Next, both sides promised to cease campaigning, out of good taste. Still, polls fluctuated, while remaining close.

Much of the furor has risen over immigration policy, especially fears about EU laxity towards Muslim refugees.

But the bedrock issue is Big Government. The EU is not effectively controlled by citizens; indeed, membership representation is mostly show, a mockery of republican government.

That is why, if I were British, I’d vote to Brexit.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Brexit, EU, European Union, independence, democracy, illustration

 

Categories
Common Sense responsibility

Fatherlessness

father, father's day, dad, Paul Jacob, role model, illustration, photo

Yesterday was Father’s Day; tomorrow, I’ll attend my father’s funeral.

Ample opportunity to reflect on missing Dad . . . and dads.

My father was two months shy of 85 years. He lived a long, full life with a loving wife of more than 60 years, six children he adored and who felt likewise about him, 13 grandchildren and eight great-grandchildren.

He started his own small business and achieved his version of the American Dream: to be his own boss.

More than a decade ago, when my pop was fighting through open heart surgery, I wrote in this space that he was, in the words of one of his favorite movies, “the richest man in town.” Sadly, he’s no longer in town.

Except that he still is . . . in me. And in my kids and their kids.

As an adult, admittedly I haven’t often asked my dad for advice. Why? Because I already know exactly what he would say. I like that. And thankfully that voice remains.

Moons ago, I also acknowledged that I was privileged, but argued “My Privilege Isn’t White.” Instead, my advantages mostly came from growing up in a home with two loving parents.

We Homo sapiens learn by imitating others. Hence the term “role model.”

Nowadays we often hear about poor role models when some spoiled-brat sports celebrity or narcissistic rock star behaves badly. As a teenager, I had their posters on my wall. But my dad served as my 24/7 role model.

He still does.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

father, father's day, dad, Paul Jacob, role model, illustration, photo

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment general freedom national politics & policies too much government

What Doesn’t Fly

Omar Mir Seddique Mateen

After the Orlando massacre, isn’t it finally time to get guns out of the hands of . . . licensed security guards?

Omar Mir Seddique Mateen, who murdered 49 people and wounded 53 others in the Pulse nightclub, worked for the globe’s largest security firm, Britain’s G4S. He passed two background checks conducted by the company, and his government credentials included “a Florida state-issued security guard license and a security guard firearms license.”

Not to mention that Omar Mateen was twice investigated by the FBI — in 2013 and again in 2014 — and cleared by the agency both times. Though on the terrorist watch list for a while, he was removed from that list after the FBI closed its investigations.

So we need more and tougher background checks? Must the FBI check every gun purchaser three times, is that the charm?

Even if the Feds blocked gun sales to those on the terrorist watch list and the “no-fly” list, it wouldn’t have affected Mateen, for he wasn’t on these lists when he purchased his Sig MCX.

Nevertheless, Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy led a 14-hour filibuster to bring attention to his gun control legislation . . . that wouldn’t have stopped the Orlando massacre . . . or the shooting in Newtown.

“I will be meeting with the NRA, who has endorsed me,” tweeted Donald Trump, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, “about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns.”

If our government ever uses a secret list developed by security agencies to deny citizens their rights, without due legal process, without innocence until proven guilty, we will sorely need our Second Amendment rights.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Omar Mir Seddique Mateen