Author: Redactor

How many homes do I own? Just one. That’s all I can afford.

But what if I had more money and bought a vacation home or two? Would that somehow make me a bad guy?

Not in my book. I don’t hold wealth as a strike against someone. Rather, it’s a likely sign of hard work, dedication and smarts. Some of my favorite people are wealthy. In fact, I’d like to be wealthy myself someday. My wife is all for that.

That’s why I find it repulsive that Barack Obama and some in the media are pouncing on Senator John McCain for the terrible offense of owning a number of homes. Seven, apparently. He’s been successful and his wife has been even more so. Good for them.

Funny, I don’t recall Obama attacking the prominent congressmen who received sweetheart home loan deals from lenders, with obvious reason to be currying congressional favor. And while McCain is slapped for owning several homes, at least he makes the payments. Haven’t heard a peep from Obama about Congresswoman Laura Richardson of California. She defaulted on one of her homes and the lender foreclosed. But then, mysteriously, the lender rescinded the foreclosure and returned the home to the congresswoman.

Hmmm. Silence when politicians use their positions for material gain? Attacks when McCain pays his own way!

Regular readers know that I’ve been very critical of McCain. But for his actual political positions with which I strongly disagree. Not because he has more money than I have.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

How does the marketplace of ideas — and how do people who generally support free speech — react to the advancement of free-market ideas?

Well, the new Milton Friedman Institute at the University of Chicago has sure kicked up a fuss. That is, a whole bunch of anti-free-marketers have kicked up a fuss about it.

More than a hundred University of Chicago professors have signed a letter to the university president complaining that the pro-market approach of the Milton Friedman Institute has not been adequately vetted. By them. By the foes of free markets. They are “disturbed,” they write, by the school’s support for the institute.

Oh, theirs is no simple case. They express no worries about academic freedom. They admit that the work of the institute “will not have a chilling effect” on other inquiry at the university. But they claim it will make the public more likely to “perceive” that the Chicago faculty “lacks intellectual and ideological diversity.” And they insist that the growth of global markets is not as beneficial as Milton Friedman’s followers make it out to be.

This last claim tips the hand of these professors. I am sure they were irked by Professor Friedman’s long tenure at the University of Chicago and his vast influence there. Now they can take out their revenge by preventing others from exploring his ideas.

Their fear and loathing makes me like the Milton Friedman Institute already.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

The Los Angeles Times reports there will be far fewer initiatives on the ballot to excite and entice Republican voters this November.

Why? The Times suggests one big reason is that Yours Truly hasn’t worked on initiatives this year.

True, I’ve been involved in many initiatives in years past. Likewise, the Oklahoma Attorney General’s politically-motivated prosecution of Rick Carpenter, Susan Johnson and me, for helping a 2005 petition drive, is distracting. (The whole story is at freepauljacob.com.)

But the Times story is off in several respects.

First, use of the initiative goes up and down without much regard to my personal involvement.

Second, I’m not a partisan Republican. The issues I’ve worked for — term limits, tax and spending limits, property rights — have never been very popular with politicians of either party.

Unlike partisans, I don’t use initiatives to mobilize voters for a candidate or party. Instead, I like such measures because they allow citizens to actually set policy.

Sadly, though, the Times is onto something. There has been a concerted campaign by the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center and other groups to block conservative or libertarian ideas from the ballot. They’ve even hired “blockers” to harass citizens engaged in the democratic process.

And the Oklahoma prosecution has created a chill. Not a single initiative has qualified there. A recent editorial in the Oklahoman called this November’s ballot “blander than dry toast.”

Some people like it that way. I don’t.

This is Common sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

In 1991 I had a choice. To best work for term limits, I needed to move close to the nation’s capital. But where? Maryland or Virginia or the District of Columbia? I chose Virginia.

Nowadays I regularly travel through all three jurisdictions, though Maryland makes me nervous.

Prince George’s County police recently barged into the Berwyn Heights mayor’s home and shot his two dogs dead. Turns out their little home invasion was illegal — they lacked a no-knock search warrant, or any real case.

Weeks before this, a man arrested for the alleged homicide of a policeman was murdered in jail. Police working there refuse to cooperate in the investigation. Now we learn that many guards at the jail have criminal records and have committed crimes at the jail.

The Prince George’s County police have a long, sordid history. But you may be thinking, why lump in the whole state?

Well, the ACLU recently obtained documents showing that for 14 months in 2005 and 2006, Maryland state police spied on anti-death penalty and anti-war activists, with no probable cause of any crime. Names of political activists were entered into law enforcement databases as suspected terrorists or drug traffickers.

No wonder when the Washington Post held a contest to pick a new slogan for the state, the winner was: “Maryland — wait, we can explain.”

Hmmm. But how exactly do you explain a police state?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.