Category: folly

Categories
folly ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies

A Special Place in Heck?

Hillary Clinton, Trump voters, Trump, women, woman, vote, election, democracy,

Former First Lady scolds women for not voting … for a former First Lady.

Yes, “Michelle Obama,” the BBC headlined last week, “scolds female Trump voters.”

Need you ask why? You probably have already guessed.

“Any woman who voted against Hillary Clinton voted against their own voice,” Mrs. Obama remarked at a Boston conference.

Though a majority of women who voted cast their ballots for Mrs. Clinton, a slightly smaller majority of white women voted for Donald Trump.

And to those women who did not vote for Hillary? “Well, to me that just says, you don’t like your voice.”

The idea that one woman candidate can serve as “the voice” for all women is not merely absurd. It is sexist. But it is something that this most recent First Lady shares with the former First Lady who just lost a major election. Yes, Hillary Clinton has said much the same kind of thing. And Madeline Albright, Secretary of State under Clinton’s husband’s command, famously argued “there is a special place in hell” for women who refuse to toe the line and vote Clinton II.

Heck, there is a special place for women who think, appraise and choose against social pressure: America. Here people matter as individuals, as persons, not as members of their race, religion, sex, or … political party.

But the arrogance of these women leaders shows no understanding of effrontery. “You like the thing you’re told to like,” Mrs. Obama belittled female Trump voters.

Truth is: women were repeatedly told to like Hillary for president. But they refused to do as they were told, which is why Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Obama are attacking them.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
folly ideological culture national politics & policies political challengers U.S. Constitution

O That Wacky Gerrymandering

HIllary Clinton, Right Wing Conspiracy, gerrymander, states convention, lies

Hillary Clinton: always wrong.

Oh, I’m sure that when she tells the maid “We need milk,” she’s accurate enough. Otherwise — forget it.

Her latest howlers pertain to the movement to convene a Convention of States. If two thirds of the states call for the convention, it “will be” convened, per the U.S. Constitution. If 38 states approve a convention-​proposed amendment, it will be added to the Constitution.

Different pro-​convention groups support different amendments, on everything from a balanced budget to spending limits to term limits. U.S. Term Limits is promoting a Term Limits Convention to propose an amendment for congressional term limits. 

A great idea.

Clinton, though, sees calamity: “The right wing, aided and funded by the Mercers, Koch brothers, etc. [sic], is very serious about calling a constitutional convention,” she warned recently.

“Part of their gerrymandering is to control state legislatures, elect Republican governors, and to call a constitutional convention [no, a convention of states] and,” the author of What Happened elaborates, “if you really get deep into what they are advocating, limits on the First Amendment, no limits on the Second Amendment, limits on criminal justice … [A] very insidious right-​wing agenda.”

Gee, the old multiple-​fallacies-​and-​vague-​ominous-​assertions-​per-​second trick! 

First, how to “gerrymander” statewide gubernatorial elections? 

Or “gerrymander” the enthusiasm of millions for restraints on government? 

Or apply the districting concept to the Founders’ constitutional provision for end-​running Congress?

As for the political issues she blunderingly raises, Clinton seems to regard any political disagreement whatever with herself as proof of billionaire-​funded “right-​wing conspiracy.” 

Well, left-​wing conspirators always say such things.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability folly free trade & free markets too much government

Jonesing for Disaster

Puerto Rico, Jones Act, protectionism, hurricane, unintended consequences, folly

First, do no harm. Second, stop harming.

You might think that these would be the Two Commandments of Government.

But no.

Politicians make a good show of saving us, sure. Sadly, appearance alone suffices. For them. Much easier to announce a new program than get rid of a harmful old one. 

Latest case? Courtesy of a storm and a new president, we now get to witness hurricane recovery mismanagement all over again, but this time outside the continental United States.

“The administration announced some bad news for Puerto Rico,” writes Scott Shackford at Reason. It will not, Mr. Shackford explains, “be waiving the Jones Act, which significantly restricts the ability of foreign or foreign-​owned ships from bringing goods to Puerto Rico.” 

The “unincorporated U.S. territory” that is the island must take its lumps.

The Jones Act* limits foreign ships port access … down to one. The mandate allowing port-​to-​port commerce only to American-​manned ships is designed to save a few jobs and grease a few union wheels in the mainland.

And now, especially, that old, ongoing “centralized government planning for the benefit of a small group of powerful U.S. shipping interests” amounts to a real kick to a people already devastated by Hurricane Maria.

Closing ports to much needed help doesn’t help. An emergency order could suspend the ongoing harm of throwing roadblocks in the way of a swift recovery and rebuilding.

Or Congress could repeal the Jones Act entirely.

Neither is likely.

So the wounded Puerto Ricans — prior to the storm hobbled by years of territorial misgovernance — can expect more fake government help. 

This is Common sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Not to be confused with the Jones-​Shafroth Act of 1917, which set up territorial  governance of the island.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability folly general freedom ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies too much government

We Are At War — So What Else Is New?

Russia, war, hack, propaganda, Morgan Freeman, video

As if on some hellish, punitive treadmill, we keep “experiencing” the last federal election, over and over. 

Hillary Clinton, who didn’t get a majority of all votes and who lost in the Electoral College, keeps on grinding through her long list of people who failed her. 

Her nuttiest charge, that “Russia ‘Hacked’ the election,” reached its apogee, last week, in the bizarre video featuring Morgan Freeman. The actor, who’s played both the President and God, intones that “We have been attacked; we are at war.” 

Financed by a cobbled-​together Committee to Investigate Russia, the notion seems to be: stretch Hillary Clinton’s conspiracy theory into the talking points for . . . a coup d’état.

Congress is, of course, investigating “what Russia did.” 

Unearthed, so far? Not much. 

As James Freeman wrote, in The Wall Street Journal, considering the paltry Russian presence on Facebook, “if Russian disinformation managed to change the outcome of the U.S. presidential contest, the Kremlin must have created the most influential advertising in the history of marketing.” 

And when you add in the FBI’s multiple FISA requests to bug Trump’s campaign manager, it’s hard not to come to this conclusion: it was not Trump, but the Deep State that colluded with the Russians.

The Committee/​Freeman video talks about “using social media to present propaganda and false information,” which puts the “hack” on the level of ideas — not real manipulation. Propaganda from the Kremlin is not appreciably different from propaganda from Clinton or Trump. 

Lies were everywhere, and if “false information” were worth declaring war over, the American people would have revolted against Washington, D.C., decades ago.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Common Sense folly free trade & free markets general freedom ideological culture media and media people moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies

Evil Capitalists Hook Brazil On Eating

Brazil, junk food, capitalism, free markets, New York Times, folly

Have you heard the latest? 

More and more peoples around the world these days have the unfortunate misfortune of having adequate food — not merely vegetables either!! — thanks to the ruthlessly profit-​seeking food producers and their unconscionable engagement in the division of labor, capital accumulation, and international trade. 

It’s right there in The New York Times, which is, as you know, the paper of record. 

“DealBook: How Big Business Got Brazil Hooked on Junk Food.”

Dastardly! Those Big American Businessmen must have kidnapped the Brazilians, strapped them into chairs, and pumped Doritos into those poor souls with a syringe. Heaven knows, the fecklessly irresponsible Brazilians can’t be held responsible for their own diets.

How bad is it? 

This bad: “As growth slows in wealthy countries, Western food companies are aggressively expanding in developing nations, contributing to obesity and health problems.”

One expert quoted in the story (no hungry people consulted) says, “Part of the problem … is a natural tendency for people to overeat as they can afford more food.” 

Worse than Hurricane Irma!

Thanks to the Times’s aggressive investigative journalism, we know that these brazenly food-​selling companies do not even nag their international customers to be careful about their diets. Ergo, it’s chips and other indiscriminately convenient snacks for everybody, no strings attached. 

It’s become all too easy to be well-​fed and overfed and mis-fed. 

Thanks a lot, capitalism.

Oh for the good old hunting-​and-​gathering days when human beings spent much of their time starving, and the world had the human population of Binghamton. No problem with anyone gorging on Twinkies and Doritos back then. No problem of epidemics of corpulence.

We’ve lost that swell paradise … perhaps forever. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

Illustration based on original photo by David Goehring on Flickr.

 

Categories
Accountability ballot access folly media and media people moral hazard national politics & policies political challengers term limits

If This Be Blackmail…

Hillary Clinton, What Happened, Libertarian, 2-party, ranked choice voting

The Republican Party now boasts of more positions of power than … ever? And yet the GOP is in danger of falling apart.

The Democrats, now forced to endure Hillary Clinton’s new absurdity, What Happened, appear at wits’ end. They just do not “get it.”

Alas, “not getting it” is not limited to the major parties. The Libertarian Party (which is my subject this week) has been around since 1972 … doing the same things over and over … with spectacular lack of electoral success.*

Sure, the party has had no small subtle influence — perhaps most notably the change in marijuana policies. Yet it could have even more. Without electing anybody, as I argued yesterday.

But that’s just the tip of the Titanic-killer. 

Not only could party organizers threaten the major parties with running — and taking away votes — based on their candidates’ positions, Libertarian organizers could also threaten to run against candidates who will not publicly take up the cause of electoral reform.

Particularly, ranked choice voting.

Because of our first-​past-​the-​post elections, Libertarians tend to take away votes from those most similar to themselves. With ranked choice voting (see a sample ballot), a voter whose favorite is a Libertarian will have his second-​favorite choice count** towards that candidate; minor party candidates would no longer work as spoilers. 

And that would allow voters to embrace their real preferences, not pretend to like candidates they actually distrust.

Since major party candidates would, in most circumstances, be hurt less by those closest to them, they should be willing to be “blackmailed” on this.

Jumping into the briar patch of supporting fresh reform to stop the spoilers.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

*  The 3 million odd votes for the Johnson/​Weld presidential ticket, though a leap ahead from previous outings, was seen by many as a disappointment: that’s all the dynamic duo of former governors could do in a year with the unpopular duo of Trump and Clinton as R and D standard-bearers? 

** That is, in cases where only a small percentage of the vote favors the Libertarian most.

PDF for printing