Category: ideological culture

Categories
crime and punishment general freedom ideological culture

Bosworth Sentenced

Dr. Annette Bosworth

Last week, Judge John Brown sentenced Dr. Annette Bosworth, a neophyte candidate for U.S. Senate from South Dakota, to twelve concurrent two-year prison terms . . . to be suspended provided she successfully completes three years of probation, pays the cost of her prosecution, and performs 500 hours of community service providing medical care to the poor.

Note: that final punishment is what she has been doing on her own for years, and is sort of why she is in this mess in the first place.

The case isn’t an innocent person being unjustly accused. I’ve met Annette Bosworth; I’m proud to call her a friend. But she wasn’t exactly innocent. She got bad advice and made a faulty decision to sign as the circulator of petitions when not every signature was affixed in her presence.

That’s a mistake. It shouldn’t be a felony.

The bigger issue? The over-the-top prosecution. Attorney General Marty Jackley’s heavy-handed, multi-felony approach sends a chilling message to anyone in South Dakota considering political participation.

More ominous is the apparent long-running personal feud between Jackley and Bosworth. In a statement after her sentencing, Jackley declared that Bosworth had “crossed the line of exasperation.”

But it is South Dakotans who should be exasperated with the AG: “Jackley had said before her sentencing,” the Capitol Journal reported, “that he might recommend prison time depending on Bosworth’s attitude after conviction.”

Meanwhile, State Rep. Steve Hickey, a chief Bosworth accuser, appears to have committed her same sin: signing a petition as circulator and not witnessing each signature. Jackley hasn’t bothered to investigate, but defensively told reporters, “I’ve never said that I won’t look into it.”

Tellingly, Mr. Hickey just resigned his seat in the legislature.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Previous commentary:

Printable PDF

Dr. Annette Bosworth

 

Categories
general freedom ideological culture responsibility

Gases and Masses

Global Blame

For once, The Washington Post headline actually reflected the commentary: “America is the worst polluter in the history of the world. We should let climate change refugees resettle here.”

Michael B. Gerrard, associate faculty chair at Columbia University’s Earth Institute and director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, presents a gloomy, doomy picture of earth 85 years from now.

“Toward the end of this century, if current trends are not reversed,” he writes, “large parts of Bangladesh, the Philippines, Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt and Vietnam, among other countries, will be under water.”

And we need somebody to blame. Today.

Step forth, America!

“[I]ndustrialized countries ought,” Gerrard argues, “to take on a share of the displaced population equal to how much each nation has historically contributed to emissions of the greenhouse gases that are causing this crisis.”

The World Resources Institute places responsibility for 27 percent of world carbon dioxide emissions between 1850 and 2011 on us. Therefore, the U.S. must care for 27 percent of the world’s climate change refugees . . . eight decades from now.

It’s only “fair,” according to the dean, that “The countries that spewed (or allowed or encouraged their corporations to spew) these chemicals into the air, and especially the countries that grew rich while doing so, should take responsibility for the consequences…”

Especially?

Is Gerrard battling so-called “carbon pollution” or . . . wealth?

I have a simpler plan, one not based on collective “justice” — fantasies of what whole nations somehow “deserve.” People should be free to move where they think they will be better off.

Will that still be America?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Global Blame

 

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies too much government

The Rise in Unrest

political, politics, Brothers' Keeper, Obama, race relations, crime, police abuse, drug war, arrest, collage, photomontage, illustration, James Gill, Paul Jacob, hope, arrest, inner city, Baltimore, riot

On Monday, pushing an expansion of his “My Brother’s Keeper” initiative, President Barack Obama gave a talk about the recent rise in racial discord.

Does he ever ask himself, “Under whose watch?”

When the financial system melted down in 2008, candidate Obama — not without some justification — blamed President Bush and the Republicans. Why shouldn’t he and his party be today held somewhat responsible for rising racial unrest?

Wasn’t his very status as the First Black American President supposed to continue the healing process between blacks and whites?

In his talk, Obama recognized the “sense of unfairness, of powerlessness, of not hearing their voices, that’s helped fuel some of the protests. . . .” Well, sure. But there would be no occasion for this were inner-city blacks not treated unfairly in the first place.

The president wants to spend more money on education, for example, despite the high levels of per-student public ed funding in hot spot Baltimore.

It is quite clear that other programs have done the most damage. We still have a War on Drugs, which is unpopular enough that it turns cops “racist” perhaps even against their wills — as I’ve explained before, police tend to focus their unpopular policing against drug use to the classes of society that have the least direct political power, most especially against inner-city blacks.

But even more bedrock: we see protests and talk about inequality during economic downturns. Obama should learn from Bill Clinton’s initial presidential campaign: It’s the economy, stupid.

Or put more bluntly: It’s your stupid economic policies.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Brothers' Keeper

 

Categories
folly ideological culture media and media people

It’s a Disgrace

Crying Children

State-powered Puritanism is alive and well in the west. And freedom of speech is in its death throes.

Or so it seems in Great Britain. And the U.S. isn’t far behind, suggests Brendan O’Neill.

O’Neill, editor of the London-based Spike, recounts recent absurd assaults on freedom of speech, so frequent now in Britain as to be routine.

Consider the case of the malevolent hashtag. A hashtag is a label with a pound sign that Twitter-folk use to flag and meta-comment on their tweets. A soccer fan named Stephen Dodds thumbed the hashtag “#DISGRACE” to bemoan how Muslims attending a game were conspicuously praying during halftime. His tweet provoked an Internet uproar. Good. But Dodds was also reported to the police, who investigated his open hashtaggery for two weeks (!!).

And how about the case of the svelte-model-adorned subway ad that dares ask British ladies if they’re “beach-body-ready”? Uh oh. A direct psychic assault on those who will never be “beach-body-ready” in the super-model sense of the word. After feminists vandalized the ads, something called Advertising Standards Authority lurched to investigate — not the vandals, no: the blatantly anti-blobby sentiment.

Few opinions or postures fail to offend somebody.

What offends me is that we should ever be subject to arbitrary, government-backed assaults on our rights launched to satisfy persons especially thin-skinned and/or especially eager to stomp on the rights of others.

As with all fake rights, foisting a fake right to not-be-offended can only violate genuine rights. #DISGRACE.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Crying Children

 

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies Popular

Sanders Didn’t Say

Bernie Sanders

What can we make of the leftist hatred of the Koch brothers, David and his elder brother Charles? For their support of libertarian and Tea Party causes, and a few Republican candidates, the left doesn’t just demonize them, the left singles them out.

I suppose a reasonable person could blanch at rich people giving money to political causes . . . if they objected to all super-rich donors.

But that’s not what’s happening here.

Leftist hatred of the Kochs is especially weird, considering that Koch causes include gay marriage and opposition to war in the mid-East. And yet it’s the Kochs who get called out . . . by Bernie Sanders, who wants to mobilize “millions of people to say ‘enough is enough — Koch brothers and millionaires can’t have it all.’”

Sanders didn’t say, “Soros and millionaires cannot have it all.” Leftist billionaire George Soros gives millions to organizations working to turn the U. S. into a European-style “social democracy.”

Sanders didn’t say, “Bloomberg and millionaires cannot have it all.” Super-rich statist Michael Bloomberg has spent fortunes to undermine the Second Amendment and make America more of a Nanny State.

Sanders didn’t say, “Steyer and millionaires cannot have it all.” California billionaire Tom Steyer sure spent a lot of money to raise taxes and elect Democrats.

Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed socialist now running for the Democratic presidential nomination, is blinkered: others are greedy; his side is pure.

Enough is enough — what’s important to Sanders is that his opponents be silenced by government order. There’s nothing democratic about that.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Bernie Sanders

 

Categories
general freedom ideological culture media and media people Second Amendment rights

Times Misfires

NYT-NRA

Time to revise the Times’s motto? Should “all the news that’s fit to print” read “misprint” instead?

Maybe, after the New York Times’s latest editorial snafu, charging the NRA with hypocrisy for banning arms-bearing at its April convention.

According to the editorial, “none of” the attendees were allowed to “come armed with guns that can actually shoot. After all the N.R.A. propaganda about how ‘good guys with guns’ are needed to be on guard across American life . . . the weekend’s gathering of disarmed conventioneers seems the ultimate in hypocrisy. . . . So far, there has been none of the familiar complaint about infringing supposedly sacrosanct Second Amendment. . . .”

But after first hitting print, the text has changed. It was too quickly and conspicuously confirmed that “anyone with a permit valid in Tennessee can ‘come armed [to the convention] with guns that actually shoot,” that “the NRA had no problem with gun owners with the proper gun permits bringing their weapons inside.”

So the Times editorial was edited after initial publication, nixing the reference to “the ultimate in hypocrisy.” The revised online editorial now merely professes dismay that guns won’t be allowed in one of the convention venues . . . but doesn’t mention that this is because of the policy of that particular venue, not the NRA’s.

The editorial still complains that nobody is complaining about alleged Second Amendment infringement no longer attributable to the NRA. Whose alleged hypocrisy was the Times’s original point.

It’s like somebody’s shooting at random and just hoping to hit something.

This is Common Sense. (I mean this, not the Times editorial, is Common Sense.) I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

NYT-NRA

 

Categories
Common Sense general freedom ideological culture national politics & policies

Lions and Lambs

LIons and Lambs

“March comes in like a lion, goes out like a lamb.”

Tell that to Indiana Governor Mike Pence, whose signing of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) into law at the end of March created a roaring controversy.

Does the law enable discrimination? Or protect religious freedom? Or both? Neither?

An Associated Press report explains: “Religious freedom laws like the one causing an uproar in Indiana have never been successfully used to defend discrimination against gays — and have rarely been used at all, legal experts say.”

Of course, discrimination continues. In 2014, a Texas restaurateur refused service to a gay couple. As a FindLaw.com article explains, the 1964 Civil rights Act “only prohibits discrimination on the basis of color, race, religion, or national origin, and says nothing about sexual orientation.”

So some states, such as New Mexico and Oregon, added legal protections for sexual orientation. But that’s led to reverse violations of rights — facing a $150,000 fine, a bakery closed its shop after the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries ruled it violated a lesbian couple’s civil rights by declining to make a wedding cake; a New Mexico photographer was found guilty of violating the state’s Human Rights law for declining to photograph a gay couple’s commitment ceremony.

In times’ past, both state and private violence enforced invidious racial discrimination. Thankfully, those days are gone — cafes, hotels and stores are open to all.

But the civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations cases are distinct from forcing photographers or florists or flutists to personally participate in a ceremony they choose not to.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

LIons and Lambs

 

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies too much government

Count to Ten

Counting the Commandments

Yesterday I argued that the Ten Commandments can and should be promoted — privately. Promoting one’s religion is expected . . . outside of government. But do that as a government official and suddenly what most folks consider good common sense morality sows discord.

Why? Simple. Your religion is yours. But the government is ours. It’s supposed to be. But since we don’t all share the same religion, your monument on public property or public commemoration seems nothing more than you shoving yours at us.

With the Decalogue, it’s even trickier. The Ten Commandments aren’t numbered as such in either Exodus or Deuteronomy. Jews, Catholics, and various Protestant denominations differ on ordering them. What one group calls the Fifth Commandment another calls the Fourth. What most American Protestants call the Tenth Commandment is numbered as the Ninth and Tenth by Catholics. And so on.

So any enumerated Decalogue is not merely Judeo-Christian-centric, likely to make Buddhists, Hindus, Yazidis and Sikhs at the very least uncomfortable. It would necessarily be denominationally preferential.

I bet most Ten Commandment listings promoted by American politicians are not the ones Catholics have memorized, by order — or Jews, or even Lutherans and Episcopalians.

These differences usually appear quite small, of course, especially in light of the overwhelming similarities. Accordingly, any disagreements about the Ten Commandments remain friendly, and will likely stay that way — unless government chooses one version over another.

In politics, the doctrine of enumerated powers is divisive enough. Add in multiple, competing enumerations of the Ten Commandments? Too much to divide us.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Counting the Commandments

 

Categories
general freedom ideological culture

Commanding Controversy

Ten Commandments

Is “Thou shalt create controversy” one of politicians’ Ten Commandments? Is “Thou shalt pass a law to solve every problem” their eleventh?

Meet Arkansas Senate Bill 939, which would authorize placing a monument to the Ten Commandments on capitol grounds. It passed the state senate last week, 27-3, and is headed to a similar slam-dunk in the House.

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reports that, according to authors Sen. Jason Rapert (R-Bigelow) and Rep. Kim Hammer (R-Benton), the effort “should be seen as a way to honor the historic role the biblical text has had in U.S. and Arkansas history and not seen solely as religious.”

No public dollars are involved, say proponents — private money is to purchase the obelisk. Opponents, many testifying, counter that the upkeep will still tap taxpayer money.

Not to mention the certain and certainly expensive litigation over the constitutionality of the endeavor.

I’m not one to shy from a constitutional battle, having launched more than a few of my own. But, well, I think the Ten Commandments might best serve as more than a prop.

Let me offer an alternative that (a) could actually get real people to read the Ten Commandments, no doubt with varied but valuable educational result, and (b) won’t cost the State of Arkansas one thin dime in maintenance or legal fees.

Download a copy of the Ten Commandments here. Share with others.

Reading and talking about the Decalogue has to be far better than picking an expensive fight about it.

No law necessary.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Ten Commandments

 

Categories
general freedom ideological culture nannyism national politics & policies too much government

Marriage Savings

Paul Jacob on how governments can save money, and clean up the marriage business, too

We’ve all seen lawmakers yammer on and on about how they want to “streamline” government, or “save the taxpayers money.”

But they rarely show us much for all the talk.

Paul Woolverton, writing this weekend in the Fayetteville Observer, noted one such lapse after the North Carolina Senate voted to create a law to let magistrates “opt out of conducting any weddings if they have a religious objection.”

The problem? “No one in the debate,” Mr. Woolverton asserts, “questioned the underlying premise that a magistrate or clergy member is necessary to seal the marriage contract.”

The involvement of the state in the marriage contract biz is unnecessarily complicated, he explains. “As fiscal conservatives,” Woolverton insists, they could have taken the opportunity to ask something more fundamental:

A man and a woman pay the government $60 to get a government-approved marriage license. Why should they then have to visit another government office and pay the government another $20, or hire a government-designated third party for a fee or “donation,” to finalize their marriage contract?

Woolverton suggests streamlining the process: “. . . [G]overnment should make its involvement the least intrusive it can be. It should record marriages when couples visit the Register of Deeds to buy their marriage licenses.”

And that’s it.

Betrothed couples can legally testify to meeting any and all state requirements — and officially inform the state of their pre-marriage and married names.

Those who want the services of a priest or rabbi or preacher or imam can hire one, or cajole one. Or two.

That’s just not state business.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF