Category: national politics & policies

Toiletarianism

toilet, bathroom, trans, transgender, sex, gender, law, folly

President Obama and other politicians are taking a wide stance over the nation’s public restrooms. Important bathroom policy will finally be determined at the highest levels.

Last week, public educators nationwide received a legalistically-worded letter from the Departments of Justice and Education explaining how to legally treat transgender students under Title IX of the Civil Rights Act. CNN boiled it down to “Fall in line or face loss of federal funding.”

Friendly federal “guidance” comes after dueling lawsuits between the Feds and North Carolina over that state’s House Bill 2, which establishes statewide restroom regulations. Those regs require that transgender folks use the bathroom appropriate to the sex listed on their birth certificate (whether Kenyan, Canadian or other).

Obama wants Americans to choose the restroom matching their self-chosen “gender identity.” Conservatives seem most worried that his policy is so loosely defined as to allow non-transgender male persons to simply claim to be transgender in order to shower with the girls volley-ball team or lurk in the powder room.

“Have we gone stark raving nuts?” questioned Sen. Ted Cruz, proclaiming: “Grown adult men, strangers, should not be alone in a bathroom with little girls.”

In California, there’s legislation to force businesses to make “all single-stall public restrooms” gender neutral. “Let’s make a clear statement that, if you want to go pee, by all means help yourself,” argued the proposal’s author.

Transgender people should be treated with care and respect, as should every person. But do we really need a national bathroom policy designed for maximum division in an election year?

Before politicians solve today’s glaring non-problem in public restrooms, they should solve a real problem first.

Just one.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags bathroom, folly, gender, law, sex, toilet, trans, transgender

Accountability folly general freedom media and media people moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies

The Senator Intrudes

Sen. John Thune, Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook, fairness doctrine, censorship

We know that the media in general, and Silicon Valley, too, have strong anti-conservative biases — even if, in another sense, the Fourth Estate serves as almost the embodiment of one understanding of the conservative impulse: relentlessly upholding established institutions, against all attacks. The American media strongly defends the modern state; every program, it seems, is sacrosanct: the only thing wrong with Big, Intrusive Government is that it is not as Big and Intrusive as it should be.

This week, several ex-Facebook news curators alleged systemic “political bias” in how stories receive the top spot in Facebook’s Trending news section. So Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) intrudes. He wrote to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, in his official capacity on the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Communication. Thune says that if Facebook is, in effect, promoting stories by means of a hidden political agenda, this amounts to something like a public fraud, which lies within this committee’s purview.

I don’t see how. And I really would like such biases and pseudo-frauds to be dealt with by consumer pressure rather than government whip. And that should be without regard to the partisan stripe of the bias — or the whip.

Anthony L. Fisher, over at Reason, notes that the senator has a logic problem: he rests his case for government oversight of Facebook rules and consumer relations on the infamous “fairness doctrine,” which is not operative at this time, and which Thune has previously and repeatedly opposed.

And for good reason: the doctrine produced government-enforced muting of speech, not fairness.

But this all may mean almost nothing. I’d never even noticed Facebook’s Trending section.

Have you?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Photo of Sen. John Thune credit: Gage Skidmore on Flickr

Tags censorship, Facebook, Fairness Doctrine, Mark Zuckerberg, Sen. John Thune

meme national politics & policies

“Populism” and Leader Worship

Post author By CS Admin
Post date May 12, 2016
1 Comment on “Populism” and Leader Worship

Red Flag!

When leader worship is called a “people’s movement.”

It was just pointed out to me that it isn’t clear that the people on the left are Bernie supporters. . . so here’s a revised version of the meme:

Tags leader, people, populism, red flag, worship

Accountability ballot access general freedom national politics & policies political challengers

Delegates Unbound

Curly Haugland, voting, Republican, democracy, Donald Trump, illustration

An article in Politico calls Curly Haugland a “rule-mongering crank,” a “gadfly,” “stubborn” (twice), a “pain in the ass,” and a “pedantic curmudgeon.”

And merely in the first paragraph!

Who is this Curly fellow, you ask? Haugland’s a successful small businessman in Bismarck, North Dakota, and a member of the Republican National Committee. He’s also a no-nonsense member of the party’s Rules Committee.

Long before Trump was an issue in the party (or even “in” the party), Mr. Haugland was urging Republican leaders to do something anathema to Washington-types: follow the rules.

“The rule says, specifically,” Curly told CNBC, “that it’s a vote of the delegates at the convention to determine if there’s a majority, not a primary vote. . . . The media has created a perception that the voters will decide the nomination. Political parties choose their nominee, not the general public.”

The entire electorate chooses the president, of course, but it seems fair enough that parties choose their own nominee. They might be wise to do it through primaries including the broader public or through state conventions reserved to party members or any number of ways. But however done, it should be by the rules.

And without taxpayer money.

Delegates have been free to vote their conscience throughout the history of the GOP, from just prior to the Civil War, when Lincoln gained the nomination at a contested 1860 convention, until today. It’s been a rule. The only exception was in 1976, when President Ford’s campaign worked to change the rule, binding delegates to block Ronald Reagan’s insurgent candidacy. Coincidentally, the leader of that ’76 effort was Paul Manafort, who today is running Trump’s convention effort.

Curly Haugland’s beef isn’t with Trump, but with the media and the RNC leadership, for not telling folks the truth.

No telling if GOP delegates will vote their conscience in Cleveland, but thank you, Mr. Haugland, for speaking truth to power. Republican delegates may be listening.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

P.S. If you missed the first two commentaries in this series, here they are:
Fat Lady Score – It’s a time for choosing.
Listen to Whom? – People in political parties have rights, too.

Printable PDF

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Please consider showing your appreciation by dropping something in our tip jar (this link will take you to the Citizens in Charge donation page… and your contribution will go to the support of the Common Sense website). Maintaining this site takes time and money.

Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

Tags Curly Haugland, democracy, Donald Trump, Republican, voting

Accountability general freedom national politics & policies political challengers

Listen to Whom?

political parties, elections, party, Republican, Democrat, corruption, illustration

It’s a time for choosing, I concluded yesterday, for Republican voters — between the so-called “establishment” Republicans endorsing Donald Trump’s candidacy and those, such as House Speaker Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, and both President Bushes, who have declined to endorse.

Sen. John McCain’s admonition that, “You have to listen to people that have chosen the nominee of our Republican Party,” raises the imperative question: Who gets to choose?

Moreover, who should choose?

I’m a big fan of democracy — not pure democracy as a form of government, of course, but voting as a wonderful mechanism for people to control their government, and therefore, to protect our rights, our republic.

Yet, the Republican and Democratic Parties are private associations of citizens. We have a right to vote on who serves in public office, but not a right to decide who is nominated by a political party to which we do not belong.

“Without borders,” Mr. Trump has argued, “we don’t have a country.” To which a Republican friend recently added, “Without borders, we don’t have a party.”

People in political parties, as in any association, have rights, including who they nominate and how. Parties should be independent, not government-controlled.

Nor should political parties be advantaged in law, or their primaries and national conventions subsidized by taxpayers, as they are now.

Trump has railed that the GOP nomination process is rigged. Like most public-private partnerships, it is! But not the way you might think . . . as I’ll delve into tomorrow.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

Tags corruption, Democrat, elections, illustration, party, political parties, Republican

national politics & policies political challengers

Fat Lady Score

Donald Trump, Statistics, popularity, strategy, Hillary Clinton, president

You’ve heard the news: Donald Trump is now the Republican Party’s “likely presumptive nominee” for president. It’s a very modern-sounding term.

His 16 opponents have, one by one, suspended their campaigns. In coming weeks, as the billionaire businessman wins uncontested primaries, we’re told he’ll be “awarded” enough delegates to reach the magic number of 1,237 — a majority.

For weeks, Mr. Trump had been yelling that the Republican National Committee was rigging the process to block his nomination. Now, RNC Chair Reince Priebus and a host of establishment Republicans have endorsed Mr. Trump, including former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, Sen. John McCain, the 2008 nominee, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

“You have to listen to people that have chosen the nominee of our Republican Party,” John McCain told CNN. “I think it would be foolish to ignore them.”

McCain raises several interesting issues, worth considering over the next few days.

Let’s consider foolishness, first. There is a pragmatic argument against Trump as the nominee. While polls show Trump losing to Hillary, with 28 percent viewing him favorably against 65 percent unfavorably, a Politico story argues that, “A generic Republican might have been a favorite for the White House.”

Yet, most of the opposition to Trump isn’t pragmatic, it’s a matter of hardworking, grassroots Republicans who sincerely believe his positions don’t fit the party’s principles, or that his behavior has fallen short. Agree or disagree, but those are worthy considerations.

It’s a time for choosing. More tomorrow.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Presidential campaign 2016

ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies

Negative, Positively

Negative space, positive space, election, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump

In art class, students learn about “negative space,” how positively one can react to artistic representations and indications of absence, of the space between objects, “blank” space. This land of shadow and reified Absence can have a powerful impact on our perceptions.

Well, behold, the piece of work that is major-party politics in America, 2016.

Usually we pretend that our elections are about what we approve of, about who and what we are for. But this year, with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton the likely nominees of their respective parties (Ted Cruz having pulled out after being trounced, Tuesday, in the Hoosier State, and John Kasich, likewise, yesterday morning), the positive spin on negativity will ramp up to new levels. As Anthony L. Fisher observed primary night on reason.com, Trump and Clinton are the most- and second-most hated major party politicians ever, polling the negatives “even higher than 2004-era George W. Bush.” (Who won.)

With the negatives of both candidates looming so large, is it too obvious to take note of the high likelihood of an extremely negative campaign coming up?

Maybe we should gamble on the terms of opprobrium that will be let loose:

Traitor, incompetent, corrupt crony-pushing insider, harpy of modish feminism….

Buffoon, racist, corrupt crony capitalist, chauvinist of the vulgar tongue….

Into this negative space we can expect a rush of interest in minor-party challengers, Libertarians and Greens. Protest votes could hit new heights. And they might make a difference.

But can anyone really profit from such negative space? Color me dubious.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Also, please consider showing your appreciation by dropping something in our tip jar (this link will take you to the Citizens in Charge donation page… and your contribution will go to the support of the Common Sense website). Maintaining this site takes time and money.

Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, negative space, positive space, Presidential campaign 2016

Accountability free trade & free markets general freedom nannyism national politics & policies

You’re Fired! Hillary-style

Post author By CS Admin
Post date May 4, 2016
2 Comments on You’re Fired! Hillary-style

“I’m the only candidate,” Hillary Clinton boasted at a town hall back in March, with “a policy about how to bring economic opportunity — using clean renewable energy as the key — into coal country. Because we’re going put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right Tim?”

First, who is this “Tim” fellow? Aren’t you curious? The news media, typically unhelpful, provides no context.

Clearly, Mrs. Clinton supports the Obama Administration polices that have been disastrous for the coal industry. “Now we’ve got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels,” she explained.

Monday, in West Virginia, Clinton met unemployed coal worker Bo Copley, who teared-up talking about his family and being out of work. He asked Hillary, “I just want to know how you could say you are going to put a lot of coal miners out of jobs and then come in here and tell us how you’re going to be our friend?”

Mrs. Clinton told Copley that it was “a misstatement.” And that what she said was “totally out of context” from what she meant . . . whatever that means.

“[T]he way things are going now, we will continue to lose jobs,” she explained. “I didn’t mean that we were going to do it. What I said was, that is going to happen unless we take action to try to and help and prevent it.”

Yes, Hillary has a plan — not to “prevent” losing coal jobs, but, instead, to spend $30 billion in tax dollars to help those her policies hurt.

As one West Virginian passionately put it: “We don’t want your handouts; we want work.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

Tags 2016 Presidential race, coal, Hillary Clinton, Presidential campaign 2016, renewable energy

free trade & free markets general freedom ideological culture nannyism national politics & policies responsibility

Too Much of a Good Thing

Warren Buffett, Coca-Cola, consumer, regulations, consumer protection

Once upon a time, over-indulgence was considered a sin, a vice.

Not so much, nowadays.

Somewhere along the line, the idea that a little of a good thing was good, that general abundance is good, but that there can be too much of a good thing for any particular person . . . this latter common sense idea got lost.

I was reminded of this while reading the latest from the nation’s most famous investor: “Warren Buffett set himself on a potential collision course with public health campaigners when he said it was ‘quite spurious’ to lay the blame for obesity and diabetes at the door of fizzy drinks companies, such as his part-owned Coca-Cola.”

The octogenarian multi-billionaire Buffet, described as a “renowned Cherry Coke drinker,” defended not only his habit but the company that produced it. He emphasized choice, consumer choice. And he said, “I make a choice to get 700 calories from Coke, I like fudge a lot, too, and peanut brittle and I am a very happy guy.”

It came up because a university study had “linked fizzy drinks to 184,000 deaths annually worldwide.”

Well, name your poison. Some folks over-indulge in alcohol; others, food; others, fizzy drinks. But Buffet limits his Cherry Coke intake, as common sense would indicate.

Gluttony used to be a vice. It was preached against. The morality of common sense held sway in our culture.

At some point hedonism in the unrestrained sense took hold of many consumers, who can pay a heavy price — if not at the grocery, at the doctor’s office.

No new laws or regulations are needed. Let everyone, billionaire or not, add up their costs and choose.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

Tags Coca-Cola, consumer, consumer protection, regulations, Warren Buffett

Accountability ideological culture national politics & policies political challengers responsibility

The Most Hated

Ted Cruz, John Boehner, Paul Jacob, hated, MOST HATED MAN , term limits , Bob Novack

I’ve been robbed!!!

By Ted Cruz, no less.

Yes, without so much as a passing “Howdy-do,” the Texas senator stole my cherished public mantel, simply waltzed in and snatched what was once my own special place in our nation’s capital.

You’ve heard it on the news, I’m sure. In a speech at Stanford University, former Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner lit into Sen. Ted Cruz, referring to him as “Lucifer in the flesh.” And a “miserable S.O.B.” to boot.

Boehner vowed never to vote for Cruz, adding: “Over my dead body will he be president.”

Back in January, former Kansas Sen. Bob Dole, a 34-year Washington fixture, attacked Cruz, arguing his nomination would lead to “cataclysmic losses,” and that, in Washington, “Nobody likes him.”

Can’t. Ignore. Ugly. Truth. Must. Face. Facts. Unmistakably: Sen. Ted Cruz is today . . . the MOST HATED MAN IN WASHINGTON.

Once upon a time, back in the day, I was hated. A LOT. The most, arguably.

In 1995, I was running U.S. Term Limits, battling Republican congressional leaders (an oxymoron), who were playing games to block term limits. At a news conference, then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, never a friend of term limits, went on a tirade. One of his more colorful slings was calling us “cannibals.”

Which turned out to be a great name for our softball team.

After the Speaker’s temper tantrum, the late, great Bob Novak told me I was “the most hated man in Washington.”

Now? Well . . . campaigning in Indiana, Sen. Cruz responded to Boehner’s attacks succinctly: “What made John Boehner mad is that I led a movement to hold Washington accountable.”

Yeah, sounds familiar.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

Tags Bob Novack, hated, John Boehner, MOST HATED MAN, paul jacob, Ted Cruz, term limits