“Who speaks for science? Or, to put it another way, on whom does the press rely to speak for science?”
Dixy Lee Ray, Trashing the Planet, 1990
Categories
Dixy Lee Ray
In what sort of place does the government get to determine whether you can open a restaurant at an airport, according to whether your political beliefs line up with the politicians in power?
Iran? North Korea? Egypt? China? Cuba? The old Soviet Union? Russia today?
Actually, over far too much of our beautiful globe the marketplace is not anywhere close to free. Instead, it’s maniacally manipulated of, by and for those wielding political power.
Including in Denver, Colorado.
“Chick-fil-A’s reputation as an opponent of same-sex marriage has imperiled the fast-food chain’s potential return to Denver International Airport,” reports The Denver Post, “with several City Council members this week passionately questioning a proposed concession agreement.”
The article notes that the “normally routine process of approving an airport concession deal has taken a rare political turn. The Business Development Committee . . . stalled the seven-year deal with a new franchisee of the popular chain for two weeks.”
Popular?
Yes, extremely popular . . . with customers. A senior airport concessions executive said the restaurant was “the second-most sought-after quick service brand at the airport” in a 2013 survey.
Not popular among politicians, however, who claim concern about DIA’s “reputation.”
That’s about it, really. The company itself isn’t accused of any form of illegal or politically incorrect discrimination. It is merely that the company’s ownership and management have expressed disreputable (to some) opinions. And might donate a portion of its profits to political causes that politicians on the Denver City Council don’t approve of.
In a foreign country, with an unfamiliar cause, almost no one would hesitate to call this what it is: despotic.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Categories
John Locke
“The great question which, in all ages, has disturbed mankind, and brought on them the greatest part of their mischiefs … has been, not whether be power in the world, nor whence it came, but who should have it.”
John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 1689
Categories
Townhall: Our Money, Good—Their Profit, Bad
Ah, when insiders let their hair down! The biases become apparent. Click on over to Townhall.com, for this weekend’s Common Sense barbering. Then come back here for more reading:
- The article in question
- The original Common Sense treatment
- The event on video
- The studies
- What the New York Times admitted
Categories
Simon Newcomb
Scientific method consists in applying to those subjects which lie without the range of our immediate experience those same common-sense methods of reasoning which successful men of the world apply in judging of matters which concern their own interests.
Simon Newcomb, Principles of Political Economy, 1886, chapter III, “Of Scientific Method.”
Categories
Video: A Freer Market in Medicine?
John C. Goodman, of the Independent Institute, has been studying and writing about health care and government policy for a long time. Here he sketches a way out of the current impasse, which is not just an “ObamaCare” problem:
Categories
Maria Montessori
“The best instruction is that which uses the least words sufficient for the task.”
Maria Montessori, The Discovery of the Child, 1948
Going into 2015, news media mavens had all but declared the race as settled: Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton. But voters didn’t cooperate with their “betters.” Republicans flocked to Donald Trump, a weirdly charismatic figure, and Democrats fell enthusiastically for Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-designated socialist.
Why hordes of regular folks prefer Trump over most of his rivals hardly needs extensive analysis: Trump is funny, appears “his own man,” and serves as a sort of wild card.
But why Bernie?
Over at The Hill, H.A. Goodman offers three reasons . . . sort of. The first reason is a confused mishmash of polling blather. But check out Goodman’s second and third reasons.
“Clinton can’t win the Democratic nomination or presidency with the FBI as a running mate,” Goodman notes in bold face type. And “Classified information has already been found within Clinton’s emails and there’s a great likelihood of more revelations pertaining to breaches in protocol. . . .”
So, the reason for Bernie’s popularity is that Hillary is so bad a candidate?
Well, duh. She’s always been a bad candidate.
Indeed, Hillary’s a corrupt insider, while Sanders, like Trump, can be plausibly construed as an outsider. But, like Trump, that plausibility is superficial.
Sanders is a lifelong politician, and when challenged about this, his retort was that he has always stood against the monied interests. He thinks that doesn’t make him a “career politician.”
Maybe being a career politician means never having to look up the meaning of “career” or “politician.”
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Categories
Simon Newcomb
“Although we may consider society as an organism, we must not carry the analogy with living organisms too far. There is one very important point in which society or the social organism differs from a plant or animal. We think of every plant and animal as having an individuality of its own, distinct from the conglomeration of organs which form it. Moreover, we cannot add to or subtract from the parts of the plant or animal without detracting from its character. A man cannot have three legs, and if he has only one he is imperfect. But there is no such completeness in the social organism. We can add new men to any extent, or we may divide a country into two without changing the character of the organism. In other words, it has no such attribute as individuality. By assigning such an attribute to it, and giving it a name, we may be led into confusion of thought. The people of each country and of each city may be considered to form a separate organism, but at the same time steam transportation has brought most of the world into such close communication that we may consider all these little organisms as parts of a great one, including the whole human race.”
Simon Newcomb, Principles of Political Economy, 1886, p. 8
Have you noticed how weird politics has gotten?
I don’t mean government spying on us or never-ending wars or crony capitalism or rights violations or mounting trillions in debt or new, innovative forms of waste, fraud and abuse.
I’m just talking about the presidential horse race.
The Donald is way out front on the Republican side. Trump is . . . interesting: rude-to-obnoxious, but definitely not a mealy-mouthed, play-it-by-the-focus-group politician. Still, his weakness may be all the “business” he’s done with politicians, taking advantage of eminent domain and other purchased governmental powers.
I’m glad to see Carly Fiorina moving up. If 2016 is going to be the year American voters choose a woman to be president — and why not? — please let it be Carly Fiorina.
The other woman running is . . . let me check my notes . . . oh, yes, Hillary Clinton. After weeks of campaigning in a style that I think can best be described as “going underground,” she went on vacation.
But she can’t stay in hiding forever. (Can she?)
Democrats are getting so nervous that they’re talking — seriously — about a Joe Biden candidacy.
Why Biden? Having spent the last 43 years wielding power in Washington, will he be packaged as an outsider?
“The short answer is Clinton may be in real legal trouble,” writes conservative Jennifer Rubin. “The longer answer is that the Democrats need to make this election about the Republicans. With Clinton, that is impossible.”
Yes, the Democrats are more popular when the public is thinking about Republicans. And vice versa.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
