Read not the Times. Read the Eternities. Conventionalities are at length as bad as impurities. Even the facts of science may dust the mind by their dryness, unless they are in a sense effaced each morning, or rather rendered fertile by the dews of fresh and living truth. Knowledge does not come to us by details, but in flashes of light from heaven.
A national park on the Moon seems like lunacy.
The news that Reps. Donna Edwards (D-MD) and Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) had introduced a bill, H.R. 2617, to create a National Historic Park at the Apollo landing sites immediately turned up on RedEye and similar sardonic news programs, no doubt, because the wording of the bill does not choose “Monument” but “Park.” And a park is something we drive to, park and visit.
At present, visiting the Moon isn’t a live option for anyone, much less a bookable destination for bus tourists, motorists, and motorcycle gangs.
And yet, let’s not roll on the floor, or even LOL: the bill’s fifth “whereas” has a point:
[A]s commercial enterprises and foreign nations acquire the ability to land on the Moon it is necessary to protect the Apollo lunar landing sites for posterity. . . .
A plausible case could be made for this, and congratulations to the legislators for thinking ahead!
But an even more common-sensible case could be made for the opposite policy, allowing private businesses to reclaim the sites for their own benefit, to promote more tourism. Let them preserve the historic sites on their nickel, rather than on the taxpayers’.
Besides, one could look at those landing sites as containing the detritus of previous holiday excursions. Whereas, (a) leaving litter behind on the beach doesn’t make the beach yours; or (b) discarding one’s car on the freeway for a week constitutes abandonment — just so, Apollo’s lunar sites and debris aren’t really U.S. government property any longer.
The abandoned artifacts are junk. Let them belong to the first enterprises that prove otherwise.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Do we call this the land of the free? What is it to be free from King George and continue the slaves of King Prejudice? What is it to be born free and not to live free? What is the value of any political freedom, but as a means to moral freedom? Is it a freedom to be slaves, or a freedom to be free, of which we boast? We are a nation of politicians, concerned about the outmost defences only of freedom. It is our children’s children who may perchance be really free.
Where there is a lull of truth, an institution springs up. But the truth blows right on over it, nevertheless, and at length blows it down.
It turns out it’s not so easy to buy Afghani politicians.
You might think they’d come cheaper than American pols, but you might be wrong.
Seems the most you can “buy” is access to a politician. The very quiddity of a politician, the difference that makes a difference, is the politician’s ability to change his mind. That precludes out-and-out purchase. It’s more like what Dick Armey called it: renting.
The United States taxpayer has poured nearly two-thirds of a trillion dollars into the Afghanistan war, and there’s also $10 billion in official annual aid and who knows how many “millions of dollars in monthly payments delivered in suitcases, backpacks and plastic shopping bags” by the CIA in hopes of securing the election and continued cooperation of the Karzai government.
But that cooperation didn’t last. It didn’t buy the U.S. permanent immunity status — apparently Obama administration higher ups wanted permanent war status in Afghanistan, protected from negative fallout like court suits.
The CIA-supplied suitcases of U.S. taxpayer money had a special name in the Karzai inner circle: Ghost money. What came in secret left in secret.
That’s why the “bought” — er, “rented” — don’t stay on the take for long. Why should they? What money? What payment?
You mean ghost money?
We don’t see no ghosts.
Sadly, there appears to be a lot of truth to the quip of one American official, quoted in the New York Times: “The biggest source of corruption in Afghanistan was the United States.”
On the bright side, this may mean that American forces will be withdrawn, perhaps even in toto, within the year.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Politicians think in terms of institutions. If you identify yourself as an individual, a mere citizen, pfft: you’re nothing. But say you are from a lobbying group, or a government bureau, or a news organization — suddenly you matter.
That’s even how they interpret the Constitution.
They are wrong.
Back in May, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin expressed doubt whether “bloggers, or ‘someone who is Tweeting,’ should be given media shield rights.” He believes a big unanswered question looms:
What is a journalist today in 2013? We know it’s someone that works for Fox or AP, but does it include a blogger? Does it include someone who is tweeting? Are these people journalists and entitled to constitutional protection?
Durbin thinks he’s both clever and profound to ask “21st century questions about a provision in our Constitution that was written over 200 years ago.”
But he is actually missing the whole enchilada, the point of the Constitution.
First, our two-century old freedoms don’t have an expiration date. Second, individuals have rights, not “institutions.” And not because we belong to a group. Either everyone has a basic right, or no one does.
Glenn Harlan Reynolds countered Durbin’s institutional prejudice with a fine piece in the New York Post, where he takes a common sense position: “a journalist is someone who’s doing journalism, whether they get paid for it or not.”
Reynolds reminds us that, in James Madison’s time, “it was easy to be a pamphleteer . . . and there was real influence in being such.”
Just so for today’s Tweeters and bloggers.
Hey: as far as I’m concerned, you’re being a journalist just for commenting on this at ThisIsCommonSense.com.
I’m Paul Jacob.
Some things are a bit hard to grasp. One of them is intra-national protectionism.
Most forms of protectionism try to shield businesses within a country from competition outside, using tariffs or price controls to “even the playing field,” so to speak. What these laws do is make goods more costly for consumers within the protected country, in effect taking wealth from consumers and awarding it to the protected businesses.
In the United States’ capital district, politicians are in the process of pushing through a “living wage” bill that would apply only to big box stores like Costco and Walmart. While Costco and Walmart will be required to pay their employees a minimum of $12.50 an hour, other companies in the district could still pay wages as low as $8.25.
Doesn’t seem exactly fair, does it? The bill has been pushed by organized labor to supposedly help smaller retailers, but — surprise, surprise — exempts unionized grocery chains such as Giant and Safeway.
On the one hand, the Washington, D.C. city council is punishing Walmart, forcing it to pay more than its competitors for labor. On the other hand, the city has spent $40 million in direct subsidies to the company and another $28 million to advance projects that involve building six new Walmarts.
“I can’t imagine that they will proceed on any of the unbuilt stores if this bill passes,” says Grant Ehat, the principal of the company building the two Walmart projects already underway.
Mayor Vincent Gray expressed his hope to “find a way to, say, thread the needle” between the company and the council.
Or our nation’s capital might experiment with common sense laws, equally applied.
Yes, Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
There’s no doubt about it, in her MSNBC “Lean Forward” spots, Melissa Harris-Perry leans left. Very left.
This weekend’s Common Sense Townhall.com column explores the weird bias of one MSNBCer. Click on over, and come back here for more reading:
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul.
When the Prez, who is, remember, in government — is, technically, at the top — tells us “we are the government” and therefore have nothing to fear from government, do a double take. Who is this “we,” Kemosabe?
Voting for or against candidates who then go on to do as they like doesn’t assuage my fears.
http://youtu.be/5qR-SllUwFY
Do you feel better?