Categories
First Amendment rights

We Protest

You don’t need to commit violence to conduct a large, effective public protest of perceived injustice. The many Tea Party demonstrations against our federal government’s latest socialist excesses prove that.

But what if violent and nonviolent protests are equated in the minds of peace keepers?

In Reason magazine, journalist Radly Balko reports on several disturbing examples of crackdowns of persons assembled in a public place. In one incident, motivated by the occasionally violent protests of last fall’s G-20 summit in Pittsburgh, police ordered students gathered in public to disperse forthwith, though they had broken no laws. Anyone who moved too slowly was subject to arrest. Apparently, a few violent protesters hit town for the summit, but they were a distinct minority.

Balko isn’t impressed by a university official’s claim that the gatherings had to be busted up because of the “potential” for trouble. That’s a dangerous standard to apply to peaceful assembly that is not only constitutionally protected but also an important bulwark against tyranny.

Police can make honest mistakes like anybody else, especially when in charged and confusing situations. No doubt there’s sometimes a fuzzy line between a peaceful if rowdy protest and one that’s turning violent. But Balko suggests that police are increasingly harassing and handcuffing people only because they are peacefully dissenting.

Not only is that not right, it demands protest.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
property rights

Domain of Eminent Irony

You reap what you sow.

That’s the lesson being taught to developers in Ozark, Missouri. A few years ago, a company called Hagerman New Urbanism benefited from Ozark’s use of eminent domain power to trample on the property rights of local citizens. The city shoved residents off their property. Hagerman got the stolen land.

But Ozark is unhappy with the progress of redevelopment. The city wants to pull the plug and give the land to somebody else. How can they, though? After all, Hagerman now “owns” the land. Right? Yeah, right.

The parties are in court fighting about whether the city owes money for the work done so far and other contractual matters. But judicial processes are long-winded and messy. And spending money is expensive. So the city is threatening to use eminent domain yet again. This time against the very developer who benefited from the first land looting.

Local activists like Jane Carpenter, who fought the original use of eminent domain, may appreciate the poetic justice here. But as a matter of principle they don’t support a new eminent domain grab. They say it would signal to businesses thinking of coming to Ozark to stay the heck away.

Good points. Still, I doubt that many folks in Ozark or elsewhere would shed any tears over Hagerman being forced to glug down its own poisonous medicine.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
judiciary responsibility

Pump Down the Volume

Can somebody sue you for making something wonderful that might hurt somebody else who uses your product carelessly?

Of course. This is America, land of the Bill of Rights, mom, apple pie, Chevrolet . . . and outrageous litigation.

Some suits are sound, sure. But, on top of those you’ve got your money-grubbing frivolous actions, pushed by freeloaders and fronted by freebooters, er, lawyers. But at least these folks don’t always win. That’s where I’ve got some good news to pass along: A federal court has slapped down ludicrous litigation against Apple Computer.

Apple makes the popular iPod media player. Litigants Joseph Birdsong and Bruce Waggoner alleged that Apple is culpable for “possible hearing loss” resulting from iPod use, thanks to allegedly improper earbud design.

Birdsong and Waggoner don’t assert that their own eardrums had burst, or even that the ears of others had suffered. In fact, the ruling against them notes: “At most, the plaintiffs plead a potential risk of hearing loss. . . .”

Obviously, when your own careless conduct causes you harm, you alone are responsible. Turn  your stereo volume to the max and press your ear against stereo speakers. It isn’t the stereo maker’s fault when your eardrums pop.

By the way, iPods also have volume control.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
government transparency

Grading the President

Barack Obama promised a new era of government transparency. He even pledged a fully transparent congressional debate on health care reform, telling us repeatedly that the negotiations would be televised on C-Span.

Now in power, he’s forgotten that tune. But of course, that’s not up to him. It’s up to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Last week, she laughed at such transparency.

But Clint Hendler of the Columbia Journalism Review has graded the president for what he — not Pelosi or Reid — can deliver on transparency. Regarding state secrets, Hendler gives Obama a “D.” With Freedom of Information Act requests the administration has done better: Mark it a “B.”

I’ve talked before about problems with the recovery.gov website. But what about data.gov? By the end of the month there should be some meat on that site’s database bones, but a lot more work will remain. Call it a “D-plus.”

Hendler gives an “F” to the White House’s routine — and utterly opaque — practice of concocting off-the-record background briefings. An “A-minus,” though, goes for White House visitor records . . . despite a refusal to issue lists of visitors in the administration’s first seven months. Further, the White House reserves its right to hold back this info at any time.

The president’s grades sure aren’t that of an overachiever. Maybe he needs a tutor.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
property rights too much government

Bitterroot Water Ruling

“Frankly, I’m an Obama guy . . . You hear these sort-of horror stories about the government is gonna take your property, or they’re gonna confiscate your ground, and I always thought it was some sort of libertarian gobbledy-gook. But in this case this is exactly what’s happening.”

That was Huey Lewis; this is the news: The Mitchell Slough, in the Bitterroots of Montana, is a century-old irrigation ditch. Newcomers to the area, including rocker Huey Lewis, worked on the slough to make it better for fish. Though farmers were at first skeptical, the redigging and unsilting made the slough better for agriculture as well as for fish.

But those fish are valuable. Other folks covet them.

In Montana, natural water bodies must be accessible to the public. So the recreation lobby took the slough’s owners to court.

At first, the historical facts of this man-made water system held sway. But the Montana State Supreme Court overturned all this, caving in to the intense political pressure to open up the slough to public access.

People with fishing rods may rejoice now, but their victory will be Pyrrhic. The fish and wildlife will degrade. Basically, Montana’s highest court unleashed what is called the “tragedy of the commons.” Public access of a common resource often leads to overuse, in this case, over-fishing. It’s sad news for Huey Lewis, farmers, fishermen . . . and fish.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
general freedom national politics & policies

The War on Terror Lumbers On

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to blow up himself and 277 other people on Flight 253 to Detroit Christmas Day. Fellow passengers subdued and disarmed him.

Lessons? Start with the obvious: There are still terrorists in other countries who want to hurt us.

Some will say that we must beef up security. But consider: America’s security state, which has been in alleged high gear (or some bright color) since 2001, has already been beefed up. And yet, once again, this security broke down.

It could be that preventing violence is just not that easy to do. If you have determined enemies who spring up in unexpected quarters, it’s really hard for government to stop them.

Herbert Spencer, a 19th century sociologist, explained it this way: “The law-made instrumentality lumbers on under all varieties of circumstances at its habitual rate. By its very nature it is fitted only for average requirements, and inevitably fails under unusual requirements.”

We cannot expect government to always foresee dangers. We cannot even rely on government to transmit warnings of a specific terrorist from one department to another, and do something about it.

I’m not saying we should expect nothing of government. Just don’t expect too much.

All hope is not lost, however. We have each other. From the heroism of

Flight 93 on 9.11 to this Christmas Day incident, passengers have shown they’re not powerless.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
responsibility too much government

Global Gall

Human cells have 46 chromosomes. So all the relevant evidence tells us.

But suppose persuasive evidence emerged that human cells have, say, 48 chromosomes? And suppose hackers discovered emails by prominent biologists talking about the need to “hide the extra chromosomes”? Or to prevent other biologists from discussing the evidence for these extras?

And suppose after the scandal broke, a government agency asked biologists to sign a petition “defending the integrity of genetic science” against “skeptics”?

Hacked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Unit confirm that there is more deception and less unity in climate science than many have claimed. Debate about the extent of global warming and of mankind’s contribution to it intensifies. But some scientists have struggled to suppress this debate and even to hide basic climate data.

In response to the scandal, the United Kingdom’s national weather service recently asked climatologists to sign a petition saying everything is hunky-dory in climate research and the official global-warming paradigm.

Hey, I like petitions, but . . . are we doing science here? Or politics?

One anonymous scientist, quoted in The Times of London, explained that UK’s weather service “is a major employer of scientists and has long had a policy of only appointing and working with those who subscribe to their views on man-made global warming.”

I think my question has been answered.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
insider corruption too much government

That Other America

As we tramp forth into 2010, America’s great divide widens.

A recent Rasmussen poll shows a stark difference. Government workers see the economy getting better, while those in the private sector see it getting worse.

Different perspective or different reality?

Well, during this economic downturn, 6 percent of those in the private sector have lost their jobs, while public sector employment has dipped only 1 percent.

Stuart Varney with Fox Business News says, “If you’re a government worker, you don’t lose your job. You have a very rich and generous pension. You have a very generous health care plan. . . . You’re protected from the real economy.”

He also points out that, “[T]he three wealthiest counties in America . . . are all suburbs of Washington, DC . . . full of very well paid government employees and lobbyists. They are the beneficiaries of a great deal of taxpayer largesse.”

In a column for the Washington Examiner, Michael Barone notes that unions overwhelmingly support Democrats, contributing $400 million in the last cycle. Union members account for only 7.6 percent of the private sector, but a whopping 40 percent of public employees.

This leads Barone to conclude that there is a partisan interest in protecting public sector jobs. He writes, “In effect, some significant proportion of the stimulus package can be regarded as taxpayer funding of the Democratic Party.”

Whatever happened to “we’re all in this together”?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Common Sense

Happy New (Sorta) Decade

2010 has begun and we’re inundated with Top Ten Lists: Movies, Sports, Political Trends, What-Have-You. To be different, I thought about compiling a Top Ten List of the Decade’s Best Top Ten Lists, but then I realized . . .

This isn’t the first year of the decade, it’s the last.

A decade, proper, begins with the numeral 1 at the end, not the numeral 0. You see, our Gregorian Calendar does not figure the Current Era as starting with a Year Zero; it was constructed to start with a 1. And just as the first decade of the first millennium started with 1 and ended with 10, just so the first decade of the third millennium started with 2001 and will end with 2010.

Don’t jump the gun.

“Mere technicality”? Most ignore the true construction of the calendar. In the same way, even though Sunday is listed as the first day of the week, many working people think of Monday as the week’s first day.

But hey: “Mere” shmere. I don’t have a Best of the Decade list for you, and I’ll take what excuse I can find.

Besides, wouldn’t it be good to have another year to come up with something really great for our Top Ten Best of the Decade list?

For instance: Could 2010 be the year citizens themselves took control and corrected course?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Common Sense education and schooling First Amendment rights

No More Cruel and Unusual?

In recent years there’s been a spate of so-called “zero tolerance” policies — actually, zero common sense policies — in our schools, especially after Columbine and 9/11.

Last October in Delaware, six-year-old Zachary Christie faced 45 days of reform school for bringing a camping utensil to lunch. The gizmo combined a knife, fork and spoon. There was no evidence of evil intention. But the school thought their zero common sense policy against weapons had been violated. After a public outcry, the draconian punishment was dropped. The local school board modified some of its rules, though only for kindergartners and first-graders.

In Florida, lawmakers recently revised zero common sense policies statewide in hopes that only students who pose a genuine threat get expelled or arrested.

Hurray for any glimmer of a return to common sense. But why all these policies to begin with? Why instruct educators anywhere to respond maniacally to meaningless deviationism?

Maybe common sense and conscience are often the same thing.

Imagine if jay walking, littering and talking too loud in elevators were punished in comparably cruel and unusual fashion. Imagine judges and prosecutors always claiming they can’t distinguish between trivia and real crime — so better respond to both with equal force. Would we not accuse such meters-out of injustice of crimes of their own?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.