Common Sense with Paul Jacob

Fast food is not addictive. We can all agree on that, right? We can all do without french fries. Sure, I like french fries, but I don’t have to have them. I can quit any time I want. Silly to think they’re addictive. But there is no silliness so silly that somebody seeking to file a lawsuit can’t find scientific support for it. Or at least pretend to find scientific support.

Legal beagle John Banzhaf, one of the guys who’s been suing the tobacco industry, now wants to sue fast food restaurants for addicting us to their menus. To make his case he’s citing studies that allegedly prove this addiction is happening. For example, one that considers the effects of a high-fat diet on rats. But the study in question doesn’t really prove what he wants it to prove. One of the co-authors, Matthew Hill, says it only shows that a high-fat diet alters rat brain chemistry. The study doesn’t even address the issue of addiction. Hill says, “Addiction is kind of a vague term and we obviously can’t say that we’ve proven that you can become addicted to food.”

The Center for Consumer Freedom notes that “All this talk about ‘changing biochemistry’ may sound a bit frightening, but remember that everything from sleeping to running will affect the brain in some way. Even ‘oploids’ a chemical that sounds disturbingly like it has something to do with illegal drugs are simply the natural byproduct of everyday activities like exercising.”

Exercise, huh? Now that’s a scary thought.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Most people agree with me that people are way more important than chickens. But some people don’t agree. And want to stop us from eating chicken, believe it or not. And speak as if chickens are more important than people.  The name of the group is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, also known as PETA.

You may have heard that there’s a heat wave in Europe that has cost the lives of many people without air conditioning. As many as three thousand people so far just in France, according to some estimates. Guess what the “ethical” people at PETA have to say about it? Well, they’re worried about the heat-related deaths of chickens.

In Britain they’ve written to Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett, telling her to prosecute farmers who let birds suffer. Well, I’m sure we can arrange to put the chickens out of their misery, but I don’t think that’s quite what PETA has in mind. When chickens were used to detect chemical weapons during the war with Iraq and dolphins were used to locate mines, PETA complained that these animals never enlisted. This implies that it is better to let undetected weapons kill human beings than risk the life of an animal.

If PETA had its way, it would be illegal to eat chicken for dinner. In fact, it’s completely ethical. Some nutritional authorities claim that if we did not eat food regularly, we could not even survive. And, as a matter of fact, some of my favorite animals eat animals. So go ahead and enjoy that bird. And save a drumstick for me.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Sometimes congressmen pass destructive laws. Sometimes the bad consequences seem so obvious, you wonder why the congressmen didn’t see them too.

Hey, relax! Often they do indeed see. That’s why they tend to exempt themselves and their buddies from such laws. A recent congressional bill would ensure that federal retirees enjoy the same level of prescription drug benefits that they’re now getting from private plans offered to them through the government. The bill protects them against the effects of other congressional legislation that, if passed, would harm other Americans.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, if prescription drug bills now on the table become law, about one out of three private-sector retirees will lose their current level of drug benefits and be pushed into the government’s Medicare prescription-drug plan instead. Which offers less coverage. Ouch. Can’t let that happen to federal employees, now can we?

The prospects of larger prescription drug legislation are uncertain. Too many people may complain too loudly about being hit. But the bill to exempt federal retirees is still illustrative of the congressional mentality. Representative Tom Davis, a sponsor, says it’s needed because government must have “the right incentives to attract and retain the best and the brightest.” (Oh. So the private sector is chopped liver.) Oh well.

At least these guys realize how destructive their legislation is. Now if only they could realize that if interfering in our lives is destructive, they should stop doing it.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

We’ve all been told that the attempt to recall California Governor Gray Davis is wild and crazy. Not so many realize that the state’s voters have probably already benefited just from having the recall measure on the ballot. But Michael New of the Cato Institute has noticed.

New notes that with a $38-billion deficit hanging like smog over the California legislature, those who wanted taxes to go through the roof had a lot of leverage. Yet the eventual budget compromise wasn’t anywhere near as tax-happy as some had feared. Why not? New says that a couple factors prevented the super-tax-hikes. One is California’s super-majority requirement to pass tax hikes. If all it took in California to boost taxes were a simple majority of the legislature, the pro-taxers would probably have won hands down. But the anti-taxers stood their ground. New believes that, “In the end, it was the recall effort that saved California taxpayers.

With Davis’s popularity hovering at Nixonian levels, Davis and Assembly Democrats realized that any substantial tax hikes would damage his chances of surviving the recall. Consequently, they were more willing to agree to a budget compromise that did not involve a substantial tax increase.” I agree with New that Democrats probably would have been more stubborn about tax hikes without this political reality punching them in the nose.

This argument isn’t quite new with New. The citizen initiative has always given voters greater control over their government. A good thing, too.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Jake Brown, a young history major, often eats lunch at a bench in a park near Independence Hall in Philadelphia. One day this summer, he brought a sign saying: “Free Independence Hall.” It was in protest of metal bike racks in the area that he thinks are ugly. Maybe a silly cause, but a harmless one. He wasn’t shouting. He wasn’t running around flourishing the sign. He just had it propped next to him.

But soon a park ranger was telling Browne he couldn’t protest there. Browne asked why, and the official said it’s because the park is federal property. Browne wanted to know, “What about my First Amendment right to free speech?” According to Browne, the park ranger replied, “This is a First-Amendment-free zone,” and that if Browne wanted to display his sign he had to take it to the “designated First Amendment Zone,” a couple blocks away. Intimidated, Browne suggested that he just turn the sign around while he ate his lunch. The official said, “Fine. [But if] you turn it back, you’re under arrest.”

Well, this isn’t a science fiction tale of a darkening future, it’s all been written up in the Philadelphia Daily News . Fortunately, under pressure from the ACLU, the park rangers seem to have reversed their policy. My small suggestion would be that before being hired, government employees be required to pass a test on the U.S. Constitution, with special attention to the Bill of Rights and with a failing grade for anyone who claims that this document doesn’t cover the whole country.

This is common sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Is it possible that what you do on the job is more important than how long you hold the job? I’ve always felt that you can get stuff done on Day One of any post. Just common sense. But many career politicians don’t think like this at all.

Many career politicians even though they yodel about how well-qualified they are when they’re running for office plead incompetence once they’re in office. They tend to do this especially in the 16 states that have legislative term limits. “Hey, give me a few years to find the bathroom!” is their plaintive plea. “And then I’ll start figuring out how to pass a bill. . . .” Yeah, we get it. And another decade to figure out how to get away with political corruption without anybody noticing. And another decade to name half the state after yourself. So it’s refreshing when somebody doesn’t try to pull this gag.

In Oklahoma, Democrats in the statehouse have nominated Representative Jari Askins as the new speaker. Assuming Democrats hold onto their majority after the 2004 elections, Ms. Askins can only do this job for two years.

She’ll be termed out of office in 2006. Does she claim that she needs more time than that just to find the bathroom? Not at all. “I knew if I had a chance to be speaker, it would only be for a two-year period,” Askins says. “My philosophy has always been that it’s more important what you accomplish during your time of leadership than the length of your time of leadership.” Good for you, Representative Askins.

This is common sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Self-help tip for the day: hand it off. Learn to delegate.

Critics of term limits often complain about how term limits kick experience out the door. And how tough it is for newcomers to learn the ropes.

What I keep hearing, though, is that new legislators bring experience to the table that is highly relevant. Experience as farmers, accountants, businessmen, taxpayers.

And what about all that complicated legislative stuff? Well, turns out the actual legislative procedure is not all that complicated. And even the arcane niceties of legal language don’t have to be a stumbling block. U.S. Congressman have their staffers to hack out bills for them. But state legislators get help too.

For example, I see at the Arkansas legislature’s web site that the actual drafting of the legal language of bills is handed off to the Bureau of Legislative Research. After that, according to the web site, “A bill is given to the Chief Clerk of the House or the Secretary of the Senate and assigned a number. The sponsor(s) of a bill signs the original copy.” Then I guess at some point everybody gets to vote on it. Sounds like rocket science, doesn’t it?

No, submitting a bill isn’t the hard part. There’s a manual for that. The hard part is representing citizens fairly and governing fairly. And there’s no reason why a person can’t be experienced in balancing the books, the problems of particular industries or, for that matter, the basics of a just political philosophy long before entering public office.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Should we be scaring people to death?

The Environmental Protection Agency has issued a fatwa against low levels of mercury in pregnant women. They say that children of women with 5.8 parts per billion of mercury in their blood are “at some increased risk of adverse health effects.” But they present no evidence of this increased risk.

According to a recent EPA report, about eight percent of American women of childbearing age have this level of mercury. But 5.8 parts per billion is 10 times less than the threshold considered safe in the scientific literature.

If such announcements had no impact we could laugh them off as bureaucratic busywork. But politicians use them to push new regulations. Yet the few outbreaks of mercury poisoning on record involve massive dumping, not some kind of diffuse emissions.

Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, notes that “we don’t even know how much [industrially issued mercury] gets taken up by humans. [N]o one has ever bothered to see if the mercury in Americans largely resembles the mercury, in its chemical signature, that comes out of power plants. Nor has anyone ever asked if the patterns of mercury elevation in landlocked fish . . . looks like the pattern of mercury fallout from the nation’s matrix of power plants.”

So, no real proof of a problem. Just regulators and politicians eager to show how much they care . . . no matter who they may hurt and scare in the process.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Shooting gun makers in the back may be falling out of fashion.

If somebody shoots somebody else with a gun, you’d think if you were going to sue anybody, you’d sue the shooter. Not people who make or sell guns for a living. Unless we’re also going to start suing baseball bat manufacturers whenever anyone gets bashed with a baseball bat.

Yet over the last several years we have been hearing about lawsuit after lawsuit against firearms manufacturers, as if they were complicit in crimes they knew nothing about. Fortunately, many courts have dismissed the lawsuits as transparent attempts by gun-control advocates to win by lawsuit what they can’t win by law.

Some lawmakers have banned these frivolous lawsuits. For example, in Georgia. The U.S. House has also passed a ban on such suits, and the Senate may follow suit.

Some of the folks pushing these lawsuits have decided to throw in the towel. Recently the Cincinnati City Council voted unanimously to drop its own lawsuit, which sought to make gun makers pay for the costs of responding to crimes in which guns are used. I guess they’re reserving their right to bring the lawsuit again if the ban in Congress doesn’t pass.

Of course, if you sell a gun to somebody you know is planning to commit a crime with it, there you have knowledge and complicity. But you can’t punish vendors every time something they sell is put to evil use. Such a principle of liability has nothing to do with holding people responsible. It’s more of a license to kill.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.