ThisIsCommonSense.org

Now I have to tell you about the German cat. In a recent column for Townhall​.com I talked about the TV licensing tyranny in Great Britain. It seems that the British people must pay an annual “licensing fee” just for turning on their tallies. Been going on for years. There are vans that go around detecting signals from people who watch TV without paying the fee. The TV licensing people send periodic letters to non-​payers and do their best to search the homes of non-​payers who claim they don’t watch TV. Even confirmed non-​TV watchers can’t get out from under this TV regime. It’s an outlandish petty tyranny that I really wouldn’t believe if there weren’t so much documentation of it.

Readers tell me that all this is happening in Ireland, Italy, and Germany too. And who knows where else. Which doesn’t surprise me, now that I have gotten over my surprise about the situation in the UK. But I already knew about Germany, because I had seen that story about the German cat. The cat got harassed about its lack of a TV license by the German TV-​ocracy. The owner says, “My cat Maxi loves animal films, but I am not paying for him to watch telly.” A representative of the German TV-​ocracy says, “From time to time, cats or dogs get letters. It just happens and of course Maxi won’t have to pay.”

Sure. What do we expect, what with 13 million letters from the TV-​ocracy going out to German households each year? You’re off the hook, Maxi.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

If you’re going to ask non-​journalists to ask questions at the Democratic presidential debates, how should you go about it? Well, I personally being very nave think you should do it by saying, “Okay, think of a question. As long as it doesn’t violate reasonable requirements of civility, decorum, and relevance, go ahead.”

But the producers at CNN moderating a recent CNN-​sponsored presidential debate called “Rock the Vote” didn’t agree with that approach. “Macs or PCs?” one student wanted to know, and everybody groaned at the vapidity of the question. But the student, Alexandra Trustman, reports that it wasn’t her question at all. Trustman says it was a CNN producer who suggested she ask the PC versus Mac thing. She was puzzled but came up with a more complicated, question about technology that she thought more relevant. But the producer told Trustman that “it wasn’t light-​hearted enough and they wanted to modulate the event with various types of questions” and instructed her to ask the Mac versus PC thing instead.  A CNN spokesman says, “In an attempt to encourage a lighthearted moment in this debate, a CNN producer working with Ms. Trustman clearly went too far. CNN regrets the producer’s actions.”

Okay. I’m glad they admitted they steered the student wrong. But they’re still not ‘fessing up to the bigger problem here. Their whole spin approach as such was a blunder. There’s a difference between moderating and sit-​com directing. And if you really want to know what the people want to know, you let them ask.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Howard Dean’s decision to opt out of the presidential public financing system is supposedly that system’s death-​knell. If only it were true! The system is broken, but it doesn’t need fixing. It needs to be buried deep in Yucca Mountain.

They say private money is “dirty” and corrupting, while public funds are “clean” and wholesome. I have some dirty private money in my pocket and I don’t want politicians cleaning it for me. Sure, corruption in our government is rampant, but public financing of presidential campaigns certainly hasn’t done anything to change that. Moreover, public financing gives government far too much power. Power over elections and speech. And who do you think will be writing the rules for public financing? Yeah, career politicians in Congress.

Even as Dean has opted out, he insists that we need a much more robust system that provides “qualified candidates with the public funding necessary to wage meaningful and competitive campaigns …” Under Dean’s system, just how much tax money will it take to give everyone enough to run a “meaningful and competitive” campaign? Or will the incumbents in Congress continue to write the rules so that mainstream candidates are subsidized to a much greater degree? So that the powerful and connected get an extra push at the expense of everyone else the way it is now?

Let the people donate if they choose. And let voters judge candidates by their fundraising as well as by other issues. It’s called free elections.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

One of my favorite writers is the economist and social thinker Thomas Sowell. Sowell is a professor, but hey, he can think straight. So he’s one of those weird hybrids. One thing I like about him is his stand on term limits. Sowell is in favor. I guess it helps that he lives out in California, where everything is done in a big way, including the screw-​ups of career politicians.

Recently the good doctor took on one of the weaker arguments career politicians like to hurl at us. You know, that crock about how career politicians are so super-​experienced that we can’t possibly let ’em ever ride off into the sunset. I’ve bashed this notion so often myself that I’m starting to get tennis elbow. So I’m happy to turn the floor over to Sowell.  In a recent column talking about the politics of the Davis recall effort, Sowell says that “the old ‘lack of experience’ game that politicians like to play against any newcomer doesn’t have quite as much weight any more, when you see what a monumental mess the experienced, lifelong politicians like Governor Gray Davis have made.

There could even be a lesson here for people in other states. “When politicians talk about being ‘experienced,’ the question should be asked: Experienced in doing what? In deceiving the public? Evading responsibility? Claiming credit for what happens that is good and blaming others for whatever happens that is bad? Experience in spin or smoke and mirrors?” Dr. Sowell, you took the words right out of my mouth.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

He doesn’t deserve what he got. If he’s guilty of anything, it’s only of poor research and too little common sense. He called the cops and asked them to help safeguard his money. And the cops, of course, took it. I say “of course,” which may seem unfair. Not all cops are robbers. But it’s true that too many policemen think too little about the justice of the laws and orders they are asked to obey.

In this case, there seems to be a law against holding cash. Robert R. Reiner had $350,000 of his father’s money that he wished to deposit in the bank. He asked the police to help provide security. They called the feds and the feds took the money presumably on the principle of guilty until proven innocent. Drug dealers carry cash; maybe Reiner is a drug dealer; take the money.

The feds claim the family’s house has been “under investigation” as a possible source of drug production. But this claim seems to have surfaced only after the fact. Reiner says his dad had originally withdrawn the money from the bank. And the paperwork he presents in his suit to get the money back shows that his father had indeed made the claimed withdrawals, belying the notion that the money originated in drug trades.

In any case, the cash has been grabbed despite no evidence of wrongdoing. Reiner is trying to get it back. He’s also caring for his 80-​year-​old father, who has suffered a toll from all this.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Maybe it’s a start. Saudi Arabia ranks high on the list of countries that, if not outright totalitarian, are certainly not open and democratic either. In fact, Saudi Arabia is almost alone among such countries in that it has never held elections or referendums.  It’s the Saudi family that lays down the law very autocratically. That may be about to change, just a tiny bit. Not because the Saudis have suddenly seen the light. But because they are under intense pressure to open things up a bit.

In the past, eager to maintain our oil supply, the American government and other western governments have been all too willing to turn a blind eye to the Saudi way of governing. It is fair to say that the spotlight on Saudi society has never shined so brightly as it has in the couple of years since 9/​11. Most of the hijackers, after all, were Saudi nationals. So is Bin Laden. The Saudis have announced that half of municipal council members will now be determined by election. According to the Saudi press agency, the goal is to widen “popular participation and [confirm] the country’s progress towards political and administrative reform.”

Saudi Arabia’s extensive first family may think they’re just throwing a sop to democratic sentiment. They may think that after all this terrorist stuff blows over they can go back to doing business as usual. But as a certain Mikhail Gorbachev discovered, even a little bit of real democracy tends to exceed the expectations of the rulers who permit it.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.