ThisIsCommonSense.org

Only a few of us really work for a living. At least, according to day laborer and U.S. Senator Fritz Hollings, of South Carolina. Senator Hollings says we don’t make anything anymore. He says that, “At the end of World War II we had 40 percent of our work force in manufacturing, and now we’re down to 10 percent. We’ve got 10 percent of the country working and producing, and the other 90 percent talking and eating.” So says the senator, as he announces he won’t run again for reelection after seven six-​year terms in office. You do the math. Kind of proves you don’t have to be a candidate to say things that make no sense. Never mind this guy’s contempt for non-thing-makers.

Let’s agree that manufacturing is indeed a smaller part of the economy than it used to be. Couldn’t manufacturing be getting more productive? A long time ago, 90 percent or more of American adults worked on a farm. Is it really a disaster that this percentage has shrunk? What it means is that today you can plant, gather and sell wheat a lot more productively than you could in the days when it was just one guy and a horse and a plow. B

efore we farmed the fields, humans were hunters and gatherers. We got our meals by plucking berries and killing game. Then the agricultural sector came along and put the hunter-​gatherers out of business. A tragedy … or an advance? There’s nothing sacred about how we do things now if we can find a way that’s even better.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Bill O’Reilly of “The O’Reilly Factor” sometimes gets it wrong. On one issue, I think he’s half right and half wrong, so I’m going to play Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde here. O’Reilly complains that people in public life, including him, often get unfairly bashed by their critics. He mentioned certain attacks on Arnold Schwarzenegger that have little to do with how Schwarzenegger might perform as governor of California. Fair enough. But then O’Reilly makes two further claims. One, that it’s largely the Internet’s fault as if public figures never got bashed before the 1990s. And two, that “too little” is being done to protect public figures from the ravages of this Wild Cyber-West.

It seems that there is a lot of very open, uninhibited discussion out there, and O’Reilly is miffed about it. He says, “the court system in this country does not protect anybody in the public arena. [W]ith the rise of the Internet … you could say anything you want about anybody. And it just goes unchecked. Shouldn’t there be a check and balance in this?”

But what checks and balances does O’Reilly want? There are already laws against libel and slander in this country he’s welcome to use them. But he seems to be hinting that there must be some form of prior restraint that people must be stopped from having their forums even before they open their mouths.

A lot of people would like to gag O’Reilly too, so why don’t we have a peace treaty that goes like this: we let Bill O’Reilly talk, and he lets all the rest of us talk.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

The headline reads: “Judge denies instant election runoff. Though illegal, [San Francisco] voters’ wish not granted for … mayoral ballot.” A wish? Maybe that was the problem the judge mistook the law for “a wish.” A common error.

Eighteen months ago, San Francisco voters changed the way they vote. They enacted that change into law. The new system is called “Instant Runoff Voting.” Designed to end the so-​called “wasted vote syndrome” where your vote might be “wasted” if your favorite candidate is not likely to win.  Instant Runoff Voting also makes certain the winner has majority support. Voters rank their choices: first, second and third. Votes for the last-​place candidate get re-​assigned to the voters’ second-​choice candidates, and this process continues until someone obtains a real majority.

Yet, after 18 months to implement the new voting system, city officials haven’t done so. Deputy City Attorney Wayne Snodgrass told the judge they just couldn’t manage the election under the new system. “We don’t want another Florida.” Suing the city to enforce the law, Steven Hill with the Center for Voting and Democracy said, “We’ve seen a lot of fumbling and bumbling going on.” No doubt. But is it just bumbling going on here?

It has been suggested that a politician with high negatives like San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown might lose, heaven forbid, under the new system. But we’ll never know, because Mayor Brown’s officials ignored the law. And the poor judge, well, he doesn’t know the difference between the law and a “wish.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

The media talks about the California recall as if voters there are the victims of a natural disaster or suffering in some war-​torn province. Words like “chaos” and mayhem” are thrown around so regularly that I have to keep reminding myself I’m not watching a retrospective on the LA riots of a decade ago. In fact, I think even those riots may have gotten better reviews.

Why are the media and the political elite so anti-​recall? Seems they like democracy only when the people butt out of it. Former President Clinton went to California to oppose the recall. Like everyone else, he didn’t defend Governor Gray Davis. Even the guy who can spin anything can’t spin the Davis, uh … performance.  Yet, the elite want Californians to simply grin and bear it. Otherwise, as the former prez warned, they risk becoming “laughingstocks.”

Are Californians laughingstocks? Should we be ashamed of a political system where voters have such awesome power that they can not only elect their leaders, but also fire them? Few countries in the world have such a crazy, chaotic system. I mean, no one was going to recall Saddam Hussein or the Taliban. The world may be laughing at us. But in America, we’ve long chosen the chaos of freedom and democracy over the calm and order of boss rule.

Thank you, California, for reminding us that even with all the problems of democracy, it is the best form of government, and that the answer to those problems is more democracy.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Big problem. They’re doing too well. Cassandra Stevenson of Connecticut has just started college. She’s 15. Her sister, Samantha, is 19 and has a master’s degree in astrophysics. “Homeschooling is more like college than a public or a private school is,” says Cassandra. “You learn what you want to learn and what you need to learn. The curriculum is fitted to you.” That’s exceptional. But your average homeschooler still does pretty well.

A National Home Education Research Institute study found that the typical homeschooler’s academic achievement easily tops that of the typical public-​school student. The Institute estimates that as many as 2.2 million children now benefit from homeschooling.

See the problem? Robert Rader does. He’s the executive director of the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education. Call it Status Quo United for short. Rader agrees that “parents have the right to educate their children at home.” On the other hand, he worries that “children don’t always get the rigorous structure and up-​to-​date educational techniques, which are applied in public schools.” Uh, hello. It’s that so-​called “rigorous structure” that parents and kids are escaping from!

Mr. Rader doesn’t seem to realize that he and other educators might learn from the homeschoolers if effective education is really their goal. If you want process, call Mr. Rader. He’ll process your kids for you. If you want results well, a great many families have figured out how to get those … at home. Mine too.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Hey, I recall those taxes. And the politicians in California will recall them too. Or at least pretend to, until the recall vote on Governor Davis has safely passed.

Okay, let me stop punning for a minute and give you the background. Recently I discussed the California recall effort. I said that even if Davis survives, Californians benefited just by putting the recall on the ballot. Politicians there have become more hesitant about increasing taxes, at least while Davis’s fate is still open. In response, a guy I’ll call Glenn wrote me. Glenn says, “You are right that the message carried by the recall vote was ‘no big tax hike to pay off YOUR screw up’ and the [politicians] heard it.

I was one of those trying to get signatures on the recall petition, and until Davis announced the triple-​whammy automobile tax hike, I could hardly get anyone to more than ho-​hum my pitch. The day after the announcement, I picked up ten signatures on my block, two from people who wouldn’t even open the door to me the first time around.” I appreciate Glenn’s comments, especially since he started out saying “you are right,” which I always take as a good sign. The politicians in California are now talking about dropping the new car tax, but it looks like a block-​and-​feint. As soon as Davis is safe, if he is, the car tax could be back on line.

In the long run, the only way Californians can keep runaway politicians at bay is to keep their feet to the fire. Thank goodness the people there have initiative and referendum. And term limits.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.