ThisIsCommonSense.org

Suppose terrorists sneak aboard your flight. Perhaps they have no weapons, All they have are their intentions, their training, and their willingness to die. Eventually you hear from one of the pilots. He says, “Welcome aboard, ladies and gentlemen. We’ll be cruising at an altitude of x‑thousand feet, such-​and-​such miles per hour. The weather is good, and we should reach our destination on time today. Oh, by the way I’m unarmed. And the co-​pilot is unarmed. Enjoy the flight.”

It would be insane for pilots to announce publicly that they are easy pickings. But if such an in-​flight announcement were indeed made as things stand now, would the terrorists really have any more information than they already have? Pilots are protesting against government policy. The reason: almost a year after Congress authorized pilots to bear arms, the Transportation Security Administration is making it almost impossible for pilots to actually do so.

To fly a giant commercial jet, pilots already have to go through a lengthy series of tests. They are already being entrusted with the lives of thousands of people every day. But the reluctant TSA has thrown up endless roadblocks to intimidate pilots who apply for arms training. Two years after 9/​11, less than 150 pilots are qualified to bear arms in the cockpit. There are over 66,000 members of the Air Pilots Association. Basically, we’re already telling the terrorists: “Don’t worry, the chances are vanishingly low that either pilot on the flight you pick is armed.” That’s scary, and that’s got to change.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Yeah, right. Congress passed the McCain-​Feingold-​Shays-​Meehan campaign finance law to clean up corruption and even the playing field supposedly. My biggest concern is that the law gives Congress the power to regulate what groups like U.S. Term Limits and others can say about incumbents. Our Founders forbid such an arrangement in the First Amendment, which is why crazy federal judges needed a 1,600-page opinion to cook up some crumb of constitutionality. And why the case now sits before the U.S. Supreme Court.

I don’t have anything against money. Moreover, I am definitely not against money in politics. I’ve had cause to ask folks to contribute to political causes and I’ve felt glad, and not at all guilty, when they could. Unlimited power, not money, is the chief political demon. You can agree or disagree with my philosophical view, of course, but what of the conflict of interest Congress has in regulating campaign finance?

Passing the McCain-​Feingold-​Shays-​Meehan bill was absolutely self-​serving. Now that we have some experience under the new law even though it’s under a legal cloud what are the facts? The FEC report reads like a commercial.

• The initial impact of the campaign finance law? More money raised.
• Creation of an even playing field? Don’t be a sucker. Nine out of 10 dollars are going to incumbent members of Congress.
• Financial position of one of the laws sponsors, Congressman Martin Meehan? Ranked fourth in the House with a $1.8 million warchest to stomp out any challenger.
• The irony: priceless.

This is Common Sense.  I’m 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.