ThisIsCommonSense.org

Hey, listen up. You may have heard of voice recognition software. The software is not quite up to Star Trek standards yet, but it can recognize ninety-​plus percent of what you tell it at a normal conversational pace.

Most people can take or leave voice recognition software given its current capabilities. But it turns out that those with dyslexia can enormously benefit. Dyslexia makes it difficult to read and write words correctly. The voice recognition technology allows dyslexics to get a report or letter done cleaner and faster.

And seeing the words appear on the screen as they are spoken actually helps improve reading and writing ability over time. Marshall Raskind, a learning disabilities researcher in Pasadena, says that children often show improvement in decoding skills after just ten hours or so working with the software.

Isn’t the free market great? Not only can something like this be invented to begin with, but it can also be distributed, sold, funded and continually improved. And the people who need the help most have a chance to get it without paying millions of dollars.

So what’s the problem, according to some critics? Raskind says he has discovered that “many people view assistive technologies in general as a crutch, a way of avoiding a problem. It’s weird,” says Raskind. “It’s like seeing someone with a white cane and saying, ‘Rip that cane out of their hands and let them do it themselves.’ ”

Thank goodness folks with dyslexia are now able to show how well they can think, even if they have a little trouble decoding written symbols. Their critics should try it … thinking, that is.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Ever wonder if anybody ever really disagrees about anything on TV?

Oh sure, there are plenty of pitched verbal battles and angry comebacks. And on some shows it seems like a lot is happening because the host keeps interrupting and talks very fast and with a lot of authority, or at least a lot of rudeness. But the TV pundits tend to get mired in the minutiae of current controversies. What about viewpoints that challenge the very terms of the debate? Wouldn’t that be interesting to watch?

Yet, too often, chances for truly challenging discussion are just plain lost. For example, Paul Craig Roberts is a widely published commentator and former Reagan Administration official. He worked with the Secretary of the Treasury to help develop economic policy. In other words, a big name.

Recently, in his syndicated column, Roberts has been saying that sales and excise taxes are more consistent with freedom than the income tax, because sales and excise taxes lay no direct claim to a person’s labor. He also says that the income tax is slavery. And that politicians who try to clamp down on international tax havens are chasing after runaway slaves.

But isn’t this incredible? A former Reagan Administration official claiming that the income tax is the same as slavery! Certainly something to argue about and discuss. I mean, who is this crazy renegade from the establishment, and why is he saying such things?

But is Roberts on all the talk shows, debating this issue with Sam & Cokie? Nah. Let’s just rehash the latest phony battle between the Demopublicans and the Republicrats.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Long ago, America fought a war to throw off the shackles of oppression. Today we don’t have to resort to violence to combat the latest political insanity. But sometimes it does pay to be pushy.

Consider Tennessee. When legislators there tried to impose a personal income tax, Tennesseans had to act. But citizens don’t enjoy the right of initiative and referendum in that state. So they found another way to make their discontent known. Mostly, they drove around the capitol building honking their horns whenever their alleged representatives seemed on the verge of foisting the new tax. They also buttonholed legislators and shouted slogans.

This resistance has paid off. For the third year in a row, attempts to impose a personal income tax in Tennessee one of nine lone states in this great land still without one have been foiled.

Not without counter-​resistance. Indeed, the police were openly partisan when things got heated, according to Phil Valentine, a radio talk show host who led the rebellion. “These were citizens opposing an unconstitutional income tax,” says Valentine. “[But the police were] dragging soccer moms out of their cars and handcuffing them. They gave out tickets to people for blowing their horns.… They tried to keep citizens out of the gallery though when a lobbyist or state employee with a pro-​tax button showed up, they got escorted in.”

Many Tennessee politicians have criticized the vocal protests. Too intimidating, they say. But if they’re so dismayed by honking horns and angry petitioners, why don’t they placate the “mob” with a little more democracy? How about term limits and a citizen initiative process?

his is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

People say to me, “Hey Paul.” You’re always criticizing proposals for campaign finance reform just because they would violate freedom of speech and would even further squash political competition. Got anything positive to suggest? Well, yes, I do.

The way things are now, it’s illegal for any one person to donate more than $1,000 to a federal campaign before a candidate is nominated, and more than another $1,000 after the nomination. Who benefits from these tight restrictions? The gainers would have to be candidates who have a big money-​raising infrastructure already in place. Candidates who have special interest groups already hustling to bundle contributions from their members to the candidate. Candidates who have lots of campaign assets already on hand and pre-​paid, like franking privileges and office staff that double as campaign staff and so on … taxpayer-​funded assets that sure don’t get counted as campaign contributions, no sir. Well, you see where I’m headed.

It’s the incumbents who get away with murder under the present system. If somebody with money wants to give a challenger a chance, he can’t just write a fat check. He must virtually become a professional fundraiser himself. The system helps incumbents, hurts challengers. My reform will solve this. I propose that we each be allowed to give any amount of money to any candidate we choose. It would be a lot easier for challengers to raise cash that way, that’s for sure. Yep. Let Americans contribute just as much as they want to whichever candidate they want, just as if we were living in a free country.

This is Common Sense . I’m Paul Jacob.

It was time for a lesson. There’s so much demagoguery in D.C. about Social Security that The Washington Post decided to spend a whole page answering questions about it. But, in the process, this company-​town newspaper may have clarified a little too much. For instance, they write, “So policymakers will have to decide whether it is more important to worry about people alive 20 years from now or 50 years from now.” Is this any way to run a retirement program?

Workers are each paying 12.4 percent of their income either alone or with half coming from their employers and the best we can hope for is that some other generation gets screwed over instead of us? If we really must pit one generation against another, what kind of society will we descend into? The Post goes on to say, “Some believe future generations will be richer and more productive, and thus able to afford the bill.”

But leaving future generations the bill for our lives is morally bankrupt period. Still, the idea is pretty darn popular among politicians who live by the Keynesian motto: “In the long run, we’ll all be dead.” As long as the collapse happens on someone else’s watch, seems they couldn’t care less. We don’t need to give our grandkids the shaft. If workers could control their own accounts, politicians couldn’t steal the money to pay for more spending on their pet pork projects. We could provide for a better retirement and leave some of the earnings to our kids and grandkids, instead of sticking them with the bill.

This is Common Sense . I’m Paul Jacob.

Sure, sometimes I’m a critic of the state of American democracy. But I’m also a fan. One reason I’m a fan is that I read the papers. Compare our situation with that of, say, Indonesia.

Only a few years ago Indonesians were able to democratically elect their president for the very first time, a fellow named Wahid. But President Wahid quickly got embroiled in charges of corruption. Finally, he was impeached by the Indonesian parliament and asked to step down. The man was reluctant to go, to say the least. In fact, when Parliament first moved against him, Wahid tried to call a state of emergency and stop it from meeting at all. He says he’s all in favor of democracy, but his own actions relay a mixed message at best.

When The New York Times asked him what he was most proud of accomplishing, Wahid said he was proud of “beginning the process of democratization.” Then he added, in virtually the same breath: “I announced several days ago that those who insult the president will be arrested by the police and taken to court.… If you say the right things, okay. But if you utter slander, you will be detained. For me, this is democracy.” Yikes. Kind of sounds like some versions of Campaign Finance Reform, doesn’t it? Anyway, this dictatorial version of democracy did not win the day. The military refused to impose a state of emergency and Wahid finally left the palace, peacefully. Thus, despite all the setbacks, Indonesian democracy seems to be muddling through, may even flourish. As shall we.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.