Tag: Great Britain

Categories
education and schooling ideological culture

Progress in Talk About Schools

Since my days in the early grades of school, there’s been a lot of educational progress in America.

Not so much in the public schools, but in alternatives to them. When I was young, public schools were not only paid for by taxpayers, they were near-monopolies. Parochial schools and other religious-based programs were few. Home-schooling was uncommon, technically illegal in most states and locales.

How things have changed! Not enough, mind you. But the general political culture has improved enough that charter schools are often voted in, and there exist working voucher systems, if of a limited scope, in several areas of these United States.

In Britain, the situation is also opening up. The Labour Party is pitching its support for “parent-led academies in areas of educational need.” Party outreach spokesman Tristram Hunt, who had previously snarked that such projects were “vanity project[s] for yummy mummies,” takes it all back, now insisting that his (quasi-socialist) Labour Party now backs “enterprise and innovation.”

Britain is ruled by a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, with Labour on the outs, so of course Labour could be said to be grasping at straws. It’s cheap to try freedom when you have little power. Conservative politicians insist that the latest statements are nothing but empty promises, and that Labour is still socialistically clinging to the old notion of schools “run by bureaucrats.”

But hey: notice that freer solutions are on the table.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies

Acting Accordingly

Last week, the British Parliament declined to support Prime Minister David Cameron’s call for joining a military action against Syria — an effort to punish the regime for its alleged use of chemical weapons against its own citizens.

Afterwards, asked on the floor of the House of Commons to confirm that he would not use force against Syria under “royal prerogative,” Cameron assured his country that, despite his strong belief

in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons . . . I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons. It is very clear tonight that . . . the British Parliament reflecting the views of the British people does not want to see British military action. I get that. And the government will act accordingly.

How refreshing for a national legislative body to actually reflect the interests of the people, and for the government to abide by the will of the people. Perhaps this positive example from the Brits helped convince President Obama to seek congressional approval for the military strike he urges.

Process is important and, though Congress doesn’t do much of a job of representing us, I applauded the president’s decision.

Why the past tense? Because Time magazine reports that “Obama’s aides made clear that the President’s search for affirmation from Congress would not be binding. He might still attack Syria even if Congress issues a rejection.”

Yesterday on CNN, Secretary of State John Kerry said President Obama “has the right to do this no matter what Congress does.”

The Brits have authentic citizen-controlled government. Is ours just for show?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
responsibility too much government

Is Pregnancy a Lifestyle Disease?

Two stories courtesy of Reason’s Hit and Run startled me into thinking about the strange issues that come up when you put government in charge.

Peter Suderman covered another Supreme Court review of Obamacare, featuring Liberty University’s claim that Congress overstepped its authority in mandating employer coverage of specific insurance features, and that the contraception/abortion mandate violates religious freedom.

Then I scrolled down to read Rachel Moran on one conservative British MP’s daring call for “patients suffering from so-called ‘lifestyle diseases,’ such as type II diabetes, [to] pay for their own prescriptions rather than claim free or subsidized drugs.” The Tory MP has a point:

[W]e have got to have an affordable system that rewards individual responsibility. If you want to have doughnuts for breakfast, lunch and dinner, fine, but there’s a cost.

Trouble is, as we learned last Saturday, the whole point of the modern welfare state is to take away folks’ responsibility by removing negative consequences, the costs, from risky behavior.

Here in America, we’re headed that direction. The responsibility for one’s own contraceptive purchases is being shifted (by the Democrats’ healthcare reform law) from individuals and couples to employers, via government — putting the monetary burden onto all citizens, via higher insurance payments.

The religious freedom aspect of the constitutional challenge is a red herring. More basic? Individual freedom and personal responsibility. But those aren’t exactly guaranteed in the Constitution, and politicians haven’t found a way to get elected in enough numbers on the issue of returning responsibility back into the system.

So we’re left in a world where it makes perverted sense to call pregnancy a “lifestyle disease.” And subsidize its prevention.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
crime and punishment

Crime’s Up, Crime’s Down

Perception isn’t the same as reality. Americans often perceive, for instance, that crime is increasing. But the truth is that crime has been on the decline for decades.

Can’t say that about crime in Great Britain, though. Crime rates there are up. According to a recent report, “Robbery is now 1.4 times more common in the UK than on the other side of the Atlantic, while assaults are 2.3 times more likely.” And though the U.S. still leads in murder, the situation is getting worse, not better, in Britain: “The murder rate has risen by 26 per cent in London and 85 per cent in Northumbria.” Yikes.

The report’s authors attribute the cause for this rise in crime to “the leniency of police towards suspects and the reluctance of the legal system to convict criminals and jail them. . . .” A government spokesperson, blaming previous administrations, insists that the “risks of being caught have been declining.”

This analysis sounds reasonable. And yet, my perception — based on what I read, that’s all — is that another set of factors has almost certainly contributed to England’s crime jump. While in America it is becoming easier to own, carry and conceal personal weaponry, it has become much more difficult in Great Britain. Even knives and hunting rifles are heavily regulated, and sidearms are pretty much prohibited. (In the past I’ve related some of the stories.)

With diminished capacity to defend themselves, peaceful Brits become easy targets for those who would abuse them.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
crime and punishment

For the Birds

Thanks to the intrepid action of swift-footed (and even swifter-brained) British bobbies in High Harrington, Cumbria, a dastardly mother-daughter duo was arrested and taken off the streets for several hours, time enough in the clink for cooler heels (and heads) to prevail.

The duo’s crime? Feeding pigeons. Monica and Janet McIntosh had a horrid habit of casting crumbs to Patagioenas panhandleria. Neighbors say the sky would blacken when the birds swooped to get their handouts. People couldn’t leave their homes when the critters came. It was like being in an Alfred Hitchcock movie.

Fed up with the feeding, Cumbrians called the cops. The Telegraph’s news story doesn’t report whether anybody first tried to speak to the McIntoshes. In any case, though, it’s what the police then did that’s really egregious here.

Officers phoned the women to say they’d be coming over to discuss the matter. And, presumably, a simple chat over tea and scones could have fixed the problem without any more feathers being ruffled. Instead, four officers arrested the pair. Not only that, they “seized house keys, bank statements and cheque books.” Huh? Let’s just say it ain’t Mayberry over there.

The women were let out on bail. Eventually, they were informed that no further action against them would be taken.

So this is what the world is coming to. You can feed pigeons, and apparently not be sent away for life. Can the sceptered isle ever be safe again?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture

A Fairy Tale Day

Aren’t weddings fun? And romantic, don’t forget.

That’s why I’m excited about the wedding of two young people I don’t even know: Gladys Smith and Fred Klinkle. Yet, you won’t see their wedding on your television today. Instead, the tube will revel in the wedding of Britain’s Prince William and “commoner” Kate Middleton.

Too bad. Neither Gladys nor Fred are known to benefit from unjust privilege or to have been enriched through centuries of their family’s tyrannical rule.

Not to be the skunk at the royal party, but I have a slight problem with those who live off the involuntary sweat and toil of others. Granted, to her credit, Miss Middleton has not been a leech on the British people . . . until today.

Sure, princes and princesses are just precious when animated by Disney. And it’s nice to know that in today’s real-life Britain the royals can no longer separate the heads of “subjects” from their shoulders. But still I find it hard to get in a celebratory mood for the activities of a family that represents the most rotten aspects of our unfree past.

Why do the Brits put up with the royals?

Inertia, perhaps.

Why would any liberty-loving American be caught fixed to today’s TV spectacle?

Beats me!

To Gladys and Fred and other loving non-monarchical couples, best wishes: live long and multiply. To William and Kate? Once you renounce your position and stop fleecing the taxpayers, same to you.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.