Categories
Accountability folly general freedom ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies too much government

We Are At War — So What Else Is New?

As if on some hellish, punitive treadmill, we keep “experiencing” the last federal election, over and over.

Hillary Clinton, who didn’t get a majority of all votes and who lost in the Electoral College, keeps on grinding through her long list of people who failed her.

Her nuttiest charge, that “Russia ‘Hacked’ the election,” reached its apogee, last week, in the bizarre video featuring Morgan Freeman. The actor, who’s played both the President and God, intones that “We have been attacked; we are at war.”

Financed by a cobbled-together Committee to Investigate Russia, the notion seems to be: stretch Hillary Clinton’s conspiracy theory into the talking points for . . . a coup d’état.

Congress is, of course, investigating “what Russia did.”

Unearthed, so far? Not much.

As James Freeman wrote, in The Wall Street Journal, considering the paltry Russian presence on Facebook, “if Russian disinformation managed to change the outcome of the U.S. presidential contest, the Kremlin must have created the most influential advertising in the history of marketing.”

And when you add in the FBI’s multiple FISA requests to bug Trump’s campaign manager, it’s hard not to come to this conclusion: it was not Trump, but the Deep State that colluded with the Russians.

The Committee/Freeman video talks about “using social media to present propaganda and false information,” which puts the “hack” on the level of ideas — not real manipulation. Propaganda from the Kremlin is not appreciably different from propaganda from Clinton or Trump.

Lies were everywhere, and if “false information” were worth declaring war over, the American people would have revolted against Washington, D.C., decades ago.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment government transparency responsibility

Ferguson Finally Wins

Yesterday, on the 49th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s assassination,* voters in Ferguson, Missouri, passed a charter amendment requiring police to wear body cameras while on duty. The measure also provides the public access to that footage, along with reasonable rules about privacy.

In August 2014, Ferguson came to the nation’s attention — and the world’s — when a black resident was shot and killed by a white policeman. In the aftermath, the nation witnessed a militarized police response to senseless riots that destroyed 17 local businesses.

People there and across the country jumped to fact-free conclusions about who was at fault: the deceased Michael Brown or the policeman, Officer Darren Wilson.

“If there’s one thing that I think everybody in Ferguson would agree on, it’s that we’d like to have a video of what happened on Canfield Drive back in August of 2014,” remarked ballot measure proponent Nick Kasoff.** “If we had that, Ferguson wouldn’t be a hashtag. It would be just another quiet suburb of St. Louis.”

Police began wearing body cameras after the Michael Brown shooting, and the consent decree the city reached with the Department of Justice set some useful parameters. But the rules in the just-enacted charter amendment go much further to guarantee the public access to the video.

Not to mention that just this week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a review of all such consent decrees nationwide. Without yesterday’s victory at the ballot box, the police cams policy might simply be abandoned.

Not now. The voters have spoken, 71 to 29 percent.

Spurred by Ferguson, there’s been a ton of talk about reforming criminal justice in recent years. But I like action a whole lot better.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Yesterday also reminds me of 1984, George Orwell’s classic dystopian novel, because the book’s protagonist Winston Smith begins his diary on April 4, 1984.

It’s my favorite book, and has enjoyed quite a surge in sales since last November’s election. Yesterday, the movie was shown in nearly 200 theaters in the U.S., the U.K., Canada, Croatia and Sweden.  

** Nick Kasoff led the six-resident committee that drafted and petitioned the measure onto the city ballot, with assistance from Liberty Initiative Fund (LIFe). Regular readers may remember that LIFe is where I have my day job — and that without contributions like yours, fewer successful measures like this Ferguson body camera initiative get off the ground.

 

More on the issue

Townhall: “Finding Ferguson

Townhall: “First Step for Ferguson

USA Today: “Ferguson residents push for body cameras

Townhall: “The Citizens Are In Session


Printable PDF

 

Categories
general freedom

Common-Sense Canine

If at first you don’t succeed . . .

Persistence. That’s the lesson of an animal rescue shown in a video of unknown provenance, most likely recorded in Southeast Asia, that appeared on the Internet toward the end of 2014.

As the video opens, we see that a small tawny-haired, yelping dog had somehow fallen into a well. Rescuers are lowering a rope into the water. The pooch has only one way to escape — by grabbing the rope with her teeth. Which she does.

Nine out of ten times, though, she can’t hold on long enough for a rescuer to grab her and pull her out. She keeps dropping back into the water.

Discouraging.

But the tenth time proves the charm. Some combination of dog-learning and human-learning results at last in a successful retrieval. The dog has done the only thing it could do to save itself, and kept doing it until it worked.

The advice to “keep trying” is regularly balanced with the advice to know when to “cut your losses.” But, often, it’s neither possible nor advisable to cut our losses no matter how tough things get. Switch strategies, maybe. But not give up.

We can’t conclude, for example, that “this U.S. government thing is not working out, let’s cut our losses.” We just have to keep working to reform its institutions and policies no matter how often we get flung back into the well. It’s the only way we win.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
crime and punishment U.S. Constitution

The Right to Remain Recording

Every once in a while, a judge makes a judgment so sensible, it’s as if he had this Common  Sense column in mind.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Edmund Brennan has determined that the same right to video-record police in public also applies within a would-be videographer’s home.

The case involves a 2011 search of the home of Mary Crago, which was subject to search without warrant under the terms of her probation. Defendant Kenneth Leonard deleted a video recording she made of the search, telling her that recording it was prohibited. In court Leonard has contended that no right to video-record police officers has been established for persons on probation or in a non-public setting.

To this, Judge Brennan responds that if a plaintiff has “a clearly established constitutional right to record from a public place where the plaintiff has the lawful right to be, a plaintiff surely has such a right in his or her home.”

Brennan sees no “no principled basis” for the assumption that we have a protected right to record officers performing their duties in public that “does not extend to those performed in a private residence. The public’s interest in ensuring that police officers … do not abuse [their] authority … does not cease once they enter the private residence of a citizen.”

If anything, it is even more urgent to protect a citizen’s right to document proceedings when an officer’s actions are shielded from public view — from other witnesses.

But of course. It’s just Common Sense, isn’t it?

I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
media and media people Second Amendment rights

Rapid-Response Counterfire

If somebody tries to polemically gun down your rights, button your flak jacket and shoot back.

It may take years — say, if you’re John Locke answering Robert Filmer.

Sometimes you’ve got only seconds.

You’re on a gab show being watched by millions. Somebody says something unwise, illogical and destructive — but possibly persuasive to a certain percentage of viewers. Unless you reply, instantly, with something wise, logical and constructive, you lose your chance.

If it’s dueling YouTube videos, maybe it takes a couple of days to blast the enemy and win a viewership the size of a small city.

The offending “celluloid” I have in mind is a Bloomberg-funded skit that opens with the caption “Warning: this video depicts scenes of domestic violence.” An armed ex-boyfriend breaks into a woman’s home and threatens to take their kid. The woman calls the police — minutes away when seconds count. The video implies that the way to “stop gun violence against women” is to get rabid-ex-boyfriend-empowering guns off the streets.

Two days later, Liberty PA had posted a parody-rebuttal. This time, the prospective victim flourishes a shotgun to scare off the ex. Opening caption: “Warning: this video depicts scenes of self-defense.” Closing caption: “Stop gun control against women.”

Bull’s-eye.

The video-rebuttal didn’t cost much more to make than the quick wit and time of a few alacritous participants. Within a couple days — credit partly yours, O modern technological infrastructure! — it had garnered 72,000 hits.

On Fox’s Red Eye and elsewhere the inanity of the original propaganda piece was pointed out. But it was the Liberty PA video response that really brought the point home.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
term limits

Big Bucks to Promote Term Limits

Maybe you’re like me — you’d gladly ballyhoo term limits even if you don’t get handed $10,000. But if you want the ten grand, too, here’s your chance: An outfit called Our Generation is holding a video contest to find the best 60-second ad promoting congressional term limits. The deadline is December 1, 2010. Contest guidelines are posted at aboutourgeneration.org.

Here’s an idea you can use with my compliments: Attack the fallacies. Certain clichés about term limits get repeated so reflexively they sound more like mantras than arguments. Your ad could starkly juxtapose fallacy with reality, highlighting the silliness of the claims.

One such mantra is “We already have term limits, they’re called elections.”

Of course, elections too frequently prove hollow affairs, with incumbents standing for re-election, and standing again for re-election. Especially at district level, incumbents often suffer no major-party opposition or only nominal opposition. Your video could show clips of politicians asserting “We already have term limits, they’re called elections,” alternating with clips of reporters announcing that Congressman So-and-so is running unopposed. Back and forth, back and forth, faster, faster. You could probably squeeze at least 20 into a 60-second ad. Would take some research to get the clips, but the supply is endless.

We also hear a lot about how term limits eject experience. Experience doing what? What our Congress has been up to the last few years? Well, you take it from there.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.