Think Freely Media presents Common Sense with Paul Jacob

Washington State activist Tim Eyman could celebrate election night. Several of his sponsored anti-red-light-camera initiatives won — in Bellingham and Longview and Monroe.

But his statewide initiative seems to be going down.

Eyman has become obsessed with transportation issues, and he’s receiving the usual push-back from insiders and editorialists. The Seattle Times proclaimed his I-1125 “anachronistic,” saying that Eyman

may have something to say about the scope of government. His anti-tax proposals fare well. But voters do not think much of his ideas for moving — or, more precisely, not moving — people around a busy metropolitan region.

A tad disingenuous. Washington’s voters received a barrage of advertising against the measure, but the campaign tended to ignore the measure’s main point, its attempt to strengthen the feedback systems of paying for (and developing) road projects. I-1125 would have kept politicians’ hands out of the road till, forcing them to leave money in road funds put there by fuel taxes and tolls and such.

Despite the negative campaign, on election night the measure was losing so narrowly that many deemed it “too close to call.”

Contrast this with the common anti-initiative complaint, that voting for them is driven by well-funded campaigns that overpower citizens’ reason. Well, Eyman’s initiative campaigns carry mainly on the written measures themselves: His group spends nothing on paid advertising, while his opponents splurge millions.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

By: Redactor


  1. Drik says:

    “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” – George Orwell

    Even harder when the vested interested are trying so hard to keep it hidden.

  2. Andrew Terhune says:

    I’m a little puzzled by the animosity against red-light cameras. I drive through a number of them in my city. They are well marked so they should be a surprise to no one. And, they do make me think twice about gunning for that yellow light which was their intended purpose.

    The city could accomplish the same at much greater cost by stationing a police officer 24/7 at these intersections to hand out tickets or deter motorists from breaking the law. Why object to what is merely a cost saving measure? Does anyone really defend running through red lights?

  3. Terry De Pew says:

    Mr Terhune, you miss the point.
    I object to the fact that fat, lazy politicians, political appointees & functionaries, not to mention thier pals in the electronic & camera business, are out there playing gotcha.
    I also object because this will eventually lead to cameras everywhere, maybe even in your home or your computer.(OOPS! They are already in there:silly people buy computers that have them installed at the factory!)
    England is the most camera monitored place on earth, thanks to the IRA & other terroristic monsters. The decent people of Britain are not allowed to own firearms to protect them selves, and those that do protect thier lives & property are treated as criminals, while the criminals sue their victims and WIN.
    You may have noticed that crime is out of hand in England. The criminals have all the guns and the nation is burning down at a time it is being legally invaded by fanatic religious cultists who want to take over the world and cut everyone elses heads’ off who don’t see things thier way.
    Great thing that they have cameras everywhere, documenting the downfall of civilization, huh? Now go pay up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

© 2020 Common Sense with Paul Jacob, All Rights Reserved. Back to top