Category: Common Sense

He doesn’t deserve what he got. If he’s guilty of anything, it’s only of poor research and too little common sense. He called the cops and asked them to help safeguard his money. And the cops, of course, took it. I say “of course,” which may seem unfair. Not all cops are robbers. But it’s true that too many policemen think too little about the justice of the laws and orders they are asked to obey.

In this case, there seems to be a law against holding cash. Robert R. Reiner had $350,000 of his father’s money that he wished to deposit in the bank. He asked the police to help provide security. They called the feds and the feds took the money presumably on the principle of guilty until proven innocent. Drug dealers carry cash; maybe Reiner is a drug dealer; take the money.

The feds claim the family’s house has been “under investigation” as a possible source of drug production. But this claim seems to have surfaced only after the fact. Reiner says his dad had originally withdrawn the money from the bank. And the paperwork he presents in his suit to get the money back shows that his father had indeed made the claimed withdrawals, belying the notion that the money originated in drug trades.

In any case, the cash has been grabbed despite no evidence of wrongdoing. Reiner is trying to get it back. He’s also caring for his 80-year-old father, who has suffered a toll from all this.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Maybe it’s a start. Saudi Arabia ranks high on the list of countries that, if not outright totalitarian, are certainly not open and democratic either. In fact, Saudi Arabia is almost alone among such countries in that it has never held elections or referendums.  It’s the Saudi family that lays down the law very autocratically. That may be about to change, just a tiny bit. Not because the Saudis have suddenly seen the light. But because they are under intense pressure to open things up a bit.

In the past, eager to maintain our oil supply, the American government and other western governments have been all too willing to turn a blind eye to the Saudi way of governing. It is fair to say that the spotlight on Saudi society has never shined so brightly as it has in the couple of years since 9/11. Most of the hijackers, after all, were Saudi nationals. So is Bin Laden. The Saudis have announced that half of municipal council members will now be determined by election. According to the Saudi press agency, the goal is to widen “popular participation and [confirm] the country’s progress towards political and administrative reform.”

Saudi Arabia’s extensive first family may think they’re just throwing a sop to democratic sentiment. They may think that after all this terrorist stuff blows over they can go back to doing business as usual. But as a certain Mikhail Gorbachev discovered, even a little bit of real democracy tends to exceed the expectations of the rulers who permit it.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Power corrupts. It corrupts people who go into politics for the wrong reasons. And it corrupts people who go into politics for the right reasons. If you stay in power for any very long period of time, you’re going to be more and more tempted to sacrifice principle on the altar of political convenience.

Citizen legislator Dr. Tom Coburn served three terms in Congress before stepping down to fulfill his term-limit pledge. Now he’s published a book, Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders Into Insiders , that diagnoses the effects of exposure to power. “In Washington, power is like morphine,” he writes. “It dulls the senses, impairs judgment, and leads politicians to make choices that damage their own character and the machinery of our democracy.”

Dr. Coburn deserves credit for sticking to his principles during his six years in Congress, sometimes almost alone against the tide. But he admits that he too could resort to doing the politically expedient thing. He tells, for example, of how he changed his vote on one issue just to avoid political hassles. He reports, “I walked onto the House floor, and the vote was so lopsided I failed to have the courage to vote for what I knew was right. Instead, I voted for the side that would give me the least grief after the vote. In other words, I compromised my own principles for expediency.” Coburn sinned. Has the guts to admit he sinned. But for the career politicians, political expediency isn’t a lamentable aberration. It’s par for the course.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

I like DuPont for the plastics. I also like du Pont for the former governor of Delaware, Pete du Pont. Especially his endorsement of citizen initiative.

In a recent commentary Governor du Pont talked about Ohio and taxes. Now, don’t be shocked, but seems Ohio taxpayers are facing tax increases from the politicians. A recent budget increases the sales tax by 20 percent, as imposed by Governor Bob Taft and the Republican-controlled legislature. They call the increase temporary but you know what “temporary” means when used by politicians to describe taxes. Yes, that’s right. “Permanent.”

Ohio’s secretary of state, Ken Blackwell, initiated what they call an “initiated statute.” Ohioans won’t be able to simply post a measure on the ballot. They’ll have to do a two-step. First step: three percent of the number of voters who voted in the last gubernatorial election must sign a petition. This petition goes to the state legislature. The legislators will then hum and scratch their noses and decide either to accept or reject the petition. If they kill the initiated statute, voters get to go through the whole process again, second step this time to put the question on the ballot.

It’s a drawn-out process, yet even this much power to the people has the politicians angry. But as Pete du Pont says, “It is a good idea to have the referendum and let the people speak. When it comes to spending, legislatures are often on a planet of their own, and a return to reality is a helpful thing.” Yes. Very helpful.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

It’s a lot of hot air. The bureaucrats probably didn’t realize what they were doing when they shelled out $600,000 this year to send a Medicare blimp touring around the country.

I don’t mean just the money. The blimp money is just part of the $30 million that Medicare spends annually to let Medicare recipients know they’re on Medicare. I don’t quite understand the rationale, but I guess it’s one of those don’t-ask, don’t-tell things. The blimp displays the 800 number people can call to ask questions about Medicare. If there’s anybody out there who wants to know what the Medicare people will tell you when you ask them about their policies, I suggest you go ahead and call Medicare.

In any case, my point is that the metaphor is just too perfect. The very first sentence of the story by Associated Press says, “Finally, proof that government is full of hot air, or at least helium.” The blimp is being funded with our tax money, so let it advertise our causes too.

I think the blimp should give the number people can call to ask about bureaucratic waste and fraud. Also a number people can call to learn about how government spending and taxes have been increasing. Also a number for info on self-serving porkbarrel projects perpetrated by career politicians in the Congress. Or, heck, the blimp could just give the web address for termlimits.org. I talk about all these issues. And more. The blimp should say, visit termlimits.org and sign up for the free email edition of Common Sense. That’s termlimits.org . . . termlimits.org.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Let me put it this way. If the only way we can stop people from using marijuana is by killing free speech, I’d like to keep the free speech.

I’m heartened by a recent Supreme Court decision that may put a stop to one particularly loony aspect of the War on Drugs. It may clear the way for states to let patients obtain marijuana on the recommendation of a doctor. The decision is a blow to those who don’t want cancer patients to use medical marijuana and don’t want doctors to be able to talk to them about it.

In arguing its end of the case the Bush administration has been claiming that “the provision of medical advice” is not “pure speech.” And that they should have the right to penalize doctors who speak too freely about pot. Why? Because the speaking in question has to do with “the conduct of the practice of medicine.” Did you get that? If speech has a purpose beyond itself, it isn’t “pure.”

“Pure” speech would have to be speech about nothing, I guess. Seinfeld speech. By this reasoning, the government can regulate my speech when I ask my wife to pick up some milk on the way home. After all, that wouldn’t be “pure” speech either. It pertains to the conduct of grocery-getting. Of course, some acts of speech per se entail actual violation of rights or participation in a crime. But that is a different standard than simply stomping speech the government is uncomfortable with it. Which would be unspeakable.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.