Unicorns, Mermaids, Politicians, and “Free”

Free Kittens (photo from RGBStock)

Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler wants telephone companies to make robocall-blocking technology available to their customers. And he wants them to do so “at no charge.”

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, riffing on primary opponent Bernie Sanders’s campaign platform (and on a less ambitious proposal from sitting president Barack Obama), now supports “tuition-free” college for the children of families with annual incomes of less than $125,000.

“Free” may be the most popular word in the English language. It’s at least as popular as “unicorn” and “mermaid” (two other words for things that don’t exist in real life).

Everything that’s real costs something.  When we talk about making something “free,” what we’re really talking about is shifting those costs, either to other payers or to some different method of pricing or payment.

In the Internet age, we’ve become used to the idea of “free” online services. But, as I am far from the first to point out, those services aren’t “free.” They’re paid for by advertisers. What are the advertisers buying? They’re buying us: Our information, our eyeballs, our attention. They’re willing to provide us with email, search services, games, the works … in exchange for the opportunity to sell things to us. And their costs for providing those services are built into the prices of the things we buy from them. So really, we’re the ones who are paying after all.

The technology that Tom Wheeler wants the phone companies to offer to all of us “at no charge” costs money to develop. It costs money to deploy. It costs money to maintain. Who’s going to pay those costs? Tom Wheeler? No. The phone companies. And their customers. Even if it’s not broken out as a listed charge on your phone bill, either your bill will go up or the service you’re paying for will be cut back somewhere else.

Ditto “free” college education. Campuses don’t build or maintain themselves. Contractors and staff build and maintain them. Professors don’t lecture at their own expense and out of the goodness of their hearts. They must be paid. As must the phone bills, the electric bills, the water bills, etc.

Clinton’s plan isn’t a plan for free college. It’s a plan to make college 100% taxpayer-subsidized. There’s a difference. Words mean things, and we should be very clear on just who’s going to pay for Hillary Clinton’s plan. Hint: It won’t be Hillary Clinton.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

In Support of the Open Carry Society

Gun photo from RGBStock

“I don’t care if it’s constitutional or not at this point,” Cleveland police union president Stephen Loomis told CNN as Republicans gathered in his city for their 2016 national convention. “I want [Ohio governor John Kasich] to absolutely outlaw open-carry in Cuyahoga County until this RNC is over.”

Kasich, to his credit, demurred, responding “Ohio governors do not have the power to arbitrarily suspend federal and state constitutional rights or state laws as suggested.”

“Open carry” — that is, legal recognition of the right to carry a weapon without concealing it from view — is a hot topic this week, not only due to Loomis’s appeal for suspension of the US Constitution in Ohio, but in the aftermath of a July 17 gunfight in Baton Rouge, Louisiana in which three police officers and a former US Marine from Kansas City were killed.

The police version of the Baton Rouge incident is that 29-year-old Gavin Long “lured” police officers to his location where he “intentionally targeted and assassinated” them. Left unexplained is why several officers rushed to his location on the basis of a 911 call (not made by Long himself) reporting something perfectly legal  in 44 states, including Louisiana: A man carrying a gun.

Yes, perfectly legal. Only California, Florida, Illinois, New York, South Carolina, and the District of Columbia prohibit the open carry of firearms. Some other states require a permit, but those schemes as well as the prohibitions are clearly unconstitutional.

Did Long “lure” police officers to their “assassinations” or did he respond to actions he perceived as an armed attack by police in a city on edge since the July 5 police killing of a black man, caught on camera? We may never know. But we can and should draw this lesson from Baton Rouge and from Cleveland:

For some reason, police seem to consider open carry of firearms, even where formally legal (the US Constitution says it’s legal everywhere in America, but that’s another column), to constitute prima facie evidence of criminal intent. It isn’t, and treating it as such can only lead to unnecessary violent outcomes.

More than 100 million Americans own more than 300 million guns.

An infinitesimal portion of those gun owners commit crimes using those guns, and that tiny criminal fraction would do so whether open carry (or concealed carry) was legal or not, because committing crimes is what criminals do.

It neither is nor should be the responsibility of millions of non-criminal gun-owning Americans to coddle and cater to hoplophobia (“a mental aberration consisting of an unreasoning terror of gadgetry, specifically, weapons”) on the part of their fellow citizens, or especially of their putative employees, the police.

Guns, and gun owners, are here to stay. Get used to us.

[Correction: The original version of this op-ed listed Texas as a state prohibiting open carry. Thanks to MamaLiberty for letting me know that Texas now has a “permit” system under which open carry is legal – TLK]

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

9/11: 28 Pages Later

September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City: V...
September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City: View of the World Trade Center and the Statue of Liberty. (Image: US National Park Service ) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In December of 2002, Congress released its report on the “Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.” Part of that report, anyway: 28 pages remained classified until July 15, 2016, when they were finally presented to the public with significant redactions.

Why the long wait, and what do the 28 pages reveal?

If we’re to believe the headlines in Saudi media (e.g. Al Arabiya) and mainstream American media (e.g. Time and the Washington Times) the big news is what they don’t reveal: A “smoking gun” connecting the government of Saudi Arabia to the 9/11 attacks.

If we’re to believe the 28 pages themselves, the big news is that they do, in fact, reveal a “smoking gun” connecting the government of Saudi Arabia to the 9/11 attacks.

Here’s the opening sentence from the newly released material: “While in the United States, some of the September 11 hijackers were in contact with, and received support or assistance from, individuals who may be connected with the Saudi government.”

Among those individuals was Omar al-Bayoumi, who sported a “no-show” job at a company affiliated with the Saudi Ministry of Defense (the company reported that he visited their facilities once, thereafter collecting a continuing salary). When 9/11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hamzi and Khalid al-Midhar arrived in the United States, they stayed with al-Bayoumi until he found them an  apartment and someone to help them get drivers’ licenses … and locate flight schools.

The two also appear to have received assistance from Osama Bassnan, who lived across the street from them in San Diego. According to the CIA,  Bassnan received significant funds from Saudi government sources and members of the Saudi royal family. According to the FBI, Bassnan was a supporter of both Osama bin Laden and New York terror plotter Omar Abdel-Rahman.

Why are we only now finding out all this? Because four words make the whole thing problematic: “The Saudi royal family.” In particular, Prince Bandar bin-Sultan, Saudi ambassador to the US at the time, whose wife appears to have been the conduit through which money was routed to Osama Bassnan — and then, quite possibly, used to service the needs of the 9/11 plotters.

But Saudi Arabia controls much of the world’s oil supply either directly or as the dominant member of OPEC, the Saudi military buys lots of US-manufactured weaponry, and Saudi assets in the US — which the Saudi government threatened to sell off if the US changed its laws to hold them responsible for their role in the attacks — top $750 billion.

In other words, unlike Afghanistan’s Taliban regime, the Saudi regime carries considerable clout with the US government. In fact, Prince Bandar visited president George W. Bush at the White House immediately after the 9/11 attacks.

In response to those attacks, Afghanistan suffered US invasion, the overthrow of its government, and is now in its 15th straight year of war and occupation.

Saudi Arabia enjoyed not just a 13-year reprieve from the exposure of damning evidence, but seemingly better relations with the US government than ever before. Go figure.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY