Categories
Accountability government transparency international affairs

Transparency with Chinese Characteristics

Chinese government officials are shocked, shocked — no wait, make that “extremely shocked!” — that the World Health Organization (no less) proposes “to further investigate whether the coronavirus emerged from a lab in Wuhan.” 

“We are asking China to be transparent, open and cooperate,” said Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the W.H.O.’s director-​general, “especially on the information, raw data that we asked for in the early days of the pandemic.”

But yesterday, at a Beijing news conference, the vice minister of the Chinese National Health Commission, Zeng Yixin, shared his feelings that “this plan revealed a lack of respect for common sense and an arrogant attitude toward science. We can’t possibly accept such a plan for investigating the origins.”

Instead, Zeng suggested searching for “signs of natural transmission … and the possibility that the virus may have first spread outside China” … or perhaps chasing after wild geese.

“[S]everal Chinese officials asserted that the W.H.O. inquiry got it right the first time,” explained The New York Times, “and that there was no evidence to justify renewed checks of the labs.”

Renewed”? That supposes that labs at the Wuhan Institute of Virology have previously been inspected, forensically, and the personnel interviewed — not to mention a ton of essential evidence on the virus shared and analyzed. None of that has happened.

The joint WHO-​China investigation was no such thing. It was a transparent* scam to dismiss the lab-​leak theory as “extremely unlikely” without scrutiny. Even the head of the W.H.O. publicly backed away from its own finding, declaring that more investigation was needed.

Only major U.S. media still buy Chinazi gaslighting …

… or express surprise that the genocidal mobsters running China won’t cooperate in holding themselves accountable. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


* No doubt, this marks the absolute zenith of transparency for the Chinese Communist Party.

PDF for printing

art: transparent /​ floater


ADDITIONAL LINKS

The Man the Media Missed — June 8, 2021

The Worshipful and the Incurious — June 3, 2021

The Sound of Sino-​Silence? — March 22, 2021

Now Safe to Blame? — March 8, 2021

Good Relations with Genocide? — November 24, 2020

Soft on China — April 29, 2020

Follow the (Media) Money — April 21, 2020

Categories
Accountability local leaders tax policy

Balking in Baltimore

So far, the besieged businessmen of the Fells Point area of Baltimore are only threatening to withhold payments of taxes and fees to the city.

If and when they follow through, the plan is to place the withheld funds in escrow. The money would then be turned over to the city government if and only if the city again meets minimal standards of performance. 

Tax resistance? Sure. But not in the usual mode.

Fells Point shop owners are rebelling against a “culture of lawlessness” in their streets, streets managed or mismanaged by the city. They want police to do more — be free to do more — about crime.

In a letter to Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott and other officials submitted not long after several shootings in the area, thirty-​seven Fells Point businessmen demand that the city “Pick up the trash. . . . Enforce traffic and parking laws. . . . Stop illegal open-​air alcohol and drug sales. . . . Empower police to responsibly do their job. . . . Please do your job so we can get back to doing ours.”

What will happen? I fear that, despite this worthy protest, city officials will continue to turn a blind eye. I fear that they will regard the protest as a PR problem, one that will go away and allow them to go on with the usual business of government — the way they see it. Their evasive initial responses to the letter are not encouraging.

Baltimore businesspeople are not trying to dodge city taxes here. They understand very well that one cannot expect to get something for nothing. They just want to get something.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability media and media people national politics & policies

The Worshipful and the Incurious

Did the recent pandemic begin as a leak from a lab in Wuhan, China?

Who knows?

But in these United States there suddenly appears serious — even bipartisan — interest in finding out.

I’ve been curious for some time, but why wasn’t more of the media interested from the beginning? Why were questions about the Wuhan Institute of Virology as well as the questioners often attacked?  

“[T]he newspapers I read and the TV shows I watched had assured me on many occasions that the lab-​leak theory wasn’t true,” Thomas Frank, the progressive historian and author, explains in The Guardian, “that it was a racist conspiracy theory, that only deluded Trumpists believed it, that it got infinite pants-​on-​fire ratings from the fact-​checkers,” adding that he “always trusted the mainstream news media.”

Thank goodness Senator Rand Paul confronted Dr. Fauci, again, leading to Fauci acknowledging the need for further investigation into the Wuhan lab that performed research on bat coronaviruses, arguably including gain-​of-​function research, with indirect U.S. funding. 

“Renewed focus on Wuhan lab scrambles the politics of the pandemic,” was one of several recent explanatory Washington Post articles.

Politics

You don’t say!

“The shifting terrain highlights how much of the early debate on the virus’s origins was colored by America’s tribal politics,” the paper reported, “as Trump and his supporters insisted on China’s responsibility and many Democrats dismissed the idea out of hand …”

The Post should include itself when referring to Trump-​blaming “Democrats.” 

Another article The Post dangled before readers captures the moment — “Facebook: Posts saying virus man-​made no longer banned.” 

In addition to the media and social media failure on this lab-​leak story, let’s not forget the “expert fail.” Mr. Frank fears that if Big Science is found to be the cause of the pandemic, it “could obliterate the faith of millions” in “the expert-​worshiping values of modern liberalism.”

We should be so lucky. 

What’s next: a release of Fauci’s emails?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment

Bodycam vs. Phonecam

When an LA County Sheriff’s deputy pulled over a woman driving a Mercedes, she went on a tear that quickly become infamous. “You’re always gonna be a Mexican,” she scolded the cop, “you’ll never be white, you know that, right?”

Undoubtedly, this racist taunt from a black female motorist, confirmed by Fox News to be an area teacher, was in the name of anti-​racism. Wokely, assuming that to be Latino and a cop must mean he “wants to be white.”

She claims that she became afraid of the deputy, who she kept calling a “murderer,” so she started recording him. Indeed, he pulled her over because she had been using her cell phone to record … while driving! After the stop, she continued to record him, which she (correctly) said she had every right to do. He persevered and gave her a ticket for having used her phone while driving.

He had a bodycam on, which his department does not require. The video he sent Fox journalist Bill Melugin no doubt got in front of The Narrative.

The woman, a serial complainer about police, did indeed file a complaint about his behavior.

Folks who earnestly worry about police abuse — and not, like this woman, who did so in a paranoiac and ideological and racist manner — might consider getting something for road altercations themselves: one for the dash, but also one on their very own person. And something that is not a phone! At least when driving.

Has the utility of the “cop cam” ever been better demonstrated?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Photo by Yannick Gingras

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability scandal

Cuomo Calling

Sunday, after two public accusations of sexual misconduct, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo apologized for anything he may have said that was “misinterpreted as an unwanted flirtation,” while maintaining he “never inappropriately touched anybody,” and “never intended to make anyone feel uncomfortable.”

Not even plausible. Intimidating people — making them “feel uncomfortable” — is actually the governor’s modus operandi.  

“The recent spate of stories about Gov. Cuomo’s penchant for bullying,” explains Karen Hinton, his former press secretary, in the New York Daily News, “isn’t about behavior that’s unusual in politics. It’s the norm.”

I believe her.

First, it’s widely practiced in politics; and, second, his method has been effective for many years. “A part of that is making sure that people very rarely speak up publicly against him,” a Fordham University political science professor informed The Post. 

Bullying is Cuomo’s go-​to damage control.

And damage he has aplenty. After being nominated for Time’s “Person of the Year” and winning an Emmy “in recognition of his leadership during the Covid-​19 pandemic and his masterful use of television to inform and calm people around the world” — and especially in recognition of him not being Donald Trump — Cuomo has come under fire not only for some faulty judgments, but for actually covering up the data on nursing home deaths.

When news broke of Mr. Cuomo allegedly calling and threatening to “destroy” a lawmaker seeking an investigation into the nursing home scandal, it brought back memories. While working for U.S. Term Limits in the 1990s, I fielded calls from angry politicians on what I dubbed “the prima donna party line.”

In my life, not many people have called to scream like spoiled brats in full tantrum and threaten me — but nearly all have been politicians.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment

Not Above the Law

Should government officials be free to violate the rights of others so long as they are doing their job at the time?

With impunity?

That’s the question that the Institute for Justice is arguing before the Supreme Court in Brownback v. King.

The case concerns James King, whom officers of the law mistook for a fugitive. When they grabbed his wallet and demanded to know his name, King ran, thinking he was being mugged. The officers pursued him and and then viciously assaulted him — nearly killing him.

Later, the government concocted bogus charges to try to force King to accept a plea bargain. The idea was to prevent him from suing the government for the way he had been treated. 

King did not cooperate.

The problem? Many government officials in many circumstances have a get-​out-​of-​prosecution-​free card. The doctrine that confers this card is called “qualified immunity.”

In the 1982 case Harlow v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court opined that this immunity is warranted by “the need to protect officials who are required to exercise discretion” and “can be penetrated only when they have violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.”

In practice, however, the immunity being granted often seems more unqualified than qualified.

IJ’s premise is simple. “Government officials are not above the law,” says IJ President Scott Bullock. “Those who are charged with enforcing our nation’s laws should be more — not less — accountable for their unconstitutional acts.”

In a free society, police cannot brutally beat innocent people and get away with it. Can they?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts