Categories
general freedom national politics & policies

Zero Risk!

Stop trying to create a zero-risk society.

That’s the sensible advice — indeed, the title — of a Reason think-piece by Veronique de Rugy.

Every action has costs, at the very least in opportunities forgone, and all solutions to problems are better expressed as “trade-offs,” as Thomas Sowell put it. But, specific to this historic moment, “we will suffer many tragic effects from the pandemic-induced changes long after lockdowns are lifted,” Ms. de Rugy argues. First, the lockdowns themselves were a bust, “when all costs are considered, such as the short- and long-term health, educational and psychological harms the lockdowns caused, their costs far exceed[ed] their benefits.”

One humungous tragic effect of the pandemic is what she dubs “the utterly insane expansion of federal spending.” Acknowledging that it is now “traditional for the federal government to expand during emergencies,” de Rugy contends that “the size of the response this time around is both unprecedented and unwarranted.”

Well, hardly unprecedented . . . but it was the biggest over-reaction yet, and definitely unwarranted.

I wonder, though, if Veronique de Rugy may not have missed the biggest thing: the quickness with which we accepted a rushed-to-market-and-subsidized quasi-vaccine. 

I say “quasi,” because the Pfizer vaccine is not a normal vaccine . . . it is gene therapy. Experimental gene therapy. But hey: people should be able to try an experimental medicine.

But no one should be forced to take such a thing.

Why? The risk!

Oh, and our rights to medical freedom.

While people line up to take the “jabs” as they become available, surely de Rugy is right to caution that “Americans believing that governments can and must do anything to achieve a zero-risk society” is the riskiest notion of all.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment national politics & policies

ICE De-Taloned

Occasionally, an outlier appears in politics, someone who follows through on campaign promises. Many people say that Donald Trump was one of those outliers, being someone who actually delivered to his voters the most conservative administration of our lifetimes.

I have heard precisely the opposite, too. But that is not an outlier: in politics, opposite opinions appear right next to each other all the time. Yet, however we judge a politician for letting voters down, when we do see a pol keeping a promise, it is worth noting.

So now that President Joe Biden has nixed Operation Talon, scratch a mark upon the wall.

One of Mr. Trump’s major concerns was immigration “the Wall” being the most infamous notion. Somewhat less well-known was Trump’s aim to put Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) back on a law-and-order footing, cracking down on actual criminality associated with (and piled on top of) “mere” illegal entry into the country. Operation Talon was an attempt to do just that, cracking down on sex trafficking crimes among the illegal alien set.*

It was a very focused ICE program.

AOC’s wing of the Democrats, on the other hand, want to abolish ICE entirely.

Now, the likelihood of either a Democratic Congress or President Biden following through on abolition seems about zero. But something could be done. ICE could be made to stop going after real criminals.

And so Mr. Biden has. Attorneys general in 18 states have formally complained about it, though, stating that Operation Talon was actually useful in their states’ core mission of fighting crime.

But, hey: no matter; Biden delivered on a promise.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


* It is worth remembering that the U.S. Marshals have also made many successful operations, during the last administration, against domestic child sex trafficking rings, as covered here last year.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
national politics & policies

End in Ice?

When I was young, some folks worried about a return to Ice Age conditions. The climate alarm, in the decades since, prophesies hotter conditions, not colder.

So, with this cold snap hitting North America — ice storms from Washington State to Texas and now heading east by northeast — climate change has emerged in the back (or even front) of our minds.

It’s just not necessarily Fire we fret about. It’s Ice. (Cue recitation of the great Robert Frost poem, now.)

“The arctic air that poured into Texas resulted in a record-breaking demand for power that caused the state’s electric grid to fail,” the Weather Channel reports. “Suppliers had planned to use rolling blackouts, but the system was overwhelmed” — effecting an “estimated 75% of Texas power generation capacity.”

Millions in Mexico are also without power, because natural gas pipelines from Texas froze.

The main hit to the electric grid sure looks like it has been directly* to the distribution — if what I glean from Georgetown’s electric outage page is a good indication.

But that town went heavy into alternative forms of energy production (as has the whole of the state, along with many others). Did that investment help them when the cold came? Former Secretary of Energy Dan Brouillette says the problem is that alternative energy sources are not “base load electricity” but “intermittant and sometimes unreliable.”

Just as batteries under-perform in the cold, windmills don’t turn well when covered in ice. When we really need power, energy production that flakes out is not an energy alternative at all — it’s non-energy.

And if an Ice Age does come back, we’ll need more energy, not less than were global warming to remain the trend.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


* The reason there was no weekend podcast from me is that my partner in podcasting was without power simply because an ice storm brought down trees on multiple power lines in his area.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
media and media people national politics & policies

Big Bucks Buy Votes

Want to know how Washington works? 

Or doesn’t work? 

Drafting legislation to provide COVID (and COVID lockdown) relief, President Joe Biden and Congress contemplate just how big to make the next round of government checks sent to “the inhabitants of America.”

And which folks to send the freshly printed moolah.

“Something very weird is happening,” explains Washington Post columnist Paul Waldman. “On one side you have Republicans and conservative Democrats saying people at higher incomes don’t deserve this government help. On the other side you have liberals advocating that higher-income people should share in this largesse.” 

Including socialists Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

“So if I were Biden,” Waldman advises, “this is the argument I’d make to [conservative Democratic Senator] Manchin:

1. People like it when you give them money. A lot.

2. The more people we give money to, the more people will be pleased with us.

3. That will improve our chances of keeping control of Congress in 2022 and the presidency in 2024.

4. If we keep control we’ll be able to do more of the things you want to do. If we lose control, we won’t be able to do anything. . . .”

Translation? Stay in power by buying votes

Seems the advice you’d get from a sleazy political consultant, not a newspaper columnist.  

Biden and senior Democrats have also unveiled a plan to pay parents up to a certain income over $50,000 per child from birth to 17 years of age.* One obvious benefit? “Its execution could also prove crucial to deciding Democrats’ ability to maintain control of Congress,” informs The Post, “given its likely direct impact on the lives of tens of millions of voters.”

This is our direct-deposit Republic.

But not Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


* The Democrats’ plan came just “days after Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) surprised policymakers with a proposal to send even more in direct cash per child to American families.”

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies

The Day and the Hour

Time is almost up!

“Three years ago, scientists gave us a pretty stark warning: They said we have 12 years to avoid the worst consequences of climate change,” John Kerry, former U.S. Senator (D-Mass.) and Secretary of State and current US Special Climate Envoy, stated last week. 

“And now we have nine years left,” the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate added, “to try to do what science is telling us we need to do.”

Science speaks to Kerry. Just nine years, though? Not much time. 

But it could be worse. 

And apparently already is.

According to BBC environmental correspondent, Matt McGrath, who reported roughly 18 months ago that “there’s a growing consensus that the next 18 months will be critical in dealing with the global heating crisis.”

“The climate math is brutally clear,” Potsdam Climate Institute founder Hans Joachim Schellnhuber argued. “While the world can’t be healed within the next few years, it may be fatally wounded by negligence until 2020.”

“Healed”? Or brought to heel?

That time is running out “is becoming clearer all the time,” McGrath noted then, before quoting the eminent scientist, the Prince of Wales: “I am firmly of the view that the next 18 months will decide our ability to keep climate change to survivable levels and to restore nature to the equilibrium we need for our survival,” declared his royal highness, speaking at a reception more than 18 months back. 

Prince Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor is also considered something of an expert on receptions.

For my part, regarding these prophecies, I’m with Gavin Schmidt, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who advised, “All the time-limited frames are bullsh*t.”

I can follow that science.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies

Grace the Notes

Harriett Tubman was an American hero, the great Underground Railroad liberator of slaves, worthy of many honors. 

But should she grace the $20 Federal Reserve Note?

This issue was raised during the Obama administration, when movement was made towards swapping the current Gracer of the Note, President Andrew Jackson, for Tubman. But President Trump stalled the swap.

Now, with Biden in office, it’s back!

How should we “feel” about it?

As I explained in 2016, Tubman is my kind of hero. Jackson, on the other hand, was great with his opposition to the Second National Bank, but his horrific removal of the Cherokee left a great stain on his reputation. Much different for Tubman — a criminal in her day, a secular saint in ours. Jackson owned slaves; Tubman freed slaves.

Yet, take a step back:

Is it an honor to be on a Federal Reserve Note?

The American dollar has been in jeopardy for a very long time — at least since President Richard Milhous Nixon closed the Treasury’s gold window, but probably since the forming of the Federal Reserve . . . our plutocratic “Third National Bank.”

Why place someone as excellent as Tubman onto a doomed currency?

The argument to keep Andy Jackson there is stronger than putting Ms. Tubman on it: he opposed central banking, and to festoon his likeness on the second most-used note of our central bank’s denominational line-up is a way of dishonoring him. 

The reason today’s Democrats want to remove their party’s first president from the Twenty is the very reason to keep him on.

But if they must replace, a better candidate might be . . . Dick Nixon.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment national politics & policies

Even Libertarians

Former CIA Director John Brennan raised eyebrows, last week, when he said on MSNBC that officials in the new administration “are now moving in laser-like fashion to try to uncover as much as they can about what looks very similar to insurgency movements that we’ve seen overseas, where they germinate in different parts of the country and they gain strength and it brings together an unholy alliance frequently of religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, Nativists, even libertarians.”

Tellingly, he doesn’t mention any specific groups by name. Like antifa (cough). But in America there have been a few violent groups engaged in what might be called “insurgencies.”

It is almost as if Brennan has forgotten the groups that this past year have gone so far as to set up political territory within major American cities, proclaiming independence from these United States. Such “autonomous zones” (hastily and violently constructed in Seattle and elsewhere) existed for days and weeks on end but failed to spark the Democrats’ “laser-like” attention as did the capitol break-in, which just so happened to be an assault upon them

Why ignore antifa but focus on . . . “even libertarians”? 

While libertarians defend freedom and peaceful change, the Democratic Party and the Deep State seem to find mass protest combined with violence in causes they like helpful (“Black Lives Matter,” etc.). For increasing their insider power, no doubt, and ramping it up to new, oppressive levels. But mass protest (say, against the lockdowns) they regard as dangerous — because corrosive to their power. 

Meanwhile, antifa in Portland have taken to the streets and attacked Democratic Party offices. 

Violence is not something we should be cavalier about. Or partisan about. Oppose it all. Period.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
national politics & policies

Unity Means Not Dividing

Today, Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., the former Vice-President and longtime U.S. Senator from Delaware will become the 46th president of these United States. Speaking of being united, or getting united, that’s something the 78-year-old Biden, with 43-years of Washington experience, wants to work on.

Good luck. Let me offer some advice: Recognize when the country is already united, then play into it by advancing policies supported by overwhelming majorities.

Term limits come to my mind, as does another issue, popular left to right: criminal justice reform. Americans are solidly for that . . . but instead of political action, we got a lousy summer of double-digit deaths by riot. And, as civil disorders go, last summer’s unrest was the most expensive destruction ever — over $1 billion in senseless damage.  

Unity also suggests not needlessly dividing folks. 

Which makes me wonder why, the day after the capitol riot, Biden characterized the police response as “a clear failure to carry out equal justice.” 

A woman was shot dead within the capitol building; I’m only glad more people weren’t killed. 

Aren’t you, Joe? 

“No one can tell me,” Biden argued, “that if it had been a group of Black Lives Matter protesting yesterday, they wouldn’t have been treated very, very differently than the mob of thugs that stormed the capitol. We all know that’s true, and it is unacceptable.”

Well, at Reason/The Volokh Conspiracy, David Bernstein calls that gaslighting, rattling off the reality of stand-down orders for police in Minneapolis, Chicago, Indianapolis, Columbus, Louisville, Portland, Denver and elsewhere — not to mention demonstrators setting up a Seattle “autonomous zone” treated to weeks of hands-off non-policing. 

Americans, black and white, liberal and conservative, are united against violence, at the U.S. Capitol or anywhere else. 

Don’t divide us, Joe. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall national politics & policies term limits

Why Congress Can’t Read

They don’t read.

No one reads the legislation Congress passes, not the staffers and lobbyists who write “the packages” and congresspeople least of all, as again illustrated by the recent 5,593-page, $2.3 trillion pandemic-relief-plus-kitchen-sink bill just passed by Congress. 

They haven’t for decades. 

Nor do they care to.

James Bovard, expert reporter on the excesses of the modern individual-stomping state, says the new monster-bill “is another warning that know-nothing, no-fault legislating will be the death of our republic unless Americans can severely reduce Congress’s prerogative to meddle in their lives.”

Correct. Problem is, it’s Congress that must enact reform — on itself. Talk about a conflict of interest! That’s why the citizen initiative process has been so important at the state level. Without democratic checks — initiative, referendum, recall — at the federal level, what major reform is even possible? 

All big, necessary reforms hit a roadblock on that issue alone.

That goes for limiting the page-length of bills or requiring legislation be posted online for days if not weeks before a vote. 

Same for congressional term limits, which would de-insulate Congress from us. 

And, just so, with the late columnist Bob Novak’s proposal of smaller districts, maybe increasing the number of U.S. representative to 2,000. (It wouldn’t cost taxpayers anything more if we cut their pay.) More politicians might be better than fewer by decreasing the power of individual politicians — diminishing marginal power, you might say.

We find ourselves in a trap. These ideas amount to ways to avoid the trap once we are out of it.

But it is getting out of the trap that’s the hard part.

Any ideas? Please advise. You can be sure your good ideas will be read — not by Congress, of course, but by those of us who want a way out.  

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
international affairs national politics & policies

The Return of the Imperialists

We don’t live in a Star Wars universe. Not yet. But certain themes crop up: republic gives way to empire, and elite corps of . . . magic fighters? . . . seek to run a technocratic state. 

Donald Trump was cast by Democrats as an evil emperor sort of figure, but he didn’t quite fit that script — being the only president in two decades not to engage in a regime-change war.

So, with President-not-quite-Elect Joe Biden publicly announcing his new cabinet heads, we can see the old script followed closely, with the imperial guard piling up outside the fence at 1600 Pennsylvania, panting for power.

Though there are reams of news stories about this to pore over — the picks are big news — I’ll focus on Reason’s round-up. Of course, Biden is offering up Big Spenders (for whom deficits and debts just don’t matter*) as well as gung-ho interventionists. Take the Secretary of State candidate, Antony Blinken, profiled by Bonnie Kristian. While the proposed Secretary pro forma admitted that America cannot “solve all the world’s problems alone,” he then suggested that “our government can solve all the world’s problems if only it partners with other governments,” Ms. Kristian relates. She notes that Blinken has supported “U.S. military action in Libya, Yemen, and Syria

“And though he has since regretted the Yemen call, he believes the mistake in Syria was a failure to escalate.”

President Donald John Trump has followed the bomber love of his advisors, but has never quite bought into the need to escalate every conflict. And for that audacity, the foreign policy establishment has loathed him.

When Biden does hobble into the White House, we can unfortunately expect fewer ‘failures to escalate.’

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


* While Republicans do almost nothing to hold back deficit spending, and consequent debt accumulation, Democrats increasingly demonstrate a special zealotry in confessing their lack of concern.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts