Categories
international affairs

Play with Fire?

Weeks ago, the U.S. military confirmed that China tested a hypersonic missile last summer capable of speeding around the globe with a nuclear payload. 

Top generals called it “a Sputnik moment.”

Speaking of Sputnik, on Monday the Russians blew up one of their own orbiting satellites with a missile test that reportedly sprayed dangerous debris into the orbital path of the international space station.

On Monday evening, President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping held an hours-long virtual summit to discuss issues between the two countries.

“Their relationship had become so toxic and so dysfunctional,” BBC’s China correspondent Stephen McDonnell wrote, “that these video discussions have been, in part, an attempt to ensure that competition between China and the US didn’t drift into armed conflict due to a misunderstanding at a global hotspot.”

“Competition”? 

“Drift” into a shooting war? 

Caused by “misunderstanding”?

Stop the silly pretense. China’s building and militarizing islands in the South China Sea, its bullying of numerous neighboring countries, its threats of a military invasion against free, democratic Taiwan and its genocidal oppression of the Uighurs, etc., have nothing to do with drifting, are not a big misunderstanding, nor the result of normal economic competition.

The Chinazis are dangerous. 

Most endangered? 

Taiwan — which, in contorted diplomatic double-speak, the U.S. has sorta pledged to defend.

“President Xi warned President Biden,” CBS News explained, that “U.S. support for Taiwan would be like playing with fire.”

Let’s not “play” with fire. Sure. But while Biden’s response that Taiwan is “independent” and “makes its own decisions” is right and true, it is still hardly above the level of smoke signal. 

More’s needed. 

Like what?

Actual defense.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

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

Categories
Thought

Antonin Scalia

Campaign promises are — by long democratic tradition — the least binding form of human commitment.

Antonin Scalia, Republican Party v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002) (majority opinion).

Categories
Today

Of/By/For

On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address at the ceremonial dedication of the military cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, appropriating an old phraseology for republican government — “of the people, by the people, for the people” — and giving it its most memorable usage.

On the same date in 1955, National Review published its first issue.

Categories
national politics & policies partisanship tax policy

Billionaires Backed Better

It’s a cliché of politics that the Republican Party is The Party of the Rich while the Democrats serve the Poor and Downtrodden.

But were that true, why so many Democratic billionaires?

And why is President Biden’s Build Back Better legislation offering the top income quintile a tax cut worth billions and billions?

At issue is a “$285 billion tax cut that would almost exclusively benefit high-income households over the next five years,” write Alyssa Fowers and Simon Ducroquet in the pages of The Washington Post. “The measure would allow households to increase their deduction from state and local taxes from $10,000 to $80,000 through 2026, and then impose a new deduction cap through 2031.”

“It’s the second-most expensive item” — when figured in budgeting terms, not merely in outlays.

True to form, Democrats promise that it would raise revenue, actually — eventually. In time-honored procrastination fashion, the legislation jiggers with the deduction cap over time, decreasing the cap in the future. A typical (and easy to re-jigger) politicians’ ploy.

What this is all about is subsidizing the rich in high-tax “blue states” — politically protecting Democrats in California and New York, to name the most obvious two, allowing them to pretend to “soak the rich” and “help the poor,” and decreasing the incentive in those states for the rich to leave for lower-tax environments, like Texas and Florida.

Arguably, these “SALT” caps are the worst sort of tax break possible, since they are regional (affecting different states differently) and even partisan. Not to mention regressive.

Instead of “Build Back Better,” the Biden plan should be dubbed the “Failed State Bailout.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

billionaire

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

Categories
Thought

Glenn Greenwald

[T]hose who view the world through a prism
bereft of principles — either due to lack of
intellectual capacity or ethics or both ­— assume
everyone’s world view is similarly craven.

Glenn Greenwald, “Kyle Rittenhouse, Project Veritas, and the Inability to Think in Terms of Principles,” Substack (November 16, 2021).
Categories
Today

Tell and Shaw

On November 18, 1307, legend has it, William Tell shot a crossbow bolt to pierce an apple, toppling it off his son’s head. He was forced to do this by the local Austrian authority, whose hat hung on a pole in the Altdorf town square Tell had refused to bow to when entering the village. Tell endures as a Swiss folk hero, and provides the subject of a famous opera by Rossini — the music of which is associated with, in many ears, Bugs Bunny and the Lone Ranger.

In 1926, on this date, George Bernard Shaw formally refused to accept the money for his Nobel Prize for Literature, saying, “I can forgive Alfred Nobel for inventing dynamite, but only a fiend in human form could have invented the Nobel Prize.”

Categories
crime and punishment ideological culture

Democrats: Dissonance on Self-Defense

The Kyle Rittenhouse case, which I talked about on my podcast, This Week in Common Sense, reveals a deep divide.

One side thinks young Mr. Rittenhouse is guilty because he clearly sided with property-owners by cleaning up graffiti, putting out fires, caring for the riots’ victims . . . and carrying a big, scary-looking rifle; the other points to the facts of the altercation between Rittenhouse and the three men he shot, judging the shootings self-defense.

On Monday, the lead prosecutor, Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger, insisted that “You lose the right to self-defense when you’re the one who brought the gun,” despite that not being Wisconsin law. Rittenhouse also wasn’t the only one with a gun.

While the prosecution tried to undermine self-defense by declaring that Rittenhouse had instigated the whole scene, the media relentlessly feeds a general prejudice against the idea that citizens should be armed and for the notion that we must rely upon the police alone. 

Dissonant with this, however, were the months of leftists excusing, when not cheering, “protests” turned violent in which not only property was destroyed, but people were killed. To top off this cultural license to mayhem, progressive mavens pushed the opposite of state protection: let the mob run riot.

Followed by “defund the police.”

The leftist/statist argument seems to be: You mustn’t protect yourself with deadly force, instead relying upon the state — except when we (the left) riot, then no protection for you!

This is a recipe for civil war or tyranny or both. 

Not civil peace.

Meanwhile, as Rittenhouse’s jury deliberates, everyone assumes that leftists itch to take an acquittal as another excuse to riot.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

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

Categories
Thought

Frank Knight

All science is static in the sense that it describes the unchanging aspects of things.

Categories
Today

Confederation & Congress

On November 17, 1777, the Articles of Confederation were submitted to the states for ratification.

On that date in 1800, the United States Congress held its first session in Washington, D.C.

Categories
First Amendment rights national politics & policies

The Senatorial Suppressor

The brazenness of governmental assaults on freedom of speech continues apace.

In addition to “aggressive IRS scrutiny” of conservative groups, using campaign finance regulations to suppress speech, and FBI raids on homes of perpetrators of journalism, we are seeing government officials openly demand that private firms suppress speech.

In September, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren wrote a letter to Amazon chastising it for promoting books that contradict the government line about matters pandemical.

One target of Warren’s finger-wagging is The Truth About COVID-19: Exposing the Great Reset, Lockdowns, Vaccine Passports, and the New Normal by Joseph Mercola and Ronnie Cummins.

I don’t know how cogent it is. I’m willing to let the authors make their case.

Not Senator Warren.

In her public letter, she rebukes Amazon for being “unwilling or unable to modify its business practices to prevent the sale of falsehoods . . . .” That’s a lot of book-warehouse-burning implicitly rationalized. How many classics of Western civilization contain falsehoods? Not to mention the I Ching.

Now the authors and publisher of The Truth About COVID-19 have sued Warren for acting to violate the First Amendment by proxy. Their filing cites a 1963 Supreme Court ruling that politicians violate the First Amendment when telling booksellers that selling certain books may be “unlawful.” Exactly what Warren does in her letter.

As that Court put it, “people do not lightly disregard public officers’ veiled threats.” 

Let’s hope that today’s Supreme Court recognizes the same reality.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

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