Categories
government transparency national politics & policies responsibility

America Unmasked

For weeks, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services told us not to wear face masks. The Surgeon General even warned that mass use of masks could “increase the spread of the coronavirus.” 

“My nose tells me,” I posted on Facebook weeks ago, “that all the info about how we don’t need face-masks is to cover up for the lack of face-masks.”

My family is very grateful to a Taiwanese friend, who mailed me masks — not the N95 masks, which the Taiwanese government is donating in large quantities, but masks of excellent non-medical quality. 

Last Wednesday, CBS News anchor Norah O’Donnell noted that a large percentage of people spreading the virus are asymptomatic, meaning they don’t know they have it. She asked Dr. Anthony Fauci with the White House Coronavirus Taskforce: “Should we be advising people to wear masks?”

“The primary people who need masks are healthcare workers,” the doctor replied, before admitting that if supplies weren’t so limited, wearing a mask was “a potentially good way . . . you could have an impact with preventing transmission.”

Days later, President Trump passed on a CDC advisory to the same effect.

Americans had figured out the initial lie, and were already making their own and posting how to do so on social media. Now that’ll ramp up. 

Initially, our leaders didn’t level with us. They could have. Americans seem amazingly cooperative, to say the least.

Government folks need to stop masking the truth from the public. That way they might earn more public trust.

Which sure can be useful during a crisis.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

virus, coronavirus, pandemic, mask,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts


Categories
Accountability insider corruption local leaders national politics & policies Voting

Bring the Bozos Home

“Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) announced Sunday he has covid-19,” The Washington Post reports, “and four other GOP senators are quarantined. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) disclosed Monday that her husband, too, is infected with the virus.”

Social media was not uniformly brimming with support for the Kentucky senator, of course, and some folks noted, in earnest horror, that the Republican who had been shot at by a Bernie Bro and blindsided by his deranged Democrat neighbor had dared work six days in the Senate after being tested but before receiving his diagnosis.

He should have been sequestered!

To let the big “stimulus” packages sail through Congress?

But there are work-arounds.

“We should not be physically present on this floor at this moment,” argued Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) yesterday, urging the Senate to facilitate social distancing by allowing remote voting. Asked about it at his Sunday news conference, President Trump gave thumbs up: “I would be totally in favor of it on a temporary basis.”

I say, let’s take this a step further: do it permanently

Remote voting makes sense in an emergency. Sure. But it also makes sense all the time, because legislators voting from their home states and districts rather than within the Washington swamp would hear more from constituents than special interest lobbyists and, therefore, likely represent us better. 

Plus, not tethered to life in Washington, or the confines of the capitol, we might reduce the size of congressional districts from over 700,000 people to more like 70,000 and see real representation return to our land. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

telecommute, Rand Paul, Congress, Senate, Coronavirus, Corona Virus,

Original photo by Manuel Bahamondez H

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts


Categories
ideological culture The Draft too much government

How Un-Warlike

It’s war!

A common refrain regarding the coronavirus. “This is our World War II,” say media mavens and politicians . . . who have never had to endure anything like World War II.

The utter vapidity of the “war” response was explained very well by Peter Schiff on a recent episode of The Tom Woods Show. Schiff is famously bearish on the American economy, which he has argued for years is addicted to debt and consumption but not production and responsibility. He notes how different this new “war” is. 

Folks today, he argues, have no more idea how World War II was won than how the economy works.

  1. Politicians increased taxes during the war.
  2. Americans were not bailed out: they had to struggle to survive, even on the home front, as
  3. they had to do without creature comforts. Taxes on goods and services sky-rocketed, to pay for the war . . .
  4. in which many young men died.
  5. Middle-class wealth was tapped like never before, to win the two-front war, and one mechanism to aid the effort was the withholding tax . . .

which now we are talking about suspending.

What is widely being proposed today is not the “socialism” of war, where lives and wealth are conscripted.* What is being proposed is the “socialism” of bailouts and sugar-plum fairies, where consumers are coddled.

And unlike in World War II, Schiff contends, there is no vast private wealth to tax to pay for what is deemed necessary. Instead, we have debt. 

It is indeed a strange war where we fight the threat of any harm coming to us, or any sacrifice required.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


* We should oppose the conscription of individuals, as was done in the First and Second World War as well as Korea and Vietnam. Not only does it violate the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition against involuntary servitude, it was not needed then, nor is it now. More on this later in the week.

PDF for printing

From a photo by Nick M

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts