Categories
general freedom international affairs moral hazard

WHO’s Daddy

China and its lapdog, the World Health Organization (WHO), face increasing global anger over having initially hid the person-​to-​person spread of coronavirus, which has killed a staggering 126,000 people worldwide. So far.

Still unrepentant, Beijing and the WHO have continued to butcher the truth — even in petty ways. 

Late last month, a Hong Kong reporter asked a WHO official to comment on how successfully Taiwan had responded to the pandemic. The official pretended he couldn’t hear the question. Then, when the reporter offered to repeat it, he insisted they move on. 

WHO could provide such a cocktail of cowardice and disingenuousness?

Yes! 

Of course, the last refuge of such scoundrels is to hurl utterly bogus allegations — to play the victim and change the subject. Enter WHO Director-​General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who last week made the ridiculous and completely unsubstantiated charge that the Taiwanese government was instigating racist attacks against him on social media. 

Discriminated against by the United Nations and WHO for years, upon China’s insistence, the Taiwanese reacted on social media with their usual grace, sense of humor and a smart promotion of their island’s great food and beautiful scenery, using the hashtag: #ThisAttackComesFromTaiwan. 

As explained yesterday, Taiwan is a friend. China and the WHO? Not on your life.

That’s why Americans of all political persuasions (and so many others across the globe) cheered President Trump’s announcement yesterday that the U.S., the largest donor to the World Health Organization, would suspend its financial support.

“So much death has been caused by their mistakes,” Mr. Trump said.

Sadly, I fear Trump is wrong about one small part: “mistakes” seems far too generous a word for what WHO and its dastardly daddy, China, have done.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts


Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies too much government

Plunger Politics

President Donald Trump may win re-​election because he dares speak the truth about toilets.

A Washington Post tweet presents the president talking about the insanity of American plumbing: “People are flushing toilets ten times, 15 times, as opposed to once. They end up using more water.”

Jeffrey Tucker, in a terrific piece for the American Institute for Economic Research, focuses on our national disgrace: “I know a man — a proxy for tens of millions — who came from a foreign country, threw down $500 per night at a New York hotel, and was astonished to find himself plunging the toilet within the hour of checking in. 

“Not surprising,” Tucker writes. “Not unusual. American toilets don’t work right. This is why there are plungers next to every toilet.”

And Tucker suggests that Trump may beat whoever ends up as his Democratic challenger for no better reason than because, every now and then, Trump sides with common sense against bureaucrats, regulators, and politicians. And, in this case, seeks to do something about it.

Would any Democrat dare mention that it is Congress that ruined our commodes? 

Of course, Republicans let it happen. 

Our toilets, I have long insisted, provide a perfect object lesson for what is wrong with government today. Early in the history of this Common Sense commentary, I explored the theme: it has been over 20 years ago since I wrote of “A Congressman in Your Bowl”; a few years later, when I started writing columns for Townhall​.com, I offered “Flush Congress.”

I don’t know precisely what Trump can do regarding either the plumbing issue or the clogged-​up Congress issue, but I — plunger in hand — salute him for trying to do something.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

plunger, flag, regulations, laws, Trump, flush,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts


Categories
national politics & policies

The Biggest Turkey of All

Though President Donald Trump has one of the best stand-​up acts in America, his bit, on Tuesday, about the ‘traditional’ pardoning of turkeys, was not his best. But it was mildly amusing, and what the occasion required.

Now, I’ve written about this goofy tradition before: “For a photo-​op,” I explained seven years ago, the president “saves the gift bird’s life, only to have another unpublicized turkey killed and then devoured behind closed doors.” 

Gruesome? Bizarre? Or all-too-symbolic?

I suggested the latter, arguing that “the fake pardon symbolizes more than Washington insiders can comprehend. 

In our nation’s capital, politicians

    • argue for fiscal responsibility one minute and then plunge us further into debt the next,
    • demand sacrifices from the people while living high on the hog, and
    • decry the influence of special interests at press conferences and then deposit their checks at the bank.

One famous turkey lives, thanks to the powerful public kindness of our potentate; another, unknown (no doubt “middle-​class”) bird dies for the benefit of that same boss.

With Trump rather than Obama in office, that quip about class warfare falls a bit flat.

But our Stand-​up-​in-​Chief was more topical:

The two turkeys, which he told us were named Bread and Butter, were raised “to remain calm under any condition,” he riffed, “which will be very important because they have already received subpoenas to appear in Adam Schiff’s basement.”

Not bad; worth a chuckle.

“It’s not the first time Trump has used the traditional turkey pardoning to make jokes about his political opponents,” USA Today informs us. But unfortunately the paper misquoted one of the president’s lesser quips. 

“It seems the Democrats are accusing me of being too soft on turkeys,” USA Today tells us. But what Trump clearly says is “Turkey.” Yeah, just a pun.

Does that ‘land’?

Seems like a laid egg.

But on Thanksgiving we can pardon the president.

And even USA Today.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


turkey, thanksgiving, Trump, pardon,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts


Categories
national politics & policies

Are You a Conspiracy Theorist?

Politicians are all over the vaping issue, like packrats on pet food.

The House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, C‑SPAN explains, held a hearing on the relationship between e‑cigarettes and an outbreak in lung disease. Government experts spoke. There was only one empaneled pro-​vaping witness, Vicki Porter, who said that vaping was “a health miracle to me,” since it got her off of smoking tobacco.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman-​Shultz (D – Fla.) insisted that the record show that she was not to be trusted, since she merely expressed her own opinion as to the superiority of vaping over smoking, noting that Ms. Porter “is not a public health expert.”

But it was Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D – Mich.) who really came out swinging for the interventionist government. Her main concern, writes Robby Soave at Reason, appeared to be Porter’s direct challenging of “the tortured logic of the Oversight and Reform Subcommittee hearing.”

Rep. Tlaib said she “wanted to know more about you,” to Ms. Porter. “You call yourself a ‘converted conservative,’” Tlaib stuttered, “and a reformed Marxist.

“Are you a conspiracy theorist?”

Wh-​what?

Ms. Porter answered reasonably. Then Tlaib questioned her regarding why she had winked at one of her colleagues. Porter said they knew each other.

In the 1960s, the CIA pushed the phrase “conspiracy theorist” as a way to publicly marginalize anyone who questioned official pronouncements on the JFK assassinations and even trickier subjects, like UFOs. Rep. Tlaib is either one of those who bought into the CIA line, or is part of some less-​than-​transparent agenda.

So, are you a conspiracy theorist?

My answer might have been, not until right about now.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Representative Rashida Tlaib, screams, Trump, rally

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
international affairs

Buying Ice

The president wants to buy more land.

On our dime.

“The idea of the U.S. purchasing Greenland has captured the former real-​estate developer’s imagination,” began a Wall Street Journal report last week. Donald Trump has asked about it anyway, “with varying degrees of seriousness.”

Grønland — “Kalaallit Nunaat” — is Danish territory now. But the United States does run the Thule Air Base on the glacier-​dominated island already. So it might seem … natural.

The last major American purchase of territory from another sovereign power was, actually, from the Kingdom of Denmark back in 1917, when the United States obtained the U.S. Virgin Islands

The notion of buying Greenland was floated back during the Truman administration, too. So there is ample precedent. Which gives Trump a plausible context to advance a destabilizing meme for his upcoming visit to Denmark, where he will no doubt be doing some “negotiating” … about more important matters.

And what might those be? Well, matters like the country’s contributions to its own defense. Denmark is low on the list of contributing NATO participants, devoting only 1.7 percent of GDP to defense, not the treaty level of 2 percent.

It’s mainly just amusing, of course — probably even to Trump himself. “It’s just something we’ve talked about,” he’s explained. “We’re very good allies with Denmark. We’ve protected Denmark like we protect large portions of the world, so the concept came up.”

Of course, the U.S. doesn’t need Greenland. And it certainly doesn’t need to spend money it doesn’t have to do so.

Still, there have been and will be more idiotic proposal floated this election season. Plenty.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Greenland, Trump, land, territory, purchase, ice,

Photo from pixabay

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

Make Deficits Great Again?

Is Donald Trump really “draining the swamp”? 

It’s overflowing.

Stan Collender, writing last year in Forbes, noted just what a big spender the president really is. Now, an update: fiscal year 2019 sports a deficit of $1.09 trillion, up considerably from the $897 billion projected earlier this year; the next year is expected to nudge the deficit even higher, to $1.1 trillion.

The whys aren’t a mystery: it is politically difficult to cut an expected benefit to any constituency. It looks stingy — though it is the very opposite. Spending other people’s money — including taxpayers’ — is not generosity. For a politician, it is naked self-​interest. Buying votes.

Worse than merely corrupt, it’s corrupting — since the People are increasingly tempted to look to government to supply special voting bloc advantages rather than the mutual, universal advantage of liberty and justice for all.

Collender speculated that a $2 trillion deficit is “definitely within view” because “Trump is demanding that federal spending and the government’s red ink be increased even further.”

Judd Gregg, writing yesterday for The Hill, summarizes current GOP fiscal policy as “now the most profligate and debt-​driving party in the nation’s history.” 

He’s not wrong, but I question his next line: “Fiscal restraint is no longer part of the cloth the Republican Party wears.”

Careful wording. 

Republicans sometimes talk a good game, but are known to be big spenders when not opposing a Democratic president. The Class of 94 was effective against Bill Clinton. Under unified government in the aughts, though, under George W. Bush, they went on a spree.

Maybe Republicans just need a good enemy.

Bernie Sanders for President? 

Perhaps any socialist Democrat will do.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

money, case, window, floating, deficit, spending,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts