Category: responsibility

Categories
government transparency ideological culture responsibility

People Power in the Republic of China

responsibility, command, politicians, control, self reliance,

Which country has handled this worldwide pandemic best?

The question was asked on Facebook, by one friend, and answered this way by another: 

“Government: South Korea; People: Japan.”

My response?

“Combo of people and government: Taiwan.”

There is a lot in the Taiwanese response to explore. 

“The first cause of Taiwan’s success,” write Javier Caramés Sanchez and William Hongsong Wang on Mises Wire, “is the transparency of information, which stopped the rapid growth of infection.” While on Mainland China the corrupt government was no more transparent than the very murky Yellow River, in the Republic of China (commonly called Taiwan, and once listed on the globe as “Formosa”) the Ministry of Health and Welfare began informing the public as early as December 31.

The second reason? “The type of quarantines established by the Taiwanese government are mostly self-quarantines. The Taiwanese government acknowledges that it is crucial to rely on people’s voluntary actions to resist the pandemic.” In Japan the people regularly don masks when sick. That kind of compliance is cultural there. In Taiwan, there has been a lot of spontaneous and “all you need to ask” compliance with social distancing and the like.

“The key is that the Taiwanese government and the Taiwanese people understand that the individual’s own responsibility and actions are essential to suppressing the coronavirus pandemic, not a mandatory massive shutdown,” the authors conclude. “This is what the world needs to learn.”

Responsibility is what a free people practice. And learn to master.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

responsibility, command, politicians, control, self reliance,

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts


Categories
responsibility

Fear Itself

Unity

“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

Not often do I quote FDR. Strictly speaking, his statement was false then — at the beginning of the decade-plus-long Great Depression that led to WWII. 

And it is false now. 

There is plenty more to fear than merely fear itself. 

But it does point up the importance of not allowing fear to drive our decisions — as individuals, in families, as well as for governments and civil society.

We are facing a worldwide pandemic, something not seen in over 100 years, which we can only hope is not more global or deadly than the so-called Spanish Flu in 1918. This is largely uncharted territory. 

Therefore, even when public officials make what turn out to be poor decisions, I plan to be as understanding as possible. This is not aimed at any specific public official or specific accompanying criticism. Instead, let it be a broad policy — though, of course, we must hold corrupt or criminally negligent decisions accountable.

It’s a great time to give each other a break from politics and to foster a spirit of love and connectedness to our neighbors — even [gulp] politicians — replacing the natural fear that will otherwise occupy our thoughts and actions.

During this crisis, I hope that officials at all levels will summon ‘We, the People’ to do what we can as volunteers, whether working sequestered in our homes or in roles outside the home. We are an enormous strength.

And please, oh leaders, fill the information vacuum with daily accurate information — keep Anthony Fauci close to a microphone. And help them, journalists.

Let’s rise to the occasion by getting tough and staying united.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Unity

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts


Categories
responsibility

Don’t Panic, Prepare

Corona, Covid, virus, safety, hazmat,

The other day, on Neil Cavuto’s Fox News show, Democrat Tulsi Gabbard — my favorite of the “blue” party’s blues-inducing candidates — suggested, inartfully, that the coronavirus is “something that requires all of us as Americans coming together, standing together . . . just as we would in wartime.”

The best way to fight contagion is to “come together”?

Maybe not so much.

What should we do? I mean, separately.

Although there’s a flood of information about the scary new coronavirus (COVID-19), that information is fragmentary.

Reliable tests for the virus are not easily available. It’s unclear how many people are really infected. But the fatality rate is apparently much higher than that of regular flu. The elderly and those with other medical problems are especially vulnerable.

The virus is spreading fast despite (and because of) efforts to contain it. Cases have now been reported in 45 countries.

COVID-19 may not yet be where you are or where I am. But what should we do now to be ready if and when things around us change drastically? 

One, stay informed. 

Two, follow advice about reducing the risk of infection, including such simple measures as carefully and frequently washing your hands.

Three, stock up — on food, water, medicines, other emergency supplies — in case you must hunker down at home for a long time. When panic strikes, grocery shelves can empty out fast. You may not want to go where many people are congregating anyway.

Some vendors specialize in providing bulk supplies of food at a discount: Wellness Meats, Bargain Wholesale, markets in your neighborhood. There’s also Walmart and Amazon, offering a wide variety of staples. You can trade advice and information at sites like emergency-preps.com.

Such preparation won’t be wasted. If we’re lucky and the coronavirus threat fades as flu season wanes, we’ll be ready for some other emergency that comes along.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Corona, Covid, virus, safety, hazmat,

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts


Categories
media and media people meme Popular responsibility too much government

Overkill . . . for Your Health

vape, vaping, law, asset forfeiture, politicians,

News stories about death- and illness-by-vaping keep hitting us. But in most of these stories it is what is left out that is most alarming.

From Washington State’s King County we learn of another case of severe lung disease “associated with vaping.” But the reportage doesn’t mention how the maladies relate to vaping. “KING-TV reports there have been 15 cases of severe lung disease associated with vaping in Washington state since April 2019. . . .” Interesting as far as that goes, but. . . .

In addition to no discussion of causality, the most obvious thing not mentioned in this and similar reports? The numbers diagnosed with severe lung disease caused by smoking — which is the relevant vaping alternative.

The U.S. Government’s agency devoted to diagnosing potentially widespread pathogens and practices is, thankfully, a bit more useful. In a recently published study, scientists have narrowed down the real culprit: “Vitamin E acetate was detected in all 29 patient” samples taken from those under study. 

Most had been vaping THC.

There are organizations worse than sloppy news outlets, however. In Massachusetts, the House of Representatives has passed a bill not merely to ban flavored e-cigarettes, but also to levy 75 percent tax on all e-liquids and vaping devices. 

Typical government overkill.

But not overkill enough, for the bill doesn’t stop there. Whopping fines against those caught with unlicensed vaping products are also in the bill, as is — aaargh! — civil asset forfeiture.

The “representatives” of Massachusetts’ citizens want to take away their automobiles, boats and airplanes if they cannot prove, on the spot, their vaping products’ legality.

Politicians are far more dangerous than vaping.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

vape, vaping, law, asset forfeiture, politicians,

Photo by Vaping360

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts


Categories
media and media people responsibility

Science Isn’t Morality

tanning bed, science

“Scientist” — what an abused term! When a journalist needs an authority to write about some nutty, wildly improbable affront to common sense, a “scientist” will do.

Case in point, turn to Newsweek:

“Tanning salons are more likely to be located in U.S. neighborhoods with higher numbers of same-sex male couples,” writes Kashmira Gander, “according to scientists who fear the industry could be targeting the demographic.”

Well, since gay men — for a variety of reasons surely no one will dispute, and which we need not trouble ourselves with — are more likely to use such services than straight men, one might expect marketers to “target” a likely clientele.

But why the “fear”?

Well, don’t panic, but “[t]anning beds are dangerous. They double your risk of skin cancer. Over time, they also cause wrinkles, skin aging, uneven skin texture and dark spots, so even from a cosmetic standpoint, no one should be using them.”

Well, that latter is not a scientific finding. It is up to consumers to decide what acceptable levels of risk they will take to make themselves appealing for the opposite sex, or — in this case — the same sex.

If scientists made fewer moral and political pronouncements, sticking to statements that they can defend with facts and findings, not only would Newsweek and other magazines be easier to bear (I cannot guarantee more subscribers and newsstand sales, alas), but science itself might gain a bit more credibility.

As it is, it is teetering.

Or so some “studies have shown.”

As for me, I’m not gay, but I am married . . . and a former redhead. Tanning salons don’t profitably pitch their services to me.

Not because of science, but . . .

Common Sense. Which this is. I’m Paul Jacob.

tanning bed, science

Original image by Alexis O’Toole

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts


Categories
judiciary responsibility

Caveat Tempter

apple, temptation, rotten,

If, like me, you expect people to bear the bulk of the brunt of their own decisions, big ticket court rulings often strike you as bizarre.

Case in point? “Drugmaker Johnson & Johnson must pay $572m (£468m) for its part in fuelling Oklahoma’s opioid addiction crisis, a judge in the US state has ruled,” reads a BBC report.

“During Oklahoma’s seven-week non-jury trial,” the BBC informs, “lawyers for the state argued that Johnson & Johnson carried out a years-long marketing campaign that minimised the addictive painkillers’ risks and promoted their benefits.”

A certain credulity boundary has been stretched, here:

  1. Don’t all ads stress selling points over . . . non-selling points?
  2. Doesn’t everyone know this, and, therefore,
  3. Shouldn’t they be expected to adjust — caveat emptor-wise — accordingly?
  4. And doesn’t everyone know painkillers are dangerous, and opiates notoriously so?

“The state’s lawyers had called Johnson & Johnson an opioid ‘kingpin,’” the report continues, “and argued that its marketing efforts created a public nuisance as doctors over-prescribed the drugs, leading to a surge in overdose deaths in Oklahoma.”

The public nuisance biz is idiotic, of course. If the company had been slipping its drugs to kids on a playground, something like this would have some plausibility. But the actual situation? Nope.*

Shifting responsibility from self to others, especially deeply pocketed others, has many bad consequences . . . not least of which is deflection of our attention away from why opioid use is up. Which is something we should be looking into for our friends’, families’, and neighbors’ sakes.

Lawyers are our tempters, in such cases. 

And monetary awards can sure be addicting. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Johnson & Johnson is appealing the decision, of course.

PDF for printing

apple, temptation, rotten,

Photo by Max Pixel

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts