Clever tweets tend to morph in content and meaning over time. I don’t know where this one originated, and I’ve edited it to taste as people will do with such things, but I’m sure you’ll get where it’s going:

“It’s just 15 days to flatten the curve. It’s just a mask. It’s just six feet. It’s just no large gatherings. It’s just preventing ‘misinformation.’ It’s just a shot. It’s just a mandate. It’s just showing your vaccine passport on demand …”

Naturally, anyone who objected at any waypoint on that trail, or predicted the next waypoint, was roundly decried in American mainstream media as a whackjob. It was always going to be “this far and no further,” and only  “conspiracy theorists” would believe otherwise.

When I see stuff like those tweets, my first mental go-to is Martin Niemoller (“First they came for …”).

My second is Sinclair Lewis (“It Can’t Happen Here”).

And my third is Australia.

Less than two years ago, Australia could be plausibly described as a “western liberal democracy.”

Today, Australia’s regime is doing its best to show up Joseph Stalin and Kim Jong-Un as amateurs. And succeeding.

In parts of Australia, you’re allowed a luxurious one hour per day outdoors, to exercise, alone. But be sure to keep your papers on you for presentation on demand, and even then prepare for harassment by the police and armed forces, including helicopter patrols (yes, really).

If you’re a traveler allowed to return and ordered to quarantine, don’t forget to download the government’s smart phone surveillance app, which texts you at random intervals and gives you 15 minutes to respond with a selfie proving you’re where you’ve been ordered to cell in. Otherwise, police will be dispatched to track you down.

All is not lost for our Aussie friends, though. If they’re lonely, they can “nominate” one (ONLY one) friend, or romantic or sexual partner, with whom to form a “single social bubble.” If the regime approves their application, they’re graciously permitted to spend alone time with their “bonk bubble buddy.” But they must choose carefully — no backsies! They’re stuck with their choice for the duration of the “emergency.”

Am I a whackjob conspiracy theorist for worrying that America, having set its feet on that same path, may continue down the road toward “Make America East Germany Again?”

Well, maybe. But these days, I’d rather be a whackjob conspiracy theorist than an Australian.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION HISTORY

Since about the time that Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election, the word “treason” has become one of the most over-used — and more importantly MIS-used — words in the English language.

Not just by his opponents, who broke out the t-word every time they tried to blame Hillary Clinton’s loss on alleged collusion with THEM RUSSIANS!, but by Trump himself when, for example, an anonymous op-ed writer asserted that “adults in the room” were working to keep him from looking stupid.

Trump’s leveling his latest (provisional — “if the story … is true”) “treason” accusation against General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

What did Milley do? If the reportage of Bob Woodward and Robert Costa is correct in their new book, Peril, he made two phone calls — one right after the 2020 presidential election, one right after the January 6 Capitol riot — to his Chinese counterpart, General Li Zuocheng, to reassure Li that the US wasn’t about to launch a surprise attack on China.

I like words. Words are useful, because they mean things. When I say I want a banana, I’m asking for a piece of fruit rather than for, say, a Tesla Model 3 or tickets to the Allman Family Revival show in Sarasota. That’s handy. It keeps me from ending up with too many Teslas and concert tickets.

When it comes to the word “treason,” we have a clear and unambiguous definition, right there in  Article III of the US Constitution:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

Article I, Section 8 is also helpful here: It reserves the power to declare war exclusively to Congress. If Congress hasn’t declared war, there’s no “enemy” to give aid or comfort to, and any presidential order for a surprise attack on China would be illegal.

If Woodward and Costa’s account is to be believed, all Milley did was tell a foreign general that the US armed forces could be trusted to follow US law.

That sounds like a good thing, especially when there’s a loose cannon in the White House who isn’t very attentive to laws limiting his authority (which is pretty much all the time).

It certainly doesn’t sound like “treason,” to anyone with a basic grasp of the English language and a commitment to honesty. Unfortunately, that seems to be a shrinking demographic.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION HISTORY

On July 26, 2020, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order under which the US government’s Medicare Part D program would have negotiated lower prescription drug prices based on an “International Price Index.”

Implementation of the order was delayed pending counter-proposals from Big Pharma, but the Democratic response was swift. “Instead of meaningfully lowering drug prices, President Trump’s Executive Orders would hand billions of dollars to Big Pharma,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) complained, without explaining why or how.

On September 9, the US Department of Health and Human Services released the Biden administration’s “Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices.”

Here’s the problem the report identifies: “Patients in other comparable countries regularly pay substantially less for prescription drugs than Americans.”

Here’s the report’s solution: “Allowing the Secretary of HHS to negotiate Medicare prices will achieve fair prices for beneficiaries when markets fail to do so. Allowing commercial payers, including employer and Marketplace plans, to access those prices will extend savings to additional consumers.”

Sound familiar? It should. It’s essentially Trump’s plan.

It’s also Pelosi’s plan, as expressed in the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act, which would allow HHS to negotiate drug prices and limit what it could offer to 120% of the average price paid by other wealthy western countries.

Just to be clear, if the American political establishment was really interested in lowering drug prices, it would eliminate prescription coverage under Medicare (and if it was really interested in lowering healthcare costs in general, it would eliminate Medicare).

Neither of those things being “on the table,” so to speak, having Medicare drive a harder bargain when paying for prescription drugs just makes sense — not because, as the HHS report pretends, Medicare is distinct from “the market,” but because Medicare is a substantial player IN the market.

Medicare Part D isn’t a monopsony (that is, a single buyer, just as a monopoly is a single seller), but it is the biggest single buyer of prescription drugs in the US healthcare market.  It’s well-positioned to demand a quantity discount, or at least a reasonable price. And it should. Overpaying for prescription drugs is healthcare’s version of paying “defense” contractors $800 for toilet seats.

Why do Republicans and Democrats both talk a lot about controlling Medicare spending on drugs, but never actually get the job done?

That’s no mystery: Big Pharma makes bigger campaign donations and hires more lobbyists than you do.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION HISTORY