Shifting My Tactics

Dear Readers:

After five years of writing a weekly blog, I am taking a hiatus. No worries, I will still be writing for the cause of liberty, but I see a different need emerging and I will be using such writing skills as I possess in a different way.

I believe that there are plenty of good current events pundits to go around right now, but not enough writers who explain libertarian principles in a thorough but understandable way. Before making this decision, I drafted what will hopefully be either the first chapter in a book or first in a series of libertarian essays available on Kindle. It is hard work, even more so that writing a blog. After seeing the results, though, I was convinced that it will be worth the effort.

Common Sense Liberty will still be available in case you wish to examine the archives or even comment on older posts. My deepest thanks goes out to all of you who have read my posts over the last five years.

Yours in Freedom,


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Art, Underwear, and Taking Offense

Females at Wellesley College apparently got their panties in a twist over some art depicting a man in his underwear. The issue appears to be that it makes some people “uncomfortable.” To be fair, it may not have been all females who signed the petition to have it removed. I am sure some males are rendered uncomfortable as well, much as I am when I see those ridiculously cut-up UnderArmour models.

Just kidding. I am perfectly comfortable with being past the age where people want to sculpt me in my underwear.* I am also comfortable with art that depicts things I don’t like, don’t understand, or disagree with. In fact, I cannot imagine feeling threatened by art, unless it’s a performance piece with machine guns spraying real bullets into the crowd at the end.

These days, however, it is not good enough to talk about a piece of art that disturbs some people; we must get rid of art that evokes discomfort. Thus the petition to rid the campus of Underwear Man** now, well before he is scheduled to depart anyway this summer.

Just where along the line we supposedly acquired the right not to be made uncomfortable is a mystery to me. Art confronts, pleases, aggravates, provokes and inspires. It is rarely benign, though Underwear Man comes close to qualifying. (The vapid nature of contemporary art is another subject entirely.) And the fact that it is art is, well, beside the point.

Sleepwalker statue

Any society that flourishes does so because its inhabitants are free. Tyrannies come and tyrannies go, but the reason is always the same–human beings require freedom to prosper, both materially and spiritually. Take away the most fundamental of those freedoms, expressing what one thinks, and collapse is sure to follow. I have to wonder if the current petition-signers will feel the same way when their speech gets squashed by right-wing fundamentalists. No doubt some of them feel threatened by godless heathen who want reproductive rights.

And who is teaching these young people that life is supposed to be insult-free? Is that a point of view? I mean a real one? I suppose I should not ask. Years ago, I attended a workshop on effective teaching, part of which dealt with gender and racial bias. A perfectly legitimate subject, by the way. At least it can be when the point is to recognize when we may be unconscious of our own unfairness. In this case, though, one of the attendees noted that she felt uncomfortable–borderline threatened–by the presence of males in general anywhere.

Now, I don’t know if you have ever seen a room full of male graduate students, but they aren’t exactly savage biker-types bent on snorting coke and shooting up the place. Most wouldn’t know a spur from a spittoon. One of us (another guy beat me to it) asked incredulously if she felt threatened by…us. Yes was the answer, and it was then that I understood just how far out in the weeds feminism had strayed.

At least some campuses get it, like the University of Alaska Fairbanks. After dubious attacks on student-published material a faculty member deemed “sexually harassing,” the system President Mark R. Hamilton made it clear that the First Amendment protected speech is not subject to investigation. Kudos to Hamilton, a rare commodity in academia.

The lesson here is plain, but some people are refusing to get it. Susie’s feelings do not define the limits of Jane’s speech. State-supported campuses run afoul of the First Amendment when they act as the state and enforce speech codes. The only people who are never confronted with uncomfortable ideas are those who do not allow others to say anything without their approval. As Philosopher Stephen Hicks notes, this is not feminism, it is Learned Infantilism.

Higher education is about growth, not regression. Growth requires psychological and intellectual disruption–pain, actually–and our institutions of higher learning should be the last place on Earth where the value of free speech is questioned as a means to that end. May the authorities at Wellesley summon some of the University of Alaska’s courage and let the Sleepwalker wake some people up.


*But if you do, contact me at Modeling fees reasonable. Serious inquiries only.

**The piece is actually entitled “Sleepwalker,” but I like my title better.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Do You Want the Government To Design Your iPad?

An iPad is something that shouldn’t exist. By touching its screen, a user can access billions upon billions of collections of information displayed in crisp, vibrant color with nary a cord in sight. What sort of magic results in such a wonder?

We know, of course, that there is no magic involved, at least not the kind that involves puffs of smoke and incantations. The iPad, along with millions of other technological accomplishments, came from the minds of talented and dedicated people. It is the result of free people, privately employed and massively motivated. What arrangement could possible top that?

The answer is “none,” but the government, that bastion of justice, fairness, and know-it-all-ness has decided it knows better than Apple how to design a tablet interface. At issue is a feature with which most of us are familiar. When making online purchases, one need not enter a password every single time a purchase is made. The password permission stays on for a time–usually 15 minutes or so. Some Apple users complained that their children had been able to make purchases within that time window without parental consent. Apple contacted every one and offered a refund.

Eddie Murphy new sheriff in town

That was not good enough for the FTC, which laid out design parameters for the next twenty years. This without, as far as we know, a single qualification among the agency’s commissioners to design computer interfaces.

This is not the first time our government has attacked success. Some of us recall them gnawing at the ankle of Bill Gates when Microsoft was changing the world for the good. Or the NLRB trying to tell Boeing where to locates its new plants. Or CAFE standards resulting in more expensive and less safe cars. Let no good deed go unpunished.

Good design results from bad design modified with experience. The first model of virtually anything is less than perfect. Succeeding models require feedback, but only a certain kind of feedback works. When customers find that their children buy stuff they aren’t supposed to, they either teach the kids (by making them do chores to pay off the bill) or if the offense is great enough they complain to the company from which they purchased it. Likewise for literally millions of design features. The market is the perfect mechanism for finding out what features most people want and how much they are willing to pay for it.

When government is the feedback provider, a small panel of people who may have little to no actual experience with the product decide what is best for the millions who do use it. Is this the way we want our computers to be designed? Our cars? Our educational system?

Government wants to control everything because that is how people in government get paid. The less they control, the less they are needed and the more they are required to do honest work. For every economic initiative, there are now thousands of people appointed by politicians to screw it up. This is the end game of government now–control without purpose and arrogance in spades.

While I understand Apple’s decision to settle the case, I am disappointed. Only when victim’s of regulatory overreach start to fight back will agencies retreat from their destructive offensive against economic freedom.

In the move 48 Hours, Eddie Murphy plays a convicted con man sprung from jail to help Nick Nolte’s character catch a crook. One scene has Murphy trying to get information in a redneck bar. Finding himself the object of derision, he hurls a glass through the bar mirror. They start listening. It’s about time companies like Apple threw a glass.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Pen Is Not Mightier Than the Law

If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet.” —Neils Bohr

So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do.” —Barack Obama

In the coming weeks, I will issue an Executive Order requiring federal contractors to pay their federally-funded employees a fair wage of at least $10.10 an hour – because if you cook our troops’ meals or wash their dishes, you shouldn’t have to live in poverty.” —Barack Obama

I intend to keep trying, with or without Congress, to help stop more tragedies from visiting innocent Americans in our movie theaters, shopping malls, or schools like Sandy Hook.” —Barack Obama

If you are not profoundly shocked by Barack Obama’s political tactics, you haven’t understood them yet.” –Terry Noel


The State of the Union Address was, as these things tend to be, a tedious narrative of self-praise. Barack Obama is not the first nor will he be the last President to attempt applying lipstick to a pig. Unfortunately for him, this one is starting to squirm.

The President did not formally shut down Congress, nor did he invoke martial law. He did not actually crown himself King, nor did he whore out the wives of our Senators as did Caligula. The President refrained from nationalizing all businesses with over seven employees and did not explicitly outlaw profit. He did not announce a plan for confiscating all firearms held by private citizens. In short, for anyone who still believes anything the President says, it was a victory for freedom and prosperity.

What the President did do in his address was nearly as disturbing. He let us know without a doubt that he takes a dim view of our Constitutional system of governance, invoking multiple times his desire and intention to bypass Congress and make law himself. Lest we all think this an empty threat, the President has received nine unanimous Supreme Court upbraidings for trying to expand federal power since January 2012. Something tells me he is sincere in his efforts to upend our constitutional system of governance.


The most tightly-bundled package of questionable assertions of Presidential power has come recently in the form of the ACA–the Affordable Care Act. The President has materially altered the plain intent of the law numerous times with nary a blush. It is, of course, the President’s job to execute the law. Changing the law is quite another matter. We may quibble over what is legitimately a prudent decision necessary to smooth implementation–that is one of the reasons we have a President. The Chief Executive, though, must honor the Constitutional bounds placed on him in so doing. Presidents are wont to ignore this irritating hindrance and occasionally they run afoul of the Constitution. In some cases, they declare war on it.

Barack Obama has reached that point.

At issue is a part of the law that requires people to buy insurance. Some people cannot afford insurance, and thus must be subsidized. The subsidy is directed toward an exchange “established by the state.” As George Will notes, these four words may spell the end of the ACA. Taken as written, they mean that the federal government is not authorized by law to subsidize insurance purchases in the 34 states that elected not to have an exchange.

The Democrats defense of this troublesome detail is that it was the equivalent of a typo. The IRS, charged with implementing the law, thus has “interpreted” the phrase to include federal exchanges. The problem is that there is a documented history of discussion about that very point and it is quite clear that the wording was chosen carefully to include only state exchanges. Refer to the Will article for details.

In part, this is just the rough-and-tumble of American politics. It is designed to work that way and it is the reason we have three branches of government. On another level, something much more disturbing is happening–something sinister and malevolent.

The Left has become something dark and vicious.* I notice it most in the people for whom Barack Obama is the answer to every slight against the downtrodden since Christ was a corporal. They seem today less like principled fighters for the needy and more like revenge-seeking vigilantes. There has been a tangible shift from loving one’s neighbor to hating one’s rich neighbors. Even people who claim to found their values in love for all are starting to sound like they would love to castrate a couple of conservatives before lunch.

Fighting for our principles is precisely what we should be doing. Fortunately, the Founders recognized that we all have a tendency to foist upon others our particular notions of what is good, especially if they have to pay for it. Our system of checks and balances ensures that we each are able to voice our own opinions and work with like-minded others to promote those values through legislation.

That system means that it is difficult to push through ideas, a mechanism diametrically opposed to the liberal agenda. Since liberals continually want the government to do more, they are continually frustrated that it is so hard to get it done.

The darkness descending over our political landscape has less to do with the content of the Left’s agenda than it does with its willingness to tear down those checks and balances. I do not exaggerate when I say that some of my liberal friends are starting to look at their President the way a subject looks to his King. The gaze I see is not one of polite deference to the office, but a worship of the person who now holds it.

We all at times become taken with our own brilliance and awed by our own goodness. Barack Obama is for some, I think, a personification of the Left’s longing for a dream world of fairness and plenty, unencumbered by the harsh economic realities of actually creating things people need.

Present-day Leftists cannot abide thinking about such mundane matters because it interrupts their childish games. An accidental glance beyond the boundaries of the playground reminds them that the real world is rough and dirty and no fairsies. They play until exhausted and sleep until energized, dimly if at all aware that an adult built the bed.

While the dreamy-eyed indulge in reverie, the clear-minded build businesses and are castigated if they do it too well. The President and his minions look at business the way finicky people look at their evacuative functions–a necessary but disgusting element of human life. 

No matter how charmingly it is dressed up, paraded across a teleprompter, and delivered into our living rooms, the message of the Left is destructive and hateful. It is a childish fascination with a man and an idea that cannot be. And should not. The Children of the Left have become the Children of the Corn. No longer content with sniping at adults, they are conspiring with a red-eyed monster to do them in. The One will make it right. He would heal the sick and feed the poor were it not for the Evil Ones who oppose Him with…phtttttt…the law.

These children need to be spanked and sent to their rooms for a while. They need to be told firmly and unflinchingly that the rest of us will gladly listen to polite talk and cogent arguments, but we will not tolerate tantrums. The Left must learn that they will abide by the rules our Constitution lays out and that we are not in the least intimidated by their leader. They will learn to work for their ideals like adults and not force them on the rest of us by executive fiat. If we fail to discipline them now, they will destroy everything that makes it possible to live like decent humans. Go out into the backyard and fix up that old woodshed. You may need it.


*My regular readers know that I despise the Right as well, but for different reasons.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Look At Little Sister

As President Obama gears up to tell us all to shut up and do what his Administration says tomorrow night, one mighty foe will dog his every word–The Little Sisters of the Poor.

In the tangled mess that is Obamacare there are upwards of, oh, a billion rules for how one is to buy, sell, and administer health care. The Little Sisters have accomplished what few groups of any kind for any reason have: They earned an emergency junction from the Supreme Court. It is unusual in two ways. First, such permanent stays pending appeal are rare. Second, there was no recorded dissent among the Justices.

The specific issue involves a form the nuns would have to sign to gain an exemption from the mandate. They believe that signing the exemption instructs others to do in their name what they will not do directly–provide contraceptives and abortifacients.

Progressives are fond of telling the rest of us how chock-full of social goodness they are. The Little Sisters of the Poor beg to differ. In their minds, they should not be forced to endorse that which they find morally objectionable. I agree, not with their particular view of contraception, but with their right to refrain from behavior that is morally repugnant to them.

Nun stops a bulldozer

Much has been made of the mechanics of the Rube Goldberg-like health care machine the Democrats have foisted upon us. For good reason–it will not work because it cannot work, unless we mean by “work” a precipitous degrading of our healthcare system. Not so much has been said about its moral implications, though.

Whenever money is taken from one to support another, the element of moral choice is destroyed. Few of us think that roads are evil or that stoplights are an abomination in the eyes of our favored deity.* There is no reason to get worked up about the moral implications of such as this. Abortion and contraception, however, are a different matter. They involve weighty decisions about when life begins and to what degree the law should accommodate our individual opinions.

The Little Sisters of the Poor would, like others now being sucked into the system, have to provide insurance for these things. The Supreme Court seems inclined to say “not so fast.” And with good reason. How came the government to dictate that people engage actively in behavior that is morally repugnant to them?

It should come as no surprise to those who have been watching the steady degradation of our private lives in favor of our public selves. The progressive agenda cares not for those who object to their enlightened view of what is good for all of us. Compliance is all that is necessary. Until Obamacare, the offended were usually conservatives–those who at least in principle advocate for smaller government and larger individual leeway.

The interesting thing about this case is that a constituency that normally supports these communitarian/socialistic forays into the private sector is now in the awkward position of tearing it down. If the nuns win, and I hope they do, it brings into question the degree to which either the Right or the Left is willing to have their personal morals trounced to make way for the morals of Obamacare.

A free nation limits its laws to those things that are genuinely a danger to other people and their individual rights. A nation bent on imposing law after law after law will eventually find that it has hit the limits of what some people will do in good conscience.  We have found that limit in a big way. Hopefully the Supreme Court will side with the nuns. If not, I hope the Little Sisters of the Poor refuse to comply. Let’s see the Administration deal with that one.


*I am almost sure someone believes this somewhere, else I would have said “no one.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Defending Free Speech When It Hurts

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday morning concerning free speech around and near abortion clinics. At issue is whether a 35-foot “buffer zone” within which abortion objectors are not allowed is constitutional. The named plaintiff, Eleanor McCullen, offers “calm, peaceful, and non-threatening” speech to try to talk women out of having abortions. She claims the zone violates her First Amendment rights.

Abortion continues to be a contentious issue in this country, and that is what makes this case newsworthy. It shouldn’t. That is, it shouldn’t matter whether the speech is about abortion or favorite recipes. The First Amendment is foundational to our freedom in general. Judging free speech cases on the basis of content only serves to weaken a principle of governance that protects us all.

This would not even be an issue were it not for a couple of areas in which it is legitimate for the state to limit “speech.” It would be more correct to say that some acts that involve speech violate other individual’s rights. The most cited example is shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater. To be precise, this phrase, coined by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in the Schenck v. United States case concerned falsely shouting “Fire!” The difference is critical.

We should hope that someone seeing a fire would alert others. The avoidable mayhem of shouting fire comes only when someone does it to cause panic. A real fire may cause a panic as well, but the person shouting cannot be said to have harmed anyone. In the end, he/she may well have saved their lives.


In 1969, this ruling was overturned in favor of a more restricted understanding of the legitimacy of limiting speech in the Brandenburg v. Ohio case. Where Holmes had reasoned that distributing leaflets protesting the draft during WWI could be restricted by the state because it caused a “clear and present danger,” Brandenburg amended this view to include only speech that threatened “imminent lawless action.” (And Holmes later came to change his views, thinking his former opinion too restrictive of speech.)

The Brandenburg decision helped draw the line between voicing an unwelcome opinion and advocating or causing tangible harm. Most of us have no trouble with this idea. We know that freedom of speech does not include the freedom to use a bullhorn at 2:00AM in an apartment complex. Likewise, shouting that you are going to kill someone while arching over them menacingly is not covered.

For these restrictions to work while we still maintain freedom of speech is simple–in theory. The state has a legitimate interest in controlling speech in a very tightly circumscribed set of circumstances–protecting people from immediate harm–but those circumstances must be content-neutral. It should not matter what the speaker is talking about.

In practice the distinction is sometimes hard to make. This particular case is interesting because of the blurred line between a protest (which has to be managed for public safety) and regular old plain vanilla speech (one person talking to another non-threateningly). Underneath, though, lies a more fundamental issue. Are we each to be protected from hearing things we don’t want to hear?

The hullabaloo over Fit Mom, which I wrote about recently, is one example of a disturbing trend: if it upsets me, I should try to silence the speaker. Fortunately, the government did not try to silence Fit Mom, other Facebook users did. In the case of so-called “hate speech,” though, that is precisely what happens. The government has taken it upon itself to designate some types of speech as illegal even when no harm is imminent. The same holds for university “free speech” zones. Until we had them it never occurred to me that any place on campus was not a free speech zone.* The implication is dark and sinister–we need permission from government to speak our minds.

How can anyone justify wanting to silence others with whom they disagree? For the same reason that people spend when they should save, eat ice cream when they should get a salad, and sit on the couch when they should be exercising. Our present-moment impulses routinely overpower our long-term intentions. If people constantly shared with me their negative views about bald men–that they steal souls, have bad tempers, and are related to Lucifer–I would probably be annoyed,** but I don’t think it would occur to me to advocate making it illegal to say those things.

One reason is that the whole notion is just silly. People that easily offended need to grow up. Not everyone is going to like you. Some will have stupid excuses for not liking your near-perfect, lovable self. Get over it. The best reason, though, is that I know who is next on the list when baldies lose power. One fine day I know I would find myself arrested for poking fun at someone’s dreadlocks.***

When government acts within its legitimate boundaries, it protects each of us from tangible harm by others. It cannot and should not protect us from getting our feelings hurt when others express their opinions, no matter how offensive. Those who support a woman’s right to choose will often be tempted to silence those who wish to deny it, and vice versa. Both sides should remember that the same mechanism works both ways.

Freedom has a price, but it is a bargain. Each of us must grow up. No government can simultaneously make us free from insult and free from tyranny. Liberty requires a keen mind and a stout heart. I wonder how many of us are still willing to pay the price.


*Note that this only applies to public universities, which are quasi-governmental institutions. A private university has every right to ask someone to leave the premises for any reason whatsoever. That is not a violation of free speech, but certainly violates the sensibilities of anyone who still believes that higher education should teach people to understand all sides of an issue, not protect them from hearing other points of view.

**Or not. I find it easier by the day to ignore idiots.

***For more information on the Anti-Dreadlocks League, please contact me directly.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Common Sense for 2014

Dear Readers:

Thank you for allowing me another wonderful year blogging in the cause of freedom. WordPress now gives us bloggers a pretty handy summary of our yearly activity (below). A couple of things to note: 1) I had 5100 views this year–please help me make it to 10,000 in 2014, 2) My blog has been read in 75 different countries–I am shooting for 100 this year. You can help by taking the time–now is always good–to refer one person to who probably is not reading it now.

I did notice a couple of weird things in the report. First, my busiest day was in January and the most-read blog that day was Death by President. Second, one of the most searched-for words that led people to my blog was “dominatrix.” Since I am into neither death nor domination games, I have to suspect that the NSA is poisoning the well. Bastards.

Anyway, if you came here looking for something gory or naughty, that’s my other blog. (Just kidding–it’s one of my friend’s blogs.) If you came here looking for some ideas on making all of us better off by defending and regaining our basic liberties, help me spread the word. I’ll do the writing if you’ll do the spreading.

Have a wonderful 2014. See you in next week’s blog.


The stats helper monkeys prepared a 2013 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

A New York City subway train holds 1,200 people. This blog was viewed about 5,100 times in 2013. If it were a NYC subway train, it would take about 4 trips to carry that many people.

Click here to see the complete report.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Silence of the Ducks

Lacking better things to do, we are now consumed with what should be a trivial matter–what some reality show celebrity said about gay people. But the hullabaloo over Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson is not trivial in one sense. The avalanche of deep concern with his remarks on homosexuality brings to light a disturbing trend in American culture–silencing that with which we disagree.

Let’s set a couple of things straight before we get started. First, I don’t watch Duck Dynasty. It is right behind building an model of the Eiffel Tower with toothpicks on my list of things to do. I do think it is brilliant from one perspective. Take a family whose males can grow nifty beards, produce a low-budget “reality” show, and make millions on merchandise. I LOVE capitalism, even when I think the customers are a bit daft.

Second, I have no idea what the man said and I do not intend to find out. The content of his interview is neither here nor there for me. In my view, people who get worked up about someone else’s sexual orientation need more hobbies. For the life of me, I cannot fathom why that is a matter of concern for anyone other than the person in question. Thus his remarks garner no more attention from me than any other of his opinions.

Quacking duck

Third, A&E can do any damn thing it pleases with any of its shows for any reason. As a friend of mine (Virginia Murr) posted this morning on Facebook, theirs is simply a calculation of which crowd is bigger, the ones who like quacking ducks or the ones who want to get their hands around their necks. I think they are kind of silly for suspending him, but I support their right to do so.

I also think that people who get worked up every time someone expresses a private opinion against homosexuality need to reevaluate their knee-jerk responses. Just as gay people are free to express their opinions, so are people who object to homosexuality. Bad ideas peppered with criticism and satire in the full light of day eventually dry up and blow away–as they should. Silencing those voices does nothing to cure the root problem, which is usually ignorance and hatefulness.

There are two ways to silence speech that annoys us. The first, which is often foolish but always acceptable, is to refuse to support the institutions that promote that speech. A&E “boycotters” are doing just that, and they are perfectly within their rights to do so. The second is to silence them by force. The most common method is also the most revolting–to shout them down. In the old days, that meant literally shouting them down in a public place. Now it can also mean a denial-of-service attack on computer servers. It reduces humans to animal status and is indefensible in a free society.

Another way to silence people by force is to pass laws prohibiting speech. It looks like we would have learned this lesson by now, but the First Amendment has a deep and profound purpose that we seem to have forgotten. When ideas are not allowed to be expressed, the force that prompted them is repressed. Pressure builds and the result is inevitably less constructive than hashing out the ideas freely. Often, it is violent.

Living in a free society virtually guarantees that each of us will hear things daily that we’d rather not hear. Some of those things may…wait for it…hurt our feelings. To wit, a blogger known as “Fit Mom” was temporarily suspended from Facebook* because at least one reader complained that her post constituted “hate speech.” I am frankly near-speechless that a blogger’s suggesting that obesity should not be normalized is considered by anyone to be hateful. And even if I did, it would not occur to me to try to silence the blogger. I might write a response or cover the subject in my own blog, but ask Facebook to take it down? Please.

It appears to me sometimes that we have raised a generation of people whose initial reaction to any offense is to silence the source by any means necessary. Jennifer Lawrence, whom I adored in Silver Linings Playbook, wants to outlaw calling people fat on TV. For the record, I do agree that being mean to people is wrong and that 98 lbs. is too skinny for anyone over three feet tall. But illegal? Really? Perhaps we can forgive Jennifer’s being 23 years old and not seeing the bigger picture, but not so for the people who have lived long enough to know better–like the ones who hate Fit Mom.

Get worked up about Phil Robertson or do the sensible thing and go back to what you were doing before. Don’t wring anybody’s neck, though. The next pair of hands may be around yours.


*Facebook said that the “offending” post was taken down by mistake, though it did suspend Fit Mom’s account temporarily and did not put the post back.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Dear Pope: Be Thankful for Capitalism

Readers: Terry is thankful to be back with you after a couple or three weeks hiatus. He was managing some family affairs and was unable to write regularly. Today he is back with material sure to offend and provoke. Enjoy!


Pope Francis is no doubt thankful for a lot of things, but capitalism is not one of them. He recently admonished us per his Evangelii Gaudium to despise capitalism. In his view, economic inequality is the direct result of the “tyranny” of the free market (Chapter 2, Heading 1, no. 53-4).

53. Just as the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say “thou shalt not” to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills. How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.

Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a “disposable” culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the “exploited” but the outcast, the “leftovers”.

54. In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.

The Pope is wrong.*

Man on fire

Christianity has always had an ambivalent relationship with commerce. Jesus appears at times to have held the rich in contempt, telling us that it is easier for a rich man to fit through the eye of a needle than it is for a camel to get into heaven. Or something like that–it’s been a long time since I went to Sunday School. Yet he also shared the parable of the talents, wherein a servant is admonished for not putting the silver he was given to good use. The old widow giving her mite as an offering was said to please God more than the larger but disproportional gift of the rich, yet one has to wonder which gift fed more poor people.

We should not expect any different, of course. Parables from all religious traditions are guides that, when functioning as they should, prompt us to think more deeply about the human condition. They are not meant to give us easy answers to simple questions. Shallow interpretations that take such stories at face value do more harm than good, especially when they mask blatant contradictions. Yet this is precisely what the Pope has encouraged with his Evangelii Gaudium.

The servants who invested their silver acquired more land and were praised. The one who buried his talents was admonished. In some interpretations, the word “talents” is taken to mean abilities, skills, and knowledge. Is the Pope saying they should have simply given them to the poor? That their silver or their “talents” were ill-gotten gain? That inequality must be rectified right then and there by redistributing wealth?

That view is simple-minded and destructive. If we are to learn anything from the parable of the talents, it is that what we have may be turned into more–if it is invested. The stock market that Pope Francis decries is precisely that–a system whereby talents are multiplied. Wealth is turned into more wealth. Talents are turned into more talents.

Pope Francis also excoriates “trickle-down” economics. Clearly he does not understand what is meant by the term or he would praise those who amass capital and put it to good use. Wealth trickles down, but those who hide under the porch won’t get wet. Putting one’s talents to work, no matter how modest, is the first step in stepping up.

All people who hurt for the poor need to learn how to distinguish honest commerce from crony capitalism. When markets are truly free from governmental coercion, one may easily identify the people who have materially benefited their fellows the most. They are the wealthy ones. We know that because under genuine laissez-faire capitalism, it is the only way to get rich. Even those who inherit their talents of silver must continue to put them to good use or lose them.

Under our current system, there is ample reason to be steamed up about inequality, but not because of true capitalism. The cause of such inequality is the ability of those with political power to tilt the table in their favor–crony capitalism. Separate government and the economy and the problem disappears.

Or I should say the real problem disappears. Inequality will remain, and it’s a good thing, too. Thank heaven we are not all alike. Some of us are better at one thing, some another. Some people excel at making money, some at playing chess. Inequality is the inevitable result of each of us being free to do our best when some people’s best is less than other people’s best. Fortunately, enough people are good at creating jobs to employ those of us who are better at having jobs. Rather than beef about it, the employed should send their employers and those who invested in them a turkey every year.

Even those who have trouble putting their talents to work benefit from the vast array of cheaper and higher-quality goods that the capitalists make possible. The faux problem–that some have less than others–masks the fact that all are better off when some employ their talents to become really well off. And, contrary to what the Pope says, there is ample evidence to prove it. The living standard of humanity skyrocketed when capitalism saved humanity from the grinding poverty of the Middle Ages. How quickly we forget.

So, Pope Francis, while you are blessing things today and giving thanks, remember those who create what you so eagerly want others to have. They deserve your praise, not your invective.


*Since I am not Catholic, I did not burst into flames upon typing that.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Deceive and Destroy: Obamacare Unmasked

Color me shocked–again. Turns out that Obama knew millions would not be able to keep their health insurance. I was still recovering from the trauma of having to admit that the government might not be very good at such an undertaking. But to learn that someone actually lied about it? That’s just too much.

It is getting harder and harder to credit Democrats with any sort of good intentions regarding this fiasco. At one time, kindly souls might have labeled them misguided but well-meaning. Now, they are looking like vandals–those who destroy for the sake of destroying.

Critics of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have known since its inception that it could not work. It is continually passed off as a way to manage insurance, but in fact it violates nearly every principle required of good insurance practice. Insurance works if and only if a company earns a profit for the service of spreading risk out among participants. Government regulations requiring things like covering those with pre-existing conditions necessarily raise the cost of providing insurance. Couple those with premium limits and it becomes possible for an insurance company to make money. In other words, to survive.

To give people what they want but cannot have under conditions of economic reality, the government must either subsidize premiums by taking money from taxpayers and giving it to those it deems needy or it must rig the game. Both are despicable, but the latter is especially troublesome.

Harking back to the passage of the ACA, we recall that it faced fierce opposition from Republicans, who cast not a single vote in its favor. Let us also recall that the Justice Department, later chastised for prosecutorial misconduct, had waylaid Republican Senator Ted Stevens’ re-election campaign with a corruption conviction that was later overturned. That vote, cast instead by a Democrat, was the last one needed for a filibuster-proof majority.

Four years later we find ourselves in the middle of a technical meltdown, most of which was hidden from the public for as long as possible. Language inserted into the ACA concerning private plans (you remember–those you were supposed to be able to keep) has caused boatloads* of the insured to be dropped. Those strapping young men and women who neither need nor want insurance at the level needed to make Obamacare work are not enrolling in numbers sufficient to subsidize those who do need it. And last, doctors are beginning to wonder if going off-grid (refusing to take insurance) makes sense. You’d almost think Obama and the Democrats want to destroy health care.

Yes, want to destroy health care.

Trust me

Copyright Last Kiss, Inc. 2009

I have been wrong, horribly wrong, about something. I thought for a long time that Democrats wanted to make Obamacare a stepping stone to a single-payer system because they thought it would work better. Some, like Harry Reid, even say that outright. Their plan, it seemed to me, was to exert more government control over the system and make it painful enough that people started clamoring for a more effective “solution.” Enter single-payer. I no longer believe that.

Such a plan would have the virtue of a goal. A misplaced one, to be sure, but a goal nonetheless. Democrats don’t have a goal with all this, I have decided. They are slobbering, red-eyed predators, set to destroy individual choice for the sake of destroying individual choice.

In one of the Terminator sequels, a young John Connor deflects the Terminator’s hand as he pulls the trigger on a pistol he has aimed at someone’s head. Connor shouts, “You were going to kill that guy! Why?” Schwarzenegger’s character answers, “I am a Terminator.” Like single-purpose cyborgs, Democrats are destructive monomaniacs. Now they have revealed their true nature.

The entire progressive/liberal agenda has come to this–a savage wrecking of all that is virtuous in a land of capable individuals trading freely. They did not know and did not care to find out whether Obamacare would “work.” They did not want to address that issue because it was irrelevant. They wanted Obamacare because it would remove one more element of private choice.

The difference between a regular murderer and a psychopath is purpose. The murderer may kill to release his/her rage or to take possession of something his victim has. The psychopath kills for the sake of killing. Normal people have trouble imagining the thought processes of a psychopath. They are beginning to have the same trouble with progressives, liberals, and the entire Democratic Party.

No fact is clear enough and no argument sound enough to dissuade these people from eliminating every vestige of individual economic freedom left in this country. As Obamacare crumbles around everyone’s feet, what will their response be? You can bet it won’t be a rethinking of their collectivist premise–that more government is better government.

It is one thing to promote bad policy. It is another to wish to destroy for the sake of destroying. Obama lied, knowing perfectly well that the ACA would destroy private health insurance. Democrats who still stand behind him are culpable in a relentless campaign of deceit and destruction. Where is the outrage? Have we slithered so far toward complacency that a President can lie, deny knowledge of critical activities in his administration, and skirt the Constitution with no fear of reprisal? When Richard Nixon crossed the line, Republicans eventually came around to realize that he had to go. Will Democrats do the same with Obama?

Untrustworthy politicians are not new, but Barack Obama and his minions have reached a threshold beyond which they must not go if we are to retain any semblance of liberty in this country. The President is no longer an advocate of plausible public policy. He is a threat to the very notion of democratic governance. May Democrats see Caesar for what he is and do something about him.**


*Estimates range from the hundreds of thousands into the millions.

**Dear NSA Watchdogs: Minus the murder part.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment