The legislators and doctors who have promoted this legislation seem to think they have the power to repeal the laws of economics, but they do not.  Requiring insurance policies to include these features is like requiring every new car that is sold to include a sun roof and a satellite radio.  They are nice features, but adding them would increase the cost of the car, which would price many people out of the market, and even those people who could afford those features might be far better off spending their money on something else.  Similarly, requiring the addition of these features to health insurance policies will increase the cost of health insurance, pricing more people out of the market, and even those who can afford the increased coverage will be prevented from spending their money on other things that might be more effective at increasing their lifespan or bringing them more happiness.  There is no free lunch.

For example, if a family breadwinner postpones buying a safer car or postpones making repairs to his existing car because he was forced to spend his money on additional health insurance features and then dies in a crash which he otherwise would have survived or avoided, it will be of little consolation to his family that his health insurance covered screenings for colon cancer and mental health.  In another case, a person suffering from a disease that is likely to kill him in a couple of years might be far better off spending his money taking a nice vacation but will be denied that happiness, thanks to this law.  In still another situation, an overweight person might be better off spending his money on nutrition counseling and exercise classes, but that money will be gone, thanks to the do-gooder legislators and doctors. 

Not only are these doctors and legislators extremely arrogant to think they know how people they have never met should spend their money to maximize their own happiness, but by using the force of law to impose their preferences on these people, they are doing great harm by preventing them from making the choices that would best serve their own needs.  Do they really believe that graduating from medical school or getting more votes than their opponent makes them all-knowing and able to craft a one-size-fits-all health insurance policy that will be better than the individualized choices that people would make for themselves?  If so, then they are not nearly as smart as they think they are!

This is yet another example of what happens when people want the good feelings that come from helping others without actually having to pay the price – seeking to feel good on the cheap.  Unfortunately, since the harm they are causing is largely invisible, they are able to continue their destructive behaviors and often are even cheered on in their pursuits by other “useful idiots” who do not recognize what really is happening.    

If the doctors and legislators really wanted to do good rather than just feel good, they would operate on a voluntary basis, which would increase people’s choices and opportunities, rather than on a force basis, which limits choices and opportunities.  For example, they could establish private charities that would help provide mental health services and colon cancer screenings at low cost.  They could donate their time and money and encourage donations from others.  That is how health care often has been provided in the past, from the March of Dimes, which was an entirely private charity established to fight polio, to many hospitals and clinics sponsored by churches and other charitable organizations.  Engaging in such real efforts is not as glamorous as passing a law that pretends to solve all the problems with a single stroke of the pen, but it has the benefit of actually doing real good instead of doing harm.

The people who like to impose their will on others by force like to think they have the moral high ground, but quite the opposite is true.  They are human parasites, getting their good feelings at other people’s expense, and they should not be allowed to continue to feel good while causing such harm.  It is time to pull the gauzy, good-feelings curtain aside and look at the reality.  If people really want to do good, then they need to stop trying to impose their will by force, start respecting the life, liberty and property of others, and roll up their sleeves and get to work.

When I was a child, we were taught that we should strive to do our best and that we should hold ourselves to high standards.  Sometimes, we failed and felt bad about it, but then came the self-esteem movement to rescue us from those bad feelings.

The psychologists said that it was most important not to hurt children’s feelings – that all children should be made to feel good about themselves, regardless of their performance.  So, to avoid bad feelings, the standards were removed. 

Instead of receiving letter grades that clearly reported the quality of their performance, children began receiving report cards that not even their parents could understand. Standards even disappeared from many children’s sporting events, with scores not being reported, nobody being allowed to lose, and everyone receiving a big trophy just for participating. 

This elimination of standards put an end to the bad feelings that used to result from failure, but it also put an end to the pride and excitement that used to come from true achievement – the pleasure and satisfaction that came from struggling to overcome hurdles and achieve success.  So, instead of the good feelings that had been expected by the psychologists, the result was just “blah” – a dullness and lack of enthusiasm about life.  In fact, many young people even became depressed.

Sadly, that is where we are today, with many of the products of the self-esteem movement having become jaded and unenthusiastic about life, if not suicidal.  They hold themselves to no standards, have an “entitlement” mentality, take no pride or pleasure in their work, and are disappointed when they are not rewarded handsomely just for showing up. 

Having been taught that there are no standards, their highest value is tolerance.  They believe that the people who strive to uphold traditional moral standards are a bunch of chumps.  They think stealing is OK, especially if it is stealing from a large, impersonal corporation.  They think having sex with anyone at any time is OK.  They think lying and cheating are OK.  In fact, they think just about everything is OK.  They have no worries about the consequences of their behavior and feel no need to plan or save for the future or for a rainy day.  Their idea of sin is to smoke, to eat transfats, or to fail to recycle their trash. 

So it should come as no surprise to find that these products of the self-esteem movement are maxed out on their credit cards, expecting to get all the rewards without having to work.  It should come as no surprise when they take “shortcuts”, like the executives at Enron or those who promoted and took advantage of the lax lending practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  It should come as no surprise that they are unhappy and depressed or that they expect to be bailed out by the government, even if it means taking the entire economy down with them. 

Is there any hope for improvement in the future?  Can the products of the self-esteem movement ever face reality, overcome their entitlement mentality, and become excited about working hard and achieving?  Will they ever experience the good feelings that come with striving for excellence and striving to live up to traditional values like honesty, hard work, thrift, and respect for other people and their property?  (i.e. the values that are essential to a healthy, thriving society.) Will they ever take pride and pleasure in exercising self-discipline and self-control?  Or are we all doomed?   

Yeah.  Sure.  No Problem.  Whatever.   

"If an American is to amount to anything he must rely upon himself, and not upon the State; he must take pride in his own work, instead of sitting idle to envy the luck of others. He must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can, and accept defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs." --Theodore Roosevelt

Why do you hate Gov. Sarah Palin so much? By all accounts, she is a very decent human being. Her approval rating as governor of Alaska is around 80 percent. She has shown tremendous courage, successfully taking on the entrenched, corrupt "good old boys" in her state, including those in her own party.

She appears to have great respect for all human lives, to have good, traditional American values and common sense, and to be very bright and very genuine. As a bonus, she also is pleasant and attractive.

Since you frequently claim that you want women to succeed in the world, one would think you would be cheering for such a woman. Instead, you are doing everything you can to attack her personally -- looking for dirt and spreading rumors.

Even President Bill Clinton has suggested that Democrats should accept Palin as being a very attractive candidate but point out that they differ with her on the issues. Apparently, you realize you cannot win on the issues, so you have decided to resort to vicious personal attacks. Obviously, you are free to use your paper and ink as you choose, but please don't claim to be even-handed or unbiased, and don't complain about the low level to which politics has sunk, since you are largely responsible for the sinking (and the stinking).

          We reap tremendous benefits from the contributions of these innovators, both as we consume their products and services and as we are employed in their businesses.  Just imagine a few of the many beneficial innovations we have seen in only the past few years.  Cars are much safer while requiring far fewer resources to produce and operate than in the past.  Roads are safer, and the paving process is much more efficient and less polluting.  We have cell phones that enable us to make sure our children and parents are alright even when they are traveling or that allow us to call for help from almost anywhere.  We have inexpensive GPS devices that tell us how to get where we want to go.  We have computers and the Internet, allowing us to communicate, to have vast amounts of information at our fingertips, and to produce audio and visual products we never even imagined back in the days of mimeographs and carbon paper and party telephone lines.  We have many new medical technologies, including new cures for diseases and new artificial knees and hips that allow us to remain active and pain-free instead of spending years in wheelchairs.  Most of us take these numerous innovations for granted as being a natural part of life.  We shouldn’t. 

We need to appreciate the struggles innovators go through in order to make their dreams a reality, the risks they take, and the many hurdles and odds they have to overcome.  If we want them to continue to take those risks and struggle to overcome those odds, we need private property rights, the rule of law, a patent system, and a tax system that allow them to reap the rewards when they succeed.   

If, instead, we take the innovators for granted and adopt policies that punish rather than reward them, then those innovations will slow or even cease.  We may even slide backwards as our resources are depleted and we have not created new technologies to replace them. 

Unfortunately, most politicians and most voters do not understand this.  They think we can tax the successful innovators and entrepreneurs and distribute the fruits of their labor to others without losing future innovations.  They are wrong.

We don’t see that such policies will cause the potential innovator or entrepreneur to decide to go on vacation and relax rather than pursue his creative dreams.  Why should he take the risks when there are no rewards? 

We don’t see the innovations he would have produced that would have saved lives, that would have lifted many people out of poverty, or that would have made the environment cleaner but that will never come into existence. 

Since we can’t see what has not yet been produced, we also may make the mistake of voting for the politician who establishes the public policies that burden the entrepreneurs and prevent those innovations from coming into existence, because those politicians claim to “feel our pain” and to care for poor people or others who find themselves in unfortunate circumstances.  The trouble is that those policies result in more poverty and more misery!    If only we could see!

This is still a country in which most people not only take responsibility for themselves but also help others around them on a voluntary basis.  When there is flooding or fire or other destruction, people rely on their insurance, their own efforts, other people in their communities and family members.  Earlier this year, a small tornado passed close by my office, knocking down large trees and doing serious damage to some  houses.  I was amazed at how quickly people had the debris cleaned up and the houses repaired, despite the cold weather.  In Louisville, we have the Crusade for Children, to which average citizens give generously.  People volunteer to feed and house homeless people and poor people, to tutor children, to coach sports teams, to minister to prisoners, to serve on boards, and on and on.  We have numerous churches and community groups and associations in which people join together to share their faith, to enjoy their hobbies, and to help others.  We know how to work together and have not lost the joy that comes from helping other people.

We also respect people who are different from us, including respecting their right to own property, to earn a living, to speak freely, to raise their children, and to practice their religion, as long as they also respect our right to do the same.  This allows us to benefit from the efforts and talents of a wide variety of people from many different backgrounds.  (Unfortunately, some of us have carried this tolerance and compassion too far, wanting to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants or being willing to cater to people who want to destroy our culture and rule of law and who do not respect our rights in return.  But the basic American instinct of tolerance and respect for others still is good.)

We still have a Constitution and a rule of law that largely respect property rights and protect us from tyrants and from arbitrary attack.  The recent Supreme Court decision that confirms our right to keep guns for self-defense is cause for some amount of comfort, as is the fact that many Americans have enough backbone and take enough responsibility for their own safety that they will keep guns for self-defense and will stand up for what is right regardless of what any court says.  (It was the unwillingness of people to obey the tyrants that finally caused the Soviet Union to fall.)

We still have many people who are willing to volunteer for the military to defend our country.  We still have many people who understand that our basic human rights come from our creator, not from some government bureaucrat.  We still have many people who work hard, take responsibility for themselves and their families, and teach their children good moral values.

We still have entrepreneurs and business people who are willing to take great risks, to create businesses and jobs and provide goods and services that benefit so many people. 

If only we all would remember what has made this country great and if we appreciated these blessings more, perhaps fewer of us would be suckered in by the politicians who want to destroy the basic fiber of the country, promising to beat up on the “evil” businessmen for us, to give us something for nothing, like “free” medical care or a “free” education, or to “take care” of us so we don’t have to worry our pretty little heads about taking care of ourselves. 

For example, I have listened to some of the sermons given by Senator Obama’s pastor, who has been spewing venom and hatred for white people, rich people, and America.  The ideas he has been promoting are based on lies, and they are evil and harmful.  

Creating and building resentments and divisions between groups of people, and promoting the idea of “you owe me” are extremely destructive to the fabric of our society and to the people in it.  They generate violence against innocent people.  They generate hopelessness and prevent people from making the best use of their talents and energies in order to achieve success.  If the minister really did want to help his flock, instead of promoting hatred and resentment, he would remind them that every human being must be treated with respect.  He would remind them that we are all in this boat together, and we all need to respect each other’s lives, liberty, and property in order to live in peace and prosperity. 

If we swallow the poison that is being spewed out by people like that pastor, by political candidates who promise to take property from someone else to give to you or to your cause, by crusaders who think it is alright to burn down a house if they think it is too large or to spray paint someone else’s fur coat, or by people who want to curtail free speech or freedom of religion, or by anyone else who fosters divisions, resentments, and hatreds among people, and if we then, as a result of these polluting ideas, fail to respect the life, liberty and property of others, we will eventually find out that we have been shooting holes in the bottom of our collective boat, and we will all find ourselves sinking together.

It is time to stop the nonsense and start telling the truth.  I realize that the human race has been just as corrupt and stupid and destructive at many times in the past as we are being today, and we have managed to survive it somehow.  In this Easter season, I am again reminded that miracles can happen, and I am on my knees praying for one, because we sure do need it.

(for more articles see http://www.JeffersonReview.com)

We need to understand that this case has nothing to do with ensuring that children get a good education and everything to do with who controls them.  Home schooling families have proven repeatedly that they achieve superior educational results, regardless of the education level of the parents.  Far more children fall through the cracks and fail to learn in the public schools than in home schooling environments.  In fact, if the government really cared about educating children, it would encourage more home schooling, not less. 

But the government education complex is not about what is best for the children; it is all about what is best for itself and its friends.  As Albert Shanker, a former teacher’s union president once said, “When school children start paying union dues, that 's when I'll start representing the interests of school children.”

I home schooled one of my daughters for three years and find it somewhat ironic that I would be breaking the law if I were home schooling her in California today, since I am not a certified teacher.  Apparently, my degrees in engineering, Russian, and law, and my deep caring for my daughter would count for nothing; I would be forced to turn her education over to some stranger who may have been incapable of getting a college degree in a serious subject and instead became a certified teacher.  Maybe it would be someone like the teacher she had who couldn’t even manage to get the words spelled correctly on the bulletin board, or the teacher who allowed the other children in class to bully and abuse my daughter.  Or maybe it would be like the teacher my other daughter had, who herself was the class bully and who only stopped abusing my daughter when she began recording the classes.  But at least the teacher would be certified, having the stamp of approval of the state!

In the course of home-schooling my daughter, I had the opportunity to think very seriously about what I wanted her to get out of her education.  I realized that basic skills, such as reading and math, were very important, but it was also very important for her to learn good values, good habits, and how to think and problem-solve.  And this is the precisely the responsibility of parents – to raise good, responsible children. 

The fact is that, from the point of view of the government education complex, children are just pawns in a power game.  If the educrats can control the children, they will control the vast coffers of education money and the future of our society. 

If government has control over who becomes a certified teacher, and if government has the power to require children to be taught by certified teachers, and the power to force us to pay for that government-certified education, then government will dictate what our children learn, including the government-approved version of history, the government-approved set of values, and the government-approved relationship between the citizen and the state.  Do we really want folks like Bill and Hillary Clinton, Richard Nixon, or Arnold Schwarzenegger to have that kind of power?  Thanks, but I’d rather trust parents any day.

If parents lose control of the right to educate their own children as they think best, then we will have become subjects of the state, not sovereign citizens.  This is something that I would expect to see in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany, not in a country that claims to be free.

(Note:  The Kentucky House of Representatives wants to require children to get a dental exam before they can attend public school.  Since one student’s teeth pose no risk or danger to another student, we can only assume that the dentists have lobbied for this perk.  Next, the legislature will be requiring every student to have new shoes, visit the chiropractor, and get a manicure, too!)

  "A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader."

-- Samuel Adams (letter to James Warren, 12 February 1779)

"If you're going to send your kids to Caesar, you're going to get Romans back."  -- Cal Thomas

http://townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2008/03/04/coming_out

Gordon said he thought it was wrong that black students who lived near Central High School were denied admission on the basis of race when there was space for an additional 500 students in that school.  He found it even worse that these black students were bused across town to schools that were not as good as Central High School.  Gordon won that case, but the assignment of students on the basis of race did not end.  Jefferson County continued to have a policy that did not permit schools to have less than 15% or more than 50% black students.  So, when Crystal Meredith received a letter from Jefferson County Schools telling her that her son was denied admission to Bloom Elementary School on the basis of his race, Gordon had his next case, which he again accepted for one dollar, and which led him all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Gordon was pleased with the Meredith decision and said he was prepared to challenge Jefferson County Schools again if necessary.  He acknowledged that he has received very few phone calls from families who are unhappy with the current school assignment plan (150 calls out of a system with 97,000 students).

Byron Leet, the attorney for Jefferson County Schools, said there is strong evidence that students from low socio-economic areas have much better educational outcomes when they attend schools in higher socio-economic areas.  He described the home situations of many of the students from Title I neighborhoods as being in a single parent household, where there may be drug problems, where education is not valued, and where the students do not have parental support or any hope for the future.  He said it is important for these underprivileged students to be exposed to students from a different environment.  Leet acknowledged that there is no evidence to support the idea that children have better educational outcomes in mixed race classrooms than in segregated classrooms, but he said there is a value to racial integration apart from educational outcomes. 

Leet said the Supreme Court decision now allows schools to ignore race altogether and simply assign students to their local schools, which will lead to resegregation. 

Cedric Powell, a black law professor at the University of Louisville, said discrimination on the basis of race continues to be a large problem that should not be ignored.  He related that he was stopped by the police in his neighborhood last summer and was treated very rudely because he was black.  He continues to be very angry about that incident, and a call to the police chief, who also is black, provided no relief.  Teddy Gordon offered to take his case for one dollar, but Powell declined.

1.       Health Insurance – In the Texas debate, Mrs. Clinton said that what gets her out of bed every morning is her desire to make a difference in our lives.  In particular, she does not want health insurance companies to continue to have the power to decide who will live and who will die.  Apparently, she would prefer to have the government do it.  Unfortunately, that’s not the kind of difference I would like her to make in my life!

No doubt her statements give people a sense of assurance that, when she becomes President, they will no longer have to worry about how to afford good health care, but these statements should instead cause them great concern.  While there certainly are many improvements that should be made in our health care system, we should not forget that, while health insurance companies may be run by terrible scoundrels, at least the scoundrels still have to compete against each other and we still have a small degree of choice; when the government has a monopoly on health care, it really will be the only game in town and will in many cases have the power to decide who lives and who dies.

If you want to see our future when government has a monopoly on health care, go to FreeMarketCures.com to see a video about a Canadian who would have had to wait many months for a test to find out that he had a malignant brain tumor and many more months to have it removed, by which time he probably would have died.  Instead, he paid out of his own pocket to be treated quickly in the U.S. while he still could survive.  This is a very common occurrence in Canada, with the U.S. serving as a back-up for Canadians who need expensive procedures for which the government provides a long delay, often delaying until after the person has died. 

In defending her health care plan, Mrs. Clinton praised Social Security and Medicare as other government programs that help people.  Both of these programs are going bankrupt and will not be available to help the baby boomers when they retire, so how can Mrs. Clinton make these statements with a straight face?  Even now, Medicare is cutting back on its payments, and many elderly people are having trouble finding doctors who will accept them as patients due to the low Medicare reimbursement rates.

Also on the subject of health insurance, Louisville’s own MaryLou Marzian wants to add another requirement to health insurance in Kentucky, making it even more expensive.  Ms. Marzian seems to think that adding requirements to health insurance has no cost.  Actually, it drives up the cost of health insurance, which ultimately is paid for by the employee who is insured.  It’s like saying that, if you want to go to the grocery store to buy eggs, you also have to buy steak.  And then you wonder why so many people can’t afford to buy eggs!

2.       Shootings – Unfortunately, it has happened again.  A former student at Northern Illinois University murdered several students before killing himself.  Since our daughter attends Virginia Tech, and we are continuing to live through that experience, we have particular sympathy for the victims of this latest massacre, including the students who survived and who will be attending funerals and memorial services and will now wake up every morning wondering whether today might be the day that a killer decides to murder them, too.  There have been and will continue to be numerous studies about what makes a person decide to commit these kinds of horrible murders, and that is fine.  However, no matter how many studies are conducted and no matter how many mental health programs are created, there still will be people who want to commit mass murder and who will be able to plan and carry out these types of attacks unless they are stopped by force.  All the studies and all the programs in the world will not change that fact. 

Whether the terror comes from a mentally ill college student or an Islamic terrorist or someone else, we need to stop disarming our children and allow them to defend themselves as has been done in Israel.  These murderers are cowards, and they are unlikely even to plan attacks where they think the victims might shoot back; furthermore, even a minimally trained person with a gun can stop an attacker in his tracks.  We should respect the power of guns and teach our children gun safety as we teach them how to defend themselves.  Only then will these murderers be stopped. 

Remember, if you or your loved ones are working or attending school in a “gun-free” zone, you are really in a “defense-free” zone, where anyone wanting to become a mass murderer knows he can get a good start before anyone will stop him.  Does that make you feel safer?

3.       Profit is not a four-letter word – I recently met with a new client who was interested in protecting his invention but insisted he did not want to make a profit on it.  I thought this was very peculiar.  If he was not interested in profit, why come to me?  He simply could dedicate his invention to the public and be done with it!  Apparently, he is one of many who has been brainwashed into believing that profit is a bad thing.

          But profit is a wonderful thing!  Without profits, we all would starve to death!  When an entrepreneur brings a new product or service to market or finds a better way to deliver existing products or services and successfully competes in the free market, he makes the pie bigger and everyone better off.  And if he earns large rewards for his troubles and becomes stinking rich, even better!  His becoming richer does not make someone else poorer. 

          Of course, there are other ways to obtain money that do make other people poorer, such as theft (legal or illegal), fraud, embezzlement, and extortion.  The proper job of government is to prevent or punish these types of behavior, but, in fact, the government is the largest actor in this field, forcibly taking about half of our income in taxes and putting us all into debt with its wild spending habits.  It steals the widow’s pension and savings by inflating the currency.  It takes away hope by punishing the people who create wealth and opportunity.  But the very folks who think profit is a four-letter word think government spending is a wonderful thing – manna from heaven with no price to be paid.  Do you suppose they obtained their educations in government schools?

Some of us think the best way to achieve security is to protect individual property and individual rights, while others think the best way is to join together into a communal entity which distributes out goods and services to us.  So which way actually works in real life?

If we want to see how the different systems work, we need only look around.  Look at Hong Kong as compared with Communist China.  Look at North Korea as compared with South Korea or Communist East Germany as compared with West Germany.  See how the government responded to the victims of Katrina versus how neighborhoods and churches responded.  See how the government protected the students at Virginia Tech versus how individual students protected themselves at the Appalachian Law School in Grundy, Virginia.  The differences are clear, and the contrasts are stark.  After looking at reality, there can be no doubt as to which system provides real security.

When individual property and individual rights are protected, most people work hard and earn enough money to pay for their own food, clothing, shelter, education, and medical care, and they buy insurance for emergency situations.  Individuals also put locks on their doors and have alarm systems, weapons, and other means to defend themselves against the bad guys.  Since people have an incentive to be productive, because they get to keep the fruits of their labor, the society is generally prosperous.  Those who cannot provide for themselves by working and earning their own livings often are cared for by family members or charities.  The society is wealthy enough that people can devote themselves to the arts, be concerned about the environment, create funds to “save the whales”, and so forth.  Still, it is not perfect; there are some people who fall through the cracks.

On the other hand, when we rely on a communal entity to take care of us, and we all get the same food, clothing and shelter whether we work hard or not, we do not have the same incentive to be productive.  Why struggle when the fruits of your labor will just be taken away and given to someone else who isn’t as productive?  I saw this lack of desire to work when I was a college student, studying in the Soviet Union in 1974.  At the time, I was surprised to see so many people wearing bandages and faking injuries so they did not have to work, and many others dragging their feet and doing as little work as possible, but now I understand.  (I also understand why so many people in the Soviet Union spent a good part of their lives drunk, trying to anesthetize themselves against the despair that is a part of a world in which there is no sense of gratification from striving to use one’s talents and achieving success.)

Of course, the result of this lack of incentive was that production was greatly reduced, so everyone was tied together in poverty.  And this experience has been repeated in communist countries all over the world.  It was even part of the American experience in Jamestown and the Plymouth Colony, with many people starving to death until private property rights were established and people became more productive.  Since productivity is so low in the communal system, the level and quality of food, clothing, shelter, education and medical care are poor for nearly everyone.  The situation may vary as to whether more people starve to death in the communal system (as they did in the Plymouth Colony) or in the individual rights system, but the communal system certainly provides the greatest misery for the greatest number of people, leaving nearly everyone helpless and dependent.

Neither system creates Utopia or a heaven on earth.  There always will be children whose parents do not take good care of them.  There always will be people who are mentally or physically disabled and need help from someone else.  However, there can be no doubt that the greatest level of security and prosperity is found in the societies that protect and respect private property and individual rights.

So why do middle class people continue to buy into the communal plan?  Why do they fall for Hillary’s “village” to raise children and provide health care?  Why do they want to depend on the government (the commune) to care for them in their old age?  Why do they allow their children to be enslaved in a government-controlled education system? 

Do they think they are going to get something for nothing?  Don’t they realize that they are going to be the ones paying for the communal system either through taxes or lost opportunities?  Have they never heard of buying insurance to protect against unplanned catastrophes or of saving money for a rainy day?  Do they really think they will be more secure by making themselves dependent on others rather than by taking care of themselves?  Do they really think the weakest members of society will be more secure in a communal system in which everyone else is barely keeping his head above water?

Or have they just not thought it through?  After twelve or more years of education in the government schools, have they been so dumbed down that they just accept the claims and promises of the politicians without question?  Are they so childlike that they put the same trust in the commune that a child puts in Santa Claus? Are they so afraid of personal responsibility that they are willing to make themselves dependent on strangers?  Do they really think that people who are too mentally or physically incapacitated to take care of themselves will be able to fill out all the government forms and jump through all the government hoops in order to be cared for by the government?  Do they really think the poor and downtrodden will be treated better by impersonal government agencies than by religious and other charities?

If they really have such faith in a communal system, why don’t they just move to a country that provides one instead of trying to convert the U.S. to such a system?  Let them move to Cuba or North Korea or join up with Chavez in Venezuela and leave the rest of us alone.  Why do they think so many people are willing to risk their lives to come to America rather than trying to get to North Korea, China, or Cuba?  Do they think the U.S. will continue to be the land of opportunity after they have their way with it?  History has given us the answer, if only we would pay attention.

 
I am still haunted by an experience I had many years ago, when my girls were young.  We were at a McDonald’s having lunch, and the girls were playing in the play-yard.  There was a little boy about three years old playing with them.  His mother told him it was time to leave, and he ignored her.  She then came up to him and started beating him in the head. 

I was horrified, but I didn’t know what to do.  I was afraid that, if I said something to the mother, she would beat the boy even worse when she got him home, so I ended up sitting there speechless and did nothing.  I have thought about that incident many times since, wondering what happened to that boy and what I might have done differently.  I thought of him again recently as I read an argument that the government should expand the SCHIP program to provide health insurance for children in higher income families who can afford health insurance on their own, because the program needs to cover children whose parents don’t care enough to buy insurance for them. 

Certainly there are bad parents, like that mother I saw at McDonald’s, and as caring people, we want to help those children, but we really need to think about the actual effects of government programs.  We need to ask whether having government provide services for children on the assumption that parents are bad actually make matters better for children or whether it really makes matters worse.

When the government takes over services that could otherwise be provided by families on their own, two bad things happen.  First, the vast majority of families, who would have provided the services themselves or used their own money to buy those services on the open market, now are taxed so the government can provide the services.  These families lose the freedom and control they once had and now are forced to fight through the bureaucracy to get the services their children need (usually at a much higher cost, which is now hidden).   Second, the children whose parents do not care and who would have been neglected before will continue to be neglected, because their parents still will not care enough to make sure they take advantage of the government programs.  Thus, despite the good intentions, when the government takes over, the vast majority of children are worse off than they were before. 

The best place to see this happening is in the government schools.  Educators agree that the most important factor for a child’s success in school is support from the parents.  If the parents don’t care and are not supportive, chances are the child will not do well in school. 

There is no question that a child with bad parents is at a serious disadvantage in life.  Unfortunately, as has been shown repeatedly in government schools and other government programs, such as welfare programs, which drive fathers out of families, putting the government in charge does not solve the problem. 

What a child needs most is someone to fill the role of the caring parent, and that is a role the government cannot play.  If the biological parents are not playing their proper role, the child needs some other relative, a neighbor, a friend, a caring person in a charity, or a new family to take a personal interest in him and fill that role. 

If we really care about the children, we ought to provide encouragement and moral support to extended families and appreciate the crucial role they play in children’s lives.  And, in extreme cases, we should accept and promote the government’s role of removing the child from a bad home and finding another family that will support and protect him.    

1.       Where the money is - When asked why he robbed banks, Willie Sutton answered, "Because that's where the money is."  These days in the U.S., the money is in the hands of the middle class – their paychecks, homes, and other assets. This means that any major government program, from Medicare to Social Security, has to be paid for by taxing the middle class in some way.  Don’t let the politicians seduce you into thinking you can get freebies paid for by rich people, because it will never happen.  Even if the politicians taxed away 100% of rich people’s assets, it would be only a drop in the bucket. The rich just don’t have enough money.

So, knowing that you will be footing the bill, the question is who you think should be controlling and spending your money – you or the government?  Will you get better medical care at a better price if the government taxes you and then provides the doctors and hospitals or the health insurance, or will you do better if you are free to go out on the open market and choose your own doctor and hospital?  Will you get a better education for your children at a better price if the government taxes you and then provides schools and tells you which one your children have to attend, or will you do better if you can go out on the open market and choose the school that best meets their needs?       

The answer should be obvious.  You always get much better products and services at better prices when you have a choice in a free and open market.  When you are taxed and have no control over the services, you have become a slave and a beggar.  If that kind of arrangement gives you a sense of security, please go check yourself into some kind of commune, but please leave me out of it.

2.       Executions – Have you noticed that the meaning of the word “execution” is changing?  Executions used to be when the government tried a person for murder, convicted him, and then killed him by electrocution or lethal injection as punishment for his crime.  The word was sometimes used in connection with organized crime, but then it always had a modifier in front of it, like “gangland style execution” to distinguish it from the regular kind of execution.  However, now the word “execution” is turning up in articles to describe regular old murder, saying, for example, that a robber executed his victim.  Why are writers intentionally changing the meaning of this word?  I suspect it is because they are opposed to capital punishment and want to change the meaning of the word “execution” in order to try to make capital punishment indistinguishable from murder in terms of the language used to describe it.  Since we are all opposed to murder, we will then have to be opposed to capital punishment, because we will not know how to describe the difference between them. 

This is very similar to what happened to the word “liberal”, which used to be related to its Latin root, which means “freedom”.  A liberal used to be a person who believed in maximum individual liberty and minimum government interference in people’s lives.  However, now the word “liberal” refers to someone who wants lots of government interference  - from heavy taxes to control of our education, health care, property, and almost all other aspects of our lives – just the opposite of freedom.    

How can we counter this creeping obfuscation?  By being very clear ourselves and by challenging those who are trying to muddy the waters.  If we don’t do this, it will become impossible to have a debate, because there will be no words with which to conduct it.

 For more articles go to JeffersonReview.com

There is a trial going on in Louisville in which a young woman is suing McDonald’s because she was subjected to a bizarre strip search and other indignities by a McDonald’s employee who was following the orders of a man on a telephone.  When you consider the facts of that case, you have to wonder why none of the participants used any common sense and refused to go along with the hoax. 

Americans used to be independent people who could think for themselves and would not put up with such nonsense.  But now, thanks to the indoctrination in schools, many of us have lost all common sense and are simply prepared to obey authorities, leaving us like lambs to be led to the slaughter.  

Schools are doing a terrible job of imparting the skills needed for success in life, such as teaching students to read, analyze, and think, but they are doing a wonderful job of teaching students to obey authority without question.  We now have “zero tolerance” policies in schools, so even the principals exhibit no judgment or common sense, expelling one student for having aspirins in her purse, another for bringing a small knife to cut a piece of fruit, and another  for drawing a picture of a gun.  So we probably should not be surprised when people mindlessly follow the orders of a person on a telephone telling them to abuse a teenage employee or when the teenage employee herself simply does as she is told, no matter how bizarre the orders.

As people become obedient servants of the “authorities”, they also become incapable of defending themselves against any threat and resort to the courts instead.  For example, a group of fifteen blacks just won a judgment of $600,000 against a Denny’s restaurant because their waiter gave them bad service and used racial slurs.  Imagine that!  Instead of calling the manager to complain or just getting up and leaving the restaurant, they sued, and some jury awarded them over half a million dollars in damages! 

Could these wimpy, helpless Americans possibly be descendents of the self-reliant pioneers who tamed the wilderness, or of the people who were known for their Yankee ingenuity, or of the slaves who learned to read in defiance of the authorities, some of whom even dared to risk their lives to win their freedom?   

How do we stand a chance against Islamic militants who want to kill us if we don’t even have enough sense to defend ourselves against a voice on a telephone or a rude waiter?  Since the schools are teaching helplessness, who can be relied upon to teach self-reliance, independent thinking, and the courage to do what is right? 

 
For more articles, see http://www.JeffersonReview.com

I recently had a conversation with a very nice person who said, “Nobody should be allowed to have that much money!”  I have heard various versions of that statement many times before, but I still don’t have a good, quick response.  My husband says the answer should be, “In that case, I’d like to be Nobody!”  I wish there were a good way for me to let the speaker see what a destructive idea she has – how it results in totalitarianism, poverty, and tremendous suffering – but I still don’t know how to get there.  Not wanting to spoil a pleasant evening, I just ignored the statement and moved on to another subject, which was not the best way to handle it.  Maybe I’ll do better next time.

After living for more than half a century (this birthday is #53), I have discovered that it is often the little things that we think are insignificant that make the biggest difference in our lives. 

*For example, I have learned to really appreciate a good, hot shower in the morning.  What a wonderful start to the day! 

*I also have learned that the highest quality product is not always the most functional.  For example, I bought some of those expensive, plush, thick towels and have decided that I prefer the cheaper, thinner ones.  The thick ones take forever to dry, and they quickly fill up the washing machine, whereas the thinner towels dry quickly and are very easy to wash.  Both types perform the job of drying off after a shower just fine.  So, from now on, I am going with the cheaper towels. 

*I have learned that a sense of humor is a wonderful gift that helps you enjoy life and helps you live longer.  Like my Uncle John, when he was living with us in his last days, said about some of the people sending him bills – “What are they going to do?  Dig me up?”

*And, of course, I have learned to greatly appreciate friends and family and a nice hug – especially one of Andrea’s bear hugs.

Labor Day – Traditionally, Labor Day has been the day when people promoted socialism and Marxism and the “workers’ paradise” of communism.  Nobody uses those terms anymore, because we all know that socialism, Marxism and communism have all been disastrous failures – producing not a paradise but rather a hell on earth.  However, politicians still keep pushing the same socialist/Marxist agenda using different terminology, still exploiting people’s jealousy and greed in order to obtain political power. 

They tell us we are being exploited and that we need to elect them to protect us, but the reality is that the politicians are the ones really doing the exploiting.  So, when they tell us we are making peanuts compared to the evil corporate executives, we ought to consider that almost all of us are driving our own cars, living in our own air conditioned homes, talking on cell phones, wearing trendy clothes, and taking nice vacations.   Not too bad for lowly peons!  Who cares if somebody else is making tons more money?  How does that hurt us?

And when politicians tell us they can fix health care by putting it fully under government control, we ought to consider what government control has done to our education system, and we ought to look at Canada’s government-controlled health care system, where people die waiting for an MRI or kidney dialysis or hip replacement, or look at France’s government-controlled health care system, where thousands of people died during a heat wave because the hospitals refused to treat them.  And check out this website about healthcare.

Ask the oldest among us what life was like when they were young.  Many did not have running water in their homes.  They were lucky to have a “party line” telephone.  They depended on the “ice man” for their refrigeration.  They worked very hard and were at risk of dying from diseases that have almost been eradicated today.  If the tremendous growth and prosperity we have seen in the capitalistic U.S. over the past few generations is what being exploited is like, then we need more of it, not less!  In my book, good results trump the claim of good intentions every time.  In fact, I wonder how long these politicians can continue to claim to have good intentions when they promote socialist policies that have caused widespread misery everywhere they have been tried.

ND Sports – This past Saturday, Guillermo and I went back to Notre Dame to watch a football game for the first time in about 25 years.  I think we should have waited a bit longer!  While getting walloped all day by Georgia Tech was painful, I can think of two good things that came from the experience.  First, we got to see all three of Notre Dame’s quarterbacks play.  Second, we were reminded of one of the great appeals of sports – you can’t live on your reputation or your connections or tradition but rather have to be ready to perform every time you come out to play.  If not, you get creamed like Notre Dame did on Saturday.