Obviously, human nature has not changed, and people who have not been raised in a good, civilized environment and taught higher values can be just as cruel and “inhuman” as people in ancient times.  It is a pity not only for their victims but also for them, as it is difficult to imagine how a person who can enjoy inflicting such pain on animals could appreciate the pleasures of a more civilized life.

Vick’s case is a reminder to us that we cannot assume all people are civilized or share a set of higher values.  Obviously, people who take pleasure in watching animals fight to the death, as well as people who cut off other people’s heads, promote suicide bombings, or are otherwise involved in the cruel destruction and devaluing of life do not share the basic Judeo-Christian values that most of us take for granted.  We are naïve if we do not think such people – and such evil – exist.

On the other hand, dogs also can bring out the best in people – or give people the opportunity to exhibit their higher natures.  My office manager, Carolyn, is a real animal lover, having several pets of her own.  Recently, she participated in “Brittany Rescue” and became the temporary “foster parent” for a Brittany Spaniel that was being taken from a shelter to a new home.

Her part of the project involved picking up the dog at one location, keeping it at her home for several days, and then taking it to another location where it was picked up by another volunteer.  She said she felt like she was part of an “underground railroad” for dogs.  According to Carolyn, there are many volunteers who help find homes for these abandoned animals, and there are similar volunteer groups for various breeds of dogs. 

What a wonderful example of human kindness and of man’s higher nature!  It reminds me of Alexis de Tocqueville’s description of America and the way people used to organize voluntarily to help others before the government took over all the social service jobs. 

In those days in America, people solved problems on a voluntary basis.  They organized hospitals, libraries, schools, homeless shelters, and various mutual aid societies, all without government involvement.  They took a personal interest in helping each other, and the human interaction benefited everyone who was involved. 

Of course, now that the government has taken over these functions, most people spend half of their lives just working to pay their taxes and then spend their free time watching television.  Private, voluntary efforts have little role to play.  As a result, many people who want to improve libraries or medical services or other institutions do not volunteer their time or money to improve the service, but instead lobby to raise the taxes on their neighbors – forcibly taking money from their neighbors’ pockets! 

Now, we are told that dogs in Canada can get many forms of medical treatment faster than the humans who are trapped in the government health care system.  So maybe our pets, who still operate more in the free market than do their “masters”, may serve to remind us of how much better off we all can be when we are unleashed.

It Just Doesn’t Make Sense To Me – School Assignment Discrimination, Free Speech, and Global Warming

These days, there are lots of things in the public arena that just don’t make sense to me.  Here are some of them:

1.       School assignment discrimination? -- The same people who have been saying for the past forty or fifty years that we should not discriminate on the basis of race now are very upset that the Supreme Court has said it is unconstitutional for Louisville’s school district to discriminate on the basis of race when assigning students to schools.  Didn’t they just get what they wanted?  If so, why are they so upset?

          Now, Louisville’s school board is discussing the possibility of assigning students to schools on the basis of income levels rather than race, so they will discriminate and deny a child the school of his choice because his parents make too much or too little money.

          Why doesn’t the board just strive to provide an excellent education at all schools and allow families to choose the public school they think is best for their child?  Or have they decided that social engineering is more important than educating children?

2.       Free Speech? – Many folks who claim to believe in freedom of speech are very upset about two recent Supreme Court cases, one of which decided that a school could discipline a student who held up a poster promoting the use of illegal drugs, and another that decided the McCain-Feingold law was an unconstitutional violation of free speech insofar as it prohibited a group from airing its views on an issue shortly before an election.  If a person is so adamant about protecting the freedom of speech that he is willing to curtail a teacher’s ability to maintain discipline in the classroom in order to allow a student to speak freely, then how could that same person possibly oppose protecting political speech – the very type of speech the First Amendment was intended to protect? 

3.       Global Warming? – How can the same people who know that our computer models cannot begin to predict the weather one year in advance still believe that those same computer models are extremely accurate in predicting climate for the next fifty to one hundred years?  And how can Al Gore, who owns several energy-guzzling mansions and who flies around the world in energy-guzzling jets, be revered as the guru who demands that all the rest of us make huge lifestyle changes to greatly reduce our energy usage? Before being revered as a god, shouldn’t Al be required to earn some credibility by cutting back his own energy usage to something less than 40 times what the average person uses?

(More articles are at http://www.JeffersonReview.com)

After this experience, as well as many other school shootings, it should now be clear to everyone that disarming a school and relying solely on the police to defend the students and staff against the bad guys is not an acceptable situation.   It is foolish to pretend that these murders are an act of nature and that there is nothing we can do to reduce their frequency or their destruction of precious human life.  Instead, we must take action to protect our children. 

The bad guys always will be able to get weapons, but that does not mean we must leave our children defenseless against them.  Since the police cannot be everywhere, and generally show up only after the murders have been committed, it is clear that the most effective way to reduce the potential for the bad guys to kill lots of innocent people is to provide a mechanism for properly-trained civilians to carry weapons for defense.  It has been proven repeatedly that the most effective way to stop a bad guy is for the good guys to carry guns. 

Many people oppose allowing civilians to carry weapons on school grounds or on a college campus, saying it would make the place even more dangerous.  They describe a theoretical scenario of students getting drunk, getting into fights, and shooting each other.  They describe a theoretical scenario in which a civilian pulls out a gun to stop a murderer and then is shot by the police.  They never describe the many very real scenarios that actually have occurred and been documented, in which the good guys with guns really do stop the bad guys and prevent the murders of many innocent people.  They do not tell us about the experience in Israel, where teachers and parent volunteers have carried guns to protect the students for many years with great success.  For some reason, they simply ignore the facts.  Unfortunately, our children cannot afford that luxury.

The question is, would there be any type of training, testing, or certification that would make these people comfortable allowing civilians to carry a gun in a school or on a college campus?  If so, what would it take?  If not, then what makes them comfortable allowing the police to carry guns?  What is the difference between a policeman carrying a gun and a well-trained, certified civilian carrying a gun?  What would make the civilian more dangerous or less trustworthy than the policeman?  Surely these people do not believe that wearing a uniform or being paid by the government makes a policeman more trustworthy, more intelligent, or safer than a certified civilian volunteer.

Anyone who thinks that allowing trained, certified civilians to be armed makes a place more dangerous is simply being irrational – ignoring all the facts, logic, and historical record.  Whether that person has an irrational fear of guns or an irrational trust in policemen does not matter.  The point is that we cannot allow such irrational people to establish and enforce a policy of unilateral disarmament that makes our children sitting ducks.

It is time to get our heads out of the sand and stop pretending that we can’t do anything to prevent or stop these mass murders.  Whether the next murderer will be a lunatic loner or a van full of terrorists, we need to be prepared to defend our children and ourselves. 

Ask what your school or university is doing to protect your children.  Any school superintendent or college president who will not establish a mechanism to enable emotionally stable, well-trained civilians to be armed to protect our children should be removed and replaced by someone who will. 

  See also: http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/Virginia-Tech-Shootings.htm

 also see JeffersonReview.com

Many of the people who founded the U.S. came here because they just wanted to be left alone.  They were tired of governments hassling them over their religion and preventing them from living their lives as they thought best.  So they established a government that respected individual liberty and property – a place where peaceful people would be left alone to live their lives in peace.  Where parents could raise their children in accordance with their own values.  Where they didn’t have to worry about police knocking on their doors in the middle of the night.

So what has happened?  Today, many Americans are demanding the use of government force to control lives.  They want the government to force parents to inoculate their daughters against the virus that causes cervical cancer.  They want the government to force people to wear their seatbelts.  They want government to enforce smoking bans in private businesses and homes.  They want the government to prevent parents from spanking their own children. 

I don’t get it.  Do people have so little faith in themselves that they think they need to be forced to do what they think is right?  Or are they such busybodies that they want to force everyone else to do what they think is the right thing?  Or do they think that, if something is required by law they won’t have to pay for it? 

Do these folks understand that, instead of our traditional tolerant, live-and-let-live society, they are ushering in a force-based society?  Do they really want no-knock raids in the middle of the night so the police can be sure they are living in accordance with the law?  Do they really want people to live in fear that their neighbors will turn them in for eating the wrong foods, failing to sort their garbage properly, or smoking near their children?  It sounds silly and ridiculous, but it most certainly is not.

There is nothing comical or benevolent about being forced to undergo medical procedures against your will.  There is nothing comical or benevolent about police invading your home or your car or your business to inspect and then hauling you off to jail or taking your children away if you fail the inspection.  American police can be just as brutal as the Gestapo or the KGB when they are given similar authority and are required to carry out orders, and yet that is exactly what these folks are demanding.

The Kentucky legislature’s recent efforts to combat bullying in the public schools are admirable.  No child should be subjected to bullying, and teachers should be taught strategies to protect students.  The tone of a classroom is set at the top, namely by the teacher, so one of the best strategies is for teachers to model the behavior they want to see in students by treating all students with respect.  In addition, if the legislature really wants to set an anti-bullying tone from the top, it should begin to model that behavior itself by treating all students, parents, and other citizens with respect rather than bullying them.

For example, there currently is a proposal for the legislature to force all middle school girls to receive Gardasil injections.  This is a form of bullying and shows a total lack of respect for the authority of parents to decide, in consultation with their doctors, what is best for their daughters.  Thus, if our legislators want to set an anti-bullying tone, they can begin by voting against this proposal.

Another proposal before the legislature is a scholarship for students with special needs.  This scholarship would allow the state money that is allocated for those special needs children to be used by the parents in any school of their choice – public or private.  Passing this law would show respect for parents rather than bullying them into sending their children to the local public school whether or not it meets their needs. 

Of course, there are many other opportunities for the legislature to reduce bullying as well.  For example, it could reduce the amount of money it extracts from taxpayers.  It could reduce red tape and regulation of business.  The possibilities are endless, and the benefits would be tremendous. 

Let’s hope the legislators really are concerned about bullying and do everything in their power to reduce its grip on our children and adults.

I recently had a medical diagnostic test done on an outpatient basis.  When I received the bill, I found that the hospital initially had billed $750 for the procedure, my insurance company had negotiated a deal with the hospital that reduced the bill to $300, and then it paid $30, leaving me $270 to pay out of my pocket.  I pay $1,000 a month for this kind of coverage?  What a crazy system!  Why is it such a mess?

While our health care system is very complicated, it really is not that difficult to understand why it is so messed up.  Most people understand that free market competition brings us the best quality of goods and services at the lowest prices, and yet we have done almost everything in our power to destroy the free market in health care.  No wonder it isn’t working!

For example:

          *We severely limit the number of doctors who can be trained and admitted to practice, thus greatly reducing the opportunities for competition among doctors. 

          *We create many roadblocks to restrict the construction of new hospitals and clinics, thus greatly reducing the opportunities for competition in that arena. 

          *FDA regulations make it extremely expensive and slow to introduce new medicines and medical devices, again reducing competition. 

          *Medicare and Medicaid have socialized more than half of the industry, putting those services under direct government control and out of the free market. 

          *Our tax laws, which give tax deductions to businesses but not to individuals who buy health insurance, put control of our health care in the hands of our employers rather than in our own hands, maximizing the doctor/insurance company relationship at the expense of the doctor/patient relationship and eliminating the incentive for consumers to control costs. 

          *Doctors and hospitals have effectively become enslaved, as they are required by law to provide services at no charge to those who cannot afford to pay for them. 

          *Numerous laws have been passed regulating health care insurance, so we are forced to insure a wide range of conditions if we want to have any insurance at all, thus making health care insurance extremely expensive and out of reach for many people.

Many people are now suggesting that the way to improve the system is to go to a “single payer” system, which means going the rest of the way toward putting our health care under complete government control.  They say that the free market has not worked for health care, so socialized medicine is necessary.  But the current system, which we all agree is a mess, is nothing like a free market system; it is, instead, already very close to being completely socialized.  If you don’t like the totally screwed up, mostly socialized medicine system we have now, just wait until we go the rest of the way! 

The free market brings us the best in computers, restaurant services, transportation, and a wide range of other goods and services, so why do we do everything we can to destroy it in the most important aspects of our lives, such as health care?  (Just imagine government-controlled and operated restaurants and grocery stores, and you begin to understand why our health care is such a mess!)

When there is a free market, consumers are in control, and providers have to strive to meet the needs and demands of consumers in order to stay in business; however, when the government is in control, as it largely is now in health care, all kinds of sweetheart deals can be made between the government and the politically powerful at our expense. 

A Few of the Deals for the Government’s Sweethearts:

*Texas recently required all middle school girls to receive a new series of shots to prevent cervical cancer, at a cost of about $400 per girl.  Since this is not a disease that can be caught through casual contact, one might wonder why governments would even consider forcing these vaccines on young girls, but that would only be if one forgot about all the benefits the lobbyists for Merck can spread around for their pals. 

*Several years ago, Kentucky passed a law requiring all health insurance policies to cover a huge number of conditions, which drove a large number of insurance companies out of the state, to the benefit of the few sweethearts such as Humana and Anthem who remained, and to the detriment of consumers. 

*Now, many old-line manufacturing companies like Ford, which have large liabilities for health insurance, are trying to unload those responsibilities -- shifting them to the taxpayers by making the government responsible instead. 

Valentine’s day is near, but I’d prefer to choose my own sweetheart, not have my elected officials decide whom I have to kiss on the lips (or elsewhere), thanks very much!

Unfortunately, most voters do not understand what is happening.  They are unhappy with the current system, are afraid of the escalating health care costs, and mistakenly believe that they can escape the problem by putting it in the hands of the government.  But that is the worst thing they could do!

There is no escaping the problem.  There is no free lunch, and there is no free health care.  While costs can be hidden, there is no way to avoid them.  In the end, doctors and nurses must be paid for their services.  Somebody has to pay for hospital buildings, electric bills, sheets, syringes, and expensive diagnostic equipment.  Research and development of new drugs and medical devices are expensive.  We know we are always the ones who end up having to pay the piper.  The only question is who will be in control. 

If we want to improve the situation, we must put consumers in control of their own health care dollars.  This would dramatically improve the quality and cost of our health care, making the system more efficient and effective for all consumers – rich and poor alike. 

As a lawyer and a citizen, I am very upset to see our legal system being used as a means of torture rather than as a means to achieve justice.  The recent case involving the Duke Lacrosse players and the Scooter Libby case are just two examples in which overzealous prosecutors have abused the system and caused tremendous unjust suffering.

But, unfortunately, the government is not the only one that abuses the system -- private parties also abuse the legal system for personal gain.  Businesses use lawsuits to attack their competitors, lawyers get rich by organizing class action suits in which the victims receive little benefit, and injured individuals often treat the legal system as if it were the lottery, suing with the hope of winning a big judgment.

The unjust suffering caused by these abuses of the legal system is tremendous.  If we want to live in a civilized society in which we are safe from such abuse ourselves, we must not tolerate them, even if we dislike the people who are being abused.  If we tolerate the abuse of others, we may soon find ourselves becoming the next victims.

Fortunately, it appears that Mr. Nifong, the prosecutor of the Duke case, will be investigated by the state bar, and he may be held accountable for his actions.  But what about the faculty at Duke and the members of the news media who rushed to judgment before considering the facts?  Who will reimburse those accused young men for all their legal fees?  Who will give them back the lost year of their lives, their reputations, and their futures?

In the Scooter Libby case, the prosecutor knew there had been no illegal leaking of the name of a CIA spy, but he did not let that stop him.  He vigorously pressed an investigation anyway and then accused Libby of lying in the course of the investigation, failing to tell the truth about who gave him information and when.  As a forgetful person myself, I can easily imagine innocently making such a mistake.  It is painful for me to see my tax money being used to attack Libby over something so petty.  When I think of what Scooter Libby is going through -- the terrible publicity, the huge legal fees, and the risk of imprisonment -- it sends chills up my spine.  When the tremendous resources of government are brought to bear against an individual over such a petty matter, the case itself becomes the punishment.  What are we coming to?

When the legal system is allowed to be used as a weapon against innocent victims or a means of abuse as it is today, then we have a serious problem that needs to be corrected.

There are several steps we can take:

          1.  We must recognize and speak out against these abuses when they occur.

          2.  We must not allow our prejudices in favor of or against any party based on race, wealth, religion, or political leanings to cloud our judgment.  If we allow any people to be victimized, we may well find ourselves to be the next victims.

          3.  We have a responsibility as citizens to vote bad prosecutors and judges out of office.

          4.  We need to overhaul the legal system to reduce the opportunity for it to be used to abuse innocent parties. In the case of lawsuits between private parties, if someone brings a lawsuit and loses the case, he should have to pay the legal fees of his victim.  If prosecutors do not make a proper investigation before bringing charges, or if they withhold evidence from a defendant or engage in other egregious misconduct, they should be held personally accountable, and the government entity that is responsible should have to compensate the victim.

          5.  We should challenge and question the lawyers who pursue these baseless cases.  If they are making a living by victimizing others, they should be shunned, not respected.

These kinds of abuses are not supposed to be able to happen in America.  It is up to the regular folks to stop them.  Enough is enough!

What would happen if there were a minimum hourly wage for lawn care services, and you had the option of hiring a man with a machete at $6 per hour or a man with a $3,000 mower at $24 per hour?  The man with the machete would take all day to cut your lawn, resulting in a cost to you of $48, and the man with the mower would take one hour, resulting in a cost of  $24.  Which man would you hire?

Obviously, you would hire the man with the mower, because it would cost you less to get the job done.    

What would happen to the man with the machete?  He would be unemployable, because he would be too expensive.  If he could charge less, say $3 per hour, so he could do the job for the same $24, then he could compete with the man with the mower.  However, since the law prohibits him from charging less, he is out of luck.

So who benefits from the $6 minimum wage – the man with the mower or the man with the machete?  Obviously, the man with the mower benefits, because, thanks to the minimum wage, he faces less competition.    

If we consider people’s skill levels to be tools similar to the machete and the mower, then we can see how a minimum wage harms the person with a lower skill level (i.e. the person wielding the machete) while benefiting the person with a higher skill level (i.e. the person with the mower).  So, the minimum wage benefits union workers and other higher skilled workers at the expense of the lower skilled workers (those whom the politicians claim to be helping when they raise the minimum wage), making many low skilled workers unemployable.

It is a pity that most of the American people do not understand how the minimum wage actually harms the very people it is said to help, and it is sickening that so many politicians who know the truth are willing to sacrifice the livelihoods of many powerless, low skilled workers in return for union support or because they do not want to be accused of being cold-hearted and uncaring.   

Here is a rule of thumb to consider when judging any government program:  If the program shifts power to the government and away from the individual, then it is a fairly safe bet that politicians are using that power to benefit themselves and their powerful friends at the expense of the powerless.  The powerful friends may be unions or large corporations, but they almost certainly are not low skilled workers, small businesses, or entrepreneurs. 

In the case of the minimum wage, power is being shifted from the worker and employer, who previously were free to strike any deal that was mutually beneficial, to the government, which prohibits deals at lower than the minimum wage. 

Many people believe that employers are very powerful and would take unfair advantage of workers if there were not such “protections” as the minimum wage.  However, employers in a free market are no more powerful than you are when you decide which lawn mower service to hire.  They make the same kinds of calculations you would make, and they are subject to market competition just as you are when you go to hire a lawn mower service.  It is only when they get in cahoots with the government that they become more powerful than the rest of us.

Do you really think you would be able to find someone to mow your yard for $3 if there were no minimum wage? Not very likely, and, if you did, your neighbor soon would be bidding up the price to get those services, so the sweet deal would not last very long.

However, you might be able to find someone to mow the yard for $3 if you also threw in some training or tutoring that would help the person develop his skills so he could earn more money later on.  Or you might be able to find a teenage boy to mow your yard for $3 if your teenage daughter and her friends were swimming in the backyard pool and invited him to join them after he finished mowing.  In other words, there might be ways to make a good deal that would benefit both parties if they were free to be creative, but the minimum wage makes such mutually beneficial deals illegal.

Please don’t be sucked into the class warfare, “us” against “them” baloney, with employers being characterized as the powerful bad guys and employees as the vulnerable good guys.  It simply is not true.  The truth is that we are all both employers and employees, subject to the limits placed on us by market competition, and we are all going to try to strike the best deal we can.  Only those parties who are powerful enough to buy the politicians and get them to skew the rules will benefit from a shift of power from the people to the government.  The rest of us are far better off leaving freedom in the hands of individual people (i.e. in our own hands), allowing us to be creative and to strike the best bargain we can.

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

See also:

Sticking it to low skilled workers – John Stossel Let's face it. The higher minimum wage is a feel-good law. A slight increase will pass because politicians and poverty activists will be able to say they have "done something" for the poor, while the victims of the policy go unnoticed. Those who can't find jobs because they produce too little are not likely to blame the law or the politicians who tried to "help" them. Then the resulting unemployment will justify expansion of the welfare state. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2007/01/10/sticking_it_to_low-skilled_workers

Minimum wage and common sense Labor economists, for example, point out that a 10 percent forced increase in wages would increase unemployment by 1 to 3 percent… Failure to think through the assumptions of raising the minimum wage and disregard for the economic effects will not do anyone any good. Legislators ought to think long and hard before they lead with their hearts and ignore what their heads ought to be telling them. http://www.acton.org/ppolicy/comment/article.php?article=361&fromemail

Something for nothing – minimum wage A real minimum wage, one that measurably alters the welfare of the poor, will also cause the widespread loss of employment opportunities. http://gcc.savvior.com/Something_for_Nothing.php

Surprise! (Or not)

On a similar note, it doesn’t surprise me that extremely socialist KY State Rep. Kathy Stein has introduced a bill that would force middle school girls in Kentucky to be vaccinated against a type of venereal disease.  Stein loudly argues that women should have control over their own bodies when it comes to abortion, but she doesn’t want to give them any choice at all when it comes to vaccination.  While Stein’s arguments are inconsistent, her position really is consistent.  She always wants the laws to enforce her own personal views rather than respecting the views of others.

As I watch all the politicians strut and crow in Washington D.C. and Frankfort KY, I am surprised that so many people who appear to be in their right minds could possibly want to put their lives in the hands of these folks.  Do people really think they are so incompetent that they would be better off with these screwball politicians running their lives?  Or do people really believe the government can give them something for nothing?  Do they also believe in the tooth fairy? 

I am also not surprised that, instead of filling potholes and getting murderers off the streets, which is what they are supposed to do, Louisville politicians are passing anti-smoking laws and anti-dog laws which further limit our rights and freedoms.  They just can’t help themselves.  And, unfortunately, the citizens who were educated in government schools do not seem to be the least bit worried to see their freedoms disappearing one by one through their elected officials’ so-called “compassion”. 

If you think government should be responsible for your health care, for your children’s education, and for the safety of your food, what, if anything, do you think you should be responsible for?  Perhaps choosing which channel to watch as you veg in front of the tube, or which brand of beer to drink?  If so, it should not surprise you when all your important freedoms are gone and everything important in life becomes either required or forbidden by law.

If the minimum wage goes up, don’t be surprised when many more unskilled and low-skilled workers will be unable to find jobs. When the cost goes up, the demand goes down.

I was surprised to notice that the price of gasoline went down again.  What happened to that Republican conspiracy on gasoline prices that was going to cause the prices to go up right after the election?

After Al Gore’s man-made global warming produced a record number of hurricanes in 2005, were you surprised that it didn’t produce any hurricanes in 2006?

I am afraid I wasn’t surprised that Henry Wallace’s communist family came back from Cuba.  Unfortunately, as much as they admire Castro and communism, they seem to prefer to enjoy the benefits of capitalism while they bash it and try to destroy it.  I would much prefer that they live in the land they claim to love so much and leave us alone to practice good old American capitalism, the economic system that actually lifts people out of poverty and treats them with respect, as opposed to communism, which, at its best, drags everyone down equally.

 (For more articles, check out http://www.JeffersonReview.com)

My Wish For Everyone In 2007 – A Large Dose of Humility and a Happy New Year!

A couple of days ago, I was behind a car with a bumper sticker that said, “A Town In Texas Has Lost Its Idiot” and included a caricature of President Bush.  I am sure the person driving that car thinks he (or she) is very smart, certainly smarter than the President of the United States, whom he considers to be an idiot, and no doubt smarter than most of the rest of his fellow citizens.  But why?  What gives that person such cocky self-assurance?

As I read that bumper sticker, I thought, if this person really were wise, he would be more humble and respectful. 

As Thomas Sowell recently pointed out, we are all very ignorant.  No single individual even knows how to make something as simple as a pencil. We all rely on the knowledge and skills of millions of other people, whom we do not even know, cooperating through the market to provide us the goods and services we need for our very survival.  People like Thomas Sowell, who are very intelligent and knowledgeable, are well aware of how little they really know, and, as a result, are quite humble.  On the other hand, when people act like braying jackasses, being pompous and arrogant like the person with that bumper sticker, they usually are sending a loud, clear message of their extreme ignorance.

If only we all would begin to realize how little we know, and how much we depend upon wisdom gained over generations and knowledge dispersed among millions of people, perhaps we could acquire some humility and be more respectful and appreciative of others.  Wouldn’t that be a breath of fresh air?

If people realized how little they really knew, perhaps they would stop trying to run other people’s lives by force, recognizing that they do not have all the answers.  They might begin to treat others with respect rather than with disdain, respecting others to spend their own money as they think best, to associate with people of their own choosing, and to decide which risks to take and to be responsible for their consequences.  They might begin to engage in civil conversations rather than shouting matches, and they might begin to listen and even learn from people with different points of view and different experiences – even from people with less formal education and people with funny accents and poor grammar. (After all, even if a person looks good on TV and can make long sentences with big words, it doesn’t mean he has any idea what he is talking about!)

So that is my hope for 2007.  I hope we all deflate our egos, get down off our high horses, and exercise some humility and respect for our fellow human beings.  If we do, it certainly will be a very Happy New Year!

 (Check out http://JeffersonReview.com for more articles)