Healthcare Commission Minority Report

Linda Gorman and R. Allan Jensen, minority members of the "208" Healthcare Commission, issues the following media release today (that I received from the Independence Institute):

MINORITY REPORTS FAULT HEALTH CARE REFORM COMMISSION PROCESS, RECOMMENDATIONS

The final report of the Colorado Blue Ribbon Committee for Health Care Reform, presented to the Colorado Legislature on January 31, 2008, includes two minority reports, one written by Commissioner Mark Simon and one written by Commissioners Linda Gorman and R. Allan Jensen.

In their report, Gorman and Jensen explain why the Commission has produced inadequate policy recommendations, offer alternative suggestions for real reform, and make three major points:

The Commission did not adopt any of the standard legal or academic methods for uncovering and agreeing on basic facts. As a result, many Commission policy recommendations rest on demonstrably incorrect or unprovable propositions. The lack of fact finding severely hampered the Commission’s ability to discover workable recommendations, for instance;

The Commission asserts that coverage for all will assure medical care for all. Unlike in the U.S., in virtually all health systems that have government imposed coverage for all, shortages of care deny access to basic and advanced medical treatment. The Commission cannot even guarantee that its recommendation for an individual mandate will substantially reduce the number of uninsured. The Commission recommendation for required individual coverage applies only to legal residents of Colorado. A substantial portion of Colorado’s uninsured are illegal aliens;

The Commission states that an individual mandate is enforceable and will eliminate free care to the uninsured. In the only state with an individual mandate, 20 percent of the uninsured were exempted after less than 18 months of operation, and fewer people are voluntarily enrolling than predicted;

The Commission says that health care providers gave $777 million in uncompensated care in 2007. It implies that this is paid for by the privately insured and that spending $1.5 billion on a Medicaid expansion and $550 on insurance subsidies will make people better off by obviating the need for the $777 million in free care. In fact, the largest fraction of that uncompensated care is generated by Medicaid and Medicare.

Many of the most important Commission recommendations have either had no real world tests or have already failed in the real world;

The public program expansions recommended by the Commission have not operated as advertised in Massachusetts, the state plan which the Commission recommendations mimic. After roughly 18 months of operation, the Massachusetts health reform is $245 million over its $470 million budget. About 20 percent of people signing up for free care are new, the rest were previously in public assistance programs. There is no way to know how many people are dropping private coverage to participate in the state plan.

The extension of community rating and guaranteed issue to Colorado’s individual insurance market is billed as a way to keep costs lower for those who have chronic conditions, and to make health insurance more widely available. This has not worked in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and other states in which it has been tried. Instead, health insurance has become more expensive and more difficult to get. Private experimentation with new and innovative ways to provide health insurance and health care has been stopped. Colorado already guarantees health insurance to everyone, regardless of medical condition, via a state plan called Cover Colorado.

The Commission majority repeated voted against analyzing reform options that increase consumer choice and accountability in favor of plans that rely on government control As a result, it turned away from considering any of the consumer-directed options known to have improved quality and to have reduced health care costs.

The Colorado Consumer Directed Attendant Support program for Medicaid patients is an example of a Medicaid reform that has both reduced spending on attendants by 20 percent and improved patient care.

Innovative health insurance policies are showing that changes in policy structure can reduce spending and improve care. At Wendy’s International, shifting to a health savings account based consumer-directed plan decreased claims by 14 percent and overall costs, including deposits to employee HSA accounts, by 1 percent in 2005.

The Commission did not discuss reducing state regulations on insurers and health care providers. Professor Christopher Conover of Duke University estimates that excess regulation adds 10 percent to annual health care costs.

Dr. Gorman and Mr. Jensen invite the public to closely examine the minority report they authored for further details, and for expanded information.

Reply to Colorado Media Matters

As I have reviewed, today the Colorado Springs Gazette summarized the dispute between radio host Jon Caldara and ProgressNow. At the Gazette's web page, "bmenezes" states:

OK, we'll ignore the fact you've reproduced a lie from Ari Armstrong; he wasn't just a "volunteer" for the Independence Institute, he was both a research associate and author who wrote some two dozen articles for them over the past 10 years, in addition to producing articles under his Independence Institute guise for other websites such as that of the think tank's research director.

Following is my reply:

That's Right, Attack the Messenger...

Rather than deal with the facts that ProgressNow is hypocritical in its stance against Caldara and that "bitch slap" is not an offensive term as popularly used by leftist commentators such as James Carville, ProgressNow has chosen to attack the messenger. Note that what ProgressNow has NOT done is refute a single one of my claims on the matter. The facts are what they are, regardless of who discovered them.

It would be pleasant if "bmenezes" would refrain from libeling me. The fact that the title "research associate" was added to some of the articles that I wrote FOR FREE for the Independence Institute does not make me an employee; I have never lied about any part of this. Nor have I written anything under any "guise."

And it turns out that "bmenezes" is Bill Menezes from Colorado Media Matters, the group that first criticized Caldara. (I know this because I called him.) If he's so interested in me listing my associations, then why didn't he list his affiliation with Colorado Media Matters in his comment to the Gazette?

As I write on my web page:

I was paid by the Independence Institute for work on one paper in 2005 on a contract basis; never was I an "employee" of the Institute. Beyond that, I've written various articles for the Institute on a strictly voluntary basis. But the claim is typical of the left, which, as the heir of Marx, holds that ideas are the products of one's material conditions. Of course, the left never thinks to apply such standards to itself. If ProgressNow wishes to get uptight about my casual relationship with the Independence Institute -- which, by the way, has nothing to do with Caldara's radio show -- then, by the same standard, mightn't we ask whether ProgressNow is giving Westword a pass for using the term "bitch slip" twelve times because Michael Huttner of ProgressNow once worked as an intern for Westword? But I don't buy such claims on either side. ProgressNow is merely trying to weasel its way out of its hypocritical stance by attacking the messenger.

Menezes claims that I am a liar based on his incorrect assumption that "Ari Armstrong is a former employee of the 'free-market' think tank," as stated on another post by Colorado Media Matters. What Caldara actually said, as quoted by Colorado Media Matters, is this: "Ari's been a good friend and has done some work at the Independence Institute over the years." Yes, I've done some work "over the years" -- some free work, in every case but one paper. And, by the way, I did mention the contract work to the Gazette, but what the Gazette publishes is up to the Gazette.

It is Bill Menezes who is the paid hatchet man. I wrote about the spat between Caldara and ProgressNow because it's an interesting story. I have been paid not one cent for that work. (I may, however, cite the work in future fundraising efforts for my personal web pages.) What's your salary with Colorado Media Matters, Bill Menezes? How much do you get paid for character assassination? In a follow-up call to Menezes, he refused to tell me his salary, on the grounds that I am a "known misinformationist."

When I asked Menezes what are his grounds for making that statement, he claimed that I failed to reveal my ties to the Independence Institute on Peter Boyles's radio show. But who cares? It literally never occurred to me, because that loose association has nothing to do with the spat between ProgressNow and Caldara. Moreover, that association is not some big secret, as a quick search of the Independence Institute's web page reveals. Nor has Menezes been able to point to a single factual error that I've made regarding ProgressNow and the use of the term "bitch slap."

Yesterday Colorado Media Matters posted a lengthy comment by "E.B." that continues in the same vein.

"E.B." states, "However, Boyles uncritically allowed Armstrong to omit reference to his work for Caldara at the Independence Institute." Apparently, Boyles did not know of that association, so he didn't think to ask. And "libertarian blogger Ari Armstrong failed to disclose that he was a contributing author and research associate at the 'free-market' Independence Institute, of which Caldara is president."

"E.B." continues: "Additionally, Armstrong falsely claimed that 'the public's radio waves' are 'owned by' stations that 'bought the waves up'; in fact, the Federal Communications Commission licenses use of the broadcast spectrum."

Again, Colorado Media Matters is not breaking open some deep dark mystery. Everybody knows that the FCC issues radio licenses. As is obvious to anybody but the prejudiced hacks at Colorado Media Matters, by the phrase "bought the waves up," I was referring to the fees that radio stations pay for those licenses. I make this point perfectly clear in my post of January 28:

Even though the radio waves are today "public" -- i.e., nationally controlled by the FCC -- properly radio waves should be private property. And the owners of a radio station, the same as the owners of a newspaper, should have the political right to set speech policy for the station.

It is simply impossible, when talking live in a discussion format, to state every single point in an exactly precise manner. Nobody can do that. Not me, and not Bill Menezes or "E.B." It is simply not humanly possible. Yet "E.B." did not grant my statements a remotely sympathetic interpretation. I did not precisely state that radio stations pay for licenses, but my obvious point was that radio stations have to spend a lot of resources to run a station, and, by rights, they should own their frequencies. But, as I suggested on the radio, the left is not happy with such a proposal, because the left wishes to impose censorship on radio stations.

The complaints of Colorado Media Matters against me are petty, stupid, and vindictive. Moreover, they are a cover to rationalize the unjust and hypocritical attacks by Colorado Media Matters and ProgressNow against Caldara. (Colorado Media Matters is also silly to attack me, an atheist who supports gay rights, the separation of church and state, open immigration, and legal abortion, as I often carry the water of the funders of Colorado Media Matters. But, no matter -- I claim Caldara as a friend, and that is enough to demonize me.)

Menezes sent me the following e-mails just a bit ago, after I told him on the phone that I was calling to formally interview him:

From: bmenezesATmediamattersDOTorg
Subject: Followup from Bill Menezes
Date: January 30, 2008 12:08:36 PM MST
To: ariATfreecoloradoDOTcom

Ari,

Maybe I’d take you more seriously if you weren't so obviously concerned with covering your tracks. The phone number you called me from is blocked so I have no way of returning the call, which isn’t surprising given how you concealed your ties with Caldara and the Independence Institute from Peter Boyles.

Plus, your question about my salary reinforces the idea that you're concerned about red herrings and little else.

Bill Menezes
Editorial Director
Colorado Media Matters
720-219-1191 (o)

From: bmenezesATmediamattersDOTorg
Subject: What's also really puzzling...
Date: January 30, 2008 12:48:17 PM MST
To: ariATfreecoloradoDOTcom

…is how rattled you apparently are about public disclosure of your ties to Caldara and the Independence Institute. One would think that somebody who has done as much work with them as you have in recent years would be touting such a relationship as if you were proud of it. Yet, you hide it in the shadows until it gets pulled out into the light of day. Why is that?

Bill Menezes
Editorial Director
Colorado Media Matters
720-219-1191 (o)

[In reply to my note about my reasons for concealing my number:]

From: bmenezesATmediamattersDOTorg
Subject: RE: Followup from Bill Menezes
Date: January 30, 2008 1:05:58 PM MST
To: ariATfreecoloradoATcom

Sorry, it's easy to get taciturn when someone clearly is trying to pull a
fast one on you.

What on earth does my salary have to do with Jon Caldara's use of misogynist
language?

Bill M.
Colorado Media Matters
720-219-1191

I have several responses to Menezes's insane accusations. First, I concealed my phone number because I received a death threat some years ago (incidentally, for criticizing a right-winger). Second, I have concealed nothing about my associations. Third, it is extremely easy to get ahold of me, as I list my e-mail address on both of my web pages (as Menezes apparently discovered). Fourth, Menezes's salary is relevant here, because he is claiming that I am biased by my loose association with the Independence Institute. If that's the case, then, by his own standards, Menezes is obviously much more biased. (In fact, he is demonstrably biased, regardless of his affiliations.) Fifth, the entire complaint about Caldara's use of the term "bitch slap" is a red herring!

Cost-Shifting and the Uninsured

You don't "fix" the problem of medical cost-shifting by expanding it.

Today the Rocky Mountain News published a Speakout by Linda Gorman and me about health policy. Following are some excerpts:

SPEAKOUT: A very costly health-care solution
By Linda Gorman and Ari Armstrong
Wednesday, January 30, 2008

... In fact, the commission's recommendations likely will shift more costs onto those who already have insurance. Along with the individual mandate, the commission recommends large subsidies for those whom the commission considers too poor to purchase the insurance it says they should have. ... The commission would also increase cost-shifting by forcing many more people into Medicaid. ...

A Jan. 8 article from The Denver Post claims that "Coloradans who have insurance spend an extra $950 each year to cover the costs of those who show up at the hospital without insurance."

The article attributes the number to state Rep. Anne McGihon, who said that the figure comes from Partnership for a Healthy Colorado. Partnership for a Healthy Colorado, in turn, says it got the figure from Families USA, which published a paper in 2005. That paper's estimates were unable to accurately predict the percentage of uninsured residents in Colorado. The paper also grossly overestimated at least some costs of uncompensated care.

The Lewin Group, the modeling firm hired by the commission to collect information about Colorado, reported [that]... uncompensated costs [for the uninsured], the ones that are not paid by any identifiable source, total $239 million. ...

To "fix" the problem of $239 million in cost-shifting, the commission proposes to increase health spending in Colorado by more than $3 billion, funded with an income tax increase of $800 million to $1.8 billion, new taxes on various politically incorrect types of food and drink, and an increase in the cigarette tax. ...

Linda Gorman, a senior fellow with the Independence Institute, serves on the Blue Ribbon Commission for Health Care Reform. Ari Armstrong writes for FreeColorado.com.

Read the entire article.

Partnership for a Healthy Colorado claims, "The cost of doing nothing about health care reform is currently $934 a year in increased premiums for Colorado families, and $355 for Colorado individuals." Yet, as the article notes, Lewin's numbers suggest (in our words) "a maximum likely cost-shift of about $85 per insured individual per year" (see page 20 of Lewin's document). Yet, whatever the exact figure, the main point is that the Commission's reforms would dramatically expand cost-shifting, not reduce it.

Gazette Slaps ProgressNow

Today's Colorado Springs Gazette editorialized against ProgressNow:

... ProgressNowAction has organized a petition campaign to convince advertisers to boycott Jon Caldara's KOA radio talk show. ...

As reported in the Rocky Mountain News, libertarian blogger Ari Armstrong found that three Front Range progressive newsweeklies -- The Colorado Springs Independent, Westword and Boulder Weekly -- routinely publish "bitch-slap." He even found “bitch-slap" on a ProgressNowAction blog.

None of this concerns leaders of ProgressNowAction, who offer no criticism of liberal journalists who use the term.

"We're much more concerned with what Caldara says,” explained Bobby Clark, deputy director of ProgressNowAction, in an interview with The Gazette. "Caldara has a tremendous sphere of influence. He is a paid spokesman for the right."

So there you have it, in Clark’s own words. They don't care if pundits on the left use "bitch-slap" -- a common humorous slang -- but they'll organize a boycott when a conservative says it.

That about summarizes the case. However, the Gazette points out something else that I had not heard and corrects ProgressNow's misinformation:

Clark blamed the Rocky Mountain News for "failing to disclose that Ari Armstrong is an employee of Caldara's Independence Institute. The story didn't tell you that, but it's a fact."

A fact? Hardly. Armstrong, a freelance writer, said he has volunteered articles to the Independence Institute on speculation, but the organization doesn't pay him.

I was paid by the Independence Institute for work on one paper in 2005 on a contract basis; never was I an "employee" of the Institute. Beyond that, I've written various articles for the Institute on a strictly voluntary basis. But the claim is typical of the left, which, as the heir of Marx, holds that ideas are the products of one's material conditions. Of course, the left never thinks to apply such standards to itself. If ProgressNow wishes to get uptight about my casual relationship with the Independence Institute -- which, by the way, has nothing to do with Caldara's radio show -- then, by the same standard, mightn't we ask whether ProgressNow is giving Westword a pass for using the term "bitch slip" twelve times because Michael Huttner of ProgressNow once worked as an intern for Westword? But I don't buy such claims on either side. ProgressNow is merely trying to weasel its way out of its hypocritical stance by attacking the messenger.

For readers of the Gazette for whom this issue may be new, following is a list of my blogs on the matter.

Bitch-Slapping Caldara

Bitch-Slap Update

ProgressNowAction.org Used "Bitch Slap" in '07

Free Speech and Offensive Speech

"Why I Am a Liberal"

Averages and the Uninsured

A January 21 column by my dad and me states, "According to Lewin's figures, the uninsured as a group pay 45 percent of their costs, while private charity pays another 14 percent. Yet most of the uninsured pay all of their bills themselves."

In a January 29 letter to the Free Press, D.D. Lewis of Clifton asks, "Aren't the two sentences mutually exclusive?" The answer is no.

Let's use a simplified example to make the point. Let us say that there are ten people without insurance. One person charges $55 worth of health care but does not pay. Nine people charge $5 each for health care, for a total of $45, and they all pay their bills. In this case, only 45 percent of the health charges have been paid by the uninsured "as a group," even though 90 percent of the uninsured have paid their own bills.

I have not seen a good estimate of the percent of the uninsured who pay their own bills, but I'm confident that "most" is an accurate description.

Court Upholds Smoking Ban

This just in:

Appeals Court upholds smoking ban, DIA exemption
By Felisa Cardona
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 01/29/2008 11:55:10 AM MST

Colorado's smoking ban was upheld today by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

A three-judge panel decided that the state's Clean Indoor Air Act did not violate the equal protection clause of the constitution by providing exemptions to airport smoking areas. ...

"The district court concluded, and we agree, that the State of Colorado has offered a rational basis for its distinction between airport smoking concessions and the establishments owned, operated and or serviced by plaintiffs," the opinion says. DIA smokers "...have no options as to where they can smoke because they have no real opportunity or ability to travel to a location outside the DIA area."

That's too bad. However, the fundamental issue is not whether the smoking ban is applied equally, but that the smoking ban violates people's rights to control their own property and associate voluntarily. Subjecting everyone to injustice "equally" is hardly superior to subjecting only some people to injustice.

"Why I Am a Liberal"

Recently I ordered the works of Theognis, the greek poet (order from Amazon). I sent over the following lines to Jon Caldara, as I thought he'd appreciate them after getting hammered by the hypocritical ProgressNow:

No one has ever lived or yet will live
To please all men he meets before he dies.
Even the son of Kronos, Zeus, who rules
Men and immortals, can't please every one.

I also ordered Robert Browning's My Last Duchess and Other Poems (order from Amazon). The final poem in the book caught my eye: "Why I Am a Liberal:"

"Why?" Because all I haply can and do,
All that I am now, all I hope to be, --
Whence comes it save from fortune setting free
Body and soul the purpose to pursue,
God traced for both? If fetters, not a few,
Of prejudice, convention, fall from me,
These shall I bid men -- each in his degree
Also God-guided -- bear, and gayly too?
But little do or can the best of us:
That little is achieved thro' Liberty.
Who then dares hold, emancipated thus,
His fellow shall continue bound? not I,
Who live, love, labour freely, nor discuss
A brother's right to freedom. That is "Why."

The poem was written in 1885. Here's my simplified prose interpretation of the poem: "I am a liberal because my happiness and my ability to create my own future depend upon my liberty of conscience and action. I am a liberal because I have discarded prejudice and illegitimate conventions, which I encourage others also to discard. What I have achieved, I have achieved because and to the extent that I am free. I will therefore also fight for the liberty of my fellow man."

Those who call themselves "liberals" today bear little resemblance to the liberal of Browning's poem. Today, "liberals" want first and foremost to impose more political controls on economic action. As we have seen this past week, at their worst, "liberal progressives" devolve to the left-wing thought-police. Though there are exceptions, all too often modern "liberals" are, in fact, anti-liberal in every essential.

Google Ads on Ann Coulter

As I've pointed out, Google's AdSense program requires, "Sites displaying Google ads may not include... advocacy against any individual, group, or organization." I just checked in with Google, and the restriction remains. However, I have since found definitive proof that Google doesn't take its own policies seriously. I was glancing at Ann Coulter's web page (don't worry -- I don't make a habit of it), and I noticed "Ads by Google."

Is there any person in America who "advocates against" individuals, groups, and organizations more forcefully than Ann Coulter? Clearly, if Google took its own stated policies seriously, it would not allow Coulter to display "Ads by Google."

But here's the kicker: Google's own ad "advocates against" a particular individual. Note that Google's system selects the content of the ad. An ad that appears on Coulter's web page states, "Who Can Defeat Hillary?" In other words, the ad includes "advocacy against" Clinton.

If Google flagrantly violates its own stated policy for ads, then clearly that particular policy is meaningless. However, if, as one of the comments on an earlier post alleges, Google has pulled its ads from another web page because of that page's arguments, is Google opening itself up to potential legal action?

Peikoff's Eighth Podcast

Leonard Peikoff has published his eighth podcast. Here I briefly summarize the questions and Peikoff's basic answers (though my summaries should not be taken as substitutes for the podcast).

1. How does the role of consciousness in activating the body fit with the Objectivist view of the "primacy of existence?" Peikoff notes that the mind and body constitute "one total organism." The mind has a unique relation to the body that it does not have with external existence. Thus, for example, we can decide to move our hand. However, even in the body "existence has primacy;" what we can will our body to do "depends on physical conditions."

2. What is the source of the music played at the start of the podcast? I won't spoil Peikoff's story by summarizing it. He also tells the story in Leonard Peikoff: In His Own Words, which I was able to watch at a friend's house. It's a fun and informative documentary.

3. Is there such a thing as "Objectivist music?" Peikoff answers no. Objectivism is a philosophy, and particular concrete applications cannot be derived from philosophy. Peikoff argues that even Atlas Shrugged is not "Objectivist art," though of course it has an Objectivist theme and it reflects the Romantic view of free will.

4. Should the definition of "plot" contain "conflict?" Peikoff replies that, while conflict is implicit in the definition, it is not an essential part of it.

5. Should one put off artistic creation (such as writing a novel) in the midst of great emotional upheaval? Peikoff answers, "Within limits, yes, put it off." He discusses some examples and offers some qualifications.

Free Speech and Offensive Speech

Today, Mark Wolf over at Rocky Talk Live picked up the story about how ProgressNowAction.org used the term "bitch slap" last year, before the organization went after Jon Caldara for using the same term. This morning, I also briefly appeared on Peter Boyles's show on 630 KHOW to discuss the story. I wanted to elaborate on a few of the remarks I made to Boyles.

Free speech can only be understood in a legitimate and coherent way in the context of property rights. Let's take some examples to clarify this point.

People have the right to say "bitch slap" all they want, within the context of individual rights. If you want, you can start a newspaper called "Bitch Slap News." You can start a "bitch slap" blog in which you write nothing but the term. You can wander around the streets mumbling "bitch slap" to yourself. However, your right to say "bitch slap" cannot interfere with somebody else's rights.

For example, you cannot come over to my house and spray paint the word "bitch slap" on my door. Nor can you burn the term into my grass. Nor can you barge into my home, uninvited, and start saying "bitch slap." You cannot walk into a business and start shouting the term "bitch slap." You cannot walk into a newspaper office and demand that the paper publish the term.

Just as you have the right to set speech policies within your own home, so businesses have the right to set speech policies within the business, subject to contractual arrangements. For example, if you work for a newspaper, you do NOT have the right to publish the term "bitch slap," or "F*** Bush," in violation of the paper's policies. (Many papers have a policy against publishing the "F-word," but no paper that I know of has a policy against publishing the term "bitch slap." Indeed, I suspect that the term "bitch slap" has been published more frequently during the past few days than ever before in the term's history.) My beef with J. David McSwane, the college student who published the "F*** Bush" headline in his school newspaper, was that he flagrantly violated his paper's stated policies and then tried to claim that he had a "free speech" right to do so.

I can guarantee you that, had McSwane called Condoleezza Rice the "N-word," he would have been gone, gone, gone. I'm not sure whether the FCC can sanction a radio station for using the "N-word;" I doubt it. Nevertheless, any radio host or DJ who called Barack Obama the "N-word" would be ejected immediately. And this is entirely proper. Even though the radio waves are today "public" -- i.e., nationally controlled by the FCC -- properly radio waves should be private property. And the owners of a radio station, the same as the owners of a newspaper, should have the political right to set speech policy for the station. Most stations would voluntarily and properly prohibit the use of the "F-word" and "N-word" on air. I doubt many stations would ban the use of the term "bitch slap." However, if (for example) a Christian station wants to prohibit the use of such terms, then that is the right of the station's owners.

Of course, if ProgressNow wishes to publicly condemn Caldara for saying "bitch slap," that is the right of ProgressNow. They also have the right to complain to Caldara's advertisers. However, as ProgressNow may be learning, just because you have a right to do something, doesn't make it a good idea. You have the right to drink a quart of Vodka, but it's a pretty stupid thing to do. You have the right to slam somebody for using a term that your own web page has used, but it's a pretty idiotic thing to do. But if ProgressNow wants to spend its resources to destroy its own credibility, that's fine by me. The rest of us have the right to subject the organization to the public mockery that it has so richly earned.

ProgressNowAction.org Used "Bitch Slap" in '07

ProgressNowAction has lambasted 850 radio host Jon Caldara for using the term "bitch-slap" on air. Michael Huttner, executive director of ProgressNow, told Lynn Bartels of The Rocky Mountain News, "If he doesn't apologize, we will send an e-mail to tens of thousands more people to call 850 KOA's advertisers and demand that they not be associated with Caldara and his shows demeaning women."

However, Huttner's own organization's web page published the term "bitch slap" just last year. An entry dated September 9, 2007, states:

Biggest laugh line: "Mr. Bush cannot once again subcontract his responsibility. This is his war." (Want to bet?) They also bitch slap Petraeus for his complicity before the election in '04. They stop short of calling that a war crime, allow me to do that for them, besides, being a general IS a war crime, especially in the United States if you have kept your mouth shut for the last six years.

A screen capture of the relevant part of that web page has been archived at FreeColorado.com.

On Thursday evening, I pointed out that the Colorado newspapers Westword, Boulder Weekly, and Colorado Springs Independent have used the term "bitch-slap" twenty times among them. On Friday I discovered that various other left-wing commentators have also used the term, including James Carville and Al Franken.

Now that I have also documented that Huttner's own ProgressNowAction.org used the term "bitch slap" just last year, Huttner's only responsible course at this point is to apologize to Caldara, to 850 KOA, and to Caldara's listeners and advertisers.

Bitch-Slap Update

Welcome, readers of the Rocky Mountain News. This afternoon, reporter Lynn Bartels quoted me in an article about the dispute between ProgressNow and Jon Caldara regarding Caldara's on-air use of the term "bitch-slap."

Earlier, Bartels wrote an article giving the basic facts of the case. She pointed out that Bill Menezes, editorial director of Colorado Media Matters, first complained about Caldara's remark. That organization posted its critique of Caldara on January 22.

Last night, in my post, "Bitch-Slapping Caldara," I pointed out that the newspapers Westword, Boulder Weekly, and Colorado Springs Independent have used the term "bitch-slap" twenty times among them.

Bartels picked up on this point in her follow-up article:

But blogger Ari Armstrong noted today that three alternative newspapers have used the term at least 20 times between them.

The phrase has been used in Westword, the Boulder Weekly and the Colorado Springs Independent in stories ranging from sports to restaurant reviews to music reviews.

"ProgressNow is clearly going after Caldara because they don't like Caldara," said Armstrong, who lives in Westminster. "It has nothing to do with the term."

Moreover, Bartels called up Westword:

Westword's editor, Patricia Calhoun, noted the newspaper appears to have used the phrase 12 times in 12 years.

"But I did add bitch slap to a story in next week's edition," she said, with a laugh. "Frankly, I don't have a problem with the term. In the proper context, sometimes bitch slap is all you can say."

[Saturday, January 26 update: Bartel's reworked article appears in today's Rocky.]

If ProgressNow wishes to continue its witch-hunt against Caldara, I've found yet another target for them: Al Franken. According to Democrats.com, Franken makes the following remark in his book, The Truth, With Jokes:

These attacks worked on two levels. The obvious level was the literal. If Kerry thought terrorism was just a nuisance, then he was obviously the wrong man to lead the fight against it. But there was another level. The subtext of the constant attacks on Kerry's toughness was that the Bush team was tough and Kerry wasn't. It's what blogger Joshua Micah Marshall called the Republicans' Bitch-Slap Theory of Electoral Politics. By slapping Kerry around continuously, the President was sending America the message that "Kerry is my bitch."

Yet, even after I pointed out the hypocrisy of going after Caldara while giving left-leaners a pass, Menezes was undeterred. In a comment posted with The Denver Post,Menezes argues:

The real question is why his bosses at Clear Channel, Lee Larsen and Kris Olinger, believe that Caldara's approach represents a responsible use of the public airwaves. Perhaps Ms. Olinger or Mr. Larsen (or even Caldara) would like to speak in person to a domestic violence prevention group and explain why the use of terms such as "bitch-slapped" when applied to a verbal attack on a female, or "fiscal date rape" when applied to a political dispute about taxes, are appropriate and responsible ways of promoting opinion in the public debate.

Perhaps Caldara's advertisers such as Tom Shane would like to explain to his female customers why he believes it is appropriate for him to patronize a program whose host blithely promotes abusive terminology that specifically targets women.

No, the real question is, why is Bill Menezes such a hypocrite?

Menezes is wrong in claiming that "the term-bitch-slapped literally refers to how a pimp might assault a prostitute to keep her in line." It "literally" refers to no such thing. As I pointed out, "It is clear, then, that originally the term often was used in an offensive way toward women, but it was not always so used. It is also clear that, today, the term is mostly used in a way that isn't offensive toward women and that has nothing to do with women." If by "literally" Menezes means "most consistent with original usage," then the term "bitch-slap" refers to striking a female dog. But clearly the meaning has evolved over time. To take another example of a term that has changed in meaning over time, the term "gay" was once taken to be demeaning toward homosexuals, but now homosexuals tend to adopt the term with pride.

To speculate a bit, I think that one reason the term "bitch-slap" has gained wider usage is that it does not make clear who is doing the slapping. Originally, the term usually seemed to mean "slapping a bitch." But clearly today many people think of it as a "bitch" -- an aggressive person -- doing the slapping. As is obvious by a trip through any T-shirt shop at the mall, many women have adopted the word "bitch" as a term of empowerment, to mean something like, "I'm a bitch, I can take care of myself, so don't mess with me." "Bitch-slap," in the sense of a "bitch" slapping somebody, is supported by a secondary definition from Urban Dictionary: "a method of assualt, used by females."

Maybe now we can be finished with this issue.

... Or maybe not. 5:15 p.m. update: An anonymous reader sent me some additional examples of left-wingers who have used the term "bitch slap."

James Carville: "A lot of Democrats on the Hill say, look, you guys come up here, and you ask us to do this, and we do it. And then there's nothing behind us. And everything the Republicans do, they got that -- the Wall Street Journal, talk radio, et cetera. We need guys like you guys [Buzzflash] who are doing really good work to, in essence, you know, bitch slap the bitches, and say: Look, here's what you can do, and now here are some things you can do."

Randi Rhodes of Air America Radio: "Bush takes a bitch-slap, Backs down on wage-slavery."

"Wilbur" from Daily Kos: "We are being bitch slapped big time... Yes, the lefty blogosphere is being bitch slapped and it is going to go on for at least the next week, and I believe it is an important moment in the development of netroots politics."

John Marshall: "Let's call it the Republicans' Bitch-Slap theory of electoral politics. It goes something like this. On one level, of course, the aim behind these attacks is to cast suspicion upon Kerry's military service record and label him a liar. But that's only part of what's going on."

Buckeye State Blog: "Politico gets in last minute bitch slap at Bob Latta."

The Left Shue (An Outlet for Progressives Who Are Working for Change): "House Dems Bitch Slap Kucinich and the Majority of Americans."

The Agonist: "The Pelosi Bitch Slap."

Thanks, anonymous reader. The people at ProgressNowAction really have their work cut out from them, if they're going to purge the English language of the term "bitch slap."

Also, thanks to the crew over at FaceTheState.com, who pointed to my original blog entry on the matter. (I do have a minor correction: I'm a former writer for Boulder Weekly and a former libertarian.)

Bitch-Slapping Caldara

The Denver Post's PoliticsWest reported on January 24:

ProgressNowAction, a left-leaning advocacy group based in Denver, is promoting an online effort to pressure advertisers to stop supporting the KOA 850-AM radio show of Jon Caldara because Caldara used the term "bitch-slapped" on the air.

"The term itself is demeaning and offensive to women," said Michael Huttner, executive director of ProgressNowAction. "It's the kind of thing that minimizes the severity of domestic violence. We think it shouldn't be used in any context."

ProgressNowAction and Colorado Media Matters "must be working together to bring hyper-sensitivity to a new level," Caldara said in an e-mail to PoliticsWest. ...

On the air, Caldara played a snippet of the Democratic candidate debate interaction between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in which Obama said, "I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes," a reference to Bill Clinton.

Caldara termed Obama's response "a spectacular line" and goes on to ask [guest Ann] Coulter, “Was it fair to say this woman got bitch-slapped tonight?" ...

The ProgressNowAction online statement, titled "Tell Jon Caldara's sponsors: don't pay for hate," was also e-mailed to 3,000 people, according to Huttner, who said they have received 250 responses.

I asked my resident expert on women, my wife, whether she thought the term "bitch-slap" is offensive. She replied, "No; I think I've used it myself."

Obviously, Huttner is not serious in claiming that the term "bitch-slap" "shouldn't be used in any context." ProgressNowAction.org refers on its main web page to "Caldara's 'bitch-slapped' comment." Apparently, Huttner thinks that using the term in this context is just fine. Furthermore, the post by Brittney Wilburn uses the term "bitch-slapped" three times:

Caldara's "bitch-slapped" comment
By Brittney - Jan 24th, 2008 at 3:20 pm MST

Earlier this week, John Caldara, a local right-wing host on Denver's 850 KOA radio, discussed the presidential candidate debates. During his talk, he asked his guest on-air whether it "was it fair to say" that Senator Clinton (NY) "got bitch-slapped tonight?" (The Jon Caldara Show, Newsradio 850 KOA, evening broadcast 1/21/2008)

Did he really say "bitch slapped"? I know he's a talk show host. I know he pushes the envelope. But bitch slapped? He went too far. This comment rivals Imus' "nappy headed hoes" comment.

We, as Coloradans should be outraged. And we should not stand for this hateful commentary.

Not only was this comment demeaning to women, it minimizes the severity of domestic violence women across Colorado experience.

Click on the link to sign the petition urging advertisers on his show to pull their adds and calling on Caldara to apologize.

Okay. The term "bitch-slap" is nothing like the term "nappy headed hoes." Coloradans should not be outraged. They should chuckle at Brittney's ridiculous hysteria.

If the people at ProgressNowAction are not a bunch of damned hypocrites, as I suspect they are, then they will also immediately demand that all advertisers with the left-leaning Westword withdraw their advertising dollars. For Westword has published the term "bitch-slap" not once, but twelve times (that I could find). Shouldn't ProgressNowAction display twelve times the outrage toward Westword? Or is it that Huttner and Wilburn just hate Caldara, and they don't really care about the term "bitch-slap?"

Following are all twelve of Westword's use of the term "bitch-slap:"

1. December 19, 2006 -- "Okay, it's a bit far-fetched, and in the heat of the moment against the Knicks last Saturday, when Melo decided he would open-palm bitch-slap Mardy Collins in the jaw, then backpedal across the court, the odds that Melo was thinking about A.I. are about as slim as Nene hitting a three-pointer."

2. March 8, 2007 -- "I mean, Brooke is making herself look like the dumbass here, no question about it -- but I would bitch-slap my friends if any of them ever said anything remotely like that to a complete stranger."

3. August 10, 2006 -- "First off, any band that has the balls to let an illiterate grade-schooler name its group after a handicapped jungle animal has the chutzpah necessary to bitch-slap Steve Perry and company back to their mommies' open arms."

4. December 21, 2000 -- "Unlike the dishonest tripe of Gump, The Crow offered hard, direct sensuality, inspiring a hopeful reverie wherein Lee's undead warrior might steal into Zemeckis's crisp, digital world to unleash his dark rage upon Hanks's little retarded monkey. Or at least bitch-slap him."

5. July 2, 1998 -- "Whereas the charts are no longer dominated by members of the Bitch-Slap-My-Ho brigade (they've been replaced by purveyors of innocuous R&B, Brandy style), the mega-sales enjoyed by Master P and others suggests that there are still a lot of folks out there who feel that a song's no good unless it's about drive-bys or downing forties."

6. April 30, 1996 -- "In one backhanded bitch slap, Schwarzenbach knocked the Sid Vicious-inspired snarls off a generation of 'punk-rockers' who, mimicking their favorite Offspring and Green Day videos, were easy to spot as they all stood in line at the local Walgreens with hair products in hand."

7. June 1, 2006 -- "Fresh off a brain aneurysm, Neil Young gives the right wing an earful, clobbering our befuddled Decider-in-Chief with a righteous bitch slap that exceeds forty minutes."

8. August 9, 2001 -- "A lush, languid bitch-slap in the face of perky teen pop idols everywhere, this CD shimmers most menacingly when the subterranean stylings of singer Liam McKahey meet the literate (at least by commercial-radio standards) lyrics of multi-instrumentalist/producer Davey Ray Moor."

9. April 20, 2006 -- "I don't go to Pete's Kitchen anymore; fighting my way through all the club kids and drunks and drag queens and rock stars has become more of a hassle than a Pete's breakfast burrito is worth. Tom's, on the other hand, remains a 24/7/365 roller coaster of the human experience, a shot of street life and nightlife and highlife and lowlife all rolled into one insomniac bitch-slap."

10. January 27, 2000 -- "Perhaps Rudnick, who wrote In & Out, intended the portrayals of Mansfield and Hastings/Korda as some sort of in-joke, a backhanded bitch slap: They're two of the gayest straight characters in the history of filmdom."

11. July 5, 2001 -- "The focus isn't Manson, you morons, it's the schools your precious "overachiever" children attend. You're just picking on Manson because he's an easy target. You feel that if the world were a certain way and only "positive" messages were sent out to the kids, then everything would be perfect. What you need is a bitch-slap of reality."

12. April 24, 2003 -- "I'm not saying that any of A Vitamin Store's customers have ever or will ever purchase ephedrine with the intent of doing anything other than treating their asthma, because if I did, Westword's libel lawyer would bitch-slap me."

Uh-oh: It looks like ProgressNowAction is also going to have to put an end to the left-leaning Boulder Weekly (for which I used to write). That paper has published the term "bitch-slap" four times:

1. 2007 -- "They can technologically bitch-slap your computer and make it an offer it can't refuse."

2. October 17, 2002 -- "Enter sex columnist Dan Savage, a gay man who, you may recall, licked his way into the national spotlight after infiltrating Gary Bauer's 2000 presidential primary campaign. Savage calls Skipping his 'Bork-Bennett-bitch slap'."

3. October 17, 2002 -- "Three different bars-two on the main floor and one in the upstairs lounge-stand ready to bitch-slap your thirst straight into submission."

4. December 22, 2005 -- "The Chargers looked unbeatable in last week's Bitch-Slap in the 'Nap, but they fired all their guns in their history-making effort."

Unfortunately, it gets even worse. ProgressNowAction will also have to shut down the left-leaning Colorado Springs Independent, which also has published the term "bitch-slap" four times:

1. February 24, 2005 -- "Youd think he would have learned his lesson in 2003 when Gangs of New York was nominated, and he and Harvey were bitch-slapped by the Academy for not only dragging poor old Robert Wise into their over-the-top Oscar politicking, but then deceiving voters by having a Miramax publicist ghost-write a praiseful column on Scorsese that appeared under the beloved wrinklys byline."

2. July 22, 2004 -- "In the context of today's starkly polarized electorate -- where pollsters claim only about 18 percent remain persuadable-- a book that offers eloquent bitch slaps to everyone from milquetoast Democrats (paging Tom Daschle!) to robotic radicals (Chomsky anyone?) seems destined to be pulped in the rush toward partisan fervor."

3. October 10, 2002 -- "Bork-Bennett Bitch Slap... Savage, editor of Seattle's alternative newsweekly The Stranger, calls Skipping Toward Gomorrah his 'Bork-Bennett-bitch slap'."

4. March 22, 2002 -- "Willis showed Vanilla the dark side of show business, and the dark side of his hand, as he repeatedly bitch-slapped Ice's grill. "

For kicks, I did a quick Google search of "bitch-slap." Among the hits are HollywoodBitchSlap.com, Bitchslap Industries, Bitchslap the band, Bitchslap Magazine, and Bitchslap! the DJ. In all, 125,000 hits come up.

But is "bitch-slap" really offensive to women? I checked the Urban Dictionary, and here's the main definition:

The kind of slap a pimp gives to his whores to keep them in line or punish them. However, it is most commonly used to describe an insulting slap from one man to another, as if the slapper is treating the slappee as his bitch.

And Dictionary.com offers a definition from Webster:

Definition: to slap someone with an open hand, esp. in an attempt to put them in their place or cause humiliation
Example: Corporate America was bitch-slapped by the stock market.
Etymology: from black English, slapping a person as a pimp would slap a prostitute
Usage: vulgar slang; bitch-slapped, bitch-slapping; also used figuratively

It is clear, then, that originally the term often was used in an offensive way toward women, but it was not always so used. It is also clear that, today, the term is mostly used in a way that isn't offensive toward women and that has nothing to do with women. Caldara's usage of the term is totally in line with the way that Colorado's leading left-leaning independent newspapers use the term.

I trust that ProgressNowAction is now more fully aware of the meaning of the term bitch-slap.

Dueling Doctors

In response to the January 21 article by my dad and me, "More political control of medicine comes with higher costs," Dr. Michael Pramenko wrote, "With medicine, don’t forget compassion." Of course, the initiation of political force, which Pramenko advocates, is the antithesis of compassion.

Dr. Paul Hsieh in turn responded to Pramenko's article. Following are some of Hsieh's remarks:

Dr. Pramenko is completely wrong and the Armstrongs are completely right on this issue.

Countries which have attempted to guarantee universal health care have ended up rationing care, to the detriment of patients and doctors alike. This is hardly compassionate, as we've seen with desperate UK patients who have resorted to pulling their own teeth because the government system won't let them see a dentist, even when they're in excruciating pain. Similar problems are widespread in Canada (where women routinely wait for months for their government-approved surgery and chemotherapy after discovering a malignant lump in their breast) or Sweden, Australia, or anywhere else that health care is left up to the "compassion" of the government.

The current problems of the American system are due to government interference in the free markets for medical care and insurance. The current system is anything but a free market. And the only viable solution is to respect individual rights and allow a free market.

As a practicing physician, it would be morally wrong of me to advocate for so-called "universal health care". Why would I want to support a system which literally kills honest hard-working patients and destroys medical practitioners? Colorado attorney Lin Zinser and I have written an article on this topic entitled "Moral Health Care vs. 'Universal Health Care'" in the Winter 2007-2008 issue of the national journal, "The Objective Standard".

The full text of our article is available online...

Every socialized economy in the world has been instituted by force in the name of "compassion", but because they violate basic rights of individuals, they always lead to misery and suffering. In contrast, free markets are always (and unjustly) called "heartless", yet they provide tremendous benefits to everyone on the economic ladder because they allow individuals to freely pursue their rational self-interest. The sectors of American medicine which have the least government regulation (such as cosmetic surgery and LASIK eye surgery) show continued decreases in costs and improvements in quality, just like the rest of the free-er US economy, precisely because the government does not attempt to guarantee those services as an entitlement "right".

If Colorodans value their lives and their health, they'll reject the siren song of the advocates of socialized medicine and the proposals of the 208 Commission, and support genuine free market reforms instead.

I'll offer my own response to Pramenko's claims at a later date.

Bye-Bye Blue Laws?

It seems likely that the Democrats will succeed at what Republicans never even attempted: repeal the Blue Law that prohibits Sunday liquor sales at stores. (I have heard of no attempt to remove the restrictions on Sunday auto sales.) While Democrats usually climb all over themselves to impose more economic controls, this time they seem ready to do the unthinkable: expand economic liberty.

Roger Fillion writes for the Rocky Mountain News:

SB-082, introduced by Sen. Jennifer Veiga, D-Denver, would permit liquor stores to open Sundays. Sixteen states and Washington, D.C., bar Sunday sales of distilled spirits. ...

Sen. Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont, is expected to offer a bill soon that would permit grocery stores such as Safeway and King Soopers to sell regular beer and wine six days a week, except Sundays. Stores that qualify must have a pharmacy and food sales that make up at least 51 percent of gross sales.

The reason that the bill is likely to pass this year, notes Fillion, is that "Colorado liquor store owners have reversed their long-standing opposition to Sunday liquor sales." But of course liquor stores are opposed to allowing free-market competition at grocery stores; instead, liquor stores want to rely upon existing protectionist legislation to squash competition. So any grocery-store reform is unlikely. Still, I'll take half a loaf this year, though I'll continue to advocate economic liberty across the board.

According to the article, many liquor stores now want Sunday sales for two reasons. First, they think they can make money on Sunday. Second, they think that, by offering customers better service, they'll reduce support for the grocery-store bill:

"If it's what the consumer wants and it's going there, there's no use fighting it," said Scott Robinson, co-owner of Wilbur's Total Beverage in Fort Collins, summing up the general attitude. "We'll make more money being open seven days a week."

Robinson also conceded that support of the Sunday sales legislation could help liquor store owners head off the grocery store bill.

"We'd rather be meeting the needs of the consumer when that one shows up," he said.

Yet, while the article talks about "convenience," jobs, and revenues, not once does the article mention the central issue: individual rights. Stores and their customers have the right to do business on mutually agreeable terms, without political interference. Of course, Democrats are afraid to talk about individual rights in the economic sphere, because then they might actually have to take economic liberty seriously.

SpaceShipTwo

Yesterday The New York Times published a story about Burt Rutan's SpaceShipTwo:

Burt Rutan took the cloak off of his new spacecraft on Wednesday.

Mr. Rutan, the creator of SpaceShipOne, the first privately financed craft to carry a human into space, traveled to New York to show detailed models of the bigger SpaceShipTwo and its carrier airplane, WhiteKnightTwo. ...

Officials at the press conference said that the WhiteKnight aircraft is 70 percent complete and that SpaceShipTwo is 60 percent complete. Test flights of the planes could occur this year. Passenger flights are not expected to begin before late 2009 or 2010.

This is a modest step toward commercial space exploration, but it is an important step. While I probably won't be able to afford a seat on any of Rutan's crafts, I'll cheer on those who can. "You can't take the sky from me."

Waiting Periods for Abortions? (Link)

At AriArmstrong.com, I've posted a brief critique of a proposal to require waiting periods and ultrasound services before a woman can obtain an abortion. As the matter pertains to Colorado politics as well as to religion, I'll include an excerpt here:

Beyond the extra, needless expense of time and money, the bill treats women as though they were incapable of making their own decisions without the help of politicians. Women are already fully aware of the nature and implications of abortion, and they can already order an ultrasound if they want one. The bill likewise subjects doctors to the whims of political force.

Ironically, [State Senator David] Schultheis [the bill's sponsor] answered yes to the following question: "Would you oppose legislation mandating a waiting period before the purchase of a firearm?" Apparently, Schultheis believes that women are responsible enough to decide to buy a gun when they want, but not to get an abortion when they want.

Just as the anti-gun lobby attempts to impose additional costs on gun owners in order to discourage gun ownership, so Schultheis wants to impose additional costs on women who want an abortion.

As women have the right to purchase tools of self-defense without political interference, so they have the right to get an abortion without political interference. Of course, Schultheis believes that women have no moral right, and should be striped of their legal right, to get an abortion. He's wrong, but rather than address the issue head-on, he undermines his other views in calling for costly and invasive political restrictions on legally permitted actions.

Searching for King's Dream

Rep. Terrance Carroll, a man whom I've met and whom I respect, made some difficult comments on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Writing for the Rocky Mountain News, Chris Barge reports that "Carroll set aside his prepared remarks" and instead offered the following:

From... the fact that in this state more than 60 percent of our students of color do not graduate from high school within four years; from the fact that in a state where only 4 percent of the total population is African-American yet 25 percent of our prison population consists of African-American men and African-American women, it seemed to be improper and inappropriate at this time to stand before you and say that Dr. King's dream has meant a great deal to all of us. ... How can we celebrate this holiday in all honesty, and march and get up and shout and sing songs when the truth of the matter is... [t]here are far too many people in this country who don't dream anymore. They don't have hopes. They don't have aspirations. They just find despair, they just find apathy, and they just find hatred.

In fact, many people, black and white alike, are living King's dream. Carroll's position in the state legislature is testament to that. One can find many successful black Coloradans in politics, journalism, and business. But Carroll's sorrow comes from somewhere. A lot of African Americans (joined by portions of all ethnicities) do continue to suffer the problems that he describes. The causes are many, though they are related: a subculture that eschews education and tolerates violence, economic controls that encourage dependency and punish productivity, and residual racism.

On this last point, today perhaps the larger problem than bigotry against blacks is the racism of multiculturalism. Thomas Bowden of the Ayn Rand Institute argues:

Achievement of a truly color-blind society will require not only that private individuals reject racism but that government policies and programs cease to favor some citizens over others on the basis of skin color. The solution to racism in government does not lie in further race-conscious, affirmative action programs that generate de facto quotas, nor in multicultural education that locates personal identity in one's ethnic group. Because such policies are themselves racist, they are part of the problem.

Yet, as I've argued, individuals can, by their own choices, either fall into the problems that Carroll describes or escape them. I break no new ground in describing the basic recipe for success, given a society that remains at least largely free, as a good education, hard work, perseverance, thrift, and strong values.

Peikoff's Seventh Podcast

Leonard Peikoff released his seventh podcast today. Following is my brief review of the discussion (which again should not be taken as a substitute for the podcast).

1. Mother Teresa would not have been happy at a Fortune 500 company; does this show that productive work is not necessarily one's proper, primary purpose?

Peikoff first discusses the value of productive work as a means to sustain one's self and contribute to one's happiness; it is not itself the "primary purpose" of ethics. Nor does productive work guarantee happiness; it should be a part of a whole set of consistent values. Moreover, one cannot judge the happiness of a person from superficial appearances or statements.

A point that I was thinking of, but that Peikoff does not make, is that working for a Fortune 500 company is not necessary for productive work. For example, The Fountainhead offers examples of artists who do the work that they love, even if it means a reduced income.

2. Is it a "moral crime" to purchase the works of an artist who at some level opposes one's core values? Peikoff answers, "it depends."

3. What is the difference between the terms "hate" and "despise?" Hatred involves an element of fear.

4. Are various rules, such as mandatory auto insurance, legitimate for government-owned roads? Peikoff replies that roads should be privately owned, but, so long as they are run by the government, the government must set (and we should follow) various rules.

5. What's a good dictionary? Peikoff likes the Random House College dictionary for regular use, and the Oxford dictionary for more philosophical work.

Links to Previous Commentary

I've just updated the archive of my columns at Boulder Weekly.

Also, because I decided to devote this blog to politics and culture and reserve AriArmstrong.com for commentary about religion, some of the early posts from the other blog fit better here. Following are some of those posts that I consider most interesting.

Forced Medicine and Parental Rights

New year's Resolutions for the Legislature

New year's Resolutions for the Legislature

Green Death

Drugs, Health, and Rights

Anonymous, Verifiable Voting

Green by Force

Assam's Semiautomatic Baretta

Government Property

Another Look at Blue Laws

What's Wrong With Libertarianism

Layout of the Denver Shootout

Sure-Fire Plan to Reduce Emissions by 80 Percent

Happy Halloween!

Investment by Force

CU's Brown Offends with "Ghetto" Remark

Beauprez Battles Liberty in Medicine

Belching Cows and Global Warming

Government Financing is Not "Private"

"An Extreme Free-Market View"

Subverting Free Speech in the Name of Free Speech

How to Access Dental Care Without Insurance

Human Health as a Pretext for Animal Rights

Heath Ledger, 1979 - 2008

I was saddened to read of the death of Heath Ledger, who had become one of my favorite actors.

On the very day of the Oscar nominations being announced for 2007, the Australian actor Heath Ledger was found dead in a Manhattan apartment. Born in Perth, in Western Australia, Heathcliff Andrew Ledger would have been 29 this April 4th. First reports of his death mentioned drugs in evidence, but no one really knows enough yet to say anything except how great the loss is. Ever since he played Mel Gibson's son in The Patriot (2000), it was apparent that his striking handsomeness went hand-in-hand with high ambitions as an actor, courage in the roles he took and a fierce intelligence. He is likely now to be known forever for his cowboy, Ennis, in Brokeback Mountain... At his death he had just finished playing the Joker in a new version of Batman - The Dark Knight - and that may reveal fresh sides to what was a developing career.

A year and a half ago, I wrote:

Previously I predicted that I wouldn't think much of Brokeback Mountain, the gay cowboy movie. What I did not anticipate was Heath Ledger's hauntingly sorrowful performance. Yes, the movie is beautifully directed and the rest of the cast is very good, but it is Ledger who makes it a memorable movie. I've always enjoyed Ledger's movies, but his performance in Brokeback is amazing. ...

An aside. It occurred to me that, if somebody wanted to spend a lot of money and make even more, they'd hire a competent writer to turn Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead into a full season of television (roughly 22 episodes each 45 minutes in length), then hire Ledger to play Howard Roark...

I also enjoyed Ledger's Casanova, even though the story of the movie spins a bit out of control.

The movie I've been most looking forward to is Dark Knight. Judging from the previews, Ledger's performance is stunning. I'm still looking forward to the movie, but now I'll have to watch it with more than an undercurrent of sorrow.

Self-Defense in Fountain

A Fountain man defended his home from intruders over the weekend:

Fountain teen says he didn't hesitate to shoot home invaders
Associated Press
Originally published 08:51 a.m., January 22, 2008
Updated 08:51 a.m., January 22, 2008

FOUNTAIN — A Fountain teenager who woke up to the sounds of robbers in his home says he didn't hesitate to shoot the men before they took off with an iPod.

Fountain police spokesman Sergeant Jess Freeman says the suspects are currently hospitalized for treatment of gunshot wounds.

Their names have not been released.

Nineteen-year-old Cody Buckler says he was asleep at about 11 p.m. Sunday when he heard unfamiliar voices in the living room.

He told authorities he heard someone tell a child in the house that he was a police officer, so he crept down the hall and saw two men who were wearing masks, hats and gloves.

Buckler then went back to his bedroom, retrieved a 12-gauge shotgun and shot both suspects.

Police say both men had semiautomatic handguns.

It's not clear what Buckler's relationship to the children is. (The references to a "teen" and "teenager" are somewhat misleading, as a 19 year old is legally an adult.) Assuming that the facts are basically as stated, certainly the shootings were justified. Of course, even better is to secure one's home so that breaking into it is more difficult. It's a very scary thing when armed criminals stand between you and children. In this case, apparently the criminals were just after loot, but that's impossible for the homeowner to determine at the time. I don't know how the criminals entered the home in this case. However, remarkably often people leave windows open and even doors unlocked. Good lighting, secure windows, and bolt locks will deter many criminals. Alarms can be a good option for some. Families should also think carefully about action plans. I have no specific advice to offer on this point, but one possibility is to teach children to hide if they hear strangers in the house. At any rate, the intruders committed a serious and highly dangerous crime, and they deserve a long stay in prison.

Medicine: The High Costs of Political Controls

From Grand Junction's Free Press:
More political control of medicine comes with higher costs

January 21, 2008

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

The left packages its programs in terms that sound good, even if the claims have little to do with the program itself. Recently some health "reformers" have loudly declared that more political control of medicine will supposedly save you money. Why? The Denver Post claimed on January 8: "Coloradans who have insurance spend an extra $950 each year to cover the costs of those who show up at the hospital without insurance." The figure itself is fishy, but the broader claim that it allegedly supports is ridiculous.

While details differ, most plans -- including several to be touted by Colorado's "208" Healthcare Commission next week -- would force everyone to purchase politically-approved health insurance and impose massive new taxes to expand medical welfare. The proposed tax hike for Colorado sta