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 starts at over a billion dollars per year and likely would grow to several billion.

The current jargon for skipping out on a hospital bill is "cost shifting." That is, people who don't pay their bills shift those costs onto the rest of us. That's bad, but what is the left-wing "solution" for such cost-shifting? It is to force you to pay more in taxes than you now pay for the cost-shifting. In other words, we are to believe that the way to reduce cost-shifting is to expand it.

On top of that, the figure of $950 of cost-shifting to each insured family is not very credible. The 208 Commission funded a study by the Lewin Group that suggests a much lower figure. The study claims that $239 million will be spent on the uninsured this year that is "free from provider" -- much less than proposed tax hikes. (An additional $211 million comes from "public programs," but this is funded through taxes, not insurance premiums. The rest of the $1.4 billion is covered through out-of-pocket payments, private philanthropy, workers' compensation, and funds for veterans.) Around 2.8 million Coloradans have private insurance. The first figure divided by the second suggests a cost of around $85 per insured individual. (Brian Schwartz, Ph.D., whose free-market proposal is available at WhoOwnsYou.org, pointed us to these figures.)

Yet, regardless of the exact figure, the expansion of tax-funded medicine would not address "cost shifting" nearly as well as its supporters pretend. As the health-care experiment in Massachusetts proves, even the most ambitious program cannot force everyone to obtain insurance. Transients, illegal immigrants, and many among the chronically poor would continue to forgo insurance and seek "free" care. Moreover, the expanded tax-funded programs would encourage more use without regard for costs. The left claims that more tax funding would promote primary-care visits and thus reduce long-term costs, but the reality is that many of the highest-cost freeloaders neglect their health (such as by abusing drugs and alcohol) and would continue to do so.

That said, we ought not scapegoat the uninsured as a group. Many among the uninsured maintain their health, and they pay for their health care themselves. 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.

Why is health insurance too expensive for some people? Medicare and Medicaid notoriously underpay their health bills, forcing those with private insurance to pick up part of the tab. Health costs in general have skyrocketed because of the tax distortion that promotes employer-paid insurance that encourages use without regard for cost. And a variety of mandated benefits dramatically increase the costs of insurance premiums. The way to expand health insurance is to repeal the political controls that have made it so expensive.

While we're on the topic of controls, why is it that some people can demand "free" care from hospitals in the first place? After all, people can't force businesses to give them "free" food or clothing. The reason is that the "Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1985... requires that hospitals that accept Medicare patients diagnose and treat anyone who comes within two hundred feet of an emergency room, regardless of whether the person can pay for the treatment" (see the article by Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh, MD, at TheObjectiveStandard.com). We should repeal that unjust law and return to a system of voluntary charity.

Over the coming months, you may often hear claims that massive tax hikes and expanded political control of medicine will save you money. If you value your health and your money, you will recognize such claims for what they are -- dishonest spin. Don't be fooled: expanded medical welfare will cost you plenty, and ever more as the programs grow. In the long term, the only way that politicians can control costs is to impose rationing. The alternative is to repeal the political controls that have created the problems and turn to liberty in medicine.

The Cause of High Health-Care Costs

Why do health-care costs in America keep spiraling upward? Dr. Mark Earnest offers his view in a letter to the Rocky Mountain News (January 10):

Steve Hyde's commentary article of Dec. 29, "An unhealthy cure," might have stumbled on an appropriate diagnosis (the soaring cost of health care), but offers only a self-serving placebo as the cure (high-deductible health plans).

If increased cost sharing for patients lowered health-care costs, America would have the cheapest health care in the world. Currently, Americans pay far more out of pocket for their health care - both in real dollars and as a percentage of the total cost - than citizens of any other country, and yet our health care is the most expensive in the world. ...

Health care in this country has become an industry filled with countless layers of middlemen who earn millions by finding new ways of coming between patients and their care. If we're really serious about lowering the cost of health care, we should
design a system that cuts out superfluous overhead and pays for care rather than executives and administrators.

Earnest is wrong that "Americans pay far more out of pocket," according to a January 17 letter by Michael Darnel

In his letter of Jan. 10, "Cut out health-care middlemen," Dr. Mark Earnest states that Americans pay far more out of pocket for their health care as a percentage of the total cost than citizens of any other country. This is not supported from data in the current, Jan. 1, issue of Annals of Internal Medicine.

On Page 64 is data for 27 countries from 2004. Only 4 countries paid less, and 22 countries paid more out of pocket than Americans. Average out-of-pocket costs were 19.8 percent, while in the U.S. it was 13.2 percent. Examples include Switzerland (31.9 percent), Italy (21.0 percent), Japan (17.3 percent) and Canada (14.9 percent).

Yaron Brook further details the figures for America: "For every dollar's worth of hospital care a patient consumes, that patient pays only about 3 cents out-of-pocket; the rest is paid by third-party coverage. And for the health care system as a whole, patients pay only about 14%."

Earnest believes that the problem is the high costs of overhead, administration, and middlemen. Yet the cause of those costs is precisely the system of employer-paid medical "insurance" that covers nearly every expense. When a patient pays a doctor directly, there is no middleman. Employers and insurers have nothing to do with the transaction. Furthermore, the patient has a much greater incentive to seek the best care at the most affordable price. As I have argued, this is the proper model for routine and low-cost care. High-deductible health plans by their nature mostly cut out the costs that Earnest protests, yet Earnest dismisses such insurance out of hand, without bothering to explain how else such costs might be reduced.

"Crank This Sucker Up"

Deb Riechmann writes for the AP that President Bush supports "an economic rescue package that would include extra money for food stamps and jobless benefits in addition to tax rebates of hundreds of dollars each for millions of Americans. ... 'Crank this sucker up,' he exclaimed..."

But the only suckers are the ones who believe that Bush's plan will do any long-term good.

There are two obvious problems with Bush's proposal. First, it includes no commitment to offsetting the welfare transfers and tax rebates with reductions in federal spending. Second, it seems to promise more federal spending to cover the additional welfare transfers. In other words, spending will go up even more, while tax revenues will go down. This will be achieved through the magic of deficit spending, which necessarily takes real wealth out of the private economy by reducing investments, and/or more inflation. And, to address the problem of unemployment, Bush will pay people more not to work. That's Bush's strategy for "rescuing" the economy.

The Democrats are unhappy because Bush does not want to bump up federal spending to even higher levels than he already plans: "'We want a balanced package of tax rebates for the middle class and spending stimuli that jump-start the economy quickly. The president has included one; he also needs the other to quickly improve our economy,' said Charles Schumer, D-N.Y."

Because the way to "jump-start the economy" is to forcibly take even more wealth from the people who earn it and turn it over to bureaucrats. "Spending stimuli" in this context is a euphemism for taking other people's money for political payoffs to special interests.

The Denver Post agrees with the basic strategies above but also wants more tax breaks for businesses and, apparently, some sort of federal bailout for people who signed onto mortgages that they cannot now afford. Oh, and force down the interest rate more.

Nowhere in the popular media have I read about the policies that would actually improve the economy over the long term: cut (or at least restrain) federal spending and reduce political economic controls.

Cato's Daniel Mitchell gets the basic problems with Bush's proposal:

The president's proposed stimulus based on “temporary” tax cuts designed to boost “consumer spending” will not work. It is a disappointing re-run of the misguided policies of Jimmy Carter. Rebates are particularly disappointing because they resuscitate the discredited Keynesian notion that an economy benefits when the government borrows money from people in one sector of the economy and distributes it to people in another sector of the economy. Economic growth occurs when there is an increase in national income, not a redistribution of national income.

However, even Mitchell, a supply-sider, talks about tax cuts without mentioning spending cuts:

That is why lower marginal tax rates on work, saving, and investment are the best short-term and long-term strategy for faster growth. But such tax rate reductions should be permanent since temporary tax cuts -- even well-designed tax rate reductions rather than rebates -- do little more than generate economic activity today at the expense of less activity in the future.

Yet the first part of Mitchell's comments explains why tax cuts without spending cuts don't work.

Regressives

Jason Salzman writes the following in today's Rocky Mountain News:

By a real progressive, I mean someone who supports these kinds of things: raising the federal minimum wage to $11 per hour; a ban on construction of new coal-fired power plants; a government-run health-care system; the free distribution of condoms in public high schools; gay marriage; an increase in the capital gains tax; troop withdrawal from Iraq within six months; and the legalization and taxation of marijuana.

The first thing to note about this list is that it is not organized around any essential unifying idea. Some of the items involve more political force; others involve less. For example, I fully support the re-legalization of marijuana. I also favor domestic partnerships, though I care not whether these are called "marriages." I support those things on the basis of individual rights.

Several of the other items involve more political control of the economy. But economic socialism is not "progressive;" it is regressive and reactionary. Imposing more severe wage controls would further violate the rights of employers and employees to interact voluntarily, and it would throw some inexperienced and low-skilled workers out of a job. Imposing socialized medicine would violate the rights of doctors, patients, and other parties to associate voluntarily, and it would lead to worse care, much higher taxes, and rationing.

What is stunning is that people who want to send in men with guns to prevent people from entering into voluntary agreements -- and force them into involuntary arrangements -- are sometimes called "progressives." There's nothing progressive about it.

Welcome Rocky Readers

Today my Speakout, "Loading the dice against responsibility: Columnist Campos' claims about racism riddled with confusions," ran in the Rocky Mountain News. Here are a few quotes:

Myriad economic controls, along with payroll taxes of 15 percent, make it hard for the poor to get ahead. Welfare programs have discouraged work, encouraged broken families, and displaced voluntary charity. Government-run schools and other programs often underserve the poor. ...

[S]ome people born into chronic poverty break the cycle, earn a decent education, and rise to the middle class or beyond. They are able to do it through strength of character. At the same time, others born to advantage waste their lives. ...

It makes a difference whether "you and I" rely on persuasion and voluntary interaction, or whether we bring to bear the force of government. I believe that it is precisely because political programs rely upon the forcible redistribution of wealth and the forcible restraint of voluntary interaction that such programs tend to miss their lofty aims.

If you're viewing this web page for the first time based on the reference in the News, this page is dedicated primarily to covering Colorado politics from a perspective of individual rights and free markets. I just recently converted the page to a blog format; feel free to check out the archived articles. I've also dedicated my blog at AriArmstrong.com to issues involving religion (from a perspective critical of religion). My plan is to add comments to both web pages nearly every day, so I hope you'll consider returning.

Smoking Ban Violates Rights

Colorado's smoking ban has created a number of problems. Stage performers tried to fight to ban because it prohibits them from smoking as part of a dramatic act. (What happened to the First Amendment?) Various venues fought for exceptions, and the now-infamous "cigar bar" exception has proved particularly difficult to define. The Rocky Mountain News offers the latest example with an AP article by Ivan Moreno:

State gambling regulators are at a loss about what to do with a Black Hawk casino that claims it's exempt from the statewide smoking ban.

The Colorado Limited Gaming Control Commission said Thursday it wants to hear from its attorney on whether it has any authority to enforce the smoking ban, and whether the Wild Card Casino is violating the law. The casino claims it qualifies as a cigar bar, making it exempt from the smoking ban.

Critics claim the casino is exploiting a legal loophole. They told commissioners they have the power to enforce the ban and should revoke or suspend the casino's gaming license.

"We're not sure why this has continued to go on," said Stephanie Steinberg of Smoke-Free Gaming of Colorado. "It's your duty and responsibility to enforce this law."

Okay: there's a group called "Smoke-Free Gaming of Colorado?" I wonder if the founders and staff of the organization are among those who actually frequent the casinos. And why in the hell does Stephanie Steinberg care so much whether other people smoke on private property that she is free to avoid? Is it really her job to impose her will on everybody else?

I don't know whether the casino in question technically meets the definition of a "cigar bar" as defined by the statute; I don't even know whether the matter has a real answer. But that's not really the point. (See my previous commentary on the issue.)

The owners of the Wild Card Casino have the right to allow smoking within the casino, or to ban smoking there. Properly, it's none of Stephanie Steinberg's business. If she doesn't wish to see other people smoking in the Wild Card Casino or breath their smoke, nobody is forcing her to walk through the doors. Alternately, she could lawfully purchase the establishment on an open market, and then set whatever smoking policy she pleases. But leaving other people alone to control their own property is not good enough for Stephanie Steinberg of Smoke-Free Gaming of Colorado. She wants to send in the men with guns to "enforce this law" in violation of the rights of the property owners.

Colorado Politics, Blogging, and Ads with Google and Yahoo

Readers of this web page can expect updates about Colorado politics nearly every day.

In my announcement regarding the major reorganization of this web page as a blog, I wrote that FreeColorado.com will host "commentary mostly about politics, with an emphasis on Colorado." However, I added, the page "will tend to cover [a broad] range of issues" including "(infrequent) personal" notes.

However, a comment at BlogAds convinced me that I should always lead with Colorado politics:

Blogs without a laser-sharp focus on one topic or community AND an audience of 1000 readers a day usually do not attract advertisers. But some blogs with a sharp focus AND an audience of thousands a day do NOT get advertisers. One test: have more than a handful of companies expressed an interest in advertising on your blog?

I'm still going to post comments about national politics, cultural matters not directly related to politics, and an occasional note about my blog or activities. However, in the interest of sharpening the focus (if not to "laser-sharp" specifications), I decided to make sure that I post something about Colorado politics every day. (My main goal is not to attract possible advertisers, but to create an interesting web page that readers appreciate.) Note that most political issues involving Colorado also have national implications, so I do hope to attract some readers nationally. (Also note that occasionally I'll take a day off.)

Now to the secondary topic. I was checking out policies for blog ads after noticing the quite bizarre written policies of Google's AdSense program. Here's the most objectionable restriction: "Sites displaying Google ads may not include... advocacy against any individual, group, or organization." I wrote, "I suspect that the large majority of your AdSense users flagrantly violate the policy on a daily basis."

One reader suggested that I check into Yahoo's ad program. The policies of Yahoo are even worse. Yahoo's policies claim, "We will not show results on pages that contain problematic content, including but not limited to... material that advocates against any individual or group."

The top definition of "advocate" as provided by Dictionary.com, is "to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly." To "advocate against" something, then, is to speak or write against it and encourage others not to support it.

(As I've mentioned, I discourage the use of such constructions as "advocate for," "advocate on," and "advocate against.")

According to the explicit policies of the ad services by Google and Yahoo, then, people who run ads from those sources are forbidden from making comments such as the following:

* "The KKK is a horrible, morally evil organization that people should shun."
* "Don't vote for Candidate X."
* "Don't buy Product X, because it doesn't work very well."
* "Douglas Bruce was wrong to kick a photographer."
* "Store X charges too much for many of its products."
* "Neo-Nazis are morally despicable."
* "The ad policies of Google and Yahoo are ridiculous."
* "Corrupt Politician X should be ejected from office."
* "Career criminals should not be trusted."
* "Corporation X is wrong for cooking its books."
* "Don't buy season tickets for the Broncos, because they suck."
* "Tom Cruise is an oddball."
* "Bar Z's happy-hour prices and selection suck."
* "The band Korn plays horrible music."
* "George W. Bush has expanded state control over our lives."

All of these statements are examples of "advocating against" an individual, group, or organization. I wonder what fraction of web pages that display ads by Google or Yahoo don't violate this policy on a regular basis?

Both Google and Yahoo link by association reasonable, peaceable advocacy -- i.e., responsible free speech -- with the promotion of violence and racism. I am baffled as to how two major internet companies ended up paying somebody to write such idiotic policies (but there I go again, "advocating against" somebody).

However, Yahoo's policies get even worse. It forbids "Content related to human suffering or death." In other words, my blogs about Douglas Bruce kicking a photographer, a dumb kid shooting his friend, and the murders at New Life Church are forbidden by Yahoo's ad program. If a web page discusses "Weaponry, ammunition, fireworks or explosives," then it cannot display Yahoo ads. In other words, no user can discuss any crime or the Fourth of July. Also forbidden are "Political, religious or charitable organizations, issues or causes."

What exactly is allowed under Yahoo's ad policies? I suppose you could talk about kittens. Just don't "advocate against" the man who allegedly "threw [a kitten] against a wall in his mobile-home trailer," killing it.

Douglas Bruce Faces the Music...

... Yet, unfortunately, he seems to be tone deaf. As I've reviewed, on his first day on the job as a state representative, he kicked a photographer from the Rocky Mountain News. Bruce has not, so far as I've heard, apologized for the incident. Instead, he has tried to blame the journalist and downplay his behavior.

Now Bruce faces an investigation by the state house:

Joint statement from House on Bruce investigation
By The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 01/15/2008 01:37:37 PM MST

Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff, D-Denver, and House Republican Leader Mike May, R-Parker, issued the following statement today in response to the formation of a special committee to investigate the circumstances surrounding the incident that occurred between then Rep.-elect Douglas Bruce, R-Colorado Springs, and a member of the press on the floor of the House of Representatives on Jan. 14, 2008.

"We are both deeply troubled by the incident that took place yesterday morning. We are committed to preserving order and decorum in the House of Representatives.

"We have asked the committee to collect evidence and to hear testimony and to report back to the House on or before the 25th of January. ..."

Editorials by The Denver Post, the Rocky Mountain News, and The Daily Sentinel, and other papers have condemned Bruce's behavior. Columnists Mike Littwin and Susan Greene have written humorous and biting criticisms of Bruce.

Bruce has become the Democrats' new best friend. What better way to promote the stereotype of Republicans as heartless jerks? If Bruce is the "father" of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, then Democrats will reply that the fruit does not fall far from the tree. That's too bad, because limiting taxes is really about expanding voluntary interaction and reducing the initiation of physical force.

Perhaps that's why one of the harshest condemnations has come from conservative John Andrews:

State Rep. Douglas Bruce jerking around Speaker Andrew Romanoff before joining the House was one thing: a calculated bid for attention, rude but arguably shrewd. His putting the boot, literally, to a Rocky Mountain News photographer is something else again, however: plug-stupid with no conceivable justification.

Someone needs to tell him the ink-by-the-barrel rule of political life and public relations. Bruce's foolhardy footwork, bringing down the wrath of Rocky publisher John Temple along with a near-unanimous rebuke from his own Republican caucus, is an utter loser for the man’s legislative aspirations and, worse, for the GOP conservative cause he claims to support.

Deliver us, please, from such friends. My endorsement of Bruce's candidacy for this House seat, and my congratulations to him upon winning in it, are on extreme probation and rapidly approaching termination.

What a circus!

The Wendell Baker Story

I've been thinking about The Wendell Baker Story, off and on, since I saw it yesterday. That confirms my thoughts that the movie, which few people have heard of, might be worth a second glance. On the whole, it's not a spectacular film (it earned a 45 percent fresh rating from Rotten Tomatoes), but it shows flashes of poignancy and heart. After a slow beginning, the film introduces older characters played by Kris Kristofferson, Harry Dean Stanton, and Seymour Cassel. The relationships among these characters, and between them and the lead character of Luke Wilson, give the comedy a soul of benevolent dignity. I especially enjoyed the performance of Kristofferson. Wilson wrote the screenplay, and his brothers Owen and Andrew join the project.

Take a moment to get your mind off of that movie, because, while I'm discussing movies, I thought I'd warn readers about a repulsive, disgusting film, Year of the Dog. I regard it, along with I Heart Huckabees and The Butterfly Effect, as the three worst, most nihilistic films I've ever seen.

Bill Lindsay Blames "Market" for Ills of Political Controls

To readers of FreeColorado.com, news that Bill Lindsay, chair of Colorado's "208" Healthcare Commission, disdains and misrepresents free markets comes as no surprise.

Lindsay recently blamed "the market" for the problems caused by political force in medicine. David Montero reports for the Rocky Mountain News:

No one would be required to participate in a public or private health care plan under a proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution. ...

But Bill Lindsay, the chairman of the panel, said there was a simple reason that the politically disparate body agreed to make mandated coverage a recommendation.

"The reason is what we see in the marketplace is that the market for health insurance isn't working," Lindsay said.

He also found the idea that people would pay cash for services to be unrealistic.

"The notion that people would pay cash for services is ludicrous because of the cost of health care," he said.

However, we do not have a free market in health insurance, and that's the reason why it's so expensive. Instead, we have a system dominated by political controls. That is also the reason why health-care costs have skyrocketed.

Paul Hsieh, MD, replies in the comments:

Bill Lindsay is completely wrong that the market for health insurance isn't working. Our biggest problem is that we don't have a free market but instead a massively distorted market caused by years of ill-considered government regulations. It is precisely because of the government that people can't afford reasonable health insurance. It is not the free market has failed but the government system. Hence, the solution isn't more government, but removing the burdensome government restrictions and letting the free market actually work.

For more information about this topic, Colorado attorney Lin Zinser and I have written an article on health care history and policy entitled "Moral Health Care vs. 'Universal Health Care'". It has been published in the Winter 2007-2008 issue of the national journal, "The Objective Standard".

We argue that the current crisis in American health care is the result of decades of government interference and violations of individual rights in health insurance and medicine. Hence the solution to the problem is not more government controls but instead to gradually and systematically transition to a rights-respecting, fully free market in those industries.

Brian Schwartz, Ph.D., also chimes in:

Healthcare Reform Commission chair Bill Lindsey's comments show that he either misunderstands why insurance is so expensive or deliberately misrepresents fundamental issues...

He wants to force Coloradans to buy politically-defined insurance because "the market for health insurance isn't working." But as my free-market proposal (at WhoOwnsYou.org) to the Commission explains, it's not working because government controls have crippled it.

Federal tax policy deeply discounts employer-provided insurance. This locks us to our employer and the costly insurance plans they offer. Hence, insurance companies need not please us, as they know we must change jobs to buy a competitor's product.

Mandated benefits laws force us to buy expensive policies with benefits we may not need. For example, a widowed wife must buy a policy that covers marital therapy, prostate cancer, and maternity. In Colorado these and other controls add between 20% to over 50% to premiums.

Politically-controlled medical insurance is a disease masquerading as its own cure.

Lindsay simply refuses to consider these facts.

Rape as Punishment

I watched the film Deja Vu (starring Denzel Washington), and it's a pretty good action/drama based on a science-fiction device of time travel. I have two minor complaints about the story. First, it contains gratuitous and baffling references to religion. Second, it contains the following line, spoken by Washington's character to the central villain:

"You better have some KY; you're going to need it."

This is a not-so-subtle reference to prison rape. Where did we get to the point in our culture where rape is seen as a satisfying and socially accepted form of punishment? (Actually, the villain of the movie is so horrible that he would probably be protected from rape by maximum security, but the line references a common occurrence in America's prisons.)

Some day, some clever lawyer is going to figure out that rape (or even the high probability thereof) constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Not only might that lawyer force major reforms in America's prisons, but he might bring a multi-billion dollar lawsuit on behalf of the victims.

Is it not an obvious point that rape is bad and that it should not be used as a form of punishment? Or should we also bring back torture, mutilation, and lion pits?

Nothing "Accidental" About Shooting

Alan Gathright wrote a story earlier today titled, "Shooting story backfires:"

At first, the 20-year-old man reported he was shot by a drive-by gunman Tuesday evening while walking with a friend near the Byers Library. ...

Now the victim admits he was accidentally shot in the back at a home when a 15-year-old buddy -- showing off a handgun -- placed it on a coffee table and it accidentally discharged. ...

"They were in a residence and had the gun out and the gun was put onto a table," [Arapahoe County sheriff's Capt. Mark] Fisher said. "It discharged and ended up shooting the 20-year-old in the back.

The description by the victim is obvious nonsense, and the description by the officer is misleading. Guns are inanimate objects. They do not fire themselves. If you place a gun on a table, it will not then "accidentally discharge" all on its own.

Instead, the 15-year-old "buddy" obviously violated all three of the main rules for firearm safety. First, he kept the gun loaded when he wasn't intending to use it. (Perhaps the magazine was in the semiautomatic gun, or perhaps the teen forgot or never learned that, even when the magazine is removed, a round might be left in the chamber.) Second, he pointed the gun at something that he didn't intend to shoot. Third, he probably put his finger on the trigger. My guess (assuming that the shooting actually involved a table) is that the teen discharged the gun while placing it on the table. The teen fired the gun, one way or another (again, assuming that the basic story is accurate). The shooting was no accident. It was the result of gross negligence.

[January 17 update: Of course I accept Steve D'Ippolito's statement in the comments: "Some guns are physically defective (or poorly designed) to the point where they will discharge when they get a sufficiently abrupt jolt." However, as D'Ippolito adds, somebody who tosses a loaded (and defective) gun onto a table, such that the muzzle points at a person, is still responsible for the consequences. That said, getting the full truth out of the characters involved may be impossible.]

The three main rules of gun safety can be described as the principles of "gun control:" chamber control, muzzle control, and trigger control. But apparently somebody else neglected the central principle of gun control: always keep your gun under your own control. The teen is manifestly too ignorant and negligent to handle a firearm.

Fortunately, many teens learn about gun safety and shoot responsibly and legally in the company of responsible adults.

Major Changes to AriArmstrong.com and FreeColorado.com

Henceforth, my blog at AriArmstrong.com will be dedicated to issues of religion and culture. Every topic and post will have some significant connection to religion (with the possible occasional exception of announcements regarding the blog) . As my readers know, my perspective is essentially critical of religion per se (though of course I recognize valuable contributions from various religious people).

At the same time, I am converting FreeColorado.com to a blog. All of the content created prior to the blog will remain intact. Every post that I write about politics and cultural issues not directly connected to religion will appear there. The old RSS feed for FreeColorado.com will be discontinued, so readers may switch to the RSS feed connected to the new blog.

Why the changes? I've found that my blogging lacks focus. At AriArmstrong.com, I've been writing about religion, national politics, local politics, films, and so on. While some readers appreciate the range of commentary, others probably favor a narrower range. Now readers who care only about religion and its impact on culture can stick with AriArmstrong.com. Readers interested only in my political commentary can turn to FreeColorado.com. (Hopefully some readers will frequent both blogs. I hope that the the hassle of reading two blogs is minimal, whereas the benefits of separating the content are substantial.) Even though religion is itself an extremely broad topic, my comments at FreeColorado.com will tend to cover an even broader range of issues. For that reason, I've decided to put any (infrequent) personal note there.

Since I started the blog at AriArmstrong.com, I haven't known quite what to do with FreeColorado.com. But it's a great domain name with nearly a decade of history behind it. However, the process of manually updating files has grown wearisome, especially when blogging is so much faster. Now FreeColorado.com will return to its original purpose: hosting commentary mostly about politics, with an emphasis on Colorado. Now, though, I'm more likely to post shorter comments along with more substantive articles, given that posting to a blog is so fast. The amount of commentary appearing at FreeColorado.com should increase substantially over recent weeks.

I plan to substantially change the look of FreeColorado.com over the coming weeks, and I may also make some updates to the design of AriArmstrong.com. Regardless of the look, I hope that readers find the content of both blogs to be interesting and considered (if often controversial).