Denver Post on Guns

Michael Booth and Kevin Simpson have written a surprisingly balanced article about gun ownership for The Denver Post, not a paper to which readers usually look for balance regarding such issues.

Unfortunately, the authors do get some points wrong. My criticisms should not be interpreted as a blanket condemnation of the article, but as a corrective to an article that's largely good.

The authors sound surprised to report that, in handgun safety classes, people spend much of their "class time learning how to avoid actually using a gun." The authors call this a "paradox," but it is the standard orientation of gun owners.

The authors correctly note that those with concealed-carry permits compose an "exceptionally law-abiding group." Unfortunately, the authors misstate the evidence regarding guns and crime. They write: "Gun enthusiasts argue more guns equal less crime... but researchers point to a long-term decline influenced by larger forces and no impact on crime attributable to concealed-carry laws."

It is true that "larger forces" play the bigger role. However, it is simply not true that "researchers" -- suggesting all researchers -- have found no impact of concealed-carry laws. Some researchers have found that concealed-carry reduces crime, others have found that it does not reduce crime, and no researcher has found that concealed carry increases crime.

Moreover, plenty of unassailable research shows that gun ownership reduces "hot" burglaries when the owners are home. John Lott, in addition to running statistical regressions showing that concealed-carry reduces crime, also ran regressions showing that gun ownership generally relates to lower crime, other things equal. (Lott reviews the research regarding guns and crime in The Bias Against Guns and More Guns, Less Crime. Such scholars as Joyce Malcolm, Gary Kleck, Don Kates, and Dave Kopel discuss many other issues including burglary. I review a portion of the evidence in my 2003 article, "Guns and the Media.")

The main problem with the Post's article is that it advocates "middle ground" gun restrictions but does not offer any actual evidence that such restrictions would work. The article ignores the evidence that existing restrictions (such as Brady registration checks) have failed, as well as the well-developed arguments as to why various proposed measures would cause more problems than they solved. For example, the article quotes State Senator Sue Windels, who has offered "lock up your safety" legislation that would demonstrably make homeowners less safe. Instead, the article offers polling data indicating that many people want more restrictions, as though polling data were a substitute for sound arguments. The article thus reveals a deeply pragmatic mindset that assumes a principled, consistent view must be wrong by virtue of the fact that it is principled and consistent, despite the fact that it is also supported by tight logic and robust empirical evidence.

Update on Health Studies

In a February 10 article for The Denver Post, Katy Human wrote, "Children with health insurance, studies have shown, are less likely than uninsured kids to end up in emergency rooms, more likely to get key vaccinations and less likely to be absent from school."

My immediate thought upon reading this claim is that it doesn't indicate the causal relationship. So I asked Human about this, and she replied that the studies "control for factors such as income and education of parents." I wanted to check this and see what else the studies have to say, so I asked Human to provide me with the citations. On February 21 Human sent me a list of studies. Linda Gorman looked into the studies, and then Dave Kopel also took an interest in them. He checked into the studies originally mentioned by Human, looked at other studies as well, and wrote up his results for the March 8 Rocky Mountain News:

None of five studies Human cited after the fact support her article's statement about what "studies have shown" regarding the effects of insurance on emergency room use, vaccinations and school absences. Indeed four of the five studies she cited do not even address those topics (Cousineau, Medical Care, 2008; Skinner, BMC Health Services Research, 2007; Ward, CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 2008; Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, Sept. 7, 2007).

One study cited by Human was relevant, and it directly contradicted her article's claim. The study looked at the effect of providing SCHIP coverage (subsidized insurance for children whose families have too much income to qualify for Medicaid). Emergency room usage "did not change," the study found. (Szilagyi, Pediatrics, 2004).

... [Later] Human supplied two more citations to substantiate her article's claim about emergency rooms. One of the studies was irrelevant, a 2002 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report which reported no data about frequency of emergency room use for the insured and uninsured.

Human supplied another study which did support her claim. William Johnson and Mary Rimsza investigated Yuma County, Ariz., and found that uninsured children there use emergency rooms more often. The Johnson and Rimsza article, published in Pediatrics in 2004, forthrightly acknowledged that four other studies have found that taxpayer-funded insurance for children actually increases emergency room usage, and a fifth study finds that there is no effect. Johnson and Rimsza suggested that results were different in Arizona because the state's medical welfare program links recipients to pediatricians, and having a pediatrician drastically reduces ER visits for both the insured and uninsured.

Of course, a broad correlation between lack of insurance and emergency-room visits is still possible for at least a couple of reasons. First, some people without insurance are more likely to visit the emergency room -- which by law must provide care for no compensation -- for care that is less-expensively offered at the regular doctor's office or at lower-cost clinics. Second -- and this point also applies to vaccinations and school attendance -- parents who purchase health insurance for their children may be more likely to be employed, make more money, have a higher level of education, live in safer neighborhoods and homes, encourage healtheir lifestyles for their children, and insist on regular school attendance. This is a statement only of anticipated averages; many model parents are less wealthy, and many parents pay for their children's health care out of pocket rather than through insurance.

However, the thrust of Human's article was not to reveal correlations regarding health insurance, but to advocate more tax funding for health programs. Everyone can agree that it would be good for more parents to buy health insurance for their children (though insurance as such should move in the direction of high-deductible policies with routine expenses paid out of pocket). But expanded tax subsidies create all sorts of problems with incentives, such as by encouraging some parents to drop private insurance in favor of tax-funded welfare.

It's quite a leap from "insurance for children is good" to "politicians should expand their control of medicine." Indeed, as Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh argue, the proper way to make health-insurance more affordable is to repeal the existing political controls that have made it so expensive.

'Studies Have Shown'

In a February 10 article for The Denver Post, Katy Human wrote, "Children with health insurance, studies have shown, are less likely than uninsured kids to end up in emergency rooms, more likely to get key vaccinations and less likely to be absent from school."

The article promoted tax-funded health programs and included not a word from critics, but I was first interested in Human's claim about the studies. Which studies did she have in mind? I asked Human via e-mail, "Is the lack of insurance causing the problems mentioned, or is the lack of insurance itself a symptom of having poorer and less educated parents (on average)?"

Human responded on February 12:

Oh, I know you know the answer to this, Ari. There are many many many studies on this -- and all, of course, control for factors such as income and education of parents. There are also studies showing before-and-after for same kids and same families, once the families make a change (adding or dropping insurance.)

But what Human did not do is provide me with a single citation regarding these "many many studies." I suppose that at least some of the studies that she had in mind do contain the sorts of controls that she mentioned. However, I wanted to look for myself, not take Human's word on faith. Moreover, not only did I want to see for myself whether the statistical controls are adequate, but I wanted to learn what is the magnitude of difference. How much difference is there between the insured and uninsured?

I asked Human on February 12 and again on February 13 for her citations. I was hardly being overly demanding in my request; I wrote, "You mentioned that there are many such studies; citations for the two or three that you find most persuasive would suffice." This would have taken only a minute or two of Human's time, as obviously she is already familiar with the studies in question.

I have yet to hear back from her.

I suggest that The Denver Post adopt the following policy. If reporters, for lack of space, mention but do not specify studies or other sources, the reporters should be required to provide the names of those studies or sources to interested readers. Otherwise, readers have no way to verify the reliability of the studies or sources.

February 21 Update: In response to this post, Human send me a list of citations:

Here you go. I won't be doing this for you again - you can do it yourself, and I don't have time to repeat these types of searches for everyone who asks.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15121980?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlusDrugs1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18219242?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18045482?ordinalpos=10&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17805222?ordinalpos=9&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

ADULTS: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18096863?ordinalpos=5&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

I replied, "Thanks! However, you are incorrect that I can correctly guess the studies that you have in mind on my own." After all, I am not a mind reader. Moreover, I do not regard my request as an imposition, given that Human already knew which studies she had in mind. I could have spent hours trying to guess the studies to which Human was referring and still not guessed correctly, while it took Human perhaps a minute or two to send me the links.

If Human does not wish to respond to readers about her citations, then she is free to include them briefly within her articles. In this case, all of the links point to the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Including that information would have added seven words to Human's article, including the worlds "by" and "the." Even that brief citation would have pointed readers in the right direction.

I will evaluate the studies within the next couple of days and then discuss the political implications of them. February 22 Update: I've started to work on this, but it will take me some days to write up the results, which I may release with a co-author and perhaps first through another outlet.

A Very Costly Health-Care Solution

The following article originally was published by the Rocky Mountain News:

SPEAKOUT: A very costly health-care solution

By Linda Gorman and Ari Armstrong
Wednesday, January 30, 2008

As the health-care debate unfolds, we hear a lot about cost-shifting, the idea that some people are charged more for health care to make up for the fact that others do not pay. Various legislators, journalists and activists tell us that the state should adopt the Blue Ribbon Commission on Health Care Reform's recommendation to impose an individual mandate and force everyone to buy health insurance in order to end the unfairness of cost-shifting.

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.

Under the commission's plan, people with health insurance would be taxed to subsidize health insurance for single people making as much as $40,000 a year, and families of four making as much as $82,600 a year. Many of these people pay for their own health care now, or have the assets to do so in an emergency.

The commission would also increase cost-shifting by forcing many more people into Medicaid.

Because Medicaid pays so little to providers, Medicaid as a whole generates far more uncompensated care and cost- shifting than the uninsured.

Those who advocate an individual mandate throw up all kinds of numbers to support the wild claims that the proposal would save everyone money. 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 total Colorado expenses for the uninsured of about $1.4 billion. Of that amount, around 45 percent, or $627 million, was paid out-of-pocket by the uninsured themselves.

Private philanthropy covered $197 million. Another $341 million was paid by the Veterans Administration, workers compensation and various public programs.

The leftover uncompensated costs, the ones that are not paid by any identifiable source, total $239 million. Divide $239 million by Colorado's 2.8 million insured residents, and the result is a maximum likely cost-shift of about $85 per insured individual per year.

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.

The sensible way to solve cost-shifting is to reduce health-care costs so that people fund their own health care, not to force people to buy insurance created by special-interest groups or to expand Medicaid. Professor Christopher Conover of Duke University estimates that 10 percent of annual health costs are caused by inefficient regulation. Results from experiments in consumer-directed health-care plans suggest that freeing consumers, providers and insurers can reduce costs by up to 30 percent.

The hostility of the commission to any plans like this was summed up in two votes that took place one after another on the same day. First the commission voted to recommend that the state legislature study single-payer health reform plans. Then it voted not to recommend that the legislature study consumer-directed reforms. While single-payer plans have failed around the world, consumer-directed reforms are succeeding wherever they're given the chance.

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.

March 8, 2008, Update: After reading Dave Kopel's article about citations, it occurred to me that I had not provided the citations for the article above, so here they are, as provided by Linda. The first eight references refer to the "experiments in consumer-directed health-care plans."

1. Willard G. Manning et al. June 1987. “Health Insurance and the Demand for medical Care: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment.” American Economic Review, 77,3, p. 251-275.
* The abstract says “A catastrophic insurance plan reduces expenditures 31 percent relative to zero out-of-pocket price.”
* In the body of the paper they predict expenditures and find that “Mean predicted expenditure in the free care plan is 46 percent higher than in the 95 percent plan…” (p. 260)
2. Agenda, FY 05-06 Joint Budget Committee Hearing, Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, State of Colorado, January 4 and 5 2005. In response to question 32 the Department wrote: Average monthly allocation per client, $3,925. Average monthly expenditure per clint:$3,131 per client. This works out to a monthly saving of 20%.
3. “Full placement feat: HSA helps Wendy’s grill health costs,” Employee Benefit News, June 1, 2006. Gale Infotrak version, record A146476601. Reports that the return on investment for HSA program is 221% due to the fact that health claims costs fell by 14% from 2004 to 2005 and are on track to be 4% less than last year.
4. Silicon Designs experiment in 2005/2006. Lower out-of-pocket costs from employees (4.9 %) Lower company cost, from about 17% of salaries paid to about 15 percent of salaries paid. John Cole. “Report on One Year of Experience with HSAs/HDHPs,” http://www.silicondesigns.com/hsa.pdf. Accessed March 8, 2008.
5. Humana, Inc. June 2005. “Health Care Consumers: Passive or Active? A Three-year Report on Humana’s Consumer Solution.” http://apps.humana.com/marketing/documents.asp?file=519272 accessed March 8, 2008. A report on a three year internal experiment with a consumer directed plan for Humana employees. Cost increases were lower than trend by roughly 15 percent over the two years.
6. Wharam et al. 2007. “Emergency Department Use and Subsequent Hospitalizations Among Members of a High-Deductible Health Plan,” JAMA, 297, 1093-1102. This article looks at ED visits and subsequent rehospitalizations among members of a health plan that switched a fraction of insureds from a traditional HMO to a high deductible plan in 2001-2005. It concludes that ED visits decreased in those switched to high deductible plan with reductions primarily in repeat visits for conditions that were not high severity and in the rate of hospitalizations. It does not conclude anything about spending clinical outcomes.
7. J. Hsu et al. 2006. “Cost-sharing for emergency care and unfavorable clinical events: findings from the safety and financial ramifications of ED copayments study,” Health Services Research, 41, 5, 1801-20. Another study of the effects of copayments on ED use that does not directly address expenditures but does find that ED visits decrease with no apparent health effects when payments range from $20 to $100.
8. John Mackey. October 2004. Whole Foods Market’s Consumer-Driven Health Plan. A speech delivered at the State Policy Network Annual Meeting. Transcript available at http://www.worldcongress.com/news/Mackey_Transcript.pdf.

Christopher J. Conover. October 4, 2004. Health Care Regulation a $169 Billion Hidden Tax, Policy Analysis No. 527, Cato Institute, Washington DC. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa527.pdf

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!

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"

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.