Salary Cap

Income Caps

The solution is obvious what we need is a Celebrity Tax and Income Caps!  I am amazed that no leftists has thought it up yet.  It does seem funny, how these people complain about a growing income gap and seem to focus on creating a welfare state with token dollars thrown at the minimum wage but seem to overlook the contributions their disproportionately high income levels make in creating this “problem.”  I have often written that we should look at increasing the maximum wage, not the minimum and limiting salaries paid to those in the media, entertainment, sports and politics. They are the ones creating the ever increasing disparity in income between themselves and the regular folks.

Scanning the cable for not really news,  Rachael Madcow on MSMBC was griping about the new Trump Tax Bill and telling us that it is the top 1% who are getting the lion’s share of the tax relief.  Well, they do pay the bulk of the taxes don’ they? Rachael… aren’t you in that one-percent?  Why don’t you just ask to just be paid less?

From what I have read, (for example the Tax Foundation website), the top one-percent of all taxpayers (taxpayers with AGI’s [Adjusted Gross Income] of $428,713 and above), earned 19.04 percent of all AGI in 2013, but paid 37.980 percent of all federal income taxes- twice as much taxes as everyone else. In 2013, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the entire bottom 90 percent combined.  Is that fair?

Income Caps and the Celebrity Tax is what is needed!  That is right, maximum income that folks can earn in certain occupations.  That, and perhaps a “celebrity tax.”  How about an 85% Income tax on celebrities? And a cap on just how much money they can earn.

The experts will all tell you that this income divide between poor and middle class and the wealthy has broadened increasingly since the 1970s.  They blame it on greedy corporate CEO’s.  Let’s look at some other reasons why the income gap is expanding.  Let’s look at celebrity incomes during that time period and see if you agree with me.

In fact, if you look at the charts, the gab began in the 1960s. Long around the time Broadway Joe (Namath) was hired by the NY Jets for a shocking $427,000 contract for over three years. That, my friends, should tell you everything you need to know about this bogus “income gap.” That was 1965.

I read somewhere, that in 1937, Henry Fonda earned a grand total of $56,208. A sizable chunk,  I would add because many people earned around $800 that same year or just a bit over 1% of Mr. Fonda’s income, but he did not earn hundreds of millions a year.  Let’s just say that the average income is $40,000, (The Urban Institute has defined the middle class as adults with size-adjusted household incomes of between $30,000 and $100,000 for families of three).  Look up the number of celebrities earning around one hundred million dollars a year and see if you agree with me where this growing income gap is coming from.

Don’t any of these Antifa radicals get it?  The very people they worship are the people creating the income gap.  How many hundreds of millions of dollars have ungrateful celebrities given to their communities?  Seriously, what percentage of their inflated earnings do they part with?  A very, very small percentage I can guarantee you.  Leftists… do the math.  And don’t get me going on hedge funds. These people, like George Soros earn their money by making others loose theirs,  not by making things for others to use.

I hold no grudge against the “barons of industry” that earn tens of millions, even billions providing goods and services… products that make our lives better.  My laissez faire attitude, ends when these people play the system, running the economy into the ground while short selling their stocks and taking multi-million severance payouts in the process.  George Soros, for example, initially gained his wealth by breaking national economies and, in the process, making millions of people very, very poor.  These people have no business creating such a widening income disparity. They talk from both sides of their mouths. They need to surrender up to 95% of their earnings as a tax, and have their earning power capped just like a carpenter or other unionized worker.

How many politicians (especially the liberal ones) have increased their wealth by hundreds of millions of dollars while “in service” to this country?  Does this not contribute to that dreaded, ever growing income gap?

Do the math. Set term limits. Set income limits on politicians who also have become celebrities in the process. They should pay the 85% celebrity tax on these earnings.  Maybe a 95% Political Office Tax?

How about that celebrity tax? Rachael Madcow’s annual earnings is around $7 million.  How about Morning Joe… Chris Mathews… Lester Holt?  All in the several million dollars a year bracket.  Do the research.

Income gaps are created because economies grow and more and more people earn more and more money.  If they were not permitted to do so, why would they bother?  If someone is responsible for a corporation that has implications globally, they deserve to be wealthy in my book.  However, not if they make a living creating havoc, perhaps acting, singing, etc or playing a game while spreading, in the process, unrest and misinformation and complaining about the very economic system and country that affords them the opportunity to do so.  How about these people “self-capping” their incomes and being taxed at a special rate?


Weaker In Review 7-24-2017


Random Oddservations™  I saw a commercial for the TBS TV series  “People of Earth.”  It had Neal De Grasse Tyson as the main character “wondering” about things.  I wonder how much he got paid for it- since he hasn’t had a regular job, released a new book or held a teaching position in such a long time

Weaker in Review

1) Heritage database proves voter fraud is real Just follow the links at:
President Trump’s commission to investigate instances of voter fraud will hold its first meeting Wednesday. Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow in Heritage’s Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, has been appointed to the commission that is chaired by Vice President Mike Pence. Spakovsky will be presenting and highlighting Heritage’s voter fraud database, which now has a total of 1,071 instances of voter fraud catalogued. Jason Snead, a policy analyst in Heritage’s Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, recently detailed some of the database findings. “Some Americans believe voter fraud is essentially a non-issue,” says Snead. “They insist voting irregularities seldom occur and are almost always accidental. Hard evidence, however, proves this is wishful thinking. Voter fraud is a more widespread, frequent and serious problem than many people are willing to admit.” Read the op-ed and explore the database.

2) We are seeing an unprecedented shift in the way our government handles public science. Scientists are being censored – they are no longer able to freely communicate their research with the media and the public. New government policies have the potential to suppress public science by making it harder for government scientists to publish their work and collaborate with scientists outside of government.

Books and websites you need to avoid:   “Getting the Facts Straight: A Viewer’s Guide to PBS’s Evolution”.  Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute Press, 2001.  And  “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” by Stephen C. Meyer; Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117 (2004): 213–39. Available online at: .

Rock-It™    Chick Corea

The Correct Side of the Story

Review of Book

Editorial Reviews Review

Clifford Stoll loves computers. He loves them so much he even converted his old outdated Macintosh into an aquarium rather than put it out with the trash. What this veteran programmer and self-made social critic doesn’t love, however, is “the cult of computing”–the “blind faith that technology will deliver a cornucopia of futuristic goodies without extracting payment in kind.”

In particular, Stoll hates the way computer cultists have infiltrated America’s schools, and in High Tech Heretic–a straight-talking, fast-moving broadside of a book–he aims every argument in his arsenal at the widespread belief that computers are the greatest educational invention since chalk. While he’s at it, he also takes some potshots at the hype about virtual community, the Internet economy, and the death of the book, as well as the scourges of buggy software, ugly hardware, and PowerPoint.

Stoll’s contrarianism is so wide-ranging he sometimes flails as he rushes to keep up with himself. But for the most part he hits his targets dead on. Stoll’s chatty style and cracker-barrel wit (both of which occasionally grate) seem tailored to convince you he’s just talking home-spun common sense, yet he’s obviously done his research. Whether he’s quoting Thomas Edison’s predictions for that great educational tool, “the motion picture” (“in a few years it will supplant largely, if not entirely, the use of textbooks”) or breaking down the grim budgetary implications of the high-tech school system (more computers means fewer teachers, music rooms, and books), Stoll’s choice factual details–and spirited indignation–blow holes in the pretensions of the digital age. –Julian Dibbell

From Publishers Weekly

Stoll’s first book, The Cuckoo’s Egg, an exhilarating account of how he brought down a ring of computer hackers, was a 1989 bestseller. By 1995’s Silicon Snake Oil, he’d become a digital apostate. He reiterates many of the points made in his second book here, focusing on the increasingly widespread use of computers in nurseries, preschools, classrooms and libraries. Throwing down the gauntlet in his introduction, he states, “I believe that a good school needs no computers. And a bad school won’t be much improved by even the fastest Internet links. That a good teacher can handle her subject without any multimedia support…. That students, justifiably, recognize computer assignments primarily as entertainment, rather than education.” In the first half of the book, he explains and justifies these beliefs: computers are expensive, quickly become obsolete and require maintenance by an expensive technical staff, usually paid for by eliminating other services (e.g., money for Internet connectivity sometimes comes from library budgets). He contends that computers and calculators work against familiarity with numbers, learning basic arithmetic and an understanding of algebra. Distance learning is a high-tech successor to correspondence schools, and neither has the impact or fascination of live courses, he believes. Stoll takes society’s responsibility to educate children seriously, but his excessively anecdotal approach weakens his arguments, which would have been bolstered by a short bibliography. Still, there is much useful ammunition here for parents who share Stoll’s views. (Oct.)
Clifford Stoll



Clifford Stoll gained worldwide attention as a cyberspace sleuth when he wrote his bestselling book, The Cuckoo’s Egg: Tracking a Spy Through the Maze of Computer Espionage, the page-turning true story of how he caught a ring of hackers who stole secrets from military computer systems and sold them to the KGB. He has become a leading authority on computer security, presenting to the CIA, NSA and the U.S. Senate. His lecture presentations are energetic and entertaining, and showcase Clifford’s dry wit and penetrating views. Clifford Stoll is a commentator for MSNBC and an astronomer at the University of California Berkeley.

The Cuckoo’s Egg inspired a whole category of books on capturing computer criminals. He began by investigating a 75-cent error in time billing for the university computer lab for which he was systems manager and ended up uncovering a ring of industrial espionage. Working for a year without support from his employers or the government, he eventually tracked the lead to a German spy hacking into American computer networks involved with national security and selling the secrets to the KGB for money and cocaine.

Since catching the “Hanover Hacker” (Hanover, West Germany), Stoll has become a leading expert on computer security and has given talks for both the CIA and the National Security Agency, as well as the U.S. Senate.

Stoll is also the author of two engaging and counter-intuitive critiques of technology’s role in culture written in his trademark quiet and folksy style full of droll wit and penetrating insights. In Silicon Snake Oil: Second Thoughts on the Information Highway, Stoll, who has been netsurfing for fifteen years, does an about-face, warning that the promises of the Internet have been oversold and that we will pay a high price for its affects on real human interaction. High Tech Heretic: Why Computers Don’t Belong in the Classroom and Other Reflections by a Computer Contrarian asks readers to check the assumptions that dominate our thinking about technology and the role of computers, especially in our classrooms. As one who loves computers as much as he disdains them, he admits to being deeply ambivalent about computers, and questions the role of networks in our culture.

Who Am I

I will soon turn 68 years old and I just heard this song from long, long ago.  Read the lyrics and click on the group’s name to listen to it. You may remember them for  “Fixin-to-Die-Rag”  Or maybe not, but it was the rallying cry at many concerts during the Vietnam War period.  (Warning, that song has what may be considered vulgar language).

Who Am I

Country Joe and the Fish

Who am I
To stand and wonder, to wait
While the wheels of fate
Slowly grind my life away.
Who am I?

There were some things that I loved one time.
But the dreams are gone I thought were mine.
And the hidden tears that once could fall
Now burn inside at the thought of all
The years of waste, the years of crime
Passions of a heart so blind;
To think that, but even still
As I stand exposed, my feelings are felt
And I cry into the echo of my loneliness.

Who am I
To stand and wonder, to wait
While the wheels of fate
Slowly grind my life away.
Who am I?

What a nothing I’ve made of life
The empty words, the coward’s plight
To be pushed and passed from hand to hand
Never daring to speak, never daring to stand
And the emptiness of my family’s eyes
Reminds me over and over of lies
And promises and deeds undone
And now again I want to run
But now there is nowhere to run to.

Who am I
To stand and wonder, to wait
While the wheels of fate
Slowly grind my life away.
Who am I?

And now my friend we meet again
We shall see which one will bend
Under the strain of death’s golden eyes
Which one of us shall win the prize
To live and which one will die
‘Tis I, my friend, yes ’tis I
Shall kill to live again and again
To clutch the throat of sweet revenge
For life is here only for the taking.

Who am I
To stand and wonder, to wait
While the wheels of fate
Slowly grind my life away.
Who am I? Who am I?

All but the third verse applies to me (well maybe parts of the third does apply in some ways).

So, I have decided to become introspective- WHO AM I.  So let us define the word introspection: the examination or observation of one’s own mental and emotional processes.  But what does that even mean?  Well, let us turn to our friendly, ever ready Wikipedia: In psychology the process of introspection relies exclusively on observation of one’s mental state, while in a spiritual context it may refer to the examination of one’s soul. Introspection is closely related to human self-reflection and is contrasted with external observation.

Introspection generally provides a privileged access to our own mental states, not mediated by other sources of knowledge, so that individual experience of the mind is unique. Introspection can determine any number of mental states including: sensory, bodily, cognitive, emotional and so forth.

Introspection has been a subject of philosophical discussion for thousands of years.  The philosopher Plato asked, “…why should we not calmly and patiently review our own thoughts, and thoroughly examine and see what these appearances in us really are?”

OK, so I will discuss the mental states as I feel they apply to me.

Let u first examine the mental state of my sensory system.  This consists of sensory neurons (including the sensory receptor cells), neural pathways, and parts of the brain involved in sensory perception.  Commonly recognized sensory systems are those for vision, hearing, touch, taste, smell, and balance.  Therefore, senses are transducers from the physical world to the realm of the mind where we interpret the information, creating our perception of the world around us.  Nevertheless, I would not say it is of the entire world, just those portions of the world that we are within our physical sphere from time to time.

Vision is to be expected from one my age.  I had a macular hole repaired, the glaucoma seemed to have cleared up, a couple of cataracts and the vision is just going bad slowly.  Some people may say that my vision clouds my perception of things I believe or understand about the world, but that really has nothing to do with sight.  So how else did my perceptions arise?

Bodily sense.  I am aware of my surroundings, I know what year it is and who the President is.  I do seem to be bumping into things more, find myself afraid of dropping things- so I use plastic cups instead of glass ones these days.  I enjoy touching- maybe I wasn’t touched enough as a child?  Who knows, and how to prove or disprove it would be troublesome, so let us just be neutral on this one.  I do enjoy stroking and caressing the warm flesh of the lovely women next to me at night.  My hands seem to be in constant motion and that is not due to the Parkinson’s disease I have been diagnosed with recently.  They have some interesting “herky-jerky” pills for that.  Of course, my feet always seem to be playing a base drum also, but when I was in the 6th grade, drum lessons didn’t go over very well with me, which may be the cause of some of the “left-out” feelings I seemed to pick up from my Dad after that- he spent a lot of money at a time when it was scarce. I guess he thought he saw something in me that I didn’t fulfill.  Of course, from what I remember, we had a Hammond Organ in the house and my younger brother tried the trumpet for a while and my youngest brother played the piccolo or clarinet or something sissy like that.  Then again, is “rhythm” sensory or bodily?

This next one is a dozy!  Cognition:  “the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.”  It encompasses processes such as knowledge, attention, memory and working memory, judgment and evaluation, reasoning and “computation”, problem solving and decision making, comprehension and production of language, etc.  Human cognition is conscious and unconscious, concrete or abstract, as well as intuitive (like knowledge of a language) and conceptual (like a model of a language).  Cognitive processes use existing knowledge and generate new knowledge.

  • Knowledge: has been discussed by every notable and non-notable philosopher that has come down the road. All I can say is it appears to be different for everyone, even if it is about the same thing.
  • Attention:

I have been forced to stand at it a couple of times, but I do not think that is what this topic is about.  It is more usually thought of as the ability or power to keep the mind on something; the ability to concentrate. I give myself a C grade on that.  I have a hard time in social settings with paying attention- when talking with others I always seem to understand what the conversation is and can pretty much guess what will be said by the next person.  Maybe that comes from playing so much chess when younger. However, when I find something interesting, I can block out everything and concentrate on just that one item to the point I may get angry with others trying to interfere with my concentration.

  • Memory and working memory:

is the faculty of the mind by which information is encoded, stored, and retrieved.  Memory is vital to experiences and related to limbic systems (The limbic system supports a variety of functions including emotion, behavior, motivation, long-term memory, and olfaction), it is the retention of information over time for the purpose of influencing future action.  If we could not remember past events, we could not learn or develop language, relationships, nor personal identity.  They make is so difficult.  Short term memory, probably having problems with it, but what do you expect at my age.  Sure, I forget what it was I just wanted to do, or where I just placed something- but it all works out –eventually.  I know I have suppressed many childhood memories remembering very few (mainly those that were dramatic).  I have no desire to undergo hypnosis for regression therapy.  I do remember virtually everything that has happened in my life (with some drug induced gaps) since the death of my Dad in 1968.  After that, my memory is pretty straight on and it has certainly pissed off a number of individuals.

  • Judgment and evaluation:

the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions.  Well, I have never been accused of that- especially recently. Most of the time, I am told my conclusions are false, rigid, based upon stories told and retold by young alcoholics or grain drug addicts from old Jerusalem. However, that just deals with my philosophy of life and personal beliefs.  As far as plain judgment and evaluation and sensible conclusions- I have gotten better, but can still be faulted.  A lot of the time, I am wrong, but that is because the others are always right no matter how wrong they may be.  I have an uncanny knack for giving in to the ones around me.  I do not like to argue so I just give up and do what the others say instead of sticking to my desires.  It causes far less fights and arguments but can also be the cause of a perception of weakness on my part.  I blame it on my childhood and belief that if any women gives me a second look she deserves to be on the pedestal I put her on.  So yes, I still f**k up at times.

  • reasoning (the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way)


and “computation” (Computation is any type of calculation that follows a well-defined model understood and expressed as, for example, an algorithm).  Well, finally something I excel in.  At least I believe I do.  I can take a set of information and come up with ideas derived from it hat nobody else can. That is what made me one of the top software and databased designers in the Permian Basin. I look at information from an entirely different means and matter than others seem to do.  I have had the ability to find information that others thought was lost and to locate and expand information that has given my customers a competitive advantage over others.  Therefore, this is my strong point.

  • problem solving (Problem solving consists of using generic or ad hoc methods, in an orderly manner, for finding solutions to problems) and decision making

Several of the above states are a combination of mental representations and propositional attitudes.  There are several paradigmatic states of mind that an agent has: love, hate, pleasure and pain, and attitudes toward propositions such as: believing that, conceiving that, hoping and fearing that, etc.  A lot of this falls under doxastic justification a form of philosophy that I had not covered since first year in college- back in 1969.

But with some much covered and so much more to think about, I guess I can answer the original question “Who am I”:  nobody in particular.

I don’t want to pay for your sex life

If your sex life is none of my business, stop demanding that I finance it

A lot of people have been offering their, um, feedback, to a couple of things I tweeted over the past week or so. And when I say “feedback” I mean that an angry mob numbering in the thousands descended upon my social media feeds and email inbox like rabid hyenas, eager to inform me that I’m awful, evil, ugly, fat, old, stupid, [expletive], [expletive], [expletive] [expletive] [expletive], etc., and because of this I should die, my wife should die, my children should die, everyone who has ever said a kind word to me should burn to death in a house fire, and my kids, who should already be dead, should also somehow become gay and transgender and pregnant so that karmic justice may be visited upon me, a bigot and a Nazi who is literally worse than a millions Hitlers combined.

Of the thousands of responses I received since Friday, easily 95 percent of them consisted of some combination of these. Because of my unspeakable tweets, I have been objectively described as an “anti-LGBTQ bigot” in the headlines of news articles. So far as I know, nobody who has written an article

matter-of-factly calling me a bigot took the time to reach out to me first, but I suppose if I’d followed the clearly outlined instructions of the leftist Tolerance Brigade, I should have killed myself by now anyway. I guess they assumed I wouldn’t be able to comment because I’d be too busy playing Backgammon with my friend Adolf in Hell.

I say all of this not to paint myself as a victim but to again drive home the point that the people who preach the loudest about “acceptance” and “tolerance” are often the least likely to demonstrate those qualities when the opportunity presents itself. I think this is an important point not because it exposes them as hypocrites — although it does that, for certain — but because it exposes “acceptance” and “tolerance” as faux virtues.

Nobody on Earth accepts and tolerates everything, nor should they. Things should only be accepted and tolerated if they are acceptable and tolerable. Liberals deny that any standard of acceptability and tolerability can be imposed, yet they have no problem ruthlessly imposing such standards themselves. So it isn’t that conservatives are less tolerant than liberals, it’s that we have different ideas about what is tolerable. Liberals clearly believe that my ideas and my very existence are intolerable, proving that they do not actually consider tolerance a universal principle. They’re right. It’s not.

With that established, I’d like to elaborate on the two horrible things I said on Twitter which caused such an absurd backlash.

First, provoking the ire of our nation’s feminists, I said this:

“If you actually cannot afford birth control then you are not nearly mature or responsible enough to be having sex in the first place.”

Second, unrelated and actually from a week before, in reference to the man who was just named spokesmodel for Maybelline but intended as a general comment about men who reject their masculine nature in order to appropriate femininity, I said this:

“Dads, this is why you need to be there to raise your sons.”

I already elaborated on that second point. I’ll have more to say about it later, but I’m going to start with the birth control topic. I should stipulate upfront and for the record that I issue no apology for either statement, neither am I interested in “explaining myself.” Myself is irrelevant. I’m not the topic here. I don’t really care if you think I’m a horrible person, but I do care about the issues at hand. If I’m given an opportunity to go further into depth about them, I will gladly take it.

So, birth control then. A few points:

1. If you aren’t prepared to deal with the natural consequences of sex, you should not be having sex.

I do wish I’d worded my birth control tweet differently, but not for the reason everyone thinks. My fear is that if you isolate that statement and don’t consider it within the larger context of the conversation about the supposed “right” to birth control (more on that in a moment), you might think I’m suggesting that birth control is a prerequisite to sexual activity. It may seem that I’m saying it’s inherently responsible to use birth control and only those who use it should have sex. The people who’ve been blowing up my inbox for the past 72 hours certainly did not interpret it that way — they were angry for quite a different reason — but I could see how someone might.

In truth, I believe that the responsible thing is to have sex only when you are open to the life it may create and in a position where that potential life will be afforded the stability and security it deserves. It is not easy to save sex for its proper context, which is marriage, and I’m not saying that everyone who fails in this regard is an evil scumbag, but it is nonetheless the right and proper way. The prerequisite for sex ought to be marriage. That’s not a statement of personal moral superiority — again, I’m not the topic, I don’t matter — but simply a statement of a moral and social reality.

One of the problems with birth control is that it separates and isolates the pleasure of the sexual act from its life giving potential. That has led to two giant misconceptions: 1) That it’s somehow a “mistake” when the natural consequences of the sexual act are fully realized. 2) That we all have the right to experience sex free from those natural consequences.

No such mistake exists. No such right exists. Sex, like anything else, has a nature and a purpose. We can attempt to manipulate its nature and suppress its purpose, but we cannot fundamentally change its nature and purpose. When we have sex, whether we are using contraception or not, we are doing something that by its very nature may create human life. Therefore, it stands to reason, we should only engage in it when we are prepared to fully embrace that nature. A person who acts shocked and appalled by the natural consequence of sex is like a person with a peanut allergy who acts shocked and appalled when he breaks into hives after consuming a PB&J. What did you think was going to happen? If you can’t handle peanut butter, don’t eat peanut butter. If you can’t handle a kid, don’t have sex. This is rather simple, I think. Not easy, no, but simple.

I realize the above analogy is flawed because nobody is actually allergic to kids (although all parents have moments when they strongly suspect otherwise). Maybe the better analogy would be to someone who eats peanut butter despite strongly disliking peanut butter, and then reacts with surprise and offense at the objectionable flavor he deliberately subjected his taste buds to. Or maybe there really isn’t any appropriate analogy to be drawn between sex and peanut butter. Well, you get my point anyway.

2. Stop whining about how “unaffordable” birth control is.

Now we get to the crux of my Hitler-esque tweet. We hear this constant moaning about how birth control is so very difficult to obtain and afford, and, the argument goes, this is why the government should provide it. I find it somewhat awkward to discuss this aspect of the birth control debate because I’m not actually interested in giving anyone advice on how to get birth control. As I’ve stated, I think you should just get married and have some kids and stop worrying about it. I have three of ’em myself. They’re not so bad, I promise.

But because this “unaffordable” myth is used to push government funding of contraception, I do think it needs to be addressed on its own merits. And that’s where I say you are clearly not mature enough or competent enough to have sex in the first place if you are the sort of person who wants contraception but cannot figure out how or where to get it. Condoms can be found everywhere and they’re dirt cheap. Generic birth control pills can run you 20 bucks a month or less. Then there are free birth control methods such as abstinence or Natural Family Planning. Can’t afford it? Sorry, I don’t buy it. And by “it” I mean your argument and your birth control.

Yes, there are more expensive methods. Maybe your insurance will cover those. Maybe it won’t. Either way, that’s not my concern as a taxpayer. Besides, saying “you can’t afford birth control” because you can’t afford the most expensive variety is like saying you can’t afford a TV because you can’t afford a 60 inch smart LED. You may not be able to afford the exact TV you want, but you can probably afford a lesser model. And if you really can’t afford any at all, you’ll live. People survive without TVs. People survive without birth control.

Yes, there are people who use the Pill for reasons separate from preventing birth. I’m not talking about those cases. We are discussing birth control. If you are on some program of hormonal treatment for, say, endometriosis, then you are taking medication for a physical disorder. If you’re taking birth control exclusively for a reason that does not include contraception, then you are not really taking birth control. You may be taking a substance that can also be used as birth control, but for you it is actual medicine for a legitimate medical issue. So when I speak of birth control I speak only of the cases where it’s used primarily or exclusively to prevent the birth of a child (which is about 86 percent of cases, according to a hard left advocacy group). If you are using such a method but not for such a purpose, then I would submit that you are not using birth control at all. Just as it wouldn’t be fair to compare you to a heroin junkie just because your doctor prescribed you OxyContin. Although, even here, I don’t think the government should pay for it. A lot of women have told me that they take birth control to regulate their periods. Well, frankly, that’s not my responsibility to finance either. But it’s a separate discussion.

Those cases aside, birth control — that is, contraception intended to contravene in the sexual act — is not necessarily expensive nor is it difficult to come by. I could find contraception at Walgreens for less than the cost of a Mountain Dew if I wanted to. I don’t want to, but I could. It strikes me that so many young, college educated women act as though they are utterly powerless to control whether a human is conceived in their womb unless the government subsidizes their contraception. If they are in fact so confused and incompetent, sex should be the last thing on their agenda. Perhaps they should learn to be functional adults before they hop in bed with anyone. Maybe consult a life coach or a financial planner? I don’t know. Please just talk to someone.

3. If your sex life is none of my business, stop asking me to finance it.

You’ll notice that the modern liberal spends all day shoving her sex life in your face, demanding that you accept it, celebrate it, fund it, but then when you refuse on any of those fronts, she immediately shrieks that you should “mind your business” and “stay out of her bedroom,” etc. Well, we would love nothing more than to mind our business, but you have made that impossible by defining “minding one’s business” as “the act of financing the sexual exploits of complete strangers.”

Liberals insist that contraception be provided to them dozens of different ways — through federal mandates, at schools, at free clinics, so on and so on — and if they fail to take advantage of these entitlements, abortion clinics must be maintained with tax money as an Option B. They want us to subsidize the drugs that make it possible for them to have frivolous sex, and subsidize the institutions that violently destroy the children that may still be conceived as a consequence of that frivolous sex. They want us intimately involved, it seems, every step of the way. The only thing they haven’t asked us to do is foot the bill for the lingerie and the motel room.

That was a crude and gross joke, they’ll tell me. Well this is a crude and gross situation. It’s crude and gross that they make their personal contraceptive methods into a matter of public concern even as they say it’s nobody’s concern but their own. Liberals are right now in a state of panic that the contraception mandate and Planned Parenthood funding may go away at once. If they weren’t shameless hypocrites, they’d be rejoicing. Freedom, finally! They want us out of the way, out of their bedrooms, their sex lives, their bodies, yet they’re sent into an apocalyptic panic at the thought that they just may get their wish. Might that indicate that it was never really their wish at all?

I would love nothing more than for their sex lives to truly be none of my business. But as long as you’re using my money, it will be my business how it’s spent. Don’t like it? Then get your hand out of my wallet and take charge of your own affairs. You’ll be better off, trust me. We all will.

The President still doesn’t know what he is saying



It’s no secret that President Barack Obama has idolized Martin Luther King throughout his presidency. In fact, Obama has long lauded King’s well-known principle that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

The outgoing president likes the quote so much that he had it woven into a rug in the Oval Office in 2010. However, according to Michael Wear, who directed faith outreach for Obama’s 2012 re-election bid, the president has been taking the phrase out of context “to bless a whole range of political solutions.”

It is important to note, too, that King was not the first to share the quote about “the arc of the moral universe.” The phrase was actually coined by 19th-century abolitionist Theodore Parker. Obama faced criticism when he unveiled the West Wing rug for wrongly attributing the quote to King instead of Parker.

Wear told The Daily Beast’s Matt Lewis that it is abundantly apparent that, when King delivered the line, he was not sharing a political revelation, but a spiritual one.

“It’s very clear that, apart from Jesus Christ, the idea of a moral arc of the universe was inconceivable to King,” Wear said. “It only made sense within the context of a declarative faith statement.”

And Wear made a pretty good case when he shared King’s quote in its entirety:

Evil may so shape events that Caesar will occupy a palace and Christ a cross, but that same Christ will rise up and split history into A.D. and B.C., so that even the life of Caesar must be dated by his name. Yes, “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

In its reclaimed state, as a political precept rather than a spiritual one, many on both sides of the aisle have taken issue with the quote, according to Lewis:

The idea is not universally beloved. Some liberal activists fear it might be interpreted by some as a suggestion that hard work is pointless (since history is on their side), and conservatives have at least two problems with it. First, conservatives point out that bad ideas (Nazism, for example) are not predestined to lose, but rather, must be beaten back through violent force. Second, conservatives object to the notion that (in President Obama’s world, at least) their policies are sometimes cast as being “on the wrong side of history.”

“Politicians can do a lot to sort of give us a lot of things to hope for,” Wear said, adding, “It has now lost its meaning. It’s politicized and people apply it [as if to say], ‘We passed tax reform and now it’s about the moral arc of the universe.’”

However, though Wear takes issue with Obama’s usage of the famous King quote, he is still a big fan of the commander-in-chief. During his conversation with Lewis, Wear pushed back against those who accuse Obama of not being devoutly Christian.

“I’ve prayed with the man,” he said. “I’ve been with him when he’s talked about his Christian faith in public and private settings. It has been disheartening for me to see folks that have no personal experience with him discount his profession of faith based on criteria that they would never hold people in their own congregations to.”

Wear went on to say that Obama’s detractors would be “surprised” by how much the president has talked about “the saving grace of Jesus and what Jesus accomplished on the cross” in speeches he’s delivered to Christian leaders over the years.