To have a functioning society, we expect the government to provide a framework allowing us to go about our everyday lives without fear for the safety of our families, property, or ourselves and protect the vast majority from those seeking to threaten or restrict us. 

In our Republic, we’re supposed to let the majority rule on most things while protecting minorities or individuals from the “tyranny of the majority.” The fear of even transitory majorities taking advantage of others led to the promise of history’s first written protections even against the majority to gain acceptance of our Constitution—the first ten amendments, known as the” Bill of Rights,” allayed fears. These protections are a large part of the genius of our constitutional government.

Minorities take over our streets, making many parts of our cities disastrous. Minorities commit crimes with small or no price. Too much of a good thing can make you sick. In many cases today, the tail wags the dog.

How did our protection of minorities and even individuals morph into a “tyranny of the minority”? In his book “Rules for Radicals, ” community organizer Saul Alinsky proposed a rule that makes “the enemy live up to their own rules.” This rule has meant appealing to the majority’s best nature to lure the majority to bend to your will.

Continue reading →

In the past, I’ve said bureaucracies are a form of permanent government. The FBI, CIA, and IRS wield immense power. No matter who we elect, these people stay and can have an agenda. If these organizations use their capabilities to affect the choice of their nominal elected masters, democracy is in trouble.

These organizations attempted to interfere in the last two presidential elections. If we didn’t know it already from the years-long Mueller investigation turned up no evidence of collusion between Donald Trump and Russia, the recently released Durham Report details how the FBI pursued a case that originated in the Hillary Clinton Campaign with no factual basis.

The Mueller investigation cast a pall over the early years of the Trump administration. Bias towards one political party and its candidate is a central theme in the Durham report. However, it didn’t cost Trump a narrow 2016 win.

We can’t say the same about the 2022 election. The New York Post broke the Hunter Biden laptop story a few weeks before the election, indicating at least highly unethical behavior on the part of the Biden Family. Within 48 hours, 51 former intelligence senior people signed and released a letter claiming it looked like a Russian operation. The letter received wide media circulation, while some media outlets banned linking to the New York Post Story. Biden used the letter to blunt Trump’s attempt to bring up what was found on Hunter Biden’s laptop in the last debate before the election.

The FBI had the computer for months and had to know if it was Hunter Biden’s and if the contents were genuine. The Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, said there was no evidence of a link between Russia and the laptop; he received little press notice. FBI Director Christopher Wray’s silence was deafening. 

Continue reading →

Many in the media cheered on Dominion’s defamation suit against Fox News. They reveled in embarrassing emails showing some Fox on-air personalities doubted the Trump camp’s assertions of rigging voting machines. Going to trial might’ve produced even more damaging information on Fox and billions in damages, destroying the network.

Fox and Dominion settled out of court $787.5 million. Some were relieved it was over before Fox suffered more significant damage while cutting off the harm disappointed others. Both sides will rue this settlement.

The crux of Dominion’s case is Fox’s on-air opinion people allowed Trump representatives to make false assertions about Dominion voting machines on their programs. Emails showed some Fox luminaries had grave doubts about the Trump camp’s position. To them, his case was unsupported by facts. 

None of the Fox people questioning the Trump position were experts in the field. Being Fox News, many favored Trump’s re-election and expected to give his lawyers the space to make their case. Their opinion is just that, opinion. In any case, a president’s attornies and representatives making claims is news. Controversy is their business.

Let both sides present their case and let the viewers decide.

Fox on-air personality Maria Bartiromo never hid the fact she favored Trump and gave the Trump people space on her shows to present their case. She also invited the Dominion CEO to present his side. He refused.

As with most controversies, People in media can have mixed thoughts on the fairness of elections. In the future, differing opinions may be limited in media for fear of being sued. The last thing we need to do is cut off discussion.

Recently we’ve had ongoing controversies over the Covid vaccines—people such as Alex Berenson and now Presidential candidate Robrt Kennedy Jr. cast a critical eye on them. I praised Berenson’s original book on the Covid lockdowns but was startled by his subsequent book disparaging the vaccines. It turns out Berenson was right to point out the vaccines didn’t prevent covid spread, as I and so many wrongly assumed. 

Kennedy has a long history of opposing vaccines. However, in some circumstances, his opposition to the covid Vaccines is on firm ground. However, he is polling 20% for the Democratic presidential nomination. One could see it as a stopped clock is right twice a day, but he made some excellent points. Shouldn’t he be heard?

Continue reading →

Lately, I have written a lot about unintended consequences. An investment background taught me always to remember what could go wrong. Balancing factors affecting the present and the future provides not only a gauge if a move is going well but when your assumptions are incorrect. Focusing only on rewards ignores the risk-reward ratio.

 The earlier you admit when you’re wrong, the less you lose. Let your successes run on the right calls and cut losses short when you’re wrong. Being human, we will be wrong sometimes. It’s how we handle it that determines overall success. 

Two disparate things have such apparent unintended consequences, and we need to discuss them before we do significant harm—first, the rush to impose electric cars. The second is the Fox-Dominion settlement. 

While many of the same drawbacks exist in the government’s headlong push into solar and wind power, autos occupy a special place in our lives. The second-largest purchase for most of us, we have a more intimate relationship with our cars. Few know what we pay per kilowatt of electricity, but we see the gas price.

Under the proposed Environmental Protection Agency rules could require 67% of all new vehicles sold in 2032 to be all-electric. This rule is industrial policy run amok. Even if you think the actions we take here in the U.S. will have a meaningful effect on the earth’s temperature (and it won’t), this action has a real possibility of being a costly boondoggle.

Electric vehicles (E.V.s) are competitive with gas-powered ones only when you get a substantial government subsidy and run it for many years. Even this computation may be off when you figure out E.V. battery life.

Continue reading →