We, of course, expected cries of war mongers about our position on Iran, but we stand by it. The alternative is far worse.  On the other hand, people who might agree with our stand on zero tolerance for rioters in Baltimore or anywhere else, still ask what would you do about the underlying problems that lead to these protests?  In order to  provide answers we have to move from commentary to actual policy proposals.  To do so, we need help from some notables both living and dead.  The first one we turned to was President Obama who when faced with a long entrenched policy he felt was at a dead end said ” I do not believe we can keep doing the same thing for over five decades and expect a different result.”  While he said in reference to Cuba, the point was well taken. Instead of doing the same unsuccessful things decade after decade, it just might be worthwhile to head in a different direction.  Baltimore like many other of our cities have had one party rule for decades.  That means a certain political philosophy has governed the decisions and the general direction that have brought them to their present deplorable state.  Democrats who ruled all these years, adhere to a big government creed that goes back to the great depression.  Then It received its economic gravitas from John Maynard Keynes who proposed that government action could ameliorate the negative aspects of the business cycle.  After his passing, like minded economists such as John Kenneth Galbraith expanded on this government primacy philosophy to a system where government was the supreme arbitrator between Capital, represented by Big Business, and Labor represented the unions.  On the level of cities like Baltimore this has come to mean unaccountable positions for public employee unions, such as the police and teachers unions. They provide the money and reliable voters to for democrat politicians to prevail. The cost is unfunded pensions and an inability to fire bad or unproductive employees.  Businesses close to City Hall get contracts, zoning and tax breaks in return for their support.  How else can you explain more than 2 billion dollars Stimulus money not making any notable difference in Baltimore’s major problems in education,employment and overall economic growth.  Only the politicians, crony capitalists and unions seem to  made out.  Freddie Gray’s Sandtown-Winchester  neighborhood just continued its downward spiral. John Maynard Keynes was never without contemporaries who pointed to a different path forward.  Chief among them was Friedrich von Hayek, who saw this government dominance as leading us down “the Road to Serfdom” in the book by that name.  Later the Neo–Keynesians moved us further down this road, but also had opposition and one who stood out was Milton Friedman along with his collaborator wife  Rose.  From Ronald Reagan to today’s majority of the Nations Governors, his smaller government individual centered way forward has offered an alternative to the philosophy that has brought Baltimore and similar cities to their present dire circumstances.  In light of this we may do well to ask what would Milton and Rose do? Even though both he and Rose are gone, they left us with starkly different policy proposals from those practiced in these faltering cities.  Education, employment and and how a city achieve economic growth were all tackled by the Friedmans.  It was Milton that said “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” Continue reading →

We have to admit, we didn’t really follow all this photographers and bakers and gay wedding controversies  as closely as we maybe should’ve.  Silly us, we thought this was a personal service case or by extension personal servitude problem, but this somehow is bound up in religion and gay rights.  When you get into an argument it may go off the rails if the wrong principles in invoked.  A photographer refuses to render his personal photography service to a Gay wedding on religious grounds and loses under a state anti discrimination law.  Take Gay and religious freedom out of the case entirely.  A asks B to provide a good or service which requires a future meeting of the minds.  B refuses by saying they are not a good fit.  End of story.  Professionals have done this forever.  For whatever reason your heart isn’t in it and you can’t provide your best product or service you bow out.  That protects both A & B from shoddy or worse outcome.  Professionals have always had the right to not take on a client without providing any reason.  “Just not a good fit” suffices.  Judges most of whom were in private practice know this and should extend this logical choice to everyone.

Continue reading →