San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, August 3, 2012

Is Obama A Socialist?

A friend of mine asked me yesterday why I believe President Obama to be a socialist.  His question set me on a train of thought that was fruitful and productive, by my standards anyway.  The first thing I had to do was define exactly what socialism is.  As I pondered the concept of socialism it occurred to me that socialism is the antithesis of free market capitalism.  That might not strike you as an earth shattering revelation but it is important for several reasons.
First, every economic event (a purchase, a sale, working, saving, hiring, firing, choosing to enjoy leisure, etc) can be described, in particular, as being either socialistic or free market.  There are no other categories that an act of human economic behavior can be categorized into.  Every economic act is either based upon the free and voluntary choices of the individuals who are the parties to the act or it is based upon some sort of government coercion, regulation, or intervention which sets the terms of the transaction.  Economic actions that are totally free are described as free market activities.  All other economic actions are socialistic, to one degree or another.  Those who believe it is a good thing to have government control over some or all economic activity are socialists. 
Once the above idea is properly understood it is easy to see the second truth which necessarily follows from it....there are very few free market actions in the world today.  Likewise, there are very few proponents of the free market in the world today.  Much of what takes place on the "black market" can probably be described as free market activity.  Most illegal drug transactions, provided they do not involve the use of weapons to coerce a purchase/sale from one party, could be described as free market.  Most of what goes on at "flea markets" around the country are probably best described as free market activities.  Still, in general, almost everything we do has the long arm of government involved in one way or another. 
Think about what you do during the course of the day.  You get up in the morning and go to the bathroom.  There you will most likely use water provided by the local municipal utility (socialism).  You will also use electricity provided by the local utility (socialism).  On your way to work you drop by the post office to mail a first class letter (socialism) and drop your kids off at the local government school (socialism).  You drive on roads built and maintained by the county (socialism).  When you get to your place of work you park in a private parking lot, paying $5 for the privilege (free market).  You then walk on city sidewalks (socialism) to your office.  During the day you have a phone conversation with your lawyer (socialist cartel) and your doctor (socialist cartel).  After work you hail a taxi (socialism) to go the baseball stadium (socialism) to take in a ball game.  You get the point.  There are very few true free market transactions in our day to day lives.  Almost everything we do has been regulated, manipulated and controlled by government in one way or another.  Everything that I listed in the above paragraph could have been provided by the free market for a cheaper price and in a better quality.  But socialists, and the governments they support, will not tolerate competition.  In the name of social justice or public health or some other manufactured smokescreen of an excuse, government will be brought to bear and you will be regulated and controlled.
Anyone who attends a public hearing on zoning, with the intention of having an impact upon how some private citizen intends to develop his private property,  is a socialist.  Anyone who circulates or signs a petition to create a law to control the behavior of his neighbor is a socialist.  Anyone who ever says, "there ought to be a law" in regards to something he wants to do in order to control the behavior of somebody else, is a socialist.  Anybody who believes it is the responsibility of the United States to control the behavior of the citizens of other sovereign countries is a socialist.  Anybody who votes for a politician because he promises to take money from one group and give it to another is a socialist.  I dare say, by this point have I not proven that practically everybody is a socialist?  Certainly I have written enough to prove that Obama is a socialist.
A proponent of the free market believes in the principles that originally established this country.  Believers in the free market assert that we only have three God-given rights.  Those rights are life, liberty and property.  Government exists for the purpose of protecting and defending those three rights, and nothing else.  Therefore, government has the mandate of protecting the citizens who reside within its geo-political boundary.  Government also has the mandate to enforce the voluntarily agreed upon contracts enacted by its citizens.  Beyond that, government has nothing else to do.  Anybody who believes that government has more to do than what I just described is a socialist.  Anybody who believes that government is more fit, more qualified, and more able to provide economic goods than the free market is a socialist.  Anybody who believes that the operation of the free market is fraught with market failures that the government needs to fix is a socialist.  Anybody who cannot conceive of a privately owned utility or roadway is a socialist. 
Socialists are everywhere.  Almost everybody is a socialist.  Obama is a socialist.  Romney is a socialist.  Rare indeed is the individual who believes what the founding fathers believed.  Rare indeed is the individual who believes that the role of government is limited to protecting our lives, liberty and property alone. Who today believes what Jefferson asserted about our policy for foreign relations?  He said, "Free trade with all countries, entangling alliances with none."  When it comes to foreign relations, almost everybody is a socialist.
Do you want minimum wage laws?  You are a socialist.  Do you want laws on how old you have to be in order to work a particular number of hours?  You are a socialist.  Do  you want to see all "right to work" laws abolished?  You are a socialist.  Do you want OSHA to monitor the working conditions in your shop?  You are a socialist.  Do  you want Homeland Security to screen you at the airport?  You are a socialist.  Do you want government video cameras on every corner?  You are a socialist.  Do you believe that it is a good thing to give up a little bit of freedom for the alleged benefit of government protection from potential dangers?  You are a socialist.  Do you believe that political action is the most important action in life?  You are a socialist.  Do you believe that those who choose not to vote are unpatriotic?  You are a socialist.  The list goes on.  Our lives are dominated by socialism.  Is Obama  a socialist?  Duh!  He and just about everybody else in the world.  And I didn't even mention Obamacare.  Welcome to the Socialist Democracy of America, where being forced to purchase government mandated health insurance is deemed by the most intelligent judges and lawyers in the land, not to be unconstitutional, but to be a tax!

By the way, there will be no postings to this blog during the week of August 5th.  I will return the week of August 12th.

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Politicians, Then And Now

With over three months to go to the general elections in November, I find myself already sickened by the non-stop stream of political ads that do everything possible to misrepresent the truth and buy votes from envy filled voters.  This year the political wars are borrowing a page from the theologians.  Theologians, especially bad ones, are infamous for taking a single verse from the Bible, removing it from its context, universalizing what it says, and presenting that as God's opinion on the matter.  The two presidential candidates are doing that as we speak.
The Obama camp, in a desperate attempt to present Romney as some modern version of Ebenezer Scrooge, have repeatedly quoted (misquoted, actually) a statement Romney made back in January.  Romney is alleged to have said, "I like to fire people".  This, we are told, indicates just how far Romney has removed himself from the common man.  We are asked to believe that Romney would be stupid enough to tell a group of people he is trying to impress that he derives emotional pleasure from firing people who work for him.  This, of course, is connected to his work at Bain Capital where it is alleged he used to perform a gleeful dance around the room every time he was able to fill in a pink slip soon to be delivered to one of his pitiable underlings.  What Romney actually said was, "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me, you know, if someone doesn't give me a good service that I need, I want to say, 'I'm going to go get someone else to provide that service to me.'"  The comment was made in reference to health care services.  It makes complete sense and in no way casts Romney in a bad light.  That is why it had to be changed.
Obama is currently most famous for his "you did not earn it" speech.  While attempting to procure the votes of a group of socialists (not a difficult thing to do for Obama), he got on a roll about how government is able to "help" people to succeed in business.  Not being the most eloquent man in the universe, especially when away from his teleprompter, Obama got a bit carried away and made some comments that could be construed to mean that nobody ever succeeds without governmental help.  I watched the speech and that is not what he was saying.  He did not say that a successful businessman is not responsible for his success.  He simply attempted to make the common sense observation that success also comes associated with the help of others and, sometimes, a little bit of luck.  The Fox News boys, however, took the opportunity to rip his statement from its context, universalize it, and attempt to make Obama appear to be a total idiot.
All of this petty gamesmanship causes me to hearken back to the day when some politicians were statesmen and not prostitutes.  A prostitute will tell you whatever you want to hear in order to gain your business.  A political prostitute will tell you whatever you want to hear in order to get your vote.  A statesman will tell the truth, and let the chips fall where they may.  Grover Cleveland was such a statesman. (Some of this information is taken from an article in the July/August The Freeman.  The article was written by FEE President Lawrence Reed.)
Grover Cleveland has the notoriety of being the only US president to serve two, non-consecutive, terms.  He was our 22nd and 24th president.  He rarely makes the list of most admired US presidents.  He has the reputation of being a "do nothing" president.  That, of course, should make him highly respected but such is not the case.  Cleveland presided over the US at a time when the Federal government actually ran a surplus.  When Congress was trying to figure out what to do with the surplus funds, a debate erupted as to whether the funds should be spent or given back to the taxpayers.  Cleveland took the politically unpopular position that a government budget surplus indicated that taxes were too high and needed to be reduced.  He said, "When more of the people's sustenance is exacted through the form of taxation than is necessary to meet the just obligations of government, such exaction becomes ruthless extortion and a violation of the fundamental principles of a free government."  Preach it!
As an example of Cleveland's proper understanding of the roll of government, consider this statement that he issued after vetoing a bill that would have sent federal funds to drought-stricken ranchers in Texas (1888), "Though the people support the government, it is not the duty of the government to support the people."  Cleveland is recorded in the history books as having vetoed more bills during his two terms than all presidents prior to him combined.  He knew the limited roll of government and did everything he could to maintain it.  As Reed writes, "He did not engage in class warfare or in other divisive tactics that pull people apart.  He did not cynically buy votes with the money his taxes had taken from someone else."  Now that is a person I could vote for.  Sadly, nobody like Cleveland exists today.

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

We Are All Way Too Sensitive

Last week I read a brief report in the Denver Post about a Massachusetts mayor who fired a white police officer for using what he deemed to be a "racial slur" to taunt Boston Red Sox outfielder Carl Crawford.  On July 5th, John Perrault called the baseball player a "Monday" prior to the start of the game.  According to the report, "the word can be used as derogatory term for blacks, as it is often associated with Mondays being one of the most hated days of the week, such as in the common phrase 'I hate Mondays.'" 
So let me get this straight.  A baseball fan, who happens to be a cop, yells out that a player he obviously does not like is a "Monday" and he gets fired for racist behavior?  And then, we learn that the word 'Monday" is now deemed to be a "racial slur" filled with hateful racist overtones and  used only by the most base of human beings.  You have to be kidding.  Monday?!  Who decided that the word 'Monday' is now a racist term?  If the word had been used to describe a white baseball player would the cop have been fired?  If the word had been yelled by a black cop towards a black player, would the cop have been fired?  What should have been the response of the Massachusetts mayor if the cop had yelled "Tuesday" at the black player?  Should he have been fined as well as fired?  Or, if I can write this in a family oriented blog, what if the cop had yelled "Blue Sky Raindrop Cornfield" towards the black player (forgive me for using these terms but I have to in order to make my point)?  Should he have been sentenced to prison in addition to being fired?
Come on people.  We are all adults here.  Why must we all throw a hissy fit the moment somebody says something about us that we do not like?  What difference does it possibly make when somebody calls you a name?  Let's admit it....we have all become way too sensitive.
Many years ago I was doing a bicycle tour called the Triple By Pass.  It is a 120 mile ride from Evergreen to Vail that goes over three difficult mountain passes (Squaw pass, Loveland pass, and Vail pass).  The inaugural ride was done by members of the Team Evergreen bicycle club who happened to be heart surgeons.  Hence the name was born.  Early on the first climb to Squaw pass I was passed by two fellows riding $3000 bikes and wearing all of the most fashionable attire.  One man turned to the other and loudly asked, "Where is Fred?"  They shared a chuckle and pedaled past me.
For those of you who do not know, "Fred" is a pejorative term in the cycling world.  It is used in reference to somebody who does not comply with the normally accepted standards for bicycles and cycling attire.  That would be me.  My bike is almost 30 years old now and cost a grand total of $500.  I have never worn a cycling jersey, preferring cotton polo shirts when I ride.  I even eschew the standard cycling short and prefer to wear a pair of jogging shorts.  To top it all off, I wear a bandanna over my head and under my helmet (to prevent my bald head from burning in the sun) that gives me what many consider to be a somewhat comical appearance.  Hence, I am the prototypical "Fred".
How, you may ask, did I respond to the cycling slur that was hurled in my direction?  A big part of the joke between the two men was the fact that they thought I was so much of a Fred that I did not know what a Fred was.  I thought about saying "Fred isn't here today....he said there were too many rude people on this ride" but decided against it because it would have shown them that their comment got under my skin.  In fact, their comment did bother me a bit.  But not because they considered me to be less than a model of what a yuppie cyclist should be.  I already knew I was not a yuppie cyclist.  I was proud of the fact I was a Fred. What bothered me was that they passed me.  I made a mental note of who they were, what they were riding and what they were wearing and watched them disappear up the road.
The climb to Loveland pass is the most difficult of the ride.  It climbs 4500 vertical feet in 20 plus miles and attains an altitude of around 12,000 feet.  I was in shape for this ride and I began to put the hammer down on the climb to Loveland.  About two thirds of the way up to the summit, guess who I passed?  The yuppies!  Yep, this old Fred passed them and never saw them again.  I hope they made it.  I didn't say a word but I slowed down as I passed so they could get a good look at me and my bike.  They too, did not say a word.  Now that was justice.
We all call each other names all the time. Sometimes it is done in a mean spirited fashion.  Often it is done in a friendly fashion.  Even when it is done in a mean spirited fashion it does not follow that simply because two different races are involved that racism is necessarily involved.  There are many athletes whose performance I do not like who are also of a different race (being Welsh, practically everybody is a different race than I am).  When I criticize them I am not a racist.  We need to get over this racial sensitivity.  We need to get over being offended because we were called a name by somebody we do not know and do not care about.  We need to channel any offense we might be prone to take from a name calling incident and direct it into productive activity. 
I, perhaps more than any person alive, have been on the receiving end of racist and hateful comments my entire life.  If anybody has a right to reparations, it is me.  Since I was able to understand the English language I have understood that almost all people insult me on a regular basis.  You see, I am a Welshman.  The very word that describes my race and nationality has itself become an enormous racial and hateful slur.  Have you ever heard anybody say something along the line of "he welshed me"?  Sometimes it is corrupted to "welch", but the origin is the same.  To be "welshed" is to be ripped off, abused, lied to and generally harmed by a person of extremely low moral standards.  I have lived my entire life under this litany of abusive speech.  If anyone has a right to be sensitive it is me.  I am much closer to Wales than the great majority of those who call themselves African-Americans are to Africa.  Yet they get all the press and I am ignored.  That, of course, is simply another racist act, in my opinion.  So, to all of you out there who are so easily offended, take a tip from the Welsh and get over it!

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Paul Krugman Is Ignorant About Economics

Paul Krugman is a Nobel prize winning economist who also happens to write a column for the New York Times.  His Sunday column was entitled "Interest Rates Hit Record Low Despite Warnings of Crisis".  It is worth taking a few minutes to examine his column.
Before getting to the content of his column I must point out that whoever is responsible for awarding the Nobel prize in economics has a serious problem with intellectual schizophrenia.  In 1974 the award was granted to Frederick Hayek, one of the greatest Austrian economists of our time.  It was a well deserved award.  In 2008 the award was granted to Paul Krugman, one of the most influential Keynesian economists of our time.  For those who are unaware, Austrian economics and Keynesian economics are like matter and anti-matter.  They are polar opposites.  They share nothing in common.  There is not one single tenet of Austrian economics that would be logically consistent with one single tenet of Keynesian economics.  If one of these economics systems is generally true, the other is generally false.  Without bothering to make the argument in support of my assertion, allow me to assert that Austrian economics is the correct system and Keynesianism is full of baloney. 
Krugman, like all Keynesians, believes that government is the solution to every economic problem.  Also like all Keynesians, Krugman believes that businessmen are the source of all economic problems.  Not surprisingly, Krugman is very popular with government authorities and very unpopular with businessmen.  One of the Krugman's primary beliefs is that it is impossible for a government to spend too much money.  According to him, all of our economic woes are a result of the citizens of this country being too stupid to spend enough money to increase what is known as "aggregate demand" and thus, insure full employment and rising wages.  According to Krugman, recessions occur when people make the foolish decision to save rather than to spend.  The role of government during a recession is to step in and spend our way to prosperity.  It does not matter how much government spends, as long as it spends, spends, spends.  Krugman is famous for declaring that the present federal debt is far too small and routinely calls upon the Federal Reserve to inflate the money supply even more.  Krugman has never met a spending program that he does not like and that makes him very popular with the politicians in Washington as well.
In Sunday's column he takes some jabs at those who have argued that his pontificating for large budget deficits will inevitably result in an economic downturn.  More precisely, and according to Austrian economic theory, as government debt piles up it is inevitable that interest rates will rise at some point in the future.  Krugman states, "The failure of deficits to produce the predicted rise in interest rates is telling us something important about the nature of our economic troubles, and the wisdom, or lack therefore, of the self appointed guardians of our fiscal virtue."  In other words, because interest rates have not yet risen, Krugman is brilliant and anybody who disagrees with him is an idiot.  He goes on to offer his solution to the economic crisis he believes we are in when he says, "The main answer is that this is what happens when you have a deleveraging shock, in which everyone is trying to pay down debt at the same time.  Household borrowing has plunged, businesses are sitting on cash because there is no reason to expand capacity when the sales aren't there; and the result is that investors are all dressed up with nowhere to go, or rather no place to put their money.  They are, in effect, begging government to issue more debt.  And governments should be granting their wish, not obsessing over short-term deficits."
So there you have it.  Consumers are being stupid again.  They are saving rather than borrowing more money.  Businesses are being greedy again.  They are holding onto their cash positions rather than expanding operations.  What is the solution to the problem?  Government needs to step in and spend money.  The false notion that economic growth is created by spending is a keynote in the Keynesian system.  The Austrians, on the other hand, recognize that savings and investment are the twin pillars of economic growth.  For Krugman, if the people are not spending as much as he believes they should be, it is the job of government to step in and spend.  The money that government spends will, of course, be created out of thin air.  That will create (or rather be) inflation.  But Krugman is like his intellectual predecessor (Keynes) who said, in response to the fact that his policies would create inflation over the long term, "in the long term we are all dead".  How quaint.
The fact that interest rates are presently very low does not negate the fact that they will rise at some point in the future.  The reason interest rates are presently low has nothing to do with the fact that people are paying down their debts.   In fact, there are two reasons why interest rates are low today.  Short term rates are low simply because the Fed controls them.  Since the financial crisis of 2008-2009 the Fed has decided to set the Fed funds rate (the rate at which Federal Reserve member banks can loan to each other overnight) at essentially zero (0.14% as of today, which I believe is fairly characterized as being "essentially zero").  The Fed funds rate is instrumental in setting the interest rate on a multitude of other interest bearing investments.  By keeping the Fed funds rate low, the Fed is successful at depressing short term rates on many other investments.
The Fed has a much smaller impact on long term debt securities.  The free market, or a somewhat corrupt version of it, is responsible for those rates.  Long term corporate and government debt reflects the time preferences of all investors who purchase that debt.  When investors are fearful of economic conditions, as they generally are today, long term interest rates will decline as most investors are willing to accept a lower rate of return in exchange for less investment risk.  Long term rates are low today simply because so many investors have an irrational panic about the equities markets.  That panic has driven them from equities into bonds.  Mass purchasing of bonds has driven bond prices up and yields down.  When investor appraisal of the economic situation changes and investors move out of bonds and back into stocks, interest rates will rise, perhaps dramatically.  At that point Krugman will have been proven to be wrong, once again. But don't expect that to get him fired.  Don't expect him to stop writing his column.  When interest rates rise his solution to the problem will be more government spending.  The politicians in Washington will love him.  He will be invited to all the fancy receptions and parties.  For Krugman, life will be good.

Monday, July 30, 2012

Hateful Homosexual Hypocrisy

Imagine this quotation being given in an interview with a prominent restaurant owner, in response to the question "do you support gay marriage?":
Well, guilty as charged.  We are very much supportive of the gay family--one of the state's definitions of the family unit.  We are a gay owned business, a gay led business, and we are married to our first partners.  We operate as a gay business, our restaurants are typically led by gays, some of whom are single.  We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen gay families.  We are very much committed to that...we intend to stay the course.  We know that it might not be popular with everyone but we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on our own principles.
How do you think the popular media would respond to the above statement?  Do you believe it would make the headlines of the business section?  Do you believe it would be described as a public relations disaster?  Do you believe there would be calls for the businessman's head?   I think not.  I think that the homosexuals who read the above quote would think "Right On!  Stick it to the man!"  Conversely,  I think that the heterosexuals who read the above quote would simply write it off as the comments of another militant homosexual and wonder what his comments have to do with the operation of the family business.  I think that the heterosexuals who read the above quote would realize that any criticism of the quote would lead directly to accusations of being "homophobic" and committing a "hate crime".  Indeed, in many countries in Europe and in Canada, any criticism of the above quotation could land the critic in jail for the commission of a hate crime.
Now imagine the following quotation given by the same businessman in response to the question "do you support traditional marriage?":
Well, guilty as charged.  We are very much supportive of the family--the biblical definition of a family unit.  We are a family owned business, a family led business, and we are married to our first wives.  We operate as a family business.  Our restaurants are typically led by families, some of which are single person familiesWe want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families.  We are very much committed to that.  We intend to stay the course.  We know that it might not be popular with everyone.  We live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.
How do you think the media would respond to the above quotation?  Well, in this case, you do not have to guess because it has happened.  Dan Cathy, President of Chick-Fil-A, made the statement quoted above.  He finds himself in the middle of a firestorm because of it.  Many homosexuals are outraged at what he said.  The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that "Gay and lesbian groups have called for protests at a store opening this week in California and want same-sex couples to kiss at Chick-Fil-A locations on National Same-Sex Kiss Day this week."  National Same-Sex Kiss Day?  Are  you kidding me?  Are these folks so insecure in who they are that they need a national day to justify a kiss?  How about having a National Button Your Shirt Day for those who need some emotional bolstering to button their shirts?  How about having a National Wash Your Face Day for those who need some psychological encouragement to help them engage in this daily activity?  Maybe a National Blow Your Nose Day for those who are afraid of snot?  The list is endless. 
What disturbs me the most in this situation is the fact that few heterosexuals would even bother to pay attention to the first quotation while, at the same time, most homosexuals appear to be willing to stage a lynching because of the second quotation.  Where is the equal right to hold a personal opinion?  Where is the equal right to express a personal opinion?  Why are all opinions in opposition to homosexuality automatically deemed to be offensive and rising to the level of  hate crimes while, at the same time,  all opinions in opposition to heterosexuality are pure and righteous?  This is hypocrisy, pure and simple.  Furthermore, can it be denied that one of the prime motivators in the opposition being experienced by Mr. Cathy is hate?  He is abhorred by many homosexuals.  Many homosexuals would love to see him tarred and feathered, drawn and quartered, and banished from these United States forever.  That is hateful behavior my friends.
Mr. Cathy has been criticized by some for engaging in bad business.  Mark Pettit,  President of the marketing firm Creaxion, said "Mr. Cathy needs to understand that while his company is privately held, his brand is publicly owned.  Thousands of gay people work and eat at Chick-Fil-A every day---many of them with a bit of shame knowing they love the company but don't like what the senior executives apparently stand for."  There is so much wrong with what Pettit said that I hardly know where to start.
First, a privately held (owned) company is not a publicly owned company.  It is hard to understand how anybody can misunderstand that basic truth.  Despite Pettit's comments, the "public" does not own the Chick-Fil-A "brand".  The company is owned by private individuals and there are no shares of stock available to the public.  The public owns nothing.  The public can decide to patronize the business or not, but it has no ownership interest in the company whatsoever.  Furthermore, the owners of the business have no duty to the public beyond their self-imposed duty of providing the best possible chicken sandwiches they can make.
Second, are homosexuals so insecure they are incapable of eating a chicken sandwich without suffering a psychological trauma brought on by the personal beliefs of an owner of a business they have never met?  Are you kidding?  Do homosexuals expect to be met at the door by the owner of the business and informed that "I personally affirm your life choices!" prior to making a purchase?  Is it the job of the businessman to enhance the self esteem of his customers by informing that that he supports their lifestyle choices?  What does that have to do with eating a chicken sandwich?  Furthermore, why would someone feel "shame" simply because somebody else holds a different opinion about an issue?  I do not recall ever feeling shame because somebody thought I was an idiot.  I remember feeling superior because I thought the other guy was an idiot.  I remember feeling stupid because I realized the other guy was right.  But I never, ever, recall felling shame just because somebody disagreed with me.  What a warped and demented world we live in when one special interest group, in this case homosexuals, expect everybody else in the universe to constantly affirm their beliefs, opinions, and behaviors.  The world just does not operate like that.  We all disagree all the time.  Deal with it. Grow up.  Stop your whining. Be a man, or a woman. Just stop the incessant complaining, please!
Some folks, who take the side of heterosexuals, have decided to support Chick-Fil-A.  They have declared Wednesday to be National Go To Chick-Fil-A Day.  I don't need a national day to tell me to do something.  I make up my own mind.  Chick-Fil-A sandwiches are delicious.  I think I will have a number 4 meal, please. And, by the way, you do not have to meet me at the door and affirm my heterosexuality.