Pay for what you say

“There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch,” (Morrow, Friedman or Heinlein- you choose). This quote applies as much to free speech as it does economics- but while the First Amendment to our nation’s Constitution guarantees us the freedom to speak, is it truly free?

I submit that speech comes with a cost. The question then becomes: what is the cost and how and who determines the cost?

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, political correctness is “language that seems intended to give the least amount of offense.” “Political Correctness” was added to the vocabulary of the Communist Party during the Russian Revolution of 1917, designed to ensure that citizens would comply with the Marxist-Leninist doctrine.

In the 1970s, political correctness was more or less a form of self-mockery. Essentially you could have said something wrong but not known it until convicted of it by your liberal peers. Most of the time it would be using words like blind, deaf, short, or fat. In the 1990s, conservatives picked up the mantra and used it to admonish the liberal teachings in American colleges and universities. Therein lies the difference in cost.

Kathy Griffin posed holding what appeared to be the severed head of President Trump. Her cost? Losing her gig at hosting CNN’s New Year’s Eve telecast with Anderson Cooper.

Roseanne Barr expresses herself in a tweet about VJ [Valerie Jarrett]. What’s the cost? ABC cancels the reboot of her show, Roseanne.

Alabama State Representative Patricia Todd (D), posted a tweet during the gubernatorial primary implying that sitting Governor Kay Ivey is gay. Representative Todd had been offered a position at One Orlando Alliance which has since been rescinded as a result of her social media post.

In 2003, after serving for ten years, Navy Seal Brett Jones left the message “I love you” on his boyfriend’s voice mail. Those three words resulted in a discharge from the Navy.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, in Memphis, TN fifty years ago, while exercising his right to free speech fighting for civil rights.

At Kent State, in 1970, four students lost their lives and nine were injured while protesting the Vietnam war.

These people are all recognizable and it is easy to see what price they paid for practicing their right. But do you have to be someone of prominence to pay for what you say?

For the less prominent, social media – Facebook, Twitter, Instagram – are wonderful outlets to express our thoughts, ideas, and ideals. But for us, the use of those platforms can come at a price. According to CareerBuilder, 70% of business use social media to screen potential employees. As many as 54% will not hire a person based on what they find in their social media accounts.

In a recent Twitter post, user @human_leech posted, “Before getting on my flight today, a dead soldier was carried off. Around 30 or so people gathered around the windows to salute him or cry. It didn’t move me. Fuck our troops. All these white folks crying over a killer while millions are oppressed by our military. Fuck imperialism”

This is the kind of social media post that would keep 54% of employers (including me) from even calling this young lady from Atlanta, GA in for an interview. Her speech is certainly not politically correct and to veterans, in particular, it is offensive.

But it is protected speech. Just like burning of the flag is considered “symbolic speech” and is protected by the First Amendment. But to many, that too is offensive.

In 2016, a Talladega, AL police officer found out what happens when you post a racial meme on social media. He posted two on his Facebook page, which violated the city of Talladega’s Social Media policy and caused him to be promptly terminated from the force.

I think there is something to be learned from the honesty of children and seniors. “Children say the darnedest things.” Yes, they do because they have not been taught not to. So, when your three-year-old says that man has a big nose, that man probably has a big nose. The same is true of seniors, not because they don’t know better, but because they know it doesn’t matter.

I look at it this way: when my 95-year-old grandmother told me I was fat, instead of getting mad at her, I used her words as motivation to lose thirty pounds.

One of my favorite photos of my father is of him and my grandfather on open air combine, and just this week several transfer trucks passed by my workplace with antique farm equipment. As the trucks passed, I made the comment: “there goes an antique cotton picker.” I had the remote thought that someone was going to think that I was referring to a black person, and almost immediately, one of my colleagues replied. “You can’t say cotton picker.”

There is an antique machine being transported down highway 231. It is called a cotton picker because it picks cotton!

Whether it is the communist revolution, the 1970 liberals or the 1990 conservatives, we, as a Nation, have become too sensitive. We should embrace respect, decorum, and of course, common sense.

Originally Posted @

Share This:

Meeting Dreamers

There’s probably an unwritten rule about discussing religion and politics with colleagues and customers, especially right now. Well, there’s a reason for that: being a fiscal conservative and a social moderate in the South is not a good mix.

Because of the recent government shutdown being tied to DACA, immigration has been a topic of conversation at my office. The people I talk to (more like listen to) tend to recite conservative pundit talking points. They talk as if what they are saying are their own words, and any differing opinion is a ticket straight to hell. Frankly, it reminds me of when I was a teenager and we would sing Amazing Grace to the Coca Cola tune – same words, same meaning, just different cords.

To my colleagues, Dreamers are not Dreamers. They’re “illegals.” By a legal definition, they could be considered that. I just grin while listening to these conversations, though. And then, as politely as I can, I get up and walk away, knowing I’ll probably never be able to reason with them. I suspect, though, that if these pundit-echoing friends had spent time with immigrants they might feel differently.

Until my bus stopped at Fort Knox and I was greeted with “Move! Move! Move!”, I had never met an immigrant. Until then I hadn’t even thought much about immigrants. They weren’t exactly common where I grew up. But, there I was, 300 miles away from home, without my mama, and it was cold. The Drill Sergeant directed us off the bus and into the barracks. Basic training had begun.

I was a young Alabama farm boy with little knowledge outside the farm until then. I grew up shadowing my parents and grandparents as they row cropped and raised cattle. Once I was old enough, I began doing some of the work myself and worked on the farm until I graduated high school. My childhood was work, school, church, rinse and repeat. So, when I got to basic training, I was exposed to the fact that America wasn’t just white, black, and Christian.

In my platoon was a soldier from Nigeria. I met him the third day of in processing. He had me by a few inches and had broader shoulders than I did. I thought he talked funny—or was it me that talked funny? We were partners for dime drills where we learned to squeeze rather than pull the trigger of our M16s. At chow, we would talk about home. Even more than most soldiers, he liked talking about his daughter. He immigrated to the states with his wife and a young daughter in search of the American Dream and the opportunities that being an American affords people. He joined the Army to expedite his citizenship. According to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website, a solider may become a citizen after one year of service, but cannot be discharged for “other than honorable conditions” before completing five years of service and maintain his or her citizenship.

The conversations I had with him were the first I had with someone who wasn’t born in the United States. I was surprised then that our conversations were no different than the ones I had with anyone else in platoon. He showed me a photo of his daughter; I could see how proud he was of her. She was his anchor and the reason he had come to America, which was easy for me to understand.

My platoon mate was not a Dreamer. But he was an immigrant who had an opportunity to become an American citizen and did everything he could to do so. He left Nigeria in the midst of economic strife and political turmoil, essentially escaping to America to better care for his family. For him, joining the Army was the next logical step.

It would be another twenty years before I met an actual Dreamer. When I first met Lucas, he was still in high school. He served as a translator for his father while his father purchased a truck. I financed six or seven vehicles for his family members over the years, and each time, regardless of his relation to the purchaser, he was there to translate. Eventually, it was his turn to purchase a truck. Shortly after his nineteenth birthday, he, with the help of his father, purchases a year-old crew cab F150 from me. A few months later, he stopped by the dealership to have his oil changed. He told me that he had joined the Army “so I can become a citizen.” I was taken aback. I had no idea that he was not a citizen; that in fact he was a Dreamer. His English was excellent; his commitment to the country exemplary. He made me think of my former platoon mate—sacrificing for a country that wasn’t yet legally his.

Last month, as debates raged about whether Dreamers could stay, I encountered another Dreamer, Alex. A few years older than Lucas, he has already established a small business. He has a mortgage, a credit card, and an auto loan. In other words, he’s like most Americans and needed a truck for his business. While we had no problem selling him a truck, a problem arose when the sales consultant gave me the deal. As I examined the deal jacket, I discovered that Alex’s driver license was labeled FN (foreign national) with an expiration date of 2019. In our business, that limits the time we can finance a vehicle, meaning any loan could not be longer than 2019. Here I was, looking at the credit history of a young man that was an entrepreneur, had a significant down payment, and the means (income) to pay. The only thing holding him back was the fact that his documents expire in 2019.

Having gone through the sales process with Alex and Lucas, my teammates and I still clash over DACA recipients. They believe that if you are in America illegally, you have broken the law and are a criminal and thus any pathway to citizenship is nothing more than amnesty. Alex chose to be an entrepreneur—to live the American dream. In every cultural and political way, Alex and Lucas, and other Dreamers like them, have earned the right to citizenship. My peers, and many like them, take their citizenship for granted. They overlook the freedom they enjoy and feel entitled to insist on a particular outcome or behavior others who do not resemble them. What they forget are the service and the services that the Dreamers provide every day.

I look back over the past twenty-nine years since my time at Fort Knox, and a lot has changed. I arrived as a scared young man, but left with a better understanding of camaraderie, kinship and appreciation for family and friends. From my brothers and sisters in arms, I learned what it was to make a commitment to family and country. As much as any American, both Lucas and Alex embody these commitments.

In any event, these young people we call Dreamers were brought to America to enjoy a better life than the one their parents left behind. Turns out, my life before meeting any immigrants also guides my thinking on the questions of Dreamers. If we are truly a Christian nation—as I was told we were every Sunday in church for my whole childhood—would we not live by the words of Matthew 25:45: “… whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me”?

I originally posted this on

Share This:


If you’re watching the news in recent days, it seems like Washington is burning down. Hashtags about the shutdown suggest that both parties are to blame for government’s utter failure to, well, govern.

But in recent decades, shutdowns are the norm in DC. According to ThoughtCo and FoxNews, the United States has experienced eighteen shutdowns in the last forty-two years, while only experiencing, arguably, two (1790 and 1933) prior to 1976. The shortest of these, occurred under the watch of President Reagan, with there being multiple one day stoppages. In contrast, the most recent shutdown (other than this one) was also the longest. In 2013, while Barack Obama was president, the government stopped for twenty-one days. Shutdowns should not continue to be the norm. Proper planning, budgeting and compromising should be the order of the day.

These large number of shut downs and the discrepancies in them make it crucial to examine the different causes. Although shutdowns are supposed to be about the budge, four of the eighteen shutdowns in the last forty-two years are actually related to the budget. In each case, congress presented a budget or resolution that was vetoed by the sitting President. The first was September 30, 1976 when President Ford vetoed the budget for out of control spending, and the government was shut down for ten days. President Carter vetoed the budget for wasteful spending, a decision that resulted in an eighteen-day government closure. President Reagan had seven shutdowns on his watch. However, only one, which lasted two days related to the budget. He vetoed the budget on November 20, 1981 because the House wanted to cut defense and give themselves and senior civil servants raises. Finally, the only shutdown during President George H.W. Bush’s term occurred when he vetoed a continuing resolution (CR) that did not include a deficit reduction package.

The budget-driven, presidentially-decided shutdowns are the exceptions. In reality, most shutdowns in recent times have been ideological with the budget as an excuse to start them. InfoPlease explains that the other four shutdowns during President Carter’s tenure were over abortion. In contrast President Reagan’s were a combination of defense initiatives and foreign aid. And of course, the shutdown in 2013 was over the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

This shutdown, whether you believe it to be the #SchumerShutdown or the #TrumpShutdown, is no different. The same basic rules apply. Ideology in Congress – from both sides of the proverbial isle – and in the White House is responsible for the shutdown. While partisan narratives are a convenient way to explain shutdowns, a single person (i.e. the President, the Minority Leader) or party isn’t entirely to blame. The problem here is a consistent unwillingness to use basic government functions as tools for ideological ends.

Recent history of shutdowns suggest that our politician don’t have to handle shutdowns in this regard. In November of 1983, President Reagan and his Democrat controlled congress compromised on several key elements: defense and foreign aid cuts, increase in education, MX missile funding, a ban on oil and gas leasing on federal wildlife land, and, abortion rears its ugly head again, and an agreement it made that federal employee insurance will not pay for abortions. These aren’t small issues for politicians to find middle ground and fix. The White House had a leader with a plan, and he knew how to accomplish it. The House of Representatives had a leader that knew his members, and his Members knew their constituents. Together, they found the common ground to make a budget work, not a series of continuing resolutions.

So, in this shutdown, where does the fault lie? According to The Election Project approximately 58% of eligible voters voted in the 2016 presidential election. While the 537 persons that were elected and sent to Washington DC certainly bare some blame, the fault ultimately lies with the 230 million eligible voters and specifically the 92 million that did not vote.

The problem is that people do not vote incumbents out of office despite consistent complaints from both sides about the state of politics. At the start of the 115th Congress, the average length of term for congressman is 9.4 years – that is basically five full terms. In contrast, until the beginning of the 20th century, the average term was 4 years. Similarly, the average length of a Senator, again at the start of the 115th Congress, is 10.1 years. The Senate, like the house also averaged 4 years until just before the turn of the 20th century.

According to Gallup for the period 4-11 December 2017, Congress’ approval rating was a whooping 17%. But the same members are continually elected to be representatives of the Republic. Some even move from the House of Representative to the more powerful Senate. Congress is dysfunctional. But people keep electing the officials who make it that way. Next time people are at the ballot box, they might reflect on whether the official they might re-elect was willing to work across the asile.

I originally posted this on






Share This:

Don’t Roll That Loan

We live in a society that is filled with opportunities and, unfortunately opportunists. That is not to imply that all opportunists are bad. Quite the contrary, it takes opportunist to build upon and grow our economy. Angela Duckworth describes in her book Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance, people who have the character and drive to do just that. However, there are those, that possess grit, that will take advantage of their position over the disadvantaged.

I have been a Financial Services Manager for the better part of twenty years. I have seen a lot of change in the industry over that time. One in particular would be the change in the effect of student loans on a person’s credit. Today if you have student loans they can have a major impact – either positive or negative – on your credit report. About a decade ago, no one paid attention to student loan debt. But that is not the issue that I would like to discuss.

Bad things happen to good people. An unexpected illness, a car accident or even a weather event could cause you to miss just enough work that you just need a few bucks to tie you over. So you visit the local short term lender. You fill out an application; put your TV and lawn mower up for collateral and leave with $700. You sigh with relief. You don’t have to worry about choosing between groceries and the power bill.

Here is what happens next. A few months go by, you have paid the lender well – good job. Your phone rings. “Hey thanks for your timely payments. I just wondered would you like to renew your loan? We can pay your current loan off and loan you $800 this time – that would give you $200.” Now here is what you are thinking. “I could use that $200, I can take the kids to Alabama Adventure. And I’m building my credit!” So you tell the nice fella on the other end of the phone you will be right down. A few more months come and go and now it is almost Christmas and you get that same phone call. This time he is going to loan you $900 which means you are going to have $250 to spend for presents for the kids. And you are building your credit!?

Let me tell you what happens next. You have had these three loans with the local short term lender over the course of a year. You think you have built up your credit; because you have made all of your payments on time! You just got your income tax refund of $1800. That 1998 Chrysler is smoking and the transmission is slipping. You are ready to go buy you a new ride. You come see me.

Here is what I get to tell you. “I’m sorry, the major lenders we use think that since you have been using the local short term lender so much that you are struggling to get by. They think it is a payday lender.” I have to let you go down the street to the Buy-Here Pay-Here. That does you no good. That is even where the Chrysler came from.

Here is the problem. The major lenders have a perception that may or may not be true. You took advantage of a lender that was willing to help you when you needed it and then they took advantage of you when you really did not need the help. They were opportunistic and most likely lead you to believe that what you were doing was helping yourself. I’m not sure but I think that all three of you are wrong in this scenario. I will explain:

How you are wrong: You needed help and excepted it from the only business that would provide it. However, you did not educate yourself. “Am I really benefiting myself by getting this second loan or would it be better to pay this one off.” Remember the interest rate you were paying was in the twenties. The internet if your friend. There are so many sites that offer opinions and strategies.

How the local short term lender is wrong: They offered to renew your loan not once but twice. Yes, they are in business to make money, but they should have some degree of ethics. They should at least refer you to some consumer information before continuing the renewal of these predatory.

How are the major lenders wrong: They need to understand that bad things happen to good people. Not all short term rolled loans are “pay day” loans. Some are just what they are as in the scenario I have described.

I make my living by securing financing for automobile consumers. Integrity is the one thing that I own that I refuse to lose. I am proud to say, after all these years mine is still intact. That is the reason that I do not understand why or how anyone can take advantage of the disadvantaged. If there is one thing that our school systems need to put in the curriculum it is personal finance. It does not need to be taught by a “school teacher.” It needs to be taught by a business professional.

Share This: