Here is where Publius Fred will post links to news stories that raise his hackles and give you his own take there on. Posts will be added in LIFO order, assuring that the most recent raised hackles will be easily retrived.  If you would like Publius Fred to take on a particular news story, feel free to send him a link.

There is No Constitutional Exemption for the American Flag

Once again an uproar is building to a frenzy because a zoning administrator has ordered a landowner to remove an American flag from a flagpole.  So before you jump on the bandwagon of shaming the evil, commie, liberal, unpatriotic zoning administrator, please give Fred a moment to explain why the Zoning Administrator is the real American Hero in this story.  As with every other case of a "how can they not want us to honor our veterans who died for this flag," whether "they" is a local or state government, a homeowners association, or some similar body enforcing a code, ordinance or covenant, the story is not all that complicated -- the landowner was aware (or was presumed to be aware) of the restriction on the placement of a flag on his property and chose to ignore it, then expressed outrage when asked politely to obey the law.  In this case, we know that the landowner (Gander Mountain/Camping World) knew that there was a restriction on the size of a flag or banner that could be displayed on its property because it applied for and was given a variance to put a bigger flag.  How big?  1000 Sq. ft.  However, the landowner then put a flag that was MUCH BIGGER than the zoning variance allowed.  How much bigger? More than three times as big -- 3200 Sq. ft.

Now Fred is enough of a cynic to suspect that Gander Mountain/Camping World knew exactly what it was doing and hoped for a controversy to arise.  In its social media campaign, GMCW has carefully avoided explaining the reality of the issue, instead saying only that the city is demanding it "take down the flag" and asserting "we won't do it!"  They don't say that the city is perfectly happy to have them fly a smaller (but still big ass) flag or that they knew they were violating the ordinance, which applies to any flag or banner.  Nor does GMCW mention that the purpose of the ordinance is to limit the distraction large flags and banners can cause on nearby highway and road traffic.  

Fred likes to think that he is as patriotic as the next fellow -- but part of patriotism is adhering to the rule of law which underpins our democracy.  Fred thinks that this concept is a big part of what the flag stands for and was what our veterans, that GMCW claims to honor, stands for.    That's why the zoning administrator is the hero in this story.  He (or she) is just a guy (or gal) doing a job and trying to enforce the law.  

No, President Trump, the Disqualification of Maximum Security in the Kentucky Derby was not Because of Political Correctness

ICYMI, Donald Trump tweeted his displeasure with the disqualification of the apparent winner of the 2019 Kentuky (Trump's spelling) (Derby by suggesting that the application of the rules requiring a horse and jockey not to interfere with other horses and riders during the course of a race was somehow about "Political Correctness. Fred has almost given up trying to understand the inner working of Donald Trump -- mainly because he is never certain whether there are any inner workings.  However, in this case, it is easy to see why Trump would want to take issue with the decision of the officials to disqualify an entrant in the race for breaking the rules.  Trump specifically said that as a result of the disqualification the "best horse" did not win the race.  In Trump's view, this race, or indeed any contest whether it be sporting, commercial or political, is not about playing by the rules, but assuring that the "right" outcome results.  Of course this is simply another way of saying that the "ends justify the means."  This is why Trump is OK with law enforcement being "rough" with suspects -- for him the goal of law enforcement is to reduce crime. So what if the police beat a suspect who happens to be innocent every now and again?  The message will get out that "chumps get lumps" and fewer crimes will be committed as a result (or at least Trump assumes).  As Strelnikov said, "A village betrays us, a village is burned.  The point is made."  For the same reason, Trump thinks it should be OK for troops along the southern border to kill a few refugees who might be drug smugglers, if the end result is fewer refugees and drug smugglers.  Trump also believes that in business dealings its acceptable to cheat your suppliers and workers because your goal is to make money for you, not them.  What's more, he assumes that the suppliers and workers play by the same twisted logic and are also trying to cheat him.  And, of course, he applies this same "better do it to them before they do it to me" philosophy to political campaigns.  The problem is, of course, that countless studies and real life situations have proven consistently that ends justifying the means thinking is ultimately self-destructive. But Trump doesn't see that as a deterrent.   After all, he is a great admirer of a fellow who proclaimed, "Après moi, le déluge!"

Millennials think they will be a generation of millionaire entrepreneurs.  Why? 

A recent survey revealed that a majority of Millennials believe that they will become millionaires, with 1 in 5 believing that it will happen by the time they are 40 (that's 2021 for the first of that cohort).  This narrative is hard to square with the same group of people complaining that -- burdened by student debt, the lack of affordable real estate, etc. -- they will be the first generation to be less well off than their parents.  Apparently, while they agree that this is generally true of other Millennials, these future millionaires all have something their co-generationists do not, the entrepreneurial spirit.  Yes, they have a ton of million dollar ideas that will be hitting the scene just as soon as their crowdsource funding come in. They primary difficulty with this is that they are not really sure what the idea is -- it's something to do with sustainability or maybe being a vlogger, maybe a vlogger whi vlogs about sustainability.  Oh, and it will definitely be cool and create a lot of buzz on social media.  As for developing this idea, well, there are lot of talented people out there that are desperate for work (in a 3.6% unemployment economy) who can make it happen.  Whatever it is.  

Social Insecurity

For years Fred has told anyone who would listen that Social Security and Medicare were fundamentally unworkable because 1) the "trust fund bonds" for these programs were merely pieces of paper not backed by anything more than a politician's vain hope that they would never be redeemed, and, 2) Baby-Boomers like Fred would begin retiring in droves and live far longer than past generations.  Each year the gubment would confirm that Fred was right, but everyone assumed that these predictions were either wrong or too far in the future to affect them.  Well, its now too far in the future.  Medicare will become insolvent the year the president elected in 2024 takes office, and Social Security will be in the same situation when next year's Congressional Freshman will be eyeing chairmanships of top committees. Nonetheless, not one of the current potential 2020 Democratic candidates have these issues on their radar, let alone a credible solution (hint -- it will requires raising taxes, curtailing benefits, and changing the system for future retirees).  It goes without saying that the current occupant of 1600 Pennsy Ave. is not offering any ideas, as he's too busy winning.

The Rule of Law is Not a Political Theory

Today, Senator Elizabeth Warren called for the Congress to being impeachment proceedings against President Donald J, Trump. This is hardly news.  In doing so, however, Sen. Warren asserted that the failure of Congress to fulfill this "Constitutional duty" would violate the principle that "[n]o one is above the law."  Which brings up a sore point with Fred.  Fred is really tired of politicians borrowing catch phrases from the economic theory of the Rule of Law to score political points.  Did you catch that?  Fred referred to the Rule of Law as an economic theory -- not a political theory.  That's because the modern theory of the Rule of Law, as first set out by Oxford Don A.V. Dicey, was never intended to be a theory of liberal democracy.  Rather, Dicey was of the opinion that any form of government could function under the Rule of Law.  In Dicey's view, the purpose of the Rule of Law was not to serve as a check on abuse of political power, but rather to provide an atmosphere in which economic prosperity to the benefit of all could most easily be achieved.  In this respect, the Rule of Law has failed in this country for at least the last 40 years, if not longer, because the growing economic divide is an abject failure of the Rule of Law.

Why We Should All Be Very Afraid

So the news out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue today was that President Trump held his first official full cabinet meeting.  If you managed to miss the many stories describing this event as "bizarre," "surreal," or (Fred's Personal Favorite) "Soviet," the link should give you a fairly good idea of what went on during the public portion of the meeting.  So far no news has leaked about the actual cabinet meeting -- but it is a good bet that it was not an exchange of frank and honest opinions.  What troubles Fred about this, however, is how strongly it parallels the actions of prior world leaders obsessed with their own need to be praised -- it's called a cult of personality.  It should surprise no one that President Trump should desire to be the focus of such admiration -- it should terrify everyone that not one of his cabinet members was willing to decline being a participant in this charade.  Dan Coates, David Shulkin, and Generals Mattis and Kelly are grave disappointments in particular.

In my day, we called them "Pet Rocks"

So I am reading the other day that Nordstrom's was selling a leather wrapped rock for $85 ($65 for the smaller size for you cheap Ba****ds).  In my day we called them "Pet Rocks," and they came in cardboard boxes without the leather wrapping.  You may have noticed that I said Nordstrom's was selling them . . . they've sold out.

Publius Fred has recently (well, not so recently) developed an aversion to conspicuous consumption.  It's not that Publius Fred wants to deny those who have earned through their labors some pleasure.  Far from it.  Publius Fred himself enjoys a good restaurant meal, a comfortable home, a nice ride, etc.  But there is a line between satisfying the urge for comfort and being grossly excessive in acquiring for its own sake.  I don't know exactly where that line is, but I am quite certain that an $85 leather wrapped rock is on the other side of it.