The New York Times, and every other media outlet, is free to hire or fire whomever it likes. The members of the management team at the New York Times are free to do or say what they’d like. But they are not immune from criticism for their double standards.

Last week, the New York Times named Sarah Jeong the newest member of its editorial board. This wouldn’t be cause for commotion under normal conditions, she is perfectly aligned politically with the other members of that group.

But shortly after the announcement, her previous racist comments on Twitter surfaced. Most won’t be referenced here because of her language, but I think #cancelwhitepeople tells you what you need to know. I think it is fair to say that if you substituted the word “white” with any other race or ethnicity, Jeong’s comments would have been unacceptable.

So, what did the New York Times do? It reaffirmed support, saying, “The fact that she is a young Asian woman has made her a subject of frequent online harassment.” So basically, she received mean tweets, to which she responded with racists replies, which is now acceptable. (Never mind the fact that many of her comments weren’t, in fact, replies but original statements.) And because she is Asian and female, she is allowed to do this?

So in the eyes of the Grey Lady, we need different speech codes depending on one’s race and sex? That might sound racist to you and me, but this double standard is prevalent among our friends on the left.

It is not unusual. And it extends beyond the traditional news media. We certainly see it in the sports media, which has taken on a politically active tone - much to the chagrin of sports viewers - or former viewers rather.

Two years ago, ESPN fired Curt Schilling as a commentator when he shared a meme mocking policies that allow men to use women’s bathrooms. At the time, the North Carolina bathroom bill was one of the trending issues of the day and Schilling came out on the side of the state, which was the side saying that men use the men’s bathroom and women use the women’s bathroom. Not exactly a radical take.

But for ESPN, Schilling’s speech was not consistent with its political viewpoint- and he was let go.

Enter Jemele Hill, another ESPN commentator, who also caused a stir on social media, referring to President Donald Trump as a white supremacist, saying he’s mostly surrounded himself with white supremacists, and he owed his election to a bunch of racist white people…among other things.

In her case, one of Hill’s bosses, Disney President Bob Iger, came to her defense, saying we need to understand the context for how Hill was speaking. Essentially, following Iger’s reasoning, if you have hurt feelings and a liberal opinion, say what you want. So ESPN doesn’t have a problem with political speech, as long as it’s political speech the boss likes.

If a company wants to be inconsistent in who it hires or which speech it finds permissible, that is its right. As a private company, Disney has a lot of latitude in its human resource decisions. But have the temerity to admit what you are doing. Don’t hide behind a claim of objectivity when your actions demonstrate what you really mean is that conservative speech is unacceptable. Conservatives have certainly gotten that message loud and clear from ESPN. A quick look at ESPN’s declining ratings or Disney’s share price over the past few years would seem to indicate the market has gotten it, too.

We see this same speech bias on college campuses. This is what happens when roughly 90 percent of our national media, and roughly 90 percent of our college administrations, think the same way. You don’t see your own bias when you live in ideological bubbles. This is how CNN can spend weeks ranting about the mean things supporters of President Donald Trump say to them while ignoring actual violence from the left.

Because it is always easier to turn a blind eye when someone you agree with is doing something inappropriate. And that is, unfortunately, the case with the New York-D.C.-L.A. media. That is why most on the right don’t trust and frankly, don’t care, what the national media is espousing.

The world would be a better place if our national media organizations and colleges and universities stopped bowing down to online rage mobs fueled by ideological bias and if such organizations were able to move beyond their bubbles and see that the nation’s viewpoint is actually much broader and diverse outside of places like New York, Bristol and New Haven. But at minimum, maybe they could at least drop the facades and the ridiculous double standards. It’s really insulting the intelligence of the rest of us.

Maybe I’ll tweet about it.

This column appeared in the Madison County Journal on August 8, 2018. 

New regulatory action for home sharing is bad policy for taxpayers and is harmful for tourism.

An industry lobbyist who is also a member of government and is proposing government action that would affect his or her industry, is clearly conflicted by interests. In fact, it would be hard to find a better example of a clear and direct conflict of interest.

By proposing government regulatory action against the home-space-exchange platforms, like Airbnb and their users, Biloxi City Council President Kenny Glavan voluntarily put himself into such a conflict. In addition to his government position, Glavan is also president of the Mississippi Hotel and Lodging Association and an employee of a Biloxi Hotel and Casino. But putting all of the conflicts aside, his ideas are just not good public policy.

Uber, Lyft, Airbnb and other companies that use mobile platforms to enable people to exchange goods and services are serving an important role in our economy - one that has played out for centuries – creative destruction.

Trying to regulate these companies in ways analogous to taxis and hotels limits the innovation of all competitors and leads to regulatory capture, where companies are rewarded more for their relationships with policymakers than for their relationships with customers. Airbnb already has major financial incentives for protecting consumers and behaving well – it’s called the free market. In the mobile/digital world, where consumer rating information is ubiquitous, reputation is everything. In short, it is in the best interest of Airbnb and other home-space-exchange platforms to ensure consumers and providers are not harmed. In fact, it’s in their best interest to ensure the experience is enjoyable.

Providing enjoyable experiences for constituents through the short-term rental industry has been good for Biloxi’s tourism economy and for other locales across the state. According to data from Airbnb, more than 5,000 guests booked stays with homeowners in Biloxi in 2017. Those homeowners earned over $760,000 in such transactions. Statewide, more than 50,000 visitors stayed in roughly 1,300 homes across Mississippi last year, generating more than $6.4 million for homeowners and who knows how much more for local businesses where tourists spent money on meals, shopping, and other things.

It is understandable why people working in the hotel industry are upset by this disruption and by the fact that these platforms and their users are not governed by the same regulatory burdens of the hotel industry. The same can be said of the taxi industry. The incumbents in these industries have paid a regulatory cost. Rather than trying to impose old regulations on new, innovative, customer-focused players, we should consider deregulating the existing industries so that competition is enhanced and innovation is incentivized. The way to achieve this is through the free market. Writing new regulations and trying to enforce old ones encourages cronyism.

If we want Mississippi to grow and prosper, we’ve got stop allocating so much of our resources to lobbying and favor seeking. We need those resources in the private sector, where customer-based innovation thrives. That’s the only way to get long-term, sustainable, economic growth. That’s how Mississippi’s economic pie gets larger. Without it, we’re just fighting for the pieces – and those with the entrenched relationships among the political class will always get more.

This column appeared in the Sun Herald on August 12, 2018. 

In this edition of Freedom In Five Minutes or Less, we talk with Aaron Rice, the new Director of the Mississippi Justice Institute.

The summer of 2018 may go down as the year the nanny state tried to kill the lemonade stand.

For generations, a summer tradition for boys and girls has been to make lemonade, set up a stand in front of their house or near a busy road, and earn money for that special toy they have been wanting, or maybe just to save for a future purchase. For a moment in time, children turn into entrepreneurs, even though they probably couldn’t tell you what the word means.

But lemonade stand entrepreneurs have met a force that strikes fear in the hearts of even the most seasoned professionals: the government regulator.

By now you have probably heard the stories, but they bear repeating because of the sheer lunacy of feeling the need to shut down a lemonade stand, and because they highlight the overcriminalization of our society thanks to laws we have adopted to fix every supposed issue or problem.

In California, the family a five-year-old girl received a letter from their city’s Finance Department saying that she needed a business license for her lemonade stand after a neighbor complained to the city. The girl received the letter four months after the sale, after she had already purchased a new bike with her lemonade stand money. The young girl wanted the bike to ride around her new neighborhood as her family had just moved.

In Colorado, three young boys, ages two to six, had their lemonade stand shut down by Denver police for operating without a proper permit. The boys were selling lemonade in hopes of raising money for Compassion International, an international child-advocacy ministry. But local vendors at a nearby festival didn’t like the competition and called the police to complain. When word of this interaction made news, the local Chick-Fil-A stepped up as you would expect from Chick-Fil-A. They allowed the boys to sell lemonade inside their restaurant, plus they donated 10 percent of their own lemonade profits that day to Compassion International.

In New York, the state Health Department shut down a lemonade stand run by a seven-year-old after vendors from a nearby county fair complained. Once again, they were threatened by a little boy undercutting their profits. A state senator in New York has since filed legislation to legalize lemonade stands. That is correct, we need new laws to clarify that a seven-year-old can run a lemonade stand with the government’s blessing.

For those who may read this and believe the world has gone crazy, we do have a story in Missouri that ended on a good note - though there is plenty of crazy in this story. An eight-year-old boy was being heckled by neighbors inquiring about his permit. If those potential customers got sick, they wanted to know “who we should go to.” The neighbors then proceeded to yell at the boy’s mom after the boy went inside. Fortunately for the boy, the local police department heard about the incident and came by the boy’s lemonade stand to show their support, and to provide their stamp of approval.

As parents and as a society, we should be encouraging entrepreneurship. We should celebrate young boys and girls who want to make money, whether it’s for a new bike or to give to a ministry. When children have the right heart and the right ideas and are willing to take actions, we shouldn’t discourage it. The lessons are valuable. They learn that money comes from work, that you have to plan, and then produce a stand, signs, and lemonade. Introducing kids to the concepts of marketing, costs, customer service, and the profit motive is a good thing.

And why it has always been celebrated in our society for a long time.

Until, at least in a few places, 2018. But I suppose these interactions also provide these young children with another valuable but unfortunate lesson: beware of government and crony capitalism. Vendors who don’t like competition use the law to eliminate competition. And government, however good the intentions may have been, created the laws that actually   work against the development of entrepreneurial values by regulating lemonade stands.

As often happens when government steps in to solve a problem, there are unintended consequences few are willing to acknowledge.

Hopefully, the absurdity of these stories has raised more than a few eyebrows. Perhaps they will cause people to recognize the downside of our regulatory burden and maybe even cause legislators to review more than a few of the laws, rules, and licensing regimes that are stifling growth, innovation, and capitalism. If we want a thriving and growing economy, we’ve got to have more entrepreneurs – including those future ones who sell lemonade in their neighborhoods today.

This column appeared in the Northside Sun on August 9, 2018. 

Mississippi Center for Public Policy (MCPP) announced today that Aaron Rice has been named the new Director of the Mississippi Justice Institute (MJI).

Founded in 2016, MJI serves as the legal arm of MCPP, representing Mississippians whose state or federal Constitutional rights have been threatened by government actions. Rice replaces Shadrack White, who was recently appointed State Auditor of Mississippi by Gov. Phil Bryant.

“Simply put, there may not be a more important public policy initiative than what the Mississippi Justice Institute does every day to allow ordinary Mississippians to pursue their own version of happiness and prosperity,” Jon Pritchett, the President and CEO of Mississippi Center for Public Policy said. “When normal citizens experience barriers on the road to prosperity, it is often a barrier placed there by government. Aaron Rice is the kind of person who has never let any obstacle stand in his way. This is why I’m delighted that Aaron is leading our efforts.”

“Aaron Rice is a skilled litigator who will continue MJI's mission of pursuing cases that will foster economic liberty and personal freedom in Mississippi,” Mike Dawkins, Chairman of the Board of MCPP, said. “Aaron has a vision for the types of cases MJI should pursue and for how we can multiply our efforts through his recruitment and management of volunteer lawyers.”

“I am thrilled to have the opportunity to lead MJI,” Aaron said.  “To fight every day for the constitutional rights of Mississippians is a dream come true for me. Constitutional rights may sound like an old issue that was settled a long time ago, but every day, the lives of ordinary Mississippians are affected because the government has ignored their rights.  We want to put an end to that, and empower Mississippians to live freer, more prosperous lives.”

MJI’s activities include direct litigation on behalf of individuals, intervening in cases important to public policy, participating in regulatory and rule making proceedings, and filing amicus, or “friend of the Court,” briefs to offer unique perspectives on significant legal matters in Mississippi and Federal courts.

In a short period of time, MJI has built a reputation as an organization who will fight for Mississippians, whether it is entrepreneurs hoping to start a business, parents looking for a better educational option for their children, or taxpayers wanting to hold government accountable.

“I've known Aaron for over a decade and worked with him in the past,” Shadrack White, State Auditor and former Director of MJI, said. “I can say without hesitation that he is a brilliant lawyer and, more importantly, a man of deep conviction, courage, and character. MJI is in good hands. I look forward to seeing the work he will do on behalf of Mississippians in his new position.”

Aaron is native of Hattiesburg. After the September 11 terrorist attacks, Aaron felt called to serve his country. He joined the Marine Corps and was deployed to Iraq with the 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines; the battalion would go on to suffer the highest number of casualties of any in the Iraq war. Aaron received the Purple Heart for sustaining combat injuries that resulted in the loss of his left leg below the knee.

Upon returning home, Aaron earned a degree in political science from Mississippi State University and was awarded the national Truman Scholarship to pursue his graduate studies. He earned his law degree from the University of Mississippi School of Law, where he focused his studies on constitutional law.

Prior to joining the Mississippi Justice Institute, Aaron built his career as a litigation attorney at Butler Snow, a nationally recognized law firm in Mississippi. Aaron is a Fellow of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA) National Trial College at Harvard Law School, and a Graduate of the International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC) Trial Academy at Stanford Law School.

“My vision is for MJI to fight for ordinary Mississippians who want to do simple things every American has the right to do,” Aaron said. “Things like earning an honest living, keeping what rightfully belongs to them, sending their kids to a good school, and speaking freely about business or politics.

“If we are successful, every government body in Mississippi will know: if you overstep your bounds, we will find out about it, and we will stop you.  Every Mississippian will know: if the government is unnecessarily standing in your way, you can fight back, and we can help.”

Aaron is a Deacon at Madison Heights Church, PCA. He and his wife, Kelly, live in Madison with their four children, Clark, Griffin, Ramsey, and Miles.

We don’t want government telling us what to put in our mouths any more than we want them to tell us what can come out of our mouths. And the federal government has no legal authority to prevent state governments from changing their laws to remove state-level penalties for medical marijuana use. As a conservative state with a love for individual liberty and for federalism, this should be an easy decision, especially if we take the time to review the facts. In my view, the evidence is overwhelming.

Polling demonstrates that citizens are ahead of politicians and legislators across the county on this issue, with anywhere from as low as 65 percent to as high as 94 percent of Americans supporting the legalization of medical marijuana. And it spans all ages and party affiliations. A vast majority of Americans recognize the legitimate medical benefits of marijuana, as well as a large number of medical organizations. It is less harmful and poses fewer negative side effects than most prescription drugs – especially opiate-based painkillers – and patients often find it to be a more effective treatment.

Licensed medical doctors, already heavily regulated by the state, should be allowed to recommend solutions to deal with debilitating medical conditions, no matter the derivative of such solutions. If marijuana can provide relief to those suffering from terrible illnesses like cancer and HIV/AIDS, it is unconscionable to criminalize patients for using it. People who would benefit from medical marijuana should have right to use it legally. Legal prohibitions on commonly accepted behavior has never produced positive results. It’s bad public policy.

Medical marijuana is not the same as recreational marijuana and to try to conflate the two is an insult to the citizens of Mississippi and comes at the expense of patients who should be free to choose a legal option to opiate-based painkillers, with the guidance of their doctor. Rather than trying to turn this issue into a “law and order” one and attempting to convince us that patients suffering from debilitating illnesses and the doctors caring for them are criminals, our politicians should focus on removing this unnecessary barrier. The federal government put the barrier in place and 31 other states have rightly removed it. There is no legitimate reason for Mississippi not to do the same.

This is not a “crackpot” or “fringe” issue. The American Medical Association, The Institute of Medicine, and the American College of Physicians have all acknowledged the potential benefits of medical marijuana and the New England Journal of Medicine reported 76 percent of surveyed physicians would recommend it to a patient. Other legitimate health organizations supporting it include; American Academy of Family Physicians, American Nurses Association, American Public Health Association, American Academy of HIV Medicine, and the Epilepsy Foundation.

Government is already regulating the healthcare industry at an unprecedented level. The federal government has grown into an unwieldy and unresponsive beast – increasing its paternalism over us all. Is all of this really required? Is it even legitimate? Mississippi can join the other states who value federalism and respect the rights of patients and licensed doctors to decide what is best.

For liberty-minded conservatives, this should be an easy decision.

This column appeared in the Clarion Ledger on August 6, 2018. 

The Trump administration has expanded options for families struggling to find affordable health coverage.

The departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and the Treasury issued a new rule allowing individuals or families to utilize short-term, limited duration plans of up to 12 months, with potential for extensions up to 36 months. The Obama administration restricted these plans to three months without the option for renewal in 2016.

Short-term, limited-duration insurance is not required to comply with federal market requirements. It is largely used for those who are transitioning between different coverage options, such as those who would otherwise have a lapse in coverage when starting or transitioning to a new job, but can also be used by families without access to subsidized Obamacare plans because they make a little too much to qualify for a subsidy.

But they can’t afford the cost of health insurance.

These plans will be significantly more affordable. In the fourth quarter of 2016, the average monthly premium for an individual with a short-term plan was $124, compared to $393 for an unsubsidized plan in the exchange.

A recent report found that the number of people enrolling in the individual markets without subsidies declined by 20 percent, while premiums rose by 21 percent.

The Affordable Care Act is not working for too many Americans and it is becoming too expensive. This is a step to finding alternative healthcare coverage options for middle class citizens who are caught in the gap between not having employer-provided benefits and not qualifying for ACA subsidies.

Any steps towards a more market-based approach where we start to introduce competition, choice, and price rationale to the healthcare system is welcomed.

In this edition of Freedom In Five Minutes or Less, we talk about medical marijuana and why it is a freedom issue liberty-minded conservatives should support.

Supporters have begun the process of gathering signatures for a ballot initiative to legalize medical marijuana in Mississippi. Here are five common sense reasons why liberty-minded conservatives (and everyone else) should support medical marijuana:

• We don’t want government telling us what to put in our mouths any more than we want them to tell us what can come out of our mouths.
• Licensed medical doctors, already heavily regulated by the state, should be allowed to recommend solutions to deal with debilitating medical conditions, no matter the derivative of such solutions.
• Medical marijuana is not the same as recreational marijuana and to try to conflate the two is an insult to the citizens of Mississippi and comes at the expense of patients who should be free to choose a legal option to opiate-based painkillers, with the guidance of their doctor.
• Polling demonstrates that citizens are ahead of politicians and legislators across the county on this issue, with anywhere from as low as 65% to as high as 94% of Americans supporting the legalization of medical marijuana. And it spans all ages and party affiliations.
• This not a “crackpot” or “fringe” issue. The American Medical Association, The Institute of Medicine, and the American College of Physicians have all acknowledged the potential benefits of medical marijuana and the New England Journal of Medicine reported 76% of surveyed physicians would recommend it to a patient.