Send a text

In the early part of this millennium, 2006 or so, from a race standpoint it felt like we were on a roll—more mixed neighborhoods, more interracial marriages, more boring, everyday life together. Then somewhere around the Obama era, we took a hard turn.

 Suddenly every dispute was racial, and every outcome gap was “systemic racism.” And it seemed the answer to everything was to reengineer the scale until the numbers came out equal. Not enough of one race in top colleges? Lower the test bar for some groups. Too many Black people being arrested for crimes? We told cops to back off and ignore that some groups, for socioeconomic reasons, commit more crimes.

And worse, we told kids that their category mattered more than their choices. And crazily, we built an industry that needs racism more than it wants to solve it—needs it—because there’s money and power in keeping the wound open.

 Today I want to do two things: confess how I’ve been wrong about the word “social justice”—and then explain why I’m ready to embrace social justice, but only in a rational way.

Send a text

In this episode of Views on the News from the Couch, I take apart the fantasy that we can fix America’s $35‑trillion‑plus debt and multi‑trillion‑dollar deficits just by “taxing the rich.” We run a thought experiment: what if we confiscated all billionaire wealth, then everything from people worth over $100 million, then over $10 million? Even after blowing up the entire top of the wealth pyramid, the debt isn’t gone—and the economy that generates future tax revenue is wrecked.

Then we look at Sweden, a country that actually does big government honestly. Swedes pay high taxes at almost every income level, not just at the very top, and they accept that broad burden in exchange for broad benefits. Americans, by contrast, want Swedish‑style social benefits with U.S.‑style taxes on everyone except “the rich.”

Finally, we talk about waste, fraud, and abuse—why it’s not a magic fix, but why both big‑government and small‑government folks should be serious about rooting it out if we care about what we’re handing to the next generation. If you want an adult conversation about taxes, spending, and reality, this one’s for you.

Send a text

My goal is to explore subjects that interest me – and might interest you – with some occasional humor and less partisan spin.  

I call myself a conservative at about the 40‑yard line for Republicans but even that gets confusing given how far crazies and the media have moved the goalposts.  

My aim is simple: call out the crazy on all sides and pull the conversation back toward a sane middle.  AND encourage people to read the actual source material instead of just repeating headlines or relying on the media to tell us what we need to know.

If that sounds like your lane, give Views on the News from the Couch a try – and if you like it, share it. Be safe, and wear sunscreen.

Send a text

Let's add one more historical piece to this discussion that a lot of listeners will think of: the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Send a text

We love to say, “If I’d been around in the 1930s, I would have stopped Hitler early.” We curse the people who appeased him, who let him tear up treaties, who watched him send a few battalions into the Rhineland in 1936 and did nothing while his army was still relatively weak. We sit here with perfect hindsight and ask, “Why didn’t somebody move when the cost was still low, before the tanks rolled into Poland and France and Russia and the death camps lit up Europe?”

Well, we have our own modern day similar decisions.  And Iran may be one.  It is complex.  I explore the decision to attack Iran with hindsight from Hitler, the Iraw wars, note that is plural, and Gunsmoke.

Send a text

If you live in the modern Western world, your default setting probably ought to be “basically happy.”
 Not ecstatic, not Instagram‑perfect—just generally okay.

And if you’re not, at least some of that might be on you.

Because look at what we’ve got.....

Send a text

Today’s February 19, 2026 Views on the News from the Couch podcast asks the important question: Why do I think the left, littered with smart people and many academics, has more stupid ideas than the right?

Not that the right doesn’t have its own stupid ideas—we absolutely do. I’ve voted for Trump three times, but most of my conservative friends and I are unhappy with the tariff situation.  And we could name a few others.  And we express those criticisms.

My experience is that conservative bad ideas are more likely to get winnowed out faster, while a lot of bad ideas on the left live much longer, with less criticism, and a lot more social pressure to pretend they’re brilliant.

I want to walk through why I think that is—using a couple of lenses: capitalism vs. central planning, something called the Abilene paradox, and how elite media and elite psychology help dumb ideas survive.

Send a text

I float a theory I’ve been working on since 1977, long before Donald Trump came down the escalator and announced he was running for President.

 It’s a theory about pronouns, prejudice, and why the same person can be both charming in private and toxic in public.

Send a text

The February 1, 2026 episode of Views on the News from the Couch started in a weird way. I basically spent a morning arguing with my AI assistant so I probably should call this one “Questions from the Couch,” but instead let’s go with:

“I’m pissed my reasonable views are called racist, fascist and Nazi‑ish—and AI helped me understand why.”

I’m going to walk you through the conversation, because it actually helped me see what’s going on.

Send a text

ICE, A few Views from the Couch on What is going on in Minneapolis.  Summary, play with fire, get burnt.