“The online mob came for Harald Uhlig.” That is how a recent column by John Stossel begins. The University of Chicago professor is also the head of the Journal of Political Economy but found himself under investigation because he tweeted that Black Lives Matter “torpedoed itself, with its full-fledged support of #defund the police.” He was just another example of how the cancel culture movement tries to destroy the career of someone they dislike.

Earlier this month I wrote about how the cancel culture online mob came for J.K. Rowling, the famous author of the Harry Potter book series. She has made comments as a feminist that were perceived as transphobic. Some of the staff of her current publisher refused to work on her book.

John Stossel in his video on the online mob gives a number of examples of men and women who were forced out of their job because they said something true about the Black Lives Matter movement or failed to agree with the prevailing views about racism or transgenderism. It is likely that some will survive, but others will face opposition for years to come.

But what about less prominent people who are targeted? Paul Bradford writes about “The Real Cancel Culture” and provides stories of students who were expelled for making statements that the online mob felt were offensive. The column goes on to tell the stories of a Vermont principle, a nurse in North Carolina, and a Catholic priest all removed from their jobs. These people (and other mentioned in the piece) are less likely to recover from the actions of the online mob.

Sometimes skeptics argue that there is no cancel culture. These columns provide ample evidence that the cancel culture is real and remind us that we need to stand up for truth and free speech.

A dead cat in Atlanta, Georgia was sent a voter registration form in the mail. That is unfortunate since only live dogs and cats should be registered to vote. I’m joking, but just barely. One journalist has documented that, “Pets, some named Mozart and Scampers have also received voter applications in Florida, Colorado, and Washington state.”

This is not a new phenomenon. Years ago, I had a commentary about all the false names used to register voters in a number of states. For example, the names of the entire starting line of the Dallas Cowboys were used to register people to vote in Nevada. And the addresses used in some of these fraudulent forms have been traced to restaurants and vacant lots.

The Georgia Secretary of State says the voter application for Cody the cat did not come from their office. Third party groups often use mailing lists to get names and addresses. But you can imagine what the cat’s owner, Ron Tims, thought when he checked his mailbox and found a registration card for Cody Tims. He was a great cat and lived more than 18 years, but he did not need to register to vote, especially since he passed away some time ago.

Obviously, I am having some fun here, but the issue is serious. Mail-in ballots along with massive voter registration mailings have all the potential for misuse and abuse. Any person could take the voter registration application for the dead cat and fill it out with the necessary information. And when stacks of voter registration applications are dumped on the desk of local officials, they simply don’t have the time to check all the names and addresses. Whoever decides to “become” Cody Tims would then show up with a voter registration card or even ask for a mail-in ballot.

The next time someone tells you that voter fraud is a myth and that mail-in ballot elections are safe, just remember this story of a dead cat receiving a voter registration form.

Most of the debates we have in society are a war of words. It’s not surprising that liberals and progressives have redefined words and phrases to promote their agenda. Abortion is called choice. Homosexual marriage was recast as marriage equality. The list of redefined words and phrases has become quite long.

But the latest phenomenon has been to ban certain words and phrases. David Harsanyi mentioned an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer that describes four racists words that must be banned from our vocabulary. One of those is the phrase “peanut gallery.” No doubt you have heard someone say they don’t need any comments from the peanut gallery. The article tries to make this racist by linking this to a time when poor Americans and black Americans might have been relegated to the back sections of a theater. Most people would see this as a real stretch.

Another word we cannot use is “master” as in the master bedroom of a house. And we are told we need to change the name of the famous golf tournament known as “The Masters.” Since I have two Masters’ degrees, I wonder what I am supposed to call those degrees from Yale and Georgetown now. By the way, if there is any name that should be changed, it is Yale University, which is named for Elihu Yale, who was not only a slave owner but a slave trader.

I would hope that rational people can see the absurdity of banning the word masters. When I think of the Masters Golf Tournament, I think of Tiger Woods, Arnold Palmer, and Jack Nicklaus. On more than one occasion, I have told a speaker or a musician that his or her presentation was “masterful.” A painting or a musical score is often called a masterpiece.

When liberals redefine words and ban other words, it makes it more and more difficult to have a rational discussion. Maybe that’s the purpose after all.

In the midst of the debates about which lives matter is a more important question as to why lives matter at all. This is not a commentary about “Black Lives Matter” or “All Lives Matter.” There is a more fundamental question.

If you start with an evolutionary view that all of life is the result of chance, then on what basis can you argue that any life is more important than any other? One of the guests on my radio program argues that if you accept naturalistic Darwinism, then “No Lives Matter.”

In the midst of this debate and discussion, you would hope that Americans living in a society influenced by Judeo-Christian values might have a better answer. But that is not what George Barna has found in his latest survey through the Cultural Research Center. He concluded that less than four in ten (39%) of Americans today view human life as having unconditional, intrinsic worth. Most of those people are found in the deeply religious segments of society.

As you might expect, an evolutionary view surfaced in the research. One out of eight (12%) claimed that people are merely “material substance – biological machines.” Even more interesting was the fact that another one-eighth (12%) argued that people are “part of the mind of the universe.” Some people even argued the humans are “an illusion” or that we are a “sleeping god, part of the soul of the universe.”

A substantial share of the population combined to offer views such as “life is what you make it but is has no absolute value” (37%) and “life does not attain its full value until we reach our highest point of evolution and expression” (11%).

All of this suggests that the best question to ask is why any life matters and on what basis. Americans obviously have some very confused ideas about this.

The list of statutes that have been defaced or torn down increases each week. What started a few years ago as an attempt to remove a few statutes after an extended political debate has obviously spun out of control.

What do George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Winston Churchill, Gandhi, Cervantes, Voltaire, and guitarist Stevie Ray Vaughn have in common? Not much. But that is just a small representation of statutes that have been defaced or pulled down. Then there is the defacing of abolitionist Matthias Baldwin and the recent toppling of the statute of former slave and abolitionist Frederick Douglas. There is no consistency in anything these mobs are doing in the streets today.

While irrational people in the streets are tearing down statutes and monuments, perhaps it is time for some of us more rational citizens to begin to think through what figures in the public square are appropriate or inappropriate.

I think we can all agree that a leader who has consistently engaged in evil acts should not be memorialized. Adolf Hitler was an evil man. So was Joseph Stalin. We don’t want statues of them in this country or any other. But I am still wondering how a statute of Vladimir Lenin ended up in the Seattle’s Freemont neighborhood.

Every group of heroes will have some flaws. Every leader will have flaws. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Fallen heroes and fallen leaders still deserve to be honored. When men and women have failed, they deserve to be forgiven. Michael Brendan Dougherty reminds us that the beautiful sculpture of Michelangelo’s David stands in Florence not “as a tribute or endorsement of the murder of Uriah the Hittite. Just as George Washington’s name does not grace our capital city or the names of our schools because he owned slaves.”

A statute or memorial can honor people without it excusing their flaws.

The lockdowns during the pandemic may have been helpful for our physical health, but they have not been so helpful for our mental health. One example can be seen in the dramatic increase in drug overdose deaths.

The database constructed by the Washington Post found a troubling correlation between the lockdowns and drug overdose deaths. Of course, a correlation doesn’t mean causation, but I think we can reasonably infer the connection between the two.

Even if you assume that drug use during the lockdowns has remained constant, the writers at the newspaper can still come up with two reasons why drug overdose deaths have increased. First, the pandemic and the lockdowns have disrupted the drug supply chains. This might have led to more and more drug users to taking more deadly synthetic drugs.

The second reason is even darker and more disturbing. In a world of isolation and social distancing, many of these sequestered people are taking drugs alone. That means it is less likely that there might be someone else around who could call 911. Drug use in the midst of social isolation has become deadly.

Of course, there is every reason to believe that drug use did increase during the lockdowns. People were home alone, with little to do. Their jobs used to provide structure and purpose. It also provided them with earned income and self-esteem. Many of the people at home lost their jobs. It’s easy to see why more isolated people might turn to drugs.

Increased drug use and increased drug overdose deaths are an important factor to keep in mind when politicians call for another lockdown. There are a number of mental and medical costs associated with lockdowns that often are often ignored in the political debates and discussions. There is a deadly cost to social isolation.

Two weeks ago, schools were in the news for many different reasons. The Supreme Court ruled in a case involving schools and scholarships. The latest book by Thomas Sowell (Charter Schools and Their Enemies) was released. And Kevin Williamson wrote a commentary that asked the question, What Are Schools For?

The Supreme Court ruled that if a state like Montana provided a scholarship program that allowed students to attend private schools of their family’s own choosing, it could not prohibit the funds from being used to attend a private, religious school. In the process, it essentially removed the Blaine amendment.

As I explained in my commentary in February, the Blaine amendment was a failed attempt a century ago to keep Catholic schools from receiving any government funds. More recently, its inclusion in some state constitutions had been used to prevent any funds going to religious schools.

The criticism of the Supreme Court’s decision brings us to the focus on the book by Thomas Sowell and commentary by Kevin Williamson. They both make a point that should be obvious but has been lost in all the debate about education. The key point is this: “Schools exist for the education of children.”

If our goal is “the education of children,” then any school, program, or scholarship that advances that goal should be sufficient. Students usually do better in charter schools and private schools and Christian schools than in public schools. But teachers’ unions and education agencies don’t control those other school choices, and that is why all the critical comments.

Perhaps they should focus their attention on what is NOT happening in the public schools. The National Assessment of Educational Progress found that only a third (37%) of the nation’s 12th-graders tested proficient or better in reading. Only one fourth (25%) were proficient or better in math. This seems to me to be a failing grade.

For decades most people knew Bono as a musician with the group U2 and a social activist. But today many of his fans would be surprised to hear him promote some of the benefits of capitalism.

At a World Economic Forum he made this observation. “Capitalism is not immoral—it’s amoral. It requires our instruction. Capitalism has taken more people out of poverty than any other ism.’ But it is a wild beast and, if not tamed, it can chew up a lot of people along the way.” As you can see he isn’t a complete supporter of the free market, but is willing to give some appreciation for what capitalism has done reduce extreme poverty.

Hugh Whelchel, Executive Director of the Institute for Faith, Work & Economics, begins his essay with this quote from Bono. He then goes on to document something I have talked about with a number of economists and theologians on the Point of View radio talk show. Capitalism has been able to raise more than one billion people around the world out of extreme poverty.

On one of my radio programs I quoted a Barna survey of Americans. Three fourths of those surveyed believed that world poverty had increased. Only 7 percent thought it decreased. Scott Todd in his book, Hope Rising, reminds us that in 1981, a majority (52%) of the developing world’s population lived in extreme poverty. That percentage has been cut by more than half.

Hugh Whelchel reminds us that a recent Gallup poll shows that a majority (51%) of young people favors socialism over capitalism. The increased visibilities of members of Congress who openly describe themselves as socialist suggest that the percentage of young people embracing socialism might increase.

These young people need to pay attention to Bono and the world economic statistics that demonstrate the power of a free market to relieve poverty.