“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right
to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

- George Orwell

Let's see, you could have an acerbic, irascible, quick-with-quip wounded war veteran who is much older than his opponent as the Republican nominee for president, who could be going against a fresh, young face who has come out of nowhere in recent years to infuse and enthuse an electorate that seems eager for change.

How did that turn out for Bob Dole?

Man, people say the Ron Paul "Paul-bots" are obsessive, but checking out Hugh Hewitt's blog the past couple of times makes me think there's been some kind of Rom-bot Invasion of the Party Snatchers. There's a new post every 17 minutes defending Mitt Romney or blasting McCain, or both, and absolutely nothing else. Even a headline suggestive of an economics story is written in terms of what it means to Romney's candidacy. If we knew the world was going to end in 3 hours Hugh's headline would be "Apocalypse snatches victory from Mitt's grasp at the last moment."

Oh well, Mitt seems like a decent sort. If it's between him and McCain I'd vote for Romney, or some 6th or 7th party candidate, before I'd vote for McCain. Or maybe I'll just go get a tooth filled instead. This race just isn't that interesting or amusing to me.

Not like the other side of the fence where The Big O is facing off against the Big Uh-Oh. Do you remember back in 8th or 9th grade when people would start shouting about a "girl-fight" and you'd push your way through the crowd to get a good view — and then start pushing your way back out again after getting hit with a handful of hair? Man, girls fight nasty and yet everyone assumes they're so much more refined and cultured than boys. Just try to look away, though. Similarly Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton race around trying to convince the Dem's flotilla of special interest groups that he or she is the biggest victim and worthy of their vote. It's as compelling as watching "Real Life Stories of the ER", without that annoying message warning of graphic scenes. Plus there's always the chance of seeing Bill Clinton wag his, um, finger at us again. Good times.

Then, just as you think the story is all played out, there's a shocking twist like Teddy Kennedy endorsing Obama. That reminded me of another episode from my younger days. Ever play "Risk", the game of world domination? Do you remember the visceral thrill you got when one of the players from a strategic alliance that had been cleaning up the board suddenly turned on his partner and struck from the rear? Yeah, you knew it was inevitable but it still gave you a pleasant shiver. This was even better than John Kerry forsaking his running mate Edwards a couple of weeks ago to jump on the Obama wagon. I can just hear Obama saying "Thanks, John, now would you mind not standing so close to me when the cameras are clicking?" I didn't see the Kennedy endorsement coming, though, at least not this soon. I don't know, maybe Ted thought Obama was an Irish name?

Speaking of alliances, some are saying that the distant third place Democrat candidate John Edwards is in line to be Obama's attorney general. Wow, a trial lawyer and union puppet as head of the Justice Department? He'd make Halliburton look like a couple of neighborhood kids opening a lemonade stand.

Woot! Free money from the government!

Hmmm, wonder where they got it? Maybe someone accidentally left the printing presses on overnight at the Mint.

The proposed "stimulus" sounds kind of dubious to me. Kind of like pouring some Heet into your carburetor; you get a quick roar and a flash, maybe a puff of smoke from the engine and then it's gone. If there isn't any gas in the tank to begin with you're not going anywhere.

It's hard to believe $150 billion can disappear as quickly, and with as little effect, as moth pee evaporating off a light bulb, but a little extra one-time disposable income isn't going to encourage people to save or invest, which is what's really needed if you want to get the engine running again.

Oh, don't worry, I'll take the money, alright. And any leftover cheese if the government's still got any. It's just hard to think of what to spend it on as the value of the money is going to depreciate even as it's still in the mail to me. I think the wise Reverend Mother, also known as "The Finance Minister" around our house hit on the best (if most ironic) use for the almost intangible money:

Buy gold.

Don't like the opportunistic, economically-flawed, even counter-productive rush to biofuels? You're not alone, though you might be surprised who shares your concerns.

Oxfam International, a social justice, anti-poverty organization has released a report condemning the EU's biofuel mandates as not only being unproductive, but downright nasty:

EU proposals will make it mandatory by 2020 for ten per cent of all member states’ transport fuels to come from biofuels. In order to meet the substantial increase in demand, the EU will have to import biofuels made from crops like sugar cane and palm oil from developing countries. But the rush by big companies and governments in countries such as Indonesia, Colombia, Brazil, Tanzania and Malaysia to win a slice of the ‘EU biofuel pie’ threatens to force poor people from their land, destroy their livelihoods, lead to the exploitation of workers and hurt the availability and affordability of food.

“In the scramble to supply the EU and the rest of the world with biofuels, poor people are getting trampled. The EU proposals as they stand will exacerbate the problem. It is unacceptable that poor people in developing countries should bear the cost of questionable attempts to cut emissions in Europe,” said Robert Bailey from Oxfam.

Biofuels may offer the potential to reduce poverty by increasing jobs and markets for small farmers, and by providing cheap renewable energy for local use, but the huge plantations emerging to supply the EU pose more threats than opportunities for poor people. The problem will only get worse as the scramble to supply intensifies unless the EU introduces safeguards to protect land rights, livelihoods, workers rights and food security.

EU member states agreed that the ten per cent target must be reached sustainably, but Oxfam warns that the current proposals contain no standards on the social or human impact.

“The EU set its biofuel target without checking the impact on people and the environment. The EU must include safeguards to ensure that the rights and livelihoods of people in producing countries are protected. Without these, the ten per cent target should be scrapped and the EU should go back to the drawing board,” said Bailey.

“Let’s be clear, biofuels are not a panacea – even if the EU is able to reach the ten per cent target sustainably, and Oxfam doubts that it can, it will only shave a few per cent of emissions off a continually growing total.”

Published reports show that as much as 5.6 million square kilometres of land – an area more than ten times the size of France – could be in production of biofuels within 20 years in India, Brazil, Southern Africa and Indonesia alone. The UN estimates that 60 million people worldwide face clearance from their land to make way for biofuel plantations. Many end up in slums in search of work, others on the very plantations that have displaced them with poor pay, squalid conditions and no worker rights. Women workers are routinely discriminated against and often paid less then men.

You can read the entire report on Oxfam's site. While there's a certain amount of "World to end; women and minorities hardest hit" perspective, it's an interesting take on an issue that many people, despite differing political views, still sense is profoundly wrong-headed.

HT: Amy Ridenour's National Center Blog.

Don't look at me like that. In this case FAGS stands for Fight Against Government Suppression (it's also Brit slang for cigarettes), and is the name of an English political party established by pub-owner Hamish Howitt, the first pub-owner in England to be prosecuted for violating the country's new smoking ban for pubs and restaurants. Howitt, a non-smoker himself, pleaded guilty but vows to continue to allow smoking in his pub and to not pay the fines.

From Scotsman.com:

I'll still ignore smoking ban, vows publican fined £500
KIM PILLING

A SCOTTISH pub landlord vowed yesterday to continue to allow his customers to flout the smoking ban in England after being fined for offences at his bar in Blackpool.

Hamish Howitt, 55, who was born in Glasgow, was fined £500 and ordered to pay £2,000 prosecution costs after he admitted flouting the ban, which was introduced in England in July.

The owner of the Happy Scots Bar is the first publican south of the Border to be convicted of breaching the law. Howitt, a non-smoker, has been a staunch critic of the ban and set up a political party called Fight Against Government Suppression, or FAGS.

However, District Judge Peter Ward, sentencing Howitt at Blackpool Magistrates' Court, said his campaign had been "silly, misguided and pointless".

Granted, it's not exactly William Wallace mooning the Brits, but Howitt has definitely set out to pick a fight as the signage on the outside walls of his pub demonstrate in these Flickr photos here and here. (Normally I would download the images and post them here rather than poaching bandwidth by linking to the site but the images are copyrighted and I don't want to stretch the "fair-use" doctrine, especially when I don't know who to credit for the originals).

Howitt doesn't risk losing his head (merely his pub license) for his violations, though judging by the comments from readers at the end of the article, there are some who wouldn't mind seeing him drawn and quartered.

As a dedicated non-smoker myself (never smoked, in fact) and someone who has deliberately avoided public places that are too smokey, I nevertheless side with the rights of private property owners to manage their legal businesses (and customers using legal products) as they see fit, free from government encroachment, especially when dubious science is involved. (I'm sure it won't be long before some study links the number of smokers being forced outside to man-made global warming.)

In this week's Tuesday Morning Quarterback on ESPN.com, Gregg Easterbrook (no fan of George W. Bush) writes:

Exaggerating the Case Against Bush Only Lessens the Focus on His Real Faults:
There's a lot to dislike about the George W. Bush administration — the Iraq war, lack of action on petroleum waste, wiretapping — but in the rush to make Bush seem as bad as possible, the establishment media consistently have distorted his domestic environmental record, which is basically fine. Air, water and toxic pollution have declined since Bush took office; all U.S. environmental indicators except greenhouse gas emissions have been positive for 20 to 30 years, which you'd never know from opening the morning newspaper.

A problem is that environmental journalists are genetically programmed to spin all stories as bad news while ignoring progress. A classic example is stories expressing horror and outrage that environmental prosecutions initiated by the EPA or filed by the Justice Department are declining, as they have been since the middle of the Clinton administration. But it's good that environmental prosecutions are declining — the reason is that pollution is declining! As pollution declines, there are fewer violations to prosecute. If speeding declined, police would write fewer tickets: Would we be glad speeding was declining or express horror over the shocking, shocking reduction in prosecution of speeders?

There the canard was again as the Sunday lead-headline story of The Washington Post: "The Environmental Protection Agency's pursuit of criminal cases against polluters has dropped off sharply during the Bush administration, with the number of prosecutions, new investigations and total convictions all down by more than a third," the story began. Of course environmental prosecution is declining, there is less to prosecute every year! The Post's banner story ran 38 paragraphs but never mentioned that all forms of pollution except greenhouse gases are declining, and because greenhouse-gas emissions are legal, there's nothing to prosecute. Mention that pollution is in long-term decline, and Sunday's front-page banner story in The Washington Post goes "poof."

Last week the Inver Grove Heights City Council met to hear from the public regarding a new property maintenance ordinance aimed at instituting certain appearance, maintenance and lawn-care standards for private homes. As with many laws, especially those regarding private property, this ordinance wasn't aimed at defining or protecting an owner's property rights, but at criminalizing poor or indifferent citizenship. Of course, it's all for a good cause: "It's for the children," one of the proponents said.

Apparently, it's more harmful for children to see a messy yard than it is for them to see adults taking their neighbors to court to resolve a problem instead of pitching in to help.

As a property-owner I know how discouraging and aggravating it can be to share a neighborhood — or even a property-line — with an "eye-sore" home and lot. I am much more concerned, however, with the ever-increasing encroachments on property rights, typically in the name of "doing good." From Kelo, to smoking bans, to how high you let the grass grow, it's an ever-expanding power-grab passed off as being for the common good without any real examination of how much good — or how much harm — is actually being done. (On a side-note, I heard one news-reader on KFAN this a.m. referring to the new state-wide smoking ban in bars and restaurants, say the ban "does not apply to private homes at this time" — suggesting, what?)

In this particular case, this issue for me is not just a legal or conservative one about rights and what you can get people to go along with, it is a moral and Biblical one as well. Usually it seems that if you raise a moral issue these days it's assumed that you want to impose some narrow-minded "thou shalt not" on other people. In this case the "thou shalt nots" being imposed are coming from the larger public and what's being missed is the "thou shall" Biblical instruction. You know, the one that "thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself." Note, that doesn't say "love they neighbor only if thy neighbor is a believer," nor does it say "if you are a believer, thou shall love thy neighbor."

What if that neighbor with the dilapidated house or junky yard is someone struggling just to make ends meet and can't afford to make the improvements to the paint or siding that the community deems to be necessary? What if that neighbor is working two or three jobs and might skip mowing the lawn from time to time? What if your neighbors are an elderly couple who don't have the physical, let alone financial, resources to maintain the property but are trying to live independently? Shall we just have our pubic servants, the police, march up to the door and slap a citation on it? Certainly it would be "legal." Or, alternatively, shall we walk up to the door in person, knock on it and say, "Hi, you may not know me but I'm your next-door neighbor and I was wondering if there was something I could do to help?"

Ok, so what if that neighbor is a lazy bum who's perfectly capable of maintaining his house or yard, or is someone who just likes to use old washing machines as lawn statuary? Well, it could be that your offer might not be well-received, or that your neighbor might think that you're the nutjob. But if a succession of people approached him or her over time and offered to help (as opposed to demanding that he or she "straighten up") what effect could that have? The neighbor would know that people are paying attention, that they care about the neighborhood and their property values, and that they're willing to try to help first rather than condemn. He may not change his attitude completely but he may be motivated to try to make some improvements (even grudgingly) or even accept an offer of help. Which approach do you think ultimately contributes to a better neighborhood?

If that is starting to sound like a good idea to you, but you're thinking, "yeah, why can't the government do something to help that guy?" then you're still missing the point. A lot of the problems we're facing in our communities come from the fact that we've allocated to the government the responsibility of looking out for the well-being of those around us, of loving our neighbors. Sure, we mean to "do good" by passing new laws and taxes but we're merely passing off our personal responsibility to do good to another, impersonal (and usually less efficient) entity.

Now it could be that your neighbor is a loser with no conscience or sense of shame who will readily accept help from you and your neighbor and just sit back and figure someone will always bail him out and never lift a finger himself. There's certainly precedent for that happening when the help comes from a faceless government, but may not be so common when there are real faces involved. It's worth a try at least to see if you can make a difference, and if someone is totally resistant or irresponsible there are other Biblical examples of how to deal with an unrepentent individual (and no, they don't involve stoning — I'm thinking Matthew 18:15-17).

Furthermore, do we know how many people might fall into this latter category, and might it be worthwhile to figure it out before writing an ordinance or passing a law? At the Inver Grove Heights meeting, one person asked the Council how many complaints had been filed regarding nuisance properties. The answer was 160. The questioner then asked how many private homes were in Inver Grove Heights. The Council and the proponents of the ordinance didn't know.

How many of the complaints referred to the same property? They didn't know.

How many complaints had been filed by the same person? They didn't know.

For the time being, the Council has decided to proceed with a stripped down version of the ordinance that regulates junk, open storage, woodpiles and similar eyesores but not the outside condition of houses and other buildings. It was much less than ordinance proponents were hoping for, and the issue is still alive. A second reading of the ordinance is scheduled for the next Council meeting on October 8.

Now that Larry Craig has belatedly done the honorable thing and resigned from the Senate we are spared the torturous explanations to the effect that he is not gay but was merely tapping his foot in time to the Pat Boone tunes he was listening to on his iPod. Nor will we have to hear that in reality he has silently suffered from Restless Leg Syndrome (as a result of childhood trauma) and has now realized the need to place himself under a doctor's care and hopes other sufferers will be inspired by his example to get the help they need before it's too late and their own actions are horribly and publicly misconstrued.

My objection to Craig's behavior isn't so much because he was allegedly cruising for gay sex (not that there's anything wrong with that. of course) in a public restroom, but that he was doing so in violation of his wedding vows. Whether it happens in the men's room of the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport or in a windowless hallway outside the Oval Office study, infidelity is sleazy and despicable. How can you trust anyone who has sworn to protect the Constitution against "all enemies foreign and domestic" on behalf of millions of people he'll never meet when he's already disregarded the "love, honor and cherish" promise to someone he'll have to face the rest of his life?

The most disappointing thing about the whole Craig episode and its coverage is that it is the gay-sex angle is what is sensationalized and not the faithlessness. Strangely, in today's supposedly metrosexual, Will & Grace, Queer As (just plain) Folk, just-another-form-of-normal culture it's the gay angle that gets the Man-bites-dog treatment while the marital infidelity aspect is apparently so common as to be unremarkable.

And really, aren't all of these scandals becoming so common that they barely justify the shock treatment in the media? It's looking as if the page-abusing, hooker-visiting, perv-inducing legislators in D.C. are the norm and the front-page, 24-hour-news-cycle treatment should be reserved for the men and women who don't lower themselves. It's to the point where saying, "A pox on both your houses" isn't a curse of disgust but a prophetic statement.

Chad the Elder at Fraters Libertas beat me to posting about an editorial in the Wall Street Journal the absurdity and hypocrisy of those using the cantilevered ruins of the 35W bridge as a springboard to call for higher gas taxes.

Minnesota's transportation auditors warned as long ago as 1990 that there was a "backlog of bridges that are classified as having structural deficiencies." In 1999 engineers declared that cracks found in the bridge that collapsed were "a major concern." Bike paths were deemed a higher priority by Congress, however, including its powerful Minnesota Representatives.

As recently as July 25, Mr. Oberstar sent out a press release boasting that he had "secured more than $12 million in funding" for his state in a recent federal transportation and housing bill. But $10 million of that was dedicated to a commuter rail line, $250,000 for the "Isanti Bike/Walk Trail," $200,000 to bus services in Duluth, and $150,000 for the Mesabi Academy of Kidspeace in Buhl. None of it went for bridge repair.

Minnesota's state budget is also hardly short of tax revenue. The state spends $25 billion a year, twice what it did 10 years ago. The Tax Foundation reports that Minnesota has the seventh highest personal income tax rates among all states, the third highest corporate tax rates, and the 10th highest taxes on workers.

The Legislature started the year with a record $2 billion budget surplus, and the economy threw off another $149 million of unexpected revenue. Where did all that money go? Not to roads and bridges. The Taxpayers League of Minnesota says the politicians chose to pour those tax dollars into more spending for health care, art centers, sports stadiums and welfare benefits.

Even transportation dollars aren't scarce. Minnesota spends $1.6 billion a year on transportation — enough to build a new bridge over the Mississippi River every four months. But nearly $1 billion of that has been diverted from road and bridge repair to the state's light rail network that has a negligible impact on traffic congestion. Last year part of a sales tax revenue stream that is supposed to be dedicated for road and bridge construction was re-routed to mass transit. The Minnesota Department of Economic Development reports that only 2.8% of the state's commuters ride buses or rail to get to work, but these projects get up to 25% of the funding.

Americans aren't selfish or stingy, and they can see for themselves that many of our roads need repair. Minnesota in particular is a state that has long prided itself on its "progressive" politics and a willingness to pay higher taxes for good government. Minnesotans already pay twice as much in taxes per capita than residents in New Hampshire and Texas — states that haven't had a major bridge collapse.

We don't lack the money in Minnesota to do what needs to be done, and should have been done. What we lack are the political leaders on both sides with the vision and guts to serve the public and not their pet interest groups. The money problem isn't that there's not enough to do the job but that it's misused and abused to buy votes — whether it's state money diverted to boondoggles or the money the special interests pour in to fit lovely gold rings into the noses of the politicians.

Most folks can recall the references to God in the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence; you know the parts about "the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them" and all men being "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." You might be surprised, however, to know that this wasn't the last reference — in what some today would have you believe is a "secular" document — to a Divine interest in the affairs at hand. The last paragraph also establishes a spiritual foundation:

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.