<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rdf:RDF
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
 xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
 xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
 xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
>

<channel rdf:about="http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/">
<title>The Night Writer</title>
<link>http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/</link>
<description>Illuminating fun, faith, family and foolishness.</description>
<dc:language>en-us</dc:language>
<dc:date>2008-09-23T04:09+00:00</dc:date>
<items>
 <rdf:Seq>
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1222135758.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1219640787.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1202233162.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1201664839.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1201287395.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1194478769.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1194377921.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1191462352.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1191209018.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1188775212.shtml" />
 </rdf:Seq>
</items>
</channel>

<item rdf:about="http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1222135758.shtml">
<title>Fish House Economics: bail-outs and eelpouts</title>
<link>http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1222135758.shtml</link>
<description>...</description>
<dc:creator>The Night Writer</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-09-23T02:09+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<br />
I once lead a group of men up to Lake Mille Lacs for an ice-fishing weekend. Ice-fishing isn't necessarily a thrill a minute, or even a thrill an hour. To wile away the time when we weren't clubbing <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eelpout">eelpout </a>or steeling ourselves for a trip to the satellite, I devised a poker tournament.<br />
<br />
The concept was simple. Each of the ten guys received $2500 in scrip to use for betting. At the end of the weekend we would use the scrip we'd accumulated to bid on prizes that I brought along. Scrip changed hands at a moderate rate for the first hour or so as we played conventional games such as five card draw and seven card stud. Then someone suggested a hand of "in-between".<br />
<br />
For those not familiar with this type of poker, it is a very simple but diabolical game that calls for very little strategy but generates huge pots and sudden betting reversals that deliver the kind of belly laughs that normally accompany watching another guy take an unexpected shot to the - umm - mid-section. The way it works is a player is dealt two cards face up. He then bets any amount up to whatever is in the pot at the time on whether the next card will be "in-between" the two cards (a card the same value as one of the first two dealt counts as a loss). Sometimes a player would get a deuce/king split and brazenly bet the pot, only to see another deuce or an ace turn up (hilarity would ensue). He would then have to pay the amount in the pot, which fattened it up significantly for the next guy who got a wide split and an opportunity to bet on a "sure thing". <br />
<br />
This soon became the game of choice among our group, and it wasn't long after that before our first guys tapped out. Since it was hours until dawn and the fish were fasting, "loans" were quickly arranged from the people with a big stack to those less fortunate so everyone could continue to play. Soon enough, the once wealthy were borrowing from other players as well so everyone could "stay in the game." Some effort was made to keep track of who owed what and to who, but it rapidly became so convoluted as to be impossible.<br />
<br />
By the time we were ready to leave, even the guy who had the biggest stack at the end still owed many times that to other players, who themselves owed many of their neighbors. As we tried to reconstruct the transactions I got the idea to add up all the "loans" that had been passed around. Even though there was still only $25,000 in actual scrip, the total of all the loans was easily more than ten times that. The only way we could have settled every thing was for me to go back into town and hit the Kinko's to photocopy more scrip!<br />
<br />
I don't know what made me remember this story. <br />
]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1219640787.shtml">
<title>A strong recommendation for &lt;i>The Strong Man&lt;/i></title>
<link>http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1219640787.shtml</link>
<description>...</description>
<dc:creator>The Night Writer</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-08-25T05:08+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><br />
<i>History means the endless rethinking &mdash; and re-viewing and revisiting &mdash; of the past. History, in the broad sense of the word, is revisionist. History involves multiple jeopardy that the law eschews: People and events are retried and retried again.</i>  --John Lukacs </blockquote><br />
I was in my early teens when the Watergate saga dominated the news and politics, setting the course of the style and tone of political reporting we take for granted today. You couldn't avoid the story as it played out, though eventually my attention would not extend much beyond the headlines as things such as girls and getting my driver's license became more important. <br />
<br />
Then, a couple of months ago I heard Hugh Hewitt interviewing author James Rosen about his just released book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Strong-Man-Mitchell-Secrets-Watergate/dp/0385508646/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219636958&sr=1-1">"The Strong Man: John Mitchell and the Secrets of Watergate."</a> At first my long-buried, reflexive mental eye-glazing at the mention of the word "Watergate" had me tuning out but some of Rosen's statements piqued my interest. Watergate was one of the defining and far-reaching events of our modern history and Mitchell was, next to Nixon, the central character in the drama &mdash; yet little was known about him. He himself was largely close-mouthed and much of the testimony by others about his role and involvement was contradictory and self-serving. As I listened to the interview I had to admit that it would be fascinating to get a look at what went on in the mind and life of the man who was the Attorney General not just for Watergate, but also the era of school desegregation battles, campus unrest and Kent State, and the investigations of historical figures such as Lt. William Calley and Jimmy Hoffa.  <br />
<br />
Before it could slip from my mind I went on-line and requested a copy of the book from my local library (it had yet to be purchased). A couple of weeks ago I was notified the book was waiting for me and I picked it up. I was finishing another book at the time so I didn't turn to <i>The Strong Man</i> right away. My borrowing period was almost up when I started to read it and I was so taken with the Prologue that I immediately tried to renew the book, only to find that I couldn't because others were waiting for it. Rats! I seriously thought about keeping the book until I was finished and just paying the fines, but realized that was selfish and inconsiderate of me when other people are waiting. From what I've read so far, I think people are going to be very happy to get their hands on this as soon as they can. I'm turning it back in &mdash; and I've got my name back on the waiting list!<br />
<br />
The Prologue does a great job of setting the scene and outlining the significance of Mitchell's historical role and the irony of there being so little examination of it. Some of this was due to Mitchell's own reticence, so unlike his contemporaries:<br />
<blockquote><br />
Equally unlike his fellow Watergate convicts, Mitchell never published a book about his years in power, never sold his soul to pay lawyer's fees, never dished dirt on Richard Nixon to delight university audiences on the lecture circuit or viewers of <i>The Mike Douglas Show</i>. He never "found God." In electing to tough it out, one columnist wrote, Mitchell stood "up to his hips in midgets among the other Watergate characters...dividing the men from the boys." "Among the WASP Westchester country club Mafia," another columnist observed of Mitchell's behavior in Watergate, "the code of <i>omertà</i> holds." Richard Nixon, toasting his former attorney general at a post-prison party he threw for Mitchell in San Clemente, put it simplest: "John Mitchell has friends &mdash; and he stands by them."<br />
</blockquote><br />
No biographer even contacted him, though three books were written about his wife Martha, "an emotionally disturbed alcoholic whose late-night crank calls splashed her face across the front pages of every newspaper and magazine in the country."<br />
<blockquote><br />
Stunningly, no one bothered to chronicle the life of John Mitchell: child of the Depression, World War II combat veteran; Wall Street innovator; gray-flannel power broker to governors and mayors in all fifty states; Richard Nixon's law partner, consigliere, and winning campaign manager in 1968 and 1972; America's top cop, as attorney general, during the Days of Rage, the May Day riots, and the Pentagon Papers; and Public Enemy Number One when, in the words of a British observer, "the great black cloud of Watergate seemed to settle over America like a kind of grand judgment, not just on Nixon himself, but on the whole of post-war America."<br />
</blockquote><br />
In fact, Rosen notes, <br />
<blockquote><br />
John Mitchell bore witness to the most searing political turmoil in America since the Civil War. After all, it was Mitchell who ran the Department of Justice, and the administration of justice in those years occupies the central role in all lingering controversies from that era: Was justice done in the enforcement of school desegregation and antitrust laws? In the battles against antiwar protesters and radical groups? At Kent State and Jackson State? In the cases of Daniel Ellsberg and Lt. William Calley, Jimmy Hoffa and Robert Vesco, Abe Fortas and Clement Haynsworth, John Lennon and the Berrigan brothers, the Black Panthers and ITT?<br />
</blockquote><br />
Rosen devoted two decades to researching and writing the book, poring over relevant secondary sources such as the 500 books written about Watergate, Nixon, the 60s, and the countless newspaper and magazine articles from that time. Additionally, he interviewed <br />
<blockquote><br />
... 250 people, including two presidents, a vice president, two chief justices, three secretaries of state, two CIA directors, and a great many staff members of the Nixon White House and the Committee to Re-elect the President ... Also questioned were party officials and secretaries employed at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in June of 1972. These sessions included the only extensive interviews ever conducted with the woman whose telephone was wiretapped in the Watergate break-in and surveillance operation and more than eight hours of interviews with the only man who monitored the wiretap.<br />
</blockquote><br />
He also used the Freedom of Information act to get access to thousands of undisclosed documents from the Nixon Presidential Materials Project, including all of Haldeman's and Ehrlichman's 200,000 pages of hand-written notes from their meetings with the President. His research even included the internal files of the staff lawyers on the Watergate Special Prosecution Force and sworn testimonies from closed-door executive sessions of the Senate Watergate committee. He claims to know "what the WSPF lawyers knew about Watergate and when they knew it." These details showed key witnesses consciously changing their testimony to implicate Mitchell and hide their own actions. Finally, he had Mitchell's own private correspondence from prison, as well as Mitchell's tax returns and other de-classified documents. While he hints at revelations and developments in the prologue it is clear, in Rosen's own words, "Assuredly (this)... is not your father's Watergate."<br />
 <br />
Whereas the mention of Watergate used to bore me senseless, I am now excited to get this book back in my hands. It's almost as if I've discovered a long-last family album labeled with the names of people I half-remember that promises to explain the past...and describe the future. Oh, hell, forget the library. I may have to buy the book!]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1202233162.shtml">
<title>That'll work</title>
<link>http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1202233162.shtml</link>
<description>...</description>
<dc:creator>The Minfidel</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-02-05T17:02+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<br />
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. <br />
<br />
How <i>did</i> that turn out for Bob Dole?]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1201664839.shtml">
<title>Of style and substance (abuse)</title>
<link>http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1201664839.shtml</link>
<description>...</description>
<dc:creator>The Minfidel</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-01-30T03:01+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<br />
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."<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 &mdash; and then start pushing your way back out again after getting hit with a handful of hair? Man, girls fight <i>nasty </i>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.<br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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. ]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1201287395.shtml">
<title>About that hole burning in my pocket...</title>
<link>http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1201287395.shtml</link>
<description>Woot! Free money from the government!...</description>
<dc:creator>The Night Writer</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-01-25T18:01+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Woot! Free money from the government! <br />
<br />
Hmmm, wonder where they got it? Maybe someone accidentally left the printing presses on overnight at the Mint. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
Buy gold. ]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1194478769.shtml">
<title>Biofuel me once, shame on you...</title>
<link>http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1194478769.shtml</link>
<description>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....</description>
<dc:creator>The Night Writer</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-11-07T23:11+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[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. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.oxfam.org/en/about/">Oxfam International</a>, a social justice, anti-poverty organization has released a <a href="http://www.oxfam.org/en/news/2007/pr071101_biofuelling_poverty">report </a>condemning the EU's biofuel mandates as not only being unproductive, but downright nasty: <br />
<blockquote><br />
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.  <b>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.</b><br />
<br />
“In the scramble to supply the EU and the rest of the world with biofuels, poor people are getting trampled. <b>The EU proposals as they stand will exacerbate the problem.</b> 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
“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.<br />
<br />
<b>“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.”</b><br />
<br />
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.<br />
</blockquote><br />
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.<br />
<br />
HT: <a href="http://www.nationalcenter.org/2007/11/guilty-guilty-guilty.html">Amy Ridenour's National Center Blog</a>.<br />
]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1194377921.shtml">
<title>FAGS fighting back</title>
<link>http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1194377921.shtml</link>
<description>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...</description>
<dc:creator>The Night Writer</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-11-06T19:11+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[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. <br />
<br />
From <a href="http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1761792007">Scotsman</a>.com: <br />
<blockquote><br />
<b>I'll still ignore smoking ban, vows publican fined £500</b><br />
KIM PILLING<br />
 <br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
However, District Judge Peter Ward, sentencing Howitt at Blackpool Magistrates' Court, said his campaign had been "silly, misguided and pointless". <br />
</blockquote><br />
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 <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1678685089&size=o">here </a>and <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1678682923&size=o">here</a>.  <i>(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).</i> <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.)<br />
<br />
]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1191462352.shtml">
<title>Smoke &amp;mdash; or something &amp;mdash; gets in their eyes</title>
<link>http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1191462352.shtml</link>
<description>In this week's Tuesday Morning Quarterback on ESPN.com, Gregg Easterbrook (no fan of George W. Bush) writes:...</description>
<dc:creator>The Night Writer</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-10-04T01:10+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[In this week's <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/071002&sportCat=nfl">Tuesday Morning Quarterback </a>on ESPN.com, Gregg Easterbrook (no fan of George W. Bush) writes:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
<b>Exaggerating the Case Against Bush Only Lessens the Focus on His Real Faults:</b> <br />
There's a lot to dislike about the George W. Bush administration &mdash; the Iraq war, lack of action on petroleum waste, wiretapping &mdash; 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.<br />
<br />
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 &mdash; 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?<br />
<br />
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."<br />
</blockquote>]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1191209018.shtml">
<title>Loving your neighbor in Inver Grove Heights</title>
<link>http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1191209018.shtml</link>
<description>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...</description>
<dc:creator>The Night Writer</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-10-01T19:10+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Last week the <a href="http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_6999305?source=email&nclick_check=1">Inver Grove Heights City Council met </a>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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
As a property-owner I know how discouraging and aggravating it can be to share a neighborhood &mdash; or even a property-line &mdash; 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 &mdash; or how much harm &mdash; 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" &mdash; suggesting, what?) <br />
<br />
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 "<i>if</i> you are a believer, thou shall love thy neighbor." <br />
<br />
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?"<br />
<br />
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 <i>you're</i> 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? <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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 &mdash; I'm thinking Matthew 18:15-17).<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
How many of the complaints referred to the same property? They didn't know. <br />
<br />
How many complaints had been filed by the same person? They didn't know. <br />
<br />
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. ]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1188775212.shtml">
<title>No more stalling for Senator Craig</title>
<link>http://thenightwriterblog.powerblogs.com/posts/1188775212.shtml</link>
<description>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...</description>
<dc:creator>The Night Writer</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-09-03T03:09+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[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.<br />
<br />
My objection to Craig's behavior isn't so much because he was allegedly cruising for gay sex (<i>not that there's anything wrong with that.</i> 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? <br />
<br />
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, <i>Will & Grace</i>, <i>Queer As</i> (just plain) <i>Folk</i>, 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. <br />
<br />
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.   ]]></content:encoded>
</item>

</rdf:RDF>