This proves what?

South Bend Tribune: St. Joseph County sheriff endorses Clinton for president . 

What does this tell us?

Only that the sheriff, along with a number of other sheriffs across the state, has very poor judgement.  How is it that a law enforcement officer can favor someone who is so demonstrably dishonest?

It also makes me uncomfortable that any law enforcement official publicly endorses a political candidate.  Will I get pulled over some night for driving while Republican?

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Obama the Redistributionist

We're not the only ones that think Obama is clueless about taxes and economics in general. The WSJ thinks so, too.

Smoking Wars IV

The Elkhart Common Council is once again looking at imposing a citywide smoking ban in most "public" places (never mind that most of the restrictions are on private businesses). At a meeting Monday evening, covered by The Elkhart Truth, passions rose on both sides, including the obligatory witness who had had a relative die from second-hand smoke, and who wanted to make sure no one has to go through the same experience "ever again."

I have news. Someone WILL go through it again. People die, and no amount of lawmaking will change that. It's unfortunate, but we can't leglislate every potential heartache out of our civilization.

Hand in hand with this kind of nonsense is the argument that "if it saves just one life it will have been worth it." Really? I think the loss of freedoms that thousands or more died to preserve is a pretty big price to pay on the chance that a life might be saved, especially when it's impossible to measure this kind of result. We can't possibly know if we saved one life. Whose life? Where? It's an unmeasurable hypothetical outcome that is being used to justify curtailing rights. How stupid. How morally reprehensible. How fascist.

And there's one of the big rubs: the numbers are all so damn iffy. The original ordinance stated that 65,000 people die each year from second hand smoke. Never mind that fact that we kill far more people than this on our highways -- but, how the hell do we KNOW this? I think we don't . Non smokers get lung cancer for a variety of reasons, but I suspect the anti-smoking crowd attributes every one of these deaths to second-hand smoke. Hardly a fair, or honest, analysis.

The problem here is that the issue is largely misdefined. From the standpoint of the council, the issue should not be one of what is an exaggerated public health concern. Nor should it be an issue about smokers' rights and non-smokers' rights (neither exists). Rather, it is a problem of whether or not politically correct hysteria should be allowed to trample property rights. If the council doesn't stop this now, it will find itself dealing with further encroachments in the future. The irrational always try again. Especially if they get their way the first time.

Brilliant insights from David Mamet

One of our best, if not the best playwrights writes about his departure from liberalism. In the Village Voice no less.

I don't agree with absolutely everything here, but 99% of it rings true. A couple of money quotes:

What about the role of government? Well, in the abstract, coming from my time and background, I thought it was a rather good thing, but tallying up the ledger in those things which affect me and in those things I observe, I am hard-pressed to see an instance where the intervention of the government led to much beyond sorrow.

But if the government is not to intervene, how will we, mere human beings, work it all out?

I wondered and read, and it occurred to me that I knew the answer, and here it is: We just seem to. How do I know? From experience. I referred to my own—take away the director from the staged play and what do you get? Usually a diminution of strife, a shorter rehearsal period, and a better production.

The director, generally, does not cause strife, but his or her presence impels the actors to direct (and manufacture) claims designed to appeal to Authority—that is, to set aside the original goal (staging a play for the audience) and indulge in politics, the purpose of which may be to gain status and influence outside the ostensible goal of the endeavor.

Strand unacquainted bus travelers in the middle of the night, and what do you get? A lot of bad drama, and a shake-and-bake Mayflower Compact. Each, instantly, adds what he or she can to the solution. Why? Each wants, and in fact needs, to contribute—to throw into the pot what gifts each has in order to achieve the overall goal, as well as status in the new-formed community. And so they work it out.

Also:

The Constitution, written by men with some experience of actual government, assumes that the chief executive will work to be king, the Parliament will scheme to sell off the silverware, and the judiciary will consider itself Olympian and do everything it can to much improve (destroy) the work of the other two branches. So the Constitution pits them against each other, in the attempt not to achieve stasis, but rather to allow for the constant corrections necessary to prevent one branch from getting too much power for too long.

Rather brilliant. For, in the abstract, we may envision an Olympian perfection of perfect beings in Washington doing the business of their employers, the people, but any of us who has ever been at a zoning meeting with our property at stake is aware of the urge to cut through all the pernicious bullshit and go straight to firearms.

Read the whole thing, please.

Experience check

Dick Morris, former Clinton advisor and political pollster/analyst, comments:

During the Bill Clinton presidency, it became obvious that the president and the first lady were locked in a zero sum game of perception. The stronger people perceived her, the weaker they felt he was. Early in his tenure, news stories were rife about Hillary’s extraordinary influence on appointments, policy and political strategy. Each of these leaks sapped confidence in Bill Clinton’s strength and led to a drop in his ratings.

The solution was to exile Hillary from the White House. She stopped attending strategy meetings, no longer had a direct or public role in policy formulation and redoubled her schedule of foreign travel and writing.

A major part of HRC's pitch is her "experience." I've always questioned exactly what she did do (successfully) in the White House, but this reminds us that for a large portion of WJC's presidency, she wasn't even there. Sure, she could advise Bill remotely, but if she stopped attending meetings, how much involvement did she really have? Is this why she doesn't really want to release the internal communications between Bill and herself?

Clintons Redux

A Clinton re-run is likely to be disastrous, and at the least, just as scandalous. Andrew Sullivan gets it right.

If she is the nominee, it will be the two of them again. The real risk is that it will mean the same never-ending psycho-drama, the same petty sleaze, the same constant beat of marital-political intrigue that we endured in the 1990s. It's worth recalling: just because their enemies were often vile doesn't mean the Clintons didn't give plenty to work with - often needlessly. Another term of the two of them could well lead to the same kind of sexual scandals that distracted and near-paralyzed affairs of state in the 1990s. If you don't believe that, then you simply haven't grasped the depth of Bill Clinton's needs and compulsions and Hillary Clinton's life-long enabling of them.

Elkhart's new mayor

Congrats to Dick Moore, new Mayor-elect of Elkhart. While the Truth leads its opinion page with an inane piece about how the incoming and outgoing administrations need to play nice, (how old ARE the editorial page writers, anyway?), I think the city is feeling a little relieved about the whole outcome.

Both Pettit and Moore are capable guys, and either one on balance would be a stronger, better mayor than their predecessor, for different reasons. The relief the town feels is that, at least for a while, Elkhart has a mayor that understands how to get the basic jobs done for the citizens and isn't here to improve our morals and personalities. Moore will be a city manager, not a self-styled visionary. For all his good intentions, outgoing Mayor Dave Miller's strength wasn't in actually running an organization. His personal philosophies kept him focused on the city's "character" and "virtues," things politicians rarely have much control over.

So again, congratulations to Mr. Moore -- a longtime city employee and good manager -- a guy who will bring city government back down to earth and, for a while at least, won't try to impose lofty ideals in place of efficient running of the city.

eTruth story is here.

Quote of the day

"The Clintons not only fill your tank with B.S., they top it off."
-- Dennis Miller on the radio, expressing his bewilderment that there are actually intelligent people who believe what Bill and Hillary tell them.

There, I feel better.

According to a McGlatchey poll a majority of general election voters says they can't or won't consider voting for Hillary Clinton. There is hope for America. Although, I can't help wondering why Hillary doesn't get the message. Neither does Andrew.

It's Moore vs Pettit in upcoming mayoral race

With today's primary, the municipal candidates' field is set, with longtime Democrat Party man Dick Moore vs local businessman and city councilman Jim Pettit heading the Republican ticket. The Elkhart Truth online (etruth.com) has a nice video piece on both candidates here (opens video player window -- video plays in Windows Media Player or RealPlayer).

Our impression is that this is an evenly matched race between two capable candidates. Jim Pettit has been on the Elkhart City Council for four years, and is a local businessman with a businessman's outlook on city problems. While some think he's been a bit too cold-hearted and businesslike (about the Elco, for example), it's our impression the rumors are wrong. In fact, Pettit came out positively for the new Elco plan (once there was a plan that appeared to make sense.) We think he has the energy to do a good job for the city and carry on many of the positive things outgoing Mayor Dave Miller has accomplished. He won't be afraid to make changes where needed, either.

Dick Moore has been a local Democrat fixture for many years, and has long experience in getting things done on a day-to-day basis. This experience could serve Elkhart well, particularly in such badly neglected areas as street repair. Moore has also indicated an orientation toward fiscal responsibility and making adjustments in the city's administrative makeup.

On Sunday, The Elkhart Truth endorsed Democrat Arvis Dawson for that party's nomination (they favored Pettit on the GOP side), citing Dawson's "energy". Our impression was that this was Stephanie Gattman's codeword for "younger." Nothing against Dawson, but we feel this was quite unfair to a guy like Moore who still has a lot to offer the city. Remember Stephanie, 60 is the new 40. At least primary voters showed more sense.

For once, it's nice to see a mayoral contest that presents two capable, if differently skilled, candidates. Elections in the recent past have been rather lopsided, with one side or the other (or both) having extremely weak candidates, presenting voters with a "lesser of two evils" choice. This time around, the motto can truly be "may the best man win."

The only downside to tonight's primary election was turnout. Turnout for municipal primaries is typically low, but this was ridiculous. Let's hope the turnout this fall for the "real deal" is better.

It's going to be an interesting race, so stay tuned.

State confers power -- Elkhart Truth approves-- of course.

The state legislature passed a new fireworks law that will give localities the right to control fireworks usage in whatever way they desire, except on certain designated dates -- traditional fireworks holidays, mainly.

I wonder how effective this will be, in actuality. From my reading of it, the idea is to strengthen prohibitions on fireworks, mainly to deal with the noise nuisance, not the safety issues involved with explosives. OK, noise ordinances are fine, but I'm not sure they're easily enforced. And who the heck has the time? I always question laws that appear to burden law enforcement with the task of chasing minor issues, instead of focusing on the really bad guys.

But what strikes me as odd is today's Elkhart Truth editorial lauding the new legislation. I don't much care one way or another about this law, but here's what The Truth said in the closing lines:

The bill now goes to Gov. Mitch Daniels, who should quickly sign it. Then, as soon as they can, local governments should begin tailoring fireworks rules to suit the needs of their communities.

After all, there's no point in having local authority if you're not going to use it.

Does this mean that if a locality doesn't want to use its authority to limit or "tailor" fireworks rules that there's somehow no "point?" In some rural counties, maybe no rules are the best rules, but not, apparently, according to The Truth. In typical fashion, the paper reveals its preference for more control over peoples' lives, as if that's an end in itself. And I think that's sad.

Smoking Wars III

Richard Pedler, Chairman of Tobacco Control of Elkhart County, retorts to the smoking ban critics in today's Elkhart Truth. Protesting that the ban is really a "clean air bill", doesn't negate the fact that it's an assault on property rights.

I find Mr. Pedler's statement that the Goshen ordinance "is only the beginning,' is perhaps more honest than he might like it to be. Folks who want to use the law to control the behavior of others are never satisfied. It's ALWAYS "only the beginning" for them. Once public places (somehow private businesses have ben reclassified by this bunch) are conquered, I fully expect home and car inspections to be proposed next. No smoking on your front porch, Pops.

Unfortunately, Tobacco Control of Elkhart County's activities are funded by money that came from the infamous tobacco company lawsuits, which were in essence, legal shakedowns that made a number of trial lawyers huge sums of money.

So, in effect the tobacco companies are forced to pay full-time people who work against them, while people who just want to be left alone don't get any state sanctioned grants to defend their property rights, which the state actually IS supposed to uphold.

Truth defensive about anti-smoking stance

Our letter speaking out against smoking bans appeared in The Elkhart Truth Saturday, and already, the paper is feeling a little heat. And it's defending itself. To be fair, The Elkhart Truth is duly noting some of its online criticism, and presenting a good bit of it on the editorial page.

But, we were struck by this little closer to today's editorial, following a reader's comment that ban proponents are "full of it."

We're full of something, all right. Either the hot air or the secondhand smoke that ban critics continue to blow.

Nice. It seems when your readers disagree with your position, it's time to insult them.

Smoking Wars II

WNDU report highlights Richard Pedler's plans to start a Clean Air Elkhart committee to restrict smoking in Elkhart. Mr. Pedler and nanny-staters of his ilk need to start analyzing the true and/or imagined dangers of second-hand smoke, and start considering the rights of people. Cigarette smoking is legal, and the smoking bans are an attempt to make the activity de facto illegal.

Hillary's down, way down.

Dick Morris, former Bill Clinton advisor, reports extreme slippage in Hillary Clinton's popularity.

According to the Gallup poll, most Americans don’t like Hillary Clinton and the number of people who view her negatively has been steadily increasing ever since she announced her candidacy for President in January.

Hillary isn’t wearing well. It seems as if the more people see her, the less they like her. Now, for the first time, her low likability levels are costing her votes, as Democratic party voters are abandoning her to support Barack Obama.

Obama may or may not be a great alternative for the Democrats, but the data does indicate the Democratic nomination won't be a coronation of Hillary. My prediction: the long knives are going to come out from the Clinton camp fairly soon. As Morris says, she can't alter her personality any more than she has (even though that's one of the things that is hurting her). So, I expect the tactic will be to destroy the competition, because where there's a choice, she isn't it.

Dufour: When the going gets tough ...

Dufour: When the going gets tough ...: My comment on the Pelosi diplomacy.