Let's tax drivers by the mile

By all means, let's follow the idea our new energy czar has put forth, of taxing drivers by the mile. I can guarantee it will absolutely kill all businesses in rural and semi-rural communities. I will never again be able to afford to take my car across the river to Burlington, IA to shop at Hobby Lobby for my art supplies, and my friend and I will no longer try to sell our little tchatchkes at the little antiques mall... mostly because nobody else will drive to the little town to buy the little tchatchkes. Mom will not drive to Galesburg, IL to have her computers cleaned and repaired by the regional professionals. Dad will not go to Macomb, Bushnell, Galesburg, or any of the other places in the region to attend auctions (where he regularly buys his toys at a fairly not-cheap rate).

We will mail-order what we need, from gigantic warehouse companies based in cities overseas. That should really help the national economy, shouldn't it?

Puff, puff, puff...

While I'm trying to catch my breath after walking a couple of dogs, I'm going to ask all my friends in Illinois to take advantage of this last day of good will between smokers and the rest of us... starting the day after tomorrow, the law says there is top be no smoking in public places or private businesses.

Quite frankly, while my wheezy, miserable lungs are happy about the result, the rest of me is less than impressed with the method. Well, that's not quite frank enough, but my mother occasionally reads my blog, and I'm not inclined to subject her to the sort of language struggling to trip past my guardian fingertips and onto the key pad.

I'll be glad when I can go to the local public house of a Thursday for Open Microphone night. Who knows? I may even participate, this year. I have a kazoo, and I know how to use it. I'm also told that my friend/sister (extended family gets complicated) Elke's bird, Pippin, likes my singing... That (and a whole lot of money when I win the lottery) ought to get me a recording contract.

But kazoo azide, just where do the jackasses in Springfield get off "protecting" me from second-hand smoke, when, as yet, they've not exhausted every other non-nanny-state option, first? Did they allow, say, insurance companies to actually jack up rates for smokers, for health, fire, and liability? Did they do the same for businesses which permit smoking on their premises? Did they, perhaps, introduce city/county/state fees for fire protection, community clinics, etc., in which businesses which do not allow smoking get a cut rate? Did they really try anything, honestly, at all, before they decided smokers are not human and, therefore, have no rights? Of course not.

So, all of my friends who smoke, puff like crazy throughout tomorrow, for on Tuesday we will fume without tobacco.

California & Bolivia: Separated at Birth?

Or on the same downward spiral?

As I wandered through the closely-groomed pathways that are Instapundit posts, I tripped over this piece by Christian Probasco, at New West, on the disturbing trend California has, of exporting their nanny-state assaults on liberty:

Hollywood has molded the image and the myths of the Rocky Mountain West for the entire world. Much of the technology that went into the computer on which you’re reading this article was developed in Silicon Valley. Much of the food in your refrigerator probably comes from the Central Valley. Much of the new population of the interior West’s cities emigrated from California.

California is a trendsetter state. Much like the weather, every Californian fad eventually makes its way over the Sierras and diffuses into the intermountain West. That’s wonderful, and it’s frightening, because there are some pretty disturbing things going on in the Golden State right now.

And, via Gateway Pundit, José Brechner has this to say about Bolivia:

For unknown reasons, this Andean country has a disproportionate influence on its neighbors' political conduct. Indeed even though it behaves in a totally unhinged manner, its geographical location in the center of the continent irradiates its energy to its surrounding nations. When it comes to liberty – or libertinism, which is more common in South America – Bolivia is number one. Everyone does what they want, when and where they want. But liberty is like water. If you do not put it into a vessel, it slips through your fingers until it is gone.

Either way, the tendency of each -- away from freedom and individual responsibility -- is troublesome, especially for the influence they seem to have on their neighbors and friends.

Do you have your hooker card?

I'm only just now getting back around to reading the non-family-connected e-mails I've received in the past week, and -- in light of the recent chatter from so many on the topic of Universal Health Care -- came across a very nice TCS Daily article by Arnold Kling: Prostitution Insurance.

Unfortunately, shifting the costs of prostitution insurance to taxpayers was fiscally impossible. Prosticare, the government's popular insurance program for the elderly, was projected to run into deficits of tens of trillions of dollars in another 50 years. Forestalling such a bankruptcy was going to require drastic cuts in future benefits. Trying to expand Prosticare to cover everyone would have forced such cuts to take place today, and no politician wanted to risk a confrontation with senior citizens. So although politicians talked a lot about universal single-payer prostitution coverage, they never seriously proposed enacting it.

The American public had grown accustomed to enjoying unlimited access to the services of prostitutes. They continued to be averse to paying directly for sex, and they had become increasingly insulated from having to do so. As a result, America's share of GDP going to prostitution, already the highest in the world, rose rapidly.

Now, I'm all for getting stuff for free (especially as I'm in the income bracket I'm in... or rather, the income brackets I'm out of). But I can see at least a few of the long term effects of my demanding something out of everybody else's pockets. I'm not liking it at all.

I am liking the comparison, though. Please, take the time to read the whole article.

Pay for power mañana

The Illinois state legislature is aiming to throw us all to the wolves -- in a few years -- in order to make themselves look saintly this week.

A House committee is having what some might call "serious discussions" about refreezing power rates and fining the power companies for charging more than they did in the distant past (before the last freeze forced us to deal with a screwed-up state-throttled monopoly by driving away any likelihood that competitors would want to come in and set up in a free market system).

Hey, this freeze thing worked so well in the 1990s in California and other states, to shut down business as usual and get power to the people... and, under this policy here in IL, we certainly had a lot of new developments in the industry, didn't we? I see wind farms and alternative fuel agencies positively dotting the landscape here. I also occasionally see my cats sprout wings and see Mickey Mouse grazing in my garden. But that's not important right now.

This plan is brilliant!

The plan also would fire the Illinois Commerce Commission members who approved the higher rates and create a new Illinois Power Authority to oversee power buying and eventually power production.

So they aim to fire the last remaining rational people on the Commission, in favor of their political cronies, is that it? And then we make it the job of the State of Illinois to guarantee us our electricity and gas... because our state's bureaucracy is so swift and efficient and so very, verrrry honest.

The utilities complained it would destroy the industry, and ComEd President Frank Clark called the idea -- quote "pure lunacy."

But the bill's sponsor says it could be a good way for lawmakers to force the utilities to offer a larger rate relief package for consumers.

I love it when our elected officials try to help me. It's a given, then, that tax rates will increase and more downstate industry will flee, so I'll have a really good excuse for being unemployed and on public assistance until I'm dead. And that is just absolutely dandy for my mental balance, innit?

I hope the new Illinois Power Authority is as forward-thinking as the Chicago Transit Authority, or the Veteran's Administration, or the Department of Human Services (especially the Department of Mental Health Services, now that they've been forced regularly to reduce the number and size of their available facilities to whatever is still standing in Chicago, and we downstaters can go hang. Literally.)

If so, we'll be increasing our carbon footprint dramatically soon, as we burn all the trees and corn cobs in the region to heat and cook and the like.

Who needs utility companies unencumbered by unreasonable penalties? Who needs companies financially and by law able to develop reliable, modern power sources? We have the state legislators to patronize us, instead. That will keep us hot on a cold January night.

Too bad it's nearly June and nearly 90˚.

Gratuitous postcard: "The same old bull"

I'm no smoker, but even I find the new legislation approved yesterday in Springfield to be offensive. Not only does it tell businesses what they can and can't do in their own private establishments, but it does so on mediocre science, "for the safety of the public."

Sure, there are links between smoking and some forms of cancer. Unfortunately, there are also some tenuous links to second-hand smoke triggering -- not causing -- certain cancers in people who suffer from prolonged exposure. There's also a comparable risk from having sex and also from spending too much time in the sun. There's a greater risk of some cancers from eating certain foods (and from overeating most foods), from frequent exposure to certain cleaning solutions, and a number of other otherwise safe-ish activities.

Needless to say, life carries risks. Therefore, Our Heroes in Springfield have announced the IL state gummint is going to protect me from myself and my own bad choices, should I want to hang out in a bar or restaurant with any regularity. I appreciate the idea that I can go to Open Mic Night at Danny's Tap, next year, and I won't need to dope myself up in order to keep my lungs operating, but I don't much appreciate that the choice wasn't offered to the bar's owners to make the change. I know the risks. They know the risks, as well. But we are no longer allowed to decide whether or not to hang around with people who smoke, in a climate we all find welcoming. We're no longer allowed to socialize publicly with each other. The State decided for us all. For our own good. Well, isn't that nice?

What next? Are they going to tell me what to wear, when I go outside, now? Will I get a ticket if I'm out digging with a spud fork, in my garden, in my bare feet? Will they throw me in jail for not wearing a scarf and gloves in January?

I love this state. I love the land, I love the vast, vast, vast majority of the people. I'm not at all impressed, though, by the pinheads we seem to get in elected office, these days. If I weren't allergic to tobacco, I'd consider taking up smoking, just to thumb my nose at these jackasses. Is there ever going to come a time when these guys suddenly decide, "That's not really any of our business"? I'm betting that day will come -- when the Cubs win the World Series and I marry Dolph Lundgren.

sheesh.

Anti-property goofs in control of classrooms (again)

Zo vot else is noo?

Teachers at a Seattle pre-school are indoctrinating kids against property.

I realize this has been bouncing all over the nets this week, but I haven't had much of an opportunity to think much on this, until now. My first response was much like that of a commenter on one of the many blogs I'd surfed through: the irony! a hugely expensive private school is teaching babies to fight against capitalism.


I'm an artist. Not the most successful one, of course, but I still grew up as a bit of an outsider. When I was young, I'd have given my eyeteeth to have been included in the popular circles. And, yet, I could never bring myself to wear the uniform of the day, the disco dress. I couldn't spray my hair into a Dorothy-Hamill-mushroom-helmet or the flippy Farrah-Fawcett-pointy-curled-neck-armor, and blue eye shadow was, in my mind, a worse spread over the eyelids than were I to follow my dog for a sample of his leavings to adorn my face. I chose to dress and act differently from the others. I suffered socially and emotionally for it, but, ultimately, I was a free woman for my decision.

Over the years, I've made plenty of other choices, as well. I traded things for other things, to make my life what it is. Most of the choices have not resulted in my being happy, or rich, or famous, or even healthy. But again, they were my own decisions. I own them, as I own myself.

Now, I have three siblings. Each one of them started out with pretty much the same stuff I did. Our parents raised us well. We had equal opportunities for education, we had comparable health issues (physical and mental). We are all four equally talented on a number of fronts, and test out with comparable IQs. And, yet, my siblings are very successful financially, maritally, and, yes, in health, while I am pretty much a wreck.

Hey, their houses are nicer than mine! They all own their own cars! They have stuff I don't have. They even dress better than I do (well, my sisters do, anyway).

Should I have the right to take, from each and all, a part of what they've earned, just to balance the outcome of our lives? I don't think so. That's theft.

When our parents are gone, do I get to claim everything because I'm poor and nobody else in the family is? I don't think so. That's greed.

I made my choices. I live with my results. They made their choices, and get to live with the results therein. That's the true equalizer.


But there's more to it than simply fighting capitalism, regardless of what these teachers have been taught in their Church of Socialism. This program they're aiming at would squelch all individuality, all individualism, and therefore all humanity.

Destroying the tendency toward selfishness isn't always a good thing, no matter what the nice people say. If it were not for selfishness, art would not have developed. It is the mind of the individual, stressing its own selfish need to express itself, which has given us the greatest inspirational works in the history of the world. We lose ourselves in the moment, as we view Michelangelo's Pietà. But Michelangelo would not have created that magnificent work, had he, as a lad, done the selfless thing and worked as a simple quarryman beside his father. He selfishly sought to expand his own skills, expand his own abilities to shape stone into more than blocks.

Without selfishness, without ego, there would have been no ancient pyramids, no Sphinx, no Roman Colosseum. Without selfishness, there would have been no Declaration of Independence, no Bill of Rights, no Constitution., no settling the New World (not even in the earliest Asian migrations -- the predecessors of the people we called the Indians). We'd have no need for the new lands, because everybody would be happily living -- or dying -- in treetops back at the point of origin. One little forest fire and we'd be a paleontological footnote.

So selfishness is a survival tool, as well.

We develop communities, tribes, so that we can offset the downside to selfishness -- loneliness and a loss of opportunities to propagate. But the communities can not supplant the individual. Just as one can not breed by committee, one can not truly create anything new, vibrant, and inspirational by that committee. Thus, the moderately selfish individual is essential. Killing him dooms us all.

And "teaching" him into a coma is a crime against humanity.

BCRA proves itself suppressor of free speech

The so-called McCain-Feingold Act, ostensibly designed to prevent corruption in political campaigns, has struck again, according to this from Ed Morrissey at CQ. Little by little, it is proving itself to be the wreck we feared.

A NASCAR driver is its latest victim.

Right now, I think I can safely say, every branch of our Government should get seriously slapped, on this one. Congress should never have passed this unconstitutional abomination, the POTUS should have vetoed it, and, since the first two "shouldas" didna, the half-assed SCOTUS should have addressed it long ago and thrown it into the nearest toxic landfill.

Boot to the head to all of these jokers. Can we get them all recalled to the factory for reconditioning, so they'll actually recognize their responsibilities? Pleeeeeeeeeeeeze?

NYC aims to save adults from personal responsibility

They went and did it again. Already the city has banned smoking in any and all places of business, regardless of whether it's public or private ownership of each business.

Not that I think stopping me from breathing smoke is necessarily a bad thing, since I'm rather strongly allergic to tobacco. But it should be my choice, not the government's as to whether I go somewhere I know will pollute my lungs and eventually cause my respiratory arrest.

But now, they're even more pissy about adults who choose a different lifestyle -- or deathstyle -- than theirs. The silly-ass mayor and his cronies have decided that the city has until July of 2008 to get rid of trans-fats in all its restaurant foods.

Quite frankly, I like my occasional trans-fats. On any given Sunday, I buy my eclairs, Danish, doughnuts and crullers to take to the auction (I call it Sund'y go-ta-meetin' foods). I'm pretty sure the doughnuts & crullers would taste funny if they were to be fried in lard or tallow. On the other hand, they might start using real butter in the pastries. That would kick hindquarters -- and it would raise the dander of PETA that we'd have a boost in demand for bovine products again, just when they thought they were going to be weaning us from the poor widdle moo-cow's teat. There's a big happy thought, there is!

But the downside for me, of the potentially-increased use of butter, is that I'm also lactose intolerant. I eat stuff made with crappy trans-fats because they're the stuff I can digest without lots and lots of pills. And I'm not the only person out there with this problem. Lots of people in this world go all icky inside after a little pat of butter. Are New Yorkers prepared for the upsurge in methane (and other unpleasant fundamental issues) released within city limits?

The saturated fats available for deep-frying, too, don't meet the religious standards for quite a few Americans. We have a pretty good number of Hindus who can't eat beef tallow, and gosh-darned-plenty of Jews and Muslims who can't go near pork lard. Will, say, McDonald's have to establish multiple kitchens, so they will be able to serve the varied clientele within a standard urban setting? If not, they'll surely be sued for prejudicial practices. The ACLU will be happy to shut down a behemoth like Mickey-Dee's over something like that.

Hmmm. Is Mayor Bloomberg thinking that it's a good thing to get rid of any city's biggest employers of teens and first-time workers? Yeah, that will do wonders for every city's crime rate, to put a buzillion youths out of work, wandering the streets, poor, bored and frustrated. We'll always have Paris.

In other words, it's not just about fitness, it's not just about food, and it's not just about the religious practices around those two issues. It's not even about all of the above, plus businesses owners, once again, being told how to operate, plus the potential damage to regional and national economies.

It's ultimately about me. It's always about me.

People who have never met me, never walked a mile in my shoes, are trying to tell me how to live my life. The sanctimonious twits need to keep their hands out of my mouth. As long as I'm not causing harm to anybody except myself, as long as I'm willing to take responsibility for my shortened breath and shortened lifespan, I should be allowed, if I want, to die with a cheap, fried Danish in each hand and a smile on my face.

I am, after all, legally an adult.