It’s our property now.

Another blow against private property.

Colorado’s smoking ban was upheld Tuesday by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

A three-judge panel decided that the state’s Clean Indoor Act did not violate the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution when it provided exemptions to Denver International Airport’s smoking areas. …

“The district court concluded, and we agree, that the State of Colorado has offered a rational basis for its distinction between airport smoking concessions and the establishments owned, operated and/or serviced by plaintiffs,” the opinion says. DIA smokers “. . . have no options as to where they can smoke because they have no real opportunity or ability to travel to a location outside the DIA area.”

Jason Dunn, who served as special assistant attorney general for the state on the case said: “Whether you love the smoking ban or hate it, there is little doubt that the court correctly refused to wade into a policy question that is the sole province of the legislature.”

Really? Policy question are the “sole province” of legislators in the state? Citizens have no recourse through the courts in public policy questions? Interesting. I wonder if Dunn has the same opinion on Colorado’s infamous “Amendment 2,” which, in effect, banned any law prevented banning discrimination against gays. It was ruled unconstitutional. Why did the citizens wade into that battle? Or thousands of others.

Joel Spector, an attorney for the coalition, said he was “very disappointed by the ruling. I believe that restaurants and bars are private property, and private property owners should be able to decide how to use their own property. The ruling is scary for people who value to choose what they do inside their own property.”

What an antiquated notion.

How could this have happened to the party of tolerance?

Billary is just embarrassing.

Flower Power

(Jeff Neumann, The Denver Post )

Today’s Denver Post features my piece on nuclear energy. I interviewed Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, a well-known advocate of nuclear power. In addition, I refer to Gwyneth Cravens’ excellent new book, “Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy.”

I also wonder about the oft-used but completely nebulous promise of “energy independence.” Nearly every presidential candidate throws this phrase out there — Rudy compares it to going to the moon — without any specificity (what’s new, right?). How long will it take to become energy independent and, ultimately, what will we be independent from? “Energy”? Oil? Mexico and Norway?

The new federal energy bill, for instance, requires the United States to produce 36 billion gallons of biofuels yearly by 2022. As Robert Bryce, author of the forthcoming book “Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence,” points out: “That sounds like a lot of fuel, but put it in perspective: The United States uses more than 320 billion gallons of oil per year, of which nearly 200 billion gallons are imported.” That number is likely to grow. So even if we hit all the right notes, “energy independence” — whatever that means, exactly — is a long way off.

Yet a new nuclear reactor hasn’t gone on-line in the United States in more than 20 years. France operates 59 nuclear reactors, which supply 78 percent of that nation’s electric energy needs. (No wonder those guys embrace carbon trading pyramid schemes.) England has just unveiled plans for a new generation of nuclear power plants. Countries from Japan to Thailand are also turning to more nuclear power. Even China — where officials worry about carbon footprints at roughly the same level they do human rights — will build 32 new nuclear plants by 2020 and an estimated 300 more by 2050.

The rest is here.

It depends what you mean by wrong…

According to the New York Times, Hillary Clinton says that if she becomes president the federal government will take a more active role in the economy “to address what she called the excesses of the market and of the Bush administration.” Scary stuff for anyone who still believes in the free market.

She said that economic excesses — including executive-pay packages she characterized as often “offensive” and “wrong” and a tax code that had become “so far out of whack” in favoring the wealthy — were holding down middle-class living standards.

“Wrong” is a rather subjective word. Some of us still believe that the worth of a CEO should be determined by stockholders rather than the President of the United States. We may wonder what exactly is going to be accomplished by putting a ceiling on CEO salaries? Will the extra money be procured and sent out to needy folks in refund checks? I guess this must be part of the same populist economic stimulus plan that entails taking the profits from oil companies for the common good.

More than that, though, one wonders if Clinton’s disgust for excessive profit extends to the salaries of her movie star and investment banker benefactors? Or her husband? Sure, Hillary might be offended by the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd C. Blankfein, hauling in a $67.9 million in bonuses last year. The money, after all, could be put to better use paying her husband $650,000 for four more speeches. Now, that is what really helps the middle class.

Taking liberties

Thanks to Jonah Goldberg for mentioning ‘Nanny State’ in his excellent column on personal choice.

Now, if ‘Nanny State’ could only sell half as well as ‘Liberal Fascism,’ which is No.1 on Amazon as I write this, we’d really be cooking in the Harsanyi household.

There She Goes Again

When Barak Obama praised Ronald Reagan you knew many folks on the left were going to be miffed. Obama said that, “Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and a way that Bill Clinton did not. We want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”

In other words, “we” need ideas to go along with the “change” rhetoric we’ve been using. (Read Mat Bai’s “The Argument” to understand how important new ideas are to the progressive movement.) But is Obama praising Reagan for the specific changes he made, or is he simply admiring the ability of Reagan to facilitate change? I think the latter. Whether you agree with the resulting conservative policy or not, there is no real way to argue that clarity and dynamism were not part of Reagan’s message.

John Edwards, naturally, came forth with some frothing-at-the-mouth nonsense about Reagan. But Hillary also attacked Obama for his crass sacrilege and, I believe, misrepresented what he said.

“I have to say, you know, my leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last ten to fifteen years. That’s not the way I remember the last ten to fifteen years.

Again, Obama never offered up specific ideas (I wish he did.) But if Reagan is so foul, why did Bill and Hillary Clinton feel the need to praise him in very much the same way on the occassion of his death:

“Hillary and I will always remember President Ronald Reagan for the way he personified the indomitable optimism of the American people, and for keeping America at the forefront of the fight for freedom for people everywhere…

“We will always remember his tremendous capacity to inspire and comfort us in times of tragedy, …and we can rest assured that, as joyous a place as Heaven is, his wit and sunny disposition are making it an even brighter place to be.” President Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Obviously, one former president will have pleasant things to say about another one. Yet, is praising Reagan, as Obama did, for his “dynamism” and “optimism” any worse (if you’re a Democrat) than praising him for his “indomitable optimism” and the “capacity to inspire.” Hard to see much of a difference other than circumstance. Methinks comparing Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton is whats really got that camp up in arms.

What else can Real ID do?

Today’s column.

Really? We’ll do anything to save the planet?

My op-ed column asks the question: Is any government intrusion tolerable to environmentalists as long as the cause is laudable? If not, where is the line?

Crisis — or the “endless series of hobgoblins,” as H.L. Mencken put it — is typically the justification to expand power by any means necessary. It’s similar to the rhetoric liberals accuse George Bush of abusing. If you don’t know what I mean, try substituting the word “terrorism” for “global warming” when you make the case for CAFE standards that will put you behind the wheel of a fiberglass orb with a lawnmower engine.

Tangentially, there was this piece in the Washington Post by Robert Bryce, examining the 5 myths of “energy independence.”

The new energy bill requires that the country produce 36 billion gallons of biofuels per year by 2022. That sounds like a lot of fuel, but put it in perspective: The United States uses more than 320 billion gallons of oil per year, of which nearly 200 billion gallons are imported.

The End of Ron Paul?

For me, it is. Not the principles, but the man. Sure, Paul has experienced tremendous grassroots support and I’ve been very sympathetic to a lot of his strong Constitution-based rhetoric. But if even a slither of the quotes in this New Republic article by James Kirchick are accurate, I’m not sure how mainstream libertarians can absolve him.

First: Many of the vile pull quotes here, no matter what context they may have been in originally, have nothing to do libertarianism or freedom or some principled Constitutional stand on secession. They’re just racist and homophobic. Two: even if Paul didn’t know of their existence, he should have made it his business to know. It’s exceedingly difficult for me to believe that Paul was unaware of the content in a newsletter bearing his name. Judging from what I’ve read and heard from the man, I do not believe he wrote these things. But I’m not sure it matters. If George Bush or Hillary Clinton or any mainstream politician were even remotely associated with the sort of rambling anti-Semitic, homophobic, racist and paranoid text, they would be finished as legitimate voices. Paul should be finished, as well.

(I would grant, however, that not all the quotes are as offensive to me as to some others. Blaming Norman Podhoretz for our foreign policy, calling environmentalists a bunch of Bolsheviks or questioning Martin Peretz’s support for Contras seems within the legitimate parameters of semi-rational discussion. Most of it, however, is odious.)

UPDATE: This is not good enough. At least not for me.

UPDATE II: Yes, I realize “mainstream libertarian” is an oxymoron.

UPDATE III: Andrew Sullivan says, “… there is a simple way to address this: Paul needs to say not only that he did not pen these excrescences, he needs to explain how his name was on them and disown them completely.” It’s not that simple. It is difficult to foresee any good explanation for why his name is on these newsletters. And I find it unlikely that he would be so forgiving of a politician he didn’t endorse.

The optimism; it’s unbearable

Today’s Denver Post columns asks: Will likeability be enough? It also touches on the idea that Obama is the new Democrat Reagan.

While there are similarities, there is also an enormous dissimilarity. Reagan brought with him — whether you are a fan or not — a comprehensive ideological shift within his own party. A conservatism that germinated in think tanks, grass-roots organizations and college campuses. A coalition in the making since 1964.

Live Free or Die

The folks at Gang of Four asked me to predict the New Hampshire primary. Here it is:

I’m not exactly going out on a limb in predicting that Barack Obama, riding a ton of momentum, will take New Hampshire. With tremendously lowered expectations, though, a close second by Clinton would probably keep her viable for a while.

On the Republican side, it was most refreshing to see Mike Huckabee outed as a superficial lightweight in debates this weekend. His defensiveness and poor understanding of tax policy and foreign affairs should be enlightening to conservative voters. Neither Chuck Norris nor God’s Army will save him on Feb. 5th.

Senator John McCain is leading most polls in NH and I can’t see Mitt Romney sticking around much longer if he drops Iowa and New Hampshire. With that said, after McCain’s needless display of nastiness during the ABC debates and his disingenuous explanations on voting against tax cuts and supporting an unpalatable immigration bill, conservative voters may take a second look at Romney. For fun, I’m going to go with the former Governor of Massachusetts in a slim upset.

What on God’s Earth isn’t?

A review of Nanny State in the Philadelphia Inquirer. A little late; pretty good nonetheless.

The Growing Worry

This tidbit from George Will’s superb column today on Mike Huckabee.

Economist Stephen Rose, defining the middle class as households with annual incomes between $30,000 and $100,000, says a smaller percentage of Americans are in that category than in 1979 — because the percentage of Americans earning more than $100,000 has doubled, from 12 to 24, while the percentage earning less than $30,000 is unchanged. “So,” Rose says, “the entire ‘decline’ of the middle class came from people moving up the income ladder.” Even as housing values declined in 2007, the net worth of households increased.

As blogs are a place to vent, I will. Perception and reality are never quite the same. So I will concede there must be underlying factors driving a belief that the middle class is under assault. Yet, there is plenty of evidence that the supposed income disparity we hear so much about is not what it seems. So why are so many voters worried? Perhaps the economic climate has been too good for too long and now scores of Americans are anticipating horrible events on the horizon. (And who knows? It may come.) Perhaps the average American is terrified by the spontaneity and unpredictability of the market. They always have been to some extent. Perhaps the average American fears global trade and a changing world economy. Also understandable to some extent.

What’s difficult to understand, for me at least, is why Americans are falling for the dangerous, over-the-top, hypocritical and self-serving populist rhetoric employed by the likes of Lou Dobbs, Mike Huckabee, John Edwards — nearly every Democratic candidate to some extent — and the other populists class warriors, who haven’t the slightest clue how the economy works or what the future holds. There is a big difference between apprehension and the desire to completely abandon economic freedom.

Then again, maybe the candidates are simply saying what voters increasingly want to hear. Sadly, I can’t think of a single candidate that makes the free-market argument effectively anymore, despite the philosophy’s indisputable and complete success the past 30 years.

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-(

Why are most of us so content when we’re constantly told eveything is on the verge of collapse? Are we confused? I deal with the conundrum in my column today.

Nick Gillespie has more thoughts and reading suggestions on the topic.

A “libertarianish” case for Romney?

A loss to Christian populist, er, Republican candidate Mike Huckabee tonight, coupled with a poor showing in New Hampshire, and Mitt Romney can kiss his presidential ambitions good-bye. Other than a bad case of Mormonism, Romney appears to be the most competent and traditionally conservative presidential candidate on the Republican side — sans the folksy and so-far irrelevant Fred Thompson.

Why Romney? On the excellent The Volokh Conspiracy, various "libertarianish" professors were asked to pick their favorite candidate. Brad Smith, former member of the Federal Election Commission, states his case for Romney here. And I think it’s a persuasive argument for the few hundred small-government conservatives left out there. Matt Welch at Reason magazine isn’t convinced. And really, who can blame him? Though Smith’s argument, I think, addresses the issue of why, when it comes to expansion of government and basic infringements on economic freedom, there is a difference.

The other arguments can be found here.

(As a libertarian-ish person myself, I’ve taken a fleeting and purely romantic fancy to Ron Paul – despite what I find to be objectionable foreign policy positions.)

cross-posted at Gang of Four

Mike Huckabee is just like you

I’m not sure anyone can come out more strongly against this “provincial ignoramus” than Christopher Hitchens, but my op-ed today talks about the everyman from Arkansas.

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee’s message is simple: “I’m just like you.”

And it’s true, if you happen to be a Baptist-minister-turned-politician who enjoys living off a government paycheck.

We will soon see if the everyman Huckabee can “take this nation back for Christ” as he’s promised. He certainly is off to a rousing start, as Democrats nationwide are falling on bended knee, praying for Huckabee to the win the Republican Party’s nomination.