By Emily Geiger

So I know a lot of people are up in arms about the proposed smoking legislation making its way through the Iowa Statehouse. One proposal would allow municipalities “local control” to decide for themselves if they want to ban smoking in their local jurisdictions. Another proposal is a state-wide ban on smoking in public places.

There are a lot of bloggers, especially conservative ones, that are up in arms about this… including our own Nathan Greene (see below) and Don McDowell over at Cyclone Conservative. These guys see a smoking ban as 1) an infringement on personal liberty, and 2) an infringement on the rights of individual business owners to decide for themselves how they want to run their businesses.

This is true, but so what? That’s what state governments do… they have police powers that allow them to regulate people’s behavior and what businesses can do.

Let’s not forget that cigarettes, and more precisely, nicotine is a drug. So, let’s look at it like any other drug. Should the state not be allowed to outlaw people dropping acid because that’s an “infringement on personal liberty?” Should the bar down the street be able to allow it’s patrons to smoke weed because that’s what the bar owner wants to do with his business?

Or, why not let people drink and drive? That prohibition certainly affects an individual alcoholic’s personal freedom. I can hear you saying now, “But drunk driving affects other people too by endangering their lives and health.”

And you’d be exactly right. But so does smoking.

I’m all for personal liberty. But your liberty ends where mine begins, and I don’t think government is overreaching when they step in to stop this infringement on my personal right not to have to breath your toxic fumes.

It really ticks me off that this seems to be shaping up as a Democrat v. Republican issue. It shouldn’t be. I know Rants gets a lot of big tobacco money, but letting that dictate how Republican legislators are going to come down on this issue will only reinforce every negative stereotype there is about the GOP and big business.

Let’s do what is right for the people of Iowa, not what’s going to get us big campaign checks next year….

I’m not a smoker, and one of the things I hate the most is smelling like I smoke a carton of cigarettes a day after I visit a restaurant the local tavern for lunch. That said the smoking ban which will be debated in the Iowa House this afternoon is bad legislation. This is just another step toward government control over every aspect of our lives.

I have said for a long time that if smoking is so bad for people make it illegal. Last year the legislature passed a dollar a pack tax increase to encourage people to stop smoking. While it might encourage a few people who want to quit anyway to do so, there are still plenty of people standing outside smoking on a 5 degree day in Iowa.

If you don’t want to breathe in secondhand smoke, don’t go to bars or restaurants that allow smoking. We don’t need a state law making casinos the only place where I can smoke in public. Heck, that’s the worse thing we can do as they already have an addictive behavior in smoking, so let’s add gambling to it. Oh wait, that’s exactly what they really want; more money for state government, not healthier Iowans.

I spent a little time checking out Barack Obama’s website today. It should come to no surprise that it;s much like listening to him speak: it sounds good, but lacks substance. I thought I’d just start with foreign policy, Iraq, and Homeland Security. Here is what I found:

Obama’s Plan for Iraq

Bring the troops home immediately.

Tell Iraqi leaders they need to step up, and as we leave the UN will take greater role.

Give Iraq $2 billion in humanitarian aid.

Obama’s Plan to Protect the Homeland

Have the Federal Government protect Chemical Plants.

Keep better track of our spent Nuclear Fuel.

Mandatory planning for evacuating people with special needs in case of a catastrophe.

Reunite Families after Emergencies

Federal Oversight of the nation’s drinking water.

Protect the public from Radioactive Releases.

Obama’s Foreign Policy

Meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe, and show America’s willingness to “come to the table.”

Create a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state.

Fight global Poverty.

Strengthen NATO and their powers.

Increase the size of US ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.

Work towards a nuclear free world.

Create a National Declassification Center.

I have to admit I went to the Obama website knowing it would be light of particulars, but I was shocked when I saw how weak he was on the most important issues facing our country. As I read it, a President Obama would rather deploy troops to guard a local Iowa fertilizer plant than deploy troops to fight the War on Terror. His view of Homeland Security is more about natural disaster preparedness than preventing an attack on America.

I think this is exactly what you get when an unqualified, inexperienced liberal gets it in his head that he should be the President of the United States. In all seriousness, would you feel good about sending a delegation of State Senators from Iowa to Iran to negotiate with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? That’s exactly what it’s going to be like if Obama is elected President.

How can Obama provide hope for America when it is clear that he has no intention of defending her?

By Emily Geiger

I can’t help but notice the convergence of sports and politics in the headlines today. One of the top stories everywhere is that Roger Clemens will be testifying before Congress today regarding the allegations that he (and several other MLB players) used steroids, HGH and/or stimulants to enhance performance.

I also heard on the radio this morning that a separate Congressional hearing would be taking place on “Spygate.” Upon hearing this, I assumed it had something to do with headline I saw yesterday about two people being arrested on charges of spying against the US for China.

How wrong I was. Apparently “Spygate” refers to the allegations that the New England Patriots were somehow spying on other teams communications during NFL games.

I’m sure all this sports crap is newsworthy, but really, Congressional hearings? Is this really worth the taxpayers’ dollars when we should just call in the DEA and arrest the pathetic idiots who use these drugs? Or when the NFL could and should discipline the Pats for videotaping the wrong thing at the wrong time?

This makes me wonder… do we just have some members of Congress who want to see their names in the paper and their faces on C-SPAN, and this is a guaranteed way to do it?  What’s Congress going to do even if it finds something improper? Pass a law saying that you can’t use steroids… oh wait, we already have laws about that, so what’s the point?

I’m thinking Congress should be spending more time worrying about the Chinese spies than the football spies… I know, I know, maybe they got confused because the “Patriots” were involved, but still, someone should have explained things to them by now.

According to local press reports, the Washington state GOP is now saying they’ve got their numbers right, and McCain is still the winner. (Of course, I’m still not seeing any raw numbers, only percentages reported). There were four counties which had given the state party wrong numbers. There are still four counties yet to be counted. Now the question is, do you trust the results?

The story the local GOP officials are trying to spin now is that the results of the straw poll taken on caucus night really don’t mean much since delegates are free to change their minds and support whomever they want later on in the convention process. Sounds similar to the way we do it here in Iowa, but ask the campaigns whether the felt our straw poll results were important. I’m guessing they would say YES!

I think Huckabee had every right to question these results, and he still does. Why not allow campaigns more access to monitor the process? What’s up with the voting irregularities reported? Why the huge delay in tallying the totals? And why the “projection” of a winner made by the state party chairman (using completely unscientific calculations) when there is 240 votes separating the leaders and 1,500 votes yet to count?

And then you’ve got statements like this, from former GOP Chairman Chris Vance:

"What happens before now and the state convention -- there's no way to know," Vance said. "The Huckabee campaign either doesn't understand that, which I doubt, or they're just trying to use this to build up sympathy for poor Mike Huckabee who's being persecuted by the Republican establishment in Washington state."

Hmmm. Sounds like a really great, impartial, and fair person. At least he’s not party chairman anymore, but who knows how much of his staff and influence remain. Note to Chris: Don’t blame the Huckabee campaign because your state party is, how do I say this nicely, either completely incompetent (best case scenario) or completely corrupt (worst case scenario).

There are still a lot of unanswered questions here. Let’s hope the WA GOP has the integrity to come clean and explain themselves.