Dear Readers,

We Americans are so inundated by bad legislation and decisions these days (McCain-Feingold, Kelo v. New London) that sometimes we have to wonder if any positive economic legislation will ever come out of the government again. Yesterday the Senate proved that, yes Virginia, apparently there still are senators willing to do the right thing for our nation. At least every once in a while.

The Central American Free Trade Agreement has passed the Senate 54-45, meaning success in the House is the only obstacle left to its implementation. “CAFTA” is a treaty meant to practically dispose of tariffs and other unfair blockades to the free exchange of goods with six Latin American countries. If you don’t understand why that’s a good thing, it’s time to go read a great book called Basic Economics, by Thomas Sowell.

Since Joe’s a resident of Wisconsin and I currently split my time between the states of Colorado and Georgia, we take particular interest in how our own senators voted on this extremely important (morally and economically) issue.

In my native Georgia, I’m pleased to report both Senators Chambliss and Isakson correctly voted in favor of CAFTA. Of course, I’d be even more pleased if Saxby Chambliss, who chairs the Agriculture Committee, had done the right thing without first demanding immoral concessions on behalf of the sugar industry. Way to stand on principle there, Sax.

Meanwhile, Senators Allard and Salazar of Colorado predictably voted in favor of and against the amendment, respectively. Senator Salazar is a Democrat, meaning he’s pretty much at the forefront of today’s pack of mercantilists, and thus completely untrustworthy on economic matters, so no surprise there. As for Allard, we expected nothing less.

Three out of four of Adam Volle’s representatives did the right thing, then; not too shabby, really. Unfortunately, results were somewhat worse for Theocrats.com‘s webmaster and chief writer, Joe Martin. Mr. Martin’s adopted home of Wisconsin has once more chosen the shameful supposed security of mercantilism over freedom, as Senators Feingold and Kohl, Democrats both, voted against free, mutually-beneficial commerce and the economic growth of Latin America.

Since I really doubt Joe’s surprised by these results anyway, I won’t spare his feelings by noting we all should have expected nothing less from a senator who gave us McCain-Feingold , the law that will ultimately result in the end of free speech in this country. Even if we deluded ourselves into thinking Feingold’s position within his party did not preclude his choice, his opposition to CAFTA has been vocal since the beginning. He’s said:

“Unfair trade agreements like CAFTA have helped send 2.5 million manufacturing jobs beyond our borders since 2001 and disadvantaged small family farmers in favor of multinational agribusinesses. Another flawed trade agreement like CAFTA would only mean more job losses for hardworking American families. The President was right when he said American workers need a level playing field to compete in the global marketplace, but unfortunately, CAFTA doesn’t come close to providing one.”

How a playing field that doesn’t handicap any of its players can possibly not be ‘level’, we at Theocrats.com would of course love to know.

IN THE INTEREST OF FAIRNESS

Having picked on the nonsense spewing forth from my dear colleague’s adopted state, I’d be remiss if I didn’t comment on the insanity brewing in other sectors in my own state of Georgia.

According to Tonguetied.us:

“The dean of the University of Georgia’s school of journalism [John Soloski] has been found guilty [This may not be true. I think the investigation is still theoretically in progress. - Adam] of sexual harassment for complimenting a colleague’s clothing and expressing concern that she was walking home alone from a social function…

“The incident in question, Soloski says, happened as he and the staffer were leaving a university fundraising event. He said commented on the colleague’s dress, which he said was pretty, but “did not mean it in any sexual way.” He also asked the woman if she was alone because he was concerned for her safety.

“At the time, the woman did not act offended or reply, he said.”

Isn’t that just dandy? Nevermind how this could possibly be offensive in the first place (and in fact, according to an article on redandblack.com, an independent student newspaper, the accuser may have ulterior motives). This woman didn’t even have the common courtesy to suggest to him she was offended before she called a lawyer. She merely walked home and demanded the university launch an investigation.

It’s been no more difficult for her to destroy a man’s career since then. I’ve read through several articles on this case, ‘Crats. How do you suppose all of these articles refer to Mr. Soloski’s accuser? Right: as simply ‘the woman’. Isn’t that so very respectful of them, everybody? ‘The woman’. While he’s disgraced in front of his students and colleagues, her name doesn’t even get printed.

Weeks of this kind of nonsense have understandably worn thin on Mr. Soloski. He resigned yesterday, according to an article on the online edition of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Your Theocrat,

Adam