The Bastards of Madison County

I've been reading the Tiny House Blog a lot lately. I am interested in the idea of building small, efficient homes as an alternative to the monsters most people seem to lust after these days.

A recent post on that blog tells of the plight of an old man in Madison County, Indiana being evicted from his own 36-acre property for code and safety violations. A TV news report about the situation can be viewed here. It just seems to me that there could be more to the story and I was moved to write the TV reporter who covered it, encouraging him to stay on top of it. I figured I would save the letter here.



Dear Mr. Edwards:

I just watched your moving report (online) about 72 year-old Dick Thompson who is being evicted from his own 36-acre property by Madison County officials. One wonders, in this age of homelessness and high unemployment, why the County would expend so much time and energy harassing a poor old man living peacefully on his own 36 acres. Surly, one old guy living alone on that much land can't pose a threat to the health or well-being of anyone else. Unless, of course, there is more to this story than is evident in your initial excellent report.

I encourage you to heed the journalist's maxim: "Follow the money!" Who prompted Madison County to go after this poor fellow? Who stands to gain if he is gone? What developers have an eye on the property? What affluent former city-dwellers have recently moved to the area and are now disappointed that the area doesn't fit their image of a rich suburb? Which big-box store would love to bulldoze the property?

Please follow up on this story. Your viewers will be eager to hear more about this battle between traditional American liberty and the power of big government and greedy corporations.

Sincerely,

Alfred Mollitor

The Fattening of America

One of the main reasons I cling to the Boston Globe, is the op-ed section. I usually turn there first for interesting views and analyses of our world.

Today, there was a piece praising the work of a commission that came up with a long list of things our new president could do to combat our obesity epidemic. OK, the institute is based at a law school, so I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that the list of recommendations includes all kinds of programs, incentives, requirements, funding, regulations and taxes. It sounds more like a full-employment plan for lawyers than a health plan for America.

Here's a letter I sent to the Globe in response. Thanks to Michael Pollan and In Defense of Food for sharpening my thinking on this subject.


Dear Boston Globe:

Richard Daynard and Mark Gottlieb ("How to fight America's obesity epidemic," January 8.) summarize 47 recommendations from The Public Health Advocacy Institute on how to combat the shocking fattening of America. Not surprisingly, the recommendations are obese with more government programs and taxation.

One step, not mentioned by the authors, is to stop all Federal incentives and subsidies to large, corporate agribusinesses that pump us full of cheap fat, salt and sugar. Like so many things in American life today, if we had to pay the real costs of food like that, and healthy alternatives could compete on a level playing field, we would be free to make better choices.

The pervasive influence of corporate lobbying has rendered even the best intentions of government unreliable at best, downright destructive at worst. Let us keep our money and our freedom, and we'll do the right thing.

UPDATE: This letter was published in the January 18, 2009 Sunday Boston Globe on the back page of the "Ideas" (my favorite) section.