Krusty and Republican leadership wander all over the place.

I saved a post this morning from Krusty about the race for Secretary of Ag, and sure enough, by the end of the day, I had another Krusty post about anti-bullying legislation to write about as well.

The first post is a candidate comparison of O'Brien vs Northey, and it's interesting. It also features this endorsement of state standards on hog confinements:

While to some this might not seem like a huge issue, but this is a big deal here in Iowa, and Northey is on the right side of this issue. His support of state standards is also why the Farm Bureau probably endorsed his kampaign.

Denise O’Brien and her local control position should scare the daylights out of Iowa farmers. It’s already extremely difficult for a farmer to build a new hog confinement of any size anywhere in Iowa. Heck, before a farmer has the time to get a building permit they are faced with local opposition. While I can understand that nobody wants to live near a hog confinement, this is Iowa, and animal agriculture is an important part of our economy.

First off, be sure to check the comments, where RF shows how easy it is to build a new hog confinement:

If you build a hog confinement less than 2,500 animals, you do not need a construction permit. I would not call that “extremely difficult.” All you need to do is file a manure management plan with the DNR 60 days before you start applying manure (which can be after construction).

Next, let's take a look at the "local opposition" angle: it's the "local opposition" that will have their property values decrease because of new confinements. It's the "local opposition" that will get to deal with the smell of their new neighbors spreading hog manure on frozen ground. And among others, it's the "local opposition" that will get to experience the joys of additional manure in their rivers, streams and lakes. But under Krusty, Bill Northey and Republican leadership's plan for continued state standards, the local opposition would be silenced.

Let's move on to the second post:

I don’t care if a kid is being picked on for being fat, poor, stupid, promiscuous, gay, lesbian, or pregnant, none of it should be allowed in our schools and anyone who dies so should be punished severely.

I don’t think its right to single out one group of people and give them special protections or special rights. All students should be equally protected from any type of bullying.

I don't think anyone would define the ability to exist without bullying as a "special right." It should be everyone's right. But the fact remains that the people most at risk of bullying in our schools and some portions of our society are gays, so I'm in full support of legislation guaranteeing their safety.

There is bullying taking place across the state for a variety of reasons and based on a wide variety of things that make people "different." But the biggest group left out of the current Iowa Civil Rights Act is homosexuals. So when we can single out one group which faces the greatest need for protections, as they do, I'm fine with making a law stressing the importance of protecting said groups, as we did.

I was going to make a point about small government here and how these two topics share no common ground. It would seem that keeping state standards on hog confinements is promoting big government, while moving not to enact anti-bullying legislation is a move towards small government. Then, I noticed the common thread.

Local control would protect some people from decreased property values, smell and pollution. The proposed anti-bullying legislation would protect some people from the total misery adolescence can become if you don't fit in.

In both cases, Krusty and the Republicans siding with him have the opportunity to protect someone. Instead, in both cases they've decided to protect no one.

KL