I do try to do my own editorials on propositions when there’s only a couple on the ballot or if they have a particular tie to Barstow, but given there’s so many of them this year, there’s no way I can spend the time going over each one to give individual recommendations.

“Economic development does not happen in a vacuum. It is a partnership with everyone living here, including the city, schools, and media. It is the job of all entities to promote their cities in a positive light.”

I’d just like to make it very clear to Ms. Randall and to anybody out there who might think that this is case, that it is absolutely not the job of the Desert Dispatch to promote Barstow in a positive light.

Our job is to provide information to Barstow residents to help them make decisions about their own lives. Our job is to help Barstow residents understand what is going on in their community. We absolutely cannot do our job if we take on the role of city cheerleaders.

We’re a business, too, and what makes our information valuable is the trust readers have that we are fundamentally honest. If readers perceive that our newspaper serves the interest of city leaders and not the readers, they will not trust us, our newspaper will not be seen as valuable to this community, it will not provide certain information that readers need to know, and they will probably stop reading.

I always find it a little saddening when anybody in the business community suggests that we should turn a blind eye to our problems. First of all, they’re asking for us to hurt ourselves as a business in order to make the “community look good” in the belief that this will benefit them (it won’t — people aren’t blind). Second, bringing problems to light is a pretty darn good way to start fixing them. The public discussion surrounding Measure D and our safety needs has no doubt been fostered in part by our willingness to put all the information out there that we’ve got, pro and con.

An additional comment I didn’t have room for in the editorial: When we put city leaders on the hook for economic development, that encourages them to stretch and abuse their authority in order to bring in projects. It’s not just more revenue for the city, it’s also votes to stay in office.

This means that when municipal governments misuse eminent domain in order to provide land to private developers or take money away from fire and school districts with redevelopment agencies, part of the reason is that these leaders are on the spot to bring economic projects to town or else face problems at the polls.

They’re probably relying on the operators to not have the money to sue over this, but good lord. Due process? Anybody heard of it? Anybody?

Maybe next they’ll replace the impound lot with a used car dealership and not even wait for the verdicts.

I thought to myself, “Pain? Isn’t that one of the arguments of allowing medical marijuana? That it helps deal with chronic pain?”

Sure enough, I did an online check and discovered that marijuana is a possible medical treatment for scoliosis pain.

Now this is interesting because San Bernardino is one of only two counties in the state that has resisted following California law and allowing prescriptions of medical marijuana within our county, arguing a conflict between the state law and federal drug laws. They keep losing their suits, but they keep trying.

So the county’s own resistance to medical marijuana use helped drive Postmus into the arms of meth. I wonder if anybody notes the irony.

Although to be fair to the county, a man operating a medical marijuana dispensary in Morro Bay that is perfectly legal under our state law was just convicted in a federal trial and could face years in prison. But now that I think about it, I find it highly unlikely the county is concerned that individual practitioners would face federal sanctions. They’re probably more concerned about federal subsidies county agencies and organizations receive to help fight this stupid drug war.

Oh, and by the way, here’s a great Huffington Post piece about the drug war. Postmus might feel better to note that the current Democratic presidential candidate and the wife of the Republican candidate have used drugs in the past. And of course, both our current Republican president and previous Democratic president are widely believed to have also done drugs in their youth.

Reason’s blog has another example worth exploring. Janet Riviera, in Fresno, has been in a coma for years and is being kept alive with the financial assistance of Medi-Cal.

It raises the rather horrifying ethical issue of how much of other people’s money should be used to keep somebody alive. With private insurance, this is a matter for her family. But because tax money is involved suddenly everybody gets a say.

It’s an unpleasant problem with no easy solution when we’re talking about people who can’t afford private insurance, but again it’s an example of putting decisions about health care in the hands of the government and not thinking through the consequences.

I developed this “back to basics” concept a few months ago for a different and perhaps surprising reason: I was considering running for City Council myself. A couple of local friends also encouraged me to consider the idea. I do a lot of analysis and discussion, of course, of City Council decisions and provide a different point of view.

Unfortunately, I can’t be the editor of the newspaper and serve on City Council. Well, in a purely technical sense I could, but my boss certainly wouldn’t keep employing me, and if I were a reader I wouldn’t trust any news stories about City Council if the main editor were a member.

So if I were to run for City Council, I would have to find another job. The problem, here, though, is that there really isn’t a whole lot in Barstow I’m qualified to do besides work at the newspaper. We journalists aren’t good for a whole lot once you get us out of our element.

The only other logical fit would be education, which would have been a problem. I have issues with the union-dominated, money-wasting operations of our public school systems. It would be hypocritical for me to promote smaller government and then turn around and live off the public dime as a school teacher. (This is assuming they’d have anything to do with me anyway)

So, being the market-loving libertarian I am, I realized that I’m pretty much where Barstow needs me to be. If I don’t have value as an employee in Barstow’s business market outside the newspaper, then obviously I should stay here. Whether the City Council would have been better or worse with me on board (assuming the idea I could have won) is a question that will remain unknown.

Though feel free to speculate in the comments.

Seriously though, I do want to add a little more insight to my attitude about the drug war. Libertarians are known for their attitude in favor of drug legalization. Also, and not entirely unrelated, many libertarians are perceived to be casual drug users.

I don’t touch drugs, at all. I rarely even drink alcohol. I want to make it clear that my attitude toward drug use is not based on some naive idea that drugs are not dangerous or a problem. My attitude is based on the belief that families and friends are better resources in helping deal with these problems than the government, and there’s a lot of information out there that backs up my view.

On a personal level, I’m a child of the drug war. I turn 37 on Monday, so it was interesting to me to notice that I’ve essentially lived my entire life in this fight. Drug use tore my family apart when I was a child. I don’t care to get into the details of it, but it was devastating. I know what drug abuse can do to people. Subconsciously, I’ve made many decisions about my life to make sure I never become one of those people.

But I also know what families can do. We put ourselves back together (well, really, it was my father’s hard work that did it). Government intervention did not play a role. If the government had gotten involved in this situation when it was at its worst, who knows what would have happened? I and my sister might have become wards of the state, and as difficult as things were, I can’t imagine such a turn of events working out better for me.

The house at the center of the case has been moved. And the project that the city used to justify taking it under eminent domain practices … is pretty much dead.

You know, that’s another argument against eminent domain abuse that didn’t even occur to me. Private projects and developments change all the time. Sometimes they die entirely. Keeping eminent domain confined to an identifiable public need — like a courthouse or school — doesn’t guarantee a project’s completion, but it is certainly more likely than a huge complicated private development.

Imagine if the City of Barstow had used eminent domain to get the land for one of these proposed housing developments that haven’t and maybe won’t come to pass. People forced to move and buildings bulldozed. And then, the developers don’t have enough money or can’t actually complete the project.

That’s something to keep in mind when a municipality defends its eminent domain abuse for economic development projects. There’s absolutely no way of truly knowing whether the project will ever come to fruition.