Senator Ted Stevens is an unrepentant porkster whose close relations and special deals with an Alaska business recently led to a conviction on seven felony counts. But he’s not giving in, and has appealed his conviction. He also ran for a seventh Senate term, and it looks like he’s won it . . . or no . . . late vote counts gave the nod to his competitor.

I have argued many times that Senator Stevens is a living, walking, snarling advertisement for term limits. In a Townhall column years ago, I emphasized that his indecent playing of interest upon interest has led to an obvious, big-as-the-nose-on-his-face “appearance of corruption.”

I also argued that, no matter what his below-the-table shenanigans may have been — may continue to be — his above-board porkmeistering is itself a form of corruption, one that our republic should repudiate.

And his party should repudiate.

And his constituents should repudiate.

During the campaign, John McCain and Sarah Palin, asked that Stevens resign. Lots of people have demanded it. Utterly defiant, Stevens insists on representing Alaska while his lawyers “pursue the appeals to clear” his name.

Yet if as many as five or six — or even all seven — of the counts against him are not upheld, his name will still appear dirty in my book, dirty from all the porkbarelling. Senator Ted Stevens is a horrifying example of much that is wrong in government.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

The political season is upon us, and people get hung up on the goofiest things. Like jokes.

Sarah Palin jested about hockey moms and pit bulls, the biggest difference between them being, she says, “lipstick.”

Then Barack Obama fought back, attacking the McCain-Palin ticket and Republican policy in general with another such comparison: “You can put lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig.”

And, it turns out that them’s fightin’ words, because, well, Mrs. Palin is thought to “own” the word “lipstick,” and, some said, Obama had just called her a pig.

No he didn’t. If one has to deconstruct the whole fracas into symbols, Palin would be the lipstick, McCain the pig.

Of course, Obama was really talking about policies. But which policies of John McCain was Obama complaining about, which were . . . porcine?

How about McCain’s best issue, pork itself? Unfortunately for him, Sarah Palin has been too pork-receptive in her days as an Alaskan politician. McCain has resisted pork. He’s not made requesting earmarks part of his job. Obama, on the other hand, though demanding that all pork requests be put up transparently, with full disclosure, is known to ask for quite a lot. In fact, nearly a million dollars for every day he’s been in office.

It’s a pity that in all this talk of lipstick-wearing pigs, the real pork issue gets lost. No joke.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Here’s a story about a government board whose members endlessly dish out taxpayer money. And want endless years in power to keep doing so.

Recently, members of the Santa Clara water board approved steep salary hikes for two of their staffers, making them the highest-paid for their jobs in all of California. For example, the water district attorney will get an 8-percent hike so that she now pulls down $221,720 a year. Well, not exactly. She also got a $12,000 bonus. Then there’s her monthly car allowance: $750.

Yikes. Guess I’m in the wrong line of work.

Interestingly, the board doled out these huge hikes right after refusing to consider a proposal to let voters consider term-limiting board members. These antics are a strong argument for privatizing the water industry, frankly. Short of that, these guys definitely need to be term-limited.

It’s not exactly a secret in Santa Clara that the town’s water board is lavish with its budget. A spate of critical stories made the rounds of California papers after the board’s latest twirl of the financial spigot. As one reporter notes, the board has been “buffeted by charges of excessive spending.”

But you know, there’s buffeting and there’s buffeting. Trust me, any kind of buffeting that leaves incumbents in place to continue their exploitative fun and games is not enough buffeting.

Oh, forget “buffeting”! I’ll take term limits.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Just because something can be done doesn’t make it economical to do. There is a big difference between physics and economics.

Take ethanol. It might seem nifty to grow the fuel for our cars and trucks like we do our food, in fields. But niftiness alone is not enough. Nifty notions, like un-nifty ones, must prove out in terms of all the costs involved.

A growing amount of research shows that ethanol doesn’t cut costs at all.

The most recent ethanol debunker I’ve come across is Robert Bryce, author of a forthcoming book with a provocative title, Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of “Energy Independence.” Interviewed on ReasonOnline by Brian Doherty, Bryce offers some fascinating perspectives on energy economics and policies.

• Did you know that for every gallon of ethanol, there’s at least 51 cents of subsidy?
• Had you heard that corn-based ethanol produces more greenhouse gases than does our use of fossil fuels?
• Have you stopped to think about all the water that raising more corn would require, and the increasing expense of getting gargantuan more amounts to farms in the midwest?

These and other considerations lead Robert Bryce to call current ethanol policy a “scam”and “the longest running robbery of taxpayers in American history.”

Some forms of bio-product may be more economically feasible than ethanol, like the biodiesel made from the unused parts of slaughtered animals. But we should wait to see how they cost out, too, without subsidy.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Pork comes in all shapes and sizes. Some of it is made out of corn. Specifically, ethanol.

This is an environmentally correct fuel source that’s not quite all it’s cracked up to be. Either as an energy saver or as a pollution saver.

The Department of Agriculture has churned out a pro-ethanol study, one that does not take into account the amount of energy required to make ethanol. Another study argues that it takes 29 percent more energy to create a gallon of ethanol than you’ll actually get out of the gallon of ethanol. Which makes it sound not too efficient energy-wise.

Ronald Bailey goes into the debate at the reason.com website in more detail than I can give here. All I want to point out right now is that this corn-based fuel is one of the infinite items of pork that gets tossed at legislators to bribe them into accepting legislation they might not otherwise vote for. In this case, a thousand-page-plus energy bill. Ethanol subsidies have already climbed to $1.4 billion annually. That’s only one fiftieth of what we’re sending to reconstruct Iraq, but still, it’s a lot of money.

And the pork-barrelers want to double it.

Bailey wants to know, “No matter which of the dueling studies one finds persuasive, one may well ask: If ethanol from corn is so cost-effective, why does its production need federal subsidies?”

Of course the answer is, so congress critters from corn-growing states can get pork to crow about when they’re up for re-election.

Something’s wrong with this diet.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.