New York City officials have decided to lower their iron fists on businesses once again. Three years ago they banned smoking in all public establishments. This time they're taking aim at trans fatty acids, those allegedly dangerous fats found in many cooking oils.

The ban would affect over 24,000 establishments, from mom-and-pop doughnut shops to national burger chains. Whether trans fatty acids are dangerous isn't the point. Government should not be poking its fat nose that deeply into the affairs of private businesses. Doing so takes governing to a new (low) level of Swedish-style cradle-to-grave oversight.

This sort of idiocy assumes that consumers are a bunch of mindless, bumbling dolts who must be saved from all of life's hazards by the all-thinking, all-knowing, all-compassionate government. New York's situation is personal, as in the person of Michael Bloomberg. The alleged Republican has made it a mission to enforce his brand of health-conscious wackiness upon his constituents. Bloomberg, who can make Hillary Clinton look like Margaret Thatcher, shoved the knife in the Big Apple's back soon after his election three years ago with his heavy-handed ban on smoking.

Bloomberg doesn't like smoking, so he made sure no one in his city had to make the simple decision of walking out of a bar with smoke in the air. His protégé in the health department, Thomas Frieden, is four-square behind his boss in using the heavy hand of government to force out the latest evil, cooking oil.

"No one will miss it when it's gone," he said.

He's missing the point. In a free society, government shouldn't be making every simple decision for the people. That's what keeps society free: limited regulations and impediments to growth. But some politicians can't live with the possibility that the governed might have to make some decisions throughout their day. And possibly do something that the almighty politicians wouldn't like, such as expose themselves to a smoking environment. (Oh, horrors!)

Addicted to power, they use every opportunity to force their will on the masses. Democracy? Forget it. But first cloak your intentions in a haze of altruistic gobbledegook designed to show a compassionate side. Yes, compassion. Forcing others to do what you want all the while telling them it's for their own good.

New York isn't the only city infested with food-Nazi mentality. Chicago recently banned the serving of duck livers ("foie gras" to the raised-pinky crowd) in local restaurants. Aldermen seem to think they can make decisions for their constituents better than the constituents can. Many also bit on--pun intended--the usual hogwash from the animal-rights crowd.

Like their counterparts in New York, Chicago politicians act in a condescending and patronizing manner toward their residents. Chicagoans are quite capable of deciding whether to visit a restaurant that serves livers from force-fed fowl (and whether to order the product once there). Fact is, the duck liver is quite popular with the hoity-toity crowd in Chicago and elsewhere.

So what. The big government types know what's best for you, and will make sure you aren't given the chance to make a potentially bad decision (as they define bad).

The Iron Curtain disappeared over 15 years ago, but a more insidious Paper Wall is rising. A wall created not with brick and mortar, but by the simple act of applying a signature to paper. How much more will we take?

Sad to read that ABC may cave in after an avalanche of howlings from Clintonistas and their followers, including many Democrat politicians. Turns out that a mini-series planned to air Sunday and Monday isn’t quite as charitable to the former Crook in Chief as he and his friends would like.

“The Path to 9/11”, a five-hour “docu-drama” produced by Disney (a division of ABC), has ruffled more than a few left-wing feathers for its depiction of the Clinton administration dithering while Osama bin Laden and his blood-thirsty psychopaths conspired to bring America to its knees.

The movie blames much of this indifference on the Clinton gang’s distraction with the Monica Lewinsky mess. While that may be debatable—and one scene showing National Security Advisor Sandy Berger ignoring pleas from forces in Afghanistan for help in capturing Public Enemy #1 is supposed to be false—the basic premise is true: Clinton failed to take necessary and decisive action after it became crystal clear that bin Laden was behind heinous attacks on American personnel and property, even when provided golden opportunities to do so. Some noteworthy events include:

1. August 1996. Sudan offers intelligence information on bin Laden, whose operations were based in Khartoum. (This following an offer in March to arrest bin Laden. That offer, made to a CIA operative, apparently never reached the White House.) The offer is rebuffed. The administration doesn’t want to open a dialogue with Sudan, considered a breeding ground for terrorism, during an election year.

2. Later, Sudan offers to extradite bin Laden to Saudi Arabia. Washington rejects the idea.

3. April 1997. Sudan makes another offer to share valuable intelligence data. Clinton is informed of this in May, but takes no action. One theory is that Clinton didn’t want to be seen as getting help from a major campaign donor. The donor, a wealthy businessman, had volunteered to meet with Sudanese officials privately.

4. October 1997. The State Department finally decides to send a team to Sudan to inspect the voluminous files, only to drop the plan several days later.

5. Early 1998. Washington refuses to act on intelligence offered by the Northern Alliance which detailed bin Laden’s movements in Afghanistan.

6. August 1998. Clinton authorizes a cruise missile strike against bin Laden’s compound in Afghanistan. Because the cruise missiles will fly through Pakistani airspace—and potentially unnerve India—Pakistani officials are tipped off to the strike. Someone in Pakistani intelligence tips off bin Laden. The missiles hit empty structures. Clinton could have chosen a different path for the missiles or used stealth bombers.

7. 1999 and 2000. The administration refuses to adequately support the Northern Alliance’s attacks on bin Laden. Several close calls could have been successful.

8. 1999. Nuclear subs in the Indian Ocean are on standby to launch cruise missiles to kill bin Laden. Three times the subs are set to launch, and each time the order is rescinded. Not sure enough of the intelligence, says the CIA chief.

9. June 2000. The United Arab Emirates offers to capture bin Laden and turn him over to the United States. Washington is uninterested.

10. Late 2000. Even after the bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 sailors and injured 39, Clinton refused to take a shot at bin Laden. As one book author has noted, “[W]ith Clinton trying to broker a peace settlement in Israel, a presidential election imminent, and the two-term Clinton administration ending, serious plans to retaliate went nowhere.”

Critics claim legitimately that “Path” veers way off the path offered by the 9/11 Commission, whose report was supposed to be the basis for the movie. Even ABC and Disney officials concede that producers took some creative license. Fine. But this isn’t the time or the venue to start exonerating Bill Clinton.

If contemporary critics want to keep hounding Pres. Bush for allegedly messing up the Middle East, it’s only fair that we continue to shine the light on Bill Clinton’s failings as well.

Time was lawyers were interested only in the plight of the little guy helplessly fighting the system. Think Paul Newman in “The Verdict.” Ah, if it were only true today. Like pro athletes gunning for the multi-million dollar contracts, tort lawyers are always on the lookout for the jackpot award. Despite what they say, it really is all about the money. For them.

What to do?

We can start by changing the method used for compensating plaintiffs’ lawyers. Instead of the greed-inducing commission system now in place, lawyers would be paid an hourly rate for the time spent on a case. (This would apply only in successful cases, of course. Losers would have to cover their own costs.) The firms would still be reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses, such as expert witnesses, technical assistance, and so on. But the legal staff itself would be paid an hourly rate.

What would be the rate? For the sake of discussion, let’s say $350 an hour. That would apply to everyone who had any part in the case, from the paralegal to the partner. Granted, a partner may feel he is worth more than $350 an hour, but you can bet the firm doesn’t bill anywhere near that rate for junior staffers, so it stands to come out ahead.

Think about it: A winning firm getting paid handsomely for its time on a case, and reimbursed for outside expenses. It can’t lose. So, would this idea fly with law firms? Does Hillary Clinton stand a chance of winning the sportsmen’s vote?

No law firm in the nation would support such an idea for one reason: There’s no chance of taking home a multi-million dollar commission check. In the end, that’s what it’s all about: making the gargantuan bucks. The hotshot lawyers will try to tell you that the present system—with its commission-based payment method (typically set to a rate of 33%)—ensures that the little guy gets his day in court. But the lawyers prove my point: personal injury cases are so attractive because of the excessively high commission rate available. Who wouldn’t go through hoops for that sort of commission rate?

The problem is that every dollar that goes into the wealthy lawyer’s pocket is one more dollar that doesn’t go to the injured party. Law firms like to gloat over the large awards they’ve won. But what they don’t publicize is that the plaintiff ends up with about 50% of the award. That’s because the law firm takes 1/3 off the top. Outside fees consume the rest.

We need a fairer method of compensating lawyers for their services. As highly trained professionals, they deserve to be compensated well. But not to the extent that they can afford a new boat or another McMansion every other year.

The country is awash in lawyers, many of whom handle personal injury and similar cases. The fact that every firm can charge the same rate should raise eyebrows with state and federal regulators. It does when other businesses conspire to set prices. Law firms are treated differently.

So it’s up to potential clients to force the issue. The next time you need a personal injury attorney, ask if he or she will take the case for less than the standard 33% commission. If the person says no, move on to the next law firm. Eventually you’ll find a firm that is willing to put its client’s needs ahead of its own. Enough people do that, and we’ll see downward pressure on rates, though not necessarily on the size of awards. But as long as the case is legit, we should be happy when an injured person receives significant compensation.

Meantime, we should continue to work for reform in the method used to compensate law firms in these cases. A uniform pricing system is unfair and borderline illegal. Perhaps one day we’ll see lawyers getting compensated on an hourly basis instead of on commission. Until then clients must exert pressure to ensure they receive the maximum amount of any award.