Paul McCartney: a victim of his own gibberishBy Tom DeWeeseI love the Beatles' music. My respect for individual members of the legendary band end there. Paul McCartney has spent a lifetime making incredible music while uttering pure gibberish on issues that matter. It seems that if he can't put a rhyme and a tune to it, his brain turns to mush. He has been a major promoter of the animal rights scam perpetrated by PeTA. And he has operated a sheep farm with a "commitment to natural methods, and the farm and produce have gained recognition and designation as organic status," according to a McCartney spokesman. In other words, Paul McCartney has spent years accepting and  promoting the environmental agenda that is based more on political propaganda than scientific fact. Sir Paul has done his best to toe an impossible, anti-human line. Worse, he has used his celebrity status to push that misguided agenda on the rest of us.But Paul is only human. He has needs and wants. And he has the money to get them. Or so he thought. It seems Sir Paul is the victim of Sustainable Development and its strict land use policies that allow a power elite to dictate what we do with our own private property.Paul's farm is an extensive estate with lots of land just 70 miles outside London. But when he built a simple one and a half story log cabin on the property to serve as a quiet retreat, away from the hustle and bustle of the farm, he was foiled. It seems the local community planning committee doesn't like the cabin. They say it "harms the intrinsic landscape quality and character of the area." Says Councilman Grey Metcalf, "Planning laws are there for a reason. If there was a free-for-all, people would build where they liked, whenever they liked." The council says Paul ruined an area of outstanding natural beauty. The fact is, Paul's cabin doesn't harm anything. It's just that his neighbors want to control what he does on his property because they consider the view over his fields to be their own "view shed" and they don't want him building something in the way to spoil their vistas and sunsets.  Protecting the environment is just a euphemism for stealing property.     Paul's problem is that he never argued before the Council that the land was his and that he should have a perfect right to build a little cabin if he wants to. Instead he argues his need, saying he has a need to privacy, seclusion and security due to the proximity of a  public foot path running next to his farm house. Of course the foot path was already enforced over private land as part of the open space rules. Paul then goes on to plead what a great environmentalist he is. In essence, Paul pleaded that "I'm one of you, how can you do this to me?" The Council countered saying the cabin isn't  essential to the running of the farm, so he doesn't really need it. Paul then learned that the pigs he had helped put in charge, through his support of the dictatorship called Sustainable Development, are now more equal than he is. It's the new order of things that Sir Paul thought he wanted.   Of course, it can be argued that Paul has received what he deserves because he's so eager to inflict the same idiocy on the rest of us. But gloating over Paul doesn't restore our property rights. Will he ever understand that his actions and political gibberish have consequences?  Perhaps Paul could now be encouraged to rewrite George Harrison's song, "Tax man" and replace those words with "Land Man."