Why is there all that advice against doing business with friends?

Because of what happened to you.

Contracts are written and signed by "people who do business together" -- friends or not -- because a contract is a guide to "what happens if this all goes wrong". Contracts are where you write down, in legal terms, "what's the worst that can happen, here?"

Any "friend" who wants to do business with you without a contract is, firstly, not a business person you want to deal with and, secondly, not much of a friend.

Of course I know all this now because 15 years ago exactly the same thing happened to me as happened to you. I was out $6,000 -- but that's just a detail.

I put the cost down to education. That's right. What I bought with that money was a $6,000 basic course in business fundamentals.

You got off cheap! But you got the same educational program. Write it off to that, and maybe it will stop eating you up.

The friend? Well let me just say a word about that: friends don't let friends drive drunk.

How's that relevant?

Well, in the same vein, friends don't let friends go into business together without everything being written down including what happens if it all goes south.

He wasn't much of a friend to you -- but you weren't much of a friend back by not insisting on business fundamentals. Is that $1,000 starting to seem like better value now you see how it applies to you as well?

"Trust" is for interpersonal intimacy. For business relationships, there's contracts.

Someone wrote of Luntz: "Wouldn't he be happier if the Democratic party were "hijacked" by "slash and burn angry bloggers?""

The answer is, of course, no.

Watching your football team win 72-0 might please a few knuckle-dragging fans.

But actually, what most of us want is to watch a good game. A good contest. What most of us want is our team to win by a point in the dying seconds.

You need to be cautious applying sport to politics (not that it stops anyone!) but what most of the vast "middle ground" wants from their politics is the same -- a good contest.

A good contest in politics means that at least two viable options have been debated, and the edges knocked off by strong opposition. Clever teams learn from their opposition, but only when the opposition is credible.

A good contest means no comfortable "safe seats" in either house. People campaigning strongly, on issues, every election.

It doesn't mean division and hatred. It means "Well, they fought a strong fight, this time their ideas won, let's see how they do, let's get ready for the rematch in four years."

The alternative -- what we have now -- is just this horrible combination of apathy and anger that helps no-one and achieves nothing.

So of course Luntz doesn't want a weak Democratic Party! Whatever else he is, he's a patriot, and he wants good government like all of us. He knows the best way to get good government is to have a good opposition. He'd prefer the government to be Republican, clearly, but that is a trivial difference compared to the vastness of the common ground.

I can't remember the comedian's name who was asked recently by Larry King "But if these people were out of office, wouldn't you be out of a job? Wouldn't that be bad for you?"

The comedian responded (paraphrased) "Are you CRAZY? I would prefer unemployment and sane government."

As, I am sure, would Frank Luntz.

You're right, Andrew, the irony is quite something.

After being dragged, kicking and screaming, to the environmental table in the West -- and still flouting regulations there whenever they can get away with it -- Western mining companies have learned a little about how to hide and cover up the worst of their messes.

So, now that they've learned these skills, they now want to force China to play by rules that advantage them.

If there was even a shred of actual remorse-- "We've learned our lessons and will now be good corporate citizens globally" -- then I would be far more likely to support this call.

All the evidence says, however, that big mining will simply use these rules to knock China out at the bidding stage, and then proceed to pollute to their heart's desire. I mean, who's to know if they dirty some African water table? What agency monitors such things?

Unfortunately, two can play at that game. The Chinese will simply upgrade the language in their bid documents to match, and the environment will be no better off.

Bring on a Universal Declaration of Environmental Principles, backed up by an international monitoring agency with real teeth, and let the chips fall where they may.