Saturday, February 10, 2007

Watch WFYI-TV Tonight!

Or Sunday. Libertarian State Chair Mark Rutherford will be appearing on WFYI TV-20 in Indianapolis, discussing the City of Indianapolis and its' effort to lure the Super Bowl in 2011. Fred Glass from the Improvement Board and State Senator Luke Kenley will also appear. Should be an interesting discussion.

Air times:

Saturday, 11pm
Sunday, 1pm

If you can't watch at those times, and lack a TiVo or VCR, no problem. Stream the broadcast online via this link. Many choices available.

I can't see being against the City winning the bid. I can see being against giveaways to the NFL that are merely transfers of wealth from the citizens to the league owners and players. What do you think? Check out the new poll.

Update: I went to watch on Sunday, but WFYI-TV had their beg-a-thon fundraiser and did not show the Indiana Lawmakers show as expected. Here's a better link to the show page.
Ballot Results

The old poll asked about your interest in the Super Bowl. The votes were scant, so that tells me something. Here's the tally.

50% I'll watch. Go Colts!
20% I'll watch. Go Bears!
0% I'll watch, but merely as a TV event
0% I'll watch, but we'll be playing poker
20% Not interested. This is the 'circuses' part of 'bread & circuses'
10% Not interested. Sports isn't my thing
0% Can't watch. Have to work.

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Poison for Galileo?

I'm no fan of official truths or other orthodoxy that isn't scientifically or factually based. So, I've had a real problem with the attitudes of the people who beat the drum on global warming.

I have no doubts at all that man's activities have contributed to whatever global warming there is. I also have no doubts that man's activities aren't the only factor. The earth has constantly undergone climactic evolution, so I think we should expect this.

I have great suspicion for the alarmists among the global warming activists. Mainly, when I was a kid in the late 70s, I remember scientists telling us we were entering a new ice age during those years of especially harsh winters and mild summers. Those alarmists have been proven wrong, so there's no reason for me to think these alarmists are correct.

I have more than suspicion for those who want to see a strict single view party line on the topic. I have contempt. Too many speak as though there only one possibility, when clearly there is not. So, it is with interest that I note the conflict over the 'state climatologist' in Oregon.
In the face of evidence agreed upon by hundreds of climate scientists, George Taylor holds firm. He does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change.

Taylor also holds a unique title: State Climatologist.

And even though that title is not a state government title, Oregon's governor wants to strip him of it.
Taylor has held the title of "state climatologist" since 1991 when the legislature created a state climate office at OSU The university created the job title, not the state.

His opinions conflict not only with many other scientists, but with the state of Oregon's policies. So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint.

The thing about scientific consensus is that the outcomes stand up to scrutiny. It isn't necessary to brand one a heretic. And yet, so many global warming activists act to stifle the other side. Why? If the facts are on the side of global warming, they do the job of silencing crackpots. But, this is politics and not reason.
Kulongoski said the state needs a consistent message on reducing greenhouse gases to combat climate change.

The Governor says, "I just think there has to be somebody that says, 'this is the state position on this.'"

Again, why? Is there a state position on whether or not the earth is round? It isn't necessary. The evidence is plain there. Link to full article.

So many things we know more about today, we were once just flat wrong about while having very strong opinions. No new ice age here. No flat earth, thank you. Marxist and Keynesian economics? Trash can. Alarmists were saying in the 1970s that we would run out of gasoline by 1980. Instead, gas is pretty cheap. Coal was supposed to be exhausted by now, too. So was lumber.

So, let the debate flourish. Regard with suspicion anyone who would sensor either point of view and work to establish an official truth. And let's be cool-headed about this and remember that the earth's climactic changes are best measured over centuries and not months. I fear reactionary policies towards any phenomenon, man-made or otherwise. They rarely serve us well.

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Dan Burton, or a Can of Alpo?

Which would you rather have, District Five voters? I ask because each seems as capable as showing up for votes these days. From an Indy Star report:
U.S. Rep. Dan Burton skipped 19 House votes, including measures to reduce college costs and cut oil industry tax breaks, so he could play in a golf tournament last month in Palm Springs, Calif.

Burton also missed hearings on Iraq and North Korea to play in the Bob Hope Chrysler Classic, which pairs top golfers with politicians and celebrities such as actor and director Clint Eastwood.

A review of House votes for the past decade shows the Indianapolis Republican has been absent every year votes coincided with the tournament: 2007, 2005, 2004, 2003 and 2001. This year in January, he missed a total of 20 out of 73 votes.

Keep in mind that Dan Burton was the sole vote against ethics reform. People were scratching their heads and asking why he would do that. All is now made clear.

So, District Five: Are you happy with this "performance"? Is it time for you to stop blindly voting 'R' yet? Burton hasn't been voting for smaller government, so what is the point? This is a guy who makes Julia Carson's attendence record sparkle.

Don't expect the man to change his ways unless you act. He knows he is in the most safely gerrymandered Congressional District in the State of Indiana. He refused comment on this issue from all media who have inquired. That's some kind of contempt. Worse, it's disinterest in performing even the simplest role outlined in his title- "Representative".

Everyone knows that because of the gerrymandering, you can run a can of Alpo in District 5, and it would win so long as it wore the 'R' label, and you had a reincarnated Barry Goldwater wearing a 'D', and a reincarnated Ronald Reagan wearing an 'L'. District Five, you are asleep at the switch! You need to pay attention to what the candidates stand for and what their record is. Voting on what you think the labels used to stand for isn't getting you anywhere good, and it certainly isn't making Dan Burton show up.

Update: Usually Indy Star stories get about 50 or 60 replies. Colts Super Bowl articles get about 150-200. So, imagine my surprise to see this one get 125 in the first half of the day it's posted. that's great! Maybe people are paying attention a wee bit.

I'm really pleased about another development in the article comments. It seems that some readers like the Can of Alpo bit, and are running with it. Check out the comments on page 3 & 4. I would so dearly love to see someone pick up on this an actually sink Burton with it. That person would have my blessing and support! For now, I'm enjoying large guffaws!

Monday, February 05, 2007


Well, this is fun! I've never lived in a city that won a major sports championship before, and I'm enjoying it... at least until I start finding that people are playing hooky today and I end up leaving a hundred voice mails.

I know this game will go down as the coronation of Peyton Manning, but to me the best part of the game was watching Dominic Rhodes and Joseph Addai run all over the Bears' vaunted defense. Erlacher & Co. were supposed to be the difference makers, shutting down the run, forcing Manning to pass under extreme pressure. It never materialized.

But, teams often need to lose a big game or two before they advance. This was true of the Colts, and I suspect that the Bears will return to next season's play a stronger, smarter team.

Now, to gloat a bit. I was off on the prediction, Bears fans. I guess in figuring them for 27 points against the Colts, I had envisioned at least two returns for touchdowns. I'll look forward to your hat-in-hand posts shortly. Chris Ward, this means you.

Sunday, February 04, 2007

Super Bowl Poll

Lookee to the right at the Super Bowl poll. Cast your vote!

Now, the reason I put it up there is that I suspect a good many regular readers are only here for the politics and couldn't give a rip about sports.

As for me, I usually don't care too much about the actual Super Bowl. I would normally watch for the commercials, but I never watch the halftime show. That's a good time to bring in some more wood for the fire and fold some laundry.

I rarely would watch the whole game. But this year is different with the Colts in the game. The region I live in is getting about as excited about it as it can, being fans of open wheel racing, NASCAR, college football, college and high school hoops before the NFL. So, I watch with interest, rooting for the Colts. I know that if they win, it's really nothing to do with me, but as long as we've made the policy decisions we have, and spent the money, we may as well get some return in enjoying any victories that may come on the field.