Bias Irritation

I accept that there are inherent biases in the media. I just object when they are rubbed into the nose.

For instance, check out this article from the Washington Post, on Obama the Boy Wonder of Internet Fundraising:

Obama's unprecedented online fundraising success is often depicted as a spontaneous reaction to a charismatic candidate, particularly by young, Internet-savvy supporters.

Wow, when Ron Paul was doing exactly the same thing, last year, all was dismissed as a fluke or ridiculed. Change it to read something like this: "Paul's surprising online fundraising success is often depicted as a reaction to a co-conspirator, particularly by young internet-savvy idiot savants who live in their parents' basements." Same phenomenon, praise for one guy, derision for the other. Yay, journalistic integrity.

But there's more. Check this out:

Ads for Obama pop up on political Web sites, such as the left-leaning blog Daily Kos, and on more general ones, such as those of newspapers.

snip

Obama has targeted unlikely sites, such as the conservative Washington Times, where an ad for the candidate appeared yesterday on the same page as a story about an economic speech he gave that morning.

So, the Kos is "left-leaning"? Are you kidding me? Of course the Washington Times is conservative, so if honesty is possible there, why the hedge on Kos?

I expect this, and know it's always there. Normally it's left under the surface and it irritates me far less. I suppose I should be grateful that the junior copy editor is in charge now and then and fails to cover up the obvious tells.

Zoning And God

(Fishers, IN)- I grew up in Parma, Ohio- a town largely built in the post-WW2 boom, when GIs returned home and so many took the opportunity the flee the old cities and get into a new, safer, cleaner suburban community. Parma once held the claim to fame as the world's largest suburb.

There were many churches in my neighborhood, but besides the one I attended, the one that sticks out in my mind was St. Josaphat's Ukranian Church.

It's now known as the Ukranian Catholic Eparchy of Saint Josaphat. Essentially, it is a cathedral, with a Pope-appointed Bishop seated there.

St. Josaphat's Cathedral, Parma OH.

Needless to say, it's a crown jewel of the now-aging neighborhood- a thing of beauty that holds tremendous value (aesthetically, spirtually, monetarily) even as the surrounding area deteriorates a bit. It's bedrock for the community.

So it's interesting to me that my new hometown of Fishers is having a zoning debate over the height of a church. From an Indy Star report:

St. George Orthodox Church is moving from its longtime home on North Sherman Street in Indianapolis to 116th Street and Cumberland Road. The church plans to build a sanctuary more than five stories high but needs the town to make an exception to its zoning code to do so.

More than 20 homeowners who live near the church have told the town they oppose St. George's building plan. They say the size would dwarf the single-family homes in the area and disrupt the residential character of the neighborhood.

This is short-sighted on the part of the homeowners, at least if they plan on living in the community for more than three years. Back in Parma, St. Josaphat's dwarfs everything around it- until you go two blocks south and encounter my old church- St. Francis de Sales. Catch the thing I said about the bedrock of the community? Fishers is largely brand new today, just as Parma was in 1948. Fishers will deteriorate, just as surely as Parma has. Churches that are well-supported, however, are well maintained, and later serve to hold the rest of the community up as the deterioration begins around it. Why wouldn't you want that? More from the Star:

(Bob) Kehlor sees more than aesthetics involved in opposition -- it's a matter of principle.

"I asked for small variance for my property to build a driveway, and the town wouldn't let me do it,' he said. "That was nothing compared to what they want to do. The town should stick to its code, otherwise why even have it."

I can understand his very legitimate gripe. Why should one property owner be restricted while another can have the rules bent? Mr. Kehlor supplies the answer- get rid of the zoning.

As long as there is zoning, there will also be zoning appeals, and therefore variances. And, so long as variances are granted to some and not to others, the accusations of favoritism and unfair dealings will be there and will be legitimized. Zoning does unfairly punish individual property owners, who lack the kind of numbers a church can present- in terms of members-as-lobbyists, and cash for variance fees. Zoning's intent is to protect one property owner from the destructive actions of another. I doubt Kehlor's driveway would have been injurious to his neighbor. I can assure anyone that having a more grand church isn't going to injure anyone either. Quite the contrary. The problem is an overreaching government, that is well-exposed by this example.

If the Church owns the land, the Town shouldn't be able to play Land God over it, any more than it should have over Mr. Kehlor.

The old argument against zoning-free communities is that, "a hog farm could spring up next to you". In case you hadn't noticed, the hog farms in Fishers are long gone. They sold out to developers, because the land was far less valuable as a hog farm. That argument is bunk.

At the end of the day, I think that if this was a building that added assessed value to the Town, there would be no discussion. The variance would be granted- post haste. But, it will add a very different set of values to the Town, but also including property values for the neighborhood that surrounds it. Approve the darned thing!

Oh, So Indiana Matters?

(Fishers, IN)- Some are getting all excited about the Democratic primary, because with it being a close contest, Indiana now matters enough to have Obama and Clinton campaign here.

Call me cynical, but I'm not impressed that the horse race situation makes our state at long last worthy of visitation, begging, and bombardment with campaign ads. Great that you're here now, but who could doubt that you wouldn't be here if it were wrapped up.

My personal taste came on Saturday, when a telemarketer called. Her question: Who will I vote for in the Democratic primary?

Well, now that's one hell of a leading question. I took on a woe-is-me voice and said, "My good lady, I wouldn't vote for either of them if my other option was a sharp stick in the eye".

She took that fairly well, and then asked if I would be voting in the primaries. I said that I would. That was the end of the call, and I'm sure she assumed I would vote Republican. No, I go to the voting place, sign the book, and then walk out. Until they have a place for None Of The Above, or make primaries something other than a public function on behalf of the private organizations the Republican and Democratic Parties are, then that's my only real 'choice' when voting in primaries.

On another note, I thought political push-poll calls were illegal. Moreover, I'm on the No-Call List. I thought it was illegal for pollsters to call those on the list. Do the rules not apply now?

Corporate Taxes In America - Too Low?

I frequently hear my friends on the left complaining that corporations are not taxed fairly, which means, not highly enough. The reasoning is that business can afford higher taxes, while individuals struggle.

Let's put that second thought on the shelf for a moment, and look at whether or not corporate taxes in the USA are high or low.

According to The Tax Foundation, the US corporate tax rate is 35%. That's highest in the world, with France right behind at 34.43% and Belgium at 33.99%. Ireland is lowest, at 12.5%.

But those are just federal taxes. Let's not forget that our states add their own corporate taxes. After the state corporate taxes are added, corporations in 24 states by higher taxes than anywhere else in the world. Indiana is among these 24. Only 3 states add zero corporate tax: Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Wonder no longer why so many corporations are registered in those states. Here's a link to the rankings.

My wife has been urging me to incorporate my business. I have been hesitant. Can you blame me?

Can business afford the taxes? No, but then, they really don't pay them. Individuals do, in the marked-up price that covers these (and so many other) taxes.

Even still, can they afford it? It means that products made in Ireland can be shipped here and still be vastly cheaper than products made here. Ever wonder why we have a trade imbalance? Hmm. Maybe this has something to do with it. Coincidentally, Ireland has been one of the world's economic growth leaders. Hmm. Maybe, just maybe, this has something to do with it.

What is more important? Our ability to compete in the global marketplace? Or, to fund more government? From the Tax Foundation:

24 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than top-ranked Japan.
32 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than third-ranked Germany.
46 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than fourth-ranked Canada.
All 50 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than fifth-ranked France.

"If federal lawmakers are serious about making the U.S. corporate tax system more competitive globally, they will have to partner with state officials to lower the nation's overall corporate tax burden," Hodge added. "Likewise, state officials should have a vested interest in cutting the federal corporate tax rate because there is only so much they can do to improve their own competitiveness. After all, even corporations in the three states that do not impose a major state-level corporate tax—Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming—still shoulder a higher corporate tax rate than France, and 25 other major countries, because of the 35 percent federal corporate rate."

I'd say the corporate tax rate is ridiculously too high. The left may enjoy targeting big, bad corporations as some kind of evil, but funnelling tax money to government is something they actually do with aplomb- to the detriment of us all.

Three Lousy Choices

If the only three choices the average American is going to consider are McCain, Clinton, and Obama, then I'm positively uninspired, and darned near frightened. All three will do greater damage to our country, in my opinion, and there is no 'lesser of the evils' here.

Thanks to Gregg Puls for forwarding this image this morning. Pretty well sums it up.

Wanted - An Adult For President

I was reading some of the Washington Post opinion stuff today, and happened upon a Eugene Robinson column that started like this:

The Democratic presidential candidates squabble over real or imagined racial sensitivities, the Republican presidential candidate stages photo opportunities with the troops in Iraq, and meanwhile the financial system is coming apart at the seams.

Would someone please tell Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain that here in the real world, we have what looks like a real problem. It would be nice if they'd pay attention and maybe, you know, come up with some ideas for getting out of this mess.

Funny enough, there is a candidate for President who has been talking about the financial crisis and the need for a return to sound money for about 30 years. Oh, that's right. I don't know what I was thinking. Ron Paul must not be a candidate for President. Columnist Eugene Robinson used the singular when describing the Republican offerings.

Problem is, when you have candidates who talk about fluff, and when you have voters who demand freebies, you get people like McCain, Clinton, and Obama at the fore. The LAST thing you're going to get from them is serious talk about finances. That's kook stuff, the kind of thing that gets the 'tinfoil hat insults' going.

Maybe Robinson is part of the problem. He, like so many others who have already given coronation to John McCain, treats Ron Paul like he doesn't exist. So, don't be surprised when Ron Paul type solutions aren't part of the discourse. And yet, Robinson continues:

A good start would be to acknowledge that putting the economy back on a sound footing is likely to be the new president's first task -- and then to begin laying out some ideas for how that might be done. A little honesty would be preferable, too -- an admission that no president will be able to turn around the economy overnight.

I realize that's heresy. Presidential candidates like to tell us about all the largesse they're going to provide. They like to invite voters to envision the sunshine of happy days, not the gloom of an economic slump. But real leadership involves dealing with the economy as it is, rather than as we would like it to be.

If you really wanted it, you could have written an article that read, "Ron Paul may be a longshot, but he's got exactly the right plan for returning the American financial system to sound money," or, "Ron Paul might not promise you the moon, sky, and socialized medicine, but he would get the country back on economic track".

But no. Exclude a good candidate with great ideas because you find their candidacies 'unwinnable', and you exclude the ideas. Thanks for nothing. I'm already reminded of the South Park episode, that lampooned the election choices of George Bush and John Kerry, ridiculing as the choice between a 'giant douch and a turd sandwich'.

OK- If I can't have Ron Paul, I'm ready for the Libertarian Party candidate now.

Blog Update

(Quito, Ecuador)- Week 2 in Quito: The lessons in Espanol are progressing, and Isabel has even said a few things in Spanish. The Blog of The Trip has been updated with some pictures and text from our first two days. Internet speeds here are sloooooow.

Other brief observations:

I see that Sean Shepard has been excluded from an upcoming WTHR debate for candidates in Indiana's 7th Congressional District. This is personally disappointing. As the 2006 Libertarian candidate for Secretary of State, my top secondary objective (winning was the top objective, of course) was to secure continued ballot access for Libertarian candidates. I achieved this, and Sean Shepard will be on the ballot. 

So, to have him not on the televised debate is frustrating for me, and a rip-off of for the people. While I respect WTHR's right to air what they want to air, it sure isn't anything like a political forum. It's a political statement- an endorsement of the two other candidates and the negation of Shepard. I think that's wrong, especially if WTHR wishes to call the event 'news' or 'journalism'.

Ecuador is a place where there are many fans of Che Guevara. So, the decision by Fidel Castro to resign is going to be big news. For me, I hope it represents the end of the oppressive Communist dictatorship, and the beginning of a new freedom for Cubans. We'll see.

Learning Espanol

(Quito, Ecuador)- Ame, Isabel, and I are now in Quito for the next two weeks, for the first half of a Spanish immersion course. We are staying with a host family on the north of the "New Town" of Quito. It's kind of suburban, as suburbs go in South America.

After the stay in Quito, we'll spend two weeks on the Galapagos Islands, for continued immersion and of course, a look at the wildlife that made Darwin.

I will be launching a blog just for observations and pictures from Ecuador. Yes, Michael, I will be taking pictures of the food for you!

Look for a link to the new blog soon!

Update: Here's the link: http://koleecuador.blogspot.com

Road Trip, Triple Redux

(Three Rivers, MI)- I haven't enjoyed my lunch so much in ages!

Recall that back in September, I took one of my ambitious road trips with my friend Steve, winding around Lake Superior generally, though Michigan, Ontario, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, and back to Indiana.

On the way through Michigan, I was very insistent upon wanting to return to a trackside restaurant in a small southern Michigan town. The reason was that in June 1997, I took on one of my all-time favorite road jobs: mapping a fiber optic path for Level 3, from Detroit to Chicago. This trackside restaurant was discovered happily by accident, walking, yes, at trackside. It was loaded with railroad decor, complete with an attached converted caboose, and had good, cheap food. This is also how I discovered the Bell's Brewery. More on that with another post.

I thought this place was located in Niles, but discovered upon arrival there that my memory had failed me.

Last week, I was with Alex in Tucson, at the Pima Air & Space Museum. One of the volunteers asked me where I was from, and I told him. For some reason, he felt compelled to tell me that he is from Michigan. I took the bait and asked where in Michigan. He turned it around and told me that I wouldn't know. "Try me." His reply- Sturgis. I knew exactly where it was. I rattled off the names of towns nearby: White Pigeon, Three Rivers, Portage, Kalamazoo. He was stunned. 

Then it dawned on me. "What is the name of that restaurant with the caboose by the tracks?"

He laughed. "That's Frankie's by the Tracks! I ate there just two weeks ago!"

I had the same thing I ate there 10 years ago: a wet burrito and an ice tea. I really enjoyed the decor, even if they did update all the locomotive photos to black Norfolk Southern units. No reason to get rid of the old Conrail "Big Blue". Oh well. They even have stained glass windows in a railroad motif. My kind of place!

After lunch, I went to the tracks to see if there was any evidence of the old project. Sure enough, there were orange marker signs, about every 500 feet or so.

Very satisfying. I love seeing my projects built. Too bad I couldn't have remembered back in September and taken Steve. He would have gotten a charge out of it all. 

Another Super Bore?

(Kalamazoo, MI)- OK, so I was completely wrong about the Super Bowl. It was a great game- a close game where another good guy, Eli Manning, stepped up with his team and took the big prize.

Is it too much to hope for to see a parallel in tonight's Super Tuesday results? I'm still pulling for Ron Paul, the only Republican or Democrat even remotely interested in broadly getting government out of our lives, but it seems like he's the New york Giants going in against heavily favored front-runners like John McCain and Mitt Romney even.

I'll have the TV on in the same way as I did for the Super Bowl- as background while I work. Hopefully, in the same way, I will gradually be intrigued, then excited, then delighted.

A guy can hope that America wants freedom, right?

Super Bore

I wish I had an interest in watching tonight's Super Bowl contest. Last year's was a lot of fun, mainly because a team I rooted for throughout the season, the Colts, made the big game for the first time in my life.

Maybe I'm spoiled now. I'm just not interested in the game. I don't care about the NY Giants, and I really don't care about the Patriots. I know a lot of fans here in Indiana are going to be pulling against the Patriots. Sorry- I don't enjoy rooting against teams. It's just not my nature to be down on success, much less perfection, nor to take delight in failure.

OK, I enjoy watching Michigan's football program lose- one game a year. Michigan can go 10-1, as long as that loss is to Ohio State.

But I'm afraid that this game is going to be like so many other Super Bowl bores- a blowout that's over well before halftime. A game between two teams I can't root for at least has to be a good game in order to hold my interest. Alas- the odds aren't good here.

I'll have the game on like folks have the radio going. It will be background noise as I work on job files and pack for the road... until a commercial comes on. I want to see the commercials!

Scary School

(Sierra Vista, AZ)- While I've been sad to have Alex living away from me again, I had been happy with how he landed in Arizona. He really likes the area- the weather, the landscape, the laid-back nature of the kids, and the school. He's been getting good grades and making friends.

But then he laid this bomb on me. A fellow student was stabbed at school. It was a predictable outcome because there was talk it would happen before it happened. It was gang related. From a Sierra Vista Herald article:

A federal hold has been placed on the teenager charged with stabbing a fellow Buena High School student Tuesday morning.

U.S. Border Patrol spokesman Jesus Rodriguez said Wednesday afternoon that the detainer was filed at the Cochise County Jail for Kevin R. Suarez, 18, because the Border Patrol was unable to verify that Suarez was in the United States legally.

Interestingly, the newspaper states that the incident was not gang-related. I always figure the kids know the lay of the land better than the school administration. I know we always did when I was in school. He anticipated more, retaliatory violence, so my visit was a double reason to skip school Friday and visit the Pima Air & Space Museum up in Tucson.

So, I'm glad Alex is on the move once again, going to the Cleveland area. Mainly, he has a lot of family in Cleveland. But getting away from this nonsense makes the move all the better.

As we talked about the incidents, I asked him if illegal immigration was a problem. He said the problem he saw was with students either struggling or refusing to learn English. In either case they slow the class down such that it often becomes tedious for kids to wait for the language to be bridged before instruction can resume. Also, the self-segregating that kids do, aka gangs, is very much along national lines.

I don't see any of that as healthy, but what can you do with a public school system? It has to take all of the kids- until they stab someone- so long as they are citizens.

And this begs the question- why are non-citizens educated in American schools?

Understand that I do not support the rationale of public schooling to begin with. I believe that if you bring a child into the world, you should pay for the child's education. If you don't have kids, you shouldn't be subsidizing someone else and their kids.

There is an awful silence on the part of those who do accept the public school rationale. OK, if it is the role of a community to take on the citizens of the community and support them as their own, but what right is that benefit conveyed to non-citizens?

I've seen the strife this kind of easy, free welfare benefit creates. When in Denmark, I found the Danes suffering a great struggle as immigrants converged to suck up all manner of welfare benefits- without contributing, in the manner the old Danish work ethic demands. It's not merely a strain on the ability of the people to peacefully coexist. It's a strain on the economy besides. In sum, a terrible negative.

I'm a great proponent of legal immigration. I do not want walls at our borders. If those who choose to come here are made to fend for themselves, they either will fend for themselves, or they will go back home. If we give away the store, we will draw those who might not have been otherwise coming- just as the Danes have found. Because we are giving away the store, it's hard to support an open border policy. It's disgusting, but our own welfare state mentality makes nativism a common sense approach.

I don't think any of the presidential candidates have even begun to get to the root of the problem. I've heard some talk about a wall. That doesn't eliminate the draws, like free education. This is the root problem.

At the very least, we need to eliminate public education for non-citizens. We would do even better if we could eliminate public education altogether, and create a social climate of self-responsibility. I'm willing to work incrementally, though, and it should be an easy sell. How can anyone really support the education of non-citizens, at the expense of citizens in terms of cost, and in terms of efficiency of instructing citizen students?

Leaving things as they are, the best rational decision a parent can make is to pull their kids from a school. I'm glad Alex won't be returning to the ironically named Buena High School.

Big Fun With Alex

(Sierra Vista, AZ)- As dumb luck would have it, I missed a turn exiting Tucson's airport en route to I-10, and in so doing, I discovered a tremendous airplane boneyard.

This was no ordinary collection of mothballed planes. These were mostly military planes- fighters and transports, mostly American but also Soviet MIGs. I had discovered the Pima Air and Space Museum. Alex was going to love this!

Image from Pima Air & Space Museum webpage.

Alex is currently entertaining the idea of becoming a pilot. As we entered the grounds Friday afternoon, two gray planes roared above, having just taken off from the nearby Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. He immediately identified them as A-10 "warthogs", and described their purpose in combat. He looked down at the map of the grounds and didn't know where he wanted to go first.

This is a father's joy.

Alex repeatedly said, "I could spend all day here," meaning, in this cockpit.

Dad recreates Richard Nixon, in front of a retired Air Force One.

We spent about four hours here. I can't remember the last time I saw him smile so much.

What's Wrong With Government

(Sierra Vista, AZ)- Ok, this is the excerpted Reader's Digest version...

One of the things I find most wanting today is the absence of consistent thought, and the development of solid ideas into public policy. One of my favorite quotes is of John Adams:

"A government of laws, not of men."

This means, not a government of personalities, of popularity, or any other whimsical nonsense. Personality and popularity is fleeting and ever-changing. Solid law based on solid principles gives the opportunity for clear understanding and thus clear footing.

Reading recent posts by Hoosier Pundit and Doug Masson on the crafting of property tax legislation brought this all to mind, as it focused on the importance of three figures: Governor Mitch Daniels, Republican State Senator Luke Kenley, and Democratic House Leader Pat Bauer.

It's ironic. They're drafting law. But it is illustrated here that we are a government of men first, with laws resulting secondly.

I could stand it if there was great clarity where either of these three men stood on the issue. Kenley in particular is a "stick your finger in the air and see which way the wind blows" kind of man. For certain, none of these is a statesman. Oh, for a statesman or two!

I'd much rather see solid competing IDEAS, rather than these three egos, and the kind of horsetrading they will marshall. Let's talk about abolishing the property tax. Let's have a discourse about the things the property taxes fund. 

The dialogue should be much more than, "what can we do to look it make like we've created tax relief all while maintaining the funding status quo." That's what it has all come down to, and it is because we are a nation of men, not of laws.

Happy Birthday Alex!

(Sierra Vista, AZ)- 16 years ago today, my son Alex was born. I'm visiting with him for an extended weekend to celebrate.

We took a short hike at the Kartchner Caverns State Park. The Whetstone Mountains loom in the background beyond the nearby Mesquite trees and cacti.

Alex, the two-fisted meat eater. The birthday was celebrated with a dinner at the El Paso Bar-B-Que in Sierra Vista. He was in his glory, with a trio of smoked meats: chicken, brisket, and pulled pork.

We're planning to check out Tombstone (site of the Gunfight at the OK Corral) and Bisbee (an old mining town), and will probably cross the border at Agua Prieta, Sonora for a look around.

Another One Gone

Frankly, I thought it would be Rudy Giuliani out of the running on the Republican next, but alas, Fred Thompson called it quits today. From CNN's report:

Thompson played to the voters as a staunch conservative and a son of the South. While he did draw some evangelical voters from one-time Baptist preacher and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, it wasn't enough to pull him into contention for the nomination.

He finished with 16 percent of the vote. Sen. John McCain won Saturday's contest with 33 percent, followed by Huckabee with 30 percent.

"He's really been good lately, but it's too late," CNN analyst Bill Bennett said of Thompson after South Carolina returns started to come in. "If you're a Southern conservative and you can't make it in South Carolina, it's over."

Also, if you aren't running on anything distinct, like say a consistent set of ideas, and you aren't near the top, it's over. So far, Romney and McCain are getting away with a lack of the former.

So, now that the Republican field is down to five, what are the odds that the last place candidate (Giuliani) continues to get as much press as the front-runners? And the odds that the 4th place candidate continues to be consciously ignored? About the same.

Rare, Honest- Refreshing

I was bowled over by a CNN article, on it's own news story.

It's very rare that I'm going to be interested in that kind of story. News that talks about itself? That's usually self-absorption on the order of an American Idol contestant, and thus, not at all interesting. But since it may signal that finally, FINALLY, on the day after the holiday to celebrate the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., finally CNN and other mainstream media may begin to be getting the greatest essence of King's great speech:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

You see, CNN and all the other major media tend to denote Barack Obama as the 'black candidate', and Hilary Clinton as the 'female candidate', at least implicitly. A recent CNN article promoted this 'vision' as the main way for black female voters to look at the Democratic primary in South Carolina, with race and gender the only factor; issues a non-factor, John Edwards a non-factor... nevermind for Dennis Kucinich. Choose: a female president, or a black president.

For these women, a unique, and most unexpected dilemma, presents itself: Should they vote their race, or should they vote their gender?

In the context of Dr. King's words, or any other intelligent context, it's appalling. But, it's refreshing that CNN viewers and website readers rebelled. It's just as refreshing that CNN had the courage to create an article out of the acknowledgment of their stupidity. That's the sort of accountability in media I would like to see more regularly, so kudos to CNN.

The email response is just marvelous. Here's just one message:

An e-mailer named Tiffany responded sarcastically: "Duh, I'm a black woman and here I am at the voting booth. Duh, since I'm illiterate I'll pull down the lever for someone. Hm... Well, he black so I may vote for him... oh wait she a woman I may vote for her... What Ise gon' do? Oh lordy!"

Tiffany urged CNN to "pull this racist crap off" the Web site and to stop calling Hillary the "top female candidate."

"Stop calling Barack the "Black" candidate," she wrote.

The entire articles are worth reading. And if you didn't yesterday, read the entire text of Dr. King's great speech. Then remember: 'content of character', and think about the policy they would promote.

Ron Paul Finishes 2nd in Nevada

I was happy to see RP's high finish in Nevada. Sure, it isn't a win, but if you don't win, you can do worse than second- just ask Rudy Giuliani. The newsletters were a real downer, but even with that baggage, Ron Paul is really the only candidate talking about liberty, so I have to hold out hope for him- at least until the Libertarian convention in May.

McCain won the South Carolina Republican primary, with Paul coming in 4th there. Interesting quote from CNN's political analyst, Bill Schneider:

"Essentially, McCain did it on a personal vote. It wasn't ideology; it wasn't issues. It was a vote for him personally, which has always been his strongest appeal," Schneider said.

Gosh, that gives me a warm fuzzy. If the last two presidents taught us anything, it's that ideology and issues matter. Give me the flattest, dullest personality possible with the right ideology, and the country will go far.

Changing The Rules, Midgame

I was pleased to see that a bill is advancing that could prevent my home town of Fishers from preventing the forced annexation of some Geist neighborhoods.

For a refresher, the Geist neighborhoods are among the state's most well-to-do. The Town has been aggressive about adding assessed value via annexation. A majority of Geist residents are opposed to the annexation.

The Indy Star's report is short, but has some pretty interesting bits:

A senate panel voted Wednesday to advance a bill that could stop the Town of Fishers from annexing Geist.

The legislation, proposed by Sen. Jeff Drozda R-Westfield, would prohibit municipalities from annexing homeowners against their wishes. The Senate Committee on Local Government and Elections voted 6-4 along party lines in favor of the bill during a packed hearing at the Statehouse.

I'm surprised this went along party lines. Certainly enough Republicans- like the all-Republican Fishers Town Council, the all-Republican Carmel City Council, and Republican Carmel Mayor Jim Brainard- initiate forced annexation. Hamilton County Democrats lined up to oppose forced annexation in response. And yet, Senate Democrats opposed advancing the law. Why?

Sen. Timothy Lanane D-Anderson objected to the provision, saying it was "changing the rules in the middle of the game."

Unless Senator Lanane is unaware of the effect any legislation has, all new laws change the rules in the middle of the game. Perhaps the Senator from Anderson is making his statement that he will never again vote for any legislation. Strange argument.

Indeed, the Town of Fishers attempted to change the rules midgame on the Geist residents, who bought their properties knowing full well that they were buying unincorporated township residences. Forced annexations are a prime example of what Lanane says he opposes.

That's some weak logic.

In Shape? Yeah, Right!

It doesn't matter how much stretching, weight training, or other exercise one might do- it still doesn't prepare you for competitive skating and hockey.

So, after a three-year break, I played my first game at the Fishers Forum Sunday night. My legs are really sore and tight, although Ame reports that my skating is better than ever. There's no real good reason for that, but I'm glad of it.

The hallmark of "old fart league" hockey- players gliding while sucking wind, wearing jumbled uniforms. Time to replace the red & black gloves and socks.

As for the game, we lost 7-2. My stats are pretty lame: no goals, no assists, and a -3 rating. The whole game was mainly played in our defensive zone. Maybe we just faced the aces of the league. Hope so!

One nice feature of the league is that the players can wear any jersey they wish, so long as the "home" team wears white, and the "road" team wears dark jerseys. We may not look good in terms of our play, but a lot of us have spiffy gear to wear. I wore an AHL Worcester Sharks home jersey for this game. I have many more choice for our "road" games.

Anyhow, the fashion isn't my big focus. Getting in shape is, so I'll be doing even more stretching and working out during the week in an effort to get into game conditioning. Then the points will come!

More Unsolicited Advice For Ron Paul

Keep apologizing. Please- do everything you can to renounce the racist and homophobic views put forward on your old (circa 1992) newsletters.

The attacks on you have been numerous. They probably hurt you in New Hampshire. If you don't make strong statements, they are going to continue to hurt you within the offended groups.

I am glad you made this statement, which was published by CNN:

"Libertarians are incapable of being a racist, because racism is a collectivist idea."

That's important to me, because nationally visible libertarians are few. When Ron Paul, most-visible libertarian is seen as a racist or homophobe, then libertarianism is liable to be seen as racist or homophobic.

So, keep distancing yourself from these writings. You would do even better if you identified who wrote them. There is fair criticism about not identifying the writer, if not you. Check out what Alex Blaze had to say, on Bilerico.com, a top gay issues website:

But still, laziness isn't a good quality in a president. If he didn't have time to edit a newsletter with his name in huge letters across the top, or at least read it before it went out and make sure that the "Ron Paul column" was something he'd agree with, then he should have stopped publishing.

Until the writer is identified by you, those who were hurt by the comments on your newsletter are going to continue to sling arrows and mud your way. It distracts from your very worthy message of liberty, and worse- makes people equate liberty with racism or homophobia, which of course is patently wrong. It's a huge disservice to liberty and the libertarian movement, but if the primary evidence they have are these news items about the 'racist and homophobic writings of Ron Paul', then what else are they to think?

American Sound Money Problems, In Lego

This sums it up very nicely. For those not interested in watching the whole thing, shame on you... but I'll give you a spoiler, below.

"How in the world can we expect to solve the problems of inflation... with more inflation?"
-Ron Paul

Unsolicited Advice For Ron Paul

I'm glad I never had to endure a primary election as a candidate, where you battle with those within your party, splitting hairs while making the case for yourself, often with negativity coming through in the process of showing difference.

But I'm a Libertarian, and the differences between one LP candidate and another generally comes down to nuance. Not so in the Republican primary. Ron Paul is vastly different from the rest of the field, which does only separate by nuance.

I'm not just talking the war. Paul stands alone as one who would shrink the size, scope, and cost of government. Huckabee and Romney have raised taxes as governors. Thompson and McCain have voted for outrageous spending.

So, Dr. Paul, I have some unsolicited advice for you: Promote your ecomonic points first and foremost, even to the near exclusion of everything else.

Why? First off, you have to win the GOP nomination. It's just too much to ask of the Republican base, the people who are voting delegates, to go from supporting George Bush through this misguided war to taking the opposite position. If the war remains your #1 issue, you cannot win the nomination. Yes, you've been invoking Bush's campaign stances on foreign relations circa 2000, but it scarcely makes the 6+ years since 9/11/2001 vanish.

Give these folks a chance to save face. If you make the Republican base remember the fiscal conservatism of their increasingly distant past, you could well win the darned thing. None of the other Republicans sounds even remotely like a fiscal conservative, and when comparing their records to yours, most of them look like Karl Marx. You are making great points about the need for sound money. Americans who hate facts and study scoff at the gold standard and discussions of anti-inflationary monetary policy, but it's hard for anyone to deny being worried about the fact that the US dollar is weaker than the Canadian dollar.

That point alone sets you up for winning the election post-nomination. There isn't a single other candidate who has been talking about sound money, and it is becoming evident to absolutely everybody that our economy is beginning to ring the bowl. Every candidate who has voted for massive spending and borrowing- which is to say, everyone else- is guilty of causing the problem. They are guilty of making the US dollar weaker than the Euro, and weaker than the Canadian dollar.

You will not alienate your supporters by talking up fiscal policy. Indeed, that's why many of us support you, and give you these increasingly worthless greenbacks.

You have to win the nomination. Iraq is a losing issue strategically, at least right now. Go with your suprior fiscal policies.

People In Glass Houses...

While Ron Paul was being excluded by Fox News from their GOP candidate roundtable, CNN was interviewing him. Here is what was easily the most amusing comment that Wolf Blitzer referred to, with regards to Paul's chances. It was a quote from the Campaign Manager of a former presidential candidate:

"Ron Paul's only option is to buy as many flat screen TVs as he can, put 'Ron Paul' bumper stickers on them, and hand them out to voters in New Hampshire. I just don't see where he goes... He will probably be the only presidential candidate ever to have a surplus when he drops out, because he has an incredible amount of money and no campaign strategy to win."

So, this came from Bill Clinton's campaign manager? Or George W. Bush's? No, this came from Scott Reed- the manager of Bob Dole's LOSING campaign.

Ron Paul was much too nice in dealing with this goofiness, saying what he plans to do. I would have dismissed the credibility of the quote out of hand, and chatised Blitzer for pulling up something so irrelevant, from someone so without credibility. Link to the CNN video. The quote is about 6 minutes in.

Hooray, Hockey!

I've signed up to play in an 'old fart' league at my neighborhood rink. The games start this Sunday.

I'm very excited! I love hockey. I love playing the game, and besides- I really need the exercise. There's about three inches on the waist I'd like to part with, and competitive skating can really burn it off.

This league is different in that it not only has coaches, but it includes instruction. I'm looking forward to that part of the league, because I need all the practice I can get on stick-handling and puck control, and skating. Mainly, I can skate like a demon up ice, but I have trouble stopping. If I get the puck, I'm an accurate passer and shooter, but a defender who is aggressive with me will throw me off.

Biometrics Are Useful?

Civil libertarians have been tepidly questioning the great increase in funding to the various surveillance methods available to FBI and police at the various levels. It is justified as a response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks: Identify people and keep track of them, and terror can be prevented.

The Cato Daily Podcast from January 4, 2007 features Jim Harper of the Cato Institute, and a 9-minute discussion of biometrics. Cato Podcast archives. Key quote from Harper, at 7:06:

We thought somehow identity was going to protect us from future terrorists. In fact, terrorism makes use of surprise, not anonymity.

So, are we wasting a lot of money? Seems like it, if only from a practical standpoint. Add the civil libertarian angle...

The Face of the Ron Paul Opposition

I railed previously at the trendiness of the leftward opponents using derivatives of "retard" to slag off Ron Paul. At the risk of repeating, I am wholly dismayed by this use of language. The Left, which loves to enjoy the feeling of being the sensitive side of political life, does everything it can to run from the reality of it with this kind of snide put-down. I'm still waiting for someone prominent on the Left to smack some of its' own down, in the interest of at the least not looking so hypocritical, and better than that, of looking like it means it.

In the meantime, here's the face of the Ron Paul opposition, in a You Tube video going by the name "Ron Paul is also a Fucktard":

I sure hope he does a lot more of these, because if he is the opposite of Ron Paul, he stands to push a fair number of people towards Paul. Dude! Would you be so kind as to run the first 30 seconds of this clip on the Iowa TV stations today? That would be excellent.

Thank you.

New Year's Spleen Vent

I'm a fit to be tied! For the first time since May '07, there was a TV show scheduled for broadcast that I really, really wanted to see. The NHL scheduled it's second-ever outdoor regular season hockey game, in Buffalo with the Sabres hosting the Pittsburg Penguins. NBC has the coverage in the USA, and the game is being played right now as I hammer the keys.

So, why am I not watching? Because WTHR-13 in Indianapolis is showing the weepy MONTEL WILLIAMS SAP-FEST INSTEAD! My lack of God!

Further infuriating is the WTHR website, which does not allow the user to fire off the angry email. They don't like user feedback, apparently. Customer service? Never heard of it!

Arrrgh. The one time I want to watch something. Thanks for nothing, WTHR. Way to ring in the New Year.

Update: Nice work WTHR. The rest of the country's NBC affiliates enjoyed strong ratings for showing the outdoor hockey game, while you ran Montel and Dr. Phil. Say- how'd that work out for you? From an ESPN report:

More people tuned in on New Year's Day to see the NHL play outdoors than any other regular-season game in more than a decade.

The Penguins-Sabres game in snowy Buffalo -- the first regular-season outdoor NHL game in the United States -- drew a 2.6 overnight rating and a 5 share on NBC. Those were the best numbers since a six-game regional telecast on Fox drew a 3.0 overnight rating and a 7 share on Feb. 3, 1996.

...and...

The Buffalo and Pittsburgh markets led the ratings, at 38.2/58 and 17.7/30, respectively. But markets such as Sacramento, Calif., St. Louis and Denver also drew strong ratings, even though the game went up against a number of college football bowl games, including an intriguing Capital One Bowl between Florida and Michigan.

Hey, WTHR! Next time you have a unique NHL game like this, don't pass on it. You can show the Montel re-runs any time. You can have hockey fans love you long time, if you'd like.

Huckabee and the Fair Tax

I received a questioning email and a link to a Washington Post article about Mike Huckabee and his backing of the Fair Tax. The inquiry was, "why aren't you backing Huckabee? Ron Paul isn't endorsing the Fair Tax?" Good question, and long overdue in addressing.

Mainly, I've given up on the Fair Tax, not because I don't think it will pass (I don't), but mainly because I am not convinced that it is fair after all.

The Fair Tax would eliminate all the various taxes we have at the federal level: income taxes, social security taxes, payroll taxes, and myriad other hidden taxes that are embedded into the cost of goods and services. It would eliminate the IRS.

THAT is the basis of my earlier support for the Fair Tax. I am in favor of all of the above.

Problem is, the Fair Tax would replace those things with a 23% sales tax on services and new goods.

So, what's unfair? It charges the same rate to all people, regardless of income, regardless of age, regardless of wealth. It eliminates all the loopholes currently in the convoluted tax code. If you don't want to pay the Fair Tax, don't spend. (That's kind of like saying, "if you don't like air pollution, don't breathe. You can't avoid it.)

Fine, but I don't think that the amount you spend is any kind of a measure of one's fair share in the cost of government.

I thank the critics on the left for spurring this thought. It's been churning inside my mind for months. So many on the left argue that the basis for payment is one's fair share. I agree! But they have it wrong. I do not believe that because you worked longer, or harder, or smarter, such that your wealth increases, that your share in government correspondingly increases.

True, if you use government services more than others, you should pay more than others. That is fair! But what correlation does that have upon spending (Fair Tax)? Or income (The Left)? Well, none whatsoever.

So, the Fair Tax has become in my mind, something that is typical of anything good that ever comes of government anymore. Mainly, it has some rotten component that I have to hold my nose over in order to enjoy the other parts.

Not exactly the basis for getting all excited, and certainly not enough to make me a single-issue Huckabee supporter. On the balance, I still prefer Ron Paul on all things economic.

I will say that I am glad at least one presidential candidate is talking about the Fair Tax. I still think something useful can come out of it, like really getting towards all of us paying a genuine fair share. That would be very useful, because I have to think that if we were sharing in the tax burden equally, fairly, a whole lot of people would discover that they've been getting a free ride, and that maybe, just maybe, some of this government really isn't so 'essential' or 'necessary'.

The Short Romance Is Over

It wasn't so long ago (June '06) that popular leftward blogger Daily Kos was courting libertarians. I took note of it, and thought then that it was merely a cynical ploy to grab a small constituency, but one sizeable enough to swing an election.

Consider the cynicism well justified. The onslaught of Ron Paul bashing by the top left blogs is begetting a slurry of ugly comments from the True Blue Left. From a recent Kos post calling Paul a racist:

If he has "moral responsibility" for his comments, then why not apologize or retract those statements? Why not express outrage that his good name was misappropriated with scurrilously racist sentiments and demand an honest admission and retraction in his newsletter?

Why? Because he agreed with the sentiments. That's why. And it's precisely writings like those, and his refusal to disavow them, that have made him a favorite of the Stormfront/Neo Nazi crowd.

Of course, Paul's supporters will take this post, along with any other criticism of their demigod, as evidence that he is "feared" or other such nonsense. Hardly. When he cracks single digits in the polls in any state we can start worrying. Until then, he doesn't even reach "Ross Perot-like nut" status. I worry about McCain. I worry about Huckabee. I used to worry about Giuliani. But Paul? Nah. He is what he is -- fringe.

But it's also clear that some of his supporters would benefit from a full airing and education about what Paul stands for and has stood for in his years in the public limelight. If people still want to support him despite his bigotry, then that actually says more about his supporters than about Ron Paul himself.

Let's break this down. What are the racist comments? Kos has highlighted some:

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers. (emphasis as in original Kos post.)

I have to say, I don't like Paul's generalizations in that first paragraph. 95%? That's nonsense. Paul's off-base here, and should apologize for his generalizations. I wish he would do that right away.

As for the second paragraph, I do have my own experiences. I have been mugged exactly twice, both times by black men. I have had my house burglarlized exactly once, by a black man. I caught him tearing the aluminum off the house. Given my experience, I still don't generalize all or most black males as criminals or semi-criminals. Generalizing the whole on the basis of the subset is incorrect and absurd. But, would it be rational for me to conclude that should I be mugged, the likelihood is higher that a white man will mug me? Am I a racist is, based on my own experience, if I conclude the likelihood is greater that a black man might? Moreover, factually speaking, do "black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and bulglaries all out of proportion to their numbers"? If so, why would an apology be warranted? For the crime of saying something that is a source of sensitivity to the racial group in question? It isn't the same as racism, that's for sure.

I would like Paul to revisit his statements with regard to race, use some care to examine them, and to apologize for and retract the ones that are bunk. (I suspect, though, that the ones that are not bunk, and are actual fact, and that might not be retracted, would still be a source of complaint and "ah ha, gotcha!" by Kos and so many others on the left.)

So, is this any kind of dilemma for me? Not especially. I've never found a perfect candidate, one that I agreed with on everything- besides myself. If I had to eliminate all candidates from the possibility of my support or vote on the basis of a single objection, I could never vote in good conscience. I kind of think that this is what Kos is after- creating cognitive dissonance in the minds of Paul backers, such that they just stay away from the process until after the 2008 election. For me, the kind of law policy Paul would actually put forth is what is important, and I'm betting that even if he is the most venomous closeted racist the world has ever known, he still wouldn't be advancing racist policy. So, is Kos' work what we call a red herring?

At any rate, I find it very interesting that Kos chose to discuss the angle of moral responsibility for the comments made available on a publication with his name on it. Kos must believe that is what is right and correct. Very well. Let's look at some of the comments that follow Kos' latest anti-Paul article:

"Libertarianism (or his style, anyway) is effectively racist itself. I mean, the guy wants to do away with the FDA, I can't imagine HUD, civil rights departments or similar are going to fare much better."

"Poisoning pooties and children is a rational business decision to the libertarians"

"Ron Paul fanboys are better known as Paultards."

Kos' apostles do exactly what Kos criticizes of Ron Paul: generalizing libertarians in the extreme and in the negative. Then there's the word, 'Paultards'. Well now that's intelligent. I guess from this we can infer that Kos believes it's okay to use a derivative of "retard" as a pejoritive, because he permits the use of it as such on his site. Kos could argue that Paul is running for president, and thus open to such scrutiny. It's also a way of saying that few Kos readers could qualify themselves. I see the word "Paultard" all over the comments on the Kos site, but no rebuke from other users, and certainly not from the man himself. The same is true at Wonkette and a host of other left sites.

Looks like Kos is the man in the glass house, but without any mirror. If Kos believes his own words, he should be striking about a third of the comments. Exorcist, heal thyself! Alas.

And if Paul was the sort of non-threat Kos makes him out to be, would he even be worth a post on his site? Right. Perhaps this was just Kos' announcement that henceforth, Daily Kos is merely an exercise in the trivial, unimportant, and miniscule. Yeah- saw through you on that, big guy.

But, reading the comments was truly depressing. It showed me what the left thinks of me, in essense. Libertarianism isn't perfect. Nothing is. But I am just astounded at the impression the left has of liberty. Astonished. Disappointed.

I guess the courtship is over.

New Poll

How Did Ron Paul Do on Meet The Press? Vote at the right.

If you didn't see MTP, here's the You Tube for the first part of Paul's appearance. The other three parts are linked below.



Part 2 of 4
Part 3 of 4
Part 4 of 4

Old Poll Results

I had a long running poll: Who would you vote against. Here are the final results:

Who would you vote against?

Selection ........Votes
Hillary Clinton 53% 121
John McCain 7% 16
Mitt Romney 9% 21
Ron Paul 4% 9
Dennis Kucinich 3% 6
All of 'em - I'll vote Libertarian 25% 57

230 votes total

Clinton and McCain have long been on top of my 'vote against' list. I'm happier to have a possible 'vote for' candidate, in Ron Paul. I remain highly doubtful Paul can win the Republican nomination, so after that event, I will probably be searching for a new 'vote for' candidate.

New Linkage

I've added a link to Hoosiers For Ron Paul- an excellent clearing house of links to active Ron Paul supporters around Indiana, and to national sites. The link now resides under "My Fellow Hoosier Libertarians".

Hoosiers For Ron Paul and website organizer Michael Hargett were referenced in an Indy Star article this morning, on Hoosiers backing presidential candidates:

"People want to be free, whether it's free from the foreign trade deficits, or free from the Patriot Act or free from our own oppressive policies, Hargett said of Paul's appeals to backers. They think that the best way to be free is that you take away this notion that we're fighting the whole world."

For me, it boils down much simpler: Our government does more than it should, costs more than it should, and would be greatly improved by reduction. Ron Paul is the only candidate enunciating a plan for smaller government.

Note: I've also eliminated the link to Indy Undercover, as that blog has been deleted by the owner. I'm keeping the link to Rob Beck's "Shall Not Perish", for even though he's been inactive for almost a year, the archives are good reading. I wish he were active right now!

Dirty Money Non-Controversy

I'll take the recent "controversy" over Ron Paul keeping a $500 campaign contribution from a racist as a sign of his growing relevance. If you're irrelevant, they don't inspect the sources of your receipts, after all.

I like Paul's response- especially his decimation of Faux News' Neil Cavuto.

Neil Cavuto: There are reports, sir, that your campaign has received a $500 campaign donation from a white supremacist in West Palm Beach. And your campaign had indicated you have no intention to return it. What are you going to do with that?

Ron Paul: It is probably already spent. Why give it back to him and use it for bad purposes? And I don't even know his name. I never heard of it. You know, when you get 57,000 donations a day, are we supposed to screen them and find out their beliefs? He sent the money for my beliefs. And if he promoting my viewpoints and my attitudes, why give it back to him if he has bad viewpoints?

And I don't endorse anything that he endorses or what anybody endorses. They come to me to endorse freedom and the Constitution and limited government. So, I see no purpose for me to start screening everybody that sends me money. I mean, it is impossible to do it. It is a ridiculous idea that I am supposed to screen these people.

If you think Paul is off-base here, consider this comment from a Reason Hit & Run reader:

The same people who criticize Dr. Paul for accepting donations from a racist hate group probably don't have a problem with the State seizing assets from drug dealers and using that tainted money for the children rather than incinerating it with the drugs.

Paul's using the money to promote liberty. I'm a-ok with that. Beyond that, I highly doubt anyone reading this considers the relative moral standing of all the people behind their paychecks. In the odd chance you do, is it the case that you shred the check if it turns out the boss is a racist? Or if a shareholder in the company beats his wife? Right. Didn't think so. Glass houses and rocks, folks.

Today's Notable Ron Paul Item

In the wake of Ron Paul scoring the biggest fundraising day ever, the question that pops into my head is, "will it continue to generate buzz?" Looks like it will. Here's today's notable item: an NPR blog item that asks Paul supporters to comment on who they are, and why they are backing Ron Paul.

There are several hundred entries. I was going to grab one or two of the best, but I found myself scrolling and scrolling and found no distinct best one, but that the mass of it was rather moving.

Various Thoughts on Ron Paul

I've had two Ron Paul bumper stickers on my car for about three months now. I am supporting him until I can get more excited about someone else. True, that's not a ringing endorsement, but what it comes down to is that I'm not excited about voting Republican.

I am excited about the strides the Paul campaign has made. I've watched his coverage go from hatchet job to serious interview on Bill Maher's HBO show. He's been on Leno, and is going to be on Meet The Press, on December 23rd. The big news is that he raised over $6 million in one day- yesterday.

Even the press on the left is taking notice, and not merely sneering. Mother Jones has an article online today. From The Nation's report:

And Paul is continuing to raise money -- largely small contributions from individuals who in many cases have never before given money to a campaign -- at a remarkable rate.

The congressman's campaign is dramatically exceeding fundraising expectations in the current quarter. The campaign's unreasonable goal of $12 million has been exceeded by more than 50 percent already and there is every reason to believe that Paul will almost certainly finish the quarter with more than $20 million raised.

Paul could well end up raising more than any of the other Republican contenders and providing the only serious competition for Democratic money leaders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

There is an article in the Washington Post online that doesn't look much like a Ron Paul article in the WP, and notable blogger Andrew Sullivan has endorsed Paul. Of course, with success come hatchet jobs. The most notable is from Daily Kos, calling Paul and his supporters "white supremacists". How's that go? First they ignore you, then they attack you...

So, it's exciting. But I'm torn. I'm a Libertarian Party partisan, but I also support non-LP candidates who will promote liberty. I'm not about to get too hung up on who gets the policies of liberty across, so long as they do.

But fact is, if Paul gets even moderate support from the Republican Party leadership, the Libertarian Party is done. The GOP will be able to say, with a straight face, that their party is the rightful home for supporters of limited government. They can't do it now, although some people refuse to see the GOP for what it is- a big government party that looks like a small government party, only because it has the Democrats to compare to.

With the burst of money and press, Paul is probably going to surge, and that's great! But as more primary election deadlines approach, many Libertarian partisans, many of whom voted for Ron Paul the LP candidate in 1988, will be changing their affiliations from 'L' to 'R'.

According to Paul's website, the following states have the following deadlines to change registrations, so as to be eligible to vote in the Republican primaries:

New Jersey - Today, Dec 17
Nevada - Dec. 19
Hawaii - Dec. 26
Kentucky - Dec. 31
Florida - Dec. 31

As enthusiastic as I am right now for the Paul campaign, I truly believe there is no way he will win the Republican nomination. It's just too much to ask of the GOP core to go from standing with the President on Iraq, and then switching 180 degrees to supporting Dr. Paul. In the meantime, earnest supporters will change their affiliations from 'L' to 'R', thus weakening the standing of the Libertarian Party in those states, and possibly threatening the ballot access for the LP. Indiana is not a registration state, so this won't be a factor here.

The LP has done nothing to make me look past Ron Paul. It's ironic, but the one libertarian candidate in the big dance might be the death of the Libertarian Party.

I'm open to other views on this. What say?

Oprah and Campaign Finance "Reform"

(Fishers, IN)- If I want to support Ron Paul with a check in the amount of $5,000, I am prohibited from doing so by law. $2,300 is the annual limit I can give. You can see this as the top amount on Paul's donation page, or on any other candidate's. For instance, here's the link to Barack Obama's, with the same top figure.

Oprah Winfrey has acknowledged that her check is pretty useless, compared with her endorsement and stumping for Barack Obama. From the NY Times Politics Blog:

She said she has not written a check to Mr. Obama’s campaign.

“Well the truth of the matter is, whether I contribute or not contribute, you are limited to how much you contribute, so my money isn’t going to make any difference to him,” Ms. Winfrey said. “I think that my value to him, my support of him, is probably worth more than any check.”

Yep. Probably. We'll call that the understatement of the year.

The Cato Institute's Daily Podcast for Dec. 11 poses the interesting question: In light of the "campaign finance reform" laws, which are ostensibly aimed towards making contributions more fair and level, should appearances by celebrities also be banned because such appearances skirt the spirit of the law? Link to the Cato Daily Podcast archives.

I believe the law is garbage. Contributions should not be limited, because they amount to political speech- just as sure as an appearance and endorsement by Oprah is also political speech, no matter how much value anyone could place on her appearances.

All this shows is that the law was really intended to keep influence in the usual hands, and keep those candidates who cannot yet draw on value outside the grassroots at bay.

Presidential Quiz

(Crystal Lake, IL) The Washington Post has an interesting quiz online right now, and it's worth taking if you're into this sort of thing.

You have to choose either the Democratic or Republican ticket. From there, you are faced with a number of issues and the positions of the candidates. You pick the statement that best matches your position, and then you rate it on a scale from being not important to you to very important. In this way, it weighs the outcome and steers you towards someone you are most likely to be interested in. The best feature is that you do not know who the statement is coming from when you cast your vote.

I took both D & R because I wanted to see if I would find any surprises. I did!

No surprise that I found myself most aligned with Ron Paul. No surprise also that I found almost no affinity for Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, John Edwards, or Hillary Clinton. I was surprised at having some affinity for Fred Thompson and Bill Richardson, and almost none for Barack Obama. Here are my scores, combining Ds & Rs in this tally:

Paul - 58 pts

Richardson- 27

Thompson - 20

Chris Dodd - 13

Mitt Romney - 9

McCain - 7

Obama - 5

Clinton - 4

Edwards - 4

Huckabee - 4

Giuliani -0 pts

There were some issues where I liked nobody's answer, so I picked the least intolerable, and called it 'not important' so as to give it as little weight as possible. It probably explains many of the points earned from Romney on down.

Among R's, Paul got points with me on Iraq, trade, taxes, and scope of government. Thompson got some on immigration and also scope of government. I figured Paul would get virtually all of my points, but alas. I'm going to have to look over Paul's positions on immigration!

As for the D's, there were several questions I just didn't want to cast a vote at all, but had to in order to get through the thing. For instance, there was a question on the ban on federal funding from stem-cell research. All of the Dems were in favor of repeal of the ban and getting funding going, shading it in their own ways. I'm opposed to any federal funding, but not in favor of banning research. I just don't believe scientific research should be the role of the federal government. I don't think there is any D or R candidate that I agree completely with on this issue, though.

Anyhow, Richardson got my points for Iraq and same-sex marriage issues, but also some tax issues. Dodd also got my points for tax issues. It was funny- I was guessing that Richardson was Dennis Kucinich for the Iraq items. I was surprised to see Kucinich left off the quiz, while Ron Paul was included. I take it as a sign that Paul is increasingly found viable by the MSM.

I got a stronger feel for the Democrats than I had before. So long as they are talking civil liberties and Iraq, I 'm kind of in there with them. As soon as they get to domestic fiscal policy, I want to run screaming. They are big on pointing out the fiscal disaster of the Bush Administration- which I agree with- but then they have huge programs they want to empower, all while claiming the mantle of fiscal responsibility. Sorry, raising taxes to the sky to cover the cost of these programs is nothing at all like fiscal responsibility. It may not leave a deficit, but neither will it leave an economy standing.

I'll give both Thompson and Richardson a look. I wouldn't have considered either of them worthy of even a look until taking this quiz. I'm still ardently backing Ron Paul until one of two things happens: a Libertarian candidate arises that makes me forget about Ron Paul; or, Paul fails to win the Republican nomination. He's not perfect by me, but he's the best of the bunch.

Interesting Banter

(Crystal Lake, IL)- Doug Masson's blog is one of my favorite Hoosier reads. It's been on my link list for 2-3 years now. He and I agree on a lot of civil liberty issues, but we sometimes part company on economic liberty items.

Doug brought up the topic of inherited wealth. It generally bothers him, so he posted about it. A great discussion has ensued, with me taking the side opposite him. It interests me that some can be very strong advocates for some kinds of individual liberty, but also strong opponents of others. Freedom is not an a la carte item for me. It may not be perfect, especially when placing isolated cases under the microscope, but it's better than the alternative.

It's easy for some to become frustrated with the practice of passing wealth to others when your examples are Paris Hilton or the Astors- the former for bad behavior, the latter for the sheer longevity of that wealth. But what does it matter to you or me? It doesn't pick my pocket. It doesn't prevent me from living my life. No harm, no foul.

Just like issues of civil liberty. Look at gay marriage. How does that pick my pocket? Or prevent me from living my life? Or threaten my marriage? It doesn't, and yet there are plenty of people who are bothered by it enough to want to restrict others from engaging in it.

Right and left pick and choose when it comes to examining policy in these terms: Does it pick my pocket? Does it prevent me from living my life? I think that's just it. Too much policy is emotionally driven, and not examined in such terms. If it were, I do believe our society would become a much more tolerant, and happy, place.

As for me, I intend to leave a little behind to my successors, but not a huge amount. I share a good deal of Doug's concern that inherited wealth creates problems for those who receive it. I know I value my own struggles as developmental. But as a parent, I want to endow my children, or perhaps more likely my grandchildren, with a little assistance. Doing so will leave me a happier man at the end of the trail. I do waver on what an appropriate amount is. Being able to make the choices as seems fit to me when the time comes is all I ask for.

Florida Fun

(Marco Island, FL)- I've always wanted to ride on jet skis. It's always looked like loads of fun.

It is! I highly recommend taking the opportunity when it presents itself. In my case, the hotel we are staying at in Marco Island rents the "Waverunner", which is an excellent ride. I got it up around 38mph in the channels between the mangrove stands.

Departing the beach, heading into the deep salty seas, arrgh matey. 

That wasn't the highlight, though. In this particular area of Florida, the dolphins are numerous, and the actually enjoy playing with boaters. So, I kept my eyes open for dolphins, and sure enough, spotted the fins bobbing above the waterline, about 2,000 feet out from shore. I raced over to the spot (as I recalled it- with the wave action, even when you thing you're cutting a straight line, you generally aren't). It wasn't long before I spotted the creatures again, so I moved over to them. Several revealed themselves, about 10-15 feet away. I was just idling there, enjoying their presence, and lack of fear.

Then just as suddenly, they were gone. In retrospect, I think they wanted me to go zipping off, so they could play a game of chase. That's what the guys at the rental shop said the dolphins like to do. Anyhow, it was great fun, and well worth the expense.

Time Woes

(Marco Island, FL) I've been wanting to comment on the time zone issues facing Indiana for a while, but it seemed like petty nonsense most of the time. It still is, but here's the two cents anyhow.

There are some who clamor for a statewide switch to Central Time. To them I say, please just move one state west. Not only do I strongly prefer Eastern Time, I'd be even happier if Eastern Time occurred one hour earlier than it currently does.

I've been working in the Chicago suburbs for the better part of the last month. Now that DST has ended, dusk begins around 4:30pm, and sunset happens at 5:15! It seems like endless night time, especially to someone who is doing outdoor work on projects that pay by the job rather than the hour, and would dearly love to continue field work beyond a mere 10-hour span. How great Summer EDST was, working outdoors until 9pm! Now I'm vacationing in Florida, far to the east of the eastern time zone, and the sunsets come around 6pm. It's crazy early! I'm not ready to get off the beach yet!

I can understand those in NW Indiana wanting to be linked with Chicago time, what with the obvious business links and the convenience of knowing what time your favorite TV shows will air on the Chicago stations. Apart from that? Darkness before evening? Hermits may not care, but those of us working outside would like to finish the day with natural lighting, thank you very much.

I was always chucking at the opponents of DST who argued against it on the basis that mornings were dark, leaving kids waiting for buses in the scary darkness. Well, where are the complaints about kids arriving home from school in the dark?

Here's the business argument for Eastern Time:

New York City, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington DC, Baltimore, Atlanta, Miami, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toronto, Montreal, Detroit.. to say nothing of Buffalo, Rochester, Cincinnati, Columbus, Newark, etc.

Compare that list and the populations there with the list of Central Time cities:

Chicago, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, New Orleans, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Memphis, Kansas City... with places like Tulsa, Omaha, and Birmingham.

It's really no contest from this standpoint. In fact, Central Time is downright foolish in these terms. But at the end of the day, most arguments are purely subjective- just as my main argument is. I'm not a morning person, and I like daylight late into the day. Morning people seem to complain the most about the recent institution of DST in Indiana. But if you are going to be objective and make a business oriented argument, look no further than the lists of the cities within the zones. Let NW Indiana associate with Chicago, but the rest of the state really belongs on EST.

Ocean Fun

(Marco Island, FL) The first two times we took Isabel into ocean waters, she was positively unhappy with the experience. Now that she's a little bit older and bigger, the waves aren't so scary. Finding starfish makes it downright exciting!

Look! Starfish!

We even found a starfish with six arms.

Shocking Upsets!

(Crystal Lake, IL)- I decided to check in to see whether or not the voters of Central Indiana would match act with anit-incumbent rhetoric. It looks like they did just that!

Most notably and surprisingly, Indy voters appear to have shown mayor Bart Peterson the door. I am postitively astonished. Greg Ballard received almost no financial or party support and won anyway.

It really restores my faith. Don't get me wrong- I would have been much happier had Libertarian Fred Peterson won. My faith is restored because I came away from my own electoral contest last year convinced that money is the single-most important thing by a longshot. This election disproves my findings. The electorate can be infuriated into ballot box action. Quoth Ballard, from the Indy Star article:

"This is the ultimate example of grass-root politics. The Beatles used to sing, 'money can't buy you love.' But it can't buy you elections, either," he said.

It can also buy you harm. I have little doubt that the outgoing Mayor's negative ads hurt him badly. Bart Peterson seemed aloof, indifferent, and arrogant at various times after raising income taxes in the face of the property tax mess.

Really, it restores my faith that the Democrats lost their majority on the City-County Council in the wake of their tax hikes. From the Star's early report

Before today, Democrats held a 15-14 majority on the council. But Republicans won at least 16 seats today, early returns showed.

That support could be a critical boost for Ballard as he vows to move Indianapolis in a new direction.

Another 10 seats appear solidly Democratic, with three still up for grabs.

I hope the grassroots tax opponents get some credit for all of these upsets. Hoosiers For Fair Taxation comes to mind as being among the top of the list of the praise worthy. Their Tea Party events, their dogged attendance at public meetings, and overall energy was most admirable, and I think, effective. Sweet vindication for them after enduring sneers from Democratic operatives and even the Mayor's office. Ex-Mayor, that is.

I'll enjoy elections more when Libertarians are elected, so I can be certain that the jobof dismantling these greedy governments is taken to the necessary extent. For now, it's pretty darned satisfying watching this batch of taxers turned out of office.

(I won't put 'futility' into my blog tags this time!)