Heller Decision In - Pretty Good!

Neither the 2nd Amendment, nor the Bill of Rights, were particularly trashed by the Supreme Court today. That's about as uplifting as 'good news' gets these days. The Washington Post report's first paragraph says a lot:

The Supreme Court, splitting along ideological lines, today declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns for self-defense, striking down the District of Columbia's ban on handgun ownership as unconstitutional.

Well, thank goodness for the affirmation of the 2nd Amendment! As I stated earlier today, my understanding of the Constitution is that it is a document that limits government and affirms individual rights. So, gun laws such as DC's should be smacked down.

I'm tired of splits along ideological lines. Interpreting the Constitution shouldn't come down to ideology. Either the document conveys a right or it does not. Either it limits government or it does not. Don't get me wrong- I'm glad the 2nd Amendment was affirmed. This kind of affirmation, and this kind of Supreme Court, simply is going to return results based on the whim of nine robed individuals, which means, the process of nominating new Justices will be just as political and stupid as it has been for the past 25 years or so.

Now, this is only pretty good news, though, because within the majority decision, this concession could be found:

Scalia wrote that the Constitution leaves the District a number of options for combating the problem of handgun violence, "including some measures regulating handguns."

So, DC only 'went too far'. You can bet that DC will write a new law banning handguns, with language that 'goes far enough'.

I can see that in certain states, where language isn't strongly in affirmation of the right to keep and bear arms, that bans that only 'go far enough', will be deemed Constitutional. Indiana could easily enough be one such state. Here's the language on firearms, as such- Article 12:

Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.(History: As Amended November 3, 1936; November 5, 1974).
Section 2. The Governor is Commander-in-Chief of the militia and other military forces of this state.(History: As Amended November 5, 1974).
Section 3. There shall be an Adjutant General, who shall be appointed by the Governor.(History: As Amended November 5, 1974).
Section 4. No person, conscientiously opposed to bearing arms, shall be compelled to do so in the militia.(History: As Amended November 5, 1974).

That's it. Nothing clear at all. Militia? What militia?

Ohio's language is exceptionally crisp, and therefore, better. Article 1, Section 4:

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

On the practical side, there were people in DC, including Mayor Adrien Fenty, gathered in protest of the decision, some holding signs suggesting that firearm bans make for safer streets. Talk about being guided by blind dogmatism. The DC law was passed in 1976. Has DC been anyone's idea of a safe place, where gun violence is unheard of, in the last 32 years? Bwaahahaha.

Update: How come I couldn't find Article 1, Section 32 when looking up the Indiana Constitution on the Indiana Gov't website? Seems curious, no? When you search the Indiana gov't website and type "Indiana Constitution" into the search window, you get a link to Article 1, Sections 1-16 only.

Thanks, Roberta X, for the link to IU's site with the full text!

In Anticipation of the Heller Decision

The Supreme Court is expected to release today its' decision on the Heller case. While most fears with regard to possible loss of individual rights hinge directly on the 2nd Amendment, I am most fearful for the decay of the Bill of Rights as a whole.

Most analysts explain that the case involves the verbal distinction found in the 2nd Amendment. Wikipedia has a line that summarizes the modern confusion:

Another major point of contention is whether it protects an individual right to personal firearms or a collective State militia right

I know you all remember verbatim each of the 10 Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights, but out of stubbornness, I'll include the language of the 2nd here:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So, here's what I'm worried about. The Constitution was designed by the Founders as a limit of government power, not on individual rights. The Bill of Rights was to further clarify. This decision could begin an unravelling of the entire Bill of Rights. If the 2nd Amendment is found not to be a limitation on government but on individuals, there is no reason I can see for the same thinking to be applied to the 1st Amendment (goodbye freedom of speech), etc.

This could be a historic, dark day.

Crisis In Confidence?

(h/t electvibe) It's funny to watch the partisans. Those on the left crow about President Bush's lousy approval rating of 23%, while those on the right crow about the Democratically controlled Congress' 12% confidence rating.

Guess what? Both sides are right to crow. Democrats and Republicans together have made a wreckage of our country, our states, our counties, and our municipalities. Change I can believe in? Let's dismantle this trash! Are you really going to continue to elect the very people who have shaken your confidence to the core?

The Gallup poll that shows the current state of confidence in Congress also measures other institutions, such as the military, small business, big business, organized labor, organized religion, and a host of others. It's shocking to see the results. Check out the article, and look to the side-bar at the right. Article after article about the public's lost faith in banks, in Congress, in President Bush, in the Supreme Court. It's amazing the city isn't in flames as we speak.

All this government isn't working. If it worked, there would be no more poverty, thanks to the anti-poverty programs. There wouldn't be any crime, thanks to all the law enforcement expenditure. Etc., etc.

As a libertarian, I get a lot of noise about how if we returned to the principles of limited government this country was founded upon, we would have chaos and dissatisfaction, or, how it's impractical utopian dreaming. I have to say, all this government is the impractical utopian dreaming. It hasn't improved a thing, and it's sure made a whole lot worse. The people seem to get that.

So, why will they vote for the same things masquerading as 'change' or as a 'maverick'? I just don't get that.

Health Care Preview

Quoth Mencken: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

Seems like us free marketeers are on the unpopular side of the health care numbers, so it won't surprise me when the day comes that American doctors inspect us like cattle, and if our wastelines are greater than the prescribed measurement, we will be declared officially overweight, and subject to fines.

Dystopian libertarian scare tactic? No- it's what happens in Japan today. Link to CNN video.

When everybody is responsible for the cost of everybody else's health care, you can bet we'll all be interested in the size of your waist.

I'll laugh my ass off, because I'm trim enough not to worry, and so many of those who thought socialized health care was a great idea will be off to the fat farm, miserable in having to actually exercise. Good. I'd be happier left alone, and fending for myself on my family's health care bills, but I don't think I'm going to have that chance for much longer, so I may as well take pleasure where I still can. If I have to pay for you, I'll be the biggest health nanny this planet has ever seen, harassing fat people in the street, merely as a cost prevention measure.

Be careful what you ask for. You just might get it. Hard. As you deserve.

Goodnight, Mr. Carlin

Comic George Carlin died the other day, as was widely reported. I thought it was nice to see so many articles of praise for the man on his passing. Article: "How Carlin Changed Comedy".

Many cited his "Seven Words You Can Never Say On Telelvision" routine, and the Supreme Court case that followed. Well, me too. It had a big effect on me, twice.

The first was as a 12-year-old. We just got cable TV, and I had never heard such a string of profanity used a) so profusely, and b) so calmly in a discourse. I was deeply impressed, as any smart-ass lad of 12 might be.

The insights ran a bit deeper at age 19, when I became Program Director at my college radio station, WCSB-FM. It was my job to understand the convoluted interpretation of the "7 Words Supreme Court case as they affected broadcast radio. I was the law at the station, but also the teacher. I had to instruct new recruits on the things you could air and the things you couldn't, without risk of fines or even loss of license, such was the atmosphere created by the FCC in response to 'obscenity' and 'indecency'.

To get it, let's examine the words "shit" and "fuck".

If you aired something that went, "what a shitty thing to do!", this was okay to air late at night, for it was merely indecent. If you aired something that went, "your dog took a shit on my lawn!", this was not okay to air, for it was obscene. The difference? The use of the word to mean an excretory function, which was deemed bad.

So, "fuck you!" was okay at night, as indecent. "He fucked her at the motel" was forbidden, as obscene. The use of the word as a sexual function was bad, in the eyes of the FCC.

The way I took it was that our country, or at least our government, was afraid to talk about two of the most common, basic things human beings can do, in non-clinical language. Afraid of words! Banning them! In America! Pathetic.

George Carlin, on the other hand, was not afraid of words. He explored them deeply. It's how he came up with routines like this. Carlin was hereby established as a hero to me.

Free speech was something I cherished, and as the representative of a radio station to the FCC, thus, to the federal government, I got one of my first real-life instances where I came to find government to be a pointless, restrictive ogre. After all- if one didn't like what they heard, they were perfectly free to use one of two buttons: the on/off button, or the frequency dial.

So, thanks, George, for the laughs and the formative experience. Thanks, and goodnight.

Here's the "Seven Words" routine. Don't click if you can't have the cuss words fill the room!

5 Years!

Today is my 5th Wedding Anniversary! Here are some pictures from our day.

My cousin, Doug Carson, married Ame & I. Doug also baptized me.

Ame's Dad, Chuck, brought a prop that made for a great photo, but caused the catering staff to panic and call the police.

Just a little dot of frosting on the groom's nose.

Bob Barr vs Obama & McCain

OK, here's another place Barr is not like McCain... but where McCain is like Obama: the issue of surveillance against the American people. Senators McCain and Obama both support the FISA bill.

Bob Barr's Statement, issued today:

The House on Friday passed legislation that greatly expands the power of the government to surreptitiously surveil phone calls and e-mails of American citizens. If, as expected, this legislation is passed by the Senate and the President, as promised, signs it into law, it will represent the greatest expansion of the government’s ability to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans ever.

While the Administration will tout this as a bill to “listen in to phone calls with al Qaeda” and other terrorist organizations (a power the government already possesses), the fact is, under this legislation, every phone call or email that takes
place between a US citizen in the United States and any person “reasonably believed to be” overseas, can be surreptitiously surveilled by the government without ever going to a judge. Yes – it is that broad.

It also gives telecommunications companies that previously allowed government agents full access to the private records and calls of their subscribers in violation of the 1978-FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) completely off the hook for such privacy-invasive actions; it grants them prospective immunity as well.

The day before the bill passed in the House by a 293-129 margin, Barr issued the following press release:

Bob Barr Urges Congress: No Surveillance of Americans Without Fourth Amendment Protections

June 19, 2008 6:33 pm EST

Atlanta, GA -- “In asserting his power to conduct warrantless searches of Americans, President George W. Bush has expressed his clear contempt for the Fourth Amendment. So has Sen. John McCain, despite his reputation as a supposed maverick,” says Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president. Now the Democratic-led Congress is preparing to approve a so-called compromise that gives the Bush administration almost everything it wants in order to expand dramatically the power of the federal government to surveil American citizens without court orders. “America desperately needs leaders who will stand up for the Bill of Rights,” observes Barr, “not those who flaunt its vital and time-honored protections.”

The president already has the power to conduct surveillance of foreign terrorists. The 30-year old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides for court oversight, along with the requirement that the government get a warrant. “The court has virtually never rejected a request,” notes Barr. “Changes in technology require updating the law, not gutting it.”

However, the bill being advanced by the Democratic leadership “would allow the government to listen to millions of phone calls by Americans with neither an individualized warrant nor an assessment of probable cause,” he adds. Although the law would offer some protection when a particular American was expressly targeted, even then “the proposed rules fall short of what the Fourth Amendment mandates.”

Moreover, the bill would immunize telephone companies from wrong-doing, protecting them against law suits even when the firms violated the law by helping the government conduct warrantless searches. Past cases would simply be dismissed. “Conservatives once said, ‘you do the crime, you do the time,’ but no longer,” observes Barr. Now virtually the entire Republican Party is prepared to sacrifice the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans in favor of federal government power.

And the Democratic leadership is ready to do the same. Congressional Democrats privately say that they don’t want to take the political risk of opposing the president. “But the individual liberty of Americans is not a political football, something to be tossed about when an election looms,” insists Barr. “It is the constitutional duty of lawmakers of both parties to defend the Constitution, even when they believe doing so might be politically inconvenient.”

Advocates of abandoning the Constitution warn us that we live in dangerous times. But Americans have long lived in dangerous times. “That didn’t stop the nation’s founders from creating a Constitution that secured individual liberty and limited government,” notes Barr. “It shouldn’t stop us from following the Constitution today.”

Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003, where he served as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, as Vice-Chairman of the Government Reform Committee, and as a member of the Committee on Financial Services. Prior to his congressional career, Barr was appointed by President Reagan to serve as the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, and also served as an official with the CIA.

Since leaving Congress, Barr has been practicing law and has teamed up with groups ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the American Conservative Union to actively advocate every American citizens’ right to privacy and other civil liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Along with this, Bob is committed to helping elect leaders who will strive for smaller government, lower taxes and abundant individual freedom.

"Advocates of abandoning the Constitution". I like that tag, for both McCain and Obama.

Please- don't give me this "lesser of two evils" crap when discussing McCain or Obama. It's no more healthy than the "lesser of two eye gouges", or the "lesser of two genitalia mutilations".
It would take some kind of sado-masochism or willful ignorance to go that route this year.

What A Good President Should Be...

...John McCain is Not. Here are some differences between McCain and Bob Barr, per Barr:

Ron Paul's Ongoing Campaign

(Fishers, IN)- While Ron Paul is officially out of the race for the Republican Party's nomination for President, he is continuing his efforts with the launch of Ron Paul's Campaign For Liberty. It's a Political Action Committee with the following as it's mission statement:

The mission of the Campaign for Liberty is to promote and defend the great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a noninterventionist foreign policy, by means of educational and political activity.

With this launch, and without an endorsement of Bob Barr, to read between the lines is to conclude thusly: Ron Paul is continuing to work to "reform" the Republican Party. If you can have a mission statement like this, and not endorse Barr, I'm not sure what else there is to conclude.

I for one am not interested in reforming the Republican Party. I'm not interested in doing anything besides relegating it to the scrap heap of failed American political parties. They'd look good resting among the ashes of the Free Soil Party and the Communist Party USA. Paul gave it a fair shot, but was soundly rejected by Republicans in their primaries and caucuses. Republicans don't want liberty. They had their chance, and stomped on it.

I hope Paul's work of supporting candidates who promote liberty isn't limited to mostly Republicans and a few Democrats. It would render his PAC as the equal of the Club For Growth, which also mistakenly promotes mostly Republicans, and finds itself staring at an ever-growing government, with ever-growing amounts of taxes taken from the people, and ever-growing debt being generated as future taxes on future Americans.

It's Illegal For You, But A Civic Good If We Do It

(Mt. Sterling, OH)- Funny, I thought the City of Indianapolis was against billboards, because they are "ugly" and an "eyesore".

So, here's the City, after removing some commercial billboards after a protracted legal struggle, now installing some of it's own. I guess all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. From the Indy Star report:

A citywide campaign encouraging residents to report crimes launched today as community leaders unveiled a new billboard conveying the message: "It's not snitching -- it's caring."

and

While city leaders have always embraced the movement, this is the first year it has become a "major city initiative", said Marcus Barlow, a spokesman for Mayor Greg Ballard.

So, shame on me. I was once excited by Mayor Ballard, seemingly in tune with the rights of the people. Forgive me, but in retrospect, I think I was more excited just to see Bart Peterson unelected. 

Some day I'll learn not to get excited when a Republican or Democrat is elected to replace a proven loser. How's that Who song go?

Andy Horning's Platform

(Mt. Sterling, OH)- Andy Horning is the Libertarian candidate for Indiana governor, and he has a unique platform- The Indiana Constitution.

Andy's assertion is that, just like our US Constitution is ignored in the making of laws by the Congress, our state's Constitution is likewise ignored by our state legislature. Where does the governor come into play? The governor signs, or refuses to sign, bills into law. Andy Horning would not sign unconstitutional bills into law.

Check out this link to Andy's blog, where he was commented on the entire Indiana Constitution, bringing the document of 1851 into relevance for today.

Back-Up Beeps

(Mt. Sterling, OH)- I recently reacted to anti-hockey comments made Tiger Woods in a post, and since then, there have been some interesting developments. First, a sort-of retraction by Woods, by way of the Detroit Free Press:

"Oh yeah, I've gotten a lot of grief over that," Woods said Tuesday at Torrey Pines. "I love the sport. I love watching it, but I don't like watching it on TV. In person, it's absolutely incredible, what they're able to do and what they can do. TV doesn't do justice to that. But then neither does -- a lot of sports are the same way".

I'm glad he got a lot of grief. He earned it.  Golf is nearly as exciting as watching paint dry- in person, or on TV, and this retraction scarcely apologizes. In the meantime, I gave Gatorade some grief by sending them an email, expressing my displeasure. Here's their response:

Mike: 

We are sorry that you were offended by a remark the Tiger Wood (sic) made during his news conference at Oakland Hills Country Club.

Please be assured that we're sharing your comments with our sports marketing team. Our sponsorship of the NHL and our partnership with Sidney Crosby as a Gatorade athlete is clear indication of our respect for the sport of ice hockey, the National Hockey League, and the athletes.

Thank you for sharing our thoughts with us, Mike. We hope you will continue to hydrate at your hockey games by drinking Gatorade.

Michael

Gatorade Consumer Response

I imagine Michael was a busy guy, washing his hands of Woods. Well, this is all nice, and I appreciate the responsiveness by Gatorade, but Tiger Woods must pay. I'd be satisfied with a short scrap with Link Gaetz.

Game on!

Petty Little Tyrants

Abdul Hakim-Shabazz recently blogged that there may be retribution directed at those vocal Marion County opponents of property taxes when the reassessments are released. Ed Angleton reports that he is seeing such retribution:

I attended all the rallies, filed an appeal, and spoke unkindly about the ability of the Center Township Assessor's Office to assess their way out of a paper bag. Our neighbors did none of these.

Now comes the reassessment.

My assessment dropped from $256,000 to $232,000.
My neighbors dropped from $225,00 to $141,300.

Futhermore, I can point to two other neighbors who exprienced similar decreases, one for $193,00 to $114,000 and another that went from $254,400 to $170,200.

So, did the petty little tyrants choose to drop the hammer on my wife and I for speaking up?

You bet they did.

Petty little tyrants, indeed. This is government at its worst- when decision-making is arbitrary and capricious, when it is directed by revenge.

It is when I learn of stories like these that I think back to days gone by, when the oppressed tarred and feathered unjust officials, or sent them out of town on a rail, and think that such action was wholly justified. The apparent lack of ethics on the part of the Center Township Assessor's Office is staggering, and should be met with some punishment. We'll start here in the Court of Public Opinion, but somewhere, some higher authority should be slamming a hammer down on the Assessor's Office.

East St. Louis

Funny enough, when I was working in St. Clair County Illinois last week, I was sitting in the motel room drawing site sketches with the TV on for background noise. What should come on but Death Wish, 3. I thought, "was this filmed on location in East St. Louis?"

Here are two sites I had to photograph. The first series is of an actual job site. AT&T is building infrastructure that would provide high speed internet and video services. AT&T often takes criticism that it 'serves the rich folk first'. Hogwash. This area is bombed out. It reminds me of photos of WW2 Dresden. There are virtually no buildings left standing here. But AT&T is serving the poor folk. First. Pointlessly. Well, it's politically correct.

Standing at the AT&T manhole, looking at potential customers? This is one of three buildings in a 1000' radius. The rest are mere rubble and overgrowth.

This is a roadway. No kidding.

Next site is a church that I happened upon while looking for another site. Location is 9th & Summit. Unbelievable. When churches are left in this kind of state, you have a feel for how other property is regarded.

Barr Has Proven His Libertarian Chops

I hope at some point the left-libertarians become comfortable with Bob Barr such that he can stop going out of his way to show his “Libertarian Chops” like this and get to hammering on the biggest issues of the day more exclusively: Iraq/foreign policy; the dollar/taxes/spending/borrowing; energy policy.

There is a great opportunity for Barr to reach the American people very broadly, and it is important that he not self-marginalize by reaching so strenuously within the Libertarian Party. The nomination is won, and the time for this kind of campaigning is over. It ended in Denver, a few weeks ago.

So, as Bill Clinton got "It's the Economy, Stupid" down pat, let's see Barr get these down:

1. Iraq/foreign policy

2. The dollar/taxes/spending/borrowing

3. Energy policy

Barr's positions on the three most important issues of the day are winners. There's no point in him bogging down with correctness on issues of lesser weight.

Brown Bear, Brown Bear

Sad news to the Koles, frequent visitors to the Indy Zoo, from the Indy Star:

A Kodiak bear has died at the Indianapolis Zoo, the second bear to die this year and the third since November.

Ahkiok, a 21-year-old male, was found dead in his den at the zoo about 7 a.m. Tuesday, said Judith L. Gagen, the zoo’s director of communications. “It’s very sad for us. He was one of the favorites at the zoo,” she said.

Monday was Isabel's 3rd birthday, so we took her to the Zoo as part of her big day. One of her favorite books is Eric Carle's "Brown Bear, Brown Bear", and one of her favorite animals was this Kodiak Bear.

It's a bit of a shock, because he looked fine, lolling around in a pool of water to keep cool on a hot, humid Monday. Also, Ahkiok's brother died earlier this year, and we saw him just a day or two before he was put down.

Barr on Bloomberg Late Night



Let's hope supporters of liberty can now get beyond this "late to the dance" hang up. Anyone who comes around to liberty, no matter where they came from, is ok with me.

Part Two, on state's rights, abortion, public religious displays, and more:



Part Three, difference between McCain and Barr, and the difference between Ron Paul & Barr on support by racists, and Barr's approach to Iraq and foreign policy:

What The Hell Are We Doing?

OK, it's time to stir the puddin' a bit here, because the property tax furor is about to reignite. That salve that the Indiana Legislature tossed out hushed some voices for a while, but the uproar was about the cost, the burden of the tax, and that has not been addressed. From Abdul Hakim-Shabazz:

Marion County lawmakers got a briefing tonight on the property reconciliation bills that are going out this week and when it’s all said and done homeowners will wish their property was under 10 feet of water.

According to one lawmaker, “this is not going to be pretty.”

The briefing was conducted by Marion County Treasurer Mike Rodman. Residents will see very little, if any relief in most cases.

The lawmaker, who asked not to be identified said, “the people who were the most vocal last summer will be the ones who see the least amount of relief.”

That latter's real cute, isn't it? Well, many of these lawmakers may at long last find themselves unelected. Ask Indy Mayor Bart Peterson for some insights on it. Now, to the issue...

The base expenditure to come out of the property taxes are the schools. In any given county, anywhere from 50-70% of the property tax dollars go to the schools. In my county, Hamilton, it's 70%.

There were many reports in the Indy Star, USA Today, and other places, about the IPS graduation rates, being around 45%. This means that at least in Marion County/Indianapolis, taxpayers are dedicating huge amounts of money to the schools, which a majority of the recipients are REJECTING.

Maybe this is the right time to begin questioning the wisdom of education being publicly funded. If the recipients are rejecting it, and the people are crushed by the burden of paying for what is being rejected, then what in the hell are we doing? Are we just stupid?

Another Positive Sign

Here's a Mayor I can love. From the Huntington WV Hearld-Dispatch:

Mayor David Felinton says he will veto any pay raise that City Council intends to give him next week because it would send the wrong message to residents and other city employees.

Proponents of raising the mayor's $62,272 salary, however, say an increase is needed if Huntington wants to attract qualified candidates to run for the position in 2012.

Well, who knows better what the job is worth than the guy doing the job? Thumbs up, David Felinton!

US Senate Discovers Privatization

(Fishers, IN)- Read this quote, and see if you can guess who it comes from, courtesy the Washington Post:

"Candidly, I don't think the taxpayers should be subsidizing something that doesn't need to be. There are parts of government that can be run like a business and should be run like businesses."

Who is this channelling Milton Friedman? I would be stumped, too. I can't think of any Senator, Republican or Democrat, who would be saying such things these days, true though they are. This quote comes courtesy of a California Democrat- Dianne Feinstein, to be exact. The reason for this unexpected position? It's close to home. The Senate's restaurants are losing loads of taxpayer money:

Year after year, decade upon decade, the U.S. Senate's network of restaurants has lost staggering amounts of money -- more than $18 million since 1993, according to one report, and an estimated $2 million this year alone, according to another.

The financial condition of the world's most exclusive dining hall and its affiliated Capitol Hill restaurants, cafeterias and coffee shops has become so dire that, without a $250,000 subsidy from taxpayers, the Senate won't make payroll next month.

In my opinion, the federal government shouldn't be operating any restaurants on the Hill. You want lunch? There are plenty of restaurants in DC, and many of those will give you the separation from the riff-raff, er, American people, that you crave.

It will be interesting to see if this sudden seeing-the-light will translate into the rest of the country. What a positive development that would be.

Take A Flying Leap, Tiger

Tiger Woods, apparently a great golfer (I've NEVER watched golf on TV, so how should I know?) proves himself a poor ambassador for his sport, by needlessly alienating hockey fans like me. From an ESPN report:

The world's top golfer appeared via teleconference on Monday, promoting August's PGA Championship at Oakland Hills in suburban Detroit.

Woods asked if he was rooting for Detroit or Pittsburgh.

Woods started to laugh, then landed a zinger.

"I don't really care. Let's talk about the Dodgers," the California native said. "I don't think anybody really watches hockey anymore."

I'll repeat that I have NEVER watched golf on TV. There is no 'anymore' about it- except that I'll never be tempted to watch him play on TV. The arrogance! He's promoting an event in Detroit, and he couldn't even be complementary to Red Wings, who were in the midst of a Cup run? Classless. Poor ambassador. You would never hear such things from Gordie Howe or Wayne Gretzky.

When I hit the ice Sunday for my rec league game, I will have a bottle of Powerade. No more Gatorade for me. Thanks to Tiger Woods.

Barr on Colbert

(Fairview Heights, IL)- Libertarian nominee for President Bob Barr just completed his short segment on the Colbert Report. Quick impressions:

Stephen Colbert announced a 'full disclosure' item: He's a Libertarian. The guy is so tongue-in-cheek, it's hard to know if it's the case.

Colbert worked Barr on exactly the same things many Libertarians have grilled him on. "You're for less intrusive government, so you backed the Defense of Marriage Act"? Barr's reply was straightforward- When you learn that you've made a mistake, you revise your position. Colbert also brought up typical horse race angles, such as being a spoiler. Thankfully, this was quickly dismissed.

Barr did well enough in playing along. He joked about having a moustache (which Colbert joked about as something a big government person might want to have him register), and he generally looked comfortable, unlike his moment on Borat. Well enough is good, but the performance isn't likely to blow anyone away. If you watched, what did you think?

Update: Here it is- Barr on Colbert:

Red Wings Win Stanley Cup

(Fairview Heights, IL)- What a great final, with a potentially game-tying Penguins' puck rolling near the goal line with less than a second left. The Red Wings hung on to win the Stanley Cup, in a series that showed what exciting sports action is all about.

I hope you got to watch some of it. It had continuous tension like basketball can't buy with a semi-trailer full of $100 bills. The post-game traditions are excellent- the handshake between the teams, and the handing off of the Stanley Cup to each member of the winning team.

As a San Jose Sharks fans, I enjoyed watching Brad Stuart lay out Sidney Crosby with a crushing, clean hit- and get to hold the Cup over his head.

I'm always a bit sad when hockey season ends... but at least I get to play again on Sunday night.

Rare Evening of TV Viewing

(Fairview Heights, IL)- How does this happen? How is it that there could be not one, but two shows I absolutely have to... well, not so much see as run in the background as I make site drawings?

7:00pm Eastern - NBC - Stanley Cup Finals, Game 6

11:30pm Eastern - Comedy Central - Bob Barr on The Colbert Report

I think the Red Wings will hoist the Cup tonight. There's no telling what Colbert will foist upon Barr. Big fun!

Blood & Shaving Cream, 10 Years Gone

(Fairview Hts, IL)- For 10 years, I was flying solo in rock 'n' roll radio, with an outstanding community radio station- WCSB, 89.3 fm in Cleveland. The co-hosting would continue with Shelly Gould-Burgess on a show called, oddly enough, "Rock 'N' Roll Radio," named after the Ramones tune. The political broadcasts would continue until after moving to Indianapolis, in Fall 2002.

10 years ago on this date, I completed my last solo show, called "Blood & Shaving Cream". It was a Thursday morning drive time show, airing from 7-9:30am. The show originally belonged to Steve Wainstead, but when he moved to New York, I asked the station's program director if I could fill his shoes and continue it, more or less as Steve was doing it. My touches and styles, of course, but the show was something of the punk and alternative rock hits- songs catchy enough that they belonged on regular morning drive time radio, or songs familiar enough to a college radio audience that they would have the same effect. "Blood and Shaving Cream" is a song by an old Cleveland band, Death of Samantha.

So, for your listening pleasure, here are links to two files, from the last B&SC:

B&SC #1

B&SC #2

Beware the poor sound quality! There is alternately a complete lack of treble, tape hiss, muffled incoherence- mostly due to the deteriorating source tape. Still, it's a bit of fun you might get a kick out of. 

(Sendspace links survive for about a week, so have at it soon!)

Off To St. Louis

(Fishers, IN)- Well, more accurately, East St. Louis. More site scouting for AT&T's VRAD cabinets, throughout St. Clair County, Illinois.

Working in view of the Gateway Arch is kinda cool. I wish I had a site or two right on the Mississippi.

Then again, if I turn my back to the Arch, I get the full view of East St. Louis, and that's one scary view. I've lived in the hood in Cleveland, I've worked in rough areas in Detroit and Chicago, but East St. Louis reminds me of pictures of Dresden after the Allied fire bombing in '44.

I'll take the time to get some pictures that will make your jaw drop. If you think you've seen urban blight in Indy, Gary, or Chicago, you haven't seen it until you set eyes on East St. Louis.

Barr on Colbert Report

Bob Barr will appear on the Colbert Report on Wednesday, June 4, on Comedy Central at 11:30pm Eastern.

Barr will also be on CNN's Glenn Beck program that evening at 7pm, but I'm far more interested in the Colbert appearance, because you never really know what Colbert will do with a guest. I'm thinking this will turn out better than Barr's cameo on Borat, although I'm fond of the idea of him as a member of the ruling regime.

I'm jealous of my friends in NYC who could attend the taping of Colbert. This would be a fun one to catch in person! Link to tickets.

Barr Campaign Reaches Out To Bloggers

Having put my support behind Bob Barr, I've been in touch with Stephen Gordon, from Barr's campaign team. Gordon advises that the campaign will work with bloggers. From an email:

Because of the value this campaign places on the contributions of bloggers in today’s political environment, we’d like to extend a special service to those of you supportive of this campaign. We’d like to be able to send you periodic e-mailed briefings of what’s going on within the campaign so you can be on top of the news. Additionally, we are hoping to provide some unique quotes from the former congressman or campaign staffers which won’t be distributed through press releases or conventional media mechanisms.

Gordon was involved with the very popular libertarian blog, Hammer of Truth. I'm pleased that the Barr campaign is including bloggers in their media service. It's folly not to anymore.

Here is a link to Barr's blog. Many thanks to the campaign for adding me to their short (for now) blog roll.

The Battle For Jesus

It seems that politically, botht he right and the left are very keen to claim Jesus as their own. Bible verses are cited by both. Each claims its' righteousness.

Today, Michael Gerson's Washington Post column does something new: It proclaims Jesus not a libertarian.

It is true that Jesus was not a political activist; he joined no party and issued no Contract With the Roman Empire. But it is a stretch to interpret his personal challenge to the rich young ruler as a biblical foundation for libertarianism.

I'm not aware of anything in particular from my fellow libertarians that caused this statement's issue. I know that Bob Barr considers himself a Christian, but that's not the same as a crusade to claim Jesus as an exemplar for my favored political philosophy.

The Libertarian Party does claim some deeply religious individuals among its' notables. Here in Indiana, I can think of Dr. Eric Schansberg, Kenn Gividen, and Andy Horning as prime examples. Schansberg has done what Gerson is doing here, with his 2003 book, "Turn Neither Right Nor Left".

I think Schansberg's effort was far more justified than Gerson's. I mean, how many libertarian claims on Jesus have you heard lately? Compare that to the number on the right, especially. Based on Gerson's bio, I can't help but wonder if the man is simply firing a pre-emptive strike on Bob Barr on behalf of John McCain. His closing statement seems to suggest it:

For millennia, artists, thinkers and politicians have shaped their image of Jesus, often into a mirror image of themselves. But the goal of Christianity is to allow Him to shape us, not the other way around. And just as Jesus the leftist revolutionary is a distortion, so is Jesus the libertarian.

This seems like it's coming from out of nowhere. Am I missing something?

Positive Trend

Government mandates aren't the only motivation for more energy-conscious means of lighting and climate controls. Simon Properties is responding to two green sources of inspiration- the environment, and cash. From an Indy Star article:

Simon's energy use has fallen by 9.7 percent from 2003 to 2006, a reduction of 102 million kilowatt hours of electricity. That equals nearly 68,000 metric tons of carbon emission that weren't dispersed into the atmosphere and an $11 million annual savings in operating costs.

Simon's investment was $20 million. The investment paid for itself in just two years.

It's good to see articles like this. They can inspire other businesses to follow suit, way ahead of the speed of government mandates because most businesses have operations that are dwarfed by Simon. You can easily enough say, "If they could do it, I can do it".

Libertarian Party Nominates Bob Barr!

After six rounds of ballots where Bob Barr and Mary Ruwart ran neck-and-neck, Wayne Allyn Root's declaration of interest in being part of a Barr-Root ticket gave the race to Barr. Here is the final vote:

Barr 324 (+101)

Ruwart 276 (+47)

Results link

Barr's campaign website

I was very happy for this result. While Barr isn't the pure libertarian's dream candidate, he did receive better more and better press coverage on his entry into the race than all other LP nomination seekers had, combined. That is golden with me. 

The message of liberty has to be heard by the American public, now more than ever. The coverage Barr generated indicates to me that for once, at last, this will be possible of our presidential candidate. LP press release.

We've had a lot of purists' dream candidates, including our last, Michael Badnarik, who got less than 1% of the vote nationally, was relegated to the kiddie table of debates, and was generally the prime example of a tree falling in the forest with nobody to hear it happen.

I was therefore also very relieved for this result. Anyone other than Barr was going to repeat past results: less than 1%, certain exclusion from the main debates, confirmation in the minds of Americans that the LP is a collection of tinfoil hat-wearing kooks.

Later in the evening, Wayne Allyn Root won the nomination for Vice President, edging out Steve Kubby.

I'm not nearly as excited about this outcome, as Root really wasn't generating any buzz on his own. At least he can go out and talk about Iraq, the financial crisis, and health care without having to answer baggage questions first. Kubby would have, being a virtual single-issue marijuana candidate. As much as I agree with his positions on those issues, it isn't nearly as important as Iraq, the financial crisis, or health care, and really shouldn't come up in any serious conversation about public policy until those issues are exhaustively probed. 

There is a great opportunity to win the people over on these issues and the Libertarian solutions for each- then maybe they'll listen about pot. It doesn't work the other way. The average voter is not going to say, "Oh, you smoke pot every day? Well, we have to listen to your perspective on the dollar".

It's kind of depressing that these things have to be discussed as such. The LP is maturing, but at a snail's pace.

Round 5 Results

Now we come into the home stretch: It's Barr vs Ruwart.

Bob Barr 223 (+21)

Mary Ruwart 229 (+27)

Wayne Root 165 (+16)

Indiana's delegation went thusly:

Barr 6

Ruwart 6

Root 9

Root is eliminated, and with the ability to throw so many votes one way or the other, he took the opportunity, asking to be part of a Barr-Root ticket. 

The comments were a bit odd. He said he would like to learn at the side of Bob Barr for four years as his Vice President, and then it's all his in 2012. Hmm... If Barr is elected President, wouldn't he want to run for re-election? The comment struck me as a bit cocky. It will be interesting to see if the Root endorsement pushes Barr to the nomination, or pushes the votes to Ruwart.

In the first round, 38 votes for Root came from California. If either camp has the smarts, they RAN to California's delegation to make the case... if they weren't standing there before the tally was finalized. Indiana primarily went for Root, so the persuading should be happening there, too. 

Last vote coming up. It will result in a Libertarian nominee for President!

Round 4 Results

Wow- this is an incredible race! Although the numbers changed, the results remained virtually the same, with Ruwart and Barr still in a tie!

Bob Barr 202 (+16)

Mary Ruwart 202 (+16)

Wayne Root 149 (+3)

Mike Gravel 76 (-2)

Mike Gravel is eliminated here. Comments he made that were captured on C-SPAN's floor coverage were fascinating. Not surprisingly, he let's supporters know that he's retiring from politics, saying, "This is it. This is the end." 

I noticed it at the Indiana Libertarian convention, and also in his speeches in Denver, that he never could convince anyone that he was anything but an outsider coming in. Gravel repeatedly said, "Your party should do this". Showing that he never learned to change his perspective, at the end, he said, "They're decision, and I'll abide by it". Them. Not, my party's.

Now- does Root throw his support behind one or the other to jockey for the VP slot? Or, does he fight it out?

Round 3 Results

Moving right along, Mary Ruwart did benefit significantly from Steve Kubby's exit endorsement. It's a dead heat again- a tie!

Bob Barr 186 (-2)

Mary Ruwart 186 (+24)

Wayne Root 146 (+8)

Mike Gravel 78 (+5)

George Phillies 31 (-5)

Phillies is eliminated, and I did not hear him throw his support behind anyone, so where those 31 votes land is anyone's guess.

That's getting to be true of Gravel's and even Root's totals. Funny things can happen on convention floors. A candidate can decide he's tired and wants out, throwing support to someone at a key moment, becoming the kingmaker. 78 or 146 votes are huge at this point. This is where the lobbying really intensifies, and again I kinda wish I was there to feel the buzz of horse trading for liberty.

Round 2

Here's the vote after the second ballot:

Bob Barr 188 (+35)

Mary Ruwart 162 (+10)

Wayne Root 138 (+15)

Mike Gravel 73 (+2)

George Phillies 36 (-13)

Steve Kubby 32  (-9)

Kubby was eliminated, and Barr gained significant separation between himself and Mary Ruwart, taking a number nearly equal to the votes put up for grabs by the elimination after the first ballot. This becomes a nervous time for Mike Gravel, and the pit in the stomach forms for Phillies.

Kubby threw his support behind Mary Ruwart after this ballot, so we'll see if she reclaims some ground.

First Ballot In

Another convention, another close first-round finish:

Bob Barr 153 votes

Mary Ruwart 152

Wayne Root 123

Mike Gravel 71

George Phillies 49

Steve Kubby 41

Mike Jingozian 23

Christine Smith  6

Daniel Imperato 1

None of the Above 2

Comically, there were write-in votes cast for Penn Gillette (3) and Ron Paul (6), plus one other whose name I didn't catch.

Only Jingozian and Smith are eliminated from this ballot, and a new vote is taken. Due to the closeness and the lack of surprises here, I would expect the numbers to look very similar, as only 39 delegate votes are up for grabs. That said, some who voted for Kubby or Phillies may decide the writing is on the wall, and put their votes up for grabs. This where it gets to be very exciting to be on the floor. In 2002, I was filmed by C-SPAN standing on a chair and stumping before our regional caucus for Gary Nolan, right after the first vote.

At this point, anyone can switch at any time. Sometimes delegates vote with their state or regional delegation the first time, and then go their own way for subsequent balloting. 

I was struck that Georgia really turned up for Bob Barr, delivering 33 votes for him, with just two else cast (for Ruwart). California showed up for Wayne Allyn Root, with 38 votes. It will be interesting to see if those numbers change. Alaska did not support its' own Mike Gravel, casting its' four votes elsewhere. 

I watched Rob Kampia of the Marijuana Policy Project represent DC and announce the casting of its' three votes for Bob Barr, the erstwhile drug warrior, and wondered if Kampia had to choke down some cognitive dissonance on the vote. Apparently not, though. Kampia was one of the three.

Indiana's 22 delegates voted thusly:

Root 6

Gravel 5

Barr 4

Phillies 3

Jingozian 2

Root 2

Hopefully this vote will pare it down to two. I do not see a clear victory coming on the second ballot. 

Nomination Looming

I've been watching some of the C-SPAN coverage of the Libertarian Party convention in Denver, and the first vote is being tallied right now. Some impressions:

1. Most of the candidates haven't figured out how to be Presidential. It's not about putting on act or filling a role. It's about seeming serious about preparing to do the job as though about to be elected. 

For instance, Christine Smith sounded like she was campaigning for LNC Chair, talking about party platform fine points in the moment that should be about the Smith Administration platform.

2. Most of the delegates seem more interested in electing the candidate they like, as opposed to the candidate who will do the best job in promoting the vision of a Libertarian Administration. How else to explain candidates like Steve Kubby or Mary Ruwart? 

Kubby is showing that he can be more than a one-issue candidate, but because that issue is marijuana, the press won't ask him about anything else. The man has to use marijuana to stave off a recurrence of cancer. I can only imagine the kind of questions he'll get relative to being a Commander-In-Chief who flames up daily.

Ruwart is strictly dogmatic and without a platform of her own. Like Kubby, she will waste the opportunity to sell liberty to the public, instead having to explain an absurd position on child pornography. Well, our delegates love strict dogma. 

3. C-SPAN is running the camera up and down the convention hall, eavesdropping on conversations. We still have a lot of delegates who look like they came from the Jim Rose Circus. 

In sum, there are still too many ways the Libertarian Party will scare the average American. We still haven't learned even some of the obvious lessons.

Still, this is an exciting time to be on the floor. The place will buzz nervously until the Chair returns to the podium. When he swings the gavel, hearts will pound and the tension will peak. It's an extraordinary atmosphere!

KFC & The Colonel

(Louisville, KY)- As it happens, I had a negotiation with KFC for property in Indianapolis. I found myself headed to Columbus and thought that KFC's HQ in Louisville wasn't that much further to drive, so why not pick up my documents rather than wait for them to arrive a few days later?

The people at KFC are great, super-friendly folks who seem to enjoy what they do and take pride in their company. That's unusual anymore, unfortunately, so I soaked up the scene- which included the Colonel Sanders Museum.

It's a Norman Rockwell oil of The Colonel!

The museum is small, but has a bucket full of interesting goodies, from oldies commercials on the TV to old menus and product containers. Looking through was definitely a bit of campy Americana, but a lot of fun.

No word on whether Dr. Kissinger was looking for The Colonel's adivce on Vietnam

Me with a wax figure of Harlan Sanders. It's a little too life-like for my liking. Even worse- while a secretary took this picture, The Colonel goosed me with his cane. That was kinda creepy. I dig the 8-ft-high bucket, though.

Libertarian Party Convention Underway

I'm not in Denver today, but I am keeping a close eye on the Libertarian convention, as a nominee for President will emerge. Here are my main interests in a nominee:

1. Carry no baggage. I was cheering Ron Paul until his ties to racist garbage were revealed. At that point, Paul became something worse than a poor ambassador for liberty. He tarnished the very idea, because people associated Paul as liberty itself. We can't have that in the Libertarian nominee.

2. Be a real communicator. Michael Badnarik won the 2004 nomination on the strength of one performance at the Libertarian convention in Atlanta, sweeping many delegates off their feet. We soon learned that one speech does not a communicator make, as Badnarik was not covered by the media, and worse, he opted to sit at "the kiddie table" of debates- the forums for the excluded minor party candidates. Our nominee cannot be one who self-marginalizes by accepting exclusion. Our nominee must make America take notice. Most of our candidates are not capable of that, frankly.

3. Focus on real campaigning issues. I love the Constitution, but the American public neither knows about it nor cares. Our nominee has to get over this, and get to topics of substance that the public does care about. In my opinion, a winning trio is Iraq, our financial crisis/jobs, and health care. I don't want a nominee who is talking to me. You already have me. I hope our delegates have this wisdom, for once.

Overall, Bob Barr is my #1 choice, because he can fulfill #2 & 3 better than any of our candidates. However, he does have baggage, both ideological and in act, and running as the most conservative, "I'm more Republican than the Republicans" candidate in a year where the Republican brand is the greatest possible albatross is a very bad idea. Barr needs to change his tactics.

Mike Gravel is the other big name, and I have to say that I was impressed with his fire and his clarity when speaking at the Indiana Libertarian convention recently. Unfortunately, Gravel does have some baggage, in the sad image of being a doddering old man. I'm sure that's why he came out to Indy with such spunk. I don't see Libertarians nominating him, though, as the Democratic Party is such a pariah within the LP because of Dems' positions on all things economic, and Gravel will be met with great suspicion accordingly. Gravel is my #2 choice, though.

Mary Ruwart is a favorite of many Libertarians, because of her ability to communicate ideas, but her baggage is so overwhelming that she would make Ron Paul's racist connections look very welcome by comparison. I think most people who read regularly know that I would support almost any Libertarian candidate come November. Not this one. The media will never give her a chance to talk about anything but her stupid, foolish comments about child pornography. She can't pull a Ron Paul on them and say she didn't know they were written. They're in her book, "Short Answers to Tough Questions".

Apart from that, I find that the remaining candidates are all very similar. Sure, they differ on this issue or that, but what they have in common is this: They aren't raising big money. They don't sweep you off your feet. They haven't gotten any noteworthy positive media attention, no matter how long they've been at it. They are run-of-the-mill candidates for the Libertarian nomination. If any of them win, we are guaranteed continued obscurity in a year when the nation needs liberty more than ever.

Excited For Good News

I am looking forward to a phone call tomorrow that could have me very busy again with work in Illinois, as I was at this time last year.

It would be a blessing. As the work pace has gradually been slowing, I find myself getting embroiled more in things political, and it's all bad news. It takes time that seems productive but isn't. It raises the blood pressure. On the other hand, last year I barely blogged, and I rarely visited political sites, news sites, or other blogs. It was really good. Ignorance can be bliss.

I'd spent years of my life promoting liberty, and just don't feel it matters. Spent the time developing radio programs that weren't noticed until they stopped airing. Spent time running for office where the public didn't care about the office being sought. Stood up in defense of people who wouldn't show up for me in my time of need. Try to engage people in a variety of forums, and mainly take slings and arrows? For what? Some imaginary notion that it might make a difference, if I only believe fervently that the seed becomes a tree, maybe a big one years after I die? Call me shallow, but I need some gratification. Now. It isn't pity I'm after. No, I want to see results. If politics can't deliver because there isn't, gulp, a market for liberty, then give me business.

I spent last year trying fully to make money, and I did, and it was damn satisfying. Really made me feel like the volunteer boosterism for liberty was the act of wasting a lot of time. Work hard in business- get the results in Net 30 Days. I really like that. Producing for people who are delighted with my work? That gets me up at 5:30 and to bed at Midnight, grinding furiously in between. Happily. Excitedly.

So, it will be good to immerse in a heavy workload again. Soon. I cannot wait to take the call.

Now, That's Journalism!

Here's the dilemma: You feel the coronations are in place, for Obama and McCain, but Clinton hangs around despite the surest signs it's over: No, not the announcement of the nomination. The pronouncement of (say with reverence and awe) Tim Russert! And still, you have to report on something.

What to do... Talk about policy? Nah. The public doesn't care about policy. Not really. Let's make references that signal how cool I am!

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post has graduated from the Mike Kole School of Journalism. He has compared Hillary Clinton's campaign to a cadaver by referencing Monty Python sketches! Not once, but twice!

Today's article, referencing the Black Knight scene from the Holy Grail film.
May 14 article, referencing the Dead Parrot sketch from the Flying Circus TV series.

The Black Knight:


Dead Parrot:

One For The Horse Race Fans

Not talking Triple Crown or Belmont here. Talking Bob Barr as presumptive Libertarian nominee, and a current Rasmussen poll. Mainly, I'm pleasantly surprised to see Barr poll so highly, despite name recognition being his greatest liability in terms of the poll. From Rasmussen:

A separate survey found slightly different results when third-party candidates were mentioned by name. In a four-way race, Obama earns 42% of the vote, McCain 38%, Bob Barr 6% and Ralph Nader 4%. Given those options, 11% were undecided. Barr and Nader were mentioned as candidates of the Libertarian Party and the Green Party respectively.

Barr picked up 7% of the Republican vote, 5% of the Democratic vote, and 5%
of the unaffiliated vote. participants (sic) to choose between Barack Obama, John
McCain and some other candidate.

and

Most voters don’t know enough about Barr to have an opinion of him. Twenty-five percent (25%) have a favorable opinion of Nader while 54% have an unfavorable.

To poll 6% without most voters knowing about you suggests favorable waters for any Libertarian candidate. Barr's going to have to work hard to create a favorable impression. Look at Nader's unfavorables. Ouch. Don't want to join him there.

Big Problem Caused By Government Tinkering

The Congress was hearing about the "problem" of higher gas prices (see yesterday's post), so they pushed subsidies at farmers to produce corn so that it might be sold to producer of ethanol, who are also subsidized.

Ah, the unintended consequences. As usual. So, what happens? Farmers have an incentive to dedicate some larger percentage of their land towards the production of corn. They'll get a greater subsidy check, and they'll have a greater market to sell to besides. In the meantime, less of every other crop is grown that might have been planted on those fields, and less corn is available to feed animals, to make oil

From today's Indy Star report, some seriously required reading:

Ethanol producers rely on a 51-cents-a-gallon ethanol tax credit to make slim profits. Slashing the credit by even 6 cents could put their operating margins in the red or close to it, said Chris Hurt, an agricultural economist at Purdue University.

A new farm bill, passed last week by both houses of Congress, would cut the credit to 45 cents. Ethanol, which in the United States is mostly made from corn, is a federal subsidy program that in some ways is proving to be "too successful," said Hurt.

The federal subsidies and record-high prices for oil set off a "gold rush" by ethanol producers who've built so much plant capacity that it's on track to far exceed the federal mandate for fuel use of 15 billion gallons of ethanol production by 2015, Hurt said.

The open plants alone will gobble up a fourth of the nation's corn harvest this year, he said. Congress must now wrestle with the question: "Have we let that go too far?" Hurt said. On the other hand, he said, "How can we as a country say, 'We want less fuel?' or say, 'Tough luck to ethanol producers' " after spending years encouraging them to build plants.

Yes, it looks like Pandora's Box, alright. But there's a truism of economics that goes, "Anything you subsidize you will get more of," so the over-production of ethanol plants should come as no surprise, and the corn subsidy program being 'too successful' should be anything but a surprise.

Notice that without the subsidies, the ethanol plants wouldn't even be built, because they are unprofitable? The entire profit comes from the subsidies- which is to say, from us taxpayers.

One extremely insightful Star reader commented nicely, concisely:

There is no problem so bad that the goverment can't make it worse.

This is why I believe in a laissez-faire approach to the economy. If there was a real market for ethanol, rather than the artificial one created by subsidy incentive, the market would have lept into the breach seeking profits in making ethanol. Now we have a losing industry pumped up beyond projected 'need', needlessly driving up the cost of all food products- which are themselves generally already subsidized to some degree or other.

I don't want the Congress meddling in the economy, and certainly not in something as important as food. We may drive 30,000 miles/year as I do, or we may walk everywhere we go needing no fule- but we all have to eat. If high fuel prices hurt the poor and cause them to not drive, what do high food prices cause for the poor?

Congress 'let it go too far' by being involved at all. Leave the market alone and it will do a better job than a Congress that resembles one driving on ice: If you get off course, the worst thing you can do is to jerk the wheel to compensate. You throw the thing further off course in the other direction.

But, we want our government to DO SOMETHING. Alas, you got what you asked for.

Running The Math on Gas Prices

Being that regular unleaded gas is now at $4/gallon, or near enough to it, the price of gas is the issue du jour, I thought I should run the real-life numbers on my own driving, to see what real-life financial impact it has on me. I drive a lot, so the impact should be great. 

The last two years, I've averaged a bit over 30,000 miles/year. I drive a Toyota Corolla, with a five-speed stick. It averages 36 mph, so I stretch the dollar well. In fact, I've slowed down a lot recently, in an effort to improve the mph, but I'll calculate to averages I've actually logged.

So, more or less, I consumed 833.33 gallons of gas in the past two years.

At an average of $3/gallon last year, I spent $2,500.

At an average of $4/gallon this year, I'll spend $3,333.33.

I'm spending $833.33 more this year, or $16.02 a week.

$16 a week? Big deal!

Keep in mind that I drive 30,000 miles a year- for business. Most people drive a whole lot less than me. Before I was doing the kind of work that demanded I drive my own vehicle, I would average a little less than 15,000 miles/year. If that were still true for me, I'd be spending an extra $8/week.

So, why is this such a prominent issue? Is it because the gas stations are the only retailers stupid enough to continue to post their prices on large signs? 

The gas stations really do themselves a disservice with the price signs. I remember growing up in the 70s, when all manner of retailers posted their prices in their windows or on signs. The only ones who consistently do it today are grocers and the gas stations. They make themselves a lightning rod unnecessarily. But maybe they're doing us an even greater disservice. We're bitching about something that really isn't that big a problem, at the expense of examining some bigger issues. 

Our "electable" presidential candidates are talking up this issue, and I'm really not hearing enough about restoring the dollar, cutting the deficit without raising taxes, and the solution for our involvement in Iraq.

Commercial Speech Banned In Indy

I'll never forget the experience of driving through Silicon Valley in 1998. Upon entering the area from the north, the highway driver was greeted by signs proclaiming the presence of HP, Intel, and a host of computer and tech company billboards. It was actually an exhilerating experience. The billboards let you know you were in the midst of something exciting and on the cutting edge.

Contrast that with the attitudes of billboards in Indianapolis. From an Indy Star report:

Norman Pace, land-use chairman for the Marion County Alliance of Neighborhood Associations, said he had waited eight years for the signs' demise. Thursday, he drove from his Warren Township home to the north split, the junction of I-70 and I-65 on the north side of Downtown, to watch the sign be dismantled.

"It was an eyesore blocking our city's beautiful skyscape," Pace said. "It detracted from the quality of life here. We don't want to look like one of these cities that are filled with billboards."

Pace and other billboard opponents call the signs "litter on a stick."

No, you sure wouldn't want Indy to resemble a vibrant place like Silicon Valley. So much better to make it look like the kind of place not worth advertising to.

Interestingly, the cityscapes are often decried as a kind of litter that hides the natural beauty of the environs. I realize that in such places there are mountains, hills, molehills or any other kind of terrain. The point is, eyesores, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

More importantly, freedom of speech suffers. I looked at the First Amendment, and while nowhere does it say "except for billboards", it also says "Congress shall make no law". Is this cause for celebration among the state's rights crowd? Maybe I'll get an explanation here.

In the meantime, we can add a new entry into the list of restrictions on freedom of speech at wikipedia, which is an interesting read. A line in the wikipedia description of freedom of speech is exactly as I have it:

The United States First Amendment theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the burden upon the state to demonstrate when (if) a limitation of this freedom is necessary.

Commercial speech is still speech. So, was it necessary to remove the billboards? I'd love for Indianapolis to have to make the case to a higher court. To bad Pinnacle, the billboard company, won't be suing. From the Star:

Pinnacle has gone out of business, and an attorney for the company said that happened because the company lost the revenue the signs would have generated.

This action was begun under the Peterson Administration. Too bad Mayor Ballard hasn't done anything to reverse course here.

Indianapolis- killing speech, killing businesses. There's a motto for a billboard at the city limits.

Up Yours, Cleveland

Ame and I are originally from Cleveland, and we return there to visit relatives. One thing I will be sure we don't do is spend money in Cleveland for several years to come.

Cleveland is one of those cities that uses traffic enforcement cameras as a revenue generator. Ame passed the cameras on Chester & E 71st, an unsavory area if there ever was one, going 52mph in a 35-zone. The pictures were provided on the "Notice of Liability", and they show that nobody was in the area, and nobody was in harms way due to Ame's rate of speed.

Where is everybody? Oh yeah- they've fled the authoritarian nanny hell that is Cleveland.

This may rankle some of my absolutist pro-rule of law friends, but this is bullshit. The purpose for traffic law is to ensure the public safety. If nobody is made unsafe by the passage of traffic, what is the point of enforcing the law? Cameras are blind to circumstance. Police officers use discretion, and it's highly unlikely that an officer on the street would have pulled her over for this infraction. Obviously, this is mere revenue generation.

So, OK Cleveland. You get your $100 fine. What you won't get from me is a visit to the West Side Market for a few years. Nor will I eat in any restaurant in the city for a few years. You got $100 out of us now, but will not get $1,000 or so, thanks to the ill-will generated by this crap. Enjoy.

It will be a happy day when someone gives the camera's poles the 'Cool Hand Luke' treatment.

Bob Barr Makes It Official

The former Georgia Congressman is seeking the Libertarian Party's nomination for President. Barr made his announcement today. He's already viewed as the presumptive nominee in some media quarters. From the LA Times report:

Expected to win the nomination of the Libertarian Party when it holds its convention in Denver over the Memorial Day weekend, Barr, 59, criticized Republican John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, for not being a true conservative.

"There's not a great deal of substance there in terms of a commitment to cutting the size of government," Barr said He said no one who had authored the McCain-Feingold campaign reforms that cap individual donations could call himself a conservative, "at least with a straight face."

Here's what sets Barr, or any other Libertarian candidate apart from the other three- sound fiscal policy:

Saying both the Republican and Democratic Parties have "bought into a system of running a charity called the United States of America," Barr blasted programs that use public funds to educate the children of illegal immigrants and maintain foreign military bases "that have no more efficacy in the 21st century."

"The federal government needs to get away from the notion that simply because we have all this money in the Treasury -- or we can borrow more money -- that we can provide all these services," he said. "That is not responsible government."

Strategically, I like that Barr knows what to say in response to the "Nader Effect" that worries some confused small government folks:

Barr confirmed that he was asked by McCain supporters not to run for fear he would pull votes from the GOP, but he defended his decision by saying that "American voters deserve better than simply the lesser of two evils."

Arguing that in recent election cycles, the losing candidates "blame somebody else," Barr said, "At the end of the day if I do succeed, it is not my intent to blame Sen. McCain or Sen. (Barack) Obama. I hope they would return the favor." If McCain loses to Obama, the Illinois senator, Barr said, it will be because his message or his candidacy doesn't resonate. "Each of us has the future in our own hands," he said, adding that his voters "are not likely to fall in the category of being enthusiastic about voting for John McCain, if such exists."

Fact is, there will only be one small government candidate available to voters in November- the Libertarian. McCain, Clinton, and Obama all believe in using the power of government. They merely have different recipients of the largesse. Besides, just as Dr. Eric Schansberg took votes from Democrat Baron Hill and not Republican Mike Sodrel in the 2006 race for Indiana's 9th District House race, Barr or any other Libertarian candidate stands to see more votes come from otherwise Democratic voters. Republicans know it to be true:

But Christopher Barron, a Republican political consultant, thinks it is equally plausible that Barr could hurt Obama.

"I think Bob Barr's candidacy could impact the race -- but I don't know at this point which candidate he is likely to help or hurt," he said. "If Barr's candidacy is fueled by the same people who supported Ron Paul -- college students, antiwar advocates and hard-core libertarians -- then I think it is unlikely to hurt Sen. McCain in any significant way because these are not the type of voters McCain is reaching out to. I could actually envision a scenario under which Barr's candidacy actually helps McCain by siphoning off some of the enthusiasm among college voters and antiwar advocates for Obama."

Barr's website is up and running, and is already miles better than any other LP presidential candidate's.

Best of all, Barr is a great choice for getting the libertarian message out. He doesn't carry the racist baggage Ron Paul alienated so many with. He's reformed his thinking on big government positions he used to hold.

This is a good day. I'm satisfied that if Barr is nominated, the Libertarian Party will have a candidate to be very proud of.