On The Other Hand, Fishers

Lest anyone conclude I've made up my mind on the Fishers city vote, I'll now look at the other side of the argument.

City Yes PAC has been advancing the cause of making Fishers a City from the beginning of this latest push to do so. They list five issues on their website:

1. Elect Your Mayor. Every other community in Indiana gets to elect the City executive. As one of the largest communities in Indiana, Fishers should have this basic democratic right.

I completely agree, but this was one of the specific questions of law the lawsuit inexplicably lost on. I thought it was our strongest point. Alas. If the vote for a city wins, the popular vote of the mayor will NOT happen. The Council will then select the mayor. I can't get excited about that.

2. Council Districts. As a City, Fishers would have real district representation, with 6 districts representing their neighborhoods, plus 3 at-large seats.

Again, as Fishers won the lawsuit, I don't see this happening. If they vote for city wins, the voter gets to choose between the Fishers 'hybrid city' and nothing, as I understand it.

I've understood this from the beginning to be the heart and soul of the reason Fishers Democrats want the City form. Currently, all seats on council are elected at-large, which is a sham, for it favors the dominant party. It makes challengers not only win their district, but the entire municipality, which makes campaigning vastly more expensive, and virtually impossible for Democrats or Libertarians to win. It has resulted in very few General Election challenges for Council seats, and very unaccountable Council members.

I could get excited for this change, but again, as I understand it, when Fishers won the suit, they won the ability to present their form of city on the ballot at the exclusion of all others, including that described on this point. Please- someone correct me if I am wrong.

3. Accountability. With an elected Mayor and real district representation, the government of Fishers would be more accountable to the voters.

As shown in my previous post, this has not been the experience in the other similarly Republican dominated cities that were towns not too long ago, Westfield and Carmel. The mayors there are exceptionally unaccountable. The councils have effectively been rubber stamps for the mayors. There are occasionally oppositional members of council, but nothing even approaching effective opposition to provide genuine checks and balances.

Now, I can take the long view, and try to convince myself that over time, as areas urbanize they tend to move to the left, and Dems could win some seats in time. However, if the 'hybrid city' wins at the ballot box, the checks and balances hoped for by real districts aren't any more possible than they are now, reducing this to a nice talking point, and not really viable. Again- correct me if I'm wrong on the form of city that will appear on the ballot in November.

4. Checks and Balance. As a City, the Mayor would have veto power over unwise council actions. With enough votes, the Council can override the veto. This separation of powers is completely absent in Town government.

Completely agree, and this is the one point that keeps me from advocating for defeat of the Yes/No question. The Town Council currently acts as both legislative and executive, utterly lacking checks and balances. This may be the only positive thing that would come out of any vote in favor of the city form. See my concerns above in Points 2 & 3, though, for the real life play out for the next 30 years. The best we can hope for there is one-party factionalism to provide real checks and balances, which isn't really all that exciting.

5. Economic Development. An elected Mayor is the leader of the City and can negotiate with businesses who wish to locate here. The Mayor is the leader for economic development, something we currently lack.

Again, referring back to my previous post, this is exactly what I fear most. I don't want a Mayor Brainard for Fishers. I don't want pet projects that we will subsidize forever. I don't want politically businesses getting tax abatements while the unconnected pay full freight. We're better off for lacking a Mayor on these points.

So, clearly, I'm not sold on the other side, either.

When I joined the lawsuit, I was the odd man, as both Joe Weingarten and Glenn Brown were very much in favor of the city form of government, while my interests were different. I signed the City Yes petition not because I was sold on the city form, but because I believed the people of Fishers had the right to settle the question at the ballot box, and that the Town Council wasn't going to advance the question unless a valid petition went forward. It's all about representative government to me.

Unfortunately, we lost in court and are now left with two very weak choices, in my opinion. I'm open to suggestion from anyone who wishes to make the case for either side, provided you don't lead with "You're wrong". You'll push me to the other side with that.

After The Lawsuit, Now What?

When I joined the lawsuit against the Town of Fishers regarding petitions to become a city, my interest was not entirely towards becoming a city. It was about giving the people of the municipality the ability to vote on the question.

This year's ballot is going to have two questions on the ballot, the way the Town Council wishes to word them. They essentially go like this:

1. We're a Town now, should be become a City: yes or no?
2. If yes, should we become a City with a Mayor picked by the Council?

The first question is the big one for me, because a City form of government includes a mayor, no matter how you look at it.

My long-standing concern about Fishers becoming a City has to do exactly with adding a mayor, because the track record in Carmel and Westfield- two other Hamilton County former towns that are now cities- is less than impressive to me.

How can this be? All shiny and new? Here's how: Mayors have meant expensive, pet projects. Things that should better have been done by the private sector, and are now a huge drain on these cities. From Indianapolis Business Journal:

Carmel Mayor James Brainard wants to give the Center for the Performing Arts another $840,000 to cover its bills through December—on top of a $5.5 million subsidy he orchestrated last fall.

The latest grant is part of a resolution, which will go before the Carmel City Council Monday, to put $1.62 million into the city’s Support for the Arts Fund.

“We had a huge deficit,” Brainard said of the performing arts center, which is run by a separate not-for-profit organization. “Progress is being made.”

These huge shortfalls and subsidies were entirely predictable. It isn't the proper role of government to fund pet projects, but Republicans have proven clueless about this. 7 years ago, I and other Libertarians pointed this out. We were scoffed at.

But this is my point of resistance about supporting a City form of government that necessarily means a Mayor. For my gripes about Fishers, the fact is that the Town Council hasn't launched pet projects on the scale of the region's mayors.

h/t to Advance Indiana and this article about even the tenants getting subsidized!

On The Run

The running program is continuing, with a dusk trot last night. It was again easier to accomplish than the last run, gaining a mile in 9:37.

This was pleasing, because I remember hovering around the 10-minute mark when I started running again some 9 years ago, and being informed that Oprah did a marathon at a 10-minute mile pace. Pace, not first mile.

I know a runner shouldn't compare himself to another runner, but come on- Oprah? I have to be able to move faster than Oprah could. I do have some pride.

Next week's goal will be to double the distance.

Tempting Fate?

A few weeks ago, I decided the extra weight had to go, and that as much as I dislike running, it would be a great way to shed pounds, build endurance, and generally get fit again. So, I set off for a run, and before I could reach the magical distance of a quarter mile, my calves cramped up something fierce. I stopped, stretched the calves, and ran back home. Little did I know, I was sparking a trip to the hospital.

The great danger for me is to 'learn a lesson' from this and go hard the other way. This has happened before. When I was 18, I was hospitalized with an illness and lost a very unhealthy amount of weight, being a skinny kid to begin with. I resolved to not ever allow myself to become dangerously underweight again, and within six months went from 114 pounds to 195. Lesson learned, problem solved.

What an 18-year-old kid doesn't know. In the past several years, I'd been around 190 pounds, much less fit than before. You know, the typical four inch shift, from shoulders & chest to waist. With last year's back injury at hockey, I stopped exercising and quickly gained 15 pounds.

Knowing myself, the lesson learned would be to not run again, because last time I did it, a trip to the hospital followed. But I can't be a 205 pound barrel with legs. So, I ran last night.

I actually made a full mile, and didn't cramp up hard. Of course, I stretched like crazy before and after, ate a banana and pounded the water. I have the added benefit of a follow-up trip to the doctor today for more bloodwork. Hopefully the kidney functions are back to normal now, and that incident was a fluke.

Now, if I really want to tempt fate, I should go to Cincinnati for a Reds-Indians game tomorrow, then to Moerlein's for beer and munchies...

Update: Got the lab results in and despite my fate-tempting run, my liver functions are all back in the normal range. Hooray!

Now to keep up with the fitness plan.

Where's Judge Gray?

I've been very pleased with Gary Johnson's campaign for President since his nomination at the Libertarian convention earlier this month. He's been doing interviews all over the media and generally bringing the right kind of attention to his candidacy and to the Libertarian Party.

Vice Presidential candidate Judge James Gray? Not so much.

Gray has been virtually invisible thus far. No campaign website. Can't find him on the LP's website or Gary Johnson's website. Doesn't have a Facebook page for the campaign. Has a personal website and Facebook page, but not for the campaign? I haven't seen any media clips with interviews.

Such a fuss was made that Gray should get the nomination. He passionately spoke to a private caucus of the Indiana delegates and he begged, promised that he wouldn't disappoint. Well, sorry, so far it's a disappointment. Almost a month has passed, and nothing to show for it. We don't have forever to wait for the action to start- especially if competing against candidate poised to raise a billion dollars each.

Hospitalization Recap

As promised, the story of my hospitalization, illustrated with pictures, in full color.

Was it the beer or the cheese food sauce?

Friend Keith Kohli and I bought tickets to a Reds-Braves game, Keith being a huge Braves fan. We bought the tickets via Stub Hub two months before the game, and got a good deal on seats in the 8th row, by the 3rd base dugout. We went early, went to Jungle Jim's amazing grocery store, the Reds Hall of Fame, then to Moerlein's Lagerhouse, to have one beer and munchies. All is well.

We got to the gate entrance to discover we had tickets for the wrong game! Somehow we both missed this! We had tickets for the following day's game, so at least they knew we were only stupid and not trying to get in on yesterday's stubs. So, we went to ticket window, bought tickets for this game, and suddenly I had huge pain in my gut that felt like gas. The woman at the ticket window told me there was a Walgreens two blocks away, so we head that direction so I could get Gas-X or some antacids.

This is as close as I would get to this game.

We were stopped at the intersection for a light, and suddenly this wave rushes over me. I was sweating profusely and felt faint. I thought I was going to throw up, and since I was leaning on a garbage can to hold me up, I figured I was well situated. But my knees buckled and I really thought I was going to drop. Felt delirious. Keith asked me if I was alright, and who knows what I said. There was a traffic cop nearby. Keith got his attention and he radioed for help.

The first person on the scene gave me oxygen. That was good! Helped a lot! Next guy there asked me if I had any tingling in my left arm. I did. I think this is because I hit myself goddamn hard on the thumb with a claw hammer on the thumb I've broken 7 times about 10 days before. It started then, and stayed with me, in my estimation, because I spend too much time at a computer. I digress, but the EMT thinks 'heart attack' and everything they are doing is geared towards that. I can't complain. Well, I was delirious, and what do I know anyhow. Besides, I was having trouble saying all of this.

They loaded me onto a gurney and wheeled me into the ambulance. Keith rode shotgun. They hit me with an IV to hydrate me. By time we got to the hospital, I was feeling a lot better. But, since I just scared the bejeezus out of everyone, they're going to run tests. The nurse turns me into a pin cushion trying to find a vein. I started singing "Sister Ray". I don't think anyone got the reference, which is a shame, although if the nurse got it he would have been annoyed at the very least.

Everything on this trip had a twist.

The discussions with docs lead to family history, and my dad's recent surgery to repair an aneurysm in the descending aorta. Now all focus goes there, heart attack being cleared. But one doc says that it was probably just indigestion. I was x-rayed. They gave me a CT scan. Don't know if you've ever had one, but they make you drink a quart of chalk-water (helpfully coconut flavored) and then before your second pass through the machine, they hit you with a solution (via the IV) that allows them to see the internal organs. Wow, that hurt the arm! Felt like the vein was going to explode.

Back to the room, and the solution I drank is living up to the nurse's predictions that I was have a violently upset stomach and diarrhea. At least I can count on the nurse's predictions. This is the worst I've felt all week. It passes, and feeling good, I discover cable TV. Storage Wars is really excellent programming when bored out of your skull and you don't have cable at home. But before long, I got to the stage where I felt so well that just being there makes you crazy. I can't wait to see the doc, expecting to hear that they can't figure it out, and I get discharged. 

Another lead followed was for elevated kidney and liver functions. The first blood test revealed activity that was off the charts. I was asked how many beers I had. One. How many did I have yesterday? None. The day before? One. In the past week? Two. In the past month? 3 or 4. I finally asked what this was all about and was told that if only I was a drunk, it would be so easy to explain. Well, damn my eyes and my bad luck at being so sober. It would have explained the elevated kidney and liver function.

Did I just undergo strenuous exercise? Strenuous, no, but I did go for a run two days before for the first time in 8-9 years. I managed all of a half mile before my calves cramped into knots.

Eureka! A broad smile crosses the doctor's face. Well! That explains the elevated kidney and liver functions. I had an episode of rhabdomyolysis. That means the muscle tissue broke down such that proteins were released into the body to the degree that the liver was struggling to break them down. Ok, nice, but why did I faint? And why did I have intense abdominal pain nowhere near the liver or kidneys, but instead right below the sternum?

No explanation. The upside is that I was tested for everything bad- heart disease, cancer, liver failure, kidney stones, gall stones, etc- and everything came back normal. I have relatively low blood pressure, so I get to eat salt without concern.

I felt bad for Keith, having teased him with great tickets for a game. We did get to see much of it on the hospital TVs, and since he was wearing a Braves jersey, the staff helpfully let him know every time the Reds scored a run. But once it was clear I was out of the woods, the realization struck that I drove and the car was back in a garage by the ballpark. He would have to take a cab to the car and drive it home after all this. Thank goodness he drives stick also! 

Back home, I've had a few blood draws to follow up, and the numbers are back near the normal range for the liver and kidneys. The only thing my doctor could offer about the fainting is that my heart does the opposite of what it should in the face of pain. It should pump more blood to the organs, but mine pumps less. I have to be self-aware, and if I feel it coming on, lay down right away because I can't very well cause my heart to pump more blood.

And, quite gratefully, I didn't scare Keith off from future ballpark road trips, though I suspect he will want to drive next time. 

All Is Well

I was recently hospitalized after fainting outside the Great American Ballpark in Cincinnati, prior to a Reds-Braves game. The EMTs on site thought I was having a heart attack. Thank goodness, no.

Short story: I'm okay. Tests revealed nothing alarming, everything back to normal.

I'll post later with an amusing recounting of events, which I will cobble together from my Facebook posts on the subject. Mainly, just wanted to assure folks out there that I am well.

Late Report, Libertarian Convention, Part 2

While I was excited about Johnson's win as nominee for President, I was crushed by Mark Rutherford loss in the election for LNC Chair.

You may recall that I previously endorsed Rutherford. Mark was great for the LPIN, teaching candidates to focus on issues of greatest importance to the voters, not self, first; and of relevance to the office which you seek. He also tried to shape the LPIN's Central Committee to mirror boards of successful civic or public institutions, such as hospital boards of directors. This is important, because Libertarian Party boards tend to focus on the finest points of policy rather than creating a top-notch organization. In my opinion, the LNC has often been the most guilty of all Libertarian Party organizations of this wheel spinning.

After all- the point of a political party is to get people elected towards moving policy in your direction, or to do other things, such as lobbying or issue advocacy that moves policy in your direction.

Internal debate for correctness achieves none of this.

So, on all these considerations, the 2012 LNC elections were a complete wipe-out. It was bad to lose, but bitter because the losses were so narrow.

Several votes were taken, and it was weird. At the end of it all, Rutherford lost to Geoff Neale by 7 votes.

Many thanks to Doug Masson, who followed my Facebook live blogging and summarized here. Also see Reason Hit & Run blog, here and here, with vote totals.

My lasting disappointment is with Geoff Neale's track record and what that portends. When Neale was previously Chair (2002-2004), the LP lost membership and his reputation was that of being stand-offish and uncommunicative. He was remarkably later elected LNC Treasurer (2006) and resigned a year afterwards. As was pointed out to me, a Treasurer of an organization doesn't resign. It's a malfeasance to do so, because it sticks the organization in a perilous position- especially as a political party, where one mistake on a filing can result in the organization being taken down.

And, even at this election, he threw another former Treasurer, Bill Redpath, under the bus, blaming him for the problem that led to his resignation. I thought that pretty well foreshadowed that nothing has changed with Neale- stand-offish, divisive, unable to own up to human shortcomings. In sum, a loser.

Rob Place sat next to me during much of the convention and he remarked in his wry way, "Remember how I was saying the worst case scenario was that Hinkle beat Rutherford? This is ten times worse than that. I wish we could have had yesterday's worst case scenario back." I couldn't have agreed more.

As regards Indiana, fortunately, we have a strong party and will survive and thrive despite the anticipated non-assistance and self-inflicted wounds the next two years will bring. Other state affiliates won't be so lucky.

Fortunately, Gary Johnson has won big elections before, and he has Ron Neilson, his campaign chair from both of Johnson's gubernatorial wins, on board as his chair once again. They will build a strong and potent team without the LNC. 

In one way, the clean sweep of the LNC might be a blessing. The past two years were marked by charges of an 'evil cabal' of Wayne Root, Mark Rutherford, Alicia Mattson, Aaron Starr, and others on the LNC sabotaging Chair Mark Hinkle. While I saw it as Hinkle being a weak Chair and failing to make the case on items to win over the LNC members, the 'evil cabal' charges had an impact on Rutherford's chances. (Remarkably, Wayne Root, the focus of so much antipathy by those who dislike the pragmatic voices in the LNC, was re-elected. The only one of the so-called 'cabal'.) Anyhow, the 'cabal' and the pragmatics are out, and the radicals are in. Divisiveness should not be an issue. That will be a relief.

At the end of the day, if Neale and the radicals fail to accomplish anything in the next two years, they won't be able to blame anyone but themselves. Given the track record, I expect failure once again. I hope that doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results at last comes to fruition, but I won't be holding my breath.

Late Report, Libertarian Party Convention

It's been nearly two weeks since the Libertarian Party's national convention concluded. I probably would have blogged within the hour had Mark Rutherford been elected, as I would have been excited beyond measure. Alas.

First, the good news.

Gary Johnson was made the LP's nominee for President of the United States on the 1st ballot, overwhelmingly. This was very satisfying, as he has a proven executive record as Governor of New Mexico. Johnson was a Republican then, but he governed as a libertarian. What does that mean? He actually used the veto pen. From wikipedia:

As governor, Johnson followed a strict small government approach. According to former New Mexico Republican National Committee member Mickey D. Barnett, "Any time someone approached him about legislation for some purpose, his first response always was to ask if government should be involved in that to begin with."^[25] He vetoed 200 of 424 bills in his first six months in office – a national record of 48% of all legislation – and used the line-item veto on most remaining bills.^[2]

<sup>The usual saw is that a libertarian would end up with the area of governance sinking into the earth's core. Two of his vetoes were over-ridden. The rest held up. Curiously, New Mexico was not swallowed into the abyss. I guess the vetoed bills weren't really that important after all. Johnson was re-elected, and left the state with a surplus.

Johnson doesn't shy away from controversial issues, but nor does he lead with them. He is personable and energetic. I love his comebacks on the drug issues, being that he doesn't even consume caffeine or alcohol, and has been an ironman triathlete. If he gets into the debates, he will fare very well.</sup>

^{Me & Gary Johnson, after his nomination. I'm holding his obligatory 'book written by candidate for president', and wearing my delegate credentials.}

^{(Part 2 will pick up with the election for LNC Chair)}

Primary Elections For Indiana Libertarians

I have documented at some length about my manner of 'voting' in Indiana's primary elections, wherein I would go to my precinct, sign the book, and walk out. This caused some amusing confusion among election workers, as they couldn't fathom how I didn't want either an R or D ticket.

Ok, in my precinct, they really couldn't fathom how I didn't want a Republican ticket.

I would ask for the non-partisan school board ballot. If there was none, I signed the book and left. If there was one, I would vote accordingly.

No more. The non-partisan school board elections have been shifted from the primary to the general election this year. Municipal issues will also be added to the general election ballot. There is no possible non-partisan voting at the primaries. I'm not complaining. I called for this back in 2006, in the hopes that the school board elections would see more voters, and the private partisan business nature of the primaries would be laid bare and eventually lead to their elimination

I found out about the changes when I went to vote early. It dawned on me that I would be out West on primary election day, so I went to my county seat of Noblesville to do my usual 'sign the book and run' voting. There was the usual confusion at my insistence that I was neither an R or D. Couldn't I just sign the book and go? No- the books aren't at the county for the early voting.

In Hamilton County, Kathy Richardson is the Elections Administrator, and also a member of the Indiana House. I went over to her office to confirm that there really was nothing for me this time around. She confirmed it. We discussed the perjury laws associated with the process, and in her opinion, it would be a perjury this year for one to sign the book and walk out, acknowledging that I used to do this in the past, and it was not an act of perjury then.

I looked at the Secretary of State's website, and found a lengthy pdf file with everything anyone wanted to know about the primary elections- except the bit about the non-partisan school board races being moved to the general election. It takes to Pg 20 before you even get to who is being voted upon.

More than ever now, the primary elections are the private business of the Republican and Democratic Parties, being held at public expense. I object to this, and am proud that the Libertarian Party nominates its candidates at conventions that it funds itself, without tax dollars.

I've heard some discussion about the Rs & Ds doing likewise, with the inevitable rejoinder that it would lead to party insiders picking the candidates.

Got news for you. In 2010, primary turnout in Indiana was only 21%. The people going to the primaries to pull a partisan ballot are largely party insiders. Certainly, the parties themselves treat primary voters that way. If you vote for the same party 3 primaries in a row, never wonder why that party and its candidates hit you up with regularity in their fundraising efforts. The primary voter rolls are where they grab those names from.

Still, a worthy debate to be had. In the meantime, no voting for partisan Libertarians to do.

More Podcasts Posted

Been ripping out the podcasts of late, ahead of the trip out west.

This Podcast Could Be Your Life #19: Part 2 of my interview with Andrew Lee, and a radio clip from June 1991. Andrew & I talk about ideologically driven radio vs market-driven, and podcasting & new media.

This Podcast Could Be Your Life #20: Pre-LP Convention spiels, endorsement of Mark Rutherford for LNC Chair, explaining my role as Floor Whip for Rutherford, audio clip of Gary Johnson speaking at 2002 Convention in Indianapolis

Click here to find the entire archive.

All Hail The Marxist Libertarians!

The Libertarian party always seems to be taking one step forward, then either one step back, or perhaps sideways. The latest insider battle leaves me shaking my head.

There is a minimum charge of $94 to attend the business meeting of the Libertarian Party's National Convention.

Maybe Karl Marx has simply won. TANSTAAFL is an acronym for the phrase attributed to Robert Heinlein, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch". This was adapted very early in the Libertarian Party's life as a slogan. The radicals have been arguing that the LP has been moving away from principle and core beliefs in order to accommodate those weak on core philosophy. Ok, radicals- Are you lining up for your free lunch? Who really is moving away from principle? If you can't live it in something as minor as a $94 floor fee, why can you be trusted to lead a political party by principles, or bigger yet, be elected to office and abide by those principles?

These things cost money to put on, so who should pay for it other than the people who attend? I mean, should the LNC be redistributing wealth? From each according to his ability to pay, to each according to their need?

The crazy thing is, the ones screaming about this measly sum are the so-called radical Libertarians. These are the folks who demand litmus test purity... and they don't measure up themselves.

Yes sir- should be an interesting time in Vegas!

New Podcast - Guest, Andrew Lee

Been a few weeks since I posted a podcast, but the latest is up and available for your free download. Here's a link to the full archive: http://web.me.com/mikekole/Website/TPCBYL/TPCBYL.html

This installment has an interview with my friend Andrew Lee. I was astonished when he told me afterwards that he had never been interviewed before. Andrew was the Program Director at Indy's WXNT 1430-am, hired Abdul Hakim-Shabazz and produced his show before moving to assignments in Tucson AZ & Minneapolis MN.

We had a great conversation about radio, and I really enjoyed discussing the latest Rush Limbaugh incident. Lee is the Program Director at a station that carries Limbaugh in a fairly liberal city. I found it all fascinating.

This installment includes Part 1 of the interview. The next will carry the conclusion.

Working For Rutherford

I am excited to announce that I have joined the Mark Rutherford For Chair team, and will be volunteering for him at the Libertarian National Convention in Las Vegas some two weeks from now.

My role will be that of Floor Whip. The job entails being assigned several states, and then working to drive votes from those states' delegations to Mark.

One thing I really like about the Libertarian National Conventions is that things are very rarely decided before the voting starts. These are real conventions- not the coronations that the Rs & Ds host. Gary Johnson is the frontrunner for the presidential nomination, but I've been at conventions where the frontrunner was surprised very late in the day (e.g.: when Michael Badnarik overcame Gary Nolan in 2004). The Chair elections are always contentious. This one will be no different, as Mark needs to unseat current Chair Mark Hinkle, so I will have to work to earn votes for him.

Contentious conventions are electric. That 2004 event was everything we read about in history books, minus the smoky back room. In that election, Nolan was the frontrunner, but Aaron Russo was thought to be a very strong second. Badnarik gave the performance of a lifetime in the debate, and when the first ballot votes were revealed, all three were within 12 votes of each other. The place exploded with a flurry of activity, as conventioneers ran to their state or regional caucuses, and whips for the candidates worked each group for votes in the suddenly new landscape.

Check out the CSPAN video of the 2004 convention: At the 4:01:00 (that's the 4-hour mark) the cameras found the Region 3 caucus, and delegates took to a chair to speak in favor of either of the three candidates. I took my turn at the 4:05:20 mark to stand on a chair before our caucus to speak on behalf of Nolan. Afterwards, Rutherford thanked the caucus and urged them to vote their conscience.

I am hoping that when the 2012 Convention votes its conscience for Chair, it selects Mark Rutherford.

Policy Vs. Team

This consideration has been a long-running them here at the Kole Hard Facts. I watched throughout the Bush years as Republicans buried their heads in the sand as the size and scope of government expanded with LBJ-like rapidity. I have since been treated to the spectacle of Democrats pretending the wars and civil liberties don't matter and deficit spending is now wonderfully good economics now that Obama is president.

Now comes the Indiana gubernatorial race. I did some google searching for a position on marriage equality for Democrat John Gregg. (I didn't have to google for Pence, thank you.) I couldn't come up with anything at all. His website has a button that says "Issues", but if you go there, you will not find any listed. He's asking what issues are important to you.

But if Gregg is the Blue Dog Democrat I think I know him to be, then he's not going to put this issue at the front of his agenda, even while Mike Pence might. So, while Gregg doesn't say anything about this issue, or any other in fairness, most people who support marriage equality will likely conclude that they have to be against Pence, so Gregg gets the vote.

Here's Libertarian Rupert Boneham's position:

That's as plain spoken as it gets. Doesn't mince words. Doesn't hide. Doesn't hope to win the issue by hoping nobody brings it up.

So, let's see if that creates any real cognitive dissonance. I hope it does. If the issue is important to you, and you want marriage equality, why wouldn't you vote for Rupert?

Enter another common theme of the blog's lifespan: The Wasted Vote Syndrome.

Oh yes, wouldn't want to waste your vote on an unelectable Libertarian. Better to vote for the Lesser of Two Evils, right? Better to defeat Pence, right?

But wait- Gregg is trailing Pence by some 13 percentage points. (See the Lugar-Mourdock poll story and read down.) At this juncture, voting for Gregg is pretty much a wasted vote too.

So- will the GLBT community go with policy or team? You're team guy is giving you nothing right now. Rupert is giving you 100%.

Expected Tax Day Rant

It's a brief one this time. Why do I dislike tax day? Because I don't support some 85% of what the taxes pay for.

Here's a good place to see where the money goes. I can't think of anyone from any political persuasion who wouldn't like to see something cut, if not eliminated. The only thing I would not care to see reduced is benefits for veterans. All else could stand to be cut and reduced.

We do too much to see about taking & spending more money, and not nearly enough about cutting. There are two ways to balance budgets, after all.

Off To St. Louis

Kinda strange going back to St. Louis today, just over a week after having vacationed there with the family. But today I go back alone. Today is Game 2 of the NHL playoff series between the San Jose Sharks and the St. Louis Blues.

It's tough being a Sharks fan some 1,500 miles away from San Jose, but Indy is somewhat favorably situated between five NHL cities- Chicago, Detroit, Columbus, Nashville, and St. Louis. The longest drive is to Nashville, at just over 5 hours.

I'm hoping my luck holds out. The past two seasons, I went to playoff games in Detroit, and in both cases the Sharks won the games, both in OT, both by a 4-3 score. You can't expect to have your team win a majority of the games on the road, especially in the playoffs. I saw a playoff loss in Nashville 4 years ago. This will be my first playoff game in St Louis.

It will be interesting to see how the crowd is. Nashville was definitely more hostile than Detroit. Red Wings fans have drawn the comparison to fans of the Atlanta Braves, and I agree. The fans are used to their team making the playoffs, and they don't get caught up in crazed, irrational hatred if your team takes out theirs. In fact, they were somewhat playful with me.The Red Wings fan behind me held his sign too near to my head such that I finally said, "Okay pal, let me see your sign". He showed me and the whole section burst out laughing. I had to get a picture.

Yes- that is a 1991-92 Doug Wilson jersey I'm wearing. Anyhow, time to hit the road!

Strike At The Root

I was floored with comments made by Wayne Root, a member of the Libertarian National Committee. From Reason Hit & Run:

Wayne Root, who ran as Bob Barr's VP candidiate with the Libertarian Party in 2008, currently a member of the Libertarian National Committee that runs the Party, exhibits a lack of dedication to the LP by saying this on a Bill Cunningham podcast, right in the first couple of minutes:

I think the important thing now is to make sure Obama is not elected,and that means in my mind, I would love for a libertarian like Gary Johnson the two term governor of New Mexico would actually get elected President, but I think we all know that’s not going to happen so therefore it’s got to be Romney there is no choice.

I can accept wide ranges of policy thought within the libertarian camp. I cannot tolerate a Libertarian Party leader who recommends voting for a candidate who is not a Libertarian Party candidate.

I'm no fan of witch hunts. Root was once a Republican. I was once a Democrat. A great many people come to the Libertarian Party from either of the two old parties, and that itself is not a problem. It's a great thing! What is a problem is when a party leader doesn't understand his fiduciary duty to his organization. In the last year especially, Root's commentaries have struck me as being increasingly too pro-GOP. I can get being anti-Obama, since Obama is in the White House and sets policy tone. But the response for a Libertarian Party leader should always, always, ALWAYS be to offer libertarian policy solutions, and Libertarian candidates, as the alternative.

Mitt Romney? I mean- please. It could be forgiven if it were Ron Paul he was touting.

I'm very concerned for the Chair vote in the Las Vegas convention. I strongly support Mark Rutherford, but things I'm hearing from Libertarians across the US suggest that the association with Root is going to kill his chances to be Chair. This would be most unfortunate. Under Mark's guidance, the Indiana LP has developed marvelously, and I think the same could happen nationally if we were elected Chair. See my recent comments in support of Rutherford for Chair.

I am a delegate to the national convention. I will be voting against Root for any LNC leadership.

In the meantime, I call for Wayne Root to resign from the LNC immediately. He just doesn't understand his position on the LNC.

Voting With Your Feet

I've used this phrase to describe my relocations over the years. For instance, I moved from Cleveland to suburban Parma Ohio in 1999. There were a lot of reasons I chose Parma, including the city income tax schemes in effect in Cuyahoga County. Mainly, both cities charged me 2%. My job was in Parma, and if I moved there, I would save 2% per year. Doesn't sound like much, but if you work 5 days a week and 50 weeks in a year, you preserve 5 days labor. A whole week! It becomes a no-brainer. Besides- the commute was shortened from 20 minutes each way to 5, with walking or biking a possibility.

So, I fairly snickered at the Indy Star's somewhat shocked and breathless report about people moving to the suburbs, and wealth drain from the core city.

Indianapolis residents didn't give the city a vote of confidence in the past decade.

A new study shows Marion County lost a net 86,000 residents to its suburbs from 2000-2009, a larger out-migration than in four comparable-sized Midwestern cities (Cincinnati and Columbus in Ohio; Kansas City, Mo.; and Nashville, Tenn.)

Those lost residents accounted for about $180 million in total income now residing in the seven surrounding counties.

The core-to-suburbs migration data were the focus of debate at a recent annual housing summit held by Metropolitan Indianapolis Board of Realtors.

"I was really surprised to see the enormous income-level drain" that accompanied the moves, said Aaron Renn, an Indianapolis consultant and researcher in urban trends who compiled the data.

Where's the surprise? The move I made has been happening in Cleveland since the 1950s. People blame the drop in population on many things, but absurdly, never consider tax policy in their evaluations. I sure did! And, the greater your income, the more of your earnings you preserve. This is why all of the suburban counties in Cleveland gained population, and why regionally the population gained.

We moved to Indy in 2002, at 58th & Keystone. The neighborhood was okay, but clearly was one that could as easily rise as fall in short order. I've had enough experience in those neighborhoods to know that if you don't have tremendous wherewithal to improve the area real fast, you get out. My son went to IPS for half a year, and that was all we needed to know that we were either going to spend $10,000+ per year on private school, or we were going to move.

So, we moved to Fishers, in Hamilton County, in 2004. We're here for the long haul, even with certain political dissatisfaction. After all, it's still a very nice place to live, the taxes are low, the schools are great in enormous part because the parents are vastly more interested in the academic success of their children than, say, the parents were at IPS School 70. As the article shows, we aren't alone.

The move-outs "could be because our suburbs are more attractive or it could be because our core (Marion County) has more challenges," said Todd Sears, a researcher at apartment developer Herman & Kittles Properties, who has also studied the trend.

Tax rates, crime, school choices and housing prices also undoubtedly figured into people's decisions to leave Marion for the surrounding counties, said Renn and other experts.

Could be? Did you talk to anyone who made the move at all? You couldn't get me to move back into Indianapolis, or Cleveland, until my kids are out of school, or 2028.

This is a discussion I often have about public schools with my libertarian friends. Go ahead- tell people that you want to abolish public schools overnight. What rational decision will the parents make, with three kids, earning $50,000/year as a household, when they understand that your policy will cost them $30,000 a year? They damn well have to vote against you.

Similarly, while there may not be a tremendous tax difference between Indy & Fishers, Marion County & Hamilton County, there is the idea that, leaving inflation out of the picture, two kids in the Fishers schools = the cost of property taxes; two kids living in Indy going to private schools = $20,000 x 12 years = $240,000.

That's the kind of math you cannot ignore. So, yeah. For a quarter million, maybe, just maybe people find it worth it their while to get out of an inferior school district, where the crime rates are higher, where the taxes are higher, where the insurance is higher, etc.

So, we voted with our feet. Until the folks who set policy in urban cities understand this, they will continue to see population loss to the suburbs.

The suburbs need not get too smug, though. Parma is not a place I would go back to, either. It didn't learn a thing from the history that unfolded before its eyes. It repeated all the mistakes Cleveland made. It too has high taxes, declining schools, rising crime rates, and all the other factors that chase people of means and awareness out. There's nothing particularly special about the suburbs apart from being created by people of means who are success-oriented. They don't always stay. Today's shiny new suburb can indeed become tomorrow's slum. Policy sets the tone.

Stunned By Decision

Kole v. Faultless, the lawsuit I am participating in against the Town of Fishers has been decided. The headline says it all.

More than anything here's the part that just flat out stuns me. We had this as our legal question, from Justice Shepard's decision:

In particular, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has asked us the following question, certified under Indiana Appellate Rule 64(B):

Whether a political unit may reorganize into a city under Ind. Code art. 36-1.5 (the “Reorganization Act”) in a manner that eliminates voting rights recognized under Ind. Code § 36-4-5-2 and Ind. Code § 36-4-6-3(i), including reorganization as a city with (1) a council elected entirely at large; and (2) a mayor appointed by that council.

We have accepted this question and now hold that Article 1.5 of Title 36 does allow a political subdivision to do so.1

Are you kidding me? The question is, 'Can Fishers eliminate voting rights'? The answer is 'Yes!'?

I think the big learning curve for me here is that the consideration is strictly a legal question. Our question was framed in Indiana court, with it imposed against a particular law, the "Reorganization Act". They took an incredibly narrow view of the law. The law doesn't preclude a municipality from forming this kind of government, or any other. Shepherd points to a 'liberalization' over time in Indiana in reducing barriers and restrictions to the municipalities, and evokes a move away from Dillon's Rule, and towards Home Rule.

I'm not sure I buy that. My interest is in the people's self-government. Our petition was sandbagged by the Town Council so they could advance a plan crafted in its' own interest. I don't see that as Home Rule at all. A vote of the elected officials is nowhere near the same thing as a vote of people. Maybe I just badly misunderstand the term. Anything is possible. I thought this case was a slam-dunk.

The language of the decision suggests that a door is open for laws to be written that do specify the forms of municipal government entities can form. It offers no guidelines. So, wanna create a kingdom! Hey hey, go for it! Home Rule, baby!

What move comes next has not been determined. I do expect the Fishers Town Councilors to call a press conference, do a happy dance, and generally drag our names through the mud. Can't wait for that.

White Americans For Romney Video

No. Actually, I made that up. But what reaction did you have to that headline? Did the word 'racism' enter in? We're you ready to burst a vein in your temple (if on the left), or shake your head and say indignantly, "He did not..." (if on the right)?

Well I watched this campaign ad video, and 'racism' was exactly what I thought of at the :25 mark. Watch the clip for yourself:



The double standard is excruciating. So was the BS about the Iraq War being over. Are all of our troops gone? No? Not over.

But the racism and pandering of this ad is sickening, and it wouldn't be tolerated well if the video swapped out 'African American' for 'white'. I think the media and the left would be apoplectic. Rightfully. But, let's see what the reaction is. The right is about to explode, between this and the Obama-faced flag flying in Lake County, FL.

This ad could convince me that Obama doesn't care if there is hard strain in race relations. If you work hard to extend a double standard, what else could one conclude? That he was unaware of this ad? Ok, it lacks the "I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message" tagline. It does have the Obama logo, though. Looks authentic. Maybe it's a dirty trick? Hmm...

Gary Johnson's Creative Fundraising

I love Gary Johnson's creative fundraising device that plays with the NCAA tournament brackets. Johnson is seeking the Libertarian nomination for President in the party's May convention. He has set a goal of being included in the national debates. The Johnson campaign wishes to demonstrate reaching some metrics in order to be considered for inclusion. From a Johnson campaign email:

Here is what March Mania is about: To qualify for our share of the matching funds presidential candidates receive from the money citizens voluntarily “check off” on their tax returns, we must receive contributions during the primary election campaign totaling at least $5,000 from each of at least 20 states.

For any third party candidate, inclusion in the debates is an excellent goal, and the use of brackets is clever stuff, given the devotion to the tourney every year.

Disclosure: I have not donated to his campaign, or to anyone else's. I just like the cleverness.

Not Just A Stunt Or Isolated Incident

A few scant weeks ago, I decried the female lawmaker from Georgia who proposed a law that would interfere in a male reproductive health, on the basis that she objects to males writing laws that interfere in female reproductive health.

Oh, that's a stunt. Oh, that's not serious. Yeah, right. First Georgia, now Ohio. From the Dayton Daily News:

Before getting a prescription for Viagra or other erectile dysfunction drugs, men would have to see a sex therapist, receive a cardiac stress test and get a notarized affidavit signed by a sexual partner affirming impotency, if state Sen. Nina Turner has her way.

The Cleveland Democrat introduced Senate Bill 307 this week.

A critic of efforts to restrict abortion and contraception for women, Turner says she is concerned about men’s reproductive health. Turner’s bill joins a trend of female lawmakers submitting bills regulating men’s health. Turner said if state policymakers want to legislate women’s health choices through measures such as House Bill 125, known as the “Heartbeat bill,” they should also be able to legislate men’s reproductive health. (Emphasis mine.)

Exactly as I analyzed previously: "You want to regulate us? We'll regulate you." Not, "Regulating us is wrong, stop it." Or, "Regulating us is wrong, here's law to repeal previous law". Or, "Here's a poison pill amendment to kill the other bill".

This is no surprise to me whatsoever. The natural inclination of both Democrats and Republicans is to interfere in our lives, in virtually every arena. The bedroom is not sacrosanct to Democrats, as these proposed bills show. It is no more sacrosanct to them than the wallet is to Republicans. The myths are firmly in place, but the law? Style vs. substance. &c.

So again, the wingnuts come in both left and right varieties. Better that BOTH sides stayed out of the bedroom, and left people free to choose.

'Real Fans' Are Overrated

I think Colts fans are perfectly justified in being unhappy with the huge wave of cuts- Peyton Manning, most notably, and now Addai, Clark, Brackett, Bullitt, and Painter.

Ok, most Colts fans are good with the cutting of Curtis Painter. But WRs Reggie Wayne and Pierre Garcon are also likely done here, and Dwight Freeney is on the trading block. If you were a fan, was it because you just love the blue jerseys and the horseshoe helmet, or was it because you identified with likeable players that made long careers here?

So, if the likeable players are gone, what's to be excited about? Rah-rah blue jersey? Rah-rah Irsay's team?

And, is the fan anything more than a sucker if expected to buy tickets and go to games where the odds are great that the team is not only going to lose, but look bad doing it? I think 'sucker' is just the right term.

So, when someone suggests that you aren't a 'real fan' if you have quickly lost interest in this team, let them know that they are just a 'sucker', and that you aren't the kind of fool who knowingly flushes good time and/or money down the sewer in accepting frustration where entertainment should be.

I'll give Colts GM Ryan Grigson this: When he cleans house, he CLEANS HOUSE.

Meet-Up With Rupert

I remember my reaction when I first heard that Rupert Boneham had an interest in seeking the Libertarian nomination for Indiana Governor. I thought, "Oh, great. A reality show TV star. We work so hard, so long to be taken seriously, and we'll be cast as a joke party." He had no prior involvement in politics, but he is instantly recognizable by many thanks to his appearances on the show "Survivor".

The thought of the publicity he could bring to the Libertarian Party looked like a plus. People who would otherwise not be checking out the LP now would, and that's great. But what about his policy positions? If you see a tie-dyed tank top on a man everywhere he goes, is it because that's how he's come to brand himself, or is it that he's a bit of a pothead? Does he know anything about libertarian philosophy or policy solutions?

The Hamilton County LP hosted its monthly Meet-Up last night, and Rupert spoke for about 15 minutes. The biggest issue for Rupert? Getting government out of charities. He went on to detail how state and federal agencies have interfered with the business of his charity, Rupert's Kids, draining it of money and time, replacing those things with nothing. He works with troubled youth, with the intention of setting them up with life skills, including vocational trades. He speaks knowingly, and with passion for the kids in his programs. He observed over time that private charity succeeds when it moves kids out of their programs and into the adult workforce. Government charity has the effect of keeping people in the system, and vastly less functional.

Some libertarians may not be as excited to hear him talk about education, where he takes a destinational approach rather than directional. He spoke about eliminating some administration, moving education away from the state and back into local control, eliminating I-Step, and increasing vocational training and life skills training. He doesn't sound like Murray Rothbard, but rather Milton Friedman.

But on the whole, Rupert groks libertarianism far more than I expected at the onset. And, he's a great spokesman in this setting at least, being about 20 people. People in the restaurant kept coming over, and eventually he went over to sit with a table of fans that waited for him to end his presentation to us. People took a real interest in everything he said.

I like to reserve judgment on endorsing candidates until I've seen them in many situations. He's got the interpersonal down. Of course he has TV down. I'd love to see him on a bigger stage, and would love to hear him on the radio with a host that is less than friendly, to see how he performs. After all, the governor's candidates are standard bearers for the parties. They do public debates, and have to hold their own, while putting across a distinct message, and in our case, one that represents libertarian values.

As to the political mechanics, there were a lot of grumbles within libertarian circles several months ago about the idea of Rupert as standard bearer for the LPIN. At the same time, those grumbling haven't stepped forward to run themselves, nor have they recruited a candidate to advance a different platform. I don't know what this represents, whether it's a concession of some sort or laziness. It's disappointing because I really like contested conventions. It's good for the organization to have competing viewpoints make their cases, with the best articulated winning the day. Grumbling and muttering doesn't accomplish anything in particular. The phenomenon of one believing they have a superior outlook and then sandbagging it is most peculiar to me.

Partisan Misogyny

I don't go out of my way to condemn foul language. I use a bit of it myself. It's probably mostly beneath me, a weakness, but it often makes a point to use an expletive in order to drive a point home. And, call me small minded, but sometimes I just get a giggle out of using a cuss word. The crudity just sums up certain absurdities too well.

I certainly don't get too worked up about entertainers who use salty language in the political arena. Rush Limbaugh infamously called Sandra Fluke a 'slut'. In fairly swift response, Limbaugh's defenders have been reminding the world that Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a 'dumb twat' and a 'cunt', many to say, "See! Your guy is worse!"

I don't go for partisan shading on this. Both Limbaugh and Maher did exactly the same thing. They used misogynist language regarding a particular woman.

I don't go for condemnations of them, because I don't play the, "I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!" card on language. I'm too big a fan of Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, and free expression to do so. Sure, it's guttural. Sure, it's offensive to some. The individuals who were targeted perhaps have a slander case. That's up to them.

But some people do go for condemnations. That's fine. I'll take you at your word if you're saying that you are in favor of a more civil discourse.

So, if you are, kindly be consistent. Please don't make moral equivalencies that say, "Well! Limbaugh is a political pundit, but Maher is a comedian!" Sorry, they're both entertainers at the end of the day, and contributors to the public discourse. Please don't say, "Sandra Fluke is a private citizen, but Sarah Palin is a public figure!" Really! Do public figures cease to be women? I had no idea.

And, if you're a member of Congress, the cognitive dissonance should be this visible, and it should hurt to be so transparently partisan.



I know it's all a political football, but really. If you want to be taken seriously about your outrage on Limbaugh (or Maher, for that matter), or your claims in favor of the civil discourse, you have to be consistent. Read Congresswoman Schakowsky's strong statement against Limbaugh's comments and see if you can find anything that would suggest excusing what Maher said.

The country is so absurdly partisan at this point. I have marveled recently at the ability of the left to turn a blind eye to so many of the things they complained about with Bush (eroding civil liberties, foreign wars, indefinite detention, borrow & spend). Before that (well, and after too), I was marveling at the ability of the right to ignore the things they complained about the left while backing those on the right doing those very things (bailouts, borrow & spend, growing the size & scope of government). There's more to politics than team. My party right or wrong is the sure path to wrong.

We need people to hold their own side to the high road. It doesn't happen fast by shaming the other side. That only breeds defensiveness and short term apologies designed more as damage control than introspection.

Update: Reason had already written something similar.

I just keep thinking about the 'public figure' argument. Yeah, right. As though it would be a-ok to call Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton these things, you know, because they are public figures. I can't get over the lame. I'd love it if we were as intent on consistency within our own camps as we are on the gotchas for the other camps.

Wait, Projections Fell Short?

Get outta here! A government entity overprojected revenues? Underestimated the gloriousness of its new ways? That never happens! From the Indy Star:

The first year of Indianapolis' 50-year parking meter lease brought doubled rates in some areas as a tradeoff for a wholesale upgrade of equipment and the convenience of paying by credit card or smartphone.

Was it worth it?

New financial data provided by the city shows its share of revenue from the vendor in 2011 -- nearly $1.4 million, or 30 percent -- fell well short of the city's own projection of $2.1 million.

And the city didn't end up seeing the full amount: After the vendor subtracted $286,000 in charges to compensate for the city closing metered spaces, often for RebuildIndy road construction work, the city pocketed $1.1 million.

The vendor, ParkIndy -- a trio of local and national companies led by Dallas-based ACS, a Xerox company -- kept more than $3.5 million.

But most of the city's share was profit, and Mayor Greg Ballard, whose office hatched the deal before it was signed in late 2010, touts the privatized system as a success story that will only get stronger.

Ok, I was kidding. Inflating the projections is what always happens. It sells the thing. After the reality sets in, you can't undo it, because a contract is in place. The future is always painted as a rosier picture.

I was pleased with the reporting on the opposition.

Democrats weren't the only skeptics of the city's deal with ParkIndy.

Some privatization experts questioned the 50-year length, prompting the addition of an opt-out clause for the city every 10 years. But that option comes with a fee, starting at nearly $20 million and decreasing over time.

Mahern was among vocal critics who noted many large cities have modernized their meters by borrowing or striking shorter-term contracts.

"We should have just worked with a vendor to provide us the service for a fee," he said, "rather than granting somebody an equity stake for what is a basic service."

Just like the toll road, this deal was way too long. Both should have been for 5-10 years, tops. It's too hard to predict the financial picture 10 years down the road, let alone 50. 2061 is a long time to wait to learn if the city sold out cheap. But, eager to get money into the city coffers because revenues are down and spending is sacrosanct, and probably to be seen at least a little like Mitch Daniels, Mayor Ballard got this rushed along.

I'm a huge fan of privatization of services, but deals like this smack of desperation and haste, and tend to give needless fuel to the critics of privatization who would dismiss the practice out of hand.

Limbaugh Shows The Swiftness Of Market Discipline

Some people prefer government to be a watchdog and enforcer rather than market discipline. I like the latter, and the Rush Limbaugh episode shows how devastatingly effective markets can be. From the Business Insider:

According to a series of advertisers' Twitter and Facebook statements, at least 20 different sponsors have now pulled their spots from Rush Limbaugh's radio show.

In case you're new to the kerfuffle—welcome out of hibernation!—advertisers began dropping like flies after Limbaugh called a Georgetown law student and women's rights activist a "slut" and a "prostitute" for supporting healthcare coverage for contraception.

Sleep Number and The Sleep Train, both mattress suppliers, were the first two advertisers to pull their ads Friday, and the numbers have grown tenfold since then.

Limbaugh gave a faux apology, and has since stuck to his guns. All well and good in the world of free speech. He can carry on and exercise his right, but it's going to be a much less lucrative gig for him if he does. He isn't winning for losing here. He's lost two radio station affiliates and probably isn't done losing stations or advertisers.

Imagine if, instead, government had stepped in and censored his remarks. Limbaugh would have been made the victim by many, and not incorrectly, in a 'two wrongs don't make a right' kind of way. Nope- the market is taking care of this just fine, no government regulation necessary, thank you very much.

$28 Million Is A Lot Of Money

Even to Colts owner and billionaire Jim Irsay. So, the team will cut Manning tomorrow. From ESPN:

Sources close to the team told ESPN senior NFL analyst Chris Mortensen that the announcement will come at a news conference in Indianapolis on Wednesday with both Manning and owner Jim Irsay in attendance.

The decision to pass on the $28 million bonus owed Manning and not to pick up the four remaining years on his contract means Manning will become a free agent, and sources told Mortensen that he intends to continue to play.

This is no surprise. When the team stunk just enough to line up for the #1 pick, and there is an NFL-ready quarterback in Andrew Luck lined up to be made the #1 pick, saving the $28 million is a bonus, really. If they stayed with Manning, the Colts might not have picked Luck, rolling the dice on Manning's health. Even if Manning proves healthy, putting Luck on the bench might not be the best thing for him- even if a year with a clipboard in hand worked out pretty well for Aaron Rodgers and the Packers.
My pic of Peyton Manning huddling up during his last game in a Colts uniform, a playoff game against the NY Jets, January 2011.

We'll hear a lot of buzzing about loyalty here in Indiana for the next several weeks. I have mixed feelings. Only one of my favorite sports heroes (Steve Largent) played his entire career with one team. I was greatly disappointed when my favorite hockey player, Owen Nolan, was traded from my favorite team, the San Jose Sharks. But I understood it, as the Sharks got a #1 pick, a player who had been a #1 pick, and another player who immediately became the Sharks' new captain.

In this case, Irsay saves $28 million. I got the impression he would have cut Manning to save $28,000. Irsay simply wasn't going to be the kind of owner who paid that kind of money just to display loyalty over money.

No Jury Duty For Kole

It's funny- I think I'm one of only two people I know who would genuinely want to serve jury duty. Jury duty is a great punch line, or an irritating way to miss a few days at work to most people, but I really want to do it.

Maybe that's why I get bounced. I had a 'Notice of Jury Service' issued to me for Federal Jury Service earlier this year. I filled out the questionnaire and then did not receive the summons. I seem to go through these motions at least once a year.

I don't know what makes me an objectionable prospective juror. I have no doubt that I got bounced in the past for being the Libertarian Party's County Chair, or for being a candidate for office. This time, my guess is the rejection is thanks to my lawsuit against the Town of Fishers. Is it that the attorneys want citizens that are disengaged politically? Maybe I'm going to have to make more sports entries here.

Very Irritated With The Koch Brothers

Ah, the Koch Brothers. Whereas the right beats up on money guy George Soros for funding causes on the left he believes in, the left beat up on the Koch Brothers for causes they believe in.

I don't beat up on people for funding causes, but I do get irritated if they do something that looks counterproductive the causes they ostensibly try to advance- if they happen to be causes I believe in.

In this case, I am a big fan of the Cato Institute. Cato is a libertarian think tank that has produced many valuable papers and publications, and has had some small (too small, in my opinion) impact on public policy. I especially love the Cato Daily Podcast, which has been hosted by Caleb Brown for the past several years. Brown does a wonderful job of interviewing Cato scholars on topics of immediate daily interest.

The Koch Brothers co-founded the Cato Institute with Ed Krane and the late Ed Niskanen. The Kochs have poured money into the Cato Institute over the years. So far, so good. But, as the Washington Post reports:

The billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch filed a lawsuit Wednesday for control of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington.

The lawsuit exposes a power struggle for one of Washington’s premiere policy centers, which has been funded by millions in contributions from the Koch brothers’ foundations since its founding in 1974.

Cato was divided between four shareholders: the two Koch brothers, Cato president Ed Crane, and former Cato chairman William Niskanen, according to the lawsuit filed Thursday in a court in Johnson County, Kansas.

At the heart of the dispute is the fate of the shares owned by Niskanen, who died in October at age 78 of complications from a stroke. The Koch brothers believe that they have the option to buy Niskanen’s shares, while Cato officials believe that the shares belong to Niskanen’s widow, Kathryn Washburn, according to the complaint.

Why a lawsuit? Is it so important that the Kochs get additional shares? Cato has been absolutely fantastic, just as-is.

Crane released this written statement:

“Charles G. Koch has filed a lawsuit as part of an effort to gain control of the Cato Institute, which he co-founded with me in 1977. While Mr. Koch and entities controlled by him have supported the Cato Institute financially since that time, Mr. Koch and his affiliates have exercised no significant influence over the direction or management of the Cato Institute, or the work done here.

“Mr. Koch’s actions in Kansas court yesterday represent an effort by him to transform Cato from an independent, nonpartisan research organization into a political entity that might better support his partisan agenda. We view Mr. Koch’s actions as an attempt at a hostile takeover, and intend to fight it vehemently in order to continue as an independent research organization, advocating for Individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace.”

I'll reserve judgment as to the intentions of Charles Koch for the moment. However, at a time when interest in libertarian ideas is at an all-time high, and acceptance of them is growing, the last thing we need for the liberty movement is divisiveness within the premier libertarian think tank. It's counter-productive, at the very least.

Killing Owls To Save Owls?

I'm thinking of oxymorons like 'military intelligence'. I'm thinking about paying farmers not to grow crops. My gosh but we do some strange things in pursuit of certain outcomes. From the Washington Post:

To save the imperiled spotted owl, the Obama administration is moving forward with a controversial plan to shoot barred owls, a rival bird that has shoved its smaller cousin aside.

The plan is the latest federal attempt to protect the northern spotted owl, the passive, one-pound bird that sparked an epic battle over logging in the Pacific Northwest two decades ago.

The government set aside millions of acres of forest to protect the owl, but the bird’s population continues to decline — a 40 percent slide in 25 years.

A plan announced Tuesday would designate habitat considered critical for the bird’s survival, while allowing logging to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire and to create jobs. Habitat loss and competition from barred owls are the biggest threats to the spotted owl.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar called the draft plan “a science-based approach to forestry that restores the health of our lands and wildlife and supports jobs and revenue for local communities.”

We do so much interventive tinkering, trying to freeze certain things in place as we once knew them. It may just be that the spotted owl is a genetically weaker creature, destined not to evolve its way to survival. So, we'll kill barred owls. Let's just not call it an attempt to preserve 'nature'.

Coverage for Kole V. Faultless

The case Kole Vs. Faultless rests in the hands of the Supreme Court. In the meantime, there has been some media coverage. The latest is from AtGeist.com, a neighborhood based online and print periodical:

Faultless contends that the Reorganization Act, which was legislated a few years ago in the Indiana State assembly, gives Fishers the ability to create what he calls a “modernized” or “hybrid” form of a Class II city. Under the Town’s current plan, the current Fishers town council would appoint themselves as the first city council and then they would appoint the mayor.

“We feel that all the residents of the city should be able to elect the mayor,” said Mike Kole, a plaintiff in the case.

Faultless thinks it would be delightful to have the new city's Mayor be selected by the new City Council rather than the voters. I guess if I were the current council president and wanted to become mayor without having to bother with campaigning, that would be a pretty snazzy way of going about it. Easy, cheap, free of pesky voters.

Other coverage:

IndyPolitics.org Includes an audio interview with me.

Hamilton County Politics Blog

The Indiana Law Blog

Elections Mayhem In Indiana

All I can conclude at this point is that Indiana elections are a complete mess. The law really needs to be thoroughly overhauled to create simplicity and uniformity.

I am astonished that Rick Santorum can so easily make the signature requirements when one day he is lacking, and changing nothing, he suddenly has the signatures.

Then, the next day, Republican Jim Wallace is barred from the statewide primary ballot as a gubernatorial candidate because he is 14 signatures short of the needed 500 for the 7th Congressional District. From the Indy Star:

He blamed his apparent failure on a flawed process in Marion County which rejected a much higher percentage of petition signatures to be on the ballot than other counties. He said he submitted 1,282 signatures in the 7th District, entirely located in Marion County, but the Board of Voter Registration only certified 486.

“A fair number of Marion County voters are being disenfranchised regularly, not to mention the 5.8 million Hoosiers in the other eight congressional districts who have now seen their choice of the ballot vetoed by a single county,” said Wallace, a Fishers businessman and former member of the Hamilton County Council.

Wallace, who has put more than $1 million of his own funds into his campaign, did not have an attorney with him today.

Asked if that was a mistake, Wallace said that “I won’t second guess our citizen-first approach, but perhaps. I would like to think you don’t need to lawyer-up every time there’s a challenge like this. The issue is pretty simple. Voters deserve a choice in a democracy, and in this process today they were deprived of one.”

I completely agree with Wallace here. The voters have been cheated. He made the grade in 8 districts, so why not put him on the ballot there?

Apart from that, I don't see what the value is in causing a candidate to collect petitions for certain offices. Let voters decide at the ballot box! I don't want candidates denied ballot access for lack of performing the act of signature gathering. It doesn't prove anything of value relative to being an office holder.

Underlying this is again a desire to eliminate certain non-establishment challengers. Pence is a long-sitting Congressman. Wallace was once a Fishers Town Council and Hamilton County Council member, but that dates back several years. So, who brought on the challenges to Wallace?

Wallace’s candidacy was challenged by former Indiana Economic Development Corp. chairman Mitch Roob, who argued that Wallace did not collect the required 500 petition signatures in each of the nine congressional districts, falling short in both the 2nd and 7th districts.

Wallace today disputed that, arguing that he had 505 certified signatures in the 2nd, in northern Indiana, in addition to the 1,282 in the and had turned in the 7th District. Tom John, an attorney representing Roob, said there were questions about many of the 7th District signatures, suggesting some had been forged. Wallace, he said, should not be given the benefit of the doubt in face of evidence that “he does not have clean hands.”

Tom John, the former Marion County Chair of the Republican Party? The article might have mentioned that, alas.

Time to truly reform the election laws. Time to eliminate the petitioning requirements, and make uniform the processes.

Thoughts On Charlie White

I have many, many thoughts on the Charlie White saga, so I may use multiple posts to put it all across. Some of my insights come from being a Fishers resident (White was on the Fishers Town Council), a former Hamilton County political boss (I chaired the Libertarian Party, I believe he is still chair of the Republicans... he was chair at least during the times of my tenure), and a former candidate for Secretary of State (White had been elected Secretary of State prior to being stripped of office).

The main thing that has bothered me about this case is that I absolutely detest this kind of ticky tack law. I have long maintained that the real purpose of these laws is as a 'gotcha' device. This case fairly well shows how that works.

But I also know it from other cases. Interestingly, Charlie White was able to remain on the ballot, despite the world knowing about the case prior to the election. Libertarian candidates who have the most minute, meaningless errors on their paperwork routinely get bounced from the ballot summarily. In 2006, while I was running for Secretary of State, and handful of Libertarians from around the state got bounced from the ballot because the Elections Division decided to enforce a technicality that hadn't been enforced before, and that our party was unaware of statewide. Too bad, no mercy for us. Bam! Gone. I called a press conference, and a couple of reporters turned up. I stood behind the would-be candidates, shouted from the Statehouse steps, and the item wasn't even reported.

So, it bothers me about the haphazard enforcement and standards. I mean, just today, by some miracle, it was found that Rick Santorum does have enough signatures to be on the ballot after all. He was 8 short before, and now, voila! he has enough. If a Libertarian is short? Rules are rules! Fire and brimstone!

Just days after the 2006 removal of 11 Libertarian candidates, 10 Fort Wayne Republicans had signature issues. Ha- issues. They fired their executive director for FORGING signatures on their forms. It's kind of interesting to look back on what I had to say:

The Libertarian Party just had eleven candidates withheld from the ballot for failing to meet a technicality. Well! What's good for the goose is good for the gander. These ten or so Republican candidates need to disappear from the ballot immediately if the law is the law, and the Elections Division is providing consistent outcomes.

Now personally, I think the booting of candidates is a great disservice to the people of our state, but the bar has been set. I think a better outcome would be that the eleven Libertarian candidates would be certified, and a fine levied against the Libertarian Party for missing the technicality, and everyone there moves on.

In the case of the Republicans, the best outcome might be that the ten or so candidates are put on the ballot, and the Executive Director might face some jail time, if in fact he committed perjury when forging the signatures of candidates.

Jail? From Indiana Code:

IC 3-14-1-13
Filing fraudulent reports
Sec. 13. A person who knowingly files a report required by IC 3-9 that is fraudulent commits a Class D felony.
As added by P.L.5-1986, SEC.10.

All of the State's campaign forms specify at the bottom of the first page:

A person who knowingly files a fraudulent report commits a Class D felony (IC 3-14-1-13).

Felons go to jail. Pretty simple.

Republicans and Democrats wrote this law. Republicans and Democrats should therefore be the standard bearer and the exemplars in how to do this correctly, and how to bear the consequences when this is done fraudulently- if there is to be integrity in our elections.

Nobody went to jail there. White isn't going to jail, but had the felonies hung on him, and faces a year's in-house detention. (Yes, the funny joke there is, "Which house? His ex-wife's?")

And yet, I still find White's case lamentable. Not only do I want every Libertarian on the ballot. I want every candidate on the ballot. If one loses an election, I want it to be because the voters decided, not a bureaucrat in the Elections Office decided it, or because they couldn't be on the ballot thanks to a legislature bent on political self-preservation.

But, the rules are the rules. I and other Libertarians may well detest the laws, but we comply. You have to pick your battles. Do you want to be on the ballot? Then you have to follow the rules. Make a case against the rules, but comply. Get elected and change the rules. We speak out about the rules all the time. I'll note that I never heard Charlie White once speak out against the rules. Nor did I ever hear him speak out in support of a candidate bounced from the ballot. He was a County Chair and a candidate for Secretary of State, which were all good avenues for speaking up about the rules. Never a peep. I guess he accepted the rules, right up until they ensnared him.

At the end of the day, here's what I would like to see happen:

1. It's just paperwork. At the very least, let's eliminate felonies for candidate filings. I'd like to see the most minimal paperwork requirements possible. Yes, we have to know who we're putting on the ballot. Yes, we need to know that this candidate is eligible to run, and lives in the jurisdiction for the office sought (White may have been out of his Town Council district, but he still lived in the state while seeking statewide office.)

2. Broaden ballot access. The Republicans got the scare of their lives, looking at the prospect of losing ballot access with the possibility of White being declared ineligible to be a candidate, with ballot access tied solely to the Secretary of State race. Let's broaden the access rules by tying the result to any statewide candidate in a four-year cycle, at the very least. I would also like to see the threshold lowered to the 1994 standard: 0.5%, The 2% requirement is keeping other 3rd parties off the ballot, especially the Greens.

More later.

Reproductive Wingnuttery

All the demonization of Planned Parenthood of late has been a bit over the top. Indiana Republican lawmaker Bob Moore got more notice than he bargained for with his letter denouncing the Girl Scouts for association with Planned Parenthood. How over the top this wingnuttery? Republican speaker Brian Bosma passed out Girl Scout cookies at the Statehouse.

Look- abortion is awful. But it is legal, and as such, Planned Parenthood has a right to carry out the procedures. Opponents have the right to protest. I'd prefer it if no taxpayer money went to fund abortions, or to private organizations including Planned Parenthood. But I'm not going to denounce the Girl Scouts, or even Planned Parenthood as a whole. They happen to do good work for an underserved at-risk population.

I love, love, luv legislators who conclude, "You slither on your belly! Stand aside and let me show you how it's done!"

Democrats are showing that they can be wingnuts too. Get a load of this, from CNN:

As members of Georgia’s House of Representatives debate whether to prohibit abortions for women more than 20 weeks pregnant, House Democrats introduced their own reproductive rights plan: No more vasectomies that leave "thousands of children ... deprived of birth."

Rep. Yasmin Neal, a Democrat from the Atlanta suburb of Jonesboro, planned on Wednesday to introduce HB 1116, which would prevent men from vasectomies unless needed to avert serious injury or death.

The bill reads: "It is patently unfair that men avoid the rewards of unwanted fatherhood by presuming that their judgment over such matters is more valid than the judgment of the General Assembly ... It is the purpose of the General ASsembly to assert an invasive state interest in the reproductive habits of men in this state and substitute the will of the government over the will of adult men."

“If we legislate women’s bodies, it’s only fair that we legislate men’s,” said Neal, who said she wanted to write bill that would generate emotion and conversation the way anti-abortion bills do. “There are too many problems in the state. Why are you under the skirts of women? I’m sure there are other places to be."

Here's a better idea: How about both sides back off and leave people free to choose for themselves?

Issue Fatigue

The Indy Star ran an interesting article about 'issue fatigue', the idea that lawmakers get tired of dealing with an issue year after year, and finally it passes.

Many issues sort of hang around -- sometimes for years -- as advocates try to convince their colleagues that their bills are worthwhile.

In these cases, ideas become law through a combination of determination, familiarity and fatigue.

A statewide smoking ban and the elimination of the state's inheritance tax are issues poised to become Indiana's latest examples.

I found it fascinating as I consider the possibility of Libertarians winning elections and becoming legislators. Would they also experience issue fatigue? I doubt it. If there's one thing that characterizes most libertarians, it's dogged determination. You don't stick around as an ideology centered third party without tenacity.

At a meeting last week of the House Ways and Means Committee, lawmakers were hearing the details of a complicated Senate bill that would cut the inheritance tax by changing the definitions of some beneficiaries, increasing the amount of an estate that would be exempt from taxation and slashing the actual tax rates.

Even before testimony on the proposal could begin, though, Ways and Means members were impatient. They weren't interested in more proposals to cut the tax. They just want it gone.

"Do it and get it over with," Rep. Win Moses, D-Fort Wayne, said. "Otherwise we'll be fighting this every year, and philosophies won't change."

Before you get the wrong idea, understand that Moses has been the one trying to get the estate tax cut or even eliminated. Yes, a Democrat trying to cut a tax. Give the man his due on that.

But, why pass it and get it over with? Why not fight it every year, if that's the conscience of the individual lawmaker? If that's the will of the people in a particular district? Libertarians wouldn't shirk the task.

But it is instructive. Once we get in, we need to introduce legislation and doggedly stick to it. If we understand that so many will capitulate rather than deal with things repeatedly, very well. We know what strategy to employ.