I am very excited about Mark Rutherford's announcement that he is seeking the Chair of the Libertarian National Committee. Mark is currently the Vice Chair of the LNC, and was Chair of the Libertarian Party of Indiana for seven years. Link to Rutherford's LNC Chair website.
I lived in Ohio until 2002, and wasn't terribly involved with the Libertarian Party there. They lacked ballot access, so they had very few candidates, and the leadership there was not very focused on getting the ballot access, ensuring that they were more of a supper club than a real political party.
The contrast in Indiana was significant. With Rutherford as Chair, the LPIN ran candidates at every level, across the state in 2002. It employed an Executive Director (Brad Klopfenstein) who carried out a range of tasks, from recruiting and assisting candidates to lobbying at the Statehouse. Indianapolis hosted the LP's national convention, landed here by Rutherford, Klopfenstein, and the leadership of the LPIN's Central Committee. I was very impressed, and when I moved here, I got very involved very quickly, assisting Andy Horning's campaign for US House the week I arrived. Rebecca Sink-Burris ran for Secretary of State in 2002, securing continued ballot access. I did the same in 2006.
So, I am very excited. I have no doubt that Rutherford can do on a national level for the Libertarian Party what he did here on the state level. That means, I would expect direction towards vastly improved professionalism and standards, and more effective branding of the party.
I am looking forward to this year's national convention in Las Vegas, where I will be proud to cast a vote for Mark Rutherford for LNC Chair.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
Post The Candidates
The Libertarian National Committee is struggling with an issue right now, and I just don't get it. The issue? Should the LNC list all of the candidates for President on its website or not? Here are reasons the LNC lists for not listing all:
In my opinion, these things are up to the delegates to decide.
Just to see what others do, I looked at the RNC website. (I didn't bother looking at the DNC, because we all know President Obama is running for re-election.) But the Republicans do not list any of the presidential candidates. My guess? It's probably because of Ron Paul, whom they don't want to give equal space to. I'm going to further guess that some LNC members feel the same way about some of its' candidates.
In the online poll, only 8% of members thought that none of the candidates should be listed. The greatest response (23%) said to list them all without qualification.
That was my first reaction. After all, the purpose of a political party is to elect people to office. Why hide the candidates under a bushel basket?
Beyond that, the LNC's website already lists presidential candidates! There's a fat disclaimer there from the LNC, so what's the problem?
Having looked at the websites of the seven candidates posted, I didn't see anything crazy or alarming. So, I'd love some disclosure from the LNC. Just what is it that has generated such worry? And, don't you have bigger things to focus on?
I was a bit startled by this. The latter point is exactly what some Ds & Rs say about any Libertarian or 3rd party candidates, if substituting 'voters' for 'Libertarians', and 'country' (or 'city', 'state', etc.) for 'party'.Examples of reasons not to list presidential candidates:
- To screen out candidates who are not dedicated to advancing our libertarian agenda, or who actually oppose it.
- To exclude individuals who appear to be disingenuously using the LP.
- To disqualify candidates who are running for the nomination of more than one party.
- To avoid publicizing candidates whose presentation is viewed by most Libertarians as embarrassing or inappropriate for a presidential candidate and who could reflect badly on the party.
In my opinion, these things are up to the delegates to decide.
Just to see what others do, I looked at the RNC website. (I didn't bother looking at the DNC, because we all know President Obama is running for re-election.) But the Republicans do not list any of the presidential candidates. My guess? It's probably because of Ron Paul, whom they don't want to give equal space to. I'm going to further guess that some LNC members feel the same way about some of its' candidates.
In the online poll, only 8% of members thought that none of the candidates should be listed. The greatest response (23%) said to list them all without qualification.
That was my first reaction. After all, the purpose of a political party is to elect people to office. Why hide the candidates under a bushel basket?
Beyond that, the LNC's website already lists presidential candidates! There's a fat disclaimer there from the LNC, so what's the problem?
Having looked at the websites of the seven candidates posted, I didn't see anything crazy or alarming. So, I'd love some disclosure from the LNC. Just what is it that has generated such worry? And, don't you have bigger things to focus on?
Tuesday, February 07, 2012
Owen Nolan To Retire
Owen Nolan, my favorite hockey player of any I ever got to see live, is retiring today. From the San Jose Sharks website:
Nolan was the first round pick of Quebec in 1990, #1 overall. Ahead of Jaromir Jagr and Martin Bordeur. He never had Jagr's skill, but Jagr never had Nolan's heart or drive. As a 38-year-old, Nolan fought one of the NHL's top heavyweights in Colton Orr. Anything to win.
My favorite Nolan moments were his all-star game 'called shot' over Dominic Hasek. Nolan calls upper right, hits upper right, and gets a hat trick in front of his home fans in San Jose:
His playoff goal from center ice against St. Louis, was the game winner- propelling #8 seed San Jose over the #1 seed Blues.
I remember a discussion I had once with a baseball writer, on the subject of Ted Williams' brag about hitting a baseball being the hardest thing in sports to do. I countered that a great baseball player gets a hit 30% of the time, while a great hockey player scores a goal 20% of the time.
Discussion continued until I pointed out that the baseball player knows when his chances are coming. He steps into the box, he sees the pitcher wind up. Here comes the ball. Swing or don't. The hockey player never knows when his chances are coming. When the chance comes, he's going to have opponents hitting him with their shoulders, gloved hands, and sticks. The baseball player can hit into a huge field. The hockey player hits into net 4' x 6', with a man standing there who's sole job is to make sure he stops you. An average NHL goalie stops 90% of the shots he faces.
And, I would have loved to see Ted Williams do the equivalent of a tip-in goal. Imagine Williams standing in the batter's box with someone blasting his lower back with a stick, while a 90-mph slapshot comes at him, he re-directs the puck behind him into a target he cannot see, past a man whose sole job is to stop the puck. Nolan was good at that.
When I started playing hockey at the young age of 28, I modeled my game after Nolan's. All I lacked was the skill and size. I could give you stoopid toughness. I came to understand in a big hurry why players like him don't usually last too long- and I was just playing recreational hockey. But he made it through 18 NHL seasons, played 1,200 games, and scored 422 goals (71st all-time), 1,793 penalty minutes. You get 5 minutes for a fight.
Total package of skill and toughness, a rare thing in the NHL anymore. I got to see him play in Columbus three times in Sharks games against the Blue Jackets, and it was a singular thrill. I did wear my #11 jersey to those games. Sorry to see his career at an end, but enjoyed the heck out it along the way. Best of luck in the future, Owen Nolan!
The San Jose Sharks will hold a press conference on Tuesday, February 7, at which point Owen Nolan will make an announcement regarding the future of his hockey career.That means he's retiring. He doesn't make an announcement with a team he hasn't played for since 2003 unless he's coming back. And, since he hasn't played this season, he's retiring.
Nolan was the first round pick of Quebec in 1990, #1 overall. Ahead of Jaromir Jagr and Martin Bordeur. He never had Jagr's skill, but Jagr never had Nolan's heart or drive. As a 38-year-old, Nolan fought one of the NHL's top heavyweights in Colton Orr. Anything to win.
My favorite Nolan moments were his all-star game 'called shot' over Dominic Hasek. Nolan calls upper right, hits upper right, and gets a hat trick in front of his home fans in San Jose:
His playoff goal from center ice against St. Louis, was the game winner- propelling #8 seed San Jose over the #1 seed Blues.
I remember a discussion I had once with a baseball writer, on the subject of Ted Williams' brag about hitting a baseball being the hardest thing in sports to do. I countered that a great baseball player gets a hit 30% of the time, while a great hockey player scores a goal 20% of the time.
Discussion continued until I pointed out that the baseball player knows when his chances are coming. He steps into the box, he sees the pitcher wind up. Here comes the ball. Swing or don't. The hockey player never knows when his chances are coming. When the chance comes, he's going to have opponents hitting him with their shoulders, gloved hands, and sticks. The baseball player can hit into a huge field. The hockey player hits into net 4' x 6', with a man standing there who's sole job is to make sure he stops you. An average NHL goalie stops 90% of the shots he faces.
And, I would have loved to see Ted Williams do the equivalent of a tip-in goal. Imagine Williams standing in the batter's box with someone blasting his lower back with a stick, while a 90-mph slapshot comes at him, he re-directs the puck behind him into a target he cannot see, past a man whose sole job is to stop the puck. Nolan was good at that.
When I started playing hockey at the young age of 28, I modeled my game after Nolan's. All I lacked was the skill and size. I could give you stoopid toughness. I came to understand in a big hurry why players like him don't usually last too long- and I was just playing recreational hockey. But he made it through 18 NHL seasons, played 1,200 games, and scored 422 goals (71st all-time), 1,793 penalty minutes. You get 5 minutes for a fight.
Total package of skill and toughness, a rare thing in the NHL anymore. I got to see him play in Columbus three times in Sharks games against the Blue Jackets, and it was a singular thrill. I did wear my #11 jersey to those games. Sorry to see his career at an end, but enjoyed the heck out it along the way. Best of luck in the future, Owen Nolan!
Monday, February 06, 2012
What About The Game?
I actually did watch the entire Super Bowl game this time, having been invited to a party where there were kids mine could play with. A very good time.
The game itself was perhaps the most mediocre Super Bowl game I had ever watched. It was just like most NBA games, where you can skip the first 58 minutes of game time, and see everything you really need to see at the end.
I mean, the most interesting play was where Giants running back Ahmad Bradshaw had to decide, "Should I score or shouldn't I?"
If you didn't watch the game and just looked at the box score, you would have thought that this might have been a wide open game, with MVP Eli Manning throwing for 296 yards, and Tom Brady for 276. But, according to ESPN's game report, MVP Eli Manning threw 80 percent of his passes fewer than 15 yards downfield. Tom Brady only threw 5 balls deeper than 20 yards, and most of those were on the last drive, including a Hail Mary. I was noting this during the game. It was hard to miss. The game featured plodding, unspectacular runs up the middle, and checkdowns and quick hitters on three yard curl patterns.
Very little happened that showcased the skill and athleticism of the players- with the exception of Giants punter Steve Weatherford, who had three kicks inside the Patriots' 10. I thought he should have been the MVP. I know the NFL would never dream of doing such a thing, so the QB of the winning team wins the award for lack of any better options.
This has been a long developing trend in the NFL, and sadly so. I love wide open, daring football. As a kid in the 70s, I was first a fan of the Oakland Raiders, and then the Seattle Seahawks, who would throw passes from field goal formation. I wore my Steve Largent jersey yesterday, and because I had to explain being a fan of the inventive Seahawks, we were all aware that nothing inventive was happening. The teams of yore took chances, spread the field with long throws, and were very exciting to watch. Football today has focused so squarely on eliminating turnovers that it doesn't allow QBs to stretch the field so much any more. The days of great QBs with 25 or so interceptions (Stabler, Fouts, Hart) is long gone. So is the excitement. Instead, the game calls are safe and predictable, where it's better to get stopped short on 3rd down and punt than to risk an interception 25 yards downfield.
It makes good sense, but it's boring. So, in retrospect, I wish the Saints or Packers got in on the NFC side, and... well, I don't know who plays exciting football in the AFC anymore. I'm at a loss.
The game itself was perhaps the most mediocre Super Bowl game I had ever watched. It was just like most NBA games, where you can skip the first 58 minutes of game time, and see everything you really need to see at the end.
I mean, the most interesting play was where Giants running back Ahmad Bradshaw had to decide, "Should I score or shouldn't I?"
If you didn't watch the game and just looked at the box score, you would have thought that this might have been a wide open game, with MVP Eli Manning throwing for 296 yards, and Tom Brady for 276. But, according to ESPN's game report, MVP Eli Manning threw 80 percent of his passes fewer than 15 yards downfield. Tom Brady only threw 5 balls deeper than 20 yards, and most of those were on the last drive, including a Hail Mary. I was noting this during the game. It was hard to miss. The game featured plodding, unspectacular runs up the middle, and checkdowns and quick hitters on three yard curl patterns.
Very little happened that showcased the skill and athleticism of the players- with the exception of Giants punter Steve Weatherford, who had three kicks inside the Patriots' 10. I thought he should have been the MVP. I know the NFL would never dream of doing such a thing, so the QB of the winning team wins the award for lack of any better options.
This has been a long developing trend in the NFL, and sadly so. I love wide open, daring football. As a kid in the 70s, I was first a fan of the Oakland Raiders, and then the Seattle Seahawks, who would throw passes from field goal formation. I wore my Steve Largent jersey yesterday, and because I had to explain being a fan of the inventive Seahawks, we were all aware that nothing inventive was happening. The teams of yore took chances, spread the field with long throws, and were very exciting to watch. Football today has focused so squarely on eliminating turnovers that it doesn't allow QBs to stretch the field so much any more. The days of great QBs with 25 or so interceptions (Stabler, Fouts, Hart) is long gone. So is the excitement. Instead, the game calls are safe and predictable, where it's better to get stopped short on 3rd down and punt than to risk an interception 25 yards downfield.
It makes good sense, but it's boring. So, in retrospect, I wish the Saints or Packers got in on the NFC side, and... well, I don't know who plays exciting football in the AFC anymore. I'm at a loss.
Wednesday, February 01, 2012
Too Desperate To Be Liked
I've lived in two such cities with big inferiority complexes- Cleveland, and Indianapolis. They suffer from a self-consciousness that says, "We're too small!" or, "We need to be more Big Time!" Or, to grab a great line from a Minutemen song: "How will others see me? I'm worried. Worried but I feel guilty."
In many ways, having the Super Bowl is a real coup. Certainly, all the businesses in the downtown area near the Stadium and Super Bowl Village had to be real excited going into this week, ready to make sales on a scale never before seen.
And then, the code enforcers show up. From the Indy Star:
I don't believe in this kind of code enforcement generally. But this is silly. What a rotten way to treat the business owners- you know, the people who live here.
This action just screams a message into my ears, that the event is about the tourists, and the locals can go to hell. Not a very pleasant message. Way to go, Indy. Hardly Big League behavior.
In many ways, having the Super Bowl is a real coup. Certainly, all the businesses in the downtown area near the Stadium and Super Bowl Village had to be real excited going into this week, ready to make sales on a scale never before seen.
And then, the code enforcers show up. From the Indy Star:
This smacks of a certain desperation by the city to be liked by the NFL. Why was this sign not a problem prior to Saturday? Why will the sign be given back after the Super Bowl, when we can surmise it not to be a problem any longer?The Red Lion Grog House in Fountain Square was bustling with customers Saturday night when owner Walter Bolinger saw someone walking off with his sidewalk menu board.
He ran outside and chased the culprit down. It was a city code enforcement inspector, who said Bolinger was the culprit for an illegal sidewalk sign displayed in violation of Chapter 635 of the municipal code.
"They still have it," Bolinger said Tuesday of the 3-foot sign, which had been outside his restaurant's front door on Virginia Avenue. "They refuse to relinquish it until February 6th, after the Super Bowl."
I don't believe in this kind of code enforcement generally. But this is silly. What a rotten way to treat the business owners- you know, the people who live here.
This action just screams a message into my ears, that the event is about the tourists, and the locals can go to hell. Not a very pleasant message. Way to go, Indy. Hardly Big League behavior.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Mr. Smith Goes To Indianapolis
Yesterday, my case went to the Indiana Supreme Court for oral arguments. It was an interesting affair, to say the least.
The case is Kole et al vs. Faultless. To keep from the legal gobbledegook that would make the average reader's eyes glaze over, I'll describe it simply.
I see this as a good government case. In sum, the Fishers Town Council believes that the state's Reorganization law permits units of government to select any form of government it chooses. My position is that a reorganization must fit into existing forms. There are no municipal governments in Indiana with a selected mayor. If they want that, they need to amend the Indiana Constitution. The people get to vote on the mayor.
For instance, their plan advances a type of city that would feature a mayor selected by the new city council members. The people would not directly elect the mayor.
So, in that scenario, you can forget about the executive being a check or balance to the legislative. It is clear to me that they want a rubber stamp mayor. I do not believe this to be in the best interest of the people.
This case arose from a petition that the Town Council sat on. City Yes PAC circulated a petition, which I signed, that wished for a ballot referendum to put the question before the voters- city or town? The rationale was that the population of Fishers was so large (70,000+) that it was time to enter into that form of government. I wasn't entirely sold on that proposition. I was (and remain) wary of the other examples in Hamilton County, such as Carmel or Westfield, where the mayor is a strong arm pushing through pet projects, while their city councils are often the rubber stamps. But- and this is the important point for me- I believe that at the municipal level, the people should decide their form of representative government by their direct election. Put the question on the ballot, and let the people choose. It could go either way. This was done once before, and the people chose to remain a Town.
History could repeat itself, but apparently the Town Council wasn't too confident. So, when they received a valid petition, they did nothing with it. Thus, the lawsuits proceeded.
Link to Greg Purvis' take on the suit.
Link to Abdul Hakim Shabazz's report on the suit, complete with an interview with me.
There was nothing especially surprising in the Supreme Court proceedings, although there was one moment when I had to stifle myself a bit. One Justice asked Fishers' counsel what recourse citizens would have should Fishers get its way, become the city with an appointed mayor, and they find they don't like it. To paraphrase, he said that the people could petition for a referendum.
Are you freakin' kidding me?! This is precisely what happened at the front end of this saga, and it got sandbagged very intentionally. What right thinking person really believes the same people wouldn't do the same thing again?
There are some interesting ramifications that have occurred to me, should Fishers win. The reorganization law allows municipal officials to shape governments however they like, in their view. What's to stop them from eliminating mayors? Being hypothetical here, look at a city that has a strong inclination towards voting Republican or Democrat. Think of Carmel or Anderson. The latter is more apt for what is foreseeable.
Anderson normally votes Democrat, but from time to time, as in 2007, might elect a Republican mayor. Now they still had a predominantly Democratic council. In this scenario, great for checks and balances. But, lets say the council decides that's not politically expedient. So, they get together and put together a reorganization plan that eliminates the mayor. If they have the veto-proof numbers, goodbye mayor.
As a purely personal consideration, the Supreme Court is a very interesting corner of the Statehouse. The space is fairly intimidating, with an absurdly high ceiling, gold leaf pilasters and columns, stained glass, portraits of past Justices, the five Justices on a dais of high-backed throne-like chairs, the works. The Justices ask questions that poke holes in the arguments put forth by both sides.
I found myself trying to analyze the questioning. Did it mean that the Justice found the assertion invalid? Or, was it that he was inviting the counsel to help write the decision? If they did not question an item, was it because it was wholly worthless, or wholly without dispute? It was very hard to read into it.
Nothing to do now but wait for comment from the Court. We could wait months or even years, although we suspect they will decide the case in such time that the question could be placed on the November ballot.
The case is Kole et al vs. Faultless. To keep from the legal gobbledegook that would make the average reader's eyes glaze over, I'll describe it simply.
I see this as a good government case. In sum, the Fishers Town Council believes that the state's Reorganization law permits units of government to select any form of government it chooses. My position is that a reorganization must fit into existing forms. There are no municipal governments in Indiana with a selected mayor. If they want that, they need to amend the Indiana Constitution. The people get to vote on the mayor.
For instance, their plan advances a type of city that would feature a mayor selected by the new city council members. The people would not directly elect the mayor.
So, in that scenario, you can forget about the executive being a check or balance to the legislative. It is clear to me that they want a rubber stamp mayor. I do not believe this to be in the best interest of the people.
This case arose from a petition that the Town Council sat on. City Yes PAC circulated a petition, which I signed, that wished for a ballot referendum to put the question before the voters- city or town? The rationale was that the population of Fishers was so large (70,000+) that it was time to enter into that form of government. I wasn't entirely sold on that proposition. I was (and remain) wary of the other examples in Hamilton County, such as Carmel or Westfield, where the mayor is a strong arm pushing through pet projects, while their city councils are often the rubber stamps. But- and this is the important point for me- I believe that at the municipal level, the people should decide their form of representative government by their direct election. Put the question on the ballot, and let the people choose. It could go either way. This was done once before, and the people chose to remain a Town.
History could repeat itself, but apparently the Town Council wasn't too confident. So, when they received a valid petition, they did nothing with it. Thus, the lawsuits proceeded.
Link to Greg Purvis' take on the suit.
Link to Abdul Hakim Shabazz's report on the suit, complete with an interview with me.
There was nothing especially surprising in the Supreme Court proceedings, although there was one moment when I had to stifle myself a bit. One Justice asked Fishers' counsel what recourse citizens would have should Fishers get its way, become the city with an appointed mayor, and they find they don't like it. To paraphrase, he said that the people could petition for a referendum.
Are you freakin' kidding me?! This is precisely what happened at the front end of this saga, and it got sandbagged very intentionally. What right thinking person really believes the same people wouldn't do the same thing again?
There are some interesting ramifications that have occurred to me, should Fishers win. The reorganization law allows municipal officials to shape governments however they like, in their view. What's to stop them from eliminating mayors? Being hypothetical here, look at a city that has a strong inclination towards voting Republican or Democrat. Think of Carmel or Anderson. The latter is more apt for what is foreseeable.
Anderson normally votes Democrat, but from time to time, as in 2007, might elect a Republican mayor. Now they still had a predominantly Democratic council. In this scenario, great for checks and balances. But, lets say the council decides that's not politically expedient. So, they get together and put together a reorganization plan that eliminates the mayor. If they have the veto-proof numbers, goodbye mayor.
As a purely personal consideration, the Supreme Court is a very interesting corner of the Statehouse. The space is fairly intimidating, with an absurdly high ceiling, gold leaf pilasters and columns, stained glass, portraits of past Justices, the five Justices on a dais of high-backed throne-like chairs, the works. The Justices ask questions that poke holes in the arguments put forth by both sides.
I found myself trying to analyze the questioning. Did it mean that the Justice found the assertion invalid? Or, was it that he was inviting the counsel to help write the decision? If they did not question an item, was it because it was wholly worthless, or wholly without dispute? It was very hard to read into it.
Nothing to do now but wait for comment from the Court. We could wait months or even years, although we suspect they will decide the case in such time that the question could be placed on the November ballot.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Ding Dong, The Witch Is Dead! For Now
What a delightful day at the Statehouse! My case went before the Indiana Supreme Court (more on that later), and the mass transit bill died in committee. From the Indy Star:
I have been arguing against expanded mass transit, particularly light rail, for about 8 years on this blog. I think we are ultimately doomed to this kind of stupidity, but for now, I will savor the temporary defeat.
The House Ways and Means Committee today voted 11-10 against a bill that would beef up mass transit in Central Indiana.And, that's why I say, for now. That's a narrow committee defeat. With it so close, this issue is certain to come back next year. Also:
Let's hear it for poison pills! But again, this will come back. And, if the Democrats gain seats down the road, they may be able to get this kind of language out of the bills, or might even hold their noses and vote for the provision.Rep. Jeff Espich, R-Uniondale, on Wednesday said that he was willing to compromise on language that says workers at a transportation authority can't be forced to join a union and language that says the transportation authority could bypass common-wage hearings. Today, his committee voted to take out the language concerning common wage hearings.
The committee left in the right-to-work language, and that cost it the votes of several Democrats.
Democrats viewed the language as a poison pill for workers. But it also conflicted with federal law governing the use of federal transit money.
I have been arguing against expanded mass transit, particularly light rail, for about 8 years on this blog. I think we are ultimately doomed to this kind of stupidity, but for now, I will savor the temporary defeat.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Tim Thomas Slights Obama
This makes absolutely no sense to me. From ESPN:
If nothing else, I might take a chance to say, "Mr. President- I really wish you would change our foreign policy". When else will Tim Thomas ever have as good a chance to make an impression?
Well, I guess he did- just not the kind that would change anything.
President Barack Obama honored the NHL's Boston Bruins for their 2011 Stanley Cup championship, but one key member of the team was absent.I'm not a fan of Obama. I wasn't a fan of Bush. In fact, I can't remember being much of a fan of any president, apart from Clinton when he was first elected, and I was a Democrat. But had President Obama or Bush ever invited me to a function, I would certainly accept. To visit the White House, to meet the President? It's all the chance of a lifetime.Goaltender Tim Thomas, one of only two Americans from the 2011 Stanley Cup team, decided not to join his teammates.
Obama hosted the six-time champions at a White House ceremony Monday afternoon, when he also lauded the team for its charitable work.
"Everybody has their own opinions and political beliefs and he chose not to join us," Bruins team president Cam Neely said of Thomas.
If nothing else, I might take a chance to say, "Mr. President- I really wish you would change our foreign policy". When else will Tim Thomas ever have as good a chance to make an impression?
Well, I guess he did- just not the kind that would change anything.
Intended Chilling Effect? Rand Paul Detained by TSA
Is this how it's going to be now? Rand Paul calls TSA 'clueless' in June 2011, is detained by TSA in Nashville today.
Paul refused a pat down, so he was detained. I've never been pat down, although in the past when I flew more, I seemed always to get pulled over for additional screening. It used to be that I would fly almost anywhere. Once TSA was launched, and the extra time you have to build in to deal with TSA was added, I changed by thinking to where a 6-hour one-way drive was my cut off. Less than 6 hours I drive, more than that, I fly.
Now my cut off is more like 10 hours. The shortest flight I've taken in the past 8 years was to New York Laguardia, which would have been a 13 hour drive. When I lived in Cleveland, post-9/11, I drove that one. 8 hours. Rather than fly.
I'll be watching this story, looking for Rand Paul's comments afterwards. Does he feel he was singled out for having made statements against TSA and its procedures? This initial news report makes it seem like he took it to a stalemate in refusing the pat down. But, I would have refused it too. So, I imagine I would have been detained or turned away.
Paul refused a pat down, so he was detained. I've never been pat down, although in the past when I flew more, I seemed always to get pulled over for additional screening. It used to be that I would fly almost anywhere. Once TSA was launched, and the extra time you have to build in to deal with TSA was added, I changed by thinking to where a 6-hour one-way drive was my cut off. Less than 6 hours I drive, more than that, I fly.
Now my cut off is more like 10 hours. The shortest flight I've taken in the past 8 years was to New York Laguardia, which would have been a 13 hour drive. When I lived in Cleveland, post-9/11, I drove that one. 8 hours. Rather than fly.
I'll be watching this story, looking for Rand Paul's comments afterwards. Does he feel he was singled out for having made statements against TSA and its procedures? This initial news report makes it seem like he took it to a stalemate in refusing the pat down. But, I would have refused it too. So, I imagine I would have been detained or turned away.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Petty End To Dublin Dr. Pepper
Petty. Pathetic. Small. Lame. Weak. The adjectives, they do flow in reaction to Dr. Pepper's offensive lawsuit against the tiny- and only- bottler of the reknown Dublin Dr. Pepper recipe of the soda. From Culture Map Austin:
Besides that, whenever I bought and then ran out of the Dublin Dr. Pepper, I found I'd have a hankering for it, and would almost invariably end up buying the main brand. Yes, a less satisfying, cheaper variety, but isn't that the opposite of what Dr. Pepper feared? It wasn't competition, dummies! It was the enhancing of your brand!
Well, this lawsuit does the opposite. It tarnishes the very name Dr. Pepper. If they wanted me to think poorly of their company, they have succeeded greatly.
Yes, Dublin Dr. Pepper had an agreement to sell only within a 6-county area in Texas. Yes, they violated the contract. Yes, they should have faced some kind of sanction. But to kill the brand and the recipe? From the Dallas Business Journal:
Oh well. I'll savor these last few, and lament the petty assholes that killed a cool brand.
Update: A quick check of Ebay's listings shows Dublin Dr. Pepper going for better than $70 a six pack, and over $10 a bottle. Mind you, these are 8 oz. bottles!
Hmmm... I just spent $1.80/bottle and got 9 of 'em...
So, in other words, this recipe and brand will be plowed under, simply destroyed to avoid whatever competition it presents to the main brand, no matter how miniscule.If there's a bottle of Dublin Dr Pepper in your fridge, don't drink it — you are now the proud (and probably sad) owner of a collector's item. The Dublin Dr Pepper Bottling Co. that has produced the original recipe Dr Pepper soda since 1891 ceased production as of 5 p.m. Wednesday.
Dr Pepper Snapple Group announced that it had settled a pending trademark infringement lawsuit against the Dublin Dr Pepper plant by buying the Dublin operation and distribution rights.
Dublin Dr Pepper was sued by Dr Pepper Snapple Group for allegedly selling the Dublin Dr Pepper outside its six-county distribution area via its website and toll-free phone number. The suit asked that Dublin cease using the Dr Pepper name and trademark in addition to halting outside sales.Allegedly? Well, I just bought 9 bottles today at the Do It Center hardware store in Fishers, Indiana. So it certainly got around. Unfortunately, 9 bottles cleaned them out. Even still, I could count the number of Indiana retailers I knew to stock it on one hand- and still have fingers left to attend to other tasks. That's hardly a competition to the main brand.
Besides that, whenever I bought and then ran out of the Dublin Dr. Pepper, I found I'd have a hankering for it, and would almost invariably end up buying the main brand. Yes, a less satisfying, cheaper variety, but isn't that the opposite of what Dr. Pepper feared? It wasn't competition, dummies! It was the enhancing of your brand!
Well, this lawsuit does the opposite. It tarnishes the very name Dr. Pepper. If they wanted me to think poorly of their company, they have succeeded greatly.
Yes, Dublin Dr. Pepper had an agreement to sell only within a 6-county area in Texas. Yes, they violated the contract. Yes, they should have faced some kind of sanction. But to kill the brand and the recipe? From the Dallas Business Journal:
Dr Pepper Snapple will now distribute Dr Pepper sweetened with cane sugar throughout Dublin’s former territory and other areas of Texas, including DFW. The packaging will no longer reference Dublin.Cane sugar is a beautiful thing. It really makes a soda taste so much better than those sweetened with high fructose corn syrup. But I believe the Dublin recipe is different than regular Dr. Pepper, beyond sweetener. The flavorings are different. I taste a greater cherry flavor. I can't find any documentation to back it up, but it really tastes different, and better.
Oh well. I'll savor these last few, and lament the petty assholes that killed a cool brand.
Update: A quick check of Ebay's listings shows Dublin Dr. Pepper going for better than $70 a six pack, and over $10 a bottle. Mind you, these are 8 oz. bottles!
Hmmm... I just spent $1.80/bottle and got 9 of 'em...
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
What? Agreement?
Sometimes I get to feeling fairly isolated due to my political beliefs and my musical tastes being outside the mainstream. I'm even a hockey fan in the middle of basketball country. But, somewhat like my political views, being against the college football BCS championship game is gaining steam, and the predictably boring LSU-Alabama rematch has helped.
I must confess: I only have heard, read, and surmised that it was boring. I didn't watch. I did check the box score at one point, saw that Alabama had kicked 5 field goals, that LSU's punter was as active as their quarterback, and concluded that I made the right call. From ESPN's Tim Keown, who gets in a lovely Rick Santorum dig in the process of making his case:
I must confess: I only have heard, read, and surmised that it was boring. I didn't watch. I did check the box score at one point, saw that Alabama had kicked 5 field goals, that LSU's punter was as active as their quarterback, and concluded that I made the right call. From ESPN's Tim Keown, who gets in a lovely Rick Santorum dig in the process of making his case:
I dunno. I thought the sweater vest was perfect- for standing around as an extra on the set of Happy Days.The LSU Tigers crossed midfield once and got so worked up over the achievement they promptly went backward and recrossed, apparently worried they were trespassing and might get in trouble. Alabama kicker Jeremy Shelley got so much air time his mother was yelling at Nick Saban to go for it on fourth down, just once.
The complaint isn't necessarily the teams the BCS system chose for the title game. Instead, it's the system itself. All the calls for a playoff -- and there's really no argument anymore -- can be distilled to one sentence: More teams need a chance. When they narrow the world down to two teams, it's hard to complain when one team is undefeated and the other loses only to that team, and by just three points. But there's no way -- no possible way -- that (pick one) Oregon/Wisconsin/Oklahoma State/Stanford/Boise State would have been held to fewer than 100 yards of total offense by the Alabama defense. As good as Alabama's defense is, there's no way an Oregon-Alabama game would have been that unwatchable. And if an eight-team playoff gave us Alabama-LSU II, then fine.
This BCS National Championship Game was an ironclad argument against the current system, made all the more damning by the tremendous performances by the underlings in the Rose and Fiesta bowls. Not that anybody really needed any more evidence.
Les Miles, you mean to tell us you had a month to prepare a game plan for the national championship and you couldn't do any better than a bunch of slow-developing option plays and a couple of 2-yard pass plays? Did Jefferson tear his rotator cuff in pregame warm-ups? That game plan was so conservative I expected the cameras to pan the LSU coaches' booth to show us Rick Santorum in a sweater vest and a headset, trying to figure out which play was more likely to lose 2 yards -- Stroll Option or Hopeless Hitch?
My cynicism is large, and I really doubt anything will change. Evidence seems to be the least motivating factor, with emotion the greatest. Maybe, hopefully, the ratings for the game were low. As ever, following the money tells the greatest tales. From Sports Illustrated:You pretty much knew the game was over when Shelley kicked his fifth field goal with 22 seconds left in the third. There was simply no way LSU was going to have enough time to kick six of 'em and take the lead. But hey -- look at the bright side. At least Wing (who punted nine times for LSU) and Shelley don't have to go to the NFL scouting combine now; they had their own on Monday night.
Something good has to come out of this, so it's important that all those people who are fighting for the NCAA to institute a playoff format don't forget this night. They can't. They need to make sure nobody in power forgets how broken the system really is, and how much more fulfilling a legitimate playoff could be.
Awesome! Great! Hopefully the NCAA receives the message... and adapts a playoff.TV ratings dipped for this year's BCS title game, Alabama's 21-0 win in a rematch against Southeastern Conference rival LSU. The Crimson Tide went up 15-0 late in the third quarter on five field goals while the Tigers' offense struggled to even cross midfield.
A year ago, Auburn drove for a winning field goal on the final play to beat Oregon 22-19.
Monday's game on ESPN earned a 14.0 rating, down 8 percent from last year. It's the third-lowest rating of the 14 BCS title games, beating only a 13.9 for Miami-Nebraska in 2002 and a 13.7 for Southern California-Oklahoma in 2005.
Monday, January 09, 2012
Boring Bowl II
Oh boy, oh boy, the BCS Championship game is tonight. Color me utterly disinterested.
I think some friends take me to be a big college football fan. This is probably because my being an Ohio State fan, and the Buckeyes being in several BCS Championship games, I was very interested in that game. Alas, if I'm not interested in the teams playing, I don't watch.
I won't be watching LSU - Alabama tonight. Yes, they had a low-scoring 6-3 slogfest earlier this year that portends a repeat tonight, but that's not the real deterrent. That I don't give a fat rat's fart about either team tells much of the story. The rest of it is the BCS itself.
First and foremost, I would like a playoff. I'm a very casual college basketball fan, but I love the playoff format, and find myself getting into it as it progresses. I get to know the players and the coaches as I watch them stack victory atop victory. Teams I didn't know or care about are at last interesting to me, regardless of who they are or where they are from. Now look at tonight's game. I haven't seen LSU or Alabama in a single game- nay, a single play- this season. I could come into it cold, but I'll find something better to do, like reading one of the many books I got for Christmas. I know I'm not going to get a football playoff. The NCAA in its' infinite wisdom thinks this is better. Pah.
Prior to the BCS, I had much greater interest in the Bowl Games because while it looked like one team was the front runner for the championship, that team could lose, and because of the voting nature of college football rankings, a #3 or #4 team could emerge by winning big in a bowl game, while that #1 and #2 lost their games. By pitting #1 & #2, the NCAA figures they put together the ultimate game. They did! Problem is, it renders every other game devoid of meaning. There is no hope whatsoever that #1 AND #2 will lose. Even if LSU and Alabama repeat their 6-3 yawner, #3 Oklahoma State has no chance, none at all, of winning the championship.
I didn't watch a single bowl game this year. I didn't watch #3 Oklahoma State vs. #4 Stanford for the uselessness of it in light of the impossibility that either could become champ. I didn't even watch Ohio State's bowl game (I can't even think of who they played!), being that the tarnished team has turned me off a bit, and really, they didn't seem worthy of a bowl. I think they got one only because OSU has the largest almuni association in the USA, which means ratings for the game. In pre-BCS years, I would have watched at least 5 bowl games. New Years Day was college football central for me. Now add the NHL's Winter Classics to the mix, and I didn't even miss the bowl games this year. I didn't even think of them as they were happening.
I'll continue to hope against hope that the NCAA eventually adopts a playoff for college football. If they had, I suspect I would be very excited to watch tonight's game. Instead, it's the Iggy Pop biography.
I think some friends take me to be a big college football fan. This is probably because my being an Ohio State fan, and the Buckeyes being in several BCS Championship games, I was very interested in that game. Alas, if I'm not interested in the teams playing, I don't watch.
I won't be watching LSU - Alabama tonight. Yes, they had a low-scoring 6-3 slogfest earlier this year that portends a repeat tonight, but that's not the real deterrent. That I don't give a fat rat's fart about either team tells much of the story. The rest of it is the BCS itself.
First and foremost, I would like a playoff. I'm a very casual college basketball fan, but I love the playoff format, and find myself getting into it as it progresses. I get to know the players and the coaches as I watch them stack victory atop victory. Teams I didn't know or care about are at last interesting to me, regardless of who they are or where they are from. Now look at tonight's game. I haven't seen LSU or Alabama in a single game- nay, a single play- this season. I could come into it cold, but I'll find something better to do, like reading one of the many books I got for Christmas. I know I'm not going to get a football playoff. The NCAA in its' infinite wisdom thinks this is better. Pah.
Prior to the BCS, I had much greater interest in the Bowl Games because while it looked like one team was the front runner for the championship, that team could lose, and because of the voting nature of college football rankings, a #3 or #4 team could emerge by winning big in a bowl game, while that #1 and #2 lost their games. By pitting #1 & #2, the NCAA figures they put together the ultimate game. They did! Problem is, it renders every other game devoid of meaning. There is no hope whatsoever that #1 AND #2 will lose. Even if LSU and Alabama repeat their 6-3 yawner, #3 Oklahoma State has no chance, none at all, of winning the championship.
I didn't watch a single bowl game this year. I didn't watch #3 Oklahoma State vs. #4 Stanford for the uselessness of it in light of the impossibility that either could become champ. I didn't even watch Ohio State's bowl game (I can't even think of who they played!), being that the tarnished team has turned me off a bit, and really, they didn't seem worthy of a bowl. I think they got one only because OSU has the largest almuni association in the USA, which means ratings for the game. In pre-BCS years, I would have watched at least 5 bowl games. New Years Day was college football central for me. Now add the NHL's Winter Classics to the mix, and I didn't even miss the bowl games this year. I didn't even think of them as they were happening.
I'll continue to hope against hope that the NCAA eventually adopts a playoff for college football. If they had, I suspect I would be very excited to watch tonight's game. Instead, it's the Iggy Pop biography.
Tuesday, January 03, 2012
Will The Real Republican Party Please Stand Up?
Most readers know me as a political partisan, a 'capital L' Libertarian. While I love the Libertarian Party, I love liberty more, and really couldn't care less which party gets the job of moving policy in a liberty direction done.
I've found it interesting over the years, that liberals and conservatives alike tend to try to push me to the Republican party. Why liberals concede that the Democratic Party is not the home for one who loves liberty is beyond me. But, another topic for another day.
Today is the day of the Iowa caucuses for the Republican Party. Today is the day we find out if, in Iowa, the Republican Party will embrace liberty in the form of Ron Paul, or if it will embrace one of the various authoritarian strains of Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, or Mitt Romney.
Many leaders in the Indiana Republican Party, at various levels, have tried to get me into their tent. My belief is that they really just want to plow me under, to disappear me within their organization- as they have done over the years with several former Libertarians. Can't name a one elected to anything as a Liberty Caucus Republican in Indiana.
The rationale, I'm endlessly told, is that more can be done by working within the Republican Party. Bigger stage, better chance of electability, etc. But I've never seen proof that liberty has been embraced by Indiana Republicans. Lip service? Oh, yes. Acts? No sir or ma'am.
There is truth to the rationale, though. Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian in 1988, and barely made a noise on the national level. Running in 2008, he won over a dedicated national following, and here in 2012, he is on the cusp of actually winning Iowa today. If he does win, this causes me to take serious notice- for the implications for his campaign, and for the place of liberty in the Republican Party, as well as the place of the Libertarian Party.
As I said, I don't really care which party carries the pro-liberty candidates. I will back them. If Ron Paul is winning caucuses and the primary elections, I have to be with him as far as he runs. The longer he is viable, the longer the message of liberty is in the media and on people's minds, and if he wins the GOP nomination, he could become president of the United States. I can't ignore that.
So, my first glance will be towards the vote totals. My second will be to the reaction of the Republican leadership in Iowa and nationally. They already hinted that they would ignore Iowa's results if Ron Paul wins.
Now, my Republican friends. If I'm supposed to seriously consider a move to the Republican Party, you just have to show me better faith than that. Ron Paul has been treated like garbage by GOP leadership for roughly the last 5 years. Is this any way to lure people to your party?
So, I'm watching to see what the real Republican Party looks like. Go, Ron Paul!
I've found it interesting over the years, that liberals and conservatives alike tend to try to push me to the Republican party. Why liberals concede that the Democratic Party is not the home for one who loves liberty is beyond me. But, another topic for another day.
Today is the day of the Iowa caucuses for the Republican Party. Today is the day we find out if, in Iowa, the Republican Party will embrace liberty in the form of Ron Paul, or if it will embrace one of the various authoritarian strains of Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, or Mitt Romney.
Many leaders in the Indiana Republican Party, at various levels, have tried to get me into their tent. My belief is that they really just want to plow me under, to disappear me within their organization- as they have done over the years with several former Libertarians. Can't name a one elected to anything as a Liberty Caucus Republican in Indiana.
The rationale, I'm endlessly told, is that more can be done by working within the Republican Party. Bigger stage, better chance of electability, etc. But I've never seen proof that liberty has been embraced by Indiana Republicans. Lip service? Oh, yes. Acts? No sir or ma'am.
There is truth to the rationale, though. Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian in 1988, and barely made a noise on the national level. Running in 2008, he won over a dedicated national following, and here in 2012, he is on the cusp of actually winning Iowa today. If he does win, this causes me to take serious notice- for the implications for his campaign, and for the place of liberty in the Republican Party, as well as the place of the Libertarian Party.
As I said, I don't really care which party carries the pro-liberty candidates. I will back them. If Ron Paul is winning caucuses and the primary elections, I have to be with him as far as he runs. The longer he is viable, the longer the message of liberty is in the media and on people's minds, and if he wins the GOP nomination, he could become president of the United States. I can't ignore that.
So, my first glance will be towards the vote totals. My second will be to the reaction of the Republican leadership in Iowa and nationally. They already hinted that they would ignore Iowa's results if Ron Paul wins.
Now, my Republican friends. If I'm supposed to seriously consider a move to the Republican Party, you just have to show me better faith than that. Ron Paul has been treated like garbage by GOP leadership for roughly the last 5 years. Is this any way to lure people to your party?
So, I'm watching to see what the real Republican Party looks like. Go, Ron Paul!
Reunion Notes
I had the great pleasure of seeing Death Of Samantha play one last time, at the Beachland Ballroom in Cleveland, over the holidays. I really never expected to have the chance, as they broke up in the early 90's, so it was a great unexpected treat.
D.O.S. did not disappoint. It might have been one of the better shows I had seen them do on multiple counts: 2-hour+ set, songs spanned their entire catalog, campy skit with drummer Steve-O emerging from a coffin to start the show, big appreciative crowd, band appreciative of the moment and very into the event, adequately rehearsed prior to show yielding well executed songs. Back in the day, some of these elements would be present, but never all.
Like any 'last show' (I don't know if they'll do this again), there were things that were missing for me. Hard to complain of course, but there were a couple songs they didn't play that would have been on my personal dream set list. There were a few friends that didn't turn up that I associated with the band. Not everyone who ever played in the band got to participate. But, on its' face, the night was a great success, and a hell of a lot of fun. So, here are some video clips I shot, for your enjoyment:
If it seems like the guitar is too loud in the mix, understand that I went out of my way to position myself opposite Doug Gillard's amp, and right against the stage so that I would not directly pick up the blare from the P.A. speakers. I wanted Doug's guitar up front, but also, I knew that the P.A. sound would be so loud that it would badly distort within my camcorder. Overall, I was pretty happy with the sound.
I loaded all 21 songs to my YouTube channel, so if you want to see them all- or music by other Cleveland bands like My Dad Is Dead, Children's Crusade, or Oral Authority- follow this link: http://www.youtube.com/user/mikekole?feature=mhee
D.O.S. did not disappoint. It might have been one of the better shows I had seen them do on multiple counts: 2-hour+ set, songs spanned their entire catalog, campy skit with drummer Steve-O emerging from a coffin to start the show, big appreciative crowd, band appreciative of the moment and very into the event, adequately rehearsed prior to show yielding well executed songs. Back in the day, some of these elements would be present, but never all.
Like any 'last show' (I don't know if they'll do this again), there were things that were missing for me. Hard to complain of course, but there were a couple songs they didn't play that would have been on my personal dream set list. There were a few friends that didn't turn up that I associated with the band. Not everyone who ever played in the band got to participate. But, on its' face, the night was a great success, and a hell of a lot of fun. So, here are some video clips I shot, for your enjoyment:
If it seems like the guitar is too loud in the mix, understand that I went out of my way to position myself opposite Doug Gillard's amp, and right against the stage so that I would not directly pick up the blare from the P.A. speakers. I wanted Doug's guitar up front, but also, I knew that the P.A. sound would be so loud that it would badly distort within my camcorder. Overall, I was pretty happy with the sound.
I loaded all 21 songs to my YouTube channel, so if you want to see them all- or music by other Cleveland bands like My Dad Is Dead, Children's Crusade, or Oral Authority- follow this link: http://www.youtube.com/user/mikekole?feature=mhee
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Another Cleveland Nostalgia Trip
I've been looking forward to this holiday visit to Cleveland, of course to visit with family and friends there, but also to see another Punk Rock Old Farts Reunion, as Death of Samantha plays the Beachland Ballroom on Friday night. Beachland's bio.
DoS were one of my favorites in the mid-80s. They played around town frequently and always had something interesting to add beyond the songs. DoS reveled in kitchy Americana, and the antics on stage immediately before the rocking were usually hilarious. Drummer Steve-O (waaaaay before the Jackass 'star') wore a coat made of yarn and ineptly bounced on, and fell from, a pogo stick. He did ridiculous send-ups of Joe Cocker and Roy Orbison with lip synchs. He once even emerged from a coffin on stage to say, "Hi folks!" in his cheesy way.
I've been enjoying this run of nostalgia. In the past year and a half, I've seen the following Cle Punk bands, all getting together to do one last hurrah: Children's Crusade, My Dad Is Dead, Numbskull, Oral Authority, Pink Holes, The Plague, and Starvation Army. I never thought I'd see many of these again. I hope I never see the Pink Holes again, as they lost whatever magic they had over time, alas.
I really never expected to see Death of Samantha play. I had the honor of putting together a 'reunion' of theirs that I thought would be the last, back in 1998. My best friend Steve Wainstead was leaving Cleveland for New York City, and I threw a going away party for him. Since I had a club for the event, Pat's In The Flats, I asked if he would like to see any bands play. "Death of Samantha!" was his immediate response... followed by, "Well, if you can get them to do it". It wasn't easy. The band had moved on to become Cobra Verde, but having left Steve-O behind. And, if memory serves, Doug Gillard and Dave Swanson were then also out of Cobra Verde. In any case, there were some old feelings to be dealt with, but gratefully, they were willing to do five songs, really only because it was for Steve. He went all the way back with those guys, having served as driver and roadie for them on tours, and taking the photographs for their album covers. Even then, I really didn't expect to pull it off, because singer John Petkovic has always had a looking forward, never back approach. It didn't surprise me when he struggled to remember words to his own songs, like "Yellow Fever" back in '98, because that stuff was so yesterday.
So, I'm thrilled that all differences are put aside, original bass player Dave James will play, and the band has actually been looking forward to doing this show. I've had a ticket for months. I don't care if it is 'just nostalgia'. The chance to hear these great, fun songs one more time because they want to do it is a great opportunity for me.
So, here are some DoS clips my good friend and old Blows Against The Empire radio co-host Matt Dudas posted this week. Seems he shot them in 1990 at the Babylon A-Go-Go, recently rediscovered the tape, and had it converted to digital so that he could post in advance of the reunion he couldn't attend. I'll keep the chain intact, and will shoot the show so that he and Steve Wainstead, who also can't attend, can see. Well, and you also, dear reader.
And, if you want a whole lot more, check out my podcasts, #12 & #13, which feature a sound board recording of DoS from the Phantasy Night Club in Lakewood OH, and a very chaotic appearance on my radio show, with a live set using improvised instruments in the WCSB record library- both form 1989. Here is the linkage.
DoS were one of my favorites in the mid-80s. They played around town frequently and always had something interesting to add beyond the songs. DoS reveled in kitchy Americana, and the antics on stage immediately before the rocking were usually hilarious. Drummer Steve-O (waaaaay before the Jackass 'star') wore a coat made of yarn and ineptly bounced on, and fell from, a pogo stick. He did ridiculous send-ups of Joe Cocker and Roy Orbison with lip synchs. He once even emerged from a coffin on stage to say, "Hi folks!" in his cheesy way.
I've been enjoying this run of nostalgia. In the past year and a half, I've seen the following Cle Punk bands, all getting together to do one last hurrah: Children's Crusade, My Dad Is Dead, Numbskull, Oral Authority, Pink Holes, The Plague, and Starvation Army. I never thought I'd see many of these again. I hope I never see the Pink Holes again, as they lost whatever magic they had over time, alas.
I really never expected to see Death of Samantha play. I had the honor of putting together a 'reunion' of theirs that I thought would be the last, back in 1998. My best friend Steve Wainstead was leaving Cleveland for New York City, and I threw a going away party for him. Since I had a club for the event, Pat's In The Flats, I asked if he would like to see any bands play. "Death of Samantha!" was his immediate response... followed by, "Well, if you can get them to do it". It wasn't easy. The band had moved on to become Cobra Verde, but having left Steve-O behind. And, if memory serves, Doug Gillard and Dave Swanson were then also out of Cobra Verde. In any case, there were some old feelings to be dealt with, but gratefully, they were willing to do five songs, really only because it was for Steve. He went all the way back with those guys, having served as driver and roadie for them on tours, and taking the photographs for their album covers. Even then, I really didn't expect to pull it off, because singer John Petkovic has always had a looking forward, never back approach. It didn't surprise me when he struggled to remember words to his own songs, like "Yellow Fever" back in '98, because that stuff was so yesterday.
So, I'm thrilled that all differences are put aside, original bass player Dave James will play, and the band has actually been looking forward to doing this show. I've had a ticket for months. I don't care if it is 'just nostalgia'. The chance to hear these great, fun songs one more time because they want to do it is a great opportunity for me.
So, here are some DoS clips my good friend and old Blows Against The Empire radio co-host Matt Dudas posted this week. Seems he shot them in 1990 at the Babylon A-Go-Go, recently rediscovered the tape, and had it converted to digital so that he could post in advance of the reunion he couldn't attend. I'll keep the chain intact, and will shoot the show so that he and Steve Wainstead, who also can't attend, can see. Well, and you also, dear reader.
And, if you want a whole lot more, check out my podcasts, #12 & #13, which feature a sound board recording of DoS from the Phantasy Night Club in Lakewood OH, and a very chaotic appearance on my radio show, with a live set using improvised instruments in the WCSB record library- both form 1989. Here is the linkage.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Nativism On Parade In Quebec
I'll never forget the sight of Confederate battle flags flying in rural Quebec, back in 1998. I was floored... until it dawned on me why Quebecois might do so: separatism. They weren't flown for racism, but solidarity with the idea of breaking away. Folks in rural Quebec were very serious about wanting to leave Canada to form their own nation.
Well, if not racism, bigotry still. Get a load of this! The Montreal Canadiens committed a foul offense in the eyes of some in Quebec, and not just armchair powerplay quarterbacks. From ESPN:
Whoops! The Canadiens have a history of sacrificing things like success, and shit, in exchange for nativist political correctness.
As for Cunneyworth, I liked him as a player. He played tough hockey, which was par for his era. But even then, he stood out as a lunch pail kinda player that I favored- like Mike Ricci or Owen Nolan. Coaches are often craft teams like their own on-ice persona. This is why I was a big fan of the Daryl Sutter-coached San Jose Sharks. Sutter had players like Ricci, Nolan, Stephane Matteau, Ronnie Stern, Dave Lowry- real grinders that had heart to spare. If talent didn't get it done, willpower could. If Cunneyworth brings that essence to the Canadiens, Montreal's hockey fans should love him for it. I'd start to like the Canadiens, at least. Right now, I couldn't name more than 6 or 7 of their players, the Canadiens being one of the softest teams in a soft NHL.
Well, if not racism, bigotry still. Get a load of this! The Montreal Canadiens committed a foul offense in the eyes of some in Quebec, and not just armchair powerplay quarterbacks. From ESPN:
The Quebec government isn't pleased about the hiring of a Montreal Canadiens coach who can't speak French.Culture minister? This is the sort of Soviet bloc officialdom that I used to make radio satire for. Here's an idea, Christine St-Pierre: How about let the team hire a coach because they think it will lead to winning hockey!The province's culture minister says she expects the Habs to correct the situation.
Christine St-Pierre isn't quite calling for the firing of new coach Randy Cunneyworth, who was just hired over the weekend.
But she says the Habs have given the impression his hiring is temporary, and she takes them at their word. The former NHL forward's title is interim coach.
The hiring has created a frenzy of media reaction, including calls for a boycott of products associated with the Canadiens.
Whoops! The Canadiens have a history of sacrificing things like success, and shit, in exchange for nativist political correctness.
The Habs have not had an only English-speaking coach since the 1970-71 season, when Al MacNeil coached them. They won a Stanley Cup that year but MacNeil had a poor relationship with some players and was demoted to the minors after the season.Can you believe that nonsense? Hey coach! Yeah, you won the Stanley Cup and all, but off to the AHL with you! Well, MacNeil won the AHL championship next year with Nova Scotia.
As for Cunneyworth, I liked him as a player. He played tough hockey, which was par for his era. But even then, he stood out as a lunch pail kinda player that I favored- like Mike Ricci or Owen Nolan. Coaches are often craft teams like their own on-ice persona. This is why I was a big fan of the Daryl Sutter-coached San Jose Sharks. Sutter had players like Ricci, Nolan, Stephane Matteau, Ronnie Stern, Dave Lowry- real grinders that had heart to spare. If talent didn't get it done, willpower could. If Cunneyworth brings that essence to the Canadiens, Montreal's hockey fans should love him for it. I'd start to like the Canadiens, at least. Right now, I couldn't name more than 6 or 7 of their players, the Canadiens being one of the softest teams in a soft NHL.
The Tale Of Two Playwright/Presidents
Odd coincidence that Vaclav Havel and Kim Jong Il die on the same day. The North Korean dictator's passing is getting all the screaming headlines, which is a shame being that Havel was the punk rock freedom loving dissident who led a bloodless revolution, and Kim Jong Il was the repressive dictator. The loss of the repressive dictator is better news (if death should be so seen), but Havel is the one worth celebrating. From Reason in 2003:
This act of literary punk rock was followed, logically enough, by a defense of rock music that sparked the Charter 77 movement. Or, as Havel told a startled Lou Reed when he met the Velvet Underground's former frontman in 1990, "Did you know that I am president because of you?"
Defending The Plastic People
In 1968 a rare copy of the Velvet Underground's first record somehow found its way to Prague. It became a sensation in music circles and beyond, eventually inspiring the Czech name for their bloodless 1989 overthrow of Communist rule, "the Velvet Revolution." The Plastic People, then a newly formed troupe that borrowed heavily from Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention, quickly added a half-dozen songs from The Velvet Underground & Nico to their repertoire. The group was banned not long after the Prague Spring concluded but continued to play at weddings and secret shows.
Then, in 1976, four members were arrested on charges of "disturbing the peace." The Czech dissident movement, newly roused by Havel's open letter, made the trial an international cause. Havel, who intuitively grasped the symbolism of the case, was in the courtroom every day to witness and document the judicial farce. Just as George Orwell saw picking up a gun to shoot fascists in the Spanish Civil War as "the only conceivable thing to do," Havel understood this assault on freedom as one outrage too far. It was a turning point in his life. "Everyone understood," he wrote later, "that an attack on the Czech musical underground was an attack on a most elementary and important thing, something that in fact bound everyone together: it was an attack on the very notion of living within the truth, on the real aims of life."
His essay on the trial has the rushed and liberated tone of someone who has just crossed a personal point of no return, or has just heard the Sex Pistols' Never Mind the Bollocks for the first time. It ends with a classic description of Havel bumping into a film director who didn't understand the sudden enthusiasm for defending some derelict rock musicians.
Inspired by Lou Reed? That's a-ok with me. And sure, Kim Jong Il inspired the South Park guys to do a hilarious send-up of him, still, Havel's the one worth celebrating. CNN report.
The Plastic People of the Universe is Frank Zappa inspired. I remember the shock of listening to this record again around 2004 and thinking how the voice of the 'President' sounded so much like George W. Bush. It made it all the better, if possible:
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
I Was Wrong About Bob Barr
When Barr sought the 2008 nomination of the Libertarian Party, I backed him. Not aggressively, and not with my vote at the Convention, as I did not attend, the non-attendance being an indicator of how lukewarm my support was. I just searched this blog and found that I hadn't even written of him here until 4 months after his nomination. But, I backed him all the same.
As I recall my thinking at the time, I was of a mind to forgive his anti-liberty transgressions as a Republican congressman, as he recanted his former positions. We all change, not usually so late in life, but if he had his Come To Jesus moment and found libertarianism to be his genuine calling, what good would I do in dismissing it? What would that tell others I was trying to win over to my side? I want former Republicans and Democrats to come to the Libertarian Party, so I let his past not stand in the way, and judged him on his message and his plan to spread the message.
Well, I was duped. 'Patriot Paul' Wheeler emailed me today with a link to a story showing Bob Barr endorsed Newt Gingrich. Here's an excerpt from a different article on the same topic:
became interested in politics. I was a Democrat. But I came to be a libertarian, and I try to just work with others who show an interest in the moment. And really, during his campaign, I found Barr to be an excellent advocate for liberty. I was fairly sold on his conversion.
Now this.
It's impossible for me to square Barr on this, though. Ok, people change. He made a big to-do about having seen the light on the things Libertarians questioned him on from his past. Ok, good. But then a Gingrich endorsement? Gingrich has unfortunately showed himself very plainly not to have libertarian grounding. His foreign policy and takes on civil liberty are the antithesis of libertarian thinking, and freedom loving.
Sure, just as with any liberal or any conservative, libertarians will find occasional common ground on issues, but with Gingrich I'm convinced now that the common ground is accidental. That Barr can't discern this tells me that his seeking our nomination was insincere, because, yeah people change... but that's a flip-flop. A big one. I wouldn't have cared if he endorsed one of two other Republicans- Ron Paul or Gary Johnson- because they certainly are libertarian, and will advance policies I can largely be proud of. But Gingrich? I would sooner vote for Obama.
As I recall my thinking at the time, I was of a mind to forgive his anti-liberty transgressions as a Republican congressman, as he recanted his former positions. We all change, not usually so late in life, but if he had his Come To Jesus moment and found libertarianism to be his genuine calling, what good would I do in dismissing it? What would that tell others I was trying to win over to my side? I want former Republicans and Democrats to come to the Libertarian Party, so I let his past not stand in the way, and judged him on his message and his plan to spread the message.
Well, I was duped. 'Patriot Paul' Wheeler emailed me today with a link to a story showing Bob Barr endorsed Newt Gingrich. Here's an excerpt from a different article on the same topic:
Bob Barr was the Presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party in 2008, having recently switched from the GOP. It was recently rumored that he was considering a Republican run for Congress in Georgia, but this still came as quite a shock. Bob Barr is one member of a large slate of public officials and former officeholders who endorsed Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign today.Among the state and local officials announcing they are endorsing Newt Gingrich today are:
Georgia Congressmen Austin Scott, Lynn Westmoreland, Tom Price, Jack Kingston and Phil Gingrey. Former Georgia Congressmen Mac Collins and Bob Barr.
My reaction was very similar to the first comment following the article. A lot of people at the Convention were very upset that he was even being considered, due to some of the legislation he advanced while a Republican member of Congress. I try not to get caught up in the 'fake libertarian/real libertarian' thing too much. I wasn't a pure libertarian when I was first
became interested in politics. I was a Democrat. But I came to be a libertarian, and I try to just work with others who show an interest in the moment. And really, during his campaign, I found Barr to be an excellent advocate for liberty. I was fairly sold on his conversion.
Now this.
It's impossible for me to square Barr on this, though. Ok, people change. He made a big to-do about having seen the light on the things Libertarians questioned him on from his past. Ok, good. But then a Gingrich endorsement? Gingrich has unfortunately showed himself very plainly not to have libertarian grounding. His foreign policy and takes on civil liberty are the antithesis of libertarian thinking, and freedom loving.
Sure, just as with any liberal or any conservative, libertarians will find occasional common ground on issues, but with Gingrich I'm convinced now that the common ground is accidental. That Barr can't discern this tells me that his seeking our nomination was insincere, because, yeah people change... but that's a flip-flop. A big one. I wouldn't have cared if he endorsed one of two other Republicans- Ron Paul or Gary Johnson- because they certainly are libertarian, and will advance policies I can largely be proud of. But Gingrich? I would sooner vote for Obama.
Monday, December 12, 2011
The 1% And Government Money
Interesting article, although with one large hole in it, from Reason, channeling Investors Business Daily:
John Merline of Investors Business Daily has published a fascinating analysis of $10 billion the government annually gives to the dreaded 1 percent:Using IRS data, IBD found that the top 1% of income earners claimed approximately $7 billion in Social Security benefits in 2009. That year, the program paid super-rich seniors — those with adjusted gross incomes exceeding $10 million — an average of $33,000 each.
Medicare, meanwhile, paid roughly $2.6 billion in health care subsidies for the richest 1% of enrollees, based on calculations using Medicare enrollment, overall Medicare spending and premium data. (Medicare does not track spending by enrollee income.) And if you consider that 5% of Medicare enrollees have more than $1 million in savings, the amount taxpayers spend to subsidize retiree health benefits skyrockets.
The hole is that government funnels gobs of money to corporations in subsidies and bailouts, and these moneys in turn often go to the salaries and worse, bonuses, of top executives. That's a pretty large hole for Reason to miss. However, it is illuminating how our tax system and our entitlement programs, which most people seem to hold as sacrosanct and absolute do things they don't expect them to do.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Solemn Oaths
I've enjoyed watching some of my conservative friends squirm in cognitive dissonance over Newt Gingrich. These villagers were wielding clubs and pitchforks when Bill Clinton was getting hooted in the Oval Office, and making the connection between marriage vows and the ability to tell the truth.
So, I love that on the question of character, Ron Paul took the same argument forward, and applied it to the Constitution and the oath of office to uphold the Constitution during a recent Republican debate.
And I really love that what he said got solid applause. This gives me hope.
So, I love that on the question of character, Ron Paul took the same argument forward, and applied it to the Constitution and the oath of office to uphold the Constitution during a recent Republican debate.
And I really love that what he said got solid applause. This gives me hope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)