The Battle For Jesus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Positive Trend

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

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

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

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

Libertarian Party Nominates Bob Barr!

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

Barr 324 (+101)

Ruwart 276 (+47)

Results link

Barr's campaign website

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Round 5 Results

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

Bob Barr 223 (+21)

Mary Ruwart 229 (+27)

Wayne Root 165 (+16)

Indiana's delegation went thusly:

Barr 6

Ruwart 6

Root 9

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

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

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

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

Round 4 Results

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

Bob Barr 202 (+16)

Mary Ruwart 202 (+16)

Wayne Root 149 (+3)

Mike Gravel 76 (-2)

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

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

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

Round 3 Results

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

Bob Barr 186 (-2)

Mary Ruwart 186 (+24)

Wayne Root 146 (+8)

Mike Gravel 78 (+5)

George Phillies 31 (-5)

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

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

Round 2

Here's the vote after the second ballot:

Bob Barr 188 (+35)

Mary Ruwart 162 (+10)

Wayne Root 138 (+15)

Mike Gravel 73 (+2)

George Phillies 36 (-13)

Steve Kubby 32  (-9)

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

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

First Ballot In

Another convention, another close first-round finish:

Bob Barr 153 votes

Mary Ruwart 152

Wayne Root 123

Mike Gravel 71

George Phillies 49

Steve Kubby 41

Mike Jingozian 23

Christine Smith  6

Daniel Imperato 1

None of the Above 2

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

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

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

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

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

Indiana's 22 delegates voted thusly:

Root 6

Gravel 5

Barr 4

Phillies 3

Jingozian 2

Root 2

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

Nomination Looming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KFC & The Colonel

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

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

It's a Norman Rockwell oil of The Colonel!

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

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

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

Libertarian Party Convention Underway

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excited For Good News

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

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

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

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

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

Now, That's Journalism!

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

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

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

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

The Black Knight:


Dead Parrot:

One For The Horse Race Fans

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

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

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

and

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

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

Big Problem Caused By Government Tinkering

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One extremely insightful Star reader commented nicely, concisely:

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

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

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

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

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

Running The Math on Gas Prices

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

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

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

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

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

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

$16 a week? Big deal!

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

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

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

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

Commercial Speech Banned In Indy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Up Yours, Cleveland

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bob Barr Makes It Official

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Election Re-Cap

So, yes- I did merely walk in to the polling place, sign the book, and walk out. Well, it was a little more detailed.

The clerk asked me if I wanted a Republican or Democratic ballot. I said, "no thank you". This left her perplexed, so she answered, "you have to take one or the other". I advised her that, no, I didn't, that I could sign the book and walk out. The Judge came over and confirmed what I said, so while I signed, I added, "I'm a partisan Libertarian. I would never take one of the other parties' ballots". She replied, "Oh! A Libertarian! I'll put an 'L' next to your name. I thought that was pretty great.

There was no great turnout at my polling place, the Fishers Town Hall. It votes heavily Republican, and apparently, the Republicans felt no need to show up. It was the shortest wait (one person) that I had ever experienced there. I think that Democrats will get excited by the numbers that show greater numbers of 'D' votes than "R' in Hamilton County, and it will yield greater turnout in November.

This signals the end of my one-time hope that the Libertarian Party could quickly supplant the Dems as the #2 party in Hamilton County. As HC grows and urbanizes, it is becoming marginally more Democratic. Nothing the Dems are doing internally are causing this, but external forces favor them some here.

Ron Paul fared worse than Mike Huckabee? How bad is that? Huckabee has been out of the race for months. There is a valuable lesson here for any small-l libertarian who has been clinging to the hopes that the Republican Party can be reformed from within to accept libertarian principles: It ain't happening.

If anything, I expected Paul's numbers to seriously challenge McCain's. After all, McCain has all but experienced the coronation already, and as such, voting for Paul would be a "safe" thing to do. Alas- less than 8% of Republicans voted for Ron Paul.

So the message has been sent. Hoosier Republicans favor big government by a 92-8 count. If you favor liberty and smaller government, you really have to bail on the Republicans.

Everything else is just horse race showtime, and I don't care. I struggle to decide which of the presidential candidates is the worst. At the moment, it's McCain, for his commitment to endless futility in the Middle East, and McCain-Feingold. Obama and Hillary are tied for a very close second worst, as they push economic ruin and socialized health care, which would surely contribute to the economic ruin. It's hard to be excited about any of the lot.