WXNT, Post Abdul

I had to hit the road early Monday morning to get to a meeting in Jasper at 9am, so I was able to tune in to WXNT 1430-am in Indianapolis at 6am for the first post-Abdul broadcast.

No surprises here. The Wall Street Journal morning show has replaced him, and talked about the same things the newscast that preceded it talked about- the Ames, Iowa Republican straw poll. It said all of the same things I had just heard on the Fox News Report, in more detail, but saying nothing new.

I gave up after the first segment and switched to the iPod. I listened to a few editions of the Cato Daily Podcast, and then enjoyed the Thinking Fellers Union Local 282's very great EP called 'Admonishing The Bishops', and then Siouxsie & The Banshees' 'Join Hands' album.

It's a loss. WSJ isn't going to give us any local perspectives. They didn't even give us a financial markets perspective. One might have thought they might take an interest in delivering their news from that angle, being that's who they are, and is what they could and should bring to the table. Alas. It's just one more national show among hundreds.

Low Opinion Of London

You may know that I keep an active Bucket List on many subjects. I am not feeling my mortality, but I've always taken the view that nobody is guaranteed tomorrow, so I'd better get after these things sooner rather than too late. I have a lot of interests, and if I want any chance at all at hitting even a quarter of it, well...

One part of my Bucket List relates to travel- a visit to all 50 states. Louisiana is one of the nine states I have not yet visited. There are four southern states- LA, AR, AL, MS- that I haven't gotten around to. The top destination in those states? New Orleans.

So, a few years ago, when Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans and other areas along the Gulf Coast, I came away with a very low opinion of New Orleans, in particular. I understand well after the fact that the reporting was sensationalized, politicized, and even flat out made up. All the same, my dim view of New Orleans is only mitigated by these realizations, not erased. My opinion was so low, that I resolved not to visit New Orleans at all when I got to the state. The Bayou is plenty unique and interesting, and would more than satisfy the Bucket List requirements, as flyovers and pass-throughs don't count in my travel world.

London is another such place. I'm so disgusted with what's going on in London, that I am very certain I will sooner go to New Orleans than London.

Looting always sickens me. In the case of Katrina victims, I can begrudgingly see it when the items sought are needs, like water or food. I don't justify it, but I do understand it. But in London? There was no natural disaster that suddenly created need. There was only mindlessness. From a Time article:

It took 140 years to build up the House of Reeves furniture store, but only a few hours to destroy it. On Aug. 9, the morning after arsonists left the Croydon landmark in ruins, its owner put on a brave face for reporters. "It's been there since 1867, survived two wars, a depression. Yet the community seems to have burned it down," Maurice Reeves told news crews. "I'm 80 years old. It was my wedding anniversary yesterday. I don't know how I'm here today, but I am." On Aug. 10, Reeves paced around the wreckage — red bricks charred black, wooden planks split like toothpicks — but kept his eyes glued to the asphalt. Then, when a yellow bulldozer emblazoned with the word "Demolition" pulled up, Reeves walked away.

For a town recovering from the worst violence since bombs rained down during World War II, the destruction of the House of Reeves symbolizes the mindless thuggery that engulfed Croydon as well as cities and towns across England. Millions watched the Croydon blaze grow larger on live television; police couldn't ensure that the mob wouldn't attack the fire crews, so the firefighters were delayed and arrived too late to save the store. Rumors spread from neighbor to neighbor that the rioters had torched the building to distract authorities from the looting taking place in the town's shopping district.

This, of course, is but one story of but one area set ablaze by rioters.

I have no respect whatsoever for these idiot criminals. I looked back into my past, because I'm the kind of person who has been fighting mad about some wrong my government, including police, has done. Not once did it seem appropriate to burn down some uninvolved 3rd party's property. Never once did it occur to me to smash the window of an electronics store to grab some high priced gear as a means to gaining a sense of justice. Hell, I've never even once entertained the idea of burning down a Post Office. For any reason.

Is the political situation there intolerable? Then fight the people who made it so. Don't burn down your neighbor's home! Run for office, file a lawsuit- don't become a criminal, and an idiot.

Best explanation, also from the Time article, offered from a grandmother to her grandchild:

"My 9-year-old granddaughter said, 'Granny, what possesses these people to do things like this?' " Marilyn, a 60-year-old resident remembers. "I said to her, 'They're savages.' There's no other word."

So, for what it's worth, London? You're off my travel list!

And, if my blood wasn't simmering enough, I learned that one of my all-time favorite record labels, 4AD, suffered losses thanks to these criminal morons. Also from Time:

Started by looters, the fire destroyed hundreds of thousands of CDs belonging to indie labels, as independent music group [PIAS] U.K. subcontracts its physical distribution to Sony DADC. Many leading independent film companies, including BFI and Artificial Eye (which releases the Three Colors trilogy, among many others) also lost DVDs in the blaze.

Affected music labels include XL (home to Adele), 4AD (Bon Iver) and Domino (Arctic Monkeys). Physical stock of Arctic Monkeys' new single, "The Hellcat Spangled Shalalala," is so depleted that it will no longer be distributed to record stores.

Over the course of the past week, I kept thinking of the great Dead Kennedys song, "Riot", singing just two lines to myself every time I heard or saw a news report:

Tomorrow you're homeless
Tonight it's a blast

Nope. Can't go to a place where there is that much stupidity. Not as a tourist.

The Post Office Gets It

I can't believe this, but for the second time in two weeks, I'm singing the praises of the US Postal Service. Why? Because they get it. Someone there understands that when you don't have the money, you don't ignore the fact and keep spending. You make cuts. From a CNNMoney report:

According to documents obtained by CNNMoney, the United States Postal Service is appealing to Congress to remove collective bargaining restrictions in order to lay off 120,000 workers. It also wants congressional approval to replace existing government health care and retirement plans.

The post office claims it needs to eliminate 220,000 positions, or more than 30% of its staff by 2015, but only 100,000 of those positions can be made through attrition. The other 120,000 must come from lay offs, according to the documents.

"To restore the Postal Service to financial viability, it is imperative that we have the ability to reduce our workforce rapidly," the USPS wrote.

Two weeks ago, the USPS announced the plan to close 3,600 offices. Now plans to cut workforce. How about that. Nip at the edges to save the whole. Not raise the price of stamps, thereby driving away yet more customers. Cut costs. The picture will be complete if the USPS lowers the cost of postage. I won't hold my breath. How can I? I'm singing me some praises! Rah-rah, USPS! Dare I even dream of selling off this antiquated beast? That would be so appropriate, but hey, let's not get greedy. A move in the right direction warms the heart and clears the bleary eyes.

Feh. Congress will probably stand in the way.

Abdul Leaving WXNT

This was shocking, sad news to receive today. My friend Chris Ward texted me a few minutes after receiving Abdul Hakim-Shabazz's tweet that Friday would be his last show on WXNT, 1430-am. It's disappointing to me for several reasons.

First and foremost, Abdul was always very good to me personally. He had me on the show many, many times- as a candidate for Secretary of State in 2006 and County Council in 2010, as the opposition to light rail, and as a proponent of fair redistricting, as party to a lawsuit against the Town of Fishers for sitting on a valid petition, commenting on State of the Union and State of the State addresses, etc.

Abdul was always fair with the Libertarian Party in general. His motto of "I am an arms dealer" was applied to us in a very inclusive way. Libertarians aren't always included in media dialogue, unless it's to be a dog to be kicked. Abdul included us because we are a bona fide political party and on the ballot. That's fairness, and it has always been deeply appreciated.

But I'm a fan of live radio that focuses on local topics. This is something woefully scarce in Indianapolis media. I was spoiled in Cleveland, with live local talk on several full power stations, plus the college radio scene, which I was a part of. When I came to Indy some 10 years ago, it was immediately apparent that radio here SUCKED in comparison. All of the media, really. Being in the state capitol, it always appeared that the media was interested in covering 'big' statewide news, at the expense of local issues. If the Star put the staffing into a City Desk that it does into Sports, it would have something vibrant. Alas. So, Abdul- yes, a guy from Illinois and with a foot still very much in the door in Illinois- was bringing better, more interesting, more useful radio to Indianapolis than the natives were creating.

And now, because WXNT apparently doesn't get any money budgeted to it, will shed Abdul in favor of yet another nationally syndicated show. In other words, they're trashing their top asset, and replacing it with something utterly forgettable. *sigh* This is where I dream of having piles of riches in reserve, so that I could launch a real local radio station, just to show 'em what that's like.

And again, Abdul has always been very good to me. A friend. So, I wish him well in whatever he undertakes to put him back up to at least 3 jobs at once. A good man deserves as much.

Predictably, Deal Struck

Without surprise, we are arriving at the 11th Hour, and voila! A debt deal is struck! Completely predictable. Let's see how it follows through, for I saw it coming thusly:

1. A deal will be done.
2. The chest thumping on both sides will continue right up to the moment when the Kumbaya press conference happens.
3. The cuts to the budget will be heavier on symbolism than substance, by a ton.

#1? Check. #2? Well, the chest thumping part is a check. The press conference shouldn't be far behind.

As for #3? Well, since the devil is always in the details, this may take a day or two to sort out, but I have no doubts it will play accordingly.

The Nut Doesn't Fall Far From The Tree, Eh?

I always have to laugh when someone tells me that since I have kids, I'll have some more libertarians. That amusement ignores so many pertinent things, such as my wife's liberal influence, and the notion that I am the libertarian product of a Republican father and a Democratic (though less so all the the time) mother. I find that you can instill and instill, and at the end of the day, your kids are who they are. Ask my folks.

I was starkly reminded of such things this morning, as I was prepping for lunch. I have all the ingredients for really nice burgers- ground sirloin, fresh tomatoes and romaine lettuce, cheese slices, the works. So I asked the kids what they wanted on their burgers. I got sour faces.

Me: "What's the matter, Isabel?"
Isabel: "I don't want a burger."
Me: "Aren't you hungry."
Isabel: "Yeah. I don't like your burgers. I like McDonald's".

Ouch! Right in the crotch! It will hurt much less when they don't vote Libertarian.

Bar Follies

Being that I've been underemployed over large stretches of the past three years, I have availed myself of the opportunity to do some odd jobs to pick up extra cash and generally keep like I'm a productive member of society. Usually, these are menial tasks. For instance, I recently sealcoated a friend's driveway. As much as anything, this served to remind me that sealcoating a driveway in 95 degree heat is a young man's gig. But it was satisfying to hustle and sweat, and especially to complete.

Another gig I picked up for a while was to work in a bar. A friend needed help plugging holes in his staff, so I lept into the breach.

I ended up doing everything except tend bar. You need a license to do that, so I made myself open to doing anything else. The one thing I really enjoyed was cooking. I like cooking at home, so why not? A cook failed a drug test, coming up positive for cocaine, so Mike The Cook was in demand.
It's different cooking in a bar. Everything I cook at home is from scratch, and I rarely use salt. I don't fry anything at home apart from eggs, and the majority of the menu was fried food. French fries, shrimp, cheese sticks, fish patties, and a whole lot more... pickles even- drop the basket into the oil, pull it up in 2 minutes, maybe 3, maybe 4. It hardly matters. Very little was from scratch, and much of it used salt. Even the burgers.

Some customers wanted their chicken wings crispy. Normally, the wings are cooked for 10-12 minutes. 15 makes for crispy. I had one customer ask me to double the cooking time, so that they were really crispy. After 30 minutes in the fryer, I couldn't see any appreciable difference. I couldn't imagine waiting 30 minutes for chicken wings.

One thing I learned about cooks who make $10/hour is that these aren't people who are paid enough to care. The job is simple enough. You have rushes at the dinner hour where you are jumping around trying to get all of the orders fulfilled without missing anything. But for the rest of the night, it's a pretty leisurely affair- an order here, and order there, plenty of time to do things like fill salad dressing cups or clean the surfaces.

Those are things cooks making $10/hour either don't or won't do unless browbeaten. I'm not sure why. It was boring as hell to stand around in the kitchen when orders weren't coming. Yes, I reconnected with Classic Rock Radio. But you can do that while refilling the kitchen freezer with portions, so that the next shift's cook isn't screwed when he comes in. I couldn't understand. All of the cooks bitched about how the shift before screwed them by leaving a mess and portion trays empty... and then they left things a mess, and the portion trays empty.

I took on one fryer as my special case. This was a pressure cooker that was used to make 'broasted chicken'. I don't eat fried chicken anymore as a general rule, but I decided to try the foods I was cooking, just to be able to talk about them if a customer asked questions. The broasted chicken was wonderfully delicious. I gained 8 pounds in the month I was there. Anyhow, this fryer had once caught fire, and there was a 24" black spot on the side, which was grease that was entombed onto it, burned by the fire.

First, I cleaned the caked on grease from a pressure meter on this fryer. It was remarkable! The thing looked like new, and it only took about 15 minutes with a liberal application of elbow grease to scrub it clean. I decided to not clean anything else on the fryer until someone noticed. One of the cooks finally did notice, and told me, "Looks like we got a new meter on this fryer. That's good, because it was getting hard to see the needle through the grease."
The hours are horrible, of course. Indiana bars can stay open until 3am, and this one does. The kitchen is open until 10pm Sunday through Thursday, but 2am on Friday and Saturday nights. Add another half-hour for clean up, and 40 minutes for me to drive home, and that made for comings and goings in the Kole house. I got about 2 hours sleep on Saturday nights before Ame had to go to work on Sunday morning.

Not Applied Across The Board

With the USPS faltering, somebody there seems to get economics. Rather than raise the prices of postage yet again, thereby driving away yet more business, the USPS has announced plans to cut a good number of retail outlets. From an Indy Star report:

Nearly 100 Indiana post offices are included in the U.S. Postal Service's list of facilities it will review as it looks to cut costs.

The financially-troubled agency announced today that it will study more than 3,600 offices, branches and stations for possible closing. Some sites might be replaced by stores, libraries or government offices that offer postal services.
...
The postal service lost $8 billion last year as more customers shifted to online mail and the recession cut advertising mail. It currently operates nearly 32,000 retail outlets across the country.

Hmm. Austerity. Cut bits in order to preserve the whole. Huh. What novel thinking about a governmental agency. It's almost like a lesson was learned about how applying all the focus upon working to generate more revenue just results in scaring it away. Isn't that interesting? What next? Dropping the price of postage in the interests of increasing volume? That would be all kinds of crazy.

Maybe, just maybe this kind of approach could be taken to much more of the Federal government.

My Two Cents On The Debt Ceiling

Some essentials:

1. A deal will be done.
2. The chest thumping on both sides will continue right up to the moment when the Kumbaya press conference happens.
3. The cuts to the budget will be heavier on symbolism than substance, by a ton.

I find the whole battle to be pure theatre, and am really blown away by how so many on either side think this is a gigantic, meaningful political battle. It isn't.

If anything, it shows me how successfully the forces for big government have won the debate. When the 'debate' is over whether to cut $30 billion or $60 billion, in the face of spending more than $2 trillion, it is clear that big government is committed to in full.

So, when I see pundits arguing strenuously about how we're about to eviscerate the government's social programs, or really tackling the tough issues, I'm left wondering if such efforts are a result of having no grasp on reality, no sense of perspective, or just propaganda.

Now, if at my Walter Mitty best, I woke up and found myself Obama, I would start by ending the wars. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya? Done. Troops home in 90 days or less.

The public showed an appetite for ending Iraq 3 years ago, and elected a candidate who promised to end it. So make good. The public supported Afghanistan on the bogus pretext of getting Bin Laden. That's done, so the pretext is gone. And nobody was clamoring for a war in Libya. That looks like an attempt to distract, at best. So, over the 'harumpf harumpf' noises of the right, this could get done.

That isn't all that really needs to be cut, by any means. But if I was president, I'd have worked towards the kind of deal with ending the wars as the centerpiece, leaving the precious entitlements alone (as happened in 1995, because the GOP then realized that the big government conversation was settled), leaving the tax cuts in place, giving everybody a little something, but doing something that would really help our country in several ways.

As a side note, I'm still really surprised how Obama has emerged as a poor communicator. He had the press eating out of his hand by the time of his inauguration. He really didn't cultivate that the way he could have, just by having more frequent press conferences. To me, he appears to have been hiding from the press, which makes absolutely no sense.

Why Cut Taxes? And When?

Let's hear it from someone familiar, at least historically.


Update: These are interesting days, when iconic figures run contrary to their parties' descendents. Huffington Post reports Democrats' gleefully using Ronald Reagan quotes about raising the debt ceiling, in the same way I used JFK above.

"I find myself these days quoting Ronald Reagan," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) at a news conference Wednesday. "'The full consequences of a default,' he said, 'or even the serious prospect of a default by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The nation can ill afford to allow such a result.'

"That's Ronald Reagan," Boxer emphasized, suggesting that Republicans recall that model. "All they have to do is look at their icon, Ronald Reagan, and understand you don't play with fire when it comes to the full faith and credit of the United States of America."

Some days, politics actually is fun.

Changes in Federal Debt, Annually, By President

To follow up the previous post, here's a nice list that I've reduced from a wikipedia table with figures about the rates of increased federal debt. But ha! There is one exception! The federal debt went down one (ONE!) time since 1993. This time, I'll add the growth in GDP right next to the growth of the debt, and put an asterisk * after the years spending increase percentages outstrip growth of GDP.

1994 Clinton 4.6% GDP: 3.8%
1995 Clinton 3.4% GDP: 2.7%
1996 Clinton 3.0% GDP: 2.7%
1997 Clinton 1.7% GDP: 4.3%
1998 Clinton 1.0% GDP: 4.4%
1999 Clinton 0.8% GDP: 4.2%
2000 Clinton -2.1% GDP: 3.7%
2001 Clinton 0.2% GDP: 1.2% *
2002 Bush 5.5% GDP: 1.3% *
2003 Bush 6.2% GDP: 1.4% *
2004 Bush 5.7% GDP: 3.4%
2005 Bush 3.7% GDP: 2.6% *
2006 Bush 3.4% GDP: 2.9% *
2007 Bush 3.6% GDP: 2.8%
2008 Bush 5.0% GDP: 0% *
2009 Bush 5.5% GDP: 2.6% *
2010 Obama 12.5% GDP: -2.0% *

Can't say that the magic formula is Democratic President, Republican Congress anymore!

After isolating, it's interesting to go back and lay these two side by side, as the original table does. What can be observed?

1. Government consistently grows in cost.
2. The debt consistently grows.
3. Only in one of the Clinton years, his last, did the spending increases outstrip growth of GDP. In 6 of the 8 Bush years it did. Also, in Obama's first year. Were the smart years the Clinton years, or the Bush years? Looks like we can learn something from this.

I see a lot of criticism tying the lack of revenues to the Bush tax cuts. Ok, but is the lack of GDP growth no factor? After all, tax revenues are relative to the growth of GDP. If a person enjoys a tax cut to 20% and makes $100,000/year, he pays $20,000, while the person suffering a higher tax rate of 25% while making $50,000/year pays $12,500.

Maybe we should worry far less about tax rates, and worry a whole lot more about seeing to it that people can make more income. Taxing millionaires might yield satisfying rhetoric, but will cause your income to rise? Will it put 20 people into jobs? I mean jobs that expand GDP by creating wealth.

If we're really interested first and foremost about raising revenues, shouldn't we be trying to do everything we can to get fuller employment, and for people to earn more? We have 2.8 million millionaires. Meanwhile, we have 14.1 million unemployed. Nevermind the underemployed, like me. I'd rather see us get the unemployed into jobs, and the underemployed more work.

So, if the smart days were the Clinton years, we should observe that there is no GDP growth, so we should accordingly spend less. I mean, if that was smart then.

Changes in Federal Spending, Annually, By President

I've been watching the partisans battle it out over the debt ceiling, and marveling at the way numbers are thrown around without particular regard for things like accuracy. I've had so many different articles and posts come up that caused immediate cognitive dissonance. When I get that sensation, I go for references.

So, here's a nice list that I've reduced from a wikipedia table with figures about the rates of increased spending. Yes, only increases. Since 1994, federal spending has only increased. The last time it actually decreased was 1993, under George HW Bush.

1994 Clinton 1.7%
1995 Clinton 1.2%
1996 Clinton 0.7%
1997 Clinton 0.7%
1998 Clinton 2.2%
1999 Clinton 1.9%
2000 Clinton 2.5%
2001 Clinton 1.8%
2002 Bush 6.0%
2003 Bush 4.6%
2004 Bush 3.2%
2005 Bush 4.0%
2006 Bush 3.9%
2007 Bush 0.6%
2008 Bush 4.6%
2009 Bush 3.6%
2010 Obama 1.4%

Seems like the magic formula is Democratic President, Republican Congress- not that any of them reduced the size of government in this time. They all grew it. But nothing grew it like Republican President, Republican Congress.

So, the rhetoric about the size of government not growing is bullshit. Likewise, the rhetoric about spending not growing is bullshit. And the rhetoric about Republicans being the party of smaller government is the biggest steaming pile of the purest, pungent, unmitigated bullshit ever foisted upon a gullible public.

A Phone Book?

I came home yesterday to find a phone book in my driveway. A phone book? I can't think of anything more useless. A pledge pin? I laughed hard when I read the text on the bag.

"Please recycle your outdated phone books."

No shit. That's redundant. The phone book itself is outdated! I'm recycling this one straight away.

I can't remember the last time I used a phone book. Oh wait, I think it was two years ago. I needed to prop a door open. The goddamn thing is an environmental nightmare. All that paper for something that I will never use. I wonder how many people picked up their book and took it straight to the trash can. Thing is, I get several different editions. They rarely make it into the house beyond the staging location for trash & recyclables.

I can't believe businesses spend good money to advertise in the phone book still. I heard an ad on the radio for Ace Rent-A-Car. It's the same ad copy from 2002, when I came to Indy. It doesn't direct the listener to their website. It directs the listener to the Yellow Pages. That alone makes me never want to rent a car from Ace. If they can't update their ad copy in nine years, do they update their cars? Do they rent out 1962 A8/Marathons? (Think: Checker cabs)

Well, there was one truly useful line of text on the bag. It read:

"To opt out from future deliveries, visit www.yellowpagesoptout.com"

So, I went there, and it turns out I was eligible for SEVEN different phone book editions! So, I opted out of all of the stupid things.

I hope I never get another door prop, er, phone book again.

Sad Stampede

This is what we've come to. This is our 'recovery'. There are so many people wanting to sign up for Section 8 housing assistance in Dallas, that they stampede in an effort to get into line to fill out a form.



Well, it was 'the Jesse Owens Memorial Complex' they were trying to get to.

The obvious reaction is to wonder if there was this kind of race to fill out job applications anywhere in Dallas. But then, this bullshit recover has been a jobless wonder, so I have to doubt it. I find it sad on so many counts. Sad that so many people in just that one area are in need. Sad for the injuries the ill-managed event resulted in. Sad for the desperation of it all.

And yeah- I'll make it political. Is all the public spending saving these people? No doubt, to some, it's proof we haven't spent enough. For me, it's proof that people aren't being equipped for self-sufficiency. Blame schools, blame parents, blame the individuals themselves- but that kind of mad rush to fill out a form for assistance looks like the kind of thing we might have seen on a news report of the third world, say 10-15 years ago.

Oh, Do I Love NPR's Bias

I had seen a CNN article that said 42% of Americans were opposed to raising the debt ceiling. I didn't know if that meant that 58% were opposed, but since it referenced a Gallup Poll, I was thinking it there were probably at least two other categories- in favor, and unsure, at the very least.

So, I did a Google search for 'gallup poll debt ceiling'. The top result was an NPR article with the headline, "Gallup: Majority of Americans Still Oppose Raising Debt Ceiling". The article had today's date, so I clicked it. I need look no further than the first paragraph to see the bias like a kick in the crotch.

It may say more about the state of economic education in the nation than anything else but a majority of Americans remain opposed raising the federal debt ceiling according to a new Gallup poll.

And that's despite dire warnings by policymakers and experts that a default by the U.S. government could be calamitous. It would likely cause higher interest rates not just for the federal government but throughout the economy.

I'd like to think I have a pretty good understanding of economics. I fancy myself as having a fair idea about government, and how it's supposed to work, too.

Despite this, I'm opposed to raising the debt ceiling. I am of the opinion that much of what the government does would be better done by individuals, or not at all. For instance, the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. I am of the opinion that government spending should be cut dramatically. Let's start with cutting the military in half. That would put a nice dent in things, as a starting position, without weakening our ability to defend our country.

So, am I an uneducated rube? Am I even desiring a default?

Hell, no. But I guess that's the kind of discourse we can expect anymore. You don't have a policy solution, Mr. Kole. You're an idiot.

I so often get to the point where there seems little point in making my points. I can't out-noise NPR, that devourer of community radio stations from sea to shining sea. But this bias of author Frank James seems typical of the discourse anymore. It isn't that he has a perspective. He has it, and you're flat out ignorant if you disagree. I just find it unworthy of response, for the most part... although I just spent 8 minutes doing just that.

Maybe I am an idiot.

Right On, Michael Irvin

I had never thought much about anything former Dallas Cowboy star receiver Michael Irvin had to say, prior to today. He seemed like one of a multitude of look-at-me-me-me athletes. But he's done something to completely change my mind about him. He is on the cover of Out Magazine, and discusses his coming to acceptance of his gay brother. One quote stands out like a cool breeze on this sweltering summer day:

Irvin now believes the African-American community should support marriage equality.

"I don't see how any African-American, with any inkling of history, can say that you don't have the right to live your life how you want to live your life," he said, according to the magazine. "No one should be telling you who you should love, no one should be telling you who you should be spending the rest of your life with. When we start talking about equality, and everybody being treated equally, I don't want to know an African-American who will say everybody doesn't deserve equality."

I have been repeatedly shocked at how one oppressed minority group can routinely oppress another minority group. This is an excellent statement by Irvin- one that comes at a time where 'gay' has repeatedly been used as a put-down by athletes in recent days.

What Makes Me Tick

I was appreciative of fellow blogger Paul Ogden's comment to me on Facebook regarding the infrequency of my posts. He said that he misses my posting more regularly, and that I should get fired so that I can post more.

Funny enough, I've been under-employed for some long time now. In all actuality, my frequency of posting is inversely proportional to the amount of time spent working. I know it doesn't make sense on the first blush. Kole has more free time, so he posts less?

Yes, it's true. Somehow, I feel like I'm more in the game of life when I have a heavy workload. I feel like I'm out and about more and seeing more, and therefore have more to contribute. Sure, I could scan the news sites every morning for an article to react to, and could post aplenty, but it just doesn't appeal to me.

When you get right down to it, I'm a pretty lousy blogger. I break all the rules. I don't post regularly enough. I never comment on the big story Nancy Grace is getting all righteous about. I talk more about local or regional issues than national ones. I don't cross-post everything to Facebook. I don't really do anything to attract readers. And, I don't have many.

But that's ok with me. I really appreciate Paul's comment. I love that some people do read regularly. I like to think of it all as quality over quantity, and that's generally what I strive for in life, in general.

You Have To Be 'On' All The Time

I remember running for Secretary of State in 2005 when this thought first occurred to me. I remember the scene well, if not the precise location. I was driving up to LaPorte, wearing the monkey suit, and I needed to stop for gas. It was a small town on 421, and I stood out like a sore thumb. It was 95 degrees outside, on a Saturday, with everybody else wearing shorts and casuals, and I'm wearing a business suit and tie, with the wingtips. I was so used to wearing it that I thought nothing of it. A man came up to me and said, "You running for President or something?" I'm sure I had the deer-in-the-headlights look for a moment until I could tell him that I was running for Secretary of State.

President? That threw me. Anything can throw you, if you aren't 100% prepared. I knew at that moment that I would have to be 'on' every minute of the remainder of the campaign.

So, Sarah Palin weighed in on Paul Revere's ride. The partisan Democrats are having a laff-fest. The Palin supporters are going crazy trying to defend, and going so far as to revising the Paul Revere page on wikipedia.



I have a degree in history. I focused on the Revolutionary War period. Here's my take:

1. Paul Revere never would have said, "The British are coming". Revere was British.
2. Revere was arrested by the British authorities and questioned. He apparently did tell them that the colonists were ready to use and protect their store of arms. Is that a warning? I think it could be construed either way.
3. Revere probably didn't ring any bells or fire any shots. The accounts tell of one church ringing its bell.

So, I think Palin was factually correct on warning the British about the intent of the colonists, 'Warned the British that they weren't going to be taking our guns'. Wrong about 'Ringing those bells' and firing shots. For either side to say she was entirely wrong or entirely right is off-base, and probably just reveals the bias of the claimant.

She certainly had the deer-in-the-headlights look about her, though. I still don't get what Palin's appeal is to the Right. I first wrote about not getting her allure back in Nov 2009, and I still don't get it.

Anybody can screw up. Obama's '57 states, with one to go- Alaska & Hawaii', ranks high up there. I know as well as anyone that you have to be 'on' all the time, and that it is draining hard. But the frequency of Palin's gaffes, and the almost constant deer-in-the-headlights look? Wow.

Update: A very great article on this subject appeared in CNN. It is written by Kenneth Davis, author of the book, 'Don't Know Much About History'. Per Davis:

The truth of Revere's ride, the long road to American independence and the real people behind that extraordinary moment is a far more compelling narrative of intrigue, courage and a life-and-death battle for power than the "bedtime story" version most of us recall from half-remembered third grade poetry.

But we prefer holding onto a tidy scenario of pride and patriotism that is neither accurate nor memorable, if we remember at all. Instead, we settle for ignorance, as periodic surveys of American knowledge of history routinely prove. Or we cobble together a sketchy narrative combining fact and fiction to comfortably fit our political agendas.

That is sad. And dangerous. It is sad because history is compelling, fascinating and instructive -- if we tell the real story.

But it is also dangerous when people "cherry pick" pieces of the story to suit their purposes, when the foot is cut to fit the shoe. A sanitized but incomplete, or worse, wildly inaccurate, version of history can be cited to support just about any political stand. Like scripture, the words and deeds of the Founders, mixed with bits and pieces of American mythology, are trumpeted to support positions on every issue from individual rights, states' rights, gun rights or gun control, to taxes, immigration, public prayer and, most dangerously, taking the nation to war.

When American history is gutted, innocently, ignorantly or deliberately, the outcome can be deadly.

That's what I was going on about- the 'gotcha' politics, the hyperbolic response, and the mugging of history by both left and right.

Bigot, Here's Your Sign. It's a Mirror

A friend forwarded an article to me to ask what I made of it.

What I make of it is a pretty standard smear of a quasi-libertarian by one on the left. Observe:

To my great chagrin no one in the national media has picked up the Bodineism meme, but they are starting to get the picture that there are some elected officials, particularly Republican elected officials, are about as dumb as sack of hammers.

The particular Jethro that I am talking about today is Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. Of all the folks that I have compared to Jethro Bodine, Sen. Paul is probably the closet to the mark. By all accounts he is a pretty genial guy with a good smile and a nice manner. He is also so clueless as to be a text book (given that all books are printed in text, wouldn’t that make them all text books?) example of self-satire.

I had to look up 'Jethro Bodine'. Ah- the Beverly Hillbillies! Well!

I find it very interesting that the left too often loves to use 'hillbilly' as a put-down. Substitute the 'n-word', and what would the leftist's howling reaction be? But somehow, this is ok. Same method and damaged 'thinking', whereby it's ok and har-har funny to generalize a group of people into a stereotype, and then denigrate away.

So, I don't put much stock personally into these kinds of smears. I tend to dismiss out of hand and stop reading as soon as I identify the bigoted smear. But my friend asked for my take.

Upon further reading, it has the other component of these smears against Rand or Ron Paul- "Oh, he isn't libertarian enough for the libertarians". It's an attempt to create cognitive dissonance and mistrust among those who support Rand Paul on the basis of pro-liberty sentiment.

There's something ironic in a guy trying to cause cognitive dissonance on inconsistency and hypocrisy, when he engages in it himself with his put-down. So, again, I normally dismiss out of hand.

The poor guy just doesn't understand libertarians. We constantly evaluate our 'exemplars'. Nobody will hold them accountable faster than we do on the finer points. On the other hand, he isn't my exemplar. He's a Republican, and we have our differences. I'd still take 10 Rand Pauls over 10 Harry Reids, or even 10 Dick Lugars.

To his point?

Most recently Sen. Paul (gods greater and lesser that gives me chills just writing it, ugh) has managed to trample the 1st Amendment with his “ideas”. Some of us on the Left side of the Blogasphere were more than a little happy that he was holding up the PATRIOT act renewal, by wanting to insert some amendments that would lessen the ability of the government to spy on its own citizens.

That was a good thing, but it does not mean that he was doing it from a deep understanding of the Constitution. You see after his ploy failed he went on Sean “The Manatee” Hannity’s radio show and said the following:

I’m not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where they’ve been traveling and perhaps, you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they’ve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn’t be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison.

Peel your palm off of your face. Yes, Sen. Paul, a man sworn to uphold the Constitution, just like every other elected official, seems to have an abject failure to understand the meaning, intent and workings of the 1st Amendment.

To say that Paul has an abject lack of knowledge is absurd. I think he's wrong here, patently. Does it make him wrong on everything else, as the word abject suggests? Well, the writer already acknowledged the value Senator Paul brought in stalling the Patriot Act.

Rand Paul is a politician that I have some admiration for. I don't agree with everything anybody stands for. I accept that there are going to be differences, even sharp ones, within the context of a greater agreement. Really, there are less than 10 in the whole Congress that I think of myself have some broad agreement with, and yes Rand Paul, and his father, are among them. Perfect? No. Better than the others? You bet.

I'd like to know how this writer treats politicians on the left? Does he eliminate them completely if he disagrees with them on a single point? Because if he does, he likes even fewer members of Congress than I do. Approximately, zero.

Physician, heal thyself!

Gender Identity Storm

I've been watching this public debate about gender roles with interested curiosity. A Canadian couple decides not to tell anyone what the gender of their child is, and refuses to impose gender roles upon the child. At age 3 months, I guess that means no blue or pink jammies or wallpaper, no dolls that depict typical boys or girls, etc. From CNN's report:

Instead of the usual birth announcement of 'It's a Boy!' or 'It's a Girl!', Stocker and Witterick sent out an e-mail announcement that said, "We've decided not to share Storm's sex for now -- a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm's lifetime (a more progressive place? ...)."

At 3 months, I say, 'Big Deal'. The child isn't processing much more than 'Mommy', 'Daddy', 'Hungry!', 'Wet', or 'Tired'. With our kids, we didn't go out of our way to put the girl in pink, and the boy in blue. Heck, the boy is youngest, so at 3 months, he wore some pink. We just weren't going to go and buy more outfits because the color wasn't right for a kid who couldn't comprehend the difference anyway.

As parents, we aren't in any kind of hurry for any kind of roles for our kids, apart from 'avid reader', 'good student', and 'thoughtful, polite kid'. We kept them away from Barbie dolls and monster trucks.

Funny thing about that. The kids both embraced their gender roles, but hard. Isabel's wardrobe and bedroom are monuments to pink and purple, princesses and ponies. Not because we foisted it upon her. Nope. She just loves it. Nobody had to force it on her. Likewise, Ethan just loves construction machinery, garbage trucks, cement trucks, buses, and trains. Nobody directed him to these things. Well, ok- he got some of the train enthusiasm from me. Maybe a lot, even. But he is such a boy. He has long hair and people sometimes think he's a girl... despite wearing camo's. people are so funny with assumptions. But, spend 15 minutes with him, and you discover that he is all boy. He runs into walls full speed, he's into everything, and if it's machinery, he loves it.

In the case of Isabel, we specifically wished to avoid all the princess stuff. It's so over-the-top, and we don't want our kids thinking of themselves as royalty. You can fight it as hard as you want. She saw it once, was totally fascinated, and gravitated to all things princess ever more. So, why should we withhold something she loves from her? It might not have been our preference, but it's pretty harmless stuff if it isn't indulgent.

We want a lot of things for our kids, and I think too many times parents want to sculpt their kids into idealized versions of themselves, at the expense of what the kids really have inside themselves. I think that's where this discussion ought to lead, if it's too be constructive. These parents seem to have a 'progressive' idealism worked out for their kid. What if what's really inside the child is nothing of the sort, and a strong identification with whichever gender role the child happens to be? Are they going to stifle it? Would that be 'progressive'?