I think Colts fans are perfectly justified in being unhappy with the huge wave of cuts- Peyton Manning, most notably, and now Addai, Clark, Brackett, Bullitt, and Painter.
Ok, most Colts fans are good with the cutting of Curtis Painter. But WRs Reggie Wayne and Pierre Garcon are also likely done here, and Dwight Freeney is on the trading block. If you were a fan, was it because you just love the blue jerseys and the horseshoe helmet, or was it because you identified with likeable players that made long careers here?
So, if the likeable players are gone, what's to be excited about? Rah-rah blue jersey? Rah-rah Irsay's team?
And, is the fan anything more than a sucker if expected to buy tickets and go to games where the odds are great that the team is not only going to lose, but look bad doing it? I think 'sucker' is just the right term.
So, when someone suggests that you aren't a 'real fan' if you have quickly lost interest in this team, let them know that they are just a 'sucker', and that you aren't the kind of fool who knowingly flushes good time and/or money down the sewer in accepting frustration where entertainment should be.
I'll give Colts GM Ryan Grigson this: When he cleans house, he CLEANS HOUSE.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Friday, March 09, 2012
Meet-Up With Rupert
I remember my reaction when I first heard that Rupert Boneham had an interest in seeking the Libertarian nomination for Indiana Governor. I thought, "Oh, great. A reality show TV star. We work so hard, so long to be taken seriously, and we'll be cast as a joke party." He had no prior involvement in politics, but he is instantly recognizable by many thanks to his appearances on the show "Survivor".
The thought of the publicity he could bring to the Libertarian Party looked like a plus. People who would otherwise not be checking out the LP now would, and that's great. But what about his policy positions? If you see a tie-dyed tank top on a man everywhere he goes, is it because that's how he's come to brand himself, or is it that he's a bit of a pothead? Does he know anything about libertarian philosophy or policy solutions?
The Hamilton County LP hosted its monthly Meet-Up last night, and Rupert spoke for about 15 minutes. The biggest issue for Rupert? Getting government out of charities. He went on to detail how state and federal agencies have interfered with the business of his charity, Rupert's Kids, draining it of money and time, replacing those things with nothing. He works with troubled youth, with the intention of setting them up with life skills, including vocational trades. He speaks knowingly, and with passion for the kids in his programs. He observed over time that private charity succeeds when it moves kids out of their programs and into the adult workforce. Government charity has the effect of keeping people in the system, and vastly less functional.
Some libertarians may not be as excited to hear him talk about education, where he takes a destinational approach rather than directional. He spoke about eliminating some administration, moving education away from the state and back into local control, eliminating I-Step, and increasing vocational training and life skills training. He doesn't sound like Murray Rothbard, but rather Milton Friedman.
But on the whole, Rupert groks libertarianism far more than I expected at the onset. And, he's a great spokesman in this setting at least, being about 20 people. People in the restaurant kept coming over, and eventually he went over to sit with a table of fans that waited for him to end his presentation to us. People took a real interest in everything he said.
I like to reserve judgment on endorsing candidates until I've seen them in many situations. He's got the interpersonal down. Of course he has TV down. I'd love to see him on a bigger stage, and would love to hear him on the radio with a host that is less than friendly, to see how he performs. After all, the governor's candidates are standard bearers for the parties. They do public debates, and have to hold their own, while putting across a distinct message, and in our case, one that represents libertarian values.
As to the political mechanics, there were a lot of grumbles within libertarian circles several months ago about the idea of Rupert as standard bearer for the LPIN. At the same time, those grumbling haven't stepped forward to run themselves, nor have they recruited a candidate to advance a different platform. I don't know what this represents, whether it's a concession of some sort or laziness. It's disappointing because I really like contested conventions. It's good for the organization to have competing viewpoints make their cases, with the best articulated winning the day. Grumbling and muttering doesn't accomplish anything in particular. The phenomenon of one believing they have a superior outlook and then sandbagging it is most peculiar to me.
The thought of the publicity he could bring to the Libertarian Party looked like a plus. People who would otherwise not be checking out the LP now would, and that's great. But what about his policy positions? If you see a tie-dyed tank top on a man everywhere he goes, is it because that's how he's come to brand himself, or is it that he's a bit of a pothead? Does he know anything about libertarian philosophy or policy solutions?
The Hamilton County LP hosted its monthly Meet-Up last night, and Rupert spoke for about 15 minutes. The biggest issue for Rupert? Getting government out of charities. He went on to detail how state and federal agencies have interfered with the business of his charity, Rupert's Kids, draining it of money and time, replacing those things with nothing. He works with troubled youth, with the intention of setting them up with life skills, including vocational trades. He speaks knowingly, and with passion for the kids in his programs. He observed over time that private charity succeeds when it moves kids out of their programs and into the adult workforce. Government charity has the effect of keeping people in the system, and vastly less functional.
Some libertarians may not be as excited to hear him talk about education, where he takes a destinational approach rather than directional. He spoke about eliminating some administration, moving education away from the state and back into local control, eliminating I-Step, and increasing vocational training and life skills training. He doesn't sound like Murray Rothbard, but rather Milton Friedman.
But on the whole, Rupert groks libertarianism far more than I expected at the onset. And, he's a great spokesman in this setting at least, being about 20 people. People in the restaurant kept coming over, and eventually he went over to sit with a table of fans that waited for him to end his presentation to us. People took a real interest in everything he said.
I like to reserve judgment on endorsing candidates until I've seen them in many situations. He's got the interpersonal down. Of course he has TV down. I'd love to see him on a bigger stage, and would love to hear him on the radio with a host that is less than friendly, to see how he performs. After all, the governor's candidates are standard bearers for the parties. They do public debates, and have to hold their own, while putting across a distinct message, and in our case, one that represents libertarian values.
As to the political mechanics, there were a lot of grumbles within libertarian circles several months ago about the idea of Rupert as standard bearer for the LPIN. At the same time, those grumbling haven't stepped forward to run themselves, nor have they recruited a candidate to advance a different platform. I don't know what this represents, whether it's a concession of some sort or laziness. It's disappointing because I really like contested conventions. It's good for the organization to have competing viewpoints make their cases, with the best articulated winning the day. Grumbling and muttering doesn't accomplish anything in particular. The phenomenon of one believing they have a superior outlook and then sandbagging it is most peculiar to me.
Thursday, March 08, 2012
Partisan Misogyny
I don't go out of my way to condemn foul language. I use a bit of it myself. It's probably mostly beneath me, a weakness, but it often makes a point to use an expletive in order to drive a point home. And, call me small minded, but sometimes I just get a giggle out of using a cuss word. The crudity just sums up certain absurdities too well.
I certainly don't get too worked up about entertainers who use salty language in the political arena. Rush Limbaugh infamously called Sandra Fluke a 'slut'. In fairly swift response, Limbaugh's defenders have been reminding the world that Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a 'dumb twat' and a 'cunt', many to say, "See! Your guy is worse!"
I don't go for partisan shading on this. Both Limbaugh and Maher did exactly the same thing. They used misogynist language regarding a particular woman.
I don't go for condemnations of them, because I don't play the, "I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!" card on language. I'm too big a fan of Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, and free expression to do so. Sure, it's guttural. Sure, it's offensive to some. The individuals who were targeted perhaps have a slander case. That's up to them.
But some people do go for condemnations. That's fine. I'll take you at your word if you're saying that you are in favor of a more civil discourse.
So, if you are, kindly be consistent. Please don't make moral equivalencies that say, "Well! Limbaugh is a political pundit, but Maher is a comedian!" Sorry, they're both entertainers at the end of the day, and contributors to the public discourse. Please don't say, "Sandra Fluke is a private citizen, but Sarah Palin is a public figure!" Really! Do public figures cease to be women? I had no idea.
And, if you're a member of Congress, the cognitive dissonance should be this visible, and it should hurt to be so transparently partisan.
I know it's all a political football, but really. If you want to be taken seriously about your outrage on Limbaugh (or Maher, for that matter), or your claims in favor of the civil discourse, you have to be consistent. Read Congresswoman Schakowsky's strong statement against Limbaugh's comments and see if you can find anything that would suggest excusing what Maher said.
The country is so absurdly partisan at this point. I have marveled recently at the ability of the left to turn a blind eye to so many of the things they complained about with Bush (eroding civil liberties, foreign wars, indefinite detention, borrow & spend). Before that (well, and after too), I was marveling at the ability of the right to ignore the things they complained about the left while backing those on the right doing those very things (bailouts, borrow & spend, growing the size & scope of government). There's more to politics than team. My party right or wrong is the sure path to wrong.
We need people to hold their own side to the high road. It doesn't happen fast by shaming the other side. That only breeds defensiveness and short term apologies designed more as damage control than introspection.
Update: Reason had already written something similar.
I just keep thinking about the 'public figure' argument. Yeah, right. As though it would be a-ok to call Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton these things, you know, because they are public figures. I can't get over the lame. I'd love it if we were as intent on consistency within our own camps as we are on the gotchas for the other camps.
I certainly don't get too worked up about entertainers who use salty language in the political arena. Rush Limbaugh infamously called Sandra Fluke a 'slut'. In fairly swift response, Limbaugh's defenders have been reminding the world that Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a 'dumb twat' and a 'cunt', many to say, "See! Your guy is worse!"
I don't go for partisan shading on this. Both Limbaugh and Maher did exactly the same thing. They used misogynist language regarding a particular woman.
I don't go for condemnations of them, because I don't play the, "I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!" card on language. I'm too big a fan of Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, and free expression to do so. Sure, it's guttural. Sure, it's offensive to some. The individuals who were targeted perhaps have a slander case. That's up to them.
But some people do go for condemnations. That's fine. I'll take you at your word if you're saying that you are in favor of a more civil discourse.
So, if you are, kindly be consistent. Please don't make moral equivalencies that say, "Well! Limbaugh is a political pundit, but Maher is a comedian!" Sorry, they're both entertainers at the end of the day, and contributors to the public discourse. Please don't say, "Sandra Fluke is a private citizen, but Sarah Palin is a public figure!" Really! Do public figures cease to be women? I had no idea.
And, if you're a member of Congress, the cognitive dissonance should be this visible, and it should hurt to be so transparently partisan.
I know it's all a political football, but really. If you want to be taken seriously about your outrage on Limbaugh (or Maher, for that matter), or your claims in favor of the civil discourse, you have to be consistent. Read Congresswoman Schakowsky's strong statement against Limbaugh's comments and see if you can find anything that would suggest excusing what Maher said.
The country is so absurdly partisan at this point. I have marveled recently at the ability of the left to turn a blind eye to so many of the things they complained about with Bush (eroding civil liberties, foreign wars, indefinite detention, borrow & spend). Before that (well, and after too), I was marveling at the ability of the right to ignore the things they complained about the left while backing those on the right doing those very things (bailouts, borrow & spend, growing the size & scope of government). There's more to politics than team. My party right or wrong is the sure path to wrong.
We need people to hold their own side to the high road. It doesn't happen fast by shaming the other side. That only breeds defensiveness and short term apologies designed more as damage control than introspection.
Update: Reason had already written something similar.
I just keep thinking about the 'public figure' argument. Yeah, right. As though it would be a-ok to call Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton these things, you know, because they are public figures. I can't get over the lame. I'd love it if we were as intent on consistency within our own camps as we are on the gotchas for the other camps.
Wait, Projections Fell Short?
Get outta here! A government entity overprojected revenues? Underestimated the gloriousness of its new ways? That never happens! From the Indy Star:
I was pleased with the reporting on the opposition.
I'm a huge fan of privatization of services, but deals like this smack of desperation and haste, and tend to give needless fuel to the critics of privatization who would dismiss the practice out of hand.
Ok, I was kidding. Inflating the projections is what always happens. It sells the thing. After the reality sets in, you can't undo it, because a contract is in place. The future is always painted as a rosier picture.The first year of Indianapolis' 50-year parking meter lease brought doubled rates in some areas as a tradeoff for a wholesale upgrade of equipment and the convenience of paying by credit card or smartphone.
Was it worth it?
New financial data provided by the city shows its share of revenue from the vendor in 2011 -- nearly $1.4 million, or 30 percent -- fell well short of the city's own projection of $2.1 million.
And the city didn't end up seeing the full amount: After the vendor subtracted $286,000 in charges to compensate for the city closing metered spaces, often for RebuildIndy road construction work, the city pocketed $1.1 million.
The vendor, ParkIndy -- a trio of local and national companies led by Dallas-based ACS, a Xerox company -- kept more than $3.5 million.
But most of the city's share was profit, and Mayor Greg Ballard, whose office hatched the deal before it was signed in late 2010, touts the privatized system as a success story that will only get stronger.
I was pleased with the reporting on the opposition.
Just like the toll road, this deal was way too long. Both should have been for 5-10 years, tops. It's too hard to predict the financial picture 10 years down the road, let alone 50. 2061 is a long time to wait to learn if the city sold out cheap. But, eager to get money into the city coffers because revenues are down and spending is sacrosanct, and probably to be seen at least a little like Mitch Daniels, Mayor Ballard got this rushed along.Democrats weren't the only skeptics of the city's deal with ParkIndy.
Some privatization experts questioned the 50-year length, prompting the addition of an opt-out clause for the city every 10 years. But that option comes with a fee, starting at nearly $20 million and decreasing over time.
Mahern was among vocal critics who noted many large cities have modernized their meters by borrowing or striking shorter-term contracts.
"We should have just worked with a vendor to provide us the service for a fee," he said, "rather than granting somebody an equity stake for what is a basic service."
I'm a huge fan of privatization of services, but deals like this smack of desperation and haste, and tend to give needless fuel to the critics of privatization who would dismiss the practice out of hand.
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
Limbaugh Shows The Swiftness Of Market Discipline
Some people prefer government to be a watchdog and enforcer rather than market discipline. I like the latter, and the Rush Limbaugh episode shows how devastatingly effective markets can be. From the Business Insider:
Imagine if, instead, government had stepped in and censored his remarks. Limbaugh would have been made the victim by many, and not incorrectly, in a 'two wrongs don't make a right' kind of way. Nope- the market is taking care of this just fine, no government regulation necessary, thank you very much.
According to a series of advertisers' Twitter and Facebook statements, at least 20 different sponsors have now pulled their spots from Rush Limbaugh's radio show.Limbaugh gave a faux apology, and has since stuck to his guns. All well and good in the world of free speech. He can carry on and exercise his right, but it's going to be a much less lucrative gig for him if he does. He isn't winning for losing here. He's lost two radio station affiliates and probably isn't done losing stations or advertisers.In case you're new to the kerfuffle—welcome out of hibernation!—advertisers began dropping like flies after Limbaugh called a Georgetown law student and women's rights activist a "slut" and a "prostitute" for supporting healthcare coverage for contraception.
Sleep Number and The Sleep Train, both mattress suppliers, were the first two advertisers to pull their ads Friday, and the numbers have grown tenfold since then.
Imagine if, instead, government had stepped in and censored his remarks. Limbaugh would have been made the victim by many, and not incorrectly, in a 'two wrongs don't make a right' kind of way. Nope- the market is taking care of this just fine, no government regulation necessary, thank you very much.
$28 Million Is A Lot Of Money
Even to Colts owner and billionaire Jim Irsay. So, the team will cut Manning tomorrow. From ESPN:
My pic of Peyton Manning huddling up during his last game in a Colts uniform, a playoff game against the NY Jets, January 2011.
We'll hear a lot of buzzing about loyalty here in Indiana for the next several weeks. I have mixed feelings. Only one of my favorite sports heroes (Steve Largent) played his entire career with one team. I was greatly disappointed when my favorite hockey player, Owen Nolan, was traded from my favorite team, the San Jose Sharks. But I understood it, as the Sharks got a #1 pick, a player who had been a #1 pick, and another player who immediately became the Sharks' new captain.
In this case, Irsay saves $28 million. I got the impression he would have cut Manning to save $28,000. Irsay simply wasn't going to be the kind of owner who paid that kind of money just to display loyalty over money.
Sources close to the team told ESPN senior NFL analyst Chris Mortensen that the announcement will come at a news conference in Indianapolis on Wednesday with both Manning and owner Jim Irsay in attendance.This is no surprise. When the team stunk just enough to line up for the #1 pick, and there is an NFL-ready quarterback in Andrew Luck lined up to be made the #1 pick, saving the $28 million is a bonus, really. If they stayed with Manning, the Colts might not have picked Luck, rolling the dice on Manning's health. Even if Manning proves healthy, putting Luck on the bench might not be the best thing for him- even if a year with a clipboard in hand worked out pretty well for Aaron Rodgers and the Packers.
The decision to pass on the $28 million bonus owed Manning and not to pick up the four remaining years on his contract means Manning will become a free agent, and sources told Mortensen that he intends to continue to play.
My pic of Peyton Manning huddling up during his last game in a Colts uniform, a playoff game against the NY Jets, January 2011.We'll hear a lot of buzzing about loyalty here in Indiana for the next several weeks. I have mixed feelings. Only one of my favorite sports heroes (Steve Largent) played his entire career with one team. I was greatly disappointed when my favorite hockey player, Owen Nolan, was traded from my favorite team, the San Jose Sharks. But I understood it, as the Sharks got a #1 pick, a player who had been a #1 pick, and another player who immediately became the Sharks' new captain.
In this case, Irsay saves $28 million. I got the impression he would have cut Manning to save $28,000. Irsay simply wasn't going to be the kind of owner who paid that kind of money just to display loyalty over money.
Monday, March 05, 2012
No Jury Duty For Kole
It's funny- I think I'm one of only two people I know who would genuinely want to serve jury duty. Jury duty is a great punch line, or an irritating way to miss a few days at work to most people, but I really want to do it.
Maybe that's why I get bounced. I had a 'Notice of Jury Service' issued to me for Federal Jury Service earlier this year. I filled out the questionnaire and then did not receive the summons. I seem to go through these motions at least once a year.
I don't know what makes me an objectionable prospective juror. I have no doubt that I got bounced in the past for being the Libertarian Party's County Chair, or for being a candidate for office. This time, my guess is the rejection is thanks to my lawsuit against the Town of Fishers. Is it that the attorneys want citizens that are disengaged politically? Maybe I'm going to have to make more sports entries here.
Maybe that's why I get bounced. I had a 'Notice of Jury Service' issued to me for Federal Jury Service earlier this year. I filled out the questionnaire and then did not receive the summons. I seem to go through these motions at least once a year.
I don't know what makes me an objectionable prospective juror. I have no doubt that I got bounced in the past for being the Libertarian Party's County Chair, or for being a candidate for office. This time, my guess is the rejection is thanks to my lawsuit against the Town of Fishers. Is it that the attorneys want citizens that are disengaged politically? Maybe I'm going to have to make more sports entries here.
Thursday, March 01, 2012
Very Irritated With The Koch Brothers
Ah, the Koch Brothers. Whereas the right beats up on money guy George Soros for funding causes on the left he believes in, the left beat up on the Koch Brothers for causes they believe in.
I don't beat up on people for funding causes, but I do get irritated if they do something that looks counterproductive the causes they ostensibly try to advance- if they happen to be causes I believe in.
In this case, I am a big fan of the Cato Institute. Cato is a libertarian think tank that has produced many valuable papers and publications, and has had some small (too small, in my opinion) impact on public policy. I especially love the Cato Daily Podcast, which has been hosted by Caleb Brown for the past several years. Brown does a wonderful job of interviewing Cato scholars on topics of immediate daily interest.
The Koch Brothers co-founded the Cato Institute with Ed Krane and the late Ed Niskanen. The Kochs have poured money into the Cato Institute over the years. So far, so good. But, as the Washington Post reports:
I don't beat up on people for funding causes, but I do get irritated if they do something that looks counterproductive the causes they ostensibly try to advance- if they happen to be causes I believe in.
In this case, I am a big fan of the Cato Institute. Cato is a libertarian think tank that has produced many valuable papers and publications, and has had some small (too small, in my opinion) impact on public policy. I especially love the Cato Daily Podcast, which has been hosted by Caleb Brown for the past several years. Brown does a wonderful job of interviewing Cato scholars on topics of immediate daily interest.
The Koch Brothers co-founded the Cato Institute with Ed Krane and the late Ed Niskanen. The Kochs have poured money into the Cato Institute over the years. So far, so good. But, as the Washington Post reports:
Why a lawsuit? Is it so important that the Kochs get additional shares? Cato has been absolutely fantastic, just as-is.The billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch filed a lawsuit Wednesday for control of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington.
The lawsuit exposes a power struggle for one of Washington’s premiere policy centers, which has been funded by millions in contributions from the Koch brothers’ foundations since its founding in 1974.
Cato was divided between four shareholders: the two Koch brothers, Cato president Ed Crane, and former Cato chairman William Niskanen, according to the lawsuit filed Thursday in a court in Johnson County, Kansas.
At the heart of the dispute is the fate of the shares owned by Niskanen, who died in October at age 78 of complications from a stroke. The Koch brothers believe that they have the option to buy Niskanen’s shares, while Cato officials believe that the shares belong to Niskanen’s widow, Kathryn Washburn, according to the complaint.
I'll reserve judgment as to the intentions of Charles Koch for the moment. However, at a time when interest in libertarian ideas is at an all-time high, and acceptance of them is growing, the last thing we need for the liberty movement is divisiveness within the premier libertarian think tank. It's counter-productive, at the very least.Crane released this written statement:
“Charles G. Koch has filed a lawsuit as part of an effort to gain control of the Cato Institute, which he co-founded with me in 1977. While Mr. Koch and entities controlled by him have supported the Cato Institute financially since that time, Mr. Koch and his affiliates have exercised no significant influence over the direction or management of the Cato Institute, or the work done here.
“Mr. Koch’s actions in Kansas court yesterday represent an effort by him to transform Cato from an independent, nonpartisan research organization into a political entity that might better support his partisan agenda. We view Mr. Koch’s actions as an attempt at a hostile takeover, and intend to fight it vehemently in order to continue as an independent research organization, advocating for Individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace.”
Killing Owls To Save Owls?
I'm thinking of oxymorons like 'military intelligence'. I'm thinking about paying farmers not to grow crops. My gosh but we do some strange things in pursuit of certain outcomes. From the Washington Post:
To save the imperiled spotted owl, the Obama administration is moving forward with a controversial plan to shoot barred owls, a rival bird that has shoved its smaller cousin aside.We do so much interventive tinkering, trying to freeze certain things in place as we once knew them. It may just be that the spotted owl is a genetically weaker creature, destined not to evolve its way to survival. So, we'll kill barred owls. Let's just not call it an attempt to preserve 'nature'.The plan is the latest federal attempt to protect the northern spotted owl, the passive, one-pound bird that sparked an epic battle over logging in the Pacific Northwest two decades ago.
The government set aside millions of acres of forest to protect the owl, but the bird’s population continues to decline — a 40 percent slide in 25 years.A plan announced Tuesday would designate habitat considered critical for the bird’s survival, while allowing logging to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire and to create jobs. Habitat loss and competition from barred owls are the biggest threats to the spotted owl.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar called the draft plan “a science-based approach to forestry that restores the health of our lands and wildlife and supports jobs and revenue for local communities.”
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Coverage for Kole V. Faultless
The case Kole Vs. Faultless rests in the hands of the Supreme Court. In the meantime, there has been some media coverage. The latest is from AtGeist.com, a neighborhood based online and print periodical:
Faultless contends that the Reorganization Act, which was legislated a few years ago in the Indiana State assembly, gives Fishers the ability to create what he calls a “modernized” or “hybrid” form of a Class II city. Under the Town’s current plan, the current Fishers town council would appoint themselves as the first city council and then they would appoint the mayor.
“We feel that all the residents of the city should be able to elect the mayor,” said Mike Kole, a plaintiff in the case.
Faultless thinks it would be delightful to have the new city's Mayor be selected by the new City Council rather than the voters. I guess if I were the current council president and wanted to become mayor without having to bother with campaigning, that would be a pretty snazzy way of going about it. Easy, cheap, free of pesky voters.
Other coverage:
IndyPolitics.org Includes an audio interview with me.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Elections Mayhem In Indiana
All I can conclude at this point is that Indiana elections are a complete mess. The law really needs to be thoroughly overhauled to create simplicity and uniformity.
I am astonished that Rick Santorum can so easily make the signature requirements when one day he is lacking, and changing nothing, he suddenly has the signatures.
Then, the next day, Republican Jim Wallace is barred from the statewide primary ballot as a gubernatorial candidate because he is 14 signatures short of the needed 500 for the 7th Congressional District. From the Indy Star:
Apart from that, I don't see what the value is in causing a candidate to collect petitions for certain offices. Let voters decide at the ballot box! I don't want candidates denied ballot access for lack of performing the act of signature gathering. It doesn't prove anything of value relative to being an office holder.
Underlying this is again a desire to eliminate certain non-establishment challengers. Pence is a long-sitting Congressman. Wallace was once a Fishers Town Council and Hamilton County Council member, but that dates back several years. So, who brought on the challenges to Wallace?
Time to truly reform the election laws. Time to eliminate the petitioning requirements, and make uniform the processes.
I am astonished that Rick Santorum can so easily make the signature requirements when one day he is lacking, and changing nothing, he suddenly has the signatures.
Then, the next day, Republican Jim Wallace is barred from the statewide primary ballot as a gubernatorial candidate because he is 14 signatures short of the needed 500 for the 7th Congressional District. From the Indy Star:
I completely agree with Wallace here. The voters have been cheated. He made the grade in 8 districts, so why not put him on the ballot there?He blamed his apparent failure on a flawed process in Marion County which rejected a much higher percentage of petition signatures to be on the ballot than other counties. He said he submitted 1,282 signatures in the 7th District, entirely located in Marion County, but the Board of Voter Registration only certified 486.
“A fair number of Marion County voters are being disenfranchised regularly, not to mention the 5.8 million Hoosiers in the other eight congressional districts who have now seen their choice of the ballot vetoed by a single county,” said Wallace, a Fishers businessman and former member of the Hamilton County Council.
Wallace, who has put more than $1 million of his own funds into his campaign, did not have an attorney with him today.
Asked if that was a mistake, Wallace said that “I won’t second guess our citizen-first approach, but perhaps. I would like to think you don’t need to lawyer-up every time there’s a challenge like this. The issue is pretty simple. Voters deserve a choice in a democracy, and in this process today they were deprived of one.”
Apart from that, I don't see what the value is in causing a candidate to collect petitions for certain offices. Let voters decide at the ballot box! I don't want candidates denied ballot access for lack of performing the act of signature gathering. It doesn't prove anything of value relative to being an office holder.
Underlying this is again a desire to eliminate certain non-establishment challengers. Pence is a long-sitting Congressman. Wallace was once a Fishers Town Council and Hamilton County Council member, but that dates back several years. So, who brought on the challenges to Wallace?
Tom John, the former Marion County Chair of the Republican Party? The article might have mentioned that, alas.Wallace’s candidacy was challenged by former Indiana Economic Development Corp. chairman Mitch Roob, who argued that Wallace did not collect the required 500 petition signatures in each of the nine congressional districts, falling short in both the 2nd and 7th districts.
Wallace today disputed that, arguing that he had 505 certified signatures in the 2nd, in northern Indiana, in addition to the 1,282 in the and had turned in the 7th District. Tom John, an attorney representing Roob, said there were questions about many of the 7th District signatures, suggesting some had been forged. Wallace, he said, should not be given the benefit of the doubt in face of evidence that “he does not have clean hands.”
Time to truly reform the election laws. Time to eliminate the petitioning requirements, and make uniform the processes.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Thoughts On Charlie White
I have many, many thoughts on the Charlie White saga, so I may use multiple posts to put it all across. Some of my insights come from being a Fishers resident (White was on the Fishers Town Council), a former Hamilton County political boss (I chaired the Libertarian Party, I believe he is still chair of the Republicans... he was chair at least during the times of my tenure), and a former candidate for Secretary of State (White had been elected Secretary of State prior to being stripped of office).
The main thing that has bothered me about this case is that I absolutely detest this kind of ticky tack law. I have long maintained that the real purpose of these laws is as a 'gotcha' device. This case fairly well shows how that works.
But I also know it from other cases. Interestingly, Charlie White was able to remain on the ballot, despite the world knowing about the case prior to the election. Libertarian candidates who have the most minute, meaningless errors on their paperwork routinely get bounced from the ballot summarily. In 2006, while I was running for Secretary of State, and handful of Libertarians from around the state got bounced from the ballot because the Elections Division decided to enforce a technicality that hadn't been enforced before, and that our party was unaware of statewide. Too bad, no mercy for us. Bam! Gone. I called a press conference, and a couple of reporters turned up. I stood behind the would-be candidates, shouted from the Statehouse steps, and the item wasn't even reported.
So, it bothers me about the haphazard enforcement and standards. I mean, just today, by some miracle, it was found that Rick Santorum does have enough signatures to be on the ballot after all. He was 8 short before, and now, voila! he has enough. If a Libertarian is short? Rules are rules! Fire and brimstone!
Just days after the 2006 removal of 11 Libertarian candidates, 10 Fort Wayne Republicans had signature issues. Ha- issues. They fired their executive director for FORGING signatures on their forms. It's kind of interesting to look back on what I had to say:
And yet, I still find White's case lamentable. Not only do I want every Libertarian on the ballot. I want every candidate on the ballot. If one loses an election, I want it to be because the voters decided, not a bureaucrat in the Elections Office decided it, or because they couldn't be on the ballot thanks to a legislature bent on political self-preservation.
But, the rules are the rules. I and other Libertarians may well detest the laws, but we comply. You have to pick your battles. Do you want to be on the ballot? Then you have to follow the rules. Make a case against the rules, but comply. Get elected and change the rules. We speak out about the rules all the time. I'll note that I never heard Charlie White once speak out against the rules. Nor did I ever hear him speak out in support of a candidate bounced from the ballot. He was a County Chair and a candidate for Secretary of State, which were all good avenues for speaking up about the rules. Never a peep. I guess he accepted the rules, right up until they ensnared him.
At the end of the day, here's what I would like to see happen:
1. It's just paperwork. At the very least, let's eliminate felonies for candidate filings. I'd like to see the most minimal paperwork requirements possible. Yes, we have to know who we're putting on the ballot. Yes, we need to know that this candidate is eligible to run, and lives in the jurisdiction for the office sought (White may have been out of his Town Council district, but he still lived in the state while seeking statewide office.)
2. Broaden ballot access. The Republicans got the scare of their lives, looking at the prospect of losing ballot access with the possibility of White being declared ineligible to be a candidate, with ballot access tied solely to the Secretary of State race. Let's broaden the access rules by tying the result to any statewide candidate in a four-year cycle, at the very least. I would also like to see the threshold lowered to the 1994 standard: 0.5%, The 2% requirement is keeping other 3rd parties off the ballot, especially the Greens.
More later.
The main thing that has bothered me about this case is that I absolutely detest this kind of ticky tack law. I have long maintained that the real purpose of these laws is as a 'gotcha' device. This case fairly well shows how that works.
But I also know it from other cases. Interestingly, Charlie White was able to remain on the ballot, despite the world knowing about the case prior to the election. Libertarian candidates who have the most minute, meaningless errors on their paperwork routinely get bounced from the ballot summarily. In 2006, while I was running for Secretary of State, and handful of Libertarians from around the state got bounced from the ballot because the Elections Division decided to enforce a technicality that hadn't been enforced before, and that our party was unaware of statewide. Too bad, no mercy for us. Bam! Gone. I called a press conference, and a couple of reporters turned up. I stood behind the would-be candidates, shouted from the Statehouse steps, and the item wasn't even reported.
So, it bothers me about the haphazard enforcement and standards. I mean, just today, by some miracle, it was found that Rick Santorum does have enough signatures to be on the ballot after all. He was 8 short before, and now, voila! he has enough. If a Libertarian is short? Rules are rules! Fire and brimstone!
Just days after the 2006 removal of 11 Libertarian candidates, 10 Fort Wayne Republicans had signature issues. Ha- issues. They fired their executive director for FORGING signatures on their forms. It's kind of interesting to look back on what I had to say:
The Libertarian Party just had eleven candidates withheld from the ballot for failing to meet a technicality. Well! What's good for the goose is good for the gander. These ten or so Republican candidates need to disappear from the ballot immediately if the law is the law, and the Elections Division is providing consistent outcomes.Nobody went to jail there. White isn't going to jail, but had the felonies hung on him, and faces a year's in-house detention. (Yes, the funny joke there is, "Which house? His ex-wife's?")
Now personally, I think the booting of candidates is a great disservice to the people of our state, but the bar has been set. I think a better outcome would be that the eleven Libertarian candidates would be certified, and a fine levied against the Libertarian Party for missing the technicality, and everyone there moves on.
In the case of the Republicans, the best outcome might be that the ten or so candidates are put on the ballot, and the Executive Director might face some jail time, if in fact he committed perjury when forging the signatures of candidates.
Jail? From Indiana Code:IC 3-14-1-13
Filing fraudulent reports
Sec. 13. A person who knowingly files a report required by IC 3-9 that is fraudulent commits a Class D felony.
As added by P.L.5-1986, SEC.10.
All of the State's campaign forms specify at the bottom of the first page:A person who knowingly files a fraudulent report commits a Class D felony (IC 3-14-1-13).Felons go to jail. Pretty simple.
Republicans and Democrats wrote this law. Republicans and Democrats should therefore be the standard bearer and the exemplars in how to do this correctly, and how to bear the consequences when this is done fraudulently- if there is to be integrity in our elections.
And yet, I still find White's case lamentable. Not only do I want every Libertarian on the ballot. I want every candidate on the ballot. If one loses an election, I want it to be because the voters decided, not a bureaucrat in the Elections Office decided it, or because they couldn't be on the ballot thanks to a legislature bent on political self-preservation.
But, the rules are the rules. I and other Libertarians may well detest the laws, but we comply. You have to pick your battles. Do you want to be on the ballot? Then you have to follow the rules. Make a case against the rules, but comply. Get elected and change the rules. We speak out about the rules all the time. I'll note that I never heard Charlie White once speak out against the rules. Nor did I ever hear him speak out in support of a candidate bounced from the ballot. He was a County Chair and a candidate for Secretary of State, which were all good avenues for speaking up about the rules. Never a peep. I guess he accepted the rules, right up until they ensnared him.
At the end of the day, here's what I would like to see happen:
1. It's just paperwork. At the very least, let's eliminate felonies for candidate filings. I'd like to see the most minimal paperwork requirements possible. Yes, we have to know who we're putting on the ballot. Yes, we need to know that this candidate is eligible to run, and lives in the jurisdiction for the office sought (White may have been out of his Town Council district, but he still lived in the state while seeking statewide office.)
2. Broaden ballot access. The Republicans got the scare of their lives, looking at the prospect of losing ballot access with the possibility of White being declared ineligible to be a candidate, with ballot access tied solely to the Secretary of State race. Let's broaden the access rules by tying the result to any statewide candidate in a four-year cycle, at the very least. I would also like to see the threshold lowered to the 1994 standard: 0.5%, The 2% requirement is keeping other 3rd parties off the ballot, especially the Greens.
More later.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Reproductive Wingnuttery
All the demonization of Planned Parenthood of late has been a bit over the top. Indiana Republican lawmaker Bob Moore got more notice than he bargained for with his letter denouncing the Girl Scouts for association with Planned Parenthood. How over the top this wingnuttery? Republican speaker Brian Bosma passed out Girl Scout cookies at the Statehouse.
Look- abortion is awful. But it is legal, and as such, Planned Parenthood has a right to carry out the procedures. Opponents have the right to protest. I'd prefer it if no taxpayer money went to fund abortions, or to private organizations including Planned Parenthood. But I'm not going to denounce the Girl Scouts, or even Planned Parenthood as a whole. They happen to do good work for an underserved at-risk population.
I love, love, luv legislators who conclude, "You slither on your belly! Stand aside and let me show you how it's done!"
Democrats are showing that they can be wingnuts too. Get a load of this, from CNN:
Look- abortion is awful. But it is legal, and as such, Planned Parenthood has a right to carry out the procedures. Opponents have the right to protest. I'd prefer it if no taxpayer money went to fund abortions, or to private organizations including Planned Parenthood. But I'm not going to denounce the Girl Scouts, or even Planned Parenthood as a whole. They happen to do good work for an underserved at-risk population.
I love, love, luv legislators who conclude, "You slither on your belly! Stand aside and let me show you how it's done!"
Democrats are showing that they can be wingnuts too. Get a load of this, from CNN:
Here's a better idea: How about both sides back off and leave people free to choose for themselves?As members of Georgia’s House of Representatives debate whether to prohibit abortions for women more than 20 weeks pregnant, House Democrats introduced their own reproductive rights plan: No more vasectomies that leave "thousands of children ... deprived of birth."
Rep. Yasmin Neal, a Democrat from the Atlanta suburb of Jonesboro, planned on Wednesday to introduce HB 1116, which would prevent men from vasectomies unless needed to avert serious injury or death.
The bill reads: "It is patently unfair that men avoid the rewards of unwanted fatherhood by presuming that their judgment over such matters is more valid than the judgment of the General Assembly ... It is the purpose of the General ASsembly to assert an invasive state interest in the reproductive habits of men in this state and substitute the will of the government over the will of adult men."
“If we legislate women’s bodies, it’s only fair that we legislate men’s,” said Neal, who said she wanted to write bill that would generate emotion and conversation the way anti-abortion bills do. “There are too many problems in the state. Why are you under the skirts of women? I’m sure there are other places to be."
Monday, February 20, 2012
Issue Fatigue
The Indy Star ran an interesting article about 'issue fatigue', the idea that lawmakers get tired of dealing with an issue year after year, and finally it passes.
But, why pass it and get it over with? Why not fight it every year, if that's the conscience of the individual lawmaker? If that's the will of the people in a particular district? Libertarians wouldn't shirk the task.
But it is instructive. Once we get in, we need to introduce legislation and doggedly stick to it. If we understand that so many will capitulate rather than deal with things repeatedly, very well. We know what strategy to employ.
Many issues sort of hang around -- sometimes for years -- as advocates try to convince their colleagues that their bills are worthwhile.I found it fascinating as I consider the possibility of Libertarians winning elections and becoming legislators. Would they also experience issue fatigue? I doubt it. If there's one thing that characterizes most libertarians, it's dogged determination. You don't stick around as an ideology centered third party without tenacity.In these cases, ideas become law through a combination of determination, familiarity and fatigue.
A statewide smoking ban and the elimination of the state's inheritance tax are issues poised to become Indiana's latest examples.
Before you get the wrong idea, understand that Moses has been the one trying to get the estate tax cut or even eliminated. Yes, a Democrat trying to cut a tax. Give the man his due on that.At a meeting last week of the House Ways and Means Committee, lawmakers were hearing the details of a complicated Senate bill that would cut the inheritance tax by changing the definitions of some beneficiaries, increasing the amount of an estate that would be exempt from taxation and slashing the actual tax rates.
Even before testimony on the proposal could begin, though, Ways and Means members were impatient. They weren't interested in more proposals to cut the tax. They just want it gone.
"Do it and get it over with," Rep. Win Moses, D-Fort Wayne, said. "Otherwise we'll be fighting this every year, and philosophies won't change."
But, why pass it and get it over with? Why not fight it every year, if that's the conscience of the individual lawmaker? If that's the will of the people in a particular district? Libertarians wouldn't shirk the task.
But it is instructive. Once we get in, we need to introduce legislation and doggedly stick to it. If we understand that so many will capitulate rather than deal with things repeatedly, very well. We know what strategy to employ.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Oh, Now There's A Problem With License Plates
Indiana is one of many states that allows itself to be a fundraising instrument for private organizations via vanity license plates. My position has always been that the license plate serves a particular function, and the bumper sticker goes on the bumper. The state should never be an instrument for private fundraising.
There are somewhere near 100 organizations for which the state wrongly acts as middleman- for sports organizations like the Colts and even the Tony Stewart Foundation; civic clubs like the Rotary and Lions; unions; and many more. Up to there, I had never heard a complaint from anyone but Libertarians. But, once a gay group gets in? Oh, conservatives finally decide the state shouldn't be involved. From the Indy Star:
There are somewhere near 100 organizations for which the state wrongly acts as middleman- for sports organizations like the Colts and even the Tony Stewart Foundation; civic clubs like the Rotary and Lions; unions; and many more. Up to there, I had never heard a complaint from anyone but Libertarians. But, once a gay group gets in? Oh, conservatives finally decide the state shouldn't be involved. From the Indy Star:
Indiana began printing new plates in December for the Indiana Youth Group, which supports gay youths. The state's Bureau of Motor Vehicles approved the plates after a 2010 court battle with IYG and the Indiana American Civil Liberties Union.
Yet in the waning days of the 2012 session, Advance America -- an Indiana-based nonprofit led by conservative stalwart Eric Miller -- is lobbying state lawmakers to ban IYG and other gay support groups from offering special Indiana plates.
State Rep. Jeff Thompson, R-Lizton, has tried three times this year to ban the IYG plates by pushing amendments for unrelated motor vehicle bills. House Republicans rebutted his latest attempt this week for fear that the controversial issue would damage support for their broader effort of cracking down on the recent rapid growth of specialty plates -- there are 105 of them, according to the House's Transportation Committee chairman.
Oh, they want to crack down? First I'm hearing of it. Interesting. Once there are 100, it's out of hand. What about principle? What about the very question of the role of government in private fundraising? Why wasn't that attacked at the onset?
I suspect that if Indiana Youth Group was first to request, the conscience of the conservatives would have been alive and well.
The state shouldn't be a middleman for fundraising. It's time to eliminate this practice altogether- not because a gay group wants to play the game too, but because it's wrong.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
The Spectacle Of Wealth Envy
I learned long ago not to worry about what others make. It can eat you up, from the inside out. Is what I'm making fair to me? That's the way I look at it.
And rich? Who's rich? My experience has been that nobody, regardless of their income, thinks of themselves as rich. Always, there is somebody else more wealthy than me or you, and THAT is the slacker who is getting off light. Tax that bastard!
People truly lack perspective. The 1%? Who are they? Well, in the US, you're top 1.5% if you make more than $250,000 in a year. Worldwide? If you earn $50,000 a year, you're top 1% worldwide. I think a lot of people getting upset about the upper 1% in the US find themselves in the top 1% worldwide. And top 20% worldwide? No doubt about it, being that it only takes $1,500/year to get there.
Now comes Roddy White, pro football player with the Atlanta Falcons. He makes $8.33 million per year. Definitely in the 1%. So, is he satisfied? Because he's in the top 0.1% in the USA. Wealth envy, and a lack of perspective know no bounds. From ESPN:
White best be careful. There stands 99.9% of the population looking up at his salary much the way he looks at Goodell's. Many times have I heard, "They get paid ridiculous amounts of money to play a game," or, "School teachers are more valuable than pro athletes". A lot of people are in real trouble if we move away from markets and towards public votes on who gets what.
And rich? Who's rich? My experience has been that nobody, regardless of their income, thinks of themselves as rich. Always, there is somebody else more wealthy than me or you, and THAT is the slacker who is getting off light. Tax that bastard!
People truly lack perspective. The 1%? Who are they? Well, in the US, you're top 1.5% if you make more than $250,000 in a year. Worldwide? If you earn $50,000 a year, you're top 1% worldwide. I think a lot of people getting upset about the upper 1% in the US find themselves in the top 1% worldwide. And top 20% worldwide? No doubt about it, being that it only takes $1,500/year to get there.
Now comes Roddy White, pro football player with the Atlanta Falcons. He makes $8.33 million per year. Definitely in the 1%. So, is he satisfied? Because he's in the top 0.1% in the USA. Wealth envy, and a lack of perspective know no bounds. From ESPN:
Roger Goodell reportedly will make $20 million per season by the end of his current contract. That figure set off Falcons receiver Roddy White, who posted his displeasure Monday at the commissioner's salary on his Twitter account.How? The Commissioner does a few important things, like negotiate the TV deal. This is a large source of White's income.
"How in the hell can u pay a man this much money that cant run tackle or catch," White wrote, posting a link to a ProFootballTalk.com story which referenced the Sports Business Journal's report on Goodell's compensation.
When one of White's followers pointed out that Goodell is running the biggest sports league in the country, White took offense.I'll accept some measure of his frustration, in that in sports or other entertainment, the performers are the whole show. If you don't have the best or most entertaining talent to showcase, your product isn't as valuable. But, having a highly paid professional Commissioner isn't the stupidest thing ever. The NFL was once a league where players made $10,000 a year and worked in factories or sold insurance in the off-season. Perhaps White would prefer to go back to that? Get Joe Blow off the street, who would be willing to do the job for $50,000/year, and see what you get.
"Thats the stupidest thing i have ever heard the players make this league dont ever forget that," he wrote.
Ah. Now you get to the root of it. Roddy White's $8.33 million is important to him. I wonder if it ever occurred... No. I'm sure it never occurred to White that Goodell values his salary, all of it, as much as White values his.One of White's followers asked the receiver in a tweet if he expected to be fined for questioning Goodell's salary.
"I hope not im praying not i need my money," he wrote.
White best be careful. There stands 99.9% of the population looking up at his salary much the way he looks at Goodell's. Many times have I heard, "They get paid ridiculous amounts of money to play a game," or, "School teachers are more valuable than pro athletes". A lot of people are in real trouble if we move away from markets and towards public votes on who gets what.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Mark Rutherford For LNC Chair!
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)