Illinois Workfest

The posts have been few of late, mainly because I have been working 2-3 days/week in Illinois, in Danville and Decatur, on contract for AT&T. You know those service cabinets? I make scale drawings of the area so the engineers can figure out where to put another one.

Tough site. Extra room? This is a cross-connect box. A new VRAD cabinet is to be placed near the cross-box. They work together and allow for broadband and video services to be offered. I locate these in their surrounds and make 1" = 20' scale drawings. Curse me, as you will now see these cabinets all over your neighborhood where they were invisible to you before.

These have been interesting places for me to work, as there is much industrial landscape, and much of it still functioning. Translation: Plenty of trains to watch while I eat my lunch in the car.

Decatur, IL. Norfolk Southern and CSX trains work this area. Great industrial view, including the obsolete coal tower! A fellow train geek stands by the diamond with film rolling. I used the flash so that I could get a reflection off the signal tower marker. Is that some geek action, or what?

This work will be ongoing for the next 4-6 weeks, so if the quantity is light, I'll do my best to provide quality.

I enjoyed the recent linkage in "Just For The Record" for my last post. Thanks, Andrew! There's even a search label for my name. I'm flattered!

Indiana Gas Tax Suspension?

No. Absoultely not. Sound funny coming from a Libertarian? Read on.

Gas taxes are a user fee. If you are using gasoline, you are most likely using the roads. Sure, some of this gasoline is used for lawn mowers and other non-road uses, but that just goes to show you how one-size-fits-all solutions invariably are imperfect.

Here's the main thing about gasoline: The commodity belongs to the people who produce it, until it is sold to the people who agree to buy it at a particular price. Frankly, I don’t believe the producers of gasoline have nearly as much to explain for the variable nature of day-to-day prices as consumers do for their ability to wail and moan without doing a single thing to alter their consumption.

In economics, the phenomenon is called “price elasticity”. In the case of gasoline, the price is highly elastic: it is being shown that consumers are willing to buy the product without regard to price.

It was eye-opening for me to sit in an economics class seven years ago and watch the professor give an impromptu demonstration of price elasticity. The class was mainly comprised of working professionals pursuing an MBA. At the time, gas was about $1.40/gal. He had everyone stand up. He said, “gasoline is now $2/gallon. Sit down if you stop buying”. Nobody sat down. “$3/gallon”. A small handful of people sat down. He increased at $1 increments, and at $6/gallon, almost half the room was still standing. I was also still standing.

In that light, it is entirely possible that gasoline is actually underpriced, and has been for years. The market is bearing these prices, all while being decried as ‘outrageous’. Actions speak louder than words. Truth be told, if gas goes to $8/gallon, I'll still be buying and driving

Also interestingly in this class, there was a group that did their price elasticity project on bus riders. The fare was $1/ride with transfer. They found by surveying actual riders that their average rider surveyed would continue to ride the bus up to about $4/ride.

The conclusions we reached were that people made choices that caused them to be dependent upon transportation. Mainly, they choose to live far from their workplaces.

I have no sympathy for the person who choose to buy an SUV when gas was at $1.80/gal on the assumption the price would never rise, or who argues that because they made that choice, the oil producer and retailer owe them an ever-flat price. Likewise for the person who works downtown and lives in the city. You helped create sprawl? Suffer your commute and its costs!

We are such a society that wants to have its cake and eat it too.

So, to the point- no, the governor shouldn’t suspend the gas tax. The taxes pay for the roads. Saying one is in favor of suspending the gas tax is saying they favor the roads crumbling while promoting their use of them. Short-sighted foolishness.

Doug Masson explains his opposition to suspending the gas tax saying, "that would amount to the State subsidizing oil company profits". I disagree. Suspending the tax would subsidize the choices that make higher prices uncomfortable, such as driving an SUV if you can only marginally afford to do so; or, such as living 40 miles from work.

Price has a function. Higher prices will make people more interested in alternative fuels, smaller vehicles, living closer to work, and walking more.

Don't bemoan the oil companies for selling to willing buyers at any profit margin. Would you bemoan your customers choosing to do business with you at your price? Or, your employer to hire you at your wage?

Get a grip, folks.

The Government-Business Partnership, Illustrated

Thanks to Andy Conover for this "joke". I've taken the liberty of altering it to make it more germaine to Indiana.

Three contractors are bidding to fix a broken fence at an INDOT site. One is from Terre Haute, another from Rushville, and the third from Carmel.

They go with a government official to examine the fence.

The contractor from Terre Haute takes out a tape measure and does some measuring, then works some figures with a pencil. 'Well,' he says, 'I figure the job will run about $900: $400 for materials, $400 for my crew, and $100 Profit for me.'

The Rushville contractor also does some measuring and figuring, then says, 'I can do this job for $700: $300 for materials, $300 for my crew, and $100 profit for me.'

The Carmel contractor doesn't measure or figure, but leans over to the official and whispers, '$2,700.' The government official, incredulous, says, 'You didn't even measure like the other guys! How did you come up with such a high figure?'

The Carmel contractor whispers back, '$1,000 for me, $1,000 for you, and we hire the guy from Rushville to fix the fence.''

Done!' replies the government official.

I "Voted". So What?

I walked in to Fishers Town Hall, went to the table for Delaware Precinct 3, observed the poll workers playing, and showed my ID. I signed the book and walked out.

Voting, in 30 seconds or less.

I guess I'm just stubborn. Most others seem to get the futility of this kind of "voting", but that whole notion of civic duty just nags at me. I mean, can you really run for Secretary of State, the chief elections official in Indiana, one year and then not vote in the very next election? I thought not.

But the vast majority of those who get the pointlessness of yesterday's exercise ruled the day. Turnout seems to have averaged around 10%.

In Hamilton County, there should not be a primary election at all. The three parties should stage their own county conventions at their expense. In most counties, the Ds & Rs already stage slating conventions. Why then the farce of a primary? To throw crumbs to the voters to make them think they've done something that sets them apart from the Iraqis or the Cubans?

Farce. Sham. Waste. Dollars, get into the shredder!

The candidate backed by the Republican Party in the one contested primary won handily. That business should be handled away from taxpayer dollars. Republicans should insist on that, if they in fact believe in cutting out the waste of taxpayer dollars.

I Don't Care About Today's Primary

Why should I? Only one of the seven Fishers Town Council seats is challenged... but I would have to take a Republican primary ballot in order to cast a vote. There is only one Democrat running for any of the seven seats, so provided he casts a vote, he wins his primary.

I don't care to take either a Republican or Democratic primary ballot. Why? Besides disagreeing with the kind of policy both of these parties write into law, I have also read and understood Indiana's election laws, which state in IC 3-10-1-2:

Political parties required to hold primary election
Sec. 2. Each political party whose nominee received at least ten percent (10%) of the votes cast in the state for secretary of state at the last election shall hold a primary election under this chapter to select nominees to be voted for at the general election.

I am not interested in voting for the candidates of either of the two parties that qualify. None other will appear on any ballot. So, by law, I am disenfranchised. Beyond that, I believe that if the elections law interprets so plainly the primary election to be political party business, then it should be paid for by the political parties, not the taxpayers. Even had I won 10.01% in my run for Secretary of State, and had thereby obligated my party to participate in the primary election, I would have objected to the requirement on the same grounds.

Also consider IC 3-5-1-2:

(3) Primary election, which is conducted for the purpose of choosing by ballot the
following:
(A) The candidates who will be the nominees of a political party for elected offices in a general or municipal election.
(B) The precinct committeemen of a political party.
(C) The delegates to a political party's state convention.
(4) School district election, in which the electorate of a school district chooses by ballot members of the school board.
(5) Special election, which is conducted for a special purpose as provided by law.

Except that there aren't any school board seats up for grabs here, there isn't a special election of any kind, and my party has been excluded, by IC 3-6-2-1:

Political parties entitled to precinct committee members
Sec. 1. Each political party whose nominee received at least ten percent (10%) of the votes cast in the state for secretary of state at the last election may have precinct committeemen elected at the same time as a primary election in accordance with IC 3-10-1-4.5 if provided by the rules of the political party.

So, what's the point? Fortunately, turnout for this non-event will be so sparse that I won't have to wait in any sort of line. Turnout in Hamilton County in 2003 (the same cycle) was 20%.

I'll go, ask for an independent ballot, which will confuse everyone in the building. Then, after they don't know what to do because there would be nothing to hand to me, I'll have them enter me as voted without having cast a ballot of any kind.

Tell me how this differs from, say, Cuba, in the pointlessness of the 'event'.

Indiana- Home Of Crony Capitalism

I absolutely hate it when a critic makes the mistake of seeing a government created monopoly business situation that creates problems, and assailing it broadly as a failure of capitalism.

I expect such criticism to begin to mount in the wake of the Indiana prison riot in New Castle. From the Indy Star report:

State officials will temporarily halt the transfer of Arizona prisoners to the New Castle Correctional Facility after a riot Tuesday that prompted calls for an end to housing another state's inmates in Indiana.

Department of Correction officials said nine people -- two prison employees and seven inmates -- suffered minor injuries in separate disturbances involving Arizona and Indiana prisoners during a two-hour period Tuesday afternoon at the facility 50 miles east of Indianapolis.

The other day, it was the "In God We Trust" license plates. Today it's this 'imported inmates' deal. What do both have in common? True conservatives should be opposed to both.

True conservatives should be opposed to special interest group-driven license plates on the basis that government has no business being a clearing house for private organizations, or for promoting mottos or images. Instead, Republicans seek balance- some plates they can call their own.

True conservatives should be opposed to selling off excess prison capacity on the basis that government should only have marginal excess prison capacity to begin with, and that state government has a limited proper role in protecting its' citizens from dangerous criminals. Instead, Republicans seek to turn the state into a business, making a profit on the excess prison capacity that should not be, taking in prisoners that are not the proper responsibility of the state of Indiana.

Indeed, Indiana government turned its responsibility on its' head. While by housing Indiana prisoners it is supposed to be protecting the law-abiding citizenry, it imported Arizona prisoners and thereby threatened the safety of the law-abiding Indiana citizenry.

This is without even considering the social implications of bringing two distinct prison populations together. Also from the Star:

"The idea of bringing in people from another state who bring along their gangs, allegiances and different alliances immediately was a mixture that was bound to bring trouble," said House Speaker B. Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend.

This is something that should have been anticipated by the State. It's obvious. Was it even considered? It isn't just culture clashes between populations that should have been considered, but also between procedures. Another quote:

Commissioner J. David Donahue said the Arizona prisoners may have been upset
because Indiana prisons have different rules, including a ban on smoking and
limits on personal items inmates can have in their cells.

What causes riots? When a prisoner has so little, they hang on to the few things they have. If they had cigarettes in Arizona and lost them in coming to Indiana, anyone with a shred of common sense had to know the inmates would be unhappy. All these differences should have been scouted in advance. It appears they were not.

So, capitalism is likely to take the hits, when it doesn't deserve it. Let's be clear on terms:

Capitalism is business that exists in the private sector, and outside of monopoly settings. This privatization deal is not capitalism. There is no competition in Indiana for private operation of prisons. This prison is the only one that is privately managed. That's crony capitalism. I detest crony capitalism.

Privatization is allowing a private operator to manage a function previously managed by government. This prison is no longer managed by government, being managed by a private corporation, GEO Group.

The importation of prisoners into this prison was not the brainchild of GEO Group, however. This was a Daniels Administration initiative. GEO had to deal with the situation.

Both Daniels and GEO have failed here, but I hold Daniels as most accountable. The importation never should have happened, as outlined above. If it hadn't, the riots most likely wouldn't have happened.

Today's Republicans will accept anything the people wearing the Elephant Brand promote. Expanding the state government's role in prison management? What principled conservative could possibly be in favor? Ah. There's just an absense of principled Republicans.

So, Republicans. Don't wince to sternly when capitalism gets beaten up because of this. You helped make it so.

License Plate Suit Being Pressed

No surprise here, but in conjunction with the ICLU, an Indiana man has filed suit regarding the state's "In God We Trust" plates. From an Indy Star report:

The lawsuit filed in Marion Superior Court in Indianapolis claims motorists who request the "In God We Trust" plates receive preferential treatment because they do not have to pay a $15 administrative fee that the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles collects. The administrative fees are added to other fees whose proceeds promote the causes of the other specialty plates.

The plaintiff bringing the case, Mark Studler, said he pays an additional $40 for one of the popular environmental plates depicting an eagle above the word "Environment." Of the total fee, $25 goes to a state trust to purchase land set aside for conservation or recreational purposes and the remaining $15 is for the administration fee.

The 2006 law establishing the "In God We Trust" plate waives the
administrative fee.

I don't like the premise of license plates to begin with, let alone vanity plates. But I stringently object to the state, via the BMV, collecting money for any extraneous purpose. It doesn't matter to me whether the cause is the environment, one of the state universities, or Riley; or if the plate is just a motto or the image of a team like the Pacers or the Colts. The state shouldn't be a clearing house for a cause. It's bad enough that we have license plates at all. Must the state make a cottage industry of it?

It will be amusing listening to the so-called conservatives wailing about this suit as frivolous, mainly because it bothers them in the perception as an assault on God. Real conservatives would have opposed using the state as a tool for creating special interest imagery and the whole premise of special interest vanity plates. No, today's conservatism merely calls for "balance". The environmentalists have a license plate? Well, then we should have one with the word 'God' on it, too!

This is just as where conservatives used to oppose all welfare, they are now unified in providing balance, in the form of corporate welfare. &c.

Fishers - Rankings and Elections

Money Magazine issues an annual ranking of its top 100 places to live in America. My hometown of Fishers is ranked again, but slipped from its 2005 ranking of #24 to its 2006 ranking of #33. Link to rankings.

I'd love to see why the fall-back. Things don't look any worse for the wear here. Did we float enough bonds to make it so? Did the growing property tax bite cause the slide? I started looking for a more recent ranking and figured we must have fallen a touch since the Town Council isn't bragging it up anymore on the Town's website. Which all leads me to...

Many Fishers neighbors, and a few Geist residents, asked me to run for Town Council this year, on the heels of my recent campaign. I will not run. If nominated, I will not accept...

Why? It's just impossible for a challenger to win. Get a load of this, from the Town's website:

All councilors are considered "at large" which means all Fishers residents vote on all councilors, not just the councilor representing their particular district. The town council elects a council president and vice-president each year.

In other words, a challenger can win 100% of the votes in the district they would represent, but still lose in a landslide. Instead of having to campaign to 1/7th of the 60,000+ residents (there are seven districts), the challenger must campaign to all 60,000+. There just isn't enough time to go door-to-door in the whole Town. The kind of money needed to effectively reach everyone is about a quarter-million, in my estimation. The Councilors know this. There is no incentive for them to change it.

The at-large election of councilors is legal, by the way. Indiana Code even permits its towns to vote to make it so. (IC 36-5-2-5.b.2) Very thoughtful of state legislators to encourage unaccountable councils who can work to ensure their perpetual office. Very lousy for representative government. After all, why should a councilor listen to someone in his district when it really is the people outside the district electing him?

This set-up especially favors the dominant political party. Chances are, the average voter does not know any of the seven councilors. But if they do, they probably only know theirs. And yet, they will vote on all seven, and in all likelihood, will vote Republican, because the Republican Party is dominant in Fishers.

So, I won't run. It's too much to overcome. Plus, I have this crazy desire to remain married!

Barack Obama Lost Me, Big Time

I just received a direct mail piece from the Obama '08 campaign. That's a pretty remarkable thing for me to consider, since I was just the Libertarian candidate for ballot access in November. That's as partisan a race as one could hope to find. Anyone who had thought about sending a solitication letter to me should have had Brain One sufficient to figure that out. What does receiving this mailing say to me?

The Obama campaign is mismanaged. They don't know who they send solicitation letters to.

-or-

The Obama campaign is so over-funded that they don't care what you believe in- you're getting a solicitation letter.

Neither one is too flattering. Don't we have that kind of POTUS already?

Being a partisan Libertarian, there was very little chance I would support Obama anyhow... unless he comes out of his primary the winner, and against McCain. Then I would have the think long and hard about where my vote goes. But his campaign put the nails in the coffin for me with this letter. The solicitation letter and even the literature seemed like it was designed to make me feel insignificant. It's just impossible for me to respect a candidate can allow this kind of thing to leave the Post Office.

Cost of Mass Transit, Real Life Example

But, Mike- Mass Transit isn't supposed to make a profit. Egad. Is it supposed to be a money pit, then? Check this out, from a Richmond Pal-Item article:

"The trolley is a luxury," said Shailla Gupta. "People who use Job Connection have no alternative."

Bus Manager Larry King said the service, which is funded by tax money, cost about $30 to $40 a ride to operate with only about 10,000 riders a year.

"It is very inefficient to operate," King said. He said the bus system could save about $185,000 yearly by eliminating Job Connection.

$30-$40 a ride? A cab fare would be far less. Here comes some interesting math:

Using the numbers provided, $185,000 / $30 = 6,167 rides (rounded up, and giving benefit of the doubt to the lowest cost figure provided).

If a person works 5 days/week, and works 50 weeks/year, going to and from work, that means 5 x 50 x 2 = 500 rides/person per year.

6,167 rides / 500 rides per person = 13 people riding (rounded up).

$185,000 / 13 riders = $14,230.77 per rider

Are you kidding me? This is very clearly a transfer of wealth from the region to a very, very few, and an obscenity. Real life examples like this are why I deeply oppose mass transit. It's an oxymoron in this case. There is nothing "mass" about it.

Now, I've obviously only used the numbers provided. I'd love to see a fuller report on the numbers for this line. What's telling to me is that the bus manager is calling this service "inefficient". That tells you it is over-the-top inefficient. I had IndyGo president Gil Holmes by my side in a recent interview and he didn't flinch when I read his balance sheet numbers with 80% + of operating revenue coming from taxes. In this case, I'm guessing it's about 95%.

"Thanks" to Rex Bell for forwarding this article to me. I think he wants my blood pressure through the roof.

SJR-7 is DEAD!

Well, if this isn't like a refreshing drink of cool water on a humid August afternoon, I don't know what is. From WTHR's initial report:

A key House committee has failed to advance a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage Tuesday - a move some lawmakers said would kill the proposal for this year.

The House Rules Committee voted 5-5 on a resolution supporting the amendment. Since there was no majority, the measure failed to pass.

I thought for sure this would pass the Committee and then test the resolve of the House Democrats as a whole. It's nice to be wrong!

I'm delighted with the result. It tears me up to think of a class of people being told that they are unwelcome in our state. That's what SJR-7 would have done. One's sexual orientation hurts nobody. It doesn't pick your pocket. It doesn't wound your body. It doesn't change what you hold dear. Good riddance, SJR-7!

Government has no business regulating marriage. It would have been even nicer to hear any elected official say so, especially from a so-called "limited government conservative Republican". This whole exercise proves that there aren't any smaller government Republicans in Indiana.

I hope this leads to more Democrats becoming emboldened enough to stand up for people living life their way in more areas of life. They might just find their soul along the way.

Radley Balko on Campaign Finance Reform

Balko says: understandable motives, wrong solution. He's got it right. I learned firsthand that I could out-work my competitors by a mile and still not make a dent in the numbers without about a half million to spend.

Good quotes:

I tend to agree with many of the editorial boards and campaign reformers troubled by the escalation in the money we spend on federal elections. Unfortunately, campaign finance reformers (and lobbying reformers) seem to be troubled for all the wrong reasons.

The problem with increasing amounts of money spent on lobbying and politics isn't that Americans are spending more and more money to buy some influence in Washington; the problem is that we're giving Washington more and more influence to sell.

Nice as it may be to think otherwise, individuals, advocacy groups and corporations that give to political campaigns don't do so out of patriotism or civic pride. They donate because they hope to get something in return. It's not a gift, it's an investment.

Amen! Let's give Washington (and Indianapolis, etc.) less to sell. Also,

Here's a failsafe prediction for Election 2008: The people who complain the loudest about corruption among the politically powerful will be the same people who want to give more power to politicians.

Link to full article.

Interesting Quote

In these times, it can be bewildering to be a libertarian who believes that our government's foreign policy regardless of the party of the administration, too often takes us on hapless military interventions. Some Republicans are still clinging to Iraq. Some Democrats are pointing us to Darfur. So, the words of Joseph Sobran are of interest to me:

If you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you're a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're a moderate. If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist. – Joseph Sobran (1995)

It's not quite on the mark. Democrats have been very happy to see US interventions overseas. Darfur is the latest place they would like to see us go (and how is that different from Iraq?), but Bosnia was under the Clinton Administration, as was Mogadishu. Meanwhile, Republicans created the largest entitlement program ever with the Medicare prescription drug package.

I think most Americans have become 'Sobran Moderates'. Unfortunately.

Here's a link to a treasure trove of libertarian quotes.

Mindless March Into a Pit

The Indy Star had another maddening article on mass transit, and how the region is inching ever closer to taking this outrageously miserable plan and putting it into effect.

Here are a few points to ponder, especially if you are a proponent of light rail.

* Is it just to take money from those who do not ride and give it to those who do?
* Is it just for the people of Mars Hill, Plainfield, Shelbyville, and Zionsville to pay for trains for a small number of people in Fishers?
* Is it just for the people of Fishers to pay for mass transit in San Francisco, Seattle, or Dallas?
* Would you like to see the sales tax go up? Or, the state income tax? Gasoline tax?

I ask these questions, because taxes are how mass transit systems are funded, from construction to operations. None pay for themselves. None.

So, it was interesting to read some of the quotes in the Star article:

Christine Altman, president of the Regional Transportation Authority and a Hamilton County commissioner, said the goal should be to develop a system that pays for itself.

"Money is still the number one problem," Altman said. "We're at a standstill. We can plan the best system, but if we can't implement it, we're not going anywhere."

The plan can be implemented, but only with a whole lot of tax dollars. If Altman doesn't know that mass transit doesn't pay for itself, she hasn't read any balance sheets of any system. IndyGo's balance sheets make plain that around 80% of the operating money comes from myriad tax sources. Observe this image from IndyGo's 2002 Annual Report:


Passenger fares, 16%. Federal 'Assistance' means taxes. 'Municipalities' means taxes. 82% of this pie is tax dollars. The pie charts look like this every year, in every report. Why should a light rail system perform any differently than the bus system? In order for the bus to break even, fares would have to go to about $7-8/ride.

The MPO's Financial Analysis lists a variety of tax sources it will depend on for a light rail system. MPO studies page link. IndyGo 2002 report. 2003. 2004. 2005.

(Indy Mayor Bart) Peterson, a Democrat, said he supports light rail. It's a system in which more stops could be built for less, and it would require less up-front cash, which the city lacks. The regional authority he wants to control the project would consist of a bipartisan group of local leaders.

"I want to see us move forward with a rail-based rapid transit system, but I'm not sure yet if it's feasible," Peterson said. "We now have a structure in place to make it happen: the Regional Transportation Authority."

Again, it depends on what 'feasible' means to the Mayor. If 'feasible' means sucking $1 billion in tax dollars out of the people, then the thing is feasible. If you want to not chase out even more people of means from this region, then the project is not feasible. Perhaps, if the Mayor is getting his dictionary out, he should look up 'boondoggle'.

Undaunted by common sense or an ability to read a balance sheet, this nightmare appears poised to move forward.

A council of regional officials expects to decide on a specific route -- and transit system -- after 30 days of public hearings that could begin in October, said Amy Inman, project manager for a study of local rapid transit that is due in late summer.

I guess I'll have to start preparing my statements now. *sigh*

Yes, I Rode Mass Transit

New York City is one place where mass transit can work for the average person as a rider. Two main reasons: It’s a complete liability to have a car; you can walk to your destination after you get off the bus or train.

I bought a 7-day unlimited pass for $24. I could ride any train or bus, any time.

Why is it a liability to have a car? Many reasons. It’s very difficult to find parking, and once you do, it’s expensive. There are lots in Manhattan that charge $100/24 hours to park. Even out in Queens, Steve rents out two parking spaces at $150/month. The insurance is outrageous. Your car is going to get beat up.

I rode the Q33 bus from LaGuardia Airport to Roosevelt Station in Jackson Heights, where Steve lives. We weren’t even off the airport grounds when the bus slammed into an airport employee shuttle! The bus lost its mirror. It was great theatre. The bus and shuttle pulled up alongside one another at the next light. Both drivers opened their windows and doors and began shouting and swearing at each other.

Riding the trains never loses its novelty for me. I’m a train nut, so it fascinates me to stand in the station, to crowd on to a train, to look at the ads, and to look out the window at the scenery. Not much to see in the tunnels.

New Yorkers are numb to the experience. When a New Yorker wants to get somewhere quickly and he has a few bucks, he doesn’t take the train. He hails a cab.

Steve in the cab after the Guggenheim. We weren’t in a big hurry, really. We just had a better option, and took it.

Cabs are expensive, fast, and exclusive. They go from A to B without any walking. Trains are cheap, slow, crowded, and generally leave you having to walk to your destination. Despite their expense, there are more cabs operating in NYC than in any other American city.

Some people in Central Indiana are clamoring for the trains. I’m not one of them. At a billion dollars for a single line from Fishers to Indy, we’re still about $10 billion from a system.

New York has 10 million people.
Indy has about 1 million.

New York is densely packed.
Indy is sprawled.

New York is a walking city.
Indy is nothing of the kind. The suburbs are sprawled even more.

You can’t park in NYC unless willing to pay a lot and to risk damage to your car.
You can park at a meter in downtown Indy at almost any time. I do it at least once a week. I use nickels and dimes.

It’s a shame that the NYC system isn’t private. I bet it could be profitable there, if it weren't a government operation. But there is absolutely no way mass transit will be profitable in Central Indiana. It will only be a tax dollar suckhole here. Breaking even would be a fond, wistful dream. IndyGo president Gil Holmes agreed with my reading of the balance sheet and my statement that it is a tremendous financial loser. This is why I asserted to him that mass transit is merely a transfer of wealth from those who do not ride to those who do, and on that basis unjust.

I think it's telling that cabs are seldom used in Indy. The average Hoosier uses a car because it is cheaper and every bit as fast, saying nothing of the sense of independence gained from driving.

At any rate, the trains were fun for me in NYC. Here are some assorted rail pics.

I love the tile in the subway platforms.

One of many images of Grand Central Station.

More Grand Central.

The Future of Banking

Tired of bored, disinterested bank tellers? New York is providing the answer.

You see, the banking industry doesn’t like to have to pay bored, disinterested tellers, so most banks look like this.

A Row of 10 ATMs. Steve is leaving his bank in Jackson Heights, in Queens. There is one teller, but the bank would really prefer you didn’t bother her unless you have a real problem or a complex banking issue to discuss. Push the buttons, make your deposit or withdrawl, and scram.


New Yorkers seem to like it. I’m not so sure it would fly here in the Midwest just yet, except in downtown banks. I did like how fast the line moved. The place was packed with customers, and Steve waited less than a minute.

More New York

Before taking the train to the Guggenheim, we stopped in a Mexican restaurant in Queens. I wasn’t terribly excited about it since I can get Mexican food in abundance in Indiana. Steve promised a cultural experience. Well! I’m always up for a cultural experience!

We had just ordered sodas (not pop) when a little Oriental woman stood at our table. “DVD? DVD?” She was selling newly minted pirate DVDs. We waved her off.

I asked Steve how common this is. Before he could answer, a second little Oriental woman was standing at our table. “DVD? DVD?” She must have walked right past the competition as she came in. We waved her off, too. I marveled.

Steve told me this is extremely common in Queens. You can get an almost unlimited supply of knock-off goods. I’ll post more on this later.

I asked why the restaurant owners tolerate solicitors. Steve posits they are seen as harmless. I offered that if it happened in Indiana, the owners would toss them out on their ears. He agreed that few other places in the US would tolerate it.

It’s interesting to me that in New York, one of the media centers of the world, pirate DVD media is so readily available. Is the lack of enforcement due to a fear of upsetting the largely immigrant hawkers of this gear? Is it a matter of police priorities, like nailing the murderers and rapists? I could find no answer.

Time For Art!

Since I always seem to skip a visit to a museum or gallery despite the sheer numbers of them in NYC, this time I prioritized a trip to the Guggenheim.

I was in luck- we were able to see a major exhibit on Spanish painting, just days before the close. (It closes today.)

The recognizable building is undergoing a significant restoration and is surrounded by scaffolding. This canvas ad was found below the scaffolds.


I’m always amazed at the sizable crowds. Whenever I visited the Cleveland Museum of Art, I found myself sometimes feeling alone with the art. Not here. It was very crowded. You had to stand in line to check your coat.

The display occupied the entire building. While there was a great deal of Picasso’s paintings, there was a fantastic range of artists and scope of time covered. I really enjoyed how the curators placed traditional realistic works alongside cubist or impressionist paintings covering the same subject, side-by-side. It helped me appreciate what the modern artists were doing. Of course, having Steve there to explain helped even more. He has a degree in art history.

He recognized how overwhelmed you can be in seeing so much. I was experiencing a major sensory overload just as he suggested that we should start moving through a little faster, stopping only for more amazing stuff. I was getting to where I was ready to simply leave. Glad he intervened.

People seemed most drawn to Picasso’s work. My favorite was Juan Gris. I found that I really enjoyed the sharpness of his cubist paintings. I was taken by the geometry of them, and especially enjoyed his collages incorporating newsprint.

Having recently read up on the Spanish Civil War and noting the time period in which so many Spanish modern artists were really producing, I couldn’t help but think about how Picasso, Gris, Dali, etc., would have been received by Franco and those forces fighting to restore their vision of Spanish tradition. I failed to observe any narratives on this subject.

The Guggenheim’s interior. You can take pictures of the architecture, thank goodness. Naturally and unfortunately, you cannot photograph the art.

Grumble... New Blogger

Another thing that's been eating me up about blogging is Blogger. Yeah, it's a free service, you get what you pay for, and all that. But it worked fine before. Now?

Since changing over, I routinely lose posts. I just put a lot of effort into a post on my trip to the Guggenheim in New York City. The silly form makes me enter letters in a "word verification". I find that if you write directly to the page as I do, and you take some time, Blogger just won't recognize the letters. When that happened in the past, it simply gave you a new set of letters. You entered them, and the post appeared. Now, you get an error message. When you go back, your form is completely blank. All gone. Zapped into the aethers.

I don't have extra 30-minute blocks. So, sod New Blogger.

NYC Calling!

I'm off the New York this morning, for a weekend visit to my best friend, Steve Wainstead. We're going to eat our way through town. Steve's neighborhood in Queens (Jackson Heights) is an ideal starting place, for the sheer volume of interesting ethnic restaurants. We'll eat at Ecuadoran and Afghani mom & pop joints and get Dim Sum at the least. We won't be going to Brooklyn for pizza here.

I'm finally going to go to the Guggenheim. I don't know why I've never gone in my 20+ trips. We'll rectify that shortly! If the weather holds up, we'll bike the shoreline along northern Queens.

I will ride the MTA trains. Mass transit actually works in NYC because of the density of the city, the walking nature of the city, and the liability that having a car is, in terms of difficulty in finding parking and the high cost. I still wish it were privately funded.

Alas. It's going to be big fun!

Mass Transit, Again

I really like that Abdul Hakim-Shabazz always picks me to be "The Opposition" for his on-air debates on mass transit. He had me on his "Abdul in the Morning" show again today, on 1430-am.

I was loaded for bear, waiting for Marc Fisher to use the 'we can't build our way out of congestion' line- while promoting building light rail. Alas, he must have read my last blog entry on the subject, reacting to hearing Marc represent the Indiana Chamber back in February.

Part of the ammunition included the IndyGo balance sheets from 2005 and other years. I made the case that the lion's share- unwards of 80%- of IndyGo's funding comes from tax dollars. IndyGo President Gil Holmes was in the studio with me, and he did not try to evade the numbers I cited. He affirmed that this was fact.

My opening statement included a philosophical position, that I am opposed to the funding of mass transit with tax dollars; that it represents a massive transfer of wealth from the vast majority of Americans who do not ride to the slim minority who do; that this transfer of wealth is unjust; and that if mass transit is to exist, it should be operated privately, or not at all.

Interestingly, Mr. Holmes reacted to my first statement by saying that he did not want to get into a philosophical or political discussion.

That was interesting, because supporting a massive transfer of wealth is both. It was also interesting because he made an almost endless series of political and philosophical statements.

He claimed all of the secondary benefits proponents like to, such as the environmental benefits, quality of life, and convenience, and justified in the cost. That's as political as it gets, to suggest that something is worthy of extracting tax dollars from non-participants and the basis of intangibles that he was not prepared to support with numbers or other supporting data, in the way my use of his balance sheet supported me contentions.

He said, "workers should not have to pay $2.60 a gallon for gas". Well, if that's not a political or philosophical statement, please wake me up with a cattle prod and let me know what is.

This was a tough show, though, in that despite being an hour long, I was able to get in exactly four comments, each one minute or less. I was not at any time able to rebut any statement by Mr. Holmes or by Marc Fisher, who was on the phone line, because there simply wasn't time to do so within the format of the show. Any one else notice the abundance of commercials and promo spots?

Events two days in a row. It was almost like being a candidate again!

Current Activity

I spoke at a press conference this morning with a coalition of opponents to SJR-7, Indiana's proposed constitutional amendment that would affect same-sex marriage.

I was pleased that the Libertarian Party of Indiana got involved with the opposition to this. Like so much of today's legislation, I believe it seeks to oppress a minority because it seems oppressable.

At the core, I believe that government has no business regulating marriage. As a straight, married man, I resented it deeply when I was compelled to purchase a marriage license from the state. I had a church willing to do what I consider church business- a marriage.

So why, as a straight married man, did I speak with the opposition? Because I do not believe that you have to be a part of the oppressed group to be moved to defend them. I would have been a resistance fighter against the Nazis on behalf of the Jews, had I been in Europe, even though I am not Jewish. I defended smoking in private establishments even though I have never been a smoker.

I stand with the opposition because I believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Here is an early report, from the Star:

A Democrat, Republican and Libertarian joined together on the south steps of the Statehouse this morning to denounce a proposed constitutional amendment
to ban same-sex marriages.

Indianapolis City-County council members JoAnne Sanders, a Democrat, and Scott Keller, a Republican, both called for the Indiana House to reject the amendment, as did Libertarian Mike Kole.

"I am inherently appalled by this amendment, which is an effort to write discrimination into our constitution," Sanders said.

Keller called for fellow Republicans to listen to the "voice of history" and realize that backing an amendment against same-sex marriage ultimately will be judged as wrong just as previous laws banning interracial marriages were.

Kole, who ran for secretary of state in 2006, said legislators should leave the business of marriage up to churches, adding that the amendment "rejects liberty."

Here is the full text of my prepared remarks:

Libertarians stand today in opposition to SJR-7. We stand with the opposition for many reasons, but I will focus this morning on a key, traditional, American viewpoint.

Americans have the right to live their lives their way.

This was the view of the Founding Fathers, and in particular, Thomas Jefferson, when he wrote in the Declaration of Independence that among our unalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Libertarians honor this long-held, traditional belief as sacred. We ask those who state their support for SJR-7 on traditional grounds to consider just what traditions they are willing to trample in the name of conservative values.

The association of the pursuit of happiness and marriage is not new when regarding bonds seen as controversial to some. Chief Justice Earl Warren declared, in the Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia, which dealt with mixed-race marriages, “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

SJR-7 is an affront to the pursuit of happiness.

SJR-7 continues an ugly history of governmental involvement in the regulation of marriage. As I alluded to, the history of government meddling in the business of marriage begins with another discrimination, on the basis of race.

All states have repealed statutes banning mixed-race marriages. Undaunted by the enlightened end of that bigotry, Indiana and other states bring forth legislation that rejects the philosophical underpinnings to our traditions, and rejects liberty.

Rather than adopting SJR-7, the House should do the right thing and reject it. The House should soon enough begin to get government out of the business of marriage, leaving that to the churches.

As we know, many denominations will marry same-sex couples. Many others will not. Everyone goes home happy. There’s that pursuit of happiness again. Leave
everyone free to choose.

Government has a legitimate role to play when marriages fail. Government is correctly the referee, ensuring that obligations are upheld.

That’s the extent of government’s legitimate role.

SJR-7 is just another example of the eagerness of too many of our legislature and our citizens to use government as an instrument of oppression against minorities they believe are fair game to oppression.

Libertarians urge our leaders in the House to resist the temptation to abandon the cherished belief in the right to the pursuit of happiness.

Libertarians urge the House members to reject SJR-7.

I hope the House does just that today. I'll be watching the news reports on TV this evening and following online.

Big Thanks to Bil Browning for inviting me to stand for the Libertarians at the press conference!

Hard Facts, Indeed

As I approach my fourth year of blogging, I find that I'm beginning to tire of it.

It was a great release when I was new to Central Indiana and didn't have many friends, or political or professional contacts. That's not an issue any more.

I recently took a look at the stats for my blog and discovered that my traffic is down. Way down. A steady decline since my campaign ended.

I also find that the nature of my work is such that I keep my trap shut on some things that I see as an insider, because although I have strong feelings about things, I would jeopardize my business relationships. Things I have said 2-3 years ago are lurking and probably could hurt my business if they are to be discovered. Do I self-censor and delete? It's the smart thing to do, for sure.

So, at the end of the day, if I'm not excited by it, and readers aren't there, I can hardly see a point. Am I wrong? I'm sure other bloggers have felt this. Tell me about it.

Bookstore Down!

This is a long overdue post. Sorry.

My work takes me all over Central Indiana. One of my favorite things to do when out and about is to stop at interesting looking mon & pop stores or restaurants. When in Lebanon, in Boone County, I would always stop at Mason's Used Books, on the north side of the town square, across from the Court House.

No more. Mason's closed their doors at the beginning of the year.

I'm not sure why they closed. Perhaps the owner retired. Maybe they couldn't make the rent. Whatever, I'm saddened by the loss. I picked up some truly unremarkable used paperbacks there, but also some very interesting books, including a copy of Washington Irving's "Tales From The Alhambra". That was a gift for my son, Alex. We visited the Alhambra together. It was a great old copy that was printed in Spain, and had the orginal price tag attached- in Pasetas!

The owner had a great sense of humor. I enjoyed talking about books with him. Alas. I hope somebody buys his stock and keeps the place open.

Another Addiction

Just as government is addicted to the revenues from taxes on tobacco product sales, government is addicted to its near-monopoly on gambling.

Government also likes to protect its monopoly. Yesterday, a poker club was raided in Indianapolis. Indy Star report.

I like to gamble. I play poker, and I like to go to Vegas to play video poker, blackjack, and did I mention poker? I never went to that club, though I have poker buddies who have. They reported that the operation was a bit shady, and that sore losers often looked to recoup their losses in the parking lot. So, I steered clear of that one. Illegal operations have a way of attracting a bad element- one willing to take criminal risks.

But I think it is worth comparing reputable gambling operations, such as those in Vegas, with government gambling operations such as the Hoosier Lottery.

When I go to Vegas and play video poker, the payback on most machines average 90-95%. That means that on average, if you put $100 into the machine, you'll get $90-95 back. Some are even higher. Some pay out better than 100%! These are usually high roller machines, or in places trying to draw players. Here's a link to a published chart of Las Vegas slots payouts.

See, Vegas wants you to know that you can play for a good while on your money. The see to it that their numbers are published and distributed to the travel and gambling magazines. The Hoosier Lottery never advertises their payout on their radio and TV ads- for good reason.

The Hoosier Lottery's payout is 60%. Link to their distribution webpage for 2006. That's pretty rotten compared to Vegas, but then Vegas is the place where gaming operators face the most intense competition in the world. They have to payout. The Hoosier Lottery? Well, their competition often gets shut down in a raid.

Actually, I'm a bit surprised that the payout is as high as 60%. I suppose it is because Indiana has the riverboat casinos at the state lines- Blue Chip in Michigan City; Argosy and Caesar's on the Ohio River, among others. There is some competition, but no comparable competition in Marion County. OK, there's an off-track pari-mutuel house for horse racing, but poker? Hence, poker rooms and peashakes spring up.

Say! Why hasn't some Marion County Democrat stepped forward to announce that a poker room really doesn't harm anyone? Hmm.

Fully Addicted

Just as smokers are addicted to nicotine, governments are addicted to the revenues generated by the sale of tobacco products. So, I look for governments to continue their duplicitous approach to tobacco- deepen the regulations, write more laws, but for God's sake keep it legal so that the money continues to stream in to fund programs that expand government.

The Indy Star fuels this fire with an editorial calling for expanded federal regulation on the newer tobacco products, such as the smokeless-spitless tobacco that is not subject to the regulations as they are currently defined.

Hmm. With that, it is surprising that marijuana hasn't been legalized and regulated. With its' status as the top cash crop in the USA, the revenue stream from its taxation could be gigantic. Report by Drug Science.org. News report by the LA Times.

Hmm. Maybe Gregor was completely onto something about questioning the incremental approach. Sure, regulated and legal makes the product available. But it also makes available the expansion of government programs via the tax revenues.

Man, I'm torn. Thank goodness these are products I don't use!

So, You Want Government To Run Health Care?

I'm very glad that the madness at Walter Reed is being exposed, with all the horrors of the place being exposed. Make the connection- Walter Reed is the prime example of health care that is 100% government provided.

Feast your eyes. Look well upon it. Doesn't stack up too well against the last private hospital you were in, does it? So, is this what you want? There's a beautiful quote in a CNN report:

"A soldier who fights the battle shouldn't have to come home and fight the battle of bureaucracy," (Acting Army Secretary Pete Geren) said.

It's a government hospital. Government is nothing if not bureaucracy. Where's the surprise? It's unjust to the soldier, but entirely predictable.

Now, I believe that the military needs to have medical facilities, and it ought to hold them to the highest standard, but what you see is what you get. To me, it's 100% predictable. So, in the wake of the evidence, shouldn't there be some sort of outcry in favor of privatizing Walter Reed? Shouldn't this occur to at least the Republicans, and more generally, to anyone who can make a comparative analysis? And yet, crickets. The lack of such a reaction shows the deep commitment to government by Republicans and Democrats, regardless of whether the enterprise succeeds, or as in the case of Walter Reed, is a complete and miserable failure.

Incremental or Extreme?

I'd like to broaden the discussion Gregor brought to mind in the comments on the previous post regarding my support to Indiana Midwives and their attempt to become licensed in order to legalize their practices.

It may seem plenty paradoxical to see me call for licensure after campaigning for two years to cut back on all manner of government intrusion into business affairs. I agree. It took me a little while to get on board with lobbying on their behalf. It does indeed represent an expansion of government, should they get what they want.

So here I am, a person who believes laissez faire capitalism the best system for the pursuit of happiness, lobbying the state legislature for the passage of a bill that involves a licensure. It does leave me shaking my head in wonder at times.

But it occurred to me that it is a similar approach that other strident libertarians take on a host of generally controversial issues. Here are two:

Many who support the absolute decriminalization of drugs are in favor of the incremental approach of regulating the sale of marijuana in the manner that the sale of alcohol is regulated. The belief is that the best opportunity to get towards an unregulated legal market is via getting the product legalized under regulation, which most American accept gladly for alcohol. Plus, regulated legalization would have the effect of reducing the myriad expenses associated with the drug war.

Many who support absolute property rights where very happy to support laws in many states that mitigated the state's ability to take private property and give it away to another private property developer in the name of economic development. This certainly didn't ban the practice outright in many of the states, as in Indiana, but at least made it a more difficult proposition for the state, and goes some route towards improving the safeguards on private property.

I do take the incrementalist approach. I believe that the average American is positively frightened by absolute freedom because it means absolute responsibility, and when strident libertarians enunciate the position, it drives too many to the other side. It's not that I do not see value in enunciating the ultimate ideals. I certainly enjoy them myself. The thing is, we already got me. We need to get more of the others.

I know this- on the campaign trail, I had more people single out the absolutist Libertarian position on the legalization of drugs as the Number One reason they would not vote for me, even though the office I was running for had nothing to do with drug policy; even though they would as quickly say, "I agree with 98% of what you guys are about". I would ask if they agreed with 99% of what the other parties were about. They would say no, but undaunted, they would vote for a party they didn't believe in even 50% of the time rather than have a laissez faire market for marijuana. So, the incrementalists make a point.

I also take stock in the US Congressional Democrats, who really saw their agenda advanced tremendously during a time when Republicans had majorities in both the US House and Senate, and had the White House. The Democrats didn't take their gains by making extreme calls for outright socialism (even though I believe that is the ultimate goal of many Democrats). They did it by stepping one step to the left of any proposal to grow government made by Republicans. It was skillful negotiation.

I'll never forget President Bush announcing his enormous Medicare prescription drug giveaway. It was the biggest social program ever proposed, and there was Ted Kennedy (in particular) leading the charge in calling the proposal cheap, and a scam on the poor. Of course, it was nothing of the kind, but just one step to the left, the law passed and expanded the original proposal before it was done.

Now, I grant you, we don't have the same luxury the Democrats had. I mean, the Republicans weren't talking about cutting anything in government, so we couldn't very well take any of their proposals and stand just one step to the right, saying that, say, the lowering of a tax rate was too slight and a scam on the people. The Republicans were just busy growing government at every turn.

The point is, there is a model of success to work from. Democrats aren't quoting Karl Marx, but darned if they aren't moving us closer to him all the time.

Maybe if we enunciate free market positions on popular issues moderately, we will see things start to pull our way.

Incremental is slow, to be sure. Being absolutist has left the Libertarian Party a fringe party in the wilderness. Yes, you can point to the Cato Institute, which has been fairly absolute in their approach to capitalism, in gaining their adherents, but remember that Cato hasn't been elected to anything either.

Unpaid Lobbying

I'll be meeting, lobbying, rallying, I'm not quite sure all what yet, but on behalf of passage of a Midwifery Licensure Bill this upcoming week. Lobbying Day is Wednesday at the Statehouse. I'll look forward to bumping into half of the state's lawyers.

As regards the bill, homebirth midwifery is illegal here in Indiana, with exceptions made for the Amish and a few others. My daughter Isabel was born here at home, illegally. I support the right to choose where to have your child, and in whose care. We wanted and had a natural, drug-free birth. If there had been complications, we would have been off to the hospital.


Isabel on her first birthday last June, with all of us re-taking our places at the time of her birth, on the back porch.

It's unusal, really. Rarely will you see a group of professionals come forward to the state and say, 'license and regulate us', but that's what Indiana's direct entry midwives are asking for. I generally oppose licensure and regulation in most things, but in order to legally exist and practice their medical art, this is what they need.

Incumbent Protection Plan- Working, As Usual

It has been interesting to watch a Noblesville City Council primary contest disintegrate and to note the words and actions of the incumbent, Kathie Stretch.

Stretch, a Republican, faced a potential primary challenge by Wil Hampton- yes, the same of WRTV 6. Stretch obviously took this potential challenge very seriously. After all, the conventional wisdom is that in Hamilton County, all elections are won and lost in the Republican primary.

Stretch immediately siezed upon Hampton's media position as an 'unfair advantage'. From her letter to the Noblesville Daily Times:

Certain circumstances preclude individuals from the political arena. Arnold Schwarzenegger can never run for President because he wasn’t born in America. Should we ignore that rule because the folks in California think he’s done a good job as governor? What about term limits? No one doubts that Rudy Giuliani was extraordinary during the 9-11 attacks. Many wanted him to run again but term limits made that impossible and he chose not to challenge the law. While some laws may seem to be unfair in certain cases, on the whole they are effective and exist because they protect the majority of people.

Can you guess from this paragraph that Stretch pushed Hampton's employer? That's no stretch, har har. Hampton withdrew his candidacy.

Links to other articles in the saga: Column. Column.

While Stretch asserts that the majority of people were protected here somehow, I'll say that certainly one person was protected- incumbent Kathie Stretch.

I can tell you that as a recent candidate myself, the greatest advantage any candidate has is to be the incumbent. As the incumbent, you have the greatest ability to generate free media publicity, simply by sending out a press release, holding a press conference, or writing a new ordinance. Incumbents have the advantage of being able to build up campaign war chests over the duration of their term. They have a track record of prior electoral success. They have the experience of having done what it takes to win an election to guide future course while the challenger, novice that he is, guesses and stumbles along.

The incumbent for city councils have their names pasted to every sign on a construction project in their district, and on every set of construction plans approved within the city while in office. They accidently rub elbows with every mover and shaker in the city. The litany of 'unfair advantages' goes on and on.

I'm betting though, that she regards the advantages of her incumbency as perfectly fair, and besides, majority better served or not, it's legal!

Whew, that's convenient!

As for me and probably the citizens of District 4, it might have been even better to have two candidates take the forum of ideas and let the voters decide. As usually happens with election rules, the existing laws penalize the challenger, and let the incumbent coast home safely. After all- they were written by incumbents.

Nobody is fooled by her actions or letter. Indeed, these make her more worthy of an opponent, not less.

Shocking Trades

As a hockey fan, the days before the NHL trade deadline are fascinating and fun. No other league re-tools so much mid-season. Baseball will feature trades and has a fun deadline, but the NBA and NFL are virtually trade-free during the season.

I'm a Sharks fan, and was astonished to see two great deals that brought Bill Guerin from St. Louis and defenseman Craig Rivet from Montreal. The Sharks got a lot tougher in a hurry!

Tougher to explain is WXNT's move to take on Dennis Miller's talk show in favor of Sean Hannity. WXNT airs on 1430-am in Indianapolis, and is my #1 radio pre-set.

Huh? I'm not a fan of Hannity. In fact, I skewered him for his treatment of Ron Paul. But they guy's show is popular and at least consistently political, which I like. Miller? No telling what you'll get. Sometimes it might even be funny.

Could it be that WXNT is moving away from being a conservative talk station? Perhaps Hannity's rise made the show too expensive to carry? Hannity has the TV show on Fox News, while WXNT airs Fox News. It was a natural network fit, especially with Bill O'Reilly on the station.

Consider me stumped. I'd love to find out more about this one!

Voting For, Voting Against

I rarely have any second thoughts about my presidential votes. I've cast the last three for Libertarian candidates and felt good about it.

Get that. I voted for Michael Badnarik, and Harry Browne (twice). Never have I voted against one major party candidate in favor of another.

I'm wonder if that might change in 2008. Brian Doherty's new Reason article got me to thinking about it. There are definitely some that I would vote against. Tops among the Republicans to vote against is John McCain. For the Democrats, it's Hilary Clinton. Both strike me as power-mad, self-serving maniacs who could give a rip about the effects their policies might have on the country.

If they both win their nominations, it will be easier than ever for me to vote Libertarian. It wouldn't even matter who the candidate is. However, if only one of these two wins the nomination, I might be sorely tempted to cross party lines and vote for a major party candidate for the first time in 16 years. I really would vote against these two... but McCain's the worst.

I was delighted to see Reason Magazine's new cover. It nails part of my opinion of McCain: "authoritarian maverick", although it does leave out, "hypocrite". I will never forgive him for McCain-Feingold.

Long Time, No Post

It's not for a lack of things to write about, that's for sure. Business has been very demanding of my time, so the blogging has gone by the wayside a bit. We'll get some more up in the next few days.

Another Hurdle For Online Poker

You may know that I like to play poker, mainly in house games and the little free tournaments that bars put on, such as Claude & Annie's in Fishers on Saturdays, or Barley Island on Thursdays. I do play online from time to time, but only with play money. I just am not willing to gamble online.

But that's my choice. I believe that any adult in America should have the right to gamble online. So, I was disappointed to the get an email from Full Tilt Poker, bemoaning an item slipped into a port security bill, that could affect online poker. Here's some of the email:

You should be outraged that the U.S. government is infringing on your personal rights and telling you how to use your hard-earned money. You should be outraged by the fact that a minority of legislators passed the UIGEA, which impacts your ability to play the great game of poker on the Internet. They did this by slipping the language into a completely unrelated port security bill that went to the floor just minutes before Congress took its break for the mid-term elections. The bill passed without any Congressional debate or opportunity for you to object.

Although many legal scholars would argue that online poker should not be affected by the UIGEA, we believe the law's lack of clarity can only harm the game unless an express exemption is granted under the UIGEA. You should be outraged that, in a rush to passage, poker did not receive the objective review it deserves, and did not already get this express exemption while lotteries, horse racing, and fantasy sports were all given free passes. We demand that Congress address this grievous oversight now.

Full Tilt is part of the Poker Players Alliance, which is rallying to protect the ability to play online. Fill Tilt's link to PPA. (Those donating to the PPA via Full Tilt are being rewarded with cash in their accounts.)

I wouldn't expect much help from either Republicans or Democrats on this issue unless the drumbeat by poker players is loud and steady. After all, the coalition government of Rs & Ds create the lottery monopolies, the horse track exemptions, etc., here in Indiana and in many other states. The insertion of an obstacle into a fairly obscure bill isn't likely to be picked up by the mainstream media, so players have to contact their elected officials in Congress, and their local media.

Hopefully, poker players will soon see that this hurdle was erected by Republicans and Democrats; that Libertarians are the only ones who will defend the right of adults to gamble online; and that there are parallels between the adult right to gamble and many other issues Libertarians defend.

Libertarian Legislative Review

The Libertarian Party of Indiana has continued its practice of reviewing selected legislative proposals and posting a position on its website. You won't find the other parties doing that, mainly because they don't stand for anything too strongly except increasing the size and scope of government.

The toughest thing is to review it all. There are so many bills, it boggles the mind. Today is the day that determines which bills live on and which die for this session. Check with the LPIN Legislative site frequently after that to see the pro-liberty position on the bills poised to become law.

Why Libertarians Shouldn't Run as Republicans, Part 382

I caught a brief moment of Sean Hannity's show today, and he put a caller on who asked why Hannity doesn't interview Ron Paul, a Republican member of the US House running for President.

Ron Paul. Republican. Running for President. That should be worthy of an interview by Hannity, the rah-rah Republican talk host, right?

Oh, you should have heard the scorn and dirision in his voice. "Ron Paul's a Libertarian," Hannity hissed. "Ron Paul's campaign can call and make an interview request," said Hannity, working as quickly as possible to dispose of the call.

Who needs that kind of treatment? Paul could run as a Libertarian Party candidate (or even as a Democrat) and gain the same response from Hannity. But Paul's a Republican. He's been elected to the US House as a Republican repeatedly. He seeks the GOP nomination. And yet, Hannity treats him like a pariah.

This is what happens to libertarians who run as Republicans. Don't drink the kool-aid! Remember again that the Texas GOP gerrymandered Paul out of his district in an attempt to be rid of him.

So, to those who believe Libertarians and Republicans are the same, feast your eyes yet again. When Hannity spits on a Libertarian-Republican fusion candidate, it should tell you all you need to know about the relative similarities or differences. To those who believe the GOP is dominated by the descendents of Barry Goldwater, just watch how Ron Paul is treated.

Ron Paul in the back room with the GOP's Good Ol' Boys.

Astonishing Bigotry

When ex-NBA player John Amaechi revealed that he is gay, I figured another player would say something stupid and intolerant. I was sadly correct, but I had no idea how stupid the comment could be. From an ESPN article:

Former Miami Heat guard Tim Hardaway said on a radio show Wednesday afternoon that he would not want a gay player on his team.

"You know, I hate gay people, so I let it be known," Hardaway said. "I don't like gay people and I don't like to be around gay people. I am homophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States."

It astonishes me to consider how easily and quickly a member of one oppressed minority group can become the oppressor of another oppressed minority group. Hardaway is black.

For his punishment, I order Hardaway to take his above quote and substitute the word "black" for "gay", and see how it feels.

Note: The ESPN article with this quote has many excellent links to other articles, and even the Hardaway soundbite... should you feel the need to hear the stupidity you've read.

Indie Radio Threatened Again

Many years ago, I began a "career" in community broadcasting, at WCSB 89.3-FM in Cleveland. From 1987-2002, I butchered many formats, from rock 'n' roll radio to political talk. I was always very grateful for the opportunity, and always very grateful for the small but dedicated audiences that were looking for and finding something different on WCSB.

Stations like WCSB have adopted a fine mission: To air worthy materials the corporate stations won't touch. WCSB has for years aired foreign language shows, blues, jazz, hardcore punk, 20th Century classical, etc. WCSB has aired a slew of political shows from under-represented viewpoints, such as Radio Moscow back in the day, feminist viewpoints, and even my old Libertarian news and comment show. A niche market exists for it all.

At the same time, independent community stations are doing what the big corporate stations are doing- broadcasting online. In fact, the community stations led the way. WCSB was the first Ohio station to simulcast online. Being online allowed unique stations like WCSB, WFMU, WRUW, among many others, to reach a wider audience than their paltry signals might. People who moved out of town and wanted to hear their old favorite, or just people interested in interesting, eclectic radio all could hear from anywhere.

The thing that could end this is the royalty situation. Like other community stations, WCSB pays royalties to outfits like BMI and ASCAP, who distribute money to artists based on airplay. Royalties for online spins have long been a grey area.

No longer, and not for the better. Here's the word from my long-time radio buddy Keith Newman:

WCSB 89.3 FM in Cleveland and other college radio stations across the country may have to give up webcasting their signals due to new rules set up by Sound Exchange and the US Copyright Office. The rules were created to ensure that artists would be paid for their work that was webcast online. It sounds like a noble cause. Paying musicians for the music they make sounds wonderful to me and I’m all for it. WCSB pays royalties to BMI every year for broadcast materials which I don’t have any problem with. Unfortunately the rules from Sound Exchange will guarantee that all but a few bands never receive a dime from getting played and fewer people will know they exist.


The fees for reporting are expensive and more importantly the reporting requirements are prohibitive. The costs are .02 per listener per song and there are 11 data fields that must be tracked for each song played. Bands receive .0007 cents per song played and Sound Exchange will not send out checks until a band accrues at least $10.00 in songs played. A band would have to be played more then 14,285 times before they would receive their first check! And to rub a little more salt in that wound it costs $45 to register a sound recording with the US Copyright office.

Almost all of the money paid in to the system by college radio stations will never reach the artists that these rules are supposed to benefit. It is much more beneficial for college radio to be able to introduce new music to audiences all over the world via webcasts. Most bands played on WCSB would make more money by selling one cd then they will ever see from sound exchange fees.

The new rules will force college stations to either adopt a mainstream radio format (it's a lot easier to report songs when you play the same thing every hour) or in many cases cease webcasting. A few stations might try to comply with the new reporting rules but when you look at the reality of what goes on at college stations it would be difficult. A college radio DJ has to pull their music and cue it up. They need to choose their Station IDs and PSAs and cue up more music. They need to monitor what they play for decency standards or else face the prospect of being fined $325,000.00 by the FCC and cue up even more music. They need to answer phones and pull requests and did my Dead Kennedy’s CD just end?? Oh my god dead air!!! Throw anything on! When is a DJ that does a rock show supposed to enter the 11 data fields required by Sound Exchange? Most rock songs only last 2-3 minutes. It can’t be done during commercial breaks because there aren’t any. College DJ’s would need to get secretaries just to handle the paperwork.

The new rules are not about paying artists. They are about controlling content and limiting competition. The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) has been hemorrhaging money for years and is trying to make it all back by controlling the information you can access over the web. As bad as this is for college radio it is far worse for the bands that will never be heard by an audience that wants to hear
them.

So enough bitching... I do appreciate if any of you are still reading this. Here's what you can do about it.

1. Go to www.wcsb.org and read the SAVE OUR WEBSTREAM message. If you already feel you've read enough you can skip reading it and go to step 2.

2. Click on the text of the SAVE OUR WEBSTREAM message. This will take you to a page with a form letter that you can send to your elected representatives. If you don't know who your representatives are we have links to help you out. Keep in mind that you don’t need to be 18 years old to write your representatives!

3. Pat yourself on the back for helping to support college radio and making the Internet a better place.

For more information on this issue you can read Michael Gill's "A threat to Your Stream" article from the Cleveland Free Times. Http://www.freetimes.com/story/4757. Some of the details listed here came directly from his article. Others came out of my own research in to the matter including information from http://www.soundexchange.com/

Feel free to post or send this to anyone you think might be interested in radio, fair competition and free speech.

Thanks for your time and your activism,

Keith Newman
Scruggscorp Syndicated Radio
& Crap!
Mondays Midnight-2:00 AM EST
WCSB 89.3 FM, Cleveland
http://www.wcsb.org/

I want to see bands get paid, but I don't want to see the station choked into oblivion. This all reminds me, the erstwhile third party candidate, of the onerous reporting rules caused by the two major parties in their badly misnamed 'campaign finance reform'. It has the effect of keeping good people out of the race. This all looks like it could knock good stations off the net.

Who benefits from that? Draw your conclusions, but I'll say it isn't the artists.

Argue Carefully!

There is another smoking ban proposal on the table. Libertarians would do well to craft their responses carefully. From the Indy Star:

State Rep. Charlie Brown wants to make it illegal for Michael Echols to smoke in a vehicle with his kids.

Echols, however, doesn't think the Indiana General Assembly has any business telling him or any of the state's other smokers how to raise their children or when and where they can light up.

"That's like going into my house and telling me I can't smoke in front of my kids," said Echols, who lives in Indianapolis. "What I do in my own car is my own business. I'm totally against this."

Now, I doubt Echols is a Libertarian. He's probably just the average Hoosier smoker who is incensed that government is looking to police the inside of his car on behavior he engages in. Either way, there is a great danger of sounding like you encourage smoking in a confined space occupied by children.

It's hard enough to argue successfully against laws that are 'for the children'. Add cigarette smoke to the mix, and it's a tough one to win. Here's the mentality defenders of liberty are up against:

Brown said he believes in protecting children who can't protect themselves.

"I recognize and accept the fact that many people think there's too much intrusion of the government," he said. "But in this particular case, if the youngster has no other option, the government needs to step in and provide protection and a safety net for children."

I urge the defenders of liberty to really think carefully before spouting off on this. Any time you argue in such a way that another can come to believe that you think harming someone else is a great idea, liberty loses the argument. Too many already think that government action is the only defense because parents aren't looking out for the best interests of their kids. Please don't make it worse by letting people like Rep. Charlie Brown and other nanny staters think you believe its your right to happily bring harm to your children. They will denounce liberty all the more fervently, and point to libertarians as some kind of evil. I was reading the comments after the Star article and was shaking my head. Well-intentioned defenders of liberty are merely telling nanny staters that their intrusions are right, because liberty is too mindless to be enjoyed.

So, to the parents who smoke: Why would you intentionally subject your kids to smoke? What kind of weak selfishness is that? You are the adult, so show some adult discipline. Smoke after your get out of the car, or at least when they aren't in it. You do have choices here.

Then, think of Voltaire, who was great at summarizing similar issues. To paraphrase, I don't think it's a great idea to smoke with the kids in the car, but I think that government hyper-policing of our behavior in our cars is a dangerous thing- perhaps worse than the problem it seeks to fix.

What is This? Alabama?

After shoveling at 6:30, I was out for a drive this morning in my Fishers neighborhood. Normally, Lantern Rd is choked with traffic. I could could four cars, including mine, on Lantern this morning.

I simply cannot get over how the whole region has simply battened the hatches today. I measured five inches of snow this morning. Is this Alabama, or what? Five inches of snow is all that is needed to grind Central Indiana to a halt? Incredible. We're just two hours south of the Great Lakes, and people here are afraid of snow... Wow, but our spirit can be weak at times.

Lousy, Stinking Hypocrite

Before McCain-Feingold, I really had no strong opinion about John McCain politically. I have great sympathy for his POW experiences, but politically, the man is The Devil. From an excellent Washington Post report:

But now the contrast between McCain the presidential candidate and McCain the reformer can be jarring. McCain's campaign says that he is still studying whether to forgo the public financing and spending limits he has long supported, but that he will not be handicapped by restrictions his competitors will not face in 2008.

McCain the reformer worked unsuccessfully through Congress and the courts to try to stop nonprofit political groups known as 527s from using unlimited donations to run political ads and fund other activities aimed at influencing voters in the run-up to elections. He reintroduced legislation last week to end 527 donations, but there appears to be little appetite in Congress to pass it.

McCain the candidate now expects Republicans to use the same big-money 527 groups in the 2008 elections to beat Democrats, if the groups remain legal. "The senator believes that both parties should be subjected to an even playing field. If Democratic organizations are allowed to take advantage of 527s, Republican organizations will, too," said Mark Salter, a senior McCain adviser. The senator declined to be interviewed.

I can understand hiding from the microphones and cameras. John McCain, could you please retire now? Dan Burton may fail to turn up for votes, but John McCain has worked long and hard to restrict political speech under the guise of 'reform', making sure only the biggest money players can play.

It is telling that Salter's comment references an even playing field for "both parties". The level playing field Salter refers to, and McCain created, virtually eliminates third parties, which are apparently not worthy of inclusion.

And, from Jeb Bush fundraiser and Florida lobbyist Brian Ballard:

Ballard said most of the big-money players he knows are not fazed by McCain's attacks on the political-money and lobbying systems, calling it more of an issue for consultants who make their living off big donations.

So screw John McCain. To the suckers who backed McCain-Feingold on the basis that it would 'take the money out'... well? Feast your sorry eyes on John McCain, the 'reformer' and the results of his 'reform'.

At least six of McCain's first eight national finance co-chairmen have given or raised large donations for political parties or 527 groups, campaign and IRS records show. In all, the finance co-chairs have given at least $13.5 million in soft money and 527 donations since the 1998 election.

They include former Bush moneymen such as lobbyist Thomas G. Loeffler and financier Donald Bren, whose personal and corporate donations total in the hundreds of thousands of dollars each in recent elections.

There are so few honorable people in our Congress right now, and so many of them want to be our next president. It's truly depressing. I kept asking honorable people to run for office along with me in 2006. I can see why they don't care to be associated with pond scum.