Harry Browne, 1933-2006

The Libertarian world lost a giant yesterday when Harry Browne passed away.

Harry Browne was the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000. It was Browne who interested me in joining the LP in 1996, during his campaign. Hammer of Truth has an excellent obit.

I had a personal encounter with Browne, in 2002. I had the pleasure of meeting Harry at the 2002 national convention, here in Indianapolis. I was a Cleveland resident at the time, and I shared the story of how I put Harry Browne into the #2 position in my home precinct, as Geroge Bush received zero votes in that very heavily unionized precinct, carried by Al Gore. My lone vote put him in second. Harry enjoyed a good laugh at that.

Harry did a great thing when he was running in 1996, that inspired me to join. He closed his speeches by asking those who agreed with his positions to get behind the Libertarian Party, by joining, supporting candidates or becoming one, and by donating. I've done all of these things, and it is because Harry Browne asked.

This is something I have tried to remember to do when I speak- especially before non-libertarian groups. Not everyone will agree, but those who do should get involved.

Harry Browne will be missed.


Technorati tags: Harry Browne, Libertarian Party, Libertarian

Pro-Privatization?

I've been getting a lot of questions about the toll road issue and privatization in general. Mainly, folks expect Libertarians to be in favor of privatization.

In general, yes we are in favor of privatization. In fact, Libertarians like toll roads and other cost solutions that involve user fees, whereby those who use a government managed resource pay for their use, while those who do not use it, do not pay.

With all things, the devil's in the details. Libertarians like a good, equitable deal. We are concerned that Major Moves does not provide the best deal possible for Hoosiers. We are concerned that a 75-year lease leaves too many unanswered questions. For instance, what will the rate of inflation be in 2068? Nobody can answer that, but it will be a major factor in the assesment of tolls. Libertarians prefer a 10- or 15-year lease.

Also, we are not convinced the Daniels Administration is capable of swinging a deal that points the lion's share of the benefits towards the people of this state. Daniels has a short track record, but a very easily assessed record.

The naming rights for the new, unbuilt stadium are being awarded today. The talk is that the rights will rake about $50 million. That's just talk, so we'll have to wait and see.

What isn't talk is that the Colts will get ALL of that money. None of it goes to the state, to defer the cost of construction.

This is a horrible example of giving away the store. Some measure of the money should have been going to the state, had a better- for Hoosiers- deal been worked. Maybe half of the money, or 30% of the money, or even an amount split in proportion to what is borne in costruction costs by both the state and the Colts. Yeah, it's a great deal for Mr. Irsay.

So, yes, Libertarians are skeptical about the deal negotiated with a Spanish-Australian firm. If "Quick Fix" Mitch was able give away so much to the Colts, why are we to suppose the Major Moves deal is any different?

All we have is a short, blemished track record to go by.

Update: It's more lucrative for Irsay than ever imagined, as the Lucas Oil naming deal poised to yield over $120 million. The state's cut remains the same: zero. Per today's Indy Star report:

The Colts will keep the money from this naming-rights deal as they do from the current agreement with RCA. The team is kicking in $100 million toward the cost of the stadium, but the city is helping the Colts out by paying the team $48 million for early termination of the RCA Dome lease.

Construction on the $500 million stadium with a retractable roof began last year and is expected to end in time for the 2008 season's first kickoff.

So, on naming rights alone, the Colts are done paying for "their share" of this project, and are already into their profits- unlike the people of Indiana, who will pay and pay.

Again, we are skeptical of the Daniels Administration on privatization. The Colts stadium should have been private, but Daniels made it public, and worse, gave away the store. The privatization of roads is a good idea, unless you give away the store.

County Chairs Conference Friday

The Libertarian Party of Indiana is hosting its annual County Chairs Conference right here in Fishers, this weekend.

The festivities begin at my home Friday evening, where Ame, Isabel, and I will welcome the County Chairs with a reception. Cocktails at 7pm, poker at 9:30. Contact me by email if you would like to stop by the reception.

The business commences Saturday morning at the Hampton Inn & Suites on 116th, just west of I-69. There will be several speakers and presentations geared towards educating and motivating Chairs and other local level party officers, towards greater effectiveness in organization and getting results at the ballot box. Link for full details.

Forced Annexation Foes Moving Forward

The Noblesville Daily Times reported Saturday that the Geist United Opposition raised over $10,000 at their most recent public meeting last Tuesday. That's quite outstanding for one evening. From the Times:

United Geist Opposition collected more than $10,000 Tuesday night from area residents opposed to annexation by the town of Fishers. Opposition leaders estimate that legal costs could be as much as $125,000.

The meeting at Hamilton Southeastern High School drew over 300 people. Residents were introduced to Stephen R. Buschmann, the attorney retained to represent the Geist opposition. Buschmann had recently represented Home Place in its successful campaign against annexation by Carmel.

I found Hamilton County Sheriff Doug Carter's comments most interesting:

In a phone interview Wednesday, Carter said he wanted to put an end to the rhetoric about police protection. Carter told those attending that Geist is adequately protected and that police protection would not necessarily improve if annexation is successful.

“This political hot potato that's being passed around has nothing to do with public safety,” Carter said Wednesday.

I like to believe that I get a good read on a person when they speak. In the Sheriff, I have always observed a deep earnestness in his approach to his work. I believe him when he says that if the Fishers Police Chief calls for 50 of his deputees in a moment of need that he will send them. And, when Carter says that the issues surrounding annexation are nothing to do with public safety, I believe him there, too.

Smoking Bans In Force Soon

The Indy Star has a lengthy article in today's edition, discussing the smoking bans that will soon be in force around Central Indiana. Many of these bans take effect March 1.

I'll restate my position here. I do not smoke. I never have. I don't like second-hand smoke. When a place is too smoky for my liking, I leave. I never take my son or infant daughter into a place that allows smoking. However, I believe that while the health issues have strong merit, I also believe that the property rights of business owners come first. The property owners should have the right to set their own policies as regards their businesses on their properties. It should be sufficient to post a sign on the front door indicating the smoking policy at any establishment so that a customer can make the appropriate decision. Besides, tobacco is a legal product for adults in the United States.

Alas, this America has drifted away from its' land of the free status towards a nanny state, where decisions are made in everyone's best interest ahead of time, reducing the choices of business owners and customers alike.

Annie Tomey, a Greenfield restaurant owner, was quoted in this article, sounding these same notes:

While some places are adapting to the change, a group continues to lobby for a less restrictive ban. Among them is business owner Annie Tomey, 58, who has been one of the ban's most vocal critics.

She estimates that 80 percent of her patrons at Annie's Restaurant are smokers. She'll follow the ban when it goes into effect -- "or they're going to fine me to death" -- but she's not happy.

She and several other business owners have formed a coalition to change the law.

The smoking ban "is about taking our freedom of choice away from us," Tomey said.

As other area restaurants have voluntarily gone smoke-free in recent years, smokers have gravitated to her business, Tomey said.

"This is still the best country to live in," Tomey said. "But it's getting to the point where our politicians are going overboard."

I support Annie Tomey's property rights. Greenfield does not. Here I stood with Annie outside her restaurant in October, as Libertarians stood with her to oppose the then-proposed law.

Greenfield is not unlike other municipalities, who were swayed by the lobbying efforts of the American Heart Association and other groups. Again, I do not debate the dangers of cigarette smoke. I do debate the means by which we address the issue.

One of the compelling arguments the Heart Association makes is that society bears the medical costs associated with smoking. Unfortunately, that's increasingly true, as we have increasingly socialized medicine in this country. Since Americans are decreasingly responsible for their own health care costs, they can walk away from the cost consequences associated with bad health decision making. We wouldn't need health nannies if Americans were responsible for their choices. We wouldn't need health nannies if this example offered in the Star weren't so common:

Jennifer Deeter and her 3-year-old, Emma, ate lunch Thursday at the Hard Rock Cafe less than 10 feet from a man at the bar smoking an American Spirit cigarette.

Having her daughter so close to someone lighting up bothered Deeter. A smoker herself, the 32-year-old Irvington artist tries to abstain around her four children.

Why would a mother take a 3-year-old to lunch at the Hard Rock and allow the hostesss to seat them 10 feet from the bar? Is it honestly possible that she didn't know that the Hard Rock allowed smoking? Or, that people smoke at bars? Was it not possible for her to choose a smoke-free establishment to take her child to?

This is what it comes down to- selfish patrons wanting to have it both ways. "I'm here now, so you have to change". Cities bolster citizens who of their own volition would make bad choices unless the parameters are altered to make the place safe for them.

So, we are willing to sacrifice property rights to accomodate them. That's a real tragedy. This example reminds me of the family who builds a home alongside the railroad tracks that carried trains for the past 150 years in that spot, and then the family complains about the noise. It's arrogant and selfish. But more than that, it's irresponsible.

The result is that the intelligent business owners who had both smoking and non-smoking sections can no longer accomodate smokers and non-smokers. It doesn't matter how good the ventilation is. Unless the situation is like the Fishers Claude & Annie's, where the bar and restaurant are literally separated by a wall, the business owner has to choose to lose one segment of their clientele.

A number of Downtown restaurants focus on dining at lunch and drinks at night, but only a handful have chosen to cut out the lucrative market of family diners and become something more like a bar. The Slippery Noodle Inn, the Elbow Room and MacNiven's are among those choosing the adults-only route.

The choice is especially tough for steak houses, where cigars are part of the culture. Morton's and St. Elmo will go nonsmoking; Mo's and 14 West will not.

Most restaurants will choose to keep family dining and hope it doesn't hurt their bottom lines.

"What we may lose in smoking regulars, we may gain on the other side in families that choose to eat out more often," said Keith Reilly, manager of Champps, a Downtown restaurant where an aisle separates a large smoking bar area from the dining area.

"We hope" is no way to draw up a business plan. But arrogant lawmakers are unconcerned.

Nearly all of the establishments asking to allow smoking appear to be taverns that don't admit patrons younger than 21, said Greg Bowes, the City-County Council member who wrote the ordinance. There are 983 liquor or wine and beer permits in the county.

"I'm seeing it work exactly the way we anticipated," he said. "We specifically created a dilemma where places must choose between smokers and customers under 18. We felt that was the fairest way to make a distinction between bars and restaurants."

Tremendous! Councilor Bowes intended to create a dilemma for business owners! Isn't that helpful?

Actually, that's revisionist history and bunk. When Libertarians confronted Bowes during one of our pub crawls in support of the bar owners, he appeared and confessed that he hadn't given a single bit of thought to how it would affect property owners. His sole concern was health.

Again, it's good to be concerned about health. A nice educational campaign would have achieved that without limiting anybody's rights. The affect on property owners was an unintended consequence.

Isn't it time to have lawmakers who keep property rights as a primary focus rather than the object of secondary outcomes? If you think so, you need to vote Libertarian. The smoking bans were passed in the following locations, with the following majorities on their councils:

Indianapolis/Marion County- Democrat
Carmel- Reublican
Greenfield- Republican
Greenwood- Republican
Bloomington- Democrat

New Poll

Well, the last poll didn't exactly fire up the readers, so here's a new one.

For the record, Thursday evening won out on the last poll. Feel free to suggest ideas for polls. They aren't the least bit scientific, but we can have some fun with them!

Bonus Coverage

Who knew reading a good book could lead to so much attention?

I recently contributed a selection to the Indy Star, and they published the item in their Sunday edition. I have had a surprising amount of people stop me in the street and ask me about the Battle of Trafalgar. Cool by me!

The latest is a mention on Austin Cassidy's Third Party Watch site, where I was named Candidate of the Day for today. Here's the link.

Mr. Cassidy's site runs the entire gamut of third party candidates, not just Libertarians.

Friday Morning Joke

I love a good government joke on a Friday morning. Here's one that's been making the rounds:

Internal Revenue Service
Department of the Treasury
Washington, DC 20001

Dear IRS...

Enclosed is my 2005 Form 1040, together with payment.

For explanation, please note the attached article from "USAToday" archives. It says that the Pentagon paid $171.50 each for hammers and that NASA paid $600.00 each for toilet seats.

Please find enclosed in this package four toilet seats (according to your valuation, worth $2,400.00) and six hammers (using the same calculation, value of$1,029.00). This is in payment of my total tax due of $3,429.00.

Out of a sense of patriotic duty, I am also enclosing a 1.5inch Phillips head screw, for which HUD duly recorded and approved a purchase value of $2200, as my contribution to the Election Fund option on Form 1040.

It has been a pleasure to pay my taxes this year, and I look forward to paying them again next year in accordance with officially established government values.

Sincerely,
Another satisfied taxpayer

Kole Bumper Stickers Available!

I am pleased to announce that my campaign bumper stickers are available. Here's what they look like:

If you would like one or more, email your request to mikekole@msn.com.

Donations are naturally appreciated. Donations are payable to, and can be sent to:

Committee to Elect Mike Kole
7916 Turkel Drive
Fishers IN 46038

Two Ways To Balance A Budget

Over and over, the approaches our lawmakers have taken to trying to bring about tax relief, which is very popular, has revealed a desire to have it both ways. They also want to maintain ever higher spending levels, because that is also apparently very popular.

Providing tax relief is actually very easy if you don't mind cutting a budget. This is where the brain knots start forming. No elected officials at any level have proven willing to cut a budget. Observe the latest evidence, as provided by the Indy Star:

"If I could get rid of (property taxes), everybody would be happy," said Sen. Gary Dillon, R-Columbia City.

But, he asked, "How do you replace that income for local government?"

Instead, he added a provision to the bill that would give local government the option of raising income taxes in order to reduce property taxes.

Sen. Robert L. Meeks, R-LaGrange, called the bill "a responsible way to eliminate property taxes. It's a first step."

It doesn't really matter to the working man if you cut property taxes but raise income taxes. It would be a wash for him, although while retirees who are no longer drawing an income get a benefit from the property tax cut. If the towns and cities aren't willing to cut spending, those who are drawing an income will be facing a heavier tax burden, making this kind of relief no relief at all.

Actually, municipal taxes are some of the worst kinds of taxes, because those who make the most have the greatest incentive to leave. This policy chases wealth away. Brilliant.

Simple and best solution: Cut spending.

Now The Veto?

Are you kidding me? President Bush has hidden the veto pen throughout his entire Presidency, amiably signing into law any hideous legislation the Congress puts before him, including every bill loaded with pork barrell spending. Now he's found the hill he's willing to battle to the death upon? One Congressman has it exactly right. From the Washington Post report:

Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) called Bush politically tone-deaf. "Of all the bills to veto, if he lays down this gauntlet, he'll probably have 350 members of the House ready to accept that challenge," Foley said.

Bush welcomed the fight. "They ought to look at the facts and understand the consequences of what they're going to do," Bush said. "But if they pass a law, I'll deal with it, with a veto."

I'm generally as laissez-faire a capitalist as it get, but I have a real problem with foreign governments owning our ports, especially a government that has the reputation of harboring terrorists, such as the United Arab Emirates has. Also from the Post:

But many Republicans and Democrats who represent the seaport regions remain deeply skeptical of a UAE-owned company playing such a central role at some of the most sensitive entry points in the country. They noted that some of the hijackers involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks used the United Arab Emirates as an operational and financial hub.

This is well-placed skepticism, and a poorly placed veto threat. Bush tried to invoke the imagery of Ronald Reagan in his campaigns, but he's far from Reaganesque. His lack of vetoes to date on budgetary issues is the proof. And you can bet that Reagan never would have struck this deal with the UAE.

Another Big Geist Turnout

The Geist residents who are in opposition to the Town of Fishers' forced annexation met again tonight, with about 400 present, including the local news media. This group really has it together. There is no doubt in my mind that they will defeat the Town's attempts. They had the power point presentations, tables set up for accepting charge card doantions, a block captain system set up, and one more very interesting thing-

For the first time, an elected Republican official stood up and declared that forced annexation is wrong. County Commissioner Steve Dillinger has broken the silent ranks of the GOP and spoke out.

Should he run for another term, I'm sure he will be well rewarded at the polls in the Geist area for having recognized the obvious- that these people want no part of a forced annexation.

Amusingly, one Republican precinct committeeman stood up and spoke in roundabout ways about how the annexation couldn't be all bad. Talk about not knowing your audience. The rumbling of discontent swirled through the room. I was delighted, of course. My point on forced annexation is that it is wrong, period, and that the GOP has been conspicuously out of touch. The people sitting at my table all took my business cards and palm cards, thanks to the man's comments. I do thank him kindly.

His position will probably cost him his postion. Nedra Moran, a Geist resident and annexation foe, is challenging him for the Precinct Committee post.

This is what is delightful to me: The people of the area are becoming rather politically savvy. They are looking for candidates to back, whether incumbents or challengers. The single issue is the position on forced annexation. If incumbents are unwilling to represent their views, they will back a challenger to replace the office holder. I hope to earn their backing.

Sheriff Doug Carter was there and said words to the effect that he had never seen a finer display of the democratic process in action. I couldn't agree more.

Update: Link to Indy Star coverage. Also, WTHR-TV coverage. Also, WISH-TV coverage.

Fruedian Slip in Greenwood

Johnson County municipality Greenwood is prepared to pass their smoking ban ordinance tonight. It would be one of the most restrictive I've seen in our state.

The issue of city employees' smoking habits arose when considering smoking in city-owned vehicles. The conversation went further, to extend to employees using their own vehicles, but conducting city business. From the Indy Star report:

According to Greenwood City Attorney Shawna Koons-Davis, the ban would prohibit smoking -- "if you have to use your vehicle for business."

But Councilwoman Jessie Reed, who spearheaded the initiative, said the ban would be limited to vehicles the city owns.

"Anyplace that has something to do with the public," she said. "I don't think we're quite that Gestapo."

So, according to Reed, Greenwood is willing to be Gestapo, but not that Gestapo. Wow.

I know that in retrospect, Reed will be hating the fact that she said this. It's a Freudian Slip on the grandest order.

That must be reassuring to the good people of Greenwood, for the business owner who believes he should have the right to set his own policy within the four walls of his business, and for the person who believes her car is her property, no matter who it is serving at any given moment.

Never wonder why Indiana drives people away. Sure, I like smoke-free environments. I don't smoke, and never have. But this is a heavy price to pay for smoke-free environments. Why must civil liberties always be the first thing to hit the curb in the quest for a solution to a problem? Why is force the first thing governments turn to? The arguments against smoking are compelling enough. Can't we let it go at that?

Where To Start?

It can be a frustrating endeavor if you are a supporter of limited government and greater liberty, trying to figure out where to start to apply your efforts in pursuit of your principles. All levels of life are rife with assaults on freedom, whether these are direct attacks or the results of unintended consequences.

Because allocation of resources is a factor, I always advocate starting with the smallest level of governance possible. I use that word intentionally. You'll see why in a moment.

Sure, federal issues are sexy. These are discussed on the network news, on the Sunday morning pundit shows, so you can easily talk to anybody about these issues and make your points. What you cannot is affect change easily, because just as anyone can talk about these, everybody with a million dollars and an advocacy group that spends millions of dollars also talks about, and lobbies on, these federal issues.

Local issues aren't so flashy, but they affect you, and probably more directly, and in ways you feel. Everybody talks about Iraq, but really only a small percentage of people feel this directly. Sure, we all pay federal taxes, but that money goes into the hopper and is dispersed over many more allocations than we could begin to name or even count. When a municipality has a smoking ban, and you smoke, you feel it. If you own a restaurant business, and the smoking ban is enacted, you feel its effect on the numbers of customers you draw.

If you live in a modern subdivision that has a set of covenants included with the recorded plat, coupled with a vigorous enforcement effort by a Homeowners Association (HOA), you can really feel it.

Some HOAs regulate on an order never dreamt on by Soviet Politboro, much less know-it-all city planning commissions. They regulate such arcane things as the color of the roof or the paint on the walls, the make & model of the mailbox, the dates you are permitted to have Christmas lights hung on the house, whether or not you may have a shed or pole barn, etc. Your neighbors may be the very ones keeping an eye on you so they can rat you out to the HOA, insisting you take down a political sign, or re-paint your house a more neutral color.

Today's Indy Star has an excellent article outlining the stresses of living within subdivisions with vigorous HOAs. From the article:

More than 54 million Americans are living in subdivisions subject to covenants and homeowners associations, according to the Community Associations Institute's national headquarters in Alexandria, Va.

Critics say covenants, which gained popularity during the rise of suburbia following World War II, often are overly restrictive. Advocates, however, say the documents protect homeowners' interests by establishing and enforcing community standards.

"They provide homeowners the chance to govern themselves, maintain the property and enhance property values," said Matt Englert, president of the Central Indiana chapter of the Community Associations Institute.

There is no doubt that most homeowners buy blindly, failing to even read the restrictive covenants. It often looks like so much legalese and gobbledegook, that buyers gloss over and sign the purchase documents. At that point, they have locked themselves into not having a backyard pool or Christmas lights in April. As ever, Caveat Emptor.

However, this is a place where Libertarians can do much good. In my Fishers subdivision, there is a covenant about the mailboxes. Nobody adheres to it. Heaven forbid some busybody with nothing else to do should become the HOA president, and enforce the convenants. About 75% of the neighborhood will find itself shelling out some 50 bucks to get the "right" mailbox.

One's choice of mailboxes is not what makes or breaks a subdivision. General upkeep of the properties means a whole lot more than a personalized mailbox.

Libertarians need to get involved with their HOAs on a leadership level. I know- it isn't nearly as much fun as talking about Iraq or earmarks, but it does two things. It makes home a much happier, freer place to live, and, it gives a nice resume item that shows you can work with people and that the neighborhood didn't go up in flames in the way the paranoid distopian fantasies the opponents of freedom like to describe any time you talk about scaling back control and command with regard to property ownership.

Besides, unless you are a millionaire celebrity, you aren't getting elected to the US Senate without having served a lower office first anyway. At home is where you can start to make a large difference.

My Reading List

The Indianapolis Star runs an occasional feature in some Sunday editions called "What Hoosiers Are Reading". I decided to submit "Nelson's Trafalgar, The Battle That Changed The World". The Star ran the item this morning.

This is a great book that coincided with my third trip to southern Spain to visit my son, Alex. The interest came from our annual side trips to Gibraltar, where veterans of the Battle of Trafalgar are buried in Trafalgar Cemetary. I like to read up on the places I visit immediately before or after the trips.

Gate entrance to Gibraltar's Trafalgar Cemetary

The Battle of Trafalgar was a pivotal moment in world history, and unfortunately not well studied in the US. This was the last great naval battle involving wooden ships, but resulted because Napolean desperately wished to control the seas for a few hours so his invasion fleet could make way to Britain across the English Channel. The combined French & Spanish fleets failed to budge the British, even for a few hours. The result was British naval supremacy taht gave rise to an empire on which the sun never set.

If you enjoyed the movie Master & Commander with Russell Crowe, and especially if you have enjoyed the books by M&C author Patrick O'Brian, you'll value the graphic descriptions of life at sea while at war, in the early 19th century. An unbelievable way of life.

The book is as much a biography of Nelson, who remains popular on Gibraltar to this day, more than 200 years after his death at this battle. Posters commemorating the man were available at shops on Gibraltar last month during our visit.

Great Olympic Action

I'm really enjoying NBC's coverage of the Olympics, and especially the hockey- both men's & women's.

It's been tough for the USA so far, with the women losing to someone other than Canada for the first time ever, in more than 100 Olympic games, and with the men struggling to qualify for the next round.

NBC has provided excellent coverage for the hockey. They air entire games on any one of their various networks. CNBC has hosted a great many, and this morning I watched Germany-Switzerland and now Russia-Latvia. The USA plays at 10:30 EST this morning, and I can't wait.

Very rarely were entire games aired in previous Olympiads. With single networks juggling a variety of sports, you might get to see five minutes of hockey, and then luge and skiing, missing key moments of games, sitting in suspense over what you couldn't see. Seeing the whole USA-USSR game live was a rare event, and the Miracle On Ice completely justified it. That game made me a hockey fan forever, and an Olympic hockey fan.

Negotiating 101

As someone who has negotiated land use rights for a living, I have always has a certain professional nose to look down on for those negotiating on behalf of governments. It has everything to do with the fact that those I approach with a proposal can slam the door in my face if they choose. Government negotiators can have the door bulldozed sometimes. Just ask the good folks at NK Hurst.

Thus, it was interesting to read a recent article in on Reason Magazine's website, which demostrates that dynamic, using Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson as the dark example. From Jacob Sullum's article:

"Cities use eminent domain most often as a negotiating tool with property owners," explained Peterson, who was speaking for the National League of Cities. "Just having the tool available makes it possible to negotiate with landowners." Sure it does—in the same way just having a gun available makes it possible for a bank robber to negotiate with a teller.

Im my acquisitions, it was always possible to negotiate with landowners. You had to bring a lot of dollars to the table to trade, but more importantly, you had to convince the opposite party that they wer getting value equal to or greater than what your client would be getting. Demonstrating value to the other party isn't even on the radar in eminent domain cases. Eminent Domain isn't trade. It's force. That's why private negiators look down their nose at government counterparts. Brute force requires very little application of skill.

By the way, Reason has a great blog, called Reason Hit & Run. I keep a permenant link at the right. The comments are a delight.

Eating Endangered Species?

I was listening to Neal Boortz the other day, and he was trying to provoke his audience and Belinda, one of his show producers, by saying he was glad that the Bald Eagle was being removed from the endangered species list so that he could hunt one for the purpose of eating it.

This rubbed me wrong on so many levels, but that's what Boortz was angling for. I simply couldn't eat the bird that is the symbol for our nation. I also couldn't eat a creature that was so recently on the verge of extinction.

Then I read a Washington Post article that suggests that maybe I am doing exactly that. I was stunned, because I eat salmon at least three times a month, grilling it at home, even as the snow flies. From the Post article:

In 2004, federal and state governments spent more than $160 million to preserve that salmon species, commonly known as chinook -- listed by the federal government as endangered in the early 1990s. And that doesn't include the millions spent on other kinds of salmon, such as sockeye, coho and chum.

I don't believe I've ever had chinook salmon, but I seek out sockeye and coho for the health benefits of eating the Pacific varieties. Besides, salmon is the only fish Ame will eat. But I never thought of sockeye salmon as endangered. I buy it at Jonah's Market in the Geist area, and even at my local Target store.

It begs the question- Are these varieties of fish truly endangered, or, is this so much more money tossed out the window to appease a special interest group? Also from the Post:

The report, which regularly invites controversy, provides information to Congress so lawmakers can make decisions on conservation spending, according to the service.

This is as it should be. If salmon is truly endangered, I'm not going to eat it. If it isn't, what are we throwing our money at? The money could be better allocated on real needs, or even returned to the taxpayers, perish the thought!

Thanks, J.A.!

J.A. Thomas has announced his candidacy for Indiana Representative in District 64, which includes his home town of Vincennes, and his home county of Knox. Here's the link to J.A. Thomas' campaign website.

Thomas' entry into the race should make things delightfully uncomfortable for incumbent Republican Troy Woodruff, who won election in 2004 by a mere 189 votes. Mr. Woodruff would be well advised to vote for smaller government with every vote, lest he lose a several thousand to Thomas, along with his hopes for re-election.

I'm glad J.A. announced his candidacy now. It gives him a chance to build momentum now, rather than after our late-April convention. Unless you have big money, time coupled with effort is the only thing on a candidate's side for gaining strength.

Big thanks to J.A on a personal note. He has pledged his support in working together for the highest possible outcome in the Secretary of State race, in which I am a candidate. Indiana election rules tie the parties' ballot status to this race. Our minimum goal in 2006 is Major Party status.

J.A. has my pledge for support as well. Together, we will work to build the 8th District.

I pledge my support to work together with other leaders who step forward to do the necessary work. J.A. Thomas is leading by example.

Thanks, J.A.!

Poll Added

You will note the snappy freebie poll posted at the right side of the page. Nothing too scientific here, but I'd like to get a better idea of times people are inclined to attend a campaign meeting.

This comes in response to the District 5 organizational meeting held last Saturday at Claude & Annie's. The turnout was decent, but I received more emails and voice mails expressing regrets than there were folks present. That tells me I could have done better in selecting a time.

You get one bite at the apple here. Use it well. Thanks!