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.

Watch WFYI-TV Tonight!

Or Sunday. Libertarian State Chair Mark Rutherford will be appearing on WFYI TV-20 in Indianapolis, discussing the City of Indianapolis and its' effort to lure the Super Bowl in 2011. Fred Glass from the Improvement Board and State Senator Luke Kenley will also appear. Should be an interesting discussion.

Air times:

Saturday, 11pm
Sunday, 1pm

If you can't watch at those times, and lack a TiVo or VCR, no problem. Stream the broadcast online via this link. Many choices available.

I can't see being against the City winning the bid. I can see being against giveaways to the NFL that are merely transfers of wealth from the citizens to the league owners and players. What do you think? Check out the new poll.

Update: I went to watch on Sunday, but WFYI-TV had their beg-a-thon fundraiser and did not show the Indiana Lawmakers show as expected. Here's a better link to the show page.

Ballot Results

The old poll asked about your interest in the Super Bowl. The votes were scant, so that tells me something. Here's the tally.

50% I'll watch. Go Colts!
20% I'll watch. Go Bears!
0% I'll watch, but merely as a TV event
0% I'll watch, but we'll be playing poker
20% Not interested. This is the 'circuses' part of 'bread & circuses'
10% Not interested. Sports isn't my thing
0% Can't watch. Have to work.

Poison for Galileo?

I'm no fan of official truths or other orthodoxy that isn't scientifically or factually based. So, I've had a real problem with the attitudes of the people who beat the drum on global warming.

I have no doubts at all that man's activities have contributed to whatever global warming there is. I also have no doubts that man's activities aren't the only factor. The earth has constantly undergone climactic evolution, so I think we should expect this.

I have great suspicion for the alarmists among the global warming activists. Mainly, when I was a kid in the late 70s, I remember scientists telling us we were entering a new ice age during those years of especially harsh winters and mild summers. Those alarmists have been proven wrong, so there's no reason for me to think these alarmists are correct.

I have more than suspicion for those who want to see a strict single view party line on the topic. I have contempt. Too many speak as though there only one possibility, when clearly there is not. So, it is with interest that I note the conflict over the 'state climatologist' in Oregon.

In the face of evidence agreed upon by hundreds of climate scientists, George Taylor holds firm. He does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change.

Taylor also holds a unique title: State Climatologist.

And even though that title is not a state government title, Oregon's governor wants to strip him of it.

Taylor has held the title of "state climatologist" since 1991 when the legislature created a state climate office at OSU The university created the job title, not the state.

His opinions conflict not only with many other scientists, but with the state of Oregon's policies. So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint.

The thing about scientific consensus is that the outcomes stand up to scrutiny. It isn't necessary to brand one a heretic. And yet, so many global warming activists act to stifle the other side. Why? If the facts are on the side of global warming, they do the job of silencing crackpots. But, this is politics and not reason.

Kulongoski said the state needs a consistent message on reducing greenhouse gases to combat climate change.

The Governor says, "I just think there has to be somebody that says, 'this is the state position on this.'"

Again, why? Is there a state position on whether or not the earth is round? It isn't necessary. The evidence is plain there. Link to full article.

So many things we know more about today, we were once just flat wrong about while having very strong opinions. No new ice age here. No flat earth, thank you. Marxist and Keynesian economics? Trash can. Alarmists were saying in the 1970s that we would run out of gasoline by 1980. Instead, gas is pretty cheap. Coal was supposed to be exhausted by now, too. So was lumber.

So, let the debate flourish. Regard with suspicion anyone who would sensor either point of view and work to establish an official truth. And let's be cool-headed about this and remember that the earth's climactic changes are best measured over centuries and not months. I fear reactionary policies towards any phenomenon, man-made or otherwise. They rarely serve us well.

Dan Burton, or a Can of Alpo?

Which would you rather have, District Five voters? I ask because each seems as capable as showing up for votes these days. From an Indy Star report:

U.S. Rep. Dan Burton skipped 19 House votes, including measures to reduce college costs and cut oil industry tax breaks, so he could play in a golf tournament last month in Palm Springs, Calif.

Burton also missed hearings on Iraq and North Korea to play in the Bob Hope Chrysler Classic, which pairs top golfers with politicians and celebrities such as actor and director Clint Eastwood.

A review of House votes for the past decade shows the Indianapolis Republican has been absent every year votes coincided with the tournament: 2007, 2005, 2004, 2003 and 2001. This year in January, he missed a total of 20 out of 73 votes.

Keep in mind that Dan Burton was the sole vote against ethics reform. People were scratching their heads and asking why he would do that. All is now made clear.

So, District Five: Are you happy with this "performance"? Is it time for you to stop blindly voting 'R' yet? Burton hasn't been voting for smaller government, so what is the point? This is a guy who makes Julia Carson's attendence record sparkle.

Don't expect the man to change his ways unless you act. He knows he is in the most safely gerrymandered Congressional District in the State of Indiana. He refused comment on this issue from all media who have inquired. That's some kind of contempt. Worse, it's disinterest in performing even the simplest role outlined in his title- "Representative".

Everyone knows that because of the gerrymandering, you can run a can of Alpo in District 5, and it would win so long as it wore the 'R' label, and you had a reincarnated Barry Goldwater wearing a 'D', and a reincarnated Ronald Reagan wearing an 'L'. District Five, you are asleep at the switch! You need to pay attention to what the candidates stand for and what their record is. Voting on what you think the labels used to stand for isn't getting you anywhere good, and it certainly isn't making Dan Burton show up.

Update: Usually Indy Star stories get about 50 or 60 replies. Colts Super Bowl articles get about 150-200. So, imagine my surprise to see this one get 125 in the first half of the day it's posted. that's great! Maybe people are paying attention a wee bit.

I'm really pleased about another development in the article comments. It seems that some readers like the Can of Alpo bit, and are running with it. Check out the comments on page 3 & 4. I would so dearly love to see someone pick up on this an actually sink Burton with it. That person would have my blessing and support! For now, I'm enjoying large guffaws!

SUPER BOWL CHAMPS!!!

Well, this is fun! I've never lived in a city that won a major sports championship before, and I'm enjoying it... at least until I start finding that people are playing hooky today and I end up leaving a hundred voice mails.

I know this game will go down as the coronation of Peyton Manning, but to me the best part of the game was watching Dominic Rhodes and Joseph Addai run all over the Bears' vaunted defense. Erlacher & Co. were supposed to be the difference makers, shutting down the run, forcing Manning to pass under extreme pressure. It never materialized.

But, teams often need to lose a big game or two before they advance. This was true of the Colts, and I suspect that the Bears will return to next season's play a stronger, smarter team.

Now, to gloat a bit. I was off on the prediction, Bears fans. I guess in figuring them for 27 points against the Colts, I had envisioned at least two returns for touchdowns. I'll look forward to your hat-in-hand posts shortly. Chris Ward, this means you.

Super Bowl Poll

Lookee to the right at the Super Bowl poll. Cast your vote!

Now, the reason I put it up there is that I suspect a good many regular readers are only here for the politics and couldn't give a rip about sports.

As for me, I usually don't care too much about the actual Super Bowl. I would normally watch for the commercials, but I never watch the halftime show. That's a good time to bring in some more wood for the fire and fold some laundry.

I rarely would watch the whole game. But this year is different with the Colts in the game. The region I live in is getting about as excited about it as it can, being fans of open wheel racing, NASCAR, college football, college and high school hoops before the NFL. So, I watch with interest, rooting for the Colts. I know that if they win, it's really nothing to do with me, but as long as we've made the policy decisions we have, and spent the money, we may as well get some return in enjoying any victories that may come on the field.

If Enron's CEO is in Prison...

I am endlessly fascinated by where people place their suspicions. When it comes to financial power, there are two places one can have great suspicion- with corporations, and with government.

I think a healthy dose of suspicion of each is healthy. Both have the ability to buy you out of your life as you know it. However, corporations cannot do so unless you consent... unless government helps bring force into the equation. Government is force. The most dangerous thing to be suspicious of is a government that is too cozy with corporations.

So, it was with interest that I read Rex Bell's latest blog entry. Rex recently ran for Indiana House in District 54 and had the best showing ever by a Libertarian Party candidate in Indiana in a three-way race for that level of office. From Rex's post:

From David Walker, U.S. Comptroller..."The largest employer in the world announced on Dec. 15 that it lost about $450 billion in fiscal 2006. Its auditor found that its financial statements were unreliable and that its controls were inadequate for the 10th straight year. On top of that, the entity's total liabilities and unfunded commitments rose to about $50 trillion, up from $20 trillion in just six years.

If this announcement related to a private company, the news would have been on the front page of major newspapers. Unfortunately, such was not the case -- even though the entity is the U.S. government."

And yet we continually look to the government to solve our problems. It's failed policies of artificial market supports, forced wealth distribution and strangling over-regulation will only continue to force businesses to close or relocate.

Too bad Rex wasn't elected. We need more common sense, no shell games kinds of people like him in our legislatures, in Indiana and in the Congress.

So, those who would rail on about the evils of thieving corporations, I challenge you: Be consistent. If you believe fraudulent accounting should be prosecuted, go the whole route. Also assail the governments that practice Enron-accounting with the tenacity with which you assail large corporations. Remember that there is a greater good to protect here. While Enron may have swindled its shareholders, governments swindle taxpayers who have their money withheld from them prior to receiving their paychecks.