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.