Calorie Counting Begins
Well, I'm no spring chicken anymore, and I can't just eat whatever I want to. Like so many Americans, I have a little extra around the waist, and am determined to lose it.
So, I am beginning to count calories today, and to exercise regularly.
I've been playing hockey weekly, and lifting weights occasionally, so I'm in some kind of shape to begin a regular schedule. I'll do an hour of cardio daily, and lift three days a week. That's probably more than enough to get me where I want to go, but I realized that I have never tracked what I eat. I generally avoid fried foods, but I indulge greatly in sugary foods, knowing that it just isn't good for me.
Laying off the sugar will probably be the tough part. I love, I mean LOVE root beer and sodas. I had sworn them off once in 2003, in the interest of watching my weight, switching to diet sodas. I was drinking six cans of Coke or root beer every day, which is good for nearly 1,000 calories by itself. I lost eight pounds in just four weeks, doing nothing other than switching to diet. Problem is, I had a kidney stone in 2006, and was advised not to have diet drinks, so I swore those off and went back to sugary drinks, just having far fewer than I used to have.
My plan now is to drink water with lemon. I'll get the double benefit of drinking calorie-free water that is so good to do, and with the lemon, I'll be fighting off potential kidney stones. After that, I'm pretty clueless. This is why I need to track my calories. I have no idea what I consume right now. I suspect that some days I take in 1500 or so, and other days up to 4000. That's pretty ridiculous, when I think about it.
Side Note: Running for office was great for my waistline. I went from 195 lbs at the start of the campaign, and finished on election day at 168 lbs. Now I'm back to 195. Why not just do that again? Well, it didn't seem as healthy as constructing a way of living that works and is healthy by design.
My ceremonial last sugary drink last night was a Berghoff' Root Beer. It was delicious.
Monday, December 01, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
No Place For Libertarian Thought In Huckabee's Republican Party
As I was driving Monday afternoon to Nashville, Tennessee, I did a little AM-radio dial hopping to see what was out there. I found a trashing of libertarianism, at the hands of Mike Huckabee and Sean Hannity.
Now, I've long felt that Republicans don't really believe in liberty. They really believe in big government, just as Democrats do, merely using the power of government as an instrument of plunder or oppression for a different set of beneficiaries, or over a different set of acceptable minority victims. It was just interesting to hear it plainly spoken.
Huckabee was promoting his new book, which features a chapter that trashes not the Libertarian Party, but libertarian thought. From Time Magazine:
The logical conclusion of our economic argument is self-sufficiency and non-dependence. Is that what Huckabee is afraid of? The logical conclusion is to not reward failure, and to not punish success. I guess that's what the Republican Party is done with. Just in time for the bailouts.
Not interested in spirited or thoughtful debate? That's something libertarians are actually accused of- too much debate. He does get one thing right, and that's calling libertarians "Faux-Cons". That's because we're not 'cons'. Libertarianism is classic liberalism. It's only conservative in the sense that the tradition extends back to Thomas Jefferson, and libertarians intend to maintain, i.e.: conserve, that tradition.
Jon Henke has much of value to say on his blog:
We've come quite some way since 1975, when Reagan said "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."
and
and
Well, the weak, tenous link between the Republican coalition is finally exposed. Social conservatives wish to use goverment to oppress minority groups they don't like. Fiscal conservatives want government to get out of the way of business and the economy. How is it that one can reconcile the desire for a heavy-handed government in one area of life with a desire for a relative absence of government in another? It doesn't make any sense.
There is actually a better chance, in my estimation, of the fiscal liberals joining forces with the social conservatives, then of small-l libertarians staying with the GOP long term. After all, social conservatives and fiscal liberals both believe that freedom produces bad results, and only the wise, heavy hand of government can force people to act more 'correctly'.
They have their leader. His name is Mike Huckabee, the anti-libertarian who would raise taxes and interfere in your bedroom. I'm glad he thinks libertarians should be cast out. Nobody who believes in liberty can support his brand, the Republican brand, of conservatism.
As I was driving Monday afternoon to Nashville, Tennessee, I did a little AM-radio dial hopping to see what was out there. I found a trashing of libertarianism, at the hands of Mike Huckabee and Sean Hannity.
Now, I've long felt that Republicans don't really believe in liberty. They really believe in big government, just as Democrats do, merely using the power of government as an instrument of plunder or oppression for a different set of beneficiaries, or over a different set of acceptable minority victims. It was just interesting to hear it plainly spoken.
Huckabee was promoting his new book, which features a chapter that trashes not the Libertarian Party, but libertarian thought. From Time Magazine:
In a chapter titled "Faux-Cons: Worse than Liberalism," Huckabee identifies what he calls the "real threat" to the Republican Party: "libertarianism masked as conservatism." He is not so much concerned with the libertarian candidate Ron Paul's Republican supporters as he is with a strain of mainstream fiscal-conservative thought that demands ideological purity, seeing any tax increase as apostasy and leaving little room for government-driven solutions to people's problems. "I don't take issue with what they believe, but the smugness with which they believe it," writes Huckabee, who raised some taxes as governor and cut deals with his state's Democratic legislature. "Faux-Cons aren't interested in spirited or thoughtful debate, because such an endeavor requires accountability for the logical conclusion of their argument."
The logical conclusion of our economic argument is self-sufficiency and non-dependence. Is that what Huckabee is afraid of? The logical conclusion is to not reward failure, and to not punish success. I guess that's what the Republican Party is done with. Just in time for the bailouts.
Not interested in spirited or thoughtful debate? That's something libertarians are actually accused of- too much debate. He does get one thing right, and that's calling libertarians "Faux-Cons". That's because we're not 'cons'. Libertarianism is classic liberalism. It's only conservative in the sense that the tradition extends back to Thomas Jefferson, and libertarians intend to maintain, i.e.: conserve, that tradition.
Jon Henke has much of value to say on his blog:
We've come quite some way since 1975, when Reagan said "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."
Oh, and it happens that Huckabee does, in fact, take issue with what we believe. In May of 2008, Huckabee called blamed election losses on Republicans being too "libertarian" (this is obviously some strange usage of the word "libertarian" that I was previously unaware of), accused us of being un-American (my response to that is unprintable, but I would be glad to say it to his face if he wanted to repeat his comment to my face) and then proceeded to make the standard, cartoonish Democratic argument against libertarianism.
and
Huckabee is a Rawlsian liberal + social conservative: Mike Huckabee describes his political philosophy as (a) the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto to you", and (b) a passage from the Bible ("Inasmuch as you have done to the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me"). This is not "conservatism"; it is basic Rawlsian liberalism.
and
Social conservatives have to realize that they need the fiscally conservative, socially moderate/tolerant voters if they want to be a part of a winning coalition. The limited government message won revolutionary victories for Republicans in 1980 and 1994; it is the only viable organizing principle for the current Republican coalition.
Well, the weak, tenous link between the Republican coalition is finally exposed. Social conservatives wish to use goverment to oppress minority groups they don't like. Fiscal conservatives want government to get out of the way of business and the economy. How is it that one can reconcile the desire for a heavy-handed government in one area of life with a desire for a relative absence of government in another? It doesn't make any sense.
There is actually a better chance, in my estimation, of the fiscal liberals joining forces with the social conservatives, then of small-l libertarians staying with the GOP long term. After all, social conservatives and fiscal liberals both believe that freedom produces bad results, and only the wise, heavy hand of government can force people to act more 'correctly'.
They have their leader. His name is Mike Huckabee, the anti-libertarian who would raise taxes and interfere in your bedroom. I'm glad he thinks libertarians should be cast out. Nobody who believes in liberty can support his brand, the Republican brand, of conservatism.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Cheap. Pitiful.
I see that Indy's Mayor is proposing a cut on the County Option Income Tax (COIT) for Marion County. From the Indy Star report:
Well, ain't he Santa Claus! Is this the same Mayor Ballard who was greatly aided in his election by tax protestors? Is this the level best reward he can give to a constituency that rallied to make itself heard?
It's very safe, very likely to gain passage by the City-County Council. It's a gain. But it's pitiful. It's a pittance. It doesn't reflect any genuine cut in government, it only represents not taking that small amount which isn't deemed 'necessary', in returning 'excess'.
In times of economic hardship, government is a luxury, not a necessity, and people at home should be allowed to keep a greater share of what they earn so that they can provide for their households.
At what point can we expect to see actual cuts in government?
I see that Indy's Mayor is proposing a cut on the County Option Income Tax (COIT) for Marion County. From the Indy Star report:
Mayor Greg Ballard has introduced a proposal to lower the county income tax by three-hundredths of a percentage point, to 1.62 percent.
The adjustment would give a $6 million break to taxpayers. That works out to about $12 a year for the average $40,000-a-year wage-earner in Indianapolis.
Well, ain't he Santa Claus! Is this the same Mayor Ballard who was greatly aided in his election by tax protestors? Is this the level best reward he can give to a constituency that rallied to make itself heard?
Last year, the council increased the county income tax from 1 percent to 1.65 percent to cover an ongoing shortfall in public safety and criminal justice costs. The 2007 state law authorizing that tax increase required 0.3 percent of the money to go toward freezing property tax spending.
On Nov. 7, the state certified the county tax rate at 0.27 percent and gave counties the option of returning excess revenue to taxpayers. In Marion County, that excess is 0.03 percent.
It's very safe, very likely to gain passage by the City-County Council. It's a gain. But it's pitiful. It's a pittance. It doesn't reflect any genuine cut in government, it only represents not taking that small amount which isn't deemed 'necessary', in returning 'excess'.
In times of economic hardship, government is a luxury, not a necessity, and people at home should be allowed to keep a greater share of what they earn so that they can provide for their households.
At what point can we expect to see actual cuts in government?
Thursday, November 13, 2008
When Do We Call It 'Socialism'?
One of my favorite things to observe in the jubilant Left these days is an unwillingness to embrace the possibility that the first 100 days of Democratic rule might be socialism.
I think The Left knows well enough that socialism is not going to be broadly embraced, but I think it also knows that given bits and pieces of socialistic policy here and there, especially if dressed up with different words, like 'benefit', can make for broad enough an embrace.
My greatest fear is that we will be treated to socialized medicine in the first 100 days. If I learned anything from Mitch Daniels' first term, or Bill Clinton's, it's that you do the controversial things very early, and then you spend the next three years doing innocuous things. Well, it also helped that in both of these cases, the response to their first year was that they lost their parties' legislative majorities and returned to divided government.
When I mention this to my Obama-supporting friends, I get a heap of resistence, pooh-poohing the idea that there are any socialistic intents, just an improvement of benefits, or increasing access, or something, anything besides socialism.
I'd like to see how some of you would define socialized medicine.
Here's a definition I consider useful, from the Cato Institute, in a recent publication:
There is one main reason I oppose socialized health care. I believe it inherently unjust to involuntarily cause one person pay for any good or service consumed by another person.
I've always been mystified by The Left's gigantic blind spot, willfully or otherwise, on this point. How can one oppose involuntary servitude, or involuntary conscription into the military, and yet accept involuntary responsibility for the cost of another's health care? In any of these cases, an individual is denied the full decision of the allocation of his resources. They are taken by the state, against the will of the individual, and given elsewhere, on the basis that the state has first claim, and knows best besides.
One of my favorite things to observe in the jubilant Left these days is an unwillingness to embrace the possibility that the first 100 days of Democratic rule might be socialism.
I think The Left knows well enough that socialism is not going to be broadly embraced, but I think it also knows that given bits and pieces of socialistic policy here and there, especially if dressed up with different words, like 'benefit', can make for broad enough an embrace.
My greatest fear is that we will be treated to socialized medicine in the first 100 days. If I learned anything from Mitch Daniels' first term, or Bill Clinton's, it's that you do the controversial things very early, and then you spend the next three years doing innocuous things. Well, it also helped that in both of these cases, the response to their first year was that they lost their parties' legislative majorities and returned to divided government.
When I mention this to my Obama-supporting friends, I get a heap of resistence, pooh-poohing the idea that there are any socialistic intents, just an improvement of benefits, or increasing access, or something, anything besides socialism.
I'd like to see how some of you would define socialized medicine.
Here's a definition I consider useful, from the Cato Institute, in a recent publication:
Socialized medicine exists to the extent that government controls medical resources and socializes the costs. Notice that under this definition, it is irrelevant whether we describe medical resources (e.g.,hospitals, employees) as “public” or “private.” What matters—what determines real as opposed to nominal ownership—is who controls the resources. By that definition, America’s health sector is already more than half socialized, and Obama’s health care plan would socialize medicine even further.
There is one main reason I oppose socialized health care. I believe it inherently unjust to involuntarily cause one person pay for any good or service consumed by another person.
I've always been mystified by The Left's gigantic blind spot, willfully or otherwise, on this point. How can one oppose involuntary servitude, or involuntary conscription into the military, and yet accept involuntary responsibility for the cost of another's health care? In any of these cases, an individual is denied the full decision of the allocation of his resources. They are taken by the state, against the will of the individual, and given elsewhere, on the basis that the state has first claim, and knows best besides.
Interesting Take On Transparency
A few of my friends have recently been touting with excitement the Obama transition plans, as shown on the website change.gov. Isn't it nice to see exactly what's coming down the pike? No secrets, all there to see.
Well, my friend Michael Jarrell has been watching with interest as well. He notes that while things may be transparent, they aren't permanent.
He lays out an interesting change. One day the website said this:
The next day:
The initial hope was to require the oxymoronic 'forced volunteerism'. When noticed, it became a 'goal', and now comes with a transfer of wealth.
That's all pretty shady, if you ask me. All of it.
What is hopeful in any of this?
A few of my friends have recently been touting with excitement the Obama transition plans, as shown on the website change.gov. Isn't it nice to see exactly what's coming down the pike? No secrets, all there to see.
Well, my friend Michael Jarrell has been watching with interest as well. He notes that while things may be transparent, they aren't permanent.
Apparently Team Obama keeps a sharp eye on their opposition these days. It seems that they saw the many commentaries on their new plans for involuntary servitude and decided to attempt to memory hole them.
He lays out an interesting change. One day the website said this:
Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. (emphasis supplied)
The next day:
Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free. (emphasis supplied)
The initial hope was to require the oxymoronic 'forced volunteerism'. When noticed, it became a 'goal', and now comes with a transfer of wealth.
That's all pretty shady, if you ask me. All of it.
What is hopeful in any of this?
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
What Goes Up Must Come Down
Oh, what's this? A nice rah-rah piece on Amtrak, that suck-hole of tax dollars and inept provider of passenger transportation, courtesy the Lafayette Journal-Courier:
126 mi / 10 mpg = 12.6 gal x $2 = $25.20
You're going to be poor for a lifetime if you can't do the math. Amtrak isn't the solution. Oh? Riding for the environment? Ok, then calculate the ride in my Toyota Corolla:
126 mi / 40 mpg = 3.15 gal x $2 = $6.30
Seriously. What kind of stupid do you have to be to lap up what this article is offering?
Update: In response to the astute comment that caught where I didn't (shame on me!) that the Amtrak pricing is based on round trips, and my car pricing is based on a single leg, I decided to shore that up. Doubling my auto prices is the easy part:
252 mi / 10 mpg = 12.6 gal x $2 = $50.40
252 mi / 40 mpg = 3.15 gal x $2 = $12.60
I went to Amtrak's website to see the various prices. Turns out that the article is wrong. One cannot get a $30 round trip fare. It varies pretty significantly depending on the days of departure and arrival.
$36 - Depart Lafayette Nov 19 or 20, Return from Chicago Nov 24
$41 - Depart Lafayette Nov 19 or 20, Return from Chicago Nov 22 or 25
$52 - Depart Lafayette Nov 21, Return from Chicago Nov 23 or 26
$58 - Depart Lafayette Nov 19 or 20, Return from Chicago Nov 22 or 25
$67 - Depart Lafayette Nov 21, Return from Chicago Nov 23 or 26
So, the J-C's range of 'generally between $30 and $50 for a round trip' is misleading. You can't get a fare as low as $30, and most combinations are more than $50.
I guess we're both shoddy journalists, quick to make our points. In any case, my ride in the Corolla is still WAY cheap.
Oh, what's this? A nice rah-rah piece on Amtrak, that suck-hole of tax dollars and inept provider of passenger transportation, courtesy the Lafayette Journal-Courier:
Recent spikes in gasoline prices, airport congestion and environmental awareness are among the reasons why Amtrak is reporting record ridership for the 2008 fiscal year that ended Sept. 30.So, since the gasoline prices are now lower than when Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, back in August 2005, ridership will certainly have already begun to tank, if it were such a factor in driving an increase in ridership. I love this quote from a rider:
Nationwide, Amtrak carried 28.7 million people this year, compared to 25.8 million in 2007. That was an 11 percent increase.
Well, poor student, you aren't learning mathematics at Purdue, that's for sure. With gas now around $2/gallon, even if you drive a Hummer or some other beast that gets 10mpg, you can drive from Lafayette to Chicago for $25.20."We're students and we're poor," she said with a chuckle, noting the train's comparatively cheap cost.
A round trip ticket between Lafayette and Chicago generally runs between $30 and $50 depending on the days, according to Amtrak's Web site.
126 mi / 10 mpg = 12.6 gal x $2 = $25.20
You're going to be poor for a lifetime if you can't do the math. Amtrak isn't the solution. Oh? Riding for the environment? Ok, then calculate the ride in my Toyota Corolla:
126 mi / 40 mpg = 3.15 gal x $2 = $6.30
Seriously. What kind of stupid do you have to be to lap up what this article is offering?
Update: In response to the astute comment that caught where I didn't (shame on me!) that the Amtrak pricing is based on round trips, and my car pricing is based on a single leg, I decided to shore that up. Doubling my auto prices is the easy part:
252 mi / 10 mpg = 12.6 gal x $2 = $50.40
252 mi / 40 mpg = 3.15 gal x $2 = $12.60
I went to Amtrak's website to see the various prices. Turns out that the article is wrong. One cannot get a $30 round trip fare. It varies pretty significantly depending on the days of departure and arrival.
$36 - Depart Lafayette Nov 19 or 20, Return from Chicago Nov 24
$41 - Depart Lafayette Nov 19 or 20, Return from Chicago Nov 22 or 25
$52 - Depart Lafayette Nov 21, Return from Chicago Nov 23 or 26
$58 - Depart Lafayette Nov 19 or 20, Return from Chicago Nov 22 or 25
$67 - Depart Lafayette Nov 21, Return from Chicago Nov 23 or 26
So, the J-C's range of 'generally between $30 and $50 for a round trip' is misleading. You can't get a fare as low as $30, and most combinations are more than $50.
I guess we're both shoddy journalists, quick to make our points. In any case, my ride in the Corolla is still WAY cheap.
Doing The Math
Harvard Economist Greg Mankiw offers advice to President-Elect Obama. Here's the bit the struck me most:
One of the best criticisms of the Bush Administration offered by the Left was an attack of borrow-and-spend. So, if Obama is to try to deliver on his campaign promises, how can he do it but to borrow and spend?
btw, Mankiw's had some really good posts lately, including an analysis of the GOP's failure, with the remedy being to run more libertarian. FWIW, he authored the textbook I used in my MBA Econ class.
Harvard Economist Greg Mankiw offers advice to President-Elect Obama. Here's the bit the struck me most:
during the campaign, you promised that you would cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans, that you would vastly expand health insurance coverage, and that you would never cut Social Security benefits or raise the retirement age. You will almost surely have to renege on some of these promises. As your economic team will often remind you, even if the laws of arithmetic are ignored during campaigns, they provide a real constraint when making actual policy.
One of the best criticisms of the Bush Administration offered by the Left was an attack of borrow-and-spend. So, if Obama is to try to deliver on his campaign promises, how can he do it but to borrow and spend?
btw, Mankiw's had some really good posts lately, including an analysis of the GOP's failure, with the remedy being to run more libertarian. FWIW, he authored the textbook I used in my MBA Econ class.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Glad The Barrier Is Broken
The major upside to the Obama victory is that now the color barrier is broken for the highest office in the land. Now The Man will be a black man.
Well, it's about time. When the contest came down to a white man with bad ideas and a black man with bad ideas, it may as well have been the black man with bad ideas. At least then Black America can at last stop thinking of the country as a place run by racist redneck crackers. We can put the race card away for once and for all.
I would have been miles happier to vote for a black man with good ideas, but there wasn't one running for President. This year. Obama will have helped clear the way for the future.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Now For The Bad News
Ok, idealism aside, my practical take is that if Bob Barr can't win, my best hope for minimizing the growth of government at the federal level is for McCain to win.
I feel ill typing that. Going back over a year, John McCain was one of two (Hillary Clinton the other) candidates I felt I could be pursuaded to vote against. But, divided government can be more deliberative, even though they weren't with the bailouts. It can be more restrained, even though they weren't with the bailouts. Sigh.
I fully expect an Obama landslide. That means unfettered Democratic rule. From this, I expect Obama to be a rubber stamp for his party's Congressional leadership, just as George W. Bush was for his. I expect government to expand dramatically, which is the bad news.
The only upside is historical precedent. Any time either the Democrats or Republicans take a majority, they piss off the American people in short order. We saw what Republicans did with their recent majorities. When Bill Clinton was elected in November 1992, he came into a Democratic Congress. The result? They pissed off the American people to the extent that the Republicans stormed back in 1994. Government was restrained at that point as best as has been in my lifetime.
So, there is some potential good news. It would be better if the American people took notice that they are alienated every time one party rule grows government, and went for REAL CHANGE and voted to restrain it, not by switching back and forth between the two parties proven to grow government, but to the one committed to scaling back the growth, the Libertarian Party.
But, since I'm being realistic here and not idealistic, my hope is for a structural repeat of the Clinton era: Dems take over, Dems screw up, divided government rules the day once again.
It's kind of like praying to have your breast bone brokem, because it's better than having your skull caved in.
Now, back to holding my little newborn guy!
Ok, idealism aside, my practical take is that if Bob Barr can't win, my best hope for minimizing the growth of government at the federal level is for McCain to win.
I feel ill typing that. Going back over a year, John McCain was one of two (Hillary Clinton the other) candidates I felt I could be pursuaded to vote against. But, divided government can be more deliberative, even though they weren't with the bailouts. It can be more restrained, even though they weren't with the bailouts. Sigh.
I fully expect an Obama landslide. That means unfettered Democratic rule. From this, I expect Obama to be a rubber stamp for his party's Congressional leadership, just as George W. Bush was for his. I expect government to expand dramatically, which is the bad news.
The only upside is historical precedent. Any time either the Democrats or Republicans take a majority, they piss off the American people in short order. We saw what Republicans did with their recent majorities. When Bill Clinton was elected in November 1992, he came into a Democratic Congress. The result? They pissed off the American people to the extent that the Republicans stormed back in 1994. Government was restrained at that point as best as has been in my lifetime.
So, there is some potential good news. It would be better if the American people took notice that they are alienated every time one party rule grows government, and went for REAL CHANGE and voted to restrain it, not by switching back and forth between the two parties proven to grow government, but to the one committed to scaling back the growth, the Libertarian Party.
But, since I'm being realistic here and not idealistic, my hope is for a structural repeat of the Clinton era: Dems take over, Dems screw up, divided government rules the day once again.
It's kind of like praying to have your breast bone brokem, because it's better than having your skull caved in.
Now, back to holding my little newborn guy!
An Appeal To My Friends In Ohio
You probably know that I ran for office in my 'new' home state of Indiana. Do you know why I didn't run in Ohio?
It was because the Republicans and Democrats erected great barriers against me from running as a Libertarian Party candidate. If I wanted to run I would have had to spend my time wastefully petitioning, rather than campaigning. This handicap is intentionally placed, discouraging third parties from participation.
In America! Home of the free!
Republicans and Democrats merely need to sign up to become candidates in Ohio. Libertarians can have this same kind of automatic ballot access, if Bob Barr gains 5% of the vote.
That's a tall order, as Ohio is a battleground state, and the Electoral Votes up for grabs could come down to anybody's vote. That's just as the Rs & Ds would have it. They set the bar that high because they believed it an impossible threshold.
I know that some of my friends are ardent partisan Rs or Ds. But for most of you, I know that the two parties only represent you to a point, that Rs & Ds don't match up very well, leaving you only to decide who to vote against, or whether sorting your sock drawer is a better option than casting a vote at all. Many of you would be partisan Libertarians, if you only had the choice.
This year, vote for Libertarian Bob Barr for president. Help the Libertarian Party of Ohio gain automatic ballot access so that Ohioans can begin to have broader ballot choices, in the interest of greater participation, and more choices that represent the broad spectrum of views found across the state.
Vote for Barr!
Monday, November 03, 2008
Vote Libertarian!
I am sending this appeal to any voter, but in particular, I want to urge the people who supported my 2006 campaign for Indiana Secretary of State to get out to the polls and cast votes for Libertarian Party candidates.
When I ran for that office, it wasn't just in seeking the office. It was to ensure continued automatic ballot access for all of Indiana's Libertarian party candidates. This is the day that effort was put forth for.
If you supported my campaign, with your effort, your time, your money- do yourself a favor and protect your investment. Make sure the showing is as strong as possible for our Libertarian candidates.
If you support libertarian policy, please do not be discouraged by the perceived likely results in the various races. Show up and cast your vote. When we score strongly, our ideas are taken seriously. If we don't? Well, why should anyone take us seriously?
But truly, we're running some strong races out there. Steve Keltner is running a fantastic campaign for Indiana Senate in District 30. Ed Angleton is also running strong, for Indiana House in District 100. Rex Bell scored 15% in his three-way 2006 run for Indiana House in District 54, and this time it's a two-way race. Rex could win! Dr. Eric Schansberg is running another strong campaign for US House in District 9. And on, and on.
Full list of Libertarian candidates on the ballot in Indiana.
Do it for me! Do it for yourself and your children. Just do it- vote Libertarian.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Saturday, November 01, 2008
It's A Boy!
Ame delivered a healthy, BIG (9lb, 11oz) baby boy at 7:02 this morning, on the back porch- the same spot Isabel was born 3+ years ago.
We haven't picked a first name out yet, but we're pretty set on Anders for a middle name, as a nod to Ame's Danish heritage. We'll post again when we arrive at a name.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
This Redistribution of Wealth Is Trickier Than I Thought
To be fair, both Obama and McCain stand united in their belief, their faith, in the justice and value of the redistribution of wealth. I haven't seen anything from McCain to suggest otherwise. Of course, Obama has come out and said that he favors it.
Nobody seems to think himself wealthy. The blind spot here is that wealth is relative. Even if you are comfortably a recipient of redistribution today, what happens of the upper class begins to be eroded? Or, get this, if you earn a fat killing? Or, if there are just an awful lot of poor in greater need than you?
I love this personal experiment in wealth redistribution. It involves a businessman who sees a homeless man and a waiter with an Obama tie. Who needs the businessman's tip more? That's who gets it.
Or, as Monty Python nailed it many years ago:
That clip only boils down to the punchline. The whole skit is a beauty, but long, spread out over Flying Circus Episode #37. Find it here.
(h/t Charleston Watch)
To be fair, both Obama and McCain stand united in their belief, their faith, in the justice and value of the redistribution of wealth. I haven't seen anything from McCain to suggest otherwise. Of course, Obama has come out and said that he favors it.
Nobody seems to think himself wealthy. The blind spot here is that wealth is relative. Even if you are comfortably a recipient of redistribution today, what happens of the upper class begins to be eroded? Or, get this, if you earn a fat killing? Or, if there are just an awful lot of poor in greater need than you?
I love this personal experiment in wealth redistribution. It involves a businessman who sees a homeless man and a waiter with an Obama tie. Who needs the businessman's tip more? That's who gets it.
The waiter stammered a few "Why practice on me? I’m just a local college student!" retorts and then angrily stormed away from the table in a steaming huff of progressive self-righteous indignation.
Apparently, after experiencing firsthand the application of such socialistic governance from the perspective of the rightful wage earner, my young liberal-minded waiter was quickly convinced that income redistribution was much easier to support as a noble, magnanimous social policy than when his own hard-earned income was about to be redistributed, against his will, to another I deemed more needy.
Or, as Monty Python nailed it many years ago:
That clip only boils down to the punchline. The whole skit is a beauty, but long, spread out over Flying Circus Episode #37. Find it here.
(h/t Charleston Watch)
Monday, October 27, 2008
Meltdown Blame Game
I've been fairly astonished to see some of the vitriolic piling on against libertarianism with the meltdown of the derivative markets and subsequesnt bailouts.
Does anyone think Libertarians have been running the Federal Government? Really? Here's your reality check.
Ok, some point to Alan Greenspan, the erstwhile Ayn Rand devotee. You know- the same Greenspan that presided over the Fed during the entire Clinton Administration- that mythical period of time of milk & honey. I wouldn't call Greenspan a libertarian. Any libertarian running the Federal Reserve would have done anything in his power to return our dollars to specie-backed legitimacy. That certainly didn't happen. Link to Murray Ruthbard's libertarian critique of Greenspan.
Moreover, what made the trading in derivatives legal in the first place? A law signed by Congress, unanimously, in 2000. Catch 60 Minutes last night?
So, at what point do we blame lawmakers. It seems pretty clear that they didn't even read what they voted on. Just like the Patriot Act. Just like John McCain and the proposal for the bailout when it was merely 3 pages long.
The bucket laws were good regulation. The bets on stocks without any skin in the game affects the stock price. It's not like a football game, where the bets do not affect the outcome of the game. (This leaves aside point shaving, NBA refs, the 1919 Black Sox, and other notorious interactions with gambling.)
Unfortunately, I believe that this one place is going to place America squarely in the pro-regulation camp for everything. It's kind of ironic, because the critics of deregulation and capitalism decry its' adherents as 'dogmatics' and 'idealogues' in the pejoritive, when they themselves as dogmatically and idealistically pro-government, pro-regulation, and anti-capitalist.
I've been fairly astonished to see some of the vitriolic piling on against libertarianism with the meltdown of the derivative markets and subsequesnt bailouts.
Does anyone think Libertarians have been running the Federal Government? Really? Here's your reality check.
Ok, some point to Alan Greenspan, the erstwhile Ayn Rand devotee. You know- the same Greenspan that presided over the Fed during the entire Clinton Administration- that mythical period of time of milk & honey. I wouldn't call Greenspan a libertarian. Any libertarian running the Federal Reserve would have done anything in his power to return our dollars to specie-backed legitimacy. That certainly didn't happen. Link to Murray Ruthbard's libertarian critique of Greenspan.
Moreover, what made the trading in derivatives legal in the first place? A law signed by Congress, unanimously, in 2000. Catch 60 Minutes last night?
The vehicle for doing this was an obscure but critical piece of federal legislation called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. And the bill was a big favorite of the financial industry it would eventually help destroy.
It not only removed derivatives and credit default swaps from the purview of federal oversight, on page 262 of the legislation, Congress pre-empted the states from enforcing existing gambling and bucket shop laws against Wall Street.
"It makes it sound like they knew it was illegal," Kroft remarks.
"I would agree," Dinallo says. "They did know it was illegal. Or at least prosecutable."
In retrospect, giving Wall Street immunity from state gambling laws and legalizing activity that had been banned for most of the 20th century should have given lawmakers pause, but on the last day and the last vote of the lame duck 106th Congress, Wall Street got what it wanted when the Senate passed the bill unanimously.
So, at what point do we blame lawmakers. It seems pretty clear that they didn't even read what they voted on. Just like the Patriot Act. Just like John McCain and the proposal for the bailout when it was merely 3 pages long.
The bucket laws were good regulation. The bets on stocks without any skin in the game affects the stock price. It's not like a football game, where the bets do not affect the outcome of the game. (This leaves aside point shaving, NBA refs, the 1919 Black Sox, and other notorious interactions with gambling.)
Unfortunately, I believe that this one place is going to place America squarely in the pro-regulation camp for everything. It's kind of ironic, because the critics of deregulation and capitalism decry its' adherents as 'dogmatics' and 'idealogues' in the pejoritive, when they themselves as dogmatically and idealistically pro-government, pro-regulation, and anti-capitalist.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Buchanan Has It All Wrong
Pat Buchanan is whining about a double standard being applied to the candidates. He cites the treatment of Sarah Palin as his proof.
I take it a different way. It says to me that women have come to treated be on par with men in the political arena. Well, white women. White women have come to be treated on par with white men.
After all, everybody knows that white men run this country. White men in high places have been subject to ridicule in media, and especially on SNL for years, thinking all the way back to Chevy Chase's bumbling Gerry Ford routine. White men in high places, and now white women in high places, are all subject to spoof, satire, send-up, and all manner of piss-taking the media is capable of- because it is safe to ridicule them.
Nah. It just means that white women have made it. They are fair game for ridicule. No more kid gloves. And it isn't strictly partisan, because as we note with the first Tina Fey send-up of Palin, there was what? Yes, a matching send-up of Hilary Clinton. So, it isn't partisan at all. Sure, Biden's an idiot who lets loose with just as much absurdity as Palin. It's just that Tina Fey is a dead ringer and hilarious as Palin. Who's a dead ringer for Biden who would be funny? Besides, the media doesn't regard black politicians as being on par with white politicians. Obviously. Or they would send 'em up.
That will change soon, or should. After all, a black man is going to be running things pretty soon. I eagerly await the satire.
Pat Buchanan is whining about a double standard being applied to the candidates. He cites the treatment of Sarah Palin as his proof.
The media cannot get enough of the "Saturday Night Live" impersonations of Palin as a bubblehead. News shows pick up the Tina Fey clips and run them and run them to the merriment of all.
Can one imagine "Saturday Night Live" doing weekly send-ups of Michelle Obama and her "I've never been proud" of my country, this "just downright mean" America, using a black comedienne to mimic and mock her voice and accent?
I take it a different way. It says to me that women have come to treated be on par with men in the political arena. Well, white women. White women have come to be treated on par with white men.
After all, everybody knows that white men run this country. White men in high places have been subject to ridicule in media, and especially on SNL for years, thinking all the way back to Chevy Chase's bumbling Gerry Ford routine. White men in high places, and now white women in high places, are all subject to spoof, satire, send-up, and all manner of piss-taking the media is capable of- because it is safe to ridicule them.
When the New Yorker ran a cartoon of Michelle in an Angela-Davis afro with an AK-47 slung over her shoulder, New Yorker editors had to go on national television to swear they were not mocking Michelle, but the conservatives who have so caricatured Michelle and the Messiah.
Is there a media double standard? You betcha.
Nah. It just means that white women have made it. They are fair game for ridicule. No more kid gloves. And it isn't strictly partisan, because as we note with the first Tina Fey send-up of Palin, there was what? Yes, a matching send-up of Hilary Clinton. So, it isn't partisan at all. Sure, Biden's an idiot who lets loose with just as much absurdity as Palin. It's just that Tina Fey is a dead ringer and hilarious as Palin. Who's a dead ringer for Biden who would be funny? Besides, the media doesn't regard black politicians as being on par with white politicians. Obviously. Or they would send 'em up.
That will change soon, or should. After all, a black man is going to be running things pretty soon. I eagerly await the satire.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Deficit No Longer An Issue?
It was just a few weeks ago that a key part of the Democratic attack was that The Bush Administration has been guilty of fiscal irresponsibility, in its' borrow and spend ways. Quoth Barney Frank:
This is foreshadowing. The Democrats feel they have won the election already, so they are letting everyone see what their governance will be- a different kind of fiscal irresponsibility. Borrow & spend & tax.
Voting McCain will only give you borrow & spend. Bob Barr will give you spending cuts, and end to borrowing, and an eventual lowering of taxes.
Choose accordingly.
It was just a few weeks ago that a key part of the Democratic attack was that The Bush Administration has been guilty of fiscal irresponsibility, in its' borrow and spend ways. Quoth Barney Frank:
"I think at this point, there needs to be an immediate increase in spending, andSo, in the interest of consistency, can some Democrats please attack Barney Frank?
I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat."
This is foreshadowing. The Democrats feel they have won the election already, so they are letting everyone see what their governance will be- a different kind of fiscal irresponsibility. Borrow & spend & tax.
Voting McCain will only give you borrow & spend. Bob Barr will give you spending cuts, and end to borrowing, and an eventual lowering of taxes.
Choose accordingly.
No Wasting Votes!
(Warrenton, IN)- This year, there is no reason to play the game of Prisoner's Dilemma with your vote. The lesser of two evils isn't a factor, because it's already clear who will win the big races come November 4.
Per Rasmussen, Obama has been ahead of McCain or tied nationally for 33 straight days, and has Obama ahead in Electoral votes by a 286-174 count.
Don't like Rasmussen? Zogby has the Electoral count at 273-163, for Obama. That leaves 102 'unsure', but Indiana is among the unsure. If McCain can't take Indiana, he can't take much. Zogby also shows Obama leading for 14 straight days. It might have been more, but the report only shows 14 days.
If you are libertarian, pro-free market, pro-individualist, anti-tax, anti-socialism, there is nothing to gain in voting against Obama at this point. He's going to win, and besides, McCain hasn't proven himself to be libertarian, pro-free market, pro-individualist, anti-tax, or anti-socialist. Vote for Bob Barr! When you give your vote to a candidate who makes no promise to deliver for you what you want, you tell him and his party that they can safely take you for granted.
Likewise, the various polls for Indiana Governor show Mitch Daniels comfortably ahead of Jill Long Thompson. Pollster.com has an aggregate poll with Daniels up 51%-37.5%.
Daniels is going to win in a landslide. No worries about 'wasting your vote' here, either. Vote for Andy Horning and boost the numbers for the Libertarian agenda of constitutional government, smaller and less intrusive government, lower spending, and lower taxes. Even with Daniels claiming 51%, a Horning return of 13-14% will open eyes and make the other parties sure to co-opt some important parts of his message.
Those who fall for the Prisoner's Dilemma approach to voting are suckers, anyhow. Don't want socialism? Then why vote for candidates who bring to to you at a clip of 75% of what they other team will do? You're still getting the thing you don't want by voting for the lesser of two evils.
(Warrenton, IN)- This year, there is no reason to play the game of Prisoner's Dilemma with your vote. The lesser of two evils isn't a factor, because it's already clear who will win the big races come November 4.
Per Rasmussen, Obama has been ahead of McCain or tied nationally for 33 straight days, and has Obama ahead in Electoral votes by a 286-174 count.
Don't like Rasmussen? Zogby has the Electoral count at 273-163, for Obama. That leaves 102 'unsure', but Indiana is among the unsure. If McCain can't take Indiana, he can't take much. Zogby also shows Obama leading for 14 straight days. It might have been more, but the report only shows 14 days.
If you are libertarian, pro-free market, pro-individualist, anti-tax, anti-socialism, there is nothing to gain in voting against Obama at this point. He's going to win, and besides, McCain hasn't proven himself to be libertarian, pro-free market, pro-individualist, anti-tax, or anti-socialist. Vote for Bob Barr! When you give your vote to a candidate who makes no promise to deliver for you what you want, you tell him and his party that they can safely take you for granted.
Likewise, the various polls for Indiana Governor show Mitch Daniels comfortably ahead of Jill Long Thompson. Pollster.com has an aggregate poll with Daniels up 51%-37.5%.
Daniels is going to win in a landslide. No worries about 'wasting your vote' here, either. Vote for Andy Horning and boost the numbers for the Libertarian agenda of constitutional government, smaller and less intrusive government, lower spending, and lower taxes. Even with Daniels claiming 51%, a Horning return of 13-14% will open eyes and make the other parties sure to co-opt some important parts of his message.
Those who fall for the Prisoner's Dilemma approach to voting are suckers, anyhow. Don't want socialism? Then why vote for candidates who bring to to you at a clip of 75% of what they other team will do? You're still getting the thing you don't want by voting for the lesser of two evils.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Decision Made
I just watched tonight's debate between Obama and McCain and found it affirming of my decision to vote for Bob Barr, which I did today, casting my absentee ballot at Noblesville this afternoon.
Obama's closing statement wrapped it up well for me. He spoke of the need to do something different, because the policies of the past few decades have resulted in an economy teetering on disaster.
Well! Different means increased spending on virtually everything? In what way is that different? It wasn't just Obama promising more spending on everything being spoken of. McCain was promising more funding also, in every area possible. With what these guys are promising, I absolutely expect similar results.
Libertarian Bob Barr is the only one talking about cuts in spending. Barr is the only one talking about not rewarding bad decisions with borrowed or freshly printed dollars.
Make no mistake- If we are in a crisis, it was made by Republicans and Democrats. Hanging it strictly on today's President is intellectually dishonest. What have the Democrats done with their majorities in the Congress? They may as well be the brothers and sisters of George W Bush, because haven't been acting to cut spending, or to end borrowing or inflating the money supply either.
Obama's right. You aren't going to get any changes by sticking to the policies that got us here. Obama and McCain are mere retreads of all the losing policy that is bringing us to the brink of depression. Change is more than swapping one team for the other. It's breaking clean.
The only way to break clean is to vote for Bob Barr, and any Libertarian candidate you find on your ballots.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Obama's Inroads
I can tell that the Obama campaign is reaching people that the Democratic Party hasn't been reaching. I need look no further than my own neighbors, a firmly Republican stronghold. Look at the returns from my home precinct, Delaware #3, in 2004:
Bush = 65.7%
Kerry = 32.8%
Badnarik = 0.9%
Link to Presidential results for Delaware 3.
Daniels = 66.7%
Kernan = 32.5%
Gividen = 0.8%
Link to Gubernatorial results for Delaware 3.
Notice that the results were almost identical, as relating the presidential and gubernatorial results by each party's candidate. That's going to change.
Now, obviously no votes have been counted yet, but my visual clues are the yard signs. I like observing yard signs off the main drags, because the parties and campaigns fill the right-of-ways with the things. I prefer to look at the residences themselves, where the property owner paid the money to get the sign, and put it out there for the world to see.
I did a count of signs in my neighborhood today, because it seemed like I was seeing a lot more Obama signs than I saw of Kerry back in 2004. Here's the tally:
Obama sign only: 38
McCain sign only: 15
Thompson sign only: ZERO
Daniels sign only: 55
Obama & Thompson signs: ZERO
Daniels & McCain signs: 53
Obama & Daniels signs: 3
Barr signs: zero
Horning signs: zero
Weingarten: 1
Burton signs: 3
What to make of it? Certainly, the Jill Long Thompson campaign is completely moribund. Either nobody is supporting her, or her campaign hasn't gotten signs made or distributed yet. In any case, moribund.
But how about the Obama and Daniels signs together? In Fishers! I have to get some pictures of these.
I think this little survey shows that the Republican base is very satisfied with Mitch Daniels as governor, but I sense a lot of buyer's remorse on John McCain, or plain alienation by McCain. The man has no real ideology to speak of, just this 'maverick' thing, which seems to be on all non-military subjects little more than a panic button that screams, 'DO SOMETHING! ANYTHING!'. That doesn't inspire anything but uneasiness, even for regular Republican voters.
If this is going on in a precinct that reliably goes 65% Republican (It also did in the 2006 Secretary of State race, Rokita 65.7%, Pearson 29.2%, Kole 5.1%), I can only imagine how precincts across America that have greater Democratic leanings are going to tilt greatly towards Obama on November 4.
The lack of anything but Obama signs shows that the Democratic organization is still very thin here. Now, that stands to change significantly. As the Obama campaign inspires people to work in his Fishers office and to put up his yard sign, surely it will yield future candidates.
As for the Libertarians, the Barr signs are available. I'll be getting one soon enough, as the Indianapolis area coordinator for the Barr campaign just got them in. I wish I had seen some anyhow.
I can tell that the Obama campaign is reaching people that the Democratic Party hasn't been reaching. I need look no further than my own neighbors, a firmly Republican stronghold. Look at the returns from my home precinct, Delaware #3, in 2004:
Bush = 65.7%
Kerry = 32.8%
Badnarik = 0.9%
Link to Presidential results for Delaware 3.
Daniels = 66.7%
Kernan = 32.5%
Gividen = 0.8%
Link to Gubernatorial results for Delaware 3.
Notice that the results were almost identical, as relating the presidential and gubernatorial results by each party's candidate. That's going to change.
Now, obviously no votes have been counted yet, but my visual clues are the yard signs. I like observing yard signs off the main drags, because the parties and campaigns fill the right-of-ways with the things. I prefer to look at the residences themselves, where the property owner paid the money to get the sign, and put it out there for the world to see.
I did a count of signs in my neighborhood today, because it seemed like I was seeing a lot more Obama signs than I saw of Kerry back in 2004. Here's the tally:
Obama sign only: 38
McCain sign only: 15
Thompson sign only: ZERO
Daniels sign only: 55
Obama & Thompson signs: ZERO
Daniels & McCain signs: 53
Obama & Daniels signs: 3
Barr signs: zero
Horning signs: zero
Weingarten: 1
Burton signs: 3
What to make of it? Certainly, the Jill Long Thompson campaign is completely moribund. Either nobody is supporting her, or her campaign hasn't gotten signs made or distributed yet. In any case, moribund.
But how about the Obama and Daniels signs together? In Fishers! I have to get some pictures of these.
I think this little survey shows that the Republican base is very satisfied with Mitch Daniels as governor, but I sense a lot of buyer's remorse on John McCain, or plain alienation by McCain. The man has no real ideology to speak of, just this 'maverick' thing, which seems to be on all non-military subjects little more than a panic button that screams, 'DO SOMETHING! ANYTHING!'. That doesn't inspire anything but uneasiness, even for regular Republican voters.
If this is going on in a precinct that reliably goes 65% Republican (It also did in the 2006 Secretary of State race, Rokita 65.7%, Pearson 29.2%, Kole 5.1%), I can only imagine how precincts across America that have greater Democratic leanings are going to tilt greatly towards Obama on November 4.
The lack of anything but Obama signs shows that the Democratic organization is still very thin here. Now, that stands to change significantly. As the Obama campaign inspires people to work in his Fishers office and to put up his yard sign, surely it will yield future candidates.
As for the Libertarians, the Barr signs are available. I'll be getting one soon enough, as the Indianapolis area coordinator for the Barr campaign just got them in. I wish I had seen some anyhow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)