Sad Stampede

This is what we've come to. This is our 'recovery'. There are so many people wanting to sign up for Section 8 housing assistance in Dallas, that they stampede in an effort to get into line to fill out a form.



Well, it was 'the Jesse Owens Memorial Complex' they were trying to get to.

The obvious reaction is to wonder if there was this kind of race to fill out job applications anywhere in Dallas. But then, this bullshit recover has been a jobless wonder, so I have to doubt it. I find it sad on so many counts. Sad that so many people in just that one area are in need. Sad for the injuries the ill-managed event resulted in. Sad for the desperation of it all.

And yeah- I'll make it political. Is all the public spending saving these people? No doubt, to some, it's proof we haven't spent enough. For me, it's proof that people aren't being equipped for self-sufficiency. Blame schools, blame parents, blame the individuals themselves- but that kind of mad rush to fill out a form for assistance looks like the kind of thing we might have seen on a news report of the third world, say 10-15 years ago.

Oh, Do I Love NPR's Bias

I had seen a CNN article that said 42% of Americans were opposed to raising the debt ceiling. I didn't know if that meant that 58% were opposed, but since it referenced a Gallup Poll, I was thinking it there were probably at least two other categories- in favor, and unsure, at the very least.

So, I did a Google search for 'gallup poll debt ceiling'. The top result was an NPR article with the headline, "Gallup: Majority of Americans Still Oppose Raising Debt Ceiling". The article had today's date, so I clicked it. I need look no further than the first paragraph to see the bias like a kick in the crotch.

It may say more about the state of economic education in the nation than anything else but a majority of Americans remain opposed raising the federal debt ceiling according to a new Gallup poll.

And that's despite dire warnings by policymakers and experts that a default by the U.S. government could be calamitous. It would likely cause higher interest rates not just for the federal government but throughout the economy.

I'd like to think I have a pretty good understanding of economics. I fancy myself as having a fair idea about government, and how it's supposed to work, too.

Despite this, I'm opposed to raising the debt ceiling. I am of the opinion that much of what the government does would be better done by individuals, or not at all. For instance, the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. I am of the opinion that government spending should be cut dramatically. Let's start with cutting the military in half. That would put a nice dent in things, as a starting position, without weakening our ability to defend our country.

So, am I an uneducated rube? Am I even desiring a default?

Hell, no. But I guess that's the kind of discourse we can expect anymore. You don't have a policy solution, Mr. Kole. You're an idiot.

I so often get to the point where there seems little point in making my points. I can't out-noise NPR, that devourer of community radio stations from sea to shining sea. But this bias of author Frank James seems typical of the discourse anymore. It isn't that he has a perspective. He has it, and you're flat out ignorant if you disagree. I just find it unworthy of response, for the most part... although I just spent 8 minutes doing just that.

Maybe I am an idiot.

Right On, Michael Irvin

I had never thought much about anything former Dallas Cowboy star receiver Michael Irvin had to say, prior to today. He seemed like one of a multitude of look-at-me-me-me athletes. But he's done something to completely change my mind about him. He is on the cover of Out Magazine, and discusses his coming to acceptance of his gay brother. One quote stands out like a cool breeze on this sweltering summer day:

Irvin now believes the African-American community should support marriage equality.

"I don't see how any African-American, with any inkling of history, can say that you don't have the right to live your life how you want to live your life," he said, according to the magazine. "No one should be telling you who you should love, no one should be telling you who you should be spending the rest of your life with. When we start talking about equality, and everybody being treated equally, I don't want to know an African-American who will say everybody doesn't deserve equality."

I have been repeatedly shocked at how one oppressed minority group can routinely oppress another minority group. This is an excellent statement by Irvin- one that comes at a time where 'gay' has repeatedly been used as a put-down by athletes in recent days.

What Makes Me Tick

I was appreciative of fellow blogger Paul Ogden's comment to me on Facebook regarding the infrequency of my posts. He said that he misses my posting more regularly, and that I should get fired so that I can post more.

Funny enough, I've been under-employed for some long time now. In all actuality, my frequency of posting is inversely proportional to the amount of time spent working. I know it doesn't make sense on the first blush. Kole has more free time, so he posts less?

Yes, it's true. Somehow, I feel like I'm more in the game of life when I have a heavy workload. I feel like I'm out and about more and seeing more, and therefore have more to contribute. Sure, I could scan the news sites every morning for an article to react to, and could post aplenty, but it just doesn't appeal to me.

When you get right down to it, I'm a pretty lousy blogger. I break all the rules. I don't post regularly enough. I never comment on the big story Nancy Grace is getting all righteous about. I talk more about local or regional issues than national ones. I don't cross-post everything to Facebook. I don't really do anything to attract readers. And, I don't have many.

But that's ok with me. I really appreciate Paul's comment. I love that some people do read regularly. I like to think of it all as quality over quantity, and that's generally what I strive for in life, in general.

You Have To Be 'On' All The Time

I remember running for Secretary of State in 2005 when this thought first occurred to me. I remember the scene well, if not the precise location. I was driving up to LaPorte, wearing the monkey suit, and I needed to stop for gas. It was a small town on 421, and I stood out like a sore thumb. It was 95 degrees outside, on a Saturday, with everybody else wearing shorts and casuals, and I'm wearing a business suit and tie, with the wingtips. I was so used to wearing it that I thought nothing of it. A man came up to me and said, "You running for President or something?" I'm sure I had the deer-in-the-headlights look for a moment until I could tell him that I was running for Secretary of State.

President? That threw me. Anything can throw you, if you aren't 100% prepared. I knew at that moment that I would have to be 'on' every minute of the remainder of the campaign.

So, Sarah Palin weighed in on Paul Revere's ride. The partisan Democrats are having a laff-fest. The Palin supporters are going crazy trying to defend, and going so far as to revising the Paul Revere page on wikipedia.



I have a degree in history. I focused on the Revolutionary War period. Here's my take:

1. Paul Revere never would have said, "The British are coming". Revere was British.
2. Revere was arrested by the British authorities and questioned. He apparently did tell them that the colonists were ready to use and protect their store of arms. Is that a warning? I think it could be construed either way.
3. Revere probably didn't ring any bells or fire any shots. The accounts tell of one church ringing its bell.

So, I think Palin was factually correct on warning the British about the intent of the colonists, 'Warned the British that they weren't going to be taking our guns'. Wrong about 'Ringing those bells' and firing shots. For either side to say she was entirely wrong or entirely right is off-base, and probably just reveals the bias of the claimant.

She certainly had the deer-in-the-headlights look about her, though. I still don't get what Palin's appeal is to the Right. I first wrote about not getting her allure back in Nov 2009, and I still don't get it.

Anybody can screw up. Obama's '57 states, with one to go- Alaska & Hawaii', ranks high up there. I know as well as anyone that you have to be 'on' all the time, and that it is draining hard. But the frequency of Palin's gaffes, and the almost constant deer-in-the-headlights look? Wow.

Update: A very great article on this subject appeared in CNN. It is written by Kenneth Davis, author of the book, 'Don't Know Much About History'. Per Davis:

The truth of Revere's ride, the long road to American independence and the real people behind that extraordinary moment is a far more compelling narrative of intrigue, courage and a life-and-death battle for power than the "bedtime story" version most of us recall from half-remembered third grade poetry.

But we prefer holding onto a tidy scenario of pride and patriotism that is neither accurate nor memorable, if we remember at all. Instead, we settle for ignorance, as periodic surveys of American knowledge of history routinely prove. Or we cobble together a sketchy narrative combining fact and fiction to comfortably fit our political agendas.

That is sad. And dangerous. It is sad because history is compelling, fascinating and instructive -- if we tell the real story.

But it is also dangerous when people "cherry pick" pieces of the story to suit their purposes, when the foot is cut to fit the shoe. A sanitized but incomplete, or worse, wildly inaccurate, version of history can be cited to support just about any political stand. Like scripture, the words and deeds of the Founders, mixed with bits and pieces of American mythology, are trumpeted to support positions on every issue from individual rights, states' rights, gun rights or gun control, to taxes, immigration, public prayer and, most dangerously, taking the nation to war.

When American history is gutted, innocently, ignorantly or deliberately, the outcome can be deadly.

That's what I was going on about- the 'gotcha' politics, the hyperbolic response, and the mugging of history by both left and right.

Bigot, Here's Your Sign. It's a Mirror

A friend forwarded an article to me to ask what I made of it.

What I make of it is a pretty standard smear of a quasi-libertarian by one on the left. Observe:

To my great chagrin no one in the national media has picked up the Bodineism meme, but they are starting to get the picture that there are some elected officials, particularly Republican elected officials, are about as dumb as sack of hammers.

The particular Jethro that I am talking about today is Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. Of all the folks that I have compared to Jethro Bodine, Sen. Paul is probably the closet to the mark. By all accounts he is a pretty genial guy with a good smile and a nice manner. He is also so clueless as to be a text book (given that all books are printed in text, wouldn’t that make them all text books?) example of self-satire.

I had to look up 'Jethro Bodine'. Ah- the Beverly Hillbillies! Well!

I find it very interesting that the left too often loves to use 'hillbilly' as a put-down. Substitute the 'n-word', and what would the leftist's howling reaction be? But somehow, this is ok. Same method and damaged 'thinking', whereby it's ok and har-har funny to generalize a group of people into a stereotype, and then denigrate away.

So, I don't put much stock personally into these kinds of smears. I tend to dismiss out of hand and stop reading as soon as I identify the bigoted smear. But my friend asked for my take.

Upon further reading, it has the other component of these smears against Rand or Ron Paul- "Oh, he isn't libertarian enough for the libertarians". It's an attempt to create cognitive dissonance and mistrust among those who support Rand Paul on the basis of pro-liberty sentiment.

There's something ironic in a guy trying to cause cognitive dissonance on inconsistency and hypocrisy, when he engages in it himself with his put-down. So, again, I normally dismiss out of hand.

The poor guy just doesn't understand libertarians. We constantly evaluate our 'exemplars'. Nobody will hold them accountable faster than we do on the finer points. On the other hand, he isn't my exemplar. He's a Republican, and we have our differences. I'd still take 10 Rand Pauls over 10 Harry Reids, or even 10 Dick Lugars.

To his point?

Most recently Sen. Paul (gods greater and lesser that gives me chills just writing it, ugh) has managed to trample the 1st Amendment with his “ideas”. Some of us on the Left side of the Blogasphere were more than a little happy that he was holding up the PATRIOT act renewal, by wanting to insert some amendments that would lessen the ability of the government to spy on its own citizens.

That was a good thing, but it does not mean that he was doing it from a deep understanding of the Constitution. You see after his ploy failed he went on Sean “The Manatee” Hannity’s radio show and said the following:

I’m not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where they’ve been traveling and perhaps, you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they’ve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn’t be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison.

Peel your palm off of your face. Yes, Sen. Paul, a man sworn to uphold the Constitution, just like every other elected official, seems to have an abject failure to understand the meaning, intent and workings of the 1st Amendment.

To say that Paul has an abject lack of knowledge is absurd. I think he's wrong here, patently. Does it make him wrong on everything else, as the word abject suggests? Well, the writer already acknowledged the value Senator Paul brought in stalling the Patriot Act.

Rand Paul is a politician that I have some admiration for. I don't agree with everything anybody stands for. I accept that there are going to be differences, even sharp ones, within the context of a greater agreement. Really, there are less than 10 in the whole Congress that I think of myself have some broad agreement with, and yes Rand Paul, and his father, are among them. Perfect? No. Better than the others? You bet.

I'd like to know how this writer treats politicians on the left? Does he eliminate them completely if he disagrees with them on a single point? Because if he does, he likes even fewer members of Congress than I do. Approximately, zero.

Physician, heal thyself!

Gender Identity Storm

I've been watching this public debate about gender roles with interested curiosity. A Canadian couple decides not to tell anyone what the gender of their child is, and refuses to impose gender roles upon the child. At age 3 months, I guess that means no blue or pink jammies or wallpaper, no dolls that depict typical boys or girls, etc. From CNN's report:

Instead of the usual birth announcement of 'It's a Boy!' or 'It's a Girl!', Stocker and Witterick sent out an e-mail announcement that said, "We've decided not to share Storm's sex for now -- a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm's lifetime (a more progressive place? ...)."

At 3 months, I say, 'Big Deal'. The child isn't processing much more than 'Mommy', 'Daddy', 'Hungry!', 'Wet', or 'Tired'. With our kids, we didn't go out of our way to put the girl in pink, and the boy in blue. Heck, the boy is youngest, so at 3 months, he wore some pink. We just weren't going to go and buy more outfits because the color wasn't right for a kid who couldn't comprehend the difference anyway.

As parents, we aren't in any kind of hurry for any kind of roles for our kids, apart from 'avid reader', 'good student', and 'thoughtful, polite kid'. We kept them away from Barbie dolls and monster trucks.

Funny thing about that. The kids both embraced their gender roles, but hard. Isabel's wardrobe and bedroom are monuments to pink and purple, princesses and ponies. Not because we foisted it upon her. Nope. She just loves it. Nobody had to force it on her. Likewise, Ethan just loves construction machinery, garbage trucks, cement trucks, buses, and trains. Nobody directed him to these things. Well, ok- he got some of the train enthusiasm from me. Maybe a lot, even. But he is such a boy. He has long hair and people sometimes think he's a girl... despite wearing camo's. people are so funny with assumptions. But, spend 15 minutes with him, and you discover that he is all boy. He runs into walls full speed, he's into everything, and if it's machinery, he loves it.

In the case of Isabel, we specifically wished to avoid all the princess stuff. It's so over-the-top, and we don't want our kids thinking of themselves as royalty. You can fight it as hard as you want. She saw it once, was totally fascinated, and gravitated to all things princess ever more. So, why should we withhold something she loves from her? It might not have been our preference, but it's pretty harmless stuff if it isn't indulgent.

We want a lot of things for our kids, and I think too many times parents want to sculpt their kids into idealized versions of themselves, at the expense of what the kids really have inside themselves. I think that's where this discussion ought to lead, if it's too be constructive. These parents seem to have a 'progressive' idealism worked out for their kid. What if what's really inside the child is nothing of the sort, and a strong identification with whichever gender role the child happens to be? Are they going to stifle it? Would that be 'progressive'?

Obama Action Figure

I caught a quick look at a news report online that mentioned an Obama action figure, and then a friend sent a link to another similar news article. Ok, it must be a phenomenon, so I checked it out. Oh my.

On the heels of the elimination of bin Laden, it's the Obama/Navy Seal doll. Obama is portrayed as muscular, with his winning smile, and automatic weapon.

For those less enamored of the President, there's the Obama/Joker doll.

I had to see what else they offered. Turns out there's a whole line of political figures, inlcuding:

1. Scott Brown, wearing only a fig leaf
2. Christine O'Donnell wearing a witch's outfit
3. Iran's Ahmadinejad wearing a "Let them eat yellow cake" t-shirt

and

a TALKING Jimmy "The Rent Is Too Damn High" McMillan doll!

The company is called Herobuilders. Doonesbury had some fun with them a few years back when they rolled out the Sarah Palin action figures, so they seem to be in it for the long haul. Probably won't give Mattel a run for their money, but they gave me a few chuckles tonight.

Atlas Shrugged, Part 1 Review

Being that I have seen the film treatment of The Fountainhead, which had major Hollywood stars like Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal in the leading roles, I had low expectations for Atlas Shrugged, Part 1. I am a fan of the novels, and while films always make sacrifices to boil a tome to the essentials for the screen, I never liked how wooden the characters were. Now, you might counter and say that Rand wrote them as wooden characters. Okay, but I never read them that way.

So, I was fairly delighted with Atlas. The parts of Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart were well cast, and well played. I was most concerned going in about the treatment of Dagny, fully expecting her to be played as a robotic, soulless creature. Alas! Taylor Schilling displayed a range of emotions in the way I would have expected Dagny Taggart to live them. Her excitement and satisfaction upon running the John Galt line's first train over the bridge made of Rearden metal was uplifting stuff.

But the cast wasn't perfect. The figure of Francisco d'Anconia, the industrial heir-turned-playboy was way off. For years, the rumor was that Antonio Banderas might play this role, and he would have been absolutely perfect. This d'Anconia, played by Jsu Garcia, lacked any flair or even the kind of trim physical build that the novel called for. And James Taggart, played by Matthew Marsden, also failed to match the novel, but in this case, because Marsden looks too sharp. He has a smart-ass smirk which is perfect, but is never shrill enough, never slouched in his chair enough, to match the whiny character created by Rand.

Other details got under my skin. Mainly, this is a film about a woman who runs a railroad- Taggart Transcontinental. So, if you're going to show dozens of shots of trains, why not do something to make someone believe that the trains are of the Taggart Transcontinental?

The worst offender was the showing several times of Metra passenger trains. The Metra is a light rail service operating in the Chicagoland area. So, if you're going to show a scene with the caption, 'PHILADELPHIA' emblazoned across the screen, please, please do not show us a Metra train.

When freight trains are shown, do not let it be so obvious that Union Pacific is pulling the train, or Norfolk Southern. Millions of dollars are spent on the production, and the trains should have proper logos to fit the film. Logos were made for the office building of the Taggart line, so the stinking trains ought to have them too.

These objections are not so great that I wouldn't recommend seeing the film, or wouldn't look forward to seeing Part 2. I do look forward to it. The story, while distilled, was true to the original. Viewing was a visual feast for the eyes, with many sweeping views over a variety of classic American rail landscapes. The main characters were excellent. So, in 5-20 years, I imagine we will at last be treated to Atlas Shrugged, Part 2!

Silver Goes Crazy

Back in 1994, I was publishing a zine called Asylum For Shut-Ins. (Yes, the name was a blatant rip-off of the TV show of the same name. I was trying to find the creators of it!) Anyhow, I offered a deal to subscribers, as an experiment: Take 90% off the subscription rate of $10/year by sending $1 in face value pre-1965 silver US coins.

I actually had several takers. In those days, silver traded at less than $5/oz, so my $1 in pre-1965 quarters, which are 90% silver, was worth close to $4. It was a good deal for subscribers.

That less-than-$5/oz price held for some ten years before edging upwards to $15/oz in 2006, then $20/oz in 2008. It dipped down hard to $10/oz in 2009. Since then, it's off to the races. Yesterday, it closed at $46.06! Link to silver price history.

So, that $1 in coins I got for a subscription, which I still have, is worth $41.54- until today's new high is set. That's a 1000% gain since acquiring 17 years ago. Yes, I would do this over and over, all day long.

Problem is, it only reflects a devaluing of our dollar. I'm not getting rich here. I'm preserving some value. I have crabbed and crabbed about inflation, especially at the stimulus when it happened about inevitable inflation. I don't know why that clarion cry, so widely issued by libertarians, was so widely dismissed. I dunno: $4 gas? Food prices going up?

I only wish I was in better position to heed my own advice. I did buy some silver when it was at $20 last year. Bought some this year at $30. I'm very glad that I hung on to every coin I got from the Asylum experiment! I imagine very few people hold metals. I'd be interested to know the percentage of Americans that have physical possession of gold or silver.

Even More Watt

I caught up with Mike Watt's tour diary and found that he had more to say about his stay at the Kole house:

pop at eight bells after a yet another halfass konk - this was like rolling around and squirming for seven fucking hours. fuck. don't what it is that's making this happen, just don't know. I gotta get a handle on it though. don't have to hose off cuz did that last night so I get into the day outfit: the coat ronnie gave me, chonies and levis. I do the morning catch up of what I can do via internet.

mike is very kind to cook us up sausage pucks, bacon, toast, raisin toast, cubes of fried potatoes, fruit bowl to spoon grapes and melon pieces out of, muffins and blueberry crisp. I didn't list eggs cuz there was none. he makes sure we have butter and not margarine cuz of last night's spiel but of course he couldn't of known of the richard meltzer connection. bob-san chows butter on his sausage pucks - goes for last one but when called on it, splits it w/me after buttering it up. I never use either butter or margarine at home but do here for our host w/the most post, mike. he is very cool people. he tells us of his people's people: from east europe. he tells me of the spiels he done w/me in the past: three. or is it four? baka watt. I know he wants to do one this time but I am worn and so promise him after when back in my pedro town that we can do a skype one. promise.

I'm so bummed that he slept so poorly! That was probably my top concern- that everybody sleep well. I know it isn't easy doing the kind of tour he does, and upon finding that he was fighting off a bug, I really tried to set him up for as good a night's rest as possible.

Ronnie coat. I think I got it now! 'Coat that Ronnie gave me' has to refer to the late Ron Ashton of the Stooges. It has UAW and Ford logos on it. Watt's doing a show with the Stooges tomorrow night in Ann Arbor MI to honor Ron.

Sausage pucks! That's funny stuff! It was just the thick variety of sausage patties. Being a hockey fan, that's going to stick.

Butter & margarine. At the end of the show, Watt grabbed the mic and admonished the crowd, "Start your own band! Write your own music and songs! Write your own poetry!" Then he went into this stream of consciousness about margarine. I felt like I got it- about what's real and all. He's right that I didn't get the Meltzer connection. Anyhow, we never have margarine in the house, but I would have felt like an idiot serving it if we did. So, I couldn't resist making a point of showing him that we had organic butter in the house. Then it turns out that he never eats the stuff, and does eat it, because I made my point about his spiel.

My people. I was talking about some ancestry stuff in response to discussion about the 150th anniversary of the beginning of the Civil War. Mainly, I feel no real connection to it. I have quarters of nationalities in me: Slovenian, Polish, Irish, and Hungarian, and I know that my forebears all came to the USA well after the Civil War and before WW2. The one lineage I know best is on my Dad's side, the Slovenian. His grandfather apparently was recruited to come to Cleveland to work in the New York Central locomotive shops at the Collinwood Yards. This also apparently because a foreman was a Slovene, and he used the Old Country as his employment pool. Watt went into his lineage, with some being in the USA prior to the Civil War, and the Italian side... I'm not sure.

Spiels. I interviewed Mike Watt 3 times between 1988 and 1995. I also traveled to see him play Columbus when he wasn't passing through Cleveland. The 1995 interview was especially intense, and I actually want to see if he remembers it. The story is so good that I want to keep it under wraps until we can do the interview, post-tour. His entry reads like maybe he was feeling guilty about not being able to do it when he was here. Of course I really wanted to, and sure I felt some disappointment, but I'm very realistic about the nature of his tour. There are a million details that he has to manage, and it the motivation is fairly selfish of me, frankly.

How can I complain? Mike Watt is one of my heroes. How many people get to host their artistic heroes, or have three personal interview conversations with them in their lifetimes? He's so accessible. It's one of the things I really admire about him, that he has remained accessible long after people started using words like 'legend' to describe him. He's true to the spirit that led him to reject the distance of arena rock between performer and concert-goer. His staying with me is the proof. I mean, try to have Mick Jagger or Justin Bieber crash at your place.

More Watt

What I didn't say in my 4-13-2011 post was that I had invited Mike Watt & The Missingmen and crew to stay at my home after the show, and they had accepted. I've learned not to get all excited about things that can change in a heartbeat, lest I suffer a big letdown, and have it out there for the world to see besides, allowing me to look like a braggart who can't produce the goods. Or some such.

In any case, Watt & Co. were very happy to have a place to stay. It all fits in with Watt's "We Jam Econo" ethic, and beats the sterility and monotony of motels. Here's what he had to say about the stay in his online tour diary for 4-13-2011:

good man mike kole has invited us to his pad in fishers, we passed it coming earlier in the day. he's got two beautiful dogs, just beautiful - so much righteous fur, like husky/saint bernard style, righteous for hugging. he's got a washer to so levis, chonies, gig shirt and socks joins other missingmen stuff - so kind is mike. I hose off and then get into nightwear, the best ever sitch, best ever! he's got a trippy four corner-style couch (four pieces), I put myself in and finding my konk mask (it was in blue ronnie jacket inside pocket), I don and konk just after one - again, repeating last night w/no drinking. a weak watt has to fight a good defense. we're coming into the endgame of this tour now my health is most critical.

I did not get a chance to interview him for my podcast. He was just too busy with tour logistics, and wasn't feeling too healthy besides. He's been fighting off a bug and has a knee injury to boot. Touring the way he does (51 gigs in 52 days) isn't for the faint of heart. Anyhow, I'd love to discuss his vocabulary. I can translate some of the above.

konk: to sleep
pad: home
chonies: underwear
hose off: to shower
gig shirt: flannel button-down shirt

Bits I can't precisely translate: "sitch" & "ronnie jacket"

The band were very businesslike. They got in, chose beds/couches/air mattresses, gave me laundry to do, and all got their laptops and were online. The best I could do for them in terms of post-gig hospitality was to get Watt some Throat-Coat herbal tea. Nobody wanted a drop to drink. Very friendly, but very much locked in.

In the morning, Watt was up first and was immediately online. He writes his tour diary entries daily in the morning, does email interviews with journalists, lines up the next crash pads, confirms phone interviews he'll do from the van, etc. Before long it's time to go. Watt calls, "Pull anchor!" and everybody snaps to- grabs their stuff and heads to the van.

Watt dealing with the online world and tour logistics

Photographer Peak was the other early riser, here chatting before everyone came around for breakfast.

Guitarist Tom Watson and drummer Raul Morales with happy cups of 'coff'.

Pull anchor! Everyone's in the van, and beginning the roll to St. Louis, morning sun playing havoc on my snapshot.

It can be a letdown if expectations are too high. This is a working band. Ame asked if they had groupies. Shit- they don't have time for that. It was a 4-hour drive from Fishers to St. Louis, and they gained an hour crossing from Eastern to Central Time Zone, but they have an afternoon in-store appearance at a record store there, so they're in the van (Watt calls it 'The Boat') before 11am.

I wish them good fortunes and safe travels, and they're gone. Someone in St. Louis will share the same experience, and so on as they head back West.

Crazy Good Day

This is always one of my top sports watching days of the year- the day the NHL playoffs begin.

There's a topper, though. Mike Watt is playing Indy today with one of his many bands, the Missingmen, at Radio Radio. The topper is so good that I'm going to skip out on playing hockey, and going to the sports bar with the guys to watch all the games at once.

I love watching Watt work his bass. He makes crazy faces while playing fantastic, intense music. Here's a clip from a show he did at the Grog Shop in Cleveland Hts OH last year:

When Your Candidate Fails To Deliver

I’m a partisan Libertarian, as you know. Although I frequently state my ‘glass half empty’ case, fact is, whenever a major change takes place affecting an executive or legislative branches of government, there are things I can be hopeful of, depending on the offices affected, and the party of those taking power.

When Obama was sworn in, there were many things I was hopeful for, especially because he was campaigning about them. These included:

• Withdrawl from Iraq
• End to borrow-and-spend
• Closing of Gitmo
• End to policy of ‘indefinite detention’

There were others, but these were the big ones. On all counts, I have been disappointed with the President.

This has been the way of modern politics for me, regardless of the party in charge. There are things I can be hopeful for, especially in light of the rhetoric that got people elected, but promises aren’t kept, or impressions aren’t matched with actions.

Prior to the election of Obama, I spent several years blogging about the failure of the Republicans to deliver on the things I was hopeful for on the domestic front. Smaller government is the rhetoric of the Republican Party, but when Bush was President and his party controlled Congress, borrow-and-spend became a way of life. Bush didn’t veto a single bill coming from the Republican Congress. Departments were added, not cut.

So, what to do? Well, I am a partisan Libertarian. I’m not going to go voting for Republicans, hoping for smaller government. I have a recent track record that tells me I’m not going to get what I want. I’m not going to vote for Democrats, hoping for expanded civil liberties or an end to war. I have a recent track record there too that tells me I’m not going to get what I want. I’m going to vote Libertarian.

Sure, Libertarians haven’t been winning elections. So what? What kind of fool gives his vote to someone he can reliably determine won’t deliver? Not this one. Voting is about selecting candidates that best represent your views, not about picking winners. After all, winning is pretty hollow if you don't get the policy you wanted.

So, what about those who aren’t partisan Libertarians? What about those who are disaffected Democrats or Republicans- people who love their party, or hate the other party, and aren’t willing to go 3^rd party? I think the best thing they can do is make a statement at the Primary Elections. Vote for the candidate who best represents your views, regardless of their ‘electability’. If you continue to vote for a candidate that doesn’t deliver what you want, you have told them they never will have to. After all, they have what they want- your vote!

What if nobody challenges Obama in the Primary? Well, Democrats who want an end to wars and restoration of civil liberties are going to be out of luck, in the same way Republican fiscal conservatives were when nobody challenged Bush. They better start bending Dennis Kucinich’s ear now, and start funding him.

Failing that, vote for the Libertarian or Green Party candidate, or some other that represents your views. The only truly wasted vote is for the candidate who has given you good evidence that he won’t deliver what you want on the issues that matter most to you.

When Research Leads One Another Direction

It's kinda funny. With all the noise about The evil Koch Brothers and Koch Industries, the great puppet masters of our age, while large financial contributors to conservative and libertarian causes, are relative lightweights compared to the real heavy hitters. At least, that's how Open Secrets reports it:

Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2010

LEGEND: Republican Democrat On the fence
	= Between 40% and 59% to both parties = Leans Dem/Repub (60%-69%) = Strongly Dem/Repub (70%-89%) = Solidly Dem/Repub (over 90%)

Rank	Organization	Total '89-'10	Dem %	Repub %	Tilt
1	ActBlue	$51,124,846	99%	0%
2	AT&T Inc	$46,292,670	44%	55%
3	American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees	$43,477,361	98%	1%
4	National Assn of Realtors	$38,721,441	49%	50%
5	Goldman Sachs	$33,387,252	61%	37%
6	American Assn for Justice	$33,143,279	90%	8%
7	Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers	$33,056,216	97%	2%
8	National Education Assn	$32,024,610	93%	6%
9	Laborers Union	$30,292,050	92%	7%
10	Teamsters Union	$29,319,982	93%	6%
11	Carpenters & Joiners Union	$29,265,808	89%	10%
12	Service Employees International Union	$29,140,232	95%	3%
13	American Federation of Teachers	$28,733,991	98%	0%
14	Communications Workers of America	$28,376,306	98%	0%
15	Citigroup Inc	$28,065,874	50%	49%
16	American Medical Assn	$27,597,820	40%	59%
17	United Auto Workers	$27,134,252	98%	0%
18	National Auto Dealers Assn	$26,311,758	32%	67%
19	Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union	$26,229,477	98%	0%
20	United Parcel Service	$25,290,039	36%	62%

83

Koch Industries

$11,002,235

10%

89%

We do have a lot of misconceptions in this country.

I was busy trying to make a point elsewhere about how corporations tend to fund both Ds & Rs so that they can play the game of corporate largesse. That point seems to be supported by what I found on Open Secrets. But it just jumped out at me how much noise we hear about the Koch Brothers, so I looked for them. I looked right at the top. Then I scrolled down. And scrolled down, and down, and down. #83.

Look at the top 20. 11 unions represented. Look at who they support. Is it any wonder there is a political war going on, with unions at the center of it? It takes a willful ignorance to look at this and to feign surprise.