Remembering Atocha Train Station

It was only six weeks ago that Ame and I arrived at Puerto de la Atocha in Madrid, hopping off a high-speed AVE train from Sevilla, onto the platform that so many people now are seeing in the worst way on the news.

My memories of Atocha are pleasant ones. The platform was bustling, but very clean and open. The daytime feel of the platform was rerefreshing, with ample sunlight shining in brightly. The station's interior was lush with tall palm trees dominating the main floor. View my photos of Atocha Station, from January 22, 2004 and February 1.

When I first heard the news, my first concern was for my son Alex, who lives in Rota. Thankfully, Rota is several hundred miles from Madrid, and he is safe.

My second reaction was a strong sense of admiration for the Spanish people. Seeing them spontaneously flood the streets in solidarity against the terrorists and their cowardly acts was an excellent statement of defiance and strength- one I wish the American people had undertaken in response to the 2001 attacks against American landmarks. Good show, Spain!

The Guiding Light

Recently, a clown tried to create a little dissention within a Libertarian organization I am active in by linking one of my colleagues to one of his colleagues. Guilt by association is a common phrase, but unfortunately also commonly irrational. Only the actor of the wrongdoing is guilty of the wrongdoing. However, in the case of the colleague's colleague, no wrongdoing was committed, only a legal action that many libertarians find outside of their principles. If my colleague is a smoker, he is acting legally, but in my opinion, stupidly. Am I responsible for his smoking if I do not force him to quit? Am I contrary to my conscience if I continue to associate with him and he chooses to continue smoking?

I think not. However, the clown is a member of the purity police, hence, shrilly put off. Oh well, I say. I tried to explain that the 99% agreement on principles I may have with someone outweighs the 1% disagreement I have. No witch hunts. No self-righteousness. We can build one hell of a bridge on that 99%.

One MAJOR reason the LP is not more of a force is that so many libertarians are purity police. I have observed research that shows that about 14% of Americans identify with the prinicples that make one a libertarian, and yet, LP candidates routinely attract only 1-2% tops in elections. David Boaz made it plain, way back in 1981:

"So let me ask this: Which is the greater betrayal of the noble cause of freedom in our time-- to attempt to present a reasonable, radical, libertarian program that appeals to people and occasionally to err on the side of caution; or to self-righteously throw libertarian principles in people's faces, thus ensuring that we will remain pure and unfree?"

Another beacon cutting through so much fog is Morton Blackwell, founder of the Leadership Institute, who proclaims,

"You owe it to your philosophy to study how to win."

My own way of looking at it is this: If libertarianism is to be an all or nothing proposition, libertarians will get NOTHING.

Letters To The Editor, 3

The GOP has continued its stalling tactics in the Indiana legislature. I think this is a great thing, as I have stated before, not for their reasons, but for mine. No bills being passed = less intrusive government at all levels.

However, I know that the public does not think as I do. They think that if the legislators are paid to vote on measures, then they should show up and vote on measures.

Fair enough. I can adapt. After all, if Libertarians were there in the place of the Republicans, there would not be a boycott. There would be votes against larger, more intrusive government. My letter in today's Star:

Apparently, Republicans believe that gay marriage is the most important issue in the state of Indiana today, and that grinding the process to a halt is the most important strategy. Libertarians disagree completely.

If Libertarians were in the Statehouse, there would not be a boycott but rather votes in favor of smaller government and small business. The Libertarian Party never loses sight of the priorities of Hoosiers. There is a place for the debate over the role of the state in marriage, but it is secondary to strengthening the state's economy.

Michael R. Kole
Indianapolis

Note to self: Next time, remember to let the Star know that you are the Secretary of the LPIN.

The timing of my letter was perfect, as it sat next to another letter from a man angered with both Republicans and Democrats over this freeze:

The picture of the Indiana legislators laughing on the front page of the Feb. 26 Star makes my blood boil. These men appear to be having a great time playing politics, joking and putting on stunts to impress each other.

Meanwhile, the residents of our state are seeing no progress on critical issues. How about creating a climate that attracts and keeps businesses in our state? How about an updated tax system that properly funds our infrastructure and schools without bankrupting long-time homeowners? How about full-day kindergarten to give our kids a competitive education? How about a Bureau of Motor Vehicles that efficiently serves our citizens instead of appearing on "America's Most Wanted"? How about reducing the absurdly high number of bureaucrats so we can get our state budget on track?

It appears it's easier to grandstand on the gay marriage issue while everything else continues to deteriorate.

This fall, when it comes to the state elections, I'm not voting Republican. I'm not voting Democrat. I'm voting against the incumbents. They had their chance and they squandered it. Laugh at that!

Doug Knowles
Zionsville

I'll have to reach out to Mr. Knowles with a letter inviting him to join the LP!

What To Do With The GOP?

Indiana House Republicans have chosen a bit of grandstanding over the work of legislating. Should I be tearing them up or praising them? From the Indy Star:

"Wednesday was the long-announced deadline for House lawmakers to amend Senate bills, setting the stage for final negotiations next week between the two chambers.

Instead, 60 bills failed to advance because the stalemate denied Democrats, who control the flow of legislation, the 67-member quorum needed to do business for much of the day."

My first instinct is to praise the Republicans, as I have earlier. After all, I have strong doubts that any of the 60+ bills before the house are the kind that will bring about smaller government. I have strong suspicions that these bills will bring bigger government, more intrusive government, and more expensive government, so anything anyone can do to jam a 70-lb. monkey wrench into the gears is something of a hero to me.

However, the GOP boycott has now extended into a second day, making it for me a glorious 1.5 bill-free days. The public, however, is going to begin to see this as inactivity. The public wants to know that the legislature is 'getting things done', and is increasingly aware that nothing is getting done.

It's probably time for an info campaign to let people know that getting nothing done is a comparative good thing. Still, pretty soon, the GOP is going to start to look bad. Today is the deadline for getting these bills passed.

Democracy at Work

The issue of gay marriage reveals why democratic approaches to policy are so inferior to principled ones. In this case both the left and right can be left out.

I have explained previously how the churches, who should be in control of the institution, are left without the final say on the matter, to the dismay of the right. The state has ultimate control of who marries, or doesn't.

The left has the hardest time accepting the possibility that democracy can work against the cause of civil rights, but has the most stark examples of just that happening. Gay marriage is merely the latest. It is clear that if the issue were to be put to the vote, the American people would ban gay marriage, post haste. From Armstrong Williams:

"A recent Zogby poll indicated that 70 percent of Massachusetts's citizens do not favor the decision allowing homosexual couples to marry. And it's not just Massachusetts. Recent polls by "The New York Times" and CBS News and one by "USA Today" and CNN, all found that more than 60 percent of Americans oppose the legalization of homosexual unions."

and

"Just one thing - there is also a long tradition in this country of using moral codes to prohibit conduct deemed immoral by the majority of the citizens, as evidenced by restrictions against prostitution, bestiality, pedophilia, etc. As Justice Scalia tersely noted in his dissent, Texas's anti-sodomy laws is "well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new 'constitutional right' by a court that is impatient of democratic change." In other words, the matter of homosexual rights should not simply be dictated by the whims of appointed judges."

Nor, however, should the matter be dictated by the whim of mob rule, which is the straight-talk definition of 'rule by the majority'. It shouldn't even be dictated by the long tradition of excluding homosexuals.

I wonder, for instance, how Mr. Williams would feel if a referendum were on the ballot which excluded blacks from the right to marry whites. Williams, a black man, might be inclined to cry foul, citing the civil rights of blacks to choose their spouse. Alas, there had been a long tradition in this country of using moral codes to prohibit conduct deemed immoral by the majority of the citizens- in this case, miscegenation. There was a long tradition of Jim Crow. Was it the long tradition that justified it? Was it that the majority supported it?

No, the moral principle of equal treatment before the law is far more compelling than a long, and wrong, tradition. For libertarians, the saw goes, 'democracy is often little more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner'. Democracy should never be used as a tool of oppression, which is what it can easily become.

My Kind of Business!

There seems to be a lot of hand-wringing going on over the issue of gay marriage. I'm really enjoying the spectacle. Here, the people who really want to pry into other people's personal choices are putting themselves on parade. More importantly, the role of the state in marriage is being discussed, and I say it's high time.

When I married last June, Ame and I got to experience the distasteful process of filling out an application for permission from the state to wed. Permission! From the state! It's some kind of America we have today. We have to get permission to have a garage sale, permission to work on the roof over the house we own, permission to renovate the house we own, and permission to marry the love of our life. Curiously, nobody needs a permit to reproduce, a much more grave proposition. I think that's all in reverse, but I'll take my holdings where I can find them.

The state has no business being in the business of marriage. That's something that should have remained the domain of the churches. Making marriage a civil process is one self-inflicted wound my secular brethren have made, and the proof lies in the fact that many churches throughout the 50 states would be willing to marry any pair that presents itself, while only a few states will do so.

But the business of grandstanding in favor of socialized marriage hit a high point here in Indiana yesterday. Some legislators are so eager to affirm that marriage is the state's business, especially where homosexuals are concerned, that they did my bidding. GOP legislators boycotted proceedings in the statehouse yesterday afternoon! From the Indy Star:

Republican lawmakers pushing for debate on their proposal to ban gay marriage boycotted the Indiana House on Monday, bringing the legislature to a standstill as it entered a pivotal week in the 2004 session.

House Democrats refused to go along with Republicans' demands to vote on a "blast motion" to force debate of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. It's not clear how long the partisan stalemate will continue.

The House has today off and will try to conduct business again Wednesday if Republicans return to the chamber.

The national debate over gay marriage has entered the Indiana General Assembly during the final two weeks of the legislative session -- stalling action on at least 83 bills dealing with issues ranging from child welfare to indoor fireworks.

Brilliant! No laws were passed yesterday afternoon, which means, no new hidden taxes were decreed; no for-my-own-good laws were enacted; Peter was not robbed to pay Paul. It was the kind of day-and-a-half in the legislature that I might have planned, stalling 83 bills in one fell swoop. This is good government!

Nader Is In

A co-worker asked me if Ralph Nader's entry into the Presidential race was disappointing to me. I replied, "not as disappointing as it is to the Democrats". He laughed, but it was all true.

I really did hope that Nader would stay out of the running. My opinion of the the three main Libertarian hopefuls is that they are all mediocre at best, and potentially harmful at worst. I think that whichever one emerges will get the usual 1% now that Nader is in. That candidate might have gotten 2% nationwide without Nader, and upwards of 4-5% in a few states. Forget that now.

I have enjoyed the Democratic panic over Nader's entry. It is amusing while perplexing. After all, if Bush was selected and not elected, Nader didn't matter then, and he doesn't matter now. Can't have that both ways.

Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, who personally urged Nader not to run, called Nader's decision "unfortunate." From the USA Today story:

"You know, he's had a whole distinguished career, fighting for working families, and I would hate to see part of his legacy being that he got us eight years of George Bush," McAuliffe said Sunday on CBS' Face the Nation.

Crap, McAuliffe. Crap! I do accept one of Nader's justifications for running- he's the real socialist, and not willing to sugar-coat it:

"I'd go after Bush even more vigorously as we are in the next few months in ways that the Democrats can't possibly do because they're too cautious and too unimaginative".

Will v. McCain-Feingold, II

OK, this time George Will took on the badly misnamed 'campaign finance reform' law with intent. If only this sort of rhetoric was being issued prior to the President signing the legislation.

Supposedly, the principal purpose of McCain-Feingold was to ban large "soft money'' contributions to the parties, ostensibly for "party-building'' purposes. The delusional assumption of many McCain-Feingold enthusiasts was that when such contributions were banned, the people who had been eager to exert political influence by such contributions would say "Oh, well'' and spend their money instead on high-definition televisions. Or something.

Actually, McCain-Feingold was moral grandstanding by many liberals who had no intention of abiding by its spirit -- or its letter, for that matter -- any more than they had abided by already existing campaign finance law. To compensate for Republican advantages in raising strictly limited hard dollars, Democrats quickly formed a slew of committees technically disconnected from the party but allowed to receive unlimited soft dollars.

Of course, conservatives will have to do the same things... as will libertarians, socialists, or anybody else who wants to get a message out.

Will again failed to mention the biggest beneficiaries of McCain-Feingold: incumbents of any party. Sitting legislators are news by virtue of being legislators. Any time they want something for free that would cost anyone else a lot of money- publicity- they can generate it via a press conference.

Am I being paranoid to suggest that when the drooling saps who complain endlessly for a 'level playing field' catch on to this, that the likely casualty is press coverage of politicians? This is treacherous ground!

Just The Facts?

Could help but notice the contradictions between the headline and the facts in the Democratic primaries news.

Headline in today's Indy Star: Democratic Race Down to Kerry, Edwards

This Star headline led me to believe that Dean, Kucinich, and Rev. Sharpton all made concession speeches. The lede in the AP story reinforced the headline:

The Democratic presidential campaign is spreading out to 10 crucial "Super Tuesday" states, and it's down to a two-man race between front-runner John Kerry and a plucky challenger, John Edwards.

I thought it was ultimately a bit surprising. It wouldn't be surprising to me if Dean dropped out now. He's said that he's out and he's in until the end, so anything goes for him. But it surprised me that Kucinich would be dropping out. He's such an idealist that I can see him taking that 1% to the bitter end.

Turns out, I'm right. At least, I'm not wrong. Nobody dropped out of the race yesterday. The headline did not convey the news. It conveyed an analysis. The lede did the same thing. In news items, THE NEWS is supposed to be REPORTED. Instead, the Star and the AP opined. Reading to the bottom of the story, to paragraph 17, gives you the news:

The Democratic race once had 10 candidates, but the field is now down to five, including Dean, Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton, who haven't won a single contest.

Nice work, AP & Star. I'm sure the Dean, Kucinich, and Sharpton campaings will be thrilled with your "reporting" efforts.

No Child Left Un-Warehoused

Indiana's Governor Joe Kernan favors an all-day kindergarten, citing the need to begin the education of the state's children as early as possible.

This is an interesting take. It suggests that children are not educated anywhere but in a public school house. Tut tut, Mr. Kernan. I recall my own kindergarten experience, bored out of my tiny mind as the teacher taught kids the ABC's. I was bored because my parents had taught me to READ at age four. A half-day with the children of parents who share Kernan's take was torment a-plenty. A full day of it would have driven me to Bedlam.

Why this proposal? Is there a shortage of public education that has caused the poulace to rise up and call for this 'solution'? I have not heard such complaints from parents, and yet, a solution. Sheri Conover Sharlow's article is excellent in assailing this typical, expensive, one-size-fits-all approach to a problem that doesn't exist.

What I want for my son is recess, so he can run around and blow off some of that great store of energy he has, prior to returning to study. He's 12, though. What I want for the children I am going to have is actually no kindergarten at all. I want my child to have lots of time to daydream, to play, to stare at the sky in wonder. I will teach my child to read and write long before the formal classes will be scheduled, just like my parents did with me. I will see to it that the socialization occurs. All parents should do this, not the state. Why have children if you aren't cabable of handling these things on your own?

The Correct Way to Look at McCain-Feingold

Although he didn't mean to, George Will today showed us how to properly look at the results of McCain-Feingold. Will was intent on taking John Kerry to task on a number of Kerry's double standards, which he did, including the one on campaing money:

Praising McCain-Feingold restrictions on political contributions, you said: ``This bill reduces the power of the checkbook and I will therefore support it." In December you saved your sagging campaign by writing it a $6.4 million check. Why is your checkbook's unfettered freedom wholesome? You deny that restricting campaign contributions restricts speech. How much of the $6.4 million did you spend on speech -- broadcast messages?

It isn't more wholesome, and Kerry isn't the only one with enough money to self-fund, or spouse-fund, a campaign. It must be understood that the real plan behind McCain-Feingold was not to level the playing field, but to eliminate new voices from entering the stadium, and to keep the game in the hands it is currently in.

Running Notes

It has been rather an uphill battle to get back into the training for the 500 mini-marathon in Indy.

The trip to Spain was not so much a factor as the return and the weather here. Back in Spain, I was running every other day on the beaches of Rota, and walking a great deal in the towns. The jet lag and a 2 inch thick sheet of ice covering central Indiana left me with little opportunity to capitalize on my Spanish gains.

No matter. I ran the 5k training run last Saturday, despite an eight day run-free period. I learned a lot from the experience.

This was the first 'race' I had ever run in. I allowed myself to be caught up in the excitement of that, and kept a pretty swift pace for the first half mile. At that point, I recognized what I was doing, and backed off considerably. I finished the first mile in 8:25, with my legs becoming very tight already. The second mile was a grind against the increasing tightness, and I reached the two-mile mark at 18:35. The tightness began giving way to cramps in the shins of both legs and the right calf, so at about the 2.25 mile mark I brought it down to a brisk walk. I realized that in the winding down of my run, I was not extending in my stride, and walking felt very different than my overexerted job. I walked to about the 2.75 mile mark, and with the finish line in sight, I resumed the run. My finish time was 32:23, which was a pace of 10:27. Results.

I think that if I really had kept a pace of 10:27, I would not have experienced the cramping and tightening that I had. At the finish, my lungs felt really great, which was a pleasant surprise. This was easily the longest run I have achieved in about 20 years, so there is some satisfaction there.

Finally, the ice has largely melted from the streets, so I can run more regularly. One run per week is not going to cut it. There are only 82 days until the mini, and the next training run- a 10k- is just 20 days away!

Shame on NASCAR?

The articles on NASCAR's predominantly white performers and fans has given rise to questions about the sport's commitment to diversity. ESPN's is only the latest.

Here comes the reality check: there isn't a sport I can think of that isn't dominated by one group or another. Does hockey have a diversity problem? Sure- dominated by whites. Golf is also dominated by whites, even if the most dominating golfer is not white. Basketball also has a diversity problem, if you are honest enough to state the obvious- it is dominated by blacks. Ditto football. Major League Baseball may be the most diverse pro league I can think of, and yet, it does not reflect the population in the country in which the games are played.

Know what? I couldn't care less. I am a fan of pro sports because I enjoy watching the world's best athletes compete, and it doesn't reduce the fun for me if there isn't a white guy on the basketball court, or there isn't a black guy on the ice. I am tired of the social engineering, whether from the Rainbow Coalition or from Rush Limbaugh. Play the games, and enjoy the games- as played by humans.

Guess Who?

Read the following rhetoric, and see if you can place the source without cheating:

"A lot of people think that just because the U.S. Congress passed it...and the President signed it...and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld it...that means they can freeze you out...sever your tongue...and choke your voice to silence.

And you?ll just have to get used to it.

If they can steal that much freedom today, think what they?ll embezzle from your children and grandchildren...who will never get it back.

No, we will not be silenced.

We?re going to use every means to restore the 1st Amendment."

You're guessing moveon.org, perhaps? Nope. The ACLU? No. John Kerry? Howard Dean? Dennis Kucinich? This will knock your socks off:

The National Rifle Association!

The NRA has generally been on my shite list for failing to support LP candidates. They endorse and support Republicans who tend not to be consistent friends of the Second Amendment, let alone the rest of the Bill of Rights, whereas Libertarians would be. I'll put this gripe aside for the time being, for here is Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the NRA, preparing battle plans in defense of the First Amendment. The article.

More from LaPierre:

"Thanks to a hand-wringing band of whiny politicians who?ve entered into a smelly insider deal called the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. I call it an incumbent protection scheme.

You know it as McCain-Feingold, a bald-faced insult to the constitutional freedoms of common Americans."

The NRA is now expanding the number of Bill of Rights Amendments it defends. Where has the ACLU been on this huge assault on the First Amendment? Beats Me. Their most relevant article is dated 2001. For years it has disappointed me how the ACLU selectively defends Amendments, generally ignoring the Second, passing others by here and there as suits the left-leaning politics of its leadership. When the ACLU soft-pedals the fight for the First Amendment, abandon ye all hope in that organization.

The top five "Hot Topics" on the ACLU main page today? 1. USA PATRIOT Act; 2. Defending Abortion; 3. Airport Spying; 4. Gay Equality; 5. March for Women's Lives.

Sorry- I have free speech for all way ahead of these five.

Gibraltar

If ever in southern Spain, northern Morocco, or sailing the Mediterranean, I highly recommend a trip to Gibraltar.

It was rather bewildering to find this very British outpost after having been emersed in Spanish culture for over a week, but in a delightful way. After all, I did have a 12-year-old with me, and he finds it easier to explore another new culture when the primary language is English. The Royal Post, a pint of Bass, and fish and chips joints are easy to find.

The military history is everywhere, from the 10-pound notes with images of cannons pointing downwards, to a hike up the Rock itself, where remnants and ruins from various sieges can be found. The area is sufficiently small that you can tour the place in one or two days and come away with an excellent sense of the place.

I found an instant affinity for the Gibraltarians, thanks to a few hours spent with a cabbie who took us up the Rock and to the Barbary Apes. He couldn't contain his passionate devotion to the Crown and his distaste for the Spanish Government, who, in his estimation, was trying to slowly starve the 30,000 or so inhabitants of the peninsula away from England, to be assimilated into Spain.

The guidebooks told us that the dictator Franco sealed the border in 1968, leaving Gibraltarians unable to leave by car until 1984, when the border was re-opened. The cabbie told us plenty more, but Ame and I found our own example of Spain's passive-aggressive behavior: try to find Gibraltar by relying on the road signs, and you never will. There is not a single sign pointing the way to Gibraltar from any main roadway. If you do not know the names of the nearby towns and have the certainty of mind that you should turn towards them, you simply won't find Gibraltar. We passed the story on to the cabbie, and he gave us the smile-and-shrug that says, "see what I mean"? Item of interest.

It takes two minutes to be waved into Gibraltar. It takes 15 minutes to get back into Spain. American passport holders seem to get waived through quickly enough, but everybody else gets 100 questions. There were signs at the exit lines declaring this discrepancy in times in and out to be just another example of Spain's un-neighborly behavior. I couldn't agree more. Ame and I both wished, as we sat in the car, that we had purchased one of those Keep Gibraltar British t-shirts.

It is Gibraltar's tricentennial this year. Queen Elizabeth II was apparently invited to the celebrations but she declined, not wishing to insult the Spanish... at the cost of insulting her subjects! Knowing this, I guess I would rather have a Self-Determination for Gibraltar t-shirt.

Quick Observations of Spain

If you have your eyes gleefully open for the things that make another part of the world different than your own, you can't help but find a few glaring ones. I found such in Spain, and like to generalize them thusly:

1. Land density in Spain is an all or nothing proposition. Towns are so densely built that I like to refer to any Spanish town as The Land of 98% Impervious Surfaces. There is virtually NO green space in any Spanish town. If a tree is to be planted, an 8" diameter cut is made in the pavement. If it isn't a town, the area is rural and agricultural. Despite the enormously available space, the dwelling will rarely give the occupants more than 1,000 square feet.
2. Every Spaniard over the age of 12 has ready access to tobacco and is not discouraged from using it in public.
3. Every Spaniard over the age of 14 has ready access to spray paint and is not discouraged from using it to spout anarchist slogans in public places- even those that are beautiful and ancient.
4. Every Spaniard over the age of 16 has ready access to alcohol and is not discouraged from using it in public very late at night.
5. Every Spanish household has a washing maching. However, no Spanish household has a clothes dryer. Every Spanish household hangs its laundry outside. The combination of prolific strings of underwear and shirts along with the effusive distribution of spray paint creates an unfortunately dismal visage that conjures Bowery tenements circa 1890.

Andalucia is a beautiful region in Spain, with wondrous rolling hills topped with orange and olive trees, spectaular mountains, and soothing ocean views. The towns of Andalucia have some beautiful architecture, including ancient castles and even the amazing, breathtaking Alhambra. It would be more beautiful if their people treated the place with more respect. How sad that today's Spanish people have such little regard for this beauty and mar it with so much unnecesary ugliness. If you think that Americans can learn a thing or two from Europeans in terms of land use or the respect we give to our public places, you've obviously never been to Spain.

Back!

The trip to Spain and Gibraltar was excellent, as we spent a great deal of time with Alex!

I made several observations throughout the trip, which I will share in the near future.

Off To See Alex!

No blog activity until February, as Ame and I are off to Spain to visit Alex. We have no real itinerary besides the actual travel and celebrating his 12th birthday.

Go Colts!

I'm really looking forward to this afternoon's big game- Colts @ New England Patriots; winner goes to the Super Bowl. I have had a couple of experiences in my life where my hometown team had the chance to represent the AFC in the Super Bowl, but the Browns helped send John Elway there every time, and to the Hall of Fame, as he built his mystique around The Drive back in the '86 season. Denver beat the Browns again in the championship game after the '87 season, and again in '89. I've had this experience three times in my life, so I'm hoping that the change of scenery, and a remarkably potent offense, will bring the thrill of victory to my hometown.

I have reservations for the aftermath, though. No, I am not expecting that if the Colts win the good people of Indianapolis will celebrate by overturning parked cars, setting fires, and looting stores. I am concerned that they will celebrate by building the team a new dome. There are about 1000 good reasons not to build a stadium on the backs of the citizens. The Cato Institute's comprehensive studies are a must-read for Mayors, City-County Council reps, and news media alike. Cato Item #1, with streaming video. Cato Policy Analysis #339. Cato short article. Cato short article. Cato scholarly article.

I cannot stand socialized football. It pains me enough that there is redistribution of wealth in so many other areas of society. But football?

Cities do not belong in the business of being the landlord. They have enough to do addressing public safety and vital infrastructure. These should be priorities, but aren't. The police do a job I wouldn't do, and yet they have been working without a contract for over a year. The sewers gush raw filth into the ironically named White River every time a quarter-inch of rain falls because the system cannot handle the capacity. THESE THINGS ARE PRIORITIES! Mayor Peterson, however, has not addressed these things, and continues to hint that the Colts are still high on his priority list.

But, in the afterglow of a victory that helps assure us that we are big league, the people may be led by the Mayor to a big taxpayer dollar giveaway.

I am hoping that Mr. Irsay, the owner of the Colts, throws down the gauntlet and says, 'gimme gimme gimme or I go!'

Either way, I say, "Go Colts!"

Hamilton County Sign Issues II

Ham Co is said to be the most Republican county in Indiana. If you were to assume that would mean "business friendly" or "pro-property rights" you would have assumed incorrectly. The Hamilton COunty Sign Police are making their presense felt with local small business owners with resulting bewilderment and anger, mainly because these good people had made the same assumptions.

Alas. Read a few lines of reporter Michelle Evans' account of the People v. the Cicero Sign Police. (I'd give you a link, but the Noblesville Daily Times makes you subscribe even to view their stories online.)

When Cicero resident Michelle Wiatt made the plunge to start her own travel agency this past November, she didn't know she would need a lawyer to decipher the community's 30-page sign ordinance.

"I just think that the rules are too strict and too hard to understand; I think they need to be updated," she said. "We're just trying to stay in business and support the community and we have to worry about whether our sign is two inches too big."

She's not alone. More than 50 business owners and a hanful of residents attended a Cicero Town Council special meeting Tuesday night to voice concerns about the ordinance.

In sleepy Cicero, that's almost like a Boston Tea Party. The important things to remember are:

1. The ordinance was drafted by Republicans.
2. The ordinance is enforced by Republicans.
3. The Libertarian Party is defending property rights and is the advocate for small business owners.
4. Democrats would make it worse.

Wide World of Sports III

The cries of "censorship!" will shortly be raised. What in the wide world of sports?

Two ads that were intended to be placed on the Super Bowl broadcast have been rejected by CBS. One is PETA's. The other is moveon.org's. Article.

CBS explained thusly,

"We do not accept advertising on one side or the other of controversial public issues, partly because we don't think the debate ought to be controlled by people with deep pockets," said Martin Franks, CBS executive vice president.

CBS also covers these issues in a balanced way with its news department, Franks said.

Although it is amusing to make it a money issue, which is what the left likes to make matters of political speech, if I were Mr. Franks, I would have explained it in a different way. I would have reminded these would-be advertisers that they are asking to use a resource that they do not own. CBS owns the resource that is their signal, therefore, they decide what goes across it. This assertion of property rights needs no further explanation.

But the jilted advertizers do whine.

Although MoveOn.org founder Wes Boyd said he had no evidence the ad was rejected because it was anti-Bush, "I worry that it's about ideology," he said.

Worry not. America is a free country when its citizens and institutions can refuse to do something they do not want to do, which means, the ad should be rejected if CBS does not like the ideology.

But MoveOn blathers onward,

"It seems to be there's a capricious approach as to what ads are taken and which are not," Boyd said.

That's because it should be capricious. CBS owns the signal. They should be free to pick and choose as suits them.

Here's a way that perhaps Mr. Boyd could begin to understand. Let's all go to his house (assuming he owns it). Let's each hold a picket sign. One will be pro-Bush. One will be anti-Howard Dean. One will be anti-Bush. One will be pro-MoveOn. Who do you think will be asked to get the hell off his lawn, and which will be invited in for a cup of fair trade coffee?

Your guess will be correct, in every way. Or, perhaps we can approach Mr. Boyd with anti-MoveOn.org pop-up ads to be placed on MoveOn.org. Will he "deny us our right to free speech"? Will he take a capricious approach as to what ads are taken and which are not? Will it be based on ideology?

But, of course.

A Brief Political Reflection

I once was a leftist. Long before I was born, Churchill addressed why with an excellent quote:

"To be young and not liberal is to not have a heart. To be older and not conservative is to not have a brain."

Now, most Republicans fail to see me as a conservative, unless we are talking about economics, in which case I make the average Republican seem downright socialist. But, when I was a young man, I was a leftist because I believed that the poor got a raw deal. I believed the left's old saws:

1. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
2. The poor stay poor because the system (the man, the GOP, etc.) keeps them poor.

I also believed this one, that is shared by some on the right, such as the Buchananites:

3. As manufacturing jobs are "shipped overseas", our standard of living is plummetting.

Walter Williams has summed up in one nice column what required of me about 15 months of independent observation and thinking:

1. The rich frequently lose ground, while the poor often gain it; sometimes it is easier for the poor to advance than it is for the rich to prevent dropping back.
2. The poor who stay poor do so because they haven't done what is necessary to get out of poverty. (Living in an impoverished neighborhood for five years proved this notion thoroughly.)
3. Manufacturing jobs are on the decline, but the standard of living is skyrocketing.

Quoth Williams:

According to the 1995 Annual Report of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, only 5 percent of those in the bottom 20 percent category of income earners in 1975 were still there in 1991. What happened to them? A majority made it to the top 60 percent of the income distribution -- middle class or better -- over that 16-year span. Almost 29 percent of them rose to the top 20 percent.

So, if you are on the left, and these are the facts, what to do? This was my dilemma, after all, so many years ago. Do you ignore the facts and plow onward, hoping the emotion and the tone of the rhetoric will resonate with those who are currently poor? This is what the left seems eager to do. Being a fan of honest discourse, I turned from the left, and continue to find distaste in their approach.

I couldn't ignore the facts. Cognitive dissonance leaves me with sleepless nights. I will add my own conclusion, which Williams unfortunately did not draw: Although the standard of living did skyrocket, it still was relatively shackled by the levels of taxation all Americans, rich and poor alike, are burdened with.

I'd like to see a speculative column by Williams that would project the numbers if taxation and government spending were cut by just 5% over a five year period. That would be illuminating.

It would also be illuminating to see the left sport the courage and integrity necessary to declare that they are aware that the programs and spending they cherish have an enormous cost to our economy, but that they accept it and are willing to pay it. I certainly wouldn't vote in support of such schemes, but I would nod in approval of the honesty and suspect we could begin to look one another in the eye.

Curious Bedfellows

I love it when common expectations or conventional wisdom is thwarted by an unexpected pairing, especially when it occurs in the political arena, leaving both Left and Right scratching their heads.

The ACLU and Rush Limbaugh? How marvelous!

"For many people, it may seem odd that the ACLU has come to the defense of Rush Limbaugh," ACLU of Florida Executive Director Howard Simon said in a released statement.

"But we have always said that the ACLU's real client is the Bill of Rights, and we will continue to safeguard the values of equality, fairness and privacy for everyone, regardless of race, economic status or political point of view," Simon said.

If only that were entirely true and the ACLU backed all ten Amendments of the Bill of Rights. Still, this will confound some, and more importantly, delight me.

What's Your Rhetoric Worth?

Probably not much.

After work today, I stopped into a little shop in Westfield hoping to catch the owners present. I was in luck, so I introduced myself and asked if they wouldn't mind discussing their hassles with the town's planning commission regarding placing signs on their commercial property.

They definitely wanted to talk about this. It seems the planning commission has dictated what an acceptable sign is, and it wasn't the one they had near the street. Understand that the point of a sign is to catch the eye of the passerby in the hopes of luring would-be customers. This purpose is lost on the planning commission, who believes the purpose is to create objects that are nearly invisible, so as not to be 'clutter'. This is not a saftey issue, where, say, the sign blocked visibility on the roadway. This is an aesthetic issue.

I offered the services of the Libertarian Party. I was met with skepticism. The man expressed concerns over differences between his views and the party's. I explained that I expect that, just as there are Republicans who support abortion and Democrats who support war in Iraq. Then he expressed a bigger concern- that the LP might not be able to be effective for him.

This is the real deal issue. If the party cannot be effective, it doesn't matter how great the rhetoric is, nor how much agreement there is. At the end of the day, he agrees with our stand on property rights: that the property belongs to the owner, and should be used as the owner sees fit. And although nobody else- no Republican or Democrat- had come to offer their support, he was skeptical of a representative of the one party that offered support.

The task for the Libertarian Party in Hamilton County is to get the planning commissions to listen to property owners in Westfield (and Cicero), and to remember that the property owners own the land, and that the commissioners are public servants, working to serve the citizenry, not to forward their aesthetic agendas.

This issue interests me greatly, as (rhetoric, please!) planning commissions are beginning to run amok throughout Hamilton County, which is commonly known as the most Republican county in the state. Republicans are ostensibly pro-business, but you'd never know it to learn of the pronouncements of their planning commissions. I was told that the Italian restaurant near this business was told that the colors of their signs were not permissible. What colors were used? Red, white, and green- just like in virtually every Italian restaurant worldwide.

It is important to get the attention of planning commissions, since they aren't just focusing on signs. They zero in on any property usage, dictating by whim as suits their tastes. This means homeowners in addition to commercial entities. Every fence, deck, swimming pool, and shrub is being scrutinized. Fees are charged, and the citizens made to beg for permission to use their own land as they see fit. In America?

Well, that last bit is rhetoric. You probably agree with it. It means nothing if we can't move policy in our direction.

Wisconsin Libertarians

Should I make that singular instead of plural? When work training took me to Madison, I decided to phone ahead so that I could meet up with other state-level party officials for dinner and to swap info.

I met up with Rolf Lindgren, who just left his position as State Vice Chair so that he could more fully pursue being a pain in the governor's backside, with his recall effort.

I would never dream of doing such a thing, but Rolf says he's getting tons more media attention for his stunt than he might for a traditional campaign. Then again, Ed Thompson is getting huge milage out of his traditional campaign for governor, where he polled better than 10%. The day I arrived in Madison, the local paper, the Madison Capital Times, had an article on what Ed Thompson thinks about Russ Feingold. I'd really like to have the LPIN at the stage where entire articles are devoted to what one of our guys thinks about one of the other guys.

But, Wisconsin is a different state with different rules. For instance, Thompson was elected mayor in his home town, but did not run that race with the party label. It seems most races are non-partisan in Wisconsin, unlike Indiana. I imagine that makes it easier to run for local races, being free of the albatross that is the national party, but it can't help in building local party name support.

It was fun listening to Rolf give me a narrated tour of his political landscape. I strongly recommend that other libertarians similarly network when out on business trips.

Running Into Pain

Getting into running for the first time in 20 years, my biggest fear was for my knees. My biggest surprise was not experiencing any pain in the knees as I noticed quick improvement.

Then I went to Madison, WI. There, I reached the 1.5 mile mark, but did it on a treadmill. I had never run on a treadmill belfore, and somehow it didn't feel right, but I didn't think anything of it. Ever since, I feel pain in both knees with every step I take.

I thought that it might just be one of those adjustment things, that I should run through tht pain, so I have run twice more since. Pain's still there. I'm opting for rest temporarily, but I'm hoping that I am able to start again so that I can run with Alex in Spain about two weeks from now.

A Brief History of the Celebrity Trashing of Marriage

MSN featured a Top Ten list for shortest-lived celebrity marriage. Note that each of these involves straight people... with the possible exception of the Earnest Borgnine-Ethel Merman union. The very thought jars the mind more severly than even the Tanya Harding wedding night video did.

Miracle Mile

I achieved a mile today! I left the stop-watch behind for another day. I just wanted to accomplish this distance. This week will be about daily one-mile runs, so I'll trot out the watch on Friday.

The Threat to the Institution of Marriage

It's gay people, right? That's what I constantly hear, but what I hear is nonsense. The gay people I know are in committed relationships, some even married. None of the gay marriages I know have ended in divorce.

Celebrities are The Threat. Britney Spears personifies the cheapening of the sanctity of marriage with her ONE-DAY union. That's right, ONE DAY.

Show me even one gay couple that has done this, and I will begin to accept that they are a threat to institution. I'll bet dollars to your dimes that you can't find an example, and yet you barely need 10 seconds to name a celebrity that has been in a marriage (or three) that lasted less than a year.

Not a New Year's Resolution

For years (since 1984, in fact) I have avoided running due to concerns about my knees. I have had no trouble biking or even playing hockey as these activities create little in the way of stress on the knees.

But Ame loves to run and I wanted to add another thing that we could do together despite our incongruous schedules, so I decided I would run. She reserved our place in a half-marathon, so I was committed.

I tried running just once, about two years ago. I tagged along with Ame for a job with her in the park. I lasted about a quarter mile before my lungs were screaming and my legs tightening. I was also running in flip-flops- you know, for maximum comfort.

The training began this week, with a trip to the mall. I finally bought a pair of decent running shoes, Nike Shox, that have crazy exaggerated springs in the heels. They felt cushy and gave good support.

Run #1: I walked a half mile to Bishop Chatard High School, who has a dilapidated cinder track. No way am I running on paved surfaces. I walked a mile around the track for additional warm-up, and then I began my run. Ame timed my quarter mile, which was all I could do before my calves cramped up miserably. Ame commended me on my great time of 2:19. I was horrified! She tried to cheer me up by pointing out that I would get under a ten minute mile. Hell- I can walk a mile in less than fifteen! On the upside, my lungs were doing great, thanks to hockey.

Run #2: I managed a full half mile! Better than that, I timed my quarter at 1:50, and didn’t cramp up. I know that this doesn’t mean that I am now under eight minutes for the mile. After all, I still haven’t run a mile.

Run #3: I timed my half mile at 3:50. Again, it was all I ran, but I was very enthused for the time. I was expecting about 4:15. This is all good, but my next three runs will be about hitting the miracle mile, which I have not achieved since I was a sophomore in high school. Ame already can run 4 miles without a huge amount of effort, so I have a lot of catching up to do.

More Boortz, LP Convention

The January 2004 LP News hit my mailbox today, and from it sprung an insert touting the 2004 National Convention.

Anti-Boortz fanatics will be sad to note that he was touted on Page 3 with a photo and bio, but glad that he wasn't hailed above the fold on Page 1. That space of honor was reserved for that luminary and paragon of pro-liberty thinking, Jimmy Vaughn... the blues guitarist.

The anti-Boortz crowd should be plenty busy, though. The Convention will not only be hosting Neal, but two others equally objectionable to libertarian purists. Bootz is objectionable due to his pro-war position. The other two are Congressman Ron Paul- a REPUBLICAN from Texas, and pro-life at that; and Carl Milsted, Jr. PhD, also known as "The Incrementalist".

How infuriating is this! How DARE the LP host these heretical deviants?! Pro-war? Pro-life? These things are inherently at odds with (hum the Battle Hymn of the Republic) libertarian philosophy! An incrementalist? It's all or nothing, damn it! It's destination, not direction. If it need be nothing instead of all, then I'll take it and wrap myself in the comfort of my righteousness!!!

I am so looking forward to this Convention. I can't wait to shed the Losertarians who object to the inclusion of voices that flow from the same principles to conclusions that differ slightly from theirs.

The irony here is that the purists have been loudly anti-Boortz, but tend to hail Ron Paul as a returning hero every time he takes the floor. I admire Paul a great deal, as I do Boortz, but what I ask of the purists is that they be what they claim they are- consistent. If you're going to boot Boortz, then boot Paul, and Milsted too. Then rid your bookshelves of all Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand and a hundred others.

Help Not Wanted?

Here's intense hatred for you: Iran suffers a catastrophic earthquake with at least 20,000 dead. Israel offers help. Iran refuses! Per a spokesman for Iran's Interior Ministry,

"The Islamic Republic of Iran accepts all kinds of humanitarian aid from all countries and international organizations with the exception of the Zionist regime".

Incredible. 'We'd rather all sink into the earth than take your stinkin' help!'

I found this item on the Shark Blog, which I frequently read. Thanks to the Shark!

I found no mention of this offer-refusal in my local media, or in the national stuff I sometimes browse. The AP story in the Indy Star mentions the assistance provided by the US, names others, such as the Swiss, British, Russians, and naturally, the UN.

Of course, this is why I frequently scan blogs, and why I only sometimes browse the rest.

Iran's hatred for Israel is hard for me to comprehend. The US named Iran as part of the Axis of Evil, and yet, American aid is good enough to accept.

Checking the Stats

This blog offers me a number of tools to see what draws people to read it. Look for the little square at the left of the page, and you can see what I check on every so often.

I had a lot of fun observing certain entries around the elections in November. Dean Barkley's mayoral run in Carmel brought a lot of hits to the blog. I was amused to see a certain Indy Star reporter's name on the hit list. My guess was that he did a Google search on himself. I'm sure he was pleased with the results. Har.

One thing I noticed falls into the Possible Foregone Conclusion department. I had a very large number of hits after people did Google searches on "Ceaucescu Execution", and variations thereof, immediately after the capture of Saddam Hussein. Ironically, I had linked the release of Uday and Qusay Hussein's autopsy photos with the release of the video of the Ceaucescu executions with the explanation of proof, along with the treatment of Mussolini.

I have not really made an effort to promote the blog, so the hit numbers are still pretty low. That's okay. I'm enjoying watching people discover the blog for their own reasons. It is gratifying to see some of you come back for more. Thanks!

Not Booting Boortz

Neal Boortz has the largest audience of any radio talker who self-identifies as a libertarian. It's no contest, as his show is heard coast-to-coast. The nearest challenger I can think of is Larry Elder.

As the Libertarian Party is hosting its' national convention in Atlanta come May, and as Boortz hosts his program in Atlanta, it made perfect sense to convention organizers to schedule Neal to speak. What the heck, he was one of the featured speakers here in Indianapolis in 2002, addressing the 'gold ticket' conventioners at a fancy fund-raising dinner, and was well-received.

In fact, Boortz was welcomed with racous cheering. There was no apparent opposition, before, during, or after. Why would there be? He is easily the most prominent proponent of libertarianism in the media. Indeed, even Nadine Strassen of the ACLU was tolerated at previous conventions. And why not? Although we may not agree on everything, there is so much value in reaching out to those with differences: we can build bridges with what we agree on; we can learn what tactics work for them; we can show others that we aren't the crazy aunt that is best kept in the broom closet...

So, because it is so incongruous, it surprised me not a whit to receive an e-mail from a fellow LP of Indiana member, asking me to sign on to a petition seeking to boot Boortz from the convention line-up.

Feh? While it is to our credit that the LP is a party based on principle far beyond the GOP or Dems, it is to our detriment that many of our members have an ideological purity fanaticism that leads to these irrational witch hunts.

See, Boortz is guilty of thinking independently in his interpretation of the philosophy, and of the world. The purists hate realpolitik and pragmatism. They'll ditch reality in a heartbeat in order to get back to the orderly security of theory. Not Boortz. He has said repeatedly on his program that because of years of foreign policy mistakes, the United States is faced with a situation where we must initiate force against those who merely threaten us.

Like these petitioning detractors, I initially bristled against the idea. I have been committed to using force only to retaliate. However, today's situation is such that a terrorist with a nuclear, biological, or chemical device could wreak such havoc, death, and destruction that it would be irresponsible to wait for this threat, which so many deem inevitably coming to fruition. This is Boortz' reasoning, and I rather agree.

It would have been nice if, after World War 2, the United States resumed its relatively isolated position in the world, without troops stationed across the globe, not supporting both sides in China, etc., etc., etc. But we did, and with consequences. Should we ignore the consequences now that they are pressed up against our noses? At what cost?

The sort of libertarian that would sign onto the petition is the kind who would rather be ideologically correct at any cost rather than consider reality and put it to work. It reminds me of the Bolshevik who would happily cling to the dialectic while starving rather than engaging in a capitalist scheme to survive.

Instead of encouraging Boortz to go on stage so that they might be challenged by his thoughts, the petitioners would rather desperately act to keep him out, as though he were some sort of heretic who must be kept from the Santuary, lest he profane it with his mere footsteps.

I hope the LP sheds a whole lot of these types. It will be serious addition by subtraction.

I think it is revealing to see that of those 600 or so on-line signatures, only about two-thirds are legitimate. Many of the other third hilariously lampoon the whole proposition.

Better Response, But Not Perfect

Dean's response to the Hussein news was much wiser than Kerry's or Gephart's. Dean offered congratulations in his statement:

Dec. 14, 2004, WEST PALM BEACH-- Governor Dean issued the following statement this morning:

"This is a great day for the Iraqi people, the US, and the international community.

"Our troops are to be congratulated on carrying out this mission with the skill and dedication we have come to know of them."

Of course, he failed to congratulate the President. No surprise there. Then, I guess because none of the Dems can resist doing so, Dean went to a line that will not play- bring in the UN:

"This development provides an enormous opportunity to set a new course and take the American label off the war. We must do everything possible to bring the UN, NATO, and other members of the international community back into this effort."

The UN wasn't needed, as was shown by the capture. That is as plain as day.

Presidency Secured

I had previously figured that, with Bush's signing of the legislation authorizing the prescription drug giveaway to senior citizens, he had secured his re-election. Then, Howard Dean was annointed by Al Gore the Pious, which in my mind sealed the deal.

Now, Saddam Hussein has been captured. Can there be any doubt that Bush's approval ratings will soar?

It has been amusing to watch Democratic presidential hopefuls respond. John Kerry was quick to point out that Osama bin Laden is still out there. He's right, but that won't play. Dick Gephart was quick to point out that the US hasn't been including the rest of the world. It was just shown that the rest of the world wasn't needed, so that won't play, either.

It will be interesting to see who will be the first, if anyone does, to point to something that will play. Congratulating the president and the military might be wise.

Issue Number One

For most Americans, terrorism has been Job One, hence President Bush's relatively high approval ratings. Yes, I know, the ratings have been slipping, but they are going to go through the roof if the news of the capture of Saddam Hussein is true. Story.

I have held my nose on the war effort for some time. I thought it quite appropriate to go after Osama bin Laden after the attacks on September 11, but did believe it to be appropriate to go after Iraq. Was Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction? Undoubtedly, just as the Clinton Administration informed the nation. Has China? Did the USSR? Is there any doubt that those nations developed the weapons with us in mind? Should we have gone after them? Would I be here to write this if we had?

My greatest fear is that the US will perpetually be a nation at war. We can endlessly accuse nations of potentially having the United States as a target, and endlessly be issuing pre-emptive strikes. I don't trust governments that act pre-emptively based on what they think someone will do. One that does it abroad may just as easily do it at home.

Gun owners, I'm talking to you. If you have guns, you have the ability to kill. If you are a politically vocal gun owner, might a government official conclude that you are a threat, and should be locked up or taken out, just to be safe?

I know that the Hussein regime was as evil as they come, and I am glad for the Iraqi people that Hussein is out of power. I lament that we have not captured bin Laden, which IS Job Number One.

Question: Is it the job of the United States to overthrow evil empires? If so, who qualifies? The President has identified North Korea and the axis of evil. Iran is probably on the list. Where do we stop? China? Russia? Cuba? France? If this is our job, we're going to be busy for the rest of our lifetimes.

Now that Hussein is in our hands, let's end this thing. Turn the reins over the the Iraqi people and let their experiment in self-government begin.

The Wide World of Sports

Every person uses tools to perform the work they do. A plumber uses wrenches and sealants. A landscaper uses mowers and rakes. Doctors use instruments. All use their minds to some degree or other, or should.

Athletes have their bodies as their foremost tool. Some people argue that athletes don't use their minds very much. I tend to give most athletes more credit than that, but I will have to concede that there is a group that clearly does not use their minds. In fact, this group is destroying the tools in order to make a point.

What kind of worker destroys his tools in order to demonstrate how oppresed he is? A moron? I guess some union strikers in a wildcat frenzy will do that... but I repeat myself... besides, their intent is to damage the tools provided them by the employer.

Honduran soccer players are destroying the tools, on a hunger strike. Not that I support the employers failing to make good on their end of the deal- far from it. It's just that it's hard to tell who is now harming the worker at the moment. It will be easy to tell in about a month.

So It's Anathema? Big Deal

One of the biggest hurdles in taking the Libertarian Party from third party to major party status lies in the libertarians themselves. Stay with me on this.

Libertarians abhor government. They join a political party only with the greatest reluctance. Libertarians are living laissez faire, which means "leave us alone". So, it's anathema for libertarians to embrace the idea of becoming government officials.

Pity for us. You can't allow liberal Republicans and socialist Democrats to be the government officials and then also be surprised when they draft anti-liberty legislation or erect a labyrinth of red tape. In the language of my son Alex, "Duh".

In some parts of Indiana, there is actually an opportunity for LP members to be appointed to boards, such as zoning or planning, and some of our members are actually cringing at the thought. (Tell this to the LP of Ohio, where they just poured their souls into getting on the ballot. They have wet dreams about our opportunity.)

I understand the gut-reaction of the cringe. In a better world, government would be nice and small, and would leave us alone. Fact is, it isn't and it doesn't. So, who will it be? Us or them? Would you, as a libertarian, rather have a libertarian serving on a taxing body or a committed statist?".

I'll up the ante and point to what I do these days as an example of what being on the inside of the process can produce. I work for a County Surveyor's Office. Yes sir, I am inside the belly of the beast itself. I was hired by an elected official- a Republican- who has won re-election every time since 1977. I have found that he agrees with us on rather a lot. Not everything, of course, but he's a small government Republican. However, he has even asked me what it would take for us to replace the Democrats on the boards in the county!

Think about that possibility in terms of fiscal issues. If Democrats are on the left, and Republicans right of them, they meet in the middle, more or less. Consider what it would be like in some counties if taxing bodies were comprised of Republicans on the left and Libertarians on the right, meeting in the middle, more or less. Would that be of value to you?

Being alongside elected officials in the day-to-day work setting helps break down the barrier of common thought that goes, "if a Libertarian is elected, the city will be in flames within a week". I do my job very well. They see me do my job very well. They decide, "he's ok". They'll vote for me when I run for office. Moreover, being in government gives you the platform to talk about government in a real, germaine way... unlike Thanksgiving dinner.

I know that most libertarians are so because government is anathema to who they are. However, if we really want to change things, we'll have to get our hands dirty and do some things that may on first blush cause us to hold our noses. Who knows, though? You might even have some fun along the way. (For instance, I'm in Hamilton County, which is one of the most Republican counties in Indiana. I love telling Republicans that I could be one of them if they weren't such fiscal liberals! I love watching them cringe to that music.)

Look, the Declaration of Independence wasn't drafted by a bunch of people who sat around and theorized correctly about Adam Smith in cozy saftey. No, they did something they would rather have not done. They gave up their cozy safety and put their lives on the line.

I'm asking for much less when I ask libertarians to get off their debate society duffs, to put their money where their theory-gushing mouths are, and to get involved in government to affect change towards freedom. If you aren't willing to hold your nose and sit on a zoning board, YOU AREN'T WORTHY OF FREEDOM ANYHOW.

I Do Not Miss Cleveland

When I left Cleveland, I left a numbing mindset of clutching ever backward towards the past. I admit that one of the things I loved about Cleveland was the presence of big industry- steel, railroads, foundries, auto plants, and more. But, I love these things as functional giants, not the rotting hulks in closed-up mills and yards, and the ornamentation they have become in the entertainment district known as the Flats. These things made Cleveland a first-class city in around 1890. No more.

I left the punishing greed of the Democratic Party that rules northeast Ohio to the point that statewide, Ohio's Republicans are left of Indiana's Democrats. I gave myself a full 9.5% raise just by leaving Ohio, saving 4% in state income tax, 3.5% in municipal tax, and 2% in sales tax. The Democratic Party was innovative around 1900, with Mayor Tom. L. Johnson, the capital 'P' Progressive who made Cleveland the first city in the U.S. to own an electric utility. In better than 100 years, the Democrats have more or less owned the city, and look at the result. It was a first-class city that was loaded with towering industrialists such as John D. Rockefeller, and was an immigrant magnet around 1900. No more.

I Miss Cleveland

For the first time in my 15 or so months away from the ol' mistake on the Lake, I actually felt like I missed it once there. I was getting to where I was certain I would never feel such a thing, despite having spent most of my first 34 years there.

It wasn't the industrial landscape that I so love that moved me. I got to play an old game as I drove through the city, called, "I did a job here".

As a surveyor in the Cleveland area doing a lot of work for utility companies, I really blanketed the area. East Side, West Side, Downtown, outer suburbs- it doesn't matter. I can drive in any direction in the area for three minutes, and invariably I will be able to claim, "I did a job there". This is a game I used to annoy a co-worker as we drive across town.

It was a lot of fun to play. What I realized is that I had tangible evidence that I was contributing to my region. I could point to a telephone pole, a pedestal, a service cabinet, a vault, a manhole, and a hundred other structures and know that this was a result of my effort. I could see it every day.

I had no idea I could be so concrete! I know that I am having an impact in Indiana, both in the Surveyor's Office and in the Libertarian Party, but having it be evident almost everywhere was really gratifying.

Adios, Alex

It was so great to have Alex with me for four days over an extended Thanksgiving weekend. It was just like old times to be with him in Cleveland, and in our own little world. We went to Tower City in downtown Cleveland, went bowling, ate tons of food, visited with Grandma & Grandpa, played card games, wrestled, and generally had a blast.

It's tough saying goodbye to him- I hadn't seen him since getting married in June- but the upside is that Ame & I will be visiting him in January in Espana, and we get to look forward to that time when he will show us around his world, which is Rota and Andalucia. It will be a hoot!

I was chuckling as he squirmed through Grandma's, "look at how big you've gotten" -isms. I used to squirm to them, too. I spared him that corny spiel, but I did tell him many times that I think he's a great kid. It's no spiel. He really is a great kid.

Four days never passed so quickly.

A Republican Member of Congress Speaks

Ok, so this is cheating a bit in my quest to dispel the notion that I am a frothing lunatic due to my prediction that the GOP is running itself into a schism. Now Ron Paul (R-TX) has chimed in with his own 'hear ye, fiscal conservatives: abandon all hope in the GOP' message. It's cheating because Paul was the Libertarian candidate for President in a past life. Still, he's a Republican today- just like Andy Horning.

"The Medicare prescription drug bill passed by Congress last week may prove to be a watershed event for political conservatives in America. This latest expansion of the federal government, potentially the largest in our nation’s history, is firmly in keeping with the failed New Deal and Great Society programs of the utopian left. This leaves true conservatives, who believe strongly in limited government and identify with the Goldwater-era Republican party, wondering whether they still have a political home in the modern GOP. In the eyes of many conservatives, today’s GOP simply has abandoned its limited-government heritage to buy votes and gain political power in Washington."

Last week, Neal Boortz brought it home thusly, and I paraphrase, 'Today's Republicans are where Democrats were in 1963, and today's Democrats are where the socialists were in 1963'.

Yep. The statists are winning the war, but this schism will help the individualists clarify the objectives.

The Ink Keeps Spilling

There seems to be an endless supply of well-known or well-placed conservative writers willing to criticize the GOP for their free spending ways. It is pleasing to me that there are so many that do retain their integrity, and who do criticize when the GOP parts ways with principle. (On the left, there are some who will criticize the Democrats, but rarely the well-known, and less than that for the well-placed, and usually the pseudo-intellectual types such as Christopher Hitchens.)

Donald Devine, a Reagan administration official, joins the chorus over the $400 billion Medicare 'reform' / prescription drug transfer of wealth in his article entitled "What Should Reaganites Do?".

Why, join the Libertarian Party, of course, but he dare not say that. What he does say, and the numbers he uses again reinforce that I am not a frothing lunatic.

An ABC News poll recently found disapproval of Bush's job performance among self-described conservatives has increased from 14 to 23 percent. By contrast, Ronald Reagan wanted to cut the welfare state and was generally successful, being rewarded with committed conservative support in good times and bad. Conservatives may have no option in 2004 (other than staying home) but, if they want to recover the Reagan philosophy, they will get no assistance from anyone in party or government today, so they had better start devising a course of action by themselves.

Reaganites who care to be honest will have to begin to assert themselves forcefully while they still can wrest control of the GOP back to its' small government ways. Otherwise, the LP will be their only hope, like it or not.

Letters To The Editor, IV

What fun to be in Cleveland for an extended holiday weekend and to discover that the Indy Star has printed another one of my letters.

I am amazed that it ran as-is, since the thing essentially reads like ad copy. I am pleased and grateful. Is that redundant? I think so.

Couldn't Have Said It Better, II

I am becoming less and less a frothing lunatic as the chorus of committed conservatives and Republicans chimes in to criticize the $400 billion Medicare "reform" bill.

Cal Thomas' article is especially damning, chucking skewers at the GOP in general:

"Smaller government and less spending? That's a joke. Eleven years ago, Newt Gingrich, who would soon become Speaker of the House, blasted Democrats for seeing "no contradiction between adding a billion and a half dollars in pork-barrel (spending) for the politicians in their big-city machines and voting for a balanced budget amendment." Now that Republicans are doing precisely what Democrats did when they were in the majority, what shall we call these overspending Republicans? Hypocrites? Liars?"

Thomas asks, rhetorically, "Is it time for another revolution yet? Who's got the tea?"

I like the fissure that is emerging. Let's make it a chasm. We have the tea!

Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself

It must have been weird for fiscal conservatives to have to cheer Ted Kennedy and other liberal Democrats as they threatened fillibuster on the $400 billion entitlement program that just passed the Senate. Of course, they were in opposition because the deal wasn't destructive, er, large enough.

Reuben Navarrette's Friday column is excellent analysis. It's almost as though I wrote it on Tuesday. He gave AARP its' due, and even the Democrats the punch in the nose they deserve, but could have given the GOP a bit more of the what for. Still, good stuff!

The Meaning of Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving is one of the few holidays celebrated nationally that I enjoy taking part in. Honestly- and I know how curmudgeonly this sounds- I find most holidays negatively disruptive to my average day. I prefer my average day to the average holiday, mainly because I find my self-esteem in my daily work than in my ceasing my work and making merry about things that do not matter to me.

I especially like the Independence Day celebrations, for obvious political reasons. I am always moved on Memorial Day, for the price paid willingly (usually) by our military. I try to work on Labor Day when I can.

I am not a religious man, so I do not get religious value from Christmas, Easter, or Hannukah. But isn't Thanksgiving a day of offering gratitude to God? Not for me.

Thanksgiving is a day for me to be grateful, God or no god, for my life and for those things in my life that bring me joy. I do not need religion to be grateful for Ame and my love for her. I do not need religion to feel joy at holding my niece for the first time. I do not need a the guidance of man's interpretation of an alleged deity to appreciate the warmth of my extended family. I certainly am not thinking of anything but myself and my son as I wait in excited anticipation for seeing Alex for the first time since June.

Gratitude is a privileged sensation to possess. It is rather akin to satisfaction. I am grateful for the progress I have made in my life. This progress was achieved through my effort and my skill, and little else. After all, luck is little more than opportunity meeting preparation.

I find depressing the notion that all gifts come from God, and that man is hopeless and helpless without the blessings of God. That perspective is the notion of the successful having hit life's lottery. Does man not have free will? Does man not make choices, good and bad? Are we merely pawns on a supreme being's chessboard? If so, I should be grateful for that, and give thanks? No thanks. I'll do it my way.

Take whatever value you can from Thanksgiving, and every other day. I try to do the same with Christmas, substituting the reunion with family over the celebration of the birth of Jesus. On the whole, though, living the average day in the present, means a whole lot more to me than commemorating something from the past.

Next, the Feathers

I give thanks this week for so much, but I will begin with the small political stuff.

President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Frist, and the rest of the GOP tar-wearers have just committed treason against the supporters of their party who have clung to the misguided, seriously outdated belief that the GOP is the party of small government. They may be a party of smaller government than the Democrats, but the Dems are the party of government just smaller than socialism.

I give thanks not for the $400 Billion price tag to this prescription drug plan masquerading as a Medicare reform bill. I give thanks not because my generation and those younger than I will have to pull the weight of the Gimme Gimme generation. I give thanks not because the Democrats have not a prayer in November 2004 of reclaiming the White House.

I give thanks because Bush, Frist, et al have just delivered the fiscal conservatives with a small degree of integrity, spine, or naked self-interest to the Libertarian Party.

This shall mark the finest Pyrrhic victory ever seen in American politics. Bush has purchased the votes for 2004 at the cost of the long-term viability of the GOP. Roll in the feathers, boys!

I know, I know... this analysis makes me a frothing lunatic. That's fine. Galileo was a lunatic... until he was shown to be correct. In January, I thought that the GOP would disintegrate by 2020, sending most of its members to the Libertarians, and the rest to the Democrats, leaving again two major parties, each with a starkly contrasted view. The Dems would represent collectivism, and the LP would represent individualism. With the Senate's passage of this hideous crapola, I will revise my estimate and predict that this split and consolidation will be complete by 2012.

Look at the postings on the Wall Street Journal for immediate evidence. Yeah, my response is in there. Why not spray gasoline on the Burning Bush?

Plenty O' Tar

I have my brush ready and a tanker truck loaded with tar. Line up the Republicans, please.

This is what passes for leadership from the "MBA President" on the domestic front: a hideous, monstrous redistribution of wealth from the healthy and young to the less-than-healthy and the more-than-young.

Give Bush this- he's consistent. He violates everything he should have learned in an Econ 101 class, beginning early on with steel, then with farms, then lumber, and now with prescription drugs. Mainly, the redistribution of wealth is inefficient to the economy despite the unexcelled efficiency in securing votes. Since spending has not decreased under this Republican president, this Republican House, and this Republican Senate, the money must come to the Federal budget in one of two other ways: via taxes or deficit spending. Shall we pay now or pay later? If the AARP is granted the ability to have their cake and eat it too, we'll go the deficit spending route.

Kudos to MSNBC for correctly noting the ploy by Bush, Frist & Co. as a drive for securing votes.

A dripping goo-wad of tar for the Senate Majority Leader, and bucket of the crud over the head of the President.

Now, line up the Democrats.

Only in the fantasy world that is contained inside Ted Kennedy's alleged mind could phrases such as these emerge:

He claims this $400 BILLION expropriation and transfer of wealth “starts the unraveling of the Medicare system.” Well, spit in my eye. If this begins the unravelling, what would be the booster? A trillion dollars?

And yet, I have to acknowledge that Kennedy is on to something here, even if unwittingly. From his Senate webspage, "Why would anyone want to make these destructive changes in Medicare, which has served senior citizens so well for almost forty years? The answer is a right-wing ideology that says government insurance is bad and private insurance is good."

Herein lies the difference between Republicans and Democrats, as Kennedy correctly nods to. A 'right-winger' believes that government insurance is bad, private insurance is good, and it must be funded by taking money from one set of citizens and giving it to another. A 'left-winger' believes that government insurance is good, private insurance is bad, and it must be funded by taking money from one set of citizens and giving it to another.

Ted, there's still plenty of tar in this tanker. Why not just jump in?

What needs to be challenged is the notion that one person's health care options are the responsibility of someone else. Neither the Republicans nor Democrats are willing to do this. Both believe that the right way for anyone to do anything is to take money form someone else to make it happen.

Ready to vote Libertarian yet? If not, what will it take? Where shall the line be drawn? Is it somehow not clear yet that Republicans and Democrats share the same basic premise for approaching domestic policy?

Rant 2: The Best Tribute Isn't Even Being Considered

I absolutely DETEST the memorials considered finalists for the World Trade Center site. Has it been forgotten what the Twin Towers were?

They were selected by the terrorists for being symbols of capitalism. The Twin Towers were the defining skyscrapers in the defining skyline of the world's definitive financial center. To stand today at the Statue of Liberty and look across the River is to feel the void like a lost love as much to see the void.

There was a lot of talk in the days following the attacks that the American people must not allow the terrorists win, that we must proceed in the spirit of that hated capitalist mantra, 'business as usual'. How right that common wisdom was.

Well, THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON. It isn't that they ended business as usual. Thankfully, that has resumed. But the symbol of capitalism is gone and won't be replaced.

If I was in charge of the process, I would give the greatest tribute to those firefighters who ran up the stairs and to the people who perished while conducting business as usual. I would rebuild the Twin Towers IN EXACTLY THE SAME PLACES UPON WHICH THEY ONCE STOOD, with all dimensions exactly as before save one: the buildings would finish one story higher.

To let the terrorists know that they will not win, they must be given the symbolic 'fuck you' that they gave to the American Spirit. Raising the Twin Towers for all to see is the greatest pair of raised middle fingers the haters of America would ever see.

THAT would be the greatest tribute to those who died in the World Trade Center attacks. No candles or mirrors or list of names will EVER come close to honoring them as new Towers would.

Rant: I Do Not Care a Whit

I do not care about the details of real crimes involving a single victim and a single perpetrator. I do not care to know about murders, rapes, stick-ups, or assaults. When I see such details in the newspaper, my eyes keep moving. When they are on the TV, the channel is changed. Ditto the radio.

Of course, I am very glad to know that police do the job of apprehending the perpetrators of such crimes. I am pleased that prosecutors see to it that criminals go to jail.

I am sometimes interested in crime statistics. I like to have a handle on crime rates and the relative safety of locations. This is useful news. I can take the information and choose to avoid to go alone into some areas with this knowledge. With it, I can avoid other areas when I have my wife or son with me that I might venture into alone. I rarely complain about seeing crime statistics, because it is actual news I can use.

On the other hand, the crimes allegedly committed by celebrities- Michael Jackson, Kobe Bryant, Phil Spector, Robert Blake- DO NOT INTEREST ME IN THE SLIGHTEST.

Why? Details of the violence instigated by Joe Blow against Jane Doe ARE NOT USEFUL NEWS TO ME. Does the alleged violence of some idiot suddenly become relevant to my life because the idiot is Michael Jackson? NO! Mainly, I am not the sort of man who would allow my 11-year-old son sleep in the home of a man who calls the place "Neverland".

Spare the argument that the parents of the children who did stay at Jackson's crib might have found this sort of news about the man useful. Allegations of Jackson's child molestation is a recurring story, and the fact of the news being splashed all over the media before did nothing to deter these parents here.

When I hear ANY details about Michael Jackson on the radio, I will do as I do when I heard details about Kobe Bryant: I will change the station.

Besides, it's all George W. Bush's fault.

I Could Have Written This One

George Will's latest column reads like one of my spiels on my late radio show, Laissez Faire.

Back when I lived in Cleveland, I traded messages with now-Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich. I don't have the first, since it was an email, but I have the response from him. It is clear that he thought I was a Republican (what else could there be besides Republicans and Democrats?) because he replied, "I voted with the President on this issue". Well, that was the form-letter response he sent out to the other side. I didn't get that it was a form letter until after I sent the following reply:


Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Attn: Dennis J. Kucinich
1730 Longworth Office Building
Washington DC 20515


Dear Mr. Kucinich: July 18, 2002

I am in receipt of your letter which responded to mine regarding steel tariffs. Thank you for your response. It is gratifying to know that the comments were read and considered

I am not quite sure what I wrote, since it was an email, so I would like to add a few more thoughts.

As I understand it, the problem with other nations “dumping” steel is that it causes there to be too much steel on the market, which causes the price of steel to plunge, making the relatively less subsidized American steel less competitive. If this is true, why were tariffs the solution of choice? Do you know what a tariff does?

A tariff on imported steel is a subsidy for American steel. No problem so far, since the point of the policy was to boost the US steel industry… except that any time you subsidize anything, you get more of it, because there is greater incentive to produce and try to gain market share. If the problem is that the price is too low, the tariff raises the price, and that looks good, right? Unfortunately, whenever prices rise, the incentive is to produce more, which, if acted upon, has the effect of bringing the price right back down because more steel lands on the market, which was the problem in the first place.

Wouldn’t it have been better to devise a policy that would have made it cheaper for Americans to produce steel? If the steel costs less to make, it is easier to meet the competition on price and thus sell the steel.

Besides, cheap steel, while painful for the steel industry, is a positive boon for every other American industry that uses steel. Cheap steel means cheaper cars, tools, appliances, bridges- anything at all that uses steel. In fact, on analysis, it looks like the countries that dump steel actually do us a favor. It may not be politically expedient to say that, but it’s true.

Come to think of it, though, it might be politically expedient to say all of this if phrased properly, after all, the brothers in the UAW must certainly appreciate the availability of cheap steel, as must machinists and other tradesmen and assemblers.

I would be very interested to know what, in your estimation, is fair subsidization. You cited steel that was “unfairly subsidized” by other nations. It interests me because other nations, especially the EU nations but also others, are now looking at our tariffs on steel and calling them unfair subsidies. In light of the host of commodities we have recently subsidized (farm products) or placed tariffs on- (foreign steel and lumber), we face the prospect of a trade war with many of our international friends. Do other nations have a point when they look at our subsidies and call them unfair? And what do American producers of fruit or cotton think of steel tariffs when they are told that tariffs will be placed on American fruit and cotton in response?

So, I have to say that I disagree with your assertion that “tariffs correct this imbalance”. On the whole, I think it is rather like driving on ice on W. 25th Street in January. You start to veer off-course, so you pull the wheel feeling like you’ve got the car under control, but the harder you pull the wheel to straighten out the car, the more you swing it side to side, and less in control. I think if you asked an economist at Cleveland State, you might hear the same thing.

Sincerely Yours-

Michael R. Kole
2436 Grovewood Ave
Parma OH 44134

There was no response from Kucinich on this one. The EU is responding finally, and will target products made in states like California and Florida so as to attack the Bush Administration on the grounds the battle is being fought- tariffs in exchange for the favor, or disfavor, of American voters.