First Ballot In

Another convention, another close first-round finish:

Bob Barr 153 votes

Mary Ruwart 152

Wayne Root 123

Mike Gravel 71

George Phillies 49

Steve Kubby 41

Mike Jingozian 23

Christine Smith  6

Daniel Imperato 1

None of the Above 2

Comically, there were write-in votes cast for Penn Gillette (3) and Ron Paul (6), plus one other whose name I didn't catch.

Only Jingozian and Smith are eliminated from this ballot, and a new vote is taken. Due to the closeness and the lack of surprises here, I would expect the numbers to look very similar, as only 39 delegate votes are up for grabs. That said, some who voted for Kubby or Phillies may decide the writing is on the wall, and put their votes up for grabs. This where it gets to be very exciting to be on the floor. In 2002, I was filmed by C-SPAN standing on a chair and stumping before our regional caucus for Gary Nolan, right after the first vote.

At this point, anyone can switch at any time. Sometimes delegates vote with their state or regional delegation the first time, and then go their own way for subsequent balloting. 

I was struck that Georgia really turned up for Bob Barr, delivering 33 votes for him, with just two else cast (for Ruwart). California showed up for Wayne Allyn Root, with 38 votes. It will be interesting to see if those numbers change. Alaska did not support its' own Mike Gravel, casting its' four votes elsewhere. 

I watched Rob Kampia of the Marijuana Policy Project represent DC and announce the casting of its' three votes for Bob Barr, the erstwhile drug warrior, and wondered if Kampia had to choke down some cognitive dissonance on the vote. Apparently not, though. Kampia was one of the three.

Indiana's 22 delegates voted thusly:

Root 6

Gravel 5

Barr 4

Phillies 3

Jingozian 2

Root 2

Hopefully this vote will pare it down to two. I do not see a clear victory coming on the second ballot. 

Nomination Looming

I've been watching some of the C-SPAN coverage of the Libertarian Party convention in Denver, and the first vote is being tallied right now. Some impressions:

1. Most of the candidates haven't figured out how to be Presidential. It's not about putting on act or filling a role. It's about seeming serious about preparing to do the job as though about to be elected. 

For instance, Christine Smith sounded like she was campaigning for LNC Chair, talking about party platform fine points in the moment that should be about the Smith Administration platform.

2. Most of the delegates seem more interested in electing the candidate they like, as opposed to the candidate who will do the best job in promoting the vision of a Libertarian Administration. How else to explain candidates like Steve Kubby or Mary Ruwart? 

Kubby is showing that he can be more than a one-issue candidate, but because that issue is marijuana, the press won't ask him about anything else. The man has to use marijuana to stave off a recurrence of cancer. I can only imagine the kind of questions he'll get relative to being a Commander-In-Chief who flames up daily.

Ruwart is strictly dogmatic and without a platform of her own. Like Kubby, she will waste the opportunity to sell liberty to the public, instead having to explain an absurd position on child pornography. Well, our delegates love strict dogma. 

3. C-SPAN is running the camera up and down the convention hall, eavesdropping on conversations. We still have a lot of delegates who look like they came from the Jim Rose Circus. 

In sum, there are still too many ways the Libertarian Party will scare the average American. We still haven't learned even some of the obvious lessons.

Still, this is an exciting time to be on the floor. The place will buzz nervously until the Chair returns to the podium. When he swings the gavel, hearts will pound and the tension will peak. It's an extraordinary atmosphere!

KFC & The Colonel

(Louisville, KY)- As it happens, I had a negotiation with KFC for property in Indianapolis. I found myself headed to Columbus and thought that KFC's HQ in Louisville wasn't that much further to drive, so why not pick up my documents rather than wait for them to arrive a few days later?

The people at KFC are great, super-friendly folks who seem to enjoy what they do and take pride in their company. That's unusual anymore, unfortunately, so I soaked up the scene- which included the Colonel Sanders Museum.

It's a Norman Rockwell oil of The Colonel!

The museum is small, but has a bucket full of interesting goodies, from oldies commercials on the TV to old menus and product containers. Looking through was definitely a bit of campy Americana, but a lot of fun.

No word on whether Dr. Kissinger was looking for The Colonel's adivce on Vietnam

Me with a wax figure of Harlan Sanders. It's a little too life-like for my liking. Even worse- while a secretary took this picture, The Colonel goosed me with his cane. That was kinda creepy. I dig the 8-ft-high bucket, though.

Libertarian Party Convention Underway

I'm not in Denver today, but I am keeping a close eye on the Libertarian convention, as a nominee for President will emerge. Here are my main interests in a nominee:

1. Carry no baggage. I was cheering Ron Paul until his ties to racist garbage were revealed. At that point, Paul became something worse than a poor ambassador for liberty. He tarnished the very idea, because people associated Paul as liberty itself. We can't have that in the Libertarian nominee.

2. Be a real communicator. Michael Badnarik won the 2004 nomination on the strength of one performance at the Libertarian convention in Atlanta, sweeping many delegates off their feet. We soon learned that one speech does not a communicator make, as Badnarik was not covered by the media, and worse, he opted to sit at "the kiddie table" of debates- the forums for the excluded minor party candidates. Our nominee cannot be one who self-marginalizes by accepting exclusion. Our nominee must make America take notice. Most of our candidates are not capable of that, frankly.

3. Focus on real campaigning issues. I love the Constitution, but the American public neither knows about it nor cares. Our nominee has to get over this, and get to topics of substance that the public does care about. In my opinion, a winning trio is Iraq, our financial crisis/jobs, and health care. I don't want a nominee who is talking to me. You already have me. I hope our delegates have this wisdom, for once.

Overall, Bob Barr is my #1 choice, because he can fulfill #2 & 3 better than any of our candidates. However, he does have baggage, both ideological and in act, and running as the most conservative, "I'm more Republican than the Republicans" candidate in a year where the Republican brand is the greatest possible albatross is a very bad idea. Barr needs to change his tactics.

Mike Gravel is the other big name, and I have to say that I was impressed with his fire and his clarity when speaking at the Indiana Libertarian convention recently. Unfortunately, Gravel does have some baggage, in the sad image of being a doddering old man. I'm sure that's why he came out to Indy with such spunk. I don't see Libertarians nominating him, though, as the Democratic Party is such a pariah within the LP because of Dems' positions on all things economic, and Gravel will be met with great suspicion accordingly. Gravel is my #2 choice, though.

Mary Ruwart is a favorite of many Libertarians, because of her ability to communicate ideas, but her baggage is so overwhelming that she would make Ron Paul's racist connections look very welcome by comparison. I think most people who read regularly know that I would support almost any Libertarian candidate come November. Not this one. The media will never give her a chance to talk about anything but her stupid, foolish comments about child pornography. She can't pull a Ron Paul on them and say she didn't know they were written. They're in her book, "Short Answers to Tough Questions".

Apart from that, I find that the remaining candidates are all very similar. Sure, they differ on this issue or that, but what they have in common is this: They aren't raising big money. They don't sweep you off your feet. They haven't gotten any noteworthy positive media attention, no matter how long they've been at it. They are run-of-the-mill candidates for the Libertarian nomination. If any of them win, we are guaranteed continued obscurity in a year when the nation needs liberty more than ever.

Excited For Good News

I am looking forward to a phone call tomorrow that could have me very busy again with work in Illinois, as I was at this time last year.

It would be a blessing. As the work pace has gradually been slowing, I find myself getting embroiled more in things political, and it's all bad news. It takes time that seems productive but isn't. It raises the blood pressure. On the other hand, last year I barely blogged, and I rarely visited political sites, news sites, or other blogs. It was really good. Ignorance can be bliss.

I'd spent years of my life promoting liberty, and just don't feel it matters. Spent the time developing radio programs that weren't noticed until they stopped airing. Spent time running for office where the public didn't care about the office being sought. Stood up in defense of people who wouldn't show up for me in my time of need. Try to engage people in a variety of forums, and mainly take slings and arrows? For what? Some imaginary notion that it might make a difference, if I only believe fervently that the seed becomes a tree, maybe a big one years after I die? Call me shallow, but I need some gratification. Now. It isn't pity I'm after. No, I want to see results. If politics can't deliver because there isn't, gulp, a market for liberty, then give me business.

I spent last year trying fully to make money, and I did, and it was damn satisfying. Really made me feel like the volunteer boosterism for liberty was the act of wasting a lot of time. Work hard in business- get the results in Net 30 Days. I really like that. Producing for people who are delighted with my work? That gets me up at 5:30 and to bed at Midnight, grinding furiously in between. Happily. Excitedly.

So, it will be good to immerse in a heavy workload again. Soon. I cannot wait to take the call.

Now, That's Journalism!

Here's the dilemma: You feel the coronations are in place, for Obama and McCain, but Clinton hangs around despite the surest signs it's over: No, not the announcement of the nomination. The pronouncement of (say with reverence and awe) Tim Russert! And still, you have to report on something.

What to do... Talk about policy? Nah. The public doesn't care about policy. Not really. Let's make references that signal how cool I am!

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post has graduated from the Mike Kole School of Journalism. He has compared Hillary Clinton's campaign to a cadaver by referencing Monty Python sketches! Not once, but twice!

Today's article, referencing the Black Knight scene from the Holy Grail film.
May 14 article, referencing the Dead Parrot sketch from the Flying Circus TV series.

The Black Knight:


Dead Parrot:

One For The Horse Race Fans

Not talking Triple Crown or Belmont here. Talking Bob Barr as presumptive Libertarian nominee, and a current Rasmussen poll. Mainly, I'm pleasantly surprised to see Barr poll so highly, despite name recognition being his greatest liability in terms of the poll. From Rasmussen:

A separate survey found slightly different results when third-party candidates were mentioned by name. In a four-way race, Obama earns 42% of the vote, McCain 38%, Bob Barr 6% and Ralph Nader 4%. Given those options, 11% were undecided. Barr and Nader were mentioned as candidates of the Libertarian Party and the Green Party respectively.

Barr picked up 7% of the Republican vote, 5% of the Democratic vote, and 5%
of the unaffiliated vote. participants (sic) to choose between Barack Obama, John
McCain and some other candidate.

and

Most voters don’t know enough about Barr to have an opinion of him. Twenty-five percent (25%) have a favorable opinion of Nader while 54% have an unfavorable.

To poll 6% without most voters knowing about you suggests favorable waters for any Libertarian candidate. Barr's going to have to work hard to create a favorable impression. Look at Nader's unfavorables. Ouch. Don't want to join him there.

Big Problem Caused By Government Tinkering

The Congress was hearing about the "problem" of higher gas prices (see yesterday's post), so they pushed subsidies at farmers to produce corn so that it might be sold to producer of ethanol, who are also subsidized.

Ah, the unintended consequences. As usual. So, what happens? Farmers have an incentive to dedicate some larger percentage of their land towards the production of corn. They'll get a greater subsidy check, and they'll have a greater market to sell to besides. In the meantime, less of every other crop is grown that might have been planted on those fields, and less corn is available to feed animals, to make oil

From today's Indy Star report, some seriously required reading:

Ethanol producers rely on a 51-cents-a-gallon ethanol tax credit to make slim profits. Slashing the credit by even 6 cents could put their operating margins in the red or close to it, said Chris Hurt, an agricultural economist at Purdue University.

A new farm bill, passed last week by both houses of Congress, would cut the credit to 45 cents. Ethanol, which in the United States is mostly made from corn, is a federal subsidy program that in some ways is proving to be "too successful," said Hurt.

The federal subsidies and record-high prices for oil set off a "gold rush" by ethanol producers who've built so much plant capacity that it's on track to far exceed the federal mandate for fuel use of 15 billion gallons of ethanol production by 2015, Hurt said.

The open plants alone will gobble up a fourth of the nation's corn harvest this year, he said. Congress must now wrestle with the question: "Have we let that go too far?" Hurt said. On the other hand, he said, "How can we as a country say, 'We want less fuel?' or say, 'Tough luck to ethanol producers' " after spending years encouraging them to build plants.

Yes, it looks like Pandora's Box, alright. But there's a truism of economics that goes, "Anything you subsidize you will get more of," so the over-production of ethanol plants should come as no surprise, and the corn subsidy program being 'too successful' should be anything but a surprise.

Notice that without the subsidies, the ethanol plants wouldn't even be built, because they are unprofitable? The entire profit comes from the subsidies- which is to say, from us taxpayers.

One extremely insightful Star reader commented nicely, concisely:

There is no problem so bad that the goverment can't make it worse.

This is why I believe in a laissez-faire approach to the economy. If there was a real market for ethanol, rather than the artificial one created by subsidy incentive, the market would have lept into the breach seeking profits in making ethanol. Now we have a losing industry pumped up beyond projected 'need', needlessly driving up the cost of all food products- which are themselves generally already subsidized to some degree or other.

I don't want the Congress meddling in the economy, and certainly not in something as important as food. We may drive 30,000 miles/year as I do, or we may walk everywhere we go needing no fule- but we all have to eat. If high fuel prices hurt the poor and cause them to not drive, what do high food prices cause for the poor?

Congress 'let it go too far' by being involved at all. Leave the market alone and it will do a better job than a Congress that resembles one driving on ice: If you get off course, the worst thing you can do is to jerk the wheel to compensate. You throw the thing further off course in the other direction.

But, we want our government to DO SOMETHING. Alas, you got what you asked for.

Running The Math on Gas Prices

Being that regular unleaded gas is now at $4/gallon, or near enough to it, the price of gas is the issue du jour, I thought I should run the real-life numbers on my own driving, to see what real-life financial impact it has on me. I drive a lot, so the impact should be great. 

The last two years, I've averaged a bit over 30,000 miles/year. I drive a Toyota Corolla, with a five-speed stick. It averages 36 mph, so I stretch the dollar well. In fact, I've slowed down a lot recently, in an effort to improve the mph, but I'll calculate to averages I've actually logged.

So, more or less, I consumed 833.33 gallons of gas in the past two years.

At an average of $3/gallon last year, I spent $2,500.

At an average of $4/gallon this year, I'll spend $3,333.33.

I'm spending $833.33 more this year, or $16.02 a week.

$16 a week? Big deal!

Keep in mind that I drive 30,000 miles a year- for business. Most people drive a whole lot less than me. Before I was doing the kind of work that demanded I drive my own vehicle, I would average a little less than 15,000 miles/year. If that were still true for me, I'd be spending an extra $8/week.

So, why is this such a prominent issue? Is it because the gas stations are the only retailers stupid enough to continue to post their prices on large signs? 

The gas stations really do themselves a disservice with the price signs. I remember growing up in the 70s, when all manner of retailers posted their prices in their windows or on signs. The only ones who consistently do it today are grocers and the gas stations. They make themselves a lightning rod unnecessarily. But maybe they're doing us an even greater disservice. We're bitching about something that really isn't that big a problem, at the expense of examining some bigger issues. 

Our "electable" presidential candidates are talking up this issue, and I'm really not hearing enough about restoring the dollar, cutting the deficit without raising taxes, and the solution for our involvement in Iraq.

Commercial Speech Banned In Indy

I'll never forget the experience of driving through Silicon Valley in 1998. Upon entering the area from the north, the highway driver was greeted by signs proclaiming the presence of HP, Intel, and a host of computer and tech company billboards. It was actually an exhilerating experience. The billboards let you know you were in the midst of something exciting and on the cutting edge.

Contrast that with the attitudes of billboards in Indianapolis. From an Indy Star report:

Norman Pace, land-use chairman for the Marion County Alliance of Neighborhood Associations, said he had waited eight years for the signs' demise. Thursday, he drove from his Warren Township home to the north split, the junction of I-70 and I-65 on the north side of Downtown, to watch the sign be dismantled.

"It was an eyesore blocking our city's beautiful skyscape," Pace said. "It detracted from the quality of life here. We don't want to look like one of these cities that are filled with billboards."

Pace and other billboard opponents call the signs "litter on a stick."

No, you sure wouldn't want Indy to resemble a vibrant place like Silicon Valley. So much better to make it look like the kind of place not worth advertising to.

Interestingly, the cityscapes are often decried as a kind of litter that hides the natural beauty of the environs. I realize that in such places there are mountains, hills, molehills or any other kind of terrain. The point is, eyesores, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

More importantly, freedom of speech suffers. I looked at the First Amendment, and while nowhere does it say "except for billboards", it also says "Congress shall make no law". Is this cause for celebration among the state's rights crowd? Maybe I'll get an explanation here.

In the meantime, we can add a new entry into the list of restrictions on freedom of speech at wikipedia, which is an interesting read. A line in the wikipedia description of freedom of speech is exactly as I have it:

The United States First Amendment theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the burden upon the state to demonstrate when (if) a limitation of this freedom is necessary.

Commercial speech is still speech. So, was it necessary to remove the billboards? I'd love for Indianapolis to have to make the case to a higher court. To bad Pinnacle, the billboard company, won't be suing. From the Star:

Pinnacle has gone out of business, and an attorney for the company said that happened because the company lost the revenue the signs would have generated.

This action was begun under the Peterson Administration. Too bad Mayor Ballard hasn't done anything to reverse course here.

Indianapolis- killing speech, killing businesses. There's a motto for a billboard at the city limits.

Up Yours, Cleveland

Ame and I are originally from Cleveland, and we return there to visit relatives. One thing I will be sure we don't do is spend money in Cleveland for several years to come.

Cleveland is one of those cities that uses traffic enforcement cameras as a revenue generator. Ame passed the cameras on Chester & E 71st, an unsavory area if there ever was one, going 52mph in a 35-zone. The pictures were provided on the "Notice of Liability", and they show that nobody was in the area, and nobody was in harms way due to Ame's rate of speed.

Where is everybody? Oh yeah- they've fled the authoritarian nanny hell that is Cleveland.

This may rankle some of my absolutist pro-rule of law friends, but this is bullshit. The purpose for traffic law is to ensure the public safety. If nobody is made unsafe by the passage of traffic, what is the point of enforcing the law? Cameras are blind to circumstance. Police officers use discretion, and it's highly unlikely that an officer on the street would have pulled her over for this infraction. Obviously, this is mere revenue generation.

So, OK Cleveland. You get your $100 fine. What you won't get from me is a visit to the West Side Market for a few years. Nor will I eat in any restaurant in the city for a few years. You got $100 out of us now, but will not get $1,000 or so, thanks to the ill-will generated by this crap. Enjoy.

It will be a happy day when someone gives the camera's poles the 'Cool Hand Luke' treatment.

Bob Barr Makes It Official

The former Georgia Congressman is seeking the Libertarian Party's nomination for President. Barr made his announcement today. He's already viewed as the presumptive nominee in some media quarters. From the LA Times report:

Expected to win the nomination of the Libertarian Party when it holds its convention in Denver over the Memorial Day weekend, Barr, 59, criticized Republican John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, for not being a true conservative.

"There's not a great deal of substance there in terms of a commitment to cutting the size of government," Barr said He said no one who had authored the McCain-Feingold campaign reforms that cap individual donations could call himself a conservative, "at least with a straight face."

Here's what sets Barr, or any other Libertarian candidate apart from the other three- sound fiscal policy:

Saying both the Republican and Democratic Parties have "bought into a system of running a charity called the United States of America," Barr blasted programs that use public funds to educate the children of illegal immigrants and maintain foreign military bases "that have no more efficacy in the 21st century."

"The federal government needs to get away from the notion that simply because we have all this money in the Treasury -- or we can borrow more money -- that we can provide all these services," he said. "That is not responsible government."

Strategically, I like that Barr knows what to say in response to the "Nader Effect" that worries some confused small government folks:

Barr confirmed that he was asked by McCain supporters not to run for fear he would pull votes from the GOP, but he defended his decision by saying that "American voters deserve better than simply the lesser of two evils."

Arguing that in recent election cycles, the losing candidates "blame somebody else," Barr said, "At the end of the day if I do succeed, it is not my intent to blame Sen. McCain or Sen. (Barack) Obama. I hope they would return the favor." If McCain loses to Obama, the Illinois senator, Barr said, it will be because his message or his candidacy doesn't resonate. "Each of us has the future in our own hands," he said, adding that his voters "are not likely to fall in the category of being enthusiastic about voting for John McCain, if such exists."

Fact is, there will only be one small government candidate available to voters in November- the Libertarian. McCain, Clinton, and Obama all believe in using the power of government. They merely have different recipients of the largesse. Besides, just as Dr. Eric Schansberg took votes from Democrat Baron Hill and not Republican Mike Sodrel in the 2006 race for Indiana's 9th District House race, Barr or any other Libertarian candidate stands to see more votes come from otherwise Democratic voters. Republicans know it to be true:

But Christopher Barron, a Republican political consultant, thinks it is equally plausible that Barr could hurt Obama.

"I think Bob Barr's candidacy could impact the race -- but I don't know at this point which candidate he is likely to help or hurt," he said. "If Barr's candidacy is fueled by the same people who supported Ron Paul -- college students, antiwar advocates and hard-core libertarians -- then I think it is unlikely to hurt Sen. McCain in any significant way because these are not the type of voters McCain is reaching out to. I could actually envision a scenario under which Barr's candidacy actually helps McCain by siphoning off some of the enthusiasm among college voters and antiwar advocates for Obama."

Barr's website is up and running, and is already miles better than any other LP presidential candidate's.

Best of all, Barr is a great choice for getting the libertarian message out. He doesn't carry the racist baggage Ron Paul alienated so many with. He's reformed his thinking on big government positions he used to hold.

This is a good day. I'm satisfied that if Barr is nominated, the Libertarian Party will have a candidate to be very proud of.

Election Re-Cap

So, yes- I did merely walk in to the polling place, sign the book, and walk out. Well, it was a little more detailed.

The clerk asked me if I wanted a Republican or Democratic ballot. I said, "no thank you". This left her perplexed, so she answered, "you have to take one or the other". I advised her that, no, I didn't, that I could sign the book and walk out. The Judge came over and confirmed what I said, so while I signed, I added, "I'm a partisan Libertarian. I would never take one of the other parties' ballots". She replied, "Oh! A Libertarian! I'll put an 'L' next to your name. I thought that was pretty great.

There was no great turnout at my polling place, the Fishers Town Hall. It votes heavily Republican, and apparently, the Republicans felt no need to show up. It was the shortest wait (one person) that I had ever experienced there. I think that Democrats will get excited by the numbers that show greater numbers of 'D' votes than "R' in Hamilton County, and it will yield greater turnout in November.

This signals the end of my one-time hope that the Libertarian Party could quickly supplant the Dems as the #2 party in Hamilton County. As HC grows and urbanizes, it is becoming marginally more Democratic. Nothing the Dems are doing internally are causing this, but external forces favor them some here.

Ron Paul fared worse than Mike Huckabee? How bad is that? Huckabee has been out of the race for months. There is a valuable lesson here for any small-l libertarian who has been clinging to the hopes that the Republican Party can be reformed from within to accept libertarian principles: It ain't happening.

If anything, I expected Paul's numbers to seriously challenge McCain's. After all, McCain has all but experienced the coronation already, and as such, voting for Paul would be a "safe" thing to do. Alas- less than 8% of Republicans voted for Ron Paul.

So the message has been sent. Hoosier Republicans favor big government by a 92-8 count. If you favor liberty and smaller government, you really have to bail on the Republicans.

Everything else is just horse race showtime, and I don't care. I struggle to decide which of the presidential candidates is the worst. At the moment, it's McCain, for his commitment to endless futility in the Middle East, and McCain-Feingold. Obama and Hillary are tied for a very close second worst, as they push economic ruin and socialized health care, which would surely contribute to the economic ruin. It's hard to be excited about any of the lot.

Happy Blogging Birthday To Me

The Kole Hard Facts have been operational for five years now. Big "thanks" to Al Barger, my Blogfather, who showed me how stinking easy it is to run a blog.

No thanks are necessary. Just send lemon meringue pie. Oh, and help dismantle the state.

ACLU Uses Wrong Approach

The ACLU filed suit today to attack an Indiana law that requires book stores to register with the state and pay a fee if they sell sexually explicit materials. From an Indy Star report:

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana and attorneys for several national organizations representing booksellers filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court today seeking an injunction barring enforcement of a new state law which requires businesses that sell sexually explicit material to register with the state.

The new law, approved earlier this year by the General Assembly, takes effect July 1.

The lawsuit names the prosecutors of Indiana's 92 counties as defendants because they are responsible for enforcing the law. The law covers new businesses and existing businesses that move to a new location after June 30.

I know what you're thinking- this is America, and banning speech is patently un-American. You're right! This case has enormous merit, and is exactly the sort of law an organization that defends civil liberties should attack. It's that I find their method boring.

The ACLU is made up of lawyers, so they think and act like lawyers. They sue. Not me. I think one of the best ways to get rid of bad law is to force compliance.

Instead of naming all 92 prosecutors as defendents, the ACLU should have pressed them all to prosecute every new or relocated religious book store that has the Bible on its' shelves, or the Chirstian 'birds & the bees' manual for parents. Make them register with the state and let them be labeled 'pronographer' or 'smut peddler'. Let these very innocent and innocuous examples be prosecuted to the full, embarassing extent of the law. See if they don't rush to have the law repealed. See if the prudes in the Statehouse aren't eaten alive by the very people they tried to pander to with this stupid, offensive law.

On another note, it sure makes me glad that our state reps and state senators find time to pass this law, yet fail to provide real, non-shell-game tax relief. Complete bastards.

Primary Voting Guide

I have published a lengthy (huge) voting guide for the pro-liberty minded, at the Libertarian Party of Hamilton County blog, offered for those who intend to take a 'D' or 'R' ballot in tomorrow's Indiana Primary. It breaks down positions and includes links for all candidates running in contested races, from President on down to County Council.

Link it here.

I'll still merely be walking in, signing the book, and walking out.

Good For Indiana?

(Fishers, IN)- While so many are delighted by the interest shown in Indiana's upcoming primary, thanks to the close Democratic presidential contest, I have yet to think it a positive. Bill Ruthhart's article in this morning's Indy Star is just the article I've been waiting for and expecting to see. Ruthhart's first paragraph says it all:

Indiana's presidential primary has attracted a spotlight so bright that many Hoosiers remain blind to other key races on Tuesday's primary ballot.

Of course, who will be the next president is important. But, what goes on in my state is important, too. The candidates for president are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to get their message out. If you don't know what Obama or Clinton are about by now, you haven't tried. And yet, they get all of the press attention. On the other hand, what do you know about Shellinger or Thompson? If you aren't a political junkie, do you even know their first names? Or even their party?

Races for governor and Congress normally would be a top draw for Indiana's voters and media outlets, but instead candidates in those races have scrambled to be heard over the noise of the presidential contest.

"It is impossible to break through and get any attention on a day when the presidential campaigns are here," said Jennifer Wagner, press secretary for gubernatorial candidate Jim Schellinger. "The presidential race has sucked all the air out of the room, and it's really frustrating."

That's amusing in one tiny way, that the top of the Democratic ticket is making it hard for the Democratic gubernatorial candidates. As ever, that's an unintended consequence. As ever, unintended consequences can be worse than the "benefits" from which they came.

The bottom line is that the people of our state really aren't any better informed about state politics than in years when the primaries here are non-factors. It may even be worse. Instead of light turnout, we'll have heavy turnout by people who don't know what their voting on.

More quotes, about the "media coverage" candidates for governor are "getting":

A Schellinger rally late last week at a Southside union hall was a prime example.

Obama and Clinton were campaigning in Indiana, so only about 30 people heard Schellinger speak.

Normally, such an appearance would draw heavy media coverage and a higher turnout, but the only other reporter in attendance (aside from the one with The Indianapolis Star) was from The New York Times. That reporter's assignment: to write a story about the lack of attention on Indiana's other races.

See that? They notice the phenomena even in the New York paper. In terms of our vote for the very important state and local offices, we'd be far better off without the Obama-Clinton horse race obscuring these contests.

On The Road

(Las Vegas, NV)- It was a business trip! Yeah! A business trip! For some research & development!

Research.

Development.

Research.

Development.

Highlights of the trip, in no particular order:

Steve introduces Mike to the roulette wheel.
Mike introduces Steve to the blackjack table.
Ex-Clevelanders Mike & Steve meet up with ex-Clevelander and artist Dott Schneider for Dotto's Mini Vegas Tour.
Cirque du Soleil "Zoomanity" show.
Lake Mead & Hoover Dam inspections.
Saw The Breeders play The House of Anything But Blues.
Carrot Top packed my bag!

Lake Mead Bathtub Ring

(Boulder City, NV)- Been to Hoover Dam lately? It's always a spectacle to see, but as this protracted drought continues, the West's misguided water policy becomes highly visible- in the form of a "bathtub ring". It's a marking along the walls of the Black Canyon on the Colorado River, showing where the water levels once peaked.

Here are some of my pics. The first two are taken from the sidewalk on the upstream side of the Dam.

I estimate the water level to be down 50-60 feet. Note the vehicles parked beyond the Arizona water intake, for perspective.

Lake Mead / Colorado River. What? There's a drought? In the desert?!?

I was with Steve Wainstead, who turned me on to the enlightening and enfuriating book, "Cadillac Desert", which chronicles the water policies of the West. I highly recommend it to anyone who believes that only business pollutes or rapes the earth, while the government is a steward of the land. Not to say that business doesn't or hasn't caused environmental problems, but a reading of Cadillac Desert, and a trip to Hoover Dam, shows that no business can rape the earth on the scale a government can.

Standing in Las Vegas Bay- a tributary flowing to Lake Mead. I'm standing in the river bed, about 8' below the old water level, with another 10' or so below to the current water level. The boaters simply use other sites... for now.

Indiana Primary Dilemma

OK, so it's no dilemma for those who refrain from participating in Primary Elections on the basis of these elections essentially being the private business of the political parties, and not a genuine public function. The basis for this position in some areas?

All Indiana primaries are closed primaries. This means you have to choose either a Democratic or Republican ballot. For instance, there is no Libertarian ballot. There is no independent or non-partisan ballot. The "offices" being voted on include Precinct Committeeman and Delegate to the Party Convention. Primary info from the Secretary of State's office.

But, some areas will have non-partisan school board races, and fewer still will have local issues. If you object to our Primaries on the basis of it being publicly funded private function, be certain that these two items are not on your ballot before resolutely staying home. If these are on your ballot, and you don't care to vote in the D or R Primary, ask for "a school board ballot".

Normally, my primary voting goes like this: I walk into the polling place. I find my precinct station. I ask the volunteer if there is a Libertarian ballot knowing full well that there isn't. When the volunteer advises me that there is only a Democratic or Republican ballot, I say 'thank you,' I sign the book, and I leave. The volunteer says, 'Don't you want to vote?' and I reply, 'I just did in the only way I can that represents my views'.

Some Libertarians will face a different dilemma this year, because they want to cast a vote for Ron Paul- the only Primary candidate remotely close to representing our views. A problem arises for those who take the letter of the law seriously. The law reads:

IC 3-10-1-6Eligible voters
Sec. 6. A voter may vote at a primary election:
(1) if the voter, at the last general election, voted for a majority of the regular nominees of the political party holding the primary election; or
(2) if the voter did not vote at the last general election, but intends to vote at the next general election for a majority of the regular nominees of the political party holding the primary election;as long as the voter was registered as a voter at the last general election or has registered since then.
As added by P.L.5-1986, SEC.6.

There is great temptation for many Libertarians to vote in the Republican Primary. It isn't because they are eager to cast votes for a slate of Republicans in the November General Election. It is so they can cast a vote for Ron Paul- the only Primary candidate remotely close to our views.

Chances are great that the partisan Libertarians don't qualify to take a partisan D or R Primary Ballot, for either or both of the clauses found in the law above.

Come November, most Libertarians are going to want to cast votes for as many Libertarians as are on the ballot, perhaps one or two Democrats, one or two Republicans, and more likely, have a whole bunch of blanks because you can't vote None Of The Above.

As for me, I will not cross over and take a Republican ballot. I did support Ron Paul's campaign and wish him well, but the coronation of McCain is complete, and my one vote in favor of Paul has no meaning. In fact, it would be worse. It would signal a willingness to vote Republican, which I am utterly unwilling to do. With the marginalization of Paul, the Republican Party has further reinforced its disinterest in general liberty and limited government, so I'm not going to give them my vote, only because I think Democrats are slightly worse. I'll vote as I always have- go in, sign the book, leave.

Side note: Did you know that Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney are still on the Indiana Primary Ballot? It's true. Link.

Double Negative

The Kole household received two mailings today- one from Hillary Clinton, one from Barack Obama. Let's break them down.

Obama: I was briefly fooled by this one. The cover shows Hillary Clinton smiling, with a microphone. I thought it was a Clinton piece, until I read the text: "When the chips are down and we need her most, can we really count on Hillary Clinton to stand up for Indiana jobs?"

You see where this is headed. "We can't trust Hillary Clinton to protect Indiana jobs." The proof? A cover of Fortune Magazine, with her face on it and the proclamation "Business Loves Hillary!"

You know, (sarcasm alert) I hate that in a President. I want a President who is hated, no, SCORNED, by business. (sarcasm alert) No good can come from that prosperity nonsense.

What kind of stupidity is Obama trying to sell here? That tried and true stupidity that appeals to losers- protectionism. And worse, it's an attack ad. The campaign could have touted something Obama is for, but his campaign felt the need to promote being against someone instead.

Clinton: Instead of her face (or Obama's) on the cover, Clinton's ad has a multi-cultural group standing beneath the question, "Which of These People Don't Deserve Health Care?"

Normally, I expect this rhetoric from someone playing the race card, so it's curious when offered in opposition to Obama. All the more curious when you consider that you can't tell who doesn't deserve health care by looking at them, as any non-racist should know. You have to know whether or not they've planned and invested properly to manage such costs to cast such judgment.

This is, of course, also an attack ad. In fact, this one doesn't have Clinton's face on it at all, but does have a small smiling picture of Barack Obama. Again, you know who to vote against- not so much who to vote for.

I'm sure these campaigns know what they're doing. They wouldn't go negative if they didn't think it worked. I find such negative advertising perfectly repellent.

I find it a worse mark on Obama, though. I expect negativity and attack from Clinton. Obama had been working so hard to give the imagery, the feeling of positivism. When the chips are down, it comes back to negativity.

I declare them both correct. Niether of their primary opponents are worth voting for. Where does that leave us?

Mitch Daniels Shows True Colors

When defending their party against challenges of fiscal mayhem or outlandish government growth, most Republicans I know quickly slip into their "Party of Reagan" mantra. I can't wait to ask them how they feel to know that Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has rebuked Reagan... in favor of John McCain! From the Chicago Examiner:

The governor delivered his remarks to a room full of fellow red-staters at the Fund for American Studies’ annual conference and donor retreat at the Newseum.

“Nostalgia is fine and Reagan’s economic plan was good,” Daniels said. “But we need to look towards the future rather than staying in the past.” Daniels added that the GOP needed to work on uniting behind Sen. John McCain instead of constantly comparing the Arizona senator with the Gipper.

I get the desire to be present and beyond nostolgia. Maybe Daniels has just served the wake-up call that those who wanted limited government really are under the wrong tent if they are voting Republican. Elected Republicans have done nothing but grow govenment at every level, post haste, since 1994. It's only self-deception that keeps limited government supporters voting for and contributing to Republicans.

Probably, Daniels told us that for him, the most important thing is that his team wins, regardless of style of play. Forget about substance! Wear that elephant uniform, and win one for the... er...

Update: Rush Limbaugh smacks Daniels down as a 'country club, blue-blood, Rockefeller Republican'. I love the cognitive dissonance this must be causing across our state. From Limbaugh:

Hey, Mitch? Governor? Governor Daniels? Should we get over Lincoln, too? He's in the past. We just gotta go over Lincoln. This is so contrary to conservative thought. For me, on the wrong day, this could be tough to take. We're supposed to learn from our past. We are supposed to build on that which works. This is part of conservative thought! I'll tell you what. Let's just get over the founders. The founders of the country are in the past, too. Let's get over them.

Couldn't have said it better. I'll be happier when Daniels is in the past.

Requisite Tax Frustration Statement

(Fishers, IN)- This one's going to be a little different. Usually I'm stomping the pulpit into splinters over the dollars I had paid over the course of the year for taxes. Yes, I'm still unhappy about it, especially because I paid more this year than ever before. But I think a large percentage of people tune such complaints out. There's no sympathy for one who paid a lot. It means that this taxpayer is "rich", and as we have all come to learn, there can only be antipathy for the rich, and guilt if you happen to be. 

So, I'll take a different tack. I'll talk about my business and how tax considerations framed my thinking.

My business model is built around minimal overhead. I operate out of the home, I have very little in the way of expensive equipment. I do not have any inventories. This model allowed me to get straight into the work without having to take out any loans, which of course results in more overhead.

In August, I was really humming along in my one-man operation. I had so much work to do that I was routinely working 16 hours a day, and routinely seven days a week. That kind of grind gets old, and besides, the performance dips. It was time to consider hiring my first employee. Either that, or I would have to turn away work.

Not wanting to reject work, I strongly considered a hire. Problem is, it would trash my business model.

Of course, the employee salary would be pure overhead, but at least it would result in production, thus, revenue. Should I pay hourly? No- the work is unpredictable in terms of time requirements. I would have to pay per completed job. This would give me a predictable margin, in addition to creating incentives to complete sooner rather than later.

But that isn't all the drag I had to consider. I would have to pay Medicare and Social Security taxes on the employee's behalf. I would also have to pay Federal unemployment tax. And state unemployment tax. I would have to spend the time accounting for this, which means time I'm not producing. I could hire an accountant to free up my time, but then it becomes an expense- in violation of my business model.

There were other considerations. Could I afford to offer benefits? If not, wouldn't I have to pay more so the employee could purchase things like health insurance? How solid was my future looking? Could I really feel secure in my ability to ongoingly provide employment to someone who might have a family to support?

In the end, I decided not to hire and to turn the work away. For all the extra effort required, the prospect of additional income was so marginal as to be not worth the struggle. I did the math over and over, and this was the bottom line.

So, if you lack compassion for "rich people" like me, at least take stock of my tale and its ramifications: Taxes and compliance costs were the difference between growth and employment, and stagnation and underemployment. I'm fine, but somebody didn't get an opportunity. All because of the taxes and compliance costs. 

I don't know at what point you can take advantage of scale, but it certainly isn't with one's first employee. I started playing it out, considering the extra employees firms hire and it seems crazy. We have companies who have accountants, HR staff, and other support- none of whom are productive, but at least free up producers to deal with producing, while these others manage pure overhead. I would have to grow to some 15-20 employees before I really could begin to take advantage of scale. What a struggle it would be in the meantime, teetering on the edge, in constant fear of recession! 

To hire just one person, though, would be a wash. The employee would generate revenues, but my productivity would go down while overhead would soar. I might even lose money of the deal, especially when (not if) the workload decreased- as it has this year so far.

Well, I don't need that. Who does? 

I'm not interested in building empire, especially not for its own sake. I like doing my work very much. I like producing and satisfying my clients. But, when I'm not working, which is to say producing, I like to do other things like travel, play with Isabel, read, play hockey, and a host of others. Doing accounting isn't on the list.

I'm sure I'm not the only one to face this dilemma. All I ask those of you who earnestly believe that all the government we have is necessary and important to consider is the cost-benefit analysis. How many people are not being hired because the costs reduce the margins enough to make the hire not worth the trouble?

If you cannot bring yourself to begin urging our elected officials to stop punishing success with taxation, at least BEG them to make the process simpler, and reduce the burdens associated with hiring.

Look around your workplace to see which positions are productive, and which are pure overhead. It will startle you. Our economy could be so vastly improved by eliminating the overhead and hiring for pure production.

Old Friends

(Broadview Heights, OH)- I love the advance of technology. Every now and then, I get to thinking about an old friend, and I do a search on Google or Myspace, and it's amazing how I pretty easily find that person.

So, back in January, I got thinking about my old buddy, Chuck. We grew up on the same street. We wrote and drew our own peculiar take on Mad Magazine, which certainly scared our parents. We formed our first band together when we were 13-14. I pinch-hit on bass for some of the metal bands he was drumming in. Metal guitarists always wanted to play lead. I could have made a career playing bass for metal bands. Alas- every now and again, I showed decent judgment in my youth.

Anyhow, I hit Myspace and found a band he had been playing in recently. I left a message. Before long, we got to trading emails. Finally, after some 15 years or so, Chuck and I got together to catch up.

A reunion and a barrel of laughs!

What a hoot! I was armed with pictures and the old hand-drawn comics. We laughed so much it hurt.

Gas To $4 A Gallon?

I say, "Who cares?" I have to drive to wherever I'm working, in whichever state it is, so I'm going to pay what the price is at the pump.

I find it interesting to observe some Democrats pandering now to those who would like to see the costs held down in light of all the Democrats who remarked when fuel was cheap on how a higher price would be a good thing, because it would spur conservation. Well, which way is it?

I also get a kick out of the assertion that people won't take the weekenders anymore. Well! Let's do the math!

Say I'm going to ditch terrain-challenged Central Indiana for Kentucky's Red River Gorge. It's a trip we've made 4 times in the last two years. It happens to be a round 250 miles from home, or a 500 mile round trip. In the Saturn Vue at 20 mpg, we're burning 25 gallons of gas. At $4/gallon, that's $100.

Well, spank my ass and call me Charlie, at $2/gallon, it would have been $50!

Forget Obama, I want CHE GUEVARA! Shut down free enterprise immediately, suspend habeus corpus, declare the USA a commune-do ANYTHING to spare me 50 bucks! Cough.

Look, if 50 bucks is the difference between a weekender or not, you have no business even considering the weekender. You need a second job. You need it now.

The same people who are yelling about high gas prices did nothing to stop the increase of sales taxes, food & beverage taxes, and the inkeepers taxes- all of which have about the same impact as the rising price of fuel.

I realize I'm on the other side of that argument, but I'll temper it thusly: I believe that a producer of gasoline should be able to charge whatever it wants. It brought the stuff out of the ground, refined it, and made it available to me. It's theirs until I buy it. The seller should have the right to name his price, just as we have the right to walk away from it. Where does anyone get off saying that they have a right as a consumer to some good at their price? Isn't that some kind of bondage for the producer?

I walk away from the inkeepers taxes by pitching a tent. If gasoline prices trouble you so greatly, buy the Prius, ride the bike, or walk even.

Power Plant, Floriana Style

When I visited the Galapagos Islands last month, I visited one of the least populated- Isla Floriana. The population? 87.

The people of the Galapagos are very aware of their fragile environs. So, on an island where the total energy needs are so small, the power plant can look like this:

That's it! the whole plant! About 25' x 25', altogether. No smoke, no wires above ground leading away from the plant. Perfectly adequate for 87 people. They won't let you just walk through a coal-firing facility. In Floriana, they don't even have a fence around the werks. Ame and Isabel walk around with our guide, Rick.

Solar power. Makes perfect sense for an island within 75 miles of the Equator and a fragile environment.

That's an island that was starting from scratch. They chose wisely. Indiana isn't starting from scratch. There are already state-granted power monopolies in place, so it's illegal for an inspired would-be competitor to just go ahead and build a power plant. Under such conditions, could it be done here?

No. Unless state granted monopolies go away, this kind of innovation isn't likely to happen. Let's assume that they did disappear tomorrow, and there was a would-be competitor waiting to provide electric power on a small scale.

Begin with the purchase of that vacant lot in the neighborhood that's been little more than the regional dump since the fire, then erect the structure, bore conduit through the public right-of-way to junction boxes or transformers at the frontage of the property, then bore a duct to the customer- no poles or above-ground wires necessary. Fire it up and go. Lots of cost on the front end, but not a whole lot after that- just maintenance.

The electricians out there will argue that the reason power is on poles and not underground (unless mandated by law or new subdivision covenant) is the loss of juice underground. So what? I'll counter by saying that since the power source is closer to the end-user, you eliminate the line-loss of transmission from faraway plants. And besides, it's solar.

The lack of Equatorial sun-drenching a concern? No problem- place a windmill or two at the top of the structure. Many days here in Indiana, we get both sun and high winds.

I think we can do better by getting rid of the monopolies and the barriers to entry for would-be competitors, not worrying about too what an extra wire or two might be like, and see if we don't provided better rates and produce less pollution at the same time.

Utility Deregulation?

I had a young man representing the "Citizens Action Coalition" stop at the door today. Normally, the name "Citizens" in the name is enough for me to shut the door, as it tends to stand for little else than "we want to use the power of government to squish someone".

In fact, that's still the case here, but I was in the mood to listen. His organization wants to sue Duke Energy, in order to stop coal-burning electricity generation. I get the environmental impact, but I also want electricity on demand, and I want it pretty cheap. So, I'm not so sure I'm entirely on board. He was very down on deregulation, and when thinking "electricity deregulation" I think of California and Enron- which wasn't deregulation at all. It was re-regulation. And it was a miserable disaster. Deregulation got the bad name, even though the problems were rooted in regulated stasis in the face of a dynamic spot energy market.

He gave me some literature, and I found the first paragraph very interesting:

"Indiana's major utility companies (Duke, AEP, IPL, Vectren, NIPSCO) provide retail electric service essential to the health and vitality of Indiana, its economy, and its citizens. They have been granted state franchised monopolies that protect them from competition and guarantee them profit in exchange for providing adequate and reliable electricity service at the lowers reasonable cost to the public."

I think the whole problem is the state franchised monopoly. There's no competition to spur competitive pricing or innovation, so it doesn't happen unless a mandate comes down, or a lawsuit kicks a butt or two. So, why not let's do away with the state franchised monopoly? Let an outfit string up competing cables, bringing electricity generated by windmills or solar panels. The state shouldn't be interfering with that.

Heck- I'd have even written the guy a check if CAC was fighting the right fight- against the monopolies.

A New Bill For Nothing In Particular

(Fishers, IN)- I knew this day would come. Our glorious federal government, via the Environmental Protection Agency and the Congress, has instituted something called Phase Two. In a nutshell, Phase Two addresses less egregious environmental hazards than what was addressed in Phase One, but specifically stormwater.

I'm not aware of a single municipality or county government that said, "No Thanks" to the implementation of the federal mandate. By virtue of my old job in the Hamilton County Surveyor's Office, I heard a lot of officials mumble behind closed doors about "environmental bullshit", but nobody stood up in public to give voice to such sentiments.

I've seen some Central Indiana government agencies deal with the implementation of Phase Two concerns addressing stormwater runoff in different ways, most of which are genuinely ineffective at addressing the problem. For if one truly wants to ensure no pollutants enter the waterways, one must ensure that no water enters the waterways.

Sorry, but it's impossible.

Undaunted and doubtless happy enough to create another layer of bureaucracy, the Town of Fishers circulated letters dated January 31, 2008 to property owners advising of a new Stormwater Utility Bill.

Oh, how grand! Residential property owners would be billed $14.85 per quarter.

And what do we get for our money? Pretty much... nothing. From the letter:

According to state and federal law, the Town of Fishers is required to implement the following six minimum control measures in order to protect local water bodies:

1. Public Participation and Involvement
2. Public Education and Outreach
3. Illicit (Illegal) Discharge Detection and Elimination
4. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping
5. Construction Site Runoff Control, and
6. Post-Construction Runoff Control

Allow me to translate:

1. A tent at the Fishers Freedom Fest
2. A pamphlet for the tent at the Fishers Freedom Fest
3. A Rat-Out-Your-Neightbor program and cleanup crew
4. Back to the tent at the Freedom Fest
5. Permits and inspections on construction sites
6. More inspections on the same sites

Here's some more circular mumbo-jumbo from the letter:

What services will I receive as a result of the stormwater utility?
Fees collected through the Stormwater Utility Fee will be utilized to add additional staff and resources necessary to implement and comply with newly mandated stormwater pollution prevention programs. These additional resources will be utilited to help reduce the amount of polluted runoff associated with construction sites through increased plan review and site inspections procedures. Staff will also be charged with reducing the amount in stormwater pollution associated with illegal connections and discharges to the storm sewer by conducting screening of stormwater outfalls and conveyances. Finally, newly generated revenues will also be utilized to implement stormwater planning and implementation projects to improved localized drainage problems throughout the Town.

That's a lot of verbose BS to cut through. Again, I'll translate:

For my money as a residential fee payer, I'll build the local bureaucracy. I'll help hire a plan reviewer and an inspector or two. I'll subsidize the inspection of construction sites- why those building can't shoulder the burden is unknown. If somebody has a septic system mistakenly discharging into the drain, the inspectors will find it and have the property owner make a proper connection. If there's a drainage problem in Fall Creek Township, all of my Delaware Township neighbors and I can help pay for it, Vive Che!

So, why do I have to pay? Beats me. I mean, if I dumped motor oil or paint into the County Regulated Drain in my backyard, I could understand being held responsible for the clean-up. But it's a County Drain, so I would understand paying the County. By the way, I already pay an assessment for that Drain.

So, why this? The street was built without underdrains, so the water isn't being collected at the curb- until it runs all the way down the street to the catch basin. From there, it runs inside a 48" pipe that is underground at my property line, and discharges into- that's right- the County Regulated Drain.

I don't have loose soil. I don't have erosion. I don't do Chem-Lawn. I do not have a construction site. I am not a farmer. I do not dump chemicals or anything else. But now I have this bill.

It's clear that the lion's share of the bill will go to support the new bureaucracy. The letter was signed by a Stormwater Engineer with two fancy sets of initials- PE and LPG, so we at least have to pay for him... and a secretary... and a couple of inspectors... and an office, with office furniture and computers, and vehicles... and we'll have to provide benefits and insurance... and ...

GODDAMN! Is the water any fucking cleaner yet?

I've been to the Third World lately. America is really clean compared to Ecuador, where pollution is rampant. Can we give ourselves a bit of a break on the guilt trips at least long enough to stop growing more pointless government?

This fading republic is being heaped upon with more and more swindles and bamboozles. A few people get feel-goods about it, but the rest of us just get ripped off. Construction sites and farms are far and away the two biggest sources of water pollution in Hamilton County, so who gets the bill? The residential homeowner. What a steaming pile!

It would have been nice if some one elected official, anyone, had the balls and integrity to have told the feds and the state to stick it up the yin-yang on this farce.

Sweep It Clean!

It was 1989 that I first went to New York City, all of 21 years old. I figured myself pretty street savvy, since I new my way around Cleveland and got myself out of a 4-on-1 (me being the one) knife stick-up in Detroit earlier that year. And yet, I found myself perfectly unsettled in Manhattan. Why? Panhandlers- the most aggressive I had ever seen.

I learned a trick. I bought a pack of cigarettes. They cost $1 back then, making them a nickel each. If cornered by a particularly aggressive and/or smelly urban outdoorsman, I would offer two cigs. They would always be accepted eagerly, even though a dime would have gotten an angry retort.

I went back once more in 1990, but decided that I just didn't like being accosted all the time. For a while, a trip to the Big City meant Toronto, which was cleaner besides.

A funny thing happened a few years ago. Toronto and NYC traded places. I took Alex to Toronto 6-7 years ago, and it was awful. The panhandlers were overwhelmingly young- lying in the sidewalks, human pin-cushions. Not to sort of thing I wanted Alex to have to deal with as a 9-year-old. New York, on the other hand, was glorious. Even in Central Park, we were left to ourselves to enjoy the greenery.

I've never been back to Toronto. I've been to New York more than 20 times since 1998. Do the tourist math.

Move forward to the present, and here in Central Indiana. I live in Fishers, and for work, I probably visit downtown Indianapolis once a week. Invariably, I am hit up by a panhandler.

Now I know that some homeless, many even, suffer mental illnesses. I pity that, but by no means does it give me cause to enjoy the interference. I have a job to do. You want money? Go get a job. At least get out of my way.

So, I am positively delighted to learn that Indy's new Mayor has clearing the streets as a top agenda item. This is excellent news for downtown! From the Indy Star report:

John Cochran, Ballard's special counsel, said the Mayor's Action Center receives complaints and the mayor's staff hears about panhandling regularly.

"People who live Downtown are tired of it," Cochran said. "We want to reduce it to a palatable level."

To do that, Ballard wants to bring a "tough love" approach to the issue.

He said people shouldn't feel constantly harassed to give money.

"The immediate goal is to get them out of Downtown so that citizens and visitors don't have to look at it," Ballard said last week.

I've never minded the buskers. Play your music out of the footpath, and it's lovely. The Star referenced Tom Goins. I see him on the NE quadrant of the Circle all the time. I don't mind him. He's pleasant. He's clean. He passively does what he does. The aggressive unsightly begging has to go.

I don't know what Rudy Giuliani did as mayor to clean up New York, but it worked. I like going there again. In fact, I like going there far more than I like going downtown. That's quite a statement, because travel to NYC entails a trip through TSA's security hell.

There are some who will find this policy insensitive. Fine. Here are your choices: Be a magnet for tourism and commerce, or, be a magnet for panhandlers.

Which will it be?

Bias Irritation

I accept that there are inherent biases in the media. I just object when they are rubbed into the nose.

For instance, check out this article from the Washington Post, on Obama the Boy Wonder of Internet Fundraising:

Obama's unprecedented online fundraising success is often depicted as a spontaneous reaction to a charismatic candidate, particularly by young, Internet-savvy supporters.

Wow, when Ron Paul was doing exactly the same thing, last year, all was dismissed as a fluke or ridiculed. Change it to read something like this: "Paul's surprising online fundraising success is often depicted as a reaction to a co-conspirator, particularly by young internet-savvy idiot savants who live in their parents' basements." Same phenomenon, praise for one guy, derision for the other. Yay, journalistic integrity.

But there's more. Check this out:

Ads for Obama pop up on political Web sites, such as the left-leaning blog Daily Kos, and on more general ones, such as those of newspapers.

snip

Obama has targeted unlikely sites, such as the conservative Washington Times, where an ad for the candidate appeared yesterday on the same page as a story about an economic speech he gave that morning.

So, the Kos is "left-leaning"? Are you kidding me? Of course the Washington Times is conservative, so if honesty is possible there, why the hedge on Kos?

I expect this, and know it's always there. Normally it's left under the surface and it irritates me far less. I suppose I should be grateful that the junior copy editor is in charge now and then and fails to cover up the obvious tells.

Zoning And God

(Fishers, IN)- I grew up in Parma, Ohio- a town largely built in the post-WW2 boom, when GIs returned home and so many took the opportunity the flee the old cities and get into a new, safer, cleaner suburban community. Parma once held the claim to fame as the world's largest suburb.

There were many churches in my neighborhood, but besides the one I attended, the one that sticks out in my mind was St. Josaphat's Ukranian Church.

It's now known as the Ukranian Catholic Eparchy of Saint Josaphat. Essentially, it is a cathedral, with a Pope-appointed Bishop seated there.

St. Josaphat's Cathedral, Parma OH.

Needless to say, it's a crown jewel of the now-aging neighborhood- a thing of beauty that holds tremendous value (aesthetically, spirtually, monetarily) even as the surrounding area deteriorates a bit. It's bedrock for the community.

So it's interesting to me that my new hometown of Fishers is having a zoning debate over the height of a church. From an Indy Star report:

St. George Orthodox Church is moving from its longtime home on North Sherman Street in Indianapolis to 116th Street and Cumberland Road. The church plans to build a sanctuary more than five stories high but needs the town to make an exception to its zoning code to do so.

More than 20 homeowners who live near the church have told the town they oppose St. George's building plan. They say the size would dwarf the single-family homes in the area and disrupt the residential character of the neighborhood.

This is short-sighted on the part of the homeowners, at least if they plan on living in the community for more than three years. Back in Parma, St. Josaphat's dwarfs everything around it- until you go two blocks south and encounter my old church- St. Francis de Sales. Catch the thing I said about the bedrock of the community? Fishers is largely brand new today, just as Parma was in 1948. Fishers will deteriorate, just as surely as Parma has. Churches that are well-supported, however, are well maintained, and later serve to hold the rest of the community up as the deterioration begins around it. Why wouldn't you want that? More from the Star:

(Bob) Kehlor sees more than aesthetics involved in opposition -- it's a matter of principle.

"I asked for small variance for my property to build a driveway, and the town wouldn't let me do it,' he said. "That was nothing compared to what they want to do. The town should stick to its code, otherwise why even have it."

I can understand his very legitimate gripe. Why should one property owner be restricted while another can have the rules bent? Mr. Kehlor supplies the answer- get rid of the zoning.

As long as there is zoning, there will also be zoning appeals, and therefore variances. And, so long as variances are granted to some and not to others, the accusations of favoritism and unfair dealings will be there and will be legitimized. Zoning does unfairly punish individual property owners, who lack the kind of numbers a church can present- in terms of members-as-lobbyists, and cash for variance fees. Zoning's intent is to protect one property owner from the destructive actions of another. I doubt Kehlor's driveway would have been injurious to his neighbor. I can assure anyone that having a more grand church isn't going to injure anyone either. Quite the contrary. The problem is an overreaching government, that is well-exposed by this example.

If the Church owns the land, the Town shouldn't be able to play Land God over it, any more than it should have over Mr. Kehlor.

The old argument against zoning-free communities is that, "a hog farm could spring up next to you". In case you hadn't noticed, the hog farms in Fishers are long gone. They sold out to developers, because the land was far less valuable as a hog farm. That argument is bunk.

At the end of the day, I think that if this was a building that added assessed value to the Town, there would be no discussion. The variance would be granted- post haste. But, it will add a very different set of values to the Town, but also including property values for the neighborhood that surrounds it. Approve the darned thing!

Oh, So Indiana Matters?

(Fishers, IN)- Some are getting all excited about the Democratic primary, because with it being a close contest, Indiana now matters enough to have Obama and Clinton campaign here.

Call me cynical, but I'm not impressed that the horse race situation makes our state at long last worthy of visitation, begging, and bombardment with campaign ads. Great that you're here now, but who could doubt that you wouldn't be here if it were wrapped up.

My personal taste came on Saturday, when a telemarketer called. Her question: Who will I vote for in the Democratic primary?

Well, now that's one hell of a leading question. I took on a woe-is-me voice and said, "My good lady, I wouldn't vote for either of them if my other option was a sharp stick in the eye".

She took that fairly well, and then asked if I would be voting in the primaries. I said that I would. That was the end of the call, and I'm sure she assumed I would vote Republican. No, I go to the voting place, sign the book, and then walk out. Until they have a place for None Of The Above, or make primaries something other than a public function on behalf of the private organizations the Republican and Democratic Parties are, then that's my only real 'choice' when voting in primaries.

On another note, I thought political push-poll calls were illegal. Moreover, I'm on the No-Call List. I thought it was illegal for pollsters to call those on the list. Do the rules not apply now?

Corporate Taxes In America - Too Low?

I frequently hear my friends on the left complaining that corporations are not taxed fairly, which means, not highly enough. The reasoning is that business can afford higher taxes, while individuals struggle.

Let's put that second thought on the shelf for a moment, and look at whether or not corporate taxes in the USA are high or low.

According to The Tax Foundation, the US corporate tax rate is 35%. That's highest in the world, with France right behind at 34.43% and Belgium at 33.99%. Ireland is lowest, at 12.5%.

But those are just federal taxes. Let's not forget that our states add their own corporate taxes. After the state corporate taxes are added, corporations in 24 states by higher taxes than anywhere else in the world. Indiana is among these 24. Only 3 states add zero corporate tax: Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Wonder no longer why so many corporations are registered in those states. Here's a link to the rankings.

My wife has been urging me to incorporate my business. I have been hesitant. Can you blame me?

Can business afford the taxes? No, but then, they really don't pay them. Individuals do, in the marked-up price that covers these (and so many other) taxes.

Even still, can they afford it? It means that products made in Ireland can be shipped here and still be vastly cheaper than products made here. Ever wonder why we have a trade imbalance? Hmm. Maybe this has something to do with it. Coincidentally, Ireland has been one of the world's economic growth leaders. Hmm. Maybe, just maybe, this has something to do with it.

What is more important? Our ability to compete in the global marketplace? Or, to fund more government? From the Tax Foundation:

24 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than top-ranked Japan.
32 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than third-ranked Germany.
46 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than fourth-ranked Canada.
All 50 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than fifth-ranked France.

"If federal lawmakers are serious about making the U.S. corporate tax system more competitive globally, they will have to partner with state officials to lower the nation's overall corporate tax burden," Hodge added. "Likewise, state officials should have a vested interest in cutting the federal corporate tax rate because there is only so much they can do to improve their own competitiveness. After all, even corporations in the three states that do not impose a major state-level corporate tax—Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming—still shoulder a higher corporate tax rate than France, and 25 other major countries, because of the 35 percent federal corporate rate."

I'd say the corporate tax rate is ridiculously too high. The left may enjoy targeting big, bad corporations as some kind of evil, but funnelling tax money to government is something they actually do with aplomb- to the detriment of us all.

Three Lousy Choices

If the only three choices the average American is going to consider are McCain, Clinton, and Obama, then I'm positively uninspired, and darned near frightened. All three will do greater damage to our country, in my opinion, and there is no 'lesser of the evils' here.

Thanks to Gregg Puls for forwarding this image this morning. Pretty well sums it up.

Wanted - An Adult For President

I was reading some of the Washington Post opinion stuff today, and happened upon a Eugene Robinson column that started like this:

The Democratic presidential candidates squabble over real or imagined racial sensitivities, the Republican presidential candidate stages photo opportunities with the troops in Iraq, and meanwhile the financial system is coming apart at the seams.

Would someone please tell Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain that here in the real world, we have what looks like a real problem. It would be nice if they'd pay attention and maybe, you know, come up with some ideas for getting out of this mess.

Funny enough, there is a candidate for President who has been talking about the financial crisis and the need for a return to sound money for about 30 years. Oh, that's right. I don't know what I was thinking. Ron Paul must not be a candidate for President. Columnist Eugene Robinson used the singular when describing the Republican offerings.

Problem is, when you have candidates who talk about fluff, and when you have voters who demand freebies, you get people like McCain, Clinton, and Obama at the fore. The LAST thing you're going to get from them is serious talk about finances. That's kook stuff, the kind of thing that gets the 'tinfoil hat insults' going.

Maybe Robinson is part of the problem. He, like so many others who have already given coronation to John McCain, treats Ron Paul like he doesn't exist. So, don't be surprised when Ron Paul type solutions aren't part of the discourse. And yet, Robinson continues:

A good start would be to acknowledge that putting the economy back on a sound footing is likely to be the new president's first task -- and then to begin laying out some ideas for how that might be done. A little honesty would be preferable, too -- an admission that no president will be able to turn around the economy overnight.

I realize that's heresy. Presidential candidates like to tell us about all the largesse they're going to provide. They like to invite voters to envision the sunshine of happy days, not the gloom of an economic slump. But real leadership involves dealing with the economy as it is, rather than as we would like it to be.

If you really wanted it, you could have written an article that read, "Ron Paul may be a longshot, but he's got exactly the right plan for returning the American financial system to sound money," or, "Ron Paul might not promise you the moon, sky, and socialized medicine, but he would get the country back on economic track".

But no. Exclude a good candidate with great ideas because you find their candidacies 'unwinnable', and you exclude the ideas. Thanks for nothing. I'm already reminded of the South Park episode, that lampooned the election choices of George Bush and John Kerry, ridiculing as the choice between a 'giant douch and a turd sandwich'.

OK- If I can't have Ron Paul, I'm ready for the Libertarian Party candidate now.

Blog Update

(Quito, Ecuador)- Week 2 in Quito: The lessons in Espanol are progressing, and Isabel has even said a few things in Spanish. The Blog of The Trip has been updated with some pictures and text from our first two days. Internet speeds here are sloooooow.

Other brief observations:

I see that Sean Shepard has been excluded from an upcoming WTHR debate for candidates in Indiana's 7th Congressional District. This is personally disappointing. As the 2006 Libertarian candidate for Secretary of State, my top secondary objective (winning was the top objective, of course) was to secure continued ballot access for Libertarian candidates. I achieved this, and Sean Shepard will be on the ballot. 

So, to have him not on the televised debate is frustrating for me, and a rip-off of for the people. While I respect WTHR's right to air what they want to air, it sure isn't anything like a political forum. It's a political statement- an endorsement of the two other candidates and the negation of Shepard. I think that's wrong, especially if WTHR wishes to call the event 'news' or 'journalism'.

Ecuador is a place where there are many fans of Che Guevara. So, the decision by Fidel Castro to resign is going to be big news. For me, I hope it represents the end of the oppressive Communist dictatorship, and the beginning of a new freedom for Cubans. We'll see.

Learning Espanol

(Quito, Ecuador)- Ame, Isabel, and I are now in Quito for the next two weeks, for the first half of a Spanish immersion course. We are staying with a host family on the north of the "New Town" of Quito. It's kind of suburban, as suburbs go in South America.

After the stay in Quito, we'll spend two weeks on the Galapagos Islands, for continued immersion and of course, a look at the wildlife that made Darwin.

I will be launching a blog just for observations and pictures from Ecuador. Yes, Michael, I will be taking pictures of the food for you!

Look for a link to the new blog soon!

Update: Here's the link: http://koleecuador.blogspot.com