New Podcast - Guest, Andrew Lee

Been a few weeks since I posted a podcast, but the latest is up and available for your free download. Here's a link to the full archive: http://web.me.com/mikekole/Website/TPCBYL/TPCBYL.html

This installment has an interview with my friend Andrew Lee. I was astonished when he told me afterwards that he had never been interviewed before. Andrew was the Program Director at Indy's WXNT 1430-am, hired Abdul Hakim-Shabazz and produced his show before moving to assignments in Tucson AZ & Minneapolis MN.

We had a great conversation about radio, and I really enjoyed discussing the latest Rush Limbaugh incident. Lee is the Program Director at a station that carries Limbaugh in a fairly liberal city. I found it all fascinating.

This installment includes Part 1 of the interview. The next will carry the conclusion.

Working For Rutherford

I am excited to announce that I have joined the Mark Rutherford For Chair team, and will be volunteering for him at the Libertarian National Convention in Las Vegas some two weeks from now.

My role will be that of Floor Whip. The job entails being assigned several states, and then working to drive votes from those states' delegations to Mark.

One thing I really like about the Libertarian National Conventions is that things are very rarely decided before the voting starts. These are real conventions- not the coronations that the Rs & Ds host. Gary Johnson is the frontrunner for the presidential nomination, but I've been at conventions where the frontrunner was surprised very late in the day (e.g.: when Michael Badnarik overcame Gary Nolan in 2004). The Chair elections are always contentious. This one will be no different, as Mark needs to unseat current Chair Mark Hinkle, so I will have to work to earn votes for him.

Contentious conventions are electric. That 2004 event was everything we read about in history books, minus the smoky back room. In that election, Nolan was the frontrunner, but Aaron Russo was thought to be a very strong second. Badnarik gave the performance of a lifetime in the debate, and when the first ballot votes were revealed, all three were within 12 votes of each other. The place exploded with a flurry of activity, as conventioneers ran to their state or regional caucuses, and whips for the candidates worked each group for votes in the suddenly new landscape.

Check out the CSPAN video of the 2004 convention: At the 4:01:00 (that's the 4-hour mark) the cameras found the Region 3 caucus, and delegates took to a chair to speak in favor of either of the three candidates. I took my turn at the 4:05:20 mark to stand on a chair before our caucus to speak on behalf of Nolan. Afterwards, Rutherford thanked the caucus and urged them to vote their conscience.

I am hoping that when the 2012 Convention votes its conscience for Chair, it selects Mark Rutherford.

Policy Vs. Team

This consideration has been a long-running them here at the Kole Hard Facts. I watched throughout the Bush years as Republicans buried their heads in the sand as the size and scope of government expanded with LBJ-like rapidity. I have since been treated to the spectacle of Democrats pretending the wars and civil liberties don't matter and deficit spending is now wonderfully good economics now that Obama is president.

Now comes the Indiana gubernatorial race. I did some google searching for a position on marriage equality for Democrat John Gregg. (I didn't have to google for Pence, thank you.) I couldn't come up with anything at all. His website has a button that says "Issues", but if you go there, you will not find any listed. He's asking what issues are important to you.

But if Gregg is the Blue Dog Democrat I think I know him to be, then he's not going to put this issue at the front of his agenda, even while Mike Pence might. So, while Gregg doesn't say anything about this issue, or any other in fairness, most people who support marriage equality will likely conclude that they have to be against Pence, so Gregg gets the vote.

Here's Libertarian Rupert Boneham's position:

That's as plain spoken as it gets. Doesn't mince words. Doesn't hide. Doesn't hope to win the issue by hoping nobody brings it up.

So, let's see if that creates any real cognitive dissonance. I hope it does. If the issue is important to you, and you want marriage equality, why wouldn't you vote for Rupert?

Enter another common theme of the blog's lifespan: The Wasted Vote Syndrome.

Oh yes, wouldn't want to waste your vote on an unelectable Libertarian. Better to vote for the Lesser of Two Evils, right? Better to defeat Pence, right?

But wait- Gregg is trailing Pence by some 13 percentage points. (See the Lugar-Mourdock poll story and read down.) At this juncture, voting for Gregg is pretty much a wasted vote too.

So- will the GLBT community go with policy or team? You're team guy is giving you nothing right now. Rupert is giving you 100%.

Expected Tax Day Rant

It's a brief one this time. Why do I dislike tax day? Because I don't support some 85% of what the taxes pay for.

Here's a good place to see where the money goes. I can't think of anyone from any political persuasion who wouldn't like to see something cut, if not eliminated. The only thing I would not care to see reduced is benefits for veterans. All else could stand to be cut and reduced.

We do too much to see about taking & spending more money, and not nearly enough about cutting. There are two ways to balance budgets, after all.

Off To St. Louis

Kinda strange going back to St. Louis today, just over a week after having vacationed there with the family. But today I go back alone. Today is Game 2 of the NHL playoff series between the San Jose Sharks and the St. Louis Blues.

It's tough being a Sharks fan some 1,500 miles away from San Jose, but Indy is somewhat favorably situated between five NHL cities- Chicago, Detroit, Columbus, Nashville, and St. Louis. The longest drive is to Nashville, at just over 5 hours.

I'm hoping my luck holds out. The past two seasons, I went to playoff games in Detroit, and in both cases the Sharks won the games, both in OT, both by a 4-3 score. You can't expect to have your team win a majority of the games on the road, especially in the playoffs. I saw a playoff loss in Nashville 4 years ago. This will be my first playoff game in St Louis.

It will be interesting to see how the crowd is. Nashville was definitely more hostile than Detroit. Red Wings fans have drawn the comparison to fans of the Atlanta Braves, and I agree. The fans are used to their team making the playoffs, and they don't get caught up in crazed, irrational hatred if your team takes out theirs. In fact, they were somewhat playful with me.The Red Wings fan behind me held his sign too near to my head such that I finally said, "Okay pal, let me see your sign". He showed me and the whole section burst out laughing. I had to get a picture.

Yes- that is a 1991-92 Doug Wilson jersey I'm wearing. Anyhow, time to hit the road!

Strike At The Root

I was floored with comments made by Wayne Root, a member of the Libertarian National Committee. From Reason Hit & Run:

Wayne Root, who ran as Bob Barr's VP candidiate with the Libertarian Party in 2008, currently a member of the Libertarian National Committee that runs the Party, exhibits a lack of dedication to the LP by saying this on a Bill Cunningham podcast, right in the first couple of minutes:

I think the important thing now is to make sure Obama is not elected,and that means in my mind, I would love for a libertarian like Gary Johnson the two term governor of New Mexico would actually get elected President, but I think we all know that’s not going to happen so therefore it’s got to be Romney there is no choice.

I can accept wide ranges of policy thought within the libertarian camp. I cannot tolerate a Libertarian Party leader who recommends voting for a candidate who is not a Libertarian Party candidate.

I'm no fan of witch hunts. Root was once a Republican. I was once a Democrat. A great many people come to the Libertarian Party from either of the two old parties, and that itself is not a problem. It's a great thing! What is a problem is when a party leader doesn't understand his fiduciary duty to his organization. In the last year especially, Root's commentaries have struck me as being increasingly too pro-GOP. I can get being anti-Obama, since Obama is in the White House and sets policy tone. But the response for a Libertarian Party leader should always, always, ALWAYS be to offer libertarian policy solutions, and Libertarian candidates, as the alternative.

Mitt Romney? I mean- please. It could be forgiven if it were Ron Paul he was touting.

I'm very concerned for the Chair vote in the Las Vegas convention. I strongly support Mark Rutherford, but things I'm hearing from Libertarians across the US suggest that the association with Root is going to kill his chances to be Chair. This would be most unfortunate. Under Mark's guidance, the Indiana LP has developed marvelously, and I think the same could happen nationally if we were elected Chair. See my recent comments in support of Rutherford for Chair.

I am a delegate to the national convention. I will be voting against Root for any LNC leadership.

In the meantime, I call for Wayne Root to resign from the LNC immediately. He just doesn't understand his position on the LNC.

Voting With Your Feet

I've used this phrase to describe my relocations over the years. For instance, I moved from Cleveland to suburban Parma Ohio in 1999. There were a lot of reasons I chose Parma, including the city income tax schemes in effect in Cuyahoga County. Mainly, both cities charged me 2%. My job was in Parma, and if I moved there, I would save 2% per year. Doesn't sound like much, but if you work 5 days a week and 50 weeks in a year, you preserve 5 days labor. A whole week! It becomes a no-brainer. Besides- the commute was shortened from 20 minutes each way to 5, with walking or biking a possibility.

So, I fairly snickered at the Indy Star's somewhat shocked and breathless report about people moving to the suburbs, and wealth drain from the core city.

Indianapolis residents didn't give the city a vote of confidence in the past decade.

A new study shows Marion County lost a net 86,000 residents to its suburbs from 2000-2009, a larger out-migration than in four comparable-sized Midwestern cities (Cincinnati and Columbus in Ohio; Kansas City, Mo.; and Nashville, Tenn.)

Those lost residents accounted for about $180 million in total income now residing in the seven surrounding counties.

The core-to-suburbs migration data were the focus of debate at a recent annual housing summit held by Metropolitan Indianapolis Board of Realtors.

"I was really surprised to see the enormous income-level drain" that accompanied the moves, said Aaron Renn, an Indianapolis consultant and researcher in urban trends who compiled the data.

Where's the surprise? The move I made has been happening in Cleveland since the 1950s. People blame the drop in population on many things, but absurdly, never consider tax policy in their evaluations. I sure did! And, the greater your income, the more of your earnings you preserve. This is why all of the suburban counties in Cleveland gained population, and why regionally the population gained.

We moved to Indy in 2002, at 58th & Keystone. The neighborhood was okay, but clearly was one that could as easily rise as fall in short order. I've had enough experience in those neighborhoods to know that if you don't have tremendous wherewithal to improve the area real fast, you get out. My son went to IPS for half a year, and that was all we needed to know that we were either going to spend $10,000+ per year on private school, or we were going to move.

So, we moved to Fishers, in Hamilton County, in 2004. We're here for the long haul, even with certain political dissatisfaction. After all, it's still a very nice place to live, the taxes are low, the schools are great in enormous part because the parents are vastly more interested in the academic success of their children than, say, the parents were at IPS School 70. As the article shows, we aren't alone.

The move-outs "could be because our suburbs are more attractive or it could be because our core (Marion County) has more challenges," said Todd Sears, a researcher at apartment developer Herman & Kittles Properties, who has also studied the trend.

Tax rates, crime, school choices and housing prices also undoubtedly figured into people's decisions to leave Marion for the surrounding counties, said Renn and other experts.

Could be? Did you talk to anyone who made the move at all? You couldn't get me to move back into Indianapolis, or Cleveland, until my kids are out of school, or 2028.

This is a discussion I often have about public schools with my libertarian friends. Go ahead- tell people that you want to abolish public schools overnight. What rational decision will the parents make, with three kids, earning $50,000/year as a household, when they understand that your policy will cost them $30,000 a year? They damn well have to vote against you.

Similarly, while there may not be a tremendous tax difference between Indy & Fishers, Marion County & Hamilton County, there is the idea that, leaving inflation out of the picture, two kids in the Fishers schools = the cost of property taxes; two kids living in Indy going to private schools = $20,000 x 12 years = $240,000.

That's the kind of math you cannot ignore. So, yeah. For a quarter million, maybe, just maybe people find it worth it their while to get out of an inferior school district, where the crime rates are higher, where the taxes are higher, where the insurance is higher, etc.

So, we voted with our feet. Until the folks who set policy in urban cities understand this, they will continue to see population loss to the suburbs.

The suburbs need not get too smug, though. Parma is not a place I would go back to, either. It didn't learn a thing from the history that unfolded before its eyes. It repeated all the mistakes Cleveland made. It too has high taxes, declining schools, rising crime rates, and all the other factors that chase people of means and awareness out. There's nothing particularly special about the suburbs apart from being created by people of means who are success-oriented. They don't always stay. Today's shiny new suburb can indeed become tomorrow's slum. Policy sets the tone.

Stunned By Decision

Kole v. Faultless, the lawsuit I am participating in against the Town of Fishers has been decided. The headline says it all.

More than anything here's the part that just flat out stuns me. We had this as our legal question, from Justice Shepard's decision:

In particular, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has asked us the following question, certified under Indiana Appellate Rule 64(B):

Whether a political unit may reorganize into a city under Ind. Code art. 36-1.5 (the “Reorganization Act”) in a manner that eliminates voting rights recognized under Ind. Code § 36-4-5-2 and Ind. Code § 36-4-6-3(i), including reorganization as a city with (1) a council elected entirely at large; and (2) a mayor appointed by that council.

We have accepted this question and now hold that Article 1.5 of Title 36 does allow a political subdivision to do so.1

Are you kidding me? The question is, 'Can Fishers eliminate voting rights'? The answer is 'Yes!'?

I think the big learning curve for me here is that the consideration is strictly a legal question. Our question was framed in Indiana court, with it imposed against a particular law, the "Reorganization Act". They took an incredibly narrow view of the law. The law doesn't preclude a municipality from forming this kind of government, or any other. Shepherd points to a 'liberalization' over time in Indiana in reducing barriers and restrictions to the municipalities, and evokes a move away from Dillon's Rule, and towards Home Rule.

I'm not sure I buy that. My interest is in the people's self-government. Our petition was sandbagged by the Town Council so they could advance a plan crafted in its' own interest. I don't see that as Home Rule at all. A vote of the elected officials is nowhere near the same thing as a vote of people. Maybe I just badly misunderstand the term. Anything is possible. I thought this case was a slam-dunk.

The language of the decision suggests that a door is open for laws to be written that do specify the forms of municipal government entities can form. It offers no guidelines. So, wanna create a kingdom! Hey hey, go for it! Home Rule, baby!

What move comes next has not been determined. I do expect the Fishers Town Councilors to call a press conference, do a happy dance, and generally drag our names through the mud. Can't wait for that.

White Americans For Romney Video

No. Actually, I made that up. But what reaction did you have to that headline? Did the word 'racism' enter in? We're you ready to burst a vein in your temple (if on the left), or shake your head and say indignantly, "He did not..." (if on the right)?

Well I watched this campaign ad video, and 'racism' was exactly what I thought of at the :25 mark. Watch the clip for yourself:



The double standard is excruciating. So was the BS about the Iraq War being over. Are all of our troops gone? No? Not over.

But the racism and pandering of this ad is sickening, and it wouldn't be tolerated well if the video swapped out 'African American' for 'white'. I think the media and the left would be apoplectic. Rightfully. But, let's see what the reaction is. The right is about to explode, between this and the Obama-faced flag flying in Lake County, FL.

This ad could convince me that Obama doesn't care if there is hard strain in race relations. If you work hard to extend a double standard, what else could one conclude? That he was unaware of this ad? Ok, it lacks the "I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message" tagline. It does have the Obama logo, though. Looks authentic. Maybe it's a dirty trick? Hmm...

Gary Johnson's Creative Fundraising

I love Gary Johnson's creative fundraising device that plays with the NCAA tournament brackets. Johnson is seeking the Libertarian nomination for President in the party's May convention. He has set a goal of being included in the national debates. The Johnson campaign wishes to demonstrate reaching some metrics in order to be considered for inclusion. From a Johnson campaign email:

Here is what March Mania is about: To qualify for our share of the matching funds presidential candidates receive from the money citizens voluntarily “check off” on their tax returns, we must receive contributions during the primary election campaign totaling at least $5,000 from each of at least 20 states.

For any third party candidate, inclusion in the debates is an excellent goal, and the use of brackets is clever stuff, given the devotion to the tourney every year.

Disclosure: I have not donated to his campaign, or to anyone else's. I just like the cleverness.

Not Just A Stunt Or Isolated Incident

A few scant weeks ago, I decried the female lawmaker from Georgia who proposed a law that would interfere in a male reproductive health, on the basis that she objects to males writing laws that interfere in female reproductive health.

Oh, that's a stunt. Oh, that's not serious. Yeah, right. First Georgia, now Ohio. From the Dayton Daily News:

Before getting a prescription for Viagra or other erectile dysfunction drugs, men would have to see a sex therapist, receive a cardiac stress test and get a notarized affidavit signed by a sexual partner affirming impotency, if state Sen. Nina Turner has her way.

The Cleveland Democrat introduced Senate Bill 307 this week.

A critic of efforts to restrict abortion and contraception for women, Turner says she is concerned about men’s reproductive health. Turner’s bill joins a trend of female lawmakers submitting bills regulating men’s health. Turner said if state policymakers want to legislate women’s health choices through measures such as House Bill 125, known as the “Heartbeat bill,” they should also be able to legislate men’s reproductive health. (Emphasis mine.)

Exactly as I analyzed previously: "You want to regulate us? We'll regulate you." Not, "Regulating us is wrong, stop it." Or, "Regulating us is wrong, here's law to repeal previous law". Or, "Here's a poison pill amendment to kill the other bill".

This is no surprise to me whatsoever. The natural inclination of both Democrats and Republicans is to interfere in our lives, in virtually every arena. The bedroom is not sacrosanct to Democrats, as these proposed bills show. It is no more sacrosanct to them than the wallet is to Republicans. The myths are firmly in place, but the law? Style vs. substance. &c.

So again, the wingnuts come in both left and right varieties. Better that BOTH sides stayed out of the bedroom, and left people free to choose.

'Real Fans' Are Overrated

I think Colts fans are perfectly justified in being unhappy with the huge wave of cuts- Peyton Manning, most notably, and now Addai, Clark, Brackett, Bullitt, and Painter.

Ok, most Colts fans are good with the cutting of Curtis Painter. But WRs Reggie Wayne and Pierre Garcon are also likely done here, and Dwight Freeney is on the trading block. If you were a fan, was it because you just love the blue jerseys and the horseshoe helmet, or was it because you identified with likeable players that made long careers here?

So, if the likeable players are gone, what's to be excited about? Rah-rah blue jersey? Rah-rah Irsay's team?

And, is the fan anything more than a sucker if expected to buy tickets and go to games where the odds are great that the team is not only going to lose, but look bad doing it? I think 'sucker' is just the right term.

So, when someone suggests that you aren't a 'real fan' if you have quickly lost interest in this team, let them know that they are just a 'sucker', and that you aren't the kind of fool who knowingly flushes good time and/or money down the sewer in accepting frustration where entertainment should be.

I'll give Colts GM Ryan Grigson this: When he cleans house, he CLEANS HOUSE.

Meet-Up With Rupert

I remember my reaction when I first heard that Rupert Boneham had an interest in seeking the Libertarian nomination for Indiana Governor. I thought, "Oh, great. A reality show TV star. We work so hard, so long to be taken seriously, and we'll be cast as a joke party." He had no prior involvement in politics, but he is instantly recognizable by many thanks to his appearances on the show "Survivor".

The thought of the publicity he could bring to the Libertarian Party looked like a plus. People who would otherwise not be checking out the LP now would, and that's great. But what about his policy positions? If you see a tie-dyed tank top on a man everywhere he goes, is it because that's how he's come to brand himself, or is it that he's a bit of a pothead? Does he know anything about libertarian philosophy or policy solutions?

The Hamilton County LP hosted its monthly Meet-Up last night, and Rupert spoke for about 15 minutes. The biggest issue for Rupert? Getting government out of charities. He went on to detail how state and federal agencies have interfered with the business of his charity, Rupert's Kids, draining it of money and time, replacing those things with nothing. He works with troubled youth, with the intention of setting them up with life skills, including vocational trades. He speaks knowingly, and with passion for the kids in his programs. He observed over time that private charity succeeds when it moves kids out of their programs and into the adult workforce. Government charity has the effect of keeping people in the system, and vastly less functional.

Some libertarians may not be as excited to hear him talk about education, where he takes a destinational approach rather than directional. He spoke about eliminating some administration, moving education away from the state and back into local control, eliminating I-Step, and increasing vocational training and life skills training. He doesn't sound like Murray Rothbard, but rather Milton Friedman.

But on the whole, Rupert groks libertarianism far more than I expected at the onset. And, he's a great spokesman in this setting at least, being about 20 people. People in the restaurant kept coming over, and eventually he went over to sit with a table of fans that waited for him to end his presentation to us. People took a real interest in everything he said.

I like to reserve judgment on endorsing candidates until I've seen them in many situations. He's got the interpersonal down. Of course he has TV down. I'd love to see him on a bigger stage, and would love to hear him on the radio with a host that is less than friendly, to see how he performs. After all, the governor's candidates are standard bearers for the parties. They do public debates, and have to hold their own, while putting across a distinct message, and in our case, one that represents libertarian values.

As to the political mechanics, there were a lot of grumbles within libertarian circles several months ago about the idea of Rupert as standard bearer for the LPIN. At the same time, those grumbling haven't stepped forward to run themselves, nor have they recruited a candidate to advance a different platform. I don't know what this represents, whether it's a concession of some sort or laziness. It's disappointing because I really like contested conventions. It's good for the organization to have competing viewpoints make their cases, with the best articulated winning the day. Grumbling and muttering doesn't accomplish anything in particular. The phenomenon of one believing they have a superior outlook and then sandbagging it is most peculiar to me.

Partisan Misogyny

I don't go out of my way to condemn foul language. I use a bit of it myself. It's probably mostly beneath me, a weakness, but it often makes a point to use an expletive in order to drive a point home. And, call me small minded, but sometimes I just get a giggle out of using a cuss word. The crudity just sums up certain absurdities too well.

I certainly don't get too worked up about entertainers who use salty language in the political arena. Rush Limbaugh infamously called Sandra Fluke a 'slut'. In fairly swift response, Limbaugh's defenders have been reminding the world that Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a 'dumb twat' and a 'cunt', many to say, "See! Your guy is worse!"

I don't go for partisan shading on this. Both Limbaugh and Maher did exactly the same thing. They used misogynist language regarding a particular woman.

I don't go for condemnations of them, because I don't play the, "I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!" card on language. I'm too big a fan of Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, and free expression to do so. Sure, it's guttural. Sure, it's offensive to some. The individuals who were targeted perhaps have a slander case. That's up to them.

But some people do go for condemnations. That's fine. I'll take you at your word if you're saying that you are in favor of a more civil discourse.

So, if you are, kindly be consistent. Please don't make moral equivalencies that say, "Well! Limbaugh is a political pundit, but Maher is a comedian!" Sorry, they're both entertainers at the end of the day, and contributors to the public discourse. Please don't say, "Sandra Fluke is a private citizen, but Sarah Palin is a public figure!" Really! Do public figures cease to be women? I had no idea.

And, if you're a member of Congress, the cognitive dissonance should be this visible, and it should hurt to be so transparently partisan.



I know it's all a political football, but really. If you want to be taken seriously about your outrage on Limbaugh (or Maher, for that matter), or your claims in favor of the civil discourse, you have to be consistent. Read Congresswoman Schakowsky's strong statement against Limbaugh's comments and see if you can find anything that would suggest excusing what Maher said.

The country is so absurdly partisan at this point. I have marveled recently at the ability of the left to turn a blind eye to so many of the things they complained about with Bush (eroding civil liberties, foreign wars, indefinite detention, borrow & spend). Before that (well, and after too), I was marveling at the ability of the right to ignore the things they complained about the left while backing those on the right doing those very things (bailouts, borrow & spend, growing the size & scope of government). There's more to politics than team. My party right or wrong is the sure path to wrong.

We need people to hold their own side to the high road. It doesn't happen fast by shaming the other side. That only breeds defensiveness and short term apologies designed more as damage control than introspection.

Update: Reason had already written something similar.

I just keep thinking about the 'public figure' argument. Yeah, right. As though it would be a-ok to call Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton these things, you know, because they are public figures. I can't get over the lame. I'd love it if we were as intent on consistency within our own camps as we are on the gotchas for the other camps.

Wait, Projections Fell Short?

Get outta here! A government entity overprojected revenues? Underestimated the gloriousness of its new ways? That never happens! From the Indy Star:

The first year of Indianapolis' 50-year parking meter lease brought doubled rates in some areas as a tradeoff for a wholesale upgrade of equipment and the convenience of paying by credit card or smartphone.

Was it worth it?

New financial data provided by the city shows its share of revenue from the vendor in 2011 -- nearly $1.4 million, or 30 percent -- fell well short of the city's own projection of $2.1 million.

And the city didn't end up seeing the full amount: After the vendor subtracted $286,000 in charges to compensate for the city closing metered spaces, often for RebuildIndy road construction work, the city pocketed $1.1 million.

The vendor, ParkIndy -- a trio of local and national companies led by Dallas-based ACS, a Xerox company -- kept more than $3.5 million.

But most of the city's share was profit, and Mayor Greg Ballard, whose office hatched the deal before it was signed in late 2010, touts the privatized system as a success story that will only get stronger.

Ok, I was kidding. Inflating the projections is what always happens. It sells the thing. After the reality sets in, you can't undo it, because a contract is in place. The future is always painted as a rosier picture.

I was pleased with the reporting on the opposition.

Democrats weren't the only skeptics of the city's deal with ParkIndy.

Some privatization experts questioned the 50-year length, prompting the addition of an opt-out clause for the city every 10 years. But that option comes with a fee, starting at nearly $20 million and decreasing over time.

Mahern was among vocal critics who noted many large cities have modernized their meters by borrowing or striking shorter-term contracts.

"We should have just worked with a vendor to provide us the service for a fee," he said, "rather than granting somebody an equity stake for what is a basic service."

Just like the toll road, this deal was way too long. Both should have been for 5-10 years, tops. It's too hard to predict the financial picture 10 years down the road, let alone 50. 2061 is a long time to wait to learn if the city sold out cheap. But, eager to get money into the city coffers because revenues are down and spending is sacrosanct, and probably to be seen at least a little like Mitch Daniels, Mayor Ballard got this rushed along.

I'm a huge fan of privatization of services, but deals like this smack of desperation and haste, and tend to give needless fuel to the critics of privatization who would dismiss the practice out of hand.

Limbaugh Shows The Swiftness Of Market Discipline

Some people prefer government to be a watchdog and enforcer rather than market discipline. I like the latter, and the Rush Limbaugh episode shows how devastatingly effective markets can be. From the Business Insider:

According to a series of advertisers' Twitter and Facebook statements, at least 20 different sponsors have now pulled their spots from Rush Limbaugh's radio show.

In case you're new to the kerfuffle—welcome out of hibernation!—advertisers began dropping like flies after Limbaugh called a Georgetown law student and women's rights activist a "slut" and a "prostitute" for supporting healthcare coverage for contraception.

Sleep Number and The Sleep Train, both mattress suppliers, were the first two advertisers to pull their ads Friday, and the numbers have grown tenfold since then.

Limbaugh gave a faux apology, and has since stuck to his guns. All well and good in the world of free speech. He can carry on and exercise his right, but it's going to be a much less lucrative gig for him if he does. He isn't winning for losing here. He's lost two radio station affiliates and probably isn't done losing stations or advertisers.

Imagine if, instead, government had stepped in and censored his remarks. Limbaugh would have been made the victim by many, and not incorrectly, in a 'two wrongs don't make a right' kind of way. Nope- the market is taking care of this just fine, no government regulation necessary, thank you very much.

$28 Million Is A Lot Of Money

Even to Colts owner and billionaire Jim Irsay. So, the team will cut Manning tomorrow. From ESPN:

Sources close to the team told ESPN senior NFL analyst Chris Mortensen that the announcement will come at a news conference in Indianapolis on Wednesday with both Manning and owner Jim Irsay in attendance.

The decision to pass on the $28 million bonus owed Manning and not to pick up the four remaining years on his contract means Manning will become a free agent, and sources told Mortensen that he intends to continue to play.

This is no surprise. When the team stunk just enough to line up for the #1 pick, and there is an NFL-ready quarterback in Andrew Luck lined up to be made the #1 pick, saving the $28 million is a bonus, really. If they stayed with Manning, the Colts might not have picked Luck, rolling the dice on Manning's health. Even if Manning proves healthy, putting Luck on the bench might not be the best thing for him- even if a year with a clipboard in hand worked out pretty well for Aaron Rodgers and the Packers.
My pic of Peyton Manning huddling up during his last game in a Colts uniform, a playoff game against the NY Jets, January 2011.

We'll hear a lot of buzzing about loyalty here in Indiana for the next several weeks. I have mixed feelings. Only one of my favorite sports heroes (Steve Largent) played his entire career with one team. I was greatly disappointed when my favorite hockey player, Owen Nolan, was traded from my favorite team, the San Jose Sharks. But I understood it, as the Sharks got a #1 pick, a player who had been a #1 pick, and another player who immediately became the Sharks' new captain.

In this case, Irsay saves $28 million. I got the impression he would have cut Manning to save $28,000. Irsay simply wasn't going to be the kind of owner who paid that kind of money just to display loyalty over money.

No Jury Duty For Kole

It's funny- I think I'm one of only two people I know who would genuinely want to serve jury duty. Jury duty is a great punch line, or an irritating way to miss a few days at work to most people, but I really want to do it.

Maybe that's why I get bounced. I had a 'Notice of Jury Service' issued to me for Federal Jury Service earlier this year. I filled out the questionnaire and then did not receive the summons. I seem to go through these motions at least once a year.

I don't know what makes me an objectionable prospective juror. I have no doubt that I got bounced in the past for being the Libertarian Party's County Chair, or for being a candidate for office. This time, my guess is the rejection is thanks to my lawsuit against the Town of Fishers. Is it that the attorneys want citizens that are disengaged politically? Maybe I'm going to have to make more sports entries here.

Very Irritated With The Koch Brothers

Ah, the Koch Brothers. Whereas the right beats up on money guy George Soros for funding causes on the left he believes in, the left beat up on the Koch Brothers for causes they believe in.

I don't beat up on people for funding causes, but I do get irritated if they do something that looks counterproductive the causes they ostensibly try to advance- if they happen to be causes I believe in.

In this case, I am a big fan of the Cato Institute. Cato is a libertarian think tank that has produced many valuable papers and publications, and has had some small (too small, in my opinion) impact on public policy. I especially love the Cato Daily Podcast, which has been hosted by Caleb Brown for the past several years. Brown does a wonderful job of interviewing Cato scholars on topics of immediate daily interest.

The Koch Brothers co-founded the Cato Institute with Ed Krane and the late Ed Niskanen. The Kochs have poured money into the Cato Institute over the years. So far, so good. But, as the Washington Post reports:

The billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch filed a lawsuit Wednesday for control of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington.

The lawsuit exposes a power struggle for one of Washington’s premiere policy centers, which has been funded by millions in contributions from the Koch brothers’ foundations since its founding in 1974.

Cato was divided between four shareholders: the two Koch brothers, Cato president Ed Crane, and former Cato chairman William Niskanen, according to the lawsuit filed Thursday in a court in Johnson County, Kansas.

At the heart of the dispute is the fate of the shares owned by Niskanen, who died in October at age 78 of complications from a stroke. The Koch brothers believe that they have the option to buy Niskanen’s shares, while Cato officials believe that the shares belong to Niskanen’s widow, Kathryn Washburn, according to the complaint.

Why a lawsuit? Is it so important that the Kochs get additional shares? Cato has been absolutely fantastic, just as-is.

Crane released this written statement:

“Charles G. Koch has filed a lawsuit as part of an effort to gain control of the Cato Institute, which he co-founded with me in 1977. While Mr. Koch and entities controlled by him have supported the Cato Institute financially since that time, Mr. Koch and his affiliates have exercised no significant influence over the direction or management of the Cato Institute, or the work done here.

“Mr. Koch’s actions in Kansas court yesterday represent an effort by him to transform Cato from an independent, nonpartisan research organization into a political entity that might better support his partisan agenda. We view Mr. Koch’s actions as an attempt at a hostile takeover, and intend to fight it vehemently in order to continue as an independent research organization, advocating for Individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace.”

I'll reserve judgment as to the intentions of Charles Koch for the moment. However, at a time when interest in libertarian ideas is at an all-time high, and acceptance of them is growing, the last thing we need for the liberty movement is divisiveness within the premier libertarian think tank. It's counter-productive, at the very least.

Killing Owls To Save Owls?

I'm thinking of oxymorons like 'military intelligence'. I'm thinking about paying farmers not to grow crops. My gosh but we do some strange things in pursuit of certain outcomes. From the Washington Post:

To save the imperiled spotted owl, the Obama administration is moving forward with a controversial plan to shoot barred owls, a rival bird that has shoved its smaller cousin aside.

The plan is the latest federal attempt to protect the northern spotted owl, the passive, one-pound bird that sparked an epic battle over logging in the Pacific Northwest two decades ago.

The government set aside millions of acres of forest to protect the owl, but the bird’s population continues to decline — a 40 percent slide in 25 years.

A plan announced Tuesday would designate habitat considered critical for the bird’s survival, while allowing logging to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire and to create jobs. Habitat loss and competition from barred owls are the biggest threats to the spotted owl.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar called the draft plan “a science-based approach to forestry that restores the health of our lands and wildlife and supports jobs and revenue for local communities.”

We do so much interventive tinkering, trying to freeze certain things in place as we once knew them. It may just be that the spotted owl is a genetically weaker creature, destined not to evolve its way to survival. So, we'll kill barred owls. Let's just not call it an attempt to preserve 'nature'.