Kole In 'Current In Fishers'

Dan Domsic of Current In Fishers interviewed me regarding my take on the upcoming Fishers Reorganization/City vote:

Fishers resident Mike Kole made a decision that, by his own admission, is going to earn him extra scrutiny.

Kole recently endorsed reorganization for Fall Creek Township and the Town of Fishers.

Unlike a string of endorsements touted by the Citizens to Reorganize Fishers political action committee, Kole is one of the original plaintiffs on lawsuits that tried to compel the town council to put a city question on the ballot, as well as called reorganization into question.

“My perspective wasn’t enthusiastically City Yes,” Kole told Current in Fishers. “It was let the people decide.”

Link to the entire article.

Many thanks to Dan Domsic for reaching out to me for my perspective. I appreciate that very much!

Fishers Reorganization, Part 2

Why don't I want a Mayor? Again- Carmel provides the example. I do not want the 'visionary mayor', and the expensive pet projects that come at the whim of a single person, and which would more properly be undertaken by the private sector in any case.

Yet again, Carmel is in the news over its' palatial pet project, The Center For The Performing Arts, aka: The Palladium, and the Redevelopment Commission. From the Indy Star:

CARMEL, Ind. — City Council President Rick Sharp on Monday called for the removal of every member of the Carmel Redevelopment Commission and its spending arm.
That demand came in the wake of his revelation Monday that a $100,000 check had been written by Redevelopment Commission officials to the former head of the Center for the Performing Arts as part of a confidentiality agreement.

Speaking in front of The Palladium, Sharp said the revelation was another example of the secrecy surrounding the spending carried out by the Redevelopment Commission in its efforts to spur a redevelopment boom in downtown Carmel.

“I personally think it is time to clean house at these two organizations,” Sharp said.

“It is time to thank them sincerely for all the time they have volunteered and bring new eyes, voices and judgment to the table.”

Carmel Mayor Jim Brainard, who appointed a majority of the commission’s members and has been a strong proponent of Carmel’s redevelopment, said Monday that politics appeared to be at play in Sharp’s news conference.

“It would seem . . . that the campaign for mayor has started early,” Brainard said. 

Although The Palladium and other redevelopment efforts have helped Carmel earn national praise for its quality of life, the Redevelopment Commission has come under fire for its use of high-interest loans and financing methods that effectively bypassed City Council oversight.

If this is the 'checks & balances' the proponents of City and strong mayor have to offer, color me not merely unimpressed, but motivated against. Checks and balances are not characterized by City Council members holding press conferences to express exasperation over secret operations and being bypassed by the Mayor. Checks and balances are characterized by business being conducted in broad daylight, the merits of projects being debated in public forums, deliberations taking place over time, having taken feedback from the public.

With each news item from Carmel, my resolve stiffens. I do not want the strong mayor!

Fishers Reorganization, Part 1

In the wake of the lawsuit I participated in, and lost, against the Town of Fishers, the Town gained the green light towards placing two questions on the ballot. From the Town's website:

The questions will appear on the ballot as follows:

1. "Shall the Town of Fishers and Fall Creek Township reorganize as a single political subdivision?" (all voters in Fall Creek Township and all incorporated voters in Delaware Township will be able to vote on this question)
2. "Shall the Town of Fishers change into a city?" (only incorporated voters in the Town of Fishers will be able to vote on this question)

The following table shows which form of government you are selecting by how you vote on questions 1 & 2:

 

Question 1	Question 2	Outcome
No	Yes	Second Class City
Yes	Yes	Reorganized City
Yes	No	Reorganized City
No	No	Remains a Town

 

What do I favor? Question 1. Yes; Question 2. No.

Short explanations. On Question 1, for the reorganization, the functions of township government are minimal, can be easily enough absorbed into the Town without need to hire additional personnel, cost savings in the elimination of a layer of government, and that absorption does not worry me in the functions becoming too remote as to cause a lack of accountability. So, a 'yes' vote.

On Question 2, I have never been in favor of Fishers becoming a city, even while I was participating in the suit. My fears upon becoming a city lie with Carmel (esp) and Westfield- both former towns, both now cities, both now have a bloated executive branch with pet projects galore, and higher taxes to match. Proponents of Fishers becoming a city have touted checks and balances, and that could be a compelling argument, except for the real-life result that checks and balances are completely absent in our neighboring cities. The councils could not effectively thwart the spending on the arts and sports palaces, on TIF district issues, on bonding, on borrow and spend, etc. In fact, there was the recent episode in Carmel with the Mayor doing an end run around the city council. No thank you. So, a 'no' vote.

This will result in the Reorganized City. I could as easily accept a 'No-No' vote where Fishers remains a town, except that I prefer the reorganization of Fall Creek & Fishers together. My biggest fear, one that outstrips all other concerns by a country mile, is becoming the Second Class City, with the mayor a la Carmel's Jim Brainard.

At the end of the day, I had to look at what I thought would be the best form of government for Fishers given the choices available on this ballot.

Gary Johnson at IUPUI

As part of Johnson's National Campus Tour, he will stop at IUPUI in Indianapolis today, from 6-8pm, at the Lecture Hall Building, Room 101. Event details here.

Go there to hear him speak, then meet him at Rupert For Governor Headquarters for an after-party. Details here.

I wish I could go. I'd like to hear him one day after being excluded from the debates.

Not Watching The 'Debate' Tonight

This is out of disgust really, but is also equal parts preventative medicine. I think I know well enough about President Obama, Mitt Romney, and Gary Johnson and their policy positions, and certainly where I am going to vote, so as to render watching a fairly useless exercise.

I'm disgusted at the exclusion of Gary Johnson. I won't watch Obama and Romney absent Johnson in order to keep my blood pressure down.

I've experienced more than my share of incredulous disappointment over American politics in my life regarding the choices. Such is my lot as an idealist. But I'm going to steal a line I get handed by Republicans all the time and apply it to how I see things. Mainly, the choice between Johnson and Obama/Romney is so stark as to be night and day; and Obama or Romney may be different kinds of horrible medicine, but they are equal doses of horrible medicine all the same. The American people deserve to see and hear Johnson alongside the candidates of the pro-war anti-civil rights crony capitalist duopoly candidates.

Johnson is on the ballot in 48 states. The overwhelming majority of Americans will have the opportunity to vote for him if they choose. They won't because they don't know enough of what he stands for.

Is it the job of the debate commission to carry Johnson's water? No, but then is it the job of the debate commission to carry Obama's and Romney's? No. The debates are supposed to be much more than that. Without Johnson, they will be boring, scripted affairs that judiciously avoid certain issues. With Johnson, those issues would be addressed.

In being barred, Johnson is reduced to being online at the same time as the debates, chiming in with his policy positions, I guess in the down moments. Well, that could be the entire time. It sucks in any case, and I won't watch. We do debates only slightly better than the Soviet Union did elections.

More Important Things

I have been away from the blogging for the past few weeks as I have been helping to care for my mother in the wake of a serious medical development. I don't care to share the details, but I will say that she is doing well. It's so good to see her in better sorts.

The politics will return shortly.

Evolution To Obamacare Explained

Before Obamacare, the problem poor families faced was the choice between buying health care insurance they could ill afford or no health care insurance.

See how Obamacare has improved the the lot of the poor? Now the choice is between buying health care insurance they can ill afford or pay a fine. From CNN:

Congress' official scorekeeper said Wednesday that roughly two million more Americans will pay penalties under President Obama's health care law for lacking insurance than had previously been estimated.

Under the law, Americans must be insured starting in 2014 or pay a penalty assessed on their tax returns.

Shortly after the legislation passed in 2010, the Congressional Budget Office, working alongside the Joint Committee on Taxation, estimated that in 2016 roughly four million people a year would opt to pay the penalty instead of getting coverage. On Wednesday, the CBO and JCT revised that figure up to six million, citing legislation passed since 2010 as well as the weaker economic outlook.

Isn't that quaint? I remember hearing that one of the main reasons for more government intrusion into health care was that the cost of care was bad for the economy. Things were supposed to improve with such 'good news'. Of course, the economy was supposed to improve with the stimulus. I digress.

So, who will the false promises hurt the most?

Of those people who opt for the penalty, 10% are projected to be below the federal poverty level for 2016, which the CBO and JCT estimate will stand at about $12,000 for an individual or $24,600 for a family of four.

In 2014, the penalty will be no more than $285 per family, or 1% of income, whichever is greater. In 2015, the cap rises to $975, or 2% of income. And by 2016, it reaches $2,085 per family, or 2.5% of income, whichever is greater.

Isn't it awesome! My, how that President Obama looked out for the little guy!

I wonder what it would look like if Obama was trying to screw the poor?

21 Years?

Wait- no 'lock him up and throw away the key'? From CNN:

Anders Behring Breivik, the man who killed 77 people in a bomb attack and gun rampage just over a year ago, was judged to be sane Friday by a Norwegian court, as he was sentenced to 21 years in prison.

Breivik, dressed in a dark suit and tie, had a slight smile on his face as the decision was given.

He was sentenced to the maximum possible term of 21 years and was ordered to serve a minimum of 10 years in prison. The time he has already spent in prison counts toward the term.

 Maximum? Of 21 years? Minimum of 10 years? What does a murderer in Norway get for killing one person? 6 weeks, minimum of 3 days?

Breivik's rampage, the worst atrocity on Norwegian soil since World War II, prompted much soul-searching. Norwegians reasserted their commitment to multiculturalism and tolerance at a series of mass public tributes held in the immediate aftermath of the massacre.

Norwegians might want to devote a little soul-searching on their punishments for mass murder. Life in prison without hope of parole, for instance. 21 years is an incredibly light slap on the wrist.

I'm Supposed To Be Excited Now?

This could be a laugh line (at 2:12):

Madam Speaker, this bill offends my principles, but I'm going to vote for this bill to preserve my principles.

Alas, that's the whiz-kid small government part (*cough*) of the Romney ticket, that I'm supposed to be all excited about, because I'm a libertarian.

We didn't need to get a renunciation of Ayn Rand from Paul Ryan, when we had this stock footage lying around. Fear not, Rand has made no mark on him whatsoever.

Thoughts On Paul Ryan

The first thing that occurred to me with Mitt Romney's pick of Paul Ryan was how surprised I was that it wasn't Marco Rubio. Yes, I know that Rubio had said that he didn't want the nomination, but at the end of the day, Florida matters a great deal in the electoral scheme of things, and he might have helped bring that state to the Republicans.

That occurring to me first tells you how little impressed I was by the choice.

If this was supposed to appeal to the libertarians or fiscal conservatives that are uninspired by Romney, it fails. The thing the GOP seems to not understand about libertarians and fiscal conservatives is that we do tend to look into the record of candidates. If Romney was counting on this part of the would-be coalition getting excited about the ticket because of The Ryan Budget, well, gosh, sorry, missed it by a mile or two.

First off, if Romney wanted this bloc of voters excited, they might have tabbed Ron Paul. Or Rand Paul. Or Jeff Flake, or Justin Amash. Heck, Walter Williams even. Secondly, the Ryan Budget would have eliminated the deficit by 2040.

2040!

That isn't serious. That's a joke, when we all know that no Congress has the discipline necessary to follow any plan for more than two years, let alone 28 years. For real budget hawks, that was nothing to get excited about.

Thus, the Ryan nomination is also nothing to get excited about. Cato tried to be helpful, but couldn't help but point out Ryan's horrible votes on a number of issues, because it's so obvious.

Par for the course with Team Romney. I can't see anything but a repeat of McCain's results, because while there seems to be plenty of anti-Obama animus, I don't see a whole lot of pro-Romney excitement. The Republicans need the libertarians, the Tea Party, the fiscal conservatives, etc., in order to win. They are doing nothing to get them interested.

This is especially the case when you have Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson proposing to submit a balanced budget in 2013.

Update: In case anyone thought Cato was too soft on the rah-rah for Ryan, Roger Pilon fills the breach with a near-endorsement in a post entitled "Is The American Electorate That Dumb?":

Ryan put it simply: The country’s going broke. You’d never know that from listening to the Democratic response to the pick. For that side, it’s all about what the Romney-Ryan team will take away from seniors, women, students, and the middle class — as if all of that ”stuff” were free from government. They’re counting on seniors being too senile, women being too emotional, young people being too uneducated, and the middle-class being too focused on their mortgages to understand the situation we’re in, where we borrow 40 percent of what we spend and add trillions to the national debt every year. The Ryan budget won’t push Granny over the cliff. The Obama team’s head-in-the-sand will.

And it isn’t as if the Obama team doesn’t know exactly what they’re doing. In Obama’s latest ad, run last night during the Olympics closing ceremonies, he himself states plainly that the nation faces two fundamentally different visions of where we’re going. But he talks only about government benefits, not about costs — the “Life of Julia” nonsense. It’s a cynical view of the American public — a view that this election, more than any in recent memory, will put to the test.

To which I say, "Is Cato That Dumb?" Two fundamentally different versions? Seriously? Maybe the Koch Brothers won after all.

What really is the difference between a plan to solve the deficit never versus in 28 years... which is the political real-world equivalent of never?

What really is the difference in Team Obama's foreign policy and Romney's? Or positions on civil liberties?

Has Cato fallen into the trap of 'gotta get rid of Obama because he's awful, replace with any warm body'? How can Cato so willfully ignore Gary Johnson? Johnson is so near to everything Cato promotes. Romney so far from it, and Ryan really little better. So, pretend Johnson doesn't exist?

Very frustrating, to say the least.

Hat Tip to Patriot Paul, for the link to the Pilon Cato article.

Hand Me My Echo Chamber, Please

My friend Steve Wainstead put a term into my head a year or two ago, and it rattles around in there from time to time. The term is 'confirmation bias', and is the idea that people will seek out sources of information that speak to their point of view, either subtly or overtly.

Common question from the left: Why are there so many right-wing talkers on the air? How do we explain Fox News? Common answer from the right: Because the rest of the media doesn't speak to me the way the talkers and Fox do.

When Fox can parade an article like this, it merely deepens the suspicions and biases of its adherents:

Back in May, Ann Romney, wife of Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, wore a $990 Reed Krakoff silk shirt for a media appearance. The item of clothing set off a media firestorm, with the Romneys widely accused of being “out of touch” with average Americans.
In particular, the Washington Post wrote that the $990 blouse “will not help her husband change those perceptions, no matter how many Laundromat photo ops are on the campaign’s itinerary.”

Fast forward to last Friday, when First Lady Michelle Obama attended an Olympics reception for heads of state at Buckingham Palace, donning a J. Mendel cap sleeve jacket from the 2013 Resort collection.

The price-tag? $6,800.

This time, the Washington Post simply described the intricacies of the jacket and noted that Mrs. Obama has previously been criticized for “not dressing up enough for Queen Elizabeth II, so she stepped up her game.” No snide remarks, no outrage over the cost, no suggestion she was “out of touch.”

Just an Exhibit 'A'.

The discussion of the relative wealth of the candidates is amusing to me, for if I had to reject on the basis of their wealth, their status, their privilege in areas like education, I couldn't vote for either Romney or Obama. From Forbes:

Here’s an approximated summary of where the Obamas hold their wealth:
Cash: $660,000
Mutual funds/ETFs: $625,000
Pension: $90,000
Treasuries: $3.4 million
Real estate: $900,000
TOTAL: $5.7 million

Funny thing about making attacks on holdings while trying to appeal to poorer people. You have to count on their ignorance, willful or otherwise, to get the job done. I suppose it's working thus far.

Best Protests Money Can Buy

If I ever open a chain of businesses, I think I'll take a controversial stance on something as fast as possible. Chick-Fil-A has two lines running long today: the protest lines, and the drive-thru's. From CNN:

Former GOP presidential candidates Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum encouraged people to show their support for Chick-fil-A by buying food there Wednesday. Huckabee dubbed the day "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day" and touted in his TV and radio shows and online.

Over 550,000 visitors to Huckabee's event page on Facebook have responded that they will participate. The action enjoys the support of the Rev. Billy Graham.

Proponents of same-sex marriage have organized a simple counterprotest for Wednesday, asking people to donate the approximate cost of a Chick-fil-A meal, about $6.50, to gay and lesbian rights groups, according to the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).

I've never eaten at Chick-Fil-A in my life. I'm not in any hurry to start. But I can't help but notice how it's been more free advertising for a business than I've seen in a long time.

The dialogue is all good, far as I'm concerned. The only real danger is when cities like Boston or Chicago threaten to either not approve future expansions in their cities, or threaten to ban them outright. It's one thing for individuals to act upon their consciences, but quite another for municipal governments. There's no such thing as a collective conscience- or if there is, there is no such thing as individual freedom of speech.

Update: The Indy Star (yeah, yeah) covered the long lines at Chick-Fil-A stores around the central Indiana region.

I Must Live In Abject Poverty

Why? Because I don't own a flat screen TV. I own one TV, not a flat screen, and to the consternation of my kids, it is intentionally unused and sits in the garage. We must be the poorest family in the United States. From CNN Money:

With income inequality at the center of the national political debate this year, it should be no surprise that conservatives and liberals are coming down on opposite sides of the tracks.

Conservatives point to spending patterns, saying consumption is a better indicator of living standards than income. Using that metric, the nation's poor are living better than they have been in decades, enjoying many of the amenities that the middle class have.

"People are not as badly off as you think," said Aparna Mathur, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning organization.

Liberals, however, counter by saying that while electronics and appliances have become more affordable, basic necessities such as child care, health care and transportation have not. These costs have left the poor struggling to make ends meet.

And, as is my wont, I'll split that down the middle. You see, I've actually lived in an extremely poor neighborhood for several years, and while that often gets dismissed with a wave of a hand ("That's anecdotal!"), it struck me as being "real life".

For instance, my next-door neighbor made less than $25,000 a year. But he had season tickets for the Cleveland Browns. Decent seats, too. 10 games/year, two tickets at $40/each, tailgating before the games, beers and dogs during. He was spending 5% of his income on football, easily.

While at first blush I ridiculed his decision, I also instantly knew that this was what made his life tolerable. Better than tolerable- it was what he lived for. He was exultant every Saturday, because even though the Browns always sucked, his world was going to be glorious tomorrow.

It struck me. Am I elated 10 Sundays a year? I had to confess I was not. Maybe he knew something I didn't.

We all make decisions. Spending 5% of my income on sports doesn't make sense to me, but it made perfect sense to my old neighbor. He was badly off in many ways. His house was filthy and dilapidated. His car was always being tinkered with because it was always falling apart. He never went on a vacation. Their teeth. Oh, wow, they never went to a dentist.

But if you asked him, he lived well. I know, because I did ask. Those football events enriched him. I learned to stop worrying about his 'plight' and simply accepted him as a friend.

We can look down our nose on him if we choose to, but quality of life is relative and self-defined. He had cable TV also. But the dentist just wasn't important to him or his wife. I'm exactly the opposite. It doesn't make him a bad guy, just somebody with a different set of values. If he was stealing from me? Well, then he would have been a bad guy. He was poor by most standards, but he had integrity and a self-esteem.

Several conservative researchers, however, say that Americans don't have a true idea of what living in poverty means.

The average household defined as "poor" in 2005 had air conditioning, cable TV and a DVD player, according to government statistics cited by Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. If there were children in the home, the family likely had a game system, such as a Microsoft (MSFT, Fortune 500) Xbox or Sony (SNE) PlayStation.

Poor Americans had more living space than average Europeans and were not hungry, Rector said.

"If you took the typical poor household and put them on TV, no one would think they are poor," he said. "They struggle to make ends meet, but they are not in any type of deprivation."

This is where the lack of perspective really hammers at us. Most Americans haven't traveled abroad. If you want to see poverty on a grand scale, sure, you could go to Detroit, but travels to other countries show a great difference.

I'll never forget going to Ecuador and learning the per capita annual income was $900. I was making that every few days prior to 2009. Wrap your head around that. $3/day! Small houses; meals with loads of rice, beans, and potatoes, not much meat or vegetables; few cell phones or other gadgets; cars with multiple owners and shared, if owned at all. And yet, they were getting on with their lives, and I dare say that as a people, seemed happier than Americans.

Or, a trip to Costa Rica. We visited a mountain village. I marveled at the construction of the houses. The materials were thin, the wires exposed, the air flowed through because the walls weren't sealed to the gables, the average entire house the size of my living room. The most delightful, generous people.

The average Ecuadoran or Costa Rican wasn't living with as much wealth as the poorest in America. That was plainly obvious. Plainly.

On the whole, I think we worry here too much. We stick our noses into other people's business, because we're so full of ourselves that we think we know better how other people should live. This applies to the right and the left.

People make decisions based on their own value systems, towards their own happiness. We may not understand their decisions. They do not necessarily constitute 'problems'.

NBC & The Olympics

We haven't had cable TV for at least 4 years (I'm too lazy to suss out how long exactly), but that hasn't stopped me from enjoying sports viewing online. Many games are streamed, and I watch some of these.

The Olympics is being streamed, but for a charge. That's where you lose me, NBC. I don't care enough about the Olympics to pay to watch. Link: interesting CNN article on #NBC Fail.

If I paid for premium cable, then I could stream live free of charge. Well, that's $1,200/year I save. Trust me- the Olympics isn't worth it to me.

It's curious. Comcast owns NBC. It does not own ESPN, but I can stream a host of Major League Baseball games, and college football games on ESPN, as the website says, "courtesy of your internet provider". I guess NBC & Comcast are gambling that the interest is great enough for folks like me to leap over the cost hurdle. Alas.

Bye Bye, Indy Star

I know I've been a chicken little on this before, but it sure looks like the Indianapolis Star is putting the finishing touches on ending its existence. From their soon not-to-be-seen-by-me website:

Full Access digital-only subscriptions are available for $12 a month, only 40 cents a day. Beginning Sept. 1, we will limit access to news and information content consumed through our website, smartphones and tablets. Nonsubscribers still will be able to read up to 20 stories a month on IndyStar.com before needing to subscribe.

Nothing has changed since 2009. The content the Star originates is not very good. They barely cover local government. Their columnists are shills for idiotic projects such as light rail.

Any media source has to deliver something unique. The Star is just like every other daily newspaper left in the US in one key way: The Sports Section is top notch. Everything else? A soup of AP/NYT/WaPo copy you can get anywhere, and thin, irregular coverage of everything else.

So, first they sell the building, then they announce a plan that will drive users away in huge numbers, and hurt their ability to sell ads for the online property. $12/month? I wouldn't pay $12/year for the Star's unique content.

Be sure to click the article and go to the comments. I have never seen the Star respond to comments, but in this case, they sent the cavalry. It just reeks of desperation.

Bob Babbitt Passes

You may have heard of the passing of Bob Babbitt, the legendary bass guitar player who had the enormous task of filling James Jamerson's shoes at the Motown hit factory. From the NY Times:

James Jamerson was the label’s primary bassist in those years, but Mr. Babbitt provided the bass lines for numerous Motown hits, including Stevie Wonder’s “Signed, Sealed, Delivered,” the Temptations’ “Ball of Confusion,” Marvin Gaye’s “Inner City Blues” and Edwin Starr’s “War.” He later recorded with Barry Manilow, the Spinners, Alice Cooper and many others.

Neither Jamerson nor Babbitt were household names. That was the deal when you were a studio musician. Fortunately, Bob lived long enough to get the recognition he deserved. Sadly, Jamerson did not. From the Detroit Free Press:

Like many studio musicians of the era, Babbitt wasn’t always publicly acknowledged for his work. It wasn’t uncommon for Babbitt’s role to be omitted — or even actively hidden — on record credits.

He told the Free Press in 2003 that his Scorpion was “actually the rhythm section on the first Funkadelic album (in 1970) at Tera Shirma studios, but George (Clinton) gave credit to his band at that time.”

Like his fellow Funk Brothers, Babbitt at last got wider attention via the 2002 documentary “Standing in the Shadows of Motown,” which chronicled the group’s work behind the scenes.

Bob played on more than 200 Top 40 hits. Roll up the Beatles, Elvis, and Michael Jackson, and Bob Babbitt still played on more.

But I knew him as my cousin. His mother and my grandmother were sisters, making him my 1st cousin, once removed. When I was a kid, my mom would tell me about the great musician, our cousin Bob, who was on loads of gold records, and whose bands played the black clubs in the industrial Midwest- Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, etc. It was positively otherworldly for my mom.

I recall talking bass with him once at a rare family reunion. I was 17 or 18, and playing punk rock bass. The nerve of me, right? He spoke about the gypsy music his mother loved. Bob's mom was "Aunt Margaret" to me, but Margaret Kreinar to a radio audience in Pittsburgh, who listened to her Hungarian language radio show that played plenty of gypsy music. He shared what a big influence it was to him in guiding him to what some referred to as 'black music'- jazz, blues, and early rock 'n' roll. He found that the rhythms and fluid grooves were similar. He fit in perfectly at Motown, despite being the white guy.

Once the film came out to give the Funk Brothers their due, gigs followed. Real showcase gigs, not some rib burnoff in Iowa, or the 250 capacity clubs I favor, but class venues. I loved that for Bob. I loved even more that my mom could see him play live with some regularity.







I am grateful to have known him. Wish I knew him better. So happy he got the recognition he and the Funk Brothers deserved, and that he got to enjoy his last days outside that obscurity.

The Price Of Getting Sick

In my late May hospital stay, I got bored as any recovering patient might, so I turned on the TV and geeked out on Storage Wars.

Can you believe I got a bill for this? $23.50 for watching TV?

I don't object to paying for what I use. I rather insist on it. But, I was in some state of delirium when I arrived and signed the documents. I don't remember any verbal or printed disclosure about any costs for watching TV.

I may have been bored, but I am cheap. Ame brought me a book and my laptop. Given clear notification, this cheapskate would have done without Storage Wars and used the diversions I had instead of the exceptionally overpriced one. The cable TV available to me at home via Comcast goes $100/month, or about 3 bucks a day. I watched on one day, so $23.50? That's BS.

Lucky me, this is the tip of the iceberg. The other bills are going to be rolling in. Can't wait.

Now I'm not going to start calling for socialized medicine just because I feel like I was taken advantage of on the TV viewing. For $23.50, the heaviest my objection will be is this blog post and an 'UP YOURS!' to Good Samaritan Hospital. Maybe a letter to the hospital. Caveat Emptor, as always. If there is a next time, you can bet the TV will not be switched on.

NBA Goes Bush League

The NBA will be the first of the four major North American sports to cave and put corporate advertising on their jerseys. From ESPN:

Come fall, it's highly likely you'll see a small 2-inch-by-2-inch sponsorship patch stitched on the shoulder of your favorite player's game jersey.

"I think it's likely that we'll do something, implement something, some sort of plan for the fall," NBA deputy commissioner Adam Silver said. "I think it's fair to say that our teams were excited about the opportunity and think there is potentially a big opportunity in the marketplace to put a two-by-two patch on the shoulder of our jerseys."

Well, sure. It should fetch a LOT of money.

"Our view is we think, on an aggregate basis, league-wide, our 30 teams could generate in total $100 million by selling that patch on jerseys, per season," Silver said.

And, I have to believe the other sports will quickly follow. It's probably amazing the NBA held off this long, when you consider how difficult it is to see the clothing at all on a NASCAR driver, or European soccer player.

I collect hockey jerseys. Part of it is that when I play recreational hockey, I enjoy wearing an NHL jersey & socks. It's as close as I'm ever going to look like an actual hockey player. I have a few minor league jerseys that do have logo patches on them. They are my least favorite. They appear cluttered and cheap to me.

Once you get past aesthetics, it's difficult to find a rationale against jersey sponsorships. Shorter contracts and increased player movement have given more weight than ever to the Seinfeldian notion that NBA jerseys are just laundry, vessels that carry the true product -- the collective talents of the guys playing the games, jamming the ball, blocking the shots, draining the 3s. If a corporate logo doesn't compromise those skills and actually strengthens the fortunes of the league, then it's an idea that should be carried to fruition.

I've worn my share of t-shirts in my life to get the concept of the walking billboard, but they aren't 'just laundry' if you've laid out $200 for a jersey. I like to promote my team. It doesn't mean I like to also promote that team's corporate sponsors. If you want me, as the wearer of licensed sports apparel to embrace a logo on the jersey, then reduce the price of the jersey, and I won't object so stridently.

The fans are always the last consideration.

I Loves Me Some Conventional Wisdom

The usual saw is that Libertarian candidates 'steal votes' from Republican candidates.

First of all, no candidate steals votes unless they are engaged in voter fraud. A candidate will better compete for votes than others. So, my Republican friends, if you think Ls draw from Rs, you may consider that Ls just do a better job of winning over people who really mean it about smaller government.

But this news from New Mexico Watchdog:

Here are the numbers in the question PPP asked when it included Johnson’s name with Obama and Romney:
Another interesting aspect?
A lot of Republicans have worried that a serious Johnson candidacy would hurt Romney more than Obama but in this particular poll, Johnson pulls down Obama’s numbers from 42 percent to 38 and, as Jensen points out, Johnson “gets 24 percent of the independent vote, and a lot of his support is coming from more Democratic leaning independents.”

Those results echo what Johnson has told reporters this summer — that his presence in the race doesn’t necessarily hurt Romney and appeals to voters who are so turned off by both Democrats and Republicans that a large number of these disaffected voters wouldn’t have voted anyway.

This cuts both ways. I find Democrats cheering on Libertarian candidates, because they perceive Libertarians as opposites of Greens or Democrats, and thinking back Green Party candidate Ralph Nader in 2000? Well, they like to think of Libertarians 'Nadering' Republicans.

Awesome! Keep thinking that way! Those usually Democratic voters who really, really want expanded civil liberties and reduced foreign intervention? They haven't gotten what they want, and they aren't going to in a 2nd Obama term. They know that. The only person running for president who will be on the ballot in their state will likely be Gary Johnson.

Terry Michael, former Press Secretary for the Democratic Party, is supporting Johnson.

I don’t intend to change my registration. I’m still a Democrat. But I’m a small “l” libertarian Democrat, who wants to teach fellow Democrats that 21st century libertarians are not a bunch of selfish, Ayn Rand-style, greedy capitalists. Among the three issue frames of politics—economy, social, and foreign—most rank-and-file Democrats share much in common with modern libertarians. Most libertarians want to keep government out of our bedrooms, away from our bodies, and out of the backyards of the rest of the world. On the economy, while we are for limited spending, taxes, and regulation, we favor free markets—not oligarchic capitalism that uses government to re-distribute tax revenue to the military-industrial-congressional-media complex, the behemoth pharmaceutical companies, or other lobbyists along Washington’s K Street who seek benefits from government and regulations that put competitors at disadvantage.

Why would I abandon the candidate for whom I had great hopes for change in 2008, a president from my own home state of Illinois, Barack Obama? In fact, I even made a libertarian case for Obama in 2008 at Reason.com—which turned out to be hoping against nothing but hope.

For me, that hope turned to despair when President Obama ramped up another hideous elective war, putting tens of thousands of young men and women in harm’s way in Afghanistan; rammed through a taxpayer and deficit-funded corporate welfare program for drug and insurance companies, in the guise of health care reform; and reneged on promises to slow prosecutions in the assault on personal freedom, the violence-creating neo-Prohibition known as the war on drugs.

Obama has had 3+ years to make his case in action. Alas. I do not believe Terry Michael will act alone. I am hoping against hope that many left-of-center voters will look past team and squarely at policy.

Campaign Season In Full Swing

Lately, I find that I've been blogging more at the Hamilton County Libertarian site than here. That's ok. The Season is definitely upon us, and much is happening.

If you are interested in what the Libertarian Party is up to in Hamilton County, the sources you need to follow now through the election are:

Hamilton County LP Blog
Hamilton County Libertarians Facebook Page
Indiana For Gary Johnson Facebook Page

If you have an interest in volunteering with any of the Libertarian campaigns in Indiana, email me and I'll set you up!

I'll now return me to my regularly unscheduled sporadic blogging.