$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'.

Coverage for Kole V. Faultless

The case Kole Vs. Faultless rests in the hands of the Supreme Court. In the meantime, there has been some media coverage. The latest is from AtGeist.com, a neighborhood based online and print periodical:

Faultless contends that the Reorganization Act, which was legislated a few years ago in the Indiana State assembly, gives Fishers the ability to create what he calls a “modernized” or “hybrid” form of a Class II city. Under the Town’s current plan, the current Fishers town council would appoint themselves as the first city council and then they would appoint the mayor.

“We feel that all the residents of the city should be able to elect the mayor,” said Mike Kole, a plaintiff in the case.

Faultless thinks it would be delightful to have the new city's Mayor be selected by the new City Council rather than the voters. I guess if I were the current council president and wanted to become mayor without having to bother with campaigning, that would be a pretty snazzy way of going about it. Easy, cheap, free of pesky voters.

Other coverage:

IndyPolitics.org Includes an audio interview with me.

Hamilton County Politics Blog

The Indiana Law Blog

Elections Mayhem In Indiana

All I can conclude at this point is that Indiana elections are a complete mess. The law really needs to be thoroughly overhauled to create simplicity and uniformity.

I am astonished that Rick Santorum can so easily make the signature requirements when one day he is lacking, and changing nothing, he suddenly has the signatures.

Then, the next day, Republican Jim Wallace is barred from the statewide primary ballot as a gubernatorial candidate because he is 14 signatures short of the needed 500 for the 7th Congressional District. From the Indy Star:

He blamed his apparent failure on a flawed process in Marion County which rejected a much higher percentage of petition signatures to be on the ballot than other counties. He said he submitted 1,282 signatures in the 7th District, entirely located in Marion County, but the Board of Voter Registration only certified 486.

“A fair number of Marion County voters are being disenfranchised regularly, not to mention the 5.8 million Hoosiers in the other eight congressional districts who have now seen their choice of the ballot vetoed by a single county,” said Wallace, a Fishers businessman and former member of the Hamilton County Council.

Wallace, who has put more than $1 million of his own funds into his campaign, did not have an attorney with him today.

Asked if that was a mistake, Wallace said that “I won’t second guess our citizen-first approach, but perhaps. I would like to think you don’t need to lawyer-up every time there’s a challenge like this. The issue is pretty simple. Voters deserve a choice in a democracy, and in this process today they were deprived of one.”

I completely agree with Wallace here. The voters have been cheated. He made the grade in 8 districts, so why not put him on the ballot there?

Apart from that, I don't see what the value is in causing a candidate to collect petitions for certain offices. Let voters decide at the ballot box! I don't want candidates denied ballot access for lack of performing the act of signature gathering. It doesn't prove anything of value relative to being an office holder.

Underlying this is again a desire to eliminate certain non-establishment challengers. Pence is a long-sitting Congressman. Wallace was once a Fishers Town Council and Hamilton County Council member, but that dates back several years. So, who brought on the challenges to Wallace?

Wallace’s candidacy was challenged by former Indiana Economic Development Corp. chairman Mitch Roob, who argued that Wallace did not collect the required 500 petition signatures in each of the nine congressional districts, falling short in both the 2nd and 7th districts.

Wallace today disputed that, arguing that he had 505 certified signatures in the 2nd, in northern Indiana, in addition to the 1,282 in the and had turned in the 7th District. Tom John, an attorney representing Roob, said there were questions about many of the 7th District signatures, suggesting some had been forged. Wallace, he said, should not be given the benefit of the doubt in face of evidence that “he does not have clean hands.”

Tom John, the former Marion County Chair of the Republican Party? The article might have mentioned that, alas.

Time to truly reform the election laws. Time to eliminate the petitioning requirements, and make uniform the processes.

Thoughts On Charlie White

I have many, many thoughts on the Charlie White saga, so I may use multiple posts to put it all across. Some of my insights come from being a Fishers resident (White was on the Fishers Town Council), a former Hamilton County political boss (I chaired the Libertarian Party, I believe he is still chair of the Republicans... he was chair at least during the times of my tenure), and a former candidate for Secretary of State (White had been elected Secretary of State prior to being stripped of office).

The main thing that has bothered me about this case is that I absolutely detest this kind of ticky tack law. I have long maintained that the real purpose of these laws is as a 'gotcha' device. This case fairly well shows how that works.

But I also know it from other cases. Interestingly, Charlie White was able to remain on the ballot, despite the world knowing about the case prior to the election. Libertarian candidates who have the most minute, meaningless errors on their paperwork routinely get bounced from the ballot summarily. In 2006, while I was running for Secretary of State, and handful of Libertarians from around the state got bounced from the ballot because the Elections Division decided to enforce a technicality that hadn't been enforced before, and that our party was unaware of statewide. Too bad, no mercy for us. Bam! Gone. I called a press conference, and a couple of reporters turned up. I stood behind the would-be candidates, shouted from the Statehouse steps, and the item wasn't even reported.

So, it bothers me about the haphazard enforcement and standards. I mean, just today, by some miracle, it was found that Rick Santorum does have enough signatures to be on the ballot after all. He was 8 short before, and now, voila! he has enough. If a Libertarian is short? Rules are rules! Fire and brimstone!

Just days after the 2006 removal of 11 Libertarian candidates, 10 Fort Wayne Republicans had signature issues. Ha- issues. They fired their executive director for FORGING signatures on their forms. It's kind of interesting to look back on what I had to say:

The Libertarian Party just had eleven candidates withheld from the ballot for failing to meet a technicality. Well! What's good for the goose is good for the gander. These ten or so Republican candidates need to disappear from the ballot immediately if the law is the law, and the Elections Division is providing consistent outcomes.

Now personally, I think the booting of candidates is a great disservice to the people of our state, but the bar has been set. I think a better outcome would be that the eleven Libertarian candidates would be certified, and a fine levied against the Libertarian Party for missing the technicality, and everyone there moves on.

In the case of the Republicans, the best outcome might be that the ten or so candidates are put on the ballot, and the Executive Director might face some jail time, if in fact he committed perjury when forging the signatures of candidates.

Jail? From Indiana Code:

IC 3-14-1-13
Filing fraudulent reports
Sec. 13. A person who knowingly files a report required by IC 3-9 that is fraudulent commits a Class D felony.
As added by P.L.5-1986, SEC.10.

All of the State's campaign forms specify at the bottom of the first page:

A person who knowingly files a fraudulent report commits a Class D felony (IC 3-14-1-13).

Felons go to jail. Pretty simple.

Republicans and Democrats wrote this law. Republicans and Democrats should therefore be the standard bearer and the exemplars in how to do this correctly, and how to bear the consequences when this is done fraudulently- if there is to be integrity in our elections.

Nobody went to jail there. White isn't going to jail, but had the felonies hung on him, and faces a year's in-house detention. (Yes, the funny joke there is, "Which house? His ex-wife's?")

And yet, I still find White's case lamentable. Not only do I want every Libertarian on the ballot. I want every candidate on the ballot. If one loses an election, I want it to be because the voters decided, not a bureaucrat in the Elections Office decided it, or because they couldn't be on the ballot thanks to a legislature bent on political self-preservation.

But, the rules are the rules. I and other Libertarians may well detest the laws, but we comply. You have to pick your battles. Do you want to be on the ballot? Then you have to follow the rules. Make a case against the rules, but comply. Get elected and change the rules. We speak out about the rules all the time. I'll note that I never heard Charlie White once speak out against the rules. Nor did I ever hear him speak out in support of a candidate bounced from the ballot. He was a County Chair and a candidate for Secretary of State, which were all good avenues for speaking up about the rules. Never a peep. I guess he accepted the rules, right up until they ensnared him.

At the end of the day, here's what I would like to see happen:

1. It's just paperwork. At the very least, let's eliminate felonies for candidate filings. I'd like to see the most minimal paperwork requirements possible. Yes, we have to know who we're putting on the ballot. Yes, we need to know that this candidate is eligible to run, and lives in the jurisdiction for the office sought (White may have been out of his Town Council district, but he still lived in the state while seeking statewide office.)

2. Broaden ballot access. The Republicans got the scare of their lives, looking at the prospect of losing ballot access with the possibility of White being declared ineligible to be a candidate, with ballot access tied solely to the Secretary of State race. Let's broaden the access rules by tying the result to any statewide candidate in a four-year cycle, at the very least. I would also like to see the threshold lowered to the 1994 standard: 0.5%, The 2% requirement is keeping other 3rd parties off the ballot, especially the Greens.

More later.

Reproductive Wingnuttery

All the demonization of Planned Parenthood of late has been a bit over the top. Indiana Republican lawmaker Bob Moore got more notice than he bargained for with his letter denouncing the Girl Scouts for association with Planned Parenthood. How over the top this wingnuttery? Republican speaker Brian Bosma passed out Girl Scout cookies at the Statehouse.

Look- abortion is awful. But it is legal, and as such, Planned Parenthood has a right to carry out the procedures. Opponents have the right to protest. I'd prefer it if no taxpayer money went to fund abortions, or to private organizations including Planned Parenthood. But I'm not going to denounce the Girl Scouts, or even Planned Parenthood as a whole. They happen to do good work for an underserved at-risk population.

I love, love, luv legislators who conclude, "You slither on your belly! Stand aside and let me show you how it's done!"

Democrats are showing that they can be wingnuts too. Get a load of this, from CNN:

As members of Georgia’s House of Representatives debate whether to prohibit abortions for women more than 20 weeks pregnant, House Democrats introduced their own reproductive rights plan: No more vasectomies that leave "thousands of children ... deprived of birth."

Rep. Yasmin Neal, a Democrat from the Atlanta suburb of Jonesboro, planned on Wednesday to introduce HB 1116, which would prevent men from vasectomies unless needed to avert serious injury or death.

The bill reads: "It is patently unfair that men avoid the rewards of unwanted fatherhood by presuming that their judgment over such matters is more valid than the judgment of the General Assembly ... It is the purpose of the General ASsembly to assert an invasive state interest in the reproductive habits of men in this state and substitute the will of the government over the will of adult men."

“If we legislate women’s bodies, it’s only fair that we legislate men’s,” said Neal, who said she wanted to write bill that would generate emotion and conversation the way anti-abortion bills do. “There are too many problems in the state. Why are you under the skirts of women? I’m sure there are other places to be."

Here's a better idea: How about both sides back off and leave people free to choose for themselves?

Issue Fatigue

The Indy Star ran an interesting article about 'issue fatigue', the idea that lawmakers get tired of dealing with an issue year after year, and finally it passes.

Many issues sort of hang around -- sometimes for years -- as advocates try to convince their colleagues that their bills are worthwhile.

In these cases, ideas become law through a combination of determination, familiarity and fatigue.

A statewide smoking ban and the elimination of the state's inheritance tax are issues poised to become Indiana's latest examples.

I found it fascinating as I consider the possibility of Libertarians winning elections and becoming legislators. Would they also experience issue fatigue? I doubt it. If there's one thing that characterizes most libertarians, it's dogged determination. You don't stick around as an ideology centered third party without tenacity.

At a meeting last week of the House Ways and Means Committee, lawmakers were hearing the details of a complicated Senate bill that would cut the inheritance tax by changing the definitions of some beneficiaries, increasing the amount of an estate that would be exempt from taxation and slashing the actual tax rates.

Even before testimony on the proposal could begin, though, Ways and Means members were impatient. They weren't interested in more proposals to cut the tax. They just want it gone.

"Do it and get it over with," Rep. Win Moses, D-Fort Wayne, said. "Otherwise we'll be fighting this every year, and philosophies won't change."

Before you get the wrong idea, understand that Moses has been the one trying to get the estate tax cut or even eliminated. Yes, a Democrat trying to cut a tax. Give the man his due on that.

But, why pass it and get it over with? Why not fight it every year, if that's the conscience of the individual lawmaker? If that's the will of the people in a particular district? Libertarians wouldn't shirk the task.

But it is instructive. Once we get in, we need to introduce legislation and doggedly stick to it. If we understand that so many will capitulate rather than deal with things repeatedly, very well. We know what strategy to employ.

Oh, Now There's A Problem With License Plates

Indiana is one of many states that allows itself to be a fundraising instrument for private organizations via vanity license plates. My position has always been that the license plate serves a particular function, and the bumper sticker goes on the bumper. The state should never be an instrument for private fundraising.

There are somewhere near 100 organizations for which the state wrongly acts as middleman- for sports organizations like the Colts and even the Tony Stewart Foundation; civic clubs like the Rotary and Lions; unions; and many more. Up to there, I had never heard a complaint from anyone but Libertarians. But, once a gay group gets in? Oh, conservatives finally decide the state shouldn't be involved. From the Indy Star:

Indiana began printing new plates in December for the Indiana Youth Group, which supports gay youths. The state's Bureau of Motor Vehicles approved the plates after a 2010 court battle with IYG and the Indiana American Civil Liberties Union.

Yet in the waning days of the 2012 session, Advance America -- an Indiana-based nonprofit led by conservative stalwart Eric Miller -- is lobbying state lawmakers to ban IYG and other gay support groups from offering special Indiana plates.

State Rep. Jeff Thompson, R-Lizton, has tried three times this year to ban the IYG plates by pushing amendments for unrelated motor vehicle bills. House Republicans rebutted his latest attempt this week for fear that the controversial issue would damage support for their broader effort of cracking down on the recent rapid growth of specialty plates -- there are 105 of them, according to the House's Transportation Committee chairman.

Oh, they want to crack down? First I'm hearing of it. Interesting. Once there are 100, it's out of hand. What about principle? What about the very question of the role of government in private fundraising? Why wasn't that attacked at the onset?

I suspect that if Indiana Youth Group was first to request, the conscience of the conservatives would have been alive and well.

The state shouldn't be a middleman for fundraising. It's time to eliminate this practice altogether- not because a gay group wants to play the game too, but because it's wrong.

The Spectacle Of Wealth Envy

I learned long ago not to worry about what others make. It can eat you up, from the inside out. Is what I'm making fair to me? That's the way I look at it.

And rich? Who's rich? My experience has been that nobody, regardless of their income, thinks of themselves as rich. Always, there is somebody else more wealthy than me or you, and THAT is the slacker who is getting off light. Tax that bastard!

People truly lack perspective. The 1%? Who are they? Well, in the US, you're top 1.5% if you make more than $250,000 in a year. Worldwide? If you earn $50,000 a year, you're top 1% worldwide. I think a lot of people getting upset about the upper 1% in the US find themselves in the top 1% worldwide. And top 20% worldwide? No doubt about it, being that it only takes $1,500/year to get there.

Now comes Roddy White, pro football player with the Atlanta Falcons. He makes $8.33 million per year. Definitely in the 1%. So, is he satisfied? Because he's in the top 0.1% in the USA. Wealth envy, and a lack of perspective know no bounds. From ESPN:

Roger Goodell reportedly will make $20 million per season by the end of his current contract. That figure set off Falcons receiver Roddy White, who posted his displeasure Monday at the commissioner's salary on his Twitter account.

"How in the hell can u pay a man this much money that cant run tackle or catch," White wrote, posting a link to a ProFootballTalk.com story which referenced the Sports Business Journal's report on Goodell's compensation.

How? The Commissioner does a few important things, like negotiate the TV deal. This is a large source of White's income.

When one of White's followers pointed out that Goodell is running the biggest sports league in the country, White took offense.

"Thats the stupidest thing i have ever heard the players make this league dont ever forget that," he wrote.

I'll accept some measure of his frustration, in that in sports or other entertainment, the performers are the whole show. If you don't have the best or most entertaining talent to showcase, your product isn't as valuable. But, having a highly paid professional Commissioner isn't the stupidest thing ever. The NFL was once a league where players made $10,000 a year and worked in factories or sold insurance in the off-season. Perhaps White would prefer to go back to that? Get Joe Blow off the street, who would be willing to do the job for $50,000/year, and see what you get.

One of White's followers asked the receiver in a tweet if he expected to be fined for questioning Goodell's salary.

"I hope not im praying not i need my money," he wrote.

Ah. Now you get to the root of it. Roddy White's $8.33 million is important to him. I wonder if it ever occurred... No. I'm sure it never occurred to White that Goodell values his salary, all of it, as much as White values his.

White best be careful. There stands 99.9% of the population looking up at his salary much the way he looks at Goodell's. Many times have I heard, "They get paid ridiculous amounts of money to play a game," or, "School teachers are more valuable than pro athletes". A lot of people are in real trouble if we move away from markets and towards public votes on who gets what.

Mark Rutherford For LNC Chair!

I am very excited about Mark Rutherford's announcement that he is seeking the Chair of the Libertarian National Committee. Mark is currently the Vice Chair of the LNC, and was Chair of the Libertarian Party of Indiana for seven years. Link to Rutherford's LNC Chair website.



I lived in Ohio until 2002, and wasn't terribly involved with the Libertarian Party there. They lacked ballot access, so they had very few candidates, and the leadership there was not very focused on getting the ballot access, ensuring that they were more of a supper club than a real political party.

The contrast in Indiana was significant. With Rutherford as Chair, the LPIN ran candidates at every level, across the state in 2002. It employed an Executive Director (Brad Klopfenstein) who carried out a range of tasks, from recruiting and assisting candidates to lobbying at the Statehouse. Indianapolis hosted the LP's national convention, landed here by Rutherford, Klopfenstein, and the leadership of the LPIN's Central Committee. I was very impressed, and when I moved here, I got very involved very quickly, assisting Andy Horning's campaign for US House the week I arrived. Rebecca Sink-Burris ran for Secretary of State in 2002, securing continued ballot access. I did the same in 2006.

So, I am very excited. I have no doubt that Rutherford can do on a national level for the Libertarian Party what he did here on the state level. That means, I would expect direction towards vastly improved professionalism and standards, and more effective branding of the party.

I am looking forward to this year's national convention in Las Vegas, where I will be proud to cast a vote for Mark Rutherford for LNC Chair.

Post The Candidates

The Libertarian National Committee is struggling with an issue right now, and I just don't get it. The issue? Should the LNC list all of the candidates for President on its website or not? Here are reasons the LNC lists for not listing all:

Examples of reasons not to list presidential candidates:

• To screen out candidates who are not dedicated to advancing our libertarian agenda, or who actually oppose it.
• To exclude individuals who appear to be disingenuously using the LP.
• To disqualify candidates who are running for the nomination of more than one party.
• To avoid publicizing candidates whose presentation is viewed by most Libertarians as embarrassing or inappropriate for a presidential candidate and who could reflect badly on the party.

I was a bit startled by this. The latter point is exactly what some Ds & Rs say about any Libertarian or 3rd party candidates, if substituting 'voters' for 'Libertarians', and 'country' (or 'city', 'state', etc.) for 'party'.

In my opinion, these things are up to the delegates to decide.

Just to see what others do, I looked at the RNC website. (I didn't bother looking at the DNC, because we all know President Obama is running for re-election.) But the Republicans do not list any of the presidential candidates. My guess? It's probably because of Ron Paul, whom they don't want to give equal space to. I'm going to further guess that some LNC members feel the same way about some of its' candidates.

In the online poll, only 8% of members thought that none of the candidates should be listed. The greatest response (23%) said to list them all without qualification.

That was my first reaction. After all, the purpose of a political party is to elect people to office. Why hide the candidates under a bushel basket?

Beyond that, the LNC's website already lists presidential candidates! There's a fat disclaimer there from the LNC, so what's the problem?

Having looked at the websites of the seven candidates posted, I didn't see anything crazy or alarming. So, I'd love some disclosure from the LNC. Just what is it that has generated such worry? And, don't you have bigger things to focus on?

Owen Nolan To Retire

Owen Nolan, my favorite hockey player of any I ever got to see live, is retiring today. From the San Jose Sharks website:

The San Jose Sharks will hold a press conference on Tuesday, February 7, at which point Owen Nolan will make an announcement regarding the future of his hockey career.

That means he's retiring. He doesn't make an announcement with a team he hasn't played for since 2003 unless he's coming back. And, since he hasn't played this season, he's retiring.

Nolan was the first round pick of Quebec in 1990, #1 overall. Ahead of Jaromir Jagr and Martin Bordeur. He never had Jagr's skill, but Jagr never had Nolan's heart or drive. As a 38-year-old, Nolan fought one of the NHL's top heavyweights in Colton Orr. Anything to win.

My favorite Nolan moments were his all-star game 'called shot' over Dominic Hasek. Nolan calls upper right, hits upper right, and gets a hat trick in front of his home fans in San Jose:


His playoff goal from center ice against St. Louis, was the game winner- propelling #8 seed San Jose over the #1 seed Blues.


I remember a discussion I had once with a baseball writer, on the subject of Ted Williams' brag about hitting a baseball being the hardest thing in sports to do. I countered that a great baseball player gets a hit 30% of the time, while a great hockey player scores a goal 20% of the time.

Discussion continued until I pointed out that the baseball player knows when his chances are coming. He steps into the box, he sees the pitcher wind up. Here comes the ball. Swing or don't. The hockey player never knows when his chances are coming. When the chance comes, he's going to have opponents hitting him with their shoulders, gloved hands, and sticks. The baseball player can hit into a huge field. The hockey player hits into net 4' x 6', with a man standing there who's sole job is to make sure he stops you. An average NHL goalie stops 90% of the shots he faces.

And, I would have loved to see Ted Williams do the equivalent of a tip-in goal. Imagine Williams standing in the batter's box with someone blasting his lower back with a stick, while a 90-mph slapshot comes at him, he re-directs the puck behind him into a target he cannot see, past a man whose sole job is to stop the puck. Nolan was good at that.

When I started playing hockey at the young age of 28, I modeled my game after Nolan's. All I lacked was the skill and size. I could give you stoopid toughness. I came to understand in a big hurry why players like him don't usually last too long- and I was just playing recreational hockey. But he made it through 18 NHL seasons, played 1,200 games, and scored 422 goals (71st all-time), 1,793 penalty minutes. You get 5 minutes for a fight.

Total package of skill and toughness, a rare thing in the NHL anymore. I got to see him play in Columbus three times in Sharks games against the Blue Jackets, and it was a singular thrill. I did wear my #11 jersey to those games. Sorry to see his career at an end, but enjoyed the heck out it along the way. Best of luck in the future, Owen Nolan!

What About The Game?

I actually did watch the entire Super Bowl game this time, having been invited to a party where there were kids mine could play with. A very good time.

The game itself was perhaps the most mediocre Super Bowl game I had ever watched. It was just like most NBA games, where you can skip the first 58 minutes of game time, and see everything you really need to see at the end.

I mean, the most interesting play was where Giants running back Ahmad Bradshaw had to decide, "Should I score or shouldn't I?"

If you didn't watch the game and just looked at the box score, you would have thought that this might have been a wide open game, with MVP Eli Manning throwing for 296 yards, and Tom Brady for 276. But, according to ESPN's game report, MVP Eli Manning threw 80 percent of his passes fewer than 15 yards downfield. Tom Brady only threw 5 balls deeper than 20 yards, and most of those were on the last drive, including a Hail Mary. I was noting this during the game. It was hard to miss. The game featured plodding, unspectacular runs up the middle, and checkdowns and quick hitters on three yard curl patterns.

Very little happened that showcased the skill and athleticism of the players- with the exception of Giants punter Steve Weatherford, who had three kicks inside the Patriots' 10. I thought he should have been the MVP. I know the NFL would never dream of doing such a thing, so the QB of the winning team wins the award for lack of any better options.

This has been a long developing trend in the NFL, and sadly so. I love wide open, daring football. As a kid in the 70s, I was first a fan of the Oakland Raiders, and then the Seattle Seahawks, who would throw passes from field goal formation. I wore my Steve Largent jersey yesterday, and because I had to explain being a fan of the inventive Seahawks, we were all aware that nothing inventive was happening. The teams of yore took chances, spread the field with long throws, and were very exciting to watch. Football today has focused so squarely on eliminating turnovers that it doesn't allow QBs to stretch the field so much any more. The days of great QBs with 25 or so interceptions (Stabler, Fouts, Hart) is long gone. So is the excitement. Instead, the game calls are safe and predictable, where it's better to get stopped short on 3rd down and punt than to risk an interception 25 yards downfield.

It makes good sense, but it's boring. So, in retrospect, I wish the Saints or Packers got in on the NFC side, and... well, I don't know who plays exciting football in the AFC anymore. I'm at a loss.

Too Desperate To Be Liked

I've lived in two such cities with big inferiority complexes- Cleveland, and Indianapolis. They suffer from a self-consciousness that says, "We're too small!" or, "We need to be more Big Time!" Or, to grab a great line from a Minutemen song: "How will others see me? I'm worried. Worried but I feel guilty."

In many ways, having the Super Bowl is a real coup. Certainly, all the businesses in the downtown area near the Stadium and Super Bowl Village had to be real excited going into this week, ready to make sales on a scale never before seen.

And then, the code enforcers show up. From the Indy Star:

The Red Lion Grog House in Fountain Square was bustling with customers Saturday night when owner Walter Bolinger saw someone walking off with his sidewalk menu board.

He ran outside and chased the culprit down. It was a city code enforcement inspector, who said Bolinger was the culprit for an illegal sidewalk sign displayed in violation of Chapter 635 of the municipal code.

"They still have it," Bolinger said Tuesday of the 3-foot sign, which had been outside his restaurant's front door on Virginia Avenue. "They refuse to relinquish it until February 6th, after the Super Bowl."

This smacks of a certain desperation by the city to be liked by the NFL. Why was this sign not a problem prior to Saturday? Why will the sign be given back after the Super Bowl, when we can surmise it not to be a problem any longer?

I don't believe in this kind of code enforcement generally. But this is silly. What a rotten way to treat the business owners- you know, the people who live here.

This action just screams a message into my ears, that the event is about the tourists, and the locals can go to hell. Not a very pleasant message. Way to go, Indy. Hardly Big League behavior.

Mr. Smith Goes To Indianapolis

Yesterday, my case went to the Indiana Supreme Court for oral arguments. It was an interesting affair, to say the least.

The case is Kole et al vs. Faultless. To keep from the legal gobbledegook that would make the average reader's eyes glaze over, I'll describe it simply.

I see this as a good government case. In sum, the Fishers Town Council believes that the state's Reorganization law permits units of government to select any form of government it chooses. My position is that a reorganization must fit into existing forms. There are no municipal governments in Indiana with a selected mayor. If they want that, they need to amend the Indiana Constitution. The people get to vote on the mayor.

For instance, their plan advances a type of city that would feature a mayor selected by the new city council members. The people would not directly elect the mayor.

So, in that scenario, you can forget about the executive being a check or balance to the legislative. It is clear to me that they want a rubber stamp mayor. I do not believe this to be in the best interest of the people.

This case arose from a petition that the Town Council sat on. City Yes PAC circulated a petition, which I signed, that wished for a ballot referendum to put the question before the voters- city or town? The rationale was that the population of Fishers was so large (70,000+) that it was time to enter into that form of government. I wasn't entirely sold on that proposition. I was (and remain) wary of the other examples in Hamilton County, such as Carmel or Westfield, where the mayor is a strong arm pushing through pet projects, while their city councils are often the rubber stamps. But- and this is the important point for me- I believe that at the municipal level, the people should decide their form of representative government by their direct election. Put the question on the ballot, and let the people choose. It could go either way. This was done once before, and the people chose to remain a Town.

History could repeat itself, but apparently the Town Council wasn't too confident. So, when they received a valid petition, they did nothing with it. Thus, the lawsuits proceeded.

Link to Greg Purvis' take on the suit.
Link to Abdul Hakim Shabazz's report on the suit, complete with an interview with me.

There was nothing especially surprising in the Supreme Court proceedings, although there was one moment when I had to stifle myself a bit. One Justice asked Fishers' counsel what recourse citizens would have should Fishers get its way, become the city with an appointed mayor, and they find they don't like it. To paraphrase, he said that the people could petition for a referendum.

Are you freakin' kidding me?! This is precisely what happened at the front end of this saga, and it got sandbagged very intentionally. What right thinking person really believes the same people wouldn't do the same thing again?

There are some interesting ramifications that have occurred to me, should Fishers win. The reorganization law allows municipal officials to shape governments however they like, in their view. What's to stop them from eliminating mayors? Being hypothetical here, look at a city that has a strong inclination towards voting Republican or Democrat. Think of Carmel or Anderson. The latter is more apt for what is foreseeable.

Anderson normally votes Democrat, but from time to time, as in 2007, might elect a Republican mayor. Now they still had a predominantly Democratic council. In this scenario, great for checks and balances. But, lets say the council decides that's not politically expedient. So, they get together and put together a reorganization plan that eliminates the mayor. If they have the veto-proof numbers, goodbye mayor.

As a purely personal consideration, the Supreme Court is a very interesting corner of the Statehouse. The space is fairly intimidating, with an absurdly high ceiling, gold leaf pilasters and columns, stained glass, portraits of past Justices, the five Justices on a dais of high-backed throne-like chairs, the works. The Justices ask questions that poke holes in the arguments put forth by both sides.

I found myself trying to analyze the questioning. Did it mean that the Justice found the assertion invalid? Or, was it that he was inviting the counsel to help write the decision? If they did not question an item, was it because it was wholly worthless, or wholly without dispute? It was very hard to read into it.

Nothing to do now but wait for comment from the Court. We could wait months or even years, although we suspect they will decide the case in such time that the question could be placed on the November ballot.

Ding Dong, The Witch Is Dead! For Now

What a delightful day at the Statehouse! My case went before the Indiana Supreme Court (more on that later), and the mass transit bill died in committee. From the Indy Star:

The House Ways and Means Committee today voted 11-10 against a bill that would beef up mass transit in Central Indiana.

And, that's why I say, for now. That's a narrow committee defeat. With it so close, this issue is certain to come back next year. Also:

Rep. Jeff Espich, R-Uniondale, on Wednesday said that he was willing to compromise on language that says workers at a transportation authority can't be forced to join a union and language that says the transportation authority could bypass common-wage hearings. Today, his committee voted to take out the language concerning common wage hearings.

The committee left in the right-to-work language, and that cost it the votes of several Democrats.

Democrats viewed the language as a poison pill for workers. But it also conflicted with federal law governing the use of federal transit money.

Let's hear it for poison pills! But again, this will come back. And, if the Democrats gain seats down the road, they may be able to get this kind of language out of the bills, or might even hold their noses and vote for the provision.

I have been arguing against expanded mass transit, particularly light rail, for about 8 years on this blog. I think we are ultimately doomed to this kind of stupidity, but for now, I will savor the temporary defeat.

Tim Thomas Slights Obama

This makes absolutely no sense to me. From ESPN:

President Barack Obama honored the NHL's Boston Bruins for their 2011 Stanley Cup championship, but one key member of the team was absent.

Goaltender Tim Thomas, one of only two Americans from the 2011 Stanley Cup team, decided not to join his teammates.

Obama hosted the six-time champions at a White House ceremony Monday afternoon, when he also lauded the team for its charitable work.

"Everybody has their own opinions and political beliefs and he chose not to join us," Bruins team president Cam Neely said of Thomas.

I'm not a fan of Obama. I wasn't a fan of Bush. In fact, I can't remember being much of a fan of any president, apart from Clinton when he was first elected, and I was a Democrat. But had President Obama or Bush ever invited me to a function, I would certainly accept. To visit the White House, to meet the President? It's all the chance of a lifetime.

If nothing else, I might take a chance to say, "Mr. President- I really wish you would change our foreign policy". When else will Tim Thomas ever have as good a chance to make an impression?

Well, I guess he did- just not the kind that would change anything.

Intended Chilling Effect? Rand Paul Detained by TSA

Is this how it's going to be now? Rand Paul calls TSA 'clueless' in June 2011, is detained by TSA in Nashville today.





Paul refused a pat down, so he was detained. I've never been pat down, although in the past when I flew more, I seemed always to get pulled over for additional screening. It used to be that I would fly almost anywhere. Once TSA was launched, and the extra time you have to build in to deal with TSA was added, I changed by thinking to where a 6-hour one-way drive was my cut off. Less than 6 hours I drive, more than that, I fly.

Now my cut off is more like 10 hours. The shortest flight I've taken in the past 8 years was to New York Laguardia, which would have been a 13 hour drive. When I lived in Cleveland, post-9/11, I drove that one. 8 hours. Rather than fly.

I'll be watching this story, looking for Rand Paul's comments afterwards. Does he feel he was singled out for having made statements against TSA and its procedures? This initial news report makes it seem like he took it to a stalemate in refusing the pat down. But, I would have refused it too. So, I imagine I would have been detained or turned away.

Petty End To Dublin Dr. Pepper

Petty. Pathetic. Small. Lame. Weak. The adjectives, they do flow in reaction to Dr. Pepper's offensive lawsuit against the tiny- and only- bottler of the reknown Dublin Dr. Pepper recipe of the soda. From Culture Map Austin:

If there's a bottle of Dublin Dr Pepper in your fridge, don't drink it — you are now the proud (and probably sad) owner of a collector's item. The Dublin Dr Pepper Bottling Co. that has produced the original recipe Dr Pepper soda since 1891 ceased production as of 5 p.m. Wednesday.

Dr Pepper Snapple Group announced that it had settled a pending trademark infringement lawsuit against the Dublin Dr Pepper plant by buying the Dublin operation and distribution rights.

So, in other words, this recipe and brand will be plowed under, simply destroyed to avoid whatever competition it presents to the main brand, no matter how miniscule.

Dublin Dr Pepper was sued by Dr Pepper Snapple Group for allegedly selling the Dublin Dr Pepper outside its six-county distribution area via its website and toll-free phone number. The suit asked that Dublin cease using the Dr Pepper name and trademark in addition to halting outside sales.

Allegedly? Well, I just bought 9 bottles today at the Do It Center hardware store in Fishers, Indiana. So it certainly got around. Unfortunately, 9 bottles cleaned them out. Even still, I could count the number of Indiana retailers I knew to stock it on one hand- and still have fingers left to attend to other tasks. That's hardly a competition to the main brand.

Besides that, whenever I bought and then ran out of the Dublin Dr. Pepper, I found I'd have a hankering for it, and would almost invariably end up buying the main brand. Yes, a less satisfying, cheaper variety, but isn't that the opposite of what Dr. Pepper feared? It wasn't competition, dummies! It was the enhancing of your brand!

Well, this lawsuit does the opposite. It tarnishes the very name Dr. Pepper. If they wanted me to think poorly of their company, they have succeeded greatly.

Yes, Dublin Dr. Pepper had an agreement to sell only within a 6-county area in Texas. Yes, they violated the contract. Yes, they should have faced some kind of sanction. But to kill the brand and the recipe? From the Dallas Business Journal:

Dr Pepper Snapple will now distribute Dr Pepper sweetened with cane sugar throughout Dublin’s former territory and other areas of Texas, including DFW. The packaging will no longer reference Dublin.

Cane sugar is a beautiful thing. It really makes a soda taste so much better than those sweetened with high fructose corn syrup. But I believe the Dublin recipe is different than regular Dr. Pepper, beyond sweetener. The flavorings are different. I taste a greater cherry flavor. I can't find any documentation to back it up, but it really tastes different, and better.

Oh well. I'll savor these last few, and lament the petty assholes that killed a cool brand.

Update: A quick check of Ebay's listings shows Dublin Dr. Pepper going for better than $70 a six pack, and over $10 a bottle. Mind you, these are 8 oz. bottles!

Hmmm... I just spent $1.80/bottle and got 9 of 'em...

What? Agreement?

Sometimes I get to feeling fairly isolated due to my political beliefs and my musical tastes being outside the mainstream. I'm even a hockey fan in the middle of basketball country. But, somewhat like my political views, being against the college football BCS championship game is gaining steam, and the predictably boring LSU-Alabama rematch has helped.

I must confess: I only have heard, read, and surmised that it was boring. I didn't watch. I did check the box score at one point, saw that Alabama had kicked 5 field goals, that LSU's punter was as active as their quarterback, and concluded that I made the right call. From ESPN's Tim Keown, who gets in a lovely Rick Santorum dig in the process of making his case:

The LSU Tigers crossed midfield once and got so worked up over the achievement they promptly went backward and recrossed, apparently worried they were trespassing and might get in trouble. Alabama kicker Jeremy Shelley got so much air time his mother was yelling at Nick Saban to go for it on fourth down, just once.

The complaint isn't necessarily the teams the BCS system chose for the title game. Instead, it's the system itself. All the calls for a playoff -- and there's really no argument anymore -- can be distilled to one sentence: More teams need a chance. When they narrow the world down to two teams, it's hard to complain when one team is undefeated and the other loses only to that team, and by just three points. But there's no way -- no possible way -- that (pick one) Oregon/Wisconsin/Oklahoma State/Stanford/Boise State would have been held to fewer than 100 yards of total offense by the Alabama defense. As good as Alabama's defense is, there's no way an Oregon-Alabama game would have been that unwatchable. And if an eight-team playoff gave us Alabama-LSU II, then fine.

This BCS National Championship Game was an ironclad argument against the current system, made all the more damning by the tremendous performances by the underlings in the Rose and Fiesta bowls. Not that anybody really needed any more evidence.

Les Miles, you mean to tell us you had a month to prepare a game plan for the national championship and you couldn't do any better than a bunch of slow-developing option plays and a couple of 2-yard pass plays? Did Jefferson tear his rotator cuff in pregame warm-ups? That game plan was so conservative I expected the cameras to pan the LSU coaches' booth to show us Rick Santorum in a sweater vest and a headset, trying to figure out which play was more likely to lose 2 yards -- Stroll Option or Hopeless Hitch?

I dunno. I thought the sweater vest was perfect- for standing around as an extra on the set of Happy Days.

You pretty much knew the game was over when Shelley kicked his fifth field goal with 22 seconds left in the third. There was simply no way LSU was going to have enough time to kick six of 'em and take the lead. But hey -- look at the bright side. At least Wing (who punted nine times for LSU) and Shelley don't have to go to the NFL scouting combine now; they had their own on Monday night.

Something good has to come out of this, so it's important that all those people who are fighting for the NCAA to institute a playoff format don't forget this night. They can't. They need to make sure nobody in power forgets how broken the system really is, and how much more fulfilling a legitimate playoff could be.

My cynicism is large, and I really doubt anything will change. Evidence seems to be the least motivating factor, with emotion the greatest. Maybe, hopefully, the ratings for the game were low. As ever, following the money tells the greatest tales. From Sports Illustrated:

TV ratings dipped for this year's BCS title game, Alabama's 21-0 win in a rematch against Southeastern Conference rival LSU. The Crimson Tide went up 15-0 late in the third quarter on five field goals while the Tigers' offense struggled to even cross midfield.

A year ago, Auburn drove for a winning field goal on the final play to beat Oregon 22-19.

Monday's game on ESPN earned a 14.0 rating, down 8 percent from last year. It's the third-lowest rating of the 14 BCS title games, beating only a 13.9 for Miami-Nebraska in 2002 and a 13.7 for Southern California-Oklahoma in 2005.

Awesome! Great! Hopefully the NCAA receives the message... and adapts a playoff.

Boring Bowl II

Oh boy, oh boy, the BCS Championship game is tonight. Color me utterly disinterested.

I think some friends take me to be a big college football fan. This is probably because my being an Ohio State fan, and the Buckeyes being in several BCS Championship games, I was very interested in that game. Alas, if I'm not interested in the teams playing, I don't watch.

I won't be watching LSU - Alabama tonight. Yes, they had a low-scoring 6-3 slogfest earlier this year that portends a repeat tonight, but that's not the real deterrent. That I don't give a fat rat's fart about either team tells much of the story. The rest of it is the BCS itself.

First and foremost, I would like a playoff. I'm a very casual college basketball fan, but I love the playoff format, and find myself getting into it as it progresses. I get to know the players and the coaches as I watch them stack victory atop victory. Teams I didn't know or care about are at last interesting to me, regardless of who they are or where they are from. Now look at tonight's game. I haven't seen LSU or Alabama in a single game- nay, a single play- this season. I could come into it cold, but I'll find something better to do, like reading one of the many books I got for Christmas. I know I'm not going to get a football playoff. The NCAA in its' infinite wisdom thinks this is better. Pah.

Prior to the BCS, I had much greater interest in the Bowl Games because while it looked like one team was the front runner for the championship, that team could lose, and because of the voting nature of college football rankings, a #3 or #4 team could emerge by winning big in a bowl game, while that #1 and #2 lost their games. By pitting #1 & #2, the NCAA figures they put together the ultimate game. They did! Problem is, it renders every other game devoid of meaning. There is no hope whatsoever that #1 AND #2 will lose. Even if LSU and Alabama repeat their 6-3 yawner, #3 Oklahoma State has no chance, none at all, of winning the championship.

I didn't watch a single bowl game this year. I didn't watch #3 Oklahoma State vs. #4 Stanford for the uselessness of it in light of the impossibility that either could become champ. I didn't even watch Ohio State's bowl game (I can't even think of who they played!), being that the tarnished team has turned me off a bit, and really, they didn't seem worthy of a bowl. I think they got one only because OSU has the largest almuni association in the USA, which means ratings for the game. In pre-BCS years, I would have watched at least 5 bowl games. New Years Day was college football central for me. Now add the NHL's Winter Classics to the mix, and I didn't even miss the bowl games this year. I didn't even think of them as they were happening.

I'll continue to hope against hope that the NCAA eventually adopts a playoff for college football. If they had, I suspect I would be very excited to watch tonight's game. Instead, it's the Iggy Pop biography.

Will The Real Republican Party Please Stand Up?

Most readers know me as a political partisan, a 'capital L' Libertarian. While I love the Libertarian Party, I love liberty more, and really couldn't care less which party gets the job of moving policy in a liberty direction done.

I've found it interesting over the years, that liberals and conservatives alike tend to try to push me to the Republican party. Why liberals concede that the Democratic Party is not the home for one who loves liberty is beyond me. But, another topic for another day.

Today is the day of the Iowa caucuses for the Republican Party. Today is the day we find out if, in Iowa, the Republican Party will embrace liberty in the form of Ron Paul, or if it will embrace one of the various authoritarian strains of Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, or Mitt Romney.

Many leaders in the Indiana Republican Party, at various levels, have tried to get me into their tent. My belief is that they really just want to plow me under, to disappear me within their organization- as they have done over the years with several former Libertarians. Can't name a one elected to anything as a Liberty Caucus Republican in Indiana.

The rationale, I'm endlessly told, is that more can be done by working within the Republican Party. Bigger stage, better chance of electability, etc. But I've never seen proof that liberty has been embraced by Indiana Republicans. Lip service? Oh, yes. Acts? No sir or ma'am.

There is truth to the rationale, though. Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian in 1988, and barely made a noise on the national level. Running in 2008, he won over a dedicated national following, and here in 2012, he is on the cusp of actually winning Iowa today. If he does win, this causes me to take serious notice- for the implications for his campaign, and for the place of liberty in the Republican Party, as well as the place of the Libertarian Party.

As I said, I don't really care which party carries the pro-liberty candidates. I will back them. If Ron Paul is winning caucuses and the primary elections, I have to be with him as far as he runs. The longer he is viable, the longer the message of liberty is in the media and on people's minds, and if he wins the GOP nomination, he could become president of the United States. I can't ignore that.

So, my first glance will be towards the vote totals. My second will be to the reaction of the Republican leadership in Iowa and nationally. They already hinted that they would ignore Iowa's results if Ron Paul wins.

Now, my Republican friends. If I'm supposed to seriously consider a move to the Republican Party, you just have to show me better faith than that. Ron Paul has been treated like garbage by GOP leadership for roughly the last 5 years. Is this any way to lure people to your party?

So, I'm watching to see what the real Republican Party looks like. Go, Ron Paul!

Reunion Notes

I had the great pleasure of seeing Death Of Samantha play one last time, at the Beachland Ballroom in Cleveland, over the holidays. I really never expected to have the chance, as they broke up in the early 90's, so it was a great unexpected treat.

D.O.S. did not disappoint. It might have been one of the better shows I had seen them do on multiple counts: 2-hour+ set, songs spanned their entire catalog, campy skit with drummer Steve-O emerging from a coffin to start the show, big appreciative crowd, band appreciative of the moment and very into the event, adequately rehearsed prior to show yielding well executed songs. Back in the day, some of these elements would be present, but never all.

Like any 'last show' (I don't know if they'll do this again), there were things that were missing for me. Hard to complain of course, but there were a couple songs they didn't play that would have been on my personal dream set list. There were a few friends that didn't turn up that I associated with the band. Not everyone who ever played in the band got to participate. But, on its' face, the night was a great success, and a hell of a lot of fun. So, here are some video clips I shot, for your enjoyment:





If it seems like the guitar is too loud in the mix, understand that I went out of my way to position myself opposite Doug Gillard's amp, and right against the stage so that I would not directly pick up the blare from the P.A. speakers. I wanted Doug's guitar up front, but also, I knew that the P.A. sound would be so loud that it would badly distort within my camcorder. Overall, I was pretty happy with the sound.

I loaded all 21 songs to my YouTube channel, so if you want to see them all- or music by other Cleveland bands like My Dad Is Dead, Children's Crusade, or Oral Authority- follow this link: http://www.youtube.com/user/mikekole?feature=mhee

Another Cleveland Nostalgia Trip

I've been looking forward to this holiday visit to Cleveland, of course to visit with family and friends there, but also to see another Punk Rock Old Farts Reunion, as Death of Samantha plays the Beachland Ballroom on Friday night. Beachland's bio.

DoS were one of my favorites in the mid-80s. They played around town frequently and always had something interesting to add beyond the songs. DoS reveled in kitchy Americana, and the antics on stage immediately before the rocking were usually hilarious. Drummer Steve-O (waaaaay before the Jackass 'star') wore a coat made of yarn and ineptly bounced on, and fell from, a pogo stick. He did ridiculous send-ups of Joe Cocker and Roy Orbison with lip synchs. He once even emerged from a coffin on stage to say, "Hi folks!" in his cheesy way.

I've been enjoying this run of nostalgia. In the past year and a half, I've seen the following Cle Punk bands, all getting together to do one last hurrah: Children's Crusade, My Dad Is Dead, Numbskull, Oral Authority, Pink Holes, The Plague, and Starvation Army. I never thought I'd see many of these again. I hope I never see the Pink Holes again, as they lost whatever magic they had over time, alas.

I really never expected to see Death of Samantha play. I had the honor of putting together a 'reunion' of theirs that I thought would be the last, back in 1998. My best friend Steve Wainstead was leaving Cleveland for New York City, and I threw a going away party for him. Since I had a club for the event, Pat's In The Flats, I asked if he would like to see any bands play. "Death of Samantha!" was his immediate response... followed by, "Well, if you can get them to do it". It wasn't easy. The band had moved on to become Cobra Verde, but having left Steve-O behind. And, if memory serves, Doug Gillard and Dave Swanson were then also out of Cobra Verde. In any case, there were some old feelings to be dealt with, but gratefully, they were willing to do five songs, really only because it was for Steve. He went all the way back with those guys, having served as driver and roadie for them on tours, and taking the photographs for their album covers. Even then, I really didn't expect to pull it off, because singer John Petkovic has always had a looking forward, never back approach. It didn't surprise me when he struggled to remember words to his own songs, like "Yellow Fever" back in '98, because that stuff was so yesterday.

So, I'm thrilled that all differences are put aside, original bass player Dave James will play, and the band has actually been looking forward to doing this show. I've had a ticket for months. I don't care if it is 'just nostalgia'. The chance to hear these great, fun songs one more time because they want to do it is a great opportunity for me.

So, here are some DoS clips my good friend and old Blows Against The Empire radio co-host Matt Dudas posted this week. Seems he shot them in 1990 at the Babylon A-Go-Go, recently rediscovered the tape, and had it converted to digital so that he could post in advance of the reunion he couldn't attend. I'll keep the chain intact, and will shoot the show so that he and Steve Wainstead, who also can't attend, can see. Well, and you also, dear reader.






And, if you want a whole lot more, check out my podcasts, #12 & #13, which feature a sound board recording of DoS from the Phantasy Night Club in Lakewood OH, and a very chaotic appearance on my radio show, with a live set using improvised instruments in the WCSB record library- both form 1989. Here is the linkage.

Nativism On Parade In Quebec

I'll never forget the sight of Confederate battle flags flying in rural Quebec, back in 1998. I was floored... until it dawned on me why Quebecois might do so: separatism. They weren't flown for racism, but solidarity with the idea of breaking away. Folks in rural Quebec were very serious about wanting to leave Canada to form their own nation.

Well, if not racism, bigotry still. Get a load of this! The Montreal Canadiens committed a foul offense in the eyes of some in Quebec, and not just armchair powerplay quarterbacks. From ESPN:

The Quebec government isn't pleased about the hiring of a Montreal Canadiens coach who can't speak French.

The province's culture minister says she expects the Habs to correct the situation.

Christine St-Pierre isn't quite calling for the firing of new coach Randy Cunneyworth, who was just hired over the weekend.

But she says the Habs have given the impression his hiring is temporary, and she takes them at their word. The former NHL forward's title is interim coach.

The hiring has created a frenzy of media reaction, including calls for a boycott of products associated with the Canadiens.

Culture minister? This is the sort of Soviet bloc officialdom that I used to make radio satire for. Here's an idea, Christine St-Pierre: How about let the team hire a coach because they think it will lead to winning hockey!

Whoops! The Canadiens have a history of sacrificing things like success, and shit, in exchange for nativist political correctness.

The Habs have not had an only English-speaking coach since the 1970-71 season, when Al MacNeil coached them. They won a Stanley Cup that year but MacNeil had a poor relationship with some players and was demoted to the minors after the season.

Can you believe that nonsense? Hey coach! Yeah, you won the Stanley Cup and all, but off to the AHL with you! Well, MacNeil won the AHL championship next year with Nova Scotia.

As for Cunneyworth, I liked him as a player. He played tough hockey, which was par for his era. But even then, he stood out as a lunch pail kinda player that I favored- like Mike Ricci or Owen Nolan. Coaches are often craft teams like their own on-ice persona. This is why I was a big fan of the Daryl Sutter-coached San Jose Sharks. Sutter had players like Ricci, Nolan, Stephane Matteau, Ronnie Stern, Dave Lowry- real grinders that had heart to spare. If talent didn't get it done, willpower could. If Cunneyworth brings that essence to the Canadiens, Montreal's hockey fans should love him for it. I'd start to like the Canadiens, at least. Right now, I couldn't name more than 6 or 7 of their players, the Canadiens being one of the softest teams in a soft NHL.

The Tale Of Two Playwright/Presidents

Odd coincidence that Vaclav Havel and Kim Jong Il die on the same day. The North Korean dictator's passing is getting all the screaming headlines, which is a shame being that Havel was the punk rock freedom loving dissident who led a bloodless revolution, and Kim Jong Il was the repressive dictator. The loss of the repressive dictator is better news (if death should be so seen), but Havel is the one worth celebrating. From Reason in 2003:

This act of literary punk rock was followed, logically enough, by a defense of rock music that sparked the Charter 77 movement. Or, as Havel told a startled Lou Reed when he met the Velvet Underground's former frontman in 1990, "Did you know that I am president because of you?"

Defending The Plastic People

In 1968 a rare copy of the Velvet Underground's first record somehow found its way to Prague. It became a sensation in music circles and beyond, eventually inspiring the Czech name for their bloodless 1989 overthrow of Communist rule, "the Velvet Revolution." The Plastic People, then a newly formed troupe that borrowed heavily from Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention, quickly added a half-dozen songs from The Velvet Underground & Nico to their repertoire. The group was banned not long after the Prague Spring concluded but continued to play at weddings and secret shows.

Then, in 1976, four members were arrested on charges of "disturbing the peace." The Czech dissident movement, newly roused by Havel's open letter, made the trial an international cause. Havel, who intuitively grasped the symbolism of the case, was in the courtroom every day to witness and document the judicial farce. Just as George Orwell saw picking up a gun to shoot fascists in the Spanish Civil War as "the only conceivable thing to do," Havel understood this assault on freedom as one outrage too far. It was a turning point in his life. "Everyone understood," he wrote later, "that an attack on the Czech musical underground was an attack on a most elementary and important thing, something that in fact bound everyone together: it was an attack on the very notion of living within the truth, on the real aims of life."

His essay on the trial has the rushed and liberated tone of someone who has just crossed a personal point of no return, or has just heard the Sex Pistols' Never Mind the Bollocks for the first time. It ends with a classic description of Havel bumping into a film director who didn't understand the sudden enthusiasm for defending some derelict rock musicians.

Inspired by Lou Reed? That's a-ok with me. And sure, Kim Jong Il inspired the South Park guys to do a hilarious send-up of him, still, Havel's the one worth celebrating. CNN report.

The Plastic People of the Universe is Frank Zappa inspired. I remember the shock of listening to this record again around 2004 and thinking how the voice of the 'President' sounded so much like George W. Bush. It made it all the better, if possible:

I Was Wrong About Bob Barr

When Barr sought the 2008 nomination of the Libertarian Party, I backed him. Not aggressively, and not with my vote at the Convention, as I did not attend, the non-attendance being an indicator of how lukewarm my support was. I just searched this blog and found that I hadn't even written of him here until 4 months after his nomination. But, I backed him all the same.

As I recall my thinking at the time, I was of a mind to forgive his anti-liberty transgressions as a Republican congressman, as he recanted his former positions. We all change, not usually so late in life, but if he had his Come To Jesus moment and found libertarianism to be his genuine calling, what good would I do in dismissing it? What would that tell others I was trying to win over to my side? I want former Republicans and Democrats to come to the Libertarian Party, so I let his past not stand in the way, and judged him on his message and his plan to spread the message.

Well, I was duped. 'Patriot Paul' Wheeler emailed me today with a link to a story showing Bob Barr endorsed Newt Gingrich. Here's an excerpt from a different article on the same topic:

Bob Barr was the Presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party in 2008, having recently switched from the GOP. It was recently rumored that he was considering a Republican run for Congress in Georgia, but this still came as quite a shock. Bob Barr is one member of a large slate of public officials and former officeholders who endorsed Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign today.

Among the state and local officials announcing they are endorsing Newt Gingrich today are:

Georgia Congressmen Austin Scott, Lynn Westmoreland, Tom Price, Jack Kingston and Phil Gingrey. Former Georgia Congressmen Mac Collins and Bob Barr.

My reaction was very similar to the first comment following the article. A lot of people at the Convention were very upset that he was even being considered, due to some of the legislation he advanced while a Republican member of Congress. I try not to get caught up in the 'fake libertarian/real libertarian' thing too much. I wasn't a pure libertarian when I was first
became interested in politics. I was a Democrat. But I came to be a libertarian, and I try to just work with others who show an interest in the moment. And really, during his campaign, I found Barr to be an excellent advocate for liberty. I was fairly sold on his conversion.

Now this.

It's impossible for me to square Barr on this, though. Ok, people change. He made a big to-do about having seen the light on the things Libertarians questioned him on from his past. Ok, good. But then a Gingrich endorsement? Gingrich has unfortunately showed himself very plainly not to have libertarian grounding. His foreign policy and takes on civil liberty are the antithesis of libertarian thinking, and freedom loving.

Sure, just as with any liberal or any conservative, libertarians will find occasional common ground on issues, but with Gingrich I'm convinced now that the common ground is accidental. That Barr can't discern this tells me that his seeking our nomination was insincere, because, yeah people change... but that's a flip-flop. A big one. I wouldn't have cared if he endorsed one of two other Republicans- Ron Paul or Gary Johnson- because they certainly are libertarian, and will advance policies I can largely be proud of. But Gingrich? I would sooner vote for Obama.

The 1% And Government Money

Interesting article, although with one large hole in it, from Reason, channeling Investors Business Daily:

John Merline of Investors Business Daily has published a fascinating analysis of $10 billion the government annually gives to the dreaded 1 percent:

Using IRS data, IBD found that the top 1% of income earners claimed approximately $7 billion in Social Security benefits in 2009. That year, the program paid super-rich seniors — those with adjusted gross incomes exceeding $10 million — an average of $33,000 each.

Medicare, meanwhile, paid roughly $2.6 billion in health care subsidies for the richest 1% of enrollees, based on calculations using Medicare enrollment, overall Medicare spending and premium data. (Medicare does not track spending by enrollee income.) And if you consider that 5% of Medicare enrollees have more than $1 million in savings, the amount taxpayers spend to subsidize retiree health benefits skyrockets.

The hole is that government funnels gobs of money to corporations in subsidies and bailouts, and these moneys in turn often go to the salaries and worse, bonuses, of top executives. That's a pretty large hole for Reason to miss. However, it is illuminating how our tax system and our entitlement programs, which most people seem to hold as sacrosanct and absolute do things they don't expect them to do.

Solemn Oaths

I've enjoyed watching some of my conservative friends squirm in cognitive dissonance over Newt Gingrich. These villagers were wielding clubs and pitchforks when Bill Clinton was getting hooted in the Oval Office, and making the connection between marriage vows and the ability to tell the truth.

So, I love that on the question of character, Ron Paul took the same argument forward, and applied it to the Constitution and the oath of office to uphold the Constitution during a recent Republican debate.



And I really love that what he said got solid applause. This gives me hope.

Mad Memory Lane

I was a huge Mad Magazine fan as a 9- & 10-yr-old. I thought it was genius. My mother hated it, which made me love it all the more.

CNN has an article on Al Jaffee, long long time cartoonist and writer for Mad. He did the Fold-Ins, 'Snappy Answers To Stupid Questions', and inventions.

And then there are his sketches of "Mad inventions," including an airbag suit and an improved beverage can. Some of them, like a smokeless ashtray or a multiroll toilet paper dispenser, have come to pass -- much to Jaffee's amusement.

My favorite Jaffee Mad Invention that came to pass was the toothpaste flip cap. I distinctly recall his cartoon of the groggy person brushing in the morning dropping the common screw cap, which fell behind the radiator, or some other hard to reach place. I am that morning klutz. When the flip cap toothpaste rolled out, I bought. And smiled.

At 91 years of age, Jaffee is still turning them out. He has a delightful current jab at Newt Gingrich. I especially like the poke at Gingrich's Freddie Mac hypocrisy.

Do They Owe Me A Hobby?

Of course they don't. I'm speaking of $1 bills in particular. One of my geek hobbies is Where's George? No doubt you have received a bill with some Where's George markings on it, directing you to that website so that the movements of that bill can be tracked, for kicks and giggles.

In some of the budget cutting talks this year, the discussion turned to eliminating the $1 bill and replacing it with a $1 coin. This makes a lot of sense. Coins are vastly more durable than paper money. Did you know the average $1 bill only lives about 18 months? Over the long run, the cost savings are enormous- $5.6 billion over 30 years. This makes it worth doing.

But, but, but.. my hobby! Well, screw that. Nobody owes me a hobby. Where's George will as easily become "Where's Tom?" as $2 bills become the new smallest paper denomination, or, "Where's Abe?", as the public doesn't generally like $2s.

I'm fond of pennies, but there's really no good reason to continue minting them. I like riding trains, but that doesn't mean I support subsidies to Amtrak. Etc. I don't expect the entire country to spend foolishly just so that I may continue to enjoy a hobby as I know it today. My whims just aren't that important.

So, if the $1 should fade into history, I'll be glad of it overall. I'll smile at the cost savings to my country, and adjust my bill stamping habits accordingly.

Lunch At McDonald's

I'm going purely out of respect. Big respect! From Reason Hit & Run:

San Francisco's ban on giving away a free toy with a child's meal containing a certain number of calories, salt, and other particulars is set to kick in tomorrow. McDonald's, the clear target of the ban, had a year to figure out a way to change its business practices. Seems like they used the time wisely, reports the SF Examiner.

The San Francisco ban on providing free toys to entice children to eat unhealthy foods goes into effect Thursday, but McDonald’s plans to comply with the law by charging 10 cents a toy for their Happy Meals and donating the money to the nonprofit Ronald McDonald House.

No worries about my austerity plan. I'm getting a Southwest Salad and unsweetened iced tea, which comes in under 500 calories. But to outmaneuver the nanny asshole bureaucrats and leave them absolutely tearing their hair out? Oh, I'll spend a fiver!

Which Is The Parody?

I put it to you, dear reader: Can you discern which video is the joke video? Is it the "Indy Super Bowl Shuffle"?

Or, is it the "Hastily Made Cleveland Tourism Video"?


Answer: The joke is the Cleveland one. Really! No fooling!

Update: Well, the people who made the Super Bowl Shuffle video have swiftly pulled the video. In the morning proud of it, by lunchtime embarrassed, and by dinner, gone. You can see the vacant remnants of the top video posted above, a sad, empty void that was roughly equal to the original. Per Advance Indiana:

WRTV is reporting that the Indianapolis Convention & Visitors Association has pulled a parody video it produced of the Super Bowl Shuffle song featuring downtown hotel workers plugging Indianapolis' major hotels. The take off of the song made famous by the 1985 Chicago Bears' team that confidentally predicted the team's Super Bowl win that year was resoundingly mocked throughout the Indianapolis blogging community.

The Indianapolis Convention and Visitors Association billed the video as a marketing tactic aimed at Chicago meeting planners and business executives to build buzz ahead of the 2012 Super Bowl.

But what officials described as a cheesy video featuring tourism staffers and workers from seven downtown hotels in their own choreographed version of the 1985 Chicago Bears' "Super Bowl Shuffle" quickly garnered hundreds of critical comments and even a petition and a Facebook page asking city officials to pull it down.

As the feedback reached a critical mass online, ICVA removed the video from YouTube just before 8 p.m. Wednesday.

"Thanks for your passion about the city. We acknowledge making a mistake by going public with this and we accept fault. The video has been removed," wrote Jeff Robinson, the organization's creative director.

The YouTube video had nearly 8,000 views before the video was removed, but the dislikes outweighed the likes 3-1, and of the nearly 200 comments, almost all slammed the video as embarrassing and poorly done.

Yes, I contributed a 'thumbs down'. Happily. Pulling it kind of smacks of thin skin, though. Oh well. In the words of another Indiana accidental kitsch treasure, "Boom goes the dynamite."

Republicans, Defenders of Human Rights?

One of the things I had hoped for upon the inauguration of President Obama was the end to the policy of indefinite detention for prisoners of war. Trials should happen quickly, as opposed to the policy we had under Bush to simply incarcerate terror suspects without trials.

So, Obama strengthened the policy.

So, if the Republicans introduced the policy, and the Democrats confirmed it, what hope?

Yes, I could dream for the election of Libertarians. But in the meantime, Senator Rand Paul (R-TN) comes to the rescue.

Senator Rand Paul has submitted an Amendment to Senate Bill 1867 (known as the National Defense Authorization Act) which would strike the section of the bill that allows the US government to indefinitely detain individuals without trial or due process. The Amendment is #1062 and would eliminate Section 1031 which states:

"Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force...includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons...Detention under the law of war without trial"

The Democrats and their supporters made plenty of noise about human rights when Bush was in office. They did so correctly. Shame on them for not acting on their noisy rhetoric once in office. A bunch of empty suits. Well, this is consistent of them in so many things- deficit spending, war in Iraq, presidential power, etc., etc.

Rah-rah Rand Paul!