tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9281909537546953292024-02-19T10:19:37.807-05:00Featherstone on Government"When the government's boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence."
– Gary LloydJoshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755157017325989727noreply@blogger.comBlogger143125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-928190953754695329.post-37308316742541856132014-01-27T07:00:00.000-05:002014-01-27T07:00:08.777-05:00Bosma Uses Fuzzy Math to Blame HJR-3 Committee Shift on Another Representative<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4JN-HbBtnxucW7MxmtTzp91kLh8n6Ta7UWH7OKf4VfCKsCevNYmr7_fR9LHPNpmI9wf2ScUndnXm1lOgS2A0Gt640vPHKEtnzyvnEZANRszQdWYB9ceY9dMnMeJfIR-aEF2HmWPTqzF4/s1600/Bosma.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4JN-HbBtnxucW7MxmtTzp91kLh8n6Ta7UWH7OKf4VfCKsCevNYmr7_fR9LHPNpmI9wf2ScUndnXm1lOgS2A0Gt640vPHKEtnzyvnEZANRszQdWYB9ceY9dMnMeJfIR-aEF2HmWPTqzF4/s1600/Bosma.jpg" height="200" width="140" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Photo from<br />journalgazette.net</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Speaker Bosma apparently doesn't realize how the process of counting works.<br />
<br />
We all know what shenanigans he pulled in switching up committees on HJR-3 so that he could get it through committee, even though the original committee he assigned it do didn't have enough votes. Those shenanigans were all the doings of Bosma. Sure, there might have been some behind the scenes influence that encouraged him down that path. When it came down to actually making the committee move, though...yep...that was all Bosma.<br />
<br />
And you are going to LOVE how he chose to pass the blame.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
It's Not MY Fault...It's HIS fault!!!</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20140123/LOCAL0202/140129633" target="_blank">The Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette reported late Friday</a> that the Speaker had been busy pointing fingers at another representative as the cause of him being "forced" to change HJR-3's committee assignment. According to them, Bosma placed the blame on Representative Dan Leonard, another Republican out of Huntington.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Check out this asinine quote they got from the Speaker:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
My goal has from the start been to have this come to the floor because as I've said I don't think one person should be making this decision on behalf of all 100 members and that's what we were down to in the Judiciary committee. One person making the decision and taking away the opportunity for every member here to cast their vote, whether it's yes or no.</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
You see, Leonard refused to come out and say how he was going to vote on the measure. Somehow, in Bosma's world of fuzzy math, that means that Leonard was the sole vote on the topic.<br />
<br />
You get that? Bosma said one person shouldn't be making the decision for the entire House. Leonard was a swing vote, and he hadn't announced his voting intentions. So Bosma relates that to him being the sole decision maker for the entire Legislature.<br /><br />Ummmm...that only works if Leonard is a committee of ONE, Mr. Speaker. The fact you're ignoring is that if he would have voted against the bill, he would have been only one of SEVEN votes against it. He would hardly be making the decision on his own. Yet, somehow, in Speaker Bosma's little land of make-believe, just because you don't announce your vote somehow makes you the only vote being cast.<br />
<br />
The reality is, and we all know it, that Bosma refused to let this bill die as it could have in that committee. So the Speaker, of his own free will and accord, moved the bill to a committee that he knew it would sail through.<br />
<br />
Do you REALLY think we don't know what you did, Mr. Speaker? Do you REALLY think that we believe that you thought one man was making the decision for everybody? Guess what? We don't buy it.<br />
<br />
You the Speaker of the House, for cryin' out loud. Have some accountability. When you make the call, take the blame for making the call. Don't try to say this was because of someone else. You've found a way to make your pathetic move even more shameful. And that was a hard hurdle to jump.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
If you enjoyed this post, please share it with others. Also, please check out my recent posts:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://indianalibertarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/sperm-donor-must-pay-child-support.html" target="_blank">Sperm Donor Must Pay Child Support, Court Says</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://indianalibertarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/an-open-letter-to-brian-bosma-cc.html" target="_blank">An Open Letter to Brian Bosma, cc: The Indiana Republican Establishment</a>Joshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755157017325989727noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-928190953754695329.post-45334635167728320012014-01-24T07:00:00.000-05:002014-01-24T11:13:56.877-05:00Sperm Donor Must Pay Child Support, Court Says<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfwSl-V6n2Mj-y552q3p0hyphenhyphend5Vv3R4jaKUPgtpAjPW47rNq0SafTyCxYL7sg4raG3MsXArSbFGJM56M-gCE0jUKE3uuDA7IKlwsY38aWD1OSJTfAUx2RyFChqsaIKiLtoHSBjdj3RMMak/s1600/sperm.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfwSl-V6n2Mj-y552q3p0hyphenhyphend5Vv3R4jaKUPgtpAjPW47rNq0SafTyCxYL7sg4raG3MsXArSbFGJM56M-gCE0jUKE3uuDA7IKlwsY38aWD1OSJTfAUx2RyFChqsaIKiLtoHSBjdj3RMMak/s1600/sperm.jpg" height="149" width="200" /></a></div>
In an insane example of government gone wrong<b>,</b> a court has ruled that a sperm donor must pay child support for the for the girl born out of his kindness.<br />
<div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/23/justice/kansas-sperm-donation/" target="_blank">CNN</a>, along with numerous other sources, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/23/justice/kansas-sperm-donation/" target="_blank">is reporting that</a> William Marotta has been ordered by a Kansas judge to pay child support after supplying a sperm donation to a lesbian couple seeking to have a child. Marotta signed away parental rights, and the women were happy to be able to have a child to call their own.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
That is, until the couple split up. Then all the loopholes start popping up. You see, the couples did not use a physician to perform the insemination. (How's that work? Turkey baster?) That step, which according to Kansas law is not only in place for the purposes of testing for STDs and genetic disorders, but also as evidence that the donor was, in fact, a donor, and not the mother's lover.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Apparently after they split, one of the women somehow became disabled or otherwise unable to work, and applied for aid from the state. As part of the state's research, they learned that Marotta was the biological father of the child and in turn demand he cough up support money.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<span style="font-weight: normal;">Despite the fact the Marotta had no idea that the women were not going to use the services of a physician for the insemination, </span><span style="font-weight: normal;">all documents related to the insemination are considered null and void. This includes, according to the court, the paper Marotta signed waiving any parental rights and stating he would assume no financial liability for the child.</span><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Marotta told the media that all he did was donate genetic material, nothing more. He has only met the child, now 4, once. That meeting was merely in passing as they happened to be in the same place at the same time.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
Letter vs. Intent of the Law</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'm pretty sure this judge got it wrong. Admittedly, I don't know the Kansas laws being used. But I do know that part of the job of a judge is to interpret the law, especially as to how it may apply to unprecedented cases. There's no part of me that can believe the law regarding physician involvement in insemination was <b>ever </b>supposed to be interpreted like this.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I think the intent of the participants was clear...the lesbian couple wanted a sperm donor so that they could have a child all their own. William Marotta only wanted to be a nice guy and help a couple have a baby because they were unable to do so on their own.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I also think the intent of the law, as I've heard it discussed in the media, was clear. Physician involvement was required for the purposes of genetic testing, sexually transmitted disease testing, and to provide evidence that the donor was in fact a donor and not a lover.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Between the documentation signed by all parties and the testimony they provided, I'm more than positive that such evidence was provided. So why were the courts so strict on their interpretation of the law?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
Is This Whole Thing About Gay Rights?</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That's right, boys and girls, boys and boys, girls and girls. There's a lot of people saying that this whole thing is happening to prove a point <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQwEy17I-4w-iorZAWolofl9fSiU7GyNcRlPko5hnIrOG9X-Vnq3-2_BIU_4x3a874FMp6QooJ4jLitZkkicQOEVAW04nOyKRrmf9BHEnjVphZA8zAvtnp4OqodaCxccfkrmJciKvMzvk/s1600/Gay+Rights.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQwEy17I-4w-iorZAWolofl9fSiU7GyNcRlPko5hnIrOG9X-Vnq3-2_BIU_4x3a874FMp6QooJ4jLitZkkicQOEVAW04nOyKRrmf9BHEnjVphZA8zAvtnp4OqodaCxccfkrmJciKvMzvk/s1600/Gay+Rights.jpg" height="149" width="200" /></a></div>
about gay rights in Kansas. You see, Kansas doesn't allow gay marriage and also doesn't have many laws that are tolerant of homosexual rights. Since this story involves a gay couple that went out on their own and decided to have a child in a way that circumvented standard protocol (read: being straight), then maybe the powers that be in Kansas want to make a point that such things will not be allowed.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Yep, this whole crazy insane ruling might boil down to the fact that this judge, and who knows who else in Kansas, wanted to be clear that anything beneficial to the gay community will not be allowed in their state. To hell with personal privacy. To hell with the validity of contracts signed by people of sound mind and body. If a gay person may benefit, throw it all in the trash.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'm not as quick as many to write this off as some anti-gay statement. I acknowledge it's a possibility, but it seems a stretch to make it as an absolute determination at this time.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I don't hesitate, though, to say that the courts got it wrong. All this guy wanted to do was help. All these women wanted was a child to say was their own. To pervert their intentions into some financial liability for Mr. Marotta is sickening. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Marotta is quoted as saying, "I'm not her parent." No, you're not, sir. And it's horrible of the court to suggest so.</div>
<div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
If you enjoyed this post, please share it with others. Also, please check out my other recent posts:<br /><br />
<h3>
<a href="http://indianalibertarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/an-open-letter-to-brian-bosma-cc.html" target="_blank">An Open Letter to Brian Bosma, CC: The Indiana Republican Establishment</a></h3>
</div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
Joshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755157017325989727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-928190953754695329.post-3549465857434064202014-01-23T07:00:00.000-05:002014-01-23T07:00:11.667-05:00An Open Letter to Brian Bosma, CC: The Indiana Republican Establishment<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0vZzg5-1HuEf__FDbPEfCeWwQRzhItawsrLnfQjq2tzFQdsGb2FcfZalLt2HMbXDcGYu_J1EWrhIirqRdAAyi5qwLQFveT4VnxY8A5f3SZ_Z-y_qrPpqsyY4AdrBkWdSv7w2LDK66gDg/s1600/Brian+Bosma.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0vZzg5-1HuEf__FDbPEfCeWwQRzhItawsrLnfQjq2tzFQdsGb2FcfZalLt2HMbXDcGYu_J1EWrhIirqRdAAyi5qwLQFveT4VnxY8A5f3SZ_Z-y_qrPpqsyY4AdrBkWdSv7w2LDK66gDg/s1600/Brian+Bosma.jpg" height="133" width="200" /></a></div>
Speaker Bosma -<br /><br />I hope you are proud of yourself. Actually, I am quite sure that my hope is unnecessary....I BET you're proud of yourself. I bet you are gloating to your fellow GOP buddies about you really pulled a good one off. And to some degree, I guess you did.<br />
<br />
But allow me, for a moment, to be frank with you about what you are doing, and what will end up happening because of it.<br />
<br />
I understand and accept in your position that when HJR-3 was introduced, it was your duty and responsibility to assign it to committee. That's your job. And you did it.<br />
<br />
But when you realized that the committee that you assigned it to wasn't going to get the bill through, you had another duty and responsibility: let the committee continue with its assigned duty and allow it to die. You sent it to the committee, you should accept the outcome from that committee as you would with any other law.<br />
<br />
Instead, though, you did something horrible and despicable. You realized your precious anti-gay amendment was doomed, so you did something unprecedented and yanked it from that committee and had it reassigned to another. And you chose one not only heavy with Republicans, but Republicans you knew would fall in line and vote as you ordered them to.<br /><br />And the committee did exactly as you wished. With barely more than 24 hours notice, they arranged a hearing, heard some testimony, and called a vote before anyone could even review the testimony. And, just as you anticipated (or demanded), the vote came down right along party lines. Your Republicans won the vote 9-3. Now, the bill is off to the full house for them to vote on.<br />
<br />
So here's what you've done: first, you've prolonged the inevitable. This bill is doomed. It has little to no chance of clearing the House, and even if it does it is nearly guaranteed to die at the hands of voters.<br />
<br />
Second, you are making Indiana a laughing stock. Across our nation stories are being published reporting on what you are doing. And they aren't positive ones. In fact, they are telling tales of what backward, extremist bigots we Hoosiers are. And I don't like that, because you don't represent us well.<br />
<br />
Third, you are destroying the Republican Party. I'm not a Republican, so I'm not personally hurt by this. But you ARE a Republican. And it's YOUR party...you're one of their highest leaders. And the people of this state, and our country, are looking at the moves you and those like you are making and are abandoning your party at an alarming rate. The Republican Party is dying, and you are one of the causes.<br />
<br />
Fourth, you are driving residents away from the State of Indiana. You are driving current residents out, and you are driving potential residents to other states. Good people. Smart people. Entrepreneurs. Business leaders. White collar and blue collar alike.<br />
<br />
History is watching you, Speaker Bosma. Your legacy is now tainted forever. Whether or not you are successful, which you will not be, you will be a name that goes down in history as one of the most disgusting and vile people in Indiana history. In a few generations, your name and the names of those like you will fill textbooks, and those reading them will find you despicable and wonder how a society ever would have elected someone like you to lead us.<br />
<br />
It's probably too late to stop history from frowning upon you, Mr. Speaker. But it's not too late to end this before it goes any further. Let this bill die. Don't continue to let this path of yours tarnish the name of our great state or its citizens.<br />
<br />
<br />
Sincerely,<br />
<br />
<br />
Josh Featherstone<br />
<br />
<br />Joshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755157017325989727noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-928190953754695329.post-77991111187289193342013-12-05T07:00:00.000-05:002013-12-05T07:00:03.838-05:00Bill to Eliminate Straight Ticket Voting Introduced<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6y8ZQVXDudVUKvy6g13RfB7OJ152EyUPuze27cImdrLguD5z3yoJH4Q2C8cQFaLDEbEXFzbK5DEor4yi2sqq4sOcr27k5kpaPTpjfL22S3jLp806FEzcQwuDqc1mvxGTvVOzi_xpPH3Y/s1600/Mike+Delph.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6y8ZQVXDudVUKvy6g13RfB7OJ152EyUPuze27cImdrLguD5z3yoJH4Q2C8cQFaLDEbEXFzbK5DEor4yi2sqq4sOcr27k5kpaPTpjfL22S3jLp806FEzcQwuDqc1mvxGTvVOzi_xpPH3Y/s200/Mike+Delph.jpg" width="160" /></a></div>
Senator Mike Delph has introduced a bill to eliminate straight ticket voting at the general election ballot box in Indiana. Straight ticket voting does very little or nothing to support the strength of the voter in Indiana. Instead, it gives uncanny amounts of support to political parties, since the masses of uneducated voters will often choose to simply pull a straight-party vote rather than taking time to learn about the candidates they are voting for.<br />
<br />
Of course, this bill was instantly met with resistance (and by instantly, I mean I've only HEARD that it's going to be SB 35 because the General Assembly doesn't even have information about the bill up on their website as of this typing). The prevailing attitude among those that are opposed to this legislation is that it tells voters how they can or cannot vote. Frankly, that is simply wrong.<br />
<br />
Fellow blogger Jon Easter, of the <a href="http://indydemocrat.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Indy Democrat Blog</a> was seen commenting on at least a couple of threads on Facebook regarding this issue. This comment, in particular, stood out to me:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #fafbfb; color: #4e5665; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 14px;"><b>If I wish to vote straight ticket, then I should have that choice. He assumes that I don't know what I'm voting for when I choose to use the straight ticket choice. I don't use it every time, but, when I do, I know what the heck I'm doing.</b></span></blockquote>
<br />
First, even without straight ticket voting available, you, as a voter, still have that choice. All you have to do is go down through the ballot and vote for those members of the party you choose to support. Second, I trust Jon Easter to be an educated voter and know "what the heck" he's doing...but frankly, I don't trust most voters to do the same.<br />
<br />
Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying that voters are stupid or idiots or anything of the sort. I'm only saying that, for the average voter, many of the small local races don't feel important to them. Few voters choose to research those races and discover which option they truly support. And if that voter chooses to vote straight ticket rather than doing that research then they just might vote for someone they don't at all believe in, or quite possibly disagree with wholeheartedly. <br />
<br />
Of course, eliminating straight ticket voting doesn't eliminate that problem outright. But it may go a long way in beginning to slow it down. You see, many of those straight ticket voters may not vote in every race that is on the ballot the way they currently are. They may look down the ballot and say, "you know what, I don't know anything at all about this race or its candidates....I'm gonna take a pass." Or, they might say, "You know, I know nothing about this race or its candidates. I'm gonna check them out and try to learn some more before heading to the ballot box."<br />
<br />
Either way, we, as voters and citizens, win as a whole. I think everyone should vote. I think everyone should make themselves as informed as possible and vote on every race they can. But I also believe that voting blindly for candidates in races that you neither know, care about, have researched, nor understand does you no favors. It does no other citizens any favors, either.<br /><br />Not every voter is Jon Easter. They don't all live and breathe politics and politicians. And if they can't even bother to learn more about the offices they are voting for, or the candidates in those races, then I don't think that making them at least scroll down the ballot for their name and/or party identity is really that bad of a thing.<br />
<br />
P.S. - Just in case you were wondering, straight ticket voting has been on a very steady downturn over the last few decades. <a href="http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/straight-ticket-voting.aspx" target="_blank">According to the National Conference of State Legislatures</a>, there are only fourteen states that still have straight ticket voting. Indiana is one of them. Let's not let this issue turn into another Sunday alcohol sales...let's not become the laughing stock of the nation by being the last state to get it right.<br />
<br />
***UPDATE*** While I was typing this post, Jon Easter also posted on Indy Democrat Blog about this topic. Check out his post "<a href="http://indydemocrat.blogspot.com/2013/12/delph-wants-to-spoil-ballot-on-straight.html" target="_blank">Delph Wants to Spoil Ballot on Straight-Ticket Voting</a>." Jon has a very high quality blog that is definitely worth a few minutes of your time each day.<br />
<br />
<br />Joshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755157017325989727noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-928190953754695329.post-32116551403406050592013-09-26T06:00:00.000-04:002013-09-26T06:00:07.991-04:00Indiana Libertarian Party's Facebook Page Deleted; Facebook Has Few AnswersIf you follow the Libertarian Party of Indiana (LPIN) on Facebook, maybe you noticed that they weren't <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwGq7LvYdGTqDxPKTwxoSdQgjBwOr0EX0cVXVSl83z6CHLqbiLdRE_vTnzwMibtG44YYAqlBj88Gq7-YFg5GgKhQDOaxOMa4_AvDMw914xTlvsCbxLs1_JMwdvr0zFLFewXuff-HGov9I/s1600/Libertarian+Party+of+Indiana.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwGq7LvYdGTqDxPKTwxoSdQgjBwOr0EX0cVXVSl83z6CHLqbiLdRE_vTnzwMibtG44YYAqlBj88Gq7-YFg5GgKhQDOaxOMa4_AvDMw914xTlvsCbxLs1_JMwdvr0zFLFewXuff-HGov9I/s1600/Libertarian+Party+of+Indiana.jpg" /></a></div>
appearing in your news feed lately. Maybe you were one of the people interested enough to try to find their page and look over it, but had no luck doing so. Well, there's a reason why: it's gone.<br />
<br />
Sometime Friday the LPIN's Facebook page just disappeared. Upon learning of the missing page, party leadership began looking for answers as to why the page was gone, and who was responsible for its disappearance. The party reached out to Facebook for answers, hoping the missing page was just a glitch and that could be easily remedied.<br />
<br />
Facebook is notorious for being a difficult company for getting direct answers to real people, and this case was no different. Despite reaching out early to Facebook, it was Monday afternoon before LPIN Chair Dan Drexler was able to speak to a representative about the issue.<br />
<br />
Drexler's conversation with Facebook didn't provide many answers, though. The conversation also, unfortunately, didn't leave much hope for the return of the page.<br />
<br />
Facebook informed Drexler that the LPIN page was somehow breached. Whether breach was defined as an intentional hacking of the page or a virus or some other intrusion was not clear, as there were some specifics that Facebook would not reveal. When the breach occurred, though, the page was unpublished.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7OF2zsxixwmeRmyheV1IzhFGZDuiHvzxGc3l4CWOiY8RLnQxZ9fT44RXWu3P8fWx5P4hXd7Nu8T9D0fVU7Zz9_XXQCn47IkE1SUFZXl8PpW7h830xomOtO8kYlnxsbqTjvo1fw8Xe1Xw/s1600/Dan+Drexler.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7OF2zsxixwmeRmyheV1IzhFGZDuiHvzxGc3l4CWOiY8RLnQxZ9fT44RXWu3P8fWx5P4hXd7Nu8T9D0fVU7Zz9_XXQCn47IkE1SUFZXl8PpW7h830xomOtO8kYlnxsbqTjvo1fw8Xe1Xw/s200/Dan+Drexler.jpg" width="188" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">LPIN Chair Dan Drexler</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The most somber news from Drexler's conversation with Facebook was that the company doesn't have a magic switch they can throw to turn the page back on. Apparently, once the LPIN's Facebook page was unpublished, it was gone for good.<br />
<br />
Despite the content of the page being lost forever, there is still a small glimmer of hope for the LPIN. The page was one of the most "Liked" State Libertarian Party Facebook pages in the nation, and had more than five thousand followers. Facebook indicated they will be working this week to see if there is still any way for those "Likes" to be salvaged and then incorporated into whatever new page the LPIN starts. Drexler will be speaking with Facebook representatives again later this week to learn what they found.<br />
<br />
In the meantime, the LPIN is trying to stay focused on business as usual. Chairman Drexler was in Newburgh, just East of Evansville, last night for the official affiliation of the Warrick County Libertarian Party. The Party is also remaining committed this year to the Double the LP campaign, geared towards growing their membership.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Click "Subscribe" in the upper right corner of the page, then check out my recent posts:<br />
<br />
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="background-color: #885522; color: #fffdee; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 22px; font-weight: normal; margin: 0.75em 0px 0px; position: relative;">
<a href="http://indianalibertarian.blogspot.com/2013/09/five-real-impacts-of-government-shutdown.html" target="_blank">Five Real(?) Impacts of a Government Shutdown</a></h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="background-color: #885522; color: #fffdee; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 22px; font-weight: normal; margin: 0.75em 0px 0px; position: relative;">
<a href="http://indianalibertarian.blogspot.com/2013/09/why-starbucks-gun-carrying-statement.html" target="_blank">Why the Starbucks Gun Carrying Statement Doesn't Bother Me at All, and Why Gun Advocates May be to Blame</a></h3>
</div>
Joshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755157017325989727noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-928190953754695329.post-29449003918126406762013-09-25T06:00:00.000-04:002013-09-25T06:00:08.045-04:00Five Real(?) Impacts of a Government ShutdownYou want to prove that a government "shutdown" is really a misnomer and that hardly anything that really matters gets affected? Perhaps you should look around at the major media reports of what is going to happen.<br />
<br />
For example, you might want to take a look at <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/09/five-real-impacts-of-a-government-shutdown/" target="_blank">this story form Elizabeth Hartfield of ABC News</a>. She penned this article Saturday, and it seems that she wants to convince you that a government shutdown is a horrible thing to endure. Her tone implies that she believes a shutdown should be avoided at all costs.<br />
<br />
But why does she believe that? Why does she have such a concern about a government shutdown that she would write an article for a major news source titled "Five Real Impacts of a Government Shutdown," an article whose title alone seems to imply fear about even considering the idea? Well, of course, we're lucky enough to have her spell those reasons out to us. I think you'll find, though, that those reasons might surprise you.<br />
<br />
You see, Hartfield goes back to the last real government shutdown, in late 1995 and early 1996, and examined what REALLY happens when the government is shut down. She points out that she fears the current lawmakers that are considering a shutdown may not really remember the impact of the shutdown that occurred back then. And, as you might imagine, in order to prove her point, she picks out some of the biggest things that were impacted.<br />
<br />
And that's where I find the point that a government "shutdown" isn't really all that bad at all. Let's take a look at the five things she mentions.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<h4>
Suspension of Approval of Applications for Small Business Loans</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Don't get me wrong here...I love small business. I believe that small businesses are truly the driving force of America. But I am not convinced that suspending approval for small business loans for some indefinite, but probably short, time is necessarily all that bad. In fact, I'm not even sure that it's the government's job at all. I'm not completely against the idea of these loans, but there's no way you can convince me that a temporary suspension of these loans is going to have have some horrible impact on our country as a whole.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
Museums, Monuments and Parks Would Shut Down<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhajXum_efZ1ciWFsD5Hgr1RR1n52QHnYq85lV39pOBktG5XzgCio7WZVEElkHJOBwtuELeDVWvsvvfEPBSQ4sycAS6OWNGoJsk6HU3dqXaSXYbb4tQILbYwSxyzheHlswJ-BAv0vDG_xM/s1600/Washington+Monument.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhajXum_efZ1ciWFsD5Hgr1RR1n52QHnYq85lV39pOBktG5XzgCio7WZVEElkHJOBwtuELeDVWvsvvfEPBSQ4sycAS6OWNGoJsk6HU3dqXaSXYbb4tQILbYwSxyzheHlswJ-BAv0vDG_xM/s200/Washington+Monument.jpg" width="133" /></a></div>
</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
So what? Again, don't get me wrong, museums, monuments, and parks are all great. I do believe that there is some benefit in our government archiving our history and our arts. I do believe that there is benefit to having some areas of land set aside for us to be able to enjoy the beauties of nature. But I also think that if the government is in dire straits, these should be the first things to go. And considering the reality that any government shutdown is going to be short-lived, no harm done.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
Medical Research Interrupted</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So this one sounds pretty bad. But that's just it....it SOUNDS bad. Truth is, it sounds worse than it is. It makes it sound like all medical research in the world would come to a screeching halt, and that simply isn't the case. Plenty of private organizations are doing medical research and plenty of government funded research has already received its money. You're going to hear plenty of people try to spin this like the cure for cancer will somehow now be lost forever, but that simply isn't the case.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOHOvupK2sD0b71D0aJatdpy6aZSD0HpwQTxUTU4BgsOJ1IogVXdDmf5RotSzhE-sYHGuO8UZg-tnHH9R7T8YvtkTqxxoqvzMgCizBa7uNluEX-vwObgdLnhwMr5E_X4S6aoKSm1hRE-8/s1600/Passport.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOHOvupK2sD0b71D0aJatdpy6aZSD0HpwQTxUTU4BgsOJ1IogVXdDmf5RotSzhE-sYHGuO8UZg-tnHH9R7T8YvtkTqxxoqvzMgCizBa7uNluEX-vwObgdLnhwMr5E_X4S6aoKSm1hRE-8/s200/Passport.jpg" width="150" /></a></div>
<h4>
Passport Services Suspended</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Well, except in case of emergency. A passport is good for ten years. Unless you're a traveler that has procrastinated, then no worries. This will impact like 0.001% of people.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
D.C. Residents, Start Composting</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So apparently residents of the District have trash pickup as a government service. Since Congress must pass the D.C. budget, things like trash service would probably be suspended. But I'm sure there will probably not <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
be any shortage of private companies coming to save the day by offering trash pickup to the city. As a resident of a city that takes care of trash pickup, I wouldn't mind the option to shop for the best service myself.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
So Does That Sound So Bad?</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Take a second and just look back over that list of five things above. Try not to chuckle when you do so. Go ahead...I'll wait.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now ask yourself, was there anything on that list that really concerns you at all? I mean, even if you would like to keep the above things going, don't you think it's not going to hurt anything if they are all put on pause for a bit?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And don't forget that this list came from an article that was written to scare you. It was written to convince you that a government shutdown is unbearable She says she's afraid you don't remember or weren't around for the last shutdown and went back and did research to remind us of all the bad things that will happen.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But mostly don't forget that, after all that trouble, the above list was all she could come up with when it was time for her to write down the top five reasons a shutdown should scare us. Yep...that's the five worst things she could find.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I think I can live with that. How about you?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Click "Subscribe" in the upper right corner of the page, then check out my other recent posts:<br />
<span style="background-color: black;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://indianalibertarian.blogspot.com/2013/09/why-starbucks-gun-carrying-statement.html" style="background-color: #783f04;" target="_blank">Why the Starbucks Gun Carrying Statement Doesn't Bother Me at All, and Why Gun Advocates May be to Blame</a></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://indianalibertarian.blogspot.com/2013/09/armys-information-dominance-center.html" style="background-color: #783f04;" target="_blank">Army's "Information Dominance Center" Designed to Look Like the Bridge of The Enterprise</a></span></div>
Joshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755157017325989727noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-928190953754695329.post-18476631777589882542013-09-20T07:02:00.000-04:002013-09-20T07:02:53.185-04:00IMPD Officer Killed in the Line of Duty<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiI9iB_Zl0Php07_FqZR_tFtSOyeBT0qx0ws8Whrkf0JGgvc9qfCtqK-SVd9k1Hrw3RkHNDdPiJUD-jgNHjfZyVAI2NFYImNOOrD-O94SFDv1MgLMScyPDrR7CrspnUtQp1APMa95l0SO0/s1600/Blue+Line.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiI9iB_Zl0Php07_FqZR_tFtSOyeBT0qx0ws8Whrkf0JGgvc9qfCtqK-SVd9k1Hrw3RkHNDdPiJUD-jgNHjfZyVAI2NFYImNOOrD-O94SFDv1MgLMScyPDrR7CrspnUtQp1APMa95l0SO0/s1600/Blue+Line.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
We are saddened this morning to hear of the death of IMPD Officer Rod Bradway. Officer Bradway was killed in the line of duty while responding to a domestic disturbance call in the area of 46th St. and I-465.<br />
<br />
Our thoughts and prayers are extended to Officer Bradway's family and friends, as well as to the entire IMPD community.<br />
<br />
Please stay tuned to your favorite local news source for updates on this story.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.wthr.com/story/23481949/2013/09/20/officer-shot-at-northwest-side-apartment-complex" target="_blank">WTHR</a><br />
<a href="http://www.wishtv.com/news/local/police-officer-shot-on-northwest-side" target="_blank">WISH</a><br />
<a href="http://www.theindychannel.com/local-news/images-indianapolis-police-officer-fatally-shot" target="_blank">WRTV</a><br />
<a href="http://fox59.com/2013/09/20/officer-shot-on-citys-west-side/#axzz2fQfZITmQ" target="_blank">WXIN</a><br />
<a href="http://www.indystar.com/article/20130920/NEWS/309200007/IMPD-officer-shot-died-following-domestic-disturbance?odyssey=mod|breaking|text|IndyStar.com" target="_blank">IndyStar</a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiju2400wA5mHzhyphenhyphenuoo59m1bfcfe0HQoWfgnr5ZkTmk2OT648hUMLClFO7ZXjxtzbNk_skjSa9Vu4XWQHVMdw1hrJn-PHOGVmBHKdwPlUsq-JrVXFcIQwK1joxM2JAx5k5JK_tb71l3yCM/s1600/Rod+Bradway+End+of+Watch.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiju2400wA5mHzhyphenhyphenuoo59m1bfcfe0HQoWfgnr5ZkTmk2OT648hUMLClFO7ZXjxtzbNk_skjSa9Vu4XWQHVMdw1hrJn-PHOGVmBHKdwPlUsq-JrVXFcIQwK1joxM2JAx5k5JK_tb71l3yCM/s320/Rod+Bradway+End+of+Watch.jpg" width="302" /></a></div>
<br />Joshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755157017325989727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-928190953754695329.post-78508964396012738162013-09-19T10:03:00.001-04:002013-09-19T10:12:23.358-04:00Why the Starbucks Gun Carrying Statement Doesn't Bother Me at All, and Why Gun Advocates May be to Blame<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhUP7v6gtXhrKtfBrAwrxcdg4IfdKeN6as7kjSs97sH0qTqmscm09uDggm8J2YNBdP5lyP_G0lTitycpRFqWipQgmC5P7ybfLuYOnEytUqmHsFJhLDYTmP3K5d0noBuWYdeYKx3qYcYTU/s1600/starbucks-coffee-logo.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhUP7v6gtXhrKtfBrAwrxcdg4IfdKeN6as7kjSs97sH0qTqmscm09uDggm8J2YNBdP5lyP_G0lTitycpRFqWipQgmC5P7ybfLuYOnEytUqmHsFJhLDYTmP3K5d0noBuWYdeYKx3qYcYTU/s200/starbucks-coffee-logo.gif" width="196" /></a></div>
Well here we go. Again.<br />
<br />
If you follow anything resembling politics at all, you have undoubtedly heard by now...Starbucks says no guns.<br />
<br />
You know how it all started...a few months ago some patrons at a Starbucks felt uncomfortable in the presence of another Starbucks customer that was legally open carrying their firearm. (For those that may be unaware, open carrying refers to carrying a firearm in plain view of others around you, similar to the way a police officer carries a firearm.) Those patrons complained to Starbucks, and Starbucks issued a statement that said that they would not interfere with patrons operating lawfully within their establishments. Basically, if it's legal where you are at then you can open carry, and if it's illegal then you can not.<br />
<br />
Gun advocates celebrated the statement. Especially since so many conservatives were very anti-Starbucks due to some false stories floating around the internet about Starbucks not supporting our troops, this was an especially interesting turnaround regarding public perception of the Starbucks brand.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAVwWYLQJO2g1unR6W8O_Z6J1ji0_6Cb9pfGVVNGnLv5hKOzxn_N4tNmRw30S6omGQLonBR2ykoWP1uNtmIDf-PScPgAc44vcc9D5_wFyfeqWtgYWKtWdCO_jbaHpSCM5kPrwKWlR1fKI/s1600/Starbucks+Customers+with+Guns.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="149" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAVwWYLQJO2g1unR6W8O_Z6J1ji0_6Cb9pfGVVNGnLv5hKOzxn_N4tNmRw30S6omGQLonBR2ykoWP1uNtmIDf-PScPgAc44vcc9D5_wFyfeqWtgYWKtWdCO_jbaHpSCM5kPrwKWlR1fKI/s200/Starbucks+Customers+with+Guns.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
The gun rights supporters took it too far, though. They organized "Starbucks Appreciation Days" in which lawful gun owners would flood the stores with groups of open carrying gun owners to thank Starbucks for their position. They would often go above and beyond traditional open carry, and bring shotguns and rifles with them and pose for pictures. <br />
<br />
In return, the anti-gun lobby responded equally loudly. They would also stage events at Starbucks locations to show that they disagreed with the positions that Starbucks had put forth. They despised the fact that Starbucks wouldn't make a strong stand in their favor, and just tell gun owners to take their business and their firearms elsewhere.<br />
<br />
Well, that all came to an end yesterday, <a href="http://www.starbucks.com/blog/an-open-letter-from-howard-schultz/1268" target="_blank">when Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz issued a new statement on guns via a blog posted on the coffee giant's website.</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"...<u>today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas - even in states where "open carry" is permitted - unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel."</u></blockquote>
<br />
<h4>
Aaaaannnnndddd cue the outrage.</h4>
<br />
As you might imagine, the immediate response from people on both sides of the issue was overwhelming. Those that were celebrating the original Starbucks statement were suddenly irate that the company would ever go down this path. Protesters of the original Starbucks statement were suddenly strong Starbucks supporters again.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
But what did Starbucks REALLY say with each statement???</h3>
<br />
<br />
Basically...they just said to leave them alone and leave them out of the discussion.<br />
<br />
The reality is that everything would be better for gun advocates if, after Starbucks' first statement was released, they would have just left Starbucks alone. Instead, gun advocates stomped on Starbucks' original statement as some broad statement of support that it was not. Starbucks basically said they don't want to get involved, and gun advocates paraded the statement as if Starbucks had said they were on their side.<br />
<br />
But the simple reality was that neither side was properly embracing what Starbucks wanted. Starbucks had, for all intents and purposes, only said one thing: "listen...as long as your legal we don't care...but, PLEASE, leave us out of this. We don't want to be involved."<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUpatqW3IH3eLbwnvviWSPFmZs0kPsJW7LGLhqfyNS_vzHZjVtDmoFvgpBGaCCfRcf-PMQ8rbtYpgiUVWBDvf19uyCo4u3g2XNw3J7NWtEK1aI8VDR1ocAKSrECgGlO5wWVHl9NGQ2OV0/s1600/Starbucks+Gun+Protest.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="136" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUpatqW3IH3eLbwnvviWSPFmZs0kPsJW7LGLhqfyNS_vzHZjVtDmoFvgpBGaCCfRcf-PMQ8rbtYpgiUVWBDvf19uyCo4u3g2XNw3J7NWtEK1aI8VDR1ocAKSrECgGlO5wWVHl9NGQ2OV0/s200/Starbucks+Gun+Protest.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
And, of course, the anti-gun advocates leaped out in response. The gun owners were having their open carry events, and the anti-gun crowd was bound and determined to have their rallies at the same places and at the same times. Suddenly, Starbucks' locations everywhere were being turned into political battle grounds.<br />
<br />
So, now, Starbucks has done what was left for them to do. And that is where we truly are with them today. They just want left out of this. They said, "if you're legal it's ok, just leave us alone." But they weren't left alone...they were turned into a 2nd amendment warzone.<br />
<br />
So, now, they've come out and said, "Eff you. We asked to be left alone, and you instead turned us into a political pawn. We're not going to ban bringing guns in, but, please, just leave them outside. Please, just leave us alone."<br />
<br />
<br />
And, really, that's all I think that Starbucks is saying. And I think it is all they have been saying from the beginning. Their original statement simply said they don't want involved. But instead they were made a focal point of the gun rights war, so they replied.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">"we
know we cannot satisfy everyone. For those who oppose “open carry,”
we believe the legislative and policy-making process is the proper
arena for this debate, not our stores. For those who champion “open
carry,” please respect that Starbucks stores are places where
everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable. The presence of a
weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our
customers."</span></span></blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Really, I don't think that I can blame Starbucks for their recent position. And truthfully, I think Schultz handled it rather well. He even said that they weren't banning guns, they were just asking nicely for you not to bring them inside. He stated that they wouldn't be asking you to leave if you carried, just that you please respect their wishes to not do so.<br />
<br />
Of course, no matter what side of the gun debate you are on, you are free to respond how you wish. If you are a gun owner, maybe you stop going to Starbucks. Or try to find somewhere else first. And if you hate guns, then maybe you pop into Starbucks a little more often to show support. I rarely open carry, but I am a gun owner and I do carry concealed. Nonetheless, I will still go to Starbucks once or twice a week, just as I did before now.<br />
<br />
In the end, other than a possible little hiccup for the first few days, I don't think Starbucks business will be too drastically affected by this statement. Nor do I think it should be.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Check out my recent posts:<br />
<span style="background-color: #885522; color: #fffdee; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/Army's%20%22Information%20Dominance%20Center%22%20Designed%20to%20Look%20Like%20the%20Bridge%20of%20The%20Enterprise%20-%20See%20more%20at:%20http://indianalibertarian.blogspot.com/2013/09/armys-information-dominance-center.html#sthash.T4RVCjTn.dpuf" target="_blank">Army's "Information Dominance Center" Designed to Look Like the Bridge of The Enterprise</a></span></span>Joshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755157017325989727noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-928190953754695329.post-69171322568445799242013-09-17T06:00:00.000-04:002013-09-17T06:00:06.502-04:00Army's "Information Dominance Center" Designed to Look Like the Bridge of The Enterprise<div class="tr_bq">
Well, specifically the Enterprise-D.</div>
<br />
<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2421112/NSA-director-Keith-Alexander-modeled-secret-war-room-Star-Treks-Enterprise.html" target="_blank">Daily Mail Online is reporting</a> that when NSA Director Keith Alexander was the head of Army's Intelligence and Security Command, he had the "Information Dominance Center" he ran the show from designed to look like the bridge of the Starship Enterprise from Star Trek: The Next Generation. That's right, folks...that's the kind of trust we can give for people that are the stewards of our tax dollars.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiM5GHbl3Mnr3KSWpMjC9WoGjp3TE8iqZuHlW-wxmBpg3ic-CH1ZhLU5vUnNLmtF-fJl5JUHoXxJ6QQSmKV38wtnSUAim5n-jfM6zNcKfMP96P4OdnS6rgM-vhsKicTXS6I0KFSLljOCMQ/s1600/Army+Intelligence+HQ+I.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="268" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiM5GHbl3Mnr3KSWpMjC9WoGjp3TE8iqZuHlW-wxmBpg3ic-CH1ZhLU5vUnNLmtF-fJl5JUHoXxJ6QQSmKV38wtnSUAim5n-jfM6zNcKfMP96P4OdnS6rgM-vhsKicTXS6I0KFSLljOCMQ/s320/Army+Intelligence+HQ+I.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Pic from Daily Mail article</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The room is decked out in chrome and stainless steel. It is divided into control stations you could just see Commander Data sitting at. It has a huge monitor on the room's forward wall. And, perhaps most importantly, it has a very obvious Captain's chair that is the center and focal point of the entire room.<br />
<br />
Now, don't get me wrong...I'm not saying that the design couldn't have merits, and that the similarities between that design and the bridge of the Enterprise could possibly be coincidental.<br />
<br />
Oh, wait...<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Designed by a Hollywood set designer to mimic the famous ship's bridge...</blockquote>
<br />
Okay. Wow. That seems a bit much. But, just because you're hiring a Hollywood set designer to design <br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7ObGgHvt0kIkJEwSg6c6lU65OpnfjEgokH61a8Nrh-RGrmm-yYAlIwE8N_-BxLUi-ug2OI5RqJPglbcjZql2xBij6-kDfWzwL9nKxjVTLWSTkSmnz61raOz_uM1TRDN9IL4veD6RZFHQ/s1600/Army+Intelligence+HQ+II.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="190" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7ObGgHvt0kIkJEwSg6c6lU65OpnfjEgokH61a8Nrh-RGrmm-yYAlIwE8N_-BxLUi-ug2OI5RqJPglbcjZql2xBij6-kDfWzwL9nKxjVTLWSTkSmnz61raOz_uM1TRDN9IL4veD6RZFHQ/s320/Army+Intelligence+HQ+II.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Pic from Daily Mail article</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
the Army Intelligence and Security Command's "Information Dominance Center" doesn't mean it was a total waste, right? I mean, the design and some designer couldn't have real-world advantages, couldn't it? I mean, it's not like you went COMPLETELY over the top.<br />
<br />
Oh, wait...<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Just like in the Star Trek series, the doors to the so-called Information Dominance Center made a 'whoosh' noise as they opened.</blockquote>
<br />
You mean they added sound effects? Now that's just being silly. Thankfully the irresponsibility ended there. It's not like they played Star Trek with other government officials or anything.<br />
<br />
Oh, wait...<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
Lawmakers and other important officials took turns sitting in the leather 'captain's chair' in the center of the room...<br />Everybody wanted to sit in the chair at least once to pretend he was Jean-Luc Picard.</blockquote>
<br />
This is just disgraceful. Don't forget, folks, this is something that YOU paid for. Things like this should be reserved for movie studios, or theme parks, or super rich people that want to add a bridge or a Bat Cave or a secret passage in their house. This kind of thing has no business being a part of our government's expenditures.<br /><br />But, alas, they are something our government spends money on. Why? Because our government has become so ridiculously huge that what oversight there is has no chance to really look over everything. And that equates to government agencies getting blank checks written to them and saying, "now spend it wisely."<br />
<br />
It's so huge and so sad that when I saw this article, I wasn't really all that surprised. And even worse, voters will keep electing the same people that make this happen.Joshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755157017325989727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-928190953754695329.post-92221223038894217872013-05-08T13:30:00.000-04:002013-05-08T13:30:18.854-04:00FDA to Investigate "Any and All" Caffeine Added Products<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjB6_Qbpbm9-CffVJchyphenhyphenAAn79Z97UwHu11S6IvZ7EnITDoNyLuIA0MQdLiI1FAuSRaUKHCNbpIQYWnSOZqbtzfRMPr8urQtzmxRwJAuP34OV7luY3V9Ftbl8SP6tNH0gHcFQX4jdXH5pVQ/s1600/FDA+Badge.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjB6_Qbpbm9-CffVJchyphenhyphenAAn79Z97UwHu11S6IvZ7EnITDoNyLuIA0MQdLiI1FAuSRaUKHCNbpIQYWnSOZqbtzfRMPr8urQtzmxRwJAuP34OV7luY3V9Ftbl8SP6tNH0gHcFQX4jdXH5pVQ/s200/FDA+Badge.png" width="200" /></a></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Mayor Bloomberg is probably skipping around his office throwing confetti and thanking whatever god(s) he thinks are on his side. The federal government is stepping in and taking the first step towards another NYC style banning. This time....caffeine.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<a href="http://reason.com/archives/2013/05/04/meet-the-new-fda-caffeine-crackdown-same" target="_blank">Reason Magazine and others are reporting</a> that the FDA has announced they will begin investigating caffeinated products. Not energy drinks. Not caffeine gum. But EVERY caffeine added product.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
That's right. The FDA will, in fact, be investigating energy drinks and caffeine gum. But they will also be investigating Diet Coke and Mountain Dew. They will investigate the coffee drinks that have an "extra boost" in them. They will investigate products that you didn't even realize had a little caffeine added to them.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
And, let's be real about what the outcome will be here. This is the government. Even worse, this is the FDA, one of the most sold out areas of the government. A government agency that makes decisions based on many, many things other than what's acceptable for our people.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
This will end badly. I fully anticipate that the FDA will step in and put severe limits on how much, if any, </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjY3vbgkOCNfAwzAwGTG3BBSJpkCzPM2TZqyvygGKz1vO9gevI2eP7cOXclyOYRU5XpnM_igeelc_zLcyDWzbAXGFh9w5Ku-xM1gE-_RFSHKObsQhyocMFoT6dqkrX3mp3yDa6lB_Vgm-w/s1600/Caffeinated+Products.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="133" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjY3vbgkOCNfAwzAwGTG3BBSJpkCzPM2TZqyvygGKz1vO9gevI2eP7cOXclyOYRU5XpnM_igeelc_zLcyDWzbAXGFh9w5Ku-xM1gE-_RFSHKObsQhyocMFoT6dqkrX3mp3yDa6lB_Vgm-w/s200/Caffeinated+Products.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
caffeine can be added to a product. You know, because we are fully incapable of deciding what we want to consume.<br />
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
And if this happens, you need to be ready for the price of coffee to jump up drastically. This will happen for two reasons. First, if caffeine limitations will be in place for products that artificially add them, them consumers will be forced to turn to coffee for their caffeine. Supply and demand will dictate that the price of coffee will go up.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Second, coffee is the major source of caffeine for caffeine added products. When coffee producers remove caffeine from coffee to make decaffeinated coffee, they sell that caffeine to other companies to add to their sodas and energy drinks, etc. Without the revenue generated from selling as much of that caffeine off, then the price of coffee will have to be raised to compensate.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Pay attention to this as it develops, folks. There's a whole lot more freedom of choice that's about to be limited...again. Yay. Go government.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /><br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Use the Social Media buttons below to share this story, and make sure you check out my last couple of blogs!</div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="background-color: #885522; color: #fffdee; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 22px; font-weight: normal; margin: 0.75em 0px 0px; position: relative;">
<a href="http://indianalibertarian.blogspot.com/2013/05/indiana-sheriff-vows-to-not-enforce.html" target="_blank">Indiana Sheriff Vows to Not Enforce Future Gun Laws</a></h3>
<br />
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="background-color: #885522; color: #fffdee; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 22px; font-weight: normal; margin: 0.75em 0px 0px; position: relative;">
<a href="http://indianalibertarian.blogspot.com/2013/05/fop-ends-support-of-bisardwhy-were-they.html" target="_blank">FOP Ends Support of Bisard...Why Were They Financing Him in the First Place?</a></h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
Joshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755157017325989727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-928190953754695329.post-76107404129339250632013-05-03T08:00:00.000-04:002013-05-03T08:00:04.180-04:00FOP Ends Support of Bisard...Why Were They Financing Him in the First Place?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhp5pf2qxslKRrzfl5LiyTq2Z4P10DlH80xaBnFUZQcyyJZKoYpZs_WfMWkkHon9dy6vMaBBTcOS031Jt3Tlh91gbb__YZfrHBt4I2139kLTSAnmRhSRfqU7Xjm4lEgU70avb4zJxAhoQg/s1600/David+Bisard.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="111" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhp5pf2qxslKRrzfl5LiyTq2Z4P10DlH80xaBnFUZQcyyJZKoYpZs_WfMWkkHon9dy6vMaBBTcOS031Jt3Tlh91gbb__YZfrHBt4I2139kLTSAnmRhSRfqU7Xjm4lEgU70avb4zJxAhoQg/s200/David+Bisard.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
Unless you've been living under a rock, you've heard that David Bisard got another DUI. Not uncommon for a person with one DUI to get a second one, really. Many do.<br />
<br />
But the Bisard case is a little different. Bisard was a cop. Bisard killed someone (allegedly). Bisard was drunk (allegedly). There was very suspicious mishandling of blood testing. There was very suspicious mishandling of blood evidence. The whole thing was just...well...suspicious.<br /><br />And his defense costs? Yeah, they were being picked up by the Fraternal Order of Police.<br />
<br />
What the hell? I understand the being a police officer is a brotherhood. They love to protect their own. Okay, fine. I can understand brotherhoods.<br />
<br />
I can also understand the FOP wanting to pick up the tab for the defense of many police officers that are facing crazy litigation from over-zealous criminals that are just looking to screw over a cop.<br /><br />But this wasn't that kind of case. The evidence against Bisard appears to be overwhelming. Even though much of the evidence might have proven inadmissible due to the horrendous "oversights" by other members of the department, there is little doubt among the masses that Bisard did this.<br /><br />So if the evidence against Bisard is so damning, why would the FOP want to defend him? Again, I understand brotherhood, but brotherhood is for the benefit of all the brethren. If a member of a brotherhood fails to uphold their end of the bargain, if they do something that could do serious damage to the brotherhood as a whole, then it is acceptable for the brotherhood to expel him. And even if expulsion is not the right step, it is also acceptable for the brotherhood to remain neutral.<br />
<br />
But that didn't happen in this case. For Bisard, despite all the damning evidence, the FOP chose to step up and pay for his defense. Why? Who knows. But you can bet your paycheck they are regretting it now.<br /><br />Hilariously, FOP president William Owensby is quoted in <a href="http://www.indystar.com/article/20130502/NEWS/305020086/FOP-votes-stop-paying-Bisard-s-legal-representation?odyssey=mod|breaking|text|IndyStar.com" target="_blank">today's Indy Star article about the FOP's recent decision</a> as saying Bisard's arrest, "reflected discredit upon the lodge."<br /><br />Guess what, Mr. Owensby, the discredit upon the lodge was caused by it's decision to pay for his counsel in the first place.Joshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755157017325989727noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-928190953754695329.post-40239645849480293832013-05-03T07:00:00.000-04:002013-05-03T07:00:04.468-04:00Indiana Sheriff Vows to Not Enforce Future Gun Laws<div dir="ltr">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-_B2ZHQ5AAQs_o9KIVBwr1_Eg68-WcLIgAMEd6xAhzFGYR-fZPqNmsLy72yuGOf0b3VfiMB3mMIuNuVQWF1a_yWTG6aRbYneaaHeZLcA4V7OeZagnpFqEKP1vEuMteU-hf0KYpg3Iwdg/s1600/Sheriff+Brad+Rogers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-_B2ZHQ5AAQs_o9KIVBwr1_Eg68-WcLIgAMEd6xAhzFGYR-fZPqNmsLy72yuGOf0b3VfiMB3mMIuNuVQWF1a_yWTG6aRbYneaaHeZLcA4V7OeZagnpFqEKP1vEuMteU-hf0KYpg3Iwdg/s200/Sheriff+Brad+Rogers.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Sheriff Bradley Rogers</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Elkhart County Sheriff Brad Rogers is no stranger to media attention. Since his campaign, he has not been scared to speak out loud about his position on laws and their constitutionality. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
That attention is surrounding him again. On Sunday, Sheriff Rogers told a crowd in South Bend that he refuses to enforce any further gun legislation handed down by the federal government. This position is not new for Sheriff Rogers, nor is it new for him to discuss it (he's been on CNN talking with Anderson Cooper about his views). Nonetheless, the media, <a href="http://www.indystar.com/viewart/20130429/NEWS/304290044/Indiana-sheriff-vows-not-enforce-future-gun-laws" target="_blank">including this Indy Star article</a>, has grabbed the story and pounced on it.<br />
<br />
It's an interesting question....where does a sheriff's loyalties lie? Is he to blindly enforce any laws that are passed? Is that his duty? Can a sheriff prioritize the laws he enforces based on the resources he has available? Or, as Sheriff Rogers indicates, does his oath of office to uphold the constitution mean that if he finds a law unconstitutional that he is not obligated to enforce it?<br />
<br />
Surely a sheriff can not be required to blindly pursue each and every law that is passed. The reason is resources. No sheriff has unlimited resources. Every sheriff is forced to create a budget based on the resources available to them, and thus be forced to prioritize what areas they will focus their enforcement on. That makes perfect sense.<br />
<br />
But where does prioritizing enforcement potentially turn into abandonment of enforcing a law at all? And is a sheriff that believes a law to be unconstitutional required to not enforce it based upon their oath to defend the constitution?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhp0RpqZsx_0m3QaBViJmic-CG-y6DsaaxGn0YREQ2e8Ek8XsbDrX7WgRm4mVmKC73XsKUuKtJ0-ULEtdFGwnmY4N7-bBRc-VryYvnkm8CV90yq2Jz2PwF6ynNEabQH9hyHAxhmLdrk2L8/s1600/Sheriff+Rogers+Interview.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="132" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhp0RpqZsx_0m3QaBViJmic-CG-y6DsaaxGn0YREQ2e8Ek8XsbDrX7WgRm4mVmKC73XsKUuKtJ0-ULEtdFGwnmY4N7-bBRc-VryYvnkm8CV90yq2Jz2PwF6ynNEabQH9hyHAxhmLdrk2L8/s200/Sheriff+Rogers+Interview.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Myself, Miah Akston, and Sheriff Rogers</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
These are not easy questions to answer. Especially as nullification becomes a more common part of society, with states readily nullifying federal laws right now, it becomes harder to answer, and also more controversial.<br />
<br />
Personally, I applaud Sheriff Rogers. He is still confined by a system of checks and balances. If his community does not support the actions of this first term sheriff, they will guarantee that he never has a second term of office. As long as those checks and balances are in place, then the sheriff's oath to uphold the constitution comes first and foremost.<br />
<br />
Sheriff Rogers recently spoke at the Libertarian Party of Indiana's State Convention. Although I do not have audio of the excellent speech he gave, Miah Akston and I were lucky enough to have the opportunity to interview him for our show on, The Uncontrollables. Here's that interview. It runs about 21 minutes.<br />
<br />
<span id="goog_1929135357"></span><span id="goog_1929135358"></span><br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="169" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/PAtAjkjlI98" width="300"></iframe></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<br /></div>
Joshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755157017325989727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-928190953754695329.post-28529623190161162342013-04-30T07:00:00.000-04:002013-04-30T07:00:02.594-04:00Libertarian Party of Marion County Statement on SB 621<br />
<div align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Libertarian Party of
Marion County Urges </b></div>
<div align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Governor Pence to Veto SB 621</b></div>
<div align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAPcg-hHEVFxcE_0ySL42sWsES4kJhiKTpmZTN-euWjSNd5kCygo4YDceAVdbHMr2EPluG2X0hxSPYiUp6V0n-IgZDKJWRcuV-Z8er1RpEvAcJ_UhxUzYidrikqRIRbQuCZR1Ndv_Dhjw/s1600/Libertarian+Party+of+Marion+County.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAPcg-hHEVFxcE_0ySL42sWsES4kJhiKTpmZTN-euWjSNd5kCygo4YDceAVdbHMr2EPluG2X0hxSPYiUp6V0n-IgZDKJWRcuV-Z8er1RpEvAcJ_UhxUzYidrikqRIRbQuCZR1Ndv_Dhjw/s200/Libertarian+Party+of+Marion+County.jpg" width="155" /></a></div>
<div align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The Indiana General
Assembly has passed SB 621, a law which would eliminate all At-Large
City-County Council seats in Marion County and give the Mayor
unrestricted control over the budget. The Libertarian Party of
Marion County stands against this legislation.</div>
<div align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
SB 621 has correctly been
described as the “power grab” bill. It is an obvious attempt by
the Republican super majority in the General Assembly to strip the
power of the vote from the citizens of Marion County.</div>
<div align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
By eliminating the four
at-large seats on the Council, the General Assembly is stripping away
the combined voice of The People. While the LPMC is not convinced
that the current structure of the Marion County government is
necessarily the most productive and efficient model available to our
citizens, we also do not believe the General Assembly should be
dictating that model to us. Instead, we encourage the state
legislators to introduce legislation to turn the authority to decide
what model works best for Marion County over to the people of Marion
County. The representatives of the other 91 counties should not be
deciding how people they do not represent should be able to govern
themselves.</div>
<div align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
SB 621 also gives the
Mayor of Indianapolis unheard of authority to control the City budget
in whatever way he seems fit. While the Council would still vote on
the budget, the Mayor is given the almost unbelievable power to
change that budget on a whim. The people of Marion County deserve a
system of checks and balances, and this bill eliminates that.</div>
<div align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
To make matters worse, the
General Assembly simply did not take the proper time to listen to the
thoughts of the people of Marion County, the only county impacted by
this legislation. Instead, the legislature chose to push through
this bill and enforce it on us without our say.</div>
<div align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
We urge the citizens of
Marion County to join us in calling on Governor Pence to reject this
partisan power grab by vetoing SB 621.</div>
Joshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755157017325989727noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-928190953754695329.post-91262314914619143512013-04-26T15:59:00.001-04:002013-04-26T15:59:47.969-04:00LGBT Couples Benefit Greatly From Elimination of Inheritance Tax<p dir=ltr>Fellow blogger Paul Ogden makes a great point in his blog about the inheritance tax. LGBT couples might be the biggest winners.</p>
<p dir=ltr>You see, a spouse was previously tax exempt from the inheritance tax. But since Indiana doesn't recognize gay marriage, even lifelong couples only at best qualified as a friend, and had am enormous tax burden because of it.</p>
<p dir=ltr>Although I sincerely doubt there were any intentions of this law being to help gay couples, in many ways they benefit the most. No longer does it matter who you spent your life with when or comes to the amount of inheritance tax you pay. A gay couple now pays the same tax treasure as a straight couple does, at least in this area.</p>
<p dir=ltr>That's a win.</p>
<p dir=ltr>Ogden has some interesting math in his big showing just how much the tax could impact a gay couple before. Make sure you check out his blog for that info, and more details on this story.</p>
<p dir=ltr><a href="http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2013/04/republican-dominated-indiana.html">Indiana Legislature Set to Hand Same Sex Marriage Advocates Biggest Victory Ever by Eliminating Inheritance Tax</a><br>
</p>
Joshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755157017325989727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-928190953754695329.post-40276162683077832292013-04-25T07:00:00.000-04:002013-04-25T07:00:13.194-04:00Fireworks Used in Boston Bombs...Prepare Yourself for Ridiculous New Fireworks Legislation<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1-kBpjQ1jV_dDcFPXFfa7N7LvLu2PzLqVn2KWfj5QElHzm7q8wjiUDBiRXb1-SWJ0Tm74WnLMqqRTtgadfm6ZwwSjwuQo66nASOtVHR8FVZvCOVWbAPm98QhT-smhAEt0Xa5plDOHTQY/s1600/Boston+Bombers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="113" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1-kBpjQ1jV_dDcFPXFfa7N7LvLu2PzLqVn2KWfj5QElHzm7q8wjiUDBiRXb1-SWJ0Tm74WnLMqqRTtgadfm6ZwwSjwuQo66nASOtVHR8FVZvCOVWbAPm98QhT-smhAEt0Xa5plDOHTQY/s200/Boston+Bombers.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
Well, here we go. It was only a matter of time until some portion of the Boston bombing story surfaced that will be used as a catalyst for ignorant, over-reaching panic legislation. And if it didn't appear before Wednesday, it's sure here now.<br />
<br />
Throughout the day Wednesday, news began surfacing that the Boston bombing suspects used gunpowder scavenged from fireworks to create the deadly bombs used to terrorize this year's Boston Marathon.<br />
<br />
I'm willing to bet that before next week is out, there is a minimum of one state making lots of news because it's legislature is going to begin considering strict new fireworks legislation because of this. That's the way it always happens with these tragedies.<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Something horrible happens</li>
<li>Something the vast majority of people use safely in their lives is found to be involved</li>
<li>Legislators panic and make rash decisions about what can be done to prevent tragedy again</li>
<li>Mostly safe item has crazy new restrictions placed on it or is banned</li>
<li>Hardly anyone, if anyone at all, is saved while millions deal with ridiculous new regulations</li>
</ol>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It happens every time. Every. Single. time. And you can bet your hind end it will happen again here. Lawmakers across the nation are going to put new fireworks legislation in place in the name of preventing terrorism, or saving lives, or preventing fear, or whatever. And no one will really benefit. But many, many people will have to deal with the negative repercussions of the new laws.<br />
<br />
Here's what I expect to see lawmakers suggesting across the nation:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikiVdi7MwLWZn86x0kuxp8I0ct_8CcOYQxmk2zyucgR77bN435pZQB6KcIpYuHxz_N56t9H5QPSHhTHbIgQNfK36HXb2rWeXpWvcDhCh8BSCiePirLuCafoYSKasAOLmcktOm9P8XZ9kM/s1600/Fireworks.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikiVdi7MwLWZn86x0kuxp8I0ct_8CcOYQxmk2zyucgR77bN435pZQB6KcIpYuHxz_N56t9H5QPSHhTHbIgQNfK36HXb2rWeXpWvcDhCh8BSCiePirLuCafoYSKasAOLmcktOm9P8XZ9kM/s200/Fireworks.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Styles of fireworks allowed to be purchased limited to only those with the smallest amounts of powder</li>
<li>Number of fireworks purchased to be severely limited</li>
<li>Anyone attempting to buy large amounts of fireworks to have police called on them</li>
<li>Every fireworks purchaser to have their name recorded along with the contents of each purchase</li>
<li>Digital connectivity required between different fireworks resellers so that attempts to buy large amounts via small amounts purchased from several retailers will be thwarted</li>
<li>Fireworks purchaser license required</li>
<li>Background checks required for fireworks purchasers</li>
<li>Fireworks safety courses required before anyone is allowed to purchase fireworks</li>
</ul>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
And who knows what else. Trust me, here. You are going to see at least one state proposing some of these laws within the next ten days, and a whole lot of states following suit within the next year.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Please don't misunderstand what I am saying here. The bombings were a real tragedy. And my thoughts and prayers are with each and every person either directly or indirectly affected.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But our states and federal governments rarely react properly to these events. They normally jump straight into poorly thought out legislation because the public is crying for blood and they can get just about any law passed they want if it is supposedly written in the name of justice and/or prevention.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
When you begin to hear about the legislation that will be proposed because of the Boston bombings, I want you to think about whether it is good legislation or forced through bad legislation. I want you to think of the Patriot Act and the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security. I want you to think about whether the legislation actually helps us prevent any tragedies, and even if it does, at what cost to the rest of us?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And I want you to ask your representatives to please slow down, take a deep breath, and make sure they are passing legislation because it is the right thing to so. I want you to make sure that they aren't passing laws in the name of revenge.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Joshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755157017325989727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-928190953754695329.post-36057942817062332592013-04-24T12:31:00.001-04:002013-04-24T12:32:47.155-04:00Rhode Island Republican Senators Unanimously Support Gay Marriage<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjL2Ib41u79nZit_O1yR_5dMzGodpKssuoAqIWjWNZjR4MTaUkiSkw1qqbYI5rCQLmuF1HRO86p2YpDigdfGF85wb6-kJCNR3p3RUV-N42SBRG-Qsu-p4r3J5HkD-tXJ5BuaWuKodaa5f8/s1600/Marriage+Equality.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjL2Ib41u79nZit_O1yR_5dMzGodpKssuoAqIWjWNZjR4MTaUkiSkw1qqbYI5rCQLmuF1HRO86p2YpDigdfGF85wb6-kJCNR3p3RUV-N42SBRG-Qsu-p4r3J5HkD-tXJ5BuaWuKodaa5f8/s200/Marriage+Equality.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
Yep. You read that right. An entire Republican caucus has voted in favor of legalizing gay marriage.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Sure, it's a small number of legislators, but the importance of the word "unanimous" still shouldn't be lost on you. Especially on this topic. Especially from Republicans.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And it's not being done without political backlash, as you might imagine. The National Organization for Marriage has vowed to unseat at least one of the Senators, Dennis Algiere, because of his vote.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Thanks to The Washington Post for tipping me off to this story. For more information, including links to other stories, please check out <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/04/23/in-rhode-island-every-republican-state-senator-backs-gay-marriage/" target="_blank">their article here</a>.</div>
Joshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755157017325989727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-928190953754695329.post-63693942298947876862013-04-23T07:00:00.000-04:002013-04-23T07:00:15.594-04:00Ballard's New Cricket Venue...Even the GOP is Fired Up<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLbu6eK9S1jTNRxDJbOeYKdHhaFwT4REHVi8CEL3dMicebMrEUvD6LUriNxtXDF2c4cwKqbCKOXvzi9-K1uig69dZhtbaG0yZFr7xQcb8id_hx5xLksFFdqDizLXKpsFUNthYRgnkRiuk/s1600/Greg+Ballard.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLbu6eK9S1jTNRxDJbOeYKdHhaFwT4REHVi8CEL3dMicebMrEUvD6LUriNxtXDF2c4cwKqbCKOXvzi9-K1uig69dZhtbaG0yZFr7xQcb8id_hx5xLksFFdqDizLXKpsFUNthYRgnkRiuk/s200/Greg+Ballard.jpg" width="163" /></a></div>
At a time where Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard is receiving even more scrutiny than normal because of the apparent power grab he is making via the General Assembly, you would think he would perhaps lay low for a bit. But that is definitely not the case and even his own party seems upset at his dismissive attitude towards checks and balances.<br />
<br />
Last week, Ballard announced that Indianapolis was going to be building a $6 million cricket venue. The project had apparently already been in the works for at least two years, but the administration had been keeping it hush hush. To make things even more interesting, the first announcement of the plans didn't come to the residents of the City of Indianapolis, or even to an audience here in the Good Ol' US of A. Instead, when Ballard decided to make these plans public, he did it in Hyderabad, India.<br />
<br />
Whhhhhaaaaaaa?!?!?!?!<br />
<br />
That's right, Ballard kept plans to spend six million taxpayer dollars on the down low for years, and waited until he was halfway around the world to make the information public. And he did so with some utterly suspect quotes, obviously planted in his head by whatever group convinced him this was a great idea.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Cricket is not exceptionally strong in the U.S. right now. I need to change that.</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
When people from around the world think of cricket, I want them to think of Indianapolis.</blockquote>
<br />
Can't you just hear the ego flowing out of those statements? HE needs to change that? Are we to believe that Ballard is some huge cricket fan that has been secretly putting together these plans in some grand scheme to make the citizens of this country suddenly believe that cricket is God's gift to the sporting world? And does he really believe that the way that will happen is by putting a handful of fields on Post Road?<br />
<br />
The answers, of course, are a resounding no. Ballard doesn't care about cricket. And making this <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsDIR439Scwg3WOsTQ96qafxkSLjMw7_1pOU5wdZahyM_NcFya45N7H_bkCMnkxcfl1E8s_UDID1tcLq_XkN2-cxXoJWcMt5Ka40RenyIZiodGQpCiRBny44NPWtmKgUMYWpspOuAkrGY/s1600/Cricket.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="136" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsDIR439Scwg3WOsTQ96qafxkSLjMw7_1pOU5wdZahyM_NcFya45N7H_bkCMnkxcfl1E8s_UDID1tcLq_XkN2-cxXoJWcMt5Ka40RenyIZiodGQpCiRBny44NPWtmKgUMYWpspOuAkrGY/s200/Cricket.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
announcement in India shows that he doesn't really care about Indianapolis, either. I'd be willing to lay good odds that we are going to find out that the builders of this project are somehow well-connected to Ballard, and are going to profit a healthy amount because of it.<br />
<br />
And now things are getting even more interesting for Ballard, as his own party is expressing dismay in what is going on. According to <a href="http://www.ibj.com/republicans-to-question-ballards-6m-sports-park/PARAMS/article/40915" target="_blank">an article in Monday's IBJ</a>, the City-County Council plans to discuss the matter and request more information from the Ballard administration on it.<br />
<br />
The Council knows it is powerless to stop the park at this point, but they are seeking some specific projections on its cost and potential revenue. Republican Councillors Ginny Cain and Janice McHenry, and Democratic Councillor Pam Hickman are quoted in the article as having expressed specific concerns. Cain and Hickman both address the budget woes the parks are already facing...among which include potential lay offs and reducing maintenance. McHenry, who serves on the Council's Parks Committee, noted that the administration never even bothered to bring the plan before them.<br /><br />As you might expect, though, spokespersons for the administration are rushing to the plan's defense. Public Works Director Lori Miser believes that the project will be a revenue generator for the parks department. She also believes that maintenance can be arranged through public-private partnerships.<br />
<br />
Um...a revenue generator? Really? Let's just pretend that the venue can fill 10,000 spectator events (and don't get me started on where those people are going to park in that area,) and that each person's presence generates $20. That means that it will take 30 capacity events to just break even at this location. And that's if there are zero costs involved, which is obviously not the case.<br />
<br />
And public-private partnerships taking care of the maintenance? Right. Because the Ballard Administration has such a strong track record of those partnerships working out to the taxpayers' advantage. **cough water company cough** **cough parking meters cough**<br />
<br />
The truth is, this is some idea that was spoon fed to Ballard by a person or persons that stands to make a lot of money off the deal. Just like so many other of this administration's projects, an insider is ready to make a mint off of Ballard's corrupt management of the City. I said I'd lay good odds to that fact, and I mean it.<br />
<br />
In fact, my money's on the soon-to-be-richer insider being David Ladd. The IBJ article closes saying,<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Ladd, <b>a former business acquaintance of Ballard's</b>, said the mayor first raised the idea in 2009...<br />Ladd agreed to help.</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Keep your eye on this one, folks. Whatever news is allowed to surface is sure to point in corruption's way.<br />
<br />
<br />Joshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755157017325989727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-928190953754695329.post-62193378400656982472013-02-15T02:18:00.001-05:002013-02-15T02:18:05.741-05:00Mitch McConnell Wants to Legalize Hemp<p>Criminy. It's about time we had a little bit of common sense talk frim Republicans about hemp.</p>
<p>You see, hemp and pot aren't the same thing. But they are treated by the government like they are. No one wants to go out and get high of industrial hemp. It's the smoking equivalent of getting drunk on rubbing alcohol.</p>
<p>But nonetheless, hemp has remained illegal. And with it, one of the most versatile and useful plants in the world. <br>
The strangest part of this conversation may be the ass backwards way in which it is coming about. Several states have legalized medical marijuana smoking, and two states have legalized it altogether. Hemp, though, the most useful member of the cannabis family, has remained a hush topic in the legislative world.</p>
<p>With this news, though, that does appear to be changing. Not only is government talking legalization, but the FEDERAL government is. Not only is a Republican talking about it, but Mitch McConnell is. Progress comes in weird ways.</p>
<p><a href="http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/14/16967535-gop-senate-leader-supports-bill-to-legalize-hemp-production?lite">GOP Senate leader supports bill to legalize hemp production</a> </p>
Joshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755157017325989727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-928190953754695329.post-33207711627202404882013-02-12T00:40:00.001-05:002013-02-12T00:58:45.928-05:00Jon Easter Says IMS Giveaway Makes Sense<p dir=ltr>To listen to Jon Easter, of the <a href="http://indydemocrat.blogspot.com">Indy Democrat Blog</a>, you would think that anyone that has provided significant tax revenue is due to receive a big check cut to them.  That is a large part of his argument in his recent blog that seems to support giving $100 Million to the Speedway. IMS is an organization that, until asking the state for these funds, has always been proud of having never taken a single government dime.</p>
<p dir=ltr>I find it especially interesting when Democrats, a group known for arguing against giving any money to the rich for anything, somehow think it is ok to give billionaire owners of sports-related organizations millions upon millions of dollars. Especially since the members of the party seem to also be against just that...except when it impacts their own city.</p>
<p dir=ltr>Where exactly, then, do we draw the line between what rich people can get tons of our tax dollars thrown at them? Obviously, it isn't when those rich people own a business that provides hundreds or thousands of jobs, and provide plenty of essential products and services beyond those jobs.</p>
<p dir=ltr>So is the threshold when the rich people provide us sports stuff to yell and scream about? Is the threshhold really set by what we can rally around?</p>
<p dir=ltr><a href="http://indydemocrat.blogspot.com/2013/02/tax-relief-for-ims-done-properly-makes.html">Indy Democrat Blog: Tax Relief for IMS (Done Properly) Makes Sense</a></p>
Joshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755157017325989727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-928190953754695329.post-23902684369430435102013-02-12T00:23:00.001-05:002013-02-12T00:27:04.893-05:00What Do You Call an Ex-Pope?<p dir=ltr>Seriously...what DO you call an ex-pope?</p>
<p dir=ltr>I'm not Catholic. Even if I was, I doubt there is precedent set....since it hasn't happened in more than 600 years.</p>
<p dir=ltr>I've got to assume that, like a president, the title follows you for the remainder of your days.  But does your "Pope name?"</p>
<p dir=ltr>I mean, does he stay Pope Benedict, or does he go back to being a Ratzinger?</p>
<p dir=ltr>These are the kind of things that need discussed.</p>
<div class='separator' style='clear: both; text-align: center;'> <a href='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggUxv0M1nKmjVzLcJgoqzahtOB1bwXM7U-bbDeO6RXLMsRxnqjsdSAozdOWQXAqDDNR5btEpVgS9xBtEDA5ZCZGcSvER56Sbev4P5kHsX3YqZRCCEySEGulAErbiZC8QhpsVgBouLPR7E/s1600/Pope%252520Benedict%252520%252527will%252520not%252520interfere%252520in%252520choosing%252520new%252520pope%252527.jpg' imageanchor='1' style='margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;'> <img border='0' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggUxv0M1nKmjVzLcJgoqzahtOB1bwXM7U-bbDeO6RXLMsRxnqjsdSAozdOWQXAqDDNR5btEpVgS9xBtEDA5ZCZGcSvER56Sbev4P5kHsX3YqZRCCEySEGulAErbiZC8QhpsVgBouLPR7E/s200/Pope%252520Benedict%252520%252527will%252520not%252520interfere%252520in%252520choosing%252520new%252520pope%252527.jpg' /> </a> </div>Joshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755157017325989727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-928190953754695329.post-18950726687379267722012-11-28T11:12:00.004-05:002012-11-28T11:12:43.345-05:00Why Republicans Should Raise Taxes on the Wealthy<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiK-l4S2MBUNNJk-6K6m4O-k-Ohe1aJOw5xmdffUd2Yr_Wftw1UST8MMtACGVQaEe1WcjtKPkZNUaH9EKuq2DiP_alw3pVae9fCgQb9qo_HkSU4shnz_5y1GuoKL5qs79JQLAO4xUTGn2Q/s1600/Taxes.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiK-l4S2MBUNNJk-6K6m4O-k-Ohe1aJOw5xmdffUd2Yr_Wftw1UST8MMtACGVQaEe1WcjtKPkZNUaH9EKuq2DiP_alw3pVae9fCgQb9qo_HkSU4shnz_5y1GuoKL5qs79JQLAO4xUTGn2Q/s1600/Taxes.jpg" /></a></div>
<h3>
First, the reason is NOT because raising taxes is a good idea. It's not.</h3>
<div>
<br />
The first goal needs to be reducing the national debt. Few disagree that our debt load is unsustainable. Few disagree that if we continue down the current path, financial ruin is inevitable.<br />
<br />
And no amount of taxes can can fix that problem. If you were to be able to tax 100% of the income of every single person in America that makes more than $100,000, you would still not have raised enough revenue to cover the annual national debt.<br /><br />So, then, why exactly should the Republicans consider raising taxes? Because they, and the rest of our nation, are being held hostage by the Democrats. The Democrats are the lone party that is currently in a position to accept solutions outside of tax increases, and they won't.<br /><br /><br />
<h3>
But I thought the Democrats said that the Republicans are the ones holding us hostage?</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
They did. Frankly, it's a lie.<br /><br />The Democrats have the strength in Congress to make demands. The Republicans have basically been given two options by the Dems:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>Raise taxes on those making $250,000+;</li>
<li>Raise taxes on everybody.</li>
</ol>
</div>
<div>
The Democrats, though, have more options available to them:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>Raise taxes on those making $250,000+;</li>
<li>Raise taxes on everybody;</li>
<li>Raise taxes on some other group of people than the two listed above;</li>
<li>Don't raise taxes at all.</li>
</ol>
</div>
<div>
The GOP has only been given two options, both of which raise taxes. The Democrats, though, basically have an infinite number of options at their disposal, with or without the Republicans. Who does it sound like is REALLY holding the other party hostage?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
So, why should the GOP raise taxes?</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Because they don't have any option in front of them that doesn't do that. They can either raise taxes on those making more than $250K, or they can allow taxes to go up on everyone. That's it. Those are their only choices. In this particular case, the Republicans have to choose to raise the taxes on the wealthy to prevent the taxes from being raised on everyone else. It's not a pretty choice, but it is the only choice that they have.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Instead of keeping up the non-winnable fight, though, the GOP can choose to agree to the raises now, and spend the next month playing their newly gained leverage to achieve other compromises.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
President Obama and the Democrats have thus far only drawn one line in the sand: taxes must go up for those making more than $250,000. Outside of that, they say they are willing to make compromises. Republicans need to jump all over that. Since they have no choice but to agree to the tax increases, then they should draw their own line in the sand.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>"We'll agree to your tax increases for the wealthy, if you agree that we'll balance the budget."</b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
If the Republicans make that compromise, then they can turn the tables. First, they turn the tables on the Democrats that have successfully convinced Americans that the GOP are the bad guys here. Second, if you can force that compromise, you might actually take the first steps to seeing a brighter financial future for our children, grand-children, and further generations down the road.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
P.S. - Tip to the GOP: When you ask for a compromise that balances the budget, invoke the name of Bill Clinton and the fact that he, for all intents and purposes, did just that.</div>
</div>
Joshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755157017325989727noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-928190953754695329.post-48412901170070337802012-11-22T00:47:00.001-05:002012-11-22T00:48:47.780-05:00Happy Thanksgiving! <p>A Very Happy Thanksgiving, Everybody! </p>
Joshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755157017325989727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-928190953754695329.post-20618175903971192932012-11-19T07:00:00.000-05:002012-11-19T07:00:08.661-05:00Unions and the Hostess Situation<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTwsGJpu1i20cJ6nkCF2E4HwxYqktHYqsB-Hr2rzs2w8IR5Q6Wmizjnx8ZfxDaGGjNb6h8w-S1eYAHDdAPidYcRJXSKAtfvsa2YG5UFi54w0zwP839Lzi-VquUE9ZR8u2rcPd0J3vjsE8/s1600/Bakers+Union+Logo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTwsGJpu1i20cJ6nkCF2E4HwxYqktHYqsB-Hr2rzs2w8IR5Q6Wmizjnx8ZfxDaGGjNb6h8w-S1eYAHDdAPidYcRJXSKAtfvsa2YG5UFi54w0zwP839Lzi-VquUE9ZR8u2rcPd0J3vjsE8/s200/Bakers+Union+Logo.jpg" width="125" /></a></div>
Unions are interesting creatures. And for decades now, they have been one of the more controversial parts of the American work force.<br />
<br />
Union supporters claim that unions are great for workers, and exist only for that benefit. The other side believes unions but unfair restrictions and financial burdens on employers.<br />
<br />
The truth, as with most things, probably lies somewhere in between.<br />
<br />
Sometimes the relationship between a union and an employer reaches critical mass. The unions demand more, the employer demands more, and a stalemate ensues. Often, those stalemates lead to strikes by the union or lockouts by the employer. In the end, both sides normally end up compromising something that they could have before the work stoppage, and work resumes with both sides feeling a little bit better for having puffed out their chest to make a point.<br />
<br />
By now you've heard about Hostess. Hostess is an example of what happens when a union and an employer reaches critical mass. And in this particular situation, it is an example of what happens when unions refuse to back down against an employer that is already up against a wall.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Businesses Will Fight to Survive</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Businesses don't like to fail. It's bad for communities. It's bad for employees. It's bad for...well...business.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Once in a while, a small neighborhood business will close its doors when Mom & Pop get to old to keep at it, and no one else wants to take over. Other than that, though...there's only one reason a business fails: it just can't afford to keep the operation running anymore.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That's it...no other. A business will fight and fight to survive...but if it can't make money, it will inevitably fold. No profitable business ever closes. Ever.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
Unions Will Fight to Survive</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It's no different for a union, really. They can only do what they do if they continue to receive dues. If there is not a benefit to belonging to a union, the members will eventually turn against the union and drive them out of the shop.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
To due this, the unions will fight relentlessly for its employees. Originally formed to see that workers were treated fairly, unions now work to get workers far more than their skills and abilities would be worth in any other place.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The unions will sometimes go so intensely after a fight, that they put the employees in a worse situation. Sometimes, a union will draw such an unreasonable line in the sand that the employer can't ever meet the demands.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
When an Unstoppable Force Meets an Immovable Object</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So, what have we learned? That sometimes an unstoppable force (The union demanding certain wages and benefits for its members) does run into an immovable object (a company so teetering on the edge of survival that it simply cannot concede any further.) And when that impact occurs, there is only one possible outcome...mutual annihilation.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And that's exactly what happened when the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers Union failed to step back from its demands against Hostess. The unstoppable force refused to take a different path and instead proceeded full steam ahead into the immovable object. BAM! Annihilation. </div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22.5px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22.5px;">I'm not sure what the Bakers' Union was thinking, either. Hostess had made it clear to the unions (Teamsters also represented a large portion of workers in the company) that they absolutely could not afford the demands made to them. The Teamsters listened. The Teamsters even went to the Bakers' Union and told them they did not believe Hostess would be able to survive if they conceded to the union demands.</span></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
Ultimately, Survival is the Union's Call</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
The Bakers' Union refused to yield. The immovable Hostess object, and their employees, were completely at the mercy of the union. The immovable object could not move, it could only wait. Hostess knew there were only three possible outcomes:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>The union backed down, and Hostess survived, for now; or, </li>
<li>the union kept at it until Hostesses relented, at which time Hostess would close; or </li>
<li>Hostess just put themselves out of their misery and closed on their own.</li>
</ol>
<br />
<br />
Note that no matter what happens to Hostess and their employees at this stage the burden of the results are completely on the shoulders of the union. If the Union backs down, there's a shot at survival. If the Union refuses to step down, the Hostess fails and it's employees join the ranks of the unemployed. Hostess no longer has a say.<br />
<br />
So what decision did the Bakers' Union make? Well, of course you know the answer to that already. The Union, despite being clearly warned of the consequences, made the decision that they would rather be unemployed than employed.<br />
<br />
<h3>
The Decision Affected Thousands Outside of the Union</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Unions in states like Indiana complain about right-to-work laws. They claim that by allowing non-union workers into a union shop, that non-members will be taking advantage of the union's work without having to pay dues.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Well, obviously that concern is not reciprocal. Hostess employed approximately 18,500 people. Of those people, only 6,700 belonged to the Bakers' Union. Yet the decision of 6.700 people to not back down ended up costing almost 12,000 other people their jobs, too.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
One Final Thought</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I don't hate unions. I do, though, find it hard to accept that any organization that supposedly exists solely for the purpose of helping its members will allow the members to become unemployed before allowing them to concede.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I don't blame you for fighting, unions...you just have to know when to say when. This time you forced a large company out of business. This time, those 18,500 unemployed people are on you.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRRZ6ftTC9kghMWL_RaWVTHM_OflV1fEWMXPH52ftl12DHvZTv7qNKFsw-CVVWb1ot7TZVTQU3gJ1l6x8aedg64ENnJl095BCJTo3qaX6HSbjmzZ0RmhBeVMJghV0C-fgSJpzfi5dExks/s1600/Hostess.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="281" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRRZ6ftTC9kghMWL_RaWVTHM_OflV1fEWMXPH52ftl12DHvZTv7qNKFsw-CVVWb1ot7TZVTQU3gJ1l6x8aedg64ENnJl095BCJTo3qaX6HSbjmzZ0RmhBeVMJghV0C-fgSJpzfi5dExks/s320/Hostess.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Joshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755157017325989727noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-928190953754695329.post-16053080588629675662012-11-17T10:47:00.001-05:002012-11-17T10:52:47.863-05:00Rupert Back to Work<div><p>Rupert Boneham has wasted no time getting back to work at his Rupert's Kids mentoring program. Tonight, Rupert is hosting his Tuxes and Tennies event and auction to raise money for the charity.</p>
<p>The event will be held at 6:00 at the Robert Irsay Pavilion, 1303 W. 116th St. in Carmel. Tickets are just $25 and can be purchased at the door.<br></p>
<p>https://tuxestennies.eventbrite.com<br>
</p>
<br/><img src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9kbTN0Q39g8jG-M-2W2A9c8c24dBb2OEfyB3oqYiuLij6X_oLKy3Ul9LF1ygyOpSgEPilM3v-D2VhY72dyk-1T1d2jQFRWC02xcyvciiWbL7UK1-lm0lDcgqKvXe7_To7HTAD2CswVGs/' /></div>Joshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755157017325989727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-928190953754695329.post-64606643201650292282012-11-09T14:34:00.001-05:002012-11-09T14:34:49.558-05:00Indiana Education Reform: Who Got a Mandate?The 2012 election is now a few days behind us. What's left now is just trying to decipher what it all means. Sometimes, it's easier to tell what voters want. Other times, though, the voters send confusing messages with their decisions at the polls.<div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
When it comes to education reform in Indiana, voters sent the more confusing message.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
First, they elected a new Superintendent of Public Instruction. Many in the political circles around the state were surprised by the outcome of this one. Incumbent Tony Bennett spent well over a million dollars on the race, and was supposed to win without much trouble. Glenda Ritz seemed to be unheard of by most as they headed into election day.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
She won, though, with big numbers. Quite an upset. And when that happens, you have to accept that it is a clear message and mandate to other politicians: we support what she stands for...make it happen.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But then something else happened. The Republican majority in the General Assembly, the very ones that put the recent education reform and voucher program in place, grew. And they grew a lot. The voters of Indiana gave the GOP a super-majority in both houses of the General Assembly, and they gave them a Republican governor, too.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Basically, Indiana voters told the GOP, "Here's our State. We trust you. Do with it what you wish." And when that happens, you have to accept that it is a clear message and mandate to other politicians.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The problem we're faced with, though, is the voters mandates are in conflict with each other. The goals of the new Democrat Superintendent of Public Instruction and the goals of the super-majority General Assembly are not going to be the same.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Of course, both sides are claiming their mandate is the superior one. Governor Mitch Daniels and Governor-Elect Mike Pence announced that the election of Ritz does not mean that there will be any rollback of the voucher programs.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Democrats are crying foul, saying Ritz's huge numbers mean that, in fact, it is their mandate which should take the lead. Jon Easter of Indy Democrat Blog titled a post on the issue, "<a href="http://indydemocrat.blogspot.com/2012/11/indiana-gop-leaders-losing-ever-loving.html" target="_blank">Indiana GOP Leaders Losing Ever-loving Mind??</a>"</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So what should our politicians do? That thing which all politicians should do: compromise. The GOP should allow Glenda Ritz to do her job in the way she best sees fit, in accordance with the laws in place when she took office. Ritz should accept that, and do the best job that she can with what she has to work with.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What shouldn't our politicians do? Try to out-do the other side and create a war. The GOP should wait until after the 2014 elections (and the mandates they may bring) before they attempt to expand any of the reforms they have put in place. Glenda Ritz shouldn't put a fight up against the General Assembly asking for the reforms of the last few years to be rolled back.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
For all intents and purposes, both sides should agree to not make any major changes for now.<br /><br />Don't believe that is what is going to occur, though. Political parties love to ram through legislation when they have no opposition to fear. Expect the GOP to spend the next two years doing whatever they want to whoever they want.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That's what the voters said to do, I guess. But if they use that authority to actually lower the powers of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and step all over another mandate the voters gave at the same time, don't expect the Democrats to be quiet about it. Tread lightly, Republicans, or you'll see your new found powers evaporate just as quickly as you obtained them.</div>
Joshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11755157017325989727noreply@blogger.com0